Our Entitlement Culture

We have been hearing for some time, and will no doubt continue to hear for at least a while longer, at least through this election cycle, about entitlements. That convenient buzzword effectively gets people thinking emotionally (is that an oxymoron?) instead of logically. When politicians talk about “entitlement spending” it’s generally to politicize Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Teachers in affluent districts (and even occasionally in less affluent ones) often object to “entitled kids” expecting everything to be handed to them or have their path paved to remove all obstacles (even those of their own making) to success. 

The most common railings, by both politicians and their riled up constituents, however, are against so-called welfare queens, the chronically disabled, or perpetually unemployed who take advantage of the social safety net to game the system because they feel “entitled” to be supported by the rest of us. Undocumented immigrants who feel entitled to suck the rest of us early arrivers dry are another common target. Of course there is at least a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that these people do exist, although not in the numbers we’re led to believe by politicians and others trying to score polling points.

I understand the resentment from people who play by the rules against this (statistically) very small minority. However, in today’s economy, very few are safe from becoming, at least temporarily, the target of their own outrage, through no fault of their own. An accident, a layoff, a run of bad luck (not talking about your casino trips here), a natural  (or even unnatural) disaster, and the majority of Americans with insufficient savings may need to access one government program or another.

But there’s a different kind of entitlement that doesn’t get headlines, or if it does, doesn’t get labelled as such. One made the news recently as an audit of Fox School District. The former Fox superintendent apparently felt entitled to rip off her district for personal expenses; she somehow felt that she deserved more than she was getting, which was one of the highest salaries for that position in the state as well as all the other perks, like car expenses, travel expenses, a job for her husband, etc.

She’s not alone in that feeling. If we’re honest with ourselves, almost all of us at some point in time or another have felt like we were entitled to more than we’re getting. That doesn’t give us the right to take advantage of our position to “even the score” or get what we (think we) deserve. But we’ve all had bosses who think their (appointed, not anointed) positions somehow entitle them to whatever advantages in power, money or perks they can secure, even at the expense of their minions.

I would suggest that there is at least as much, and probably more, a sense of entitlement among the rich and powerful than among their hirelings on the lower rungs of the ladder. You need look no further (nor very hard) than at the two (likely) presidential candidates from the Democrat and Republican parties, both of whom think they are somehow entitled to a different set of rules than the rest of us. They are joined by a large majority of the men and women of both parties who make up Congress. We are governed by an entitled elite who then manipulate the penny-ante actions of the regular and poor folks to fire up their political base. Ironically, all of the above mentioned will campaign against this entitlement culture.

The super-rich are also often super-entitled, failing to recognize that their position is, almost always, based on advantages they didn’t earn, but rather came through either genetic or socioeconomic lottery wins. Stan Kroenke, the Koch brothers, and so many others seem to think that they somehow earned their societal (read monetary) status, and are entitled to keep every penny. I’m not denying some may have invested their own work and effort, but none of them started at Square 1 (to say nothing of not even being on the board, as in the case of so many).

How many of us feel entitled to the numerous middle class welfare programs, such as subsidized retirement plans (IRAs, 401-Ks, 403-Bs, etc.), health insurance (tax deductible insurance plans, HSAs, etc.), uncapped mortgage deductions, ridiculously low ceilings for social security contributions (athletes making multiple millions a year contribute the same amount to the SSA as the aforementioned Fox superintendent and her principals). Wealthy seniors qualify for the same Medicare benefits as their impoverished brethren and sistren.

As much as we might wish to, let’s not forget the Stanford U. rapist (and his father), also supreme examples of an entitled attitude. Or the Affluenza teen from Texas. Or entitled athletes who believe themselves immune from the consequences of their actions. And don’t even get me started on celebrity culture. True believers on both poles of the political spectrum feel entitled to name call and ridicule anyone who might have an alternative point of view. Does freedom of speech really entitle us to insult others, just because we oppose their (political) opinions?  Is it unreasonable to expect to be entitled to respect from others with whom we disagree? 

My point is that entitled attitudes cover the political and socio-economic spectrum. It’s easy to demonize one segment, but we might want to look inward before pointing a finger and perhaps instead try extending, if not a hand of friendship, at least respect.

Thanks for your service

This is an edited update of a blog piece from last week. It’s edited to include a link to an article provided by a friend of mine, Chris Counts, in response to my original. (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/please-don’t-thank-me-for-my-service/ar-BBhPFEn) If you don’t want to read the whole piece (it’s not that long and worthwhile, IMO), it essentially confirms my original misgivings, at least for some vets. In addition, this updated version will be (re)posted on Facebook as a stand-alone article, and not, like the last time, as part of the “Comments” section to my original Facebook question/post. This typeface and style will denote the additions to the regular piece.

In part due to smarmy radio and television talking heads and politicians making a show of their patriotism by constantly thanking all past and present military for their service, I came to question whether “Thanks for your service” was always appropriate and well received. It seemed, to me, to have become sort of a pro forma statement, so I posted the following question on Facebook:

I have a question for my formers who are, or were, in the military. I had occasion to briefly interact with the son of a friend (also a former) who is currently serving. Because of my friendship with his mom, I've known him for a while and we've met before (didn't need to be introduced). After a brief conversation, we were saying our good-byes and I thanked him for his service. While sincere, that expression has seemed to become such a catch-phrase used so often that it sounds almost meaninglessly automatic, and, therefore, discounted. What is your reaction to being thanked in this way? Or am I overthinking again?

It would appear that, as is my wont, I was, indeed, overthinking – again.

What became clear was not only that is that statement well-received, the gratitude expressed is at least matched by the pride in their service, whether or not they view it as a sacrifice. Even when not seen as any kind personal sacrifice on their part, they recognized that for many of their brothers and sisters (both literal and in-arms), the service was indeed a sacrifice that deserves recognition.

There will always be exceptions, of course, but I hope, and do believe, that we have progressed as a country to the point where we can appreciate our servicemen and women while still, when necessary, separating their efforts on our behalf from whatever political decisions made by our government put them in harm’s way. The fact that they may have benefitted personally or professionally from their service does not discount its value to the rest of us.

So I will, when the opportunity presents itself, continue to express my thanks to our military men and women for their service to our country. That small token is the least that I can do. I will continue to support charities like The Wounded Warrior Project or St. Louis Honor Flight. Beyond that, I would hope that our politicians start doing more than wearing flag lapel pins and making speeches around election time; instead I hope they start keeping the promises, both implicit and implied, that have made not only to our soldiers but their families, as well (http://bobberndt.blogspot.com/2014/05/ought-to-be-no-brainer.html). That will take money and can’t be funded simply by cutting budgets or eliminating wasteful spending. We need to start recognizing the true and ongoing cost of maintaining – and supporting – our military and make decisions based on those numbers, not imaginary ones.

As one of the original commenters, a young man who has actually served, noted, it’s your sincerity that makes the difference. Any gratitude for anything, sincerely expressed, might be misunderstood or misinterpreted, but should never be a cause for regret or second-guessing. It is your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, however.

In the meantime, to all my friends and formers, as well as their families and extended families, my sincere thanks and appreciation for your service.

Big Brother Just Might Really Start Watching

Smile, you’re on Candid Camera!

We live in a complex society, centered in an increasingly complex world. Anyone, politician or preacher, who offers a panacea, is a charlatan.

That being said, because it would cost over a million dollars upfront, with maybe another half-million annually, I don’t think we’re going to see body cameras become ubiquitous anytime soon on St. Louis police officers. St. Louis County may have a little more money, but I doubt that it has THAT much more. That says nothing about the larger cities, like my own Webster Groves or Kirkwood, Ladue, Clayton, etc. And then we have mini-fiefdoms scattered around the county. I can see it now: “Good news! Bella Villa police now have body cameras. They only had to triple the outrageous number of (trap) tickets they wrote to pay for them.”

Of course, even being able to spend that kind of money would virtually, if not actually, require approval from the local police union. I think you could get better odds on the Cubs winning a World Series than that happening.

Perhaps I’m wrong in that assessment. Perhaps police officers would recognize that there are protections built in for them as well as citizens when they wear the cameras. How many bogus complaints of police brutality and harassment are filed each year? I would think (almost) everyone would like to see the number of complaints filed be reduced, and it seems to me that body cameras might make a significant dent in that number. Given the fact that (so-called) Smart Phones have made almost everyone on the street a potential recorder, if not reporter, I’m not sure privacy claims have any relevance for any of us any more.

But I get their trepidation. As a teacher I’m pretty sure I would have resisted cameras recording every word, every lesson, every movement of mine in the classroom. It certainly would have changed the classroom dynamic, negatively impacted the establishment of relationships with students. I don’t think I ever used it, but when I moved into the guidance office at Hancock I had a recorder at the ready, just in case, because when you close the door to a small office, even one with a vertical window in it, you (ironically) open yourself up to specious accusations from a disgruntled student or parent.

I freely admit that, for better and worse, I had a less active filter than many teachers. Even when my lessons were sort of scripted, there was no telling what might come out of my mouth based on the background noise of either the class or my mind. That was my style; I like to pretend it made me more effective, more honest, more open, and, probably, at least on occasion, more annoying. Still, it was a style that served me well for over four decades; I don’t think I would have been as successful with Big Brother recording every move.

That’s another cost, incidentally, that no one is talking about, at least not yet. Someone (or, in the case of large departments, schools or school districts, or municipal co-operatives, several someones) is going to have to watch, or be available to watch, all this data (the vast majority of which will be mind-numbingly boring). The good news is that concerns about your every move being watched are overblown; no one has the time or resources to make that happen. The bad news is that one person, with skill and proper motivation, can gain a tremendous amount of power over law enforcement (or educational) personnel. The answer to the old question of Who will watch the watchers? will certainly add to the cost, as well.

While it may sound like I’ve almost talked myself out of supporting these body cameras, we cannot ignore the cost, both financial and social, of Ferguson’s current tribulation. However you see either Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson, how quickly might that tragedy have been resolved (or perhaps even prevented) had body cameras been in play and the information immediately available? I’m not sure it would thrill County Prosecutor McCullough, but I’d sure like to see something like that if I were on the Grand Jury. Won’t the overall, and continually rising, price tag of that misfortune be several multiples of $2 million? Wouldn’t ALL of us prefer that? And wouldn’t that expenditure be more worthwhile than an urban tank?