If You Like Your Entitlements You Can Keep Them

Rand Paul entered the Presidential race today as the next in a long line of likely candidates who will seek the presidency in 2016. There is no shortage of policy issues to debate and consider. There will be many presidential forums, debates, and primaries. The talking heads each week will present the latest poll data as high drama. Candidates will rise and fall; special interests will gain importance and then subside. Mistakes will be made and triumphs will be achieved.

Let me fast forward to the end result.

Barring a change in the discussion about principles, through all the machinations, through all the complexities, through all the arcane party rules and caucuses, and through all of the emotion, without leadership on the discussion of principles, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the next President of the United States.

Let me explain.

Let’s think about a few simple societal facts. Roughly 49% of the American public relies upon a government check for primary support. Now this includes all government employees at the federal, state and local levels, all active and retired military, all citizens on welfare, unemployment benefits, disability income, guaranteed pensions, and Social Security. Some economists would argue that Social Security should not be considered as a government program because supposedly it is solvent through the Social Security Trust Fund. I include it because the Trust Fund has been borrowed by the United States government, and instead of cash, there is an IOU in place. Therefore, funding Social Security from year to year is a budgetary cash flow item. The current federal programs and the budget that they require are unsustainable.

So far, the national presidential debate and discussion of issues have centered on policy that divides us rather than principles that unite us. If we stay on this course, citizens relying upon a government program will vote for the status quo. What is required is for someone to provide a vision, in which the public can trust, that illustrates that change is appropriate and something they can survive. And further, that a sustainable course of government is in their future’s best interest. As Republicans debate government change without explaining to the public how they are impacted individually, Secretary Clinton will simply say, “If you like your entitlement, you can keep it. Can my Republican counterparts say the same thing?” As the rancorous debate continues within the Republican Party between the establishment wing and the conservative wing, by December of this year, Hillary Clinton will have locked up and secured 49% of the vote. Beginning next year during the Presidential primary season, all she has to do is focus on another 2% that are dissatisfied with the outcome of the Republican presidential primaries. There are several categories of citizens from which to choose. For example, moderate Republicans who believe in more government funding if a conservative wins, or conservatives who believe in states’ rights if an establishment candidate wins.

What do I mean about a discussion on principles? It is a discussion that moves the needle from “what’s in it for me?” to “what’s in it for us?” It is the soul searching that our country went through and experienced in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention and the ratification of our current Constitution. Special interests yielded to the greater cause of the common good, and therein, everyone prospered greater than if they had stood alone on their special interests.

Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the next President of the United States, but she should get elected standing on principles, not policies. For example, when it was pointed out to her that small businesses would go bankrupt if the health care package that she designed was passed and put into law, she rejoindered that she could not be held responsible for every undercapitalized small business in the country. Now 50% of the non-farm adult workforce in the United States works for a business of 25 employees or fewer. As a matter of principle, we should pursue policy that unites small and large businesses so that each can prosper. Secretary Clinton was advocating policy at the detriment of principle so that certain social agendas could be met pursuant to her perspective. Not only would that health care plan have divided the country right down the middle, it would have bankrupted our economy. She and all candidates should be held to the standard – in what principles do you believe that would unite us all so that each of us can pursue our God-given purpose.

People deserve leadership. They require a vision. They want to do the right thing, but left without leadership or vision, they will act to protect themselves only. It is not a selfish act, it is instinctive. And in this instinct, they will not realize that they are lessening their own opportunity by restricting another’s. It is time that our leaders engage the public in the truth that changes need to be made. And this is how we will implement change. This is how you will personally survive it, and in the end, prosper. It will require joint sacrifice, but it is manageable if we will just pursue the proper course together. To allow our leaders to only discuss policy and divide us by ethnicity, gender, age, or creed, is abandoning the future for the next generation.

Don’t think of your entitlement. Think of your future and your children’s future.

My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.

What do you believe?