Now you're telling me they are effectively the same, each a year by year commitment. I don't know what to make of that.
Not exactly.
I'm telling you its not a contract, and there are no property rights to the money. Its not even the moral equivalent of a contract.
But there is a law that currently calls for the money to be paid. The law could be changed by a single act of congress and this would not be a default or a reneging on the debt, but its different than ordinary spending in that ordinary spending has to be reauthorized or it ends, entitlements keep going until specific action is taken to cancel them.
That alone would make the programs more difficult to cancel, but there is also the political situation. Where any cancellation or deep slash would be very difficult and would result in many politicians losing their position.
That political situation is contributed to by (but not solely dependent on) the fact that people think of these payments as being their rights in a much stronger sense than just, "their legal rights under current statute law which could change at any time".
Also again there is the practical difference that tens of millions heavily structured their lives around these programs and hundreds of millions have expectations about these programs, so changing them might cause some problem for the hundreds of millions and will cause problems for the tens of millions. Canceling other programs can be disruptive to, but not as disruptive for as many people, to as large of extent, over as long of period of time.
Its different than a normal program for these reasons. Its very different than a war which really will end. Its closer to a domestic program with a strong constituency, but even such a program has to be reauthorized, is likely to benefit fewer voters, and is likely to have less of an (in my opinion inaccurate) belief in a serious right to the money. |
