Entitlement Resolution Passes First Test

February 3, 2010 at 7:51 am | Posted in Political | 3 Comments

by Walter Scott Hudson, contributing to the New Patriot Journal

WAYZATA, MN – A resolution distinguishing rights from entitlements, and compelling clarification of the GOP message, passed a precinct caucus vote Tuesday. Discussion of the resolution centered on the inalienable nature of rights, their divine source, and the need for conservatives to plainly articulate how proposed entitlements, like universal health care, cannot be accurately characterized as rights.

Throughout the national debate on health care reform, advocates of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda have consistently asserted health care is a right which government is morally obligated to provide. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democrat – Vermont, in a June 2009 op-ed for the Huffington Post, compared the pursuit of universal health care to “the civil rights movement [or] the struggle for women’s rights.” At the funeral service for Senator Edward Kennedy, surviving grandson Max Allen prayed, “…that every American will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”

The author of the entitlement resolution (this writer), prefaced his proposal by disputing these sentiments. Rights are like fences, it was argued, defining boundaries which others may not justly cross. Entitlements are like keys to the gate. Since an entitlement is functionally opposite a right, it was said, representation of entitlements as rights must be challenged. The text of the resolution was presented.

Whereas, rights are intrinsic to the individual, defining inviolable and inseparable boundaries upon which no party, be they individual or corporate, may tread, and

Whereas, entitlements are opposite of rights, necessitating violation and encroachment upon sovereignty,

Be it Resolved we will discern and distinguish rights from entitlements in the public discourse, advocate for the jealous protection of the former, and combat with all due vigilance efforts to misrepresent a proposed entitlement as a right.

Though the underlying sentiment of the resolution was well received, concern was expressed by the caucus regarding its failure to address divine origins. Deliberation led the caucus to conclude, since the Minnesota GOP platform already acknowledges God in its preamble, there was no need to reiterate the point in the proposed resolution. The resolution’s purpose, it was agreed, is to discern rights from entitlements by virtue of their relationship to the individual and the state.

Despite concern the precise wording might benefit from greater deliberation, the resolution passed a vote without dissent. As a result, it will next be considered at the Minnesota Senate District 43 BPOU convention on February 27th.