To follow up on Craig's post, I wanted to comment on Robert Samuelson's contempt for the American public. From his column: We could consider all of federal spending and not just small bits of it. But most Americans don't want to admit that they are current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because the promises were made. Americans do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political leaders mirror that reluctance. This makes the welfare state immovable and the budget situation intractable. Ah yes- the public thinks that the the government should make good on its promises. How absurd! Samuelson here reminded me of one of the reasons we have entitlement programs: they are designed to ensure that the government keeps its promise to its citizens. When we pay into Social Security and Medicare, we want assurances that we'll get something in return. And entitlements like Food Stamps and Medicaid are promises that we won't slip below a minimum living standard (however low that might be nowadays). Samuelson doesn't like it that entitlement programs are hard to change and reduce Congress's power over the annual federal budget. But, somewhat paradoxically, entitlement programs are set up to give the public more power by ensuring that the government doesn't break its promises. Why does Samuelson find this way of distributing power so offensive?