What do you think?
Rate this book
The High Cost of Good Intentions: A History of U.S. Federal Entitlement Programs
Federal entitlement programs are strewn throughout the pages of U.S. history, springing from the noble purpose of assisting people who are destitute through no fault of their own. Yet as federal entitlement programs have grown, so too have their inefficiency and their cost. Neither tax revenues nor revenues generated by the national economy have been able to keep pace with their rising growth, bringing the national debt to a record peacetime level.
The High Cost of Good Intentions is the first comprehensive history of these federal entitlement programs. Combining economics, history, political science, and law, John F. Cogan reveals how the creation of entitlements brings forth a steady march of liberalizing forces that cause entitlement programs to expand. This process—as visible in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as in the present day—is repeated until benefits are extended to nearly all who could be considered eligible, and in turn establishes a new base for future expansions. His work provides a unifying explanation for the evolutionary path that nearly all federal entitlement programs have followed over the past two hundred years, tracing both their shared past and the financial risks they pose for future generations.
The High Cost of Good Intentions is the first comprehensive history of these federal entitlement programs. Combining economics, history, political science, and law, John F. Cogan reveals how the creation of entitlements brings forth a steady march of liberalizing forces that cause entitlement programs to expand. This process—as visible in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as in the present day—is repeated until benefits are extended to nearly all who could be considered eligible, and in turn establishes a new base for future expansions. His work provides a unifying explanation for the evolutionary path that nearly all federal entitlement programs have followed over the past two hundred years, tracing both their shared past and the financial risks they pose for future generations.
513 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2017
76 people are currently reading
681 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 10, 2018
This is a surprisingly readable history of federal entitlement programs that provides a number of essential lessons for the present.
Perhaps the most valuable lesson the book provides is that it is impossible to limit an entitlement to a small number of recipients. Almost every program the author chronicles expands exponentially from the moment of its creation. When Congress made pensions permanent for Revolutionary War veterans in 1792, they were only provided for soldiers and sailors who worked directly for the Continental Congress and were injured in the line of duty. Yet by 1806 a temporary Treasury surplus allowed Congress to expand the program to all those injured in the state militias. In 1818 the law expanded to allow any Continental veteran in "reduced circumstances," no matter his injury, to get a pension. In 1832 the Congress finally expanded the program to anyone who had served in continental or state militias, with or without injury, and ended the means test. Again and again, in this program and others, congressmen asked how the government could exclude one "equally worthy" recipient from a program that granted bounties to so many. Such an argument is hard to counter, so the rolls keep expanding, even as the actual population of veterans shrank. As John Quincy Adams said, it was odd that such veterans seemed to multiply as they got older. This story played out to an even greater scale in the Civil War pensions, which started in 1862 just for injured veterans, and did not hit their peak until the early 20th century, when they were opened to everyone and cost almost a 1/3 of all federal expenditures. Today, one woman, Irene Triplett, a daughter of a Civil War soldier, still receives his "pension," 150 years after the war ended.
Another essential lesson of the book is that policymakers should not strive to make specialized entitlement programs financially secure with separate "trust funds," because as soon as these trust funds accumulate assets, Congress raids them to expand benefits. When Congress established a trust fund for injured sailors in 1799 that relied on captured enemy vessels to fund it, they thought they had established an independent source of payments, tied to the amount of fighting going on. Yet when the war of 1812 caused a surge in captured and sold ships, the government expanded the pensions to widows and children of sailors injured in the line of duty, then in 1837 any sailor injured or who died in military service regardless of when or why. Within four years of this final act the trust fund was bankrupt, bailed-out by the government's general funds that the trust fund was supposed to avoid (not to mention the problems caused by the fact that, years earlier, the trust fund had put much of its money in stock of a Washington D.C. bank run by the first secretary of the navy, Benjamin Stoddard, that later failed). The Social Security trust fund has of course faced the same dilemma. When Franklin Roosevelt proposed the trust fund in 1935, which was supposed to accumulate $100s of billions of assets, opponents warned it would be raided before any such secure foundation was built. Within just four years, Congress looked at the accumulating trust fund and accelerated and raised payments even as it delayed tax increases. Within a few years social security was paying out more than it took in. This pattern would continue for decades and with many other trust funds (such as the Black Lung payments beginning in 1969 and expanded in 1977, and effectively bankrupt by 1980).
Although Cogan spends the first part of the book examining military pensions, the modern federal entitlement story does begin in 1935 with the Social Security Act. From there, entitlements grew from almost nothing to 16% of GDP today. It's a stunning rise, with only a few hiccups along the way (the repeal of federal revenue sharing in 1986, the passage and then repeal of the catastrophic Medicare program in 1988, and the end of AFDC ("welfare") in 1996), that rise has been continuous. And despite what FDR and others thought, namely, that states that would administer unemployment, welfare, aid to the disabled and other entitlement programs, by Richard Nixon's time, and with Nixon's help, the federal government managed each of these programs almost to every jot and tittle.
Cogan is clearly of the right (he worked for Ronald Reagan), but he does try to strike a balance between acknowledging the real benefits of these programs and also recognizing their costs. As he says, however, today, when one out of every seven dollars earned in this nation is redistributed through entitlements, and when the vast majority of those funds go to households not in poverty, it's tough to argue that much of the costs carry corresponding benefits. Yet such issues are secondary to the book. For a good history lesson and a good primer on federal welfare policy, this is the book to read and to keep.
Perhaps the most valuable lesson the book provides is that it is impossible to limit an entitlement to a small number of recipients. Almost every program the author chronicles expands exponentially from the moment of its creation. When Congress made pensions permanent for Revolutionary War veterans in 1792, they were only provided for soldiers and sailors who worked directly for the Continental Congress and were injured in the line of duty. Yet by 1806 a temporary Treasury surplus allowed Congress to expand the program to all those injured in the state militias. In 1818 the law expanded to allow any Continental veteran in "reduced circumstances," no matter his injury, to get a pension. In 1832 the Congress finally expanded the program to anyone who had served in continental or state militias, with or without injury, and ended the means test. Again and again, in this program and others, congressmen asked how the government could exclude one "equally worthy" recipient from a program that granted bounties to so many. Such an argument is hard to counter, so the rolls keep expanding, even as the actual population of veterans shrank. As John Quincy Adams said, it was odd that such veterans seemed to multiply as they got older. This story played out to an even greater scale in the Civil War pensions, which started in 1862 just for injured veterans, and did not hit their peak until the early 20th century, when they were opened to everyone and cost almost a 1/3 of all federal expenditures. Today, one woman, Irene Triplett, a daughter of a Civil War soldier, still receives his "pension," 150 years after the war ended.
Another essential lesson of the book is that policymakers should not strive to make specialized entitlement programs financially secure with separate "trust funds," because as soon as these trust funds accumulate assets, Congress raids them to expand benefits. When Congress established a trust fund for injured sailors in 1799 that relied on captured enemy vessels to fund it, they thought they had established an independent source of payments, tied to the amount of fighting going on. Yet when the war of 1812 caused a surge in captured and sold ships, the government expanded the pensions to widows and children of sailors injured in the line of duty, then in 1837 any sailor injured or who died in military service regardless of when or why. Within four years of this final act the trust fund was bankrupt, bailed-out by the government's general funds that the trust fund was supposed to avoid (not to mention the problems caused by the fact that, years earlier, the trust fund had put much of its money in stock of a Washington D.C. bank run by the first secretary of the navy, Benjamin Stoddard, that later failed). The Social Security trust fund has of course faced the same dilemma. When Franklin Roosevelt proposed the trust fund in 1935, which was supposed to accumulate $100s of billions of assets, opponents warned it would be raided before any such secure foundation was built. Within just four years, Congress looked at the accumulating trust fund and accelerated and raised payments even as it delayed tax increases. Within a few years social security was paying out more than it took in. This pattern would continue for decades and with many other trust funds (such as the Black Lung payments beginning in 1969 and expanded in 1977, and effectively bankrupt by 1980).
Although Cogan spends the first part of the book examining military pensions, the modern federal entitlement story does begin in 1935 with the Social Security Act. From there, entitlements grew from almost nothing to 16% of GDP today. It's a stunning rise, with only a few hiccups along the way (the repeal of federal revenue sharing in 1986, the passage and then repeal of the catastrophic Medicare program in 1988, and the end of AFDC ("welfare") in 1996), that rise has been continuous. And despite what FDR and others thought, namely, that states that would administer unemployment, welfare, aid to the disabled and other entitlement programs, by Richard Nixon's time, and with Nixon's help, the federal government managed each of these programs almost to every jot and tittle.
Cogan is clearly of the right (he worked for Ronald Reagan), but he does try to strike a balance between acknowledging the real benefits of these programs and also recognizing their costs. As he says, however, today, when one out of every seven dollars earned in this nation is redistributed through entitlements, and when the vast majority of those funds go to households not in poverty, it's tough to argue that much of the costs carry corresponding benefits. Yet such issues are secondary to the book. For a good history lesson and a good primer on federal welfare policy, this is the book to read and to keep.
July 1, 2019
I was feeling fiscally conservative this past month, so I picked this book up. I'm not very loyal when it comes to politics-- I'm not good at being a team player, I hate mud-slinging down purely partisan lines, and I like to try to find the good in everyone. But I do like a good argument, and this book did that for me. I had a conservative awakening of sorts when I read An Anthology of Conservative Thought during my first year in graduate school. I still turn to it on occasion, because it is just so good. I think The High Cost of Good Intentions may have been a recommendation based on my conservative bookshelf.
Good Intentions is a history of welfare programs in the United States. You may think, well, that all began with FDR's New Deal, right? That would be correct on a large scale, but The US pioneered welfare programs back from the days in the Revolutionary War in the form of military pensions for disabled veterans. These served a clear purpose: to provide for those who could no longer work due to injuries acquired in service to one's country. But what started out as a clearly limited program (the beneficiaries were only soldiers who had acquired injuries during the war) quickly grew to include those deemed equally "worthy". What about those who can't prove their injury was due to the war? What about those who got a debilitating injury after the war? What about their surviving spouses, children, etc after they die? What started out as a limited program quickly expands to the point where expenses surpass calculation due to both weak enforcement of defined qualifications and sometimes abuses, the worst occurring during the Civil War where there was widespread corruption.
There are a few clear themes throughout the book:
Well-defined programs with specific aims are increasingly liberalized with unintended consequences and sky-rocketing costs. An offer of entitlement ultimately changes the playing field. Any system of incentives will change how people behave, and you can end up subsidizing self-destructive behavior.
These miscalculations are invariably due to Congress's failure to appreciate how an offer of entitlement assistance can cause individuals to change their circumstances to qualify for aid they have previously lived without.
The ADC program itself was apparently contributing to the rising number of broken homes and out-of-wedlock births. Welfare's incentives made it too easy for fathers to avoid their parental responsibility and for poor mothers to rely on government aid rather than their own resources to meet their living expenses.
Dispersed spending authority had created what is known in social sciences as a tragedy of the commons. Authorizing committees had little incentives to restrain their entitlement programs unless other committees did also.
Welfare program expansions happen both when the budget is doing well (hey look! we have money) and when the budget is doing bad (we need to help stimulate the economy) for an endless cycle of growth Congress is constantly breaking into the cookie jar. It is virtually impossible for Congress to let a pile of money go untouched. That money you're paying into payroll taxes isn't being stashed away accruing interest, or being put to work, like your money would be in a saving account. And the philosophy that the government needs to stimulate the economy during economic hardship that started during the Great Depression only accelerates growth of welfare programs.
Welfare program expansions e.g. social security raises are used as a political lever often aligning with elections. You thought this was new? It was really bad during the Civil War. The Republican Party was virtually founded on veteran pension from the Civil War:
The Republican Party, calling itself the "party of the Union", used pensions to align the American electorate behind it in the 1890s.
Welfare programs are virtually never trimmed back even if we can't pay for it. The previous generation can't bear to do away with existing benefits, but is more than willing to raise taxes on the next generation.
Was it fair for Congress to impose high taxes on future generations that it was unwilling to impose on the current generation?
Payroll taxes paid by current workers were used to finance higher benefits for current retirees.
Social security was originally built on an earned-right basis: you got what you paid into the system. While still symbolically in place, it is now a wealth redistribution system than anything else. This was how FDR was able to sell his Social Security program to congress: it wouldn't have passed any other way. It's still supposed to function like that: kind of a like an enforced retirement saving account, with competitive interest rates when compared with other retirement savings accounts. But the government doesn't treat its payroll taxes like that. It's just another pot of money. You think your money is at work, being used in ways to get a return on investment? They're not. When they're not being shuffled off to support other failing programs, your payroll taxes are being used to fund liberalizations of the existing program.
The book is a fascinating look at U.S. history through the lens of its entitlement programs. They are things you either didn't learn in your U.S. history class, or maybe skipped or fell asleep for. But when strung together with an overarching narrative, they really strike a cord. I was particularly interested in the more modern events. The book actually goes all the way up to Obamacare, as yet another continuation of liberalized benefits. But something has changed now: Congress is kinda out of money these days, so instead of starting a new welfare program with its own tax, the federal government has to work by mandate. We'll see how that goes, right?
Good Intentions is a history of welfare programs in the United States. You may think, well, that all began with FDR's New Deal, right? That would be correct on a large scale, but The US pioneered welfare programs back from the days in the Revolutionary War in the form of military pensions for disabled veterans. These served a clear purpose: to provide for those who could no longer work due to injuries acquired in service to one's country. But what started out as a clearly limited program (the beneficiaries were only soldiers who had acquired injuries during the war) quickly grew to include those deemed equally "worthy". What about those who can't prove their injury was due to the war? What about those who got a debilitating injury after the war? What about their surviving spouses, children, etc after they die? What started out as a limited program quickly expands to the point where expenses surpass calculation due to both weak enforcement of defined qualifications and sometimes abuses, the worst occurring during the Civil War where there was widespread corruption.
There are a few clear themes throughout the book:
Well-defined programs with specific aims are increasingly liberalized with unintended consequences and sky-rocketing costs. An offer of entitlement ultimately changes the playing field. Any system of incentives will change how people behave, and you can end up subsidizing self-destructive behavior.
These miscalculations are invariably due to Congress's failure to appreciate how an offer of entitlement assistance can cause individuals to change their circumstances to qualify for aid they have previously lived without.
The ADC program itself was apparently contributing to the rising number of broken homes and out-of-wedlock births. Welfare's incentives made it too easy for fathers to avoid their parental responsibility and for poor mothers to rely on government aid rather than their own resources to meet their living expenses.
Dispersed spending authority had created what is known in social sciences as a tragedy of the commons. Authorizing committees had little incentives to restrain their entitlement programs unless other committees did also.
Welfare program expansions happen both when the budget is doing well (hey look! we have money) and when the budget is doing bad (we need to help stimulate the economy) for an endless cycle of growth Congress is constantly breaking into the cookie jar. It is virtually impossible for Congress to let a pile of money go untouched. That money you're paying into payroll taxes isn't being stashed away accruing interest, or being put to work, like your money would be in a saving account. And the philosophy that the government needs to stimulate the economy during economic hardship that started during the Great Depression only accelerates growth of welfare programs.
Welfare program expansions e.g. social security raises are used as a political lever often aligning with elections. You thought this was new? It was really bad during the Civil War. The Republican Party was virtually founded on veteran pension from the Civil War:
The Republican Party, calling itself the "party of the Union", used pensions to align the American electorate behind it in the 1890s.
Welfare programs are virtually never trimmed back even if we can't pay for it. The previous generation can't bear to do away with existing benefits, but is more than willing to raise taxes on the next generation.
Was it fair for Congress to impose high taxes on future generations that it was unwilling to impose on the current generation?
Payroll taxes paid by current workers were used to finance higher benefits for current retirees.
Social security was originally built on an earned-right basis: you got what you paid into the system. While still symbolically in place, it is now a wealth redistribution system than anything else. This was how FDR was able to sell his Social Security program to congress: it wouldn't have passed any other way. It's still supposed to function like that: kind of a like an enforced retirement saving account, with competitive interest rates when compared with other retirement savings accounts. But the government doesn't treat its payroll taxes like that. It's just another pot of money. You think your money is at work, being used in ways to get a return on investment? They're not. When they're not being shuffled off to support other failing programs, your payroll taxes are being used to fund liberalizations of the existing program.
The book is a fascinating look at U.S. history through the lens of its entitlement programs. They are things you either didn't learn in your U.S. history class, or maybe skipped or fell asleep for. But when strung together with an overarching narrative, they really strike a cord. I was particularly interested in the more modern events. The book actually goes all the way up to Obamacare, as yet another continuation of liberalized benefits. But something has changed now: Congress is kinda out of money these days, so instead of starting a new welfare program with its own tax, the federal government has to work by mandate. We'll see how that goes, right?
November 12, 2022
Only took me 4 years to finish! Through an almost exhaustive account of U.S. entitlement legislation, Cogan tells a simple message: once an entitlement is passed, it’s probably here forever.
Starting with Revolutionary War pensions up through the Affordable Care Act, he chronicles the major welfare and entitlement programs of our nation's history. More interestingly, he identifies their mechanism of expansion. Since every law must establish who qualifies for a certain benefit program, he shows how future Congresses inevitably expand benefits to include those just outside the previous qualification threshold. Someone isn't less deserving of federal assistance because they make $1 more than an arbitrary income cutoff - this makes sense to us, and it turns out to be a powerful argument in Congress as well.
If you're someone who spends time thinking about our nation's fiscal stability, you'll probably like this book. The author is certainly concerned. But I don't think fiscal responsibility has political relevance it once did, so the book may fall on deaf ears. The pandemic and preceding decade of economic growth were exceptional times that made worrying about the national debt seem untimely or old fashioned. Maybe inflation will force us to reckon with our decisions, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know what level of national debt is dangerous.
I do think this book makes an important omission: Cogan never recognizes the poverty and brokenness that welfare programs were created to address. I'm sad how easy it was for me to share his oversight and view federal welfare programs as a drain on our financial resources. I think he would say that poverty alleviation is outside the scope of his book, but I don't want to be indifferent about the poor and opinionated about fiscal policy.
Read this if you like history books! If you want to feel inspired about building a just society that protects the vulnerable and invests in its people, you'll need to look elsewhere.
Starting with Revolutionary War pensions up through the Affordable Care Act, he chronicles the major welfare and entitlement programs of our nation's history. More interestingly, he identifies their mechanism of expansion. Since every law must establish who qualifies for a certain benefit program, he shows how future Congresses inevitably expand benefits to include those just outside the previous qualification threshold. Someone isn't less deserving of federal assistance because they make $1 more than an arbitrary income cutoff - this makes sense to us, and it turns out to be a powerful argument in Congress as well.
If you're someone who spends time thinking about our nation's fiscal stability, you'll probably like this book. The author is certainly concerned. But I don't think fiscal responsibility has political relevance it once did, so the book may fall on deaf ears. The pandemic and preceding decade of economic growth were exceptional times that made worrying about the national debt seem untimely or old fashioned. Maybe inflation will force us to reckon with our decisions, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know what level of national debt is dangerous.
I do think this book makes an important omission: Cogan never recognizes the poverty and brokenness that welfare programs were created to address. I'm sad how easy it was for me to share his oversight and view federal welfare programs as a drain on our financial resources. I think he would say that poverty alleviation is outside the scope of his book, but I don't want to be indifferent about the poor and opinionated about fiscal policy.
Read this if you like history books! If you want to feel inspired about building a just society that protects the vulnerable and invests in its people, you'll need to look elsewhere.
September 4, 2018
Cogan takes the reader on a ride through the ups and more ups of welfare programs throughout US history.
These started with programs for veterans of the Revolutionary War then other wars as the first phase of “entitlements.”
FDR’s New Deal was the second major round of welfare programs, Social Security and other programs, that expanded the role of the federal government in areas that had been left to states, local governments, and civil society.
The third major round of welfare programs was by LBJ with the Great Society (Medicare and Medicaid) and expansions under Nixon.
As expected, most of the liberalizations were when the federal government was running a budget surplus with continued expansions when running a deficit except under slower growth by President Reagan.
There have been multiple attempts to rein in these large welfare programs but most weren’t successful because of the ease to continue government programs along with rent-seeking politicians.
Cogan makes his case that something must be done about these welfare programs sooner rather than later before they bankrupt the country. Agreed!
Check it out for yourself. It’s a long read, but it reads well and is loaded with information, which is why I gave it 5 stars.
These started with programs for veterans of the Revolutionary War then other wars as the first phase of “entitlements.”
FDR’s New Deal was the second major round of welfare programs, Social Security and other programs, that expanded the role of the federal government in areas that had been left to states, local governments, and civil society.
The third major round of welfare programs was by LBJ with the Great Society (Medicare and Medicaid) and expansions under Nixon.
As expected, most of the liberalizations were when the federal government was running a budget surplus with continued expansions when running a deficit except under slower growth by President Reagan.
There have been multiple attempts to rein in these large welfare programs but most weren’t successful because of the ease to continue government programs along with rent-seeking politicians.
Cogan makes his case that something must be done about these welfare programs sooner rather than later before they bankrupt the country. Agreed!
Check it out for yourself. It’s a long read, but it reads well and is loaded with information, which is why I gave it 5 stars.
May 12, 2022
John Cogan has done a superb job of chronicling the history of entitlements beginning with pensions from the Revolutionary War. While there are some issues that I would disagree with, for example, his Romneyesque conclusion that Social Security is the same as other entitlements (explained below) his comprehensive study in a short period of time goes into the ins and outs of this concept.
Entitlements have overtaken all other spending categories in the budget. For almost any period after WWII they have grown at rates far exceeding underlying economic growth. The Great Society programs are but one of those excesses.
Social Security is different in part because the underlying assumptions (were this treated as it was originally sold to Congress). The program for retirees in the last decade would be self funded, based on some reasonable investment assumptions. When I retired I summed all of the contributions made to my own SS account and then based on some conservative investment assumptions, estimated the lifetime monthly payment which would be due to me. The number was about double what I receive with Social Security.
That calculation not withstanding, why is it government seems incapable of making honest actuarial assumptions about the future value of various programs and then in the case of contributory programs holding the payments in trust or for non-contributory programs making an honest assessment of the net future value of the promised benefits? The answers are simple. Politicians constantly engage in rent seeking (getting voter's favor by increasing benefits in even numbered years and delaying the true estimates of long term costs) and in log rolling (trading votes where the real value of the trade is passed on to a third party - the voters). Politicians think in cycles that are concurrent with their election cycles while these programs all have longer term costs. So they get the credit and we are stuck with the costs. Anyone who is interested in understanding a key element of public finance should read the book and keep it nearby.
Entitlements have overtaken all other spending categories in the budget. For almost any period after WWII they have grown at rates far exceeding underlying economic growth. The Great Society programs are but one of those excesses.
Social Security is different in part because the underlying assumptions (were this treated as it was originally sold to Congress). The program for retirees in the last decade would be self funded, based on some reasonable investment assumptions. When I retired I summed all of the contributions made to my own SS account and then based on some conservative investment assumptions, estimated the lifetime monthly payment which would be due to me. The number was about double what I receive with Social Security.
That calculation not withstanding, why is it government seems incapable of making honest actuarial assumptions about the future value of various programs and then in the case of contributory programs holding the payments in trust or for non-contributory programs making an honest assessment of the net future value of the promised benefits? The answers are simple. Politicians constantly engage in rent seeking (getting voter's favor by increasing benefits in even numbered years and delaying the true estimates of long term costs) and in log rolling (trading votes where the real value of the trade is passed on to a third party - the voters). Politicians think in cycles that are concurrent with their election cycles while these programs all have longer term costs. So they get the credit and we are stuck with the costs. Anyone who is interested in understanding a key element of public finance should read the book and keep it nearby.
June 16, 2022
A really good history of the creation and expansion of entitlement programs in the US. It’s not a constant criticism of these programs but just a history that shows how they’ve developed. I think it’s really important background for everyone to know in order to formulate opinions and a course for the conversations we will inevitably have to have in the next decade. Worth a read regardless of your political leanings.
September 3, 2019
Really interesting and enjoyable book. Highly recommend for anyone interesting in the history and overview of US entitlements (currently the largest parts of the current US budget by far at over 60%). Entitlements have grown far beyond their original noble goal of providing a safety net for people unable to support themselves (low-income elderly, disabled, and distressed) and now millions of Americans, young and old, receive benefits with highly questionable deservedness.
Even though the books ends on an optimistic note, it still leaves the reader very disconcerted about of the long term viability of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; the lack of will of either political party to address the issue; and, more fundamentally, the American public’s complete lack of desire to understand tradeoffs. While past entitlements were for small, naturally diminishing groups (e.g. Revolutionary war veterans), the current entitlement growth is for growing groups and this increasing cost far outstrips GDP growth and will eventually consume the entire US federal budget. In the next decade, it will be interesting to see what happens when roads are not mended and soldier are not paid because Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to send out their checks. The American public, ultimately who both political parties cater to, will have no one to blame but themselves and for sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the problem.
Even though the books ends on an optimistic note, it still leaves the reader very disconcerted about of the long term viability of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; the lack of will of either political party to address the issue; and, more fundamentally, the American public’s complete lack of desire to understand tradeoffs. While past entitlements were for small, naturally diminishing groups (e.g. Revolutionary war veterans), the current entitlement growth is for growing groups and this increasing cost far outstrips GDP growth and will eventually consume the entire US federal budget. In the next decade, it will be interesting to see what happens when roads are not mended and soldier are not paid because Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to send out their checks. The American public, ultimately who both political parties cater to, will have no one to blame but themselves and for sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the problem.
October 11, 2025
This book is a comprehensive history of US entitlement programs from the Revolutionary War to today, but actually it’s a psychology lesson on basic human nature and incentive structures.
It’s commonly recognized that entitlement programs incentivize behaviors like underemployment and single parenthood, but much larger patterns become apparent when presented with the whole history. State funding (and federal matching) of healthcare costs incentivize Big Pharma to exponentially overdiagnose, overtreat, and overcharge patients, the effects of which have expanded far beyond Medicaid. Special interest and social service groups have repeatedly acted upon large financial interests in entitlement liberalizations, as have members of Congress on the other side of said lobbying. Not to mention politicians who have weaponized the entire poverty-industrial complex to buy voter segments. The bill is simply passed to the next generation’s multitrillion-dollar deficit.
The crippling of the economy and disintegration of self-sovereignty is repeatedly disregarded, while the flagrant financial corruption underlying the legislation is thinly concealed by a guise of “compassion”—which does, of course, play a part to some (disappointingly minor) extent.
To quote a different John (that is, Wooden), “The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.”
It’s commonly recognized that entitlement programs incentivize behaviors like underemployment and single parenthood, but much larger patterns become apparent when presented with the whole history. State funding (and federal matching) of healthcare costs incentivize Big Pharma to exponentially overdiagnose, overtreat, and overcharge patients, the effects of which have expanded far beyond Medicaid. Special interest and social service groups have repeatedly acted upon large financial interests in entitlement liberalizations, as have members of Congress on the other side of said lobbying. Not to mention politicians who have weaponized the entire poverty-industrial complex to buy voter segments. The bill is simply passed to the next generation’s multitrillion-dollar deficit.
The crippling of the economy and disintegration of self-sovereignty is repeatedly disregarded, while the flagrant financial corruption underlying the legislation is thinly concealed by a guise of “compassion”—which does, of course, play a part to some (disappointingly minor) extent.
To quote a different John (that is, Wooden), “The worst thing you can do for those you love is the things they could and should do themselves.”
January 6, 2025
Very interesting history of the federal entitlement programs, including veteran's benefits, the GI bill, social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and more recently, the Affordable Care Act. The author does not discount the benefits of these programs, which he says "have served a crucially important role in alleviating poverty and economic hardship among poor, disabled, and elderly persons.
However, the author demonstrates that with nearly every program, Congress underestimates the eventual cost to the government, as either more people become eligible for the benefits, or Congress liberalizes the program. Additionally, the author notes that a large percentage of federal entitlement payments go to economically secure households. He concludes that the various federal entitlement programs "have become and clear and present danger to the nation's future welfare."
Overall I felt the author made a good case that entitlement programs will drive larger and larger federal deficits, and more federal borrowing, which leads to the author's conclusion about the danger to the nation's finances. For a competing viewpoint on that though, see Stephanie Kelton, "The Deficit Myth".
However, the author demonstrates that with nearly every program, Congress underestimates the eventual cost to the government, as either more people become eligible for the benefits, or Congress liberalizes the program. Additionally, the author notes that a large percentage of federal entitlement payments go to economically secure households. He concludes that the various federal entitlement programs "have become and clear and present danger to the nation's future welfare."
Overall I felt the author made a good case that entitlement programs will drive larger and larger federal deficits, and more federal borrowing, which leads to the author's conclusion about the danger to the nation's finances. For a competing viewpoint on that though, see Stephanie Kelton, "The Deficit Myth".
March 3, 2024
It’s a bit dry, but it’s pretty transparent what you are getting into. Largely belabors three points through numerous historical examples; entitlements always run over budget because if there is a financing surplus the political appetite will be to expand the program, the size of entitlements generally increase over time as more people make the argument that they should be part of the qualifying group, and that they are extremely difficult to cutback on because of recipients political dissatisfaction with such actions.
The historical examples are interesting, but honestly may be too much at a certain point. I also wish the later presidencies of Clinton, Bush and Obama were broken into their own chapters. The book is also relatively void of any opinion on the efficacy of entitlement programs, except in the last chapter where the author brings in some new statistics that I felt deserved several chapters on their own. It was nice to read something though that took a historical and data driven approach, rather than ambiguous political talking points.
The historical examples are interesting, but honestly may be too much at a certain point. I also wish the later presidencies of Clinton, Bush and Obama were broken into their own chapters. The book is also relatively void of any opinion on the efficacy of entitlement programs, except in the last chapter where the author brings in some new statistics that I felt deserved several chapters on their own. It was nice to read something though that took a historical and data driven approach, rather than ambiguous political talking points.
February 12, 2022
This book is an outstanding history of US entitlement programs and is not presented from a political party point of view. That makes it an important book for thinking people to read to understand why the vast, vast majority of Federal spending is for entitlements. Defense spending and all of the discretionary spending by the Federal government are inconsequential to overall Federal spending. Whatever your view of the benefits of the entitlement spending, it is staggering to understand how the small scale, clear, specific intent of the programs to help those in need, have exponentially expanded to the level they are today.
June 28, 2023
Cogan does a decent descriptive job tracing the history of entitlement in the US. He's got a lot of great anecdotes detailing the process of entitlement expansion throughout our history, giving us a window into the process of growing federal spending. It's an important story, and this book covers it. My only quibble is that it's pretty dry- maybe there's no way to make a story about this kind of policy super engaging, but I feel like there's a more readable book on the topic out there somewhere.
November 25, 2020
This is a very detailed book to prove his point about the financial costs of entitlement programs in the USA. I skimmed through a lot of it as too much detail for me. After reading this I would say that entitlements are costing a lot financially but not really helping the people they serve to better their own lives. Once entitlements are law it’s hard to roll them back. It must be done incrementally and based on what’s fair to taxpayers and the beneficiaries.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 29, 2023
Thick but smooth read
This book is a great source of all information on the history of us "entitlements". It details from the first Revolutionary War Pension up to the date the book was written, 2017.
This book focuses on the history and trend of Government Entitlements and stays away from any political opinions or spin.
Regardless of what you think you know, you should read this book to understand the potential and probably ramifications of our governments expansion of entitlements.
This book is a great source of all information on the history of us "entitlements". It details from the first Revolutionary War Pension up to the date the book was written, 2017.
This book focuses on the history and trend of Government Entitlements and stays away from any political opinions or spin.
Regardless of what you think you know, you should read this book to understand the potential and probably ramifications of our governments expansion of entitlements.
March 15, 2023
Very dense and heavy to read. A novice in policy or history might struggle to get through it. It isn’t how all “the sausage is made,” but it’s very close to all.
You can get lost in the policy. I didn’t but I had some familiarity with all of it.
Really an excellent book. Wish the author would have done more concluding thoughts with analysis and suggested fixes.
We are in trouble and he did the research. More defined solutions would have been nice.
You can get lost in the policy. I didn’t but I had some familiarity with all of it.
Really an excellent book. Wish the author would have done more concluding thoughts with analysis and suggested fixes.
We are in trouble and he did the research. More defined solutions would have been nice.
October 19, 2017
This is a must-read for all of Congress and anyone interested in what makes up the government's budget. The book covers the span from prior to America's founding up to present day...it moves quickly but provides ample resources.
July 4, 2022
Stuff has unintended consequences and we need to do a better job looking around corners to determine how best to mitigate those issues. The book is ok, I guess, its pretty boring to be honest, but at least I get to feel smort.
Want to read
August 1, 2019Generous social programs must manage incentives.
October 21, 2023
Very informative, but dry and you can most likely get this info online
May 5, 2025
Drier than Tutankhamun
February 5, 2025
5 star - Perfect
4 star - i would recommend
3 star - good
2 star - struggled to complete
1 star - could not finish
4 star - i would recommend
3 star - good
2 star - struggled to complete
1 star - could not finish
April 4, 2023
A skillfully crafted marathon of a book on the history of entitlement programs in US, demonstrating how the ever-expanding and debilitating reliance on the government is not sustainable and is bound to swallow all the government resources if not kept in check. The book might be a bit too dry and rife with numbers for some, but I like the fact that Cogan did not try to dilute his research. The only criticism I have is that the focus of the book was heavily tilted toward the history of entitlement development and their fiscal consequences for the government, and not the effect it has had on the destruction of families, development of dependencies, and other detrimental side-effects. There are discussions about these phenomena scattered throughout the book, but they are there to mostly warn. Granted, it is much more difficult to assess these indirect side effects, and maybe that is why they are not systematically discussed here.
April 19, 2018
Comprehensive history and examination of the federal entitlement system from its modest genesis as a limited Revolutionary War pension program to the unsustainable colossus it currently is. The author deftly explains how a genuine albeit misguided wish to help others as well as politicians’ desire to win (read: buy) votes has led to the gradual yet inexorable and ultimately harmful expansion of federal entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and the ACA. Sadly, the prognosis is bleak, as it is now a historical axiom that a federal entitlement, once granted, is virtually never revoked or permanently contracted, but instead, is expanded and extended to those who need it the least.
November 12, 2017
A sad testimony to government incompetence
It’s possible to look at the mess were in and attribute it to unintended consequences of well intentioned actions, but the reality is uglier. Politicians and interest groups handed out goodies to get votes. They traded upon emotions to gain support. They did a really horrible job of estimating real costs. Everybody had their hand out. Increased demand and government funding drove up costs. All in all the government did just about everything ring. Now we’re in a fix and the politicians say they can fix it with more government involvement. What are the odds?
It’s possible to look at the mess were in and attribute it to unintended consequences of well intentioned actions, but the reality is uglier. Politicians and interest groups handed out goodies to get votes. They traded upon emotions to gain support. They did a really horrible job of estimating real costs. Everybody had their hand out. Increased demand and government funding drove up costs. All in all the government did just about everything ring. Now we’re in a fix and the politicians say they can fix it with more government involvement. What are the odds?
March 31, 2018
This is a recommended read for anyone with a mind toward history, policy, and solving the problem of fiscal sustainability. The United States’ long-term fiscal challenges are driven by entitlement spending and solutions need to involve the major entitlement programs that constitute ever growing shares of spending. Attempts to reform entitlement spending will benefit from the historical lessons illustrated in this book.
Read
October 20, 2017361.60973 C6761 2017
April 16, 2019
Fantastically encyclopedic history of entitlement programs in the United States.
February 9, 2021
A eminently readable history of what would seem to be an incredibly dry topic. However, a critical one for any student or practitioner of public policy to understand.
Read
May 4, 2019Surprisingly readable (conservative) take on the cost and unintended consequences of federal entitlement programs.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews