The social contract shows the relationship between the citizens and their government. It is the principle of right where governance in power employ intellectual deices to enhance this relationship. The social contract argument sparks a lot of criticism from both opposition and the government sides (Egan, 2011). In the article, ‘social contract,’ the government of the United States has developed a plan that will reduce budget cost (Krugman, 2011). This plan was pushed to the congress house by president Obama.
This move will see to it that the wealthy in the society bear the cost of the budget by increasing the taxes for this social class. The plan will have succeeded in providing the citizens of the United States the best Medicare program in history (Krugman, 2011). Also, there were other several popular programs that the government was aiming to achieve via this social plan. This is rather a disagreeable move because the rich people will not take the move lightly.
The Republicans responded to move by shooting down the motion. They demanded equal treatment of the rich and the poor by the government (Egan, 2011). Wealthy Republicans were pushing to be exempted from bearing any burden of sustaining government finances.
According to this article, it is malicious for the government to rely on the hard work of its citizens to meet its financial obligation. The taxes collected from the citizens should be enough to allow the government carries out the mandate it was given by the same citizens (Krugman, 2011).
The move of increasing taxes for the wealthy suggests that the government is incompetent (Krugman, 2011). Furthermore, dividing the country into the social class will result in the oppression of the minority. The wealthy will perceive that the government looks at them as the greedy geezers (Egan, 2011).
The Republicans were justified to turn down the plan since the government had no authority to decide on their finances and tax payment. Also discriminating the wealthy in terms of tax payment would instigate social class war fare between the rich and the poor (Egan, 2011).
Political analysts have termed the move to be audacious because the government had to divide the country in a bid to alter the social contract (Egan, 2011). Moreover, raising the taxes for the poor suggests that the government has misused its resources, and it is using malicious ways to cover up for its financial mistakes.
On the contrary, the Republicans and the wealthy social class should put the interest of the whole country at heart and come up with a better solution to salvage the Medicare plan (Krugman, 2011). The country needs to have a new social contract with a low-cost budget. There should be a dialogue between the Republicans and the government to come up with a plan that will not discriminate and one that will benefit all social classes (Egan, 2011).
The plan should not infringe any person’s culture or financial gains. The plan should revise the contract people sign for clinical services. Most of the American citizens prefer having a health plan where they acquire services equivalent to what they have been paying for (Krugman, 2011). The social plan should be radical and fair to all. The citizens should uphold their obligation to support the proposed Medicare plan.
References
Egan, T. (2011). The Need for Greed. New York Times. p. 27.
Krugman, P. (2011). The Social Contract. New York Times. p. 35.