In this sense, "entitlement" has as very specific budget meaning but not really anything more. From the "Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974″ (Public Law 93-344) , Sec. 3(9)(A) "The term 'entitlement authority' means— (A) the authority to make payments (including loans and grants), the budget authority for which is not provided for in advance by Appropriation Acts, to any person or government if, under the provisions of the law containing that authority, the United States is obligated to make such payments to persons or governments who meet the requirements established by that law; and (B) the food stamp program." (http://1.usa.gov/Zc3oZL)

What this means is that "Entitlements do not specify spending totals. Total spending under these programs is simply the sum of legislatively mandated payments applied for by recipients. Totals are not only not directly chosen, but they can also be known only in retrospect….[T]he government's obligations are created in the authorizing law. The appropriations committees cannot erase those obligations." (http://bit.ly/RnGgFI)

c.f. CBO description of budgeting http://bit.ly/Zc6kWj)

The background is that a former Liberal MP, David Dingwall, was forced out of his post-political job as head of the Royal Canadian Mint in 2005, amid allegations (which were never fully substantiated) of improper spending. The case went to arbitration, during which Dingwall asserted, in response to a question about the spending, that he was — wait for it — "entitled to my entitlements".

Now, of course, strictly on the face of it there was nothing inherently wrong with what he said. Artlessly bureaucratic though it may have been, it was certainly not an objectively untrue statement; they're called entitlements because the people receiving them are entitled to them (in the legal sense), after all.

However, it was seized upon by the opposition Conservatives as evidence that the Liberal Party was mired in a culture of arrogance and entitlement (in the pejorative sense).

Not that they "feel a little more entitled." They "are a little more entitled."

That's not a usage I would use but it seems that it's become pretty standard.

The employees are more likely to complain about entitled customers if the restaurant or store is inexpensive. If a customer paying to stay at the Ritz, the employees do not consider a customer who expects five-star service to be entitled. If a customer is paying to stay at Motel 6, the employees do consider customers who expect five-star service to be entitled.

See below:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=livejournal%20customers_suck&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livejournal.com%2Finterests.bml%3Fint%3Dcustomers_suck&ei=Z_l2UKzlLIj68QSc84C4Cw&usg=AFQjCNH3Ci1sIlDIEkgqThosNfZi2qEc7A

So: originally there are legal entitlements. A program is adopted under which people meeting specified criteria are entitled to claim beneifts; this is an entitlement program (as distinct from, say, a discretionary program), and benefits under the program are, accordingly, entitlement benefits or entitlement payments. In debates over budget policy, certain people are proposing reductions in entitlement payments or entitlement programs, and since tne noun is clear from context ("which programs should we cut?" or "how do we reduce spending?"), they refer to the programs and/or payments simply as entitlements.

@Jim: I don't think "casserole" works the same way. Originally, it neant a type of dish. By synechdoche, it came to refer also to food cooked in such a dish. But it didn't go through the intermediate step — there was never any "casserole stew," for example.

A better analogy might be to a "pickup" as a type of vehicle.

If there is not already a name for this type of derivation, someone should coin one. This seems to me to the same process as naming a dish after the vessel it is cooked in e.g. 'casserole' and 'casserole' or hotpot or any numer of other similar examples. It is also what is going on in the extension in meaning from 'change' to 'change' - "this organization is good at change" versus "Well, that's a change."

I really did suggest that the definition of "entitlement" has changed, but in hindsight I wonder whether it would've been more accurate of me to suggest that that definition has expanded to include both positive and negative senses, depending on context and speaker's intent. As a few commenters (JW Mason, Michael Cargal) have pointed out, in the limited context of American bureaucratese it's pretty neutral.

But of course, now that the word is spending so much time out in the wider world of news and political debate, it's easy for a politician to put a negative spin on "entitlement" (in the sense of a government-administered benefit) by drawing on the connotations of "entitlement" (in the sense of childish egotism). Interesting that those connotations have been around for 50 years or so already.

I must admit, you offer a sound, convincing rebuttal, there.

In revisiting, and mulling over my earlier post directed your way re/ your use of the phrase "negative patina" in reference to attitudes toward government sanctioned "entitlements", it dawned on me that in using my more concrete, literal sculpture example, that not ALL patinas are necessarily aesthetically pleasing; and it's really within the discerning eye of the beholder to judge the 'surface' treatment either positively, or negatively; pleasing….or not-so-much so

The same could be said for your descriptive phrase "negative patina"— as you put it, as merely identifying a negative surface phenomenon be it "entitlements", (or whatever), which could just as easily be flipped w/ its corollary, a "positive patina". For instance, Pres. Obama would likely put a 'positive patina' on Federal entitlements.

Bottom-line, I have no objections to your using "negative patina". (As if you needed my say so. HA!) It retrospect, it does work well in the context you used it. (I was clearly off-base, earlier.)

We often hear the word "spin" bandied about in mainstream media political analysis, and punditry re/ breaking news, or pivotal events ; be it of the negative, positive, or neutral variety. Seems like "spin" is kind of akin to your earlier use of patina, suggesting a definite twist, or surface 'coloration', not apparent at first blush.

Moving right along.

Ain't it weird how that pesky little phantom "it" just goes and randomly insinuates itself into perfectly spelled words.

"Competent", it is, jf.

@ Alex McCrae: Thanks for the sculpture lesson. I was simply using patina as a term denoting a mere surface phenomenon. Surface phenomena can be deemed positively or negatively in an aesthetic sense — although we would expect a purposely applied patina by a competitent sculptor to be viewed positively. But an inadvertent patina could be, I think, viewed positively or negatively.

I am responding simply because these two comments have a linguistic component, however tenuous.

As a (sadly) lapsed sculptor having worked extensively in cast bronze, I take some mild umbrage in your descriptive phrase, "negative patina", in that, at least in my experience, a patina, either derived from say the natural oxidization of copper exposed to the elements over time (that typical greenish hue), or the deliberate application of an 'artificial' patina to a bronze sculpture, (w/ the use of strong heat and various metal oxides), to create a specific desired coloration—the word "patina" generally suggests an enhanced aesthetic perception of the patinated 'object', as we often hear in that familiar phrase "the patina of time". In other words, a desirable thing.

I'm not claiming that your "negative patina" rises (or falls) to the status of an oxymoron, but still, I've rarely heard patina used to connote negativity, as such.

OK. Admittedly, I'm being a bit of a petty peever here, in narrowing down the focus to actual 'physical' patinas, whereas you've used it in a more abstract form, if you will, referring to how the notion of government "entitlements" have come to take on a kind of negative taint, as you put it, "in some circles".

The word "entitlements", in most recent political-speak these days has clearly become a highly emotionally charged, politically loaded one. A veritable political hot-potato.

Mitt Romney, and his VP running mate, Paul Ryan, appear to view the huge Fed entitlement programs as almost a 'necessary evil', and would seem to have a more negative, as opposed to favorable perspective on how entitlement programs should be operated for the average American, than Obama and the Dems camp do.

Both major parties acknowledge the potential fiscal unsustainability of these so-called 'social welfare' programs, over time, but how either one proposes to remedy, or at least ameliorate the increasingly dire situation, appear to be light-years apart.

Hence, the apparent clear choice for voting Americans as they go to the polls Nov. 6th. Obviously, other key unresolved, pressing issues are at stake, as well. But it would appear that the ongoing debate over future entitlements is one of the paramount major sticking points in the run-up to election day… aside from the issue of the lingering imperative to grow the flagging economy, and get tens-of-thousands of unemployed, and under-employed folks back to work.

The mind truly boggles!

>I think Romney is using the
>term "entitlement" descriptively, not pejoratively, but that the term
>has achieved such a negative patina in some circles that he is
>certainly utilizing the negative connotations to enhance his appeal
>to some groups.

If so, he wouldn't exactly be the first pol to speak with intentional, but plausibly deniable, ambiguity.

But I don't know that I grasp the difference between perjorative speech, and descriptive speech calculated to be heard perjoratively.