A Blatant Example of Wealth Redistribution

Yesterday, President Obama decided to give everyone in the State of California $250. His reason, "Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession."

DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION?

OK, the President didn't really say he wanted to give everyone in the State of California $250, but he might as well have. Yesterday President Obama said he wants Congress to approve the distribution of $250 to 57 million senior citizens, disabled people and military veterans. He talked about these groups' tough financial struggle with the reduction in value of stock portfolios and real estate. The $250 is supposed to help ease the pain of their Social Security payments not increasing do to negative inflation.

Here's the problem I have with this. The failing Social Security program has a rule that says payments MAY be increased based on cost of living increases. There is no cost of living increase this year, so there is no increase in Social Security payments this year. But for our President and his "obey without questioning anything" Congress, this is an opportunity to distribute some of the TAXPAYERS MONEY to a select group of individuals. We should all be screaming right now!

What if the first line of this post was true? What if Obama wanted to distribute TAXPAYER MONEY to Californians, children under 18, Hispanic females between the ages of 45-50 or people whose middle initial is "K." Isn't it philosophically wrong that our government distribute TAXPAYER MONEY to anyone on a whim? And why stop with senior citizens, veterans and the disabled. Are they the only ones who have been hurt by falling valuations of stocks and real estate, or 1 million other things?

Our government should not have the power to take money from some groups and so easily redistribute the funds to other groups, period.