Okay, so Detroit got some of what they were looking for. Lucky Dogs. Looks like Obama has decided that increasing taxes isn't viable at this juncture. So now, we too may get "something" in the form of tax cuts, etc. But what brings me to write this particular post is an article I am reading in the Readers Digest. It is in the November 2008 issue and is authored by Michael Crowley. I am beginning to think that some of the biggest winners of government money (money that is paid for by the taxed) are the people who pay meager sums for flood insurance (through the national flood insurance program) while living in places prone to flooding. Yes, this insurance program is paid for by the people for the people--the people who live in flood zones. These people then promptly rebuild on the same spot that they were just flooded out of. The real darling thing about this program isn't just that the program is deeply in debt now what with Katrina, Rita, etc. recently, it isn't the low premiums paid for this program (which regular insurance companies won't touch), but it is probably that some of these people make multiple claims over the years. Yes, multiple floods, multiple claims. One example from the article (and this one is a gem) is of a house owner in Houston whose house has flooded 16 times and has made claims of over $807,000. (The title of this regular feature in Readers Digest?: Outrageous! Pertinent, don't you think?)
And now Obama is going about the country trying to get support for his new $800 billion or so for bailout/relief. What happened to Obama's cry that we are in debt so bad because of the war that we cannot possibly think of spending more money (while at the same time saying that we need to make sure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare). So if we are so badly in debt as a nation, then why would we spend money on subsidizing healthcare and bailing out companies who may not be viable? The federal government was not founded to provide its citizens with money. Now, certainly there are things that need to be done by a federal government such as providing for a military with which to protect our country as a whole. But my point is that the federal government was not meant to be a mommy-type who would wash and bandage our owies and take care of our every need. Even if this was what the federal government was for, this type of action does not lead to the development of responsible, independent, self-confident individuals. It leads to needy individuals who think that they need a handout when they don't have what the responsible individuals have (who "have" because they worked for it).
No comments:
Post a Comment