The new prescription drug bill, HR-1 being hammered out in Congress, will cost an estimated $400 billion over the next 10 years. Why should taxpayers subsidize drugs for seniors but not kids? Oh yeah, the kids can't vote and their young parents don't contribute as much to political action committees as their grand parents do. Why do some people support this legal theft and some do not? Oh yeah, the supporters get something for nothing and the opposition gets to pay the freight.
The title of the bill is, "An act to amend title 28 of the Social Security Act to provide for a voluntary prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program and to strengthen and improve the Medicare program." Does this mean most recipients will VOLUNTARILY refuse the stolen property? Perhaps I can VOLUNTARILY refuse to surrender my property!
What's the difference between these scenarios?
A middle aged male shows up at my front door with a revolver demanding money to purchase food and medicine for his sick wife and three kids.
A 70 year old husband shows up at my door with a revolver demanding money for his wife's chemo therapy.
Government is attempting to legalize the second scenario. Charity and theft for some, beget charity and theft for others. Those who lack control of legal theft will work feverously to gain control. This vicious circle can only end in revolution. Common theft is occurring under the guise of state sanctioned charity. Those who consider themselves honest and righteous have been seduced by an immoral and expedient power happy government.
Those who perpetuate and support this theft say social security is good because it protects people in their old age. Lew Rockwell said it best, "Everyone knows the truth: (social security) loots you during your productive years and puts you on welfare in your later years." This dependency solidifies government's ability to continue democratic theft.
Creating dependency allows government to continue its malignant growth. We must choose between theft and honor.