Wealth Redistribution

A recent theme of the John McCain's campaign has been that Barack Obama intends to institute government redistribution of wealth. This has actually been around for quite some time. As someone who has been the recipient of it more than a few times, I can hardly argue against it now.

I was an olive drab baby. My father, who served in the U.S. Army for over 20 years, was an active duty serviceman when I was born. The only medical expenses for my birth that were not covered by tax dollars were my mother's meals ($3/day for 7 days). At that time fathers were not normally in the delivery room but were encouraged, at least at that hospital, to "share the experience" by donating blood. (Don't scoff, ladies, it was better than nothing.) So Pa used to tell me that I cost him $21 and a pint of blood. Up until my parents' divorce, and for a short time after that, my medical care was covered by the military, and that means the tax payers.

The American tax payers sent me to college, as it was entirely funded by grants and loans. (I wrote about this in 2005). I was extremely conscious of being a public works project and of the shift away from grants to loans and so graduated in three years instead of the usual four. A college education is always a good investment of public money as it is usually repaid many times over in the taxes on higher wages over the person's lifetime.

Anyone who received grants for college or took advantage of the GI Bill or benefited from a government program or business incentive has been the recipient of wealth redistribution. We take tax money from some people and give it to others, with the assumption that in some way that money will come back into the economy.

I'm really confused about this becoming an election issue. And certainly, it would be hypocritical of me to try to turn off the water for those behind me when I drank from the community well.