Where would you draw the line?

 

I probably ticked a lot of people off with yesterday's post, so I might as well continue the trend with this one.

 

Ohio State Representative John Barnes, Jr. introduced a Survivors of Abduction Act that would provide Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight with at least $25,000 annually in reparations for the years that sicko in Cleveland held them captive. In addition they would receive tuition, fees, and living expenses at a public college.

 

I have as much sympathy for these poor girls as anyone else does. And if a private charity or foundation wants to help them, I'd probably donate. But the hell they experienced doesn't rest upon the taxpayers. And what about all the other victims out there? Should they not be compensated at taxpayer expense for the wrongs they have suffered? And where is the line drawn? Do we compensate the merchant whose business was burned down by an arsonist? Do we compensate the bank teller who suffers PTSD from a hold-up? Do we compensate the rape victim? Do we compensate the victim of a dog attack because the dog owner was irresponsible? Do we compensate the hit and run victim? Where would you draw the line?

 

Aside from all that, it seems to me that the first reaction from people when misfortune falls is to want to throw money at it even before the needs are known. I have to wonder if the motivation is about helping someone in need or more about making myself feel better.

 

"Law would aid 3 abducted in Cleveland." The Dallas Morning News; June 5, 2013; p. 4A.