A Rebate?

It's troubling to know that in Washington there are creepy Congressmen talking about a stimulating package, and Tuesday they'll debate it on the floor of the House.

Even more troubling is the language they use when describing the double espresso shot to the economy. I understand that my family could qualify for a "rebate" check, based on income and how many people in my house call me Dad.

Okay. Awfully nice of them to send some money since it used to be mine and I didn't go all Wesley Snipes.

The rebate I'm concerned about is the $300 given to the people who don't make enough to pay taxes. Isn't a rebate a partial refund for something that has already been paid? They aren't paying anything in, but now get a check. I want that job.

This is nothing more than welfare. When I was a kid I kept buying bottles of Pepsi because they had a promotion offering rebates for crappy stuff that I couldn't live without. I think in the end I got a free bottle of the devilish beverage that cost me around $27.00. Essentially, I paid for a lucky kid somewhere who got even better crappy stuff after buying just one bottle.

People in the upper income bracket -- those who pay the most taxes -- are out of luck. They went and became too successful for the rebate.

If this sweepstakes gets through Congress, the tax-paying grownups are paying for the first-time Pepsi winners. Let's call it what it is: re-distribution. But that doesn't sound as cool as rebate.