I suppose on the face of it that is a neat populist statement. Why should we pay taxes so that some unemployed wonk can go fill himself with a [not so] cheap slab of lager cans? It is precisely the sort of comment that will gain traction amongst the sheeple who will start baying on Farcebook that "something must be done".
But think about it.
Where does the welfare cash come from? The public purse. Where does the dear senator get his fancy salary from? The public purse! So the senator had better be damned careful as he himself is in effect a welfare recipient. How would he feel if he were told what he could and could not buy with his salary? In fact how would he even feel if the subsidies were withdrawn from the Dáil bar? If anything, the welfare recipient has the greater right to curb the senator's spending as the senator is a public servant and therefore an employee.
This whole business of people in power reckoning they have the right to control how we live our lives is completely out of hand. They somehow decide that alcohol is a luxury and therefore certain people shouldn't have it. What next? Should they be allowed televisions or Sky subscriptions? Should they be allowed cars? Maybe they shouldn't be given any welfare at all and just be given [gubmint and health approved] food parcels?
I see they are encroaching into private homes again, as from midnight it is now illegal to slap a child. Whatever the rights and wrongs of slapping, the law should not encroach into the private home. Just ask yourself what might come next. They have created the precedent of banning smacking, so now your home is not your own domain any more. Will they lay down laws on what food you can eat? We know they would love to ban smoking in the private home, and are they going to quote the smacking thing as precedent?
Norris is stepping over the line with his comments. Even suggesting what people do with their money is wrong.
When are people going to realise that the gubmint think it owns them?