Much of what passes for this sort of behavior is for "our protection". Ben Franklin said that anyone who is willing to trade a little freedom for a little security will wind up with neither.

Much of the Constitutional justification for government intrustion into private affairs is through the "general welfare" clause. In my thinking, much of what is passed off as the "general welfare" is actually the "average welfare". There is a difference: in "the general welfare", EVERYONE benefits, while in "the average welfare", some are benefitted only at the expense of others. Note that to make this acceptable, advocates of "the average welfare" do not see governmental waste, inefficiency, and even GRAFT, on their or anyone's part, as downsides: as long as the amount of money in the total system remains the same, the "average welfare" is maintained and is not "bad", provided the target beneficiaries are somewhat better off. To them, the only way the "average welfare" could go down is if someone took the government subsidy, convered it to cash, and burned it.

The framers of the Constitution did not have "average welfare" in mind when they said "general welfare", mainly because of the Eminent domain clause requiring "just compensation" for any property taken by the Government, including intermediary transfers (See Kelo). Kelo established the right of government to take from some to give to others for a "public" purpose, but did not waive the "just compensation" requirement. When the government takes property or items, there is a bit of question as to the dollar value of the property taken, and usually it is the government that dictates the "value" of what was taken as "just compensation", but that does not apply to money, for the value of money taken is the exact amount taken.