My point is that folks who depend upon govt. and/or their officials and bureaucracies for sustenance are fools regardless of which method of quid pro quo was employed (work or influence).

One would think that Pres. Elect Obama, being newly elected on a platform of caring for his brother and spreading the wealth around, would see the importance of a good example this soon after the election for credibility and diligently see that his contractors were paid expeditiously and in full. I'd be willing to bet if his help had demanded payment in advance, he would have expedited their checks to facilitate an effective campaign. As it is, it appears his workers are no longer indispensable which brings me to my second point.

When folks rely on govt, they put themselves in a position of vulnerability. They must remain invaluable to govt and it's officials. Since the character and mood of govt reflects the personalities of its officials, those who've placed themselves in a dependent posture to it/them are forced to behave accordingly or face losing the payments. In this way they surrender their self determination (freedom) for the security of guaranteed funding. Of course as we see in the article's example, sometimes the funds are not what the dependant expects which breeds dicontent and dismay.

Yes, these folks worked for their money. But they relied on a govt official and bureaucracy to make good on their promises which is why they are now disappointed. I'm confident that they will be paid in full eventually. However, I think a truly astute individual would read the writing on the wall and divorce himself from relying on promises of govt subsidies and providence for the reasons statred above. If this is how the wealth is to be spread around, I'll choose to make my own and spread it where I want.