It's been a tough week not to feel hard done by.
There is the cloud of gloom over Tauranga when we woke up and realised someone in town is $27 million richer and it's not us.
And then after the Lotto blow, National announces a scheme for 15 hours compulsory preschool education for children of beneficiaries.
This move may make working parents feel hard done by.
In theory, a child over the age of three should get 20 "free" hours early education under the previous Labour government scheme.
In practice these "free" hours rarely exist.
Private early childhood educators charge "optional" fees, which are no more optional than the hours are free.
The new preschool policy is part of Paula Bennett's welfare reform. Critics of the scheme say the new rule is beneficiary bashing, with Rotorua People's Union spokesperson Paul Blair quoted in yesterday's Bay of Plenty Times saying the policy reflects "the dehumanisation and isolation of the beneficiary population as a bunch of low-life underclass people who can't look after their kids".
Hardly. The scheme simply means that person on the benefit can take part-time work or actively seek work.
In my view, the harder line on welfare policies is to be welcomed to weed out those who see the benefit as a lifestyle choice.
The Ministry of Social Development has released a report showing all people who were receiving a benefit from June last year would cost a total of $78 billion over their lifetimes if they stayed on a benefit.
So far the new benefit rules seem entirely reasonable, such as sanctions against beneficiaries with work expectations if they refuse drug testing; and blocking benefits for criminals with outstanding arrest warrants.
The compulsory preschool policy has good arguments to support it, apart from allowing the beneficiary to seek work.
Research does show that children who participate in some form of preschool education develop social and self-help skills and are better prepared for school.
Cynics and grandparents may argue that in their day they taught their children letters and how to tie a shoe lace.
Preschool should not be a substitute for parenting but a complement: 15 hours a week is hardly going to deprive the child of a home environment.
For some unfortunate children, they may be happy to be removed from their home environment for even just 15 hours a week.
If they are left ignored at home, with no one but Sponge Bob for company, it will certainly benefit these children to be placed in a quality preschool environment where they can interact with buddies and caring teachers.
And there must be tests and measures of what makes a quality preschool because a poor quality, overcrowded, poorly staffed and resourced environment could be more damaging for the child than if they never went at all.
This group of children is not limited to some children of beneficiaries, which is why in my view this policy is not fair to all children.
If a certain amount of hours of preschool education are so valuable for the child's well-being and future learning, then why don't all children benefit, not just children of beneficiaries?