We, like many others in our income bracket, would be shouldering the largest portion of the national debt, as well as a significant share of bad personal debt that had been accumulated by many citizens prior to the great credit crash of '08, many of whom were now receiving subsidies to help them recover. After all, this was only fair. That's when I woke up in a cold sweat.
Many of you may think this sounds far-fetched, but consider this. The national budget for 2010 is slated to be around $3.7 trillion. That's bad enough, but if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton becomes president, their spending initiatives would nearly double that amount without paying down the national debt.
Both Clinton and Obama have been campaigning on the promise of lavish spending and government fixes to prop up the ailing economy. They want subsidies for mortgage foreclosures, subsidies for low income earners, subsidies for this group and that group, but no talk of personal responsibility or tax relief. And who will pay for it all?
They blame conservatives for our economic problems, yet it has been since the Democrats won a majority in the House and Senate that unemployment has risen by more than half a percentage point, gas prices are higher by $1 per gallon, home foreclosures are up and general economic conditions have worsened.
Tax hikes on the way?
Meanwhile, the liberals in Washington are proposing the largest tax hike in U.S. history, $700 billion, all under the guise of stabilizing and improving the economy. For those of you who think this tax increase would be just for the rich, think again. If your household income is between $40,000 and $60,000 per year, plan on forking over an additional $2,400 in taxes.
Democrats like Barack Obama are truly out of touch with hardworking Americans in heartland states like Kentucky. Consider his recent comments to an audience in San Francisco. " it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Personally, I take this as an insult to Mid-America.
Even prominent Kentucky Democrats are balking at the audacity of this statement. Former State Democratic Party Chair Jerry Lundergan said, "When he campaigns here, Sen. Obama will learn that we have a strong commitment to faith, to family and to the freedoms of the Constitution. The families of Kentucky are proud, not bitter." Former state attorney general and now Rep. Greg Stumbo said, "After representing eastern Kentucky for 25 years, I can tell you what we don't need are stereotypes that discount our faith and our values. We need a president with a real plan that produces real results."
The Obama's and politicians like them seem to think we can tax our way to the American Dream, but what they will really achieve is a higher rate of dependency on government. Last week, Michelle Obama said that " some people will have to give up a piece of their pie so that others can have more." I find that ironic, since the Obama's gave only 1 percent of their personal pie to charity last year, according to their tax returns. The Clintons, the Bushes and the Cheneys all gave amounts roughly equal to 10 percent.
This type of liberal elitism and poor economic policy is no way to create hopes and dreams. For Kentuckians and many Americans, it will amount to a fiscal nightmare. Obama can't fix our economy by attacking our heritage, our faith or our right to defend our lives and property. He should be proposing ways to put money back in the hands of hard-working Kentuckians and Americans while freeing us from the unruly burden of big government.
Leland Conway is executive editor of www.conservativeedge.com and host of "The Pulse of Lexington" on 630WLAP. You can reach him for comment at Leland@wlap.com.
