As November 4, 2008 came to a close, it became clear that Americans had spoken and that their clear choice was for a diversion from the conservative fiscal policies that have led to a prosperous United States of America for centuries. Americans went to the polls in droves to elect a candidate who promises higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, government ownership of private assets, universal healthcare, a more inflated federal deficit, and restrictions on corporate and individual freedoms. The United States faces at least two years of unadulterated power by the Democratic Party, setting the stage for ultra liberal policy a great majority of Americans do not want.

  In a lot of ways, conservatives were wholly responsible for their own demise this election season. The conservatives of today do not represent the same ideals as Reagan conservatives and fail to exhibit the characteristics, policies, and rhetoric of true conservatives. We have deviated from low taxes, low spending, a strong national defense, protection of all of our borders, and social morality. Instead of embracing the pillars of our own party’s traditional platform, we have decided to elect representatives who are too cowardly to stand up to Democratic leadership, too cowardly to reject spending $700 billion in tax-payer dollars to socialize our banking system, too cowardly to call for the protection of our borders, too cowardly to protect the smallest members of our society from infanticide, too cowardly to cut the social programs that encourage government dependence and discourage working for oneself, and too cowardly to demand English as our national language.

  Obama’s tax plan epitomizes the creation of a welfare state in disguise. He promises to provide a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans. While this sounds good in theory, it also presents a problem. A large percentage of Americans do not pay income taxes to begin with. Is issuing a “tax credit” to people who do not pay income taxes fair, or is it welfare? Webster’s defines welfare as, “financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government.” Taking funds from one group, taxpayers, and giving them to another, non-tax payers, in the form of a tax credit is no more than redistribution of wealth. Creating a populous that depends on its government for its financial welfare is a slippery slope to socialism.

  While Obama promises lower taxes for the masses, he simultaneously guarantees higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Vice President Elect Joe Biden has said the following of the richest Americans who will see their earnings disappear under an Obama presidency: “It’s time to be patriotic…time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut.” Patriotism is defined as love of one’s country, not as love of handing over hard earned profits to those less fortunate or those unwilling to work for themselves. Taxing the most productive members and corporations of our society is not only brainless – it is dangerous. Because more of their profits will go to the government, small businesses and corporations will be unable to afford the workforce they usually maintain. This will result in lost jobs, less revenue, and more valuable U.S. jobs shipped overseas to avoid an unfair tax rate. Taking from the most productive members of society to give to those who are not, either by a function of their circumstances or by a function of free-will, is redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth can be parodied to academic performance in grade and high school. Say all A’s were redistributed to lesser scoring students, creating a flat B rate for all students, regardless of performance. We as a nation would not tolerate this in schools, so why do we tolerate it with our livelihood?

  Should the government own interests in private industry? Obviously, the answer is no. When the government begins to own the private resources of its citizens, it can bribe and legislate with those resources, resulting in a communist society. Both President Elect Obama and Senator John McCain rushed to sign the $700 billion bailout bill to “save” our banking industry. Since the signing, it has become clear that the government will own stock interests in many U.S. banks. This represents a grand deviation by Senator McCain from traditional conservative principles. He has opted to allow the government to have a say in private industry and to tax citizens for corporate welfare. Welfare of any kind is despicable, corporate or otherwise.

  Does the U.S. really need universal healthcare? Personally, I believe there are instances where it becomes citizens’ duty to protect their fellow man’s health. These instances are the health of children, veterans, and the elderly. Joe Schmo who smokes two packs a day, eats a Quarterpouder for lunch and dinner, and takes no care to exercise does not deserve tax payers’ collective money to fund his triple by-pass. Healthcare needs to be overhauled to make it more affordable – however, I think it is universally agreed that the government doesn’t have the best track record in providing services. Anyone been to the MVD lately? Government provided, tax-payer funded healthcare is not the answer. As it stands, every American, and even illegal aliens, can visit an emergency room for emergency healthcare. A system of universal healthcare would lead to abuse, where everyone visited a doctor for every sniffle that could be waited out and cured by the body’s immune system. Government interference into free markets isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.

  Obama’s plan represents over a trillion dollars in new spending. Right now, the economy cannot suffer another brutal blow. Taxing the richest to provide more government programs and a further nanny state would be devastating. Business thrives on discretionary income, the very income Obama wants to take. How can Obama propose to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans and over a trillion dollars in new spending while only raising taxes on a select few? This sounds fishy to me, as it probably does to you too. Either spending or taxes are going to go on the way-side; we simply cannot have it both ways.

  As a proud, hard-working, conservative American, I find Obama’s own admissions on his website, http://change.gov, to be disturbing. I can only hope he chooses to govern to the middle, and not to the extreme left. Obama should seek the advice of members of both parties to steer us out of this financial crisis, not strictly members of the left or ex-executives of Countrywide and Freddie Mac who got us into this mess to begin with.