Hillary Rodham Clinton has been doing that thing she does so well - - maligning rich people.

During a major campaign address delivered in Manchester New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton explained her intent to eliminate the so-called “tax cuts for the wealthy,” and introduced new ways for government to spend American’s money.

“Let’s be clear” Mrs. Clinton remarked as she argued for raising taxes, “it’s not as if America hasn’t been successful in the past six years…”

But then without even contemplating the possibility that maybe - - just maybe - - cutting the taxes of all Americans has played a role in America’s recent “success,” Mrs. Clinton went on to decry the idea of America being an “ownership society”(a fitting label given the all-time high level of private home ownership among people of all ethnic groups) calling it instead an “on your own society,” and expressing her preference for a “we’re in this together” society.

And what does this mean? For Clinton, a “were in this together” society is a society of “shared responsibility” - - AND “shared prosperity.”

Clinton made it clear that her vision for America’s future is a collectivist vision - - one that focuses primarily on goals for the group (the broader society), while things like personal responsibility, the wellbeing of individual persons, and individual achievement become secondary, if not tertiary concerns.

Senator Barack Obama has also been doing his best to pile-on, drawing a direct connection between the two enterprises of punishing the wealthy, and giving away healthcare services. His proposal is simple enough - - raise taxes on “the wealthiest Americans,” and use that revenue to provide “free” healthcare to others.

Similarly, John Edwards has continued with his themes of poverty and low-wage work, promising to raise taxes on Americans earning $200,000 a year or more.

Now, the hypocrisy of Edwards and Clinton is staggering.

For example, much of Clinton’s spiteful rhetoric about some people having “too much wealth” seems at odds with her lifestyle of expensive, fuel-guzzling private jets - - dispatching one here, sending another to pick her up there, swapping private planes mid-trip because the interior design of one isn’t aesthetically pleasing to her - - most all of which are provided to her by wealthy personal friends or purchased with campaign donations.

Edwards, on the other hand, has become know for lecturing on college campuses about the immorality of poverty and tuition hikes, while charging schools and students up to $55,000 per speech - - this from a man who enjoys a lifestyle of four hundred-dollar haircuts and a thirty-thousand square foot private home.

The “do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do” approach of Clinton and Edwards, wherein they criticize the existence of an American wealthy class while at the same time surrounding themselves with wealth‘s comforts, is a travesty.

But most problematic about Clinton, Edwards, and Obama, is their apparent disregard for the ways in which wealth is created, and their hostility for those who engage in that enterprise. Continued...