On Memorial Day, tears were shed as programs across the country honored and prayed for those men and women who sacrificed their dreams in order that we might live out our own. Some Americans who had lost a son or daughter, a spouse, or a parent never got to see their loved one reach their full potential. Those soldiers who died left their dreams in their graves.
Their loss is made even worse by an administration that is doing all it can to kill the dreams of Americans they fought to preserve. President Obama's plan for creating jobs takes more and more money from private citizens and companies so that his administration can hire more government workers and fund more government projects. This funds President Obama's dream, not yours.
Many complain that conservatives only want to protect "the rich." It's not the rich that conservatives need to protect. The truly wealthy will take care of themselves. They can move resources, relocate companies, and shelter income to avoid the worst machinations of Washington's tax policies.
Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary because he receives no salary. He doesn't need a salary. His extensive investments feed his lifestyle and fund his future investments. Government taxes investment income at a lower level to encourage savings and the capital investment all economies need.
President Obama's assault on the top 2% of wage owners is not a punishment on the truly wealthy; it's an assault on the "new rich." His taxes hit those successful entrepreneurs who invested in their own idea, worked hard, created jobs, and reaped the benefits of their success. Instead of being honored and rewarded, they watch as Washington takes more and more of their earned reward. At a time many would want to expand their companies, ObamaCare and increased government regulations have just increased their costs.
The gap between the average "rich" and "poor" American may have grown, but the "new rich" do not easily stay rich. In the 2007 Treasury Study--"Income Mobility in the US from 1996 to 2005," the biggest losses in income came not from the poor but from the wealthiest income earners. The top 1% of income earners in 1996 had their incomes halved by 2005. They were not getting ahead at the expense of others; many lost ground.