Democrats enjoy being stealth party of the rich

It is a strange world indeed in which we find utterly rich Democrats waging a war on the rich. If it were real, it would be a suicide mission, would it not? But it is not real. It is pure chicanery in an attempt to charm the public into thinking that all Democrats are poor just like the rest of us.

Yet, only two Democratic presidents in fairly recent times, Harry Truman, who by the time he died had become a millionaire, and Bill Clinton, who later hit the jackpot with book deals for himself and his wife, were not in the millionaire's club on Inauguration day. The Clintons net worth today is about a quarter billion dollars.

Yes, that is right, the Clintons are becoming billionaires. Yet, they are the representatives of the poor. Even Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama were millionaires when elected. Let me say it again. Every United States President selected from the ranks of the Democratic Party has been a millionaire.

No wonder Barack Obama can joke about tax cuts. Neither he nor other prominent Democrats need them. Just how disingenuous can the Democrats be in their bogus war on the rich? Even Al Gore came from huge wealth and, like Clinton, he is headed for the billionaire's club. The Kennedys, John Kerry and FDR fit nicely in the billionaire's club.

Moreover, almost every one of the mega-multimillionaire Democratic presidents inherited their loot or married it. They did not earn it. They were never quite regular Americans playing stickball or tag on the street.

Check out the net worth of your favorite Democrats such as mega-millionaires Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, and Diane Feinstein next chance you get. Do they really understand our pain?

Ask yourself why the Party of the Rich would be waging a war on the rich, and why they would be so dead set against tax cuts, which help all Americans by creating jobs or by putting more cash in all our pockets?

Ask yourself if you would send your children to an expensive college so that when they graduate they can be unemployed or they can blend in with those who chose not to train to be successful? Most of us want our children to knock 'em dead, be the top of their class, and get the best jobs so they can bring home the bacon big time.

If we want our children to be successful, do we really want to have a president chastise them if they ever happen to become successful and perhaps even become rich, just because the guy next door did not work as hard? Is it wrong for our hardworking, high achieving children to not be able to enjoy the fruits of their endeavors? Must the guy next door get a huge share of what our children have achieved?

As a Democrat, seeing all the rich Democrats suggesting everybody else give up their wealth for the poor, I ask, why are they still outlandishly wealthy?

Brian Kelly Wilkes-Barre