Discussing the poor can be touchy business.  If you point to the distortions and politics of poverty, it sets you up as a heartless conservative or, worse, marks you as a member of the so-called privileged elite. 

        I'm a conservative, but as the third of eight children born to a meat cutter, I'm hardly one of the elite. And I don't think it's heartless to try to cut through the hype that Democrats and liberals apply to the plight of the poor.

        The Declaration of Independence doesn't give us an inalienable right to cradle-to-grave health care, income parity, a lower tax rate than our neighbor, or a secure retirement.  The founding fathers didn't guarantee all Americans the good life; they enshrined the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  They knew that the keys to the success in their new country were free enterprise, free will, and a minimalist, federalist government.  (Admittedly, opportunity initially was not universal; freedom was denied to slaves; voting was denied to women.)

        It is right and good that we care for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot care for their basic needs, but exaggerating the problems, as liberals do, diminishes our ability to care for those who need help the most.

        Who are the poor?  A 2004 study of the subject by the Heritage Foundation included this description:

        "Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave.  He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo.  He is able to obtain medical care.  His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded.  By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs.  While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

        Many of today's social ills could be resolved if people accepted personal responsibility for healthy living, education, the integrity of the family and money management and rejected drugs, gangs, unsafe sex, and alcoholism.  Somewhere along the way, many Americans have come to feel that it is the responsibility of the federal government to tax citizens who have achieved their dreams in order to pay for those who have not.  They believe not only that all people were created equal but also that our incomes and assets should be equal as well.

        Democrats' and liberals' complaints about Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" and their insistence that the rich pay "their fair share" are off the mark.  According to the National Taxpayer's Union, those earning up to $30,122 per year in 2004 (the bottom half of Americans' adjusted gross incomes) paid just 3.3 percent of federal personal income taxes collected.  The top 25 percent--those making at least $60,041--paid 84.86 percent of the total.

        For the 1999 tax year--when Bill Clinton was president--the numbers were almost the same: The bottom 50 percent paid 4 percent of the total; the top 25 percent paid 83.54 percent.

        Our problem isn't that the so-called rich aren't paying enough; it's that our government is spending too much.  We seem to be drifting toward socialism, while the rest of the world--France most recently--is rejecting it.  We need to return to the spirit that made us the dream destination of millions around the world.  We should help those truly in need, and drop the self-serving rhetoric and phony portrait of "two Americas."