New president faces tremendous challenges by Sam Hanna, Jr. - posted Thursday, November 6th, 2008 @ 7:45 am  E-mail Story |  Print Story  While reviewing a breakdown of the vote nationwide in Tuesday's presidential election, it became clear the winner of the race for the White House may not want the job the American people just handed him. That thought occurred after contemplating the tremendous challenges America faces thanks to a less-than-robust U.S. economy in general and the country's diminished standing in the court of public opinion around the world. Though blaming President George W. Bush for every ill, or problem, the United States must tackle in the near future is the chic thing to do these days, let's move beyond the blame game and face some cold hard facts. And those facts, my friends, aren't pretty. At the top list sits a $10 trillion national debt, or some $10 trillion the government of the United States owes. More specific, the citizens of the United States owe $10 trillion. Personally, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the U.S. government and the taxpayers will ever retire a $10 trillion debt. Suggestions are welcome. If we are to listen to our Republican friends, the country is in debt because Democrats spent too much money over past 40 years or so. That hypocritical explanation fails to acknowledge the fact that some $4 trillion of the $10 trillion national debt mounted in the past eight years. Remember, Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress in six of those eight years. Meanwhile, our Democratic friends point their fingers at Republicans. They say the country is $10 trillion in the red for a number of reasons, including the GOP's insistence on spending big money on the military and fighting a war or two overseas. Democrats also claim Republicans are too cozy with the so-called rich in America, meaning the so-called rich don't pay enough taxes. In other words, if Democrats had it their way, the Congress would dramatically cut defense spending, while a tax hike on the so-called rich would be in order. Before we entertain the notion that Democrats would utilize the windfall yielded from cutting defense spending and raising taxes to pay down the country's debt, let's revisit reality. The reality of it is Democrats would blow any aforementioned windfall on expanding the size and scope of government, peddling along the way a falsehood that more government is a better deal for the people. Yet, it is irresponsible to suggest the United States can continue to spend billions of dollars each month on the war in Iraq without implementing a course of action to pay for it. And no, borrowing money from the Chinese, which is exactly what the U.S. government has been doing as of late, won't work. Does that mean a tax hike is necessary? Maybe, but that depends on the outcome of the next question. Will Congress cut other expenditures such as appropriations for agricultural subsidies, highway construction projects and community organizational endeavors? Don't count on it. Instead, we should expect Barack Hussein Obama to explore a tax cut for so-called average Americans while paying lip service to any meaningful efforts to reign in spending. Yet, over the past few months the two presidential candidates -- Obama and Sen. John McCain -- told us they will cut taxes if elected president. Something tells us, however, the bean counters at the Government Accounting Office will throw cold water on any tax cut proposition Obama may entertain. Therein lies a question. When was the last time a president of the United States listened to a room full of numbers crunchers in lieu of pursuing a politically expedient policy?