... can think up that involves deficit spending that future generations will have to pay for. But, it will drive up the overall cost of medical care, impair the quality thereof, it will hurt employment and pay scales because the money has to come from somewhere, and those with money will get stuck paying for those without. Many of the supposed "have nots" are slackers who are waiting for someone else to pick up the tab.

It's the emerging "entitlement" mentality that is bringing us down as a nation.

Ever notice your telephone bill? ... the Federal Universal Service Fee is an "entitlement tax" that we pay so others can gab on the phone on our nickle instead of holding down a job and paying their own phone bill.

Where does entitlement stop? Would you like to pay my automobile insurance for me? :) How about my food bill ... I mean, we all got'ta eat, so why not entitlement programs for food? We're getting ready to buy a new car ... what's your address so I can send you the bill?

Then, I have a problem with the government "forcing" people to buy insurance, which is one issue ... and then subsidizing them with other people's money, which is a related, but separate issue.

You're talking to someone who has at times held down 2 or 3 jobs simultaneously to get where I wanted to go educationally and occupationally, and I was able to put my kids through private schools (McCallie, Montgomery Bell Academy, Franklin Road Academy), they are all college-educated on Pop's nickle (well, hecto-kilobucks), and they are all successful in their own businesses ... no drugs, no arrests, no illegitimate kids, no excuses ... results. We are best of friends, and they actually tell me now that I raised them right, citing little vignettes that I had long forgotten, although they did express a few doubts along the way (typical scenario in their teen years: "Well, Dad, Jimmy's parents let him ..." /conversation nipped in the bud/ ... "I'm not Jimmy's parent and you're not Jimmy" ... /five or ten minutes of pouting, then everything is fine/). Now, they are doing the same thing with their kids. It's called parenting and teaching personal responsibility ... not entitlement. It's what this nation needs to get back to.

Here, SD, here it comes:

~*~*~*~

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_co/us_health_taxes

House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 13 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House Democrats scrambling for ways to pay for overhauling health care would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to levels not seen since the 1980s, breaking one of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges.

The tax increase would be limited to the top 1.2 percent of earners — families that make more than $350,000 a year. But it would raise a total of $544 billion over the next decade, covering a little more than half the cost of the health care plan.

The bill unveiled by House Democratic leaders Tuesday would create three new tax brackets for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.

The plan would honor Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. But it would break an Obama pledge that no one — including the wealthy — would pay higher taxes than they did in the 1990s. The pledge, as listed on Obama's campaign Web site, was: "No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."

Democrats argue that high-income families fared well under President George W. Bush's two terms as their taxes dropped and their incomes soared, giving them the ability to absorb higher taxes. Republicans argue that the tax increases would hurt small business owners who typically pay their business taxes on their individual returns.

Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, called the plan "the moral thing to do."

"This innovative bill provides a uniquely American solution to control costs and put patients first without burdening future generations with debt," the New York Democrat said.

Obama's strategy throughout the health care debate has been to publicly encourage the efforts of congressional Democrats even as they debate proposals that would break his campaign promises. The goal is to keep lawmakers working toward a package that expands coverage and slows the growth in costs.

On Wednesday, Obama said that both the House bill and a separate measure passed by a Senate committee would "take what's best about our system today and make it the basis of our system tomorrow — reducing costs, raising quality, and ensuring fair treatment of consumers by the insurance industry."

House Democratic leaders hope to pass the health care bill before Congress goes on vacation in August. Under the House plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that all people, regardless of income or the state of their health, have access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.

The bill would add a 5.4 percent income tax "surcharge" on families making more than $1 million a year, starting in 2011. Families making more than $350,000 would get a 1 percent tax and those making more than $500,000 would get a 1.5 percent tax.

If certain savings in the health care system are not achieved by 2013, the new tax on families making more than $350,000 would increase to 2 percent, and the tax on those making more than $500,000 would go to 3 percent.

Currently, the top marginal income tax rate is 35 percent. Obama wants to let some tax cuts enacted under Bush expire, boosting the top rate to 39.6 percent in 2011. The new health care taxes would increase the top rate to 45 percent.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the bill a job killer that would result in rationed care, fewer choices for patients and diminished quality.

"If this isn't bad enough, this new maze of government bureaucracy will be funded by a new small business tax that will cost more American jobs," Boehner said. "During a time of economic recession, the last thing Congress should be doing is punishing small businesses that create a majority of the jobs in this country."

Democrats argue that the tax increases would affect only 4.1 percent of tax filers who report small business income. Those small businesses, however tend to be the ones that employ the most workers, according to data from the National Federation of Independent Business.

The National Association of Manufacturers said the new taxes would make it harder for small businesses to grow, invest and create jobs.

"These new taxes will have longstanding negative consequences to the U.S. economy and cost jobs," Jay Timmons, the association's executive vice president, wrote in a letter to members of Congress.

~*~*~*~