Dems say "bleed the rich"; again, and again....

The liberal establishment is once again searching for the fat calf to sacrifice in the name of bigger government. MSNBC reports that the Democrats are looking to tax the “rich” to pay the bill on health care.

Maybe we should start with the accepted definition of rich:

Rich – adjective - having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation. (dictionary.com)

This sounds more like the definition of liberal politician than the average American making more than $200,000.

To put in perspective consider this: Roughly one in 50 households will take in more than $250,000 next year. The US population is roughly 300 million (304,059,724 July 2008). If the Democrats get their way this equates to a tax increase on about 6 million American households. It seems the ranks of the rich have once again grown.

Keeping in mind these tidbits of information lets look at what the liberal elites have in mind for the American sheeple:

Dems look at taxing the rich for health care
Rangel says $600 billion in new taxes needed to deliver Obama's plan

WASHINGTON - House Democrats working on President Barack Obama's goal of health legislation are narrowing in on an income tax surcharge on the highest-paid wage earners to help subsidize insurance for the 50 million people who lack it.

The standard of “highest paid wage earners” is a subjective assessment. Highest paid as compared to what standard? This standard is base more on class warfare than any quantitative assessment. It may be helpful to consider that this portion of the population is already responsible for paying close to 50% of the national tax burden already.

Pushing to complete a comprehensive health care overhaul plan by Friday and bring it up for committee votes next week, House Democrats abandoned earlier money-raising proposals, including a payroll tax. They met behind closed doors Thursday to fine-tune the details.

Out of sight out of mind? Another rush to pass legislation before the American people have had a chance to weigh in. What happened to the promise of a more open government; the promise to allow bills to be posted before voting? Gone like flatulence in the wind…

"I promised the president that we would have legislation out of the House before we went on an August break. That is still my goal," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, according to officials involved in the discussion. Most spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.

…and why is our government negotiation the terms of new oppressive taxes in private?

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the panel, said the panel is looking at a surtax of around 3.5 percent on income above those amounts. Other members suggested it would be closer to 3 percent.

Why ya cryin', its only 3% on top of what you already have to pay right? What’s the big deal? I love the innate ability of law makers to view tax increases in a vacuum.

In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.

Sure, why not, go ahead and punch the small businesses in the groin as well. It’s not like the economy is suffering or anything.

Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has said his committee needs to come up with $600 billion in new taxes to deliver on Obama's goal of sweeping changes to the nation's health care system to bring down costs and cover the 50 million uninsured. Hundreds of billions of dollars more would come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to pay for legislation expected to cost around $1 trillion over 10 years.

They speak as if $600 billion sucked out of an already staggering economy is no big deal. It is demonstrable of how out of touch these people truly are.

Tax options open

Lawmakers cautioned that no final decisions have been made. Smaller tax options remained possibilities, depending on the overall cost of the legislation, including a tax on sugared soft drinks and ending a tax break that drug companies receive for advertising.

Here we go…

The action in the House stood in contrast to the Senate, where Democrats edged away from their goal of passing health care legislation by early August amid heightening partisan controversy over tax increases and a proposed new government role in providing insurance to consumers.

That translates to “if we continue down this path the American people will make us pay in 2010”.

Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told The Associated Press that he believes the "ultimate goal" is to have a bill by the end of the year that is signed into law by the president.

It seems that there is more of an impetus to floor a bill than there is to floor a reasonable bill. It’s become about expediency over substance. Want proof? I have a one word answer; “Stimulus”.

Separately, Republicans who met Wednesday with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he expressed flexibility on the timetable, indicating that he was willing to allow more time before legislation is brought to the floor.

This would be a refreshing change; Actually allowing for open and honest debate on a bill before shoving it down the throat of the American public.

Failure to meet the August goal would be a setback — but not necessarily a fatal one — for Obama's attempt to achieve comprehensive health care legislation this year. A group of Democratic and Republican senators led by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is still trying to work out a bipartisan deal.

Committee setback

But the Finance Committee work appeared to have suffered a setback when Reid relayed concerns to Baucus about the compromise taking shape. Finance's proposal was expected to omit a new government insurance option to compete with private insurers — something Republicans oppose but most Democrats favor. A leading contender to pay for the measure was a new tax on employee health benefits, which Obama campaigned against and many Democrats oppose.

Pelosi made clear Thursday that whatever the Senate comes up with, the House bill will have a public plan and will not tax benefits.

"We will not be taxing benefits, health care benefits in any legislation that comes from the House," Pelosi said.

"And it will have, coming out of the House, a public option," she said. "The only debate on that is what it will be called: a patient option, public option. Write in your suggestions."

How arrogant can this liberal elitist possibly be? She is dictating what we as the American public will accept. I think she has forgotten that she is supposed to represent us and not dictate what we must accept. Her blatant arrogance sickens me as it is emblematic of what is wrong with out system.

At least one moderate Democrat in the House bemoaned the rapid pace.

And with good reason, back door meetings followed by lopsided party line votes equates to the American voters getting shafted. Where is our representation in all of this? It’s not supposed to be about what they want but what “we the people” want. Damn it, they are our servants; we are not their fatted calves.

To put this whole argument into perspective here are some interesting and underreported facts about the uninsured:

Twenty-six percent of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage but do not make use of it, according to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

Twenty-one percent of the uninsured are immigrants, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that figure includes both those who are here legally and those who are not. The number of illegal immigrants who are included in the official statistics is unknown.

Twenty percent of the uninsured have family incomes of greater than $75,000 per year, according to the Census Bureau.