About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Newsmax columnist: Extending health coverage of dependents means youths "will be enticed to continue slacking"

March 15, 2010 12:54 pm ET by Media Matters staff

From a March 14 Newsmax column by Richard Grenell, who "served as the spokesman for the last four ambassadors to the United Nations -- John Negroponte, John Danforth, John Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad":

If President Barack Obama gets his trillion dollar healthcare bill passed this week by the Democrats in Congress, parents will be required to pay for their unmarried kids' healthcare coverage until the age of 26.

And Generation Y will be enticed to continue slacking, without a job, well past college graduation. While ski bums everywhere are cheering the news that the federal government will be forcing parents to pay for their health insurance through age 26, parents are questioning why the federal government is enticing a whole generation to stay unemployed.

America has always been a place where hard work is rewarded regardless of one's age, family status or educational background. If you have an idea you are committed to and make sacrifices to further the idea, you can be wildly successful in our capitalistic system.

In America, you can launch a multi-billion dollar computer company from your garage, you can grow up homeless and make it to Harvard and you can create a worldwide social networking movement while still in college.

But you can also be a slacker if you have the means to slack. Spending a year skiing, hanging out on the beach and surfing or traveling the world are options for the few lucky ones who have parents wealthy enough to pay for such endeavors.

But should the U.S. government encourage college kids to become slackers? Does Generation Y need any more encouragement to feel entitled? And should society guarantee a 5-year hiatus from responsibility after college graduation for millions of college kids?

While it is true that many college graduates today will be self-motivated to find a career, make their own money and contribute to society, Generation Y has been the most entitled generation in history. Should the American taxpayer tempt these kids further into believing that the American dream is easy to fulfill?

Obama's healthcare bill is being celebrated on the slopes of Colorado and the surf shacks of California but is a dangerous precedent for future generations.

[...]

One could understand extending another entitlement program through age 26 in countries where the average workweek is 30 hours per week and vacation time is guaranteed at 8-10 weeks per year. But is this new proposal anti-American? We aren't supposed to reward people who don't work hard and make sacrifices to get ahead. And we aren't supposed to guarantee anything in America but a fair shot. America is a place where you prove your commitment to your family and your community through hard work and sacrifice. It is this ethic that we call American values.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 15, 2010 1:14 pm ET)
      7  
      Have any of these conservative writers been out in the real world lately?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
      5  
      Hey, Dick... I hate to burst your bubble, but kids already have all the incentive they need to be slackers. Health Insurance will not be the determining factor.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rhun1220 (March 15, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
      13  
      Hey, that's a great argument for increasing the inheritance tax. If most of the inherited money is pulled away, those lazy rich kids will lose their incentive to be slackers and find productive work. Right
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (March 15, 2010 1:27 pm ET)
        5  
        Plus, their parents won't have to spend all that money for lawyers to create "Trust Funds" and use other loopholes to bypass the Estate Tax.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 3:26 pm ET)
            10
          The estate tax is BS that money has already been taxed what gives the government the right to take another 45%
          Report Abuse
          • Author by whatIthink (March 15, 2010 3:40 pm ET)
            7  
            Unless you're one of the 2 or 3% set to inherit several million dollars, it doesn't affect you!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 3:52 pm ET)
                10
              You still failed to answer the question. Just because it doesnt affect me doesnt make it right. What give the government the right to take 45% of your assets simply because you die? FYI the exclusion rate drops from 3.5 million in 2009 to 1 million in 2011. When my father passes I will be affected by this Tax if it remains at the 1million & level.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
                6  
                Inherited money is changing hands. After you die, it's no longer yours; it becomes income for your heirs. All money is subject to taxation when it changes hands, unless specifically exempted.

                It doesn't matter that it's "already been taxed". When I buy something, the money I spend has already been taxed, but it is still subject to sales tax.

                You fail.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 4:08 pm ET)
                7  
                By the way, if you inherit a million from your father, then good for you... that first million will not be taxed. If you can't retire in comfort on a million dollars, you're an idiot.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 4:17 pm ET)
                    9
                  A million dollars in assets does t mean that I’ll get a million dollars you’re a fool. It also applies to real-estate! My father doest have much in the terms of liquid assets. My father is a farmer and owns maybe a million in land, probably another million in equipment. That’s million in assets. At 55% I would owe the government 550,000 $. The only way I could possible pay that is 1 thought massive loans that I would have difficulty paying off. Or 2 sell off parts of the family farms. You honestly think the government has the right to take 550,000 of my father’s money that took him a life time to accumulate simple because he died?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 4:31 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Because, once he's dead, he doesn't own it any more. You could sell it, then retire in comfort. If somebody gives you two million dollars worth of assets, why shouldn't you pay taxes on it? Again, the first million would be tax free.

                    By the way, I would support an exemption for working farms. But that could be done easily without scrapping the inheritance tax altogether.

                    The republicans fighting for its repeal don't give a rat's a$$ about people like you... they're out to protect their vast family fortunes.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
                        7
                      Why does it matter if it a farm or another business. People should be allowed to pass things down their children without being punished for being to successful.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 4:50 pm ET)
                        8
                      Do you think 55% is a reasonable tax rate? Even capital gain taxes aren’t this high.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by magnolialover (March 15, 2010 4:55 pm ET)
                        4  
                        Well, actually, let's say your father passes away this year (I don't want this to happen, I'm just saying if it did):

                        You would not get taxed on anything up to 3.5 million in assets.

                        If he passed away in 2010, there is no estate tax at all.

                        The law, as it stands, is supposed to sunset in 2011.

                        Estate tax and limits

                        So, as it stands now, you'd be all good with your 2 million in assets through the rest of this year, unless Congress renews the law (which I honestly think they should) in 2011.

                        And, if we get republicans running Congress in 2011, count on it being renewed. I would hazard to guess that most democrats might vote for this as well.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:10 pm ET)
                            4
                          It's allread set to come back in 2011 at 55% @ 1 million!

                          FYI my father is alive and well!
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 5:01 pm ET)
                        2  
                        I think Estate Tax should be the same as Income Tax. 55% probably is a little too high.

                        As far as "punishing success", I disagree with that worn-out Rush Limbaugh talking point. Tax is the fee you pay for living in an organized society.

                        Before you get all huffy about the Government taxing your father's success, maybe you should look into what kind of help he got from the Department of Agriculture over the years. It might surprise you.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by magnolialover (March 15, 2010 5:05 pm ET)
                          1  
                          I too think that 55% is too much, but I don't think it would be out of bounds to tax it at the capital gains rate, whatever that is these days (12%? 15%? Not sure).

                          Because at the end of the day, that's what it really would be, a capital gains.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
                            3
                          Some but not much most of our farm is in the Cattle sector there aren’t any subsidies available for cattle farmers. I think ther are some for dairy farmers but we sell Angus for beef and breeding. I am opposed to the whole concept of subsidies.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (March 15, 2010 8:18 pm ET)
                      2  
                      There's no evidence that a SINGLE working farm has EVER had to be sold to pay inheritance taxes. Not one.

                      It's totally bogus and is only fearmongering on the part of rightwingers, as they so commonly do.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highliter (March 16, 2010 12:28 pm ET)
                           
                        Because the exemption amount was 3.5 million Its only going to be 1 million in 2010. I know allot of farmers (actually all) that have over a million in assets including my father. Are you saying that we are somehow not going to have to pay the death tax? They answer is I will, but I wont sell anything off ill mortgage the land off to pay the taxes. But I guess that’s ok with you, since I probably don’t deserve it any way right?
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by highliter (March 16, 2010 12:28 pm ET)
                           
                        Because the exemption amount was 3.5 million Its only going to be 1 million in 2010. I know allot of farmers (actually all) that have over a million in assets including my father. Are you saying that we are somehow not going to have to pay the death tax? They answer is I will, but I wont sell anything off ill mortgage the land off to pay the taxes. But I guess that’s ok with you, since I probably don’t deserve it any way right?
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by John Paradox (March 15, 2010 5:09 pm ET)
                    2  
                    http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html#8:

                    What about the value of my family business/farm?
                    Generally, the fair market value of such interests owned by the decedent are includible in the gross estate at date of death. However, for certain farms or businesses operated as a family farm or business, reductions to these amounts may be available.

                    In the case of a qualifying Family Farm, IRC §2032A allows a reduction from value of up to $820,000.

                    If the decedent owned an interest in a qualifying family owned business, a deduction from the gross estate in the amount of up to $1,100,000 may be available under IRC §2057.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 15, 2010 8:16 pm ET)
            2  
            No, the estate tax is NOT money that's already been taxed - that's a gross and disgusting LIE.

            When an employee gets his paycheck, he receives an amount of money AFTER a bunch of taxes have been taken out of it.

            He then pays his electric bill. Whatever part of that payment is profit for the electric company gets taxed.

            He also gives money to the local grocery store. They too pay taxes on whatever 'income' they have, which is money received minus costs of doing business.

            Well, a relative who inherits money or property from someone has NO costs - all that money is 'income'. And so the person receiving it has to pay taxes on it.

            The taxes I pay as an employee don't exempt any money I give to others from ANY further taxes.

            This is a ridiculous argument that's been debunked countless times!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 1:32 pm ET)
        5  
        I'm sure the Troglodytes would argue that, since the inheritance tax only affects about 2% of the population, it would have little impact on the job market. Oh, wait... can they admit that?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by goesto11 (March 15, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
      5  
      """"In America, you can launch a multi-billion dollar computer company from your garage, you can grow up homeless and make it to Harvard and you can create a worldwide social networking movement while still in college.""""

      I love when Right Wingers cite these kinds of examples, as if these are the usual -- and recommended -- ways people succeed in America.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (March 15, 2010 2:14 pm ET)
      3  
      Another example of the typical diatribe that comes out every once in awhile about how kids are slackers. We've been seeing these things probably for as long as there have been newspapers, and or editorials of one kind or another. Every "older" generation always talks about how the younger generation are "slackers" and or aren't hard working enough. This is a new twist on the whole, if you give them health care, they'll slack more.

      I'm pretty sure anyone who is around 21-26 years of age doesn't really need more incentive to slack off than they already have. OK, I shouldn't say, most, but there are plenty out there. Heck, I've got friends who are in their 30's that are still slacking off.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (March 15, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
      6 1
      -- parents will be required to pay for their unmarried kids' healthcare coverage until the age of 26. -- Grenell

      SEC. 2714. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

      -- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make such coverage available for an adult child (who is not married) until the child turns 26 years of age. --

      I don't see where parents are required to pay for anything. Grenell could have written an article about American work ethics and values and left out the drivel about health care coverage...instead of this Hannityesque load of horse apples.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (March 15, 2010 2:34 pm ET)
        3  
        Thanks, wesley. I had noticed that and was looking to see if anyone else made that point. Good catch and comment.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (March 15, 2010 2:56 pm ET)
      5  
      The Teabaggers always have this obession with " someone getting a free ride". Or someone is "taking" something from me. Or some "lazy good for nothing Ethnic group" is out for a hand out. The biggest "Welfare Mama" out there is the U.S. military. It wastes billions of tax dollars every year and yet the Fiscal Conservatives can only see entightlment programs that need to be cut. And most of these people who claim to "work" so hard. Have you seen their waistlines? I think that the only real physical activity most of these bums get is complaining about everyone else.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solagratia (March 15, 2010 3:25 pm ET)
        1 1
        My cousin lost his leg and part of his arm dodging bullets in the desert to protect your freedom and prevent a repeat of 9/11. I'd like you to look him in the eye and call him a "bum" to his face.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 3:36 pm ET)
          9

        The people in the US military bust there asses so dumbasses like yourself can run off at the mouth. We work for our money we don’t sit at home and collect checks. There is also the minor difference of maybe having to die for your country. You should be publicly flogged for calling the member so f the US military welfare mommas. I grantee that I have done more in my 10 year in the military that you have done in your entire worthless life.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by whatIthink (March 15, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
          5  
          Billions of dollars are spent on unneeded weapons systems. The only people benefiting from it are the defense contractors. The soldiers on the ground get nothing out if. Case in point, all the money wasted on the F-22 and all the money being wasted on the F-35. Billions and billions right there that hasn't benefited one single soldier. Spending billions and billions on a nuclear arsenal every year. Why not cut the arsenal to say, enough to destroy the earth only 2 or 3 times. Billions and billions are spent on private contractors. Why not use that money to expand raise soldeirs pay which would expand enlistment and expand the numbers of soldiers available so that private contractors would not be needed. The US is repsonsible for almost 50% of the worldwide spending on the military. Of the money in the defense budget, only about $120 billion goes towards personnel costs. Guess where the other $600 billion or so go?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 4:03 pm ET)
              8

            How would you know what is unneeded? If we don’t keep developing superior jet fighters the rest of the world will catch up. But hey I guess that what most liberals want a diminished US military. We are the lone remaining superpower for a reason. We R&D superior weapon systems. What plains should we fly if not the F-22. And F-35?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 4:13 pm ET)
              4  
              It would be nice to have a plane like the F-22, but, apparently, it has so many glitches that it's almost useless.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
                  8
                Not true at all. I know F-22 pilots they say are the badest plains in the sky. All planes have glitches in the beginning. The F-22 can track 24-30 targets and engage up to eight at the same time. Obam didn’t shelve them because of glitches he claimed that we didn’t need a air-superiority fighter since there is no one who can put up a fight even without the Raptor.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by nerzog (March 15, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Except that it doesn't work very well in the rain. But you're right, problems do eventually get solved... but is it worth the price tag?

                  Isn't it intellectually inconsistent to argue that we can't afford to insure everybody, but we can afford to spend billions on plains that only work about 60% of the time?
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (March 15, 2010 4:57 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Actually, they were not shelved at all. He just didn't buy the second order of them. They're are still plenty of F-22s in the inventory.

                  The F-15, even though it is old, is still the baddest plane in the sky (aside from the Raptor). As in, nobody else has a plane that can match that.

                  We bought planes basically we didn't have a requirement for. Nobody had built anything even near the Eagle, but we spent lots of money on planes that we didn't need.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by whatIthink (March 15, 2010 5:21 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Who are we getting ready to go to war with that we need to spend so much money on new weapons systems? No one we've gone to war with since Vietnam came close to matching our air superiority. During Vietnam, it was because the Soviets were not only selling Migs, but also providing the pilots. What country are we getting ready to fight? How paranoid do you have to be to justify so much money being spent on weapons development. How about we ratchet our spending down to say only 25% of the total worldwide military expenditure? It'll still be exponententially more than any other country.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:28 pm ET)
                      4
                    CHINA!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by whatIthink (March 15, 2010 5:54 pm ET)
                      1  
                      If we get into any kind of war with China, it's going to be an economic war, not a shooting war. Besides, the weapons we already have in service are generations better than what the Chinese have. Reports have China being able to field something comparable to the F-22 by 2025, and even then only in limited numbers. We're also still the only coountry in the world that has Nimitz class super carriers.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
                          2
                        Yes and i want to keep it that way and not allow them to catch up!
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by highliter (March 16, 2010 11:14 am ET)
                             
                          well apparently there are at lease two thumbs down people who wish for communist china to catch up to us militarily.
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (March 15, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
                1  
                True. The Raptor has not been used once over Afghanistan or Iraq because it's sensors are TOO sensitive, and all of the interference from the ground wreaks havoc with the plane, and you're basically flying blind.

                For Highlighter, we already have a fighter plane that is superior to what everyone has, and it's called the F-15 Eagle. The only folks in the world who fly better than we do are the Israelis, and they're our friends. I think the F-35 should have been the only new plane developed, as it can go across many different service segments.

                The billions dropped on the F-22 could have been better used to do things such as, build more MRAPs for the guys on the ground. Provide better body armor/faster for the guys on the ground. Improve their main weapon (the M-4) so it works better in desert and high mountain environments. Maybe work on new camo patterns that actually work. And so on.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:31 pm ET)
                    4
                  Ok what do we do wait for the rest of the world to catch up? It takes 20 years to develope a new fighter. We have got to stay ahead.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:31 pm ET)
                    3
                  Ok what do we do wait for the rest of the world to catch up? It takes 20 years to develope a new fighter. We have got to stay ahead.
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (March 15, 2010 4:12 pm ET)
      3  
      People who get all red-faced and angry over criticizing our sacred military should stop and think. Maybe you might have to die for your country? Have you ever thought to ask what are soldiers being asked to die for? As if the act in itself justifies the means. I am a WORKING American and have been my whole life. The only thing that upsets me is to see decent working-class folks who just want something better for themselves and their children. But instead you get respones about how the military is the sacred cow and you better not even think about touching her. If some working-class person has a decent kid who deserves a chance at higher education but their parents can't afford it maybe my tax dollars would be well spent to help them out. Instead it's all the loudmouths who would say it's much better to spend any multiple of the amount of a college education to slap a rifle in some kid's hand and send him/her God knows where. The politician who starts these things don't send their kids off to war. Neither does the rich man. But yet it's the poorest among us who will scream the loudest to defend this unjust unequal system. Patriotism does not mean you have to be blind. Or stupid.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
          7
        If some working-class person has a decent kid who deserves a chance at higher education but their parents can't afford it maybe my tax dollars would be well spent to help them out.

        Join the army your get free college! That’s what I did. But I guess you would rather just give them the money for doing absolutely nothing!

        The politician who starts these things don't send their kids off to war.


        Umm yes they do lots of politicians’ have kids in the army.


        WTF does Working American mean anyway?

        If decent working class folks want a better life they need to get a skill that will enable them to obtain that better life. No one is going to or should just hand it to them!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (March 15, 2010 4:52 pm ET)
          2  
          The politicians who started our current wars are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The people who sold the war for them are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh among others.

          None of them have immediate family members who went to war. None of the people listed went to war. In fact every single one of them (except for Hannity, who wasn't old enough), went to extraordinary lengths so that someone else would go to fight the war they supported.

          Spare us your speeches about who goes to war.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:07 pm ET)
              6
            Here is a list of a few polititions who have family members serving
            Sen Tim Johnson
            John Ashcroft
            Sen Christopher Bond
            Duncan Hunter
            Joe Wilson 3 sons in the military
            James Web
            John Mcain
            John Kline
            Joseph Biden
            Jim saxon
            Ike Skelton
            Todd Akin
            Sara Palin\
            Get the picture yet?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:07 pm ET)
              5
            Here is a list of a few polititions who have family members serving
            Sen Tim Johnson
            John Ashcroft
            Sen Christopher Bond
            Duncan Hunter
            Joe Wilson 3 sons in the military
            James Web
            John Mcain
            John Kline
            Joseph Biden
            Jim saxon
            Ike Skelton
            Todd Akin
            Sara Palin\
            Get the picture yet?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (March 15, 2010 5:52 pm ET)
              3  
              Wasn't aware that those people STARTED the wars, or promoted them on their programs.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
                  4
                Many of them voted for authorization to go war.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (March 15, 2010 6:21 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Voting isn't starting.

                  The post you replied to didn't mention voting for war, but those who start wars.

                  Our wars have historically been fought by others, not the sons and daughters of politicians.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (March 15, 2010 5:03 pm ET)
          3  
          Not lots of politicians, less than 1 percent have sons or daughters serving currently.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (March 15, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
              5
            Well considering only about half a percent of the total Americans currently serving that’s not too bad now is it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (March 16, 2010 11:17 am ET)
                1
              Wow 5 thumbs down and not one response apparently people dont like politicians having family members in the military.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (March 16, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
                   
                As usual, you miss the point. The majority of the hawks who continually vote for war and death either didn't serve and/or have children who don't serve.

                It's the hypocrisy, not the service. Make a note of it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by highliter (March 16, 2010 12:18 pm ET)
                    1
                  Less than half a percent currently serve in our military. Are you saying that half a percent should get to choose when we got to war. Because if we get to choose your not going to like the answer!
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (March 15, 2010 5:01 pm ET)
      3  
      Apparently standing up straight and marching in a line doesn't improve your critical thinking!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (March 15, 2010 6:42 pm ET)
      1  
      Conservatives always assume the worst in human beings (maybe because of original sin) and that's why their minds immediately go to the most negative aspect of almost every situation. Simply put - they don't trust anyone.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MsYellowDog (March 15, 2010 6:58 pm ET)
      1  
      When you start off with a false premise,(i.e.--people are by nature slothful),these are the sorts of conclusions that the Right always offers as "proof" of government help destroying initiative. Nothing could be further from the truth,and I truly pity those who voice such self-delusion in honor of saying their politics are "conservative."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by highlyunlikely (March 15, 2010 8:13 pm ET)
      2 2
      backward reasoning, a tricky proposition, is best left to the experts. this guy is a rank amateur.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.