Let's get this started. Unions get special treatment?

[Veldan Rath]

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW?
By
Neal Boortz
@ January 15, 2010 9:34 AM Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBacks (0)


More insensitive fun at iowntheworld.com
Well, there's one American concept that certainly doesn't hold water with the Obama crowd. The idea our founding fathers had was pretty solid. The law would apply equally to every person in this country - rich or poor, weak or strong. There would be no privileged classes in this country to who the law would not apply.

That's not the way it is with the Democrats and Obama.

Have you heard about the deal The Community Organizer reached with his union supporters last night? Look ... I've been telling you that this was on the way for three days. You could search high and low in the newspapers and on line and find very little to suggest what was going to happen ... but if you were listening to this show and reading my blog, you saw it coming.

The unions were at the White House telling Obama that they weren't going to support his health care takeover. And why not? Because Obama was going to pay for part of his takeover with a tax on what we're calling "Cadillac" health insurance plans. These are health insurance plans that go past the usual coverage by providing such things as dental and vision coverage.

Something had to be done to keep the unions on board. The Democrats are already facing a rough time in this year's elections and they certainly didn't need union members sitting on their hands on election day. So a deal had to be made. If it meant violating the concept of equal protection under the law ... well then, you do what you have to do; expecially if you're Barack Obama and you believe that your whole presidency rests on your ability to achieve the lifelong Democrat dream of seizing control of the American health care system.

Here's the deal they reached last night. If you're an ordinary citizen who has one of these "Cadillac" health care plan you will pay an excise tax on the plan. If you're an ordinary citizen who has a "Cadillac" plan, but you happen to be a union member, you will NOT pay the tax.

Can you believe this is happening in our country? The government tells you that you're going to have to pay a special tax on your health insurance plan .. unless, that is, you happen to be a union member - or if you happen to work for city or state government. Then you won't have to pay the tax.

I'll try to make this a bit more clear. You live at 123 Main Street. Your neighbor lives at 125 Main street. You're big pals. You drive a truck for one trucking company, your pal drives a similar truck for another company. Your families vacation together. Your kids play together every afternoon. Both of you earn pretty much the same salary and live in houses that are worth the same. You drive cars of equal value. You have similar dreams and aspirations for your two families. Both of you earn some pretty good bucks and you both have comprehensive health care plans - health care plans that the Democrats would call "Cadillac" plans. There is only one difference between you and your bud. The company you work for is not unionized. Your pal is a member of the Teamster's Union. So ... if Obama has his way with his so-called health insurance reform you will end up paying a tax on your health care plan. Your pal won't.

Is that the way you believe America should work? Should a politician come up with a new tax plan to generate some more revenue, and then chose some favored constituencies to be exempt from that plan?

Some idiot on Fox News this morning said that the union workers who are getting the break deserve the break because they have "high risk jobs." This girl worked for something called the Roosevelt Institute and had to be one of the most insiplidly ignorant people I've ever seen trying to fake intelligence in my life.

Elections have consequences. The election Tuesday in Massachusetts will have consequences. We really need to start paying attention.

So, what happened to the Hopey Changey thing about special interests or something?

[GGT]

I wonder who has MORE special treatment tho--unions or big insurance?
We all know insurers who sell the Cadillac plans most likely gave their seal of approval for this 'deal'.
It's all a rigged scheme at this point.

(Author misspelled 'choose')

[Dreadnaught]

And what does it say about the writers of this bill that they are so willing to blatantly sell out?

[Loki]

Presumably that they're worried about their reelection prospects.

[Lewkowski]

What is up with this thread? A blatant attempt to make me bother registering here I see.

Unions suck the productivity out of everything. I wouldn't even be opposed in theory to the idea of a union if it actually tried to insist on performance based metrics as opposed to the most retarded of reasons for advancements and pay increase... tenure.

It really is too much to hope for for Coakley to lose on Tuesday but man would it be sweet.

[GGT]

"The Deal", as I understand it, was the tax would take effect in 2014 for everyone except municipalities and unions; they have until 2018. Their savings is significant.

So what about congress and other government employees, who also have these Golden Cadillac plans, subsidized by the tax payer?

If I had my druthers, I'd get politicians off the public teat ASAP. Then maybe real reform can happen.

[Loki]

You forget selection bias. A certain kind of a person runs for political office in this country. Removing all the current politicians would do little other than replace experienced, self-serving lawyers with inexperienced, self-serving lawyers.

[GGT]

Pols off the public teat meant---make them buy their own damn insurance, so they can see how difficult it is.

As long as they have the Golden Egg, they're not gonna kill the Goose.

[rumrunner]

I once wqsa union member and found many things wrong and right about it(the union). In concept, they would bring consistency and accountibility to the trades, and they almost do.
But back-room deals like this sully a reputation already crippled by corruption.

[ImAnOgre]

This thread makes me happy..... starting right where we left off..... and Lewk is here too.... Today is a good day.

[LittleFuzzy]

Obama can't make a deal. There's no legislation for him to sign yet. Pointless panicmongering until something starts taking real shape in the Housep-Senate bill reconciliation committee.

[rumrunner]

he can still use his veto power and influence as bargaining chips. This is probably the 'deal'.

[Parmenio]

Testing testing, I wasn't posting during the last election, but i was actually talking people down from ledges about Obama... He made me look like an ass...

[agamemnus]

I can see this as something that government workers would have -- it's basically a pay raise. But for unions? They are not government entities, and a law shouldn't favor one company over another "randomly". Well, they have more political power, so that's not random. In every other sense it is, though.

In any case they probably won't get another chance to rewrite this -- depends on how the Mass. election goes on Tuesday.

[rumrunner]

I can see this as something that government workers would have -- it's basically a pay raise. But for unions? They are not government entities, and a law shouldn't favor one company over another "randomly". Well, they have more political power, so that's not random. In every other sense it is, though.

In any case they probably won't get another chance to rewrite this -- depends on how the Mass. election goes on Tuesday.

Historically this has been something of a state issue. Some states are 'union states' where the unions have great power over employment and the benefits that workers must be given. Others are 'right to work' states where employers are in full control, within the federal guidelines that is. I don't know the full details of any deal that may have been reached , but it sounds to me like the unions have overstepped their bounds here.

[Weber]

I was in the United Steelworkers Union. They had some pull but not as much as they wanted at that particular facility. I think a lot does depend on what company you are working at.

[rumrunner]

I was in the United Steelworkers Union. They had some pull but not as much as they wanted at that particular facility. I think a lot does depend on what company you are working at.

More the union you belong to. some are stronger than others. Your union hall may have had to make some compromises, and your facility took the brunt of the shit.

[termite]

Unions are essentially a lobby group, quite a powerful one in many countries, and like any lobby group they like to get something in return for all that err lobbying.

[Hazir]

Unions are essentially a lobby group, quite a powerful one in many countries, and like any lobby group they like to get something in return for all that err lobbying.

It's a bit confusing for me though every time US unions are brought up. They seem to have an inane sort of power in some places while being irrelevant in other places. I'd sure say unions in The Netherlands have influence but that's the kind of influence any big group of people would have in a country; they sure as hell don't get preferential teeatment in any other way. It would be unintelligible for the average dutch person that you would have to be a union member to get health insurance or even a job in your industry. Still that seems to be the norm in parts of the US economy.

[GGT]

It really is too much to hope for for Coakley to lose on Tuesday but man would it be sweet.

Brown won.

But I notice how you phrased that...did you just want Coakley to lose?

[Dreadnaught]

There's some evidence that Coakley was a pretty poor choice given some of her decisions as state AG.

But more importantly to me, she represented an embarrassing direction for democratic politicians. If Brown indeed wins, I think it's a great sign of balance being restored to some key issues like the health care debate and tax policy.

[Being]

There's some evidence that Coakley was a pretty poor choice given some of her decisions as state AG.

But more importantly to me, she represented an embarrassing direction for democratic politicians. If Brown indeed wins, I think it's a great sign of balance being restored to some key issues like the health care debate and tax policy.

Do you feel you pay too much tax?

[Dreadnaught]

For the services I'm getting from my government, yes. I would prefer my taxes be slightly lower.

Besides, if they were I would probably spend more of my income, so the government would get it back via sales tax and income tax on the people I spent it on.

[Being]

I meant compared to others. Of course we all want to streamline government but how do you feel about the amount of tax you pay compared to those who pay more and those who pay less?