White House Spin on 'Cadillac' Tax Ignores 3 Decades of Corporate Behavior

[laughingliberal]

Cadillac Tax Feud: House, Senate Dems Tangle

<snip>"It is crucial that we pass major health care reform and we are closer than ever to doing so. But, it is just as important that we don't do so on the backs of working families by taxing their benefits," AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka told the Huffington Post.

But the Senate holds the cards, since the bill will die without a 60th vote. And they have the backing of the White House -- despite the fact that President Obama vigorously campaigned against the measure during the 2008 election. This Monday, labor leaders are being summoned to meet with the president to discuss their opposition. But already the arguments are being laid out to placate their concerns.

The Senate aide, when asked what how to reconcile the differences between the two chambers, said that they had to "convince unions that with this they can bargain for wages, not for health care." The logic, union officials argue, is more than a bit stretched, as employers seem likely to pocket the money saved on downsized health care plans rather then turn them into wage bumps. But the administration is also pushing this point.

"What you are basically doing is what should be celebrating," explained the administration official. "We are translating lower health care costs for higher wages. That is a good deal for workers." <snip>


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/cadillac-tax-feud-house-s_n_416204.html

Anyone here who buys this line that once the employers dump decent health care coverage for their employees for the crap plans the industry is now pushing they are going to reverse 30 years of downward pressure on wages and pay us all lots of money? Are they just going to keep pissing on us and telling us it's raining? Who would have thought during the campaign that this is where the President would dig in and make his stand on the health care reform bill? The article also notes this "cadillac tax" is a 'ticking time bomb' for Democratic representatives who all have to run for reelection this year. One House official observed the Senate and president were dug in on this but that they are not all facing a reelection campaign this year. This is screw the workers, the middle class, the unions, and the House in one fell swoop and THIS is where he finally shows up and takes a stand? It is looking more like the president finds progressives in the House a bother and believes a more Republican mix would be more convenient. I don't like to think that but the preponderance of evidence keeps leading me back to this conclusion.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Yes, I don't believe the argument that this is going to translate into higher wages

Every economist will tell you that productivity gains are also supposed to translate into higher wages, but despite our major productivity increases over the past several decades wages have been stagnant except for the top few percent. Whatever force used to exist to wring wage concessions out of corporate leadership has evaporated, so any savings that accrue from this tax will assuredly go to the usual suspects: the people cruising by on that yacht over there.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[Fumesucker]

3. To paraphrase a line from Grace in Avatar:

They'll keep pissing on us without even the courtesy of calling it rain..

[laughingliberal]

5. Lol! Have not seen Avatar but that is a priceless line! nt

[jgraz]

6. Yep, they aren't even trying to hide it any longer.

The class war is almost complete. Now they're just mopping up.

[laughingliberal]

8. It's frightening how true that is. It's all over but the crying for the average American nt

[Brickbat]

4. That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

The day savings are passed on in the form of wage increases is the day the sun rises in the west.

[Better Believe It]

7. I disagree. The House holds the cards. Without 218 votes the bill dies.

It only passed with 5 votes last time.

[laughingliberal]

9. Oh, I agree they hold the cards. My fear is they will, once again, not play the hand they have

How many times do Democrats and, specifically, progressive Democrats back down? It is just nuts. And what in the hell do they get for their efforts? Pissed on by the presidents angry dwarf. Can they extract no concessions, even, for their support. No, they cave and go on. It's not even compromise. Compromise would suggest they get something in return.

[mdmc]

10. At least if we lose congress we can spend the next 7 years

like Clinton.. then we can pal around with the bushes after it is all done..

[laughingliberal]

11. Yes, and how nice for them. One, big, happy family nt

[bvar22]

12. How can the White House spin this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM&feature=player_embedded

[laughingliberal]

14. It is indefensible. I emailed the link to the White House

I hope others will as well. I also twittered it. Hope it goes viral.

[ThomCat]

19. That video is exactly right.

:(

[indepat]

13. Seems a preposterously mendacious, duplicitous, and disingenuous line of rhetoric none

but the most gullible, ignorant, and misinformed could possibly swallow even an iota of. :P

[doc03]

15. This is unbelievable, they are going to take our

our hard earned benefits from us and they actually think the savings will be passed on as higher wages, how f----g stupid can they be. Nearly every strike we have had in this country the last 3 decades has been to keep health-care insurance and retirement benefits and now the government forces us to give them up. :nuke:

[laughingliberal]

17. +1000

[doc03]

16. If this is our reward for electing Democrats I will

be more than happy to give up control of the Congress to kill this abomination of a health-care bill.

[LiberalFighter]

18. The only way it will translate into higher wages is with Single Payer.

No opt outs. No insurance companies.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

20. It's not just the corporation-employers who're at fault. Also doctors, hospitals

... also Big Pharma, insurance companies.

Now it is true that in the years when health costs don't rise so much,
annual hourly wages rise faster. (data from J. American Med Assn 2008.
Unfortunately, JAMA articles usually aren't open to the public!)

So it is also true that if we could hold back medical inflation,
wages might go up a bit more.
Problem is, this heavy tax is a very bad way to do this.
Especially in the short run, it mainly hurts the workers.

So what can we do to restrain rapid health care inflation?
The unions really need to work on that,
work on education and monopoly-breaking,
and stop trusting others to do the right thing.
That hasn't worked in a long, long time.