It’s more than obvious that the obama Administration is beholden to the Unions — it’s more like “bend-over-and-grab-your-ankles-‘cuz-here-we-come!” kind of beholden to the Unions. First the Unions were given preferential treatment in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies — even give a percentage of the companies overthe preferred shareholders, who got only pennies on the dollar for their investments (in violation of hundreds of years of bankruptcy law) — when what was killing the companies was pricely that — the “legacy costs of the Unions (i.e., exorbitantly high salaries, perpetual retirement benefits, etc.)
Now, as the Obama Goons stampede madly towards Nationalized Single-Payer Healthcare like a demented Kamikaze pilot drawing a bead on an ammunition ship, the question of “how the hell are we going to pay for this monstrosity with already suicidally high deficits looming, the ideal choice would be new taxes — specifically, taxing the already existing health care benefits you and I have now.
June 26 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.
The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.
“I can’t think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that often criticizes Democrats’ economic proposals. Edwards said the carve-out “smacks of political favoritism.”
Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is proposing to tax Americans whose health insurance is valued at a higher rate than what is offered to federal employees. About 40 percent of insured Americans have costlier benefits, and Baucus has said he is trying to set the level at which taxes would be imposed high enough so fewer people are affected.
Uh-huh. Different rates are still not “equal”, Max. And “not equal” is not fair, is it?