The Problem with Tax(es) Pledges

Neither Republicans nor Democrats can keep tax pledges. The pressure to be everyone's mommy and daddy is just too strong.

In 1991 George H.W. Bush broke his pledge, "read my lips, no new taxes". In 1994, Bill Clinton raised taxes on seasoned social security recipients.

As a lynch-pin of the 2008 hopey-changey campaign, the One, Barack Obama, pledged never to raise taxes on anyone in the middle-class earning less than $250,000, $200,000, $175,000.

Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.

Of course, the fix is in to protect the best paying health care plans negotiated for labor union contracts over the years:

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 (D-MT), 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.

Isn't the legislative process grand? In order to do what's best for all you have to buy off your constituent groups?

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) says,“It is hard for me to see how you can have a package that is paid for that does not reduce the subsidy” on employer-paid benefits, Conrad said.

Of course not...especially if your goal is eventually to drive everyone into a single payer government option.  Just make all the other options, paid for by employers and provided as fringe benefits in lieu of  higher salaries so unattractive that the victims of this ponzi scheme flock to be covered by a government that will never fund future obligations but make the healthiest pay for the least on a pay-as-you-go basis (just like social security).

I don't know if there's any way to short circuit this monstrousity...but we should sure try.