Recommend this article
In another behind-closed-doors deal, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have struck a deal with their union buddies to shield them from taxes the rest of us will be forced to pay. 

During private negotiations yesterday, Obama and his Dem cronies on the Hill agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping 40% "Cadillac tax" on high-cost health care plans until 2018. 

The New York Post reports that the value of union members' dental and vision plans would also be exempt from the tax, even after the deal expires in eight years. 

Understandably, labor leaders are thrilled today. Not only will unions be exempt from paying the 40% federal tax on their own "Cadillac" plans, but this deal will also likely dramatically increase their membership numbers and, consequently, their dues.  For example, if you're a small business looking to attract quality skilled workers by offering these so-called "Cadillac" health plans, would you rather a) unionize your workers, or b) pay a 40% tax on the plan?  Hmm.

And when the unions' dues revenues increase, what kind of politicians would you expect the unions put their money behind and to send back to Washington? My guess would be just more corruptocrats to tax and spend us into oblivion.  Talk about a vicious cycle...

The Post reports that "powerful unions were well-represented around the bargaining table."

Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians.

As we already know, Stern and Burger have been the most frequent visitors to the White House during President Obama's first year, logging nearly 60 visits to the West Wing so far, according to visitor logs.  

The budget for the Senate bill estimated the excise tax would raise $149 billion through 2019.  Now, with unions exempt, expect lawmakers to be hunting elsewhere for the $60 billion unions would've had to pay...

Recommend this article