There are many lessons to be learned from the devastating outcome of Tuesday’s U.S. Senate election here in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, some of the lessons people learn will be wrong.
On the other hand, Massachusetts’ labor leader Jeff Crosby gets some very important things right in a must-read article on the Coakley/Brown race: “Hey, Democrats, Remember Us?” Let me repeat: Crosby’s article is a must read for all Democratic Party activists and engaged union members.
Also, on the evening of January 19, Hart Research Associates conducted a telephone survey of 810 voters in the special election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts for the AFL-CIO. This memo reviews the survey’s main findings.
–Leo Maley
Please share widely!
Oh what a steaming pile we make
When first we practise to triangulate
Charley says:
<
p>
<
p>I’m not sure where the evidence is for this. Even the AFL-CIO’s memo strongly suggests that the economy was the biggest issue driving many usual Democratic voters to either stay home or vote Brown. In fact, there’s no evidence that I’ve seen that suggests that the union rank-and-file has strong opinions on the “Cadillac tax.” Union leadership has certainly taken a strong position against, but they worked hard for Coakley in this election.
<
p>So, in short, what’s the basis for saying that labor votes leaving Coakley was “all about” the Cadillac tax rather than dissatisfaction about the direction of the economy?
That’s the author’s contention. I should make that clear.
Re-read Jeff Crosby’s article. Crosby is a keen observer and tenacious progressive. He does not focus exclusively on rank-and-file rejection of Obama’s Chevy tax. There is a lot more to Crosby’s observations than that, including an acknowledgment of internal weaknesses on the part of organized labor.
<
p>Union members seemingly voted for Brown by a narrow margin. Why is worth contemplating.
<
p>For those who don’t know him, Crosby is president of IUE-CWA Local 201 in Lynn, Mass., and president of the North Shore Labor Council.
<
p>–Leo Maley
Thanks for the clarification. I read the Crosby piece, but it’s not very convincing. He doesn’t provide any hard evidence for the idea that it was the Cadillac tax that had union voters turning to Brown — particularly since the AFL-CIO’s own survey found that those who thought health care was the biggest issue trended towards Coakley, and those saying the economy was #1 went for Brown.
<
p>So, the much more likely explanation is the typical dynamic that the party in power gets punished for the state of the economy, regardless of who is really to blame for getting us here.
The ‘economy’ union voters wre concerned about additional taxes (if they’re union voters, they HAVE jobs).
<
p>The ‘healthcare’ voters were politicial ideologues who take universal health insurance as a party tenet, espepecially since an 11th hour deal was brokered to protect union plans. Maybe.
<
p>As Jeff Crosby pointed out, working people often feel they will be the ones paying for social programs: “poor people” will benefit, the rich will escape, and they’ll be left holding the bill.
It wouldn’t tax employer health benefits? Can someone explain this?
How would taxing expensive insurance “keep health care costs down?” It might make more people (or more precisely, their employers) choose plans with higher deductibles and co-pays, in order to lower premiums. That does not lower health care costs; it transfers more of the costs to patients, but does not reduce the costs of the actual care. If you mean that the taxes collected will go toward subsidizing insurance policies for low-income people, that still does not lower the cost of care, so far as I can tell.
too. Taxing healthcare insurance premiuns will force employers to choose plans that either cost less – with higher copays for drugs and services, and/or it will cover less. It will make what is currently standard in Massachusetts suddenly “elective.” Perhaps the model is the cigarette tax….which tends to lower smoking, but is this where we want to go with healthcare? Treating it like a vice? Less healthcare is still less healthcare.
<
p>I’d like to se how this tax will control real costs.
And it does seem to be a tax on the middle class. A tax on the rich was proposed, they cried and hollered, and we got this junk. Why not ask those who can most afford to do so to pay for the least able among us?
Because Brown served in the Guard, drove a
pick up” truck, and represented “our values”. The Democrats clearly have failed to learn the lesson about “Whats the Matter with Kansas?” by continuing to not only let the Republicans paint them as out of touch, effete elitists, but actually doing things from going on vacation instead of talking to voters or attacking Brown for his service that actually confirm white working class voters worst suspicions about the party-that it is a hodgepodge of special interests that doesn’t care about the working man.
<
p>Had this campaign been about issues instead of personality, economics instead of culture, it would not have turned out this way. And Democrats clearly shouldn’t take the union endorsements as signs of what the rank and file will do, a lot of them are tired of wasting their dues on politics and a lot of them have culturally conservative ideas. A party that did not look down upon pro-life voters, stay at home moms, or white working class voters would be a lot more successful than the one we have now.
and you better believe that union members weren’t enamored with the idea of getting taxed 40% on their health insurance premiums. It is a tax on the middle class and it broke the promise not to tax the middle class and that distinction was not lost on union members. This did not help Martha.
Employers and Employees will get squeezed from both ends. Currently Massachusetts mandates more and more benefits – so the rates go up – then because rates have gone up under Obama’s proposal they will be taxed. Not a pretty situation. Of course under the proposal unions were exempt, and even though this exemption was set to expire – I’d bet you it would be extended.
It will cripple Massachusetts health care plans, because our insurance is more expensive. It claims to be trying to keep plan costs in check, by keeping them less expensive. Yeah, right.
<
p>The plan doesn’t tax benefits. It taxes cost. States with high costs will get hit hard, regardless of the benefits in the plans. Chevy plans will get taxed today — in a few years, in expensive states like Massachusetts, even mediocre plans will be taxed. Meanwhile, as others have said, it will give an incentive to employers and even unions to greatly worsen the quality of health care plans.
<
p>The Senate bill is crap, the tax on health care costs sickens me to think about, and if the Democrats don’t do anything about it, the unions are right to stay home. When you screw with your friends in politics, you get screwed. The democrats would not have these majorities without all the work the unions have done — shame on you and ANYONE who would seek to diminish the quality of their health care, which they bargain for in place of higher wages. Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame.
<
p>This “health care” bill has made me care a lot less about what happens to Democrats in 2010. They are going to have to prove to me they can learn and deserve to stay, if I’m going to work and volunteer for them for 2010. If we lose our majorities, it’s truly of their own doing — and it sickens me that there are members of the progressive movement blind enough to support this idiocy, which the GOP would undo in an instant if we keep up with this corporate welfare, anti-populist bull shit. This is not the way to pass health care or ANY bill meant to help Americans.
This story was a great illustration of why economists and union folks are talking past each other. NPR put a union member and an economist in the same room. Give it a listen.
<
p>Personally, I think it very unlikely that if, say, AT&T (the employer in the story) offered a lower-cost health plan, it would necessarily translate into higher wages. But maybe that’s just cynical ol’ me.
I’m shocked.
So, I wonder: why not add the tax incrementally? That is, reduce (or even keep constant) the threshold for when the tax kicks in, and increase the rate of the tax over time.
<
p>This would give unions (and others) and employers time to negotiate future increases in pay+benefits to stay below that threshold. A union who’s negotiated good benefits at the “cost” of higher wages could negotiate for higher wages and flat medical payout the next negotiation… it would “walk” the expenditure (in real dollars) down gradually, and prevent anyone from feeling a significant pinch unless they were willing to do so.
<
p>Sure, it’s not a major change all at once, and sure future Congresses could undo the change. But, why not just set it up for a future change, so that workers and employers have time to negotiate compensation packages in the future which avoid triggering this tax?
<
p>
<
p>As for David’s cynicism, it might and it might not. But, AT&T isn’t the only employer out there, and people change jobs pretty frequently. While they might not give back to current employers, HR would certainly take that calculus into negotiations on wages and bennies with future employees (and in the case of unions, into future negotiations).
The economist in the NPR story suggested that either the worker would get the money back in increased wages or maybe she didn’t really need the health insurance anyway. Maybe the high premiums her company was paying are an example of unnecessary health costs.
<
p>Employers don’t automatically pass cost savings on to workers. Unions that really work at it can force employers to do that, but it isn’t easy. Note that wage increases haven’t kept pace with productivity increases for 25 years. If they’re going to keep the revenue from increased productivity why wouldn’t they try to keep the savings from lower insurance rates?
<
p>This EPI article, also written by economists, is very interesting on the subject. Highlights:
<
p>- many high cost insurance plans are not high value plans, so any cutbacks in benefits for those plans would cut needed health care. This includes plans with few enrollees (small businesses), older workforces, etc. The relationship between the cost of premiums and the actual value of services covered is weaker than you would expect
<
p>- as business buys cheaper plans, this will increase employee copays and deductibles. Employees who use a lot of health care will end up paying more. Cost shifting like this is not health care reform. Even if it does make people use less health care, that’s not likely to be a good thing.
<
p>- Employees who don’t use much care (and the point of insurance is that you don’t necessarily know which one you will be) won’t gain much. Even assuming all the money does come back to them in raises, 2/3 of it will be eaten up by the increased copays with just average use.
<
p>- tax changes historically haven’t had much impact on health care spending. It’s not the place to look to make a significant impact on costs.
There seems widespread disbelief and anger that there is a segment of the left that won’t take beatings lying down.
<
p>Unions aren’t like Senate Democrats — they fight for their priorities, and they don’t like to be lied to and betrayed.