
The International Association of Fire Fighters--an influential union that belongs to the AFL-CIO--has released the strongest condemnation yet of President Obama's support for taxing high-end health insurance plans as a means of financing a major health care overhaul--accusing him of breaking a campaign promise, and threatening to hold him accountable.
"If candidates make a promise to us, we hold them accountable. We held President Bush accountable when he made decisions that had a negative impact on our members' jobs and lives. We will do the same with President Obama," reads a statement from IAFF President Harold Schaitberger. "In 2008, then-candidate Obama promised three things: he said he would not raise taxes on folks making less than $250,000 a year; he vowed not to tax health insurance benefits; and he promised that under his health reform plan, people would be able to keep their existing coverage."
Now, President Obama supports the misguided excise tax passed by the Senate. The Senate bill will either subject the health care coverage provided to thousands of America's fire fighters to a tax or those benefits will be slashed to avoid the tax....The president's support for the excise tax is a huge disappointment and cannot be ignored. If President Obama continues to support it and signs a bill that includes the excise tax on workers, we will hold him accountable.
The rebuke comes as Obama meets with a host of labor leaders, including AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, at the White House tonight to sell them on his support of the tax, and find common ground.
Trumka made clear earlier today, that his organization's top priorities in health care reform are the public option, the employer mandate, and the elimination of the excise tax. With the public option gone, and Obama still foursquare behind the excise tax, it seems evident that the country's largest labor federation will walk away from the health care fight badly disappointed. Trumka, however, declined to say whether he could ultimately support a bill that didn't address his top priorities.
Tomorrow evening, House Democrats, who overwhelmingly oppose the excise tax in the Senate bill, will gather to discuss health care reform at a caucus meeting. You can bet the excise tax will be a key focal point for them.
You can read Schaitberger's entire statement below.
"The core political principle of this union is 'we support those who support us.' If candidates make a promise to us, we hold them accountable. We held President Bush accountable when he made decisions that had a negative impact on our members' jobs and lives. We will do the same with President Obama."Throughout the debate on health care reform - even before excise tax on so-called high-cost health plans was proposed - this union made it clear to Congress and President Obama that our goal is reducing health care costs, preserving the benefits our members already have and avoiding piling more taxes on the backs of hardworking Americans.
"In 2008, then-candidate Obama promised three things: he said he would not raise taxes on folks making less than $250,000 a year; he vowed not to tax health insurance benefits; and he promised that under his health reform plan, people would be able to keep their existing coverage.
"Now, President Obama supports the misguided excise tax passed by the Senate. The Senate bill will either subject the health care coverage provided to thousands of America's fire fighters to a tax or those benefits will be slashed to avoid the tax.
"We have made it clear to every senator and representative on Capitol Hill and President Obama that we are fully and completely opposed to this tax.
"The health care reform bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives does not contain the excise tax, and the House leadership continues to stand with us. We applaud our House allies for their courage as they wage this battle. This union will continue to fight to keep the excise tax out of the final bill.
"The president's support for the excise tax is a huge disappointment and cannot be ignored. If President Obama continues to support it and signs a bill that includes the excise tax on workers, we will hold him accountable."

Barack ObamaJob Approval |
45.6%Approve | 49.8%Disapprove | -4.2Spread |
CongressionalGeneric Ballot |
42.1%DEM | 44.9%GOP | +2.8SpreadR |
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Mad As Hell
January 11, 2010 6:33 PM
The excise tax does not apply to plans of high risk professions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 11, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to Mad As Hell
In the version of the bill passed by the Senate, the excise tax does apply to plans of high risk professions, however there is an exception where the ceiling before the excise tax kicks in is higher for those professions (by $1350 for individual plans, $3000 for family plans).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 11, 2010 6:34 PM
read my lips no new taxes on folks making less than $250,000 a year
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 11, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Sometimes reality gets in the way. Plus $250,000/yr is a shitload of money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 12, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to Dorn76
that's the argument the first Bush made.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 11, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to Indie Pro
The tax is on insurance companies. By this reasoning, we shouldn't raise taxes on energy companies or banks because they would just pass some of the added cost onto consumers.
This isn't to say there isn't a good, progressive argument against the excise tax, but this rhetorical sleight of hand ain't it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 12, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Stroszek
is this not the reasoning of the CBO as well? Is this not the reasoning behind the tax all together. It is supposed to raise the rates of those policies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 11, 2010 7:11 PM
Advocates say taxing benefits also makes good economic sense. The rewards of the current tax break fall heavily to the wealthy, and there is no similar tax break for workers who must buy insurance on their own. Many economists also dislike it because it encourages workers to take compensation in the form of health care instead of higher wages, pushing resources into the health system and increasing costs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 11, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to Dorn76
That blurb is from The WaPo today. Sorry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061402769_2.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 11, 2010 7:40 PM in reply to Dorn76
Yeah, they're probably the same economists who told you "free trade" and NAFTA would be good for wages.
The middle-class is a cost. It must be cut.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 11, 2010 8:11 PM in reply to bluebell
That's getting old, Bell. I mean are we just supposed to find out what people with expertise and training and experience in an area say we should do and then do the exact opposite for no other reason than because this one time an expert said something that turned out not to be true?
Well, as it happens, we ran that experiment. It was called the Bush-Cheney Administration. I don't really don't think it would work out much better for the country if we did the same thing, just because our ideology is different.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 11, 2010 11:28 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yes, I'm beating a dead horse but just because the horse is dead doesn't mean I'm going to ride with the folks who killed it! They could have done something simple and honest and expanded Medicare. Instead, they've created this monster bill and I don't trust any of it. I may be proved wrong in the future but for now I'm sticking with my view that if it's so damn complicated that only economists and experts and people smarter than any of my neighbors can understand it then whatever is in this bill is not likely to be a new pony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 12, 2010 1:30 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
There's simply no amount of hypocrisy and no amount of outright lying on Obama's behalf you won't make an excuse for is there? He lied on this specific issue to the public and promised labor he would not do precisely what he is doing. But that's okay because that was then and this is now huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 12, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to oleeb
amen to that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 12, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to oleeb
What in the fuck are you even talking about? I'm asking a question that's only peripherially germane to my position on this issue. Substantively, I was for the excise tax on high-end plans before Obama even took sides on it. And I came to that conclusion mostly because Ezra Klein and others convinced me it was good policy despite my starting out somewhat dubious about it.
But frankly, whether it stays or it goes is not any big deal to me. The point I was discussing with Bell, was a rhetorical issue, a question about a specific mode of argumentation, that Bell and I have been chasing around a bit in the comments when you guys decided it looked like I was (oh the horror!) supporting Obama and decided to attack me personally for the horrible crime of doing so when. And it's telling that you made that attack as a result of a somewhat OT discussion only tangentially related to Obama's, or my, view on the question of the excise tax on insurers who provide high-end plans.
"I am paper, you are glue" is rarely the beginning of a productive dialog, but there comes a point when one really has to ask how much of your sudden passion about the earth-shakingly important issue of whether we impose a piddling tax on the insurers who offer these plans is due to your deep and abiding concern for the working man, and how much is born of nothing more your own animosity against Obama?
Could it be that the constant accusations that every position I take is the result of my reflexive, dog-like devotion to Obama is, in fact, reflective of an awareness that your own positions are dictated by reflexive hostility?
I mean, seriously, did you really even give a shit about this issue until Obama said he was for it? And even if it's been the passion of your life for the last two years, do you honestly believe that's the case for all the other "progressives" who've suddenly made this rabbit turd sized issue the latest Holy Grail of their faith?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 13, 2010 1:21 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Amen to that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 11, 2010 7:16 PM
I'm worried that the way Mr. Trumka is making his case may sometimes leave people with the mistaken impression that this is a tax paid by individuals rather than insurance companies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 11, 2010 7:23 PM
Its amazing and gratifying to see what an activist this president is when something he supports is on the line. Here he is lobbying labor - one of his key constituencies - hard to accept the excise tax. Combine that with the way he went to bat for the public option over the summer and fall and there is a real pattern. Hopefully, this effort will be just as successful as his intense lobbying for the PO and it certainly has all the hallmarks: the meetings to convince people to support the PO, the strong public endorsements indicating that the PO was required. I think it is clear that the Senate bill would certainly not have the strong public option in it today if it had not been for Obama's advocacy. True, there were those that said, "The Congress writes laws, not the President," but he showed them all what the "bully pulpit" was all about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 11, 2010 7:31 PM
While I can't fault the unions for opposing the tax, the logic here would seem to preclude any sort of tax increase on any business whatsoever. After all, you can argue that any tax increase on a business is just going to passed onto consumers, so if you're going to define such a tax as a tax hike on the middle class, such a definition would also mean we shouldn't raise the corporate tax rate, energy taxes, etc. At the end of the day, upholding this argument would leave us with a Republican vision of tax policy.
To say the least, this specific argument against the excise tax is more than a bit of a stretch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
life_4_rent
January 11, 2010 9:17 PM
Boo Hoo. Unions supported Obama and now their getting screwed.
"""------------------- -------------------------------
http://www.topnflnews.com/
http://open.salon.com/blog/hsdpafx01
""
"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
January 11, 2010 9:56 PM
They do realize firefighters are exempted right? They're a "high risk profession". Read the bill. They're exempted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 12, 2010 1:35 AM in reply to calchala
Yes, the firefighters themselves with all their resources are so stupid they have mistakenly concluded that this tax applies to the benefits of their members but you know better. Uh huh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
January 12, 2010 2:37 AM in reply to oleeb
Read the bill. Notice what they highlight in the letter. They say "workers" not firefighters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 12, 2010 2:55 AM in reply to calchala
Semantics. If this didn't impact firefighters (and it does and will) they wouldn't be fighting it as they are. Obama promised not to do what he is now doing. At best he has broken his promise, but the truth is he just lied to get their support and now he's screwing them just like he's screwing the rest of us and laughing all the way to his Wall Street investment banking job after leaving the Presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DCCyclone
January 11, 2010 10:04 PM
I'm inclined to support this tax on the merits the more I learn about it, but it looks to me to be a huge political albatross growing around reform's neck.
You just can't communicate the truth to people without great difficulty in soundbite fashion.
But opponents are putting together a strong populist attack line that threatens to converge with a classic conservative talking point opposing tax hikes. Unions who are supposed to be our friends oppose this "tax increase on the middle class," and so does the right. How do we survive this squeeze?
We NEED the reform law to be able to grow in support, even if only gradually, after the ink is dry, and that by all rights should happen because with all its flaws it still moves the ball forward in making America's health care system better than it is today. But this Cadillac tax, the way the politics of it are developing, really threaten to retard any such support by making it THE focal point of public attention. Having so many on our own side talk up what normally are wingnut talking points really hurts us in this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 11, 2010 10:52 PM
This will not affect firefighters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
January 12, 2010 1:26 AM
Good for the firefighters and for the rest of labor speaking out on behalf of average Americans and good for them for calling Obama out for his hypocrisy and flip flopping on healthcare!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
January 12, 2010 8:44 AM in reply to oleeb
give it a rest TROLL
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 12, 2010 2:27 AM
This situation highlights what a sorry place our nation is today. Obama has repeatedly betrayed those on the left, especially progressives. People whose support he requires, but apparently takes for granted.
But what alternatives are there? How can anyone hold him accountable, save by withholding support? And what can be the result of such a withholding? Republicans being elected! And then those of us who have been betrayed are in an even position!
The choice is to cut off an arm, or cut off both arms.
Hooray.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 12, 2010 2:39 AM in reply to farnsworth
are in an even worseposition!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
January 12, 2010 8:42 AM
Thats because BO lied to us and we fell for the BS again!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
January 12, 2010 8:46 AM
Politics is messy and politicians will not always fulfill all their promises. Is this news to you naive twits or what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
January 12, 2010 8:55 AM
Reforming health care is going to take years, not months, and anyone who was stupid enough to believe everything would be magically fixed in one go was fooling themselves. We are dealing with entrenched corporate interests, an obstructionist/know-nothing opposition and a Democratic party infected by lobbyist and corporate influence. And you though Obama could just wave his hands and everything would be done? DUUUUHHHH
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 12, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to martis
No, but we thought he would at least try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thecrow
January 12, 2010 9:14 AM
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/new-yorks-bravest/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thecrow
January 12, 2010 9:14 AM
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrWoody
January 12, 2010 2:10 PM
what the excise tax is is a way to penalize successful labor negotiations which wrung the concessions out of the CorpoRats.
It's a veiled attack on labor unions, a way to 7make them appear less attractive, and to punish them for their successes...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?