Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PoloSec

That’s why this is a good, small step at thwarting the MSM. If the Republicans all had packed town halls and Beck covered it, that would balance a lot of it out (since he gets more viewers than the others combined, I think, haha).


9 posted on 03/26/2010 3:25:07 PM PDT by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Rastus
I'm in a safe GOP area. But if I could go to a town hall, this is what I would ask [talking fast]:
We've heard these horror stories about Caterpillar, AT&T and other companies who got hit with a big tax on their retiree prescription drug plans. Congress defends the new tax, saying taxpayers should NOT foot the bill for those retirees.

But Section 1102 of the bill contradicts that. It provides $5 BILLION to union health plans for their early retirees ---as young as 55. We're going to subsidize what Congress recognizes as "Cadillac" plans. And it's way more generous than what the companies were getting---this provision will pay unions up to $60,000 (!) a year PER RETIREE. It pays for everything, not just prescriptions. And at least the company retirees had to be 65...these guys are just 55 years old.

Now---the ultimate irony---Congress specifically made the union subsidies TAX EXEMPT!

Why should those company retirees be hit with a big new tax at the same time the unions will get a tax-free $5 BILLION taxpayer bailout for far younger "pensioners" getting excessively generous benefits?

Congressman, I wasn't at the table when those unions negotiated benefits that would drive the companies bankrupt. I resent the hell out of being made to pay for them

I hope someone will ask that. Go armed with copies of Subtitle B, Section 1101 (starts on page 52)

The Dems will say this doesn't apply only to unions. I don't believe that. But here's how I would rebut it:

It doesn't make sense for you to say taxpayers should not be subsidizing those companies' retirees, but then tell us you're going to give them new subsidies. I don't believe you intend to give the funds to anyone but the unions. To make it even worse, you specifically included state/local public worker plans. Everyone knows those are grossly underfunded. It looks to me like you're going to make federal taxpayers pay for those state/local over-promises.
Now that I think about it, I'm going to take this to my GOP congressman's town hall. The GOP needs to use this issue in the context of these news reports about Caterpillar, et al.
10 posted on 03/29/2010 4:43:27 AM PDT by Timeout (Brits have the royals. Russia, the Nomenklatura. WE have our Privileged "Public Servant" class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson