PDA

View Full Version : AFL-CIO to support Specter if he votes for Employee Free Choice Act



DenButsu
03-12-2009, 10:05 PM
Big Union Vows To Back Arlen Specter In 2010 If He Supports Employee Free Choice

This is big: Senior officials with the powerful AFL-CIO have privately assured GOP Senator Arlen Specter that they’ll throw their full support behind him in the 2010 Senate race if he votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, a senior labor strategist working closely with the AFL on the issue tells me.

This is significant, because it represents a big incentive for Specter to switch parties — and to support Employee Free Choice. Specter may be facing a serious GOP primary challenge from Club for Growth head Pat Toomey. If he loses that — or pulls out of the GOP first and becomes an Indy or a Dem — supporting Employee Free Choice could give him the organizational muscle from labor and Democratic support he needs to prevail in a general election and hold his seat.

The labor strategist tells me that top AFL-CIO officials have told Specter they’ll back him to the hilt if he supports their top priority.

“If Senator Specter supports working people — particularly voting with us on Employee Free Choice — the AFL-CIO will support him 100 percent of the way, whether in a primary or a general election,” the strategist says.

AFL-CIO spokesperson Eddie Vale declined comment.

Interestingly, because labor support would actually hurt him in a GOP primary, AFL-CIO’s promise also is an incentive to switch parties earlier, rather than later. Some analysts think his only hope of holding on to his seat is to switch parties and prevail in a general election, something which labor backing would make easier.

To be sure, there’s no telling what Specter will do, and another wild card is whether Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell would back a Specter switch.

Markos Moulitsas, who first heard these conversations, has an interesting rundown gaming out all the possibilities for Specter. This is getting mighty interesting.

Update: The AFL-CIO goes on the record about supporting Specter.

Update II: The story is sparking controversy among EFCA’s opponents. Associated Builders and Contractors national chair Jerry Gorski issued a statement blasting the AFL-CIO as “union bosses in Washington” who are trying to “buy a vote in support of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act” and “shove this legislation onto the American public.”
Greg Sargent (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/labor/big-union-promises-to-back-arlen-specter-if-he-supports-employee-free-choice/)
(via TPM)

ari1013
03-12-2009, 10:21 PM
Specter started out as a Democrat so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch (he switched parties in 1965 to run against a corrupt Dem AG in Philly). But I'd imagine he'd be more likely to pull a Lieberman and go indie.

blenderboy5
03-12-2009, 10:43 PM
It's a ****** bill I hope he votes no

ari1013
03-12-2009, 10:52 PM
why is it ******? No sarcasm please. I just want to see your perspective as a Pennsylvanian who will be entering the workforce in a few years.

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 08:30 AM
Well he better vote no. I'm strong anti union. And for this bill to allow unions present during the vote is BS. It's an intimidation tactic. And then the check card tatic really helps get around elections in the first place. It's deadly to small business. Spector needs to go to start with, but if he votes with this, he really needs to get out of our party.

DenButsu
03-13-2009, 09:33 AM
I'm strong anti union.

Yeah! **** the workers and their ability to organize so they have the leverage to get fair pay and reasonable benefits. Screw that!

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 09:44 AM
Yeah! **** the workers and their ability to organize so they have the leverage to get fair pay and reasonable benefits. Screw that!

Yea screw them, when their high prices have driven business to other countries, and screw them when the auto workers are wondering if they will have a job come monday because their company might go bankrupt, while their anti union competitors, that work for Toyota in the USA, live very good, and aren't having the same worries.

Yea Screw business is basically what Unions say. Screw them hard, then ***** when they leave!

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 09:52 AM
And i'm going to go PHX on you. Screw the worker is a liberal talking point for oh about 125 years.

DenButsu
03-13-2009, 11:02 AM
And i'm going to go PHX on you. Screw the worker is a liberal talking point for oh about 125 years.

Well, we'd love for the workers to stop constantly getting screwed so we could shut up about it, but it just never seems to happen now, does it?

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 11:23 AM
Well, we'd love for the workers to stop constantly getting screwed so we could shut up about it, but it just never seems to happen now, does it?

Um how the heck are they getting screwed over now? They make more per hour then anytime in history, their benefits are higher then anytime in history, and we dont' require them to pay an org (like the union) to do it!

Show some facts on how they are getting screwed over.

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 11:27 AM
also Den, are you in a union?

DenButsu
03-13-2009, 12:08 PM
Um how the heck are they getting screwed over now? They make more per hour then anytime in history, their benefits are higher then anytime in history, and we dont' require them to pay an org (like the union) to do it!

Show some facts on how they are getting screwed over.

Ever increasing income gap, (until fairly recently) the increasing trend of record layoffs by companies making record profits, stagnant wages in effect decreasing when adjusted for inflation... sorry, it's about my bedtime now, so I have to check back in on this later, but that's the general tack.

And no, I've been in the fortunate position now for years to be in possession of a skill and qualifications that are in high demand and short supply in Japan (foreigners comprise just 1% of the population here, and I'd guess that native English speakers are no more than a quarter of that 1%, and the number of teachers even smaller... the job market has tightened up, but I have enough experience now to be on pretty solid footing). However, if I do ever make a return to the states I'd imagine the likelihood of my joining a teacher's union is probably fairly high, just given that public school teaching jobs would be a large portion of the job market I'd be looking at.

ari1013
03-13-2009, 01:43 PM
Um how the heck are they getting screwed over now? They make more per hour then anytime in history, their benefits are higher then anytime in history, and we dont' require them to pay an org (like the union) to do it!

Show some facts on how they are getting screwed over.
Actually... Real wages, if anything, have fallen since the 1960s.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-13-2009, 01:50 PM
Actually... Real wages, if anything, have fallen since the 1960s.

I don't get how we get creative math that says otherwise? Or that somethig will cost each taxpayer x amount. Or "raising taxes will force me to have layoffs". It's complete misrepresentation of fact. Thanks for providing clarification.

I'm on the fence on this issue right now. Not leaning one way or another. I'd like to understand the more centrist view as opposed to the pro-union power grab, or staunchly anti-union stances.

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 01:56 PM
Actually... Real wages, if anything, have fallen since the 1960s.

How do you figure?

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 01:57 PM
I don't get how we get creative math that says otherwise? Or that somethig will cost each taxpayer x amount. Or "raising taxes will force me to have layoffs". It's complete misrepresentation of fact. Thanks for providing clarification.

I'm on the fence on this issue right now. Not leaning one way or another. I'd like to understand the more centrist view as opposed to the pro-union power grab, or staunchly anti-union stances.

That really has no basis here. I've never once said or went to the rescue of other posters in the november elections that said Obama will raise taxes and i'll layoff. Now I probably did say we'll have layoffs with Obama, but it's more because I don't believe in him turning around the economy. But damn't what was his name, we had one poster that was asying his uncle was laying off if Obama was elected. Yea that BS is garbage.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-13-2009, 02:01 PM
That really has no basis here. I've never once said or went to the rescue of other posters in the november elections that said Obama will raise taxes and i'll layoff. Now I probably did say we'll have layoffs with Obama, but it's more because I don't believe in him turning around the economy. But damn't what was his name, we had one poster that was asying his uncle was laying off if Obama was elected. Yea that BS is garbage.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. I was referring to several twisted arguments that get presented in similar arguments in general. It's disgusting and sad. I have never seen you say that, to be clear.

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 02:03 PM
I wasn't specifically referring to you. I was referring to several twisted arguments that get presented in similar arguments in general. It's disgusting and sad. I have never seen you say that, to be clear.

actually PHX, I started typing and then went wait why am I typing this, then laughed about the guy who said his uncle was going to lay off. So I just went ahead and clicked submit!

PHX-SOXFAN
03-13-2009, 02:09 PM
actually PHX, I started typing and then went wait why am I typing this, then laughed about the guy who said his uncle was going to lay off. So I just went ahead and clicked submit!

I think I remember that post as well. It's in the same category as "I made more money this year than last, now I'm in a higher tax bracket and take home less". And my personal favorite some local radio guy down here read a "legit email" saying since obama won he was going to have to do layoffs and he was starting with those with obama bumper stickers in the parking lot. Gotta love the email smears.:D

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 02:13 PM
I think I remember that post as well. It's in the same category as "I made more money this year than last, now I'm in a higher tax bracket and take home less". And my personal favorite some local radio guy down here read a "legit email" saying since obama won he was going to have to do layoffs and he was starting with those with obama bumper stickers in the parking lot. Gotta love the email smears.:D

Well this wasn't under the Obama admin, Heck I think it might have been under Clinton. Basically my cousin a teacher in NY, got a small raise. That raise was just enough to push him into the next bracket, so he brought home a buck less. I mean it was a once in a 10k shot that it happens. I think at the end, though he makes out, since he'd get more of a refund.

Yea I get emails like that, but I also get messed emails about Bush being a terrorist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1EXKLVgEx0

I have gotten that in a forward about 5 times.

Then there was the forward about instead of giving 85 billion to AIG, just divy it out among the US citizens, and it'd help the economy.

Email is a dangerous place.

CubsGirl
03-13-2009, 02:25 PM
^Makes me wonder, is there anywhere we can actually find the brackets? I think I tried Googling it once and came up empty.

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 02:30 PM
marginal 2008

Single Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule X)

* 10% on income between $0 and $8,025
* 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
* 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
* 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
* 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Y-1)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
* 15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
* 25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
* 28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
* 33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00

Married Filing Separately Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Y-2)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $8,025
* 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
* 25% on the income between $32,550 and $65,725; plus $4,481.25
* 28% on the income between $65,725 and $100,150; plus $12,775.00
* 33% on the income between $100,150 and $178,850; plus $22,414.00
* 35% on the income over $178,850; plus $48,385.00

Head of Household Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Z)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $11,450
* 15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00
* 25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00
* 28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00
* 33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00

behindmydesk
03-13-2009, 02:31 PM
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/2009-federal-income-tax-brackets-projected.html

that's a site comparing 08-09. I don't know if this one is very accurate since it's projected and all.

CubsGirl
03-13-2009, 02:31 PM
marginal 2008

Single Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule X)

* 10% on income between $0 and $8,025
* 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
* 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
* 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
* 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Y-1)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $16,050
* 15% on the income between $16,050 and $65,100; plus $1,605.00
* 25% on the income between $65,100 and $131,450; plus $8,962.50
* 28% on the income between $131,450 and $200,300; plus $25,550.00
* 33% on the income between $200,300 and $357,700; plus $44,828.00
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $96,770.00

Married Filing Separately Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Y-2)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $8,025
* 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
* 25% on the income between $32,550 and $65,725; plus $4,481.25
* 28% on the income between $65,725 and $100,150; plus $12,775.00
* 33% on the income between $100,150 and $178,850; plus $22,414.00
* 35% on the income over $178,850; plus $48,385.00

Head of Household Filing Status
(Tax Rate Schedule Z)

* 10% on the income between $0 and $11,450
* 15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00
* 25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00
* 28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00
* 33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00
* 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00
Damnit, no wonder my returns this year were smaller. Mr. CG and I were in the next tax bracket by like $300. WEAK.

edit - this is last years. i can read, i swear. first the painkillers, now the chronic insomnia... I think my brain is dying.

ari1013
03-13-2009, 03:23 PM
How do you figure?
Well techinically it depends on how you characterize real wages. But if you look at wages as a cost of production, then you can examine the relationship between wages and productivity:

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2006/10/real_wages_and_.html

So even as our workforce has gotten more productive each and every year, their wages are trailing behind. I don't think that a manufacturing worker should make $100K. But I do think they should be paid what they are worth.

EDIT: Here's real wages on the whole -- http://www.thieme-securities.com/7.0521.gif

ari1013
03-13-2009, 03:32 PM
A big problem with regard to the marginal tax rates is that Reagan and Nixon sliced off the top brackets entirely. What that did was instead place a higher burden on the bottom set of brackets.

What we need instead of an increase from 35% to 39.6% on that top bracket is simply to create a new bracket for income over $2M or so. I know this is the third time I've made that call, but this time Nate Silver and Matt Yglasias have got my back (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-bracket.html).

cabernetluver
03-13-2009, 03:36 PM
Damnit, no wonder my returns this year were smaller. Mr. CG and I were in the next tax bracket by like $300. WEAK.

edit - this is last years. i can read, i swear. first the painkillers, now the chronic insomnia... I think my brain is dying.

I am with you today on the pain killers. I had a dental implant put in today and darvocet and I are good buddies.

cabernetluver
03-13-2009, 03:38 PM
A big problem with regard to the marginal tax rates is that Reagan and Nixon sliced off the top brackets entirely. What that did was instead place a higher burden on the bottom set of brackets.

What we need instead of an increase from 35% to 39.6% on that top bracket is simply to create a new bracket for income over $2M or so. I know this is the third time I've made that call, but this time Nate Silver and Matt Yglasias have got my back (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/missing-1000000-tax-bracket.html).

Damn fine back up. It just makes common sense as long as it is indexed to inflation.

ari1013
03-16-2009, 03:46 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/rendell-ive-tried-to-get-specter-to-switch----and-so-has-joe-biden.php?ref=fp2

Specter says he's staying in the GOP.

DenButsu
03-16-2009, 08:18 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/rendell-ive-tried-to-get-specter-to-switch----and-so-has-joe-biden.php?ref=fp2

Specter says he's staying in the GOP.

Well then we can probably chalk up +1 Democrat in the Senate in 2010.