AFL-CIO's Trumka opposes deal that 'sets the stage for more hostage taking'

[ProSense]

AFL-CIO's Trumka opposes deal that 'sets the stage for more hostage taking'

by Laura Clawson

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is not liking the shape of Monday's congressional deal-making.

its not a good #fiscalcliff deal if it gives more tax cuts to 2 percent and sets the stage for more hostage taking
— @RichardTrumka via Twitter for BlackBerry®

Rs #fiscalcliff doublethink: fiscal crisis demands cuts in services, no investment in jobs but allows more tax cuts for richest Americans
— @RichardTrumka via Twitter for BlackBerry®

Sam Stein reports:

"We are very concerned about a situation which seems like we have a couple hundred billion of dollars of concessions made on one hand—some of which will be permanent—and on the other hand, we are going into a further and further round of fake fiscal crisis—the debt ceiling, the sequester—in which we are going to hear, of course, from the same fiscal hypocrites that we have to cut this and that," the official said. "We just gave away $300 to $400 billion [by giving in on the tax rate threshold]. If we had an actual fiscal crisis, that would be the first place to look for the money."

The official said that the AFL-CIO wasn't formally urging lawmakers to oppose the deal—at least not until more details about the bill were known.

"We are throwing cold water on the kind of drift that we felt this afternoon," the official explained. "This really troubles us."

For context, full-blown formal AFL-CIO opposition to a deal would require input from the labor federation's executive council. Trumka's tweets may offer the direction that input might be likely to go, based on the principles the AFL-CIO has pushed for throughout, and we can hope that some additional congressional Democrats will take the cue and stand against a bad deal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/31/1175216/-AFL-CIO-s-Trumka-opposes-deal-that-sets-the-stage-for-more-hostage-taking

[bigtree]

1. makes a good point

kinda high, I think, on how much revenue it forfeits

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. The deal should be examined for its own merits, not speculation on what it will mean for future

negotiations.

[ProSense]

4. What it means to future negotiations is a big part of it for the President

and Senate Democrats.

Everything You Need To Know About The Emerging ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Tax Compromise

By Travis Waldron

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Vice President Joe Biden have reportedly reached an agreement that would solve the tax side of the debate over the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the package of tax increases and spending cuts that will begin automatically at midnight tonight.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic caucus have not yet indicated support for the compromise, which extends most of the Bush tax cuts and other tax provisions, and while the Senate may vote tonight, no vote is expected in the House before tonight’s deadline. Here is a breakdown of the different provisions of the reported compromise:

<...>

The reported McConnell-Biden compromise does not deal with the spending cuts side of the fiscal cliff, though CNN’s Dana Bash reported that the sequester may simply be delayed for two months. The spending cuts are the part of the fiscal cliff that the Congressional Budget Office says would be the most damaging to America’s economic growth. It also does not include an increase in the debt ceiling, setting up another fight over the coming months like the one that created the fiscal cliff in the first place.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/31/1381631/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gops-fiscal-cliff-tax-proposal/

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. It is certainly relevant to future negotiations

But speculation regarding its effects seems weak sauce to make judgments about the actual provisions.

[kentuck]

6. Unfortunately true...

in my opinion.

[rhett o rick]

7. Have a Happy Year and be back next year ready to fight harder. nm