With major differences between the House and the Senate on health care still to be ironed out many have assumed that key differences would be papered over and a bill quickly produced for President Obama to sign. Maybe there is an underestimation of how substantial those differences are. The Saturday New York Times highlighted a major difference over funding, with the Senate provision that taxes so called cadillac plans under a major assault by organized labor.
The current Senate bill would provide for an excise tax on plans worth more than $8500 for an individual, or $23,000 for a family. Unions have estimated that the tax could impact one in four union members, and are lobbying furiously for the provision to be dropped, or amended to raise the plan value subject to the tax. Both scenarios cause major headaches, as even a compromise that amends those figures up would blow a multi-billion dollar hole in financing this bill. To drop it entirely would force the Senate to adopt an alternative method of financing, with the House method of imposing a surtax on top wage earners a non-starter in the Senate. The House Democratic caucus has produced a letter opposing the Senate provision signed by 190 House members. In light of the fact that the bill passed the House by a scant five votes Speaker Pelosi has little room to maneuver.
No question about the fact that this will be a difficult road, but it seems clear that both Houses are going to have to give some here. I do not think the Senate provision can remain at its current plan value thresholds, but it cannot be eliminated entirely. A raising of the thresholds, with a much smaller surtax on top wage earners to make up the finance shortfall, would seem to be fertile ground for compromise. Can Reid and Pelosi pull it off. Is it worth pulling off?
Bill Manzi.com 
Hello Mayor Manzi!
I am commenting to ask you to please help our neighborhood in preventing the cell tower that T-Mobil wants to build at #24 Maplewood Avenue in Methuen. This is a totally inappropriate site due to the densely populated neighborhood, the setbacks needed, height requirements, and the fact that they are looking to build on wetlands. These wetlands are the homes to numerous plants, birds and animals and must be protected! We and our neighbors are also concerned about the health of our children and our property values. I don’t understand why it’s necessary for us, as Methuen residents, to have to fight to keep a huge corporation OUT. Why shouldn’t it be necessary for T-Mobil to fight to explain why they should be allowed IN?
If this cell tower is necessary (and since it was proposed, another has been built one mile from the proposed site, so I don’t believe it IS necessary) a more appropriate location would be either the town yard or the park-and-ride lot located on Pelham Street. If the tower is built on city property, the city will get the revenue.
PLEASE stop this tower from being built on MY street. We don’t want it.
– Amy Johnson
26 Maplewood Avenue
Methuen
LikeLike
Hello Amy,
I am in agreement that this is not the best site for this tower. I will work as hard as I can to make sure that it does not happen. As far as why the roles are reversed and we are playing defense that has to do with federal law, specifically the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Let me cite the law, and the mandatory criteria cities must use in issuing a denial:
As you can see the federal government has made the siting and zoning issues very difficult for localities. Health issues cannot be used as a reason for denial, and the refusal must be based on “substantial evidence”. A failure to meet that standard could cause a locality to be reversed in federal court. Despite that I think we have a solid case here, and we will work to try to get this company to consider alternatives.
Bill
LikeLike