Democrats Stuff Their Reckless Taxing And Spending Spree With Big Union Giveaways

Democrats’ Tax Legislation Would Allow The Above-The-Line Charitable Tax Deduction To Expire At The End Of This Year…

“Five provisions discussed in this report expire at the end of 2021…. Three provisions that were first enacted in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136) and originally scheduled to expire in 2020 have been extended through 2021: (1) the charitable deduction for nonitemizers …” (“Temporary Individual Tax Provisions ("Tax Extenders"),” Congressional Research Service, R46772, 4/26/2021)

• “Individuals may take a charitable deduction if they itemize deductions on their tax returns. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136) provided for a deduction for cash donations for nonitemizers of up to $300 through December 31, 2020. That is, taxpayers can deduct these amounts even if they elect the standard deduction. This provision was extended through December 31, 2021, by the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, enacted as Division EE of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).” (“Temporary Individual Tax Provisions ("Tax Extenders"),” Congressional Research Service, R46772, 4/26/2021)

…And In Its Place, Democrats Have Created An Above-The-Line Tax Deduction For Union Dues

“Sec. 138514. Allowance of Deduction for Certain Expenses of the Trade or Business of Being an Employee. The provision allows for up to $250 in dues to a labor organization be claimed as an above-the-line deduction. The provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.” (U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, “Subtitle I – Responsibly Funding Our Priorities Section-by-Section,” 9/13/2021)

SUBTITLE I, PAGE 738: “SEC. 138514. ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF THE TRADE OR BUSINESS OF BEING AN EMPLOYEE.
(a) ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR UNION DUES.—Section 62(a)(2) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘(F)  UNION DUES.—The deductions allowed by section 162 which are both— ‘(A) not in excess of $250, and ‘(B) attributable to a trade or business consisting of the performance of services by the taxpayer as an employee if such deductions are for dues paid to a labor organization described in section 501(c)(5) and with respect to which such taxpayer remained a member through the end of the taxable year.’
(b)  EFFECTIVE DATE.—The  amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.” (U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, Amendment in the nature of a substitute to add Subtitle I, 9/13/2021)

Democrats Also Threw In ‘$12,500 In Electric Vehicle Tax Incentives That Includes Extra Cash For Union-Made Cars And Trucks’

“House Democrats want to continue giving EV buyers an existing $7,500 tax credit, and they’d add another $4,500 if the vehicle was assembled in the U.S. at union plants. A Senate bill proposes an extra $2,500 for union-assembled vehicles, and a separate $2,500 bonus for EVs assembled domestically.” (“Biden Wants Union Jobs And Clean Air. Delivering Both Might Be Tough.,” Politico, 9/21/2021)

“Tesla, Toyota Motor and other automakers are criticizing a proposed $12,500 in electric vehicle tax incentives that includes extra cash for union-made cars and trucks produced in the U.S. Executives with the automakers, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, said the $4,500 incentive for vehicles assembled in a union plant unfairly favors General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler). Hourly workers for those automakers – traditionally known as the Detroit 3 – are represented by the United Auto Workers union.” (“From ‘Blatantly Biased’ To ‘Discriminatory:’ Tesla, Toyota And Honda Criticize $4,500 EV Tax Incentive For Union-Made Vehicles,” CNBC, 9/14/2021)

• ELON MUSK: “This is written by Ford/UAW lobbyists, as they make their electric car in Mexico. Not obvious how this serves American taxpayers.” (“From ‘Blatantly Biased’ To ‘Discriminatory:’ Tesla, Toyota And Honda Criticize $4,500 EV Tax Incentive For Union-Made Vehicles,” CNBC, 9/14/2021)

• “Toyota described the bill as ‘unfair’ and ‘wrong,’ citing the proposal discriminates against its U.S. workforce that is not unionized. ‘The current Ways and Means Committee draft makes the objective of accelerating the deployment of electrified vehicles secondary by discriminating against American autoworkers based on their choice not to unionize,’ Toyota manufacturing executives said in a letter Monday to the chairs of the committee. ‘This is unfair, it is wrong, and we ask you to reject this blatantly biased proposal.’” (“From ‘Blatantly Biased’ To ‘Discriminatory:’ Tesla, Toyota And Honda Criticize $4,500 EV Tax Incentive For Union-Made Vehicles,” CNBC, 9/14/2021)

• “Honda made similar comments in a statement on its website: ‘If Congress is serious about addressing the climate crisis, as well as its goal to see these vehicles built in America, it should treat all EVs made by U.S. auto workers fairly and equally. We urge Congress to remove discriminatory language tying unionization to incentives from its budget reconciliation proposal.’” (“From ‘Blatantly Biased’ To ‘Discriminatory:’ Tesla, Toyota And Honda Criticize $4,500 EV Tax Incentive For Union-Made Vehicles,” CNBC, 9/14/2021)

And Tax Breaks Are Just The Beginning: ‘Unions Squeeze Pro-Labor Priorities Into Democrats’ Spending Bill’

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS PRESIDENT RANDI WEINGARTEN: “Labor is not only all over supporting it, it has helped craft it.” (“Unions Squeeze Pro-Labor Priorities Into Democrats’ Spending Bill,” Politico, 9/21/2021)

“Tucked amid the investments in child care, higher education and clean energy are below-the-radar provisions that would make it easier for workers to organize, such as giving the National Labor Relations Board sharper teeth and empowering it to conduct union elections online. Both of those policies are also included in the Protecting the Right to Organize Act — an overhaul of U.S. labor law Democrats drafted to resuscitate tapering union membership, which is stalled in the Senate.” (“Unions Squeeze Pro-Labor Priorities Into Democrats’ Spending Bill,” Politico, 9/21/2021)

• “The most consequential language would empower the newly Democrat-controlled NLRB, responsible for implementing the NLRA, to fine offending employers up to $100,000 for each violation. … Currently, the NLRB doesn't have the authority to penalize businesses. Giving it that power would not only discourage management interference in union organizing efforts, but raise revenue for the spending package’s other provisions.” (“Unions Squeeze Pro-Labor Priorities Into Democrats’ Spending Bill,” Politico, 9/21/2021)

• “The reconciliation bill also includes provisions that would expand OSHA and Wage and Hour Division penalties, and provide additional funding for the NLRB — $350 million over five years, or $70 million annually — in part to implement the additional enforcement, which a committee aide said lawmakers expect to be aggressive. The agency would be required to spend $5 million of the new cash on shifting its elections online, a move that Democrats and unions have been pushing for years and which experts say would make it easier for workers to organize.” (“Unions Squeeze Pro-Labor Priorities Into Democrats’ Spending Bill,” Politico, 9/21/2021)

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL’S KIMBERLY STRASSEL: “Thus the Protecting the Right to Organize Act—a sweeping bill that would empower unions to force Americans into their ranks. The PRO Act would nullify all 27 state right-to work laws, strip companies of basic rights to make the case to employees against unionization campaigns, give the NLRB power to impose sweeping fines on supposed corporate labor violations, outlaw most independent contractors, and let unions bully workers into agreeing to unions via public ‘card check’ pledges rather than secret ballots. Unions have made clear that PRO Act passage will be their only measure of this administration and Congress. In a call [in April], union leaders told Senate Democrats’ campaign arm it risks losing union money and support in 2022 if it didn’t get with the PRO-gram. AFL-CIO spokesman Tim Schlittner recently warned that while Mr. Biden’s first 100 days were nice and all, success would ‘require the Senate to pass the PRO Act.’” (Kimberly Strassel, “Biden’s Big Labor Bind,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/20/2021)

MICHAEL J. LOTITO, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and GLENN SPENCER, senior vice president, employment policy division, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO, is a radical piece of legislation that would rewrite our nation’s labor laws in at least 51 different ways. Passed by the House earlier this year, the bill has 47 co-sponsors in the Senate, all Democrats. Unions and their allies aren’t waiting for more support. Instead, they are determined to change the National Labor Relations Act by inserting the penalty provisions of the PRO Act into the $3.5 trillion budget bill.” (Michael J. Lotito and Glenn Spencer, Op-Ed, “Congressional Democrats Want to Weaponize Federal Labor Law,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/12/2021)

• “Congress passed the NLRA in 1935, forming the core of U.S. labor law. Congress deliberately avoided punitive measures, such as civil penalties, against either labor or management. In Republic Steel v. NLRB, the Supreme Court held in 1940 that Congress intended the act to be a remedial law focused on making employees whole, not a punitive one designed to penalize employers should they (knowingly or unknowingly) violate it. Amending the NLRA to include civil penalties would fundamentally overturn 85 years of precedent. For employers, fines could range from $50,000 to $100,000 for each charge of unfair labor practices. That’s over and above any actual injuries claimed by workers or unions.” (Michael J. Lotito and Glenn Spencer, Op-Ed, “Congressional Democrats Want to Weaponize Federal Labor Law,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/12/2021)

• “It isn’t unusual for a union to file several unfair labor practice claims against a business during a labor dispute or organizing campaign. Many of these claims have nothing to do with pay or benefits or even core working conditions, but instead concern technical violations of the NLRA. They can be as minor as an employee-handbook provision that the National Labor Relations Board feels is worded in such a way as to disfavor unions. If the civil-penalty scheme becomes law, employers will worry about speaking out on labor issues or enforcing workplace policies for fear of incurring potentiality millions of dollars in civil penalties.” (Michael J. Lotito and Glenn Spencer, Op-Ed, “Congressional Democrats Want to Weaponize Federal Labor Law,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/12/2021)

• “Using legislative procedures designed to address budget issues to make fundamental, substantive changes in labor law is wrong-headed and will have profound consequences. The proposed changes will result in lost jobs, increased litigation and reduced productive business behavior. Converting the National Labor Relations Act into a punitive statute is perhaps as radical and far-reaching change to our labor laws as one can imagine. Congress should reject it.” (Michael J. Lotito and Glenn Spencer, Op-Ed, “Congressional Democrats Want to Weaponize Federal Labor Law,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/12/2021)