Alan Grayson
Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, who is now running for Senate, has loudly insisted for years that he's the Democratic Party's leading exponent of what it means to be a true progressive. So it comes as quite a shock to see him articulate views about taxation that
don't sound progressive at all:
He's pledged to make income inequality and other progressive priorities a focus of his bid. And Grayson told NBC he'd like to make eliminating the income tax for the poorest Americans a key priority. But he seemed more reluctant to tackle the tax rate for top income-earners like himself.
"One way that you could try to address [income inequality] is through the tax system, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you tax people who make more money more," he said.
"At the top end, it's a complicated situation," he added. "I can tell you, in fact, there are repercussions and second order effects that come from modifying the tax rates at the top."
For starters, it's not clear how you'd compensate for the lost revenue of eliminating income taxes for lower earners without raising taxes on the rich, nor is Grayson saying how he'd do so. So either we're talking about crazy deficit-busting economics of the Republican variety, or a magic trick.
But the truly bizarre part of Grayson's statement comes at the close. Raising taxes on the wealthy has long been a key plank of the progressive platform, and it's both good politics—huge majorities support the idea—and good policy, as it would raise revenues and help mitigate the America's extreme inequalities in wealth.
Head below the fold for more on Grayson.
What's really disturbing is Grayson's attempt to explain away why he's so reluctant to tax the rich more. He tries to hide behind lawyerly argle-bargle like "reprecussions and second-order effects," but the only "second-order effect" of Bill Clinton's tax hikes on the wealthy back in the 1990s was to drive down unemployment, raise wages, eliminate the federal budget deficit, and create the greatest economic boom this country had seen in decades.
And as Stephen Wolf reminds us, top federal income tax exceeded 90 percent following World War II, when the country experienced a massive explosion in prosperity and a surge in middle-class incomes and standards of living that we still marvel at today.
Grayson may claim it's all "complicated," but the truth is, it's anything but. With his $30 million in personal wealth and the hedge funds he runs in the Cayman Islands, he may be more familiar with what it's like to live at the very top tax bracket than the rest of us. Yet Grayson has been very explicit—and very self-assured—in tying himself to the woman most progressives identify as the movement's top standard-bearer:
"This is the 'it' campaign of 2016. Just as Elizabeth Warren’s campaign was the 'it' campaign in her race. It's going to be famous," Grayson said. "What people see of us doing in this race is going to live until the end of time. This is going to be the first race, the first real political race of the 21st century."
But Warren
supports increased taxes on the rich. So if Grayson wants to insist we shouldn't tax the wealthiest among us more, then he shouldn't try claiming the mantle of Elizabeth Warren, and of progressivism in general.