Front and Center

Politics, society, and other random randomness

Debt reduction: Andy Stern wants MORE taxes!

Who is Andy Stern?

Andy Stern is one of the people President Obama appointed to the Debt Reduction commission.  In the final vote, Stern voted no.  But this shouldn’t be surprising.  Stern is the past president of the Service Employees International Union (if you didn’t know unions are one of Obama’s favorite special interests, now you know).  His take on the plan?  from the NY Post:

“This is the issue of our time that must be solved,” said labor leader Andy Stern, who nonetheless voted “no” because he favored fewer spending cuts and more tax increases.
Unfortunately (and my left-leaning friends can’t deny this), it is a trait of the left that the answer to all revenue problems is to increase taxes.  Nevermind that there is proof from history that lowering taxes raises revenue in many cases.  The further problem is, even if the tax revenues did increase from higher tax rates, history has shown that often, the Democrat way is to increase spending instead of cutting spending.
As for Stern, do a search on him and the SIEU.  He didn’t leave the union in the best shape financially, so one has to wonder how he ended up on the commission.  Then again, he is one of the most frequent visitors to the White House…
Advertisements

8 responses to “Debt reduction: Andy Stern wants MORE taxes!

  1. Ben Hoffman December 6, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    [Nevermind that there is proof from history that lowering taxes raises revenue in many cases. ]

    It didn’t work during the Reagan tax cuts and it didn’t work for the Bush tax cuts. The only time it worked was when the upper tax bracket was 95%, and that was because a lot of tax loopholes were eliminated, so taxes weren’t really cut.

  2. HalFrontandCenter December 6, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Both Reagan and Bush lowered tax rates. In both cases, it is an easily researched fact that tax revenues to the government increased. The fact that spending increased even more is a different argument. But if you don’t believe me, Google is your friend and there are charts all over the web showing how tax revenues to the government increased.

    • Ben Hoffman December 6, 2010 at 12:31 pm

      [In both cases, it is an easily researched fact that tax revenues to the government increased.]

      That’s bullshit. It took six years before tax revenues got back up to where they were before Reagan cut taxes. The facts that you right-wingers ignore is, after the 1981 tax cuts, Reagan raised taxes every year after that — mainly on the middle class.
      1982 – The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Repealed much of the tax cuts of 1981, raised unemployment taxes, doubled taxes on cigarettes, tripled taxes on telephone service.
      1982 – Highway Revenue Act of 1982 increased the gas tax through 1988
      1983 – Social Security Amendments of 1983. Increased Social Security taxes.
      1984 – Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. Increased taxes on exports and business expenses.
      1986 – Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986. Decreased individual taxes but increased corporate taxes.

      You can’t make your point without lying. That’s because you have no point.

  3. HalFrontandCenter December 6, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    First, I find it funny that I must be a “right-winger” for arguing a point different than yours. But that’s ok. If you feel the need to establish some position of superiority to stroke your own ego, feel free. If you actually pay attention, you’ll find I am in favor of letting ALL the rates go back to previous levels since that’s 3 trillion gone. but that’s another story.

    BS you say? The best you’ll get from me on the Reagan cuts is a draw. Yes Reagan raised taxes, but its possible revenues wouldve increased anyway. That aside, Kennedy and Bush cut tax rates (regardless of the fact that the top marginal rate under Kennedy was a staggering 91%). And in both cases there was an increase in revenue afterwards. In Bush’s case, it was spent, plus things tanked in 07. In Kennedy’s case, there was at least a 25% increase. There was another influx in or around 69 due to a bill that created some type of surcharge, and there was a later downward swing, but that doesn’t erase the fact that revenues increased.

    So let’s review: Kennedy-increased. Reagan- may have but for this argument let’s say they didn’t. Bush–increased. So it would seem that to continue the denial would make YOU the liar. Have a nice day.

    • Ben Hoffman December 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm

      Kennedy-increased? Yep, but that’s because he closed a lot of tax loopholes at the same time he cut taxes. Taxes were extremely high at the time, also, which they are not now.

      Bush-increased? It took five years to get back to the point where they were before the tax cuts, and the increase in tax receipts were due to the housing bubble as well as the natural expansion of our economy.

      [If you actually pay attention, you’ll find I am in favor of letting ALL the rates go back to previous levels]

      If that’s the case, we have common ground. 🙂

  4. HalFrontandCenter December 6, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    See? common ground! thats all it takes to make things civil!

    I think that we could go round and round about what really caused the increase in revenue. In terms of Bush II, there is info out there that shows how revenues increased over the 2k4-2k7 timeframe.
    But anyway, this whole situation finds me stuck in the middle. I don’t agree with the right’s assertion that raising taxes are going to destroy the economy. Nor do I agree in the left’s assertion that high income earners “don’t deserve it,” or that they have gotten to prosper and now its time to “pay up,” or that raising their taxes is “leveling the playing field.” It creates irrational discussion from both sides. Someone needs to sit down and say “this is a decent tax rate where folks can still make a ton of money, take home a ton of money, and the government gets their money too.” Unfortunately, we won’t see that happen any time soon.

    • Ben Hoffman December 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      [Nor do I agree in the left’s assertion that high income earners “don’t deserve it,” or that they have gotten to prosper and now its time to “pay up,” or that raising their taxes is “leveling the playing field.”]

      I haven’t heard anyone use those arguments. The issue at hand is the huge deficits. We’re paying nearly 1/2 trillion dollars a year just on interest on the debt, with much of that going to Communist China.

  5. HalFrontandCenter December 7, 2010 at 10:10 am

    the “don’t deserve it” crowd says that the rich received the lion’s share of the previous cuts so they shouldn’t get to continue at the current tax levels. the “leveling the playing field” line was from senator claire mccaskill the other day. I can’t remember who said the “pay up” line so i’ll back off of that one until i can find the quote. as for the deficit, you and i agree that its pretty rediculous and getting worse. but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, i will once again say that we can’t yell about how the “tax cuts for the rich” are causing a big deficit, then ignore that the rest of the cuts probably cost 2 to 3 times as much and aren’t paid for either. Hence, when this 2 year extension ends, they should all be rolled back unless the economy has exploded by then.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: