The editor Seth Lipsky used to mock articles labeled "news analysis" by suggesting that the rest of the articles in the newspaper be labeled "analysis-free." Consider the following passage from a New York Times "news analysis" of the challenges facing New York's mayor-elect, Bill de Blasio:
In one possible situation, the governor could find money for Mr. de Blasio's prekindergarten classes, but avoid enacting new taxes — depriving the mayor-elect of the potent political dividends that come with making the wealthy pay more.
How can the Times news analysts be so confident that raising taxes on "the wealthy" is such a "potent" political winner? What's the evidence for that proposition? Does the Times really think that if Mr. De Blasio somehow found a way to fund expanded universal pre-kindergarten with state aid but did not raise taxes on the rich beyond the 51.7% top marginal rate (federal, state, and local combined) that currently applies in New York City, his supporters will be bitterly disappointed?
This is really something: the idea that higher taxes on the rich — higher than the current levels under which the governments take more than 51.7 cents of every additional dollar earned — ought to be pursued not merely as means to the end of additional funding for education or health care or poverty relief or some other worthy goal, but because of the "potent political dividends." Or what, just envy? Punishing success? Leveling? I don't necessarily buy that this is the mood or view among a majority of the electorate, but it certainly is an indication of how the matter is viewed among a segment of the Times reporters and editors.