In a desperate ploy to stop a full-scale repeal of the death tax, the New York Times leads its business section this morning with a story essentially endorsing a Democratic plan that would end the tax only for "small-business owners" and "farmers" with assets below $4 million per couple. The headline, unbelievably, is "Despite Benefits, Democrats' Estate Tax Plan Gets Little Notice."
Well, the reason the plan is getting little notice is that it doesn't have that much in the way of benefits, other than undermining genuine reform of the death tax. There's no "benefit" to the federal government creating a tax incentive for individual Americans to keep their wealth locked up in farms or family businesses rather than managing their capital for the highest return or otherwise as they see fit. Why, under the Democratic plan, should a law-firm partner who works 80-hour weeks and amasses stock-market savings before selling his share in the firm upon retirement have to pay the death tax, while a family farmer shouldn't? Why, under the Democratic plan, should a college professor who invests wisely in mutual funds and saves money have to pay the death tax, while a dry-cleaning shop operator whose assets are in his business shouldn't? Why, under the Democratic plan, should a farmer with $2 million in assets in a farm not have to pay the tax, while, under the same plan, a farmer who sold his farm a month before his death and put his assets in a bank account should have to pay the tax? It makes no sense at all. Rather than a benefit, this plan would impose a burden by distorting the decisions that farmers and business owners make. It's not as though money invested in banks or mutual funds or stocks is less productive than that invested in farms or directly in family businesses; that investment money finances the activities of other farms and businesses. Why should the government exempt one kind of investment from the death tax but not all kinds? There are no "benefits" to such micromanagement of the economy by Democrats or by any other government policymakers, no matter what the Times business section tells you.
Medicare "Cuts": A story in the metro section this morning about Hillary Clinton's Medicaid proposals repeats the false charge that in 1995, the Republican-led Congress tried to "cut" Medicare spending. The article refers to a 1995 bill, saying, "Further, the overall Medicaid budget, as well as that for Medicare, was reduced under the bill, in cuts the president cited when he vetoed it." This is just plain false. The Republican plan that Clinton vetoed didn't reduce the Medicare budget, it just reduced the growth rate from what had previously been projected. The Democrats also wanted to reduce the growth rate, just by a smaller amount. The Democrats demagogued this issue into a "Mediscare" campaign accusing the Republicans of wanting to cut your grandmother's heath care. Republicans tried to counterattack: At one point Newt Gingrich was walking around Capitol Hill wearing a lapel button that said something like "14 percent is not a cut," referring to the percent INCREASE in Medicare spending under the Republican plan. (Don't hold me to the exact percentage, but it was an increase.) If you want to define a reduction in the projected growth rate as a cut, then the Democrats wanted to cut Medicare, too. The story in this morning's Times is totally oblivious to all this.
"Alper" Male: Continuing its regular practice of spelling the names of Middle Eastern policy types incorrectly -- Natan "Sharanksy," Daniel "Kurzer" -- the Times this morning makes reference in a story in its international section to one "Yossi Alper." That is the way the New York Post spelled his name yesterday in the story the Times is following up on today. But while the person in question was the American Jewish Committee's representative in the Middle East, he was frequently quoted by the Times with his last name spelled "Alpher."
Tabzaple: Here's an interesting usage from the "Making Books" column on the front of today's Arts & Letters section: "Almost a beggarly sum, it turned out to be, compared with the record $7 million advance that was put on the tabzaple Wednesday by two publishers before John F. Welch Jr., chairman and chief executive of General Electric, for his chronicle of success." Any suggestions from smartertimes.com readers on the meaning of the word "tabzaple"? It's not in any of the dictionaries I checked.
Home Section Goes Foreign: Without a dateline to help us, we have to read down into the fourth paragraph of the lead story of today's House & Home section to discover that the place the Times is writing about is St. Petersburg, Russia, not St. Petersburg, Florida. The editors at the House & Home section seem to think that a mere reference to "St. Petersburg" is enough mentally to transport the reader to Russia, when in fact it about as likely to transport a reader to the Gulf Coast.