In a stunning contradiction, the lead editorial in this morning's New York Times first says that "the threshold question that needs to be asked is whether tax cuts of any kind are the best way to bring about economic growth," then in the next breath supports soaking the rich, writing that "progressivity is a time-honored principle often forgotten in the political debates." The editorial goes on to say that "since the beginning of this century, Americans have consistently embraced the principle that calls for the wealthy to pay proportionately larger shares of their income in taxes."
Anyone who knows any economics realizes this is silliness. Progressivity works directly in opposition to economic growth. The steeper the tax scale, the less likely it is that people will be willing to work for that next dollar. Now, we're perfectly willing to concede that the tax code exists for reasons other than encouraging economic growth. It expresses moral judgments, for example. But if the Times is going to set up growth as the "threshold" standard, then it's just inane to call in the next breath for progressivity.
The Times' justification is just as silly. Take the reference to "the beginning of this century." Which "this century" is the Times talking about? The one that began about 100 years ago or the one that began January 1? If the Times thinks it's still the 20th Century, then it ought to refund the money to all those advertisers who bought space last year in those special sections for the millennium. And if by "this century" it means the past six months, it undermines the historical consistency argument, because six months isn't a very long time.
The case for making policy for the future based on the principles embraced by the public 100 years ago is kind of sketchy, anyway -- just think of what would it do to the Times's editorial positions on school desegregation and on anti-tobacco lawsuits. But even if you accept historical consistency as the standard, it would dictate not only progressivity but a massive tax cut: taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are now higher than they have ever been in America during peacetime. Of course, you wouldn't be able to glean that fact from the Times editorial.
Eli 'Yishair': The Times this morning continues its string of misspellings of the names of persons involved in Middle East politics and policy. In the past month, it has screwed up the names of Natan Sharansky, Daniel Kurtzer and Joseph "Yossi" Alpher, as smartertimes.com has pointed out. Today the man whose name is mangled is the leader of Israel's Shas Party, Eli Yishai. In an article in the international section, The Times renders his last name as "Yishair."