In an editorial headlined "Rewarding the Wealthiest," (That's what The Times accuses George W. Bush of wanting to do; the Times' own position would be more accurately headlined "Punishing the Most Productive") the Times today asserts that "public fervor for tax cuts, so prevalent in the 1980's, has given way to broader concerns with equity and fiscal responsibility." Opposing tax cuts that would "comfort the already comfortable," the Times editorial says, "is not just populism. It is common sense." Well, if the Times is so opposed to tax cuts for the rich, why is the New York Times Company asking the city of New York for a huge tax break for its new headquarters tower near Times Square? The Times Company, as Smartertimes.com wrote on June 20, last year posted operating profits of $586.7 million. Last year's authorized biography of the company's controlling family, the Sulzbergers, "The Trust," detailed the family's extravagant lifestyle -- at barbecues on the family's 277-acre Connecticut estate, a manservant would stand at attention holding the hamburger patties on a silver platter as Arthur Ochs Sulzberger prepared to place them on the grill. If you put the Times's editorial today together with the Times' request for a tax break on the new Times tower, the platform that emerges is that The Times Company wants a tax cut for itself, but not for any other rich folks. Talk about comforting the comfortable.
Today's editorial speaks of "the desire by most Americans for a fair-minded tax code that taxes those most able to pay at higher rates, without reducing the incentive for the rich to increase their wealth." This is like writing about "the desire by most Americans for the ability to eat unlimited amounts of chocolate without gaining a single pound." The higher you make the tax rate on the rich, or on anyone, for that matter, the more you reduce their incentive to "increase their wealth." There's a tradeoff, just like there is with eating candy and gaining weight. And while we're at it, what's with the phrase "increase their wealth"? It encapsulates the Times' attitude toward the rich of the non-Sulzberger variety. Economists or those not engaged in class warfare or even "most Americans" might speak of "the incentive of the rich to create economic growth" or "the incentive of the rich to create jobs" or "the incentive of the rich to work hard and create innovations that improve life in America and that expand economic opportunity for the non-rich, too." But the Times sees the economic activity of the non-Sulzberger rich, apparently, as devoted only to increasing "their wealth." It's also unclear what the Times editorial means by "higher rates." Higher than the rates currently imposed on the rich? Or higher than the rates imposed on the poor?
The Times editorial asserts that the "principle of progressivity has been around since the income tax was first enacted during the Civil War." We're not quite sure what they are talking about: The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the amendment giving Congress "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," was adopted in 1913, nearly 50 years after the Civil War. (Update: A number of astute Smartertimes.com readers, including John Steele Gordon, have sent letters to the editor this morning noting that there was an income tax imposed from 1864 to 1872. The brackets were 0%, 3% and 5%. Another federal income tax on the rich, 2%, was enacted in 1894 and eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. These rates are much lower than the ones being debated today. And, in any event, the fact that something has been around since the Civil War isn't always a good argument for keeping it in place, as advocates of women's suffrage could tell you.)
Israeli "Posturing": The lead news story in today's New York Times, about diplomatic efforts to reach an end to the clashes between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, reports, "Diplomats said Wednesday's session had been taken up by considerable posturing. In his first meeting with the secretary this morning, Mr. Barak went into long descriptions of how the Palestinians were violating the agreements with Israel by acquiring illegal arms and shooting at Israeli soldiers." If "posturing" is the word being used by diplomats -- American diplomats? -- to describe dismissively Mr. Barak's legitimate complaints about the failure of the Arabs to adhere to prior agreements, then such rank insensitivity is probably worth a story in itself. If "posturing" is the word the Times is using on its own to describe Mr. Barak's position in the talks as it was described neutrally by diplomats, then such dismissiveness in a news story by the Times about Mr. Barak's legitimate complaints is way out of line.