An editorial in today's New York Times calls for "significant" tax increases in addition to those already imposed. "Caps on deductions, higher taxes on investment income and a financial transaction tax are worth fighting for, as are broader tax reforms, like a carbon tax and a value-added tax, that could take effect as the economy recovers," the Times says.
Yet in an editorial yesterday about the French economy, the Times criticized the government of France for "the same flawed policies of higher taxes and flat or lower spending that has hindered growth in other European economies." (For subject-verb agreement, it should be policies...have, but the main point here is the lack of agreement between the two tax editorials, not the lack of agreement between subject and verb in this sentence of one of the two editorials.) That Times editorial criticized the French government for "a controversial increase in the marginal income tax rate to 75 percent, from 41 percent, on incomes of more than a million euros (about $1.3 million)," which the Times said "generates too little to have any meaningful effect on the government's finances."
So the same higher taxes that the Times finds undesirable in Europe because they hinder growth are somehow desirable here in America? Maybe there is some way to reconcile these two positions with logical consistency, but the Times doesn't even try, instead issuing them on successive days as if readers of the second one would not remember the one from the day before.