It's a disappointing issue of the New York Times today for those who appreciate the occasions when the paper strays outside its usual ideological rut.
There's an "economic scene" column by Eduardo Porter that appears under the headline "Blessings of Low Taxes Remain Unproved." At the New York Sun we had a rule that you couldn't use the word "remain" as a verb in a headline or the opening paragraph of an article, because it suggested not news but olds. It's a strange column, because on one hand it concedes some points: "Indeed, higher tax rates can reduce economic output because they change the decisions of workers, employers and investors. Income taxes reduce the rewards of work, potentially blunting the incentive to take a job. They can discourage paying for a costly higher education by reducing lucrative professions' take home pay." Elsewhere, it mentions a study that "concluded that a tax cut that reduced top rates by 5 percent and revenues by 2.5 percent of gross domestic product would add roughly 0.2 to 0.3 percent to annual economic growth." Yet the Times column concludes with the rhetorical question (seemingly contradicted by the previous passages), "if lower taxes do not deliver higher growth, why should the nation pursue them?"
As if that weren't enough on the tax issue, there's an editorial suggesting that Mayor Bloomberg respond to the court ruling striking down his ban on large portions of sugary beverages by pushing instead for "a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks." Why stop at a penny-per-ounce? Why not a dollar-an-ounce, indexed to inflation (or to average weight)? And how about adding border police at the bridges and tunnels from New Jersey to prevent New Yorkers from sneaking in bottles purchased out-of-state where the tax does not apply? The Times' support for this new tax brings to seventeen the number of different tax increases supported by Times editorial writers. The previous 16 are listed here.
Also on the soda tax issue, the Times carries a front-page article about the soda "industry's steadfast, if surprising, allies: advocacy groups representing the very communities hit hardest by the obesity epidemic." Maybe the Times finds it surprising that people who drink large portions of sugary beverages would oppose a ban on them, but others might find it totally understandable. Still others might prefer that their newspaper simply report the news rather than instruct readers on whether they should feel surprised by it.
On the question of a balanced budget, the Times carries a "news analysis" by Annie Lowrey questioning the value of the balanced federal budget that Republicans proclaim as a goal. She writes, "As sensible as a balanced budget might sound — much like a balanced checkbook for a family — countries are generally able to run modest deficits for years on end while still keeping debt stable as a share of economic output. One year's deficit is effectively paid off by later economic growth, especially if a government is investing in public goods like roads and schools." It's funny how the Times all of a sudden decides a balanced budget is a silly goal the moment Paul Ryan decides to aim for it. When President Obama was pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office, or when President George W. Bush was running deficits after cutting taxes and running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich were running a surplus, the Times wasn't running news analysis columns deriding the idea of a balanced budget.
Finally, as if all that weren't enough to turn your stomach, the Times op-ed page features an article by a Columbia professor, Rashid Khalidi, that runs in print under the headline "Is Any Hope Left for Mideast Peace?" and online under the headline "Will Obama Let the Oppression of the Palestinians Continue?" At the New York Sun we had the same rule about the use of the word "continue" in a headline that we did about the use of the word "remain." Professor Khalidi rails against what he calls "the unending colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem," as if the Jews, who have lived in this land since the time of the Bible, were some sort of European invaders.