Dishonesty on Front Page of New York Times

The November 30, 2012 National (print) Edition of The New York Times' main front page story is titled "Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the Reagan '80s."


The story takes up a sixth of the first page and spans an additional full two and a third pages inside the paper. It is clearly meant to convey something major and that at the same time happens to provide support for the Obama Administration’s current efforts to raise taxes. Namely, the proposition that accepting Obama’s tax increases will still leave most people with lower taxes than they paid under Reagan.

Unfortunately, for The Times and its prodigious propaganda effort, throughout the article “the Reagan ‘80s” turn out to mean just the year 1980, which was not at all part of the Reagan ‘80s, but was the last year of the Carter Administration. (Reagan did not take office until January 20, 1981.)

Perhaps it will be the case that if Obama’s tax increases are enacted, the tax burden will still not be as great as it was under Carter. But that is certainly not a basis for claiming that it will not be greater than it was under Reagan, who sharply reduced the tax rates inherited from Carter. Nowhere in the vastness of its verbiage does The Times’ article bother to mention that under Reagan, the maximum surtax rate in the federal income tax was 28 percent, compared with today’s 35 percent, and which Obama wants to raise to almost 40 percent.

Interestingly, The Times may have already been told that its headline was blatantly dishonest. Its online version of the same article carries the title “Tax Burden Is Lower for Most Americans Than in the 1980s.” The Times apparently thinks that it can get away with its dishonesty simply by removing the reference to Reagan. But the article is still dishonest. Carter’s 1980 does not serve to describe Reagan’s 1981-1988.

Copyright 2012 by George Reisman. This article may be reproduced electronically provided this note is included in full. George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics, Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute, and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996; Kindle Edition, 2012). He is also the author of The Government Against the Economy, Warren Buffett, Class Warfare, and the Exploitation Theory, and The Benevolent Nature of Capitalism and Other Essays.  His website is www.capitalism.net. His blog is www.georgereismansblog.blogspot.com. See his Amazon.com author’s central page.

The New York Times Urges Government Aggression Against Producers and Consumers of Automobiles

In its lead editorial, titled “Sticker Shock,” The New York Times of Sunday, June 5, 2011, has the audacity to declare that “…Detroit and other manufacturers make big changes only when regulators force them to.”

The Times apparently forgets that the big changes constituted first by the introduction of the automobile, way back in 1894, and then by the countless improvements in the automobile since that time, such as the self-starter, automatic transmission, power brakes, and power steering, were made by "Detroit" without the presence of government regulators, indeed, in large part precisely because of the absence of government regulators. And that the same point applies to virtually every other “big change,” in very line of business that has taken place since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Clearly, the free market, the market insofar as it is free of government regulators, has made not merely big, but absolutely enormous changes, the enormous changes that constitute the economic progress of the last 260 years or more!

The “big changes” that the Times complains of not being made unless forced by regulators are changes that do not constitute economic progress but impoverishment. The specific change referred to in its editorial is compelling the automobile industry to produce cars so small and light that they will be able to achieve 62 miles per gallon. The obvious fact is that consumers do not want such pieces of junk and because they don’t, the automobile industry does not waste time trying to produce them. The only thing that can bring about such a “big change” is the government’s use of physical force in an act of naked aggression against the consuming public and the automobile producers who profit by serving the consumers.

Raising Taxes Is Not Reducing Government Spending

Today’s New York Times carries an article titled “The Blur Between Spending and Taxes.” The author is Harvard Professor N. Gregory Mankiw.*

The essential theme of the article is that the government is spending when it decides to forgo tax revenue that it otherwise could have collected. Indeed, tax revenues forgone in the enactment of tax deductions, such as for interest payments on home mortgages or charitable contributions, and tax credits, such as for first-time homebuyers or adoptions, are now commonly described as “Tax Expenditures.” The thought is that the government is spending money in deciding not to take it in taxes and to allow the taxpayers to keep it.

The underlying assumption of those who hold this view is that the government already owns the funds in question whether it has collected them in taxes or not. The government is the alleged owner of funds that belong to the taxpayer and which it abstains from taking. It allegedly spends these funds in allowing the taxpayers to keep them.

The fundamental question is, who is the owner of the funds paid in taxes? Is it the citizens, who have earned the funds and who turn them over to the government under the threat of being fined or imprisoned, or even killed if they physically resist the government, or is it the government?

To the supporters of the principle of individual rights and limited government—the principle on the basis of which the United States was founded—the obvious answer is that the people own the tax revenues and, in paying them, financially support the government. To the supporters of an omnipotent government ruling over a citizenry of rightless serfs, the government is the owner both of the people’s possessions, which, allegedly, are theirs in name only, and, indeed, of the people themselves. It is on the basis of this belief that it follows that the government financially supports the people in not taxing away their wealth.

The defenders of individual rights need to remind the government that it does not pay or enrich anyone by allowing him to keep what is already his.

This truth has major implications for the subject of tax reform, which the Times’ article was written to address. Tax reform needs to consist exclusively of reductions in government spending and in taxes. It should not be based on massive tax increases resulting from the elimination of existing tax deductions and credits. It is actual government spending that must be reduced, not what people have up to now been able to avoid having to pay in support of that spending.

The notion of tax expenditures provides the pretext for massive tax increases in the name of reducing government spending. This notion must be cast aside, so that the target of tax reform will be reductions in actual government spending, which then must be followed by reductions in taxes. This is what must be done on a truly massive scale. To the extent that it is accomplished, the income tax can be progressively reduced, until it is ultimately eliminated altogether. At that point, all questions of income tax deductions and credits will have disappeared.

As matters stand, the notion that the absence of taxation constitutes government spending is setting the stage for the total perversion of genuine tax reform. It is being used in an effort to impose as much as a trillion dollars a year in new taxes disguised as a trillion dollars a year of reduced government spending. In the words of the Times’ article, “Erskine B. Bowles and Alan K. Simpson, the chairmen of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission, have taken at hard look at these tax expenditures—and they don’t like what they see. In their draft proposal, released earlier this month, they proposed doing away with tax expenditures, which together cost the Treasury over $1 trillion a year.”

This is the sum and substance of the concept of tax reform held not only by the Obama administration but also by cowardly Republicans and conservatives. Simpson was a Republican United States Senator from Wyoming for eighteen years. Mankiw, the author of the Times’ article, was chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors from 2003 to 2005.

In sum, the danger exists that Left and Right are about to unite to accomplish a colossal political fraud in the form of enormous tax increases sold to an unsuspecting public as reductions in government spending. The American people need to stand up and refuse to accept any form of the absurdity that in not taxing them, the government is spending their money and that the path to lower spending and taxes is raising their taxes. The basis of tax reform must be reduced government spending, not higher taxes.

*The article appears on p. 5 of the Business Section of the November 21, 2010 issue.

Copyright © 2010 by George Reisman. George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. His website is www.capitalism.net.

Keeping Up With the Party Line at The New York Times/Pravda

From the movie review “Casualties of China’s Transformed Economy” by Jeannette Catsoulis, in today’s Times:

Bracketed by stunning long shots taken from the front of a moving freight train, Wang Bing’s epic, three-part documentary, “Tie Xi Qu: West of Tracks,” is an astonishingly intimate record of China’s painful transition from state-run industry to a free market. Filming between 1999 and 2001, Mr. Wang and his sound engineer, Lin Xudong, painstakingly document the death throes of the Tie Xi industrial district in the city of Shenyang, in northeast China, a once-vibrant symbol of a thriving socialist economy.

How foolish of China to abandon its “thriving socialist economy” of perpetual mass starvation for a rapidly progressing market economy of soaring skyscrapers and rising living standards for hundreds of millions.

From the book review by William Grimes “Looking Back in Anger at the Gilded Age’s Excesses” in today’s Times:

Again and again, surveying the post-Civil War landscape, Mr. Beatty throws up his hands in despair. “The people supported the government, and the government supported the corporations and the rentiers with the people’s money,” he writes. “And the people did not seem to object, at least not enough of them.”
Maybe that’s because of wheeler-dealers like Jay Gould, who once boasted, “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.” They just don’t make them like that anymore.

Or maybe it’s because the reviewer and author (Jack Beatty, a senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly) are 180 degrees wrong. Instead of the “robber barons” stealing the industries that did not exist before they created them, and impoverishing those who had next to nothing in the first place, the vast new wealth that the great industrialists employed as capital served radically and progressively to increase the supply of goods available to the common man to buy and increased the demand for the labor that he sold. That’s the actual nature and significance of the fact that, in the reviewer’s words, “The richest 1 percent owned 26 percent of the wealth, and the richest 10 percent owned 72 percent.” The hated rich created that new and additional wealth and were led by the nature of the profit motive, capital, and free markets to employ it for the progressive benefit of the masses.

Such is the intellectual and moral state of The New York Times, a veritable cesspool of wrong and vicious ideas serving day in and day out to poison the minds of its readers against the capitalist economic system and economic freedom.

This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.