L.A. Times Reporters Hit Dems From Left On Taxes

Photo of Ken Shepherd.

"Ugh, now the Democrats like tax cuts too!"

That's essentially the tone of a March 5 Los Angeles Times article* that took Democrats to task for their plans for what President Clinton was fond of calling "targeted tax cuts." Apparently they just "cost" the government too much of our money:

WASHINGTON // After years of claiming that Republicans were cluttering
the tax code with provisions that enriched the wealthy, leading Democrats in Congress want to add more tax credits and deductions to benefit narrow groups of largely middle-class constituents.

Among potential beneficiaries: people with elderly parents in nursing homes, new parents, college students, volunteer firefighters and organ donors.

But all these goodies are raising questions about how the Democrats can give away tax revenues while keeping their pledge not to deepen the government's deficit.

But wait, there's more...

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Reporters Joel Havemann and Molly Hennessy-Fiske continued with a messy report that mislabeled the Concord Coalition as "conservative," gave bona fide conservative tax reform advocate Grover Norquist just one line of comment, and left out the leftward leanings of the "nonpartisan Tax Policy Center."

Tax credits "drain the government of precious resources," Havemann and Hennessy-Fiske quoted Tax Policy Center's (TPC) Burman. Such new credits and deductions end up "aggravating the deficit or forcing Congress to raise taxes on everybody
else," the reporters helpfully added. Of course that falls squarely in line with the liberal conception of tax revenue as the government's money to dole out.

Yet the Times reporters failed to acknowledge that Burman's group has a political leaning, calling it a "nonpartisan" group. In fact, TPC is a joint venture of liberal think tanks the Urban Institute
and the Brookings Institution.

And while many conservatives regularly pan selective tax credits in favor of broader-based tax reduction and reform, conservative objections were given just one line by conservative tax reform advocate Grover Norquist.

Calling it a "conservative Washington-based group," Havemann and Hennessy-Fiske cited objections from The Concord Coalition to Democratic plans to push through new "middle class" tax credits.

Of course the Times reporters failed to explain how a group that has criticized the Bush tax cuts for growing the deficit is a conservative organization.

* The Baltimore Sun also ran the Times story, and that is where I first ran across the article.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wow. I'm shocked that this Lo

Wow. I'm shocked that this Los Angeles Times story didn't quote the "conservative" Kevin Phillips on how dangerous tax rate reductions are.

With China owning $200 billio

With China owning $200 billion+ of our debt, Bush has created a situation where it will be impossible to not raise taxes at some point. With China holding such a huge amount of our bonds we are at a huge risk if they decide to divest their holdings. This probably would not happen, but it does insure that our trade with China may have to increase from where it is already which will keep hurting what is left of manufacturing in the U.S. Perhaps someone with economics credentials could comment on the trade defecit and its affect on ours and China's economies.

Heaven forbid that the middle class should get tax cuts for college students or volunteer fire fighters.

blarson...havent we warned yo

blarson...havent we warned you about sticking your tongue in the light sockets?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Hey bassndude-- Why don't

Hey bassndude--

Why don't you elucidate on the trade defecit with China and its implications on taxes and manufacturing in the U.S. Perhaps you could demystify the impact it could have on China's own economy keeping in mind the the yuan does not trade on the free world market.

Blarsen - not exactly a new problem

Blarsen - not exactly a new problem. I respect your concern over the trade deficit and the trade deficit with China, hiowever it is not a new problem - simply getting worse. Bush did not create the situation. We did, as a country. Our media and the left celebrate the economy of the 1990's - yet condemn Bush for the very same issues. Reflect. Then next time your folks are in office - try holding them to accoutability, for what you believe in.

From: The Cost of Trade With China Oct. 1997, "Women and low-wage workers hit hardest... "

The U.S. trade deficit with mainland China, which topped $39 billion in 1996, is growing more rapidly than with any other country. Last year, the U.S. imported $4.30 worth of goods from China for every $1 it exported there. So far in 1997, the deficit has risen another 30%..

I get it. Once again everyth

I get it. Once again everything is Clinton's fault. In my book $39 billion is substantially less than the current $280 billion. Did Bush not borrow money from China to fund the Iraq War?

No Blarsen

No Blarsen. You did not get it. I did not suggest everything was Bill Clinton's fault. Without looking it up, I'm going to suggest that the annual increase (%) of our total trade deficit was more, on a per year basis, under Clinton then under Bush, but during Bush the increase of the portion of that deficit which belongs to China has increased more. Just a gut guess.

Your question is way out there. Did Clinton borrow money from China to bomb the ____ out of Iraq, over and over again - without any vision of freeing the people?

The left - "We were against the sanctions cause they caused the deaths of 500,000 children, and they are not working."  Sec. Albright said "that" was worth the price. "Now, we're against the sanctions because they were working." 

up-date: here's an intersting chart China's % of trade deficit

This article only emphasizes

This article only emphasizes that Steve Forbes was right; let's cut all of the nonsense and institute a flat tax.

I'm 100% in favor of the flat

I'm 100% in favor of the flat tax! Eliminate the current, corrupt tax code and its associated industry of tax accountants and tax attorneys, and we'll greatly reduce the corruption on Capitol Hill. Without the ridiculously unwieldly tax code we suffer under today, lobbyists will have little reason to hang out at the Congress looking for favorable tax breaks and credits.

Bring on the Flat Tax!

I agree. We need fundamenta

I agree. We need fundamental reform of the tax code. Of course the liberal media often portray tax cuts and hikes in terms of "winners" and "losers" in a redistributionist sense, and always portray the government as the loser when revenues go down in the short term for tax cuts.

To the liberal MSM, it's all about the government's wealth and power, which is why to some extent I think the reverence for Clinton's economy in the late 1990s. It wasn't just that the economy was doing well under his watch, it was that the projected budget surpluses were the crown jewel of said economy to the media. That meant more money for big government to play with, after all.

Not only did military suffer

Not only did military suffer but real state of fed finances was never as healthy as was portrayed.

JDW

Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.

News media: Scoreboard for terrorists

(from USA Today online, in an

(from USA Today online, in an article about the rise of advocacy or agenda journalism)   At NBC, Today news anchor Ann Curry has carved out a niche as a humanitarian reporter for her segments on starvation in Darfur, a region of the Sudan she has visited twice since March 2006.

"Does it mean something to me that people know about Darfur because of our efforts? Absolutely," Curry says. "The more you do of this work, the more you realize what needs to be done. Our job is to give voice to people who have no voice. I think we've forgotten that in recent years."

Hmm. I always thought the job of giving voice to people who have no voice was the job of advocacy groups, and the job of journalism was to report events as factually and with as much neutrality as possible.   Ms. Curry certainly sounds like she'd be more suited to a role in the International Red Cross, or Morning-Gab-Show-Co-Hosts-Without-Borders, than a reporter for an honest news organization.

But taking her quote on board, we might look at these LA Times reporters in a different light.  Perhaps they are merely doing what they perceive is their jobs as advocates for the end of middle-class tax credits.  They ought to give Ann Curry a call and swap notes.