I haven’t said much about the 2012 election, largely because this blog tries to avoid politics and instead focuses on how public policy can promote or (all too often) restrict liberty.
But every so often, I feel compelled to pontificate – usually because someone is saying or doing something foolish. This is why I want to talk about Jon Huntsman’s tax reform plan.
But in this case, my ire isn’t directed at the candidate, who actually deserves credit for proposing a very good plan.
Instead, I want to expose some very shoddy – or very biased – coverage by the New York Times. Here’s how the reporter, Ashley Parker, began her report on Huntsman’s proposal.
Jon M. Huntsman Jr. again showed himself on Wednesday to be an ideological outlier in the Republican presidential field, calling for the tax code to be stripped of all loopholes and deductions. Congressional Republicans have resisted closing loopholes in recent budget talks, portraying such moves as tax increases.
Her key message, as you can read for yourself, is that Huntsman is a rogue force in the Republican Party because he wants to get rid of special tax breaks. GOPers in Congress, according to the article, “have resisted closing loopholes.”
Huntsman may very well be an outlier is certain ways, but Parker’s portrayal of his tax plan – and how it meshes with the views of other GOPers – is simply false.
The general Republican position, as well as the position of Americans for Tax Reform, is that it is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable to get rid of tax preferences and distortions. But they should be eliminated as part of a shift to lower tax rates, not as part of some scam to give politicians more tax revenue.
Well, take a wild guess what Jon Huntsman wants to do with the revenue from “closing loopholes.” Assuming your IQ is above room temperature, you probably have figured out that the former Utah governor wants to use every penny of the additional tax revenue to finance lower tax rates. And you’d be correct.
Nowhere in Mr. Parker’s story, however, is there any acknowledgement of that important fact. Why not? To be honest, I have no idea. It could be bias. It could be incompetence. It could be that she had a preconceived narrative that Huntsman is a maverick and therefore she wanted to portray his plan as somehow contrary to GOP policy.
But all that matters is she blew the story. Within two sentences, she completely mischaracterized Huntsman’s proposal and created a false impression that he was doing something that put him to the left of the Republican mainstream, when he actually has a tax plan that is much farther to the right than anything Perry or Romney have proposed.
[…] he does work at the New York Times, which is tediously left wing (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), so we’ll give the newspaper an award for the “Own-Goal […]
[…] I also hit them for ignorant reporting, such as the story implying that things are free when they’re financed by government, this column that inadvertently makes the opposite point from what was intended, and this story mis-characterizing tax reform. […]
[…] I also hit them for ignorant reporting, such as the story implying that things are free when they’re financed by government, this column that inadvertently makes the opposite point from what was intended, and this story mis-characterizing tax reform. […]
[…] distorted story, also from the New York Times, about tax reform and […]
[…] He is putting all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket, so his last-place performance won’t surprise anyone. As a general observation, I’m surprised he’s not pushing his rather attractive tax reform plan. […]
Tax reform has to be real. The system we have now is key to where we have come to now. If you see this key, than you can can easily see that implementing HR-25 and S-1025 is the only real reform.
Ron Paul’s plan is ideal, however we have obligations of dept, paid for health care, and paid for retirement that we must meet first. The Fair Tax Act plan provides for that while enjoying an economy funded fully with luxuries.
Glenn Gray
Huntsman said he wants to simplify the tax code and that his plan is revenue neutral. I personally don’t see anything wrong with that though I haven’t seen any study on the effect this would have on various income classes. I’m a fan of the FairTax but it also claims to be revenue neutral so what exactly is your beef with Huntsman’s plan?
Explanation: New York Times
Unfortunately, other than jumping on a band wagon of “wanting change” Huntsman has NO real plan… just verbiage. This is rather silly when you understand that there are plans out there, that are bills before Congress, and sitting there waiting for politicians with the intestinal fortitude to put their money where their mouths are… follow through on promised change.
Huntsman has exhibited no inkling whatsoever that he has a clue as to what plans are out there or what they accomplish. Specifically, I refer to the FairTax Plan, 10 years in the works, 10+ years of studies backed by $20,000,000 and supported by 70 of the top economists in the country.
The FairTax is supported by the one candidate who has the audacity to actually speak what he believes, not what he thinks you want to hear. Gary Johnson has a multitude of plans and ideas, know what he supports and why. He is NOT a lifetime politician like Huntsman, Bachman, Perry, Romney and he is outspoken about the real changes necessary to fix the problems we face.
Maybe you should focus on a real candidate, not necessarily the best known, but the only honest one running. The others are just jumping on a bandwagon of “change” and when questioned, have no plan.