WSJ misleadingly quotes Tax Policy Center in headline to tout Romney's tax plan

[brentspeak]

Look at the wording of the following article's headline and its first few paragraphs:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/18/study-deduction-cap-would-raise-1-3-trillion/

October 18, 2012, 12:40 PM
Study: Tax Deduction Cap Would Raise $1.3 Trillion

By Siobhan Hughes

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney‘s suggestion for capping itemized deductions at $25,000 would generate about $1.3 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

Mr. Romney has been heavily pushing the idea in the final weeks of the campaign, a strategy that helps blunt Democratic charges that his plan to cut individual tax rates by 20% would benefit the wealthy. Deductions are taken primarily by higher earners, with the biggest deductions going to the people in the top tax brackets.

snip

The Tax Policy Center found that capping deductions at $17,000 would bring in $1.7 trillion over 10 years, even after factoring in a 20% rate cut and the repeal of the alternative minimum tax. It said that a $50,000 cap–which would allow for more and bigger deductions–would raise $760 billion.

Makes it sound like the Tax Policy Center is validating Romney's plan to cap deductions, doesn't it?

Now look carefully later on in the article:

In a blog post, the Romney campaign also said that the tax group has “erroneously” used the figures suggested by Mr. Romney as his actual plan. It notes that capping itemized deductions is only one option. The Romney campaign sees the new Tax Policy Center study as criticism that its math doesn’t add up. Among other things, the Romney campaign says in its blog post that the study leaves out the fact that a lot of other tax breaks could still be pared or trimmed. The campaign also objects to what it sees as an implication that that capping deductions could help make up revenue for another key part of its overhaul plan – reducing the top corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%.

Wait, so the Romney campaign seems pretty pi$$ed off a the Tax Policy Center, isn't it? And with good reason: the study actually says that Romney's plan doesn't generate $1.3 trillion as much as it loses $3.7 trillion, because Romney's tax plan will ultimately costs 5 trillion dollars in total tax cuts.

[Scuba]

1. What's the difference between Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?

Lipstick?

[unhappycamper]

2. ..

[Hoyt]

3. Headline shod have said, "Where's other $3.7 Trillion come from?" It assumes readers know what's

going on. Or, they could have said, "Rmoney's flawed plan only raises $1.3 Trillion to offset $5 Trillion tax rate reduction, putting us deeper in hole."

The article/blog does say: "Mr. Williams also noted that the new estimates show that capping deductions alone is not enough to pay for the full panoply of tax policies that Mr. Romney is promoting. “These new estimates suggest that Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed,” he wrote."

While headline sucks, the WSJ article/blog does make it clear Rmoney's plans to cut tax rates is not budget neutral as he claims.


On another matter, I wish these folks would stop talking in 10 year increments.

[AnnaLee]

4. Credible?

It turns out that even credibility can be purchased in this country.

So a completely discredited plutocrat buys an important business journal that enjoys nervous credibility already and now people are quoting this journal because two bad credibilities add to dangerously credible?

What a country!