[link removed]
FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
WSJ Likes 'More Money in Taxpayers' Hands'—Only When They're Wealthy Hands Elias Khoury ([link removed])
WSJ: Two Wins for Tax Cutting in Ohio
The Wall Street Journal (7/5/21 ([link removed]) ) was thrilled by an Ohio tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy...
When Ohio’s Gov. Mike DeWine signed a tax cut into law on July 1, the Wall Street Journal editorial board (7/5/21 ([link removed]) ) was thrilled. It praised the Republican governor, saying he “lower[ed] income-tax rates for all Ohio taxpayers.”
While this is technically true, it’s also misleading. Average Ohioans get virtually nothing from the tax cut. The Dayton Daily News (7/4/21 ([link removed]) ) thus advised its readers not to get too excited:
Hold off on popping open some fancy champagne—the money you save might not be enough to buy the bottle. The savings for a taxpayer with a taxable income of $50,000 a year is estimated at $34.
Compare that to the windfall to be enjoyed by Ohio’s wealthiest. The average member of Ohio’s 1% makes $1.45 million annually, and will receive a tax cut of $5,400. The top 5% get 58% of the benefits, and the bottom 80% receive an average cut of just $43. Unsurprisingly, the Wall Street Journal editorial board omits these crucial facts from their analysis, defending the tax cuts on the grounds that they will “leav[e] more money in taxpayers’ hands.”
WSJ: Didn't States Say They Were Broke?
...but New Jersey tax rebates targeted to the poor and middle class are "sending checks to buy votes" (Wall Street Journal, 6/30/21 ([link removed]) ).
If that’s the case, then the editorial board should also love what Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy is doing in New Jersey: His most recent budget includes $500 tax rebates for parents making under $150,000. You might call that “leaving more money in taxpayers’ hands,” and assume the editorial board would be in favor. But you would be wrong.
Instead, the board (6/30/21 ([link removed]) ) smeared the rebates and other social-welfare spending as an attempt to “buy votes.” But New Jersey is a deeply blue state where Murphy won his last election by more than 14 percentage points. The next general election is this November—a race rated “Solid D” by the Cook Political Report. Polls show Murphy heavily leading his Republican opponent, Jack Ciatterelli, in a state Joe Biden carried by 16 points. In short, Democrats don’t need to “buy" votes in New Jersey. They already have plenty.
More important, though, is the framing. When government helps the working and middle class, it’s tantamount to corruption. Buying votes, after all, would be blatant electoral fraud. But when bought-and-paid-for politicians enact big giveaways to the ultrawealthy, the Wall Street Journal applauds them and considers their actions exemplary. It’s clear where their sympathies lie: not with all taxpayers, or even the majority of them—just a select few.
------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the Wall Street Journal at
[email protected] (mailto:
[email protected]) (or via Twitter: @WSJopinion ([link removed]) ) Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
------------------------------------------------------------
Read more ([link removed])
© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001
FAIR's Website ([link removed])
FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .
Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])
change your preferences (*%7CUPDATE_PROFILE%7C*)
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .
