Anyway, today, FLG was reading a long article on the front page of the WaPo that contains so much weaselly language just to conform to so-called objectivity standards. Here are some examples:
The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say.
The phrase "some lawmakers say" is carte blanche for the authors to write whatever the fuck they want. For example, UFOs exist, some lawmakers say. Or perhaps, the rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should NOT be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say. (FLG is sure he could find some if he bothered to look.)
And then we have this:
Advocates for a low capital gains rate say it spurs more investment in the U.S. economy, benefiting all Americans. But some tax experts say the evidence for that theory is murky at best. What is clear is that the capital gains tax rate disproportionately benefits the ultra-wealthy.
Some tax experts say? Not a lot. Not most. Not a majority. Just some.
And then there's this:
But others said that regardless of the economic arguments, the steady cutting of the capital gains tax rate reflects the political power of the rich, who are more likely to contribute to politicians and benefit from the work of lobbyists. In other words, inequality of wealth can lead to inequality of representation.
And so, in the end, they say ignore the economic arguments. This capital gains thing is a political issue that undermines democracy.
Look, FLG isn't going to sit here and say that the captial gains rate shouldn't be on the table when it comes to deficit reduction. Sure, like Greenspan, FLG thinks the ideal rate would be zero, but he's not unreasonable. He could live with something higher than the current rate.
To tell you the truth, his problem here is not even about the capital gains issue. It's the lie that the Washington Post and other news organizations like it are fair and objective. This article was clearly written by two people who are upset about income inequality and want the capital gains tax raised. That's fine, but put that on the Op-Ed page. It's far more honest to say:
We believe the rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit.
Rather than tacking on "some lawmakers say."
Now, in complete fairness, they did provide quotes from specific lawmakers and specific tax experts. But the entire thing was an opinion piece disguised as a news piece.