Not to worry, folks, no matter what the NYT head said, Governor Andrew didn't strike a deal on taxes "to raise rate for highest earners"

On Tuesday NYS Gov. Andrew Cuomo (who may or may not be some relation to a person identified as "Popular Reformer Cuomo") stalked the halls of the Capitol after he, the Republican-controlled Senate, and the Democratic-controlled Assembly remade the state tax code more or less overnight.

by Ken

The Internet certainly didn't create the phenomenon of short-shelf-life punditry. For how long have, say, newspaper columnists faced the fate of having their latest thumb-suckings appear hopeless out of date by the day after publication, or even by the time they actually reached print? But online posting has certainly accelerated the obsolescence cycle. (It's a fate, curiously, that doesn't so much afflict people like Paul Krugman and E. J. Dionne Jr. and Ian Welsh and Harold Meyerson.)

I got a jolt, though, when I caught up today -- thanks to Nation of Change -- with a piece that Joe Conason turns out to have published originally on Monday. It was kind of a relief to find that the piece is that "old," although it's worrying even so. Worrying, I mean, that someone I think of as being so pol-savvy got snookered by my one and only governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, into believing that our Andrew has overturned his long-standing opposition to increasing taxes on the state's financial top crust.

Oh, Governor Andrew certainly did make a break of sorts with his previously rigid position on taxing the wealthy, but it wasn't to increase taxes. It was to decrease taxes on our highest-income earners by less than they were expecting.

Here's some of what Joe had to say in that National Memo piece Monday "Will Popular Reformer Cuomo's Plan Tax the 1 Percent?":

Held aloft by the highest approval ratings of any governor in America, Andrew Cuomo scarcely seemed to worry about angering his state's progressives, who were disappointed by his refusal to extend a state surtax on New York's millionaires. But in what may come to be regarded as a watershed moment in his tenure, Cuomo now plans a sweeping tax reform that is expected to demand more, not less, from the state's wealthiest, while reducing the burden on the middle class -- in the name of "fundamental fairness."

Over the weekend, rumors of a shift in Cuomo's anti-tax position began to circulate, confirmed on Monday morning when his office dispatched a short essay by the governor to newspaper editors around the state arguing that New York's current tax code is "unfair" to the middle class and inhibits economic growth.

Rather than the expiring surcharges, which Cuomo castigates for raising the taxes of families making $200,000 a year -- "hardly millionaires," as he put it -- his proposed new system would add higher brackets at the top end and lower brackets in the middle. Although he didn't offer details yet, his aims are clear enough:

First, we need to reform the code in a way that creates jobs and grows our economy. To do that, we need to put more money in New Yorkers' pockets and inject it back in to the economy. There are also tax credits that can incentivize private-sector job growth.

Second, true reform for fairness has two factors: income brackets that fairly group income levels and progressive rates increasing with income. Simply put, to me "fairness" dictates that the more you make the more you pay, and the higher your income the higher your rate. Also, you should be treated the same as people with similar incomes and differently from people who make significantly more, or significantly less, than you earn.

Fairly or not, Cuomo's decision to seek higher levies on the state's highest earners will be portrayed as a turnabout from his earlier position, which had cast him as a defender of Wall Street and big business against labor populism. . . .

Now I suppose the financial elites are nevertheless outraged by this betrayal, since the governor at least pays lip service here to the basic principle of progressive taxation: "Simply put, to me "fairness" dictates that the more you make the more you pay, and the higher your income the higher your rate."

And in fairness to Joe, he does seem to allow that we need to see the details before we can even answer the question posed in his title, "Will Popular Reformer Cuomo's Plan Tax the 1 Percent?" (Perhaps I missed something in Joe's piece, but I'm wondering who this fellow "Popular Reformer Cumomo" is -- some heretofore unknown distant cousin of Governor Andrew C?) Joe certainly seemed to think our Andrew was serious about some kind of "tax reform" --

his opinion that the rich should be taxed more is at least as popular as Cuomo himself. If he succeeds in changing the tax system to encourage both higher employment and greater equity, he will have removed a potential obstacle to any future national ambitions he may cherish.

By Tuesday, however, the details were announced. Thomas Kaplan reported in the NYT:

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders announced on Tuesday that they had reached an agreement to overhaul New York State's income tax, creating a higher tax bracket for the highest-income residents and reducing the tax rate for millions of middle-class residents.

The deal came together just 25 days before the expiration of the state's so-called millionaires' tax -- actually a surcharge on all individuals earning over $200,000 a year. The proposed tax overhaul would result in most residents' being taxed next year at a lower rate than this year.

The long-term impact on the wealthy was described by some as a cut and others as an increase: beginning next year, the highest-income earners will be taxed at a lower rate than at present, but at a higher rate than had been expected with the expiration of the surcharge. . . .

It all sounds like much less of a deal than Joe seemed to think, but one thing it's nuts to say, as the headline on Kaplan's piece did, is: "Albany Tax Deal to Raise Rate for Highest Earners."

Which prompted this from Ian Welsh:

How to lie with headlines -- NY Times edition

2011 December 8

by Ian Welsh

So, I’m browsing the NY Times and a title leaps out at me:

Albany Tax Deal to Raise Rate for Highest Earners

The URL says Cuomo, governor of New York.

Odd, I think. I wouldn't expect Cuomo to raise taxes on rich people. Maybe I've misjudged him? Maybe he isn't just a union busting jerk squishing the small people and covering his butt with things like gay marriage which the corporate interests he serves are good with?

I read further. Paragraph 3:

The long-term impact on the wealthy was described by some as a cut and others as an increase: beginning next year, the highest-income earners will be taxed at a lower rate than at present, but at a higher rate than had been expected with the expiration of the surcharge.

Oh. So, in fact, the deal lowers the actual tax rate the rich will pay.

Good to see the NY Times is still the same gray old lady she's been my entire life.

Back when I was a managing editor at FDL and the Agonist, I used to tell the writers the following: assume that 90% of readers will only read the title of the piece. Assume that of those who do read further, you are losing half of them with each paragraph. I doubt the Times numbers are that much different. The vast majority of readers will never get to paragraph 3. They will assume the title is accurate. If the title is a lie, which it is, that is the information they will take away.

The accurate headline, if this is the story they want to tell, by the way, would be:

Legislators lower tax rate for highest earners less than expected

#