That didn't take long. The same week that President Obama promised (again) that "95% of working families" would not see their taxes rise by "a single dime," his own budget reveals that taxes will rise for 100% of everyone for the sake of global warming. Ahem. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
I think this is a strong opinion piece. However, it fails to address the rationale for cap-and-trade revenue, and it even fails to mention what the revenue-generating condition(s) and event(s) will be. So it gives exceptionally little basis for anyone to form an opinion on the merits of the policy; readers are supplied only with a rationale for deeming it a "tax". Since it serves the needs only of those who have no other information about the revenue purpose/effect of the cap-and-trade policy, and of those who condemn all things labeled "tax", it achieves little as journalism.
It may be NewsTrust's fault and not the WSJ's, but I don't know whether a piece labeled (in fine print) "Review and Outlook" is a WSJ editorial, an OpEd of some kind (no blurb on any author), or a news analysis article (its NewsTrust tab is labeled "Article"). It is certainly not a fact report. Besides my unease as to its purported category, I am unhappy that they assume that it's bad policy if the label "tax" fits, and I'm unhappy that they assume it is an intentional deception. I'm a supporter of current Obama economic policy and of taxing carbon, but I think those angles to the piece are seriously misleading and a public disservice. Even "We report, you decide" would be better!!