Slate’s John Dickerson on How Tax Cuts for the Wealthy are Tax Increases

Comments That Set a New Standard for Unintelligible Gibberish

Slate Magazine is an on-line publication that used to be interesting, well written, provocative and generally entertaining.  Then it was purchased by the Washington Post, with predictable results.

One of their regular pundits on the political scene is John Dickerson.  Mr. Dickerson addresses the current political/economic topic of how President. Obama and Speaker Boehner can cut a deficit deal that has higher taxes when it is clear to everyone that higher taxes are simply not acceptable to the Republican base.  Here is his explanation of how it can be done, and yes, take your time it does have to be read several times to fully appreciate what he is saying.

This would require some accounting creativity, both on its own terms and in order to make this deal contribute to the larger goal of deficit reduction. It would work like this: Tax cuts, like the annual reduction in the alternative minimum tax, would be counted toward the total deficit reduction target of between $2.5 trillion and $4 trillion—which is to say, they would add to it. To pay for those tax cuts that add to the deficit, tax "increases"—which is to say, the closing of some loopholes—would be allowed somewhere else. The net effect would be no new taxes, but deal makers would be able to say that future tax cuts were paid for and thereby reduced the deficit.

Yes, what he is saying is that future tax cuts which will contribute to the deficit will be offset by tax increases and therefore there are tax increases which reduce the deficit even though the tax increases result in no new revenue because they were offset by tax decreases which are paid for by the tax increases.  Wow, why isn’t that obvious to all?

Now gibberish of this quality cannot be the work of one person.  Clearly Mr. Dickerson is channeling the research and thinking of many people, maybe some from the Republican side, maybe some from the President’s side, and likely some from both sides. 

Mr. Dickerson’s commentary is valuable in that it does provide some insight into how the minds of the people negotiating a deficit deal work, although that insight  should not be obtained if one values clarity of thought and control of bodily functions.