Liberal Hypocrisy and the Death Tax, Demonstrated by NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzberger
David Freddoso at National Review Online pointedout a gem on the editorial page of Tuesday morning's New York Sun, "The Non-Sulzberger Death Tax," revealing the liberal hypocrisy of the Times' publisher (emphasis added).
It's not every day that one finds a tax policy argument in the world-famous gossip column of the New York Post, but there it was yesterday in "Page Six": The news was that the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., had sold his Upper West Side apartment to his wife for $3.25 million for what a Times spokeswoman described as "estate-planning purposes." The editors of Page Six have their wits about them; they noted the irony that the Times, as they put it, "is always for higher taxes." Sure enough, the Times editorialized on April 15, 2005, that "The only thing driving the push for repealing the estate tax is ideology. It sure isn't sound tax policy."
The Sun editorial continued:
We look forward to reading an editorial in the Times about what's "sound" in a tax law that drives a man to sell the apartment he lives in to his wife just to minimize taxes. Its editorial from 2005 went on, "most Americans never even have to think about the estate tax." Looks like the owner of the newspaper that issued the editorial is one American who did have to think about it - and took some action to minimize the amount he had to pay.
The Times has long been hostile toward repeal of the estate tax in its news pages as well. Back in July 2003, reporter David Firestone lamented:
The House voted today to eliminate the federal estate tax, the third time in a month that Republicans have approved a large tax-cut bill over objections from Democrats that the government is being deprived of its lifeblood. The permanent elimination of the estate tax is a long-sought goal of the conservative Republicans who lead the House, and many said today that the measure would keep family businesses from dissolving to pay the tax upon an owner's death. Democrats countered that only a few thousand of the very richest estates have to pay the tax every year, and several said it was immoral to add to the nation's record-setting debt to benefit those at the economic pinnacle....Repealing the estate tax would cost the Treasury about $162 billion in the next 10 years, a figure that could grow extensively if the exemption is extended. Opponents had a field day with the Republicans' willingness to raise the deficit for that purpose, but not to provide a full prescription drug benefit for older people or an increased child tax credit to low-income families, issues now also under debate in Congress."