The NYT is trying to make my point that the numbers they print about taxes and spending are completely meaningless. How else can anyone explain the fact that in a discussion of an energy bill passed by the House, that eliminates $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry and uses the money to promote alternative energy, readers are never told that this sum refers to a ten year period?
If anyone cares, the $1.7 billion in annual taxes is equal to approximately 0.06 of projected spending over the next decade. It comes to about $5.70 per person per year.
The article also should not have printed without response Republican claims that the elimination of the tax break would lead to higher gas prices. In the short-term, supply is almost entirely fixed. This means that the tax increase will come almost entirely out of producers' profits.
A second Trump administration will cement a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court for a generation, and put our collective future in the hands of someone who will be virtually unchecked by our institutions. The country has shifted rightward, and the reverberations will ensue for potentially the next few decades. In this climate, a robust independent media ecosystem will be more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on how Trump's agenda will actually affect the American people, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in this country.
Quality journalism is expensive to produce, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund what we do. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make our work possible. Any amount you give today will help us continue reporting on what matters to our democracy.
