Lower Taxes for Heirs?

In an editorial posted on October 18th entitled "Republicans Propose Lower Taxes for Richest Heirs, Higher Taxes for Lower- and Middle-Class", the author--Emily Cadik of the Burnt Orange Report--described the tax proposals being made by Republican leaders of the House and Senate. Essentially, they want to provide a big tax break to the estates of the wealthiest people each year, enabling their heirs to receive as much as possible, while also expiring improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The Credits are said to help over 13 million moderate-income families in America.

Cadik starts off her post by stating her opinion on the subject: "Despite the fact that decades of economic policy have shown this theory to be grounded in fantasy, sometimes it's really hard to imagine how their tax 
policies would ever actually grow anything." She continues on to provide evidence from an article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and describes the benefits of the EITC. The article ends with statements as to how regressive tax policies only benefit those that are receiving them, but not everyone, as the Republican party likes to insist.

Cadik's intended audience seems to be of Americans that are left-leaning, and fall into the financial bracket that would be getting the short end of the stick in this situation. Throughout the post, Cadik uses direct links to the other articles that she quotes or gets her information from, and is very thorough. Her writing is easy to follow, and comes full circle by ending on the same note with which it began (which I'm a big fan of). There are only subtle opinionated remarks that imply Cadik's feelings on the matter, which works to keep her article inline and seem unbiased. Altogether, it is a very well-written and thorough piece on one of the major topics of the 2012 Presidential Campaign.

Cool story, bro.

In an editorial from the Dallas Morning News, it was claimed that Governor Rick Perry has stated that "secularists and leftists are trying to keep people of faith from the public arena." The writer of the article openly disagreed with that statement, declaring that religious people are actually heavily involved. I have to admit that I'm not even sure where the author of the article took offense, considering that Rick Perry did not openly state that people of faith are denied a place in politics. If anything, he seems to be fueling a feeling of persecution that religious people have been voicing. The article goes on to prove just how involved the religious community is, describing how an evangelist leader is working to organize conservative voters across 117,000 churches. 

It is clear that the author intended this to reach a community of religious people who might feel like they are being persecuted for their religion (the irony here is staggering). Personally, I feel as if the author misunderstood Rick Perry's statements--to his or her detriment. It's not a surprise to anyone that religion plays a great part in Texas' government, and to write an article to prove that point doesn't do the religious community any favors. The author seems to be riled up for no reason, other than to excite Christian voters and in doing so encourage them to attend some kind of forum. From what I can tell about the community response to the article, the author may as well be talking about how hot it is outside.