If there were a Pulitzer Prize awarded for callous stupidity, the Inquirer came up with a runaway winner in its Sunday editorial on City tax cuts.

As far as the idiotorial (sic?) is concerned, the Business Privilege tax cuts proposed by the Mayor in his budget simply must be enacted. Nevertheless, and horror of horrors, it seems that “there is some talk at City Hall of halting the tax cuts.” Imagine! People talk of such things! At City Hall!

Yes, the Inkies admit, “Nutter and Council need to plug holes in the budget that opened in recent weeks.” Yes, the Nutter budget proposed “smart new investments that should be retained in some form – for police and fire protection, parks, the community college, and more.”

But does less revenue and increased spending needs mean to the Inquirer that taxes should be stabilized rather than cut? You know, to produce the revenue needed for the “smart new investments?” Well, of course, not. The Inquirer is interested in truthiness, (Colbertism) not truth. And it’s very truthy to simply rely on the great shibboleth of right wing commentators everywhere: savings can always be had without cutting services. As “proof” in this case, the Inquirer notes that the Mayor already proposed some savings in his original budget. Therefore, “other efficiencies could produce further savings.”

And there you go; that’s the whole case. No further “evidence” is needed, no weighing of the costs of increased services versus the revenues to be lost from tax cuts. No, it's proven, SOME savings have already been proposed; therefore taxes can be cut and services can be maintained and actually increased! Council and the Mayor: YA GOTTA BELIEVE!!!

Apparently the business elites think they are so in control of the agenda in this City that coming anywhere near logical argument is no longer necessary. Just tell it like you would like it to be, and let the real people of Philadelphia eat cake.

I don’t know the Pulitzer’s rules on submitting more than one article for an award, but the Inquirer’s case for callous stupidity recognition was greatly aided by Sunday’s other budget editorial entitled “Secret Budget Hearings.”

In that editorial the Inky lambasted Council and the Mayor for closing their doors on budget deliberations. All well and good, but the editorial begged the question: what has the Inquirer done itself to generate information that the public needs to evaluate tax and budget policy? For instance, has the Inquirer ever told us, or demanded from any administration, who is helped or harmed by the current business tax structure?

The answer is no. Not because of Inky efforts, but only because of the efforts of a single Council member –- and YPP’s own Jennifer -- has that information even begun to come forth. And it shows that more than half the benefit of the proposed Business Privilege Tax cuts would go to less than 900 companies, many of them not even located in the City of Philadelphia, most likely. (There’s more information yet to be produced on the latter point.) If tax breaks were limited to companies with less than $10 million in sales, over 80% of all taxpaying companies would be helped, and millions of dollars would be preserved for City priorities. (Based on 2006 Revenue Department figures.)

Perhaps the Inquirer could be forgiven for not going after this information and subjecting it to any meaningful evaluation. After all, it’s a complicated world out there, and the Inky can’t investigate everything. And if it got the information, what would it do with it, actually promote a discussion of targeted tax cuts? No use for that; the Inky has already decided that tax cuts should benefit rich and poor alike, City-businesses, and non-resident businesses in exactly the same manner.

Yet there’s one piece of information our paper of record and of honor could give us easily: how much the Inky, in its blessedly unbiased state, pays in business taxes itself to the City. Inquiring minds, so to speak, would truly like to know. Just for the heck of it.

And good luck Inky on that award. Frankly I think you're a shoo-in.