Faced with the uncomfortable fact that President Obama lowered federal taxes for the vast majority of Americans this year, conservative media are looking to Congressional Republicans for talking points that harmonize better than reality with all those “Taxed Enough Already” people demonstrating on the mall this week. Fortunately, Michigan Republican Dave Camp released a document listing 25 “tax increases” signed into law by Obama since January 2009 “totaling more than $670 billion, or more than $2,100 for every man, woman and child in the United States.” The next day, the “25 tax increases” claim appeared in the Wall Street Journal via Karl Rove. It jumped from there to Fox News, where Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade referenced Rove's column and said, “According to these statistics, there's been 25 tax increases since Barack Obama took office in 2008, so when people say wow, I feel overtaxed, they're pointing right to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” Kilmeade repeated the statement on today's show, this time dropping the citation to Rove, let alone to the House GOP.

Camp's document does list 25 provisions from 5 pieces of legislation that taken all together, raise $670 billion over ten years. Most of these provisions won't go into effect for years and won't directly affect most of us. As the document itself notes, it is a list of “gross tax increases,” not net tax increases, so it's really only a useful source of information for people like, well, Republican politicians and their media tools. It appears to count as a “tax increase” any provision that raises revenue relative to what would have otherwise occurred. And since it doesn't provide any information about provisions that reduce revenue -- such as the small business tax credits and exchange subsidies in the health care reform law or the tax cuts from the stimulus package -- it doesn't tell us much about how Obama is changing the country's tax bill overall. Nor does it attempt to weigh the merits of the revenue-raising provisions, which is something you'd think those concerned about the budget deficit would want to do.

Notably, several of the provisions listed would not be characterized as “tax increases” by most people. For example:

Eliminating the deduction for expense allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy. Camp lists this provision in the health care reform law as a “tax increase” that will raise revenue by $4.5 billion over ten years. The provision eliminates a loophole that allowed companies to take a tax deduction on a tax-free government subsidy. So not only does this not impose a new tax on businesses, it doesn't touch the chunk of taxpayer cash we give tax-free to companies for providing Medicare Part D benefits for their retirees. All it does is say that businesses can't then count that subsidy as an expense and deduct it from their taxable income. Funny I didn't see any signs demanding Congress reinstate corporate "double-dipping" at the tea party rallies.

Making “black liquor” ineligible for cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Camp has this down as a $23.6 billion tax increase over ten years. "Black liquor" is a wood byproduct burned by paper companies to generate electricity. In recent years, papermakers realized that they could get a hold of some taxpayer handouts by mixing diesel fuel into the black liquor, rendering themselves eligible for an alternative fuels tax credit. This provision ensures that papermakers using black liquor do not get tax breaks that were never meant for them. I can almost feel my freedom shrinking.

Codifying economic substance doctrine and imposing penalties for underpayments. This provision raises $4.5 billion over ten years. According to the Tax Policy Center, codifying the “economic substance” doctrine is part of an effort “to address the problem of abusive tax shelters.” The measure aims to make it easier for courts to judge when a company is involved in a bogus transaction designed to reduce their tax bill. I think most would dispute the claim that encouraging companies to pay their fair share of taxes amounts to a “tax increase.”

Repealing guidance allowing certain taxpayers to claim losses of an acquired corporation. This provision raises around $7 billion and has a complicated history. Presumably in order to encourage mergers, in the midst of the financial crisis the Bush administration issued a “sweeping change to two decades of tax policy” that gave “banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion,” according to The Washington Post. The change allowed firms acquiring failing banks to use the acquired company's losses to reduce their taxes. The Post reported that Republican senator Charles Grassley was “particularly outraged” about the change. The stimulus bill Obama signed last year prospectively repealed that taxpayer giveaway to the financial industry.

Delaying rules to reduce the double taxation of worldwide American employers until 2021. Two provisions delaying the implementation of a tax break for multinational companies would increase revenues by $26 billion. According to CongressNow (accessed via Nexis), the tax break was created in 2004 but not yet implemented, and would allow businesses “to allocate interest expenses on a worldwide basis for purposes of determining their foreign tax credit limitation.” Basically, the 2004 measure would lower the amount multinational corporations pay in U.S. income taxes. Since it has never been implemented, delaying the tax break doesn't increase the amount of taxes over what these companies have been paying.

Other revenue effects. Camp says the government gains $60.3 billion from a tax increase in the health care bill he calls “Other revenue effects.” How can he expect us to be upset about a “tax increase” that he doesn't even identify?

It's a given that politicians have an interest in limiting public understanding of the issues to their talking points and obscuring facts that don't support their agendas. But in a better world, successful news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News wouldn't be such willing accomplices.

From the April 16 edition of Fox & Friends: