Yesterday, the White House indicated its support for extending tax cuts for the overwhelming majority of Americans, while allowing the scheduled expiration of cuts for a tiny number of the very wealthiest -- the top two percent of earners.

So, of course, the Washington Post's article about the President's plan led with the expiration of tax cuts that directly affect almost nobody. The first three paragraphs of today's Post article headlined “Obama to unveil more stimulus, tax breaks for business” are not about more stimulus and tax breaks, as the headline suggests -- they are, instead, about President Obama's preference for allowing the Bush tax cuts for families with incomes above $250,000 a year to expire as scheduled.

The first mention of the President's desire to extend tax cuts for everyone else comes in a fourth-paragraph quote of a White House spokesperson. And the “more stimulus, tax breaks” mentioned in the Post headline? They don't appear until the sixth paragraph, and aren't detailed until the end of the article.

The Post has frequently behaved as though the only tax policies that matter are those that affect very nearly nobody, as I detailed last year.

A little later in today's Post article comes this largely pointless sentence:

[S]ome Democrats questioned whether voters would be able to distinguish between the new proposals - which the White House vows will not increase the nation's soaring budget deficit - and last year's $814 billion stimulus package, which voters tend to think increased deficits without improving the economy. [Emphasis added]

OK … but did last year's stimulus package increase deficits “without improving the economy”? Nope. According to the Congressional Budget Office, unemployment would be as much as 1.8 percentage points higher had the stimulus not happened. The Council of Economic Advisers says the stimulus raised GDP by at least 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010. And independent analysts agree: the stimulus improved the economy, though not as much as a larger stimulus would have done, and more is needed.

But the Post never mentioned that. It just “reported” that “voters tend to think” the stimulus “increased deficits without improving the economy.” What, exactly, is the goal of a newspaper that tells readers only the falsehoods they already believe, omitting what is true? Whatever the goal, the effect is obvious: It reinforces false beliefs.