The author most likely intended the “Reform and Corporate Taxes” article for Americans interested in tax reform and who are already somewhat informed about the current system. I also think the author intended this as an informative article for readers who pay corporate tax and are interested in how the 2012 presidential election may affect the corporate tax system. Since the author discusses the Obama Administration’s plan and framework, while noting at the end of the article Republican nominee hopeful Romney’s suggested corporate tax rate, it seems to be informative on the candidates’ plans.

The article claims that corporate tax reform is needed; however, in order to drop the rate, proposals must offer specific trade-offs and explain how the drop would be made up for by explicitly mentioning which loopholes would be dropped, while including numerical data. The author claims that Obama’s proposal is not enough since dropping the rate and eliminating the proposed loopholes would not bring up enough revenue. Obama’s plan suggests dropping the current rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and eliminating many of the current loopholes in the corporate tax system. The author thinks that dropping the rate that much cannot be made up for simply by dropping subsidies. The author considers the framework to also have shortcomings related to taxing foreign profits. While it does call for a minimum on foreign earnings of American profits, it does not go further with foreign profits which could result in more revenue for the U.S. government by requiring multinationals pay more. Although the author sees shortcomings in Obama’s current proposal, he thinks it is more viable than Republican suggestions since they did not mention specific ways to pay for the tax cut. He did mention that Romney did propose dropping the rate to 25 percent by “broadening” the corporate base; however, Romney did not mention any specific loopholes he would end.

The author seems to be credible in writing this general survey-type article informing the audience of the big issues and explaining the possible contrast in Obama’s plan and a Republican plan. The article does not discuss a great deal of information or complex information, but since I think he was trying to provide the audience with an overview, his evidence and logic seem sufficient. Most of the evidence he included was actually the lack of specific evidence presented, which seemed to logically support the article’s proposition that detailed specifics need to be included in these proposals from Obama and Republican candidates. I did think the evidence contrasting the corporate tax on foreign earnings of American companies and foreign profits added to his argument. The fact that he did mention a few of the loopholes that Obama specifically mentioned, (ending subsidies for oil and gas explorations, corporate jets, and private equity partners) was helpful in exemplifying things that would have to be eliminated in order to drop the tax rate. I would have liked to have seen the author suggest some other loopholes that could be cut or possibilities that candidates may propose. The article seemed logical since he stated the problem that the President faces in dropping this rate and how the public needs to be informed by highlighting current proposals.

NY TIMES NEWS ARTICLE