It's not that I can't but that there is no need to since the bias in the piece is obvious.If it's obvious, it shouldn't be hard to point out. Or are you just claiming bias because you don't like the paper's conclusions?
And, yes, the JCT, CRS, CBO, and other similar groups have a VERY large vested interested (as do you apparently) in retaining the existing suystem.What, exactly, vested interest does the CRS have in retaining the existing system. Do you even know what the CRS is?
It is quite apparent that youDO have some sort of interest in the present system.
Jane Gravelle is with the CRS - Congressional Research Service and they are a group which "officially" take no positions (yeah, right) on economic issues but merely "advise and clarify" for the pore dumb congresscats.
If you're dumb enough to believe they don't have their raison d'etre wholly intertwined with the public trough and thereby the present tax system then you're pretty dumb and don't realize that they "analyze" deductions, etc. for charitable giving, etc. to let congresscats know which way is up.
Perhaps it is YOU that needs to find out what CRS, JCT, etc. do any why they have helped us arrive where we are tax-wise. Go sell your inane notions elsewhere. Bias is bias and they have as least as much as you.