Outside Reading: Editorial

The Tax-Cut Racket, a New York Time editorial, by Paul Krugman is a warning, almost a cry of outrage, at a political and economic issue that requires no elaborate writing style or any other tone than accusation and reassurance.
Accusation towards the Republicans in Congress holding the middle class hostage as they force the Democrats to keep taxes for the rich low. And reassurance towards the Democrats, including Obama, to hold firm to the promise to raise taxes on richest 2% of America.
The article is well organized dividing the issue into the political actions and implications and the economic actions and implications. Krugman opens with a personal attack against Mitch McConnell, the man leading the fight for tax cuts; immediately making one aware of his opinion. He then educates the reader on the topic at hand. Though he is providing background he continues to add remarks denouncing policies and policy-makers he does not fancy. On December 31st, 2010 the Bush-era tax cuts will expire. The republicans wish to extend the "tax breaks for their wealthy friends".
When Krugman delves into what the Republicans are willing (and actually are) doing to keep the cuts the article really takes a turn toward scathing criticism. McConnell is "trying to get what he wants by pointing a gun at the heads of middle-class families, threatening to force a jump in their taxes unless he gets paid off with hugely expensive tax breaks for the wealthy." Krugman points out, as an economist, that "everyone agrees that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of an economic slump is a bad idea, unless the effects are offset by other job-creation programs — and Republicans are blocking those, too".
However, there is an issue bigger than the political or economic sides of the debate. And that is the question of what constitutes as acceptable political behavior in modern America. This is Krugman's best point and his strongest argument against the republicans. At this point one can ignore his bias because he turns away from party policies and addresses party tactics. Using that accusatory tone he  highlights how absurd and scary the republicans' tactics are. Krugman engages the reader because he, too, is outraged and scared; stating "there’s a difference between playing hardball and engaging in outright extortion, which is what Mr. McConnell is now doing." Krugman instills the fear by adding "And if he succeeds, it will set a disastrous precedent."
It is not fear that drives the article though, but rather a call to action, he makes the reader want to prevent said precedent being made. Krugman reminds us that the "majority of Americans are opposed to maintaining tax breaks for the rich" and inspires this majority "to take a stand, and say no to G.O.P. blackmail."
So the question he poses, "should Democrats give in?" is answered economically and politically, but the resounding 'no' he stresses using the word repeatedly and backing up evidence with public opinions, comes mainly due to the idea that politicians have the power to harm "innocent bystanders" in order to harm rivals.
Krugman is heavily opinionated, it is an opinion column, but he does back up claims with facts and a voice for the public. His voice makes it easy to understand the politics he is address. His tone seems urgent and, only if you are among his target, accusatory.
This piece lacks evidence and has too opinionated and bias of a voice to be a good AP essay.