The headline of the NYT story told readers:
"2 Republicans Open Door to Increases in Revenue."
However, the second paragraph of the article said:
"One of the senators,of Texas, said he would consider eliminating some tax breaks and corporate subsidies in the context of changes in the tax code, provided there was not an overall increase in taxes."
Okay folks, "not an overall increase in revenue" directly contradicts "increases in revenue."
What the hell is so hard to understand about this? Cornyn said that he would be willing to redistribute the tax burden, he explicitly said that he is not open to increasing revenue. How can the NYT headline say something 180 degrees at odds with reality?
In fairness to the headline writer, the first sentence of the article commits the same error by telling readers:
"Two senior Republicans said Sunday that they might be open to raising new government revenue as part of a deal to resolve the dispute over the federal."
It is not clear who deserves the blame here, but this NYT article managed to turn reality on its head.