If Rep. Michele Bachmann opposes increasing taxes on households that earn above $250,000 (and I gather she does, although she can't bring herself to make that clear), that is absolutely her right.

But she should do it straight out, and not pretend (as she did in a recent Pioneer Press op-ed) when she is opposing a tax hike on the rich that she is opposing a middle-class tax hike.

In the op-ed, she stated that President Obama has:

 Here's the problem. The "cap" on itemized deductions for mortgage interest (it isn't exactly a cap, but let that slide) applies precisely and only to mortgage interest paid by households with incomes of $250,000 in adjusted gross income ($200,000 for individuals). The "limit" on charitable donations deductions (again, not really a "limit") applies -- you guessed it -- only to that same highest-income one percent of taxpayers.

There are honesty/accuracy/completeness problems with what Bachmann calls Obama's tax on carbon emissions, and, later in the article, Bachmann also tries to portray the so-called "cramdown" proposal -- that would let judges erase some mortgage debt for homeowners who file for bankruptcy -- "a tax on all responsible homeowners." She oversimplifies, she exaggerates, she leaves out offsetting facts and describes only the side of the argument with which she agrees. But hey, it's her op-ed. Defenders of these Obamian proposals can reply.

Rep. Bachmann, Republican, is a "fool for anti-tax arguments." And she is prone, as in the cramdown example, to take things that have nothing to do with taxes, and declare them to be the moral equivalent of tax hikes. She is truly, madly, deeply anti-tax (also anti-gay marriage). And it may be that, for many of her supporters who share those aversions, that's enough.

But there ought to be some minimal respect for honesty and factuality that we demand of our elected officials. I really don't see any excuse for taking two proposals to reduce tax deductibility for those households with incomes above $250,000, to neglect to mention that it applies only to those above $250,000, and then to argue that represents a violation of a promise to limit tax increases to households with incomes above $250,000.

(By the way, I did seek from Rep. Bachmann a response to the points above. Her spokester, Dave Dziok, kindly gave me some feedback to my questions about the way Bachmann characterized the cap-and-trade provisions. I factored that response into what I said about it above. But I did specifically ask him twice how Bachmann explains the failure to mention that the proposed changes in tax deductibility affect only the highest-income households. And waited two days to hear back. If he or she replies to that question, I will pass along the response.)