The new Thai government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is fulfilling an election promise by lowering taxes on petrol which are disproportionate paid by the poor.

Given its political slant one would expect the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal to laud tax cuts anywhere.

But as it ideologically dislikes the Shinawatra government it uses Orwellian language and calls the tax cuts despite all facts a "reverting back to market-distorting subsidies".

In 2008 the then government of Thailand made a concerted effort to counter high oil prices by developing alternatives like ethanol from sugarcane and liquified petroleum gas:

[S]pending on alternative-energy projects rose sharply last year because of rising of oil prices and government moves to increase consumption of ethanol and biodiesel, according to the Board of Investment.

Its executive investment adviser, Ajarin Pattanapanchai, said it granted the maximum permissible tax incentives for alternative-energy investment. It started offering breaks for this type of spending in 2004.
…
"Because of higher production costs, biodiesel manufacturers will find it hard to break even if oil prices do not reach US$100 [Bt3,300] to $120 a barrel. Finally, the government needs to subsidise them," she explained.

A State Oil Fund was founded which levied taxes on normal petrol and diesel and subsidized LPG and alternative fuels. While this was an environmental sound policy it had unforeseen side effects:

• Thailand now consumes 1.2m litres of ethanol per day but has a total installed (over-)capacity of 2.9m litres per day.
• The ethanol comes mostly from sugarcane which as a crop is prone to exhaust the soil.
• Motorcycles, more than 17 million are used in Thailand mostly by the poor, old cars and petrol driven agricultural water pumps can not use ethanol fuel mixes and it is therefore their owners who mostly pay the petrol tax.

While reducing the petrol tax and lowering subsidies for alternative fuels is less environment friendly it is expected that the ripple effects of lower petrol prices will drive down overall consumer price levels and inflation.

But see how the Wall Street Journal describes this tax relief:

Ms. Yingluck's moves to suspend the collection of an excise tax on gasoline and diesel sales has prompted criticism that the government is reverting back to market-distorting subsidies at a time when other Asian nations are trying to shake off their dependence on state-funded measures to keep fuel prices down.

The article uses the word subsidies six times. And while it says that the move "prompted criticism" it presents nothing that really supports that assertion.

The use of the "market-distorting subsidies" term is even more curious as the piece is describing the essential fact correctly:

Putting the excise tax makes fuel cheaper for consumers while depriving the government of revenue for its oil fund, which it uses to lower the cost of other fuel products such as liquefied petroleum gas.

So black is white! A tax gets removed and subsidies for LPG financed by that tax will get lowered. But the WSJ author is trying to impress on the reader that this move is bad and a new introduction of a subsidy for the poor.

The author gives away his ideological based view point by calling this "populist policies".

In Washington DC and Wall Street language "populist" is a derogatory term for democratic leaders who get elected with big majorities because they favor the people over the rich and the banks. (See Chavez, Hugo or Putin, Vladimir.)

A "populist" government lowers taxes for the poor and takes away subsidies that favor the more rich must be bad. So in opposite of all facts the WSJ calls this a "reverting back to market-distorting subsidies".

But when a right wing government lowers taxes for the rich we an be sure the WSJ will be there to applaud.