IT'S A SLOGAN, DAMMIT

First couple of paragraphs of the lead story in today's print New York Times (emphasis mine):

The Bush administration and Congressional leaders, increasingly concerned about a possible recession, are moving closer to agreeing that an economic stimulus package is needed soon, Washington officials said Friday.

A Republican familiar with the administration's thinking said Mr. Bush would present ideas to stimulate the economy, most likely in the form of tax relief, in his State of the Union message on Jan. 28. Mr. Bush will not decide on the details until he returns from the Middle East next week....

The story goes on to use the phrase "tax relief" twice more in the next five paragraphs.

Er, folks? That phrase isn't neutral. The careful use of that phrase by Republicans (rather than "tax cuts") was GOP strategist Frank Luntz's idea. So why is the Times using it repeatedly in a straight news story? ("Tax cuts" is, I should note, also used three times.)

The Times and some other mainstream media outlets have made a real effort to avoid words and phrases concocted for the purpose of gaining partisan advantage -- "death tax" for "estate tax," say, or "partial-birth abortion." And the Times has been very good lately at distinguishing Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (aka Al Qaeda in Iraq) from the bin Laden/Zawahiri central Al Qaeda.

So why not avoid "tax relief" altogether?