TITLE: California Legislature Moving to Double Corporate Tax Rate
SENTENCE 1: The White House has been trumpeting that the corporate tax cut from 35 percent to 21 percent, has already resulted in 2 million workers getting “Trump Bonus” or “Trump Pay Raise;” the National Association of Manufacturers found their member’s optimism levels at “the highest [point] in the survey’s 20-year history;” and the Council of Economic Advisers estimates the economy will grow by “an additional 3 percent.”  But Assemblymen McCarty spoke for all of California Democrat social justice warriors when he told the Sacramento Bee, “We’ve seen enough billionaire justice from the presidency.” He added, “It’s time for middle-class tax justice.”  As a recent Vanity Fair article proclaimed, “Republican Tax Plan Is An Elaborate Middle Finger To Liberals.” According to comments by Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore, the tax reform limitation on state and local tax deductions (SALT) will result in a direct negative economic hit to liberal blue states, especially California.
SENTENCE 2: Although the Tax Foundation listed Iowa with the highest corporate tax rate at 12 percent and California only the 7th ranked at 8.84 percent, many companies use deductions to cut California’s effective tax rate to the alternative tax minimum of 6.65 percent.
SENTENCE 3: Ting and McCarty predict that it may increase corporate taxes by up to $17 billion and the money could be spent on expanding the earned income tax credit, college affordability, child care, and education.

Bias label: moderately
Annotator rationales:
If you present the tax cut as directly responsible for wage increases, then you risk oversimplifying the economic impact and ignoring other contributing factors.
If you highlight optimism without mentioning potential risks, then you risk reinforcing a one-sided narrative.
If you describe tax reform as targeting  just liberal blue states, then you risk considering it as politically motivated rather than as an economic policy.
If we say social justice warriors to describe policymakers, then we risk inserting bias and shaping reader perception. 

Also if we say something on behalf of a group, nation, party, etc., then we ignore the possibility and percentage of opponents of the policy and the same party. 
If you contrast billionaire justice with middle-class tax justice, then you risk implying that past tax policies were unjust without providing evidence.

If you associate the presidency with “billionaire justice,” then you risk reinforcing a class-based narrative that frames one group as exploitative.
If you include an emotionally charged statement like middle finger to liberals without context, then you risk polarizing the discussion and framing tax policy as an act of political hostility rather than an economic decision.