Can you expand on this and point to some of the misleading statements and why you think they're misleading?
"State and local officials in Iowa have been working hard to rationalize their handout of more than $208 million in tax benefits to Apple"
That sentenced is aimed to make it sound like the state is giving $208 million to Apple. That is false. If Apple is going to pay $300M in taxes to Iowa, then the state is getting $100M by having Apple come, and $0 if Apple goes to another state.
"These corporate handouts might make sense if they spurred economic growth. They don’t."
First, that sounds overly confident. And then to support it the author cites two cherry-picked articles.
"Unless that expansion occurs...Apple is guaranteed to contribute only one-fifth as much as people were led to believe."
Okay, where's your spreadsheet modeling the probability of the expansion occurring? Because if it's 80% likelihood, then the $100M figure is accurate.
I don't say I disagree with the author's main claim that the system is flawed in that we have lots of government entities having to negotiate individually with bigger companies (I'd prefer a simpler tax system across the board in general), I'm just saying in this particular case the author has provided no detailed numerical justification why he is right, which leads me to believe he is in fact, likely wrong.