Cranky Democrat strategist James Carville unleashed on snooty writers at The New York Times in a anger-filled interview with Sean Illing at Vox. Carville brought in the Times as an example of the "urbanist mindset" and its "cultural disconnect" with less urban parts of America. Binyamin Applebaum mocked Carville's 



The New York Times retains its bizarre obsession with the left-wing hobbyhorse of “income inequality.” Former economics reporter Binyamin Appelbaum, who betrayed liberal viewpoints in his reporting, is now free to issue unadulterated left-wing opinions from his perch on the paper’s editorial board. His latest Sunday Review piece suggests “Blame Economists for the Mess We’re In.” It began with a history lesson on how the government got over its distaste for economists in prominent positions, while getting off the paper’s latest mean-spirited crack at Nobel winning economist Milton Friedman.



The New York Times pompously (and hypocritically) declared its concern for “privacy” with a special edition of the Sunday Review wholly devoted to the theme: “The Privacy Project.” But when it comes to the full concept of privacy, the left-hand doesn’t know what the far-left hand is doing. Times former reporter Binyamin Appelbaum made it into print on tax day Monday with “Everyone’s Income Taxes Should Be Public.” Appelbaum is making the opposite argument: Let the general public know how much you make, how you make it, even what charities you donate to, in the name of reducing income inequality.



The New York Times most left-wing economics reporter attacked the Republican tax plan in Thursday’s off-lead story, “G.O.P. Tax Plan Could Reshape Life in the U.S. – More Inequality Likely – Cutbacks in Social Safety Nets, Education and Health Care." Years ago, Peter Goodman penned gloating left-wing, Marxist-tinged reports on economics for the Times, and nothing has changed upon his return:



President Trump outlined his tax cut proposal, generating two lead stories in Thursday’s New York Times under the banner headline “Sweeping Trump Tax Plan Vague on Details and Cost.” Economics reporter Binyamin Appelbaum’s “news analysis" was hostile: “Windfall Would Go to the Wealthiest.” The online headline: “Trump Tax Plan Benefits Wealthy, Including Trump.”



The New York Times was single-minded in its attack on President Trump’s first budget proposal. Little emphasis on the potential savings to taxpayers and reductions to the deficit (if the optimistic economic growth goals are met). Instead the Times went on a nationwide person-hunt for potential victims of the hypothetical budget cuts, based on current spending levels that have been inflated over decades of federal overspending. Obama's budget-busting budgets by contrast invariably received optimistic treatment of their most dubious and grandiose promises, from supposedly cynical Times reporters.



The sequestration may have fizzled out as a national crisis, but it's still killing jobs, apparently. Saturday's New York Times lead story by Nelson Schwartz and Binyamin Appelbaum strongly insisted that last Friday's surprisingly good job numbers from the Labor Department are endangered by the 2.4% federal spending cuts known as sequestration, "Jobless Rate Dips to Four-Year Low – 236,000 Jobs Added – Unemployment Level Down to 7.7%, but Analysts Fear U.S. Spending Cuts."

Appelbaum said in an August 2011 Times podcast that "the real problem is that there's this tremendous political pressure to get smaller, and everything we know about economics tells us that they should be doing the opposite, they should be getting bigger right now....it's as cheap as it's ever been to borrow money, invest it in infrastructure, invest it in things that will pay off in the long run, and help out the economy." On Saturday he and Schwartz (who also likes government stimulus) argued:



The front page of Wednesday's New York Times featured another lament for the supposed new "austerity" encompassing the nation, from economics reporter (and enthusiastic Keynesian) Binyamin Appelbaum, "As Budget Cuts Loom, Austerity Has Killed Off Government Jobs." An accompanying graphic with text insisted "Austerity Is Already Here."

Federal government spending often falls after recessions and wars, but the current round of cuts in investment and spending on goods and services is unusually deep. Combined with cuts by state and local governments, the drop in government’s contribution to economic growth is the largest in more than 50 years.



The economy shrank in the fourth quarter of 2012, indicating that growth remains a problem. The woes made the New York Times front page on Thursday, "Growth Halted In 4th Quarter Despite the Fed," though the story by Nelson Schwartz and Binyamin Appelbaum was not prominently featured (and Obama wasn't mentioned until paragraph 12, in a quote from Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee). The Washington Post made it the lead story under the headline "GDP shrank at end of 2012."



Friday's enormous A1 New York Times story by economics reporters Binyamin Appelbaum and Robert Gebeloff tried to soften Americans up for tax hikes under a misleading headline: "Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the Reagan ’80s." They write:

But in fact, most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago. According to an analysis by The New York Times, the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980.



Sunday’s New York Times led with a 4,200 word-feature co-written by economics reporter Binyamin Appelbaum and welfare reporter Robert Gebeloff reporting from middle class Chisago County, “Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It.”

Reporter Matt Bai wrote on the paper's Caucus blog Monday that “A bunch of my liberal friends applauded and sent around this piece, which seemed to validate their sense that the conservative argument about government dependency is specious -- that, in fact, the poor are getting a smaller share of government assistance than they used to, while middle-class voters who resent government are gobbling up more of it.” Although Bai saw some warning signs for the left in the story as well.



Double standards on story placement in the New York Times? A “Political Victory” for the White House over trade deals that promise only “small” economic benefits was trumpeted in the headline to Thursday’s lead story, while a “major setback” for Obama and his jobs bill was buried on Wednesday’s inside pages.

The stack of headlines over Thursday’s lead story by Binyamin Appelbaum and Jennifer Steinhauer trumpeted a “Political Victory” for the White House in three trade deals involving South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, though the reporters themselves admitted “The economic benefits are projected to be small.” The headlines: “Trade Deals Pass Congress, Ending 5-Year Standoff – Support Is Bipartisan – Accords With 3 Nations Give Political Victory to White House.” How did the Times determine this story of "small" benefits was the most important news of the day?