Investor's Business Daily
Philip Bump and the Washington Post have apparently had a couple of pretty bad days. The Post had to endure having to cover, and cover for, an absolutely awful jobs report released Friday morning. That news made their beloved Dear Leader, who had just celebrated the allegedly wonderful economic accomplishments seen during his presidency on Wednesday, look quite foolish. Never fear: By Paragraph 4 of its related story, the Post found an "expert" who claimed that "This just does not square with all the other things we’re seeing in the economy." Actually, the job market has been virtually the only exception to otherwise uniformly weak data since the fourth quarter of last year.
Perhaps partially influenced by the bad jobs news, Bump, who toils at the Post's "The Fix" blog, came completely unhinged in reacting to a Thursday evening retweet by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
The establishment press has given an open mic to proponents of raising the minimum wage nationally, and has cheered $15-per-hour legislation passed in California and New York earlier this year as "historic."
The silence from those same quarters, e.g., the Associated Press, the New York Times and others, is deafening now that one of the predictions of those who have criticized such sharp increases, which take the minimum to double the current federal level of $7.25 and triple the $5.15 seen in early 2007, is beginning to come true. Critics have contended that employers would mechanize key processes to control their labor costs faster than they otherwise would have. That is exactly what The Wendy's Company, "the world's third-largest quick-service hamburger company," is about to start doing.
The press is protecting Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton from the true extent of the blowback over her expressed desire to see coal miners lose their jobs and her bogus attempt to "apologize" for what she said.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, appearing on Fox & Friends Thursday morning, identified a larger truth about Mrs. Clinton's callous disregard for workers and their families — people about whose well-being her party claims to be concerned:
Almost any time a government agency or program fails to perform, those involved complain that they don't have enough money to properly do their jobs. Unless the matter involves national defense, the press gullibly swallows their contentions.
The Transportation Safety Administration is the latest case in point. Lines at airport security checkpoints are already getting noticeably longer, and we haven't yet hit the summer travel season, with "all signs" predicting that "queues will far surpass those of years past." Items at, among other places, the New York Times ("tight budgets"), Bloomberg News ("budgetary limits"), and WABC News in Newark ("budget cuts") are all trying to help the agency get its hands on more taxpayer money. A Tuesday editorial at Investor's Business Daily — as usual, reporting facts beat journalists somehow never get around to reporting — tells us that more money hasn't solved the problem before, and that there's a better answer (links are in original; bolds are mine):
The editorialists at Investor's Business Daily have reported on the results of an important study by several George Mason University Mercatus Center economists showing what regulations have cost the economy in economic growth since 1980. The establishment press, which has been singularly uninterested in reporting anything that has to potential to slow the regulatory leviathan down — y'know, because its causes are so noble and righteous — is virtually ignoring the Mercatus study.
IBD tied the study's findings into the "new normal" nonsense the "mainstream" economics community and most of the business press has been foisting on us since it became obvious about 6-1/2 years ago that the U.S. economy's post-recession performance would likely be singularly underwhelming. What we've seen is the worst growth post-downturn economy by far since World War II.
On Tuesday, shortly after Governor Jerry Brown signed California's $15-an-hour minimum wage legislation, the Associated Press's Michael R. Blood and Don Thompson called the move "a victory for those struggling on the margins of the economy and the politically powerful unions that pushed it."
As seen in a NewsBusters post on March 31, it's definitely a win for union members whose wages are set at a multiple of the state's minimum wage. But it's not a "victory" for "struggling" workers who will lose their jobs or not be able to become employed at the higher rate. The AP pair would only concede that "the overall goal of helping the working poor might be lessened if some employers cut jobs or, worse, leave the state." Forget the "if" on employers cutting jobs, guys. That's because, as Jeb Graham at Investor's Business Daily reported on Friday (HT Hot Air), two states which have only raised their minimums to just over $10 have already seen seasonally adjusted job losses (bolds are mine):
The antennae went up when I saw the following tease on the front page of Thursday's USA Today print edition: "Obama commutes sentences for 61 low-level inmates." The brief description which immediately followed told readers that "He has cut sentences for 248 so far, more than (the) previous 6 presidents combined, official says."
Hmm. What's a "low-level inmate"? The underlying Page 3A article by David Jackson (posted in slightly revised form Wednesday evening at the paper's web site) tells us that it's someone who has committed "low-level drug offenses." The list of commutations published by the White House identifies the supposedly puny "low-level offenses" the recipients of the President's commutations committed. Here's a hint: The average person won't agree with the "low-level" characterization.
Who says that there can't be occasional agreements across the partisan divide?
The free-market, liberty-loving editorial board at Investor's Business Daily and a Bernie Sanders-supporting columnist at the Huffingon Post agree on one thing: Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the presidential race. Okay, IBD wants her to "suspend," while HuffPo's H.A. Goodman says she should "concede." Both missives declare that Mrs. Clinton's withdrawal should be based on the FBI's criminal investigation into her "homebrew" server and her alleged reckless treatment of classified emails and the information contained therein. Here's the dirty little secret the establishment press won't acknowledge: Mrs. Clinton's criminal and other problems simply must have impacted her horrible losses in five of the six most recent nomination contests.
Critics who warned in 2010 that the odious Dodd-Frank law's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would become a rogue agency which would become a largely unaccountable behemoth on a mission to create problems where none exist could not have been more correct.
Sadly, searches on terms relevant to one of the agency's latest controversies involving the distribution of funds in a two year-old auto-loan industry settlement indicate that only two media outlets have given it any attention; separately, a search at the Associated Press on the agency's name also returns nothing relevant. Those two sources are the Daily Caller, whose January 21 story first reported that "White loan borrowers are collecting settlement proceeds ... intended for black, Hispanic and Asian people," and a Monday Investor's Business Daily editorial. That's it.
The Des Moines Register likely broke new ground when it endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination on Saturday. The Register may be the first major newspaper to endorse a major-party presidential candidate under investigation by the FBI at the time of the endorsement.
The time stamp at the editorial's link is currently and inexplicably this morning, but pundits and bloggers have been commenting on it for two days, and Google News says the endorsement is from "2 days ago." This time disconnect seems fitting, as it reflects how disconnected from reality the Register's editorial board had to be on so many levels to make its endorsement. Let's look at just one of them, namely Mrs. Clinton's admitted use of a private email server to conduct government business when she was President Barack Obama's Secretary of State.
On January 26, 2006, former Vice President, current climate alarmist and centimillionaire Al Gore told the Associated Press's David Germain that "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return."
Tuesday, as DC and much of the Northeast finishes digging out from a serious and possibly historic weekend snowstorm, will be the tenth anniversary of Gore's "planetary emergency" warning. The "global warming" true believers in the establishment press will never hold Gore accountable for his nonsense, which is why going to alternative sources such as the editorials at Investor's Business Daily is so necessary. On Friday, IBD called Gore out, identifying "Five Ways We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket" (links are in original; bolds are mine):
In September, President Barack Obama "committed the U.S. to a new blueprint to eliminate poverty and hunger around the world" in a speech at a United Nations "global summit." A review of his speech's transcript indicates that while he acknowledged the ugly reality that "800 million men, women and children are scraping by on less than $1.25 a day," he made no mention of the fact that just three decades ago, the percentage of humanity in that condition was many time times greater.
A Washington Post item on October 5 reported, per the World Bank, that less than 10 percent of the world's population is in extreme poverty" for the first time ever. Both Obama and the Post failed to give credit where credit is due, namely to the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. In an Investor's Business Daily column last week, Terry Jones set the record straight (links are in original; bolds are mine):