Webloggin » NY Times can't find way to Credit Bush Administration for the Economy

Isn’t it great having a national newspaper that consistently works at souring the mood of the nation? As if undermining national security isn’t enough the papers writers go out of their way to find the rain cloud in every upbeat assessment of the economy, the war on terror or life in general.

Case in point is today’s New York Times report titled “Census Reports Slight Increase in ’05 Incomes”. The report is actually from a Census Bureau news release called “Income Climbs, Poverty Stabilizes, Uninsured Rate Increases”.

The report indicates that incomes outpaced inflation for the first time since 1999, the poverty level in the United States has remained the same and that the number of people with health insurance coverage increased by 1.4 million to 247.3 million between 2004 and 2005, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.3 million to 46.6 million (from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005).

Never one to take a positive approach, the New York Times staffers highlight the negatives and compare them to the glory days of the Clinton administration before the 1999 dot.com bubble burst.

The article is accompanied by the “still behind 1999” graphic on the right and begins with the following downbeat assessment of the study from the second sentence.

The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks — in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet, and some people made more money from investments and other sources beyond wages.

The glimmer of improvement came after years in which the economy slogged through the bursting of the 1990’s stock market boom, a brief economic downturn, the aftershocks from the 2001 terrorist attacks, a series of corporate scandals and growing evidence of a deepening divide between rich and poor.

Curiously, Rick Lyman and the Times editors ignore the fact that the economy suffered enormous negative repercussions as a direct result of the irrational exuberance that lead to the recession after the dot.com bubble burst. They may call it a brief economic downturn but it had lasting effects. A ton of Americans lost their jobs, the job market was in a glut, wages plummeted and the recession that began in 1999 while Clinton was in office was passed on to the Bush administration.

The report is largely typical of liberal rhetoric that highlights the negatives and glosses over the positives; just in time for the 2006 elections. Heath insurance and “evidence that the nation’s economic recovery has had very limited reach, with many low- and medium-income families not sharing in the game” are the main focus of the article.

The line I like the best for its pomposity is “advocates for the poor pointed out that, although the numbers living below the poverty line held steady between 2004 and 2005, there has been a sharp increase in those living in extreme poverty.”

Nothing is ever good enough for some people. Statements like this all but eliminate the focus on the positive and serve to polarize people’s opinions on the economy. It is much easier to complain than to actually do something about it. Recognition of the positive benefits of tax breaks, the fact that the economy is healthy despite the war on terror or the inherited recession are never mentioned.

It is important to note that many of those benefits will be eliminated if Democrats take over.

There was one positive insight that I took away from the article in that wealthy Americans were much more likely to be part of a married couple living in a single-family household. Pro-family policies that are the focal point of conservative politics have a positive effect! This is of course presented in a negative light by the Times but at least it is mentioned.

I had heard that a newspaper exists to provide a service to the people (this statement may have come from the Times itself). If this is true then perhaps the nation would be better served if the New York Times closed shop. Their constant negativity, the publishing of national security secrets and the incessant anti-military rhetoric that is spewed on an international stage is a disservice to people of all walks of life.

Update: More of the same from the Times in a report released 15 minutes ago (approx. 12:40 p.m. cst): Economy’s Growth Stronger Than Initial Estimate

The revisions were largely in line with expectations, but economists said the report was still a welcome sign at a time of significant uncertainty about the economy’s direction.

Luckily some news is hard to spin away.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in today’s report was a surge in wage-and-salary income during the first half of this year. Between the fourth quarter of last year and the second quarter of 2006, it grew at an annual rate of about 7 percent, after adjusting for inflation, up from an earlier estimate of 4 percent, according to MFR, a consulting firm in New York.

Don’t get me wrong; it is fine to point out areas where we can do better. However, the “glass half empty” approach is an intentional spin for those on the left who require negativity as a party platform. The NY Times is more than happy to oblige.

Others on NY Times Bias: