Electionomics
Business & Media Institute

Recovery Prompts New York Times To Argue For Unemployment Stimulus

     In an amazing and revealing editorial entitled: “Chatter in the Cave of the Winds” published November 12 the New York Times argues that Republican efforts to gain political justice for President Bush’s judicial appointees come at the expense of the unemployed. Rather than waste time defending the US Constitution:

     “Serious help is needed for the 2.4 million…jobless facing the end of their state benefits,” says the Times, “not to mention the 2.1 million long-term unemployed who have slipped off the job-hunting scope. The promising uptick in the deep hiring slump — 126,000 new jobs in October — is less than half the rate needed to even begin to dent the backup of joblessness. To deal realistically with the problem, Congress needs to double — to 26 weeks from 13 weeks — the federal emergency benefits that are available when state benefits run out. This would be similar to the help offered during the recession of a decade ago when long-term joblessness, especially in manufacturing, was hardly the problem it is now.” So says the Times. And so, rather than defend the Constitution, Republicans need to, well, spend more money to prolong unemployment.

     Let’s, for fun, parse the Times’ words; first, “Serious help is needed for the 2.4 million more recent jobless facing the end of their state benefits, not to mention the 2.1 million long-term unemployed who have slipped off the job-hunting scope.” By “serious help” the Times does not mean anything that might directly lead to jobs, only more welfare: “…Congress needs to double…federal emergency benefits” that kick in only after the jobless have been out of work long enough to exhaust 26 weeks of state unemployment payments. Currently, federal “emergency” benefits are in place to allow these individuals to remain out of work for an additional 13 weeks. The Times wants to ensure that unemployment checks are available for an entire year.

     As for the contention that the 126,000 net gain in non farm employment “is less than half the rate needed…to begin to dent the backup of joblessness,” well, the only word is balderdash. Ignorance runs rampant at the Times. David Leonhardt wrote on November 7 following announcement of the October numbers: “…the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long term….” How to explain, other than ignorance, that reporters and editors at the Times can miss the fact that the 126,000 number represented a net gain in employment, and since the unemployment rate also declined, “new jobs” exceeded the growth of the labor force—at least that month—according to the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics which tracks such things.

     But let’s give the Times and its personnel the benefit of the doubt and presume that they actually believe that lagging job growth is a serious problem. What do they recommend? An increase in the level and duration of public assistance to those without jobs, paid for, presumably by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts, and, if necessary, raising taxes further to allow people to survive for a full year without working. The Times has no problem with ever more individuals becoming permanent wards of the federal government if they choose—recall, after all, the Times’ rabid opposition to welfare reform in the 1990s.

     Thus the Times is now officially on record as favoring unemployment, and arguing that taxpayers must step up to the plate and help prolong it: “After the tax-cutting binges President Bush and Congress engineered for the affluent, failure to renew the nation's helping hand to the jobless would present a scandalous holiday scenario worthy of Dickens.” An apt choice of words given the Times penchant for 19th Century economic and social poultices.

     Quite a contrast in philosophy; the Times and the Democrats prefer policies that would addict the unemployed to the government dole. The Times sees “long term joblessness” as a fact of life, sort of like gravity, and a fertile market niche for the Entitlement Division of US Government, Inc. President Bush and the Republicans in Congress felt they were extending a helping hand by cutting taxes to stimulate economic activity—encouraging the private sector to create new jobs. And when the evidence is in to the tune of a total increase of nearly 300,000 non farm jobs in August, September and October, the Times feels more welfare is our only hope.