On the surface, it is very easy for readers to sympathize with financially stressed families that may be evicted from their homes. But emotional appeals should not serve as a substitute for reporting on the economic consequences of government intervention that will cost prospective homeowners over the long-term…

News reports that personalize the misfortunes of individuals who have been identified as potential new constituents for the political class make for highly effective yarns. Here the New York Times takes up the case of Nicholle Bradbury, a resident of Denmark, Maine, who cannot keep up her mortgage payments and faces a potential eviction. On the surface, there is good cause for sympathy.

Questions have been raised about the paperwork and methodology associated with Bradbury’s case. She has also lost her job and her husband can no longer work for health reasons. The family, which includes two teenagers, lives on welfare and foodstamps  according to the report.

The villain here is identified as GMAC, which was previously the financing arm of General Motors. It received $17 billion from taxpayers in an effort to keep it from failing and is now majority-owned by the federal government. The NYT quite correctly offered the lender the opportunity to comment, which GMAC understandably declined to do as the case remains in litigation.

Unfortunately, the story line here omits economic realities that intersect with the interests and concerns of Americans who eager to become homeowners. If the federal government intervenes to prevent market forces from working to alleviate the housing crisis, sales could be halted even as foreclosures accelerate.

To be sure, GMAC should be called out and challenged for using “robo-signers” who are not in command of key facts, but there is also a price to be paid for interrupting the foreclosure process that goes uncovered in the report.

Robert Romano, a senior editor with Americans for Limited Government’s (ALG) news bureau, has filed a very detailed report that explores the potential fallout associated a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures that some lawmakers have proposed.

“There would be several consequences to this,” Romano observes. “If Congress shuts down the foreclosure process, it also would have to shut down the foreclosure sale process, which in the second quarter accounted for over $43 billion of home sales, according to RealtyTrac. Distressed institutions attempting to dig their way out of the financial crisis would be forced to keep that much of these non-performing assets on the books every quarter while a moratorium was in place. That could total more than $150 billion annually for every year a moratorium is in place — all to allow delinquent borrowers to stay in homes they cannot afford. While a moratorium was in effect, prospective homebuyers would also have to put their plans on hold. In short, the housing market would seize up.”

There’s more.

A foreclosure moratorium would also create perverse incentives, Romano explains, that reward the irresponsible at the expense of citizens who are financially positioned to pursue real estate. Under this scenario, delinquent borrowers would have no cause to maintain their homes. Consequently, the quality of neighborhoods would deteriorate, which in turn would undermine housing prices.

“Therefore, an indefinite foreclosure moratorium would actually increase the number of overall foreclosures that ultimately occur,” Romano argues. “That’s very bad policy.”

Going forward, the NYT would better serve its readership with informed analysis from economists who have understanding of long-term consequences that flow out from federal intervention into the private sector. That’s the real story.

When already beleaguered institutions are forced to keep non-performing assets on the books to placate economically illiterate policy makers, average Americans lose out. They should at least have a voice in the NYT. Instead, the Gray Lady appears to be fixated on paperwork issues that are peripheral to the major issues at work here.

If families are evicted from the homes in error, that would be just cause for outrage. But there is some debate about this.  “As was the case for our judicial state review, our initial assessment findings show the basis for our foreclosure decisions is accurate,” Bank of America spokesman Dan Frahm said on October 17th. The bank is once again resubmitting foreclosure affidavits after it had temporarily suspended foreclosure operations across the country.

So in reality, it would seem that the properties in question have been legitimately foreclosed even if the paperwork had some flaws. Allowing delinquent borrows to sidestep their responsibilities should not be the answer as the NYT seems to imply.

They cover a lot of bases here but omit any discussion of the environmental movement’s international dimensions. Polls shows that the public is evenly divided over a ballot initiative that would suspend California’s global warming law until after unemployment falls. Here, the NYT seeks to swing public sentiment by questioning the motives of private donors who are linked in with the Tea Party.

A California ballot initiative that could potentially unravel the anti energy policies Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law four years ago is the subject of a report aimed against free market groups. Charles and David Koch described here as the “billionaires from Kansas who have played a prominent role in financing the Tea Party movement” are the primary targets. But out of state business interests also come in for criticism.

Both sides acknowledge that initiative could have national ramifications for the environmental movement and its pursuit of “cap and trade” policies. State-level regulatory efforts that mimic the Kyoto Protocol rippled out of California’s Global Warming Solutions Act and could recede if pro-energy activists prevail in November. The initiative, known formally as Proposition 23, calls for a suspension of anti-emissions restrictions until after unemployment falls to 5.5 percent or lower for at least four consecutive quarters.

Over the past year, the environmental movement has been beset with setbacks that undermine long-standing scientific and economic arguments activists and government officials have invoked to advance regulatory directives. It is evident from this report that the NYT and other left leaning media outlets are panicked by recent developments. The idea here is to discredit the opposition and explain away public opposition as an understandable, albeit misguided byproduct of the recession.

“Traditionally, public support for environmental measures suffers during tough economic times,” the report says. “Here in California, backers of the initiative have seized on that anxiety — which is particularly acute in this state, with its 12.3 percent unemployment rate — in search of a victory.”

The stipulations included in Proposition 23 “could have the practical effect of killing the law,” the NYT correctly notes. Over the past several decades, the unemployment rate as rarely fallen to such relatively low rate for an extended period of time. AB 32, the Global Warming statute, calls for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions to be reduced back to 1990 levels by 2020. Private industry officials say they that the high cost of compliance would result in job losses and rising gas prices.

There are a number of detailed, scholarly studies that bolster and substantiate the concerns of private industry. The Institute for Energy Research (IER), for instance, has published a report that goes into great detail about the higher costs attached to renewable standards and emissions restrictions. But these hard facts have no place in an agenda laced report that works over time to sully the reputation of business groups, Tea Party activists and individual donors who are committed to private enterprise.

“The campaign against California’s greenhouse gas law comes as business groups have invested heavily across the country in trying to defeat members of Congress who voted for a cap-and-trade  bill that also mandated emission reductions; the bill passed the House but failed in the Senate in the face of strong opposition from lawmakers in industrial states,” the report says.

Looking ahead to November, current polls show that the competing sides are evenly matched.

“Yet supporters said they were concerned that the proposition could slip through at a time when Democratic spirits are low,” the NYT points out. “More significant is the question of how much more supporters of Prop 23 can raise to finance their campaign. Of the $8.2 million raised so far, $1 million came from the Koch firm, $4 million from the Valero Energy Corporation and $1.5 million from the Tesoro Corporation; both corporations are based in San Antonio.”

The article concludes with a spokesman from the NRDC quoted at length expressing concern over the influence and financial backing of anti-regulatory organizations. That’s the pot calling the kettle black.

“We have every reason to believe that they are going to put the money in to run a big television campaign in the most expensive media market in the country,” said Annie Notthoff, the California advocacy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “We certainly are expecting to have a fight on our hands.”

As of 2006, the NRDC has net assets in excess of $125 million and enjoys consistent, steady substantial support from well-endowed left-leaning foundations, according to The Capital Research Center.

NRDC is part of  large, expansive network of left-wing organizations operating under the guise of environmentalism that have worked on national and international level to restrict and restrain America’s economic development.

These outside groups that operate in concert with the European Union and the United Nations at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and consumers deserve greater exposure and attention.

Former Secretary of State George Schultz, who supports Calif.’s global warming law, should be asked about the international backing of environmental groups like the NRDC receive since he’s so concerned about the activities of American citizens who favor affordable energy.

Although the Obama White House is filled to the rim with former lobbyists, Rep. John Boehner’s alliances and connections with pro-business groups are somehow illegitimate and unseemly. With the mid-term elections just a few weeks away, the idea here is to take down and discredit an effective, well-liked minority leader who is well positioned to become the next House Speaker.

Private strategy sessions organized in concert with free market activists and lobbyists who are united in their opposition to new regulatory schemes are suggestive of undue influence and in direct conflict with the best interests of average Americans, The New York Times strongly implies in a front page Sunday report. The idea here is to discredit and delegitimize Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) just a few weeks before the mid-term elections that could help elect him as the next House Speaker.

While the report is framed as a straight news story, it is in reality a hit piece meant to coincide with intensified White House criticism of the affable, well-liked leader of the opposition. President Obama mentioned Boehner by name eight times in a Cleveland speech last week that focused on economics. Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is set to begin airing new ads that criticize Boehner for opposing additional state aid for teachers and Medicare. And, the NYT is doing its part to interlink the Ohio Republican with special interests.

Reporter Eric Lipton is particularly scandalized by Boehner’s alliances with business leaders who were opposed to the government takeover of the financial sector earlier this year.

“He [Boehner] maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS,” Lipton writes. “They have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns, provided him with rides on their corporate jets, socialized with him at luxury golf resorts and waterfront bashes and are now leading fund-raising efforts for his Boehner for Speaker campaign, which is soliciting checks of up to $37,800 each, the maximum allowed.”

But are Boehner’s lobbying connections somehow out of proportion with what is typical for Washington D.C. and appropriate for an official in his position? As an ardent, consistent supporter of private industry, it is neither surprising nor scandalous to discover that he has attracted support from  like-minded outfits such as the Chamber of Commerce.

Moreover, Boehner has never postured as someone who would shun business interests that share his policy preferences. By contrast, President Obama promised to keep his White House free and unfettered from a concentration of lobbying influences while running for president. This pledge has long since been abandoned.

Tim Carney, a senior columnist with The Washington Examiner, and a noted author, has compiled a data set that now includes 50 former lobbyists who work in the Obama White House. Where is the NYT report that calls attention to potential influence peddling and corruption from inside the executive branch?

Here are just a few of the big hits Carney calls attention to in his latest piece.

“The IRS general counsel is a former lobbyist for the Swiss Bankers Association

Mark Patterson, former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, is chief of staff at Treasury, and he never received a waiver.

Obama’s top food safety guy (Michael Taylor) is a Monsanto lobbyist, and his top agriculture trade guy (Isi Siddiqui) is an agri-chem lobbyist.

Joe Biden’s chief of staff and deputy chief of staff are both former corporate lobbyists with clients including oil companies and Fannie Mae.”

Under the  — are you kidding me category–  the NYT quotes no less of an authority than current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who is greatly offended by Boehner’s relationship with key lobbyists.

“The woman he hopes to replace, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, derided him on Friday as having met `countless times with special-interest lobbyists in an effort to stop tough legislation’ that would regulate corporations and protect consumers,” the Times reports.

Let’s break this down.

In just the 2010 election cycle so far, Speaker Pelosi has received about $200,000 from Political Action Committees (PACs)  connected with organized labor, according to OpenSecrets.org. This is just a small part of the whole. Going back to the 2008 elections and 2006 elections when she was at the apex of her influence Pelosi received substantial donations from some of the more politically potent unions.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) PAC, for instance, contributed $10,000 to Pelosi’s campaign in 2008 and 2006, federal records show. It is also worth noting that Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has received over $900,000 from organized labor for her congressional campaigns, including over $30,000 from the SEIU.

The connection with SEIU is of particular importance because it continues to lead the charge for The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which includes the anti-secret ballot card check provision and binding arbitration. The legislation has stalled on Capitol Hill and remains extremely unpopular with the public, opinion polls show. Even so, union bosses expect payback on the substantial donations they have made to the Democratic Party in the past two election cycles especially. This is where the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) comes into play. Craig Becker, a controversial recess appointee, has strong ties to the SEIU and AFL-CIO. He has argued in the past that board can take action without congressional approval.

A careful review of federal records available through OpenSecrets.org shows that Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have both raised well above what Rep. Boehner has in the current election cycle from lobbyists to say nothing of the power and influence of organized labor.

There’s a nice opening here for a report that calls attention to extra-constitutional activities that do the bidding of powerful union officials at the expense of employers and average Americans looking for work.

Who is really being obstructionist and recalcitrant where economic inducements for small business are concerned? Republicans have offered several amendments to a loan bill that been blocked by the Democratic majority, yet the minority party is accused of playing politics in a New York Times piece that avoids any substantive discussion of economics. The story headline also implies that Republicans are now operating against business interests who are supposedly their natural allies. In reality, both parties should be questioned about the merits of federal  loan programs…

When you move past the legislative gamesmanship surrounding a bill that would provide for $30 billion in small business loans, it becomes evident that Republican lawmakers have offered economically sound amendments. However, with the mid-term elections just a few months away, The New York Times has no time for economics. The idea now is to undermine the Republican Party’s standing and to obfuscate proposals that are likely to connect with beleaguered taxpayers and struggling business owners.

“The measure, championed by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, had the backing of some of the Republican Party’s most reliable business allies, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business,” a Times report says. “Several Republican lawmakers also helped write it. But Republican leaders filibustered after fighting for days with Democrats over the number of amendments they would be able to offer.”

Politics almost always figures into the equation in the U.S. Senate where the minority has access to filibuster rules. However, The Times neglects to remind readers that the same Democratic leaders who now accuse the opposing side of mindless obstructionism have advanced legislation that creates uncertainly within the business community and precludes new hiring. The paybacks to union bosses in tandem with anti-energy initiatives and new healthcare regulations have all worked against a robust economic recovery.

It is worth noting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reiterated her commitment to passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) earlier this week, which includes card check and binding arbitration. Her comments raise concerns about what may transpire during the lame duck session of congress in December when defeated Democrats may go for broke.

Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), still sees the Democratic leadership coming up short where the most coercive and costly measures are concerned. But business is still hedging its bets.

“Speaker Pelosi’s comments to the Communications Workers of America (CWA) is an example of political pandering at its height,” she said.  “Pelosi understands there is insufficient support in Congress from both Republicans and Democrats to pass the job-killing Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act. While Big Labor’s supporters in Congress can continue to engage in a game of happy talk, workers and small businesses will focus on getting America hiring again.”

Back in the U.S. Senate, Republicans sought amendments on a range of subjects that could directly impact economic activity. These include tax alleviation measures and nuclear loan guarantees. So far, these have all been blocked by somehow The Times does not see any cause to fix the obstructionist label on the Democratic leadership.

“The majority leader has graciously given us three amendments and what I’m saying is three amendments is not enough; he knows that,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is quoted as saying. “We are not expecting to have an unlimited number of amendments, but three amendments will not suffice.”

A logical follow up to this report would probe into existing loan programs that have been set up ostensibly to foster economic growth. Since Republicans and Democrats have both settled on the Treasury Department as the government vessel responsible for administering new assistance, it may be worth examining how federal loan programs have worked in the past.

Veronique de Rugy, an economist with the Mercatus Center, has proposed eliminating the Small Business Administration (SBA) because in her view the programs have no appreciable impact on capital markets. Rugy’s  analysis deserves weight and consideration in light of bipartisan impetus that exists for some form of business assistance.

“SBA loans go to businesses that conventional providers of financing have rejected,” she has written. “This means these loans go to the enterprises least likely to create stable employment, improve technology, or enhance national productivity. Default rates on SBA loans are roughly 17% as opposed to 1.5% for FDIC-insured bank loans and 4.3% for credit card loans. It is time to abolish the SBA loan programs.”

The overarching purpose here in the New York Times is to needle Republicans for a blocking a seemingly benign legislative act that will supposedly bolster business; at least according to the headline. But members of both parties should be asked how the Treasury Department will ensure that $30 billion that put into circulation are allocated at an appropriate to private outfits that are well positioned to fulfill their obligations and offer stable employment opportunities.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is dismissive of any suggestion that says extending unemployment benefits will create perverse incentives and discourage Americans from seeking work. Detailed economic studies that say otherwise have yet to find expression in the New York Times. Political figures should also be asked why they are reticent to enact offsetting spending cuts that would alleviate additional debt…

Will the extension of unemployment benefits further add to the deficit and undermine long term economic prospects? Or, will congressional action help cushion out of work Americans who could lose out on future payments? These questions serve as the foundation for recent news reports appearing in The New York Times that include remarks from key lawmakers.

The U.S. Senate voted 60-40 this week to end debate on jobless benefits, which all but assures final approval. With the exception of the usual suspects from Maine, Republicans opposed extending benefits in the absence of offsetting spending cuts.

“Republicans said they supported providing more jobless pay for struggling Americans but argued that the costs should be offset with spending cuts elsewhere to avoid adding to rising federal deficits,” a Times report says. “They proposed that money not yet spent from last year’s economic stimulus plan be used to cover the costs.”

This suggestion appears to be a non-starter for Democrats. Millions of America are already experiencing a delay in benefits and unemployment numbers remain high in areas of the country that could be politically competitive come November.

“Democrats argued that diverting stimulus money would weaken federal efforts to create jobs for the very people they were helping with the unemployment pay,” according to the report. “They said unemployment pay had often been treated as an emergency need free of any deficit considerations.”

There is a throwaway line here that deserves some attention. Normally, proposals to extend benefits are politically popular but this has not been the case where unemployment spending is concerned.

“The difficulty that Democrats had in moving ahead with what has traditionally been a popular vote has forced the leadership to scale back expectations for what it can yet accomplish this year given the requirement to produce at least 60 votes in the Senate on every bill,” The Times acknowledges.

Thus far, Republican lawmakers are sticking to their guns. They may sense a political opening connected with the public’s rising anxiety over deficit spending. While it is helpful and informative for The Times to report on the politics of unemployment benefits, it would be helpful to focus more attention on the economic fallout.

As it turns out, Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, has provided The Times with an ideal opening. He is very dismissive of the idea that unemployment benefits could create perverse incentives for Americans seeking work. He is quoted at length but his assertions go challenged.

Eileen Norcross, a senior research fellow with the Social Change Project and the lead researcher on the State and Local Policy Project with the Mercatus Center, has written at length about the economics of unemployment benefits. A follow up report that juxtaposes her comments with Sen. Harkin’s could open the way to informative policy discussions.

The following commentary from Norcross on the “Costs and Consequences of Unemployment Benefits” is worth careful consideration:

“The perverse incentives of unemployment benefits are well documented. Subsidizing unemployment draws out a job search. Generous benefits that subsidize “temporary idleness” may result in `chronic idleness.’ As the state makes chronic idleness more attractive, more and more people will choose that option over productive employment. As people remain unemployed, their decreased spending will slow production throughout the economy, and the system will become less and less sustainable. In addition to these relatively short-run dangers, unemployment benefits can create a more serious long-run consequence known as hysteresis, or systemic long-run unemployment. As workers remain out of the job market for longer periods,  their skills become obsolete and the likelihood of remaining unemployed increases. As unemployment becomes acceptable, the natural rate of employment and production falls, resulting in a less-skilled workforce.”

Political figures who put weight into instant policy gratification as opposed to long-term costs should be called out in print for economic illiteracy that  jeopardizes the financial well being of Americans they claim to champion.

So, whatever happened to global warming hysteria? Why does the subject never come up as U.S. senators prepare to introduce a new energy bill that is in reality an anti-energy bill laced with requirements for renewable energy? Meanwhile, the states that have already implemented renewable standards have higher energy prices. The rationale has changed but the political motivations remain unchanged and unexamined thanks to a compliant news media…

With the Senate’s Democratic leadership now poised to introduce a “compromise bill” on energy policy to the floor next week, lawmakers are talking up the merits of renewable technology. Key concessions are being made to placate wavering Republicans who oppose the sweeping industry restrictions included in the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last year.

But, there has been very little discussion of global warming concerns that have been invoked in the past as a rationale for “cap and trade” polices. Instead, the political class now says the legislation is needed to help spur green technology and alleviate American dependence on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, The New York Times and other compliant media outlets have allowed key U.S. Senators to shift away from global warming alarmism in the direction of new marketing techniques without any critical examination.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has been a key Republican player, openly acknowledges that the pending legislation has no correlation with any genuine climate concerns. Moreover, the “climategate” scandal involving leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain demonstrates that the science underpinning man-made global warming theories should be called into question. In any event, they are less politically useful.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other top Democrats who have deliberately sidestepped any discussion of the environment should be asked about the “climategate” scandal and the junk science they have all invoked in the past to advance industry restrictions. This time around the discussion revolves around the economy where there is also room for informative articles that measure rhetoric against reality.

“Several senators, including John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, are trying to create specific plans to draw enough votes across the aisle,” the Times reports. “Mr. Reid outlined four main elements: responding to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, promoting greater energy efficiency, developing more clean-energy production and curbing power plant emissions.”

“He [Reid] said he was prepared to incorporate a plan championed by T. Boone Pickens, the oil and gas executive, to sharply expand the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel in large vehicle fleets,” the report continues. “The proposal, supported by Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, and Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, would provide tax breaks for natural-gas-powered vehicles and fueling stations.”

Not everything in the bill should be seen as a sop to the Sierra Club and other green groups, Reid told The Times. The overarching purpose is to expand renewable energy. But is this approach feasible, affordable and economically sound? These questions have thus far gone missing not only in the New York Times but in other major publications. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) has published detailed reports on state level energy policy that should help to instruct federal lawmakers.

The U.S. states that already have renewable electricity mandates of some kind have electricity prices that are 40 percent higher than those that do not, Dan Simmons, IER’s director of state affairs noted in a recent conference call.

“Where states get their electricity is the key to the price of electricity as in the sources of electricity generation,” he said. “13 of the 15 states that have the cheapest electricity in this nation either get a majority of electricity from coal or get a majority of their electricity from hydro-electric power –and the problem here is that we’re not building new coal or new hydro electric power – at least large hydroelectric power in the U.S. and that is a problem for electricity prices going forward.”

Another point that should be explored in subsequent coverage concerns the migration patterns the IER has pulled together. It would seem lead sponsors of “cap and trade” schemes tend to be concentrated in areas of the country where electricity prices are already high. Instead of working to alleviate the fiscal burdens on their constituents, congressional figures appear more inclined to drag down neighboring states.

“People are moving to areas of the country where they have a better chance at economic opportunity and the remaining states who have saddled themselves with different layers of regulations are starting to recognize the negative implications of that in the form of fewer jobs, fewer opportunities,” Tom Pyle, president of IER said in an interview. “There’s a manufacturing flight and quite frankly I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the leading proponents of cap and trade bills include a senator from California and a senator from Massachusetts.”

By raising energy prices in other parts of the country like the South and the Midwest, political figures intend to spread the pain and boost living expenses elsewhere so there is less of a flight from their home states.

That’s what you call selfish.

With the 2010 mid-term elections approaching, time is running out for big spenders to force through new Keynesian measures and the New York Times is not pleased. A new report warns against the political fallout for Republicans who prioritize budget cuts over stimulus programs. There is limited value in the standard back and forth between competing lawmakers. Instead more economists should be permitted to debate the merits of new spending plans..

“Deficit Hawks” who are ambitious to roll back the Obama Administration’s spending binge could jeopardize job creation and further sink the economy, according to lawmakers, union officials and public policy analysts who have been quoted recently in The New York Times.

When Congress reconvenes, it will only have one month to pass additional spending programs before leaving for the August recess. Keynesian economists who believe government spending spurs economic activity are alarmed because legislative efforts typically stall during election seasons.

Although budget cutters now appear to have the upper hand politically, the reporting suggests that Republicans who obstruct new spending initiatives could delay economic recovery and antagonize voters.

“Somehow the politically correct position on the deficit has become cut, cut, cut, irrespective of the economic consequences,” Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, a New York Democrat is quoted as saying. “Most economists agree the economy is too fragile to sustain the kinds of spending cuts politicians are talking about now.”

Alan Krueger, the treasury department’s chief economist, favors tax increases over spending cuts as a way to alleviate rising deficits and to boost jobs. He offered congressional testimony in May that has been cited in the New York Times as a rejoinder to law makers who favor less spending.

“He testified that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 `did not result in better performance in the labor market than was achieved in the 1990s, a period when government revenue increased, and the deficit was reduced and eventually eliminated,’ the Times reported.

“Whether that perspective will shape the policy debate will become clear in the coming months. In the meantime, some experts say that job creation and deficit reduction are not mutually exclusive.”

Other key sources here include Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.Com, who has argued in favor of “additional temporary stimulus to the economy.”

There are sharp divisions here between those who favor additional government expenditures and those who see deficit reduction as the more paramount concern. The Times deserves credit  for providing prominent Republicans with an opportunity to voice their concerns and make the case for fiscal restraint. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) both make some pointed observations that bring balance to the reports.

However, there is an implication made here that the prevailing view among economists is in sympathy with plans to advance spending programs. This is most certainly not the case and future reports should include the perspective of free market scholars who have debunked Keynesian thinking.

Russell Roberts, an economist with George Mason University, offered testimony before the U.S. Senate that addresses the current economic climate and argues government intervention. Some of the following comments should find their way into future reports that also cite Keynesians.

“While politicians may not be good at creating confidence, they can be very good at creating increased uncertainty,” Roberts explained. “Right now, the government is either intervening in numerous parts of the economy or considering expanded intervention in major ways…In the areas where the government has already intervened, the timing and nature of the exit strategy is up in the air. In the areas where the government is considering major intervention, the timing and entrance strategy are equally uncertain. This uncertainty discourages the risk-taking needed to get the economy going.”

Another proponent of parsimonious government spending patterns that deserves notice and attention is Howard Rich, Chairman of Americans for Limited Government. In response to a New York Times column by Paul Krugman, one of the leading lights of Keynesian theory, Rich correctly notes that government was already growing “by leaps and bounds” before the severe recession took hold.

“This is not rocket science, it is common sense, he observed. “The more government grows, the more the economy suffocates. Conversely, the more government contracts, the freer we will be as a nation to prosper.”

A strong case can be made that the Republic will be much safer if Congress declines to take any further action. That’s not the view of progressive economists connected with the Center for American Progress (CAP) and with top labor leaders who are often quoted in the Times.

“It is a national disgrace that members of Congress are heading home to celebrate our nation’s birthday after having voted repeatedly not to create jobs or to extend unemployment aid,” Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO said.

Given how well positioned Trumka is with the Obama White House it is certainly helpful for readers to have an understanding of his policy stance. But what are the economic arguments for and against expanded government benefits?

There’s another option open for subsequent reports that defer to Keynesian thinking. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued a new report that also takes jaundiced view of so-called stimulus plans. The organization has been a consistent and revered source for The Times and should figure into policy debates. Although its language is measured, the IMF clearly favors frugality in America and Europe.

“Lower risk appetite could initially reduce capital flows to emerging and developing economies,” the report says. “But relatively more robust growth prospects and low public debt could eventually result in higher capital flows, as some emerging economies become more attractive investment destination than advanced economies… At a global level, policies should focus on implementing credible plans to lower fiscal deficits over the medium term…such plans…should emphasize policy measures that reform pension entitlements and public health systems, make permanent reductions in non-entitlement spending, improve tax structures and strengthen fiscal institutions.

Contrary to what the Obama White House recommends, Ireland is cutting its budget and alleviating debt. Other European countries now appear inclined to do the same even as The New York Times makes every effort to sell the EU on discredited Keynesian schemes…

Ireland’s “Celtic Tiger” economy, the envy of Europe throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the 21^st Century, has slowed dramatically and The New York Times recommends stimulus spending to grease the engines. The Irish Prime Minister is quoted offering a sober, straightforward assessment of the economic climate that sharply contrasts with Keynesian thinking that maintains favor in the liberal media.

“The facts are that there is no easy way to cut deficits,” Prime Minister Brian Cowen is quoted as saying. “Those who claim there’s an easier way or a soft operation – that’s not the real world.” But where the prime minister sees a need for budget cutting, The Times sees an opportunity for greater government intervention and higher levels of spending. The other European nations to their great credit are lining up behind Ireland and in opposition against so-called “stimulus” strategies.

“Other European nations, including Britain and Germany are following Ireland’s lead, arguing that the only way to restore growth is to convince investors and their own people that government borrowing will shrink,” the report says. “The Group of 20 leaders set that in writing this weekend, vowing to make deficit reduction the top priority despite warnings from President Obama that too much austerity could choke a global recovery and warnings from a few economists about the possibility of much sharper 1930s style downturn.”

The European rebuke of Obama is of particular importance. While U.S. Administration falls back on Keynesian polices with a checkered historical past, the European Union appears more inclined to revive its private sector. The Times makes every effort to discourage any movements away from further government intervention.

The headline that runs on the jump page is particularly instructive.

“As Europe Looks to Cut Deficits, Ireland Shows the Cost of Austerity.”

Not too subtle.

Europe should eschew government budget cuts so as avoid the economic pain that follows from belt tightening – that’s the central message in this front page piece. Here The Times joins forces with the Obama Administration to cajole and pressure Europe into Keynesian practices that are a proven failure.

As Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government (ALG) has observed, Obama has positioned himself on the outside of rationale thought and mainstream economic thinking.

“Unfortunately, Obama is apparently the only leader on Earth who doesn’t think there is an overspending problem with government,” Wilson said. “Despite a $13 trillion national debt at home, he urged world leaders to ratchet up the deficit-spending — only to find that the world has gone chilly on the idea of “stimulus” in the wake of the debt crisis.”

Instead of offering readers tangible facts to substantiate its stance in favor of big government, The Times falls back on anecdotes.

“In the impoverished Ballymun neighborhood, developers began razing slums to make way for new low-income housing,” the report says. “Halfway through the project, the financing dried up, leaving some residents to languish in graffiti-covered concrete skeletons. `Welcome to Hell,’ read one of the tamest messages.”

To be sure, Ireland has cycled back into tough economic times that are not unfamiliar in its long history. But it is well positioned to lead Europe away from Obama and back in the direction of restrained government. Fortunately, Ireland has a receptive audience as ALG’s Wilson has noted.

“While the rest of the world is taking on the grave and growing problem of unsustainable sovereign debt, Obama calls for more spending,” he said. “He has asked Congress for another $47 billion to balance state budgets this year, including $23 billion to bail out unsustainable public school spending.”

Deficit spending is going out of style much to the chagrin of the liberal news media.

High unemployment usually means bad news for the political party in power, right? But that’s wrong according according a front page story that works overtime to sell the readers on the idea that Democrats could do well in key states on the basis of data supplied to the newspaper by Moody’s Analytics.

Polls show that House and Senate Democrats are in trouble and could face losses that well exceed the historical average in November’s mid-term elections. But it is apparent from today’s front page report that the New York Times will make every effort to salvage incumbent Democrats who favor their big government agenda.

Oddly enough, the reporter even acknowledges that the article is rooted more in wishful thinking than it is in any hard data.

“Political analysts expect Republicans to make gains — possibly significant ones — in Congress in November, threatening to retake the House and maybe even the Senate,” The Times concedes. “But digging deeper, beyond the national numbers, reveals at least a few glimmers of hope for Democrats — still fairly distant and faint, but bright enough to get campaign strategists scanning the horizon and weighing the odds.”

The central argument here is built around job prospects in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York where Democrats are vulnerable in normally safe seats. Apparently, manufacturing is on the upswing in all three states and job are beginning to come back. Remarkably, The Times also claims high unemployment numbers do not necessarily connect with political contests.

“While much attention has been paid to the nation’s stubbornly high unemployment rate, political scientists have found little correlation between that measure and midterm elections results. Instead, they have found more broad-based indicators, particularly real personal disposable per capita income, which measures the amount of money a household has after taxes and inflation, to be better gauges,” The Times claims.

But unemployment was a key ingredient of the so-called “misery index” that the liberal media often applied against Republican candidates throughout the 1970s and early 1980s before the economy turned upward under President Reagan.

That’s what you call spin and there’s more.

Moody’s Analytics examined some of the House and Senate seats for the NYT that offered up “some surprising bits of encouragement for Democrats but also adds color to the overall daunting picture confronting the party. At the very least, any such signs of hope are certain to affect the strategies being worked out now in campaigns,” according to the report.

But there is very little in the way of specificity once the article moves on from Pa., N.Y. and Ohio. The piece is mostly speculative and more suitable for the blogosphere than it is for the news section of the front page. Readers are told that The Times has identified 114 House seats and 17 Senate seats as being particularly competitive come November. Significant Republican gains could potentially set back the agenda the NYT favors on its editorial pages. Just recently, The Times complained ObamaCare regulations did not go far enough.

Here are some hard numbers included in the Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll that show Democrats are back on their heels even if the public is not in love with GOP.

The number of people who say the country is headed in the wrong direction is 62 percent with 50 percent expressing disapproval over President Obama’s handling of the economy. Moreover, the administration’s mishandling of the BP oil spill has also factored into the equation with about 50 percent expressing disapproval over Obama’s lethargic response.

But the most telling numbers relate to Congress.

When prospective voters were asked to weigh in on their party preference, 45 percent of those surveyed say they want Congress to be controlled by Republicans, while 43 percent want Democrats in charge. By contrast, the public favored a Democratic Congress by a margin of 48 to 39 in April of last year. That’s quite a drop.

The report would be more persuasive if it included statistics and evidence that showed Republicans were also losing ground with the electorate as their Democratic counterparts implode. That’s not here. Instead, the NYT recruits Moody’s Analytics to help take the edge off troubling economic news that normally bites the incumbent party.

“The economic forecasting company also predicts housing prices will rise in metropolitan areas connected to a fifth of the competitive House seats identified by The Times,” the report says. “The forecasters project three-quarters of the competitive districts will experience employment growth in their corresponding metropolitan areas between the fourth quarter of 2009 and the fourth quarter of 2010.”

Republicans still have a long distance to travel before voters are convinced they are serious about downsizing government and restoring constitutionalism. But there is no denying how much political trouble the Democrats are now in less than two years after the liberal media suggested Republicans would be consigned to the political wilderness for decades.

The potential economic fallout from the Obama Administration’s moratorium on new deep water oil is difficult to overstate. As he prepares to appeal a ruling from a federal judge overturning the presidential directive, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar should be asked about some troubling job loss projections.

With Interior Secretary Ken Salazar working to renew the administration’s push for a six month moratorium on deep water oil and gas drilling, the New York Times should consider balancing out its coverage with job loss projections that trade organizations have published.

Earlier this week, a federal judge in New Orleans sided with industry groups and ruled against Obama’s order. As the administration prepares to appeal this ruling, the NYT should ask Salazar and other key figures to rationalize their actions with hard economic realities described in the court ruling.

The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association and other trade associations have offered up some important pieces of information that cannot be so blithely dismissed and are worthy of coverage.

The facts as they are presented by LMOGA shows that there is considerable weight standing behind the 22 page ruling from Judge Martin Feldman who is with the U.S. District Court in Louisiana. The burden is on Salazar not business interests that appear to have their facts in order. He should asked about the job loss projections before the appeal is filed.

Unfortunately, the press continues to give him a free pass. The most recent report in NYT about the deepwater horizon explosion and the BP oil spill uncritically repeats Salazar’s accusation that the ruling was unjustified.

“In Washington, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar  said Wednesday that he was preparing new evidence to support a six-month moratorium on deep-water oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and was prepared to vigorously challenge a federal judge’s ruling on Tuesday that the drilling ban was unjustified,” the report says. Appearing before a Senate committee, Mr. Salazar said the “pause” in the drilling of 33 deepwater wells in the gulf was essential until the causes of the April 20 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil leak were fully understood.”

Going forward, The Times should report the following:

* Gulf production represents 27% of the US oil and 15% of US natural gas production.

* Deepwater production represents more than 70% of total Gulf of Mexico production, so the moratorium will ultimately make us more dependent on foreign sources which don’t share our environmental standards. The oil will arrive via pipelines or on tankers, which are also at risk for spills. America will lose tens of thousands of jobs.

* The offshore drilling industry is responsible for 200,000 jobs in the Gulf region.

* The moratorium could cost 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the next two to three weeks alone, and potentially 10,000 in the coming months. To put that in context, the entire U.S. economy created only 41,000 new private jobs in May, according to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development.

* For each of the 33 Louisiana platforms idled by the work stoppage, up to 1,400 jobs and potentially $330 million in lost wages per month are at risk.

* The moratorium will cost the federal government approximately $120 to $150 million in lost royalty payments in 2011, and $300 to $500 million in lost corporate taxes, according to Consultants Wood Mackenzie.

* Since 1947, oil companies have drilled more than 42,000 wells in the Gulf. Current production is about 1.6 million barrels a day, and four-fifths of that is from deep water. Yet in a typical year, spills equal only several hundred barrels, according to the American Petroleum Institute.

* Nearly 60% of today’s 7,300 active Gulf leases are in deep water, including the 20 highest-producing leases in the Gulf.

* According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), a moratorium in the Gulf puts 300,000 barrels a day at risk.  That’s 300,000 barrels a day that will now need to be imported from foreign sources, sending revenue and jobs overseas and raising its own safety issues.

Reaction to President Obama’s six-month moratorium on offshore deepwater drilling should also find its way into the reporting. Here are some suggested quotes:

* Charlotte Randolph, LaRouche Parish President: “Mr. President, you were looking for someone’s butt to kick. You’re kicking ours,” in pleading for the moratorium to end.

* Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Every one of these deepwater wells employs directly hundreds of people and indirectly thousands.  This is one company. This is one well. It’s a terrible situation and no one is making light of it, but what I’m saying, as strongly as I can, to this president is the economic analysis is devastating to many companies, thousands of companies… And we’d better be very careful before we drive every one of these deepwater wells to Africa or India.”

* Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R): ”During one of the most challenging economic periods in decades, the last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more. The Louisiana Department of Economic Development estimates that the active drilling suspension alone will result in a loss of 3,000 to 6,000 Louisiana jobs in the next 2-3 weeks and potentially over 10,000 Louisiana jobs within a few months.””

* Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R): “”I don’t think we should have a moratorium; it is very reasonable to continue to drill. If we don’t, then all this oil drilling equipment is going to leave the Gulf of Mexico. It is going to go to West Africa, Brazil, to Australia, to China and it is not going to be back in six months when the moratorium is over. It is going to be gone.”

* Frank Corder, City Councilman, Pascagoula, MS: “”Many of our citizens on the Coast work on oil rigs in the Gulf and local businesses support, repair, and construct these rigs. To allow this unfortunate accidental disaster to shape our nation’s future energy policy in terms of offshore drilling and thus essentially taking the food off the tables of so many in our city, county and state would be an additional tragedy. Further, since when do we as Americans propagate a defeatist attitude. We are the country of innovation and invention. We should learn from this disaster, yes, but it should not be used as a political football to promote a liberal energy policy that ultimately makes us more dependent on foreign oil.”