Where is the money suppose to come from for this proposed commuter rail tunnel linking NYC and New Jersey. The Gray Lady never quite gets around to answering this in a highly partisan editorial that takes aim at Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey for canceling the project. It also praises Mayor Mike Bloomberg of NYC for offering up an alternative plan that the editorial admits “sketchy.” What? N.J. voters know their state is out of money….

Despite all the evidence out there to the contrary, the New York Times continues to argue in favor of government spending as the antidote for economic malaise and fiscal restraint. While the paper is certainly entitled to editorialize against public officials, the highly partisan and condescending tone it adopts here against Gov. Christ Christie of New Jersey and his budget cutting policies is highly instructive.

A Quinnipiac University survey shows public sentiment very much in support of the governor’s decision to cancel an $8.7 billion commuter rail tunnel to New York City. The poll shows 53 percent of voters supporting Christie versus 37 percent who do not. Over 30 percent of Democrats also said they support Christie’s actions.

Using the 2005 initial projection of $5 billion, New Jersey officials proceeded to obtain $3 billion from the federal government, spend $600 million in start-up costs, and commit another $1.2 billion in contracts and fees.  Now, as the expected cost of the project has ballooned to $10 billion – double the original estimate – construction has ceased as the state’s budget woes have worsened.  This essentially means taxpayers will have spent over $4.5 billion for nothing.

But NYT sees the matter much differently. Somehow the federal government will come through with additional funding to defray costs for the “much- needed” mass transit tunnel, the editorial says. Moreover, Michael Bloomberg, the enlightened mayor of NYC, has “come to the rescue” with a proposal for an alternative tunnel.

“It’s nice to know somebody is thinking big about the region’s economic future,” the NYT sneers even as it acknowledges that the “Bloomberg plan is sketchy, and it is not clear where the money would come from.” That’s quite a pivot.

Gov. Christie connects with voters because they understand as he does that N.J. is essentially bankrupt and cannot afford new spending schemes. In many respects, the budget process at the state level is broken. It is hard reality that continues to elude the Gray Lady, but not the Republican governor it so loaths. Gov. Christie understands cost projects for infrastructure projects are often way off and cost more over the long-term. That’s why he was right to terminate this project in the cradle. For this he deserves praise not scorn.

But the concluding paragraph takes aim at Christie for advancing policies that are consistent with Tea Party sentiment.

“Perhaps some sage from one of the big universities — Princeton or Rutgers? — could help the state spend almost $60 million from the federal government to weatherize New Jersey homes,” the editorial suggests. “After all, Mr. Christie is busy making news and charming the right by downsizing his state, so it falls on others to think about the future.”

Perhaps the NYT could refrain from “charming” big government proponents who have made infrastructure projects quite untenable thanks to unchecked deficit spending.

A non-profit group called “Americans for Job Security” comes in for some sharp criticism from the NYT, which is now in election mode. The idea here is to undermine Republican efforts that appear to be ascendant and to mischaracterize a Supreme Court ruling that expands First Amendment protections

Non-profit advocacy groups that support private sector interests are operating by way of subterfuge and stealth to advance public policy measures that favor a select few, according to a front page piece that ran Sunday.

Pejorative words like “cloak” and hidden” are used in the headline to set the tone for a highly critical piece that probes into an organization called “Americans for Job Security” based in the Washington D.C. area. But the real targets are the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party and First Amendment freedoms.

AJS is supporting a referendum that would restrict the operations of a gold and copper mine located in Bristol Bay, Alaska. After the mine’s supporters filed a complaint, investigators concluded that the organization was set up to protect the indentify of wealthy activists, the report argues.

“With every election cycle comes a shadow army of benignly titled nonprofit groups like Americans for Job Security, devoted to politically charged `issue advocacy,’ much of it negative,” the report says. “But they are now being heard as never before — in this year of midterm discontent, Tea Party ferment and the first test of the Supreme Court decision  allowing unlimited, and often anonymous, corporate political spending. Already they have spent more than $100 million — mostly for Republicans and more than twice as much as at this point four years ago. None have been more active than Americans for Job Security, which spent $6 million on ads during the primary season. This week, emboldened by the court ruling, the group paid close to $4 million more for ads directly attacking nine Democratic candidates for Congress. That made it among the first to abandon the old approach of running ads that stopped just short of explicitly urging voters to elect or reject individual candidates.”

The idea here is to shut down advocacy work that takes full advantage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United V. FEC decision earlier this year, which set aside previous restrictions on unions and corporations. It also serves as a not subtle propaganda piece on behalf of the Disclose Act that is now the subject of intense debate on Capitol Hill.

It would not be unreasonable for readers to ask if there is anything said or written  here that could be improved upon by a Democratic consultant? It is very evident the report is crafted with an eye toward dismantling advocacy work that is at odds with a big government agenda.

Under the sub head – “Blurred Boundaries” – the NYT suggests to readers that AJS is skirting the law by operating in close concert with  Republican leaning groups. Although the group has been the subject of complaints filed with the International Revenue Service (IRS) and Federal Election Commission (FEC), there is no hard evidence presented here that demonstrates it violated campaign finance rules.

Additional allegations are also listed under the final section of the report entitled “A Hidden Hand in Alaska.” Here the NYT comments on the results of its own public information request that sought to expose more of the group’s finances and connections. It also reports on legal settlement AJS reached with authorities in Alaska.

This is nothing more than veiled, indirect attempt to complicate Republican campaign efforts and to besmirch average Americans who are part of the Tea Party

Just make it up. That appears to be mindset at work in a front page story and subsequent business section report that takes aim at Tea Party activists who helped to shift public sentiment against President Obama’s agenda and the Democratic Party. An anonymous source is used to advance the idea that Tea Party is synonymous with extremism...

Somehow average Americans who pine for constitutional limited government and the ideals of the founding period are considered extreme and unhinged. Meanwhile, White House officials and career legislators who expand the national debt and subjugate free enterprise are viewed as mainstream. That’s the world, according to the New York Times.

Consider the sub-head used on a front page story that ran on Monday about Obama Administration officials who now speculate that their party’s fortunes could be uplifted by interlinking the GOP with the Tea Party movement.

The sub-head reads: “Democrats Could Cast Rivals as Being Taken Over By Extremists.” That is to say, with a little help from the NYT. Political analysts from across the political spectrum see strong indications that control of both congressional chambers are in play for the mid-term elections.  Larry Sabato, a political science professor with the University of Virginia, has said definitively that the GOP will at least take the House.

However, White House operatives believe that can use Tea Party candidates as a foil in key races, the report claims. This idea is predicated on the notion that a significant number of voters could react against Republican budget-cutting ideas they find offensive, the NYT tells readers.

“We need to get out the message that it’s now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party,” an anonymous Democratic strategist is quoted as saying. This source has been in touch with White House officials but cannot give his name since the strategy talks were private, the article explains.

Right away, this approach to reporting should raise concerns. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and other media associations now question the use of anonymity as a reporting tool. This is not a hard and fast rule and exceptions can be made in compelling situations. But ideally, an anonymous source should be intermixed with identifiable, on the record sources who substantiate the major points made by another individual who is in a compromised situation.

For their part, White House officials deny there is any kind of orchestrated effort that would pivot against Tea Party activism. The NYT appears to be working overtime to manufacture its own news.  The anonymous source is quoted again later in the same front page report.

“The Democratic strategist said voters did not now see much threat to them from a Republican takeover of Congress, even though some Tea Party-backed candidates and other Republicans have taken positions that many voters consider extreme, like shutting down the government to get their way, privatizing Social Security and Medicare and ending unemployment insurance,” the report continues. “So far, Mr. Obama has largely limited his campaigning to fundraisers and small events. That will change soon as he plays a bigger role to rally the flagging faithful, officials said.

If the NYT would like to suggest that a large percentage of voters would recoil and react against Republican budget cutting plans, this idea should be sourced and attributed. Instead, the reports offer up blanket assertions meant to marginalize the Tea Party movement. In reality, there is just as much polling evidence indicative of growing appetite for entitlement reform and fiscal restraint at the federal level.

Just one day after its front page report on the alleged White House election plot ran, the NYT ran another piece appearing in its Tuesday business section that took another swipe at Tea Party activists.  This latest report was built around a town hall chat in Washington D.C. with President Obama. Here, he challenged Tea Party participants to offer up specifics about which federal benefits they would cut.

But the most telling part of the story concerns White House reaction to the earlier report based on anonymous sourcing that detailed fall campaign strategy.

“The White House denied an article in The New York Times on Monday saying that Mr. Obama’s political advisers were considering national advertising to cast the Republican Party as having been all but taken over by the Tea Party movement,” the report says.

`The story that led The New York Times yesterday was flat out wrong,’ Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said in an e-mail message. “The White House has never discussed, contemplated or weighed such an ad campaign.” Mr. Pfeiffer said the article `was based on the thinnest of reeds,’ an anonymous source. The Times stood by the report.”

But the White House has a point and unless the NYT can produce on the record sources, the two reports coupled together give the appearance of agenda-laced, manufactured reporting that takes aim against small government activists.

There’s no question that Democratic operatives will attempt to seize specific comments and policy stances in key states where they suspect that some Tea Party candidates may have liabilities. But that’s not the real story. The energy and activism of Tea Party movements is a huge net plus for Republicans going into a mid-term election cycle when turnout tends to be lower.

The attempt to discredit and defame a growing, vibrant political movement that has helped to reawaken America’s revolutionary roots will continue unabated up to Nov. 2. But it will not go unchecked and unchallenged.

Supposedly, Australia’s ambitious clean energy network will cost households just eight dollars a week over the next ten years, the NYT declares in a recent report. But new studies show that renewable, green technology is quite costly and cannot be sustained without government intervention. These facts go missing from the report…

So called renewable energy sources comprise just 6 percent of Australia’s power supplies, but this could change dramatically in the next few years if environmentalists have their druthers, according to a New York Times “Green Column” that highlights pending projects. Current plans call for the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere to be built between now and 2013, the report says.

Although the report concedes that there are enormous logistical challenges connected with the project, it permits renewable industry advocates to talk around the engineering obstacles. The NYT also claims the renewable energy initiatives will generate modest costs for Australian citizens. But the experiences of European countries and U.S. states suggest otherwise and should be reported.

Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, has produced a  study that shows green jobs are mostly temporary, heavily subsidized and subtract away from economic performance. The study also describes how higher energy prices associated with renewable have worked against Spain’s ability to compete internationally. The same is true in the U.S. where electricity rates are almost 40 percent higher in states with renewable standards than they are in states that do not have such standards, according to the Institute for Energy Research (IER).

Readers would greatly benefit if these numbers were juxtaposed with some of the blanket assertions made in the NYT piece. Unrealistic cost estimates are typically attached to political agendas at odds with the public interest. Ideally, journalists should work to expose rather than advance government perfidy.

Australia could switch over to renewable in just 10 years by constructing 12 thermal solar stations and 23 wind farms, a Melbourne University study cited in the report has concludes.

“This ambitious clean energy network would cost 370 billion dollars over 10 years, but the cost to each household is estimated at a mere 8 dollars a week,” the article declares. This is very questionable number in light of what has been experienced in America and Europe. But policymakers are proceeding full speed ahead.

“Worldwide, investment in renewable energies has boomed in recent years, with some $190 billion worth of new clean energy in 2008, according to the Renewables Global Status Report for 2009,” the report says. “The number of large solar plants tripled to 1,800 between 2007 and 2008, with the majority of new plants in Spain, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea and Portugal. The United States, the world’s biggest source of wind energy, installed five times Australia’s total wind energy capacity in 2008 alone.”

Yes, and it’s costing these countries a substantial amount without any appreciable impact on the climate at the expense of cheap, reliable energy sources. The NYT does a great disservice to readers here by way of cheerleading for renewable development in a country that has plenty of alternatives. Instead, it views Australia’s rich supply of resources as an obstacle.

“One of the problems in Australia is that the country has too many energy resources, and too much cheap coal,” the NYT observes. “The country is the leading exporter of coal in the world, and it generates about 80 percent of its electricity through coal-fired power stations.”

The political class understands that coercive measures such as “cap and trade” are needed to force private industry off politically incorrect energy sources. But key voices of dissent have emerged and that’s good news for Australians.

“While campaigning for elections on Saturday, the governing Labor Party and the conservative opposition appeared divided over whether to set such a `carbon price,’ which would force coal power operators to invest in cleaner technology and make renewable energy more competitive,” the report says.  Prime Minister Julia Gillard favors what the NYT describes as a “market-based carbon program,” while Tony Abbott is opposed.

Although environmental groups maintain that “cap and trade” policies have market-like qualities, their arguments do not hold up, especially on the cap side of the equation. The emissions restrictions are imposed through regulation not voluntary, market-based decisions. Moreover, because they are set through regulation and legislation they can be imposed for political reasons, not economic or environmental reasons.

This remains an unexplained part of the story that should be pursued and unpackaged in future reports.

This time around the Democratic Party is better positioned to blunt a potential Republican surge in the mid-term elections The New York Times tells readers. But is there any hard evidence to back this up? No two election cycles are the same and thanks to organized labor Democrats are raising a lot more money in comparison with the 1994 blowout. But there’s more to the story…

Democrats are better prepared this time around for the mid-term elections than they were in 1994 when they lost control of congress and a sitting House Speaker was defeated, The New York Times informs readers in a piece that is replete with wishful thinking and cheerleading.

“Unlike 1994, when Republicans shocked Democrats by capturing dozens of seats held by complacent incumbents, there will be no sneak attacks this year,” the report observes. “Democrats have sensed trouble for more than a year, with the unrest from town-hall-style meetings last August providing indisputable evidence for any disbelievers. The result has been to goad many Democrats into better preparation: more fund-raising, earlier advertising, lots of time on the campaign trail.”

This is partially true in that President Obama’s declining poll numbers have not translated over into public enthusiasm for the Republican Party. Special elections held earlier this year demonstrate that Democrats who hold out against overspending can prevail over uninspiring Republicans. Rep. Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, is quite mindful of how conservative his district is and has voted against many of the administration initiatives that have antagonized voters. He will not be so easy to dislodge.

However, there is no escaping the growing danger to incumbent Democrats who have been complicit in advancing unpopular public policy measures. The Cook Political Report, for instance, has seen an uptick in the number of House seats now leaning Republican. It also envisions a scenario in which Republicans could actually capture control of the Senate; something that was unthinkable to most analysts at outset of 2009.

The Tea Party movement is symptomatic of a larger dynamic at work within the electorate that suggests the incumbent party could experience mid-term election losses much larger than the historical average. The comparison with 1994 makes for an appropriate and engaging story angle. After controlling the House for 40 consecutive years, Democratic leaders including House Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) overlooked key national trends. This time around incumbents know they are trouble. The Times article implies that savvy campaign tactics and meticulous fundraising can blunt a Republican surge.

“Many Democrats have raised more money so far this year than in the entire previous election cycle. They formed their campaign teams several months ahead of schedule and began running television advertisements earlier than ever,” the report says. “Realizing they could do little to improve the political climate, they are trying to fortify themselves with sharper tactics.”

But the fundraising dollars are more the byproduct of concentrated special interests that continue to push for legislation the public does not want. A more balanced report that is not so dismissive of Republican prospects would at least mention the cozy relationship that exists between the Democratic Party leadership and organized labor. In the 2008 election cycle, over 90 percent of the contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) went to Democrats. But that also occurred at a time when the Republicans were down and out.

That’s not the case in 2010. Despite sympathetic media treatment, Democrats appear to be losing against Republicans who embrace Tea Party principles. That’s the real story, but it’s not one that is likely to be reported in The New York Times.

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.

Suppose for a moment that the “moderate” Republicans favored in the news media and the Republican Party establishment prevailed over the more conservative leaning candidates  in the June primaries. Ideology would not go missing in coverage under that scenario. But when Tea Party favorites and conservative endorsements win out, that’s not news…

If the election results in Utah, South Carolina and North Carolina had gone differently in the June Republican primary elections, The New York Times would run headlines celebrating conservative setbacks. But because the establishment candidates went down, there is no mention of ideology in the coverage.

Nikki Haley, who won the Republican nomination for governor of South Carolina, had strong support from Tea Party activists. She was not considered a favorite to win and worked tenaciously to overcome various allegations that were not substantiated.

The report reviewing election results makes no mention of Haley’s conservative credentials or her connection with the Tea Party movement. Instead, readers are told that she was “strongly embraced by Republican leaders in Washington and touted as one of the party’s next leaders.” But that’s after the fact. If Haley, had been defeated her affiliation with Tea Party activists would have not have gone unmentioned.

But there’s more here.

Rep. Bob Inglis, (R-S.C.), who favored a deal on global warming legislation and joined with congressional leftists to censure his colleague Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) ,was defeated by Trey Gowdy, a local prosecutor with conservative credentials.

These details do not find their way into the following paragraph:

“Representative Bob Inglis, a six-term Republican from South Carolina, was defeated in a runoff election. He became the fifth incumbent congressman or senator to be turned out of office in the latest round of primaries that have upended the midterm election year.”

But if Inglis emerged as the winner, he would been touted as a champion of moderation and enlightened thinking in the Republican Party. His support for “cap and trade” would have been held up as evidence that climate change legislation had traction with the electorate.

The race is worthy of closer examination took place in Utah where Mike Lee won a narrow victory as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate. It was an intense contest replete with negative advertising. But Lee had the backing of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) who appealed to the party’s conservative base. There’s doubt that he his connection with Lee would have been mentioned in the report if the election results went the other way.

Here again the report is short on details:

“In Utah, Republicans nominated Mike Lee, an attorney, in a race for the United States Senate. He defeated Tim Bridgewater, a businessman, in the primary Tuesday, one month after both men knocked out Senator Robert F. Bennett, a three-term Republican.”

The coverage here is deliberately bland because it does fit in with an inaccurate news media narrative that says Tea Party candidates are radioactive to mainstream voters in both parties.

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.”

Despite his substantial  win over the Republican establishment in the Kentucky primary, U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul operates well outside of the American mainstream and is therefore unelectable, according to the liberal news media. He is also a champion of the Tea Party movement is therefore also a racist, The New York Times informs readers in a front page hit piece that is short on facts and long on unfounded accusations.

Allegations of racism that have been directed against average Americans opposed to unconstitutional federal power grabs have been wearing thin for some time. Nevertheless, The New York Times remains convinced race can be used as a foil against the leading proponents of small government initiatives.

This is evident from a front page hit piece directed against Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, who prevailed in Kentucky’s Republican primary with about 60 percent of the vote. Although he would have ultimately voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, certain provisions of the legislation run counter to First Amendment freedoms, he has observed.  Sensing vulnerability, The Times has pounced and is working overtime to put Paul and his libertarian supporters on defense.

Establishment Republicans who lost badly in Kentucky are recruited here as part of an elaborate take down effort that is not likely to abate anytime soon. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell and other prominent party leaders had supported Secretary  of State Trey Grayson who was overwhelmed by Tea Party activism.

While it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that Rand’s primary victory is a source of consternation for some party officials, no effort is made to balance out the reporting with commentary from Republicans who are more committed to limited government. Outgoing Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who has been sharply critical of McConnell’s leadership, has been speaking with the press recently and could have been used as a source to add a fresh perspective.

But the objective here is to close off debate and to delegitimize a candidacy that complicates the big government policy preferences of The Times. Even as the report concedes that Paul came down squarely on the side of 1964 bill, it proceeds to inform readers that he is probably unelectable in the Fall.

“Still, it was not clear that he [Paul] had quelled rising concerns among Republicans about his ability to win in the general election, especially given his libertarian views in favor of limiting the role government,” the report says.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No.2 Republican behind McConnell, is quoted here and suggests Paul deals too much in the realm of fanciful theories that would not translate into practical policies. The Time also has it on the strong authority of Democrats that some of Paul’s proposals fall “out-of-the mainstream.” Meanwhile, the Washington D.C spending binge that Paul opposes is somehow mainstream.

The free speech explanation Paul gives for his stance on the civil rights bill is not dissimilar from the rationale the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other liberal pressure groups use to defend the rights of individuals and organizations who express hostility toward America. But somehow they do not wash here.

“While those views reflect the libertarian philosophy that Mr. Paul and many Tea Party members have embraced, they are politically treacherous for someone making an appeal to the electorate at large, as Mr. Paul learned as he struggled with questions about whether he thought the government had a role in regulating food safety and working conditions,” so says The New York Times as it asks loaded questions.

And how is it established that Paul is struggling after capturing a strong majority of his party’s vote?

The report also feigns outrage over Paul’s use of a country club as the location for his election night celebration as opposed to a less ostentatious setting. Clearly, this is someone the newspaper has learned to fear. This much time, effort and ink would not be spent on candidate who was genuinely unelectable.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a long-time Republican media darling for The Times, is called upon to explain his constitutional interpretation of commerce clause as a way of demeaning the Paul candidacy.

“I just want to be on the record that I believe the Interstate Commerce Clause was properly used by the courts and the Congress to make sure that when you travel in this country you can’t be denied food and lodging based on your race,” the South Carolina Republican is quoted as saying.

The Times might have asked Graham how he squares his support for campaign finance regulations with the First Amendment.  But expansive interpretations of constitutional freedoms are only in vogue where it suits the ideology and ambitions of liberal editors.

The rationale for burdensome anti-emissions regulations has taken a severe pounding in the wake of climategate. There is also a new study that raises questions about the viability of “green jobs.” Even so, “cap and trade” schemes are “inevitable” over the long term, the NYT declares as it ignores recent developments in pursuit of its agenda…

“Inevitable” is the word used to describe new energy legislation that would include anti-industry emissions restrictions in an article that focuses on President Obama’s new oil drilling plan. As TimesCheck.com has previously noted, the president’s plan imposes a multitude of restrictions any meaningful development of natural resources off the east and west coasts to the point where it is largely meaningless.

But the rhetorical commitment to new drilling initiatives could conceivable help move stalled legislation as this report from John Harwood makes clear.

Reticent Democrat U.S. Senators who reside in oil rich states could be persuaded some restrictions on carbon emissions in exchange for domestic development that previously off limits, the article suggests. James Carville, a Democratic operative who was close to former President Bill Clinton, has expressed enthusiasm for the new White House plan and is at the epicenter of the report.

After securing health care legislation, the Obama White House and the Democratic Congress “are starting to move the chains a little bit,” Mr. Carville is quoted as saying. On energy, “They’re setting the table for something that’s inevitable,” he added.

Even as acknowledges the political difficulties, Carville sees an opportunity to marginalize and cajole “pro-drilling” Republicans who have been able to push back against CO2 regulations in the teeth of a bad economy.

“Relatively low gas prices have drained away urgency, and the recession has heightened fears of economic dislocation,” the article states. “Republican charges that President Obama favors what they call a “cap and tax” plan that would destroy jobs while limiting carbon emissions have further damaged prospects for comprehensive energy legislation in Congress — just seven months before midterm elections.”

“But Mr. Carville, a Louisiana-bred campaign veteran, found encouragement in Mr. Obama’s new plan to expand domestic oil drilling,” The Times continues. “The plan makes it easier for Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Mr. Carville’s home state, to back the president’s goals; it also increases pressure to cooperate on pro-drilling Republicans.”

White House officials remain insistent on some form of carbon cap even as the concept remains politically unpopular, according to the report.  They claim it will create incentives for the U.S. to develop “renewable” energy resources and to keep pace with economic rivals. To be sure, this is an accurate description of the administration line but it should be challenged on the basis of some key facts.

Although Obama continues to invoke Spain as a model for clean energy, that country’s experiences do not bode well in this area. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, has produced a new study that shows green jobs are mostly temporary, heavily subsidized and subtract away from economic performance.  

Moreover, there is also the growing “climategate” scandal that shows researchers with a vested interest in the concept of man-made global warming actually fudged and manipulated their data. With the exception of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), most “cap and trade” critics have focused their ire on the economic flaws as opposed to the science. Now that opinion polls show that public has tired of global warming alarmism, this could change.

This otherwise very well-written engaging report proceeds from a faulty premise that says the U.S. has little choice over the long-term to move away from fossil and in the direction of so-called “renewable” clean energy. In reality, Russia and China are moving aggressively to develop oil and natural gas resources at an accelerated pace, while the U.S. operates under self-imposed environmental constraints.

The momentum has actually shifted very strongly in the direction of free market groups who have argued against regulatory regimes modeled after the Kyoto Treaty. Moreover, it is apparent that “cap and trade” is not working as advertised in Europe.

Here is how The Times wraps up its report:

“If time runs out before the election, the administration holds out the option of finishing negotiations in a lame-duck session of Congress. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama may have to choose between insisting on a comprehensive bill or setting aside the carbon cap for a narrower approach focused on new energy sources.

Mr. Carville concedes that this may not prove the right moment for a more aggressive approach. But as other nations move to curb fossil fuels, he calls it only a matter of time. `It’s about 2010,’ Mr. Carville concluded, `and it’s about 2014, too.’ ”

Carville may be right that the rhetorical nod in the direction of oil drilling may help loosen opposition. But on a substantive level the rationale for “cap and trade” has taken some severe hits and its proponent should be vigorously questioned.

In this report, they are not.