The big-government supporters at the New York Times offered two classic big-government stories on the front of its Business section two days in a row. On Friday Dionne Searcey in Naples, Fla., "Government Spending, Edging Up, Is a Stimulus." The text box underlined the pro-spending sentiment: "The public sector is once again adding to prosperity."
For a long stretch, government spending cutbacks at all levels were a substantial drag on economic growth. Now, finally, relief is in sight.
For the first time since 2011, local, state and federal governments are providing a small but significant increase to prosperity.
....
Across the nation, state and local governments, Democratic and Republican alike, are spending on projects that were stalled. Teachers, who were laid off in droves in recent years, are being hired again. Even federal spending in some sectors is on the rise.
....
Since the stimulus programs approved in 2008 and 2009, Republicans in Washington have pushed to cut federal spending; even the $1.1 trillion budget bill that Congress recently passed to keep the government operating through September abides by spending caps and includes further trims.
Under a graphic headed "A Small but Important Lift," the text box read: "Decreases in government spending had been a drag on the economy. But last year, governments began to spend more money, and that spending is now contributing to economic growth."
The recovery has been uneven for governments across the country. Some states are being left behind altogether. Alaska, for one, has been stung by the plummeting cost of oil after projecting that it would be much higher. Other oil-rich states, like Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota, are bracing for cutbacks.
Only a liberal paper would equate less state spending to that state being "left behind." And the states she points to as "bracing for cutbacks" are doing very well economically. North Dakota's unemployment rate is 2.7%, lowest in the nation, and the rates for Texas and Oklahoma are below 5%.
Thursday's Business Day front page was graced by Rachel Abrams' "Hourly Wage Is Going Up for Millions." The online headline was more biased: "States' Minimum Wages Rise, Helping Millions of Workers." "Helping...workers?" Says who? Not the workers who will be laid off due to being priced out of the job market, or never even hired at all because of increased corporate labor costs. And if workers truly are poor, why not raise the wage to, say, $100 an hour? If raising the wage from $8 to $9 is good, wouldn't raising it to $100 be so much better?
Credit Abrams for finding the most sympathetic voice possible to deliver a pro-wage-hike message, though the benefit to her seems pretty modest and won't do much to narrow the expanding "wealth gap between the rich and poor," a corporate obsession at the Times:
For some low-wage workers, everyday tasks like spending money for bus fare to get to and from work also involve deciding which bill to pay or delay, or what to give up.
Rita Diaz, 26, who works two low-wage jobs, sometimes walks the three miles home from her job serving chicken at a Popeye’s fast-food restaurant in Roslindale, Mass., when she doesn’t have money for all of her expenses. Her plight is one of many highlighted by labor advocates who have been pushing for higher minimum wage levels.
In January, with an increase in the minimum wage in Massachusetts taking effect -- raising hourly pay to $9 from $8 an hour -- Ms. Diaz envisions being able to walk less and ride more.
“I need to make a decision to buy clothes, or pay the rent or pay my cellphone bill,” she said. “Now I’ve got to do that decision, but I’m going to have more money for me, too. A little bit of money for me.”
By Thursday, minimum wage increases will go into effect in 20 states, including Massachusetts, as well as in the District of Columbia. A few other states will enact a pay bump later in the year.
Abrams laid out some polling data showing how popular raising the minimum wage is (of course, so are tax cuts, but the Times doesn't like those):
As the wealth gap between the rich and poor has expanded, the battle over wages for some of America’s lowest-paid workers has intensified.
The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2007. President Obama has proposed raising it to $10.10 an hour, but that effort has stalled in Congress.
Despite the popularity of minimum wage increases in many states, including those dominated by Republicans, and favorable attitudes toward higher minimum pay expressed in many public opinion polls, the federal proposals are unlikely to gain much traction in 2015, especially now that Republicans control the House and the Senate.
Abrams eventually worked in two paragraphs deep inside citing "Business associations" opposed to a minimum-wage hike -- certainly an unappealing-sounding ally. Even that brief tilt toward balance was countered by an economist from an unlabeled liberal think tank.
