By Tom Blumer | May 5, 2016 | 11:24 AM EDT

Almost any time a government agency or program fails to perform, those involved complain that they don't have enough money to properly do their jobs. Unless the matter involves national defense, the press gullibly swallows their contentions.

The Transportation Safety Administration is the latest case in point. Lines at airport security checkpoints are already getting noticeably longer, and we haven't yet hit the summer travel season, with "all signs" predicting that "queues will far surpass those of years past." Items at, among other places, the New York Times ("tight budgets"), Bloomberg News ("budgetary limits"), and WABC News in Newark ("budget cuts") are all trying to help the agency get its hands on more taxpayer money. A Tuesday editorial at Investor's Business Daily — as usual, reporting facts beat journalists somehow never get around to reporting — tells us that more money hasn't solved the problem before, and that there's a better answer (links are in original; bolds are mine):

By Tom Blumer | April 28, 2016 | 11:09 PM EDT

The editorialists at Investor's Business Daily have reported on the results of an important study by several George Mason University Mercatus Center economists showing what regulations have cost the economy in economic growth since 1980. The establishment press, which has been singularly uninterested in reporting anything that has to potential to slow the regulatory leviathan down — y'know, because its causes are so noble and righteous — is virtually ignoring the Mercatus study.

IBD tied the study's findings into the "new normal" nonsense the "mainstream" economics community and most of the business press has been foisting on us since it became obvious about 6-1/2 years ago that the U.S. economy's post-recession performance would likely be singularly underwhelming. What we've seen is the worst growth post-downturn economy by far since World War II.

By Tom Blumer | April 10, 2016 | 11:55 PM EDT

On Tuesday, shortly after Governor Jerry Brown signed California's $15-an-hour minimum wage legislation, the Associated Press's Michael R. Blood and Don Thompson called the move "a victory for those struggling on the margins of the economy and the politically powerful unions that pushed it."

As seen in a NewsBusters post on March 31, it's definitely a win for union members whose wages are set at a multiple of the state's minimum wage. But it's not a "victory" for "struggling" workers who will lose their jobs or not be able to become employed at the higher rate. The AP pair would only concede that "the overall goal of helping the working poor might be lessened if some employers cut jobs or, worse, leave the state." Forget the "if" on employers cutting jobs, guys. That's because, as Jeb Graham at Investor's Business Daily reported on Friday (HT Hot Air), two states which have only raised their minimums to just over $10 have already seen seasonally adjusted job losses (bolds are mine):

By Tom Blumer | April 3, 2016 | 5:56 PM EDT

The antennae went up when I saw the following tease on the front page of Thursday's USA Today print edition: "Obama commutes sentences for 61 low-level inmates." The brief description which immediately followed told readers that "He has cut sentences for 248 so far, more than (the) previous 6 presidents combined, official says."

Hmm. What's a "low-level inmate"? The underlying Page 3A article by David Jackson (posted in slightly revised form Wednesday evening at the paper's web site) tells us that it's someone who has committed "low-level drug offenses." The list of commutations published by the White House identifies the supposedly puny "low-level offenses" the recipients of the President's commutations committed. Here's a hint: The average person won't agree with the "low-level" characterization.

By Tom Blumer | March 28, 2016 | 6:02 PM EDT

Who says that there can't be occasional agreements across the partisan divide?

The free-market, liberty-loving editorial board at Investor's Business Daily and a Bernie Sanders-supporting columnist at the Huffingon Post agree on one thing: Hillary Clinton should withdraw from the presidential race. Okay, IBD wants her to "suspend," while HuffPo's H.A. Goodman says she should "concede." Both missives declare that Mrs. Clinton's withdrawal should be based on the FBI's criminal investigation into her "homebrew" server and her alleged reckless treatment of classified emails and the information contained therein. Here's the dirty little secret the establishment press won't acknowledge: Mrs. Clinton's criminal and other problems simply must have impacted her horrible losses in five of the six most recent nomination contests.

By Tom Blumer | January 28, 2016 | 12:00 AM EST

Critics who warned in 2010 that the odious Dodd-Frank law's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would become a rogue agency which would become a largely unaccountable behemoth on a mission to create problems where none exist could not have been more correct.

Sadly, searches on terms relevant to one of the agency's latest controversies involving the distribution of funds in a two year-old auto-loan industry settlement indicate that only two media outlets have given it any attention; separately, a search at the Associated Press on the agency's name also returns nothing relevant. Those two sources are the Daily Caller, whose January 21 story first reported that "White loan borrowers are collecting settlement proceeds ... intended for black, Hispanic and Asian people," and a Monday Investor's Business Daily editorial. That's it.

By Tom Blumer | January 25, 2016 | 2:29 PM EST

The Des Moines Register likely broke new ground when it endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination on Saturday. The Register may be the first major newspaper to endorse a major-party presidential candidate under investigation by the FBI at the time of the endorsement.

The time stamp at the editorial's link is currently and inexplicably this morning, but pundits and bloggers have been commenting on it for two days, and Google News says the endorsement is from "2 days ago." This time disconnect seems fitting, as it reflects how disconnected from reality the Register's editorial board had to be on so many levels to make its endorsement. Let's look at just one of them, namely Mrs. Clinton's admitted use of a private email server to conduct government business when she was President Barack Obama's Secretary of State.

By Tom Blumer | January 23, 2016 | 10:14 AM EST

On January 26, 2006, former Vice President, current climate alarmist and centimillionaire Al Gore told the Associated Press's David Germain that "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return."

Tuesday, as DC and much of the Northeast finishes digging out from a serious and possibly historic weekend snowstorm, will be the tenth anniversary of Gore's "planetary emergency" warning. The "global warming" true believers in the establishment press will never hold Gore accountable for his nonsense, which is why going to alternative sources such as the editorials at Investor's Business Daily is so necessary. On Friday, IBD called Gore out, identifying "Five Ways We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket" (links are in original; bolds are mine):

By Tom Blumer | December 31, 2015 | 12:47 PM EST

In September, President Barack Obama "committed the U.S. to a new blueprint to eliminate poverty and hunger around the world" in a speech at a United Nations "global summit." A review of his speech's transcript indicates that while he acknowledged the ugly reality that "800 million men, women and children are scraping by on less than $1.25 a day," he made no mention of the fact that just three decades ago, the percentage of humanity in that condition was many time times greater.

A Washington Post item on October 5 reported, per the World Bank, that less than 10 percent of the world's population is in extreme poverty" for the first time ever. Both Obama and the Post failed to give credit where credit is due, namely to the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. In an Investor's Business Daily column last week, Terry Jones set the record straight (links are in original; bolds are mine):

By Brent Bozell | and By Tim Graham | December 8, 2015 | 11:44 PM EST

Barack Obama wanted 15 minutes of air time on Sunday night, the most heavily watched night of the week, to speak to the nation about the San Bernardino shooting. It was appropriate for the president to request it, and for the networks to grant it, but everyone knew he would say nothing new of substance because on the matter of Islamic terrorism, he never does.

And he didn’t. And in so not doing, he wowed the press again. The stenographers underlined his good intentions.

By Curtis Houck | November 24, 2015 | 4:45 PM EST

An editorial in Tuesday’s print edition of Investor’s Business Daily firmly took President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic Party to task for their “deadly denial” of radical Islam and the prominent role it’s played in the war on terrorism and terrorist attacks from 9/11 to Fort Hood to Paris. 

By Tom Blumer | November 19, 2015 | 5:38 PM EST

Add what follows to the long list of items we should be reading about in wire service reports but instead must find in the editorial sections of the nation's two leading business newspapers.

An Islamist organization tied to the Muslim Brotherhood is involved in the screening potential Syrian refugees allegedly receive before being allowed to come to the United States. Investor's Business Daily revealed this information, which is in stark contrast what U.S. government officials are telling the nation, in a Tuesday evening editorial (bolds are mine):