New York Times Editorial Notes 'Millions Just Getting By'; Obama's Name Absent

June 6th, 2016 12:04 AM

In a remarkable "Who do they think they're kidding?" exercise seen on Thursday, a New York Times editorial cited the findings of a Federal Reserve study released in late May showing that 76 millions are, in the Fed's words, "struggling to get by" or "just getting by."

Gosh, I wonder why? The Times apparently wants readers to believe that these conditions couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fiscal and regulatory policies of the Obama administration, even though, last time I checked, it has been in charge of these areas during the past 7-1/2 years. Neither Barack Obama's name nor any reference to his administration are present in the editorial.

Instead, look at the parties the editorial (HT Pirate's Cove via Instapundit) contends should seriously consider and act upon the survey's findings.

First, there's the Fed:

The Millions Who Are Just Getting By

... The Fed policy committee should take the survey to heart when it meets this month to decide whether to raise interest rates. Higher rates are a way to slow an economy that is at risk of overheating — a far-fetched proposition when tens of millions of Americans are barely hanging in there.

Well, that's precious. All manner of Keynesian economists, including 2015 maximum Hillary Clinton contributor Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics, swear that wages are rising and that the job market is nearing full employment. Zandi repeated those claims on the Thursday conference call following the latest monthly ADP Employment Report his firm is responsible for compiling.

If Zandi is right, the Fed should be raising interest rates, especially given that it has done so only once since lowering them to near zero in late 2008. Higher rates are also a way to put money into the pockets of savers, who have been extraordinarily hard-hit by the low rates seen since then.

Look at who else needs to pay attention to the Fed's report:

Congress and other economic policy makers, as well as the presidential candidates, could also use the survey to get some insight into Americans’ real economic problems. Among them is deep insecurity. Nearly 70 percent of adults said they were “living comfortably” or “doing O.K.” — up a bit from previous years — but nearly half of all respondents said they could not cover an unexpected expense of $400, or could do so only by selling something or borrowing money.

"Other economic policy makers"?

Since the Times already named the Fed, to whom could the editorial possibly be referring? The only parties left are in the Obama administration, including Obama himself. But there's apparently a rule at the Old Gray Lady against naming him or his team in anything which might directly associate them with the pathetic economy which has led to the conditions cited.

The Times editorial also made an observation about student loans that would leave anyone paying any attention to what's really been going on during the past 7-1/2 years in "SMH" (shaking my head) mode:

Americans seeking a path upward through education are staggering under a load of debt. The median debt load for someone with a bachelor’s degree was $19,162. For a master’s, it was $36,000, and for a professional degree, $100,000.

Well, guys and gals at the Times, is this situation better or worse now than it was when Dear Leader took office?

Answer: As seen in a chart published in the Wall Street Journal in early May, things have gotten "progressively" worse year after year after year:


The average debt load of graduating students in 2009 was an already ridiculous $24,634. The "staggering" 2016 figure of $37,173 seen above is over 50 percent higher. College has gone from very expensive to almost impossibly expensive. Who has recklessly allowed student loan programs to expand, giving universities free reign to raise their costs to exorbitant levels, deeply hurting the economy as a result, taking money which could have been spent on so many other things which could have built up the economy out of graduating students' and parents' pockets?

Here's one more hysterical clause excerpted from the editorial:

Over all, the survey depicts an economy in which many Americans face daily hardship ...

Why is that, and who caused it? The Times knows, but doesn't have the integrity to admit it.

Cross-posted at