NYT Hails Obama’s ‘Signal’ That Era of ‘Single-Minded Deficit-Cutting Should End’

The paltry spending cuts coming out of Congress are no where near enough to balance Washington’s budget, but in his analysis of the President’s State of the Union speech, New York Times writer Mark Landler happily went to pains to note that Obama signaled the end of “the era of single-minded deficit-cutting.”

One has to wonder what “single-minded deficit-cutting” the Times writer and the President are seeing?

Employing a lot of emotionally tinged rhetoric to favor Obama’s speech, Landler included several subtle tricks to push Obama’s ideas as “tangible” and “helping.” Landler also repeatedly poked Republicans as “still smarting” from the past election and claimed that picking Sen. Marco Rubio for the GOP reply was “implicitly acknowledging” that they had been “damaged.”

In his February 12 piece, Landler also claimed that Obama’s minimum wage increase idea was a “tangible” initiative.

“The increase in the minimum wage, from $7.25 an hour now, was the most tangible of a raft of initiatives laid out by the president, from education and energy to public works projects,” Landler wrote.

What does “tangible” mean here? It was an idea floated without any substantive way to get to the hike in pay. It was more like a pie-in-the-sky idea than a “tangible” one. But apparently tangible sounds better.

Landler next loosed a shot to the GOP, saying, “Speaking to a divided Congress, with many Republicans still smarting from his November victory…” One has to wonder what this line is doing in an analysis of the President’s remarks?

The NYT writer carried on this “smarting” theme by slapping the choice of Sen. Rubio to give the GOP response.

Still, in selecting Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American from Florida, to deliver their party’s official rebuttal, Republicans implicitly acknowledged the damage they had suffered at the polls from their hard line stance on immigration. Mr. Rubio, one of the party’s rising stars, favors overhauling immigration laws.

Landler’s message: Marco Rubio is an admission of defeat. Another Landler message: even when the GOP tries to reach out to Hispanics, it is just further examples of defeat. Can’t win for losing.

Next Landler noted that Obama “admonished North Korea” for having tested a nuclear weapon the day before his speech but did not note that Obama did not make any move to show leadership in a response to the hermit nation’s violations of international sanctions. All Obama really did was put the onus of responding to North Korea’s actions onto the international community. Obama was “leading from behind” with his comments on North Korea, not that Landler saw any reason to inform his readers of this fact.

While refusing to read into Obama’s failure to lead on North Korea, Landler was happy to give voice to Obama’s celebration of the end of deficit cutting.

Mr. Obama also signaled, however, that the era of single-minded deficit-cutting should end. He noted that the recent agreements on taxes and spending reduced the deficit by $2.5 trillion, more than halfway toward the $4 trillion in reductions that economists say would put the nation’s finances on a sustainable course.

Someone should point out that even a full $4 trillion cut in spending would only be a good start on cuts in spending, not a final goal. Sadly, Obama is only “halfway” there.

Finally, one thing that Landler didn’t note is where Obama tried to pretend he didn’t invent the “bad idea” that is sequestration. In his speech, Obama said, “That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as ‘the sequester,’ are a really bad idea.”

The President presented this as some bad idea that someone else came up with, one he is against. But the fact is, he is the one that invented sequestration. So if it is a “bad idea” it is his bad idea.

Curious that Landler never noted that important point, isn’t it?

Google Hangouts: Obama's Tech Savvy Presidency
Chris Matthews On Obama's SOTU: 'There's Nothing Lefty in Here!'
  • jim_m

    The left wants to increase the minimum wage because the SEIU and other unions tie their wage scales to it. So any increase in the minimum wage is an increase in union pay and union dues. Therefore any increase in the minimum wage is a direct wealth transfer to the democratic party.

    • Constitution First

      We had an election. 59 of the most contested counties in the Republic didn’t tally a single Romney vote. If no one contests voter fraud, then the products of voter fraud shouldn’t bother anyone either. We can either take back our Republic or stop b*tching about it. If we wait any longer, it won’t much matter.

  • Par4Course

    It’s hard to decide which is more delusional, President Obama or the NY Times. “President Obama, seeking to put the prosperity and promise of the middle class at the heart of his second-term agenda, called on Congress on Tuesday night to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour, saying that would lift millions out of poverty and energize the economy.”

    First, the minimum wage is an abridgment of freedom in the first place. Individuals should have the right to contract for any wage agreeable to the employer and the worker.

    Second, the idea that raising the minimum wage will “energize the economy” is shear nonsense. Raising minimum wages creates unemployment and inflation. How much will prices rise at McDonald’s and Wal-Mart if wage rates go up 25%? How many jobs will employers eliminate or simply not create if the cost is substantially raised, especially when companies are already cutting back to avoid the costs of ObamaCare?

    Third, if raising the minimum wage really helps the economy, why stop at $9? Why not $12 or $20 or $50 per hour? The minimum wage creates a disconnect between productivity and earnings that gets worse the higher the minimum wage gets. Requiring more pay without more productivity cannot boost the economy.

    • jim_m

      Raising minimum wages creates unemployment and inflation

      Unemployment = increased government dependency.

      Inflation = increased poverty/decrease retirement savings = increased government dependency

      These are not unintended consequences of obama’s policies. These are exactly the outcomes he and the left desire.

    • herddog505

      Par4Course[I]f raising the minimum wage really helps the economy, why stop at $9? Why not $12 or $20 or $50 per hour?

      SSSHHH!!! Don’t you know better than to ask questions like that??? Just accept that experts – TOP men – have researched this and $9 / hr is just the right pay to ensure that even the lowest-skilled American workers have a living wage. If it takes action by out benevolent, all-wise federal government to extort this from greedy corporate raiders, that’s not only fine, but a GOOD thing (we’ll teach these robber barons who REALLY runs their businesses!).

      And this rubbish about people having the freedom to buy and sell their labor. Pfft! What’s next? Asking how a national minimum wage takes into account the greatly varying costs of living around our country? Hinting that people who want to better their economic situation ought to take actions on their own behalf, such as getting a better education or better job skills or just working harder at finding a better job? Where DO you get these radical notions???

  • GarandFan

    “Curious that Landler never noted that important point, isn’t it?”

    Selective memory.

  • herddog505

    Let’s consider the full ramifications of this headline:

    The writer, in perhaps the most influential paper in the United States, is praising Barry for basically saying that national bankruptcy is perfectly fine, and indeed that doing anything to slow our progress to that miserable end is foolish.

    We’re so f*cked…

    • jim_m

      Bankruptcy is fine because the left falls into one of two classes of thinking: 1) we are part of the elite (pols, media, academia, union leadership) and we will be protected from the negative effects because we will get government subsidy for what we do. 2) We want to be totally dependent upon the government and the government will not ask us to do anything for that money other than keep the kleptocratic government in power. And of course if the people in group 2 don’t get what they want they will only blame the GOP for not letting them have it.

      Totalitarianism is always appealing to the people who call the shots and the people who get rewarded for enabling the former.