Upon Further Review

I am going to have to rule in favor of the New York Times against Mark Steyn. Yes, you read that right.

Let's look at what was actually said. First by the Times.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and political commentator, speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show on Wednesday, accused Mr. Obama of trying to create a cult of personality, comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader.

Now, let's look at what Steyn actually said. For this, I'm using the same source as the Times - not Mr. Steyn himself or the show but the Media Matters report of that portion of Steyn's show.

It's all part of the cult of personality, obviously we’re not talking about the cult of personality on the kind of Saddam Hussein/Kim Jong-Il scale.

So, let's break down the Times statement. Did Steyn "accuse[] Mr. Obama of trying to create a cult of personality"? I would say that the statement that "It's all part of the cult of personality" would qualify as a yes.

Then, did Steyn "compar[e] [Obama] to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il"? Saying that something is not like something else is comparing the two so "not...on the kind of Saddam Hussein/Kim Jong-Il scale" definitely qualifies as comparing the two.

Thus, the statement of the Times is accurate. At least in the sense that the plaintiff's attorney in the personal injury case is accurate in stating that the ladder manufacturer didn't specifically warn his client not to place the ladder on top of a moving car before climbing it.

It shouldn't be good enough for professional journalists, though. But this is the New York Times we're talking about.

You Can't Tax Your Way To Prosperity

In the midst of the worst economy in decades, with spending down and unemployment up, the Nevada Legislature made it more expensive to buy things and employ people. Not surprisingly, businesses have responded by cutting back even further.

A recent poll commissioned by the Review-Journal found little support among ailing businesses for higher taxes the Legislature passed in the spring. They say they're beginning to raise prices and cut work forces to handle the new levies.

[...]

A third of all respondents said they have tweaked operations to accommodate the new taxes and fees. Among that group, 36 percent have raised their products' prices, 18 percent let workers go and 12 percent implemented a hiring freeze.

The legislature attempted to insulate small businesses from the impact of the tax increases but, predictably, that approach backfired. In many ways the fortunes of small businesses are dependent upon the success of larger businesses. For instance, many small companies are suppliers to larger firms so when the larger companies are forced to cut back it has a negative impact on their smaller suppliers.

Businesses with less than $500,000 a year in sales have especially felt the hiring crunch, with 22 percent terminating workers and 17 percent stopping hiring.

Businesses that raised prices to account for the new taxes did so by 15 percent on average. Those that reduced staff did so by 25 percent. Companies that reduced payroll also did so by 25 percent on average. Those adjustments might not be enough, with 64 percent of poll participants reporting they would need to take additional action in the future.

But the legislature had something more important to worry about than the private economy - growing the government.

State Sen. Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, helped steer the budget process that resulted in the new taxes. Horsford said he understands the difficult economic times Nevadans are experiencing, but the state's budget shortfall -- its largest ever -- demanded action.

The Legislature responded with a plan designed to balance the interests of consumers and businesses, and to ensure neither group felt unequal burdens, Horsford said.

Everyone should share the burdens equally - everyone except the government, that is. Even with the recession and drop in projected revenues, the legislature managed to increase spending from the previous year. As one survey respondent expressed,

"I think everybody should pay some taxes. I understand you can't have a civilized society unless you pay for certain things like roads, police and firefighters," [Ron] Rollwitz said. "My problem is, we keep getting hit with more and more taxes, and there's an awful lot of waste that's out there. My clients, they're trimming their budgets and I'm trimming mine, but the government never seems to have to trim their budget. They just spend more and more."

As a result of the economic downturn, revenues to the state have fallen. The legislature responded by increasing taxes, which increased the burden on consumers and businesses, further exacerbating the downturn.

As government demands more and more from the private sector it decreases the ability of the private sector to provide products, services, jobs and tax revenue. The reaction of government is then to demand even more, thus further reducing the ability of the private sector to provide. This trend cannot continue forever and, hopefully, some sanity takes hold in Carson City (and Washington) before there are catastrophic results.

Solar Blemishes III

In his return from his August vacation, Brian Greenspun offers up a shamelessly self-serving piece for us to chew on. His latest salvo in the long-running feud between him and Sherm Frederick, the publishers of the Sun and Review-Journal, respectively, Las Vegas's two largest newspapers had me shaking my head in disbelief.

Harry Reid will have to make his case for reelection to the voters of Nevada. They will decide his future and theirs when they cast their votes in November 2010. Until then everything else that we hear from people who don’t care about our state is just noise, the kind that hurts our ears and makes us want to stop listening.

But we need to listen, read and learn if we want to be good and productive citizens. I suggest, however, that those who just fell for Sherm’s latest ruse turn, instead, to the Las Vegas Sun for credible information and insights. We at the Sun provide the kind of credible journalism that can light up your lives and enrich your world. We do it with thoughtfulness and truthfulness.

The Las Vegas Sun is quite possibly the most biased newspaper in the country. As just one example, its "news" coverage of the opponents of the administration's health care, or is it health insurance, reform has not been "thoughtful[] and truthful[]" but dismissive and condescending.

Then, today, a Sun editorial referenced a quote from the New York Times that was both completely inaccurate and easily checkable. Ah, "credible journalism," indeed.

Solar Blemishes II

When I finished reading this Las Vegas Sun editorial (please, read it all the way through to its smashing conclusion, which I won’t give away here) my initial reaction was just two words. I thought better of it, though, because my daughter may read this. But if ever a piece deserved that two-word response this one is it.

The Sun’s editorial board excoriates Republicans in 23 states who have rejected additional funds from the federal stimulus package to expand unemployment benefits. Their attack is actually against all Republicans, whom they apparently believe are not just wrong but evil.

More than $3.1 billion in stimulus money has been left unspent by 23 states because they have failed to expand benefits for people out of work, according to the Labor Department.

As USA Today reported Tuesday, states must expand the benefits to qualify, including offering benefits to part-time workers who lose their jobs. The National Employment Law Project estimates that the states’ failures mean that nearly 350,000 Americans are not receiving benefits.

Republican governors or lawmakers in the 23 states have either declined to make the changes as required by federal law to be eligible or have declined funding. (Because of its Democratic-controlled Legislature, Nevada is thankfully not one of the 23 states.)

The analysis that follows is simplistic, myopic and economically ignorant. It is as if government money is manna from heaven and there are no consequences to government spending except to those who are denied its benefits when it is reduced.

I am not one who is opposed to all programs such as unemployment insurance. I believe that they can help to temper economic downturns. But they do not come without costs. Countries with more generous benefits generally suffer from slower economic growth, higher unemployment rates and more chronic unemployment.

The stimulus funds come with strings attached, as does virtually all federal money. States that accept the money are required to make permanent changes to their programs that will greatly increase costs far beyond the life of the stimulus.

But the Sun’s editorial board is incapable of seeing past the first-level effects of government spending and regulation. In their world, failing to expand unemployment benefits has only negative effects, Cash for Clunkers was a rousing success, increasing the minimum wage has only positive impacts, all liberal programs can do no harm regardless of their real-world outcomes.