A recent editorial in The Columbus Dispatch dismissed the impact of federal budget sequestration on jobs and the economy in Ohio, claiming it "did not cause the sky to fall." However, past editorials and news reports published by the paper highlighted the economic repercussions on Ohioans that would result from the cuts.
Fox News latched onto a study of the first full year of budget sequestration, claiming that the report undermines warnings that across-the-board cuts would cost the economy hundreds of thousands of jobs. In fact, the federal workforce has been significantly reduced since sequestration went into effect and fiscal austerity continues to drag down job creation and economic growth in the private sector.
From the May 9 edition of Fox News' The Five:
Loading the player reg...
From the May 9 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the May 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player reg...
The Wall Street Journal published an error-riddled piece claiming that increasing the federal minimum wage would force more Americans to rely on social safety-net programs when in fact the exact opposite is true.
In a May 5 opinion piece, New York lawyer John H. Heyer argued the minimum wage is a "scam." He then claimed increasing wages will force businesses to lay off employees and, in turn, swell the ranks of federal social safety-net programs, which Heyer refers to as the government "dole." From the Journal:
So the minimum wage, like so many government programs, is really a scam that never gets busted. Isn't that how these programs grow? There are always a few vocal supporters of any program and a lot of silent victims who mostly don't even know what effect the programs have on the public at large and the economy as a whole.
Minimum-wage laws raise business costs and increase unemployment. But they also require bureaucrats--who make a lot more than minimum wage--to administer the dole and regulate wages. So what's not for politicians to like?
Opponents of livable wages frequently claim that the minimum wage drives up unemployment, often citing the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) most recent report on proposals to increase the federal minimum wage. The CBO report does project that total employment could decrease by between "very slight[ly]" and 1 million by the end of 2016, but that conclusion flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of economic evidence.
A February 2013 study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) reviewed nearly a decade of research on the minimum wage and concluded that "the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers." The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) similarly reviewed the available literature on the minimum wage and concluded that "raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 will not lead to job loss." Conservative media jumped on a March 2014 survey by Express Employment Professionals claiming that businesses would cut jobs due to an increased wage, but even that survey found that 62 percent of minimum wage employers and 81 percent of all employers would not lay off workers as a result of increased wages.
Heyer's claim that increasing the minimum wage hurts the job market is arguable, but the claim that higher wages drive up reliance on federal safety-net programs is demonstrably false. The same CBO report that estimated 500,000 lost jobs from a $10.10 minimum wage also concluded that such a wage would lift 900,000 Americans out of poverty while boosting incomes for Americans living in poverty by $5 billion annually.
Increasing the minimum wage would definitively decrease America's reliance on the so-called government "dole." According to a March 2014 study by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a $10.10 minimum wage would decrease food stamp participation by up to $4.6 billion annually. An October 2013 study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center concluded that low wages in the fast food industry alone -- whose media wage is substantially lower than $10.10 -- cost taxpayers nearly $7 billion annually.
Contrary to Heyer' s allegation, increasing the minimum wage would significantly decrease reliance on "the dole," and significantly decrease the cost to taxpayers who subsidize the poverty wages paid by thousands of businesses around the country. A Media Matters analysis of broadcast evening news found that programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS largely ignored the high cost of low wages. The latest screed in The Wall Street Journal is not just ignoring the high cost of low wages; it is distorting the relationship entirely.
Fox News tackled what it called the growing "problem" of female breadwinners, apparently jumping off a May 2013 Pew Research study finding a quarter of women outearn their husbands.
"Are female breadwinners a problem?" the network asked during the May 4 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday, promising "a debate about alpha women." Co-host Clayton Morris emphasized that he understood the "cultural argument" against female breadwinners, and expressed concern that the problem is rooted in the deeper, "biological, innate need for men to be the caveman":
MORRIS: Is there a problem with men earning less than women in the household, and do you think that it could throw off -- that it actually could cause big marital problems?
I get the cultural argument, guys. I mean, I can see how -- we can all weave our way through cultural issues. But isn't there some sort of biological, innate need for men to be the caveman? Go out and bring home the dinner and actually go out -- Is it emasculating if we don't do it?
Morris went on to ask Miss New York USA 2013 Joanne Nosuchinsky if she would "lose respect" for a male partner who stayed at home taking care of kids and "doing the laundry."
It's a topic the network has tackled before, much to the chagrin of its own female anchors.
From the May 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
The New York Post responded to a new report debunking the paper's conspiracy theory that the Census Bureau manipulated unemployment data for political reasons by doubling down on its unsubstantiated conspiracy campaign.
In November 2013, the New York Post cited an anonymous Census Bureau employee to claim that the government dishonestly manipulated unemployment figures while President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012. The conspiracy theory quickly became a right-wing talking point, despite the fact that the Post failed to provide evidence that the September 2012 unemployment rate was either unusual or manipulated and attributed the supposed data manipulation to a Census worker who was not even employed by the Bureau at the time in question.
On May 1, the Commerce Department inspector general (IG) issued its investigative report on the claims, finding "no evidence" to support them. The report thoroughly debunked the Post's accusations, noting that it had "exhaustively investigated these allegations and found them to be unsubstantiated."
The Post responded to the debunking by doubling down, standing by its original claim that "Census 'faked' 2012 election jobs report" in an effort to help re-elect President Obama. In a May 1 article, John Crudele called for a "special independent prosecutor" and disputed the IG findings with his own "investigation":
Now it's my turn to speak. My own investigation over the past six months has found the following facts:
- In the course of my own investigation several whistleblowers have come forward to allege that Census workers regularly fabricate or fudge economic data. In addition to the Philadelphia Census office, whistleblowers who work in the Chicago and Denver regions have alleged that data was regularly falsified and higher-ups told them to shut up about it.That casts a shadow on three of the six regions in the newly aligned Census organization. I don't know if workers in the other three regions will make similar claims because I have spoken to any yet.
- One of those whistleblowers has told me -- and has also told the Oversight Committee and the IG -- that supervisors in Philadelphia were particularly concerned about the unemployment data during the last Presidential election. And this source has said Buckmon wasn't the only one messing with data.The IG's report said "we found no evidence of systemic data falsification in the Philadelphia Regional Office." And it concluded that moving the national unemployment rate would simply be too hard to do.The word "systemic" is loaded. As I mentioned, Buckmon's actions alone could have affected the results for half a million households. If two or three others were also falsifying data that would have changed the results for 2 million households. Would that have constituted a problem with the "system?"
- One of those whistleblowers has told me -- and has also told the Oversight Committee and the IG -- that supervisors in Philadelphia were particularly concerned about the unemployment data during the last Presidential election. And this source has said Buckmon wasn't the only one messing with data.The IG's report said "we found no evidence of systemic data falsification in the Philadelphia Regional Office." And it concluded that moving the national unemployment rate would simply be too hard to do.
Yet again, the Post's conspiracy theory relies on anonymously sourced whistleblowers and unsubstantiated speculation. In contrast, the IG report identified the specific evidence that informed its finding:
OIG thoroughly investigated these allegations, and found no evidence that management in the Philadelphia Regional Office instructed staff to falsify data at any time for any reason. Further, we found no evidence of systemic data falsification in the Philadelphia Regional Office. Addressing allegations raised in the media, we found no evidence that the national unemployment rate was manipulated by staff in the Philadelphia Regional Office in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. To accomplish this, our analysis concluded that it would have taken 78 Census Bureau Field Representatives working together, in a coordinated way, to report each and every unemployed person included in their sample as "employed" or "not in labor force" during September 2012, an effort which likely would have been detected by the Census Bureau's quality assurance procedures. Moreover, our analysis shows that the drop in the unemployment rate at that time is consistent with other indicators, including payroll estimates by Moody's Analytics and Automatic Data Processing (ADP).
As the United States Senate voted on a bill that would increase the federal minimum wage, Fox News dedicated 15 times more coverage to the latest "developments" in its on-going campaign to create a political scandal from the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Fox & Friends misrepresented the findings of a new report on the increase in low-wage jobs during the economic recovery to attack President Obama, failing to mention that the report cites cuts to public sector employment -- not Obama's economic policies -- as a major culprit for the post-recession net job loss.
On the April 28 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox host Stuart Varney distorted the findings of a new National Employment Law Project (NELP) report as "the left pointing out the failures of President Obama's economic policies." Co-host Steve Doocy described the report as "an eye-opener" and falsely claimed that The New York Times, which reported on the NELP study, is "turning on the White House":
The newly released NELP study found that since the economic downturn, low-wage jobs have replaced higher-wage positions in the private sector. According to NELP, "lower-wage industries accounted for 22 percent of job losses during the recession, but 44 percent of employment growth over the past four years." The report explained the growth of low-wage jobs during this recovery:
One year into the recovery, we noted that slow growth in higher-wage industries was likely the result of specific drivers of the Great Recession, including the housing bubble collapse and financial crisis, as well as a continuation of the long-term decline in durable and nondurable manufacturing and telecommunications. Three years later, mid- and higher-wage industries are adding jobs; albeit, not at a fast-enough rate to fill employment deficits in many cases (see Tables 1 and 2 in the Appendix). Nevertheless, four years into the recovery, growth remains strongest in low-wage, service-providing industries (e.g., retail, restaurants, and temporary help) and industries less affected by recessions (e.g., health and education).
Contrary to Varney's claims that this report is a "critique from the Left," the NELP report does not address the president's economic policies in any way. The only mention of economic policy in the report addresses budget cuts, specifically at the local level, as a "driver of unbalanced growth":
Over the past four years, private sectors gains have been partially offset by public sector job losses resulting from budget cuts at the federal, state, and local levels. Net job losses totaled 627,000 across all levels of government during the recovery period. Employment declines were particularly severe at the local level, where education absorbed nearly three-quarters of the 378,000 net job losses over the past four years. (emphasis added)
Fox has previously championed budget cuts and falsely blamed the Obama administration with harming the economic recovery. Fox has also attacked the president's calls to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, a cause firmly supported by NELP and numerous other groups. Fox's apparent interest in NELP's work only emerges when it fits with the network's obstructionist anti-administration narrative.
From the April 24 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
Cliven Bundy's abhorrent, racist comparison of slavery to federal poverty assistance bears a striking resemblance to common claims from conservative media, who have frequently invoked slavery to describe the supposed damage "the welfare state" has done to black Americans.
Nevada rancher Bundy, who was praised by conservative media for engaging in an armed standoff with federal agents after refusing to pay decades worth of federal grazing fees on public land, on April 19 questioned whether black Americans were "better off as slaves" or "better off under government subsidy," telling a reporter in a racist rant:
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids -- and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch -- they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.
"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" he asked. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
As Slate's Jamelle Bouie noted, Bundy's repugnant rhetoric sounds familiar -- it's the same logic behind many right-wing criticisms of the social safety net. Media Matters has been tracking this type of offensive rhetoric for years.
During the fight over health care reform, Rush Limbaugh claimed that "It won't be a matter of whether you have coverage or don't have coverage. What'll matter is that all of us will be slaves; we'll become slaves to the arbitrary and inhumane decisions of distant bureaucrats working in Washington where there's no competition, nobody you can go to if you don't like what you hear from the bureaucrats that you have to deal with."
When Glenn Beck was a host on Fox News, he had an obsession with comparing things to slavery, including the claim that progressive policies created "slavery to government, welfare, affirmative action, regulation, control," and that "big government never lifts anybody out of poverty. It creates slaves." In 2008, Jim Quinn, the co-host of the radio show The War Room with Quinn & Rose, was forced to apologize for comparing "slave[s] in the Old South" to welfare recipients today, when he claimed that the only "difference" was that the "slave had to work for" the benefits Quinn said they received.
In his 2008 book Let Them In, The Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley argued that the Great Society programs of the 1960s were ultimately worse for black families than slavery, writing "The black family survived slavery, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, but the well-intentioned Great Society sounded its death knell."
More recently, Riley promoted the twisted logic of George Mason University's Walter Williams (who has often guest-hosted The Rush Limbaugh Show), who claimed that because more black children live in single-mother families now, welfare "destroy[ed] the black family" more than slavery:
During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family."
Ted Nugent, National Rifle Association board member and a favorite of conservative media, has become infamous for his extreme racism for calling President Obama a subhuman mongrel -- but Nugent also used the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech to claim that the Great Society programs were "responsible for more destruction to black America than the evils of slavery and the KKK combined." In a 2011 Washington Times column, Nugent also suggested that the Democratic Party is the "modern-day slave master" to low-income Americans.
Vox's Matt Yglesias noted the irony of Bundy criticizing the government for assisting Americans through federal programs, when he himself has benefited from federal subsidies which keep the cost of grazing low for ranchers like himself. And though the abhorrent comparison of slavery to welfare is ridiculous on its face, it's worth noting that federal benefit programs have been vital in keeping Americans out of poverty -- in fact, federal programs today are cutting poverty nearly in half, whereas in 1967 they only reduced poverty by a single percentage point.
Conservative media may finally renounce Bundy and his lawless cause following his racist remarks; but they should also renounce this harmful, inaccurate comparison.
From the April 23 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
Loading the player reg...
A report from Feeding America on food insecurity and food costs in the United States sheds new light on the real targets of the conservative media's crusade against food stamps.
Conservative media often rush to baselessly condemn those receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, also known as food stamps, as lazy or taking advantage of the system, but the truth is that these programs help feed millions of Americans who would otherwise go hungry.
In 2013, Fox News shamelessly promoted "blissfully jobless California surfer" Jason Greenslate as the "new face of food stamps," and in April the network again attacked the program by portraying a couple living in a yacht and fraudulently collecting benefits as representative of the norm.
But these attacks are out of touch with the reality that almost 41% of recipients live in a household with earnings, and according to the USDA program fraud is below one cent on the dollar.
Feeding America's report on the county and congressional district level food insecurity and county food costs in the United States paints a startlingly different picture of the food insecure than the one the right-wing media typically pushes. Feeding America found that more than 49 million* people in the United States are food-insecure, meaning that they have "limited or uncertain access to adequate food," and that 16 million of those people are children. On average, about 71% of the food-insecure throughout the country fall below 185% of the poverty line, making them eligible to receive SNAP benefits.
In September 2013, Politico reported that Fox distributed copies of its misleading food stamp special to members of Congress during the August recess, and Fox's portrayal of Greenslate was prominently featured in GOP talking points. When Congress reconvened, conservatives in the House voted to cut $39 billion from the program. According to NBC News, food insecurity has been exacerbated by the cuts to program and have left many Americans unable to feed their families:
"The recession has subsided for most Americans but it still hasn't subsided for low-income Americans. Their situation just has not improved," he said, adding that it was "probably worse now" because a temporary funding boost in 2009 to the key government food aid program known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) was allowed to lapse by Congress last year.
"It seems like we are stacking the deck against" low-income people, said Everett, who was recently named to the congressional National Commission on Hunger. "We're missing rungs at the bottom of the (economic) ladder to be able to help people to get to the top."
*Number has been updated for accuracy