Fox News reflexively attacked President Obama's forthcoming proposal to raise the salary threshold for overtime compensation, claiming the plan would hurt the economy and discourage hiring, though experts have previously promoted such a change as an opportunity to boost the economy and worker compensation.
Fox News host Stuart Varney expressed outrage at state governments that are attempting to mitigate federal food stamp cuts, equating expanding eligibility for food benefits to "buying votes."
On January 29, Congress passed a version of the farm bill that cut about $800 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps. In an effort to alleviate some of the effects of the cuts, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania modified a program that ties food stamp eligibility to home-heating assistance, known as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), to make more low-income households eligible for benefits.
On the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co- host Brian Kilmeade called the effort a "scam," and asked "if anything can be done to stop it." Varney claimed "what's really going on here is the government is buying votes. They keep [sic] churning out food stamps in return for votes. That's what's happening":
While Varney has frequently accused Democrats of buying votes through the food stamp program, this is the first time he has extended that accusation to a Republican. One of the states expanding benefits, Pennsylvania, has a Republican governor: Tom Corbett. The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that Corbett's move would preserve benefits for about 400,000 Pennsylvania households:
In a move that surprised even his most cynical critics, Gov. Corbett on Wednesday night forestalled an estimated $3 billion in cuts to food stamps in the state over the next 10 years.
By doing so, Corbett became the first Republican governor in the country to prevent the cuts ordered by Congress, which is looking to slash $8.6 billion over the next decade to the food-stamp program, now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
The governor's decision will preserve benefits for 400,000 Pennsylvania households slated to lose a monthly average of $60 to $65 each in benefits, amounting to $300 million a year, said Kait Gillis, spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Welfare.
"In these challenging and trying times," Gillis said, "our most vulnerable families may not have been able to absorb another hit."
In a statement to Think Progress, the National Energy Assistance Director's Association's Mark Wolfe predicted that other states would follow the three that have already expanded benefits:
More states could follow, according to Mark Wolfe of the National Energy Assistance Director's Association (NEADA). "Other states around the country will look at this and say, this makes a lot of sense. It's not a red-blue thing, it's a money thing," Wolfe told ThinkProgress. While preserving heat-and-eat benefits takes money away from LIHEAP programs, Wolfe said the directors understand that anti-poverty programs are a cooperative patchwork that serves the many of the same people.
"It's not so much a war between programs, it's more an issue of how to help families and how to use the scarce resource you have," Wolfe said. "Many of the people that run these programs work very closely with the people that run food stamps and Head Start, they know what those programs go through, they're trying to help the same families."
In recent months, conservative media figures have undermined efforts by labor groups to organize across the United States, demonizing labor unions in the process. These anti-union attacks are largely reliant on myths alleging negative side-effects of union participation.
Fox News hosts are attacking Apple for defending its green energy measures against right-wing activists. However, Apple is simply the latest business to realize the strategic value of sustainability -- a list that includes Fox's own parent company.
On Friday, the right-wing National Center for Public Policy Research urged Apple CEO Tim Cook at a shareholder meeting to pledge to end all environmental initiatives that didn't lead to a return on investment (ROI), complaining that Apple was concerned with the "chimera" of "so-called climate change." Cook responded that Apple's environmental efforts make economic sense, and that those who want Apple to blindly pursue profit regardless of societal impact should "[g]et out of this stock." Cook added, "When we work on making our devices accessibleby the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI."
Cook's righteous indignation didn't sit well with Fox News and its sister network Fox Business, which accused him of putting "politics before profits" and "ideology ahead of the shareholders." Fox News host Sean Hannity even announced that he's going to drop his stock after Cook's announcement.
Hannity's bizarro version of the fossil fuel divestment movement would have to extend to Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox as well. Chairman Rupert Murdoch has trumpeted FOX's efforts to "become carbon neutral" and the corporation touts sustainability efforts at Fox News and Fox Business.
Sustainability is not only smart public relations, but also key in long-term planning for businesses according to business leaders such as McKinsey and Co. A recent report by the investor group Ceres found that clean energy investments must reach $1 trillion a year (a "Clean Trillion") in order to have an 80 percent chance of avoiding global warming of more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a measure deemed necessary by international governments at the Copenhagen climate conference to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. However, without greater commitments to addressing climate change, we face the potential of 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warming, which would severely disrupt global supply chains including food stocks. That is one reason why companies such as Apple are recognizing the risks climate change poses to their businesses and turning toward cleaner sources of energy.
This is not the first time Fox News has politicized voluntary corporate social responsibility measures. Earlier this month, Fox News criticized CVS for announcing it would stop selling cigarettes, asking if it was potentially illegal for the pharmacy chain to do so.
Fox News has repeatedly made the false claim that liberal states lose billions of dollars due to tax flight, but tax flight is a well-debunked myth, and the most recent study Fox cited only showed that income tax and state-to-state migration were correlated factors.
Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change -- without any expertise in the matter -- is nothing new.
Fox wants to know whether the stimulus package signed by President Obama caused a recession.
In recognition of the five-year anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- commonly known as the stimulus -- Fox Business' Varney & Co. framed a segment around the question of whether it caused a recession.
Fox is just asking, and here is the answer in one simple chart. The most recent recession started in December 2007, over a year before the stimulus bill was signed into law. Since its passage in February 2009, the American economy experienced an immediate positive turn, culminating in more than four years of steady, gradual economic growth.
Fox's disregard for facts in its frantic push to disparage the president and his policies is nothing new, but the basic failure to understand that the economy has been recovering for the past five years marks a new low.
From the February 13 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
Loading the player reg...
After loudly and falsely claiming that a new Congressional Budget Office study reported that the Affordable Care Act will "kill" more than two million jobs in coming years (it did not), Fox News talkers and the right-wing media industry quickly opted for a second (and equally phony) line of attack this week. They condemned the sad state of the American worker, suggesting they're shiftless and lazy and blamed the Obama administration is turning them into ungrateful sloths.
Focusing on the CBO projection that Obama's health care reform may prompt two million workers over the next ten years to voluntarily leave their jobs, or cut back their hours, Bill O'Reilly announced the administration is "creating a class of layabouts." Stuart Varney compared the worker choice trend to "extending the hand-out society." And Brian Kilmeade bemoaned how "the whole work ethic and self-esteem" thing was being undercut by Obama.
A miffed Greta Van Susteren was also deeply offended by the prospects of American workers choosing to work less in order to strike a better balance in their family lives without living in fear of not being covered by health care insurance. "Do you know anyone who has gotten successful by working less?" she asked Staples CEO Tom Stemberg, a longtime critic of Obamacare.
Why the anti-workout freakout?
After all, the key point here is that Obamacare will soon give a portion of workers a choice of whether they want to work or not (perhaps even temporarily) or whether they want to cut back the hours they work. Why the new choice? Because Obamacare will allow people in lower income brackets access to affordable health care coverage regardless of whether they're employed. So people who feel trapped in jobs that are used primarily as a way to obtain coverage will suddenly have options. (That workplace condition is known as "job lock," something Republicans had previously opposed.)
Millionaire Fox pundits might not realize it but most Americans, and certainly most young American families with two working parents, lead complicated lives as they juggle responsibilities that entail more than taping a 60-minute television show five times a week. (Bill O'Reilly earns approximately $80,000-per episode.) Flexibility for them is a good thing.
Still, the condemnation rained down.
It's a rather startling, judgmental attack when you consider that the employees in question might opt out of their jobs in exchange for early retirement, to better care for family members, or to start a company of their own. None of those scenarios would even remotely reflect poorly on the workers.
Right-wing media outlets are falsely claiming that workers voluntarily reducing hours due to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is evidence that the law is harmful to the economy, ignoring economists' opinions about its role in reducing economic insecurity.
From the February 4 edition of Fox News' The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson:
Loading the player reg...
At Fox News, President Obama's push to increase the federal minimum wage for millions of American workers through legislative and executive action is merely a "symbolic" gesture.
On January 28, the White House announced that President Obama had authorized an executive order raising the minimum pay for federal workers to $10.10 per hour, a regulation that will be effective for all employees signing a new federal contract. According to the White House's official press release, the president hopes that this move will encourage Congress to take action on a proposal by Representative George Miller (D-CA) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 for all American workers.
On the January 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer called the move a "shot across the bow" for congressional Republicans resisting an increase to the minimum wage. Fox Business' Stuart Varney questioned the White House's motivation, claiming that it was a "symbolic" move motivated by political circumstances and concluding that an executive order lifting wages for all federal employees was simply "not a big deal":
Varney's disregard for the impact of executive action on the minimum wage mirrors comments from other Fox News personalities. On the January 27 edition of The Real Story, contributor Charles Payne scoffed at the notion that lifting the minimum wage is an important goal, noting, "higher minimum wage is not the cure, we're talking about something that impacts less than 3 percent of real workers."
Demos' Heather McGhee hailed the Obama administration for lifting federal pay through executive order, noting that the decision "adds momentum to the fight for a federal minimum wage increase." According to research from the Economic Policy Institute, adopting a $10.10 minimum wage nationwide, which would require congressional legislative action, would positively impact the wages of more than 27 million workers while boosting overall economic growth by $22 billion and creating enough economic demand to support 85,000 new jobs.
Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 nationwide also has the support of hundreds of economists around the country, including numerous Nobel Laureates.
In an economy as large as the United States, while it may be easy for right-wing media voices to shrug off the implications of minimum wage policies, the fact is that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly 3.6 million American workers currently work at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. After adjusting for inflation, the federal minimum wage is lower than at any point from the 1950s to the early 1980s.
Right-wing media's opposition to raising the minimum wage has grown as public sentiment has turned in favor of it. Varney's pattern of deriding both policies to lift wages and low-wage workers themselves appears to be par for the course.
Fox News erased the devastating impact of a cut to unemployment insurance in North Carolina, citing a questionable University of Oslo study and pushing the North Carolina approach as a way to remove people from an unemployment "trap." In reality, North Carolina's jobless benefits cut pushed many job-seekers out of the employment search and into 8-hour long food bank lines.
From the January 14 edition of Fox News' The Real Story:
Loading the player reg...
Fox Business host Stuart Varney, who has repeatedly mocked low-income Americans, dismissed the War on Poverty as ineffective on its 50th anniversary, ignoring evidence that government anti-poverty programs have been vital in decreasing the poverty rate.
On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson used his State of the Union address to enumerate proposals and policy prescriptions that would come to be known as the War on Poverty. Many of these proposals were eventually signed into law, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and a permanent food stamp program.
Fifty years later, Fox Business host Stuart Varney dismissed the success of these programs. In a January 8 America's Newsroom segment, Varney cast doubt on the War on Poverty's effectiveness in reducing the poverty rate:
VARNEY: We have not made that much progress in reducing the poverty rate. 15 percent of Americans are still in poverty. It's roughly the same level as it was back in 1964. It did help feed hungry people, treat sick people, and it did raise the standard of living for many, many poor people. However, the proportion of people still living in poverty, pretty much the same as it was back in 1964, Martha.
The federal anti-poverty programs Varney discounts actually helped reduce the poverty rate from 26 percent to 16 percent from 1967 to 2011, according to a recent study by the Columbia Population Research Center at Columbia University. From the study (emphasis added):
The OPM shows the overall poverty rates to be nearly the same in 1967 and 2011 -- at 14% and 15% respectively. But our counterfactual estimates using the anchored SPM show that without taxes and other government programs, poverty would have been roughly flat at 27-29%, while with government benefits poverty has fallen from 26% to 16% -- a 40% reduction. Government programs today are cutting poverty nearly in half (from 29% to 16%) while in 1967 they only cut poverty by about one percentage point.
The New York Times' Economix blog put that data into graph form to show how vital government programs have been in keeping people out of poverty:
Indeed, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it is "simply not valid or accurate" to claim that federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed.
Varney's refusal to acknowledge the progress made in the War on Poverty is in keeping with his record of shaming the poor. He has said that low-income Americans "have things -- what they lack is the richness of spirit," argued that furloughed federal workers deserve to be "punish[ed]," and attacked government funding for feeding children and seniors.