Apple — the world's most valuable business and an engine of economic growth and personal freedom across the United States and around the world — is coming under fire because it had the nerve to structure its global business in such a way that saves the company on taxes.

The New York Times has a very lengthy story exploring all of the ways that Apple minimizes its tax bill. The article, entitled "How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes," makes a great effort to tie Apple's strategy, which is legal, to the ongoing budget problems faced by California, where Apple has its global headquarters, and to the federal budget deficit.

According to the New York Times, Apple's accounting methods and business structure — including subsidiaries in countries around the world — has helped it cut its U.S. tax bill by $2.4 billion.

The federal government currently spends approximately $6.9 million per second.

That extra $2.4 billion would fund the U.S. government for 348 seconds — or less than six minutes.

Six. Minutes.

For six minutes of spending, the New York Times tries to portray Apple as a greedy, selfish company that doesn't care about education or the deficit. The financial problems of a community college near Apple's California headquarters are blamed on Apple because it routs some of its business through a subsidiary in Reno, Nevada — where the corporate tax rate is zero, rather than through California, where the  corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent — rather than on the political leadership of California, which can't seem to stop spending money on things like bullet trains even as its fiscal and tax policies continue driving employers out of state.

The New York Times buried the lead. The real story here is not "greedy corporation evades taxes." Rather, it is this: America has the highest corporate tax rate on earth, and Apple, which does business globally, prefers to do business in states and countries with lower tax rates.

Fox Business's Elizabeth MacDonald reports that the NYT may have misstated the numbers, making Apple's effective tax rate in the U.S. appear much lower than it really is, but even if the numbers aren't wrong, the New York Times completely missed the forrest for the trees on this one. It veered close to the real story early in the article, reporting that, "As it has in Nevada, Apple has created subsidiaries in low-tax places like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands…"

But rather than follow that thread and focus on how high corporate tax rates drive Apple to structure its business in odd ways, the NYT slants the story to imply that Apple is doing something wrong — which it isn't. By doing so, the New York Times  continues the narrative pushed by the Obama administration and the Left, that greedy corporations are the cause of America's economic problems.

But that's a hard argument to make, especially when it comes to Apple. Apple's products are beloved, its customers are happy and its products make millions of people more productive and have enabled the creation of countless new companies. The company is profitable, its shareholders are making money, the company generates jobs, and it pays billions of dollars in taxes. Even the anti-capitalist, anti-corporate "Occupy Wall Street" movement loves Apple — as evidenced by the huge numbers of Apple iPhones, iPads and MacBooks the Occupiers use to spread their message.

And yet, the New York Times story depicts Apple as greedily using tricks to avoid taxes. 

Why? James Pethokoukis nails it, in a good blog post today speculating how the Left would treat Apple's founder and legendary CEO, the late Steve Jobs, if he were alive and had become the Republican presidential nominee: "The Left is uncomfortable, to say the least, with the innovation and creative destruction generated by market capitalism and how it upsets the best-laid plans of government. Recall the president’s comments about job-killing ATMs. A tech CEO would be treated no better by liberals than a private-equity CEO. And Jobs would quickly go from entrepreneurial saint to capitalist sinner," Pethokoukis writes.

In one example of Apple's sins, the NYT reports that an Apple subsidiary in Luxembourg processes about $1 billion worth of iTunes sales to customers across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, where it pays a lower tax rate than it would elsewhere. 

From the NYT story:

The advantages of Luxembourg are simple, say Apple executives. The country has promised to tax the payments collected by Apple and numerous other tech corporations at low rates if they route transactions through Luxembourg. Taxes that would have otherwise gone to the governments of Britain, France, the United States and dozens of other nations go to Luxembourg instead, at discounted rates. “We set up in Luxembourg because of the favorable taxes,” said Robert Hatta, who helped oversee Apple’s iTunes retail marketing and sales for European markets until 2007. “Downloads are different from tractors or steel because there’s nothing you can touch, so it doesn’t matter if your computer is in France or England. If you’re buying from Luxembourg, it’s a relationship with Luxembourg.”

"Almost every major corporation tries to minimize its taxes, of course," the New York Times does admit in its story.

Yes, that's true. So do most American taxpayers when they visit financial planners and tax advisers, seeking ways to keep more of their own money in their own pocket.

It's a safe bet the owners of the New York Times — and the reporters who wrote the Apple story — do it, too. Somehow, however, it's only wrong when it's someone else doing it. Funny how looking at a story about Apple gives us liberalism in a nutshell.

Why is this relevant? Well, as another IBD editorial on Thursday noted, EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz, who became deservedly infamous last week when his public articulation of his "Crucify Them" philosophy towards enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in a speech a year ago was exposed, really loves the film, which industry officials have shown is riddled with deceptions and outright falsehoods. Not only that, he was also involved in making it:

---

Armendariz said in the same speech his proudest moment in his first year at EPA was to have its enforcers watch “Gasland,” an anti-fracking propaganda documentary financed by the government of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who also opposes all U.S. drilling. Armendariz collaborated with its makers, and got his name in the credits.

IBD could have and perhaps should have gone much further in its criticism of Antagonistic Al. Armendariz, whose resume communicates what should be a high level of relevant scientific expertise, had to throw any fealty he had to the scientific method overboard by becoming associated with the "Gasland" and praising its final result.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America's Energy In Depth blog thoroughly debunked so much of what is in "Gasland" in June 2010 that one almost has to conclude that the list of truths in the film was miles shorter than the list of false assertions and contentions. The film misstated facts about provisions in laws passed by Congress; misrepresented the degree to which fracking is currently regulated; completely miscommunicated key facts relating to the fracking process; recycled long-discredited environmentalist memes; and in at least seven instances, in the blog post's words, was "just making stuff up." In February 2011, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ignored industry objections to the film's eligibility for an Academy Award. Well, at least it didn't win. Sorry, Hugo.

Further, it would appear that:

• One of the film's "hooks," namely that producer Josh Fox was offered $100,000 for the right to drill on his land, is highly questionable at best and complete fiction at worst. This claim was parroted in a June 1, 2010 Associated Press story, which also relayed Fox's claim (with what I believe to be little or no skepticism) that he was still receiving such offers. A separate EID blog post on June 7, 2011 by Tom Shepstone makes a compelling case that it's virtually impossible that Fox received such an offer, and that if he did, it couldn't have come from the company whose documents are, according to Shepstone, the only ones which conform "with the format and wording of the document displayed in Gasland."
• Another dramatic hook, namely "the much-vaunted and disturbing image of flammable running water from faucets," is similarly bogus in the supposed "lesson" it tries to communicate: "Well yes, apparently many can (do this) – but sadly for Gasland, for reasons au naturelle. Fox highlights the instance of a flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colorado pinning the blame on gas development. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission however disagree(s), maintaining, 'Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [natural occurring] in origin” and they found “no indications of oil and gas related impacts to the water well.'"
• In general, filmmaker Josh Fox is a guy who isn't exactly wedded to the concepts of total accuracy and thorough vetting, having been quoted as follows: "I’m sorry but art is more important than politics. … Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions."

Armendariz's involvement with "Gasland," especially as an alleged scientist, his praise of its deeply deceptive content, and his eagerness to brainwash his subordinates with it, all should make it obvious that he is unfit to hold his EPA post or any other position involving regulation.

Following the lead of the Obama administration, which IBD correctly asserted is protecting Armendariz, the establishment press is ignoring the aforementioned crucial elements of this story. Just two examples: The Associated Press, which on Thursday covered the EPA administrator's "apology" while erroneously reporting that Armendariz's outlook only applies to "bad players" who are "not complying with the law (Christopher Helman at Forbes made mincemeat of that claim by recounting the EPA's fantasy-based attempted crucifixion of Range Resources), has done no follow-up story in the intervening 2-1/2 days. Similarly and just as incorrectly, John M. Broder at the New York Times's Green Blog on Thursday claimed that Armendariz's crucifixions remarks targeted "some violators of pollution laws." Helman demonstrated that Range Resources violated no laws, and thanks to its corporate spine eventually forced an EPA courtroom retreat.

What's described here exemplifies yet again how reading key stories and editorials at Investor's Business Daily is indispensable if one wishes to be truly informed, because it so often addresses and exposes matters the establishment press should be covering — and won't — and is absolutely fearless in calling them out.

As to Armendariz's continued presence at EPA, I wrote on Thursday that "If this guy holds onto his job — forget the 'apology,' which can’t possibly undo Armendariz’s outlook as practiced — we will know all we need to know about the Obama administration’s regulatory mindset."

Well, now we know, and there can be no remaining doubt.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The headline: "Social Security Fund to Run Out in '35: Trustees." Any reader would assume that the reference is to the situation with the retirement and disability programs combined, as both are collectively referred to as "Social Security." Reporter Brian Faler doubled down on the headline error in his opening sentence:

---

The Social Security program will exhaust its trust fund in 2035 and have to start reducing benefits to senior citizens unless Congress intervenes, its trustees said.

Some readers may figure out because of his reference to "senior citizens" that Faler was only referring to the Old Age and Survivors retirement program, but that's a stretch. The reporter finally came clean in the next sentence ("That is three years sooner than projected in 2011 for the retirement benefits program, which serves 44 million people, the trustees said in an annual report today"), and the in next paragraph finally noted that the combined exhaustion date for OASDI (Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance) is 2033: "The combined Social Security trust funds would be depleted in 2033, three years earlier than projected."

Geez, even the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, didn't go to that length to mislead about the situation. Stephen Ohlemacher and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar's beginning was far more accurate:

Social Security is rushing even faster toward insolvency, driven by retiring baby boomers, a weak economy and politicians' reluctance to take painful action to fix the huge retirement and disability program.

The trust funds that support Social Security will run dry in 2033 – three years earlier than previously projected – the government said Monday.

For those who are keeping score, what the Trustees projected would be coming 25 years down the road a year ago (2036 in the 2011 report) is now, thanks to yet another lousy year for the economy, four years closer (2033 minus 2012).

There's also this nugget from the Trustees' summary which both news services referred to only vaguely in the case of AP (i.e., without dollar amounts) and only discussing disability in Faler's report:

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983 … The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

"After the recovery is complete"? Oh well, let's not digress.

In 2007, Social Security ran a surplus of $186.5 billion. The Democrat-driven recession (see my original call in July 2008) and Democrat-engineered mediocre to non-existent recovery have been the major factors leading to a reversal of fortune of about $250 billion ($186.5 billion plus $66 billion). Baby Boomer retirements played a much smaller part, and many of tho who retired and began collecting Social Security benefits earlier than the current Full Retirement Age of 66 did so earlier than they originally planned because of the lousy economy.

It would be reasonable to contend that Bloomberg Business Week's Brian Faler was trying to present a later day of reckoning which would misinform those choosing to only read the headline and/or his first sentence. It's telling that not even two Associated Press reporters would go there.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Earlier this year, a reporter informed me of what is apparently a common belief in the business press, namely that "the Labor Department considers the (seasonally adjusted, or SA) numbers to be much more reflective of what’s actually going on in the economy" than the raw (i.e., not seasonally adjusted, or NSA) economic data. That's interesting, given that you can't even do seasonal adjustments without the raw data, but I digress. That expressed and almost blind belief in SA numbers explains why virtually no one in the press bothers to look at, let alone report, the NSA numbers.

But given this "seasoned" faith, why didn't the business press tell readers that today's revisions to SA figures for initial unemployment claims going back to 2007 released today by the Department of Labor increased the originally reported amounts for the past four weeks by an average of almost 4%? That's indeed what happened, and it hardly seems minor. Instead, Bloomberg, Reuters, and the Associated Press all celebrated today's number (359,000) as the lowest in four years — which it will no longer be if it gets revised upward next week by 2,000 or more next week (the average seen during the past year has been a bit below 4,000). The specific changes are after the jump, followed by a rundown of the three wire services' coverage.

Here are the changes:

Claims increased by an average of 3.8% during the past four weeks as a result of the revisions.

At Bloomberg, Lorraine Woellert ("Jobless Claims in U.S. Decline to Lowest Since April 2008"), mentioned the revision's existence, but not its effect:

The number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in almost four years, adding to evidence of an improving U.S. labor market.

Initial jobless claims fell 5,000 in the week ended March 24 to 359,000, the lowest since April 2008, the Labor Department reported today in Washington. The median forecast of economists in a Bloomberg News survey called for 350,000 claims. With the report, the government data also contain revisions dating back to 2007.

… "The labor market is still improving at a modest pace," said Russell Price, senior economist at Ameriprise Financial Inc. in Detroit. "Across almost all sectors, companies have shed as many workers as they possibly can. Now, they're responding to the modest improvements in demand."

At Reuters, Jason Lange ("Jobless claims fall to 4-year low in latest week") at least noted that last week went up by 16,000 because of the revision:

New claims for unemployment benefits fell to a fresh four-year low last week, according to a government report that showed ongoing healing in the labor market.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 359,000, the lowest level since April 2008, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

The report included revisions for claims data from 2007 based on updated seasonal adjustment calculations. New seasonal adjustment factors were also introduced for 2012.

The prior week's figure was revised up to 364,000 from the previously reported 348,000. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast a claims reading of 350,000 for last week.

At the Associated Press, Christopher Rugaber ("US jobless claims fall to lowest level in 4 years") went into the wire service's "everything's coming up rosy" routine:

The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in four years, adding to evidence that the job market is strengthening.

Applications for weekly unemployment benefits fell by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 359,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's the fewest applicants since April 2008. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, declined to 365,000 – the fewest for that measure since May 2008.

When unemployment benefit applications drop consistently below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate. The decline has coincided with the best three months of hiring in two years.

The department made annual revisions to the past five years of data, which increased the number of applications in recent months and showed a slower decline. Still, even after the revisions, applications have fallen roughly 12 percent over the past six months.

… "The trend remains unambiguously downwards," said Ian Shepherdson, an economist at High Frequency Economics. "We think the rate of decline … is slowing … but they are still consistent with robust, sustained payroll gains."

Well Chris, we thought until last week that claims had fallen by almost 18% in the past six months (the difference between last week's original 348K and the 423K reported in the week ended September 17). So the drop you cite is about one-third less, and, to needle Mr. Shepherdson, quite a bit less "unambiguously downwards."

So the press really believes that the SA are the gospel, yet it totally ignored how they went up by almost 4% in revisions during the past month. Their preference for SA numbers would thus seem to have very little to do with faith. I suspect it instead involves a high component of laziness — and in the case of today's DOL revisions, the need to ignore news that makes the economy look a bit worse than it has appeared during the past month trumped the need to report bad-news changes in the numbers they claims they trust.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

CNN's Erin Burnett on Monday did a segment correctly castigating Congress for not passing a budget in over 1000 days.

The only problem was that while she did this, pictures of House Republicans were shown on the screen despite the blame resting solely with Senate Democrats (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ERIN BURNETT, HOST: Today's Congress, the least productive and least popular in recent history. What will it take to turn it around? Well you know what there's an idea out there, what about if they don't get anything done, they don't get paid. Well see this would really be a problem, I think, because it's been more than 1,000 days since the last joint budget resolution, so if you said you don't get paid until you get a budget, that's a heck of a lot of days with no pay.

All right, this is one of the potential reforms though that's going to be receiving a Senate hearing this Wednesday that might really turn the tide in terms of Congress getting things done and being liked perhaps a little bit while they're doing it.

John Avlon is going to be at that hearing and he has a preview for us tonight. All right John, so more than 1,000 days since the last joint budget resolution, no budget, no pay. Maybe they'll get one done.

JOHN AVLON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Maybe they would. So here's the idea. Basically it's basic. You don't pass a budget on time; you don't get paid on time. And so that's the idea of applying the kind of incentive that it might take the focus the mind of Congress to start doing their job, so that's one of the proposals that's going to be forwarded at this — the Senate hearing on Wednesday that's going to start trying to take on some congressional forums to maybe change this dysfunctional culture that we've seen in Congress.

BURNETT: And the average salary on Capitol Hill, $174,000 –

AVLON: That's right –

BURNETT: — right, so it's not — this is a lot of money.

AVLON: Absolutely and you know you need to change the incentive structure. The incentive system in Congress is all screwed up. This is one way to get it right.

BURNETT: All right, so I would love — that's a really great idea, a really great idea, OK.

You know what else is really great idea? Cable news anchors and their contributors knowing what they're talking about.

Since Barack Obama's first budget was passed in April 2009, the Senate, which has been controlled by Democrats since January 2007, has not offered one single budget.

By contrast, after taking over the House in January 2011, the GOP proposed and passed a budget on April 15. It was defeated by Senate Democrats on May 26.

As such, the entire cause of the absence of a budget resolution since April 2009 is Democrat obstruction.

To show House Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on screen during this segment was a pathetic deception.

Sadly, that's par for the course at CNN.

The aforementioned facts are generally not known by people who don't closely follow the news, because not much was made of them. But from the point of view of ABC News, particularly the hatchet men disguised as investigative reporters Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross, Mitt and Ann Romney have a much bigger problem than the Gores, Bidens, and Clintons: They, and particularly Mitt through Bain Capital (dubious, as we'll see), have given too much money to a particular charity. Because the reporters apparently want readers and viewers to see this as something underhanded, they describe charity as "sending" instead of "giving":

---

Mitt Romney Sent Millions to Mormon Church

Underscoring the prominent, if little discussed role that Mitt Romney played as a Mormon leader, the private equity giant once run by the GOP presidential frontrunner carved his church a slice of several of its most lucrative business deals, securities records show, providing it with millions of dollars worth of stock in some of Bain Capital's most well-known holdings.

Romney has always been a major donor to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which requires that members "tithe," or give 10 percent of their income to the church. His family charity, called the Tyler Foundation, has given more than $4 million to the church in the past five years, including $1.8 million in 2008 and $600,000 in 2009. But because Romney, whose fortune has been estimated at $250 million, has never released his personal tax returns, the full extent of his giving has never been public.

Newly uncovered stock contributions made during Romney's Bain days suggest there is another dimension to Romney's support for the church — one that could involve millions more than has been previously disclosed.

As part of just one Bain transaction in 2008, involving its investment in Burger King Holdings, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal that an unnamed Bain partner donated 65,326 shares of Burger King stock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, holdings then worth nearly $1.9 million. And there were numerous others, giving the church a stake in other Bain properties, such as Domino's Pizza, the electronics manufacturer DDi, the phosphates company Innophos Holdings, and Marquee Holdings, the parent to AMC Theaters.

… The Mormon church is distinct from many other American denominations in what it asks from adherents in money, time and commitment — and not just because it asks young Mormon males to spend two years proselytizing for the faith as missionaries, said Jan Shipps, a religion professor at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis, and one of the preeminent non-Mormon authorities on the church.

… Romney appears to have lived up to rigid financial requirements within the church that asks parishioners to contribute 10 percent of their annual earnings.

… Securities records show that Romney found ways to help include the church in some of the companies most lucrative deals, just as other executives at the firm found ways to generate support for their favored charities. Among the companies named on securities filings as "Bain charitable institution donees" were the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, The Boston Foundation Inc., Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, and family foundations run by several top Bain executives.

… Romney's own family nonprofit, The Tyler Charitable Foundation, was also cut into numerous Bain deals. The nonprofit, run by Bradford Malt — the Romney personal attorney who oversees all of the candidate's financial holdings — passed those stock earnings along to a variety of other charities, including the church.

It's hard to believe that ABC really bothered with the previous paragraph — or for that matter the entire report. What does "an unnamed Bain partner" donating stock to the Mormon church in 2008, nine years after Romney ceased his involvement in the business, have to do with anything? Romney still receives millions in annual distributions from Bain entities, but has represented in his financial disclosure statements that he has had no active involvement. Really, Matthew and Brian, those weren't "Romney's Bain days."

And what's with the use of dealmaking words and phrases to describe charitable donations? There's "sent," "carved his church a slice," "include the church in … lucrative deals," and "cut into numerous Bain deals."

Here's part of Rush's take on this nonsense earlier today:

So what? Valerie Jarrett just broke the law! She went into a church and gave a political speech ripping into the Republicans and then after the church speech, they did a voter registration drive in a church. Romney's not breaking the law.

What's wrong with giving to your church? It's a charity! He didn't take all the money himself like the Clintons do. He's not hiding it in some family foundation where he can get access to it later, plus a charitable deduction off the top of the donation he's made. Zero interest in Obama from the ABC investigative unit. Zero. I don't know how much money Obama gave Reverend Wright. We don't know how much money Obama gave Reverend Wright. We don't know how much money Reverend Wright gave Obama.

Breaking the law by a Democrat isn't news; but a Republican being generous with his money to an entity which someone doesn't seem to like must be sinister in some way, even though it's clearly lawful. Makes perfect sense to me. (/sarc)

It seems that Ross might have taken the assignment to atone for his breakout report on Jeremiah "Go D**n America" Wright four years ago. If so: For shame, Brian — especially since you seem to be conveniently setting the stage for an all-out attack on Mormonism should Romney get the GOP nomination.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

I know, we're supposed to give TV shows and the like a bit of dramatic license to push a plot line. But doesn't it seem that an awful lot of the license taken tends to be pro-big government and left-leaning?

One pretty obvious example came along Monday night during the Season 2 finale of TNTs' "Rizzoli & Isles" (which ran again late tonight). The plot of "Burning Down the House" centered around the death of a Boston fireman in a major warehouse blaze. Ultimately, the perpetrator ended up being a fireman who was upset by "budget cuts," which were mentioned twice during the episode:

• At the beginning, one of the in-charge fireman regrets that he had to send the one who died (actually, it turn out that he was killed because he was onto the arsonist) into the building without backup, saying in essence, "That's what budget cuts will get you." He goes on talk about station closings and the like.
• In the climactic scene at the show's end, the arson-setting fireman, who ends up being responsible for a large number of them, believes he is alone in the same burned-out warehouse with Ms. Isles and is about to kill her. Before he makes his attempt, he complains about how the city "kept cutting back and cutting back," and how "they can't keep laying us off." When asked by Isles how he would prevent it, he responds (paraphrasing) that he would "burn a few buildings."

The trouble is, the City of Boston's Fire Department Budget has increased each year from 2010 to 2012.

As shown at this graphic, which was found at Page 31 of the city's 2012 budget (large PDF), the Fire Department's actual or appropriated amounts from 2009 to 2012 were as follows:

• FY09 Expenditures — $165.3 million
• FY10 Expenditures — $173.6 million (5.0% increase over FY09)
• FY11 Appropriations — $176.4 million (1.6% increase over FY10)
• FY12 Appropriations — $181.9 million (3.1% increase over FY11)

One can argue about whether the increases are big enough, but it's hard to make a case that the city is "cutting back and cutting back." Instead, it's on track to spend 10% more than it did three years ago.

Looking at another metric, total employment per the Department's About page is 1,611 in a city of about 620,000. Cincinnati's Fire Department has about half as many employees, and the city is about half Boston's size.

In other words, the situation in Boston doesn't seem to be out of whack. It certainly isn't in some kind of radical cutback mode, and hasn't been since the 1980s (with as far as I can tell no or almost no station closings since then). In fact, it's Boston's police budget which has seen real cuts (from $288.6 million in 2009 to a projected $269.2 million in 2012, also at the graphic) during the past three years.

Unfortunately, shows like these are where many of the disengaged who nevertheless vote end up getting what they believe is valid information which conforms to reality. In this case, it's not, and it doesn't.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

See-no-evil economic reporting during the Obama years has "somehow" missed a number of developments in the makeup of the American workforce which I believe would not have been missed (or deliberately overlooked, take your pick) if a Republican or conservative were in the White House. One of them relates to full-time employment.

Did you know that seasonally adjusted full-time employment in September 2011 was lower than it was when the recession officially ended in June 2009, and that this was the case for 26 of the first 27 post-recession months? What's more, the economy had over 8.7 million fewer full-time workers in November 2011 than it did when full-time employment peaked four years earlier in November 2007. Proof from the Bureau of Labor Statistics follows the jump.

Here it is:

Full-time employment finally surpassed the June 2009 level for two consecutive months in October and November. Hopefully it will keep going up, but the economic policy barriers to continued improvement are quite substantial, as has been noted elsewhere by yours truly and so many others. For those who are wondering, during the first 29 months after November 1982, the official end of the Reagan-era recession according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, full-time employment increased by almost 8 million:

Currently, the economy has 417,000 more full-time workers than it did when the recession officially ended in June 2009. Readers will also see that the increases in the number of full-timers continued to climb after that. By the end of 1986, over 11 million more Americans (almost 14%) were working full-time than were doing so at the end of that era's recession.

President Obama said in Kansas on December 6 that what Reagan did, followed by similar but less aggressive moves under President Clinton (with prodding from a GOP-controlled Congress) and Bush 43 "doesn’t work. It has never worked."

Really? Then what would you expect a nonpartisan observer to say about the policy prescriptions employed during the past three years?

If the economy under a Republican or conservative president had utterly failed to create full-time employment for so long, we'd be hearing about it constantly. But we've heard something between absolutely nothing and barely anything from the lapdog establishment press.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Late Friday afternoon, Todd Shields at Bloomberg News broke a story about some guy, who happens to be an Obama and Democratic Party donor (but not disclosed), against whom the Securities and Exchange Commission is formally considering an enforcement action (also not disclosed, though it was noted at the New York Times's Dealbook Blog five hours before Shields's report), whose "wireless service caused interference to 75 percent of global-positioning system receivers examined in a U.S. government test." Though it generated a fair amount of center-right blog discussion over the weekend, the establishment press largely ignored the stunning result.

Earlier this evening, Shields and Alan Levin reported even more troubling info (as carried at the San Francisco Chronicle; bolds are mine throughout this post):

---

Falcone's LightSquared Disrupts Plane Safety Gear in Testing

Philip Falcone's LightSquared service disrupted airplane safety equipment in U.S. tests of the proposed wireless network, government officials said.

Signals from LightSquared equipment caused "interference with a flight safety system designed to warn pilots of approaching terrain," according a statement from the Defense and Transportation departments distributed today by e-mail.

The safety gear relies on the global-positioning system. U.S. officials are testing for interference with GPS devices as they consider whether to let LightSquared operate its network. The service would let clients such as Best Buy Co. offer cheaper wireless services and products, LightSquared Chief Executive Officer Sanjiv Ahuja said in a Dec. 9 interview.

… LightSquared's effect on the air-safety system was the subject of a separate analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration, according to today's statement.

… The safety system displays any terrain or man-made obstruction in the path of an aircraft. If a plane flies too close to danger, the system sounds increasingly dire warnings urging a pilot to "Pull up!"

These devices have been required on turbine-powered aircraft since 2005 and are credited with nearly eliminating crashes in which pilots hit the ground in darkness or bad weather, according to the FAA. The system uses GPS to determine a plane's position, which it matches against a worldwide database of terrain, radio towers, buildings and airports.

Once again, Shields failed to report that Falcone is a heavy Obama and Democratic Party donor, or the existence of the SEC's consideration of enforcement action against Falcone, described thusly by the Times:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is putting Philip A. Falcone on alert.

Mr. Falcone, a hedge fund manager, received a Wells Notice from the commission on Thursday, according to a filing made by his firm, Harbinger Capital Partners. The agency typically sends those notices when it is considering an enforcement action against someone. Omar Asali and Robin Roger, two Harbinger board members, also received the notices.

The notices stem from possible "violations of the federal securities laws' anti-fraud provisions in connection with matters previously disclosed and an additional matter regarding the circumstances and disclosure related to agreements with certain fund investors," according to the filing.

Although the filing does not specify charges or allegations, the notice is likely related to a disclosure Harbinger made to investors. In April, the firm said it was being investigated for possible market manipulation in the trading of undisclosed debt securities from 2006 to 2008. Mr. Falcone has also been investigated over whether a $113 million personal loan he made to himself, using his firm’s funds, was disclosed to investors in a timely manner.

Such trivial matters are not news at all at most establishment press outlets, including the Essential Global News Network known as the Associated Press. A search on Falcone's last name at the AP's main national site comes up empty, and Lightsquared's name is mentioned only in passing in an unrelated AP article about Clearwire.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey provided background the press has totally ignored on Saturday (links were in original):

If that was all there was to this story, then this would just be another commercial venture that struck out, with little interest outside the tech fields involved.  However, the overwhelming failure of LightSquared’s test puts allegations from last summer in a new light.  In September, four-star Air Force General William Shelton accused the White House of pressuring him in August to change his Congressional testimony to make his assessment of LightSquared more favorable.  Another Congressional witness told Eli Lake that the White House had “offered guidance” on how to testify favorably towards LightSquared.

Why is this important?  Philip Falcone is a big donor to the Democratic Party, and he has billions of dollars at stake in LightSquared’s approval.  Also, Obama himself was an investor in LightSquared at one point, as were or are a number of his associates.  The resounding failure in this test makes it look like the White House pressured witnesses to back off of exposing LightSquared’s product as exactly the kind of dangerous problem that critics had maintained all along — with the intent to mislead Congress into moving forward with LightSquared’s government contracts.

Is this administration really going to ultimately green-light LightSquared, thereby disrupting the GPS system, and even risking the safety of air travel, in the name of granting favors to a corrupt crony? We may be witnessing a high-tech "All My Sons" scenario conducted in broad daylight.

Is the press, including Bloomberg, which is negligently sticking to the technical details without addressing the corruption — something which certainly would not be happening if a Republican or conservative were in the White House — really going to look the other way while all of this happens? If so, why do they bother coming to work every day?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

There was an astonishingly revealing moment on Sunday's 60 Minutes when President Obama said, "Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal."

For what should be obvious reasons, CBS's Steve Kroft didn't bother asking his guest who created, voted for or signed the pieces of legislation that allowed this "damaging behavior on Wall Street" to be legal (video follows with transcript and commentary):

STEVE KROFT (SECOND PART INTRO): In a wide-ranging conversation Friday morning, President Obama discussed everything from the sins of Wall Street to his handling of the deficit negotiations with Congress.

At the heart of our conversation were questions about the effectiveness of his leadership that have been raised not just by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. We also talked about his chances in the upcoming election in the face of some grim public opinion polls, and his thoughts about the Republican challengers.

We start with Wall Street, where President Obama has laid the blame for the country's economic meltdown.

STEVE KROFT (TO PRESIDENT OBAMA): One of the things that surprised me the most about this poll is that when asked who your policies favor the most, 42 percent said Wall Street. Only 35 percent said average Americans. My suspicion is, some of that may have to do with the fact that there's not been any prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, of people on Wall Street. And that the civil charges that have been brought have often resulted in what many people think have been a slap on the wrist, fines. Are you disappointed by that?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You know, I can't, as President of the United States, comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions. That's the job of the Justice Department. And we keep those things separate, so that there's no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors. I can tell you, just from 40,000 feet, that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal. That's exactly why we had to change the laws. And that's why we put in place the toughest financial reform package since F.D.R. and the Great Depression.

Imagine for a moment you were Kroft, and the President of the United States – who has been blaming all the country's problems on Wall Street for years – admitted "that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal." 

Wouldn't you ask him when such behaviors became legal and who was responsible for the legislation?

Not if you're Steve Kroft:

KROFT (OFF-CAMERA): The implementation of those reforms is still being fought over, with the banking industry and the Republican leadership trying to limit their scope. Just another symptom of the political standoff that has paralyzed Congress since the negotiations to raise the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit began last summer.

KROFT: There are people that think that you took a very hard line, that the Republicans weren't the only ones that were being intransient. That–

OBAMA: That's based off–

KROFT: Let's take the issue of tax reform.

And that was that. Startlingly un-inquisitive, wouldn't you say?

Is it possible that Kroft didn't want to explore this because it would be embarrassing to Democrats and former President Bill Clinton?

After all, the two pieces of legislation that made "some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street" legal were the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – which removed the last vestiges of the Depression era Glass Steagall Act thereby completely deregulating banks, insurance companies, and securities firms – and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 – which completely deregulated financial derivatives at the heart of the crisis – were overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and signed into law by Clinton.

What makes this even more embarrassing for Kroft is that in October 2008, he did a rather extensive piece on 60 Minutes dealing specifically with CFMA.

As NewsBusters reported at the time:

With nine days left before Election Day, "60 Minutes" aired a segment Sunday evening addressing a complex investment tool at the heart of the current financial crisis without fully explaining the presidential campaign ramifications behind the laws that made the market meltdown almost inevitable. [...]

STEVE KROFT, CO-HOST: The world's financial system teetered on the edge again last week, and anyone with more than a passing interest in their shrinking 401(k) knows it's because of a global credit crisis. It began with the collapse of the US housing market and it's been magnified worldwide by what Warren Buffett once called "financial weapons of mass destruction." They're known as credit derivatives or credit default swaps, and we did a story on the multitrillion-dollar market three weeks ago. But there's a lot more to tell. Essentially they are side bets on the performance of the US mortgage markets and the solvency of some of the biggest financial institutions in the world, a form of legalized gambling that allows you to wager on financial outcomes without ever having to actually buy the stocks and the bonds and the mortgages. It would have been illegal during most of the 20th century, but eight years ago Congress gave Wall Street an exemption. And it's turned to have been a very bad idea. [...]

KROFT: (Voiceover) The vehicle for doing this was an obscure but critical piece of federal legislation called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And the bill was a big favorite of the financial industry it would eventually help destroy. It not only removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight; on page 262 of the legislation, Congress pre-empted the states from enforcing existing gambling and bucket shop laws against Wall Street.

Yet, as NewsBusters reported, Kroft and 60 Minutes withheld some politically sensitive details:

Despite accurately calling credit default swaps "The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street," CBS didn't properly inform viewers that George W. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the Clinton-signed legislation that deregulated them, and that frequent campaign statements by Barack Obama and Joe Biden blaming the current financial crisis on Bush economic policies are therefore completely false.

The producers also chose not to expose the key Democrats — most notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) — that voted in favor of this legislation back in 2000 but have in recent weeks dishonestly blamed President Bush for the current crisis.

So, nine days before Obama was elected president, Kroft and 60 Minutes intentionally withheld information from viewers about CFMA that might have been embarrassing to the Democrat presidential candidate and his Party while discrediting their campaign claims that Bush and Republicans were completely to blame for the financial and economic meltdown.

Now, a little over three years later, with the President in the middle of a reelection campaign and admitting on national television "that some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn't illegal," Kroft, despite being totally familiar with CFMA, once again chose not to bring up anything that might interfere with Obama's ability to blame all the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush and Republicans.

How do these people continue to get away with such blatant bias?

Readers are encouraged to review other syrupy interviews Kroft has done in the past.