Not Enough Synonyms for “Good”

The New York Times sits in the pantheon of the Democrats' trained hamsters in the media. The NYT editorial policy is decidedly anti-Trump. That is their right. But the news division has allowed the same anti-Trump bias to pervade its reporting. Through omission, lack of context and even outright fake news, the NYT has tarnished its reputation as a solid news source.

It is very surprising, therefore, when the following comments appear in the NYT:

The real question in analyzing the May jobs numbers released Friday is whether there are enough synonyms for “good” in an online thesaurus to describe them adequately.

So, for example, “splendid” and “excellent” fit the bill. Those are the kinds of terms that are appropriate when the United States economy adds 223,000 jobs in a month, despite being nine years into an expansion, and when the unemployment rate falls to 3.8 percent, a new 18-year low.

“Salubrious,” “salutary” and “healthy” work as words to describe the 0.3 percent rise in average hourly earnings, which are up 2.7 percent over the last year — a nice improvement but also not the kind of sharp increase that might lead the Federal Reserve to rethink its cautious path of interest rate increases.

As the Times loyal readership process these words, I suspect some cognitive dissonance has occurred. After all—Trump is incompetent, evil, a poor manager, doesn't understand the economy, is a bully ... yadda, yadda ... but even the Times must admit: "The real question in analyzing the May jobs numbers released Friday is whether there are enough synonyms for “good” in an online thesaurus to describe them adequately." If he's so bad, how did his administration accomplish all of that really good stuff.

As I'm sure you'll recall, almost every prominent Democrat (along with the trained hamsters at the NYT) told us that Trump's tax reform plan wouldn't help the economy, that the middle class would suffer, that it would do little to spur economic growth. Yet, the NYT admits:

Mr. Trump’s policy of cutting the burden of taxes and regulation on business appears to be creating faster economic growth. But as of today he’s now adding tax and regulatory burdens on business when it comes to global trade. This will reduce growth.

Mr. Trump should not disrupt the success resulting from the reforms he’s already enacted in order to fulfill a campaign rant. Instead, he should reflect on his overall mission. Voters elected him to revive the American economy, not to cut a particular trade deal or set a specific tax rate on a given category of imported products.

There is every indication that his assault on corporate income taxes and federal red tape is enabling the expanding opportunity Americans desperately need and that voters demanded in 2016. In 2020 voters will reward him for an economic revival, or punish him for stagnation.

Yeah, yeah ... they're clutching their pearls over trade, but why on earth should we believe them now when they were sooo wrong just a few months ago.

The NYT conveniently leaves out another few nuggets of good news that represent a clear threat to their Democrat base—the employment numbers for both African Americans and Latinos are the best in history. That's wonderful for them and the country. For the Dems ... no so much.

As Scott Adams often says, on domestic economic policy, Donald Trump is "winning bigly."