Balance is good, but provide all information
Two points jumped out at me about avoiding adjectives. When Mr. Holdway uses an example of avoiding describing a program as "popular," his solution, offered by a reader, is not to use an adjective at all.
However, that is leaving out information that may be an important part of the story. Instead of eliminating "popular," it would, in my opinion, be helpful and informative to note the percent of people who approve or support such legislation, especially if it is a majority according to reputable surveys.
Second, on the example of referring to spending packages being huge, I would like to see information reminding people that the expenditures are to extend over 10 years. Also that they are in contrast to the expenditures by a nation such as China, where infrastructure expenditures are much larger, dwarfing U.S. domestic infrastructure investments.
China also uses large infrastructure investments to extend Chinese influence abroad in developing nations where they also make large infrastructure investments.
If other evidence is provided, there could be a statement about the necessity for large expenditures due to deferred maintenance over a long period of budgetary neglect.
I trust that writers and editors who cover the news have greater awareness of the significance and context of facts than many readers have. Avoiding bias or slant is good, but providing relevant information is equally important.