Monday, July 25, 2011

Picture of the Day: Spending

From the New York Times [HT: Jeff Alworth].  Let's forget the war spending (too hot button) and focus on the Bush tax cuts which had dubious affects on growth but serious implications for the deficit.  And yet we can't get a budget deal passed that includes their sunset.


Cralis said...

This does not seem honest. A reduction in tax revenues is not a "cost" it is a reduction in income.

Further, the Obama side does not include any of the new expenditures and promised expenditures for all of the medical stuff he's pushing, as well as increased costs for regulations and such.

The article and graphic are misleading, and thus this is dishonest propaganda. I've been reading your blog for years and I have to confess I did not expect you to fall for this.

Patrick Emerson said...

Just to be clear, stuff I post I sometimes criticize and I sometimes defend. Things like this I post for their provocative nature and you should not assume that I am giving it an endorsement unless I say so. It is my hope (though it rarely happens) that interesting debates will arise in the comments from such provocative pics.

I think the most controversial part is including the cost of the wars. But it does put the stimulus plan in perspective, which I think was the point (or at least that's what I took away from it).

Cralis said...

I see your point, but as an economics major myself I get really annoyed with articles that incorrectly label or compare items (like tax cuts as "costs") because the average person has no idea that it is wrong and believes it.

The numbers here are way off because of it. The article doesn't include the projected health care costs (even though it says "projected to 2017" above it), and it doesn't include every cost. For example, where is the cost of the omnibill?

Even though this is a conservative blog, the numbers can be verified. (I have not verified the numbers yet, I just found this a day or two ago and thought it was interesting enough to save and look into at some point but it directly bears upon this subject)

I guess I just don't understand why you'd put up something so inaccurate, especially without commenting about the inaccuracies. Even if it works for your comparison it will terribly mislead people who don't look into this stuff for themselves.

As a long-time follower I tried but couldn't let this one slip by... =\