I've commented before on the misleading "debt graphs," but they seem to be a new liberal meme. So here we go again.
Yeah, no. Let's run quickly through the problems. The first one is egregious, and it's the same error I pointed out in the last graph I criticized: it makes no attempt to control for the number of years a President served in office. Three of the Presidents on the chart served for 8 years. One served for 4. The other, as of the data displayed on the chart, had served for 2 years and 3 months. You can see that if you read the fine print. But that doesn't stop it from being idiotic and misleading.
One way to correct this first error is to break the two-term Presidents into two entries each, and extrapolate the data for Obama. If you do that, the graph looks like the second one at right.The second error is in the data presented: percentage of debt increase. Why is that a problem? Well why would we care at all about the percentage of debt increase? Doing it that way rewards later presidents, who inherited a larger debt, and punishes earlier presidents, who inherited a smaller debt. That is, a 100% increase in debt under Reagan means a very different thing than a 100% increase in debt under Obama.
While I suspect ideologues will keep posting misleading graphs and making silly arguments, I'll try one more time: just stop. It makes everyone look bad. There are legitimate counters to the argument that Obama is fiscally irresponsible. The first graph above is not one of them.
Note on data: due to limitations in the data I was able to find (here and here), debt amounts were taken on September 30th in the year the President took office. I.e., Bush Jr.'s "first term" is 9/30/2001-9/30/2005. I don't think it's a big deal, especially since spending immediately after a President takes office is arguably influenced by policies of the previous President. But if anyone finds better data, let me know and I'll redo the graphs.
Second note: Obama data was calculated by taking the increase in debt from 9/30/2009 - 9/30/2011, and then multiplying by two. Mostly because I was lazy, and didn't want to figure out a more complicated extrapolation factor. If anyone wants to check if a more detailed calculation has a significant effect, feel free to do so and let me know the results.
One thing you must consider, though, is inflation. This wouldn't skew the graphs too terribly, but it would make a slight difference. Y-axis would have to be something more along the lines of "dollar increase by today's standards." That way you would be able to more firmly understand the values presented...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, thanks for the comment. That was pointed out to me by someone else shortly after I posted this. I'm still mulling it over in my mind, but I think you're right that the numbers should be adjusted for inflation.
ReplyDelete(The argument against doing so would be that though the dollars Reagan added to the debt were worth more than the dollars Obama added to the debt *then*, we still only have to pay back the amount of money that he added in our dollars, now. I think I'm unconvinced by that because the interest added to the debt will probably adjust for inflation, and that interest is best ascribed to the President who added the debt. But I'm still mulling. This isn't my strongest area. :))
The meme graph is actually more accurate. You're giving Obama "credit" for spending that took place starting in January 2009 when he took the oath of office as President, but according to the official Congressional Record, the hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus money that he gets the blame for spending in his first year in office in 2009 was passed in October 2008 under George Bush and Obama had nothing to do with it...except to get blamed. When all the facts are included, Obama is on track to spend at a rate approximately half that of Bush.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that I didn't try to break it down by when spending was passed -- for any of the Presidents. I suspect that could have a sizable impact on the results. But even if you're right about the "half" claim (and I'd be interested in a source for that), the meme graph is still horribly misleading, and both the errors I point out are significant.
DeleteHey I am using your graphs for a presentation at school and was wondering what the title of your Y axis is and what intervals you used. If you could reply in the next 24 hours that would be great. I love your blog and it is very helpful.
ReplyDeleteThe y-axis on the last graph is absolute debt increase in US dollars. I'm not sure I understand your question about intervals.
DeleteGood luck!
What were the intervals (aka numbers he went up by/ the amount y axis increased by) for the Y axis.
DeleteAnd thank you so much!
DeleteThe intervals are as labeled (1 10^+12 indicates 1 x 10^12, or 1 trillion). You can also double check the raw data I used, available in the links at the end. (The raw data will be more accurate, since I extrapolated the Obama data from his first two years in office, which is all that was available when I wrote this post).
DeleteThanks!
Delete