Rachel Maddow: Lying with Graphs
[tweetmeme source=AlinskyDefeater only_single=false]
Rachel Maddow calls the above chart “the best chart ever”. Why? Because she claims it proves the Bush tax cuts were a disaster while the Obama Health Care plan is a real boon to America’s beleaguered financial status. But do the facts bear out her claims? In reality, this is a pathetic claim based upon obvious and serious mistakes in interpreting the CBO numbers.
Here are the actual CBO numbers for the Bush years and the first year of the Obama Administration:
| Debt | |||||
| Held by | |||||
| Revenues | Outlays | Total | the Public | ||
| 2000 | 2025.198 | 1788.957 | 236.241 | 3409.804 | |
| 2001 | 1991.142 | 1862.906 | 128.236 | 3319.615 | |
| 2002 | 1853.149 | 2010.907 | -157.758 | 3540.427 | |
| 2003 | 1782.321 | 2159.906 | -377.585 | 3913.443 | |
| 2004 | 1880.126 | 2292.853 | -412.727 | 4295.544 | |
| 2005 | 2153.625 | 2471.971 | -318.346 | 4592.212 | |
| 2006 | 2406.876 | 2655.057 | -248.181 | 4828.972 | |
| 2007 | 2568.001 | 2728.702 | -160.701 | 5035.129 | |
| 2008 | 2523.999 | 2982.554 | -458.555 | 5803.05 | |
| 2009 | 2104.612 | 3518.191 | -1413.58 | 7543.987 | |
The obvious errors:
1. You should not compare historical data with projected data. Projections are far from factual. As we all know, Government projections are always less than what the outlays end up being. It is patently absurd to claim your guy is better based upon a projection.
Beyond this, it is well documented that the numbers provided by the Obama Administration for the Health Care Reform bill double count money taken from Medicare and do not include the so-called doctor fix.
2. Deficits are simple. They are Revenue – Outlays. Period. For some reason Maddow has chosen to simply look at deficits as though they consist only of revenues or only of outlays depending upon which makes Obama’s future, rosy projections look better and Bush’s numbers look worse. If revenues decrease while spending remains static the deficit will increase. However, if outlays increase while revenue remains static the deficit will also increase.
In fact, revenue and outlays do not remain static and a cursory look at the CBO numbers show us that the Bush deficits were primarily the result of too much spending not too little revenue.In fact, out of eight years, only one year was total Revenue lower under Bush than under Clinton. If that wasn’t enough, the historical data for the one year of the Obama administration brings deficits to a staggering new level.
We assume that Ms. Maddow knows better since she was a Rhodes Scholar so we can only assume that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead people who either didn’t know the facts or who didn’t take the time to check.
If there is still any doubt, please note this chart from CBO site:
Total Deficit or Surplus (Percentage of GDP)
What a surprise, Ms. Maddow forgoes journalistic integrity to further her particularly agenda. At least many smart people would instantly see the ruse in the graphic. Unfortunately, most people that watch her and Olbermann, including smart people, choose to watch them with blinders on.
So did she start that low growly voice that the serious liberal female newscasters like to use or did she pick it up from somewhere else.
Didn’t you just do the exact thing you condemned Maddow for when you looked at historical data without noting the flaws in doing so? In fact what you did here is much worse because revenue is more date sensitive than generally talking about deficits etc.
Revenue is going to be higher under Bush of course. There are more workers. The Clinton administration created tens of millions of jobs.
You know damn well that you should have used revenue data weighted according to time but you didn’t. YOU use lying tactics, too.
Where to begin? First, I said you should not compare historical data with projected data because, surprisingly, the future just hasn’t happened yet. Second, revenue is more date sensitive than deficits? Patently, and provably untrue. Third, if Clinton created the jobs, and taxes stayed the same wouldn’t revenues stay the same?
I appreciate thoughtful comments, but this response disproves absolutely nothing that I said and Maddow used the chart in a dishonest way.
What are you talking about? The chart compares the size of three things, the effect on the deficit by two tax cuts and the our new health care bill. This does not comprise the sole argument why the tax cuts were bad for Americans, and she never said anything of that nature. Of course, your comments have little to do with her arguments, but somehow you can quickly get to calling her a liar.
Perhaps it is not intended as the sole argument, but if it is an argument at all (and she called it “The best chart ever”) then shouldn’t it at least be accurate, and actually prove something that supports her point?