natedern:

Total cost of new policies, Bush years vs Obama years (including projections).

source: New York Times article “How the deficit got this big”

via: reddit 

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I’m too busy at work to fully break this down (so this is a complete hit and run, I know).  A few things I’m noticing right off the bat.

1. We’re comparing 8 real years with 2.5 real/5.5 imaginary years.  Ignoring future obligations paints a prettier picture.  Politicians know this, and several bills structure their programs to hide future costs from the current window.  Is the Times seriously scoring Obamacare at $152 billion to make its point?  Methinks The Gray Lady doth protest too much.
2. We’re counting the Bush tax cuts as a “cost”. I disagree with that assessment.  Not taking your $20 does not put me $20 in debt.  Granted, if one thinks any private wealth exists only at the beneficence of government, it’s very easy to view keeping government’s hands off said wealth as a deficit. 
3. We’re looking at new spending, not total spending, nor spending in comparison to receipts, across a very limited window.  It’s not terribly hard to slice up numbers to support your editorial when you’re setting your own boundaries.
4. And the kicker… none of this spending matters. Not one dollar.  We’re not going to be crushed by a few trillion in debt, because American debt is still the safest in the world, and the world still loves investing in America (regardless of if they love America).  The real issue is the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which no one (save Paul Ryan and a few others) are seriously talking about reforming.

Government accounting would make Enron blush.