Edward Tufte appointed by Obama to help track, and explain stimulus funds
edwardtufte.com
edwardtufte.com
Which makes me fear that his career in Washington will be politically disastrous and end rather quickly...
I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that. We could use more people like him keeping the government honest from the inside.
P.S. How many of you, when you hear announcements of how many jobs have been saved by the stimulus plan, immediately do the mental arithmetic to figure out how many dollars of taxpayer funds were spent to save each job? I think I could do better in my family in keeping us all actively employed in work helpful to society with the same number of dollars per employable person.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bogus-jobs-created-or...
Although you have to adjust upward: faking the existence of tens of thousands of jobs is obviously difficult work, and I bet more than one person is working full-time on the faking.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/bad_stim...
Tax credits, Pell grants, unemployment support: it's not all jobs.
But you have to blame the administration for this [perception], at least in part: They sold the stimulus in terms of job creation, rather than simple economic growth.
I do not, because that is a fool's calculation.
The value created is not one year's salary, it's the difference in the present value of an individual without a job and the present value of an individual with a job, including all estimable secondary effects (both positive and negative.) If you simply divide it and compare it to a year's salary, you'll sit there and go 'HURRR THAT IS DUMB', but in reality, you're proving only that you don't really understand policy analysis.
----
I'm reminded of a situation that occurred many years ago in my career, when I was still working in a corporate setting. My team hit a seemingly intractable combinatorial explosion problem while trying to create a tool for the sales force. It was incredibly difficult, and quickly blew through the allocated budget (which we'd told them right from the gate, was inadequate).
The management just assumed we were lying... that we weren't up to this task, or we were just lobbying for more money and man-power for our group (I was trying to make a very specific high-end hire to help, and I had already purchased some serious iron). In fact, they were so convinced that this couldn't be this difficult to accurately analyze that they started shopping consultancies, and most agreed with us, that this would be difficult and expensive... but one did not. One said "yes, we can build it, no problem."
A year later, the consultancy had burned through a pile of money, and had nothing to show for it.
Only then did management recognize that maybe this seemingly simple configuration problem was not, in fact, as simple as they imagined. And perhaps we weren't just lying or waving our hands when we said "this shit is not as simple as you think it is." (and even then, they didn't admit it outright. I had an all-day meeting which consisted solely of them asking me stupid question after stupid question, as to why various simple approaches wouldn't work... and me having to draw out specific examples on a whiteboard, indicating the business and technical problems with these simple approaches.)
It's sad, but common, for people to assume that other people's jobs are easier than they really are. Even very smart people fall into that trap... but generally speaking if intelligent, hard-working people are advocating something that seems stupid to you, it's probably because you don't understand the problem or the solution.
You're assuming that the job will last beyond the year and that we couldn't simply send that person $X dollars and produce most of the same benefits.
Try reading it again.
I knew he was off the rails as soon as he indicated that my claims were based on an assumption of duration of employment. That statement only makes sense if you use the same model that the parent used, in which the only value captured is the worker's salary.
Economic activity has benefits for society at large -- we get stuff out of it, and there's a feedback loop where more people with money in their pocket means more demand, which means more people employed, which means money in their pocket, etc.
Recessions are when the economy gets out of balance (historically inventory oversupply, more recently it tends to be financial meltdowns) and that feedback loop goes negative -- less money in pocket, so less spending, so less production.
Counter-cyclical spending is, according to economic theory, the one point in the cycle where the government should be encouraged to spend money like they're in vegas, up 50k and hanging at the strip club. Breaking this negative feedback loop is priority #1 -- debt can be paid back later, and if you've been breaking out your counter-cyclical toolkit, you've already lowered interest rates to near-zero so this is really cheap debt, 1% interest or lower -- if you produce any return at all, you've got a win in addition to the counter-cyclical effects.
Once you've decided to spend, you've got to decide how. Giving money to people in lump sums (which was in fact about 40% of the bill, the bill was 40% tax cuts) is fast and simple, so it certainly has a place, but keeping people in a job is far more effective because you create externalities. That job is producing something of value to the economy, that person is gaining skills/experience leading to future employability, and assuming that business is ok, their labor might lead to additional job openings at the same company later. These are all sustainable improvements that build on themselves and contribute back towards that positive feedback loop. Just spewing money out to people without any targeting whatsoever can only be a brake on recession -- it doesn't really help lay the foundations for the bounceback.
Joe works at WidgetCo and makes $60,000/yr. His loaded costs are a little over $100,00/yr.
WidgetCo pays this because his skills are worth about $125,000/yr to them, so it's a great deal.
At this point, if you are a well-meaning, but rational cherub, what is the highest rational price to pay to get Joe working again? I'm guessing anything up to $125,000.
----
But that's not the end of our grossly simplified model. We also have the fact that Joe spends his paycheck on niggles. He fucking loves the shit out of niggles. As he consumes $60,000/yr of niggles, he personally pays for 1/2 of an employee at the niggle factory (and that guy spends his money on something too...)
So now we have to recognize that if Joe loses his job, there's going to be a negative ripple effect, and if Joe gets a job, there's a positive ripple effect.
So now, as a well-meaning, but rational cherub, what's my highest rational price? Well.. at this point I'd probably call in an economist to help me figure it out, but it's clearly more than $125,000/yr... it's likely close to $200,000/yr.
----
And now somebody hands me a "stimulus" proposal, and it turns out that I could create a job for Joe for about $150,000/yr. So let's see... $200,000/yr of value for $150,000/yr... sounds like a great investment to me! Very good value for money, even if it does lead to an annoying headline indicating "$60,000/yr jobs cost silly cherub $150,000!"
----
Obviously this is grossly glossed over (I didn't even mention the obvious fact that if people are buying widgets, they must provide value), and actual models of costs and benefits of various scenarios are quite complex, but I simply meant to demonstrate that simply dividing the total cost of a package by the number of jobs is silly, and misses the point widely.
E.g. because on the other side of the ledger the government crowds out private borrowing (see my comment in this thread to byrneseyeview) and/or taxes others to get this money, plus this almost always is accompanied by attacks on businesses of all sorts, on Main Street as well as Wall Street. Extreme examples include 1937, when capital in the US went on strike and we had the Recession of 1937–1938 and didn't really recover until WWII changed the game.
In serious times of trouble, can you point out examples where this has worked in more than the short term? It didn't for the US in the Great Depression, and Japan is now nearing the end of it's second lost decade (we through they were pulling out of it, but that turned out to be a side effect of the world wide bubble that popped a little later this decade).
As for more specific discussion, I'm not motivated to spend weeks putting together semi-legitimate models of various stimulus efforts, and doing less than that would be pointless. That said, when you talking about crowding out effects and such, you should be aware that economists are aware of these effects, and they are part of the math that sits behind a stimulus model.
The only thing I'll address in passing about the roosevelt recession is that it emphatically did not occur during a period of government stimulus, rather it came at a time when the government was adopting austerity measures and increasing taxes, which is pretty much the opposite of the situation today.
That said, I stand by my original point that proper analysis is complex, and that there really isn't any substitute for it. Anything less is just noise... so let's leave it to the technocrats.
As for the "Roosevelt Recession", it's worth pointing out that sooner or later you have to tighten the screws (later might be when external to your country effects come into play, e.g. right now I think the biggest question is when will the Federal government run out of people willing to finance its 1.5 trillion dollar a year deficit (yeah, its supposed to go down to 1 trillion soon, but who believes that absent some major political shifts?)).
That late '30s experience suggests that counter-cyclical spending might only delay the day of reckoning, with perhaps the Japanese showing what happens when you mostly try to indefinitely delay it ... and they can finance their deficit spending for at least a little while longer (well, until too many retirees try to draw down their assets).
The Austrian School is dedicated to zombie killing ^_^.
The problem in 37 is generally understood to have been "too much, too soon" in terms of austerity measures. Penny-wise and pound-foolish if your austerity measures cause the economy to collapse back into recession.
It in no way suggests this.
1. The government can increase spending, but they can't create money. Either they get it from taxes, or they get it from devaluing the currency (i.e. taxing holders of currency, or currency-denominated assets). How would it help to take $1 away from an employer building widgets, and use it to hire a Diversity Coordinator at the DMV?
2. What's the long-term effect on business decisions if the only two modes the economy is in are a) growth, or b) near-zero interest rates? It looks like this would lead to lots of leverage.
3. You're assuming that it's always better for someone to have a job than to lose it. So you'd end up subsidizing candlestick makers (probably by taxing light bulb factory owners).
At best, this philosophy merely gives everyone a reason to misbehave. At worst, it fines the productive, growing parts of the economy, in order to reward the unproductive, shrinking parts of the economy. America in the 1930's. Japan in the 1990's. How many lost decades will it take to discredit this stuff?
In the longer term, sovereign debt defaults, explicit or implicit (your "or" items, including the inflation tax), inevitably follow this type of counter-cyclical spending (statistically, since this tends to be a regional or world-wide thing).
Regarding the sovereign debt defaults, did we have one of those after the great depression? Sovereign debt defaults are associated with financial panics. Don't bind up intermediate (correct or incorrect) steps with the root cause.
If they aren't in the market or to the degree they are less so, investors have no choice but to put their money elsewhere.
As for your question, I don't think we can easily say. E.g. the BLS says the dollar lost 28% of its (CPI) value from 1940 to 1946 ... but I'm not willing to assign blame due to the discontinuity of WWII.
If Japan defaults in its 3rd Lost Decade, will that be the cause of the initial '80s panic or decades of the wrong medicine to deal with it?
(regarding Japan -- the consensus is that they didn't do enough stimulus, and that in addition to their high savings rate is why they fell into a deflationary spiral. the government printing money and handing it out with coupons for blow and hookers would have been a better strategy than what they did)
2) Stagflation is much worse than recessions and bounceback with low interest rates. See: the 1970s. There have been a lot of recessions and a lot of livelihoods ruined over the last 100 years or so to reach our current understanding -- it's likely not perfect, but it is based on experience.
3) That's not what I'm advocating in the slightest, I advocated for targetted government spending to help create/retain jobs, specifically on things that have high externalities for the country. We don't need any more candlesticks or buggy whips, but every state is laying off teachers like crazy and we could certainly use some new bridges and high speed rail.
Regarding your last statement -- a lack of sufficient stimulus up front is the most universally agreed upon reason for the protracted nature of BOTH of those downturns. Like, all of the literature says the exact opposite of what you're saying. Maybe they're all wrong, I dunno. I do know that in both cases, decision makers were motivated by feelings of avoiding borrowing as a fundamental value, which is the right approach all of the time except for specifically during a panic or the beginning of a recession.
2) The government was growing massively in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. If government growth was the solution, why did we get so much of it before the problem?
3) Is the government more likely to subsidize new, growing industries, or old, stagnant ones? Government subsidies will "save" the most jobs when they target industries with low capital requirements (like the ones that rely on cheap labor) rather than ones with high capital requirements (like high-end manufacturing). Venture capital is a tough job; deciding that some guy in DC is going to do an even adequate job at it is a stretch.
It is not "universally agreed." I think we can all agree that both of the cases I cited included an unprecedented level of government spending, coupled with an unprecedented recession.
"I was healthy, then I sneezed and you demanded that I start using leeches. I've never been sicker."
"It is universally agreed that the problem is insufficient leeches."
1) Oversimplification, read an intro to economics book about how the chain of lending actually creates more dollars and wealth without just printing them 2) Not addressing what I was saying. The size of government is irrelevant here, we're talking about stimulus spending -- totally orthogonal. 3) Not addressing what I was saying in the slightest.
It is in fact almost universally agreed that in both of those cases, the government spending was too little too late. By the vast majority of economist who've spent their lives studying this.
Maybe your "gut feeling" is smarter than their decades of research. But I'd suggest you read this: http://www.xkcd.com/675/
EDIT: I'll add a history lesson so we can all learn something today.
1929 - stock market crashes 29-32 - hoover does nothing, economy spirals downwards 32 - FDR elected, massive counter-cyclical public works projects, economy recovers 37 - FDR raises taxes and cuts back on spending as an austerity measure, too early, double-dip
In the case of Japan, similar story except the high savings rate exacerbated it, leading to deflation -- the government printing money and handing it out on a street corner would have been more effective than what they did
Actually, it's not orthogonal. In fact, it's quite on point, as stimulus spending tends to become permanent spending, that is, part of govt.
We don't have counter-cyclical spending in the US. We have huge increases during down times and smaller increases during up times. Occasionally the private growth during up times exceeds govt growth. However, it's basically a one-way ratchet.
We do in fact have counter-cyclical spending. You're seeing it now. Obama already announced a spending freeze on domestic programs, so we'll be seeing federal domestic spending decrease in real terms over the next few years.
If you're wondering the last time that federal spending decreased in real terms? It's not "never". It's "the 1990s". (protip: inflation is relevant).
I didn't "assume" that US govt spending grows monotonically in the past. I observed it. If you think that my observation is incorrect, let's see supporting data.
> Adding "but I think this will happen" when it is in no way mandated or apparent doesn't change the facts.
I didn't say that monotonic spending increases are mandated - I said that they happened. If you're going to claim that this time will be different, you get to explain why.
> We do in fact have counter-cyclical spending. You're seeing it now. Obama already announced a spending freeze on domestic programs
Actually, he didn't. He announced a freeze on some types of discretionary spending. That "freeze" excludes the vast majority of the budget and the places where the increases have been occurring.
Similar "freezes" have been announced in the past and didn't happen. Since this one isn't actually reducing spending (contrary to the "now" claim), it's somewhat silly to assume that this time will be any different until it actually is.
> If you're wondering the last time that federal spending decreased in real terms? It's not "never". It's "the 1990s". (protip: inflation is relevant).
I didn't say "never", I said almost never.
The 90s drop came from decreased military spending due to the end of the cold war. The military budget is now small enough that plausible future cuts are less than planned increases in other spending. In other words, that's a one-time event.
I have read intro econ textbooks. The notion that taking a dollar from one party and giving it to another party creates wealth is absurd. At best, you can argue that it will debase the currency (if not, why doesn't it work with any commodity? You can say that if we confiscate X amount of wealth, and give it away, it turns into 2X amount of wealth. But if the wealth is denominated in, e.g., gold, or houses, or publishing rights, it doesn't have similar fecundity.)
Thank you for the comic. It ably makes your point. However, we're talking about a social science, which is at least partially influenced by the need for grants, public approval, speaking engagements, etc. You can't just put the Depression in a supercolider and run tests on it. Because of this, it's more analogous to other ideological popularity contests, like English Lit and Scientology. People have spent decades studying both of those, but it hasn't made them great writers or superhumans. Similarly, economists who study lots of Keynesian economics don't end up making awesomely profitable global macro trades--even Keynes was smart enough to invest based on something other than his own philosophy.
Hoover's spending was unprecedented. It was hardly "nothing". Another timeline to consider:
Dawn of time-Present: Governments attempt to control currency, typically lead to inflationary bubbles, followed by busts.
1936: This is somehow declared a Good Thing.
Yes, there is. However, the amount of feedback, which economists call the "multiplier" is a matter of considerable dispute. Obama's current point-woman on this has published research showing that the multiplier for much govt activity is typically less than 1. (She's saying something different now.)
> Giving money to people in lump sums (which was in fact about 40% of the bill, the bill was 40% tax cuts) is fast and simple, so it certainly has a place, but keeping people in a job is far more effective because you create externalities.
You're assuming that the person is producing something of value and at a reasonable cost..
More to the point, the original poster asserted that a job which cost $200k was worth more than just giving the person $70k/year even if we ignore such factors. (Numbers made up.)
Note that Krugman recently wrote that just giving money to unemployed people doesn't cause problems. This is in contrast to his statement in "Macroeconomics" that unemployment payments encourage people to stay unemployed longer than they would otherwise.
> That job is producing something of value to the economy, that person is gaining skills/experience leading to future employability
I'd agree, but this flies in the face of the arguments used to justify higher minimum wages.
> Counter-cyclical spending is, according to economic theory, the one point in the cycle where the government should be encouraged to spend money like they're in vegas, up 50k and hanging at the strip club. Breaking this negative feedback loop is priority #1 -- debt can be paid back later,
I know the theory. However, it assumes that govt does something that the US govt doesn't do, namely save during the other part of the cycle. Given that, it's unclear that the spending during the down part makes sense.
To put things in terms of another HN argument, it's unhealthy to eat the calories that you'd need to train for the Ironman if you're not actually training for the Ironman.
Is it really foolish to ask if money is being well spent?
Only if you ask the question as poorly as you did. Taking two arbitrary values out of a complex multi-variate equation, and dividing them generates nothing but noise.
If you're legitimately interested in quantitative public policy analysis, there are excellent graduate and doctoral programs that deal both in general policy analysis, as well as more specialized studies dealing specifically with labor and unemployment.
If that sounds ridiculous to you, perhaps it'd be wise to recognize that the analysis is highly skilled technical work, and if you haven't devoted considerable energy towards gaining those abilities, you're just a noisemaker. You might as well be a donut-baker who holds strong opinions about graph theory despite having never programmed nor studied CS.
* My claim is still that if comparable amounts of money were put in my own pocket,*
Even if your claim is true, governmental solutions need not only to be good, they need to be replicable and scalable.
If step one is "identify a million individual families who are able to use money more efficiently than established market-proven businesses", then it's going to take a very, very long time to reach step two.
You might be able to. But I can probably find 4 families on my own block that would just spend the money on tiger print shag carpeting for their bedrooms.
I think it's naive to think that there's just "one truth".
What's the truth about NASA spending during the Apollo program?
It was so-many billion that added up to a glorious step into the cosmos?
It was so-many billion that added up to a race with the Soviets to prove that freedom is better than communism?
It was so-many billion that was a big whose-dick-is-bigger game?
It was so-many billion spent to bid up the wages of well payed first world engineers while third world peasants continued to live in poverty?
These are all true, and there's no way that graphic design can pick the one true truth out of the other truths.
Tufte can do some great work on displaying the multi-trillion dollar buget, but it's not going to get at "the" truth.
Here's the visualization I'd like to see:
FDR's Depression budgets weren't concentrated in areas with the highest poverty, but in areas where his political support was wavering. Obama's "stimulus" is similarly spent in areas of the country, and areas of the economy where buying political support is needed. I'd like to see Tufte do THAT visualization.
I'm sorry to hear that he's going to be on the government payroll - I'd love to have his skills deployed as a non-partisan, non-aligned outsider, as opposed to someone inside the tent looking out.
To quote an old Murakami novel: "Speaking frankly and speaking the truth are two different things entirely. Honesty is to truth as prow is to stern. Honesty appears first and truth appears last. The interval between varies in direct proportion to the size of the ship. With anything of size, truth takes a long time in coming. Sometimes it only manifests itself posthumously."
Interesting. I think this is exactly the kind of claim that when it is posted on any forum on the internet should always be backed up by a reference to clear evidence.
I'm not saying I disbelieve you, but simply that if it's as clear cut as you make out it should be straighforward to provide the evidence.
Just search on e.g.: obama stimulus blue states
What it means every time a jihadist in Pakistan is notified that "You've got missile."
The benefits of keeping the sea lanes open and free. Bonus points for tracking the historical effects of more and less vigorous suppression of piracy.
How beneficial it has been to keep Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc. free in the post-WWII era. Bonus points for comparing their respective increases in economic and political freedom with their climbs up the value chain. A special study of Singapore could be fascinating ("Disneyland with the death penalty").
Etc.
'How beneficial it has been to keep Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc. free in the post-WWII era. Bonus points for comparing their respective increases in economic and political freedom with their climbs up the value chain. A special study of Singapore could be fascinating ("Disneyland with the death penalty").'
These are terrific, difficult, and important questions.
Are there freely available Web sites, perhaps along the lines of Wikipedia[0], for articles that try to explain correlation and side-effects of assorted facts and events?
[0] I have mixed thoughts on Wikipedia. I've read enough articles with unsubstantiated opinion pushing either a commercial or ideological point view to be deeply skeptical of the site. But the general idea of having some quasi-moderated place for deeper observations beyond fact-reporting is appealing.
How much of the stimulus went to temporarily prop up state government budgets and how it permanently increased the budgets of the states that accepted it. Bonus points for explaining how Texas is so successful while refusing this temporary windfall.
ADDED: The above effect on future state budgets could be illustrated as being caused by synchrotron radiation coming from the dollar bills falling in at relativistic speeds.
How "the most shovel ready" project of weatherizing houses became the slowest because the Department of Labor has to make Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage" calculations for 30,000 localities (still not finished...).
Etc.
I fear he'll either show us that he's a fool or what his price is.
How much went to temporarily prop up state govt budgets? Zero, even though preventing a teacher layoff would've been about the most efficient use of stimulus dollars possible. The twins from Maine held the bill hostage until no money was given to state government. (If you're wondering how much went to tax cuts, that figure is around 40%).
How was texas so successful while refusing this temporary windfall? I don't know, but they definitely didn't refuse anything. Rick Perry made a bunch of noise, got his headlines, convinced you that he's a true believer and then took the money.
The weatherization project you got about right, although those studies finished on schedule a month ago or so.. that was a stupid provision and they should have eliminated it, they probably didn't realize it would lead to a bureaucratic snafu.
Hopefully, what Mr. Tufte will show us, are some very compelling and illustrative graphs that do a good job of explaining where the money went. There seems to be some confusion abounding, especially on the tax cut part.
EDIT: A further hope I have is that people who normally respect things like statistics, figures and Mr Tufte don't immediately do a 180 and disown the guy if he doesn't produce a pie chart of the stimulus money that says "100% = SOCIALISM"
For you to be right about no state aid and there being no strings attached, you'd need to explain why there was all that furor about the governors of Texas and one of the Carolinas (I think) refusing the aid, and the provision in law to bypass a governor, and how the governor of Florida's figurative and literal embrace of Obama is helping to destroy his campaign for Senator.
WRT to tax cuts, putting the annual relief ($70 billion this year) for the not inflation indexed Alternative Minimum Tax into the stimulus was pure political theater.
And I just can't see how Perry "took" the Texas share of the remaining $167 billion in individual tax cuts (perhaps he should have instituted a state income tax to capture that "windfall" for the state???) or how he "took" the Texas share of $51 billion in business tax cuts, but I don't know anything about Texas business taxes.
Anyway, I don't need to see graphs to get a rough idea from the listed breakdowns at Wikipedia or any of the other zillions of sites.
I thought conservatives would eat that up? Between that and the tax cuts, I can see how the party-over-substance crowd would have a big problem with this guy actually documenting where the money went. It's a lot easier to just shout "socialism!" than to talk about the numbers.
Regarding aid "to states to shore up their budgets", there was precisely zero, funding unemployment benefits and medicaid is not grant money going to states, it passes straight through to the recipients. There was originally a big item that involved the federal government contributing to state budgets in order to forestall state layoffs for a year, which I thought would be a great example of counter-cyclical spending. Unfortunately, it also made great hay for those who wanted to attack the bill in general as "big spending", so it got jettisoned. That's what I was referring to, not pass-through expenditures like medicaid, unemployment, etc.
Again, watch for the attached strings, which I've read include a Federal curriculum. And we've yet to see if these programs actually make it in the face of union opposition. Last time I checked 1/5 of the members of any given Democratic presidential nominating caucus are unionized teachers, and the shutdown of the D.C. voucher program, the one that provides among other things scholarships to the school Obama's children go to, does not inspire confidence.
Conservatives don't think much of temporary tax cuts, you only get changes in behavior with permanent changes in fiscal policy (and as for permanent 1-1.5 trillion dollar deficits...). People just pocket one time a few hundred dollar things like the Bush stimulus or this.
And we have a tendency to ask, "Is this worth the price?" You have to look at both sides of the ledger.
While unemployment and Medicaid may be "pass-through" in terms of mechanism, the fact remains that the states are on the hook for most of that money anyway and would have had to pay it out if not for this temporary Federal windfall.
PS Regarding policy changes to help the bottom line... you've seen those projected deficit numbers right? Two questions:
1) Do you think those projected deficits are the result of Obama administration policy (about 3 months old at the time I first saw the chart), or because of underlying fundamentals?
2) If you had to guess at the fastest rising cost in government spending, would you guess healthcare?
3) Ok fine, one more but I can't resist, if Obama said "I'm not pursuing a tax cut, I'm prioritizing healthcare reform because it will save the government a ton of money", how do you think the conservative reaction would go? :)
1. Obama administration policy. There's no limit to how fast a politician can spend money ^_^. (Well, to authorize the spending of money; as we've seen with the stimulus bill there's no limit to the amount of red tape a bureaucrat can then use to tie up a process.)
2. Yes.
3. Unfavorable, since we don't believe that the ends justify the means and we don't believe him on costs. The CBO doesn't believe him, and that's not counting the "savings" achieved by gutting Medicare, which will of course be repealed in due course or "adjusted" every year as is already done for Medicare payments to doctors.
There's exactly one time when the government should make a point of counter-cyclical deficit spending -- when in a recession. This is in pretty much every economics textbook, including the one by Greg Mankiw (Bush's chief economics adviser) that I read in college.
What we saw however, was that according to Dick Cheney, "Deficits don't matter [as long as a republican is in office]", then as soon as a democrat is in office, deficit spending during the worst financial meltdown in recent history is against economic fundamentals all of a sudden.
On healthcare.. I don't even know where to start, whether it's with your total refusal to acknowledge that we should focus on dollar-driven solutions ("I don't believe the ends justify the means"), or your incoherent philosophy "I don't believe in government financed healthcare in general EXCEPT for medicare, in which case I'll accuse you of 'gutting' it."
At the end of the day, we have a huge budget hole as a result of skyrocketing medical costs. I spent 3 years in local government laying off teachers and feeling like shit about it because of those costs. Forgive me if I value those teachers' paychecks and the kids' education over abstract ideals about what is socialism, what isn't, and how something can only be a good idea if a republican proposes it.
I can be reasonably assured that no such thing will happen to me, so all I can hope for is that Tufte holds himself to the same ideal.
Did Obama just hire a very talented propagandist, or a guy who deftly presents the bill's inadequacies? I guess we'll find out. Either way, his presentation will certainly be the anchor point of the stimulus debate.
Why's it have to be either/or? My side/your side?
I'd hope, and I bet this is what Obama's hoping too, that the guy will produce some stuff that is very reflective of WHAT'S IN THE DAMN BILL. Obama stands to gain politically from public understanding of the bill because frankly, as long as the graphic doesn't consist of "$$$ -> (hammer&sickle)", it'll be better press than the thing's gotten so far. The truth is worth something.
The bill is a whole lot of things and none of them are black and white -- quantifying them in a way that's more educational than "they're gonna start death panels", "socialism", blah blah is difficult and Obama clearly feels he stands to gain from public education here.
For example, the stimulus was 40% tax cuts. Now, given that 99% of the republican party voted against it and called it socialism or whatever, you probably wouldn't think that. But it's true. Education helps, when you've made an honest effort at good policy. It's not just propaganda.
Edit:
When he did not follow up on his promise to have C-Span follow the health care debates, left a bad taste in my mouth.
I have attended a Tufte conference, and he spent a lot of time discussing the challenger disaster. While he was no where near the as good as Feynman (who is?), he graphically presented the government information very well.
If anything it will draw attention to the problem as he is a big name in this space.
Edit, I'm pretty jaded.. So anything good is shocking to me..
Give that this "is the complete opposite of everything else I do. Maybe I'll learn something.", maybe he'll learn that he's doesn't like the ways of Washington vs. the task at hand, in which case it'll be an unforced error.
If he's not able to prevent the board that this panel is advising from publishing chartjunk or worse ... what can he do, especially in the light of the brand he's established? Hard to see how he could avoid explicitly or implicitly telling us the reason(s) he resigned and that they reflect badly on the administration.
He's appointed several RIAA laywers to positions at the Department of Justice.
He picked Janet Napolitano to run Homeland Security. (I'm a 'Zonie of 10 years.)
While he may also be picking some good people, I'm not seeing "best of the best" as any sort of theme.
This also cripples one of the most important positions in the government in a time of economic troubles.
"California's farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said Tuesday."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04/local/me-warming4
So were to believe within 90 years all the farms and vineyards will vanish from California if we do nothing?
That's just headlining grabbing bunk, hardly befitting a "scientist".
I'm inclined to believe this will only be applied to those topics the administration wants to sell to the public. I don't expect to ever see it applied to, for example, where tax dollars go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
And if you think that the White House is trying to hide it, here:
There's is a reason to hire someone like Tufte, and that is because a) this sort of data are hard to convey in all their nuance and import, and b) there's no one currently in place who is doing a good job of it.
The data is available for people who care to inform themselves. Doing better than that seems to me like a pretty damn hard task in the short term.
The data has always been accessible, for some definition of "accessible". The job of a guy like Tufte it to put it into a form where it doesn't take as much effort to spot patterns and other hidden trends. Essentially, he'll be trying to lower the barriers of entry to the "informed electorate".
How influential has Paul Volcker been?
I look forward to seeing how Tufte designs for an audience (the American people) more used to USA Today infographics.
Look, the average IQ on the planet is 100. Here, in England, in Germany. Education here isn't great, but it's not noticeably worst than in Mexico, Italy, or Russia. The American people aren't geniuses, one and all, but then again - who is?
I wouldn't complain about women, or blacks, or any other group for a trait that's common across all humans ("stupid women ... never saving enough for retirement!"), and I don't think that bemoaning folks by which country they were born into is any more appropriate.
In Gerald Warner's ... eulogy to Michael Foot, "champion of the closed shop" (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100028361/sto...), he relates this bit of relevant history:
"One day in the mid-1970s, shortly after having a comment article published in the Daily Telegraph and while I was wondering, with the enthusiasm of youth, if journalism might be my métier, I bumped into an official of the NUJ who rejoiced in the title of “Father of the Chapel”, or some such quasi-masonic honorific, who told me he had seen the piece. “I hope you are remembering,” he said, “you are only allowed to publish two pieces a year (or perhaps it was a couple more) without an NUJ card… And just try getting one, you Tory b——,” he added with a sardonic laugh."
On the other hand I don't know squat about ITV and any other independent electronic media, and there's always magazines like The Economist which I hope didn't also live in a closed shop environment.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stanovich1/Engli...
Because it really sounds like you're gearing up to find a reason to dismiss his message if it doesn't mesh with your preconceived ideas.