|
Useless Statistical Almanach n°3 – US Budget Edition
the presentation of the new US federal budget is the ideal time to show what a difference a few *innocuous* hypotheses can make on your headline…
Luckily, the BBC cuts through the bullshit:
(a few quotes after the fold)
The budget document projects the deficit will rise to $427bn this year, before starting to decline.
Military spending will, however, rise 4.8% to $419.3bn in 2006.
The budget does not include the cost of running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the administration is expected to seek an extra $80bn from Congress later this year.
(…)
Another key policy spending missing from proposals is the cost of funding the administration’s proposed radical overhaul of Social Security provision, the federal programme on which many Americans rely for their retirement income.
Some experts believe this could require borrowing of up to $4.5 trillion over a 20-year period.
Neither does the budget include any cash to purchase crude oil for the US emergency petroleum stockpile.
(…)
The deficit, partly the result of massive tax cuts early in Mr Bush’s presidency, has been a key factor in pushing the US dollar lower.
The independent Congressional Budget Office estimates that the shortfall could shrink to little more than $200bn by 2009, returning to the surpluses seen in the late 1990s by 2012.
But its estimates depend on the tax cuts not being made permanent, in line with the promise when they were passed that they would “sunset”, or disappear, in 2010.
Most Republicans, however, want them to stay in place.
And the figures also rely on the “Social Security trust fund” – the money set aside to cover the swelling costs of retirement pensions – being offset against the main budget deficit.
Who knew the British were anti-American? Or more to the point – who would have believed such an opinion could be brought so quickly?!
name, thx, I find it difficult to judge the figures as I cannot relate them to anything much, and don’t grasp the larger context.
Here in CH, though the left often yells “tax the rich more”, and the right usually moans “businesses (-> employment) are dying”, neither attitude is considered very PC.
What counts the most is how that money is spent.
Spent in the right way, the right place, the right program, with no waste, no fat (an ideal, natch.) The spending has to be coordinated with the private sector, has to follow laid down principles, etc. The money has to be accounted for, the effect must be evaluated, etc.
What I have noticed in the US (and GB), from a *few* visits and talks in schools and hospitals is that many professionals are extremely dedicated and intelligent, well-trained, and willing to give their all. However, they are peculiarly dependent on a host of regulations which they hate, don’t really understand, and can’t anticipate. They live in a world which is chaotic and uncertain, because of that can’t plan for the future; they never coordinate with others, or only sometimes poorly, and have no political clout. They are dependent and subservient, and thus will take what they can get, steal and cheat if needs be.
One example that is easy to understand: many children in the US are poorly fed. These children cost the state a huge amount – they can consult ‘for free’ for illnesses like asthma, allergies, wonky knees, failure to thrive, etc. The specialists who see them generally rake in several hundred dollars an hour. Often, the only thing that can be done (or should be done) is to make out meal plans, and somehow get the caretakers to apply these plans or ‘eating conditions.’ Often, the caretakers simply can’t manage it (single mothers who are not home, etc.) Deadlock. An expensive professional is paid to give granny advice, which cannot be followed. Nobody – neither the single mother, nor the supremely trained medico – can affect the situation and do anything at all for the child.
Another, from an emergency doctor in a big city: some repeat clients ‘cost’ up to a million dollars. (?) “They are shot in the streets (drugs, etc.) and we fix em up – save their lives over and over again”. The emergency ambulance has a staff of 5: highly trained driver, emergency surgeon, male nurse, bodyguard with gun, and photographer who is also responsible for lights, or lighting (in street, collect usable body parts.) An extra person may also be present. The photographer is necessary because no-one else has free hands to take the pix that will be necessary for the inevitable law suits.
bit long, ‘scusi .. the drift is clear.
Posted by: Blackie | Feb 8 2005 19:23 utc | 22
|
