What's wrong (or at least misleading) with this graph?

[Stinky The Clown]

Have a look at the graph, below. What is wrong with (either) the data or the presentation? (Hint: I think it is the presentation.)

The U.S. Government: An insurance conglomerate protected by a large, standing army
By Ezra Klein

American politics is one long argument about what government should or shouldn’t be doing, and how it should or shouldn’t be doing it. It’s rare that we step back, take in the larger picture and ask what it is doing. The release of the president’s proposed 2012 budget is a good time to do that. If you want to know what the federal government is really doing, just look where it’s spending our money.

Two of every five dollars goes to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, all of which provide some form of insurance. A bit more than a buck goes to the military. Then there’s a $1.50 or so for assorted other programs -- education, infrastructure, environmental protection, farm subsidies, etc. Some of that, like unemployment checks and food stamps, is also best understood insurance spending. And then there’s another 40 cents of debt repayment. Calvin Coolidge once said that the business of America is business. Well, the business of the American government is insurance. Literally. If you look at how the federal government spends our money, it’s an insurance conglomerate protected by a large, standing army.

But you wouldn’t know it to listen to the debate over the budget. When House Republicans talk about cutting spending and the Obama administration talks about freezing spending, neither group is talking about the vast expanse of the government’s commitments. They’re looking at a small corner of the budget, the 12.3 percent known as non-defense discretionary spending. The stuff that’s not Medicare, not Medicaid, not Social Security or the military. It’s the odds-and-ends, so to speak.

And it’s a bad place to focus cuts. Politicians don’t take the axe to non-defense discretionary spending because they think Teach for America or the food safety infrastructure -- both of which the Republicans are proposing to cut dramatically -- is more wasteful than the Pentagon or the health-care system. They do it because Teach for America and the food safety system is less politically powerful than the Pentagon or Medicare beneficiaries. The budget ends up like the yard of a man who owns only a lawnmower: The grass is trim, but the trees are overgrown and the ivy is everywhere and the gazebo is falling apart. Yet we keep mowing, because that’s what we feel able to do.

>snip< More at this link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/the_us_government_an_insurance.html

[Tunkamerica]

1. well, tarp's not on there...

[alsame]

4. It's that tiny green sliver between insurance and other. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Actually, it is . . . between "Other" and "Insurance"

It is a very thin slice, but it is there. I have no idea why Tarp is broken out, but its there.

[Hannah Bell]

2. Number one: Social Security is not part of the general budget/not funded via the income tax.

The chart makes it appear that it's part of general spending. It's not. It's an indpendent program with its own dedicated revenue stream.

Fuck the locusts.

[xchrom]

3. +1

[bluethruandthru]

5. +10000

[alsame]

6. Deliberate confusion to make the cuts seem necessary. nt

[FreakinDJ]

7. They should show the amount of SS Surplus going to the Gen Fund

[Stinky The Clown]

10. And we have an early winner!!!!

In celebration of your win:



Sadly, the facts behind this are not worth celebrating at all . . . . unless you're the financier of a right wing think tank bent on conflating two money streams separated by US Law.

[social_critic]

11. Excellent point

The guy is mixing apples and oranges. Also, it tends to dilute military spending. If we take out the Social Security and Medicare slices, then military spending can be seen to be a bloated monstrosity.

[jtrockville]

12. Yes, that jumped out at me too.

[jeff47]

16. The chart is not a listing of all spending funded by income tax

It's all spending. As such it should include SS.

[Hannah Bell]

17. no, it shouldn't. it's not part of "all spending". its funding comes from a dedicated

tax stream that is wholly separate from the taxes that fund other government spending.

lumping ss with other government spending funded by the income tax is profoundly dishonest.

[jeff47]

18. Um....how is it not part of all spending?

It's money that the government spends. The source of the money is irrelevant for this chart. The chart includes money collected from tariffs, for example.

This chart is not "spending from the general fund". It is government spending. ALL government spending.

[Hannah Bell]

20. i think i was clear.

[jeff47]

23. No, you simply declared it as a fact

One that's obviously false to boot.

The money is spent by the government. The funding source doesn't change that the money is spent.

[mmonk]

19. SSShhhhhhhh!

You're screwing with the deceptions of corporatism.

[handmade34]

9. other??

[HopeHoops]

13. The colors are really gross. That's just SO wrong.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Hmpf ...... seems like .....

[DavidDvorkin]

15. A lot of military spending is hidden in the budgets of other gov't departments

and agencies - NASA, Agriculture, and so on. Not to mention "off-budget" spending.

The real share of military spending is far larger than such charts ever show.

[hfojvt]

21. it would not surprise me

if they threw in military retirement and military medical with social security in that graph.

I need to check another source.

[BlueCheese]

22. I tend to avoid Ezra Klein.

He's too big of an apologist for the administration and frequently either doesn't know what he's talking about, or is being deliberately disingenuous.