Context is everything when drawing meaningful conclusions from statistics. Consider
this article. The headline: "Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data."
What you all are immediately noticing is that this is a rather meaningless statistic because of inflation and our growing country. While inflation is well understood, accounting for variation in the size (and expense) of the country is much harder. The US Federal budget deficit
as a fraction of GDP is a much more informative statistic.
This data isn't that difficult to find and is much more telling. Consider the 20 years with the largest budget deficit as a fraction of GDP:
Year | Budget Deficit (% of GDP) |
1943 | 28.05 |
1945 | 24.07 |
1944 | 22.35 |
1919 | 16.86 |
1942 | 12.04 |
1918 | 11.88 |
2010 | 10.64 |
2009 | 9.91 |
1865 | 9.75 |
1946 | 9.06 |
1863 | 7.90 |
1862 | 7.35 |
1864 | 6.35 |
1983 | 5.88 |
1985 | 5.03 |
1986 | 4.96 |
1936 | 4.76 |
1984 | 4.72 |
1992 | 4.58 |
1991 | 4.49 |
| |
Thirteen of those years (1942-1946, 1918-1919, 1862-1865, 1991-1992) fall in World War II, World War I, the Civil War, and the Gulf War. (Note that FY1946 e.g.
corresponds to July 1945 - June 1946 - thanks for the correction, walk).
Another four of those years, 1983-1986 were a period of deficit spending under President Ronald Reagan under Reaganomics and an expansion of defense spending to 6% of GDP. I am not entirely sure what the 1936 deficit cause is, though the deficit spending in the Great Depression is a likely candidate.
That the budget deficit over the past two fiscal years has been about 10% of GDP is legitimately disconcerting, and the costs of this must be weighed against the economic benefit of the federal government flooding the economy with cash. My knowledge of economics is too limited to make a decisive argument on that matter.
However, the article in cnsnews is deliberately and inexcusably misleading; it takes a meaningful and legitimate point of discussion and massively distorts it to better suit its political objective.
CNS News' website states that "CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues." While I haven't surveyed a large body of CNS News articles, describing this article as an "endeavor to fairly present all legitimate sides" is a complete load of bullshit. I should also point out that the article was written by Terence P. Jeffrey, the Editor-In-Chief of CNS News.
Entities that claim to be news organizations have a paramount (though apparently unenforceable) responsibility to present meaningful information. The only arguably meaningful sentence in the entire article is the following: "The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II."
It is unfortunate that while the analysis comparing Obama's budget deficits to absolute historical deficits is entirely without merit, many people reading this will be led to a conclusion that simply isn't supported by the data. This news source may as well drop any masquerade at legitimacy in favor of news articles with headlines like "Obama = bad" and "Opposition to this news source's political agenda is evil."