One of the few college textbooks I still hold onto is a small volume by Darrell Huff called How to Lie With Statistics. It’s a humorous book that tells you how to make numbers say anything you want them to say. I was in Washington, DC last weekend, thinking about Mr. Huff and his book as I was reading the Washington Post.
It seems that back in 1995, the Republicans were taking an awful pasting by the Democrats over Medicare funding. The Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats wailed, wanted to cut funding for medical care for our nation’s senior citizens.
To answer these charges, the Republican National Committee took out full-page ads in USA Today. The ads showed then-Republican National Chairman Haley Barbour holding an outsized check for one million dollars. Mr. Barbour said the Republican Party intended to increase Medicare spending by more than half between 1995 and 2002 and promised to pay one million dollars to anyone who could prove him wrong.
Turns out 80 people took Mr. Barbour up on his challenge. Predictably, the GOP declared none of the challengers’ claims were valid and refused to pay anyone. Just as predictably, the challengers sued and now the whole matter rests in that most American of institutions, civil court.
The case has not yet been decided, so I’m going to give you the opportunity to play “Judge for a Day,” based on the evidence presented in last Saturday’s Washington Post. Let me apologize in advance for all these numbers.
The Republican case goes like this: under the 1995 Republican budget bill, Medicare spending is scheduled to increase from 178 billion dollars in 1995 to 289 billion dollars in 2002, for an increase of 112 billion dollars. Since 112 billion dollars is approximately 62 percent of 178 billion, the GOP argues their bill will increase Medicare funding by more than half. Do you agree? Don’t decide just yet.
The plaintiffs present a variety of arguments, but we will look at just one. Under the Republican bill, the federal government will spend 1.427 trillion dollars on Medicare for the entire seven-year period from 1995 to 2002. But if the Republican bill had not passed and the pre-existing law had controlled Medicare spending, the total for the same seven-year period would be 1.692 trillion dollars. In other words, instead of increasing Medicare spending by 112 billion dollars, the plaintiff argues Republicans will reduce Medicare spending by 265 billion dollars.
So, who wins? I pulled out my copy of How to Lie with Statistics and found that what is going on here is called “shifting the base.” The Republicans base their numbers on only the narrow universe of their bill; the plaintiff compares the Republican bill to an alternate reality that might have been. I have my own opinion of who’s right and who’s wrong, but I don’t want to spoil your fun.
I will, however, say this. I think it’s ridiculous that what should be serious political discourse about our collective future should take on the trappings of Publishers’ Clearinghouse.
And while it is the Republicans who are wearing egg over this particular incident, next week it will be the Democrats cooking the books. And they wonder why our kids do so poorly on math tests.
Finally, the most important lesson from all this, is that we’ve either a) got to get a national health care system that works or b) we’d all better start tucking a couple of sawbucks under the mattress.
How to Lie with Statistics
One of the few college textbooks I still hold onto is a small volume by Darrell Huff called How to Lie With Statistics. It’s a humorous book that tells you how to make numbers say anything you want them to say. I was in Washington, DC last weekend, thinking about Mr. Huff and his book as I was reading the Washington Post.
It seems that back in 1995, the Republicans were taking an awful pasting by the Democrats over Medicare funding. The Republican-controlled Congress, the Democrats wailed, wanted to cut funding for medical care for our nation’s senior citizens.
To answer these charges, the Republican National Committee took out full-page ads in USA Today. The ads showed then-Republican National Chairman Haley Barbour holding an outsized check for one million dollars. Mr. Barbour said the Republican Party intended to increase Medicare spending by more than half between 1995 and 2002 and promised to pay one million dollars to anyone who could prove him wrong.
Turns out 80 people took Mr. Barbour up on his challenge. Predictably, the GOP declared none of the challengers’ claims were valid and refused to pay anyone. Just as predictably, the challengers sued and now the whole matter rests in that most American of institutions, civil court.
The case has not yet been decided, so I’m going to give you the opportunity to play “Judge for a Day,” based on the evidence presented in last Saturday’s Washington Post. Let me apologize in advance for all these numbers.
The Republican case goes like this: under the 1995 Republican budget bill, Medicare spending is scheduled to increase from 178 billion dollars in 1995 to 289 billion dollars in 2002, for an increase of 112 billion dollars. Since 112 billion dollars is approximately 62 percent of 178 billion, the GOP argues their bill will increase Medicare funding by more than half. Do you agree? Don’t decide just yet.
The plaintiffs present a variety of arguments, but we will look at just one. Under the Republican bill, the federal government will spend 1.427 trillion dollars on Medicare for the entire seven-year period from 1995 to 2002. But if the Republican bill had not passed and the pre-existing law had controlled Medicare spending, the total for the same seven-year period would be 1.692 trillion dollars. In other words, instead of increasing Medicare spending by 112 billion dollars, the plaintiff argues Republicans will reduce Medicare spending by 265 billion dollars.
So, who wins? I pulled out my copy of How to Lie with Statistics and found that what is going on here is called “shifting the base.” The Republicans base their numbers on only the narrow universe of their bill; the plaintiff compares the Republican bill to an alternate reality that might have been. I have my own opinion of who’s right and who’s wrong, but I don’t want to spoil your fun.
I will, however, say this. I think it’s ridiculous that what should be serious political discourse about our collective future should take on the trappings of Publishers’ Clearinghouse.
And while it is the Republicans who are wearing egg over this particular incident, next week it will be the Democrats cooking the books. And they wonder why our kids do so poorly on math tests.
Finally, the most important lesson from all this, is that we’ve either a) got to get a national health care system that works or b) we’d all better start tucking a couple of sawbucks under the mattress.