« Demand for Bloomberg surges! | Main | A test of the "RATS" effect »

January 23, 2008

Comments

If the Administration presents averages, you complain that averages are misleading. However, if instead of presenting averages the Administration presents examples, you complain that the examples are "selectively chosen."

It appears the only way the Administration can satisfy you is simply to stop presenting any arguments at all and let the Democrats and Paul Krugman monopolize the public conversation.

And btw, has it occurred to you that all examples are selectively chosen? When the Democrats rolled out a child with a particularly poignant history to argue for S-CHIP, did you criticize them for presenting a selectively chosen example? I must have missed that post.

The use of percentages in the quote is highly misleading as well. If you aren't paying attention or, if you're like me and not so great in math, you'll end up thinking that the poor elderly couple will end up paying $1000,000 in taxes on their $40,000 salary...the single mom (in my number-poor imagination) is paying over $50,000 on her $30,000 salary.

Of course that's not what Krugman means. He means that if the working mom was paying 22% now, she would be paying 36% (an increase in 14%). It's still a substantial figure if correct (and I have my doubts) but it doesn't raise nearly as many alarms as 67%.

edit: $100,000 not $1000,000 (whatever that is) my admitted weakness in numbers is exacerbated by typos.

The comments to this entry are closed.