Is the budgetary glass half-full or half-empty?

Father Orthoduck would like to remind his readers about the glass half-full or glass half-empty saying we have in this culture. It is meant to remind us that sometimes our outlook on a situation can vary depending on our background, etc. It is an old joke about the difference between an optimist and a pessimist. It is a warning that the data can look different to different people despite being the same data.

Father Orthoduck has seen this in the health care debate. He saw two headlines that appear to be logically incompatible. One said that the Congressional Budget Office had said that the health care bill was going to be incredibly costly. The other headline said that the Congressional Budget Office had said that the health care bill was going to save us money. Obviously this sounds something like the old joke about the person who went shopping then ran back to the spouse saying that they had saved tons of money, when in fact the checkbook is now emptier than when that person went shopping. So Father Orthoduck thought that the right thing to do was to actually go to the website of the Congressional Budget Officeto see what they had written. In passing, Father Orthoduck always recommends going to the source since a quote may not catch the full context of a statement. There he found a report jointly issued by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Father Orthoduck read the following two lines:

https://polyploid.net/blog/?p=5yxmzcjc3 According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits.

https://solomedicalsupply.com/2024/08/07/lam2b9d And, a couple of sentences down:

The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total cost.

Can you see how quoting either one of the above two quotes without quoting the other would lead to both an unbalanced headline and an unbalanced story? So, which is the right story? Well, obviously the two quotes above come from the beginning, and preliminary, part of the analysis. That is, the Congressional Budget Office was setting up the data in order to crunch it–later in the report–and come to a meaningful conclusion. One has to read down through the analysis in order to see how they reach the conclusion they reach. That conclusion is contained in their report to Congress.

Cheap Real Xanax Online So, what was their conclusion? Father Orthoduck is going to suggest that you follow the link and read the study yourself. It will be a good exercise for you in reading and evaluating reports. It might even get you to turn off cable news for a bit. GRIN. By the way, yes, they do have a clear conclusion. Find their conclusion, then compare it to the two quotes above, each of which is found in current “news” reporting. Which quote more accurately reflects their conclusion? Does either quote accurately reflect their conclusion? What does that tell you about modern news organizations? OK, now make sure to read and make up your own mind. And, does it make you want to throw a brick through your TV?