Thursday, October 11, 2012

Tell Me What You Want To Hear

Thank You to Time Magazine and reporters Alex Altman and Alex Rogers for the idea and some content.

Tell Me What You Want To Hear

When it comes to politics, believing is seeing. Partisan Republicans see Barack Obama as dishonest; partisan Democrats see Mitt Romney the same way. Voters see candidates they support as truth tellers; they regard candidates they oppose as shadier

Conservative friends of mine who believe the government is in a desperate, non-stop spiral into socialism, read material from authors who believe the same way. Similarly, most liberal friends believe our government is strictly a “board of directors” for corporate America, and they lean towards authors who consistently reinforce their views.

We are suffering from a national case of confirmation bias – the idea that we lend credence to information that confirms our opinions and ignore evidence that doesn’t – even in the face of facts.

The most disturbing truth here is not about the falsehoods of any one candidate, but the scientific studies showing that voters with more information are likely to be more biased than those who know less. That is worrisome in a country where government derives its’ powers from the consent of the governed.

Voters in the US have shown less and less interest in punishing candidates who deceive, because those who feel a deeper affinity for one side or another have developed a tendency to forgive the home team’s fibs. No matter their ideology, many voters increasingly inhabit information bubbles in which they are LESS likely to hear their view of the world contradicted.

With almost instant access to any information on the planet, why do we only seek out the information that reinforces our own belief system?

My paternal grandfather’s politics leaned a little left, but he read things from all over the spectrum. He said, “to make an intelligent decision you have to have perspective, and to have perspective, you have to know what EVERYONE is up to.” Not anymore.

We’ve become a country of people who choose our media based on its’ ability to reinforce our foundation of beliefs. We’ve stopped collecting news that informs us, and collecting only news that affirms us. It used to be that we disagreed on the solution but at least agreed on the problem. Now we don’t even agree on the problem.

All of this contributes to an environment in which voters simply filter out unwanted facts, and political discourse is reduced to screaming loudly at each other across the street.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Poor U.S. Math Skills and a Balanced U.S. Budget

Poor U.S. math skills allow frantic hyperbole by politicians...film at 11 (or maybe 12?).

Lately, the republican and democratic parties have played political badminton with two items each thinks should be cut from the annual federal budget. The democrats want the $4 billion tax breaks to the big oil companies stopped, and the republicans want the money to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting stopped. Everyone is screaming about a balanced budget, but no one seems to be able to figure it out. Well, I'm no genius, but I'm going to give it a shot.

Here are the official numbers for the United States 2012 Federal Budget

CATEGORY                      REQUESTED       ENACTED
Total Revenue                 $2.627 trillion     $2.469 trillion
Total Expenditures           $3.729 trillion     $3.796 trillion
Deficit                            $1.101 trillion     $1.327 trillion

The $445 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is 0.01175 percent of Total Expenditures.

The $4 billion in tax breaks to big oil is 0.1055 percent of Total Expenditures.

Some context:
Defense budget: $676 billion
State Department budget for Afghanistan: $2.3 billion
State Department budget for Iraq: $1.0 billion
Amtrak federal capital grants and operating subsidies: $1.4 billion
Federal office space acquisition budget: $864 million

For you math weenies, here’s what should have happened...

The government should have taken the amount of Total Revenue Enacted and divided it by the amount of Total Expenditures Enacted. This gives us a percentage of 65%. Then, they should have then reduced EACH AND EVERY single line item in the budget by 40%, which would have given us a balanced budget for 2012, and left over 5% ($123.5 B) to begin reducing the national debt.

This would result in...
Defense budget: $405.6 billion
State Department budget for Afghanistan: $1.38 billion
State Department budget for Iraq: $600 million
Amtrak federal capital grants and operating subsidies: $840 million
Federal office space acquisition budget: $518.4 million

and...
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $267 million
Tax breaks to big oil: $2.4 billion

Seems really simple to me. How about you?