Source: Yuval Levin at NRO.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more great content just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Given that the main goal was averting a course change I’m not surprised. But those two line do need to cross sometime soon.
This graph makes me want to liquidate my portfolio of government bonds and invest the proceeds in cases of Pork & Beans, 50-lb. bags of rice and 1,000-round surplus boxes of .223 ammo for my old AR-15!
Maybe I’ll use my tax refund to purchase an old “off the grid” cabin made out of straw bales I saw advertised in Ruidoso, New Mexico. Instead of calling it my Y2Kabin, it my Fiscal Cliff Dwelling.
What Studebaker says, except I’d prefer an AR-10.
Utterly mind boggling.
Studebaker, I’ll bring my home-made water purifier and lifetime supply of hand sanitizer!
Please note that the graph is deceptive in that it does not extend the Y-axis down to 0%. By showing only 10-26% on the Y-axis, you made the difference between the lines seem much larger.
@CarolLivingstone: That would just create junk space. It has no little lightning line to 0%, each bar accounts for 2%, and the percentages are clearly marked, so I’d say it’s sound. I get why you’d want to have the bottom zero and see how close it is to “doubling” the other figure, but that would make already minute changes even more minute — THEN they’d be accused of being unfair by making the blue and red lines imperceptible when they could have shown a slight difference. Since 18% is the historical norm for revenue to GDP and it never really deviates much (still around 18% when our top marginal tax rates were around 90%), it makes absolute sense and fairness to put 18% in the middle, and “zoom in” as far as you can whilst still seeing the entire green line, which looks a lot like that above.
Get Health Alerts by Email: