[dude1394]

Another quite interesting graph on the federal deficit versus GDP.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...l-deficit.html

Over the years, we've gone from a record deficit of 6% of GDP (in 1983 under Reagan) to a record surplus of 2.4% (in 2000 under Clinton). In 2005, the year that had the attention of that hysterical Washington Post reporter, the deficit was historically typical (about 2.6% of GDP). But that's not what Jonathan Weisman told his readers. He said "Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005." 2005 was not even close to a record in proper terms (i.e., in terms of the GDP), and 2006 is projected to come in even lower, at about 2.3%. Sheesh!

The last 6 points on the plot show the Bush years. Things were in free fall in years 2001, 2002 and 2003 after reaching a nice surplus in 2000 (Clinton's last year in office). As I noted before, these are the years that were affected by both the dot-com crash and the 9/11 attacks (not to mention the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). As the economy has rebounded, the deficit numbers have returned to typical levels, and, as you can plainly see, they are nowhere near the record-setting deficits that reporters love to fret about.

It could be that the return of deficit spending, coupled with news reports that focus solely on the absolute size of the deficit (which leaves readers with the impression that the deficit is unprecedented) accounts for the sour mood. Is it too much ask that reporters who write about the federal deficit do so in a way that clarifies rather than misleads? Probably. But if they did, I suspect that the next Gallup poll on the economy would show Americans to be in a better mood.