The Post has a discussion of some of the bills facing the Department of Homeland Security. Needless to say, none of its readers will be able to make any sense of it. We are told that the total budget for the department is $38 billion, which is meaningful to about 100 budget wonks (It's about 1.2 percent of the total budget or $130 per person, per year), but it gets worse. We are told that to have effect screening of bags, it will cost $22 billion over 16 years. Presumably this is a one time expenditure? Is it adjusted for inflation? Can anyone make sense of this number? The article includes other cost figures, which will also be meaningless to almost anyone who reads them. How about expressing the numbers on airport security costs as a ratio of total spending on air transportation, after all that is the sector that should pay the burden? Why do reporters engage in this ritual of using numbers in ways that are meaningless to almost anyone who sees them? Why do editors allow this? BTP challenge -- do you know anyone who could make sense of these budget numbers who doesn't do budget work as their day job?
--Dean Baker
