There seems to be a new trend in economic reporting: publish accompanying charts that contradict the main point of your article. The WSJ did this last week when it whined about the growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in an article, but was polite enough to include a chart showing that SS growth is actually projected to be relatively modest, while the growth of Medicare and Medicaid is projected to go through the roof. The NYT followed the same practice today in talking about the "record" deficit of $413 billion in 2004, which may be surpassed by the $410 billion deficit now projected for the current year. I would be fuming that the deficit in 2004 was considerably smaller than the records hit in the 80s, measured as a share of GDP, even if we included the money borrowed from the SS trust fund. I would also point out that the deficit projected for 2009 is considerably smaller as a share of GDP than the 2004 deficit, because nominal GDP has grown by almost 30 percent over this period. (Although the money borrowed from SS has also increased, so that difference in the "on-budget" deficits, measured as a share of GDP, is not as large.) But, you don't need BTP to make these points, the NYT was good enough to show the deficit measured as a share of GDP (not including the money borrowed from SS) in a chart accompanying the article. Those who understand the charts may wonder what the article is talking about, but at least the information is there.
--Dean Baker
