NYTimes Budget App

Peter Keane

Well, on further consideration I am starting to think this visualization, snazzy as it is, is more harmful than helpful. It's simply misleading to think that there is any logical basis at all for any of the selections I made. Am I such an expert on military readiness that I know when budgets there can be slashed? Are some lured in by the opportunity to click a money-saving button to "cap" Medicare aware of the implications for an aging population? We make these selections with only a vague notion of the values we think each represent. But do they, really, and how do we know? E.g., there are some very smart folks out there (like Diane Ravitch) making a compelling case that current education "reform" is doing severe and unecessary damage to our system of public education. I'm quite convinced it is true, and I am sure others as passionate about the need & value of public education feel the exact opposite. So what does a vote for/against education funding mean?

I do think that any implication that these are cut-and-dried questions that your political affiliation should make perfectly clear is v. dangerous. It's why I find the emotion-laden political atmosphere right now particularly dangerous (I suspect there'd be a strong correlation between one's favorite news organization and the selections made on the budget tool). Something else is needed -- partly more in-depth analysis (but isn't that what NYTimes is attempting here?), and partly a frank conversation about what it means -- what are the values that drive our decisions and what sort of society we want to be.

Federal budget discussions are nothing but a lightning rod for our gut feelings (or the received wisdom of our chosen social affiliations). Actually, there are only two things that need to be considered: 1. what is going to take for our economy to work most effectively, and 2. what does it mean for our economy to "work effectively" (and for whom). Honestly, its going to require trained economists & other experts to figure out #1, but every decision there is going to be laden w/ the values implied by the answer to #2. Of course, there are huge issues about what is/isn't political feasible, when are resulting half-measures worse than no measures, etc. That was the gut-wrenching problem with the Health Care debate. We got something nobody likes. (All things considered, I'll bet it is far prefereable to the alternative of doing nothing).

In terms of getting things on the right track, I think we need to talk a lot more about #2 -- what values infuse our society (or what can we agree on). If we don't agree, where are we willing to compromise (and who are we willing to leave out). The problem right now as I see it, which I think Jon Stewart's rally was effective in pointing out, is that we are NOT having that conversation, because it is being drowned out by the chatter of advertising-driven big media. they seem to be very very good at controlling the tone of discourse in such a way that we (who just want some entertainment) keep coming back.

One other side note re: budgets. Why do we constantly address inefficiency w/ budget cuts? It plays well, but it's just bad policy. Some areas are by their nature extremely messy and inefficient, with a complex set of forces at play that are very hard to quantify (esp. education and health care). You want to educate the population and treat your sick and elderly? It is going to cost. Sure, some efficiencies might (and should) be found, but those may be marginal.

Other areas are hugely inefficent and are absolutely ripe for improvement. I'd put the tech industry (my field) front and center. There are huge gains to be made in defense and goverment operations in this area. But the political will is not there -- the Microsofts and Oracles, etc. are too connected (some say the health care industry biggies were as well in that area). My fervent hope is that the Microsoft Kinect game console is so hugely popular that the company morphs into a gaming operation and swaps their operating system for something Linux-based and their office suite w/ something OpenOffice-based. One can hope....

Anyway, back to values. Why are we looking to big media to get a sense of our shared values (Stewart & Olbermann for some, Hannity & O'Reilly for others). Are those our communities? I'm not exactly sure what they are. I'm feeling fairly anti-tech utopianism these days, but I do find myself surprised by the pleasant sense of connectedness that Facebook and Twitter sometimes offer. I used to get that from usenet or various listserves, but these seem a bit more democratic (less pure-techie). Of course flame-wars, trolling, etc. are not so useful and are, I am sure, partly enabled by the lack of face-to-faceness in these mediums.

I suspect that conversation about values (#2 above) will need to start (and probably has) somewhere else -- in the arts, perhaps say, at a music festival or art opening. Maybe churches can offer that, too (although I'm personally horrified at churches that seem bent on demonizing the "other"). I have no idea really. But ultimately, watching a clip from the Late Show or filling out "my federal budget plan" ends up feeling pretty empty.