Fallacy of the Day : Culprit NYT

Shame on the NYT for poor reporting. Kudos to Matt Yglesias.

Says the NYT:

To pay all scheduled benefits over the next 75 years, the government would have to raise an additional $4 trillion in today's dollars, $300 billion higher than the figure projected last year.

This is an interesting one, it refers to an estimate that appears to have changed. In reality, it is just the value of the dollar dropping. The estimate was and is 3.7 trillion in 2004 dollars. I went to fallacy files to try to classify exactly what they would call this, (fallacy of ambiguity, in the term dollar or higher?). I don't have time at the moment to really dig into it, but I did find a perfect parallel.

Gas prices are higher than ever, no? Well that depends on how you view it. In today's dollars gasoline was over $3.00 a gallon in 1981.

Of course inflation (the gasoline example) is a normal phenomenon, a few percent per year. The dopping dollar (2004 -> 2005) is a bit more concerning. As the dollar continues to fall, expect it to get worse. Conservatives have been quick to point out that there are benefits to a falling dollar. I used to presume they meant more competitive exports, but having social programs become too expensive is another boon to them.