Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
The story I posted yesterday quotes the budget as saying that it "does not include expected but undetermined additional costs arising from ongoing military operations in Iraq, extending beyond 2004." What did the Director of OMB say that would change this?
|
Nothing. That is the point. The fact that the numbers are not included is disclosed, so there is not an attempt to mislead. Ty, here is the writing you requested.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience I'm sort of sad I brought the "actively misleading" thing into this, because as SAM notes this raises some particularly sharp hackles around here. My point that it takes a verrry creative accountant to both squint at the numbers and make a 40% decrease or whatever into "reduced by half" and then to fail to acknowledge that the deficit reduction projection is based on ignoring a contingent liability that is apparently estimated to be up to 10% of the deficit number.
|
I admit, I haven't looked closely enough to calculate the actual percentage reduction. If it is indeed 40%, they should say that. If it's 46%, I'm comfortable with rounding up. In any event, the budget director said that the percentage reduction will not be materially affected by any additional Iraq spending.
Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Having watched the contortions that private companies undergo in order to avoid making imprecise statements of their own performance, it is interesting to watch the admin head in a different direction. I guess 10b-5 is a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of thing.
|
Funny you should mention this. I have thought about the same thing when it comes to statements made by politicians. I think it would be a great rule.
