More fun with statistics and arguments

For the life of me, I can't figure out how Democrats fumbled the messaging on the "Build Back Better" act. No matter the medium, journalists cite the bill as amounting to $3.5 trillion, and that certainly is a figure that grabs your attention.

"Build Back Better" is solid as a title in some ways, but that quick alliterative phrase fails to describe any of the benefits that Americans might gain upon passage. I'm sure it sounded great in some brainstorming session, where everyone in the room was well-acquainted with the details of the bill. 

In my writing classes, we discuss over and over the importance of imagining our audience clearly and making certain we organize our arguments to appeal to that audience. At this point in the lengthy conversation in D.C., the audience appears to be BOTH moderate and progressive Democrats (though the president continues to hold out hope for some Republican support).

Ultimately, the audience boils down to two Democratic senators who are standing in the way of the entire bill. Both of them appear to be taking lots of campaign cash from large industries that might lose some revenue as a result of the bill, though no politician likes to be revealed as in thrall to some donors. 

National polling reveals that a large majority of Americans is in favor of all the individual pieces of the larger bill, which adds even more frustration about poor messaging.

But ignoring the merits of the bill, which is easy since so few details are well-known, my true puzzlement grows from the fact that the $3.5 trillion in new spending would be spread over ten years. The reality is that "only" $350 billion would be spent each year. Still a big number but not nearly as outrageous.

And lots of segments in the federal budget cost way more than $350 billion. Social security alone was about $1 trillion.

I am not blaming the media, precisely, though journalists tend to be terrible with math, statistics, budgets, etc. The audience for most media is usually the largest possible, so details and complexity tend to be passed over in favor of more simplicity. No offense to the average American newspaper reader, for instance, but most papers try to write at a middle school reading level (just in case). 

That target reader choice sounds much dumber as many who are not accomplished readers and thinkers can while away hours on social media, YouTube, and online games. Newspapers, after all, are way behind Facebook as a source of news for many Americans.

That puts the onus on those attempting to pass large programs to provide more accessible language for the media.

I don't have an easy fix for Democrats, but perhaps something that keeps pounding on the ANNUAL investments and the projected benefits EACH YEAR for a broad array of voters might help.

Or perhaps we could all check out some math. Total federal expenditures in FY 2019 were about $4.4 trillion. Adding $350 billion to that total adds about 8 percent in total spending.

Again, not a small amount. But most of us can actually wrap our heads around adding 8 percent to, say, a gallon of gas. I saw a station with $3.56 per gallon yesterday, and that cost would go up about 28 cents if the price rose by 8 percent. 

I'm not suggesting manipulating statistical truth here. I am simply reminding us that we need to consider our audience when we make arguments.

I can imagine some citizens who might be OK with learning about the details of "Build Back Better" once they could accept 8 percent as the actual annual budget increase.