Data and Common Sense Be Damned

The Oregon Center for Public Policy's Charles Sheketoff discusses economists, twisted logic and timber payments.

(SILVERTON, Ore.) - The Cascade Policy Institute's most recent paper assessing states' spending levels reminds me of an old joke about an economist, a doctor and a lawyer stuck in a deep hole. The doctor couldn't operate his way out. The lawyer couldn't argue his way out. But the economist had a solution, or so he said. "Assume we have a ladder. . . ."

Economic models are only as good as the assumptions on which they rest, and sometimes economists are so blinded by their ideologies that they don't notice when their models produce meaningless fantasies. The study by economists Eric Fruits and Randall Pozdena, published by the Cascade Policy Institute, is a good example. Their study predicts spending levels for states and compares their predictions with actual spending data.

Odd results for some states, however, reveal that the authors' zeal to show somehow that Oregon and other states spend too much led them to use false assumptions, bad math, or both.

For example, why should anyone rely upon their predictions for Oregon and other states when they claim that the District of Columbia overspends on public health and public hospitals by a whopping 23,800 percent?

That would be like a doctor saying to a 180-pound man, "Based on my model, you are overweight by a little more than 179 pounds." If the doctor's predictor was that far off, wouldn't she or he realize that there could be a flaw in the model? Would you want that doctor to predict your ideal weight?

Not so with the dismal scientists Pozdena and Fruits and their megaphones at Cascade. To them, Washington, D.C., must be "overspending" by 23,800 percent. The ideological model says so, data be damned.

They didn't bother investigating why their prediction was so far off. In fact, they didn't bother investigating any of the absurd numbers that appear in virtually every category in which they rank the states. Why bother actually thinking, when blindly following ideology is so much easier?

Apart from their indefensible numbers, the two economists and Cascade ignore common sense questions such as: "What do the residents of the states get for the spending?" and "What level of services is needed to ensure that all residents have an opportunity to succeed?"

Their study ranks states' spending regardless of the quality or quantity of public services the states provide. That's like being told that you spent too much on groceries because your neighbor spent less. To these economists and Cascade, the only thing that matters is that your neighbor's junk food was cheaper than your healthy square meals; they don't care about the nutritional value for the dollars spent.

Their ideological bias is also obvious when they declare in relation to health and hospital expenditures, "Oregon's overspending declined since the last study largely because the intervening recession prompted substantial reductions in spending on the Oregon Health Plan." In the strange world where Pozdena, Fruits and Cascade dwell, an increasing number of uninsured Oregonians is apparently an indicator of good state fiscal health.

But their analysis isn't just strange; it's fundamentally flawed. The Census Bureau data that they used does not include most Oregon Health Plan spending in the public health and public hospital spending category that Fruits and Pozdena used to make their claim. They didn't even bother to learn this basic, crucial fact about the data they were analyzing. They jumped to a conclusion that fit their ideology, data be damned.

And that's not all that's odd about the report. The authors' analysis includes the federal dollars a state spends, not just state tax dollars. Thus, they chastise a state for using federal dollars to supplement state tax dollars in order to provide better state services or for securing a greater share of federal tax dollars than another state.

Based on their twisted logic, we can expect Oregon's ranking to "improve" in their next report, now that Congress has cut off federal timber payments to our cash-strapped rural counties. That counties must slash spending on roads, courts, libraries and public safety is "good," according to the ideological model used by Pozdena, Fruits and Cascade.

Oregonians deserve a more rigorous fiscal policy debate than what the Fruits, Pozdena and Cascade model offers. Would you want to end up in a 10-foot-deep hole without a ladder with these economists advising you? It could end up being 2,390 feet deep after they crunch the numbers.

Charles Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You may reach him at csheketoff@ocpp.org.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark July 14, 2008 11:23 am (Pacific time)

To all: Don't miss the main point here; has nothing to do with attack on Sheketoff OR my response. BUT everything to do with trusted agency distorting arithmetic and data for its own political purposes. YOU check out story and see where it takes YOU; check out agency involved, too, and see if you AGREE or not with Dr. Sheketoff. THAT's what this is all about; NOT my response, but undue, ignorant, insensitive response from "others", when "see with own eyes" and evaluate "with own mind" surely called for, to guarantee our own economic survival. SO apply YOUR own curiousity for your own salvation...

Henry Ruark July 14, 2008 9:52 am (Pacific time)

Simon Says et al: One small ethical point remains here: You will, of course, supply me with full ID of any website on which you post a negative or any statement re my work. Here we do any such right out in the open, inviting any reply from those involved, and seek only something other than b/b-massage as well as full ID for credibility reasons. To do otherwise is to subscribe to covert character assassination. Is that your intent ? If NOT, list and relay any statements made and where they are made. Otherwise you assume for yourselves precisely what fascistic dictatorship has used over the past century. S --again !!-- put up or shut up --truly, "the American way" ever since the Federalist Papers amazed the world-then.

Henry Ruark July 14, 2008 7:52 am (Pacific time)

Siman Says et al: Seems you cannot somehow "assume" ladder long and deep enough to climb out of hole you wrote yourself into... Direct-invitation still open for any rational, reasonable continuing dialog, if you ever reconstruct that ladder. If you need clue re "ladder" re-read strong, honest report from Sheketoff revealing both distortion and intention in content-covered, in his first eleven pghs. OR is it English language that gives you such trouble ?

Henry Ruark July 13, 2008 3:34 pm (Pacific time)

Simon Says et al: Your key-phrase is: "...all clear thinking people would also come to the same conclusion." You fail to state any way to measure, for sure, who is "clear thinking", so I must assume you expect answer from your b/b or similar. Which is precisely WHY we use "see with own eyes" and evaluate "with own mind", as in Op Ed with documentation offered, here. SO let's extend that personal/professional invitation offered earlier" DO your OWN Op Ed stating your opposing views to any one of my Op Eds, with your OWN choice of national-source documentation --and let's open it to view-and-evaluation by any and all readership. Fair enough ? Should be --it's precisely the same working situation the writers of the Federalist Papers chose, in their time. So, once again: Put up or shut up. You might for instance rebut the points-made in the Sheketoff article, since that was the source of mine when it was scurrillously attacked by hide-behind-tree Commenteers. That would keep us both tuned to content of thread here, so obviously astray in this set of silly situations imposed by that totally unfouned scurrillous attack.

Henry Ruark July 13, 2008 1:46 pm (Pacific time)

Simon Says et al: Always wishing to be helpful, will state for you survey I mentioned was ten-year Annual Report On Annual Photography, ran in Functional, Technical and Studio Photography magazines published by PTN Corp. IF you so sharp, can find easily without further info; IF not, you will not be able to publish year-and-editor's name, which I challenge you to do, right here in S-N. Again, fair enough ? Put up or shut up...

Henry Ruark July 13, 2008 1:30 pm (Pacific time)

(Sorry for inadvertent end to comment...here's rest !) " ...damned to you, sir ! But first come out from behind that tree, with full ID for all to see...fair enough ?

Henry Ruark July 13, 2008 1:28 pm (Pacific time)

Simon et al: IF I'm staffer to whom you refer, please consider this my personal/professional invitation to you to ID self to Editor Tim immediately, so we can establish direct contact and exchange responsible, accountable background for precisely the kind of dialog you ignore here via single-name and lack of any such credibility for our readers. Mine is on record in Staff section; where's yours ? If you wish to supply some other source than non-ID'd belly-button feelings in place of documentation from authoritative sources, don't bother --that's why yours undergoes question here now. If you have something to state to public, with "see with own eyes" sources other than yrownbb, put it into Op Ed, with references checkable by all here --and let the readers evaluate what you offer with own minds, as they are free to do with my stuff, which I never publish without full ID and accountability. That's known as honest, open, demo-dialog, on the public record. SO, friend Simon Says, put up or shut up. Re your fearful threat of public record via other web sites, "been there, done that" several times, and managed to survive...in fact one such was what set me up with one editor for whom I then did te-year series of national surveys. Fire away, and be damned to you, sir !!

Simon July 13, 2008 8:02 am (Pacific time)

Evidently you have problems with poster comments, but not with me, that post you did not publish was my first on this site. I simply did not agree with your staff member's viewpoint, as I believe all clear thinking people would also come to the same conclusion. I have looked up several of this individual's past stories and see that he goes on an insulting tirade against all those who disagree with him, along with saying they should provide full identification. Well in the immediate future there will be a complete public record on this staff member at numerous websites. I hope he enjoys and appreciates the trouble and expense getting this objective and complete info out as per his own request for others. Full public record! Nothing more and nothing less. Let others see and evaluate just what he is! Peace and good will to all. Simon Sayers

Simon July 11, 2008 3:26 am (Pacific time)

This is my first time at this website and...

Editgor: This guy visits all the time and leaves comments frequently. Another liar!

Henry Ruark July 10, 2008 7:58 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Perhaps final word on allathis should be: "Assume we have an opinion..."

Henry Ruark July 10, 2008 6:23 pm (Pacific time)

Josh, Pat et al: Latest key phrase by Josh is: "...reflects not only the values of the majority of Americans, but also reflects the Founding Father's values as well. Providing credentials for an opinion of this sort sure goes against what we as a nation are suppose to be." That simply reflects HIS personal interpretation of Founders intentions, with no evidence whatsoever that it is accurate, from historians and others skilled in such interpretation and with open sources he can never match. How does he know how many Americans either agree or disagree ? No way he can check, but others more skilled and with background and experience can do so and make honest interpretation. Last time I looked, "Anon" was not permitted to testify in court; ID required, to establish both good faith AND responsibility, reliability and accountability. Public statement scarifying a noted professional deserves the same level of personal good faith and responsibility --OR do you simply believe in witch-hunt, anonymous accusation, and likeathat ? Do you really believe that's "the American way" ?? !! That's the difference between personal and "informed opinion" based on study, other views from experts, with conclusions from checkable facts you can "see with own eyes". Then you can write an Op Ed, and submit your views, supported via others who also have studied the issue, the only way to prevent "belly-button feeling" from proliferating --which is why we have academia, libraries, and other assorted 21st Century blessings to aid us in protecting our hard-earned liberty from precisely this kind of sublimation and other seductive attack. But when b/b feeling from anyone undisciplined via the necessity to document, share sources, and permit checkable evaluation is foisted off here as responsible, with no accountability due to hide-behind-tree single/name, one must question whether or not that is in the same tradition as the Founders, who spent several years seeking out philosophers from the centuries, and more time in dialog and strong argument, before they considered themselves qualified to make unique suggestions leading to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They signed their stuff, too, using wellknown synanomic names sometimes, but also directly with name. Without some of that process now applied generally, we find ourselves in an era where Bush and cabal were permitted to seduce us into war won only by lying distortion of intel and by massive, corporate funded commercial sales effort. That's what follows from distorted uninformed personal political attack on those who perform professionally in this field. Do you challenge fact that Sheketoff has done just that at OCPP ? If so, cite errors, omissions, other falsities --as he did in his piece !! I noteyou have NOT done so, nor supplied links checkable by others to anything supporting this distorted statement of what Americans really do believe AND DO. Your approach is surely NOT what millions of Americans consider as wise and sustainable --as hundreds of letters every day, to every daily newspaper, signed by the writer, surely demonstrate for "see with own eyes" checking --in case you hadn't noticed. Sorry, guys --this is my last on this issue, since it is obvious what your intention here is, and WHY. Waste of time and effort, so do not bother to ID to Editor Tim for direct. But your participation is richly appreciated --and not only by me, either... !! In a nutshell...which may seem to many as extremely appropriate...gkma...

Josh July 10, 2008 1:21 pm (Pacific time)

Patrick thanks for your below statement. It was clearly stated and reflects not only the values of the majority of Americans, but also reflects the Founding Father's values as well. Providing credentials for an opinion of this sort sure goes against what we as a nation are suppose to be. I guess there are some out there who probably feel we should have a specific background in some area before we can offer any type of an opinion or maybe even be allowed to vote. Fortunately most Americans see that it is the individual that makes our country great, and as we individuals stumble and make mistakes we continue to learn and correct those mistakes. There are those who see the individual as incapable of being successful without government's intervention, thankfully they are starting to diminish in number, but we need to remain vigilant. They seem to pop up when you least expect them. Maybe that's why Pelosi and Reid who currently run Congress are at a 9% improvement level (Rasmussen), which means Americans are learning what big government leaders are all about. Thanks again Patrick.

Henry Ruark July 10, 2008 12:58 pm (Pacific time)

Pat et al: Friend Pat, let's go back to first base. Here's what you wrote: "First of all it is not the governments responsibility or any part of its function to take care of nor insure that you or I have a means to succeed. That is our responsibility, period. Yes, Cascade does have a certain philosophy or "ideology" that they advocate for but so does OCPP - Cascades just happens to follow the model in which this great country was founded upon and OCPP's is just the opposite. Next time you decide to write a piece directly pointed at a specific organization or individual rather than dealing with specific facts, please be honest about what your purpose is and provide some facts." Been editing for 50 years; when I checked Sheketoff piece he offered solid fact for eleven detailed paragraphs --whole point of his piece-- doing arithmetic and citing specifics. Yet, on no basis of any personal authority on your part from preparation or experience visible here, you subject him to corrosive comment re his professional integrity --already well demonstrated by what he wrote, as others experienced in the field will confirm, and as mine own experience tells me is the truth here. On what basis do you question that, except for b/b feeling common to most uninformed and unaware of wide, distressing economic and cultural change in past thirty years ? That's NOT "the American way" you then procede to acclaim, also in undisguisable one-sided, highly partisan fashion --and without ANY attack on facts related by S. in his piece. To me, that's irresponsible rant --which is why I felt I had to challeng you to produce something more relevant, relating to your own responsibility and accountability. But again you simply rant-on, wider, deeper and further removed from any 21st Century reality. SO, third time, invite you to direct contact via ID to Tim and we can continue this intriguing examination of the realities involved without stealing space, time, and attention from others with something more meaningful to contribute here --where we learn from mutual sharing, rather than personalized and perverted political attack.

Henry Ruark July 10, 2008 8:36 am (Pacific time)

Patrick et al: One leading conservative said it so well it is demanded for repeat here: ""Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; but not his own facts." --Daniel Patrick Moynihan Do you wish to challenge the facts given -- eleven pghs deep-- by Sheketoff ? His professional reputation is right on the line with public statement. Why NOT put your own, if any, right out there, too ? Your statement disputes his professional assessment, so we have every right to ask you "On what basis, sir, do you so state ??" --that's what dialog is, not billboard for b/b feeling. You can do so simply by stating your professional qualifications to question the Sheketoff critique in those eleven pghs; OR if you cannot do so in the public eye, then come direct for more honest, open demo-dialog between us, prserving time, space and attention here for others. SO your next action will clearly characterize which you prefer --and tell us WHY, too.

Patrick July 9, 2008 8:37 pm (Pacific time)

Mr. Ruark First of all, I am not part of an "et al", hiding anything, name or otherwise. I am simply an independent citizen writing a critique of Mr. Sheketoff’s piece. He critiqued a piece published by, and specifically pointed at, Cascade Policy Institute but provided no factual rebuttal. If I missed it somewhere in his piece, please point it out. A good rebuttal piece should give some basic facts, or at the very least, provide footnotes and/or links to the appropriate information. You also point the finger back at me accusing me of not revealing my responsibility, credibility or accountability. I am not sure what kind of responsibility, credibility or accountability you want me to provide or why I need to provide any. I made no statement of personal expertise or knowledge. I simply wanted the facts of the other side so that I could balance out my knowledge base and form my own opinion of the information. After all, that is what you were arguing for, “factual information one can check and trust”. In order to do so, you must first give me the information in which I am to verify. In the beginning of your piece you state: “What he does here is reveal precisely the way distortion and perversion are used to sell short the true American enterprise spirit, and to make it seem YOUR ideology is the "ONLY right one" --no pun on Right, your direction being so painfully obvious to all.” The “true American enterprise spirit” – what exactly does that mean to you? To me, it means individuals, without government help or interference, getting it done – creating, inventing, helping, prospering and yes, even failing. This is otherwise known as the “entrepreneurial spirit”. Those who create new products or services, those who take care of themselves, those who take care of their families and while doing this and especially after they have succeeded, they turn around and give back to others. You are correct: My direction is “painfully obvious”. I am a conservative. I lean right. I am not ashamed of that fact. I have studied both sides of many issues. I run a business. I have children and a family for which I am responsible. I have donated money and hundreds of hours of my time to charitable causes of all types - I do this not out of guilt or because I am forced to. I do it because it is the right and moral thing to do if you believe in a free, just and civil society. I have never, ever, once in all my life found leftist ideologies to be anything but repressive to individuals, their freedom and their ability to lift themselves up. So, in short, I do find myself much more philosophically aligned with Cascade and others like them, than with OCPP. So I am glad that you find me so transparent, I have nothing to hide or feel ashamed of.

Henry Ruark July 9, 2008 6:24 pm (Pacific time)

Patrick et al: Only fair to share with you this statement: "Market fundamentalism, based on “free trade” theory as overwhelming driving/force, was "born in the U.S.A." On its worldwide record NOW, as the 21st Century grinds unmercifully on, it deserves to die here, too. No longer can it continue domination by aggressive non-union activities; by manipulation and massive machinations to assure longer hours; less share of gains from growing productivity; and more stock-holder 'profits' via dividends, and management-gains by stock and cash-paid lush bonuses. It is natural fact, too, that those must always come at the cost of cooperative principle and practical satisfactions-sharing for all; as in living wages and benefits for the worker-side of this natural equation." You will find it in Op Ed Conclusions now running above. IF you wish further dialog, in deference to others here, ID self to Editor Tim and I will document in depth and detail for you, from some 40 years of files, clips, records and, lately, PDFS in depth.

Henry Ruark July 9, 2008 4:44 pm (Pacific time)

Patrick et al: Could NOT disagree more with you on your evaluation of Sheketoff statement. What he does here is reveal precisely the way distortion and perversion are used to sell short the true American enterprise spirit, and to make it seem YOUR ideology is the "ONLY right one" --no pun on Right, your direction being so painfully obvious to all. Your key-phrase is: "Cascades just happens to follow the model in which this great country was founded upon and OCPP's is just the opposite." That takes the cake (guess what it's made of !!) for transparent arrogance, denying precisely the point of any democracy which is the sharing of viewpoints, based on factual information one can check and trust. That's the thrust of the Sheketoff piece, and he is well angered by the obvious and clumsy work submitted here as if trustworthy and provable by check and balance with other viewpoints, by persons at least as well skilled and surely more reliable and trustworthy via the public record. We've HAD 30-40+ years of the "proof of the pudding" on that, neatly if not nicely begun by Reagan et al, and now continued nearly to national oblivion via some of the same misguided and unprincipled people. Nobody capable of honest and conscientious consideration can any longer deny the damnable and destroing record of what that has done to this nation. Yours demands interpretation of data obviously so misshaped now as to be meaningless for anything further. For straight-stuff, always checkable via other sources, go to OCPP records. IF you so mistrust them, where's your proof of their erroneous ways? AND from what base of special skill, longtime working record, and other simple qualifications do you speak here ? All we know of you is hide-name, with nothing to confirm responsibility, accountability or anything else to build credibility. SO put up same or shut up...

Patrick July 9, 2008 2:54 pm (Pacific time)

Interesting commentary Mr. Sheketoff but I am not sure what the point of your piece is other than to poke a finger in the eye of your ideological competetor Cascade Policy Institute. If you are going to write a rebutal piece, then perhaps you could share some of your own factual interpretation of the data. Simply to make statements or pose questions like "What do the residents of the states get for the spending?" and "What level of services is needed to ensure that all residents have an opportunity to succeed?" without actually answering those questions does nothing to help prove your point. First of all it is not the governments responsibility or any part of its function to take care of nor insure that you or I have a means to succeed. That is our responsibility, period. Yes, Cascade does have a certain philosophy or "ideology" that they advocate for but so does OCPP - Cascades just happens to follow the model in which this great country was founded upon and OCPP's is just the opposite. Next time you decide to write a piece directly pointed at a specific organization or individual rather than dealing with specific facts, please be honest about what your purpose is and provide some facts.

[Return to Top]

Data and Common Sense Be Damned

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News