Media Watch: Can the New York Times Count that High?Fact & Fiction
A slip of the pen by a fatigued reporter working feverishly to meet a tight deadline? Apparently not. The following day Rosenbaum’s colleague at the Times, reporter Frank Brunei, observed that Mr. Bush “had to shave only a few hundred billion dollars from his dream.”
We at HNN are not sure what to make of this emerging indifference to sums smaller than a trillion. But the trend—if it is such--is surely worth noting.
How times have changed. In the quaint old days a billion was considered a substantial figure. Remember Ev Dirksen’s famous line: A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.
Because we take seriously the goal of “putting the news in perspective,” we thought readers might like to reflect, if ever so briefly, on a select list of other numbers from American history, if only to make the point of the changing definition of what constitutes a large sum.
Consider the Reagan deficits, of which so much is often (rightly) made. In 1981, year one of the Reagan Revolution, the government ran a deficit of about $50 billion; year two, about $100 billion; years three through eight, around $200 billion. At the time these numbers were considered astronomical. Politicians like Reagan and Perot, seeking to dramatize the size of the numbers, explained that a couple of hundred billion dollars, represented by one dollar bills, would reach to the moon or something.
Just for our own amusement we decided to compare these numbers with the net military cost of U.S. wars (excluding payments for veterans benefits etc.). Our findings are reported below. We think you’ll find them as interesting as we did. (The numbers are expressed in current dollars.)
Revolutionary War………$101 million
War of 1812……………...$90 million
Mexican War…………….$71 million
Civil War (North)………...$3.2 billion
Spanish-American War….$283 million
World War I……………....$ 31 billion
World War II……………...$316 billion
Korean War……………….$ 54 billion
comments powered by Disqus
- Conservative historian Arthur Herman slammed for saying Obama is highly submissive to Putin and other strong leaders
- Intellectual historians to gather in October
- Yuri N. Afanasyev, Historian Who Repudiated Communism, Dies at 81
- History professor gives Pittsburgh, PA columnist an “F” for a op ed on slavery
- Sharon Ullman says the work of historians is becoming increasingly invisible