Mitch Berg cites this infographic from Many Eyes that uses a bubble chart to compare the size of estimated state budget deficits.
As Junk Charts reminds us, "Bubble charts are okay for the conceptual ('this is really big, and that is really tiny')." But they are lousy for more nuanced comparisons — because people have a hard time estimating differences in area and the bubble format may obscure what's actually being compared.
For example, that huge California deficit bubble is much bigger than the others, but so is California's population, economy and state budget. (To his credit, Mitch also provides a couple per capita comparisons. But comparing per capita deficits is a bit like comparing per capita debt. An important calculation in figuring how much you owe is how much you can afford to pay.)
Maybe the bubbles are okay, because Mitch's point is conceptual — that low-tax, low-service states run by conservatives do better than ummm... some other low-tax, low-service states run by conservatives, such as Florida and Nevada, both of which face proportionately larger budget deficits than Minnesota.
You could see that quickly if you looked at the much less sexy data set that was used to calculate the randomly arranged bubble charts. You'd also have to do a little reading to figure out that governors in two of those conservative states are Democrats. And that Alaska's SAT scores are on a par with California's, and Nevada's are worse.
You'd also miss that all Mitch's favorites (plus many of the other low tax states) do a good job of exporting taxes to non-residents — through energy and mining, permissive banking regulations, higher than average federal payments and tourism-related taxes.
