It looks at average deficits, which is silly. If X blows up the deficit and then Y gradually shrinks it, Y has a higher average even though Y reduced the proble

It looks at average deficits, which is silly. If X blows up the deficit and then Y gradually shrinks it, Y has a higher average even though Y reduced the problem and X caused it all. And of course this is not a hypothetical at all. Bush and Obama followed this pattern perfectly. Bush’s average deficit was $443 billion. Obama’s was $816 billion. But Bush inherited a surplus, and left office with a deficit of $1.4 trillion. Obama inherited that and left office with a deficit of $665 billion. Am I really supposed to conclude that Bush was better at controlling spending?