Bernanke vs. Bush

This is not a supreme court case - fear not.

This is a catch phrase that I've developed to describe the situation that folks like me, who are known in our office as the person most knowledgeable in Excel, or Office, find ourselves in often.

Back up - Ben Bernanke is the chief of the Federal Reserve. By Bush, I am referring to our President.

Put politics aside for a second, and ponder this: For those of us who are expert at the art of numbers crunching, data analysis, and reporting (Access/Excel/both), we will often be called upon to answer a question like this: "Does it make sense that home sales mean more than gas prices in this report?"

There's a fine line we walk there - is it really ours to answer that question?

Usually, the answer is no.

Most of the time, when we get asked that question, the best way we can answer is the way I answered a colleague of mine who asked a similar question. (The details are confidential, and the questioner shall remain anonymous.) But when this person asked me, in essence, "Does it make sense that when looking at our economic stability, to put more emphasis on home sales than gas prices?" the way I answered was this: "This is where Bush meets Bernanke."

The analysis of what the numbers say is our job. The conclusion of what the numbers mean is a job for the policy makers.

To be a truly effective analyst of data, I feel it my personal duty to maintain neutrality on the issue of what the numbers mean. I concentrate on what the numbers are.

By saying that, I am not shedding the responsibility of reporting the numbers fairly and accurately. But our responsibility as analysts is to show what is there; the policy makers' job is to show what is possible.

We can get in on the policy game if we wish, but we necessarily leave behind the objectivity and remove that made us good at data analysis. In other words, Alan Greenspan would make a lousy president.