You make a point that is often valid, but is not in this case. It wouldn't look anything like a horizontal line. The chart starts at 125% and goes up to 350%. If you start the chart at 0, the huge increase from 1995 or so would still take up a third of the chart. The increase from the low after the depression would take up 2/3 of the chart. Still a very scary looking chart. Which isn't really the point of the article...