Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Tax Break Mistakes

When my conservative counterpart *grades* PolitiFact, he occasionally employs his own version of the “slippery slope” analogy, attempting to make it appear a logical explanation for why PolitiFact’s rulings are in error. According to him, if the slippery slope is reasonable in each step of the slope, that makes it a legitimate argument. As I later noted, there should additionally be proof conclusive that these steps are indeed occurring (which in the case of “death panels” was not evident, and so failed the full test of legitimacy).

For this particular ruling on a statement by Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, the same slippery slope rationalization can be applied, and the “reasonableness” badge even more easily awarded. Using Bryan Whites’ own words:

One of the commonsense rules of charitable interpretation involves accepting a reasonable explanation from the person making the statement, at least to the point of granting the explanation the benefit of the doubt in a close contest of most plausible explanations.

Translated: Baffling with bullsh*t is perfectly reasonable! Whatever “plausible explanation” that’s buyable is acceptable. That’s how argument is done in Facebook commentary, so why not the same here.

In the case of $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, it should be remembered this number was bandied about quite a bit, for example, the New York Times used it back in August, before the September date as noted by PolitiFact (see emphasis):  

Most of the tax cuts that were a signature domestic initiative of George W. Bush’s presidency carried an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, to limit the potential revenue losses; supporters assumed that they would be extended when the time came.

Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

PolitiFact chose to rate Brown’s statement false based on two “key points”: (1) The deal between Obama and the Republicans was for two years, while the number used by Brown reflects 10 years and (2) even if the deal was for 10 years, the amount going to millionaires and billionaires was estimated at $327 billion, that is, those earning over $1 million in a year.

So, on the first point: how likely does it appear at this time that the high-end tax cuts will be permanent? Remember “supporters assumed that they would be extended when the time came.” They were going to be made permanent back in 2001 if not for the Republicans being obliged to use reconciliation to pass the bill because they did not have enough of the majority vote required, similar to how the healthcare reform act was passed this past year. The odds are there’s going to be a double-dip recession, and who knows how much more powerful the pro-tax-cut tea party faction is going to be come 2012…and of course we know where almost every Republican worth their conservative salt and thinking presidential (read: Palin, Huckabee) stands on the issue. It seems very likely these tax cuts will be permanent across the board. So using 10 years is not unreasonable insomuch as it was hyperbole.  The slippery slope to permanent tax cuts for the wealthy is not only reasonable but provable.

Writer Steven Koff chose to ignore the Chinese credit card on which the $700 billion charge was being made, which was clearly the “main point” of his statement “You know basically what we're doing here is we're borrowing $700 billion from the Chinese. We're charging it to our kids’ and grandkids' credit cards for them to pay off later and then we're giving that $700 billion to millionaires and billionaires." The $700 billion for millionaires and billionaires was basically an after-thought to the borrowing, the thrust of Brown’s argument. To use the words of another recent review of a statement by Sherrod Brown by my sublimely bloviating counterpart “PolitiFact is missing Brown's underlying argument and his main point as a result.” Wonder why Bryan White missed this one? Probably because he agreed with the ruling, a False on a Democrat.

As for Point (2), Koff gets the $327 billion in his concluding statement from “The Joint Committee projections” which showed “that a single year of extensions for just the $1 million-and-above filers would cost $32.7 billion” and then multiplies it times ten. He notes that “People earning less than that can be considered millionaires, of course, because of their home values, investments and net worth. But to call a two-earner couple making $251,000 "millionaires and billionaires" exaggerates matters…” That’s the only very light touch on the real issue.

Using the $1-million-and-above-filers is a purely arbitrary, bogus selection, because most all definitions of “millionaire” are by measure of “net worth” which is NOT earnings. Most of the people earning $250K or more can safely be categorized “millionaires” even if you didn’t net their assets—but it would have to be assets, not earnings. Heck, I know people earning less than $100K a year that are millionaires in terms of net assets simply by inheritance.

So PolitiFact ignored Brown’s “underlying argument” in the first point, and was flat out wrong on the second point through its own selection bias….slipping down a slope  too *charitable* to the Republicans.