If you’re trying to get a handle on how PolitiFact (PF) does “numbers”, here’s one that may support the contention by some that PolitiFact does not apply consistent standards in its rulings. I’ve noted before that I don’t prefer comparing rulings because there’s always an “apples to oranges” factor somewhere. This comparison of two recent PF rulings may have enough "equivalencies", however, as I will show.
Two MSNBC liberals are the subject of this post: Lawrence O’Donnell, who has taken the place of Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz of “The Ed Show.” PolitiFact ruled “True” on a statement by O’Donnell that “Most Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.” PolitiFact Wisconsin ruled “False” on a statement by Schultz that “Under changes being debated, state employees in Wisconsin "who earn $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year might have 20 percent of their income just disappear overnight."
What should be noted first off is that O’Donnell qualified his statement with the word “most” (--Americans live close to a nuclear power plant) and Schultz qualified his statement with the word “might” (--have 20% of their pay disappear).
Let’s compare these two statements as to how the PolitiFact writers determined their ruling in the context of their write ups. In the case of O’Donnell, this statement seemed to bring PolitiFact to the “True” ruling:
According to the U.S. Census, there were 281 million people living in the U.S. in 2000. So by our math, about 65 percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.
To PolitiFact’s writer (Robert Farley) 65% qualified for “most of” to make O’Donnell’s statement a “True” one.
Schultz’s statement wasn’t quite as straight forward. This expert authority quote from writer Tom Kertschner in the PF Wisconsin ruling was the “most” quantifying.
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich: In a memo, he said a UW-Eau Claire employee who earns $40,000 per year would pay an annual pension contribution of $2,320, up from $80; and an annual health insurance premium for family coverage of $2,820, up from $1,068. That’s a total of $3,992 per year, or 12.9 percent of that employee’s salary.
The above statement was not very clear, because $3,992 is about 10 percent of $40,000, not 12.9 percent; what Tom Kertschner really meant was that the total contributions of $5,140 ($2,320 plus $2,820) were 12.9 percent of $40,000. (Note to Kertschner: Don’t say in the by-line that “the math doesn’t add up” when you’re not checking it yourself in what you’re writing.)
The most meaningful and reasonable way to calculate this would be to use the incremental (additional) amount withheld in the proposed changes, as a percent of take home or net pay. The net pay would take into account the $1,148 already being withheld from Wisconsin public employee paychecks, as well as normal payroll taxes. Using estimates for a married couple with no kids making where one is making $40,000 per year, this is what I came up with:
Just to calculate the net effect, I also included an amount for IRA or 401K contribution because many people have these above and beyond pension and social security, to show that it could swing the percent over the 65% threshold easily. Not all people contribute to an IRA, and some may say since it is a type of savings it should not be included. But doing so does serve to reduce the amount of take home pay, and those who believe in “social security as a Ponzi” must concede that if individually you believe this (and act on it), you may be more likely to have more withheld since your view is that you cannot count on social security.
In other words, on average, the proposed changes could well be within 65% of the 20 percent Schultz claimed “might” disappear. They are about 63 percent without the IRA deduction. And no matter how you look at them, they're a "chunk" of pay if you're making between $30,000 to $50,000 annually.
So Schultz may likely measure about 65% of his claim of what “might” happen to Wisconsin public employee paychecks, and is ruled False, yet for O’Donnell 65% qualifies as a “most”, and he is awarded a True. The gap here between one True and one False is one I cannot reconcile. At best, O’Donnell should have received a Mostly True, and Schultz a Half True.
No comments:
Post a Comment