Sidebar: Cheaper by the politi-Dozen

PolitiFact Florida explains Rick Scott’s change in position on the Florida state budget for education as follows, in this ruling from February: (italics added for emphasis)

Scott's two-year spending plan would shrink the overall state budget from $70.3 billion to $65.9 billion in 2011-2012 and to $63.3 billion in 2012-2013. Cuts were expected almost everywhere -- except in the area of education, where Scott has said that funding would remain the same.

At least, that's what people thought.

Scott's proposed budget for next year includes billions of dollars in education cuts. …Some of that loss is offset by having teachers contribute 5 percent to their retirement and by the inclusion of temporary federal education dollars. Still, per-student funding would shrink if Scott's budget is ultimately approved…

The PolitiFact partnership paper of the ruling's writer Aaron Sharockman, the Miami Herald, called it Flip-flop Number One in an article entitled “Budget Shows 4 Rick Scott Flip Flops in 1 day” which was linked to the St. Petersburg Times under the title “Rick Scott’s Budget Flip Flops.”

But Sharockman called it a False under the Truth-O-Meter.

PolitiFact explains the Flip-O-Meter this way:

Like our Truth-O-Meter, the Flip-O-Meter begins with good journalism. When a candidate is accused of flipping, reporters and researchers examine the candidates' statements and voting records. Have they hedged their words over time? Shifted their tone? Changed their voting patterns?

Then, we rate whether the candidate has truly flipped:

    No Flip - No substantial change of position. The candidate has been consistent.

    Half Flip - A partial change of position or inconsistent statements.

    Full Flop - A major reversal of position; a complete flip-flop.

We are not making a value judgment about flip-flopping. Some people say it shows inconsistent principles and lack of backbone. Others say it's just pragmatism and willingness to compromise.

As we did with the Truth-O-Meter, our goal with the Flip-O-Meter is to provide you with a helpful tool so you can make a more informed decision when you vote.

Well, this helpful tool is telling me that Rick Scott changed his position--he flipped. In fact, a “full flop”. . Sharockman examined his statements and found he hedged his words:

When Scott met with reporters after announcing his budget, he was asked if he had flipped on his campaign rhetoric.

"No, it's not going back on anything I promised," Scott said. "What I said throughout the campaign and what I'm saying today -- any money that came out of state general revenue, we're not cutting that. Any money that they relied on federal bailouts, that is different."

But that's not what Scott said just four days prior in Tampa…

Scott: "No, my commitment is to make sure the money that they've received they'll get again. Where I'm getting the savings is, I'm reducing the state government. What I'm trying to do is keep the school budgets the same."….

At the very least, Scott deliberately and purposely suggested that education funding would be held harmless in his first state budget. He made comments to that effect just days before his budget was released. Yet, when he announced his budget, cuts were included.

Scott reversed positions when he submitted his budget. His budget is what he will “vote” for by signing into law, if it was brought to him the way he submitted it. He might say it was “pragmatism” as the reason—he had to cut more and there was nowhere else to do it. Instead, he “hedged” by saying it was the Federal “bailout” portion he was cutting.

I don’t know if Sharockman just made an error or didn’t recognize it as a flip. But as soon as I read the banner in going through the rulings, it immediately struck me that this was something other than just a False ruling. I looked over the Facebook comments on this and no one else seemed to notice.

When I reviewed some of Scott’s promises on his “Scott-O-Meter” I could not find a “not rated” or “in the works” promise of not cutting the education budget. But this does not mean it could be added, unless the promises, once published, are required to remain static.

It’s just that when you think about it, PolitiFact has a lot of overlapping, possibly redundant meters. Here is a list of them, currently 12 different meter measures.

Two asterick qualifier SHOULD BE 12/31/10!

These types of promises evaluated would tend to obfuscate the PolitiFact rulings, because some statements by those being measured by the meter that are “promises” broken or kept may not be included when they should be. The nuance of the “mostly true” and “barely true” are removed as well (which actually might be a good thing because of their subjectivity).

Of course, I could take the promises kept and calculate them as True, the promises broken as False, as well as a No Flip as a True, a Half Flip as Half True, and a Full Flip as a False. Food for thought for the Politi-Score.

PolitiFact’s position may be that the promises are not statements, but indicative of a series of actions from which statements may not ever have been issued. PolitiFact wishes to rate the actions as a measure of truthfulness. It would seem that such promises are pretty straight-forward relative to statements rated on the Truth O Meter: Either the office-holder kept it, or he didn’t. It shouldn’t be as subject to complaints of selection bias. On the other hand, this was also something that was not as deliberate as making a Pants on Fire statement. If Obama or one of the governors could not get the necessary votes from their congresses to pass a law which would fulfill the promise, or there was an unforeseen event, should that make the promise a False one on the Truth-O-Meter? As they say, “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

So what started out as a “False should be a Flip” review on Rick Scott of Florida ended up a reflection on this somewhat unwieldy, possibly redundant system of metering the “truth.” Don’t flip that promise to the truth-o-meter yet….