2013: First Six Months' Fact-checking for the Big Three

PolitiFact has definitely "downsized" in the U.S. even with its recent international presence in Australia.  At least for the time being.

 

Since 2011, I've generally expected 475 to 500 rulings from PolitiFact for each quarter.  When 360 were produced for the first quarter of 2013, I attributed that to the writers taking a break after the 2012 elections.  But the second quarter was pretty much a mirror of the first, going from 361 to an almost equal number of 363 rulings.   The dropping of PolitiFact Tennessee and no rulings from PolitiFact New Hampshire would not be enough to make up the difference.  Basically PolitiFact has cut back 20 to 25 percent.

 

With fewer rulings to record, I thought I might try something different:  back in 2010 I took a look at FactCheck.Org in and of itself.  I've compared rulings on the same statements many times, and on an individual basis, I've looked at various politicos in terms of Politifact, Factcheck.Org (FCO) and the Washington Post FactChecker.

 

This time I decided to record all three of the most prominent political fact-checkers (PolitiFact, WaPo FactChecker and FactCheck.Org) for the first six months of 2013.  I also tried to make a comparison in terms of the Truth Index.  Between PolitiFact's Truth-o-Meter categories and the Gepetto Checkmark to Four Pinnochios (a "whopper") used at the Washington Post, it wasn't too difficult there.    Factcheck.Org (FCO), however, does not rate fact-checks  with Truth-o-Meters or Pinnochios like the other two.

 

Just like it did when I reviewed it in 2010, I found that FCO generally did not fact-check "truthful" statements, as the great majority of its findings are negative: either misleading or false (It appears the Washington Post FactChecker leans that way as well, although not nearly as much).   It was a very subjective exercise for me to attempt to "rate" them as well, so the "Truth Index" I obtained, in my opinion, should not be construed as entirely accurate.

 

For the most part I based my FCO "ruling" on the same criteria as PolitiFact.  "Misleading" statements which contained an element of truth "but ignore[d] facts which would give a different impression" were categorized as "Mostly False" while statements which were "inaccurate," or incorrect (or when the FCO article called the statement a "false claim," which occurred fairly often) were categorized as False.    There were no "Pants on Fire" or "Whoppers" for FCO.

 

The results I obtained can be shown in the chart below.

The two "smaller" fact-checkers tend to concentrate on facts likely false based on the "Truth Index."

Even with PolitiFact's downsizing, it is still the dominant fact-checker of the "Big Three" with over 3/4 of all rulings for the first six months of 2013.    As noted, it checks a lot more statements which, as can be seen are (1) "True" and, due to its state operations, (2) statements by people with no political affiliation.

PolitiFact had a 57 percent higher overall Truth Index than the Washington Post FactChecker, and it was 82 percent higher than Factcheck.Org.

Meta Meta, All That Data

This past fall, my conservative counterpart started his own fact-checking website called Zebra Fact-Check, sort of jumping on that "conservapedia" bandwagon of playing to the right-wing choir. He gave a new term to a categorization of his Zebra fact-checks where he was again publishing criticisms of PolitiFact rulings as he did at his original blog: he called it a meta-factcheck, which by definition is the correct terminology, since he is "fact-checking the fact-check." So I suppose that makes me a META-meta fact-checker, because I am "fact-checking" his fact-check of PolitiFact's fact-check. Wew!

 

But more than that, on his new "non-blogspot" website, he includes a little detail on the "About" page that has me wondering....whether my speculation about his concentrated vindictiveness toward PolitiFact may in fact have some foundation.

I graduated from the journalism program at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg in 2008. The university campus is located across the street from the Poynter Institute, which owns both the Tampa Bay Times (then known as the St. Petersburg Times) and PolitiFact.

I regarded Poynter’s 2007 foray into fact checking with hope and interest at first, but that changed quickly to horror. I couldn’t believe that the Times would produce a product so deeply inferior to the Annenberg Fact Check model.

My blogging gradually changed its focus to criticism of PolitiFact. I hoped that vigorous criticism would help PolitiFact reach for a higher set of standards.

Here's what I've "speculated" about previously (in October, 2012):

Speaking of that, this makes my theory seem all the more likely that Bryan White may have been someone rejected for a journalist-type job by the Tampa Bay Times or PolitiFact itself: he states that these [new Zebra] fact-checks are what he does best. So this bolsters my theory that this was his retaliation. But that's pure speculation.

I had written this before I browsed his website and found where he listed his educational achievements. So now I know for a fact that he has the background necessary for such a job, and graduated and (as known) resided in the vicinity of the biggest newspaper in the Tampa/St. Pete area, right at the time the PolitiFact operation was starting. If this was expansion at the paper, there quite possibly could have been openings for, if not full-time journalists, at the very least, interns, for the specific PolitiFact project, because in the course of my recording the writers along with each ruling, it was apparent they had many interns who tried their hand at composing fact-checks. Nowhere did I see anything written, researched or edited by one Bryan W. White.

As of today's date, Robert Farley remains one of Factcheck.Org's lead writers, as can be seen in this screen clip

Then there's the "deeply inferior" comparison of PolitiFact to the Annenberg FactCheck. FactCheck.org, as I've noted in many posts, for the most part agrees with PolitiFact when checking the same item. The only difference is that Annenberg FactCheck doesn't have a Truth-o-Meter, and its fact-checks are often more limited in scope, because they will include several checks in one post at their website. So, in certain respects, its fact-checks are not as complete nor as sourced as PolitiFact's. To top that off, one of its writers, Robert Farley, used to write for PolitiFact (although White seems to have about the same opinion of him as he does Louis Jacobson and the others). While one could say Farley moved "up", there's really no way to verify that Farley went from an inferior fact-checking operation to a superior one...unless White could find out from Farley himself. It would be interesting to see what Farley would have to say about that, and I have a feeling he might not agree with White.

 

Nevertheless, something definitely smells even more rotten in Largo, Florida.

Pants on Fire Factor: Obama-Fact

The addition of the state PolitiFacts began with the appearance of PolitiFact Florida in 2009, but really didn't really get in gear with publishing a substantive number of rulings until 2010.  In fact, in 2009, PolitiFact "Florida" published a grand total of 9 rulings, bringing in lead PolitiFact Florida writer Aaron Sharockman around October.  Then things took off in 2010 as Texas, Georgia, Rhode Island were added in the first half and then Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin and Virginia in the second half.

 

It would seem as if the states came along to fill in the gap of the Congressional Quarterly, whose writers worked with PolitiFact doing rulings from 2007 through 2008.  However, as I described in my original assessment of this group and what its "affects" may have been , the types of statements selected at that time were of a different nature:  in the case of Congressional Quarterly, they related to its area of expertise, congressional positions and votes (although they did do other types).  In the case of the PolitiFact states, however, many rulings had to do with matters of a local nature, for example, one of the first PolitiFact Florida rulings on  a statement by then-Governor Charlie Crist who was bragging up the reduced rates of a negotiated, un-subsidized Florida healthcare program called Cover Florida Healthcare (found False).

 

The "Pants on Fire factor" (PoF) as I call it, a measure of what is claimed to be PolitiFact's bias for rating a False ruling as Pants on Fire, is shown below as aggregated from 2007 to September of 2012.    It is a comparison of Democrats to Republicans, with a factor of 1.0 translating to mean that PolitiFact assigns Pants on Fire to Democrats at the same (or equal) rate it assigns Republicans.  Anything below the 1.0 means Republicans are assigned Pants on Fire less than Democrats, anything above the 1.0 means Republicans are assigned Pants on Fire more than the Democrats (as a percentage of False + Pants on Fire rulings).

 

 

The red line shows the growth of the factor from favoring the Republicans to favoring the Democrats (or growing ever more negative for Republicans) over PolitiFact National's six years of Truth-o-Meter rulings.  The chart begins in quarterly increments until the end of 2008 to show how the Congressional Quarterly scored for that period as well, displayed in the green line. Thereafter the increments are annual.

 

At the end of 2008, PolitiFact National (including the Congressional Quarterly) had a factor below 1.0, although as shown by the green line, the Congressional Quarterly (CQ) alone was assigning Pants on Fire to Republicans 42% more than to Democrats.  With CQ behind them, in 2009 the PoF factor made its biggest jump ever at PolitiFact National, from .90 to 1.60.    For the year 2009 alone, PolitiFact National's Pants on Fire factor was a whopping 5.06.

 

Accumulated through the end of September of 2012, it now stands at 1.94--in other words, in the course of its history, PolitiFact National assigned Pants on Fire almost twice as often for Republicans as it did for Democrats.

 

Combined with the state PolitiFacts, however, the chart takes a different slope, as shown by the purple line.  It starts at the same high point as in 2009 because of there being only 9 PolitiFact Florida rulings, but as they accumulated, the aggregate Pants on Fire factor for PolitiFact as a whole dropped, from the 1.60 in 2009 down to its current 1.33.  The states themselves, if they were separated from PolitiFact National, would now average 1.21.

 

So it is indeed true that once PolitiFact "dissolved its partnership" with Congressional Quarterly, it began to appear as though it was increasingly assigning Falses as Pants on Fire to Republicans.  But working with CQ may not be a cause even with such a correlation, given that its own writers' assignment of Pants on Fire to Republicans were far more (58% more) than that of what PolitiFact National was doing at the end of 2008.  Were there other possible reasons?  What happened in 2009?

Lil White Lies: Ineffective Tax Rates Part 1

Trying to determine a link gone bad at PolitiFact, I came across an interesting article in defense of Mitt Romney’s 13.9% tax rate from the Tax Foundation, one of PolitiFact’s oft-used sources. An article by William McBride is headlined “At least 90 Percent of Americans Have a Lower Income Tax Rate than Romney” complete with a large pie chart depicting by slice the range of rates Americans pay. Between this and another article disputing it from a website called “Just Facts” it would seem PolitiFact might rethink its position on a ruling of “Half True” for Obama stating that most people pay more taxes than Mitt Romney.

But there’s a lot of argument about what rate is being talked about, because it would appear that the Tax Foundation article concerns itself with federal income taxes only. And for that part, PolitiFact’s ruling was in agreement. However, it wasn’t in agreement when the payroll taxes were included. An article at Factcheck.org essentially said the same thing: “it depends.”

My conservative counterpart (in two posts) argues that if payroll taxes are included, so should corporate and excise taxes, as part of an overall effective rate. The corporate tax rate appears to be something, however, that all the fact-checkers seem to avoid, for a lot of good reasons. As noted in one PolitiFact tax-related ruling:

The burden for some taxes, including corporate taxes, excise taxes and estate taxes, are hard to attribute to individual returns, so we’ll set those aside. But one federal tax is straightforward to throw into our calculations: payroll taxes.

And since the fact-check is on Romney’s individual return, corporate taxes were not included. It’s not a direct, out of pocket tax like the payroll tax. It’s what’s known as an “imputed” tax, and it’s very difficult to measure:

We will assume that the corporate income tax falls entirely on capital income and that all financial assets (and not only corporate stock) bear the tax equally. Auerbach (2006) summarizes the literature on the incidence of the corporate income tax and points out that there is still considerable uncertainty on the question because of the inherent difficulty in measuring empirically the economy-wide incidence of the corporate tax.

“Just Facts” (which I like to call “Just Cherry-Picked Facts” because they appear to be only about “facts” right-wingers love) insists that the corporate tax be “incorporated” into Romney’s effective income tax rate, but proposes three scenarios in how it might be computed, resulting in an “effective rate” of anywhere from 18 to 26 percent. In other words, it’s not very accurate, because we don’t know how to apply it.

Not only that, they may have determined the rate based on too much of Romney’s income.  According to an article in Daily Finance on Romney:  (emphasis mine)

Lil White Lies: Panic A Tax

Say we were three ambitious little kids who agree to contribute one third of our lemonade stand take to start the Big Lemonade Corporation. I had a really great traffic spot and made $900, but each of my buddies collected $300 each. So we had $500 total from the one third rate of contribution , $300 from me and $100 from each of my buddies. Of that $500, 60 percent was from me ($300) and theirs was 20 percent each ($100)…. In other words, I paid the same rate (one third) but it was a greater share (60%).

I don’t know how else to more simply explain this recent complaint at a cross-posted item at PolitiFact Bias and Sublime Bloviations, comparing a statement by Obama about tax rates with a statement last year by Michele Bachmann about tax share (as well as an insistence that PolitiFact is bound to use the "effective tax rate" he prefers).

Instead of reaching back to 2011 for apples to oranges, he needed only go to a recent PolitiFact Ohio ruling in March of Republican congressional candidate Jim Renacci, a ruling he may have dismissed since PolitiFact judged it to be True. Renacci said "The top 1 percent (of income earners) paid 36.7 percent (of the taxes). ... The top 50 percent pay 97.7 percent." We also need to put this in proper context, because he was talking about income taxes: as noted by the PolitiFact ruling “he was attempting to shoot down ‘a misconception on wage earners and income taxes paid,’ citing the percentage of the nation’s taxes paid in 2009 based on income levels.”

Previous to Renacci’s statement, PolitiFact had found four statements of the same order—income tax share—all True by Republicans Ron Cornilles, a congressional candidate, Texas Senator John Cornyn, Virginia congressman Eric Cantor and Georgia congressman Tom Graves.  Why didn't PolitFact Bias' Bryan White cite one of these (even though it was still apples to oranges)?  Perhaps because, Bachmann was found False, or as stated in the Cornyn ruling "...scoring points on tax policy depends on how you frame the issue."

And  Bachmann framed it incorrectly.  She was asked in an interview “shouldn’t the tax burden be equally shared.” To which she responded similarly to the others, only she (very clearly) said all taxes, not just income taxes, as was used in the rulings above.  Her ruling cross-referenced a claim made in 2009 by Nancy Pelosi—found False by PolitiFact-- that Bush's tax cuts for high earners "have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit."

This seems to be the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to debating our tax policy: Republicans stress share while Democrats stress rates. By the way, Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was called out False by PolitiFact for telling Wolf Blitzer on CNN that what he may have heard from one of these congressmen about the income tax share wasn’t true .

As far as White's complaint about "effective tax rates" ("that messy corporate and excise tax stuff") an extensive review of statements by Democrats on this topic as graded by PolitiFact did reveal some  incongruities and it's going to take another post all its own to reconcile them all, if that can be done. So while I'll say he may have a point, I won't be getting into it until later.

White needs to find a PolitiFact statement by a Republican on rate of taxation used in a similar context, particularly one rated “worse” for a Republican, where rates are compared between high and low income earners, or on an historical basis, not the share of taxes paid. The ruling evidence indicates that on income tax share, Republicans tend to emphasize that lower income earners don’t contribute a lot, which has been consistently rated True by PolitiFact.  Comparing the Obama ruling to  the one he chose of Bachmann didn't prove anything.

And don’t call PolitiFact overwhelmingly hypocritical when a decent apples-to-apples example of how PolitiFact rates Republicans differently than Democrats can’t be cited. Yes, PolitiFact is not perfectly consistent (and neither is White, obviously!), but it doesn’t prove any liberal bias.

PolitiFact vs. FactCheck.Org: Healthcare

I don’t know if the Supreme Court upholding “Obamneycare” is going to make it any less worthy of fact-checking by PolitiFact (PF), but it’s apparent that although the law has not been that popular at the polls, the topic is a very popular one for fact-checking. In a way, I might not predict a Lie of the Year in as much as a Topic of the Year, which would be all the untruths and various exaggerations (or as fellow blogger Jon Perr calls them, killer lies) surrounding the ACA , its associated Medicare and Medicaid, as well as its overlap to other topics such as the economy, jobs, taxes, the deficit and even education (student loans).  I’ve sorted out a little over 70 PolitiFact rulings relating to it since the beginning of the year.

Here are a few things “ObamaScare” is allegedly going to do (according to Republicans):

• Kill jobs, 800,000 (actually predicted in 2011), or “across America”  including 1,000 medical device jobs in the Tennessee area

• Cause up to 20 to 30 million people to lose their health insurance, including seniors

• Raise taxes (raises 19 taxes and is largest tax increase in history of world)

• Slap Americans and/or small businesses with $500 billion in new taxes and penalties

• Cut $500 billion from Medicare to pay for it (or heck, just end Medicare)

• Cut student loan programs (or over-charge students) to help pay for it

• Add trillions to our national debt, or if repealed, save $95 billion (a year)

• And the usual, ever more claims about death panels and a government take-over;

• And the wackiest, a claim about an "Obamacare slush fund” for neutering pets? (by who else but Allen West [R-FL]).

A few (maybe one?) of the above were ruled Half True, the rest less, much less, most False or Pants on Fire. Click the link(s) to find out and read the details.  Some of these are covered below, which link to the findings of both PolitiFact and FactCheck.

And a pox on those who all somehow cast the “critical vote” on “Obamacare” or to supposedly cut $500 billion from Medicare for it:

• Florida Senator Bill Nelson (by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 60-Plus Association and superPAC American Commitment)
• Ohio Congressional candidate Betty Sutton (by opponent Jim Renacci).   In all fairness, she accused him of something similar.
• Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown ( by the National Republican Senatorial Committee)
• Virginia Senatorial candidate Tim Kaine (by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and superPAC American Crossroads)

One of my most popular posts has been comparing PolitiFact rulings to fact-checks on the same topic by FactCheck.Org. So, back by popular demand, here is a compilation of 2012 fact-checks relating to “Obamneycare”—some of the repetitions included as well.

Statement	FactCheck	PolitiFact
Rush Limbaugh: "Obamacare is the largest tax increase in the history of the world."  (Also similarly stated by superPAC American Commitment)	"Despite all these uncertainties, one thing is abundantly clear.  There's no way the ACA's tax and other revenue increases come close to being the largest in U.S. history."	Pants on Fire:  "Limbaugh's inflated rhetoric takes a wrong claim and puts it into the realm of the ridiculous."
U.S. Chamber of Commerce:  "Obamacare will kill jobs and limit further job creation."	"At the end of last year we listed this overblown claim as one of the 'Whoppers of 2011' right up there with the Democratic counter-claim that Republicans were out to 'end' Medicare."	False:  The Chamber of Commerce has failed to prove that it will, and the best projections we've seen, based on how the law is actually written, do not suggest that the law will 'kill' jobs.
Tom Price (R-GA) House Republican Policy Committee Chairman:  "CBO projection estimates that the law [Obamacare] will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years."	“The notion that the new CBO report shows costs doubling is wrong."	False:  "When you do the math correctly, the gross cost projection increased by less than 9 percent." MPR PoliGraph also found a similar claim by Kurt Bills (R-MN) Misleading.
Mitt Romney:  "Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare." (or "steals it" according to Michele Bachmann in 2011).	“But that's not a slashing of the current Medicare budget, as viewers may be led to believe." (Here's FactCheck.Org's other review of the same.)	Half True:  "So while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut Medicare."
Crossroads GPS:  "Obamacare raises 18 different taxes."	"But that's dishonest nonsense.  Only a few of the tax changes in the new health care law will fall on families making under $250,000 a year..."	Mostly False:  "The Crossroads ad wrongly implies that people of modest means are getting hit with 18 tax increases because of the health care law."
Mitt Romney:  "Up to 20 million will lose insurance they like and want to keep."	“This is another exaggerated claim that we have written about before, most recently last month....The 20 million figure comes from a March 2012 CBO report, but critics of the health care law have misused it."	False:  "That number is cherry-picked, and he's wrong to describe it as only including people who 'like' their coverage, since many of those 20 million will be leaving employer coverage voluntarily for better options."
Rick Santorum / Paul Krugman:  "RomneyCare" was the blueprint for "ObamaCare."	"There are a number of similarities between the state and national plans, and there are several differences."	Mostly True:  "So it seems that there's broad agreement that, despite some operational differences, the broad structure of the Massachusetts health care plan is quite similar to that in the U.S. Senate bill."
Mitt Romney:  "Repealing Obamacare saves $95 billion a year."	"But that only accounts for spending in the law, not spending cuts and revenue-raising provisions that potentially save even more...That makes Romney's claim misleading and, at best, inflated.	False:  "Because of the revenue sources that the law established, repealing it actually adds significantly to the deficit over the long haul, according to the CBO."
Rick Santorum: "Americans 'over-whelmingly' oppose healthcare mandate." Mitt Romney: "Most Americans want to get rid of Obamacare.”	"So, Romney and others would be correct to say that some polls show most Americans -- or at least most voters -- favor repeal.  But not all polls."	Mostly True: Opinion on the health care law is more unfavorable than favorable, but not over-whelmingly...Objection to the individual mandate, however, is resounding."



Lil White Lies: Politi-Pedantry

PolitiFact has covered this twice, in November and in January, with the same "False" ruling.

A few months ago when my conservative counterpart was not yet blocked on Facebook, I used a word to describe his blog that I had never seen him use before, which was that it was “shlock.” Shlock means something which is of inferior quality, cheap and shoddy. Now I’ve seen him recently use it in both his blogs, as if he looked up “shlock” when he saw my use of it and thought to himself, “hey I got another good nasty deprecating word to use for PolitiFact!”

But shlock might describe this short little Grading PolitiFact ditty which doesn’t offer any further good explanation for why saving money and cutting expenses are two different things, and that is somehow proof that PolitiFact got this fact-check of Romney wrong. He can do his “You just don’t have a clue--I’m the only one who really gets it” routine all he wants on this, but I can even tell him from my years as an accountant that “reducing expenses” and “saving money” are often used interchangeably. And if context is so very important (as writer Bryan White alludes to in quoting PolitiFact Principles about context at the start of his post) he totally ignored the context of Romney’s claim.

As an example, let’s say my income was reduced to where I had to live off my credit cards (something like what our government is doing now). It would behoove me to start looking for ways to save money/reduce costs—to reduce the amount I was having to pay with the credit cards. For example, I might decide to get rid of my cell phone, or buy a “prepaid” one. That would save $35-50 (or more) a month I might be paying off my credit card. That would be reducing my costs, that would be reducing the amount that would be added to my credit card (my "deficit"), that would be saving money. Grading PolitiFact wants you to believe that cutting costs and saving money are “not necessarily the same thing.”

And if I said I was saving $50 a month in cell phone bills by getting a prepaid phone that would not be quite correct. Because I’d have to figure in the cost of the prepaid phone. That’s what is happening here. Romney is misleading because he’s expressing the $95 billion in absolute terms.

 Let’s try a little experiment here by word replacement: if the PolitiFact ruling had said Obama “ wants to cut government spending by rolling back President Barack Obama’s signature health care law” instead of “wants to save money by rolling back President Barack Obama’s signature health care law” would it have made any difference in the rest of the ruling and the ruling result? If they had done that, would anything in the rest of the ruling explanation needed to have been changed to coincide or force it to agree? You can see my point. Romney said in his USA Today op-ed “The federal government should stop doing things we don't need or can't afford” directly followed by the example of “Repeal ObamaCare, which would save $95 billion in 2016.” (Of course, had it been this way, I would expect that Grading PolitiFact would have a reverse position, reproving PolitiFact by saying “saving money” morphed into “cutting government spending.”)

So PolitiFact went with Romney’s precise statement—“which would save $95 billion”—yet Grading PolitiFact disputes that as a “morph” from reducing expenses, which is basically the same thing. This is not even splitting hairs, this is pedantry at its extreme.

Find THIS PolitiFact (FactCheck) Ruling: Rick Santorum

About the time I published a Truth Index on Rick Santorum, he decided to drop out of the presidential race. It seems so far I have been right there as the 15-minute presidential candidate fame light dimmed for Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. Keeping that in mind, I’ve just completed a review of 184 Mitt Romney rulings from all of the fact-checkers….don’t think it will work this time, ha ha.

Ron Paul is not pictured as he is already on another planet; Santorum is headed for deep space as well.

This post will combine a “PolitiFact versus FactCheck Number 3” review on Santorum, plus a few “nothing to be seen here”—i.e, “Find THIS PolitiFact Ruling” fact-checks done on Santorum but not by PolitiFact (or even FactCheck.Org).

(Note:  Google Blogspot does not appear to take too kindly to tables.  Please excuse the spacing/font errors.)

Santorum Statement	FactCheck	PolitiFact
"The Obama administration prohibits people who work with at-risk youth from promoting marriage as a way to avoid poverty."  (January, 2012)	"Santorum was right about abstinence not being part of this particular program, but he was wrong about marriage.”	“The change under Obama…was about what could be taught regarding abstinence -- not marriage… Santorum simply got it wrong. His statement is False.”
"… a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.” –Rick Santorum, during a Republican presidential debate (March 29, 2011).	“But Santorum was wrong when he said that a third of pregnancies end in abortion…”	False:  So we find Santorum is significantly overstating the frequency of abortions…”
"Barack Obama has raised a 'stop sign' on oil exploration."  (June 6, 2011)	“Santorum was wrong when he said the Obama administration is 'against any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska.'  The administration has approved 296 new permits...”	False:  "Just because the pace isn't as fast as some would like doesn't mean that Obama 'has put (up) a stop sign.'"
"...there were requirements put on other states when they came into the union that English be the principal language…”  (following similar statement in Puerto Rico, March, 2012)	“Rick Santorum greatly overreached when he claimed that Congress required English be the principal language and that it be taught and spoken universally” in several Southwest territories, Oklahoma and Hawaii as preconditions for them attaining statehood."	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. Possible Half True or Mostly False, as they are not saying he is "wrong."
"I didn't vote for a steel bailout." ( February 26, 2012, on Meet The Press).	But in fact, the former Pennsylvania senator voted in 1999 for the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, which was dubbed a “bailout” by multiple news organizations at the time.	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. Possible Mostly False or False.  It was $400 million dollars of taxpayer money, not anything like the billions for the automakers (also loan guarantees) but a substantial sum nonetheless.
“The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,” Santorum said at the Gulf Coast Energy Summit in Biloxi, Miss., on March 12, [2012]. He made similar comments in early February in Colorado Springs, Colo., saying that global warming was a “hoax” and that “man-made global warming” and proposed remedies were “bogus.”	"...how dangerous can carbon dioxide be? Too much is definitely a bad thing. …97 percent to 98 percent of climate researchers ‘most actively publishing in the field’ agreed that climate change was occurring.”	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. In fact, nothing listed at all (as of today) on Santorum's view of global warming.  Given other rulings it's done, however, it would probably merit a False.
"In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you’re elderly and the bracelet is ‘do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but half the people who are euthanized every year, and it’s 10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick." (February 3, 2012,  forum at Grace Bible Church in Columbia, Mo.)	This was a 3-part debunking:  (1) "Government statistics show euthanasia is climbing, but represented only 2.3 percent in 2010, according to the most recent data."  (2) "A representative of the Royal Dutch Medical Association said 'there are no forced cases of euthanasia.' " (3) "...the Dutch government and medical association say no such bracelets exist."	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. The multiple-lie voracity of this claim would have made a great Pants on Fire to hang on Santorum.  But they didn't....why not since they're supposedly so liberally biased?
"The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... –Rick Santorum, campaigning for president in South Carolina (February 2011)	NOT CHECKED by FactCheck.	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact, even though it might be considered a candidate for one of those "push polls"-- "does the American Left hate Christendom?"  Definitely a good "False" ruling.
"I think the Democrats are actually worried he (Obama) may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.” –Rick Santorum, Fox News interview (May 2010)	NOT CHECKED by FactCheck.	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact.  This would have gone hand in hand with Romney's "Obama Worldwide Apology Tour" claim which garnered a Pants on Fire.



Lil White Lies: $4 Billion in February, Repeat

“The only assurance the taxpayer has is that these companies will be back for more money soon.”
Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), December, 2008

(Translated: They’ll be back for more taxpayer money when it runs out. )

When researching my conservative counterpart’s review of this PolitiFact (PF) ruling on a statement made in a pro-Obama video about the auto company bailout money being all “gone” as Obama took office, I came across what FactCheck.Org had to say about the status of the $13.4 billion: (emphasis added)

It also suggests that Bush gave away $13 billion to auto companies without demanding action on their part, when, in fact, Bush required them to come up with the so-called economic viability plans by March 31, 2009. Obama then used the plans to force the companies into bankruptcy and force the restructuring of the companies.

■The film leaves the false impression that President Bush had “given” away $13 billion to automakers without demanding anything in return. In fact, Bush required the automakers to produce a viable long-term business plan by March 31, 2009, as well as reduce unsecured debt by two-thirds and open their financial records to the government, among other loan conditions.

■The film claims the Bush bailout money was “gone” before Obama could “intervene,” but it was designed to be short-term bridge loans to help automakers pay suppliers and workers and give them — and the incoming Obama administration — time to develop long-term reorganization plans. The decision not to recoup some of the money loaned by the Bush administration was made by the Obama administration as part of the restructuring of the companies.

Writer Molly Moorhead was careful to detail how the $13.4 billion was divided up: of what General Motors received, over half went to GMAC, GM’s financing arm. She then went to the expense side, and noted that “GM was spending $7.5 billion per month on car parts at the time the government bailed it out” which exceeds the $4 billion loan by $3.5 billion.

Grading PolitiFact also makes a big deal out of the $4 billion GM got in February, mentioning it four times in its post. But it never mentions that in December, the loan of that money was contingent on congressional action in the new year. From the Detroit Free Press:

The loans offered by President George W. Bush — $9.4 billion for GM through January with an additional $4 billion contingent on congressional action next year and $4 billion for Chrysler…

Under those terms, GM may seek an additional $4 billion in February if Congress releases the second half of a $700-billion Troubled Asset Relief Program that was originally intended to help financial companies.

As was mentioned by Grading PolitiFact, writer Molly Moorhead narrows the scope of the fact-check to whether the $13.4 billion was gone. As for FactCheck’s summary which says the video “suggests that Bush gave away $13 billion to auto companies without demanding action on their part” this had already been previously found False by PolitiFact, and was cited in the ruling. 

The documents show, and press reports from the time confirm, that the Bush administration put specific requirements on the auto companies that included paying down debt, limits on executive compensation and negotiated reductions in wages and benefits for autoworkers. It also required the companies to submit detailed restructuring plans by Feb. 17, 2009, to show how the companies planned to achieve and sustain "long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency."

But the fact that, despite the infusions of cash, GM and Chrysler were forced into Chapter 11 re-organization, says that whatever the amount of money it was they received, wasn’t enough. It was a bridge loan until they would have to tell the creditors and the bondholders that they would not be paid (when the re-organization started).

One of my conservative counterpart’s chief complaints seems to be an argument from ignorance—ignorance in that he doesn’t think or understand that the money could have been “spent” that fast:

Apparently the math amounts to $4 billion plus $13.4 billion equals $13 billion. And that $13 billion was gone by Jan. 20 even though $884 million was loaned to GMAC on Jan. 16. It lasted only four days by PolitiFact's account.

Of course the excess $4 billion was loaned in February as described above. You just don't get to learn that from the PolitiFact version of events.

(On that excess $4 billion: doesn’t the fact that GM had to get more money in February tell you the $9.4 Billion they received before was gone?)

The $884 million to GMAC was used to “increase available funding for consumer auto financing and consumer loans” according to a letter from a GMAC Executive Vice President to TARP lawyer Neil Barofsky. In late 2008 it had limited lending because it could not get financing in the global markets. Because of this lack of funds  it severely curtailed leasing, and would only grant car loans to those with credit scores over 700. This resulted in a serious downturn in car sales, which in turn, of course, adversely affected the cash flows of GM the manufacturer. While it could be claimed the money was not “spent” it was, as the letter explained, spent indirectly, to bolster GMAC's capital.

As for the $4 billion draws made by GM, I’d venture to say it was probably used up within a couple days, that’s how dire I know the situation was at GM. It was used to pay off one big promissory note of delayed payments to suppliers and those creditors who would accept a delay. Corporations (and all businesses) have to keep a minimum amount of cash on hand as operational capital , and I know GM was below this minimum amount, which as I recall was $6-7 billion. Unless GM was going to liquidate, which it wasn’t, there was always going to be a certain “minimum” amount of money in reserve.

Sidebar: Keeping On Keep On Talking

Since my last Lil White Lies “critique of the critique” of the Mitt Romney campaign ad where a quote was lifted out of context by Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, which was Obama quoting something said by the McCain campaign (“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”), other analyses have surfaced which permit a more thorough examination of this Pants on Fire ruling by PolitiFact.

FactCheck.Org received an unusually large amount of e-mail on this which it published in its weekly FactCheck Mailbag, for two weeks running. Most writers-in viewed this as outright misrepresentation by Romney, although FactCheck continued to maintain a “let the readers decide” stance. One letter, from a Matt Shepardson of Romeoville, Illinois, was particularly expounding:

What makes this ad deceptive isn’t the Romney people misleading people as to WHEN this quote was made, though the “when” could add to the overall level of deception in the end. The issue with the ad is that it appears that it is Obama who is making the assertion, “If we talk about the economy, we lose.” Obama didn’t make that statement in 2008, and he didn’t make that statement since. Obama was quoting the McCain campaign when he said this. Quoting someone else, and having the fact that someone else is being quoted be omitted, is by the very definition deception. ...

Jackson references the fact that the Romney campaign released a press release where they admitted Obama was repeating the McCain campaign’s comments, and I credit him for at least mentioning this, but the press release in no way excuses what is seen on the TV ad (unless, perhaps, they were to make sure that everyone who saw the ad was also somehow exposed to the press release). Presenting the statement regarding the economy AS OBAMA’S is the issue, and the issue is that it’s a deceptive presentation.

When an independent fact-checking organization leaves such a straight-forward case “to opinion,” it gives permission to those who would obfuscate the truth to do so. Spin is one thing, and it has already made the public cynical, but making assertions with no basis in fact must be called what it is when it happens. If we are ever to restore the faith in our politicians and political process, ads like this must be called out for what they are. And what they “are” are lies.

FactCheck published a response to this (and the other letters of a similar vein) as follows:

We clearly failed to convince these and several other readers of our main point. In our judgment, the ad’s claim that the new health care law is “killing jobs” is far more consequential than the out-of-context editing of Obama’s words. The truth is that independent experts predict only a “small” or “minimal” impact on employment, which is a major concern of voters at a time when unemployment is so high.

Regarding the out-of-context editing, we noted the fact that Obama’s words were shown out of context and gave the full quote from 2008. We said: “It is possible that a viewer might be misled into thinking that Obama said this about his own campaign in 2011, since the quote comes 23 seconds after a graphic cites Obama’s comments as being uttered in 2008.”

But we left it to viewers to decide whether or not to agree with the Obama campaign’s harsh characterization of the video editing as “dishonest” or “deceitful.” Our view is that such pejorative terms should be avoided without clear evidence of malicious intent. In this case the Romney campaign’s stated intent was not to deceive, but to make a case that Obama now faces an even worse economy than John McCain did in 2008. Readers can decide for themselves whether or not to accept that. And we’ll continue to be cautious about using such emotionally loaded terms as “dishonest” or “deceitful.”

In the meantime, a New York Times article addressed the same quote, and an interviewed “top operative” for Team Romney stated that “everybody does it” and that these ads are merely “manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”  It should be noted the New York Times referenced the PolitiFact ruling, followed by: (emphasis added)

Politi-Score: Citizen Cain

Before we know the final outcome of the issues Herman Cain has been experiencing lately, and he is still a leading candidate, this may now be a good time to take a look at his Politi-Score.

Maybe there isn't very much to what
Herman Cain says he can deliver.

When candidate Bill Clinton experienced something somewhat similar back in 1992, he overcame it and went on to become president for two terms; unless things get far worse, Herman Cain can do the same. Although listening to some of the (Republican) pundits, it doesn’t look like he’ll be their nominee. While I hear people like Ann Coulter say that Democrats fear a Conservative Black more than anything, I haven’t seen any indication. If he was nominated, I think it would be great to see him run against Obama—it would really mark the progress of our country.

But to get back to Cain’s Politi-Score: It’s at the bottom of the barrel. It’s the lowest of all the current Republican candidates…even lower than perennial flame thrower Michele Bachmann. At the time I computed the Truth Index for the first 9 months of 2011, he was next to the bottom for all those with 10 PF rulings or more, only worsted by sometimes candidate Donald Trump, who got his pants set on fire with birther remarks until Obama released his long-form certificate earlier this year.

While some argue that FactCheck.Org has higher standards and perhaps less biased reporting than PolitiFact (PF), it recently published quite a derogatory article in which it basically fact-checked the course of Cain’s statements in regard to the sexual harassment accusations he has been facing. Those have not been included in my Politi-Score computations, of course. The article was entitled “Cain’s Pattern of Evasion and Misdirection -- The GOP candidate contradicts himself on abortion, 9-9-9 and now on allegations of sexual harassment.” Here are some choice excerpts:

Politico reported that two women accused him of inappropriate behavior while he served as head of the National Restaurant Association and that both women received financial payments from the trade group. Cain has denied the allegations. At first, Cain also denied that either woman received a settlement. But later the same day, he acknowledged that in at least one case “there was some sort of settlement or termination” worth “maybe three months’ salary.” The next day Cain said it was “in the vicinity of three to six months.” The New York Times reports it was a year’s salary….

In addition to this pattern of evasion and misdirection, Cain also has a proven ability to spread outrageously false information — such as accusing Planned Parenthood of “genocide” and concentrating abortion clinics in black neighborhoods…

Herman Cain… revels in being an unconventional candidate. His campaign is perhaps best exemplified by a viral Web ad of his cigarette-smoking chief of staff declaring that “America has never seen another candidate like Herman Cain,” and then taking a long drag on a cigarette and blowing smoke….

But as he rises in the polls, Cain has come under attack from rivals and has found himself being held to the same standards as conventional top-tier candidates. He’s finding out that even unconventional candidates cannot blow smoke and get away with it.

Spread outrageously false information….Blow smoke and get away with it? I think if I heard that coming from PF’s Lou Jacobson, my conservative counterpart would be having a cow with what he would call “editorializing versus fact-checking.”

Cain had 34 statements reviewed: 22 by PolitiFact, 6 by the Washington Post Fact Checker and 6 by FactCheck.Org. Here’s how he looked overall and with each checker using the PF Truth Index app format:

FactCheck versus PolitiFact Part 2, 2011

Recently when PolitiFact decided to carry other fact-checkers on its website with “Beyond the Truth-O-Meter” (on its front page, lower right), it of course asked for comments at Facebook. I decided to add my two cents that this might be a good time to “eliminate redundancies” with the fact-checks, by not doing a fact-check if another fact-checker is doing it as well. Coming from my business background, I’ve heard “eliminate redundancies” over and over, because it makes the firm more efficient—although (well, because!) it often results in the elimination of jobs. Naturally, my conservative counterpart asked me “why” PolitiFact would want to do that. Well, in the case of the huge sea of political commentary, “eliminating redundancies” only means that more statements can be fact-checked (as opposed to the “same” statements)…and the more comments fact-checked, the less likelihood of certain people complaining that the fact-checkers check Republicans more than Democrats or neglect statements that should be checked…yea, when pigs fly.

On the other hand, when you have several fact-checkers coming to similar conclusions on the same statement, that means something too. As I think about “future projects” at this website, one would be to look at one individual in terms of the fact-checkers and compare all the statements that have been evaluated between (or among) them. I’ve tried that before in a more general sense. I think looking at one individual through several fact checkers might help readers make a more informed decision about whether the individual is more or less truthful, since it isn’t based on one source. For example, Obama has an 11.15 on PolitiFact’s Truth Index as of June 30, which places him at Number 8 out of 25 for those who have received 15 or more rulings from PolitiFact, which is not too bad given he’s had over 300 rulings. FactCheck has stated he’s been fairly truthful so far. So between the two, we have a pretty good reading on Obama’s truthiness.

A post from February, where I compared a number of PolitiFact and FactCheck.org rulings, is one of my most popular pages, according to Statcounter.com, my website stat tracker. So, “back by popular demand” I am doing it again with PolitiFact rulings published since that time.  This time, I am including a cross-reference to the Washington Post's (WaPo) The Fact-Checker where one has been done.  It will be an additional link in the PolitiFact column.

Yes, I’ve exercised my own selection bias, as Republicans are emphasized in this selection of statements, only to show that FactCheck is often in agreement with PolitiFact. I’ve posted before that FactCheck also appears to check Republicans more than Democrats. 

Topic	FactCheck	PolitiFact
Michele Bachmann, June 26: "Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's never received a penny from family farm that got federal crop subsidies."	"Bachmann falsely claimed that 'she and her husband never got a penny from the farm.'  She also left the wrong impression that she has nothing to do with the farm."	False:  "Unless or until Bachmann steps forward to explain the discrepancy...we have to rely [on her financial disclosures]which say she received at least $32,501 in income..."
Michele Bachmann, June 13:  "The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs."	"Bachmann repeated a false Republican talking point...[also as noted by WaPo]. The CBO never said that."	Barely True: "Bachmann's statement leaves out so many qualifiers that it becomes misleading." WaPo's The Fact Checker covered her statement which was a rehashed Republican talking point, awarding it Three Pinnochios.
Rick Santorum, June 6: "Barack Obama has raised a 'stop sign' on oil exploration."	“Santorum was wrong when he said the Obama administration is 'against any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska.'  The administration has approved 296 new permits...”	False:  "Just because the pace isn't as fast as some would like doesn't mean that Obama 'has put (up) a stop sign.'"
Newt Gingrich, May 13:  Did he flip flop on supporting Paul Ryan's budget?	“Newt Gingrich is engaging in some revisionist history by claiming he was not referring to Rep. Paul Ryan during his now infamous 'Meet The Press" interview.  That's absurd."	Full Flop on the Flip-o-Meter:  "...He certainly made clear he thought a key provision of the plant--the changes to Medicare--were 'too big a jump' for him to support...And by saying on Van Susteren's show that 'made a mistake in his 'Meet the Press' comments...seems like a tacit admission of a flip-flop."
Sarah Palin, June 5:  In American history, part of Paul Revere's ride was to warn the British.	Palin's statement was "badly twisted...he was riding to warn two fellow rebels that the British were coming to arrest them, not to warn them."	Barely True:  "Palin's comment clearly suggests that one of Revere's aims that night was to warn the British.  It was not." The WaPo's The Fact Checker's take on it:  "Sarah's Midnight Ride Twice over."
Marco Rubio, May 1:  "The Ryan Plan doesn't cut Medicare.  Actually, it increases funding in it.  And the only people in this town that have voted to cut Medicare are the people that supported Obamacare..."	“Sen. Marco Rubio offered a wildly inconsistent view of what constitutes a 'cut' from Medicare...Ryan's plan leaves in place many of the Medicare 'cuts' in the health care law."	Barely True: "Both parties have voted -- at different times and on different proposals -- to reduce future spending on Medicare."
Donald Trump (April 7) says President Obama's "grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya."	If Donald Trump worked for us, we'd have to say: 'Donald, you're fired...' ...In fact, the recording to which he refers shows Sarah Obama repeatedly saying through a translator: 'He was born in America.'	False:  "Trump is serving up re-heated leftovers that have long ago been debunked."
Rachel Maddow (February 17), said that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit. (This was a secondary PolitiFact fact-check to her statement that there's actually a budget surplus in Wisconsin, if not for these tax cuts.)	It's not true that Gov. Scott Walker's tax cuts are the cause of Wisconsin's current budget deficit--a false claim widely spread by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.	False:  "The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem."
The DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, April 18) in an ad   "The Republicans voted to end Medicare."  In the same vein, The Agenda Project (a liberal advocacy group, on May 17): The Paul Ryan Budget proposal would end Medicare.	"Democrats are claiming this is...doing away with Medicare --  but that's far from the truth."	Pants on Fire for the DCCC:  " to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare...is a major exaggeration." False for the Agenda Project: “We concluded that, while the Ryan plan represents a dramatic change in Medicare, it was not a proposal to 'end' Medicare."