Truth Index: 2011 Fact-oids and Fact-ettes

Hot Topics. The health care topic, as noted earlier this year, continued as one of the most covered as well as getting the worst PolitiFact (PF) Truth Index ratings. The Republican average was worse than that of Democrats, with labor/union rulings for both parties being the next two in a virtual tie.  The largest "spread" between averages was Republicans on the economy at -21 to Democrats at +27, a 48 point variance.  The top ten topics shown here broken down between Republicans and Democrats totaled about 55% of all 2011 rulings.

Perry beats Obama by two. While we’ll never see that headline, Texas Governor Rick Perry was Number One in 2011 for PolitiFact fact-checks, perhaps owing to the work of PolitiFact Texas. While Obama is the Number One fact-checked person of all time on PolitiFact, in 2011 he received 59, while Perry received 61.

Pundits. Liberal Rachel Maddow was the most fact-checked of the pundits in 2011, beating out second place Bill O’Reilly by two fact-checks. Her Truth Index was -21.43 (three Mostly True, two Mostly False and two False), while O’Reilly was across the Truth-o-Meter with one each of every rating except for Pants on Fire, translating to a precise zero on the Truth Index.

Liberal columnist Paul Krugman, who some conservatives call a “partisan hack,” had eight fact-checks with an outstanding Truth Index of 81.25 for 2011. If he’s a “pundit” (I’m not sure) then he was actually the most fact-checked (over Maddow).

Ex-Presidents. Previously I’ve reviewed the Truth Index of the remaining Presidential contenders (including some of those who eventually dropped out). Their combined Truth Index for 2011 was -31.11, as compared to the 2011 overall of -14.38. If you took all the presidential contenders’ ratings out (not including Obama) it would improve to -11.74. That’s an almost 22 percent improvement.

Governors' Ball. The Truth Index for governors as a group was -14.23 which is almost equal to the all-time overall of -13.32. Of the 485 rulings, Republicans dominated with 460 (almost 95%) of them and a Truth Index of -16.09, while Democrats got the remaining 25, with a Truth Index of 20.  It should be noted that this is said with the caveat that I may possibly have missed one or two when I filtered them because I am not familiar with every governor in every state, and that I did not include those running for governor who lost, for example, Alex Sink in Florida, even though she had a lot of rulings.  Beginning in 2012 I am considering recording the person's official position in my database for another filter key. 

Cha-cha-chains...chains of Fibs. There were 106 chain e-mails through the end of 2011 with an overall Truth Index of -103.3. Those e-mails of unknown or non-partisan origin, comprising 50 of them, had a Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Truth Index average of -114.00.

Blogs, Dogs and Groundhogs. There were 23 “bloggers” subjected to the Truth Index and they did worse as a group than the chain e-mails, with an overall Truth Index of -110.87. And those of unknown or non-partisan origin scored the very lowest, nine rulings with an average of -133.33.

But the “animals” rated by PolitiFact over its history, Spike the Romney Attack Dog and General Beauregard Lee (who should be presenting himself soon) both scored a Mostly True for a 50 Truth Index.  At least they'll tell you the truth.

Tchotchkes: A Godless Heathen Approved This Message

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Rick Perry's Budget Bliss

PolitiFact (PF) Texas awarded an inconclusive “Half True” for a fairly straightforward statement by Rick Perry  about his financial prowess as Texas Governor: “..we cut a record $15 billion from our budget.”

But you can cut your budget all you want, heck, you can cut it to zero, the problem is, can you meet the budget? That’s the difference, as they say, between walkin’ the walk and talkin’ the talk. And Rick Perry, it appears, was just talkin’ the talk.

In January, Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times column:

The only thing that let Gov. Rick Perry get away, temporarily, with claims of a surplus was the fact that Texas enacts budgets only once every two years, and the last budget was put in place before the depth of the economic downturn was clear. Now the next budget must be passed — and Texas may have a $25 billion hole to fill. Now what?

In September, local Texas publications appeared to confirm that Krugman’s prediction was coming true:

A budget shortfall as high as $27 billion is projected as lawmakers work through the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office. There is unity on the amount of its budget shortfall, however. Republicans who argue spending does not need to be maintained or grow from 2010-11 levels argue the shortfall could be around $12 billion to $15 billion. Texas writes budgets biennially, or in two-year terms, so the shortfall affects the 2012-13 state budget.

So even if the Republicans view the shortfall conservatively, the cuts almost match the shortfall.

PF Texas points out that some of the original budget shortfalls were made up by stimulus money, and that the true “cuts” was around $3 Billion. But, as noted, the shortfall seems to be suspicously matching the cut—while the maximum projected is almost double that…which means there was never a cut to begin with.

Then there were budget tricks such as delaying payments so they “appear” not to be part of the current budget, such as “$2.3 billion in payments to school districts.” Which only means, the Texas Budget has to increase by that amount the next time around, unless the payments are delayed again. Eventually, it catches up with you.

So PF Texas judged Perry’s statement quite charitably. He was off by 80% or more with “smoke and mirrors” budget cuts. There’s a lot of documentation out there that PF missed that indicates Perry’s budget claims were incorrect, and getting more incorrect all the time. “False” or “Mostly False” would be a more legitimate ruling.

Postscript:  According to FactCheck.Org, Texas has a "balanced budget amendment,"  and begins with saying that it's true that Texas is "spending more money than [it] takes in."  So keep cutting, Rick.

Postscript to Postscript:  I do have to admit, however, I was wrong on one thing with regard to Republican presidential potential: old rootin' tootin' Rick may now be Texas Toast. 

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Flat Tax Fever

Rick Perry's Tax Plan appears to have a different satirical pop culture twist than the “9-9-9” Cain Tax Plan: Herman Cain’s plan comes from the game SimCity 4, while Perry’s pandering “Taxpayer’s Choice” is not taken from anyone (except maybe Steve Forbes) and amounts to nothing more than maybe one of the Seven Dwarves: Dopey. Well, he was acting that way recently himself, so maybe there’s a connection.

According to Rachel Maddow, this plan “accomplishes the same goal of huge tax cuts for rich people and big tax hikes for everyone else." The “same” refers to Cain’s “9-9-9" Plan. PolitiFact’s verdict on the ruling:

Some other Americans--including 45 percent of residents earning $19,343 to $39,862--also would see tax cuts, a projection that does not support the claim that the plan means big tax increases for everyone but the wealthy. Perry’s plan allows every taxpayer to continue under the current system. No one would pay more unless he or she chooses the flat tax against their financial self-interest.

Maddow’s statement, leaving the incorrect impression that Perry’s tax plan hugely benefits the rich while everyone else pays more, rates Mostly False.

Here’s what FactCheck.org has to say about the Perry Tax Plan: (emphasis added)

But that’s not true for everyone, even though the Perry plan would result in a dramatic decrease in overall revenues, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. The Tax Policy Center predicts that Rick Perry’s “flat tax” plan would amount to a tax cut of $570 billion in its first year after enactment, compared with current tax rates. More than half the benefits would flow to persons making more than $1 million a year.

However, many lower-income persons and families would see taxes go up. That’s because, although Perry has said he would continue the “current” income-tax system for those who prefer it, the TPC said Perry’s plan seems to allow all the Bush cuts to expire on schedule, including lower marginal rates at the bottom.

As a result, either the new Perry flat tax or the “current” tax system (once the Bush cuts expire) would mean higher taxes for many, compared with what they would pay at current rates. The TPC projected, for example, that taxes would go up for 63 percent of individuals and families earning between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, for an average increase of $248 in 2015. For those earning between $20,000 and $30,000, the tax hike would be even more painful, amounting to an average of $462 in higher federal income taxes.

Based on this information we can conclude that the Perry Tax Plan:

Sidebar: Are Republicans Pro-Life or Pro-Death?

While I am in occasional disagreement with Liberal Viewer on YouTube, this video about the outward exhilaration some Republicans have for those who have been executed by the death penalty or those who must die because they lack health insurance is a disturbingly intriguing one.

Sidebar: Perry-noia

"Deff Jeff" Dyberg at PolitiFact Bias has published yet another load of nonsense (I’m using Bryan White’s words for me)  in its devotion to all things detrimental to PolitiFact, legitimate or not. First it was a willfully ignorant reliance on Tim Groseclose’s flawed, illogical methodology in rating media bias (as was described in great detail in a three-part guest post serial). In this case, it’s someone named James Taranto from the ubiquitous Wall Street Journal who’s written a short piece about PolitiFact's ruling on Rick Perry’s claim that the Stimulus created zero jobs, combined with a bit of scorn for Obama’s “Misinformation Response” website called Attackwatch. Dyberg writes:

... And it's not surprising that a talented writer like Taranto so easily destroys PolitiFact's flimsy defense of the stimulus. As we've seen time and again PolitiFact's ratings simply can't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

The rest of Taranto's piece is well worth reading, so go do that now.

“So go do that now”? Well, yes, I did go and do what Dyberg doo-dooed so well. Taranto’s a “talented writer”? Well, let’s see….maybe not. I don’t think Deff Jeff or Taranto can stand up to much scrutiny either.

Here’s Taranto’s flimsy response (with a somewhat tacit admission that yes, the Stimulus may have saved jobs) to PolitiFact’s ruling of Pants on Fire for Perry’s claim:

Attackwatch counters that PolitiFact "refers to four independent analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and three private assessments of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to determine that anywhere between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus—'but certainly more than zero.' "

What both sites [Attackwatch and PolitiFact] omit is that, as we noted Sept. 2, the way these estimates are arrived at is not by counting actual jobs--of which, as the Romney chart points out, there are actually fewer than before the stimulus--but by assuming that so-called stimulus spending created jobs. That assumption may be accurate--it is possible that, as Obama and his supporters claim, even more jobs would have been lost absent the stimulus--but these estimates do not demonstrate it.

What Taranto fails to note is that it’s not just PolitiFact saying that Perry’s statement is False, it’s the more-objective-according-to-Bryan-White FactCheck.org saying Perry’s statement is False, and it’s ALSO the Washington Post Fact Checker saying it’s false…without exception. I used a quote from WaPo’s Glenn Kessler because his was the most substantive.

Politi-Score: Three Debates, Part 3

As my previous post was about the most covered topics at the three recent Republican presidential debates, let's see how the candidates fared truth-wise by the three biggest ones:  healthcare/Medicare, jobs and social security.  I'm looking at the most frequently reviewed statements in those categories.

Healthcare if you dare. On the most covered topic of healthcare, there were  some statements which the fact-checkers noted had been checked long before these debates.

The group of fact-checked statements that  caused quite a stir in the media, however, all related to the same healthcare topic: Rick Perry’s defense of his executive order to require young girls to get a HPV vaccine called Gardasil, which prevents cervical cancer. Michele Bachmann decided to tie it into political contributions Perry received from the company that makes the vaccine, Merck. FactCheck.org verified that Perry had indeed received thousands in contributions, but his response to Bachmann’s accusation gave pause even to Rush Limbaugh, as he commented that his first thought when Perry said he couldn’t be bought for $5,000 was-- what IS his price then? (Yes, I heard Rush say that on his radio show on September 12, and yes, I do occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh.) FactCheck.org also confirmed two other untruths of Bachmann’s: that Merck made millions of dollars off the drug (False) and that it was potentially dangerous (False). They also confirmed as true that Perry’s former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck.

Her controversial anecdote following the debate, about the drug causing retardation, did not make my review list, because not only was it after the debates, but the fact-checkers have no way to verify it as some woman who told Bachmann personally. But no worry—a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist has decided to try to validate it the only way possible: by offering “… to donate $10,000 to the charity of Bachmann’s choice if she can produce such a patient” because as they say, money talks and bullsh*t walks. So far, as usual, her campaign hasn’t responded (where have I heard that before?). So I guess Bachmann’s walking.

“Romney says his health care bill affected far smaller percentage of people than Obama's”—which was a statement he first made in a presidential candidate forum in South Carolina, presumably to differentiate as much as possible the two very similar healthcare systems--as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler put it “… an inconvenient fact that Romney tries hard to run away from.” He continued to make the claim into the Reagan Library Debate, where all three fact checkers concluded that Romney was making a faulty comparison. Here’s FactCheck.org’s explanation:

The main goal of both is to cover more of the uninsured, and to do so while preserving the primarily employer-based insurance structure. In 2004, before the Massachusetts law was passed, 7.4 percent of Massachusetts residents were uninsured, according to the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (see page 12). Romney said 8 percent, but that statistic can vary, depending on how being uninsured is measured. Under the Massachusetts plan, that figure went down to 1.9 percent in 2010. Nationally, 16.7 percent of the population is uninsured, as of 2009, according to the Census Bureau. And, like the Massachusetts endeavor, the federal overhaul is aimed at reducing that figure.

PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson felt the “wildly divergent” percentages deserved a Pants on Fire, even soliciting an agreement from the Cato Institute:

Politi-Score: Three Debates, Three Debaters

Politi-Score in parentheses; *Ames score revised slightly due to categorization error.

Most media sources agree that when Rick Perry entered the Republican presidential race, it took a lot of wind out of Michele Bachmann’s sails. When Perry appeared for the second Republican debate, the fact-check counts sort of confirmed it. Bachmann got precedence in fact-checks at Ames, where she was covered for about 1/3 of the total, but in the second debate, she only received five or 1/6 of the total. It’s also significant to note that her Politi-Score greatly improved as well. It seems the more she fades into the background, at least in this case, the more “honest” she is.

However, in the third debate, the CNN-Tea Party, she appeared to maker her “voice of the Tea Party” loud and strong again. This time she came close to getting a third of the fact checks as she did in Ames, while the truthiness dropped accordingly, although not quite as bad. Bachmann’s had more fact-checks in these three debates than any of the other candidates. On the other hand, had Rick Perry participated in the first debate in Ames, he would likely have exceeded her. He averaged ten fact checks in each of the last two debates, so by extrapolation he might have had close to 30 for the three.

All in all, Romney, Perry and Bachmann received just over 70% of the fact-checks by FactCheck.org, the Washington Post Fact Checker and PolitiFact. Here’s a closer look at the Politi-Score in PolitiFact Truth Index format as to how they did.

Politi-Score in parentheses next to each candidate's name.

Here's how Bachmann, Perry and Romney scored for each debate in attaining the overall average (Politi-Score)  shown above:

So, how did Romney suddenly score so much higher and "truthful" in the third debate on CNN? It was in the tit-for-tat book-quoting between Romney and Perry. The “Trues” that brought up Romney’s scores was his calling out Perry for stating that  Social Security was unconstitutional in his recent book “Fed Up” which both PolitiFact and the WaPo Fact Checker confirmed were true. These Trues and Mostly Trues made up over half the fact-checks on him for the CNN debates. Perry, however, only had one fact-check attributed to him regarding book quotes, while all three fact-checkers took him to task on stating that the Stimulus created zero jobs, with PolitiFact giving him a Pants on Fire.

Next, a discussion of one re-recovered ruling on a Rick Perry statement about social security as Ponzi, and a few other items of interest.

Politi-Score: Twinkle Twinkle Lil Lone Star

Read down for fine print of "Texas Miracle."

Rick Perry is one candidate who has a lot of foretelling qualities that make him the person that Obama might not beat. We’ve had a lot of presidents from the state of Texas; in my time, it suddenly started with a Democrat in Lyndon Baines Johnson when I was awakened to the potential tragedies of politics one cold early afternoon in November of 1963, when I was in grade school. Then there was the first centrist Republican George Bush, who was sort of semi-Texan, and then his "Compassionate Conservative" son for two terms, and now the distinctly right-wing Perry. But Perry also bears a resemblance to Ronald Reagan: a rugged, handsome former Democrat with a certain charisma, who’s going to run during a period of time which is much like the late 70’s-early 80’s, against a candidate who reminds me sometimes of Jimmy Carter. And then there’s something I call the “Rick” factor: Perry is not a business man like these two, but having lived in two states where the guy who recently became governor had the name Rick (Snyder in Michigan and Scott in Florida), my intuition says, maybe there’s another Rick on the horizon, in a much bigger way.

Rick Perry is not the “liar” that I’ve shown Michele Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi to be. He scores more toward the center, although I’d say somewhere below center. Thus far in 2011 he’s had 37 rulings, from PolitiFact (23), Washington Post Fact Checker (8) and FactCheck.org (6). His averages for all three are shown below, along with the Politi-Score (which averages all 37 together):

So Perry has a Politi-Score of -35, as compared to a -47 for Michele Bachmann and a -77 for Nancy Pelosi for similar time periods. As noted in the following PolitiFact Truth Index trend chart for Perry, he was getting better this year, until he started considering a run for the presidency, and then his cumulative Truth Index got worse, although not by a lot, because of the cumulative averaging effects of  his many previous rulings.

In July, Perry ranked Number 17 out of 25 individuals/groups (actually, 26 are ranked; chain e-mails are counted twice for affiliation) with 15 or more rulings ranked by the Truth Index, for all PolitiFact rulings through the end of June. He was Number 9 among 15 Republicans who made it to the list.

Sidebar: Politi-Psychotic without the "otic"

Recently when using a friend’s new laptop with Windows Seven (I’m still on Vista), typing in the name of this blog in the search box, I noticed that for each letter a different search would come up (assuming that’s Windows Seven or a better browser)….and when I got to politipsych, I found there was a site by that name, and it had some excellent write-ups on Republican candidates…they read with the flare of one of my favorite authors and occasional Salon journalist Camille Paglia. In this case, a post dated August 15, by Dr. Alan J. Lipman, caught my eye:

Note Ben Smith’s excellent article on Bachmann’s rapid Waterloo at Waterloo moment, showcasing all the insular, self-protective tightness of fearful “can’t believe that we’re here” organizational pathology that will magnify as the spotlight increases upon her.

The triangle is between Perry-Bachmann-Romney.

Perry will chip away at Bachmann’s brittle, protected, highly anxious and therefore highly managed style. Bachmann will also increasing demonstrate numerous unforced errors in this regard. End result: Perry’s relaxed strength will be reinforced against Bachmann’s increasingly difficult to hide over-controlled self-protection against her own fear of her shaky insecurity.

Perry’s downhome Texan style, while likely an issue in the general, will wear well against Romney’s shape-shifting, “corporations are people”, off-kilter retail politics. R’s will like his comfortable, broken in boots, and barring a scandal, he’s got it.

I agree: I’m betting on Perry as the one who "gets it", who’ve some described as someone who looks like Josh Brolin portraying George W. Bush. It’s the possibility of scandal and/or the successful ability of the Obama 2012 election team to focus on Perry in terms of Bush’s many negatives (and Perry's forays into right-wing extremism) that will keep him from going to the Whitehouse. While I had always heard he might run in 2016, announcing for 2012 was a good idea (for the Republicans) because he is a far better candidate than the others in terms of potential appeal to independent voters.  Lipman followed by this more in-depth psychological analysis of Perry's rival Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann coming in with expectations of near certifiability for inpatient treatment, has shown herself to be able to shift to voice that is reasonably free of near psychotic utterances (e.g. Swine Flu the result of Democratic machinations), and to show reasonable tenacity at evading the worst dangers of her dangerously near past utterances. Of course–that does not mean that they weren’t said, and while showing increased skill at evasion, she has little with which to actually answer the content of these statements.

She has been able to do this for short bursts. This will not last for the campaign, the frayed edges of the anxious need for controlled perfection–borne of anxiety, of the fear that it will all collapse around her from one mistake, of the remarkable house of cards upon which her “Tax attorney” “Family Business” candidacy has been built, will force a self-protective shock troop surrounding her; a prima donna need to ensure perfect conditions for appearances which will quickly undermine any “voice of the people” rhetoric, and slips of the less than factual or reassuring variety. She is tight, controlled, scared. It won’t be long.

Yep, it won't be long. Next up, as time affords me, will be a Politi-Score review of Perry.

Tchotchkes: GOP Prez Buttons I'd Like to See

Although for Bachmann, I can think of some appropriate by-lines, such as: 

• Tender n Flakey
• What's my Lyin'?
• Vote for me--or go to Hell 

Lil White Lies: Take These Net Jobs and Shove 'em

Jobs statistics are a sticky, complex topic for PolitiFact: as noted by PolitiFact Ohio writer Mark Naymik in this recent PolitiFact (PF) ruling on Joe Biden: “Politifact also frequently points [out] that when framing job figures, slicing and timing make all the difference.”

And wouldn’t you know, PF even knows quite well what selection bias is. Only it calls it for what it really is: cherry picking: (emphasis added)

Take, for example, some other accurate statistics we can create using the same figures.

If job growth continues on pace in 2010, employment still will have decreased by 1.6 million jobs since Obama took office in 2009.

While Obama is on a pace to add 2.356 million jobs in 2010, Bush created 2.36 million jobs in 2005 (a specific year to year comparison).

And from April 2003 to June 2007, while Bush was president, the U.S. economy added almost 7.9 million jobs.

All true. And all in seeming contradiction to Wasserman Schultz's claim.

Why?

Because we cherry-picked numbers to make our point.

But the ruling that is the subject of this Lil White Lies post is not about Joe Biden or Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  It's about a claim by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell about Texas Governor Rick Perry's "job creation performance" in an op-ed piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal.

My conservative counterpart is correct in how PolitiFact approaches job numbers claims: “PolitiFact's history of (appropriately) treating job creation claims as dealing with net job creation where the context warrants taking them that way.” So, in that same track, is he also correct when he says that PolitiFact failed to note that Rick Perry “did not mention the term "net" while talking about job gains?

Here is the complete quote from McDonnell:

Look no further than growing and diverse Texas, a state Democrats targeted in 2010, where data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that under Gov. Rick Perry’s leadership the state has created more jobs over the last decade than the rest of the states combined. That’s a record of job creation the Obama administration can only dream about.

There is no mention of this “net” by McDonnell throughout his op-ed piece extolling the great things all the new Republican governors have been doing for their states. For example, he says about his own, Virginia: “Since February 2010, 67,400 new jobs have been created in Virginia and our unemployment rate has fallen to 6% from 7.2%.” He says about Wisconsin: “In six months, 25,000 private-sector jobs have been created.”

Sidebar: How scarey is Perry-Care?

Previously I put together this chart comparing the ten healthiest with the ten unhealthiest states, which I think will be not only expanded upon, but referenced many more times, because it clearly shows there's a strong correlation between good health and having healthcare: 

Texas has one of the highest rates of obesity, giving new meaning to everything being bigger in Texas.

Now that it’s been found that Texas is one of the fattest, most diabetic and unhealthiest states in the union (see above), as well as having the highest percentage of citizens without health insurance, PolitiFact found Texas Governor Rick Perry might not even know this (or is denying it) in this Pants on Fire ruling from January:

It's no secret that Texas Gov. Rick Perry thinks states can do some things better than the federal government, including coordinating health care for its poorest residents.

In a Dec. 19 interview with Kathleen McKinley, whose blog appears on the Houston Chronicle's website, Perry said the state has good ideas for delivering care effectively. As an example, he pointed to a proposal that Texas submitted to the federal government with the goal of reducing the number of uninsured residents by "restructuring federal Medicaid funding." Medicaid uses federal and state funding to provide health insurance to low-income Americans.

…We confirmed that Texas had sought permission from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in April 2008 to redirect Medicaid hospital funds into a state pool intended to help some low-income Texans get private insurance. However, in August 2008, during George W. Bush's presidency, an official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is part of the federal health agency, sent a letter to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission stating that "a number of areas under this proposal have been identified as problematic" — making it impossible for the federal agency to approve the proposal as written.”

Maybe it should be called “Perry-Care”? Yep, states like Texas sure can do some things better, and economist Paul Krugman is here to explain (and PolitiFact to verify):

Lil White Lies: One Dim Bulb

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:

CAFE standards were effective in increasing new car and truck fuel economy by 70 percent between 1975 and 1988. In 2000 alone, CAFE standards saved American consumers $92 billion, reduced oil use by 60 billion gallons of gasoline, and kept 720 million tons of global warming pollution out of our atmosphere.

In terms of light bulbs, there are lots of “Energy Savings” calculators available on line to show you how much you save with the new CFL’s over regular bulbs. I now have, at last count, eight 75-watt CFL bulbs in my home. According to one energy saving calculator available on line, over the life of those bulbs, I’ll get $538 in energy savings, prevent 6,496 pounds of CO2 from being added to the air, which is the same as taking half an average car off the road.

But who cares when it is the equivalent of forcing you to choose what kind of car or, in this case, light bulb to buy, as Bryan White claims in his latest grading of a PolitiFact ruling on a claim made in a book by Texas Governor Rick Perry about the reach of the Federal government extending to telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy.