A New Form of Political Fact Checking!

Posted on July 17, 2011 by

Welcome to Political Truth Serum: A new approach to political fact checking that finds both lies and  omissions!

Thank you for visiting our site and for your interest in this innovative form of political fact checking.  As we get deeper into each political campaign we find that the candidates, the political parties, and various outside special interest groups tend to lie, omit, and exaggerate in order to make the other side look bad or prove their own political talking point.  Sometimes the hope is that when the other political party chooses to defend its political views against these claims it can look weak or defensive, and sometimes the misinformation or distortion is already stuck in the public conscience.

What is sorely needed in our political system, both during election seasons and in between, is a reliable truth serum that can reliably fact check the politicians and political parties, whether democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives, and force them to own up to their omissions, lies, and exaggerations.  Our site aims to serve that fact checking purpose by not only uncovering what is untrue in what is being said, but also what is purposely being left unsaid!

With literally billions being spent on each election campaign, and trillions of money being spent by the government in between elections, political fact-checking is vital so that we can all vote knowing what the candidates will truly do when elected into office.  Right now, the political system is clouded because outside groups, special interests, and wealthy donors expect that they will get their way, and if omission and exaggeration is the means so be it.  There seems to be no room for rational, open, and dare we say friendly debate that is open to unbiased fact-checking of the political news, views, and opinions put out by the political parties and candidates.

If political truth serum is applied, fact checking might lead to more open and honest debate.  Our hope is that this new approach to fact checking will play a small role in that process!

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Life of Julia – Fact Checking some Political Exaggeration

Posted on May 18, 2012 by

The Obama campaign rolled out a very interesting graphic that followed the life of a hypothetical woman and described what things would be like for her under the policies of President Obama vs. the policies of President Romney.  It was a creative a clear way of trying to point out the differences between the two on major issues that affect people in their everyday lives.

The problem with the graphic is that when the life of Julia is fact checked with a little PTS, we find that that accusations against Mr. Romney are a little unfair, for example:

For example:

  • The campaign hints at a President Romney canceling Medicare as we know it and leaving seniors with only vouchers, when a quick fact check suggests that what the Romney campaign has actually said is that they favor choice between traditional Medicare and subsidized private plans.
  • The ad suggests that under a President Romney Julia would not have medical coverage as a 22-year-old because she’d be forced off her parents’ insurance.  Actually, while this is part of the large health care law that Romney and many Republicans do not like, a little PTS suggests that the provision that allows children to stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26 is so popular that it is likely to have bipartisan support even if the law is repealed.
  • The ad hints that somehow Julia would not have “maternal checkups” when pregnant if President Romney is elected.  This seems to be a suggestion that perhaps Julia would be uninsured, and that may be true under a President Romney if she is.  But a fair fact check suggests if she has insurance like 85% of full-time workers have now, there is no reason she would not get that care.
Posted in Candidates | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political fact checker on healthcare reform, part two

Posted on May 12, 2012 by

If you read the previous post, you saw how the claims that 11 million people will “lose” their employer based coverage are a distortion of what will really happen.  The target audiences of these scare tactics are consumers who might worry, without a fact check of the claim, that they will be kicked off their employer paid, private HMO coverage.  As we explored, this is just not the case.

But the next argument that many who are against the healthcare law (“Obamacare”) tend to make is that businesses will drop people because the fine for not covering their employees is less than the cost of coverage.  With a fact check, the kind we do at PTS, we find an amusing irony here.  Many who are against the bill are conservatives in the Republican party.  And many of these same conservatives rally against “government oversight” and “crushing fines that hurt business”, etc.  Their argument: It doesn’t take government interference and oversight to get corporations to do the right thing; Instead, companies out of competition for the best employees, the need to uphold their reputation, and general good will will choose the right path even without the government interfering.

Now, it seems, when opposition to the healthcare law serves a political purpose, these same people are saying that the fines are too little to prevent companies from making these decisions?  More fines or higher amounts are needed?  Interestingly, the US Chamber is one of the major players in the fight against healthcare reform.  But why – if companies can save money by taking on the fines and dropping people, why fight it.  When we do a fact check we understand: Companies do not want to be faced with the choice, the temptation to drop people.

Posted in Outside groups | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political fact checker on Healthcare Reform, Part One

Posted on April 15, 2012 by

There are many “facts” about healthcare reform that are being targeted by those who are against the current legislation.  Unfortunately in many cases a bit of political fact checking is sorely needed.  Take for example the idea that “11 million people will lose their employer-based health coverage” under the law.  This fact has been repeated often by those who are against the law, and it has been used in the context of scaring people into thinking that they could lose their insurance due to the law’s provisions.  Is this true?  Let’s provide a little PTS.

If we properly fact check this statement we find that the reason that many of these 11 million people would lose their employer-based insurance is because they could get better and/or cheaper insurance on the exchanges that the government will be setting up.  In other words, employers might drop coverage because their employees will find that they have better options.

Thus, proper political fact checking  of the statement that “11 million people could lose their employer-based health insurance” due to healthcare reform suggests that actually the bill will reduce the costs of healthcare on some business because these business can transfer the costs to exchanges, and that consumers from these businesses will actually prefer the exchanges to their former insurances.  So with a the fact check that comes with PTS, the statement might possibly be better phrased: “11 million people could chose to leave their employer based insurance because they will have a better and improved option” under healthcare reform.

Posted in Political Leaders | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

On Regulation Reform – they all need a little PTS!

Posted on March 19, 2012 by

It’s quite amazing how the “debate” over regulation reform has suddenly been infused with exaggeration and hyper-partisan yelling designed to please donors or fire up respective political bases.  This is unfortunate because regulation reform presents a perfect opportunity for democrats and republicans, and perhaps more specifically liberals and conservatives, to actually come to the table and look for middle ground solutions or at least trade offs and rational political debate.  This example clearly points out how the political process is completely held up by hyperpartisanship and a lack of transparency.

This situation where the middle is excluded for the sake of hyperpartisan warfare is going to get worse for those of us hoping for rational debate and discussion.  Soon political ads put out by the candidates and their supporters will use even greater exaggeration and distortion to fit a position into what is perceived as the most powerful way to compel people to support the candidate.  Both the democrats and republicans will look to fire people up with their own political ads, and they will use generalities to do this.

We anticipate the need for a tremendous amount of political truth serum in the claims and counter claims that we will see in the area of regulation reform, all in the name of pleasing donors, super pacs, and base votors.  The voters who would actually respect and pay attention to thoughtful and truthful debate will certainly lose out.

Posted in Political Parties | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political Commentators who need political fact checking

Posted on February 26, 2012 by

While someday someone will come up with the methodology to test whether the “mainstream media” is biased.  We are not going there.  But what about political commentators who are actually paid to have political opinions and views?  It is entertaining and enlightening to hear them arguing their positions, no matter how liberal or conservative they are, especially when they have clearly disclosed that they are taking one side or the other.  We do, however, have a problem when they use facts to back their positions that exaggerate, distort, or make up the truth.  Some examples:

Laura Ingram, conservative republican commentator described the Massachusetts Healthcare law as “wildly unpopular” to residents in the state.  Polling suggests that people’s feelings are actually mostly neutral on the law.

Jon Stewart, who usually takes a stance against far right conservative positions, suggested that Fox News viewers are “consistently” rated as the most misinformed about politics.  Scientific studies have not borne that out.

Keith Olberman, a liberal democrat said that subsidies for oil and gas companies make up 88% of federal subsidies, a wildly exaggerated number.

Bill O’Reilly on Fox news, a conservative commentator, mistakenly defended his network by stating that no one there had ever said that people could go to jail if they did not get health insurance when Obamacare became law.  Someone had actually said that on air.  A double falsehood of sorts.

These examples show that money is not always the source of corruption in politics!  Sometimes commentators themselves, even though they have disclosed the fact that they favor one side or the other, need fact checking and political truth serum.

Posted in Media | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Would small business owners really suffer if taxes were raised on the rich?

Posted on February 11, 2012 by

Republicans have a familiar rallying cry each time a democrat proposes increasing taxes on the wealthy – i.e. increasing the top tax rate or letting the current Bush tax rates expire for the top tier - saying that it will negatively affect small business owners.  This sounds like a horrible idea, given that small business is a major driver of our economy.  More than that, who wants to hurt the “Mom and Pop” store down the street, or the entrepreneur who is just getting started?

Unfortunately republicans need a huge dose of political truth serum once we fact check their claim.  Yes, any raise in taxes would affect small business owners who do well (i.e. in this case make over $250,000 profit for themselves) and report their income as individuals.  But a closer look, including ones from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center found that less than 3 percent of tax filers who report small-business income pay at either of the top two income tax rates.  And further, included in that 3 percent are lawyers and doctors whose “small business” is actually just a professional partnership.  So really this tax rate is just affecting those who people, like anyone else who is working for a living, does well for themselves.  And there really are not that many small business owners in the mix.

So, once again we have a compelling argument that sounds good in a sound bite, but a little fact checking and a dose of political truth serum suggests that it is not completely true.  The vast majority of those who would benefit from extending a lower top tax rate are the wealthy who make their money from larger corporations or businesses, and the idea that it would harm small business owners does not seem to hold up at all.

Posted in Political Parties | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Super PACs – what will the political payback entail?

Posted on February 2, 2012 by

We are beginning to see the names of the people and companies that have donated to Super PACs.  These groups, which are dominating the republican landscape this election season, can raise unlimited money that will be used to either support a candidate or attack another candidate.  Super PACs exist because the Supreme Court decided that everyone had the right to free speech during election seasons – including corporations – and that limiting the amount that could be spent was equivalent to limiting free speech.  The court ignored arguments about the corrupting influence of money in politics, and the idea that everyone should have a relatively equal voice as opposed to allowing the rich to have a greater voice.

Super PACs have suddenly become a major tool, particularly on the Republican side, and they might end up helping propel a candidate into office.  This will quite obviously motivate that candidate to please the Super PAC so that he or she can get the same support when it is re-election time.  It would be dangerous to turn one’s back on those who gave all that support, given that they might pour that same money into the campaign of a challenger if you’re not careful!

So, who were the big donors to these enormous Republican Super PACs?  Home builders and developers, oil and gas companies, and chemical companies are just some examples.  These industries would benefit from loosened environmental regulations, less business oversight in general, and greater subsidies.  Would a candidate for congress or a presidential candidate dare not fulfill requests made from these industries if the Super PAC was successful in getting him or her elected?  Would he or she really want to take the chance that the Super PAC would turn its back the next time?

Posted in Outside groups | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Our idea: Political Campaign Debates on Steroids

Posted on December 12, 2011 by

We have said many times here and on our sister sites like Foxes in the Henhouse and A Collective Good that debates and town halls are the ideal place for candidates to truly get their message across, as opposed to through advertising that tends to be negative and distorted.  We still believe that, but yet we have become increasingly concerned that the recent political debates have seemed to have the same exaggeration, distortion, and outright lying that some of the problematic forms of campaigning have had.

Part of the reason for this issue is that during the primary season the candidates are desperate to be heard, and debates with more than two people pull for responses that will hopefully lead to sound bites and media attention.  It often takes some exaggeration to achieve that goal.  This suggests that perhaps when the field is whittled down to one republican and one democrat we might see presidential debates with less distortion and more honest and factual discussion.

But imagine for a second a debate format that allowed the moderator to argue a bit more – imagine if a trusted moderator was allowed to truly take the candidate up on exaggerations and falsehoods, or if the format was changed so the back and forth between the candidates truly allowed for this kind of human fact checking in real time.  Currently viewership of the presidential debates is very high, but it drops off sharply when the candidates leave and before the media can jump in and fact check things afterwards.  Strong points and sound bites can stick, even if a little political truth serum might have negated them.

In the GOP primary debates there has been a varying need for political truth serum, and it seems that whoever the front runner has been has needed the least fact checking while the chasers have often desperately thrown out distortions and exaggerations.  Perhaps this means has unfortunately worked, as front runner status has changed several times.  We would hope that a change in format would eliminate this, especially if the front runner is being unfairly peppered with untruths.

Posted in Political Leaders | 1 Comment

Bad start for the Romney Campaign – Misleading First Major Political Ad

Posted on November 25, 2011 by

Mitt Romney’s campaign aired its first major TV ad buy of the presidential election campaign with the following quote from President Obama: “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”  Obviously anyone watching this political ad would think that the president is looking to run away from the poor economy and instead try to find something else to talk about during this election season.  That would be highly unpresidential and would show a disappointing lack of leadership.

There is a problem with the ad, however.  A major problem.  President Obama was actually quoting his opponent in the 2008 election when he said that.  In fact, the full quote was, “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”  So not only was the quote not made by the president regarding his own intentions, it was not made four years ago and had to do with what he saw his opponent trying to do.  He was, in fact, stating that he himself would not run away from talking about the economy.

So, what would we likely find if we gave the Romney campaign some political truth serum about this ad?  First we would likely find that they are not upset about the publicity they are receiving because even if it happened for an unfair and deceitful reason they are happy that the economy is something people are talking about.  Second, we’d probably find that although they would say that their intention was to show that the president is somehow planning to do what he accused his challenger of doing last election, they really are also happy that some people will not pick up on that nuance and will think that the quote the president made was in fact recent and self-referenced.

We think that it’s a shame that the campaign season has kicked off this way…it seems likely that we will need to stock up on PTS more than ever before.

Posted in Candidates | Leave a comment

Will the GOP extend necessary tax breaks?

Posted on November 23, 2011 by

As of this writing we are in an interesting time for the political parties.  Last year the Democrats, led by President Obama, ushered in a round of payroll tax cuts that were very clearly designed to help the middle class and also stimulate the economy by increasing spending.  The interesting part of this decision was that these kinds of tax breaks are the ones that republicans and conservatives are often arguing for – and sometimes arguing against democrats in support of, because they feel strongly that tax cuts stimulate the economy even if they might add to the deficit in the short-term.

Now we are in a state of role reversal, and it will be interesting to see what republicans and conservatives decide to do.  Obama and democrats are pushing for an extension of the tax cuts he put in place.  Republicans must support them if they are to go through.  If they don’t go through the economy could slow, with some estimates suggesting that as much as .7% of GDP could be in jeopardy if they don’t.  But will republicans be able to stomach supporting the president and the senate who they are trying to defeat in the 2012 elections?  Can they give a victory to the other party?  One would assume they would put the economic health of the country ahead of election priorities…especially when they seem to agree in theory with what the other party is proposing.  It remains to be seen.

As a nonpartisan site we will give credit…or blame…where it is due!

Posted in Political Leaders | Leave a comment