If a Senate candidate criticizes a plan to cut government spending, and exaggerates those cuts over a decade to make them seem massive and frightening, is that misleading and deceptive?
According to the self-described fact-checking organization PolitiFact, deception is not only welcomed and approved, but also deserves a nearly perfect rating.
Thats the latest finding by PolitiFact, run by the Tampa Bay Times, which tackles Sen. Bill Nelsons claim that U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, his GOP challenger for Senate, has a deficit-reduction plan that would absolutely eviscerate Medicare and Social Security.
The Mack Penny Plan, which Nelson refers to, was submitted to the House by Mack in 2011 and inspired by businessman Bruce Cooks One Cent Solution.
It aims to cut one penny out of every dollar spent by the federal government and eventually cap spending at 18 percent of GDP.
According to Macks campaign fliers, the plan would balance the budget by 2019.
In the only live debate to be held in Floridas Senate race on Oct. 17, Nelson attacked the Mack Penny Plan because he said it takes $200 billion out of Medicare, over a trillion out of Social Security and, oh by the way, to boot $3 trillion out of defense.
Nelson said trillions of dollars in spending cuts would eviscerate Medicare and Social Security.
Nelson never mentions those cuts would span over 10 years, but still he receives a nearly flawless rating from his friends at PolitiFact.
Nelsons claim requires some explanation about the plan and its timeline, but his numbers are correct. We rate this claim Mostly True, they wrote in their judgment.
But in PolitiFacts own rating of Macks Penny Plan, they give him a Half True because they dont see evidence that the plan is gaining support.
Why the double standard?
Total federal spending over the past decade alone amounts to more than $30 trillion. Were Macks plan in existence, it would have led to 0.6 percent cuts for Medicare, 3.2 percent for Social Security and 9.6 percent for defense over 10 years the furthest thing from massive and drastic spending cuts as classified by PolitiFact.
According to PolitiFacts own Truth-o-meter, the difference between these two ratings is entirely based upon context and clarification.
- MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
- HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
Because Nelsons claim was completely out of context and never gave a specific timetable, why is it that he receives a higher rating than Mack, whose main fault was that he claimed it was gaining support?
Also included in their Half True rating of Mack, however, are concerns similar to those voiced by Nelson in the debate on entitlement spending.
Mack has received unfavorable ratings from PolitiFact.
"Wed like to hear (Mack) provide details about whether older Americans should expect lower Social Security checks and to pay more for Medicare, or if theyll be spared and in turn other departments will face much larger cuts, they wrote.
The PolitiFact or Faction series by Ohio Watchdogs Jon Cassidy has called into question various errors by PolitiFact Ohio in methodology, subject selection and preferential treatment for favored candidates.
And it doesnt seem any different in Florida.
PolitiFact holds different standards when it comes to GOP Senate candidate Connie Mack, which does no justice to the tradition of independent fact-checking and analysis. We rate them as biased.
Contact Ya Ossowski, Watchdog.orgs Florida bureau chief, at Yael@FloridaWatchdog.org. This is the last in a 13-part FloridaWatchdog.org series, "PolitiFact or Fiction?"
