Another Boot to the Head for Politifact (by Jazz)

[Long-time readers know that since about April 2009, we have published a chart which shows actual unemployment numbers compared to what the Obama team predicted. The chart shows the falsity of  the Obama administration's claims that the Stimulus would act immediately to stop further increases in unemployment. George Will mentioned this point in recent article, saying "This is the man who said...we would have unemployment at 8% and no higher."

Politifact, an 'objective' fact-checking organization, contested this intepretation and use of the data, finally concluding that Will's statement was 'barely true.' That riled Ace and Slublog, who spent much of yesterday posting rebuttals to Politifact's article:

Original Politifact article
Ace Takes Politifact to the Mat
Slublog Piles On
Ace Tags Back In

I wanted to chime in, but I've been a little busy. A regular at The Hostages (Jazz), however, wrote a long and detailed letter directly to Politifact arguing against their assessment. That letter is reproduced below. Take it away Jazz!]

Sirs:

With respect to George Will’s comment, “This is the man who said if we pass the $767 billion stimulus bill — which it turns out cost $862 billion, a $95 billion oops — we would have unemployment at 8 percent and no higher,” you note, “[W]e could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge. Rather, it comes via a Jan. 9, 2009, report.”

It appears that because Romer and Bernstein merely serve as advisers to the administration, you consider them as not speaking for the administration. Fine. But their report informed administration decisions and provided the basis for the President’s economic plan. As illustrated below, the President very obviously refers to the substance of that report to justify the stimulus program. [letter continues below the fold]

On February 29, 2009, President Obama said in Elkhart, Indiana, “Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don’t act immediately, millions of more jobs will be lost. The national unemployment rates will approach double digits not just here in Elkhart, all across the country.” The President’s statement is a statement of fact: If the government does not act, unemployment will approach double digits. Using the tautological inverse of the President’s statement, the same statement renders as, “If unemployment does not approach double digits, the government will have acted.” In other words, government action will avoid double-digit unemployment. The President’s statement is a statement of fact that (a) double-digit unemployment is inevitable without government action, and (b) government action would keep unemployment out of double digits.

On February 10, 2009, at a Town Hall meeting in Fort Myers, Florida, President Obama said, “[I]f we don’t act immediately, then millions more jobs will disappear; the national unemployment rates will approach double digits.” Once again, the President is making a statement of fact that government action would ward off double-digit unemployment.

On February 5, 2009, in the Washington Post, President Obama wrote, “If nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.” Again, the tautological inverse of the President’s statement yields a result that makes avoidance of double-digit employment dependent on government action.

You state, “But what we saw from the administration in January 2009 was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.”

Two comments here: First, your distinction between projection and promise is a distinction without merit. The President made a statement of fact; actually he made the very same statement of fact several times. Label the statements projection or promise – you’re wrong on both counts. The President’s statement is no different than saying, “If I have three balls in a sack and remove two balls, then one ball is left in the sack.” The President left himself no margin for error: He made an affirmative statement that governmental action would forestall double-digit unemployment.

Second, irrespective of what the Council of Economic Advisors’ report stated, when the President was making his case to the American public, he gave no disclaimers. Ever. He himself sold the stimulus based on the fact that unemployment would not hit double-digits, which it did. And what did the president have in mind when he referred to the stimulus’ effect? Vice President Joe Biden gave us insight in a June 2, 2010, interview with Charlie Rose.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, the unemployment rate went up to 10 percent

JOE BIDEN – That`s right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Above 10 percent. There were predictions it would only go up to 8.5 percent.

JOE BIDEN -Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: The president and you have acknowledged you were wrong in those predictions.

JOE BIDEN : By the way, not only us.

Biden owns the 8.5% “prediction” of the report on behalf of the Obama administration. He acknowledges that was the number it was working with. Based on the Romer and Bernstein’s report and Biden’s statement, all of the administrations characterizations of the stimulus effect can be concluded to have been made based around the 8.5% figure. So your assertion that the administration never characterized unemployment as not going above 8.5% (forgiving Will’s .5% error) if the stimulus was passed is incorrect.

Moreover, your conclusion that the administration included plenty of disclaimers “saying the predictions had ‘significant margins of error’ and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is ‘unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity’” is false and deceptive. Some administration statements, such as Romer and Bernstein’s report, indeed might have contained disclaimers. The majority of the American public does not read those reports, though, and those disclaimers you reference were not included when it mattered – when the American public was listening to messages delivered via Presidential addresses. Americans rely on the truth of what their President tells them, and the President wholly omitted any disclaimers at all when selling the stimulus to the American public.

The President and his administration certainly created the impression on Americans that the stimulus would contain unemployment below 8.5%, which ultimately turned out not to be true. While your article contains elements of truth, it by no means is a comprehensive or fair treatment of the subject, and if you aspire to any sort of reputation for impartiality, you have an obligation to correct your misinformed article.

Regards,

Jazz