Grading PolitiFact: Eric Cantor and "job-killing" ObamaCare

PolitiFact has placed considerable recent focus on claims surrounding the health care reform bill and the repeal proposal.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Robert Farley:  writer, researcher
Angie Drobnic Holan:  writer, researcher
Louis Jacobson:  researcher
Bill Adair:  editor


Analysis:

PolitiFact has a problem with standards.  Specifically, the grading system lacks specifics to the point where fact checking may be made to appear to fit the "Truth-O-Meter" grading system when the grade is truly the result of subjective opinion.  This example will serve nicely to illustrate.

We've read a number of critiques that say the law isn't quite the "job killer" that Republicans claim it is, so we wanted to investigate for ourselves and evaluate the evidence. The Republican leadership recently published a document titled, "Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law," which cites several pieces of evidence for its job-killing claim:

"Independent analyses have determined that the health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the 'amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent...,' an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost. A study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), the nation's largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses."
(yellow highlights added)

That's two studies and about four numbers.  Do the four numbers make up the "several pieces of evidence" PolitiFact mentions?

The story points out a real problem with the estimate of 650,000 jobs lost.  Reducing the amount of labor affects the labor supply.  Job availability has to do with the demand for labor.  The GOP is misusing that piece of evidence.  On the other hand, the reasons behind the drop in the labor supply may well have job-killing effects.

The GOP's use of the NFIB study likewise has problems accurately sussed out by the PolitiFact team.  The study used assumptions that do not accurately reflect the content of the health care reform bill the GOP wants to repeal.  Again, however, there's an untold part of the story.  PolitiFact pulled the same trick when it graded an Obama claim that he had provided a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans.  The fact checkers used a study produced before Obama was even elected and ignored a later study that used more appropriate numbers.

In the case of the NFIB study, the GOP's misapplication of the data exaggerate the degree of job loss.  But the exaggeration does not eradicate the threat of job loss.

So far the story has us sailing along without much of a rudder. What specific claim has PolitiFact set out to check?  If the bill "isn't quite the 'job killer' that Republicans claim it is" then are we on course for "Half True"?

In evaluating this statement, we should reiterate that the health care law is a complicated piece of legislation. Large employers who do not currently offer insurance or who offer limited coverage will see greater costs under the bill, either because they will have to buy their employees new or additional coverage or they get hit with fines.


We asked Cantor's office about whether the bill was "job-killing." A spokesman insisted that it was, pointing to individual business owners who said they would face increased costs under health care. He also pointed us to a letter organized from the American Action Network, a conservative think tank. The letter, signed by 200 economists, said, "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contains expensive mandates and penalties that create major barriers to stronger job growth. The mandates will compete for the scarce business resources used for hiring and firm expansion."

We're still tacking back and forth.  It appears from the story that we have evidence the health care reform bill will kill at least some jobs.  But what's the destination?  The next three paragraphs do little to clear things up.  PolitiFact admits the bill will "cost some employers money, particularly large ones."  The CBO says low-wage workers will feel that pinch the most.  And the effect will be "somewhat limited," whatever that's supposed to mean.  Beyond that, PolitiFact uselessly points out that the legislation does not go into effect until 2014, and trots out the perhaps illusory silver lining that improved employee health might improve economic productivity nationally.

Where is this headed?  PolitiFact will tell you where it's headed:

Republicans have used the "job-killing" claim hundreds of times -- so often that they used the phrase in the name of the bill. It implies that job losses will be one of the most significant effects of the law. But they have flimsy evidence to back it up.

The phrase suggests a massive decline in employment, but the data doesn't support that. The Republican evidence is extrapolated from a report that was talking about a reduction in the labor supply rather than the loss of jobs, or based on measures that weren't included in the final health care law. We rate the statement False.

I've written many times about the importance of charitable interpretation and its role in fact checking.  I've written about it many times because PolitiFact exhibits a severe problem in applying the principle.

By emphasizing an uncharitable intepretation of the Republican claim ("suggests a massive decline in unemployment"), PolitiFact creates a loophole in its grading system.  The fact checkers have provided an out so that they need not consider that job losses below an unspecified minimum would make the Republican claim "Barely True," "Half True," "Mostly True" or even "True."  Instead, PolitiFact can conveniently judge that the unspecified standard was not met and quickly conclude that the claim was "False" or worse.  The middle ground in PolitiFact's grading system is thus eliminated in certain select instances.

This fact check of Cantor represents another of those instances.

As bad as that is, PolitiFact is guilty of another malfeasance.  Remember those "several" evidences and the four numbers?  It turns out that the Republican position paper did contain several evidences, one of which surfaced later in the story when Cantor's office responded to PolitiFact's inquiries.

For example:

Experts at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) expect this as well, stating in a paper on “Health Reform and Small Business” that “economic theory suggests the penalty should ultimately be passed through [as] lower wages [to an employee]. If firms cannot pass on the cost in lower wages, the higher cost of workers may lead firms to reduce output and the number of workers.” CRS estimates that about one in five employees work for a business that could be negatively impacted by the new employer penalty.”

Where does PolitiFact get off telling its readers that "the evidence falls short" while at the same it cherry-picks the evidence and ignores the rest including a bit that crept into the story anyway (the letter from 200 economists)?

Shenanigans.


The grades:

Robert Farley:  F
Angie Drobnic Holan:  F
Louis Jacobson:  F
Bill Adair:  F