PolitiFlub: False assumptions equal true foundations

The PolitiFlub label exists for times when I don't intend a full evaluation but nonetheless have found something worth criticizing in a PolitiFact story.

Such as this one.

Sometimes I don't know whether laugh, stare or simply fall out of my chair:

When we ran the White House's approach by Boehner's office, a spokesman said that they're based on a faulty assumption -- that the Boehner proposal would institute identical, across-the-board cuts for every department and program. In fact, the spokesman said, the proposal would be to set the entire discretionary budget to 2008 levels and then negotiate cuts in each program to meet that target.

That's all well and good, but the fact is that Boehner's news release doesn't explain exactly how its cuts would be made. So, given the information available, we think it's reasonable for Axelrod to have based his claim on an across-the-board cut. Moreover, if Boehner's office is suggesting that under his proposal, the cuts in education could in fact be less than 20 percent, then by the same logic they could also end up higher than 20 percent.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, PolitiFact just informed you that, in the context of a fact check, it is reasonable for David Axelrod to make a false assumption where the available information does not directly forbid the assumption.

I suppose this is the type of fallacious reasoning we should expect from a fact check organization that has as one of its principles the notion that the failure of a subject to substantiate their claim amounts to a failure to meet the burden of proof and can justify a "False" rating on the "Truth-O-Meter."

Blech.