Grading PolitiFact: Obama health plan fines small businesses?

This PolitiFact outfit simply astounds me.

People who should be serious journalists get into a fact-checking game--a good gig for journalists on the surface--and then proudly announce that they will boldly grade the truth of political claims with a needle graphic.

The resulting grades are about as dependable as figuring the truth via Ouija board.

The latest example: The McCain claim that Obama's health care plan will fine small businesses.

At the second presidential debate in Nashville, John McCain attacked Barack Obama's health care plan.

Obama's plan calls for "mandates and fines for small businesses," McCain said.

"If you're a small business person and you don't insure your employees, Senator Obama will fine you — will fine you. That's remarkable," McCain said.

That's the issue.

But we find that when you dig into the nitty gritty of Obama's plan, that's not the case.

And there's the judgment.

The judgment is based on two factors. First, PolitiFact fact-checker Angie Drobnic Holan notes that Obama's plan exempts small businesses of unspecified size. And that is a fair criticism, since McCain's statement could easily be taken to refer to all small businesses. So at best McCain's statement is partially true based on this factor.

The PolitiFact entry notes that Obama does not specify the size of a small business that would qualify for the exemption. And apparently that does not trouble Ms. Drobnic in the least when it comes to judging McCain.

It is possible to get an estimate out of the Obama camp, however. Why PolitiFact doesn't share this is beyond me, unless they don't want readers to know about it.

"The number would almost certainly be higher than ten employees," Furman added when asked if a recent non-partisan study by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center was correct in assuming that Obama would exempt "small businesses" with fewer than 10 employees from the pay-or-play system.
(ABC News blog)

Eleven? Twelve? Thirteen? "Furman" is Jason Furman, Obama's director of economic policy.

If the number might be 10 or lower, then it could be that small businesses will have to pay into a pool if they do not provide insurance to their employees. And that brings us to the second factor that results in the goofy PolitiFact rating:

McCain calls this a "fine," but being required to contribute to a pool is not the same as paying a penalty for some wrongdoing.

Actually, being required to contribute to a pool can be the same as paying a penalty for some wrongdoing. Any distinction probably requires hair-splitting.

a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction: a parking fine.
(Dictionary.com)

a sum of money paid to settle a matter; esp., a sum required to be paid as punishment or penalty for an offense.
(Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition)

Under Obama's plan, isn't Obama implicitly declaring businesses that do not provide insurance "derelict"? Is the government not requiring the business to pay in order to "settle a matter" like providing insurance to an employee?

Angie Drobnic Holan's analysis requires a specialized understanding of the term "fine" and as such amounts to a fallacy of equivocation. But combining the fallacy with the unspecified small business exception, PolitiFact gives us the following:

So even by a generous definition, Obama does not fine "small businesses." Indeed, they are not even subject to the mandate. We rate McCain's claim False.

It simply doesn't follow that a "generous definition" gets Obama off the hook for fining small businesses. On the contrary, a "generous definition" of "fine" puts Obama squarely on the hook. Likewise a "generous definition" of "small business" puts Obama squarely on the hook.

Without at least a ballpark definition of "small business" from the Obama campaign it is irresponsible to rate McCain false for finding small businesses vulnerable to a fee imposed for not insuring workers. The narrow and unjustified redefinition of "fine," to McCain's disadvantage, is even more egregious.

PolitiFact rates an "F" on this one.


***

Just a small addendum.

Angie Drobnic Holan's distinction between a "fine" and a requirement that businesses pay into a pool if they fail to provide insurance reminds me of past experience. I rented from a landlord who imposed a "non-refundable deposit."

Can anybody tell me the difference between a "non-refundable deposit" and a fee?