Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Fact Check Lunacy

Picture this, you are having coffee with a group of people and someone mentions that James Cameron is coming out with a sequel to the movie Avatar.   You then point out that it's likely to be successful because Avatar was the "highest grossing movie of all time."

I then chime in and say "Actually, that's false.  Adjusted for inflation, Gone With the Wind is the highest grossing film of all time."

Thoughts?

Aside from the fact that I'm a jerk, what's wrong with my statement?  Two things stand out.  First, I changed the standard.  Avatar really is the highest grossing movie of all time, so your statement was correct.  I'm the one who decided to change the definition of "highest grossing" to include an inflation adjustment.  So in a version of the straw man argument, I changed the standard that you used and then declared that your statement was false under my standard. 

Moreover, in addition to your literally being right, most people would say that you are correct in a social sense because the "inflation adjusted" standard that I picked is an unusual standard.  After all, when the Wall Street Journal says that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record high, they don't have to issue a correction and point out that the inflation adjusted record high was (until recently) January of 2000. 

With that in mind, check out this "analysis"  by the Republic's Fact Check Intern of a statement by Governor Ducey:

THE COMMENT: “We’re spending more money than has ever been spent in the history of K-12 education.”

The fact checker gives a lot of background and then eventually gets to this sentence.

Ducey's administration says the more than $6 billion provided by the equalization funding formula in fiscal 2016 is the highest total spending on record. That is correct, but it is the only measure that shows fiscal 2016 as the highest for K-12.

Look at the first three words of the second sentence the ones that repeat Ducey's claim and then conclude "That is correct."

The intern then goes on to--you guessed it--adjust the numbers for inflation and add back a capital spending adjustment or two and by using this self-created methodology claim that Ducey "mostly" wrong. 

Keep in mind that the Fact Checker actually admitted that Ducey's original statement was correct and then ask if this is fair:

 

 

 

Now it's time to Correct the Correction.

Yesterday I pointed out that the headline and first paragraph of this story are completely wrong.

To its credit, the Republic has issued a correction.  However instead of fixing the problem they have compounded it by repeating one of the errors in the correction itself.  Here's a copy of the page that includes the correction.*  And here's a copy of the correction itself. 

Did you catch the error?  The word "Dodge" describes illegal activity.  Attempting to change the law in order to cap a processing fee at $500 is not a "dodge".

Here's the Cambridge definition of "Tax Dodge".  Now ask if the fact that the correction claims that this guy is trying to "dodge" a fee instead of a tax will make much difference to his reputation...or to his attorney.

 Footnote:  Don't get me started on how prominent the article containing the error is and how obscure the correction is. 
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 

 

 

Getting it wrong

If you are looking for an example in which the newspaper gets something spectacularly wrong, check out this story from yesterday's Republic.

You couldn't write a more incorrect headline if you tried.  The headline and first paragraph--and thus the whole article that follows are completely wrong.  Here's the first paragraph.

County treasurers across Arizona say a Phoenix real-estate investor is behind an attempt to change state law to avoid paying a $146,100 tax bill.

Tax bill?  There's no tax involved in controversy.  The legislation is about a FILING FEE.  This bill is about a guy who went to the window at the Pinal County recorder's office in order to transfer the deeds on his property and the Pinal County Treasurer tried to charge him a $150,000 recording fee. 

Unfortunately, reporter Robert Anglen didn't understand the difference between this fee and actual property taxes and then the headline writer compounded the error by using the pejorative term "Dodge".  And to top it off, the headline writer is stating that it was the Treasurers who are saying this guy is a tax dodger.  Which, of course, they didn't say because that's, you know, not accurate.

The paper has changed the online version of the story, but didn't issue a correction and enough Legislators were put of by the incorrect article that the bill died. 

 Here's how today's paper described the bill after it died. 

The Arizona House of Representatives  rejected legislation Wednesday that county treasurers say was written to help a wealthy investor avoid a $146,100 administrative fee.

Oh, so now it's an "administrative fee".  So much for the "tax dodger" theme. 

 

 

 

 

That was fast....

The argument against SB 1062 was that there  wasn't really a problem.  Here's a typical example from Republic Columnist Laurie Roberts. 

Would they now try to force their moral beliefs on others? That rare baker or photographer who really does have a sincerely-held religious belief that differs with that of the gay couple?

Before we go down this rocky road of trying to legalize discrimination, let's just see how this thing plays out – whether cooler heads and kinder hearts can prevail on both sides.

Ok.  So we are seeing how it plays out. 

Now we have this.

PHOENIX (AP) - Arizona judges who perform wedding ceremonies are being told that they cannot turn away gay couples who want to marry.

An opinion issued by a state judiciary ethics advisory committee said rejecting same-sex couples would violate a judicial-conduct rule against bias or prejudice based on sexual orientation.

Let's be clear what that means.  If a judge also happens to be say, Mormon, he either has to refuse to perform any weddings, or he has to also perform same sex weddings.  Which is, of course, EXACTLY what the opponents of SB 1062 told us would never happen.

 

One Free Pass

Bob Robb has an excellent column on the budget process.

This budget was negotiated between the governor and legislative leadership. It was then sprung on the body with intense political pressure on the Republican rank-and-file to pass it quickly. Deals on the margins were possible. Otherwise, Republican lawmakers were presented the option of going along or inflicting severe political damage on Ducey and the leadership by rejecting the budget.

 I think Bob is a bit over nostalgic for the 90s--we often joked that the real budget was in the trunk of the Appropriation's Chairman's car--I will say that I agree with the overall premise and conclusion of Robb's column. 

Robb's column differs from the rather vapid editorial that I wrote about earlier this week.  The Editorial Board is whining that the budget was finished at night yada yada.  All the budgets are finished at night and the Republic only complains about budgets it doesn't like that are finished at night. 

Robb however makes an excellent point about the number of policy decisions that are stuffed into the Reconciliation bills and about the way that supporters were treated. I will add that there are a lot of traditional allies who are unhappy right now.

This year's process was indeed broken.  I think that legislators wanted to give new leadership the opportunity to get one successful budget under their belt.  Legislators and other parties that are supportive of the Republican leadership and wanted to see them succeed gave a free pass this time.  But that only happens once.

 

 

Hypocrisy Warning

Remember all those contentious hearings about last year's AHCCCS Expansion Bill?  Me neither.  That's because the coalition that passed the bill suspended all the rules that would have required the bill to actually go through a substantive committee.  That means there was NO input from stakeholders or the public.

Naturally the media....was silent. 

Now the members of that coalition--the very Legislators who took the most significant and controversial law in a decade and forced it through the process without a hearing--are complaining the current process isn't fair.  Give me a break.

Now recall that the Republic ignored this serious abuse of power and compare that moment of silence and abdication with this editorial about the Ducey budget.

The worst aspect of the $9.1 billion budget passed in the wake of a marathon all-night session was … the all-night session. The manner the Legislature and Gov. Doug Ducey chose to conduct the budgeting process could not have been more murky. Legislators claiming to perform the “people’s business” cannot do their jobs honestly when they do it while people are sleeping.

I like the part about how the process "could not have been more murky".  That's really funny.  How about suspending the rules so that you can redesign the AHCCCS without any hearing at all....that strikes me as even murkier.

Standing Around

Here's an aspect of the Redistricting case that isn't getting as much attention.....

The Arizona case involves a turf dispute between Arizona’s legislative and executive branches, but it’s unclear if the Court is amenable to refereeing this constitutional conflict.  The case is therefore a canary in the coalmine for “legislative standing,” which means a legislature’s ability to defend, in court, its lawmaking prerogative against executive assault.  This is important not only to Arizona’s legislature, but any legislature, including the U.S. Congress.

Perhaps not the best message...

Folks are at the Capitol protesting the cuts to education and one of them was carrying this sign.  I believe that we'll win too...but this sign isn't helping.