I posted a quick blurb yesterday about Fiorina lying about Obama’s tax policy. Carly Fiorina is an advisor to John McCain, so it’s not a surprise that she’s out there just making stuff up about Obama’s tax policy. After all, the McCain campaign is just making stuff up in general right now, so why should his advisors do anything different?

Hilzoy, who does the best job in the blogs of really breaking down policy proposals for the rest of us, has taken a closer look at the claims being made by various McCain advisors. What makes her so good is that she recognizes that most often, campaigns don’t lie but instead heavily spin individual data points. So, she tracks down the original sources for those data points and then sees if the candidate has a leg to stand on.

Her conclusion, after looking at several of these claims (by McCain himself, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, his economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, and Steve Forbes), is that these people are lying. This isn’t a word that she uses lightly, so this isn’t just partisan name calling. These folks are being dishonest. As Jay Newton-Small, of Time Magazine, said when fact-checking Fiorina’s claims:

So, when running HP did 23 million = a few hundred thousand? No wonder she got fired.

That’s the type of basic factual dishonesty going on in their explanations (the quote will make more sense if you go read the piece).

The problem right now is that the only press really covering the data here are all blogs. I’ve yet to see a piece like Jay Newton-Small’s in the print edition of Time or on the main web sites of CNN, etc. So, this means that a lot of this is about everyone being diligent about detecting this sort of dishonesty.

The trick is pretty simple: Whenever a candidate gives you a statistic or makes an assertion without explanation, be skeptical. Very skeptical. This goes for both candidates, though McCain’s camp bears extra scrutiny.

In particular, a basic familiarity with the basic demographics of the U.S. will help raise the most common red flags. Here are the key data points:

• Population: 300 million
• Approx. 135 million income tax returns filed (Single/Married/Joint/etc)
• 9 million Partnership, S or C Corp returns filed
• Median (NOT average) Household income in the United States: $44,389
• Percentage of households making more than $250,000: 1.5% (same Wikipedia link as median income)

The income tax returns data above is from the IRS Data Book for 2007, specifically Table 2 (Excel Spreadsheet).

(random aside: There’s a tendency, especially for people in the $70K-200K income range, to think that most people are like them. Most people are not. Most people make less. Think about that household income number. Half of the country makes less than $44K per year per household. If your household makes more than around $90K, you’re in the top fifth of households in the U.S. If your household makes more than $159K or so, you’re in the top 5% of households in the U.S.)

Those data points above should be memorized by everyone, in my opinion. They form the foundational statistics of understanding policy in the U.S. Want to ballpark how much a $600 check to every taxpayer costs, just multiply by 135 million. Want to estimate whether Obama’s tax plan targeting incomes over $250,000 really affects 23 million small businesses, as McCain claims? See if there are even 23 million possible businesses in that range ((135 million + 9 million) times 1.5% = 2.16 million == no).

Granted, they won’t be hundred percent accurate. That last calculation, for example, uses the 1.5% number for household income distribution but adds in corporate returns. The more accurate numbers look even worse, actually. Read Hilzoy or Jay Newton-Small above for the nitty gritty. These numbers do work for quick back of the envelope estimation, though, and give you good starting points for further investigation. For example, what is a “small business” to the McCain people (remembering that in 2004, the definition included George W. Bush himself)?

Definitions matter, and this is one area where the blogs excel. You could do much worse than reading Obsidian Wings, quite frankly. If you added one blog to your daily reads, that should be it.

And, since I link to just about everything they write (it’s a group blog like FatMixx), here’s a look at the two candidates on Social Security. Like I said, she’s better at giving the benefit of the doubt to candidates that are ideologically opposite her, but her frustration is clear:

I would be more than happy to concede that I am wrong: that McCain has plans for raising revenues or cutting spending that I haven’t taken into account. But in order to do that, I’d have to see some concrete proposals from him. And the truth is: there aren’t any.

This is what I mean by lying. Glenn Greenwald had a great quote from Abraham Lincoln yesterday that sums “lying” up well:

I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood…

There is no way they can justify most of the claims they’re making (balancing the budget by 2013, tax policy, etc) because they haven’t done the work to outline how they will get there. It’s all assertion after assertion without any acknowledgment of fact.

Contrast this with the Obama campaign, which has detailed policy proposals on their web site and you can see why I’m voting for Obama this fall.

The audio is a bit horrible (video camera, no remote mic) of Dodd making a campaign stop in Anamosa, Iowa. His answers are actually very, very good. I loved how he would’ve answered the question that started the recent Obama and Clinton spat and I do wish he had a chance to answer more questions (I agree with him on the futility of the debate). He is, in my opinion, the best balance of experience, knowledge, and leadership in the race right now. I would be proud to see him as my President.

Watch the whole thing, it’s worth it. The health care plan he mentioned is detailed on the ChrisDodd.com site.

I’m late to writing about this and for that I apologize. Tomorrow, June 12th, the town is holding a public referendum on the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. This vote is extraordinarily important. I want to let everyone know I’m voting yes tomorrow because Heidi and I believe in strong public education, small class sizes, and programs like Quest. I’ve also been paying attention to the debate around the issue and, while both sides have been virulent, the sheer disdain for public schools and public school systems is evident from West Hartford Taxpayer Association (WHTA) members.

I recommend people taking a look at this post on The West Hartford Blog to get a rundown on the issue. I also want to thank WHDad, who runs the West Hartford Blog, for creating a place for people to chat about this issue. It’s been an invaluable resource for me to make heads or tails of the whole budget issue.

If you’re a West Hartford resident and you’re reading this on Tuesday (as I know some of my former coworkers will be), please get to the polls and vote yes after work!. Please get your voice heard so the referendum is as accurate as possible.

I have some meta thoughts on the budget, by the way. This whole process, and the act of cutting funds from the school budget seems to be a weird frankenstein of the original issue.

See, the initial uproar was caused by the release of the new assessments for property in the town. For example, my home’s assessed value went up by $100,000 from the last assessment done by the town many years ago. Obviously, with no changes to the mill rate, my taxes would’ve gone up dramatically. So, the obvious remedy to this is to reduce the mill rate to something that leaves taxes more or less the same as before. Sounds simple, right?

Not so. Using the mill rate as a wedge, it seems some citizens who are upset with the general tax level in West Hartford (we have one of the highest tax rates in the state) started asking for cuts in the general budget, focusing on education and the schools as their primary targets. So, instead of having two conversations about the overall mill rate and whether there’s fat in the school and town budgets, the WHTA has instead clouded both issues in an attempt to drive budget cuts that they feel are necessary.

That’s unfortunate, and it seems unfair to me as many seniors and middle class residents of the town have legitimate concerns about the mill rate. By scaring those folks (or leveraging their existing concerns), the WHTA will be able to achieve something that during any other year they would be unable to pass.

That’s not to say that the WHTA agenda is illegitimate or without merit. I love the fact that they’re taking a close look at the budget and asking hard questions of the schools. In fact, I’ve learned a lot about the budget process and how our town leaders respond to this kind of pressure. What I don’t like is the timing and the way they’ve conflated two completely independent issues.

For that reason alone, I’m voting Yes tomorrow because I’d like to see us get past the mill rate discussion and address the education funding separately and openly without the fear of people losing their homes. Ultimately, these issues are separate and should be treated as such.

Update: The town has laid out their budget cuts in the proposed budget here:

2007-2008 Adopted Budget Summary

You can find your polling place by going here:

West Hartford Voting District Info

Some stuff to take a look at:

• The Economist features flat taxes this week along with success stories in former Soviet block countries. I’m curious how much of their GDP is devoted to social services and defense. I’m also curious to see if those countries offer much in the way of governmental services in other ways (courts, national guard, scholarships, etc., etc.). It’s hard to argue for one thing without considering the differences between the “success stories” and our case.
• Would religious extremists oppose an AIDS vaccine? If this is any indication, yes. Pretty frightening, since the article quotes the Family Research Council, not some fringe pastor from an unknown church.

Just what I’ve been reading. The New Scientist link comes from Atrios and Pandagon.