Fact-checking the fact-checkers

When "I'll just take your word for it" seems to suffice:

The keynote speaker and others claimed the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, would raise taxes on the “middle class.” He has promised he won’t. Democrats base their claim on a study that doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion.

Bolding mine. Do I have to bring up Bush the Elder's "Read My Lips" claim? Really? And by the way, the study most definitely leads to that conclusion:

So in order to make sure his plan would not add to the deficit, Romney would have to pay for $86 billion worth of high-income tax cuts by cutting deductions that benefit middle- and low-income earners, according the Tax Policy Center study.

If his plan is to be revenue neutral, as Romney has said it would be, the study shows he would have to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans – families earning less than $200,000 – by an average of $500 per year. Millionaires will still get an $87,000 tax cut.

Again, bolding mine. It doesn't say he could or might, it says he will have to.

And here's another one that made me bark a laugh:

Rep. James Clyburn engaged in partisan myth-making when he said “Democrats created Social Security” while Republicans “cursed the darkness.” History records strong bipartisan support in both House and Senate for the measure President Roosevelt signed in 1935.

Republicans fought hard against Social Security back in 1935. Hell, they're still fighting against it. But let's look at the votes in question:

The Ways & Means Committee Report on the Social Security Act was introduced in the House on April 4, 1935 and debate began on April 11th. After several days of debate, the bill was passed in the House on April 19, 1935 by a vote of 372 yeas, 33 nays, 2 present, and 25 not voting. (This vote took place immediately followed a vote to recommit the bill to the Committee, which failed on a vote of Yea: 149; Nay: 253; Present: 1; and Not Voting: 29.)

As you can see, that vote to recommit was a last-ditch effort by Republicans to bury Social Security in Committee and keep it off the floor, because they knew it would pass a floor vote easily. Which is also why so many of them voted for it when it did.

To claim Social Security was (in any shape or form) a bipartisan effort is somewhere north of outrageous.

And here's another one that is not only inaccurate, but very possibly hurtful in the struggle for equal pay for women:

■Two advocates of equal-pay legislation said women make 77 cents for every dollar men earn. That’s true on average, but the gap for women doing the same work as men is much less, and not entirely or even mostly the result of job discrimination.

If it's true on average, then it's simply true. Did they claim it was for the same profession? Speaking of specific professions, take a look at this:

Even among top physicians, the gender wage gap remains.

Researchers from the University of Michigan Health System and Duke University found that among 800 physicians who received a highly competitive early career research grant, women earned an average of $12,194 less than men a year, when all other factors remained the same.

By observing elite members of a profession who chose academic careers as opposed to jobs more lucrative private sphere and taking into account as many measureable factors as possible, researchers expected to see a minimal difference in men and women’s pay. Instead, they found that a woman will earn over $360,000 less in her 30-year career than a man working the same hours, with the same qualifications. “Here in Michigan, that buys a house,” said lead study author Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil. “Anywhere, it sends a kid to college.”


And just to say it,

if you take 30 CEO's, and only one of them is a woman who makes about the same as her male counterparts, can you actually say (with a straight face) that there's no gender-based income disparity amongst top executives?

Of course you can't.