PolitiFact Flip Flops on Republican Role with Department of Education

In an article released yesterday by PolitiFact of Texas, the editors of PolitiFact managed to flip-flop on their own determination from five years ago regarding the Republican Party’s role in the doubling of the size of the Department of Education. The article is remarkably factual, given that it makes plain PolitiFact’s duplicity. It even properly credits Ron Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, who scoffed, “…you are pathetic. You are about to contradict something that PolitiFact (al)ready fact checked. Why don'(t) you get a life?”

What’s Benton getting all bent out of shape about? Well, in 2007, Ron Paul made the comment:

“It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we double the size of the Department of Education.”

PolitiFact at that time rated the statement as true. But this past week when Charlie Rose of CBS asked Paul to comment on the fact that conservatives have failed to choose a common candidate as an alternative to Mitt Romney, Paul replied:

“Yeah, but what if you coalesce with big spending and you elect somebody like that and you do the big spending? This is what we’ve done. When we’ve had the House and the Senate and the presidency, we coalesced, and we increased the (national) debt, and we increased the spending, we doubled the size of the Department of Education, we passed (the) No Child Left Behind (Act), we passed Sarbanes Oxley. Why should we coalesce behind conservatives who aren’t conservative? They’re just big government conservatives. That’s why there’s frustration out there. That’s why people have started the tea party movement. So I don’t know why people don’t understand this.”

This is where things get really screwy. In response to Paul’s latest comment, PolitiFact now claims that the Republicans didn’t double the size of the Department of Education, that they only increased it by 60%, and that the Democrats are responsible for the rest. How did they accomplish this sleight-of-hand? They changed their way of measuring the increase. How well they’ve learned from their big government masters! If you don’t like what the statistics tell you, change the statistics. Or to put it another way, “figures never lie, but liars figure”, a quote sometimes attributed to Samuel Butler.

PolitiFact also quotes David Dunn who was chief of staff to Bush’s secretary of education as saying, “we never felt like we doubled spending” on the department. “We knew spending increased significantly. We were proud of that.”

Oh, well that makes it all better then, doesn’t it? As long as the Bush administration felt they didn’t double spending, then they really didn’t do it, right? For this reason, PolitiFact now rates Ron Paul’s statement as half true, rather than true. It’s amazing what a difference five years makes to PolitiFact when to comes to determining the truth.

PolitiFact is pathetic for claiming to be holding politicians responsible for what they say, when they themselves flip-flop on the “truths” about which they claim to report. It makes it difficult to take PolitiFact seriously from now on. After all, how many other less-well-publicized statistic-bending schemes has PolitiFact used to distort the apparent truth or falsehood of what politicians have said?

And what about the fact that the Republicans supposedly opposed the Department of Education in the first place, but drove up spending on it once they had full control of the government? Why doesn’t PolitiFact consider it important that the Republicans did not decrease spending on the department or even eliminate it all together? As Benton reminded PolitiFact, “It used to be the policy of the Republican Party to get rid of the Department of Education. We finally get in charge and a chance to do something, so we double the size of the Department of Education.” Too bad PolitiFact doesn’t really care about that!

Walt Thiessen

Walt Thiessen

As founder of nolanchart.com, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to the website! My purpose with my column is the same as my purpose for the overall website. Libertarian ideas have been generally excluded from the public debate and ridiculed on those rare occasions when they have been included. This must change.

Rather than trying to force others to change their ways, I created this website to create an environment where all political views, including libertarian, could be expressed in a free yet respectful manner.
Walt Thiessen

Latest posts by Walt Thiessen (see all)

The views expressed in this article belong to the author/contributor and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Nolan Chart or its ownership


  1. daddysteve says

    “Education reform” has been a perennial favorite of every election cycle over my ENTIRE adult life.
    Of course , “reform” always means spending more.
    Measured by test scores ,  it seems to be mal-investment.
    Measured by political gain , it seems to be a smashing success , year after year.

  2. Georgedance says

    Let me guess: spending on the Department of Education doubled in dollars, but (when purchasing power is taken into account) it increased by only 60%. I’m guessing that, because I made the same mistake wrt Paul’s 2008 claim that the U.S. could eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing simply by cutting spending back to “2000 levels”. I agreed with that, then, as did others, because I didn’t realize then that for whatever reason Paul was looking only at dollar amounts, and not at the differing purchasing powers of those amounts.
    Which, of course has nothing to do with Paul’s major point, which still looks perfectly factual: the GOP promised to eliminate the Department of Ed., and ended up growing it instead. Increasing the size of something by only 60%, when you promised to cut it by 100%, is nothing to be proud of. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *