One of my biggest pet peeves is being "corrected" by someone when what I said was true to begin with and the correction itself is false. It shouldn't be that big a deal, but for some reason it bugs me. For example, a few weeks ago I was speaking and mentioned something occurring in the twelth century. Somebody then said, "No, actually it was the eleventh century--from 1135 to 1175" I kept my mouth shut (it really wasn't important), but it annoyed me nonetheless. I wonder if Al Franken felt the same way when Rich Lowry tried to fisk him in a column today at NRO. In a critique of Lowry's book Legacy, Franken had pointed out that Lowry made a mistake when he talked about the State Children's Health Insurance Program as an "entitlement to children living in families with incomes roughly 200% above the poverty line" [emphasis added]. Franken pointed out the program actually applied to "children residing in families with income below 200% of the federal poverty level" [emphasis original]. I will admit that Franken may have been nitpicking here. Many people--including many of my students--have problems with percentages. In fact, this is a good example of why we should improve mathematics education in our schools. "200% of" a number means two times the number. For example, 200% of 20 is 40. I teach my students that when they read "of" they should think "multiply". "200% above" a number is the original number plus 200% of that number. So for example, 200% above 20 is 60 (=20 + 2 * 20). Both from what Franken wrote and what Lowry now writes it seems the program does indeed cover children in families earning up to twice the poverty level, so Franken was correct. But here is what Lowry wrote today:
Franken says I make a "mistake" when I write of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (italics to highlight the point in contention), "The generous federal subsidy encouraged states to maximize their health benefits, essentially extending a federal entitlement to children living in families with incomes roughly 200 percent above the poverty line." But this is absolutely correct. It is Franken who is mistaken, and apparently doesn't have the slightest idea what he is writing about.
Such programs often apply to families with incomes 200 percent above the poverty line. It is a way to ensure that they reach the working poor. "200 percent of poverty" is, therefore, pretty standard public-policy argot, but Franken seems never to have heard of it, and insists that I'm wrong that SCHIP applies to families in that category. The error, however, is his: According to the American Medical Association, "SCHIP coverage is now available in 38 states and the District of Columbia for children up to age 19 whose family income is at or above 200 percent of the federal poverty level."
Franken also says the North Carolina SCHIP "was limited to children residing in families with income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, not 200 percent above the poverty line."
If true, this would mean that the program applied only to the poorest of the poor, leaving out many people who are below the poverty line. This is silly and incorrect, which Franken would know if he had even run a Google search. Check out this site, among others, to see that North Carolina provides help to children in families earning up to 200 percent of the federal poverty-level income figure.
Let this be a warning to other comedians: Don't try to do public policy.
Let this be a warning to all of America. Mathematics education is important. Those who think it doesn't matter are likely to end up looking like fools.
By the way the whole "debate" between Franken and Lowry is interesting. The backstory is explained at Spinsanity and in their respective columns so I won't rehash it here.
UPDATE: It seems Jacob Levy had already caught Lowry's mistake here.
UPDATE (3/19): Give Lowry credit for realizing and apologizing for his mistake.
Recent Comments