Debunking Charlie Kirk on California
By: Matthew Boedy
Tags: California, Charlie Kirk, Turning Point Usa, Education, Facts

Turning Point founder and president Charlie Kirk tweeted this about California on Feb. 12, 2019:

Let’s fact check these claims. And as we do we will see how Kirk works unethically with data.

46th in Education

Educational statistics are notoriously hard to make simple or excise down to one ranking. It depends on what set of data, what time period, and of course those rankings can and do change every year.

And in this case of Kirk’s tweet, we have no idea what set of data he is referring to.

Here are some guesses:

“ In EdWeek’s 2017 Quality Counts, California ranked 46th out of the 50 states and Washington, D.C., spending $8,694 per student — $3,462 less than the national average of $12,156 per student.”

But as Edsource.org explains in the post I took the above quote from, it’s all in how you use the numbers: “Depending on how spending is calculated and how up-to-date the data are, the per-student amount differs by thousands of dollars, and the state’s ranking varies widely.”

One way to be unethical with data is to use old data without at least acknowledging new data. Trends over time are more ethical.

On that 46th rank, Edsource notes “this was based on data from 2013–14, the first year of California’s Local Control Funding Formula, the state’s financing system that provides additional money to districts based on enrollment of low-income students, foster children and English learners.”

Not surprisingly things changed since then. The state began to spend more on K-12. A more recent study — the NEA’s May 2016 Rankings and Estimates report, which revised that 46th rank — showed “California ranked 26th, with $10,329 in per-student spending, $1,017 less than the U.S. average of $11,346.”

15th in Crime

Another way to be unethical with data is choose the ranking system over the change in real numbers, here, in crime. And of course “crime” is one hell of a vague term.

First, the ranking as of October 2018: “California’s violent crime rate ranked 16th nationwide and was higher than the national rate of 394 per 100,000 residents.” [I could not find a 15th ranking.]

But that hides this trend: “California’s violent crime rate rose in 2017 — but it remains historically low.”

And as you might expect, in a state the size of California, “crime rates vary dramatically by region and category.”

And why does Kirk want to be vague and as broad as possible?

Consider this: “ The 25 counties that voted for Trump show high and worsening rates of violent deaths and violent, drug, and property crime, while younger people and nonwhites in the 33 mostly urban counties that voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton show enormous improvements in recent decades.”

To substitute part for the whole is also another way to be unethical with data.

Also I should comment on how this “15th” ranking stands out from the other claims Kirk makes — claims about top or bottom (or nearly bottom). Why is 15th rank in “crime” bad to Kirk? Who knows?

Highest Homeless Population

Another way to be unethical with data is to highlight raw numbers over rate.

A December 2017 report by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress), described as “the most authoritative” resource on the topic by homeless advocates, includes “a state-by-state comparison of homeless populations based on a one-night count in each state in January 2017.”

That report does list “California’s total homeless population at 134,278,” at №1 with “New York was a distant second with 89,503 followed by Florida with 32,190” according to Politifact. But the state is third-highest in homeless rate “with 34 in every 10,000 people in the state experiencing homelessness.”

Yes, even one homeless person is too many. But including population as a context marker is key in counting people.

Highest Poverty Rate

Another way to be unethical with data is failing to define the parameters of your claim.

Politifact’s headline should suffice here: “California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living.”

Here is Politifact’s explanation:

From 2013 to 2015, California had America’s 17th-highest poverty rate, 15 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Official Poverty Measure. That measure uses income levels to determine poverty, but does not consider differences in cost-of-living among states. It lists the official poverty threshold for a two-adult, two-child family at $24,036 in 2015. During the same period, California had the highest poverty rate, 20.6 percent, according to the census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. That study does account for cost-of-living, including taxes, housing and medical costs, and is considered by researchers a more accurate reflection of poverty. For a two-adult, two-child family in California, the poverty threshold was an average of $30,000, depending on the region in the state, according to a 2014 analysis by Public Policy Institute of California.

Of course the poverty rate and homeless rate are largely driven by the skyrocketing price of housing in California, not necessarily any particularly Democratic policy. And while the more accurate way of determining poverty rate puts California at the top, that more accurate way also then introduces more complexities into why that rate is so high.

Worst Pollution

Here is one ranking in favor of Kirk’s claim:

Eight of the USA’s 10 most-polluted cities, in terms of ozone pollution, are in California, according to the American Lung Association’s annual “State of the Air” report, released in April 2018.

But USA Today asked a key question about that ranking: “Since California is known for its strict environmental regulations, why are so many cities from the state typically on this list? It’s because the state would be far worse off without its strict laws on tailpipe pollution and eliminating coal-fired power plants. California has done more than any other state to counteract air pollution, the Lung Association said.”

Another way to say it is that Democratic-controlled California’s state government is doing well to counteract its population’s overuse of cars and coal plants.

Here are some rankings that rebuke Kirk’s claim:

“Based on an analysis of data released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…” which measured “the average daily fine particulate matter (ug/m3) in the air” and “rates of cancer in these states, per the CDC”, the top “polluted states” are Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. California is not in the top 15.

If you rank “total environmental releases” (presumably into ground water and such), Alaska is N0. 1. If you rank “air releases” it’s Ohio. If you rank “water releases,” it’s Texas. If you rank “ozone depleting potential,” it’s Louisiana. Here are those rankings.

Most Illegals

Another way to be unethical with data is to ignore the other (GOP) states when you are trying to make a partisan point. Kirk thinks California is bad for this number and he blames Democrats. Of course these are estimates, but California is tops with 2.2 million out of the nation’s 10.7 million undocumented immigrants.

But “deep red” Texas is second with 1.6 million.

Nevada is tops with these “illegals” counting for 7.1% of state’s population. Texas and then California are at 5.7 and 5.6, second and third.

Holds Most Debt

Kirk surely is referring to personal, credit debt because the state’s debt of $27 billion has been erased since Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown took office in 2011. It had a surplus when he left in January 2019.

On the other hand, “Californians racked up more credit card debt among the most populated states in the U.S., according to a [2018] report released by the New York state comptroller’s office,” according to a local California news station. “California racked up $106.8 billion in credit card debt by the end of 2017. Texas took the second spot with $67.3 billion, followed by Florida with $59.2 billion and New York with $58.1 billion.”

Another way of saying is that the most populated states hold the most debt. That makes sense when one considers population. California is the most populous state with about 12.3% of the nation. Or as one expert explains: “So, these statistics don’t mean that Californians are playing fast and loose with their credit. There just happen to be more credit users there to generate more debt.”

Jail Time

These two claims here are old favorites for Kirk.

Politifact looked at the “misgendering” claim. It notes “violations of the bill could, under limited circumstances, be treated as a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.”

But the bar would be very high for prosecution and even then the fine would be first. Criminal charges would only follow “if the violation reached a level that was shown to cause the risk of death or serious physical harm, in accordance with state’s existing penalty structure for health and safety code violations at long-term care centers.” Though one conservative religious group in California disputes this.

Politifact’s conclusion: “While not without a sliver of truth, the claims by conservative groups clearly distort the penalty proposed for violating this part of the bill.”

On the HIV claim, Gov. Brown did sign a bill in 2017 “that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.”

Kirk’s comparison here is a distortion because both crimes would now be considered misdemeanors. He is appalled at the jail time in the first but neglects the jail time in the second.

According to NBC News, the felony offense for the HIV law was “punishable by 3 to 8 years in prison.” But the new misdemeanor charge would carry a maximum of “a 6-month prison term — the same punishment as knowingly exposing someone to other communicable diseases.”

The Washington Post also points out that “the bill was also prompted, its sponsors say, by a 2015 report on combating HIV from the Obama White House, which cited studies showing that HIV exposure laws do little to influence behavior, and said that many ‘run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and effective measures of HIV prevention.’”

All Run by Democrats

Yes, all statewide officials in California and a super-majority of the legislature is Democratic.

But as we have pointed out, some of the stuff “run” by Democrats in Kirk’s words are not in reality overseen or affected by Democratic policies.

In the end, Kirk acts unethically with data to present a false picture of California.