Thanks to those readers who have pointed this out. I did indeed misread

Franken in the way descirbed below–and did it in a very snotty way. I duly

stand corrected. While we’re involved in counting issues, please count me as

redfaced!

E-mail:
Rich,
I’m a regular NRO reader and NRODT subscriber. However, as much
as it pains me to say it, I think Franken’s phrasing of the SCHIP income
limits is actually more correct than yours. 200% above the poverty line is
in fact 3 times the poverty line (It is the poverty line level plus an
additional 2 times that level). 200% of the poverty level is 2 times the
poverty line level (i.e., 100% above the poverty level).
When Franken says it was limited to families below 200% of the
poverty line, he is saying that the families had income less than twice the
poverty level. You seem to be reading this to mean 200% below the poverty
line which would imply families with income one-third of the poverty level
(or an in fact negative income depending upon interpretation). This is
just my reading…perhaps math whiz John Derbyshire can authoritatively
resolve this.
Regardless, this is largely a semantic argument. You have him
nailed otherwise. Keep up the good work.