Fact-Checking Keith Rothfus On The "Cell Phone Giveaway"

Today's Tribune-Review published this commentary on the upcoming sequester from the tea-party pen of the newly elected representative from Pennsylvania's 12th district,  Keith Rothfus.

And he gets just a few facts wrong on his list:

Our federal government will spend more than $3.7 trillion this year. Replacing the sequester requires finding $84 billion in smart cuts to that budget. Here are a few things we could eliminate to begin replacing the sequester:

• $2.2 billion by ending the federal government's cellphone giveaway

What he's describing is something that's popped up recently (quite coincidentally, I am sure) on another of Richard Mellon Scaife's media holdings, Newsmax:

Nearly half of the 6 million people who received free cellphones and communications services through the government-funded Lifeline program last year apparently were ineligible or did not respond to certification requests, a new report shows.

The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion on the program last year alone, reports The Wall Street Journal, which conducted a review of the program's funding.

The only problem with this is that eliminating the program won't save the gov'ment any money. Here's why (and this is from the WSJ piece referenced above):

The Lifeline program—begun in 1984 to ensure that poor people aren't cut off from jobs, families and emergency services—is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer.

Factcheck already has something on this program:

Lifeline is funded by telecom customers who pay a universal service fee as part of their phone bills. The fee technically is not a tax but a cross subsidy, the rules of which are determined by the Federal Communications Commission.

And:

As we explained [in 2009], the FCC requires phone companies to fund “universal service” programs such as Lifeline that improve telecommunications access to all Americans. The companies pass the cost along to consumers in the form of a universal service fee, which is listed on a monthly phone bill.

The fees go into the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation. USAC manages Lifeline and three other programs that provide telecommunications services to rural areas, schools, libraries and places where it’s more expensive to provide access.

And:

Lifeline does not “give away” “government phones.” The program reimburses phone companies with a monthly subsidy of $9.25 for each low-income customer who uses a landline or a cell phone.

So however leaky the program is, eliminating it would not reduce guv'ment debt in anyway - it would only reduce everyone's cellphone bill by a little bit AND reduce access to the global telecommunications network  by poor people a lot.  But it won't reduce the debt.

That's something Keith Rothfus got wrong.

The Trib Gets It Wrong. Again.

The recidivism rate among those arrested and released by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has been making the rounds of the right wing noise machine recently.

There's this from Fox News:

Roughly one in six illegal immigrants is re-arrested on criminal charges within three years of release, according to new government data being released Tuesday.

Those charges range from murder to drunken-driving and, according to House Republicans pushing out the report, are symptoms of what they describe as a "dangerous and deadly" immigration policy.

And this from NewsMax:

The Obama administration’s policy of not deporting illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity “is not working for public safety in the United States,” Texas Rep. Ted Poe tells Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.

And now the editorial page of the Tribune-Review:

The federal government’s policy of catching and releasing illegal aliens has had the expected unsavory consequences. A House Judiciary Committee report says the program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent between 2008 and 2011. Or, put another way, illegals who were cut loose have been charged with 19 murders, three attempted murders and 142 sex crimes. Yet another example of “enlightened progressivism,” eh? ...

Too bad none of the actual, you know, reality based numbers actually support this right wing narrative.

First off, let's look at recidivism.  From the Pew Trusts:

Recidivism is the act of reengaging in criminal offending despite having been punished. The prison recidivism rate—the subject of this report—is the proportion of persons released from prison who are rearrested, reconvicted or returned to custody within a specific time period. Typically, recidivism studies follow released offenders for three years following their release from prison or placement on probation.

And what does Pew say is the recidivism rate overall?

The Pew/ASCA survey found the threeyear return-to-prison rate for inmates released in 1999 to be 45.4 percent, and 43.3 percent for those released in 2004.

Now ask yourselves a question: Is a 16% recidivism rate greater or lesser than a 43% recidivism rate?

MediaMatters has more.

Another Peek At The Trib/Scaife Money Trail

This is how they do it, my friends.

From today's op-ed page, we read this editorial on the nation's food stamp program.  In it, there's this passage:

Yet the Obama administration, which keeps spoon-feeding the entitlement mentality, wants to spend even more on this and other welfare programs, which last year reached $927 billion, according to The Heritage Foundation. But heaven help the conservative who suggests pulling the emergency brake on this runaway train.

"We're going in the wrong direction in that we're growing the amount of people who are being on government subsistence or government dependency," Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., tells Newsmax. That must change.

Did you see how quietly the Heritage Foundation (where Richard Mellon Scaife's on the board of Trustees) is mentioned?  Or Newsmax (where Scaife owns 40% of the store)?

Or how about this from Colin McNickle?

The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is out with a marvelous 50th-anniversary debunking of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," which long has been the manifesto for environmentalists.

Wanna know how much money McNickle's boss has funnelled to PERC?

About $2.3 million.

See how Heritage, Newsmax, and PERC are used as some sort of authoritative information sources?

Yep.

See how, in the spirit of full disclosure, they mention the millions of dollars if financial support their boss has provided to those sources?

Nope.

That's how the right wing noise machine works.

More On Newsmax And The Global Warming "Hoax"

From Newsmax (that's the 40% Scaife-owned Newsmax, for those who've forgotten) we read:

Skeptics of manmade global warming claims can bolster their position with a new study showing that the Earth went through a previous warming period not caused by human CO2 emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has argued that the Medieval Warm Period approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago was confined to Europe and did not affect the entire planet, “which means the worldwide warming we’re experiencing now is a manmade phenomenon,” the Daily Mail observed.

But a team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York found the warming was not confined to Europe and actually extended all the way down to Antarctica, affecting the entire planet. The finding indicates that “the Earth has already experienced global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions,” according to the Mail.

Here's the Daily Mail article - when you read it, you'll only see half of what Scaife's Newsmax decided not to tell you.

Wow, Grover Gets It Wrong

I found this Americans for Tax Reform piece via Scaife's own Newsmax.

For those of you who don't yet know Grover Norquist is quite important in Republican circles where his anti-tax pledge, is quite popular.  According to the Washington Times:

All but four of the 242 House Republicans, and 41 out of the 47 Senate Republicans, have signed Mr. Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge."

That somewhere around 96% of all Congressional Republicans.  That's alot of Elephant!

So it's pretty amazing when he gets something really, really terribly wrong. Take a look at his first two paragraphs of his ATR piece, published Friday, December 9:

The holidays are a season for giving and spending time with loved ones. However, this year taxpayers will be adding Uncle Sam to their Christmas list. Of an identified $10.72 billion of holiday spending, 43.36 percent of the price Americans pay to celebrate Christmas is due to government taxes, fees and other costs.

This season, not even Christmas trees are safe from the government grinch. The Obama Administration has applied a 15 cent tax on each Christmas tree sold, meaning government now composes 31.19 percent of the price of an average 40 dollar Christmas tree. While implementation of the tax has been delayed, this is a particularly naughty idea to fuel increased government spending. For the $1.15 billion in sales generated by the Christmas tree industry employing over 100,000 workers, the Christmas tax is another measure threatening Americans jobs—so much for yuletide cheer. [emphasis added]

And when did this delay occur?  At least a month ago.  Take a look at what we wrote on November 12.  In that post we linked to this piece by Jake Tapper from November 9::

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees, sources tell ABC News. The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009, was first announced in the Federal Registry yesterday and has generated criticism of President Obama from conservative media outlets.

So Norquist knew it was delayed but he seems to have missed all the other details revolving around the fee - like how it was requested by the NCTA or how the fee is generated by the growers and won't impact the cost of the trees or how the money won't go into any guv'ment coffers as it'll be used by the association to promote fresh cut Christmas trees.

For someone supposed to be real smart on tax policy (or at least well informed) he simply failed on this one.

All this was in the news a month ago.  Why doesn't Grover Norquist know about it?  Or perhaps he does and he doesn't want you to know about it.  Nothing like letting the facts get in the way of a good "Obama Hates Christmas" smear.

You decide.

Teh Birther Returns

In case you missed it, here's the official announcement:

Newsmax Media and ION Television, one of the nation's largest broadcast networks, will collaborate to host a Republican presidential debate on Tuesday, Dec. 27, moderated by businessman Donald J. Trump.

The Newsmax ION Television Debate will be held at the Hoyt Sherman Theater in Des Moines, Iowa, from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. ET – and will be the last forum of major Republican presidential candidates a week before the Jan. 3, 2012 Iowa caucus.

Let's just review some of the players here, shall we?

First there's Newsmax - 40% owned by local media mogul Richard Mellon Scaife.
Second, there's Donald Trump - Birther.

A splendid time is guaranteed for all.

I just wonder how Scaife's paper will be covering it.

More Tribbing For A Tuesday Morning

Follow the money. That's what the man said.

Funny what you'll find when you follow the Scaife money around the pages of the Tribune-Review.

First something from this weekend:

Some FBI secrets are secrets no more -- thanks to Ronald Kessler, award-winning Newsmax.com chief Washington correspondent and best-selling author.

In "The Secrets of the FBI" (Crown), he discusses many FBI triumphs and tribulations, including J. Edgar Hoover's personal life; FBI involvement with Marilyn Monroe, Robert Kennedy, organized crime, major spy cases and the Ruby Ridge and Waco fiascoes; and its post-9/11 anti-terrorism orientation. Revelations give unprecedented insight, and Kessler says the book project enhanced his opinion of the bureau. Following are excerpts from the Trib's phone conversation with him.

How does it feel knowing you just read an advertisement that's only impersonating an interview? Why do I say this?

Look at where Kessler works: Newsmax.

Richard Mellon Scaife owns 40% of Newsmax.

Then there's this - where the Media Research Center covers for war criminal Dick Cheney. The author of the piece, Kyle Drennen, seems to be complaining about the "hostile" interview Matt Lauer conducted with Cheney. There's even a jab at a sign held in front of the camera at the end of the interview.


All of which is true, by the way. Waterboarding is toture and torture is a war crime and Dick Cheney should be prosecuted for it.

The Media Research Center obviously doesn't think so.

And the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled foundations (Carthage and Sarah Scaife) have given about $3.5 million to the MRC over the years.

Good to know where they stand on torture.

When Scaife News Sources Collide

First there's the Scaife-Funded Heritage Foundation on the "connection" between the killing of Osama bin Laden and the "enhanced interrogations" of the Bush Administration:

A senior official who briefed the press early this morning explained that “detainees in the post-9/11 period flagged for us individuals who may have been providing direct support to bin Laden and his deputy, [Ayman al-] Zawahiri, after their escape from Afghanistan.”

He continued: “One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave us his nom de guerre, or his nickname, and identified him as both a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11, and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the former number three of al-Qaeda who was captured in 2005.” The United States obtained this information four years ago, the official stated.

One more crucial fact: According to the “detainees” (note the plural), this individual was “one of the few al-Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden.”

Think about that: This lead was developed during the Bush Administration, most likely from al-Qaeda associates picked up and transferred to Guantanamo and subject to interrogations that critics have repeatedly deemed to be pointless in terms of intelligence value. Whether these detainees remain at Guantanamo is an open question.

And then, a paragraph later:

For years, we have heard that strategic interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo was worthless, that the information is (at best) stale and almost certainly of dubious reliability. The most strident call such interrogations illegal.

So, yes. Torture led to the intel that led to the bullets that killed Osama bin Laden.

Then there's Salena Zito, columnist at the Scaife-owned Tribune-Review:

Commandos killed bin Laden in a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that began with the intelligence community identifying his courier last year and tracking his movements in the months leading up to Sunday.

In the past decade, critics assailed the CIA for not connecting the dots before the 9/11 terror attacks, for failing to capture bin Laden and for using enhanced interrogation techniques.

Remember, the "enhanced interrogation" was water boarding. Though Zito is unsure what connection there is between Abbottabad and waterboarding:

It is unclear whether interrogations played a role in identifying the bin Laden courier whose trail led to the terror leader's door.

Then there's the Scaife-owned Newsmax, interviewing none other than Don Rumsfeld himself:

Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

So which is it? Waterboarding led to Abbottabad or didn't it? They really should get their stories straight.

Waterboarding's still illegal, though.

The Trib, Newsmax, And Scaife

First off, we have our old friend Chris Horner. You remember, he's the lawyer (who the Trib misleadingly calls a "researcher") working for the Scaife-Funded Competitive Enterprise Institute who shows up occasionally on the Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to show how the stolen Climategate emails "prove" how Climate Change is a hoax or something.

Even though it isn't.

Today we see this:

Climate fraud: A federal government inspector general "has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes," writes Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the Daily Caller. One of those "studies" was conducted by Penn State. He says the university may have been "complicit" in a "cover-up." Stay tuned.

There are TWO "consider the source" moments in this paragraph. The first is the aforementioned Horner and then we get something called the "Daily Caller." What's the "Daily Caller" you ask? The Washington Examiner calls it "The right's answer to the Huffingtonpost."

Consider the source. Regardless of the content, the fact that the Trib still fails to disclose all the Scaife money involved in this story is enough to undermine the credibility of everyone involved.

But it's not limited to the Trib. Take a look at this from Mediamatters:

For at least the third time in the past year, right-wing website Newsmax has provided positive coverage to a Florida politician whose campaign or political committee has received money from Newsmax or its CEO, Christopher Ruddy. This financial support has not been disclosed in campaign endorsements or other articles about these politicians at Newsmax.

That name should raise some red flags, no? He hosts fundraisers for/donates money to candidates then his "news" source covers those candidates (nicely) while failing to disclose the financial ties that bind him to those candidates.

Why am I telling you this?

Richard Mellon Scaife owns 40% of Newsmax.

Consider the source.

The circle jerk continues.

One More Thing...

I don't know if anyone caught this item in the New York Times:

This summer Bill O’Reilly, the biggest star on the Fox News Channel, lent his name — inadvertently, he says — to a Web ad that lured viewers to sign up for a financial newsletter sold by Newsmax, the conservative Web site.

Mr. O’Reilly was the featured guest in an online video billed as an “Economic Crisis Summit,” which also promoted a newsletter and a secret “I.R.S. payout” that viewers could pay to find out about.

The video was first published in June and was promoted in e-mails and Web ads, but it was removed from the Web on Tuesday after a financial columnist, Kathy Kristof of CBS MoneyWatch, questioned why Mr. O’Reilly was promoting “investment flimflam.”

From Kristoff's original story:

The faux news show...starts with an anchorman sitting at a desk in front of a glowing “Economic Crisis Summit” video screen. The anchor welcomes O’Reilly and gets him talking about Obama and taxes — O’Reilly’s normal bailiwick. Then he asks: “How can you invest in this treacherous environment?” O’Reilly suggests buying depressed stocks that pay dividends, which plays right into the anchor’s hand.

As soon as O’Reilly leaves, the next “guest” is a smarmy-looking “accountant” named Bill Spetrino, who purports to agree with O’Reilly and offers a newsletter called “The Dividend Machine.” But he adds that he has “something even better.” Spetrino maintains that he’s written a report about a “forgotten, seven-state Constitutional Clause” that guarantees generous tax-free “IRS payouts” of $1,196 or more. And, he’s agreed to provide this report “free” to viewers of the show produced by Newsmax.

What’s the investment? The dowager of the investment world — municipal bonds. Municipal bonds are issued by states, cities, counties and government agencies to finance everything from parks to water treatment facilities. These bonds do pay tax-free income, but at low rates of interest. To get the promised $1,196 weekly return, you’d have to invest about $2 million in munis at today’s rates.

If you got the report, you’d likely toss it and figure that “free” advice is often worth exactly what you paid for it. What you didn’t know is that you’ve actually gotten caught up in “a free trial offer” that’s going to quickly cost you.

What the show is really peddling is Spetrino’s $99 investment newsletter, which you will subscribe to automatically, if you’re gullible enough to ask for his “free” reports. How? You must pay $1 on a major credit card to get the free reports. (Spetrino justifies the $1 fee in the video by saying that people don’t pay attention to free advice, so he’s charging a token just to get you to listen.)

But I don't wanna talk about Bill O'Reilly. From the reporting, it doesn't look like he was duped and didn't have anything to do with the scam. And until something more solid comes down the pike, we will assume that's the case.

So who's doing the flim-flam (or is that a bait and switch? I have no idea)? Did Spetrino mislead Newsmax or is Newsmax in on it? Not exactly clear. Either way it's an embarrassment to Newsmax.

And that's what I wanna talk about. The Times has more:

The appearance was set up by Don Walker, an agent with Harry Walker who books Mr. O’Reilly’s speaking engagements. Mr. Walker said in an e-mail that “we understood Newsmax would mention a financial newsletter service during the program, which was explicitly separate from Bill’s appearance.”

Similarly, Newsmax said Thursday that “both parties agreed that Newsmax could offer financial newsletters during our broadcast,” separate from Mr. O’Reilly. The Web site’s chief executive, Christopher Ruddy, suggested that Fox had made a rush to judgment.

And there's our old friend Christopher ("Vince Foster was Murdered") Ruddy.

Noticeably absent in this story is the other major player at Newsmax. Did you know that as of March of 2009, Ruddy owns 60% of Newsmax? Wanna know what's up with that the other 40?

You guessed it:

A Long Island native, Ruddy received a master's degree in public policy from the London School of Economics. He was a reporter for the New York Post, which like MarketWatch, the publisher of this column, is owned by News Corp. (NASDAQ:NWS) He also was a national correspondent for Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Ruddy launched Newsmax in 1998 with a $25,000 investment. Then he raised $15 million from 200 private investors. Scaife subsequently bought up their stakes. Today, Ruddy owns 60% of privately held Newsmax and the remaining portion is controlled by Scaife. [emphasis added]

How much you wanna bet this embarrassing tale never ever makes it onto the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review?

Anyone find any reference to it? Because I can't.

More Wingnut Crazie

No, not JOSEPH FARAH's wingnut crazie. This time the wingnut crazie's coming from Newsmax.com.

Rest assured, we'll still post JOSEPH FARAH's wingnut crazie as often as we chose to, but that doesn't preclude posting crazie from other wingnut sources.

Newsmax, or at least John L. Perry, has posted a column there titled:

Obama Risks a Domestic Military ‘Intervention’

Though Perry is verry careful:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. [emphasis added]

BUT they go on (of course they do):

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

As John Aravosis at Americablog writes:

This is beyond the pale. If the Democrats don't step up and shut this kind of talk down right now, I fear we are going to see violence in this country. And yes, it will be the Republicans' fault. But it will also be the fault of the Democratic party for watching the crazy talk grow, and not doing a thing to stand up to it. At some point, silence abets.

Wingnut Crazie. It's everywhere.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall posts this:

The author, John L. Perry, claims not to be 'advocating', only describing what he says is already being considered and is the best option available. But give it a read and you be the judge.

And just so we're totally clear, no, I'm not expecting any military coups. This is just one more nugget to add to the backdrop list of incitement now coming from the right.

Can we add treason?

UPDATE, ANOTHER: The Perry column has been taken down.

UPDATE, AND ANOTHER From Talking Points Memo:

As noted earlier, Newsmax appears to have taken down its article endorsing a potential military coup as the only way to solve the "Obama problem". But here's the full text of the article as it originally appeared.

As noted previously, the article not only endorsed the idea but seemed to suggest that top military brass were also planning or actively considering such an option.
Late Update: Newsmax is now distancing itself from Perry's column and they've sent us a statement to that effect.

Later Update: Let me just add a little more on this. As you can see, the angle Newsmax is taking on this is to suggest that Perry doesn't really have anything to do with them, that he's just an "unpaid blogger." Now I think we all understand that there are many sites -- Kos, Redstate, even TPM -- where readers are allowed to set up their own blogs or diaries and write their own stuff. These are essentially discussion areas. And it's a cheap shot when someone finds some nutty diary on Kos and says DailyKos published such and such. Newsmax is claiming that that's what's happening here. But we've taken a close look. And I think it's clear that that is not true. Perry has written a weekly column for the site going back to at least 1999. And he's prominently listed on the bio page of all Newsmax columnists, along with Dick Morris, Dr. Laura, Grover Norquist, Lanny Davis, Michael Reagan, Rep. Ernest Istook, etc. (You can see the page we're referring to here; scroll down and look for the red arrow on the left.) We'll have more for you on this shortly.

Stay tuned.