Follow The Money - PATownhall

A week or so ago, I stumbled across this website.  It's "PaTownHall - Pennsylvania's marketplace of ideas" and it describes itself as:

PA Town Hall is a cooperative project involving over 20 center/right organizations and columnists from throughout Pennsylvania. It is a "one stop shop" for readers to view the latest policy papers, news releases, newsletters, polls, blogs and columns as well as listen to radio programs produced by participating organizations.

The site piqued my curiosity, to say the least.  Where did it come from?  Who hosts it?  Who's paying for it?  And finally, HOW MUCH SCAIFE MONEY IS ENTWINED IN THE PROJECT?

So let's follow the money.

On the "About" page we learn that:

PA Town Hall is owned and operated by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research, Inc. The Lincoln Institute is a 501c3 nonprofit educational foundation based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The mission statement of the Lincoln Institute commits the organization to "the conduct of an extensive public information and educational program designed to foster federal and state public policy based upon traditional American values."

Ah, The Lincoln Institute.  According to the Bridgeproject, the Institute has received overall $1.428 million dollars over the last 20 or so years - 68% of which ($980,000) came from the Scaife controlled Allegheny Foundation.

But what about those "20 center/right organizations" that make up the project?

Let's take a look.  Here's the page titled "Member Groups".  Alot of the list is made up of individuals, so let's set them aside and just concentrate on the some of groups on the "Member Group" page that have received Scaife funding (all info from the BridgeProject):

• Allegheny Institute: $6.484 million total, 89% ($5.8 million) from Scaife foundations
• Commonwealth Foundation: $7.523 million total, 35% ($2.667 million) from Scaife foundations
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: $9.865 million total 14.7% ($1.45 million) from Scaife foundations

And so on.  I note that our good friend Salena Zito is also on the "Member Groups" list.  She's a staff writer and editorial columnist for the Tribune-Review

Here's a thought experiment: What would PATownhall look like had it never received 68% of it's foundation funding from the Scaife Foundations?  What would the political geography of the state look like without all that money coming from those three sources all controlled (until recently, of course) by one very rich white guy?

Here's a couple more: The next time Salena Zito mentions anyone else (individual or organization) on the PA Townhall "Member Group" (for example Senator Toomey) will she, in the spirit of full disclosure, mention their common membership on that list?  

Next time Lowman Henry is so lovingly profiled by the Tribune-Review, will they point out that their former owner shuttled hundreds of thousands of dollars Henry's way to fund the Lincoln Institute?

Follow the money.

I Guess We Gotta Keep Doing This

From today's Tribune-Review:

Laurel: To Jake Haulk. The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy boss pulls no punches in a post about Pittsburgh Public Schools: “(T)he poor academic performance and the high rates of absenteeism” (well over 40 percent, on average, at the high school level) “point to the same thing — a failed public school system.” He takes to task those who continue to think the “solution” is to throw more money at the problem. Anyone ready to listen yet? [Bolding in original.]

We've done this blog post a number of times before.  But Scaife's braintrust still keeps hiding the financial entanglements that connect their boss with the subject of their praise.

So we'll have to do it for them, I guess.

According to the data found at the Bridge Project, The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy has received $6,484,200 in foundation support and $5.801,000 of that comes from three foundations (The Allegheny, Carthage, and Sarah Scaife Foundations) controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Tribune-Review.

For those who don't have calculators handy, that's means that 89.46% of the total financial support the Allegheny Institute receives from foundations, it receives from one guy - the owner of the paper whose op-ed page just praised the Institute's president.

There's more.  According to the Trib, Haulk also sits on the board of the Lincoln Institute for Public Opinion Research.  And according to the data found at the Bridge Project, the Lincoln Institute has received $1,482,500 in foundation support and $980,000 of that comes from the above mentioned Allegheny Foundation.  That's 68.62%, by the way.

I am sure Jake Haulk is a very nice guy.  I am sure he's very smart, accomplished, respected and so on, but considering the above, I have to ask myself, "How prominent of an economic pundit would he have been without Scaife's largess?"

Now go back to today's op-ed praise by Scaife's braintrust and ask yourself that same question.

This is how the right wing noise machine works.

More On Jim Roddey, GOP Chair in Allegheny County

By now, you've all seen the story, first reported by Tim McNulty of the P-G:

Allegheny County's GOP chair and former county executive Jim Roddey has long been known for being quotable, and he added to that reputation tonight in a joke equating Obama supporters with the mentally disabled.

Roddey as usual acted as MC at the election night party for state Rep. Randy Vulakovich, R-Shaler, who won the special election to fill convicted state Sen. Jane Orie's seat in Pittsburgh's northern suburbs. Vulakovich beat Democrat Sharon Brown at about 74-26%, which Roddey said "is the largest margin we've had in 50 years!"

That got a huge response from the partisan GOP crowd of about 200 people at Vulakovich's party, whereupon Roddey went into his Obama joke.

"There was a disappointment tonight. I was very embarrassed. I was in this parking lot and there was a man looking for a space to park, and I found a space for him. And I felt badly -- he looked like he was sort of in distress. And I said, 'Sir, here's a place.' And he said, 'That's a handicapped space.' I said, 'Oh I'm so sorry, I saw that Obama sticker and I thought you were mentally retarded."

For the record, he's since apologized:

In email today, Mr. Roddey called his remarks "regrettable," and added, "I have a long record of supporting people with disabilities and should have remembered that before I spoke. My remarks were inappropriate and I apologize."

By the way, the crowd reportedly "hollered and clapped" at Roddey's inappropriate and regrettable remarks.  None of them have reportedly apologized.

I was wondering just how big of an embarrassment was this for Mr Roddey?  That is to say, how far did the story get?  Let's see.

There's the left leaning Huffingtonpost:

A long-time Pennsylvania GOP official reportedly earned a warm reception Tuesday for comparing a supporter of President Obama to someone who is "mentally retarded."

And the right leaning Blaze:

Jim Roddey, reportedly a long-time Pennsylvania GOP official and county chair, is making headlines after implying that a driver is “mentally retarded” for having an Obama bumper sticker on his car.

Do you like how they're distancing themselves from Roddey there? He's not described as the head of the Allegheny County GOP, but "reportedly a long time Pennsylvania GOP official."  As if there's some doubt.

The story made it onto the Political Wire and the Daily Caller and Mediaite.

So the story spread far and wide, at least among political...uh...junkies.  And that's gotta be embarrassing for Mr Roddey.

Hey, did you know that Roddey's on the Board of Trustees for the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy?

That's the local conservative think-tank whose foundation support is made up almost entirely of Scaife money.  The same Scaife that owns the another Pittsburgh News outlet, the Tribune-Review.

Hey, did you know that the Trib has not yet mentioned Roddey's inappropriate and regrettable attempt at humor?

Interesting, isn't it?

The Trib, The News, And The Scaife Money

In light of yesterday's blog post about how in the news division at the Scaife-owned Tribune-Review there's little (well, NO) mention any of the Scaife foundation money that supports some of the think tanks the news division uses for information, I wanted to look at how they use The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy in their news or business reporting.

The Institute, by the way, is described by Media Matters like this:

Founded in 1995, the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy is closely connected to conservative billionaire Richard Melon Scaife. The Institute is guided by the principles of free enterprise, property rights, civil society and individual freedom that are the bedrock upon which this nation was founded.

And we've noted before how closely related - of all the foundation support given to the Allegheny Institute about 85% came from foundations directly controlled by Trib owner, Richard Mellon Scaife.

And even in its news reporting (as defined as having the word "business" or "news" in its URL), none of that is ever mentioned.

A Thanksgiving Gift From The Trib

As long as they keep doing this, I'll keep pointing it out.

Take a look at this blurb from today's Laurels & Lances:

Laurel: To Jake Haulk. The president of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy continues to do what he does best -- slay shibboleths. His latest effort calls into serious question the conclusion of an American Public Transportation Association "study" that says Pittsburgh motorists could save $9,201 a year by taking Port Authority Transit. As per usual, the facts show the APTA hyped the numbers. Thanks for the reality check, Dr. Haulk.

We've run the numbers before, but let's get a more recent picture, alright?

According to mediamatters, the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy has received $3,421,000 from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Allegheny, Carthage, and Sarah Scaife Foundations and $4,039,200 in total foundation support.  After a few seconds with my trusty calculator I now know that that of all the foundation support received by the Allegheny Institute, about 84.7 % came directly from the foundations controlled by the owner of the paper that lavished such praise Jake Haulk, president of the Allegheny Institute.

Heck, the Washington Post reported in 1999 that:

Scaife has been donating to big think thanks for four decades, but he recently launched a new kind of policy group in Pittsburgh, the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy, which describes itself as "devoted exclusively to the study of local issues" in western Pennsylvania.

So not only is Scaife the main source of foundation money for the institute, he founded the darn thing in the first place!

And yet no mention of any of that information is to be found on the pages of the Tribune-Review.

I find that interesting, don't you?

Another Lesson - The Right Wing Attack Machine

Congressman Mike Doyle uses the "hostage/terrorist" metaphor and the right wing doesn't like it. The editorial board at the Tribune-Review gets the story wrong:

Lance: To U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills. No effort to "walk back" his inexcusable comparison of tea party members to "terrorists," uttered during a closed-door caucus meeting on Monday, can change the fact that he said what he meant and meant what he said -- or cover the gross ignorance of basic economics betrayed by tax-the-"rich" rhetoric he used in trying to contain the damage.

In reality, he wasn't talking about "tea party members" but the members of Congress who were (to extend the metaphor) using the economy as a hostage to get what they want politically.

Can I point out at this point that the very very conservative Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, approves of the tactic of political "hostage taking" for political gains? From the Washington Post:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” [McConnell] said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”

Not "shooting" the hostage, of course. Just threatening to. But as they say, it's ok if you're a Republican and Mitch McConnell is a republican so it's OK to threaten to take the economy hostage - as long the political payoff is favorable to the Republicans.

For Congressman Doyle, however, the metaphor (even though they got it wrong) is "inexcusable."

But this is all set-up. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Look at what the Trib does in its editorial and how it does it. The second half of the braintrust's criticism of the Congressman's outburst come from Allegheny Institute for Public Policy's Jake Haulk.

The same Allegheny Institute for Public Policy that gets about 87% of its grant money from foundations controlled by Tribune-Review owner Richard Mellon Scaife.

This is how the right wing attack machine works. The Scaife-owned paper needed a quote to attack a political adversary and it conveniently found it at a Scaife-funded right wing think tank.

And there's never ever any mention of the millions Scaife's poured into the Allegheny Institute.

Some Days It's Just Too Damn Easy

Yikes! In today's Sunday Pops column, Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust succeeds in showing exactly how the conservative media's spin hides in plain sight.

Let's start at the end and work forward. The last "pop" goes like this:

Gloucester (Mass.) Times reporter Nancy Gaines has, as The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott describes it, "made some shocking discoveries about a cozy little Iron Triangle among well-known reporters, Big Green environmental scientists whose findings they regularly report and the funding by foundations that share the movement's ideological agenda." We're shocked -- SHOCKED! -- we say.

This from the very same newspaper whose owner funds the Heritage Foundation to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more) per year. The very same newspaper whose owner's grants to the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy amounts to 87% of that local think-tank's foundational support.

We'd be actually shocked at braintrust's blatant hypocrisy were it not for the middle "pop" in the editorial:

Democrat gubernatorial candidate Dan Onorato likes to brag that he hasn't raised Allegheny County's portion of property taxes during his seven years in office. Of course, what he doesn't say, as the Tax Foundation concludes, is that those property taxes, overall, are among the highest in the United States -- or that his court-flouting perversions gamed the system. Ooops.

That would be the same "Tax Foundation" that's recieved $1.065 million dollars from the Richard Mellon Scaife foundations over the last two decades.

So what's this again about the "iron triangle" of media - experts - foundations that the Scaife's braintrust wants to bring to our attention?

The circle jerk continues.

Filling In A Few Blanks

Every now and then the editorial pages at the Tribune-Review and the Post-Gazette cover the same issue and it's child's play to guess which side of which issue each will support.

Today is no exception.

The Trib say: North Shore connector - bad, Coburn-McCain report - good.

The P-G? As you might expect, sees things differently.

Since the overlap begins with the Coburn McCain report, we'll start there.

The Trib:

Laurel: To Tom Coburn and John McCain. The Republican U.S. senators, of Oklahoma and Arizona, respectively, list Pittsburgh's North Shore Connector as the nation's third-worst waste of federal "stimulus" money. And what a waste it is. Its benefits were oversold. It's dramatically over budget. And it's a monument to both the state in ineptness and the ineptness of the state. It is "waste" incarnate.

And the P-G:

Don't mistake the report this week by Republican Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburn for an economic analysis of the federal stimulus. "Summertime Blues" is a political stunt, designed to make the stimulus sound foolhardy by belittling and mischaracterizing projects it has funded.

As usual in supporting it's position, the Trib relies on some Scaife-funded think tank without ever declaring his support for that think tank. In this case the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy is referenced twice. You get what you pay for, I guess.

In it's defense of the Stimulus bill, the P-G points out:

It begins with an oversimplification, long stated by opponents of the $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that "Eighteen months since the law's passage, millions of jobs are still gone and the economy is as uncertain as ever."

That conclusion ignores countervailing findings, such as those issued last week -- by a former McCain adviser who is chief economist for Moody's investment service as well as Princeton economist Alan Blinder -- which said the stimulus program and the bank bailout likely averted a depression.

In doing so, they left something out.

The CBO (that's the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, for you newbies) has declared that the stimulus package:

• Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
• Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

So when Coburn and McCain write:

When Congress passed the $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill, it passed with assurances that it would stem the loss of American jobs and keep the economy from floundering. As most can see, it hasn’t.

Eighteen months since the law’s passage, millions of jobs are still gone and the economy is as uncertain as ever. The only thing getting a boost is our national debt – the stimulus has helped push it 23 percent higher, to $13.2 trillion, a new record.

You know they're just spinning. And that everything that follows is just a part of the spin. The facts may be true, but as the frame is skewed, so is the conclusion.

As the P-G points out:

No one is suggesting that every dollar of stimulus money has been spent wisely, but this report starts with a weak hypothesis supported by exaggeration. There ain't no cure for this "Summertime Blues."

As it's Friday and Fridays should be fun, here's some Eddie Cochran:


UPDATED to include the frickin link to the CBO report

Some Minor Pimping At The Trib.

Take a look.

From today's Editorial Page:

Pittsburgh City Council plans to spend a quarter-of-a-million dollars to hire an out-of-state company to analyze Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's plan to lease city parking garage assets. We'll bet an outfit like the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy would do the job -- and a better one at that -- either as an outright public service or for a sum one heck of a lot less than $250,000.

Do we need to do this again?

Yes, I guess we do because this time it's a little different.

Ok - here goes. From an old blog post:

We should all remember that over the last 14 years, the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy got a full 87% of it's grant money from none other than Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review.

It's support to the tune of about $4million in case you're curious.

But look at what the Scaife's braintrust is doing today. Not only is it failing to point out the financial ties between the Allegheny Institute and Richard Mellon Scaife - that's bad enough - but with this editorial it's pushing to get a city contract for the Institute.

Nice going, my friends. You can now all add "pimp" to your resumes.

Braintrust And The Allegheny Institute

It's been a while. I wonder if they put these in some sort of rotation so as not to invite too much attention. I wonder.

Ok. This shouldn't take long. On today's Tribune-Review editorial page, Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust tribs again:

It was six years ago that the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy created what it called "the Benchmark City," an amalgamation of four "regional hub cities" of varying populations and geographic locations. The purpose was to gauge how Pittsburgh competed.

But an updated version of that effort isn't very encouraging.

Any time the Trib publishes something (anything) from the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy we should all remember that the institute is more or less bought and paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife.

That there's no mention of the millions of dollars granted to it over the years by the foundations controlled by Scaife (87% of all its foundation grants since 1995 came from Scaife) is textbook conflict of interest. He pays the institute for the research and his editorial staff uses that research as some kind of independent data in an editorial - see?

The Circle Jerk continues.

I do have a few questions about the Institute's "Benchmark City." From the report:

In 2004 the Allegheny Institute undertook a benchmarking project in order to gauge the performance of the City of Pittsburgh on its spending and taxes. Four regional hub cities of varying population and geographic location (Salt Lake City, UT; Columbus, OH; Omaha, NE; Charlotte, NC) were selected. Their statistics were amalgamated into what is termed the Benchmark City. By expanding what we examined to not only include the city government’s practices but also other financial indicators related to debt, authorities, schools, and pensions, we aimed to present a broad and deep view of local government in other places and to see just how well Pittsburgh was able to compete.

Unless I am missing something, they don't really explain why they selected those four cities. Was it random? Once you take a look at the electoral history of those cities' states, it seems to me that there's the possibility that the "benchmark" data might be skewed right.

And once that's done, then of course the conclusion is skewed right.

Take a look at this site.

Utah and Nebraska are solidly "Red" states. McCain carried Utah with 63% of the vote and the state's Governor, both Senators and 2 of the 3 Representatives are Republicans. McCain carried Nebraska with 57% of the vote and of the Governor, Senators and House Members, only one, Senator Ben Nelson, is a Democrat.

And if you consider his behavior in the recent Health Care debate, he's hardly even a moderate Democrat. I think the term is Conservative Democrat.

North Carolina is a "Blue" state if only barely. Obama carried the state with 50% of the vote (to McCain's 49%) and the elected officials seems more or less evenly split. Ohio seems a little more blue - but not by much. Obama carried the state with 51% of the vote and the states elected officials while mixed, lean on the Democratic side.

Pennsylvania, by the way, is bluer than both.

In general the "Blue" states are barely or moderately blue while the "Red" states are firmly red.

What does this mean? It means that the "Benchmark" cities the Allegheny Institute selected are from states that would already tend to reflect conservative values. The same values the Institute would like to see in Pittsburgh. Very subtle framing, no?

Subtle framing OR they fixed the rules of the game to have a better chance at a foregone conclusion.

We report, you decide.

The Trib Ed-Board Never Learns

From today's Tuesday Takes:

Available data call into "serious question" the claim by Official Pittsburgh that the region enjoyed a $35 million economic boost from September's Group of 20 economic summit. That's according to the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. In fact, data show RAD tax numbers for September 2009 were actually below those of September 2008 by nearly 3 percent. "There is simply no evidence that ... retailers, restaurants, etc., in aggregate enjoyed an above-normal September level of sales" during the summit. If one were to factor in the total costs associated with the G-20, anyone care to bet any overall gains were de minimis?

Again no mention of the financial support of the Allegheny Institute by the owner of the Trib. Instead of redoing all the work, I'll just cut and paste what I wrote only one month ago:

No mention of the $375,000 in grant money ($125K in 2006, 2007 and 2008) from the Allegheny Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Or the $360,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $250K in 2008) from the Carthage Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Or the $235,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $125K in 2007) from the Sarah Scaife Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

For those keeping score that's $970,000 worth of support over the last 3 years and no mention of it when Scaife's editorial page quotes the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

As I wrote back then, the circle-jerk continues.

Another Day, Another Jerk In The Circle

From one of today's editorials at the Tribune Review:

It's bad enough that striking Philadelphia transit workers rejected what Gov. Ed Rendell called a "sensational" deal. What's really horrific is that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority offered such a deal in the first place.

Transport Workers Union Local 234 -- average member salary, $52,000 -- turned down a contract that included cumulative raises in excess of 11.5 percent over the next five years, a boost in pension payments and static worker contributions to health insurance.

In these times? That's daft. See what acquiescence to organized labor in the last contract got fare-paying Philadelphians and Pennsylvania taxpayers?

The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy reminds that such machinations could be permanently dispatched by leaving "the small minority of states that allow transit workers to strike."[emphasis added]

It was only last Tuesday when I pointed out the $970,000 in grant money given to the Allegheny Institute over the last 3 years. Another mention of the Institute with no mention of the money from Richard Mellon Scaife being used to support it

They're just taunting me now. I know it.

Tribune Review. Again

From today's "Tuesday Takes" we find:

The Allegheny Institute's Jake Haulk reminds that because Pittsburgh largely was bypassed by the national employment growth of the last decade, it did not have the private-sector housing and commercial building booms that went bust in other parts of the country. "But that does not mean the city should try to avoid strong growth in the future," he says.

Mr. Haulk cautions, however, that continuing problems with the city school district and basic city governance issues -- along with an "uninviting business climate" -- mean only "anemic" economic gains are on the horizon. Bottom line: Mediocrity does not a renaissance make.

No mention of the $375,000 in grant money ($125K in 2006, 2007 and 2008) from the Allegheny Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Or the $360,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $250K in 2008) from the Carthage Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Or the $235,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $125K in 2007) from the Sarah Scaife Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

For those keeping score that's $970,000 worth of support over the last 3 years and no mention of it when Scaife's editorial page quotes the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

The Scaife's journalistic circle jerk continues.