Grading PolitiFact: Glenn Beck and the Muslim Brotherhood

We always try to get the original statement in its full context rather than an edited form that appeared in news stories.
--About PolitiFact

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Robert Farley:  writer, researcher
Bill Adair:  editor


Analysis:

Let's jump right in with PolitiFact's fact check:

As Americans watch the Egyptian uprising from afar, politicians and pundits have speculated about whether the Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition group, will gain power.

On his radio show on Jan. 31, Glenn Beck said listeners should know that conspirators of the 9/11 attacks were part of the group.

Writer Robert Farley nearly fashioned a perfect beginning.  The main problem is the ambiguity of "were part of the group."  "Were" as in currently or "were" as in formerly?  The nature of the "al-Qaida links" may be quite different depending on what is meant.  So what did Beck say?

"So the Muslim Brotherhood, they're nothing to worry about," Beck began sarcastically.

That's an odd place to begin.  Does Beck's audience automatically possess functional knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Beck can begin the tale more-or-less in the middle?  We have a major clue here indicating missing context.  I was able to locate the relevant segment of Beck's radio program at YouTube:



The video appears to show that Beck "began" talking about the Muslim Brotherhood following a commercial break.  Beck's opening provides a strong indication that the preceding program segment provides additional context for his remarks.  From a journalistic standpoint, it is inexcusable not to consider that full context as it colors the meaning of Beck's statements.  It is nearly as inexcusable for the journalist to consider that full context without giving the reader any indication that the author considered the full context.

After watching the video, it is also clear that PolitiFact left out much of the more immediate context.  Beck was lampooning the presentation of the Muslim Brotherhood as presented by the mainstream media, specifically by an unnamed CNN anchor who had described the organization as "tirelessly and many times courageously campaigned for elections.  It has campaigned against the government.  It has campaigned on behalf of the poor."

So maybe Beck was just trying to helpfully distinguish between  the Muslim Brotherhood and the March of Dimes or maybe the Peace Corps?  Let's return to what PolitiFact says Beck said:

Selection bias? What selection bias? (Updated)

PolitiFact published a new type of story on Aug. 27. At least it was new to me.

Bill Adair wrote a story about Glenn Beck's history on PolitFact's cheesy "Truth-O-Meter."

Perhaps that has Karen Street beaming in partial satisfaction.

Most of Adair's story is relatively inoffensive, since much of it merely offers brief mentions of past stories on Beck. The problem comes from portions like this:

In the meantime, we thought it would be timely to look at Beck's record on the Truth-O-Meter. As you can see from the running tally in his PolitiFact file, we've rated 17 statements by the Fox News talk show host. It's fair to say that record skews toward the False end of the Truth-O-Meter.

His record (as of Aug. 27, 2010):

True                1
Mostly True     1
Half True         3
Barely True     4
False               5
Pants on Fire   3

Folks like Karen Street are thinking "So, what's the problem?  Glenn Beck tends to fudge the truth."

The problem is the type of generalization that stems from Adair's presentation.  The "Truth-O-Meter" ratings do not come from a random sample of Beck's remarks.  They are selected by the staffers at PolitiFact based, it is said, on their own editorial judgment with input via the suggestions of readers.  The readers, if the comments appearing at FaceBook offer any indication, trend left.

When sampling is the result of specific choices (such as editorial judgment), the resulting sample contains selection bias.  Because of selection bias, the "Truth-O-Meter" stats like the ones PolitiFact published for Beck mean virtually nothing with respect to Beck's veracity.  Assuming the accuracy of PolitiFact ratings--which, unfortunately, we can't--the only reliable information we get from the story is via anecdote.  In other words, if the ratings are accurate then we get a set of examples of things said by Beck reflecting various shades of truth.

Individually, the examples say something significant about Beck in each case.  In the aggregate, however, they say little to nothing about Beck.  They tell you more about PolitiFact than about Beck because the examples pattern PolitiFact's selection bias.

That, in a nutshell, is why PolitiFact ought to be wary of suggestions to aggregate its scoring for individuals and parties.  PolitiFact likely receives any resulting black eye.


Update:

While browsing some comments at PolitiFact's FaceBook page, it occurred to me that I could easily add some support to my key claim above, that people easily accept the idea that aggregated PolitiFact ratings for an individual roughly translate to a measure of that individual's truthfulness.  The comments all occur in response to Adair's story on Beck.

Grading PolitiFact: Glenn Beck and the White House visits

Sometimes PolitiFact concerns itself with the literal truth of a statement.  Sometimes the focus falls on the underlying argument.  Sometimes both receive attention.  Perhaps a throw of the dice determines which happens.  Maybe it depends on whether the PolitiFact staffers like the person involved.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Louis Jacobson:  writer, researcher
Greg Joyce:  editor

Analysis:

The problems started as soon as I began going through Louis Jacobson's source list.  I take it as the first order of business to establish the context of a quotation.  Note that the deck claims that Beck made the statement on "his Fox News Channel show."  The source list mentions "television":

clipped from www.politifact.com

Glenn Beck, comments on his television show, Dec. 3, 2009

The link led to a transcript of Beck's radio program, part of Premier Radio Networks set of syndicated programming.

Jacobson was a bit sloppy, then, but we are after the context.   First, the quotation as presented by Jacobson:

"You've got to ask yourself what the hell happened to this country," Beck said. "If I would have told you instead that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the secretary of state and everybody else, is a labor union president [Stern] who has repeatedly said workers of the world unite ... would you have believed it?"

And here is the version from Jacobson's listed source (red emphasis added):

That I'm going to be one of the ten most fascinating people in 2009, you've got to ask yourself what the hell happened to this country. If I would have told you instead that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the Secretary of State and everybody else, is a labor union president who has repeatedly said workers of the world unite; and we know we've got a lot of illegal members, illegal aliens in our membership, and who chief guy said, yeah, but we also represent American workers, end quote, that he would be the most frequent visitor at the White House, would you have believed it?

Jacobson appears to have taken some liberties with the quotation, but I'll save that issue for dessert.

The quoted portion occurs in the midst of an extended list of stories from 2009.  The Web page used by Jacobson featured an explanatory sidebar:

clipped from www.glennbeck.com

Glenn came up with a list of things that if he told you a year ago, you would never believe they'd ever come to fruition. The list is staggering, but it's only a partial list because it's what Glenn, Stu and Pat came up with just chatting in the office this morning. Listen to the list Glenn produced and help add to it by sending us any glaring omissions using the form below...

That, then, is the context.  Reading only the PolitiFact account would not impart this information.

Beck had followed the White House visitor log story at least since his Fox News television program on Nov. 3.  Though I cannot currently reproduce it, I received the impression that the Nov. 3 television appearance embed appeared on the page with the transcript of the Dec. 3 radio program, perhaps as background information.

Jacobson:

We found the source of Beck's claim. When the White House released its first batch of visitor logs on Oct. 30, 2009, as part of a pledge to bring more transparency to the White House, Stern's name did indeed appear 22 times, more than anyone else listed, including Clinton, who was listed three times.

Beck had made clear at least by Nov. 3 the source of his claim.  But despite finding that Beck's statement was true for the White House's initial release of visitor log material, PolitiFact gave Beck a "False" rating on the Truth-O-Meter.  What gives?

Stern led the pack for the first data release, which covered visits from Jan. 20, 2009 to July 31, 2009. But he was surpassed by several other individuals in the second release, which updates the data through Aug. 31, 2009 (and which was made public more than a week before Beck aired his comment).

Jacobson goes on to discuss a number of ways in which new data have placed the initial release in a proper context.  For example, Secretary of State Clinton had made many more visits to the White House than were reflected in the log.  Jacobson makes some good points, but how would any subsequent information reasonably make Beck's statement worse than barely true, based as it was on a fair summary of the first log release?

So, while Beck did pass along a widely reported finding as he made his point about Stern, the data it was based on was incomplete and out of date by the time of his show, and ultimately the conclusion he drew was incorrect. We rate his statement False.

 Not exactly a detailed explanation, is it?

And there is a deeper problem with Jacobson's assessment, leading us back to the context of Beck's remarks.

Beck was summarizing a list of stories from the past year.  In that context, it was fair for Beck to ignore subsequent data on the White House logs.  The story on Oct. 30 was the story on Oct. 30, and Beck's list simply pointed to various stories to provide historical perspective on the "change" wrought by the Obama administration.  In that context, Beck cannot be reasonably rated worse than "Mostly True."  Yet PolitiFact rated him "False."

As it happens, Beck has made similar statements about Stern's visits in a variety of other contexts.  Perhaps one of those contexts would support the Truth-O-Meter rating given to Beck.  But not this one.


The grades:

Louis Jacobson:  F
Greg Joyce:  F

The PolitiFact team did some good work providing context for the meaning of the White House visitor log data.  But flubbing the context of the Beck quotation forbids the granting of a passing grade.


*****

Dessert:

Time to toy with a couple of minor issues from the story.

I do not expect PolitiFact to provide an objective point of view for its fact checking.  But traditional journalistic standards ought to make the editors at least consider labeling their efforts to distinguish them from objective journalism.  Check out the first paragraph from Jacobson:

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck recently found another rhetorical weapon to use against President Barack Obama: White House visitor logs.

That is not objective reporting.

Jacobson is establishing a narrative about Beck that provides a frame for the the subsequent story.  Beck, states the narrative, is a character who seeks rhetorical weapons "to use against President Barack Obama."  That is an editorial opinion, and it has no business in objective news reporting.  Period.

I pointed out in the main text above how Jacobson took liberties with his quotation of Beck.  I had hoped to access the audio to help distinguish between the transcript from Beck's site and the way Jacobson chose to present it.  Alas, it is protected through the fact that Beck charges for archived material.

Though some doubt remains, Beck's version ought to receive the benefit of the doubt because Jacobson cited Beck's site as his source.  In addition, Jacobson offered no rationale for applying "you've got to ask yourself what the hell happened to this country" to the Stern quotation instead of to Beck's appearance on the cover of Time.

Grading PolitiFact: Glenn Beck and dog insurance

Until yesterday, I did not have enough information to grade PolitiFact on this item. I owe a hat tip to Media Matters for posting the audio.


The issue:




The fact checkers:

Robert Farley: writer, researcher
Bill Adair: editor


Analysis:

We'll dive right into the PolitiFact story, from the beginning:

We're months into this health care debate and frankly a lot of the claims we've been fact-checking from opponents and proponents alike have gotten a little stale. So we were thrilled to hear a new one on the Glenn Beck radio program on Nov. 12, 2009:

Staffers at PolitiFact listen to the Glenn Beck program? The language suggests as much. Color me skeptical.

"Do you know in the health care bill, we're now offering insurance for dogs," Beck said. "Do I need to say any more?"

Actually yes. Keep going.

"If you are somebody who is like, 'Well, I just, I'm struggling and we're barely making ends meet,' I'm not paying for your dog cardiologist!" Beck said. "Not gonna do it. I'm sorry, the dog goes nighty night."

Farley again:

There was some discussion between Beck and his executive producer about their own dogs' medical issues, whether or not they have pet insurance, and whether the Obama administration is putting animals on par with humans.

I sensed that valuable context was probably omitted. Thanks, ironically enough, to Media Matters, I now have data enough to produce a demonstration.




Transcript mine, trusting that PolitiFact accurately identified the other person speaking as Beck's executive producer (Steve Burguiere):

Beck:
"You, do y-, do you remember a year ago? I said to you "They're going to build a machine." When they built, when they had the stimulus package, and I said you must not allow these things to pass. You must not allow--Congress must not allow any package to pass from these people. Because they're building a machine. And you do not want it turned on. And you don't even know what it looks like yet. Well, we're beginning to see it. I'm going to show it to you. I'm taking the mask off of it tonight. You have to see it to believe it. But it includes the stories that I've just told you. And how about this one: Do you know in the health care bill we're now offering insurance for dogs? Do I need to say any more? We're offering insurance for dogs.

Burguiere:
W-well, you're saying that's in the bill? You're saying ...?

Beck:
Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a deal on, for the vets. So vets, they also have money, so we'll have insurance for dogs. Now, why in your wildest dreams--my first thought was, well, wait a minute, wait a minute. And there's two parts of this, and we'll explain it, um, as we go on in the next few days. But there's two parts in this. And they revolve around vets. And dogs. And the first thing I thought was, if we are running into all of these spending problems, how could you possibly do health insurance for dogs? Why would you do that? And I thought, well, it's Cloward and Piven, collapse the system. Is it that, is it just that? Then I remembered the name Cass Sunstein. Cass Sunstein doesn't want you to eat meat, remember. 'Course, he's never gonna--no, he's--no, he's never gonna just say "Hey, ban all meat." No, no, no. He'll never do that. Cass Sunstein and John Holdren are right up there with Peter Singer, that animals are people. Well now, wait a minute. If in our health care package if we are giving health care to animals, isn't it easier to make the case that the government already is--they're recognizing animals as on part with humans. Now, I know this is a stretch, but other than that why at this time in our history would we be offering insurance for dogs? I don't--hmm?

Burguiere:
Seems like there might be a better time for that.

Beck:
Might be other higher priorities.

Burguiere:
Maybe.

Beck:
You don't know what it is that they're building. I don't claim to know it, either. But they are building something, and it is not what they're telling you.

(tone on audio may indicate commercial break)

(red and bold highlights added. Look for a more complete version of the transcript at the end of the post.)

Note what Farley did, here. He took one thing (two sentences) that Beck said, and spliced it together with another statement that occurred much later, apparently after a commercial break. And he did it in a way that leads the reader to think that the statements occurred consecutively.

If we keep the context of Beck's comments, we have a reasonable explanation of "insurance for dogs" along with a promise of additional explanation over the next few days. In the immediate context, Beck equates insurance for dogs with money going to veterinarians. Farley omits all of that and speeds through the steps required to reach the desired conclusion:

Like so many claims in the health care debate, Beck has taken a kernel of something in the bill and spun it to an absurd conclusion.

It might have been absurd to make the connection to animal rights, but Farley doesn't even mention that, and Beck allowed that he was stretching in order to make that connection. But calling money going to vets "dog insurance" is only an absurd conclusion if we ignore the context and offer Beck the least charitable interpretation of his words.

Farley delves into the provision of the bill that provides money for veterinarians, and that takes up the bulk of the story. And that is supposed to be enough to support his conclusion:

(S)cholarships, loan assistance and fellowships to veterinarians is one thing. Providing government health insurance to dogs is quite another.

"We are not offering insurance for dogs," Morris said.

We pored over the bill and came to the same conclusion. There is no health insurance of any kind for dogs -- no public option for Rex, no death panels for Fido.

So we've got to put Beck in the doghouse for this one -- Pants on Fire!

With all due respect to Farley, if Beck wants to define "health insurance to dogs" as scholarships, loan assistance and fellowships to veterinarians, literary license allows him to do exactly that. One can reasonably accuse Beck of exaggerating to the point of damaging his attempt to communicate his ideas effectively. And one can reasonably suggest that the broadcast discussion contributed to the idea that literal health insurance for dogs was the topic. But one cannot report on Beck's statement fairly without noting that he equated "insurance for dogs" with money going to veterinarians and also promised additional explanation at a later time.

Without treating the full explanation from Beck, any "Truth-O-Meter" rating is premature. And based on what Beck actually said rather than the quotations Farley selected, Beck cannot reasonably receive a rating below "Barely True."


The grades:

Robert Farley: F
Bill Adair: F



****

I did not transcribe the entire audio because it proves difficult near the end because three different people are talking over each other.

In this version I bold highlight only the portions that Farley quoted.

Beck:
"You, do y-, do you remember a year ago? I said to you "They're going to build a machine." When they built, when they had the stimulus package, and I said you must not allow these things to pass. You must not allow--Congress must not allow any package to pass from these people. Because they're building a machine. And you do not want it turned on. And you don't even know what it looks like yet. Well, we're beginning to see it. I'm going to show it to you. I'm taking the mask off of it tonight. You have to see it to believe it. But it includes the stories that I've just told you. And how about this one: Do you know in the health care bill we're now offering insurance for dogs? Do I need to say any more? We're offering insurance for dogs.

Burguiere:
W-well, you're saying that's in the bill? You're saying ...?

Beck:
Yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a deal on, for the vets. So vets, they also have money, so we'll have insurance for dogs. Now, why in your wildest dreams--my first thought was, well, wait a minute, wait a minute. And there's two parts of this, and we'll explain it, um, as we go on in the next few days. But there's two parts in this. And they revolve around vets. And dogs. And the first thing I thought was, if we are running into all of these spending problems, how could you possibly do health insurance for dogs? Why would you do that? And I thought, well, it's Cloward and Piven, collapse the system. Is it that, is it just that? Then I remembered the name Cass Sunstein. Cass Sunstein doesn't want you to eat meat, remember. 'Course, he's never gonna--no, he's--no, he's never gonna just say "Hey, ban all meat." No, no, no. He'll never do that. Cass Sunstein and John Holdren are right up there with Peter Singer, that animals are people. Well now, wait a minute. If in our health care package if we are giving health care to animals, isn't it easier to make the case that the government already is--they're recognizing animals as on part with humans. Now, I know this is a stretch, but other than that why at this time in our history would we be offering insurance for dogs? I don't--hmm?

Burguiere:
Seems like there might be a better time for that.

Beck:
Might be other higher priorities.

Burguiere:
Maybe.

Beck:
You don't know what it is that they're building. I don't claim to know it, either. But they are building something, and it is not what they're telling you.

(tone on audio may indicate commercial break)

Beck:
I mean, I have, I've spent a lot of money on, on my d--I didn't, he had to go to a cardiologist. I didn't even know they h--I, when the vet said he's gotta go to a cardiologist, I said, like a people cardiologist? Do they have dog cardiologists? Oh, yes, absolutely. Dog allergists, cardiologists, they have it all.

Burguiere:
Yeah?

Beck:
Yeah. OK, OK.

Burguiere:
That's amazing.

Beck:
That is fantastic. If you have the money to pay for it.

Burguiere:
Yeah. And it's a private system that had created all these things (inaudible)

Beck:
Right. But if you are somebody who is, like, "Well, I just, I'm struggling and we're barely making ends meet," I'm not paying for your dog cardiologist.

Burguiere:
No.

Beck:
Not gonna do it. I'm sorry, the dog goes nitey-nite.

Burguiere:
The go--the government should not be paying for anything dog-related. For the most part. I ca--I'm trying to think of anything. Maybe there's something.

Beck:
There's nothing. Nothing. Nothing.

Burguiere:
Uh, uh, uh, uh, no, there is. An escaped Cujo comes out and is taking out a kindergarten class, we should have somebody to take that dog out.

Beck:
I will pay for the bullets.
I will pay for the bullets.

Burgiere:
You'll pay for any Cujo-related incident.

Beck:
Any Cujo-related in--I will personally buy the bullets.

Burguiere:
There you go, well ...

(third person):
You're backing all future Cujo-related incidents, now?

Beck:
Put a bullet in the dog's head, let's call it a day.

I should point out that Farley ignored one of the conventions of objective reporting by including an exclamation point in his quotation of Beck. Though he may be quoting from an unidentified source that did not bother with journalistic conventions. If so, he should have identified that source.

Glenn Beck and dog insurance (Updated)

Ordinarily I put "Grading PolitiFact" in the title when I'm evaluating a PolitiFact entry. But not this time. I don't have enough information to know whether the Truth-O-Meter rating given to Beck fits the facts.

Glenn Beck supposedly claimed that "the health care bill" provides insurance for dogs.

That claim sounds potentially worthy of a fact check--if Beck was not making a joke as he often does. But from PolitiFact we get only very limited context for the remark:

"Do you know in the health care bill, we're now offering insurance for dogs," Beck said. "Do I need to say any more?"

Actually yes. Keep going.

"If you are somebody who is like, 'Well, I just, I'm struggling and we're barely making ends meet,' I'm not paying for your dog cardiologist!" Beck said. "Not gonna do it. I'm sorry, the dog goes nighty night."

(bold emphasis added)

It seems likely that the above was accompanied by related commentary in its original context on the Glenn Beck Radio Program. But I'm not shelling out money just to research one hour's worth of radio.

PolitiFact fails to even source the claim beyond identifying the day the comments supposedly aired on Beck's show. Nor does the list of sources provide any apparent help:

clipped from www.politifact.com

Published: Thursday, November 12th, 2009 at 6:08 p.m.

Subjects: Health Care, Pundits

Sources:

U.S. House of Representatives Rules Committee, HR 3962 - the Affordable Health Care For America Act

U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, HR 3962 - Section by Section

GOP.gov, Conference Blog: Fact Check and Details About Pelosi's Government-Run Health Care Bill, Oct. 29, 2009

CQ Transcripts, Discussion of H.R. 3962 in the House Committee on Rules, Nov. 7, 2009

Interview with Brian Cook, press secretary for Pete Stark, D-Calif., chair of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Nov. 12, 2009

Interview with Vincent Morris, spokesman for House Rules Committee, which is Chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter, Nov. 12, 2009

Written by: Robert Farley
Researched by: Robert Farley
Edited by: Bill Adair

So there is no real knowing if this is a legitimate fact check, at least for now.

We can delve into PolitiFact's motivations, however.

The story claims that Beck's claim was different from the usual statements made about the health care reform bills.

We're months into this health care debate and frankly a lot of the claims we've been fact-checking from opponents and proponents alike have gotten a little stale. So we were thrilled to hear a new one on the Glenn Beck radio program ...

So this is about PolitiFact employees amusing themselves?

Does anything make this news? I tried searching for any other mention of Glenn Beck and dog insurance. The very few relevant hits all represented the PolitiFact take on the story, indicating that few if any received a false impression from Beck's program.

Minus a memetic wave of disinformation, how did PolitiFact come to learn of Beck's statement about dog insurance? Did an employee listen to the show? What was the genesis of the limited transcript provided in the story?

We make a great deal of the bias we see in writing. Bias in which story to follow in print tends to fly under the radar.

I'd like to know more about how this story came about, and I'd like to know the full context of Beck's comments.

With luck, a reader may offer help.


*****

One little nugget I did find during my research: A story on a new dog insurance initiative in Taipei was published by the Canada Free Press. And the author has a connection to Glenn Beck. More than a coincidence?


Update:

Media Matters posted an audio clip of the relevant radio broadcast. PolitiFact blew another one, as I document at "Grading PolitiFact: Glenn Beck and dog insurance."

Grading PolitiFact: Glenn Beck's disparagement of RomneyCare

PolitiFact continues to fact-check non-literal language as though it is literal. A bit like the way some atheists try to find contradictions in the Bible.

The issue:

Glenn Beck said that Mitt Romney's healthcare plan is bankrupting the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And then there's former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who Beck said "opened the tent and gave you government health care that is now bankrupting the state."

Yeah, he said it. The hotlink should lead to the video. The embed shows the latest from Beck, which would not help us much.


The fact checkers:

Catharine Richert: writer, researcher
Bill Adair: editor


Analysis:

Hyper-literalist Catharine Richert handled the investigation of Beck.

In many ways, the Massachusetts health care model mirrors a plan lawmakers are considering on Capitol Hill, so we wondered whether the mandate could be the budget-buster Beck claims it to be.

If we were to look for a potential motive for PolitiFact to fault Beck, the fact that Romney's plan is something of a template for the federal plan might fit the bill.

Richert goes on to provide some details about the Massachusetts plan. Sure enough, it features mandated coverage and an exchange system along the lines of federal reform proposals.

It gets more interesting when Richert gets to the budget numbers:

Initially, the state projected that 215,000 people would eventually be enrolled in the program at the cost of $725 million. By 2007, enrollment had reached 80,000 and six months later, the number had doubled to 158,000 people. In 2008, enrollment peaked at more than 177,000 people. Currently, the state is expecting to spend about $880 million on Commonwealth Care in the coming budget year; that's about 3.3 percent of the state's $27 billion budget.

Richert probably intends the reader to focus on Commonwealth Care representing about 3.3 percent of the Massachusetts budget for the current year. I was drawn to the other data, however. The cost of subsidizing insurance for 177,000 people exceeded the expected cost of subsidizing 215,000 people. Richert may have intended to allay concerns about rising costs by saying that enrollment "peaked" at more than 177,000. But that is simply poor word choice. Enrollment has not peaked. It exceeded 177,000 by 2008 and is expected to keep rising. The New York Times put it this way:

Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.
(bold emphasis added)

I don't know what else Beck needs other than the above to support his statement. After all, "bankrupting" indicates an ongoing process. It seems contrived for Richert to test the claim simply in terms of current budget numbers. Isn't unsustainable growth in costs a fairly obvious equivalent to "bankrupting"?

The most notable trend in the Massachusetts health care, largely ignored by Richert, is the rapid rise in per capita costs. Massachusetts residents are paying very high prices for their health insurance.

Richert found one card to play. A report she cites from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation claims that costs of the program will drop for fiscal year 2009 (though still substantially exceeding projections). The report also indicates that enrollment in the subsidized insurance program began to drop from a peak of 177,000 in 2009. That probably accounts for the language Richert uses implying that the decrease represents a trend (correction: or, more properly, that the number of enrollees would not continue to increase in subsequent years).

The president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation ends up as Richert's star witness:

So, while the program has become more expensive, it has not been the budget-buster that Beck suggests. We asked experts whether the state would still be facing a $5 billion deficit if the program hadn't been put into place, and the resounding answer was "yes."

"Beck joins a long and growing list of uninformed commentators who allege that Massachusetts’ health reform is bankrupting the state," said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a tax policy think tank. "He and they are absolutely wrong."

The state's budget deficit has been caused by an unprecedented collapse in state tax revenues, Widmer said.

With all due respect to Widmer, even a total collapse of state tax revenues will not cause a budget deficit if there is no government spending. It is thus disingenuous to pin the entire problem on a decrease in revenue. It must be acknowledged that the cost of Commonwealth Care has exceeded projections. That all by itself is enough to qualify Beck's statement as "Partially True."

Richert's supposed fact check makes a straw man of Beck's statement. She offers no indication that Beck was contacted to explain the intent of the statement. She apparently determined that for herself and proceeded accordingly.

So, while the state may be broke, it has little to do with the health care program Mitt Romney put in place over three years ago. Instead, tax revenue shortfalls and a growing reliance on unemployment benefits due to layoffs have put a massive budget burden on the state. As a result, we give Beck a False.

Again, it is assumed that Beck refers to the current budget shortfall in its entirety. The entire case against Beck rests on an uncharitable interpretation of his statement. And if Commonwealth Care enrolls another 200,000 people next year and doubles the current budget deficit, you can bet that PolitiFact will not revisit the issue.


The grades:

Catherine Richert: F
Bill Adair: F


Nov. 14, 2009: Removed an extra "that" and softened a criticism of Richert in accordance with the demands of logic.