 |
||||||||
Chairperson Teresa Santiago of the New York Consumer Protection Board (CPB) has been telling false and libelous statements to the national media about what best selling author Matthew Lesko has been saying about government money programs. Lesko questions “Why is the CPB accusing me of misleading consumers when the U.S. Army has asked me to give my books to the Iraqi War wounded at Walter Reed Hospital and to teach these GIs how to take advantage of little-known government programs that can help put their lives back together?” Lesko Has Zero Consumer Complaints Santiago admits that her office has received zero complaints against Lesko and that he is not under any kind of investigation, but says his advertising lies to the public. She believes the government has very little money for consumers and that everyone already knows about these programs or can easily learn about them from the government. Proof #1: If it were true, then why did the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York write in a recent book1 that $1.2 Trillion dollars in federal, state and local government handouts are given out to consumers every year, with only 12% of this money going to the poor and only 25% having income requirements? The CPB also states that there is very little free money available for individuals from the government because…“Experts say most government grants only go to agencies and organizations – not individuals”. They base this statement on their interview with an official at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Although this is a true statement from OMB about government grants, it is a FALSE statement about all free money from the government. OMB categorizes most free government money to individuals under the term “direct payments”. The OMB budget figures show that in 2003 the government gave out $250 billion in grants to individuals (most of which goes through local governments and agencies) but they also gave out $1 TRILLION in direct payments to individuals.2The CPB should call back the OMB and ask the right questions. Proof #2: If it were true that everyone knows about these programs, then Congress and other official agencies would not produce documented evidence showing that there are at least 50 million consumers who can call the government today and get money and help they are entitled to but they don’t know it, including:
Proof #3: If it were true that it is as easy as Chairperson Santiago says to find out about government programs, then why does a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office study9 say that:
Proof that everyone who should know about these programs doesn’t is shown by the fact that I was asked to lecture soldiers wounded in Iraq at Walter Reed Army Hospital on non-defense government programs. In addition, over the past few months I’ve assisted Iraqi war widows in finding sources of government money to help put their lives back together. I’ve also provided books to bereavement counselors who work directly with military families. These are the same books that the CPB says are worthless and misleading. I enjoy doing this for free because as a Vietnam Veteran, I believe that there is no one more deserving to receive every single benefit this country has to offer than those who are offering to give up their lives for it. Is the Fox Guarding the Hen House? On their website, the New York Consumer Protection Board states that every year they help 20,000 consumers recover a total of $500,00010. When a government official like Chairperson Santiago, who is supposed to help consumers get their money back, is telling them there is no government help available that they don’t already know about, they are actually preventing 50 million consumers from benefiting from little-known government programs and opportunities and from getting the help they are entitled to by law. Should American taxpayers foot the bill for an investigation and report of my business practices when not one of my customers has asked for protection or restitution? Should the head of a government agency whose mission is to get consumers money they are owed mislead Americans by steering them away from legitimate government programs and tax dollars they are entitled to? By spreading these deceptions, the CPB is causing suffering to 50 million consumers – when they should be helping to alleviate it. Matthew Lesko 1 From page 151, "Running On Empty", Peter G. Peterson,
former Chairman of Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York 2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf 3 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Results of Social Security
Administration's 2002 Outreach to
Low-Income Beneficiaries: Outreach
to Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries: GAO-04-363:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04363.pdf 4 The
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation http://www.kff.org/medicaid/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=28333 5 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, GAO-04-346, Food Stamp Programs:
Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of Working
Families, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04346.pdf 6 Center
for Policy Analysis, Issue Brief, "Missed Opportunities:
Students Who Do Not Apply for Financial Aid".... October
2004, http://www.acenet.edu/resources/HigherEdFacts/issue-briefs/2004FAFSA.pdf 7 U.
S. Government Accountability Office, Child Support Enforcement,
GAO-04-377 8 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Medicare: Most Beneficiaries
Receive Some but Not All Recommended Services, GAP-03-958, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03958.pdf 9 Accuracy
of Responses form the 1-800-MEDICARE Help Line Should Be
Improved, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05130.pdf 10 http://www.consumer.state.ny.us/about.htm The following is additional proof that the report from the NY Consumer Protection Board is riddled with dozens of false and libelous statements about government money programs and me, Matthew Lesko. Here are some questions I was asked by the media about the CPB’s report and my responses to them. |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
Question 1: Is it true that most of the $350 billion cited in advertisements is Medicaid and Medicare? Readers might not see that as the kind of free grant money the advertisements seem to hint at. What is your response? Answer 1: No, it is not true that most of the $350 billion cited in advertisements is Medicaid and Medicare money. It can’t possibly be true because the total bill for Medicaid and Medicare is about $542 billion, and this is a lot more than $350 billion (see #1 below). The true total for government benefits to taxpayers is $1.2 TRILLION (see #2). This is a number that includes Medicaid and Medicare. And this does not even include the $30 billion that is given out each year by non-profit organizations. So if I was looking for a number that would include all government benefit programs as well as programs from non-profit organizations I would have used $1.23 Trillion (see #3). But, I also disagree that any number representing government programs should not include Medicaid and Medicare because, I assume, this should be because most people already know about these two programs. The goal of my work is to try and educate Americans about little-known government programs and I feel it would be irresponsible of me not to include these two programs because there are many aspects of these major programs that go unused by people who are actually eligible. For example:
The $350 billion figure is actually an educated guess based on my 25 years of studying government programs. It was meant to be a conservative estimate. A more defensible number would be $1.23 Trillion. What I think is more indefensible is the assumption that every one knows about the various programs under Medicare and Medicaid. I am sure that New York’s Consumer Protection Board is doing some good work if their web site claims that they save 20,000 consumers about $500,000 (see #7) a year. I would think that they should also take an interest in helping the 39 million consumers who can save, not $500,000, but over $5 BILLION a year from little known programs that the law says they are already eligible for. (#1) 2005 U.S.
Budget http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/ (#2) From page 151, “Running On Empty”, Peter G. Peterson, former Chairman of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (#3) The Foundation Center, http://fdncenter.org/research/trends_analysis/pdf/state04.pdf (#4) U.S. Government Accountability Office, Results of Social Security Administration's 2002 Outreach to Low-Income Beneficiaries: Outreach to Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries: GAO-04-363: www.gao.gov (#5) U.S. Government Accountability Office, Medicare: Most Beneficiaries Receive Some but Not All Recommended Services, GAP-03-958, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03958.pdf (#6) The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation http://www.kff.org/medicaid/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=28333 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Question 2: Why does Mr. Lesko claim to be a New York Times columnist when the newspaper disputes that? Answer 2: I guess I was wrong here. I definitely was a columnist for the New York Times Syndicate and my column appeared in many major newspapers around the country. I was also a columnist for The Chicago Tribune syndication service. The problem is that some of my biographies say “Columnist for the New York Times” and not “Columnist for the New York Times Syndicate”. They are all part of the same company and it is still difficult for me to understand the difference, but since this has been brought to my attention we are in the process of making the changes where this is mentioned. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Question 3: One example of a grant cited on Mr. Lesko’s Web site involves a researcher who was given $500,000 to "travel the world," suggesting others can apply for similar offers. In reality, the New York consumer agency says, the researcher is a quantum physicist and professor at Georgetown University, who won a grant from the National Science Foundation. Can general consumers really apply for such grants? Is it fair to suggest they do so? Answer 3: James Freerick is indeed a physicist who received $500,000 from the National Science Foundation and other sources. But Dr. Freerick is not the only testimonial we show as getting government money. We also show dozens of people including:
The point of showing a testimonial like Dr. Freerick, along with other people of various backgrounds, is to educate consumers and fight the myth held by many that most government money goes to people on welfare or to people with very low income. It is a fact that only 12% of government money programs go to the poor. And it is also a fact tha only 25% of government money programs have income requirements for getting the money (see #9). These facts make it clear that there are plenty of programs available for all income categories and backgrounds. The argument by the Consumer Protection Board against me showing someone like Dr. Freerick, who is well educated and not an average struggling consumer, seems to contradict their other complaint against me for including the value of Medicaid and Medicare in the total dollar figure because these two programs are only for low income, struggling consumers, which, by the way, is also a myth. How can someone say that, on one hand, I should not show someone who is above average getting government money because average people can’t apply for this program and, on the other hand, I should not talk about programs like Medicare and Medicaid because these are programs that any average person can apply for. Also I would certainly be a stupid businessperson if I did not try to include every type of potential customer in my marketing efforts when in fact there are government programs for people of all incomes and backgrounds. Here are some famous examples:
If someone who came to the country to kill 3,000 Americans is eligible to get government money, why shouldn’t the rest of Americans, rich or poor, young or old, privileged or not privileged, also know about these programs. Isn’t this what our American democracy is all about? The benefits that this country provides belong to everyone, not just a few. (#8) http://www.freemoneyforrealestate.com/23/126.html (#9) From page 151, “Running On Empty”, Peter G. Peterson, former Chairman of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Question 4: “Free car repairs” mentioned on page 33 of “Free Money to Pay Your Bills” actually involves automobile recalls. That seems like a stretch; can you explain? Answer 4: The free car repairs through automobile recalls are just one of many sources of government money one can for car repair bills. There are dozens of other programs available from the government and non-profit organizations. A 2004 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (see #11) shows that there are at least 43 programs that provide cash for people who need to repair their cars. The programs that offer this money have income requirements that go up to $38,000 for a family of 4. The report shows the following car-related programs:
(#11) U.S. Government Accountability Office Report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04256.pdf |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Question 5: The board says the books suggest people can get money from private assistance agencies, even though many of the agencies don't give away money. For example, it promises "Free Money to Pay Your Alcohol Rehab Bills." But the book is referring to Salvation Army treatment programs for alcoholics, which don’t give away cash to people. How do you explain that? Answer
5: You
are right that many of the substance abuse programs do not give
you a check or cash
but directly pay for your treatment. The
system normally cuts out the middleman, the consumer, and pays
for a person’s treatment directly. I fail to see the difference.
In both instances someone else is paying your bills.
Examples of other programs include:
(#12) From the
2005 U.S. Budget of the Untied States, Department of Health
And Human Services, page 144 http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/ (#13) http://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/about.htm (#14) Health Resources and Services Administration at the U.S. Dept. HHS, http://www.ask.hrsa.gov/Primary.cfm or call 888-275-4772. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Question 6: The board also says Mr. Lesko sells customer lists to other grant-offering groups. And in at least one case, a list buyer was accused of deception by the Federal Trade Commission (Grant Search Inc. and Grant PAC). Do you sell customer lists? Did you sell to Grant Search or Grant PAC? Answer 6: I am not sure what the charge is here. I can tell you that like tens of thousands of other consumer companies, including Readers Digest, The Wall Street Journal, and U.S. News and World Report, we make our mailing list available to other consumer companies through list brokers. In our system of American capitalism the renting of mailing lists is an important profit center for every consumer company, and we would be foolish not to take advantage of this. However, we do not rent the names of customers who wish not to have their name used for other offers. I am not personally aware of the companies called Grant Search or Grant PAC. But U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) literature shows that in July 2003 these companies were fined by the FTC and banned from doing any more business (see #15). So if the question is did we sell our names to them since July 2003, the answer is it would have been very difficult for them to get our names because the FTC put them out of business. And if for some reason these people were able to get our names from our list brokers during this period, I hope that the New York Consumer Protection Board first contacted the U.S. Federal Trade Commission about their knowledge of this illegal activity. But if the question is did these companies use our mailing list before July 2003, the answer is that they might have and I would have to investigate this further. I can say that we do have a system where we approve every direct mail campaign that uses our list but clever and sneaky people can easily find ways around the system. Just like the terrorist Mohamed Atta who was able to buy and use one of our products to do others harm. It is an ethical leap to say that we are responsible for every devious activity someone may or may not have done with product of ours that is available on the open market. I don’t think America works that way, if it did, auto manufacturers would be responsible for the results of every accident caused by a drunk driver. We would certainly not rent our list to anyone engaged in fraudulent activities and would appreciate the New York Consumer Protection Board, or anyone else for that matter, to notify us if there is ever a potential of us doing so. In the case of Grant Search and Grant PAC, it would have been helpful if the Board notified us before July 2003, the date the companies were put out of business. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Question 7: In general, the New York State Consumer Protection Board believes Mr. Lesko is exaggerating claims in the book and taking advantage of downtrodden consumers. What is your response to that? Answer 7: I can understand that the information mentioned in our advertising may not apply to every single person who orders our book. This is primarily a result of trying to interest people in our products in the shortest amount of time. Every advertiser, news outlet and even politician frames their stories and information this manner. Because of this I can understand that some people may misunderstand our mission. But I believe that our mission is to stay in business in order to educate the general public about programs available from government and non-profit organizations. What is more reprehensible to me is the headline on the press release from the New York State Consumer Protection Board stating: “Author
of ‘Free Money to Pay Your Bills’ We never say anything like this and never have because it’s not true. What we say plainly in the introduction of the book is: “Most government money programs are for specific kinds of bills, like rent, healthcare, child care and housing. The government does not have a category called credit card bills… (but)… there are plenty of programs that give out money that can be used to pay off credit card bills.” We have sold millions of books on this subject and from our conversations with the New York Consumer Protection Board THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE COMPLAINT ABOUT OUR PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. And if they did contact us with a complaint we would have refunded the customers’ money immediately. This has been our policy for over 25 years. We do not want anyone unhappy with one of our products. So if the New York Consumer Protection Board does not have any complaints against us, what is this all about? I assume their job is to investigate consumer complaints. Have they run out of companies to investigate that have actual complaints against them and is the Board pursuing some other mission? It’s not so important that the New York Consumer Protection Board is spending time trying to misrepresent me. What is important is that they are misrepresenting the United States government and misleading consumers by denying the facts about legitimate government programs that are available to help Americans with their finances. Maybe their time would be better spent by linking the Consumer Protection Board’s web site to my FREE web site that shows consumers over 10,000 government sources of money and help they can learn about FOR FREE. Or, I’d even put it on their web site FOR FREE. Take a look www.helpyourself.lesko.com. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| December
15, 2004 Matthew Lesko 301-929-8400 matthew@lesko.com |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Lesko Seeks Retraction From MSNBC For False and Misleading Statements On December 14,
2004, MSNBC published an article in response to a report
by the NY Consumer Protection Board. In this article, MSNBC’s
Technology correspondent, Bob Sullivan interviewed Ed Johnson, President
and CEO of the Washington-area Better Business Bureau (BBB). We are
seeking a retraction from MSNBC because we believe that Mr. Sullivan
misrepresented the facts of this interview with the BBB and that
the article falsely and negatively reflects on our reputation. Mr. Johnson clarified that the BBB rating was based on ONLY ONE unresolved complaint – one we never received. The other 84 (amounting to only 28 per year out of hundreds of thousands of book sales) were resolved to the BBB’s and the customer’s satisfaction. MSNBC implies that we had 85 complaints that were resolved unsatisfactorily, when in fact we only had only one – and only because we were unaware of it. This one complaint was from a customer who purchased one of our books published in 1996. We are working to resolve this issue immediately. This is how we approach our customer service. This is how I run my business. By implying otherwise, MSNBC is misleading consumers while falsely reporting that I am. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
