All Things ProCain

[mr_genius]

'twas mostly in jest.

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20080623b.html

 

Experts Reject Claim of 527s Spending Millions to Oppose Obama

By Pete Winn

CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer

June 23, 2008

 

(CNSNews.com) - Campaign finance analysts say that conservative or Republican-affiliated "527" independent political committees have raised far less money than such groups affiliated with Democrats.

 

"The Democratic organizations, through the 15-month point, have raised more than three times as much as the Republican groups -- $87 million to $24 million," said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute.

 

Malbin, whose nonpartisan group is affiliated with George Washington University and tracks campaign finances, said it was ironic that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) last week blamed his decision not to take public financing, in part, on the supposed need to stockpile money to counter independent "527" committees.

 

Last Thursday, Obama said he was foregoing the $85 million in public funding he could have received because it tied his hands -- and because the campaign finance system was allegedly slanted toward his expected Republican challenger, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

 

Accusing McCain of being "fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs," Obama said that 527s tied to McCain and the Republican National Committee are "spending millions and millions in unlimited donations" to attack him.

 

"We've already seen that (McCain's) not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations," the putative Democratic presidential nominee said in a statement e-mailed to Cybercast News Service in lieu of a requested interview.

 

However, Sean Parnell, president of the nonpartisan Center for Competitive Politics, said that Obama's claims were simply not accurate.

 

"Sen. Obama is being incredibly disingenuous when he makes that statement because there is no way Sen. McCain -- or Sen. Obama, for that matter -- can control or limit these 527 organizations -- nor should they be able to," Parnell said.

 

So-called "527" groups, named after the section of the IRS tax code that allows their creation, are groups founded by citizens who believe they should have a voice, he added.

 

"I see that as a very healthy thing," said Parnell, no relation to the Alaska lieutenant governor of the same name.

 

"We don't want a political system where only the candidates are allowed to talk about issues, and the citizens are essentially told to 'sit down and shut up' and on the first Tuesday of November make a decision," he added. "What 527s ensure is that a broad range of voices are included in campaigns."

 

Malbin, meanwhile, agreed that Obama was being disingenuous.

 

"He really wasn't complaining when he went to AFSCME (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union) this week," the former State University of New York professor told Cybercast News Service.

 

"(This is a group) which ran an ad paid for by its 527 to attack John McCain just before Obama visited and sought their endorsement," Malbin said. "Are labor union 527s good and other 527s bad?"

 

That ad, which cost more than $540,000 to produce, is airing nationally on CNN and MSNBC, as well in the key labor states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.

 

Jointly produced by AFSCME and the liberal online activist organization MoveOn.org, the ad implies that McCain's Iraq policy would lead to the involvement of U.S. troops over generations.

 

AFSCME declined to talk to Cybercast News Service about the ad or its endorsement.

 

Interestingly, MoveOn.org, which did not respond to an interview request, is hosting its own pro-Obama campaign events -- "Bake Sale for Obama" -- the weekend of June 21-22. According to the Obama campaign, the nonprofit liberal activists have set up "hundreds of bake sales" to fund the organization's "campaign to win the White House."

 

The Democrat's refusal to accept federal funds drew criticism from plenty of quarters -- especially the McCain camp, which said it will likely take in the much-needed cash.

 

"Obama set up a deal with the [Federal Election Commission] to take public financing, then publicly pledged to take it if his opponent did as well," McCain spokesman Brian Rodgers told Cybercast News Service. "And now, he's broken his word to the American people."

 

Nevertheless, both Parnell and Malbin defend Obama's right to refuse the money.

 

"A lot of people are portraying this as the death of campaign finance reform," Malbin said. "I don't see it that way. Sen. Obama made a calculation that it would hurt him more than it would help him."

 

Malbin added: "I think the real problem he has is not that he made a calculation, but that in February 2007, instead of saying, 'I will take funding if my opponent does,' he should have said, 'I will take it if it is convenient for me.'"

 

However, Parnell sees opting out of taking federal money as a positive move for democracy.

 

"I think it is a great step forward," he told Cybercast News Service. "One of the things that accepting public funding means is limiting the communication that a candidate is able to make to voters and citizens. By rejecting that regime, what Obama has decided to do is spend as much money as he can raise in order to communicate his message to voters.

 

"I think that's a positive step for democracy," he added.

 

According to the Federal Election Commission, Obama has already raised $265 million dollars from individuals, dwarfing McCain's $88 million.

[Rex Kickass]

And another campaign promise bites the dust...

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/1016477...novak22.article

 

Maybe.

 

It sounds like these people got a form letter because they were on a list.

 

The real question is if they gave donations and if they would be accepted.

[BearSox]

And another campaign promise bites the dust...

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/1016477...novak22.article

 

Well, don't you know, anything the messiah says or does is immaculate...

[BigSqwert]

Well, don't you know, anything the messiah says or does is immaculate...

How many threads will you post the same exact thing? We'll have to put you on spam filter.

[southsider2k5]

Maybe.

 

It sounds like these people got a form letter because they were on a list.

 

The real question is if they gave donations and if they would be accepted.

 

So they didn't check the names before they put them on the mailing list when it is much easier and less messy to eliminate them, but they are going to give the money back after they receive it and have to report it, thus opening the door to the GOP and the media to prove Obama broke another campaign promise, complete with the Obama teary eyed apology and explanation including the blame and firing of someone insignificant? Sounds about par for the course.

[BearSox]

How many threads will you post the same exact thing? We'll have to put you on spam filter.

I've seen the way brother! I dare not question Obama or any democrat anymore. I shall try to help convert people to see the light of Obama.

[Rex Kickass]

So they didn't check the names before they put them on the mailing list when it is much easier and less messy to eliminate them, but they are going to give the money back after they receive it and have to report it, thus opening the door to the GOP and the media to prove Obama broke another campaign promise, complete with the Obama teary eyed apology and explanation including the blame and firing of someone insignificant? Sounds about par for the course.

 

Having worked on large campaigns, that probably is how it works believe it or not. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the campaign didn't actually send the fundraiser letters but rather had its friends who control those lists send them out, at least initially. Obama has been well funded, but is far behind on general election cash. As of last month, he only had 10 million on hand for post convention election procedures which kind of puts them in money vacuum mode. Does the fact that letters got in the hands of lobbyists mean anything? No. They could sign up for the Obama campaign on the website and get a fundraising letter. Will it mean something if that check actually was accepted and not vetted? Yes.

[southsider2k5]

Having worked on large campaigns, that probably is how it works believe it or not. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the campaign didn't actually send the fundraiser letters but rather had its friends who control those lists send them out, at least initially. Obama has been well funded, but is far behind on general election cash. As of last month, he only had 10 million on hand for post convention election procedures which kind of puts them in money vacuum mode. Does the fact that letters got in the hands of lobbyists mean anything? No. They could sign up for the Obama campaign on the website and get a fundraising letter. Will it mean something if that check actually was accepted and not vetted? Yes.

 

 

Yikes, I had no idea it was that ineffecient. You would think it would get cutoff at the frontend, not the backend.

[southsider2k5]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gnLulDb...NMGMRQD91GDOM00

 

James Dobson accuses Obama of `distorting' Bible

 

By ERIC GORSKI – 3 hours ago

 

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

 

The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.

 

The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.

 

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.

 

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

 

"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.

 

Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

 

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.

 

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

 

Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for Obama's campaign, said in a statement that a full reading of Obama's speech shows he is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families. "Obama is proud to have the support of millions of Americans of faith and looks forward to working across religious lines to bring our country together," DuBois said.

 

Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.

 

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

 

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

 

The program was paid for by a Focus on the Family affiliate whose donations are taxed, Dobson said, so it's legal for that group to get more involved in politics.

 

Last week, DuBois, a former Assemblies of God associate minister, called Minnery for what Minnery described as a cordial discussion. He would not go into detail, but said Dubois offered to visit the ministry in August when the Democratic National Convention is in Denver.

 

A possible Obama visit was not discussed, but Focus is open to one, Minnery said.

 

McCain also has not met with Dobson. A McCain campaign staffer offered Dobson a meeting with McCain recently in Denver, Minnery said. Dobson declined because he prefers that candidates visit the Focus on the Family campus to learn more about the organization, Minnery said.

 

Dobson has not backed off his statement that he could not in good conscience vote for McCain because of concerns over the Arizona senator's conservative credentials. Dobson has said he will vote in November but has suggested he might not vote for president.

 

Obama recently met in Chicago with religious leaders, including conservative evangelicals. His campaign also plans thousands of "American Values House Parties," where participants discuss Obama and religion, as well as a presence on Christian radio and blogs.

[southsider2k5]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...WRiNWJiYjlkY2Q=

 

Obama spokesman Bill Burton on October 24, 2007: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

 

Barack Obama, June 20, 2008: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...WRiNWJiYjlkY2Q=

He's already said he is going to work to get the immunity language out of the bill.

[lostfan]

He's already said he is going to work to get the immunity language out of the bill.

I was getting ready to post that, yeah.

 

Unless I'm mistaken the entire program risked getting suspended if the Democrats didn't compromise and nobody wanted that. That doesn't mean the Democrats are okay with retroactive immunity.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I was getting ready to post that, yeah.

 

Unless I'm mistaken the entire program risked getting suspended if the Democrats didn't compromise and nobody wanted that. That doesn't mean the Democrats are okay with retroactive immunity.

this is really a tough corner. It's a no win. You CANT let the program go away, but if the republicans arent willing to budge on immunity, what the heck do you do? I also like that Obama said that if it IS passed, as president he'll put legislation in place to remove the immunity.

[lostfan]

this is really a tough corner. It's a no win. You CANT let the program go away, but if the republicans arent willing to budge on immunity, what the heck do you do? I also like that Obama said that if it IS passed, as president he'll put legislation in place to remove the immunity.

Executive orders can only go so far, not sure what he can do about that. He would have to take a completely different path.

[Balta1701]

this is really a tough corner. It's a no win. You CANT let the program go away, but if the republicans arent willing to budge on immunity, what the heck do you do? I also like that Obama said that if it IS passed, as president he'll put legislation in place to remove the immunity.

If this act doesn't pass, then the FISA program does not go away. FISA itself does not expire. The only part of FISA that actually expires is a small tweak that did need to be made after a court ruling. No other part of it expires. From what I'd read, even after the expiration of the PAA back in Feb., there hadn't been a single case where that specific change was actually necessary and a wiretap had been refused because of it.

 

They could have waited another 6 months if they wanted to without risk to anything.

 

And once you grant amnesty to someone, I find it really hard to believe you can take it back.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2008_06_22_ch...368161190802707

 

Last week, Barack Obama revealed his plan to shore up Social Security's shaky finances by raising the income level on which the payroll tax is applied. Currently, incomes above $102,000 are exempt, with that threshold rising every year indexed to wage inflation. Mr. Obama would keep that limit in place, but then assess payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000, which his campaign claims would apply to only the richest 3% of Americans.

 

Mr. Obama angered liberals last year when he admitted that there was a "Social Security crisis." But at least Mr. Obama's base should be appeased now that his solution to the "crisis" is to soak the rich. One liberal columnist actually noted with glee the fact that this would take us back to top tax rates not seen since the 1970s.

 

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama's new tax would siphon off 0.4% of gross domestic product annually. Combined with Mr. Obama's other tax-hike initiatives, "the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent. In high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher."

 

Would it help Social Security's financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn't there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?

 

But the most alarming thing about Mr. Obama's proposal is that the $250,000 threshold, above which the payroll tax would be applied, refers to household income, not individual income. So it's quite deceptive when he claims that the $250,000 threshold will "ensure that lifting the payroll tax cap does not ensnare any middle class Americans."

 

Suppose your household consists of you and your spouse, each earning wages of $150,000 per year. Currently, you are each subject to the payroll tax up to $102,000 of wages, so together you are taxed on $204,000. Under the Obama plan, you'd be taxed again on another $50,000 of wages.

 

At the current payroll tax rate of 12.4% – 6.2% from wage-earners and 6.2% from their employers – your household would be looking at a tax hike of $6,200 per year. You probably didn't consider yourself rich before, and you certainly won't after paying that tax bill.

 

But that tax bill could be higher still. While the payroll tax has always been calculated just on wages from labor, Mr. Obama hasn't decided yet what forms of income will be included in the $250,000 threshold. It's an open question whether it might include interest on savings and capital gains income.

 

And neither has Mr. Obama said whether the rich – and, truth be told, the middle class – paying his new higher taxes will get correspondingly higher Social Security benefits when they retire. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn't uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.

 

And for all that, Mr. Obama's proposal won't help Social Security's long-run solvency problems.

 

According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn't make much difference to the system's long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system's 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.

 

Remember, that inadequate result is what you get when all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Mr. Obama's plan – even with his household definition of $250,000 income – would collect far less than that. No wonder Mr. Obama's economic advisers aren't interested in doing any detailed analysis.

 

Worst of all, even the small contribution to Social Security solvency that Mr. Obama's plan might make is entirely illusory. In fact, the more taxes his plan collects, the worse Social Security's long-term situation gets. That's because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds.

 

There's only one place that the money to redeem those bonds can come from: taxes. So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again – plus interest. You like the idea of paying more taxes today for Mr. Obama's Social Security plan? Then just wait 20 years or so, because you'll get to pay more taxes all over again.

 

Update... Nick Kaster notes another big problem with Obama's plan:

 

...he [Obama] does not indicate whether the $250,000 threshold will be indexed for inflation. If the higher threshold is not indexed, then the donut hole will grow smaller and smaller in the years to come and eventually disappear. This is because the lower figure is subject to indexing and increases each year. In 2006, the FICA taxation threshold was $94,200; in 2007, it grew to $97,500, and this year it is $102,000. If the higher threshold remains static, more and more middle class taxpayers will be subject to FICA. A tax designed to punish the wealthy will end up ensnaring middle income earners.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2008_06_22_ch...368161190802707

There aren't many tax increases I'd support. In fact, I can think of only two that have been suggested that I'd be OK with. One of them is lifting the SS cap, because the tax is so regressive as it currently stands.

 

That said, I cannot figure out why he's using a lateral on this. If you want to lift or remove the cap, then do that. Why move it over to the payroll tax, apply it to a different level, and raise the rate? Just a bizarre strategy if you ask me.

 

[kapkomet]

There aren't many tax increases I'd support. In fact, I can think of only two that have been suggested that I'd be OK with. One of them is lifting the SS cap, because the tax is so regressive as it currently stands.

 

That said, I cannot figure out why he's using a lateral on this. If you want to lift or remove the cap, then do that. Why move it over to the payroll tax, apply it to a different level, and raise the rate? Just a bizarre strategy if you ask me.

I agree that this is one of the very few "tax increases" I'd be ok with. The interesting thing is that the whole point of the caps is that "wealthy people" would tend to invest that money after the cap. Ironic, if you think about it.

[southsider2k5]

there is no need to raise SS taxes. It was proven during the primaries that simply changing the indexing of increases from wage inflation to general inflation would make the system completely solvent for at least the next 75 years. Why give the government more money, when they simply don't need it?

[NorthSideSox72]

there is no need to raise SS taxes. It was proven during the primaries that simply changing the indexing of increases from wage inflation to general inflation would make the system completely solvent for at least the next 75 years. Why give the government more money, when they simply don't need it?

I'll give you a reason - to stop Congress from borrowing from the SS fund. Those calculations on solvency assume access to the full fund. Unfortunately, the government has been dipping in there for a number of years now, for other spending. so really, its not as solvent as that math makes it seem.

 

The smart thing to do, IMO, is to remove the SS cap, and at the same time, put a permanent stop on borrowing SS funds for other purposes.

 

Long run, I'd like to see some privitization of SS anyway. But for now, you need to at least but some protections in place to guarantee its financial stability.

 

[lostfan]

The smart thing to do, IMO, is to remove the SS cap, and at the same time, put a permanent stop on borrowing SS funds for other purposes.

Glenn Beck was saying something similar to this a few weeks ago. Everybody keeps passing the buck from administration to administration and if we don't do something about it, it's going to eventually slap us all in the face.

[southsider2k5]

I'll give you a reason - to stop Congress from borrowing from the SS fund. Those calculations on solvency assume access to the full fund. Unfortunately, the government has been dipping in there for a number of years now, for other spending. so really, its not as solvent as that math makes it seem.

 

The smart thing to do, IMO, is to remove the SS cap, and at the same time, put a permanent stop on borrowing SS funds for other purposes.

 

Long run, I'd like to see some privitization of SS anyway. But for now, you need to at least but some protections in place to guarantee its financial stability.

 

Giving them more money isn't going to stop them from borrowing anything. It will only encourage it because the budget deficit will look better, and it wouldn't look as bad to spend that money elsewhere.

[southsider2k5]

I'll give you a reason - to stop Congress from borrowing from the SS fund. Those calculations on solvency assume access to the full fund. Unfortunately, the government has been dipping in there for a number of years now, for other spending. so really, its not as solvent as that math makes it seem.

 

The smart thing to do, IMO, is to remove the SS cap, and at the same time, put a permanent stop on borrowing SS funds for other purposes.

 

Long run, I'd like to see some privitization of SS anyway. But for now, you need to at least but some protections in place to guarantee its financial stability.

 

Giving them more money isn't going to stop them from borrowing anything. It will only encourage it because the budget deficit will look better, and it wouldn't look as bad to spend that money elsewhere.

[lostfan]

The smart thing to do, IMO, is to remove the SS cap, and at the same time, put a permanent stop on borrowing SS funds for other purposes.

Glenn Beck was saying something similar to this a few weeks ago. Everybody keeps passing the buck from administration to administration and if we don't do something about it, it's going to eventually slap us all in the face.