Big Spender Obama Outspends even his Own Campaign

Obama campaign’s spending

outpaces its fundraising

By Fredreka Schouten and Christopher Schnaars, USA TODAY

As Election Day approaches, President Obama is burning through campaign money faster than he can collect it — exceeding his spending pace at this stage of the 2008 contest as he expands his field operation and trades combative ads on the airwaves with Republican rival Mitt Romney.

 

Last month alone, Obama spent nearly $59 million through his main campaign account — $10 million more than he raised, financial reports filed late Monday afternoon show. The cost of his campaign so far: more than $325 million, not counting spending by the the Democratic Party committees aiding his re-election.

By contrast, President Bush had spent $205.4 million to retain the White House at this point in the 2004 election.

The Democratic National Committee also stepped up its spending on the president’s behalf last month, burning through $32 million — more than double what the national party spent a month earlier, as it undertook fresh rounds of polling and advertising to help Obama.

The president’s new investments included additional staffers. He employed 853 people in July, up from 779 a month earlier, a USA TODAY analysis shows. Romney had 326 staffers on his payroll last month, up from 272 in June.

Obama pumped more than $48 million into advertising last month, more than twice what Romney spent.

The Romney campaign has been on a winning streak when it comes to fundraising, besting Obama and Democrats for three straight months. Romney and his fundraising operation reported collecting $101 million in July, outgunning Obama and his allies by $25 million.

Since then, the Romney camp said it has raised $10.2 million online in the week after Romney’s Aug. 11 announcement of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate.

• STORY: Obama puts $46.7M into ads, outspends what he raised in June

Overall, Romney has spent $165.3 million through his main campaign account since the beginning of last year, but he must wait until after he is formally nominated at next week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa to draw on his substantial general-election funds. In the interim, he has been helped by super PACs and other Republican-aligned independent groups, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts, but are barred from coordinating their activities with candidates.

The candidates and super PACs aiding them were required to report details of their July fundraising before midnight Monday.

Obama’s spending has put increased pressure on his campaign to raise money quickly. In an e-mail to supporters last week, he implored them to give as little as $3 each, saying he was being outspent by Republicans on the airwaves by a 2-to-1 ratio in Iowa. Next week, the hunt for cash heads to Europe where actor George Clooney is scheduled to headline an Obama fundraiser in Geneva.

Other reports filed late Monday highlight the role that a handful of wealthy donors, corporations and unions play in bankrolling super PACs:

•A pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, reported raising almost $7.5 million in July. The largest donor was Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who donated $2 million and has given $7 million total. Another $1 million came from the Renco Group, which includes AM General, maker of the military’s Humvee vehicle.

Four members of the Lindner family of Cincinnati donated a combined $500,000, while three companies affiliated with the owners of The Villages retirement community in Florida donated a total of $200,000.

•American Crossroads, a Republican-aligned super PAC, raised $7.1 million in July. Texan Robert Rowling was the biggest donor, giving $2 million personally and through his company, TRT Holdings, which owns Gold’s Gym International and the Omni Hotel chain.

•Priorities USA Action, a super PAC aiding Obama, lagged behind Republican groups. It raised $4.8 million in July. Donors included Philadelphia real-estate developer Mel Heifetz, who gave $1 million, and New York-based architect Jon Stryker, who contributed $750,000.

•PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who spent heavily to advance Texas GOP Ron Paul’s president campaign, donated $1 million in July to Club for Growth Action, which has backed upstart, anti-tax candidates in GOP primaries for Congress.

•Two labor unions donated heavily last month to a super PAC working to help Democrats gain seats in the U.S. House. The House Majority PAC took in more than $760,000 in July. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was the largest donor, emerged as the biggest donor to the group, giving $350,000. The International Association of Firefighters gave $250,000.

•Ending Spending Action Fund, a super PAC created by T.D. Ameritrade founder J. Joe Ricketts reported collecting nearly $400,000 last month, most of which came from Ricketts. Ricketts, a billionaire whose family owns the Chicago Cubs baseball team, was at the center of controversy earlier this year when news broke that his political operation was weighing anti-Obama ads that linked the president to the incendiary remarks of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Ricketts said he rejected the proposal

 

 

Only Crooks, Obama and his Leftwing Democrats Oppose Voter Identification

Voter ID laws boost democracy

By Stephan And Abigail Thernstrom 

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220815voter_id_laws_boost_democracy_four-deck_subhead_goes_right_here/

 

Without a personal identification card issued by some level of government, you are a second-class citizen.

You cannot board an airplane, ride an Amtrak train, buy a six-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes, open a checking account, enter many public and some private office buildings or even attend an NAACP convention without proving that you are who you say you are. You cannot even qualify for means-tested public support programs such as Medicaid without valid identification.

But when it comes to voting, that is exactly the argument. The Democratic Party, the attorney general of the United States and a vocal chorus from the civil rights community are waging war on voter photo ID laws enacted recently in 10 states, laws they see as part of a new voter suppression movement.

These requirements have provoked strikingly little objection from the American public. No one argues that it is grossly discriminatory to deprive people without picture IDs access to this wide range of places, programs and activities.

In their view, measures ostensibly designed to limit the franchise to people who are U.S. citizens and legal residents of the jurisdiction in which they seek to vote have the real purpose of disfranchising poor people in general and especially poor African-Americans and Latinos.

The charge leveled against photo ID requirements has a particularly nasty echo: It is, critics say, no different than the Jim Crow poll tax used in Southern states until the mid-1960s to keep blacks from the voting booth.

But the Supreme Court has addressed that issue. In a 2008 decision upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, the opinion of the court, written by Justice John Paul Stevens — certainly no conservative — dismissed the poll tax argument on the grounds that the state had a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud. Five justices agreed with him.

Critics of ID requirements assert that voting is special — a right, not a privilege, and therefore not comparable to things like driving a car or gaining access to the NAACP convention. But the distinction is not so clear. Medicaid is arguably a right for those who are income eligible.

And rights are not absolute. Nine-year-olds cannot vote; nor can illegal immigrants. An estimated 1 million illegal immigrants live in Texas. If many of them turned up at the polls and were able to vote in the absence of a requirement for government-issued identification, the right of all Texas citizens to choose their representatives might be seriously compromised.

Many of the voter ID laws will first be tested in the 2012 presidential election. For now, no one can say with great certainty how they will affect minority and low-income political participation, and that’s a question that deserves further study.

New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice recently issued a report claiming that 11 percent of voting-age citizens who live in the states that have passed voter ID laws currently lack valid identification credentials. The Brennan Center also marshals evidence that getting IDs could be difficult for these mostly poor, mostly minority and often elderly citizens. But how many of those who lack an ID actually voted in the past?

Over the last four presidential elections, nearly 40 percent of American citizens eligible to cast a ballot did not bother to do so. It is reasonable to surmise that a high proportion of the people who had not taken the trouble to get a government-issued photo ID may be among that huge group of no-shows. If they weren’t going to vote anyway, new ID laws wouldn’t affect their behavior.

In the case of Indiana, whose voter ID law was in effect for the 2008 presidential election, there is some data about participation. That was a very good year for Democrats in general, but Democratic turnout rose more in Indiana, with its ID law in force, than in any other state. Georgia, which also had a new voter ID law in place that year for the first time, also had a huge jump in turnout, almost all of it from Democratic voters.

There are better and worse ID laws, and it seems obvious that the requisite proof of identity should not be needlessly burdensome to get; the process should be made as convenient as possible. The Texas Department of Public Safety, for example, provides free election identification cards to citizens who request them. Every state should make acquiring an ID equally easy.

President Ben Jealous of the NAACP has blasted voter ID laws and called for a “high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection.”

If, indeed, the voter ID laws inspire drives to register citizens and get them to the polls (and get them photo IDs), won’t America be better off? More people will gain the freedom to watch an argument in a court of law, board a train or a plane, and even buy a bottle of scotch. Democracy will have been enhanced. Sensible civil rights advocates might consider that, and join the drive for ID laws.

The above article was sent by Prager fan, Mark Waldeland.

 

Obama is ‘drawing’ small crowds on purpose’….so says his highness

by John Hinderaker in 2012 Presidential Election

The Spinal Tap Presidency

Large and enthusiastic crowds greet Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wherever they go. You can get a better sense of this if you check out local media sources rather than the constantly-spun national news. To take just one example, The Villages Daily Sun in Florida:

President Obama and Joe Biden? Not so much. On the contrary, it is painfully obvious that they are appearing before smaller and less enthusiastic crowds than in 2008. So I was bemused when the Obama campaign explained that the president is drawing small crowds on purpose. Big crowds are just too much of a hassle, don’t you know, and small groups are so much more intimate!

Before I had time to snicker at this claim, the genius of Mark Steyn beat me to it:

Jonah, I liked that scene better the first time round:

ROB REINER: The last time Spinal Tap toured America, they were, uh, booked into 10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they’re being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh…the popularity of the group is waning?

BAND MANAGER DAVID AXELROD: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no…no, no, not at all. We have plenty of time for big stadium gigs. But our focus right now is on intentionally limiting crowds by restricting tickets – to allow the band to better connect with fans.

ROB REINER [NODDING]: Yeah.

Here is the original exchange from This Is Spinal Tap:

<IAN’S office>
Marty: The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into
10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now,
on their current tour they’re being booked into 1,200 seat
arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering,
does this mean uh…the popularity of the group is waning?

Ian: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no…no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think
that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

Marty: Yeah.

Barack Obama as a has-been rock band awash in unintentional humor? It’s an apt image.

UPDATE: This one made me laugh too, on Twitter. He had joy, he had fun, he had seasons in the sun!

Newsweek! Obama’s Gotta Go……on Cover, no less! Takes Guts, Folks!

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

at Newsweek: 

Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

(Page 1 of 5)

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

 

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

COVER STORY: Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope bit.ly/QQLouG

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

Obama Spends Campaign Money as wildly as American Taxpayers’ Dollars

by John Hinderaker in 2012 Presidential Election

Romney Is Flush With Cash,

Poised For Stretch Run

by John Hinderaker   at   PowerLine:

We all knew that Mitt Romney had outraised President Obama over the last few months; many were unaware that Obama’s totals to date were nevertheless far greater than Romney’s ($300 million is the number I’ve seen). What we didn’t know was how much money the campaigns had on hand. Now we know, thanks to today’s FEC filing by the Obama campaign.

The numbers are pretty stunning, and bode well for Mitt Romney. The Obama campaign has been spending money like water. That is partly due to what appears to be an inefficient operation, and partly due to Obama’s attempt to smear Romney before Romney has a chance to introduce himself to voters. The result is that as of the end of July, the Romney campaign had $185.9 million on hand, compared with $123.7 million for the Obama campaign. These totals include the campaigns, their respective national party committees and joint victory funds that raise money for both.

It appears certain that Romney will outraise Obama the rest of the way, which means that from now until Election Day, Romney will have significantly more to spend than Obama. Not only that, his advantage will be increased by what seems to be a more efficient–i.e., cheaper–campaign operation. This chart shows how Romney has overtaken Obama in cash on hand:

So if you want to be optimistic, you could sum up by saying that Romney has absorbed Obama’s best shots; that despite having been considerably outspent to this point, he is even with Obama in the polls; and that from now on, the cash advantage will be his.

Democrats are Tight Wads besides entertaining Marxism

Study: Red states more disposed

to charitable giving than blue states

 BY ERIKA JOHNSEN

According to a new survey of tax data by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, it appears that red states are much more prone to charitable donations than blue states — interesting, but not at all surprising when you think about it. Politico reports:

The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given.

And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated, with 2.5 percent.

I’m always astounded by the degree to which people often accuse free enterprise of bringing out the worst aspects of humanity, such as ‘greed’ — but human ‘greed’ (which I personally prefer to call rational self-interest) is a fact of life, and only through government can people enforce their ‘greedy’ compulsions through fiat. In a free market, people’s ‘greed’ can only survive when they provide products and services that other people freely want, rather than whatever it is the government deems is good for them.

Looking at it that way, the discrepancy between charitable giving between red states and blue states makes sense. Liberals tend to see the government as a force for good and as the means of distributing fairness, and therefore rely on the government more to do so — while conservatives are more about taking matters into their own hands. As the study’s authors noted, “the reasons for the discrepancies among states, cities, neighborhoods are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity,” and in turn “religion has a big influence on giving patterns.” People don’t need government to motivate or force them to do good things, and it seems to me that putting your faith in something other than the power of the state can be a much more efficient and powerful motivator.