David Axelrod's horribly misguided tweets
Today, David Axelrod tweeted about ending contribution limits to candidates. Apparently he has bought full into the Republican line of thinking that the system is so broken, we might as well just scrap it entirely. This would turn our system for electing candidates and influencing public policy into a full-blown auction, in which only the highest bidders hold sway.
The answer to fighting too much influence from wealthy interests in politics is not to eliminate all limits on those interests. Getting rid of limits to candidates and parties does nothing but make the sale of our government easier and more direct. Of course, it also helps line the pockets of political consultants.
For too long, we have stood by and watched the President's allies go down the dangerous road of unlimited money, most recently with the new group Organizing for Action. During all of 2012, the Democrats' excuse for engaging super PACs was "we have to win so we can change the rules."
We won. It's time to start chan
The right side of the line on protecting crucial benefits
A concerted, corporate-backed campaign to slash crucial benefits is plowing ahead, but nearly 20 representatives have signed on to a letter that could make the difference.
Co-written by Representatives Alan Grayson (FL) and Mark Takano (CA), the letter's signers pledge to reject any deal that cuts benefits people receive from Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.
When it comes to securing the benefits hardworking Americans have earned, we've always drawn a clear line.
We know it's fundamentally unfair to balance our nation's deficit on the backs of average working families and the most vulnerable citizens while lobbyists make sure corporate defense contractors escape paying their fair share.
We need to ensure that members of Congress are on the right side of that same clear line.
Several representatives have already taken the courageous -- and necessary -- step of pledging to reject senseless cuts to hard-earned and critically needed benefits. Our representatives needs to hear from u
This Is What Selling Access Looks Like
By now, you've probably heard about Organizing for Action, the newest incarnation of the Obama campaign operation. Now we hear news that the entity, organized as a 501(c)(4) non-profit, will fund itself from top down. According to The New York Times:
In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the "super PACs" whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.
At least half of the group's budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more, according to donors and strategists involved in the effort.
Some say there's no such thing as a free lunch; according to reporting done by the Times, apparently there's no such thing as a free $500,000 contribution either:
Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama's group and the privilege of attending quarterly
PolitiFact continues to make a mockery of itself
The self-styled truth-teller PolitiFact rated as "Mostly False" this claim: Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit.
And as they have done before, PolitiFact has made a mockery of itself. Social Security is not causing the current budget deficit. In fact, it is formally completely separate from the budget.
Social Security is self-funded, relying on a payroll tax, levied on both employers and workers, that is deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund. Benefits are subsequently paid out of that same fund. For the past three decades, Social Security has actually taken in more than it has spent, deliberately generating surpluses in anticipation of the retirement of the baby boom generation. Those surpluses are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds by the Social Security Trust Fund.
The Social Security actuaries estimate the surpluses built up over the decades, along with the payroll tax revenue coming into Social Security, will be enough to pay 100% of Social Securi