-- Peter Funt, Washington Post - This is not easy to write, because I consider the election of Barack Obama to be one of the most inspiring political and social developments of my lifetime. I truly mean no disrespect when I say: Stop asking for money.
Last spring, I signed up to receive e-mails from all the major presidential campaigns. Not surprisingly, the recurrent theme in the almost-daily messages was: Donate money. After Hillary Clinton dropped out, her pleas for donations increased; just last week, supporters received another letter seeking money to retire Clinton's campaign debt.
A week after the election, David Plouffe, the head of Obama for America, wrote: "We've been reviewing the books, and the DNC went into considerable debt to secure victory for Barack and Joe. . . . Please make a donation of $250 or more today and receive your Obama Victory T-shirt."
Americans barely have the stomach, or the money, to bail out the banks, the automakers and various foreign governments. Now the Democratic National Committee is seeking a handout?
Obama forces raised more than $600 million during the campaign, including a remarkable $150 million in September. In a video message to supporters, Plouffe indicated that more than 3 million individuals had given money.
The Federal Election Commission reports that the grand total raised by all presidential candidates exceeded $1.5 billion. When you consider that what Americans basically purchased with all that hard-earned cash is one person to run the country, that's a rather remarkable sum.
But now, despite the extent to which Americans have supported the Obama campaign, comes Plouffe again with an e-mail I find particularly riling. "Will you support the Obama-Biden transition," he wrote on Nov. 21, "with a donation of $250 or more?"
Money from "grass-roots supporters," he claims, will prevent the "secretive undertakings" of previous presidential transitions.
Taxpayers are already funding the Obama transition to the tune of $6.3 million. Apparently that's not enough, which is why tapped-out contributors are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets. Unlike election financing, in which Team Obama had to forgo taxpayer money when opting for private donations, in transition financing it can keep all the taxpayer money plus whatever comes in from those with anything left under the mattress.
Records concerning transitions are a bit fuzzy, but it's thought that Ronald Reagan raised about $1.25 million in private funds for his 1980 transition. That led to something called the Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act, which calls for the disclosure of transition contributors. The act stipulates that transition money is not considered a political donation -- which is why Obama's list of supporters can now be mined for more cash, regardless of how much each contributor gave during the campaign.
What's next? The Fund for White House Basketball Uniforms? The Committee to Select the Obama Kids' Dog? After all, Americans wouldn't want secretive poodle breeders influencing the canine transition process.
Some loyal Democrats may be under the impression that it's the Republicans who believe most problems can be solved by leaving them to the private sector. As a member of that sector, I need a break from e-mails seeking more money.
Before contributing to the Obama transition team, Americans deserve a chance to ask David Plouffe: Will you raise your hand if you or other members of your senior staff are flying to the inauguration by commercial airlines? Please include the answer in your next e-mail.
Hat tip Always on Watch.
You gotta laugh at stupid lefties folks, their man raised 600 million dollars and he's still got the hand out asking them for more. Gee, remember when lefties were salivating at his 'wealth re-distribution' back during the campaign, I'm sure they weren't thinking that President Hussein was talking about their money. And you thought you'd never see a leftie getting sour over wealth re-distribution.
Needless to say, that sourness will only go as far as his own money is concerned, if it were anyone else's money, I doubt they'd be able to muster the same level of pouting. It'll be interesting to see how many will actually put more money forward, to add to the 600 million.
On a side note, I thought the Democrats were the party of the poor, I guess their not so poor after all, just the party of those ‘crying poor’.
Last spring, I signed up to receive e-mails from all the major presidential campaigns. Not surprisingly, the recurrent theme in the almost-daily messages was: Donate money. After Hillary Clinton dropped out, her pleas for donations increased; just last week, supporters received another letter seeking money to retire Clinton's campaign debt.
A week after the election, David Plouffe, the head of Obama for America, wrote: "We've been reviewing the books, and the DNC went into considerable debt to secure victory for Barack and Joe. . . . Please make a donation of $250 or more today and receive your Obama Victory T-shirt."
Americans barely have the stomach, or the money, to bail out the banks, the automakers and various foreign governments. Now the Democratic National Committee is seeking a handout?
Obama forces raised more than $600 million during the campaign, including a remarkable $150 million in September. In a video message to supporters, Plouffe indicated that more than 3 million individuals had given money.
The Federal Election Commission reports that the grand total raised by all presidential candidates exceeded $1.5 billion. When you consider that what Americans basically purchased with all that hard-earned cash is one person to run the country, that's a rather remarkable sum.
But now, despite the extent to which Americans have supported the Obama campaign, comes Plouffe again with an e-mail I find particularly riling. "Will you support the Obama-Biden transition," he wrote on Nov. 21, "with a donation of $250 or more?"
Money from "grass-roots supporters," he claims, will prevent the "secretive undertakings" of previous presidential transitions.
Taxpayers are already funding the Obama transition to the tune of $6.3 million. Apparently that's not enough, which is why tapped-out contributors are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets. Unlike election financing, in which Team Obama had to forgo taxpayer money when opting for private donations, in transition financing it can keep all the taxpayer money plus whatever comes in from those with anything left under the mattress.
Records concerning transitions are a bit fuzzy, but it's thought that Ronald Reagan raised about $1.25 million in private funds for his 1980 transition. That led to something called the Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act, which calls for the disclosure of transition contributors. The act stipulates that transition money is not considered a political donation -- which is why Obama's list of supporters can now be mined for more cash, regardless of how much each contributor gave during the campaign.
What's next? The Fund for White House Basketball Uniforms? The Committee to Select the Obama Kids' Dog? After all, Americans wouldn't want secretive poodle breeders influencing the canine transition process.
Some loyal Democrats may be under the impression that it's the Republicans who believe most problems can be solved by leaving them to the private sector. As a member of that sector, I need a break from e-mails seeking more money.
Before contributing to the Obama transition team, Americans deserve a chance to ask David Plouffe: Will you raise your hand if you or other members of your senior staff are flying to the inauguration by commercial airlines? Please include the answer in your next e-mail.
Hat tip Always on Watch.
You gotta laugh at stupid lefties folks, their man raised 600 million dollars and he's still got the hand out asking them for more. Gee, remember when lefties were salivating at his 'wealth re-distribution' back during the campaign, I'm sure they weren't thinking that President Hussein was talking about their money. And you thought you'd never see a leftie getting sour over wealth re-distribution.
Needless to say, that sourness will only go as far as his own money is concerned, if it were anyone else's money, I doubt they'd be able to muster the same level of pouting. It'll be interesting to see how many will actually put more money forward, to add to the 600 million.
On a side note, I thought the Democrats were the party of the poor, I guess their not so poor after all, just the party of those ‘crying poor’.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them