Presidential Fundraising

[stebo0728]

First off let me preface this post by saying. This is in no way meant to be a slam on Obama specifically.

So its time once again to hit the campaign trail, only as usualy an individual NOT involved in an election is out with the crowd. I have made this argument many times, and its not one to direct to any one president as the practice is widespread among them all. But should we be paying salary for, travel for, and whatever else we pay, for the President to be hitting the campaign trail for himself firstly during his term, but even worse, for candidates in other races? Arent there more pressing issues to be dealing with other than throwing "face" around trying to raise funds? Just send the teleprompter around and let it scroll on a projector screen.

Any thoughts on this?

[AZhitman]

I've got a bigger issue with the First Lady jetting off to Spain at great expense to the taxpayers. Yes, I've heard she paid for $125K of the trip. That doesn't cover the SS or any of the other related expenses.

People are jobless, the economy is in the tank, and she's on the Spanish coast? Out of touch. And wouldn't it send a better message to spend those funds here in America? Aren't these the same people encouraging Gulf Coast vacations, then jetting off to Maine? Hypocritical and disgusting.

Sorry, back on topic.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I was talking about something similar to my wife the other day. One of the problems we have is that politicans make their living in politics. They will say what people want to hear so they have a job. I am more interested in someone running for the right reasons. One of our canidates for governor has spent a huge amount of his own money to run, way more than he would make being governor. That means something to me. If you are such a good person and want to make a difference, make a sacrifice and spend your own money.

[IBCoupe]

I don't object to many Presidential trips, especially when they pitch in their own money. For example, the Secret Service would have been paid no matter where the First Lady went (and probably would only have cost slightly less if she stayed in the White House), as would many of the other taxpayer-funded services.

That said, I don't mind Presidential fundraising if it's done for a purpose other than "Vote for this guy!" What I mean is that I'd like the speech to involve something relevant, either nationally or on a local level where the President is.

[AZhitman]

According to CBS News, the tax dollar part of the vacation include an estimated $146,000 round-trip cost for the U.S. Air Force 757 aircraft, not counting ground time; about $95,000 in hotel costs for an estimated 70 security personnel -- Secret Service and military -- who get a $273-a-day government per diem, plus costs for the dozen or so cars in her motorcade. I'm told that three shifts of agents are needed for a trip of this magnitude... potential costs could be half a million dollars.

While her husband is criticizing CEO's for "making too much", the Obamas should consider the appearance being presented in these economic times. How can you say "this bonus is too much" and then go on a trip that many Americans would consider lavish?

She's not an elected official. Why should I pay for ANY costs related to her vacation? She can stay home and bake cookies for all I care.

[bigbadberry3]

Again, a tangent, but I do love election time as the dirt starts to come up on everyone including fund raising. Here we have one individual who liked to fund raise with his PACs while golfing

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 75399.html

^Funny video^

Resume grown up talks.

[IBCoupe]

According to CBS News, the tax dollar part of the vacation include an estimated $146,000 round-trip cost for the U.S. Air Force 757 aircraft, not counting ground time; about $95,000 in hotel costs for an estimated 70 security personnel -- Secret Service and military -- who get a $273-a-day government per diem, plus costs for the dozen or so cars in her motorcade. I'm told that three shifts of agents are needed for a trip of this magnitude... potential costs could be half a million dollars.

While her husband is criticizing CEO's for "making too much", the Obamas should consider the appearance being presented in these economic times. How can you say "this bonus is too much" and then go on a trip that many Americans would consider lavish?

She's not an elected official. Why should I pay for ANY costs related to her vacation? She can stay home and bake cookies for all I care.

First: how much of that cost would have arisen had she stayed in the White House?
Second: how much of that cost is incurred whenever she goes to McDonalds?
Third: how much of that cost would be incurred were she to take a domestic vacation?

And if your position is that we shouldn't offer support to the First Family, fine. I've got no counter to it, but it's really not on my radar. And as for griping about PR - well, that's just PR, and you know my feelings about that.

[AZhitman]

First: how much of that cost would have arisen had she stayed in the White House?

an estimated $146,000 round-trip cost for the U.S. Air Force 757 aircraft... about $95,000 in hotel costs for an estimated 70 security personnel who get a $273-a-day government per diem, plus costs for the dozen or so cars in her motorcade.

None of that ^.

Second: how much of that cost is incurred whenever she goes to McDonalds?

None of "that cost" would be incurred. Those would be different costs, above and beyond her trip to Spain.

Third: how much of that cost would be incurred were she to take a domestic vacation?

Well, hmmm. I'll gonna go with "Less". Yep, that's my final answer. AND more of it would have gone into the US economy.

No, my position is NOT that we shouldn't offer "support" to the First Family. My position is that this shows how terribly out of touch these people are with the populace that they claim to be such a part of.

[IBCoupe]

I'm sorry, they claim to be part of the populace? I think it's been made pretty clear that these are latte-drinking fake-Americans.

[mattblancarte]

Ugh, I want to puke when I think about how corrupt private campaign financing has been in the past and how it will surely be in the future. I'm much more in favor of controlled public financing.

The very center of our local, state, and federal governments' rotten cores consists primarily of lobbyists and paid-off elected officials and bureaucrats. Public financing at least gives us a chance to fund our own elections, thus removing the stench of corrupt private money and its interests. It could also stifle the conflation of serious issues (performed by the general media and politicians) that our nation regularly faces.

This isn't an attempt to say that all private financing is corrupt. We just have a better chance at keeping things fair and less molested with public financing. It's much easier for the "little guy" to get his or her hands on the information and blow the whistle.

She's not an elected official. Why should I pay for ANY costs related to her vacation? She can stay home and bake cookies for all I care.

That's a good question. I personally don't care for the whole "Royal First Family" deal. It's very outdated behavior.

[bigbadberry3]

Anyone else for term limits?

[AZhitman]

I'm sorry, they claim to be part of the populace? I think it's been made pretty clear that these are latte-drinking fake-Americans.

Not on the campaign trail. Actually, he doesn't know WHO to play to.

"I am amused by this notion of elitist given that — when you are raised by single mom, when you are on food stamps for a while when you're growing up, you went to school on scholarship...." "So when someone makes that argument, particularly when I've spent my entire life working with workers in low-income communities to try to make peoples lives a little bit better, that's when you know we're in the political silly season."

No, Mr. President... the "silliness" started after you and your circus clowns took over.

[IBCoupe]

Alright, whatever. As I've told you in the past, I have no interest in individual politicians, or bashing them.

[stebo0728]

Anyone else for term limits?

My theory is a bit different. I think that there should be no "term limit" however, no elected official can serve 2 consecutive terms. What this does in my mind is frees them up to actually do their job once they are elected, instead of jumping right back on the campaign wagon. While they are off serving, voting, listening to voters, making laws, someone else can be campaigning for the upcoming term. Once they are freed up, they can begin campaigning again for the next coming term. Admittedly there may be a few flaws to iron out in this theory but I think it could serve well.

Oh and as for Supreme Court, Im for ending lifetime appointments. Its called accountability.

[IBCoupe]

Lifetime appointment is, at least in part, a safety feature. You want to see a sharp increase in "judicial activism" at all levels of our judicial system? Tell Judges the schedule for appointments.

But it's primarily a check on the power of the other branches of government. We don't want the government to have the ability to throw out judges for rulings of law that they don't like. Congress already has a means to account for bad decisions: CRAFT BETTER LAW.

[AZhitman]

Congress already has a means to account for bad decisions: CRAFT BETTER LAW.

They're napping. Try back later.

[bigbadberry3]

I like the idea of simple term limits because if you just alternate between candidates it creates a revolving door that doesn't change much. If we can end career politicians it becomes much more expensive for lobbyists to try and influence politicians.

[stebo0728]

I like the idea of simple term limits because if you just alternate between candidates it creates a revolving door that doesn't change much. If we can end career politicians it becomes much more expensive for lobbyists to try and influence politicians.

True, and I admit my plan is a bit flawed in certain ways, I mean what happens if no one opposes the incumbent? Can they then proceed another term? So I havent thought that far ahead, my goal is just to get the "in-term" campaigning to stop. Do we say incumbents cant campaign and that the merits of their actions in term must stand on their own for re-elections? Possibly an idea, but then is it disenfranchisement? Perhaps. Maybe the law student cant help us mold some new policy As soon as he's done crafting my divorce for me that is.

[IBCoupe]

Haha, no thank you! I worked at a family law office, and y'all (divorcing people) are crazy.

I think there'd be a lot of problems that would get in your way when you try to eliminate in-term campaigning, because a lot of it is speech-giving and interview-giving and actual voting and offering amendments to bills... the kinds of things you sort of want your Representatives to be doing. Yeah, you may be able to craft a First-Amendment-friendly law that prohibits campaign ads while in office, but I don't think you're going to be able to stop most of the campaigning an official does either intentionally or unintentionally through the things they must do in Congress.

[stebo0728]

Thats why I said let the incumbents actions while in office stand on their own. Whatever actions they take that are pertinent to their tasked duty, and happens to help their re-election campaign, thats great, but aside from that? I dunno I am not directly advocating anything necessarily, just posing suggestions.

[IBCoupe]

I know; I'm just concerned that, when we stop to think about it, a lot of the things we see as "campaigning" very neatly look like the things we want our elected officials to be doing - getting benefits for their constituency, explaining to the public their actions.

[wingFeather]

Present.

[stebo0728]

Let me say though, as I thought of this last night, all the conjectures Ive made in this post, I urge that we tread extremely lightly. As you well know I am a strict originalist, and am outraged that certain things have been changed from our original design, such as senatorial and presidential popular vote, establishment of income tax, and others. Therefore any sort of amendment or legislation that seeks to change an original concept or our design I am gonna gave a bit of trouble supporting unless a REALLY good case can be made for it, and I mean not some knee-jerk "the times have changed" sorta hogwash. It need to be proof of some sort of fallacy that has existed all along, not something that has suddenly cropped up, some issue that may be here ATM but will be old news in a couple years.

Also a side note, what gives with people maintaining their current office while running for another? Example - Kerry remaining senator while running for president.

[IBCoupe]

I'm currently employed full-time. I'm in the process of applying and interviewing for another job at another company. What gives?

[stebo0728]

I'm currently employed full-time. I'm in the process of applying and interviewing for another job at another company. What gives?

Are you applying and interviewing on your current employers dime?

[IBCoupe]

I don't know if this was the answer you expected: in a number of ways, yes. I've used the company phones to rearrange my interview to better coincide with training my current job wants me to take. I've used the company fax machine to send in my application. I've worked hard so it will be to my advantage come background check.

But is he? I'm curious as to what it is you think John Kerry is doing at the cost of his position as Senator.

[stebo0728]

I don't know if this was the answer you expected: in a number of ways, yes. I've used the company phones to rearrange my interview to better coincide with training my current job wants me to take. I've used the company fax machine to send in my application. I've worked hard so it will be to my advantage come background check.

But is he? I'm curious as to what it is you think John Kerry is doing at the cost of his position as Senator.

While using company resources is an example of what I was asking for, its nominal, and I would assume you were probably doing this on your alloted break times? Id like to think so anyway. However, if you were taking off lets say on a company errand to visit a customer, writing off the mileage, but then swinging in for an interview? This is a bit larger example of what Im meaning. And I am not trying to pick on John Kerry per say, more of just using him as an example because it was a widely argued one at the time. Lots of politicians do this. Im really pointing more at the general practice of it.

So examples? Well how about not showing up for certain votes because campaign engagements take priority, or how about not actually reading bills, or not actually developing any legislation of you own, or co-developing, or skipping out on committee meetings? Im not throwing any of these specifically at anyone, but just saying they are all somewhat common practice, perhaps not widespread with any one candidate, but neglect of ones current office in the interest of another prospective office is what Im getting at.

[IBCoupe]

You'd have to show that he's actually not doing something that he would otherwise do. If John Kerry, for example, had a policy of showing up for every vote prior to that. I don't know if he did, but I doubt it.

I'm suggesting that these failures to show up to a particular vote or failure to read a bill might not be so easily attributable to the fact that he's taking efforts to be elected to another office.

[stebo0728]

You'd have to show that he's actually not doing something that he would otherwise do. If John Kerry, for example, had a policy of showing up for every vote prior to that. I don't know if he did, but I doubt it.

I'm suggesting that these failures to show up to a particular vote or failure to read a bill might not be so easily attributable to the fact that he's taking efforts to be elected to another office.

Well noted, so your saying "ok hes not doing his job, but not because he's campaigning" ? Is that a good sum up? That argument carries alot of weight, but in light of that, lets examine WHY he isnt doing his job, is it because he is overworked, cant possible show up for everything? Maybe so, maybe that speaks to part of the problem in general with congress, why there are so many "aids" writing and endorsing law, only leaving the politician to place a vote. Maybe we should vote for aids instead of voting for the congressman? Anyway if the reasons for not getting things done is as Ive laid out, then what good reasoning leads them to say "ok so lets go campaign for a while"? If you are having trouble keeping up with your responsibilities on your job, do you decide to spend a good portion of that work time doing something else unrelated to your current job? Doesnt make alot of sense to me. Sometimes I think these "career politicians" are only that way because they couldnt function in the private sector. Their ethic is not equitable. Again note we sort-of started talking about Kerry in examplatory fashion, but I am not trying to pin any of this specific stuff to him, those arguments could be made but elsewhere, Im talking about the practice in general.

[IBCoupe]

...why there are so many "aids" writing and endorsing law...

Because it's probably the case that the aides have more political and legal experience than the congressmen. They're just smarter, as evident by the fact that they're not eager to become congressmen themselves.

It may not be a matter of inability, either. It may just be a matter of priorities. If we take the focus away from Kerry and the Senate and focus more on the House of Representatives, for example, have you seen some of the nutjob things that go through there? It might just be that being associated with a bad bill is a bad move, even if that association is through a "WTF, are you nuts?" vote.