Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Obama is spending more on his campaign than he is collecting from donors

From the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt:

Last July, President Obama’s campaign announced that it had raised an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months for itself and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)… well below the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaign’s goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.

[...]Through January, the president has raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the DNC. Next week, the Obama campaign will release its February numbers, but the president is on track to be hundreds of millions of dollars shy of his original goal.

It’s not for lack of trying. Mr. Obama has already attended 103 fund-raisers, roughly one every three days since he kicked off his campaign last April (twice his predecessor’s pace).

The president faces other fund-raising challenges. For one, there are only so many times any candidate can go to New York or Hollywood or San Francisco for a $1 million fund-raiser. Team Obama is running through its easy money venues quickly.

For another, many of Mr. Obama’s 2008 donors are reluctant to give again. The Obama campaign itself reported that fewer than 7% of 2008 donors renewed their support in the first quarter of his re-election campaign. That’s about one-quarter to one-third of a typical renewal rate: In the first quarter of the Bush re-election campaign, for example, about 20% of the donors renewed their support.

[...]The final financial challenge facing Mr. Obama’s campaign is how fast it is burning through the cash it is raising. Compare the 2012 Obama re-election campaign with the 2004 Bush re-election campaign. Mr. Obama’s campaign spent 25% of what it raised in the second quarter of 2011, while Mr. Bush’s campaign spent only 9% in the second quarter of 2003. In the third quarter it was 46% for Obama versus 26% for Bush; for the fourth quarter it was 57% versus 40%. In January 2012 the Obama campaign spent 158% of what it raised, while the Bush campaign spent 60% in January 2004.

At the end of January, Team Obama had $91.7 million in cash in its coffers and those of the DNC. At the same point in 2004, the Bush campaign and Republican National Committee had $122 million in cash combined.

Compare that with Rick Santorum who is running a very frugal campaign which spends less and focuses instead on meeting with voters face-to-face. I find it surprising that Obama is struggling to find donors, though, given the amount of taxpayer money and favors that he’s favored his campaign fundraisers and “bundlers” with – e.g. government grants, political appointments, Wall Street bailouts, Obamacare waivers for unions, etc. Maybe even Democrats realize that buying votes while running the country into debt is not sustainable.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , ,

Does the United Way give money to abortion-provider Planned Parenthood?

From Life News, a story showing how the United Way charity gave money to Planned Parenthood.

Excerpt:

Each fall, United Way focuses on fundraising campaigns. Most people encounter these requests for giving through their workplace. The United Way encourages individuals to donate to a variety of local charitable organizations or to the United Way itself. Each local United Way determines whom they will support through their grant programs and their lists of charitable organizations in the area. While most United Way organizations claim they do not fund programs for abortion services, in truth, some do support Planned Parenthood or other abortion-advocate agencies.

[...]Any finances being donated to Planned Parenthood (even if not specifically for abortion services) will free up more of their money to be used toward abortion services.

Some area United Ways, like New York City and Atlanta, provide grants to Planned Parenthood. The Dallas, Houston, and Austin United Ways do not give money directly to Planned Parenthood. However, Austin and Houston Planned Parenthoods do encourage donors to give money through the United Way’s workplace campaign. Many of the local United Ways also send volunteers to Planned Parenthood.

Nationally, the main United Way website (www.LiveUnited.org) also directs volunteers toward Planned Parenthood. Again, not every state or city agency promotes Planned Parenthood, but several do. One is too many.

If you are pro-life, you should not help the United Way in any way. They give money to people who perform abortions – even after those same groups got $363 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies, and paid their President Cecile Richards nearly $400,000 dollars. Planned Parenthood made a profit of $63 million in the most recent year for which records are available. There are plenty of other places to give your money to, like

Related posts on Planned Parenthood

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen gives $569,159 to Planned Parenthood

Story here on Life News.

Excerpt:

Affiliates of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer foundation gave more than half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood in 2010, according to federal tax records.

The American Life League obtained copies of the financial documents, which totaled donations from 18 Komen affiliates at $569,159.

Affiliates in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington all gave money. You can view a full spreadsheet of the donations here.

According to the data, the Dallas County chapter donated the largest amount, giving $68,000 to Planned Parenthood of North Texas. The Orange County, Calif. chapter gave the second-highest amount at $58,754.

Nevertheless, the $569,159 tag is lower than the donations from 2009, which totaled $731,303.

[...]Rita Diller, director of the American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood initiative, told Life News that aside from the abortion issue, it doesn’t make sense for Komen to donate money to Planned Parenthood when the organization does not provide any kind of advanced breast care, including mammograms. “Komen’s support of Planned Parenthood is defeating its own mission of fighting breast cancer,” Diller said. “In the first place, Planned Parenthood is not licensed to do anything beyond Level 1 breast examinations….Add to that the fact that Planned Parenthood’s two big money-makers, abortion and contraceptives, are directly linked to breast cancer by numerous studies conducted from the 1960s through the present.”

[...]A Jan. 2010 study from the Seattle Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center called abortion a “known risk factor” for breast cancer, reporting a 20 to 50 percent increased chance for cancer among women who had had an abortion compared to women who carried their pregnancies to term

Don’t give money to Susan G. Komen for the Cure if you are pro-life.

UPDATE: Wow! Steve Ertelt of LifeNews left a comment linking to this follow-up story. Please read.

Related posts on Planned Parenthood

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New York Times admits that GM repaid its bailout loans with TARP loan money

Story here in the radically-leftist New York Times. (H/T Hot Air)

Excerpt:

AS we inch closer to a clearer understanding of the products and practices that unleashed the credit crisis of 2008, it’s becoming apparent that those seeking the whole truth are still outnumbered by those aiming to obscure it. This is the case not only on Wall Street but also in Washington.

Truth seekers the nation over, therefore, are indebted to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who in recent days uncovered what he called a government-enabled “TARP money shuffle.” It relates to General Motors, which on April 21 paid the balance of its $6.7 billion loan under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

G.M. trumpeted its escape from the program as evidence that it had turned the corner in its operations. “G.M. is able to repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu and Buick LaCrosse,” boasted Edward E. Whitacre Jr., its chief executive.

G.M. also crowed about its loan repayment in a national television ad and the United States Treasury also marked the moment with a press release: “We are encouraged that G.M. has repaid its debt well ahead of schedule and confident that the company is on a strong path to viability,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary.

Taxpayers are naturally eager for news about bailout repayments. But what neither G.M. nor the Treasury disclosed was that the company simply used other funds held by the Treasury to pay off its original loan.

This is what you get when you appoint a tax-cheat to be the Treasury Secretary.

Here’s what we need to understand about government bailouts. There should never be any such thing as a government bailout. GM and these other bailed-out companies made bad decisions that put them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their competitors. The Obama administration bailed out these failing companies with money from other hard-working individuals and successful companies, including small businesses. The Obama administration did this for political gain with its favored special interest groups, e.g. – unionized labor,  wall street bankers and GSE executives. Those are the groups that got Obama elected, and he paid them back with “bailouts”. Government has no right to get involved with bailing out their buddies with my money and your money.

I remember when people use to complain about profit margins of 8% in some big corporations when Bush was President. But at least they earned that money by selling things that people needed and freely chose to buy. They did operate on a government-backed expense account. Sometimes I wonder whether all of these problems are caused because we elect spoiled-brat, silver-spoon liberals who spent their entire lives getting into trouble and then begging their parents, (and grandparents, in Obama’s case), for bailout money. Maybe they are just making policy based on their experiences in making irresponsible choices and then being bailed out by their parents?

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Did GM pay off its bailout loans by using other government loans?

Story from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

Moderate Republican Chuck Grassley, who supported Obama’s bailouts, wants to know how GM paid off their debts. He wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Excerpt:

General Motors (GM) yesterday announced that it repaid its TARP loans. I am concerned, however, that this announcement is not what it seems. In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.

On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. During his testimony Mr. Barofsky addressed GM’s recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings.

Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115.

Furthermore, Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8K filed by GM with the SEC on November 16, 2009, seems to confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multi-billion dollar escrow account at Treasury—not from earnings.

[...]In reality, it looks like GM merely used one source of TARP funds to repay another. The taxpayers are still on the hook, and whether TARP funds are ultimately recovered depends entirely on the government’s ability to sell GM stock in the future. Treasury has merely exchanged a legal right to repayment for an uncertain hope of sharing in the future growth of GM. A debt-for-equity swap is not a repayment.

Ed summarizes:

In other words, this is just a shell game. As Jim Vicevich points out, it’s akin to paying off your Visa credit card with your Mastercard — and then bragging about your financial condition. Taxpayers are still on the hook for GM. Nothing at all has changed.

Instead, we have another good reason for government to refrain from bailing out private companies. It makes them act like government when it comes to transparency about their finances. This claim really does prove that GM now stands for Government Motors.

Michelle Malkin also has a good column here about MORE connections between Democrats and rich Wall Street investment bankers. The Democrats are tightly connected with large corporations and investment banks. As a small government conservative, I find this alarming and unsettling. I believe in separation of government and corporations.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wintery Tweets

RSS Intelligent Design podcast

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Evolution News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,427,308 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,104 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,104 other followers

%d bloggers like this: