Click To Watch 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): “They’re talking about First Amendment rights, the Constitution, and I appreciate that, but Mr. President, that is so senseless.” (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Remarks On U.S. Senate Floor, Washington, D.C., 2/10/12)

NOTE - USA Today Editorial: Obama “Crossed The Line” By Requiring Religious Institutions “To Violate A Central Tenet Of Its Faith.” “Few Americans of any political stripe would disagree with the simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs. Certainly, it should never try to force a religiously affiliated institution to violate a central tenet of its faith. Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform, the Obama administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. ” (Editorial, “Contraception Mandate Violates Religious Freedom,” USA Today, 2/5/12)

THEN: Five Years Ago, Then-Sen. Barack Obama Attacked The “Chronic Avoidance Of Tough Decisions” As He Announced His Candidacy For President. “What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics — the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle the big problems of America.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks Announcing His Candidacy For President, Springfield, IL, 2/10/07)

NOW: President Obama “Has Been All-Too-Willing To Avoid Making Tough Decisions.” “One of President Obama's political weaknesses in his first term has been that he's all-too-willing to avoid making tough decisions, hesitant to expend political capital for potential long-term gain.  Throughout his first term in office, he's had a cautious governing style, and has avoided taking on some of his party's core constituencies.” (Josh Kraushaar, “Obama Trying To Have It Both Ways,” National Journal, 11/30/11)

OBAMA’S HANDLING OF FISCAL ISSUES HAS BEEN A TOUR DE FORCE IN DUCKING, DODGING AND FAILING TO LEAD

Obama’s Last Budget Caved To The President’s Political Ambitions And Ignored America’s Looming Fiscal Crisis

Obama’s FY2012 Budget Was “A Political Document By Someone That Wants To Win Re-Election.” "Obama's $3.7 trillion budget is an opening bid, as well as a political document by someone who wants to win re-election... Bottom line: Presidential budgets are more political documents than anything else, and this budget is by someone who wants to win re-election." (NBC News' " First Read," 2/14/11)

The New York Times: "What Mr. Obama's Budget Is Most Definitely Not Is A Blueprint For Dealing With The Real Long-Term Problems That Feed The Budget Deficit..." (Editorial, "The Obama Budget," The New York Times, 2/14/11)

The Washington Post: “President Obama’s Budget Kicks The Hard Choices Further Down The Road.” (Editorial, “President Obama’s Budget Kicks The Hard Choices Further Down The Road,” The Washington Post, 2/15/11)

• Given The Chance To Show Leadership With His Budget, Obama "Chose Instead To Duck" Behind "The Sort Of Budgetary Gimmicks He Once Derided." "Having been given the chance, the cover and the push by the fiscal commission he created to take bold steps to raise revenue and curb entitlement spending, President Obama, in his fiscal 2012 budget proposal, chose instead to duck. To duck, and to mask some of the ducking with the sort of budgetary gimmicks he once derided."  (Editorial, "President Obama's Budget Kicks The Hard Choices Further Down The Road," The Washington Post, 2/15/11)

Obama Has Ditched His Pledge To Cut The Deficit In Half

PROMISE: Obama Pledged To Cut The Deficit In Half By The End Of His First Term. OBAMA: “And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Fiscal Responsibility Summit, Washington, D.C., 2/23/09)

• “President Barack Obama Plans To Cut The U.S. Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By The End Of His First Term …” (Hans Nichols, “Obama Plans To Reduce Budget Deficit To $533 Billion By 2013,” Bloomberg, 2/21/09)
• One White House Official Told Politico “We’ll Cut It At Least In Half.” “Under White House projections, this year’s inherited budget deficit of $1.3 trillion will be cut to $533 billion by fiscal year 2013, the end of the first term. ‘So we’ll cut it at least in half,’ the official said.” (Mike Allen, “Obama Vows To Cut Huge Deficit In Half,” Politico, 2/22/09)

FAIL: The CBO Projects The Deficit At The End Of Obama’s First Term Will Be $1.079 Trillion, Obama’s Fourth Straight Trillion Dollar Deficit. (“The Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012-2022,” Congressional Budget Office, 1/31/12; “Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)

• “If The CBO Estimate Is Correct, It Would Mean That The United States Recorded A Deficit Of More Than $1 Trillion For Every Year Of Obama’s First Term.” (Erik Wasson, “CBO Projects $1.08T Deficit, Higher Unemployment,” The Hill’s “On The Money,” 1/31/12)

• Even If Every Part Of Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal Was Enacted, The Deficit At The End Of His First Term Would Be Even Higher, $1.33 Trillion. (“The President’s Plan For Economic Growth And Deficit Reduction; Table S-3,” Office Of Management And Budget, 9/19/11)

• Politifact: “Obama Made A Pledge To Cut The Deficit In Half By The End Of His First Term. And He’s Falling Short So Far.” (Gregory Trotter, “Tim Pawlenty Says President Obama Is Going To Break Promise On Deficit And Will Double It,” Politifact, 6/10/11)

Obama Has Resorted To Scoring Cheap Political Points Rather Than Governing

The Buffett Rule “Has More Campaign Resonance Than The Big Changes That Would Really Deal With The Nation’s Fiscal Dilemma.” “But it’s an issue that has more campaign resonance than the big changes that would really deal with the nation’s fiscal dilemma, like reforming Medicare and Medicaid. It’s also a value issue for Obama. It is meant to get voters to identify with him, and not the other guy. It’s about “fairness” more than fiscal sanity. And you will be hearing a lot more about it.” (Michael Scherer, “The Numbers And Politics Of Barack Obama’s New Buffett Rule,” Time’s “Swampland,” 1/25/12)

• The “Sole Purpose” Of Proposing The Buffett Rule Was To Make It A “Mainstay In Democratic Campaign Ads.” “But Obama’s January speech to the country was more like a slam dunk contest than a blueprint for sober governance, with no-miss poll-tested proposals that won’t translate into points on the board unless Democrats win super-majorities in both houses, and even then maybe not. Take the so-called ‘Buffett Rule,’ which seems to have been introduced for the sole purpose of getting Republicans to reject it. It won’t appear on the House floor but it will be a mainstay in Democratic campaign ads. Some of ’em might even be bankrolled by super PACs.” (Jim Vandehei, “The Political Transformation Of Barack Obama,” Politico, 2/9/12)
• LA Times: “The Proposed Buffett Rule Is More A Political Statement Than A Deficit-Reduction Tool, Given How Little Money It May Raise.”  “The proposed Buffett rule is more a political statement than a deficit-reduction tool, given how little money it may raise. In that sense, it's like Obama's oft-repeated call to eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets. But asking higher-income Americans in general to pay more for the sake of deficit reduction is hardly class warfare; they've prospered disproportionately over the past decade, thanks in no small part to federal regulatory and fiscal policies that helped them more than any other segment of society. As a result, they're in a better position than any other group to help close the budget gap.” (Editorial, “The ‘Buffet Rule,’ And More,” Los Angeles Times, 9/20/11)
• Watch WH Press Secretary Jay Carney Admit The Buffett Rule Isn’t Actually A Policy But A Principle

The Buffett Rule Is “Unlikely To Have Any Big Impact On Uncle Sam’s Bottom Line.” “Some basic math can tell you that no matter how good progressive taxation might be for the nation’s soul, getting this rule into place is unlikely to have any big impact on Uncle Sam’s bottom line. Daniel Indiviglio, of The Atlantic, did some back-of-the-envelope calculations on this last fall. He found that even if you taxed millionaires at some ridiculous rate, like 100%, you would not come close to closing the budget deficit. The likely impact is much smaller.” (Michael Scherer, “The Numbers And Politics Of Barack Obama’s New Buffett Rule,” Time’s Swampland, 1/25/12)

• Which Is Why Obama Has Not Actually Proposed The Buffet Rule As Legislation Because It Would Trigger “An Official Budgetary Score.” “Obama is pitching the Buffett Rule as having major savings potential. … But it is notable that President Obama does not plan to ask for the Buffett Rule as legislation, which would trigger an official budgetary score.” (Michael Scherer, “The Numbers And Politics Of Barack Obama’s New Buffett Rule,” Time’s Swampland, 1/25/12)

Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal Was Loaded With Gimmicks To Hide Its Flaws

USA Today: “The Plan’s Flaws Are Troubling.” “But the plan's flaws are troubling. It pretends that enough money can be raised simply by raising taxes on the rich. It can't. There aren't enough of them. Nor does the president's plan match his promise to ‘live within our means’ and ‘pay down’ debt. Even if it were fully enacted, the nation would add $6 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.” (Editorial, “Editorial: Politics Takes Priority In Obama’s Deficit Plan,” USA Today, 9/19/11)

• Independent Budget Experts Said Obama’s Debt Plan Fell Short Of Its Advertised Savings. “President Obama projects that his new plan for reducing the federal debt will save more than $3 trillion over the next decade by raising taxes on the wealthy and slashing spending on a host of government programs, from farm subsidies to federal worker pensions. But independent budget experts said the blueprint that Obama unveiled Monday — which White House officials say would save more than $4 trillion when added to earlier budget deals this year — appears to fall short of his target.” (Lori Montgomery And Jia Lynn Yang, “Budget Analysts Say Obama Deficit Plan Is Likely To Miss Its Targets,” The Washington Post, 9/19/11)

The Washington Post: “The Administration’s Claim To Have Come Up With $4 Trillion In Deficit Reduction Is Misleading. The More Accurate Amount Is Barely Half That …” “The administration’s claim to have come up with $4 trillion in deficit reduction is misleading. The more accurate amount is barely half that, including about $1 trillion in domestic and security spending cuts already agreed to as part of the debt ceiling deal, and $1.5 trillion in tax increases on the wealthy.” (Editorial, “In Debt Plan, Mr. Obama Goes ‘Medium’,” The Washington Post, 9/19/11)

• WP: “The administration gives itself credit for another $1 trillion by counting savings — already incorporated in any realistic base line — from winding down military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Editorial, “In Debt Plan, Mr. Obama Goes ‘Medium’,” The Washington Post, 9/19/11)
• WP: “The administration further pads its results by giving itself credit for $866 billion in ‘savings’ from letting the George W. Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 a year.” (Editorial, “In Debt Plan, Mr. Obama Goes ‘Medium’,” The Washington Post, 9/19/11)

ANNOUNCING HIS CANDIDACY IN 2007, OBAMA SAID “IT’S TIME TO TURN THE PAGE”

Obama Complained About How Lobbyists And Special Interests “Turned Our Government Into A Game Only They Can Afford To Play” And Said It Was “Time To Turn The Page Right Here And Right Now.” OBAMA: “And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that kind of politics is over. It is through. It's time to turn the page right here and right now.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, IL, 2/10/07)

NOW, IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE MUCH HAS CHANGED UNDER OBAMA

Lobbyist Bundler Raised At Least $200,000 For Obama Despite Pledge

Former Florida Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) Bundled At Least $200,000 For Obama’s Reelection While Lobbying On Behalf Of Spirit Airlines. “Former Florida Rep. Ron Klein, now working as a partner for the law firm Holland & Knight, has raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the Obama campaign, while lobbying on behalf of Spirit Airlines, according to public records.” (Byron Tau, “Lobbyist Ron Klein Fundraising For Obama, Despite Pledge,” Politico 2/8/12)

• In The Morning, The Obama Campaign Said That Klein Was Able To Bundle Up Until The “Minute” He Registered As A Lobbyist. “The Obama campaign says that Ron Klein, former Democratic congressman from Florida, turned Obama stalwart, turned lobbyist, is out as a bundler after registering as a lobbyist for Spirit Airlines in early January. ‘The minute he became a lobbyist, he stopped raising money for the campaign,’ a senior Obama for America official tells POLITICO.” (Glenn Thrush, “Ron Klein Out ‘The Minute’ He Started Lobbying, Obama Campaign Says,” Politico, 2/8/12)
• That Same Afternoon, Klein Said He Had Not Heard From Anyone From The Obama Campaign Regarding His Lobbyist Position. “But Klein said he had not heard from anybody in the Obama campaign. And, he added, he fully expects to continue raising money for the president's re-election. ‘I understand the rules,’ he said.” (Michael Isikoff, “Obama Bundler To ‘De-Register,’” NBC’s “First Read,” 2/8/12)

And Within Hours Of His Lobbyist Position Being Revealed, Klein Announced He Will De-Register So That He Can Continue To Raise Funds. “A former Florida congressman who has been a top campaign bundler for President Obama said Wednesday he is taking immediate steps to de-register as a lobbyist for a Florida-based airline so he can continue to raise funds for the president.”(Michael Isikoff, “Obama Bundler To ‘De-Register,’” NBC’s “First Read,” 2/8/12)

Obama Allowed Bundlers With Ties To Fugitive To Raise More Than  $200,000

The New York Times: “Obama To Return Major Donations Tied To Fugitive.” (Mark McIntire, “Obama To Return Major Donations Tied To Fugitive,” The New York Times, 2/6/12)

“The Obama Campaign Will Return More Than $200,000 In Campaign Donations From The American Relatives Of A Fugitive Mexican Businessman And Casino Owner, A Campaign Official Said Tuesday.” (Byron Tau, “Obama To Return 200k+ In Donations,” Politico, 2/7/12)

Despite Populist Campaign Rhetoric, Obama Still Wants Wall Street’s Money

Obama Dispatched Campaign Manager Jim Messina To Assure Wall Street Donors That Obama’s Populist Campaign Tone Wouldn’t “Demonize” The Financial Services Industry. “Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager, assured a group of Democratic donors from the financial services industry that Obama won’t demonize Wall Street as he stresses populist appeals in his re-election campaign, according to two people at the meeting. At the members-only Core Club in Manhattan, Messina provided a campaign briefing last night for some of the president’s top donors, including Ralph Schlosstein, chief executive officer at Evercore Partners Inc., and his wife, Jane Hartley, co-founder of the economic and political advisory firm Observatory Group LLC; Eric Mindich, founder of Eton Park Capital Management LP; and Ron Blaylock, co-founder of GenNx360 Capital Partners.” (Hans Nichols, “Obama Campaign Chief Messina Seeks To Assure Wall Street Donors,” Bloomberg, 2/9/12)

In 2007, OBAMA COMPLAINED ABOUT POLITICIANS MAKING PROMISES THAT “FADE FROM MEMORY”

Obama Decried Politicians Making Promises They Can’t Keep And Letting Lobbyists And Special Interests Move In. OBAMA: “But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, IL, 2/10/07)

NOW, OBAMA GOES BACK ON HIS PROMISE, CHANGING HIS POSITION ON SUPER PACS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT

Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Reversed Its Position On Super PACs, “Encouraging Donors To Send Their Unlimited Contributions” To Pro-Obama Priorities USA PAC.  “President Obama's re-election campaign made an about-face late Monday in its opposition to super PACs, encouraging donors to send their unlimited contributions to one such group founded by a former administration spokesman. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina emailed supporters to formally endorse contributions to Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC founded by Bill Burton, a former White House deputy press secretary.” (Michael O’Brien, “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’ First Read, 2/7/12)

Politifact:  Obama’s Embrace Of Super PACs Is A “Full Flop.” “In this case, Obama and his campaign have gone from refusing to fundraise for super PACs to declaring that senior officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. We respect that the president himself won’t participate, and that he still plans to fight the role of special interest money in campaigns, but that’s a major reversal of position, and we rate it a Full Flop.” (“Obama Campaign Says Officials Will Now Appear At Super PAC Fundraisers,” Tampa Bay Times’ “Politifact,” 2/6/12)

Obama’s Shift On Super PACs “Opens The Door To Donations By Lobbyists To Support His Re-Election.” “President Obama's decision to back unlimited donations to a Democratic outside group reverses his opposition to super PACs and opens the door to donations by lobbyists to support his re-election. Obama has made refusing money from federal lobbyists a bedrock principle of his political campaigns.”(Fredreka Schouten, “Obama Urges Donations to Super PAC Backing Him,” USA Today, 2/7/12)

IN 2007, OBAMA SAID THE PROBLEM WAS NOT “BUILDING A WORKING CONSENSUS” TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS

Obama Said The Problem With America Was A “Preference For Scoring Cheap Political Points” Instead Of “Building A Working Consensus To Tackle The Big Problems Of America.” OBAMA: “What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics — the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle the big problems of America.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, IL, 2/10/07)

NOW, OBAMA DIVIDES THE COUNTRY AND IS DOING ANYTHING BUT “BUILDING A WORKING CONSENSUS”

The Obama Administration Mandated That Contraception Be Covered By Insurance Plans And Rejected An Exemption For Religious Organizations That Don’t Offer Contraception Due To Religious Beliefs. “The Obama administration said Friday that most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge, and it rejected a broad exemption sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities.” (Robert Pear, “Obama Reaffirms Insurers Must Cover Contraception,” The New York Times, 1/20/12)

• “In The End, It Was Mr. Obama Himself Who Made The Decision…” “In the end, it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision, aides say, calculating that at the end of the day, the issue of public health access outweighed the concerns of the religious institutions.” (Helene Cooper And Katharine Q. Seelye, “Obama Tries To Ease Ire On Contraception Rule,” The New York Times, 2/7/12)

Obama’s Decision Is Nothing More Than An Election Year Appeal To His Base. “The handling of the issue offers a hint of Obama’s approach to governing and campaigning in 2012: When confronted with a position close to his heart — and dear to the base — Obama is increasingly inclined to side with people who will vote for him even if it means enraging those who might, but probably won’t, vote for him.” (Glenn Thrush, “Obama’s Birth-Control Gamble,” Politico, 2/2/12)

USA Today Editorial: Obama “Crossed The Line” By Requiring Religious Institutions “To Violate A Central Tenet Of Its Faith.” “Few Americans of any political stripe would disagree with the simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs. Certainly, it should never try to force a religiously affiliated institution to violate a central tenet of its faith. Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform, the Obama administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. ” (Editorial, “Contraception Mandate Violates Religious Freedom,” USA Today, 2/5/12)

“A Handful Of High-Profile Catholic Democrats” Opposed Obama’s Religious Overreach On Contraceptives.   “President Barack Obama’s contraceptives edict has handed Republicans an election-year gift. But now, the president may have a problem with his own party, too. A handful of high-profile Catholic Democrats are bailing on the president and joining the GOP chorus of critics. They’re arguing that the rule needs to be significantly softened if not, as Republicans want, scrapped altogether. At this point, the Democratic defectors are few in number but tall in stature. They include two swing-state pols on the November ballot — Obama’s former DNC chairman, Tim Kaine, who’s running for Senate in Virginia, and Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey — as well as House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson.” (Scott Wong, “Some Catholic Dems Bail On Obama,” Politico, 2/8/12)

“With The City Going Broke You May Be Surprised To Find Out That Los Angeles Is The Proud Owner Of A Million Dollar Yacht And It Is About To Undergo Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In Renovations At Taxpayer Expense.”  (David Goldstein, “Taxpayer Money Used To Maintain Million-Dollar Yacht,” KCAL-TV [Los Angeles, CA], 2/6/12)

IN LOS ANGELES, STIMULUS FUNDS WERE SPENT ON A CITY YACHT, CREATING NO JOBS BUT WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY  

$489,000 Of Taxpayer Federal Stimulus Money “That Is Supposed To Go Create Jobs” Was Spent On The Port Of Los Angeles’ Luxury Yacht, The “Angelena.” “The port is using $489,000 in federal taxpayer stimulus money that is supposed to go create jobs, plus another $200,000 coming from the port — totaling $689,000 for new engines.” (David Goldstein, “Taxpayer Money Used To Maintain Million-Dollar Yacht,” KCAL-TV [Los Angeles, CA], 2/6/12)

• The Money Was Spent Installing New Hybrid Engines On The Yacht Because The Old Engines “No Longer Meet California Emissions Standards.” “The engines have been removed because they no longer meet California emissions standards. They will be replaced by low-emission hybrid motors. The port is using $489,000 in federal taxpayer stimulus money that is supposed to go create jobs, plus another $200,000 coming from the port — totaling $689,000 for new engines.” (David Goldstein, “Taxpayer Money Used To Maintain Million-Dollar Yacht,” KCAL-TV [Los Angeles, CA], 2/6/12)
• The Yacht Is Used For VIP Tours Of The Harbor, Many Of Which Have Nothing To Do With Port Business. “The port bought it in 1988. It is used for public relations tours of the harbor, which run about two hours long. They are free of charge for just about any group, like one we observed for students of Banning High. We obtained the ship’s logs for the past two years, which show cruises with as many as 48 passengers at a time. We also obtained the names of thousands of people who have been on-board. More than 4,000 took the cruise just last year. Some of the people do business with the port, but many have nothing to do with it.” (David Goldstein, “Taxpayer Money Used To Maintain Million-Dollar Yacht,” KCAL-TV [Los Angeles, CA], 2/6/12)

“‘It’s Not Helping To Create Any Real Jobs,’ Said Tom Schatz With Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).” (David Goldstein, “Taxpayer Money Used To Maintain Million-Dollar Yacht,” KCAL-TV [Los Angeles, CA], 2/6/12)

• “It’s A Big Waste Of Money Both For Taxpayers Across The Country And For Los Angeles Residents.” “‘It’s a big waste of money both for taxpayers across the country and for Los Angeles residents, who clearly aren’t all going to benefit from this and are spending money at a time when the city is more than $70 million in the red,’ Schatz said.” (David Goldstein, “Taxpayer Money Used To Maintain Million-Dollar Yacht,” KCAL-TV [Los Angeles, CA], 2/6/12)

STIMULUS MONEY HAS BEEN SQUANDERED ACROSS THE COUNTRY, DESPITE OBAMA’S PROMISES OF OVERSIGHT

THEN: Obama Claimed All Stimulus Projects Received Funding “Based Solely On Their Merits.” OBAMA: “And I just want to point this out -- there has never been a program of this scale, moved at this speed, that has been enacted as effectively and as transparently as the Recovery Act.  I’m grateful that Congress agreed to my request that the bill include no earmarks, that all projects receive funding based solely on their merits.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks On The One-Year Anniversary Of The Signing Of The Recovery Act, Washington, D.C., 2/17/10)

• NOW: Obama Thought “Even The Worst Kind Of Boondoggle” Was Stimulative. “For the Obama transition teams and their allies on the Hill, three questions loomed large in designing the package. The first was whether the proposed spending was economically stimulative: Did it save or create jobs, and thereby put money in people’s pockets? It turned out that economists believed almost any spending met this criterion. In a recession even the worst kind of boondoggle is stimulative, a fact that critics had a hard time comprehending.” (Jonathan Alter, The Promise, Simon & Shuster, 2010, p. 84)
  • In A Rush To Put Together A Stimulus Package, The White House Sacrificed Impact, Creativity And Competence. “With precious little time for innovative policymaking, it became a trade-off of speed over impact, speed over creativity, and, no doubt, speed over competence. Obama believed there was a steep cost to delay; if talks on the stimulus dragged into the spring or summer the recession would get much worse.” (Jonathan Alter, The Promise, Simon & Shuster, 2010, p. 85)

THEN: Obama Pledged That Joe Biden Would Lead An “Unprecedented Oversight Effort” For The $825 Billion Stimulus, “Because Nobody Messes With Joe.” OBAMA: “Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending.  And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right. That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe.” (President Barack Obama, Address To Joint Session Of Congress, Washington, DC, 2/24/09)

• NOW: There Have Been 298 Criminal Convictions Related To Fraudulent Spending Of Stimulus Funds. “To date, there have been 298 criminal convictions and $7.2 million in Recovery losses, according to our latest figures. Part of oversight, of course, is making sure that recipients comply with the law and publicly submit reports on their spending each quarter. When we started collecting data, recipients failed to submit 4,359 reports. This was unacceptable so the Board created what we describe internally as a “Wall of Shame,’’ a listing of those non-compliers on Recovery.gov.” (Press Release, “Devaney, In Final Column, Urges Taxpayers To Press Data Reforms,” Recovery Accountability And Transparency Board, 12/14/11)
• At The Energy Department Alone, Over 100 Criminal Investigations Have Been Launched Into The Way Stimulus Money Was Spent. “The Energy Department's inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations related to 2009 economic stimulus spending. In written testimony prepared for delivery to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, Inspector General Gregory Friedman said the investigations have involved ‘various schemes, including the submission of false information, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, and other improper uses of Recovery Act funds.’” (Darius Dixon, “DOE IG: 100+ Stimulus-Related Criminal Probes,” Politico, 11/2/11)

$1.5 Million Of Stimulus Money Was Spent On Eight Homes That Ended Up Worth Less Than $1 Million. “In an effort to stabilize the city's real estate market, a federal stimulus program has spent nearly $1.5 million on eight Modesto homes that ended up being worth less than $1 million. Example: Taxpayers paid $223,641 to buy and fix up a foreclosed south Modesto house that was built in 1992. But when the city's 16-month renovation project was done, the home appraised and sold for only $114,000. The government lost $109,641 on that just completed deal. Taxpayers also have spent $109,494 to buy and renovate a 1948-vintage two-bedroom home in Modesto's airport neighborhood. That house has appraised for only $55,000, and a buyer has yet to be found. The federally funded Neighborhood Stabilization Program is being managed by the city of Modesto, which plans to resell an additional 18 or more rehabilitated homes this year.” (J.N. Sbranti, “Modesto Renovates Homes Expensively, Doesn’t Recoup Money In Sales,” The Modesto Bee, 1/14/12)

Stimulus Money Sent To North Carolina Schools Was Used On “Tickets For Movies, A Water Park, Fast Food, And Other Entertainment.” “In our review of documents, we found evidence that in addition to paying teachers a total of $17,270 in salaries, HAWS also used ESEA Title I funds to pay for STEP activities that included other salaries and field trip-related expenses, including tickets for movies, a water park, fast food, and other entertainment.” (“GAO Review Of LEA Controls Over And Uses Of Recovery Act Education Funds [Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools],” Government Accountability Office, 7/9/10)

72,000 Stimulus Checks Sent To Dead People. “The Social Security Administration sent about 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each to dead and incarcerated people — but almost half of them were returned, a new inspector-general’s report has found. The inspector general found that about 72,000 payments were sent by electronic-transfer and as checks to people who would have qualified to receive them — had they still been alive. The report said that of these payments, about 55,000  were sent because the recipients had died recently, and the Social Security Administration had not been informed of their deaths by states, families or funeral homes at the time the payments were sent. The remaining 17,000 of the mistaken payments were attributed to the SSA failing to properly process death records that it did have.” (Louise Radnofsky, “Maybe You Can Take It With You: Stimulus Checks Sent To The Dead,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire,” 10/7/10)

Stimulus Money Went To Study Young Adults Who Drink Malt Liquor And Smoke Marijuana. “The State University of New York at Buffalo won $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana.” (Alexander Bolton, “Mark Penn’s Two Firms Awarded Millions From Stimulus For Public Relations Work,” The Hill, 12/09/09)

$54 Million In Stimulus Funds For Napa Valley Wine Train.  Jonathan Karl: “The Napa Valley wine train, to tourists a great way to see America’s most celebrated wine region, to others exhibit A in what’s wrong with the stimulus.” Sen. Tom Coburn: “What that is, is a situation where you see the wealthy or well connected get taken care of and the community suffers.” Jonathan Karl: “He’s talking about the Napa Valley wine train relocation project, $54 million stimulus dollars to build a new rail bridge, elevate and relocate 3,300 ft of tracks and put flood walls around the train’s main station.” (ABC News’ “Good Morning America,” 2/2/10)

$3 Million In Stimulus Funds For Turtles. “A report due to be released today by a Republican senator contends the Obama administration’s stimulus program is fraught with waste and incompetence – evidenced by a turtle crossing in northern Florida that will cost more than $3 million.” (Peter Nicholas, “Stimulus Program Fraught With Waste Report Says,” The Los Angeles Times, 6/15/09)

Candidate Obama: "We Will Not Take A Dime From Washington Lobbyists Or Special Interest PACs - We're Going To Change How Washington Works. They Will Not Fund My Party ..." (Sunlen Miller, "Obama Commends DNC For Cutting Lobbyist Contributions," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, 6/5/08)

OBAMA GIVES SUPER PAC HIS BLESSING

Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Reversed Its Position On Super PACs, “Encouraging Donors To Send Their Unlimited Contributions” To Pro-Obama Priorities USA PAC.  “President Obama's re-election campaign made an about-face late Monday in its opposition to super PACs, encouraging donors to send their unlimited contributions to one such group founded by a former administration spokesman. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina emailed supporters to formally endorse contributions to Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC founded by Bill Burton, a former White House deputy press secretary.” (Michael O’Brien, “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’  "First Read", 2/7/12)

Obama’s Decision Marks A “Stark Reversal” From A President Who Has Been Among The “Most Vocal Critics” Of Super PACs To One Who Is Embracing Them. “The decision represents a stark reversal for Obama, who has been among the most vocal critics of these outside political spending groups since the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the way for the rise of super PACs.” (Michael O’Brien, “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’  "First Read", 2/7/12)

Politifact:  Obama’s Embrace Of Super PACs Is A “Full Flop.” “In this case, Obama and his campaign have gone from refusing to fundraise for super PACs to declaring that senior officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. We respect that the president himself won’t participate, and that he still plans to fight the role of special interest money in campaigns, but that’s a major reversal of position, and we rate it a Full Flop.” (“Obama Campaign Says Officials Will Now Appear At Super PAC Fundraisers,” Tampa Bay Times’ “Politifact,” 2/6/12)

OBAMA’S REVERSAL EQUATES TO THE FORMAL EMBRACE OF LOBBYIST MONEY

ABC News: “Obama To Benefit From ‘Special Interests’ Via Super PAC.” (Devin Dwyer, “Obama To Benefit From ‘Special Interests’ Via Super PAC,” ABC News, 2/7/12)

CNN’s Jessica Yellin: “The Super PAC Will Take Money From Lobbyists, Even Corporations.” YELLIN: “I mean, the campaign won’t take money from lobbyist, still they say, but the super PAC will take money from lobbyists, from even corporations. They can take unlimited amounts of money from any kind of organization, as long as it’s a U.S. organization. And the new policy means that now cabinet members, staff in the White House, and senior campaign officials can attend events for these super PACs to send out the message they won’t explicitly fund raise, but top campaign fund-raisers believe that they were given a message that they should now get their donors to contribute to the super PAC after they’ve gotten their donors to give to the campaign, Brooke.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 2/7/12)

Obama’s Shift On Super PACs “Opens The Door To Donations by Lobbyists To Support His Re-Election.” “President Obama's decision to back unlimited donations to a Democratic outside group reverses his opposition to super PACs and opens the door to donations by lobbyists to support his re-election. Obama has made refusing money from federal lobbyists a bedrock principle of his political campaigns.”(Fredreka Schouten, “Obama Urges Donations to Super PAC Backing Him,” USA Today, 2/7/12)

• Team Obama Says They Cannot Control Whether The Pro-Obama PAC Accepts Lobbyist Contributions, Even As It Sends White House Officials And Cabinet Members To Fundraising Events. “Officials with Obama's campaign said they can't control whether the PAC accepts future lobbyist contributions, even as White House officials and Cabinet members plan to appear at Priorities USA Action fundraising events.” (Fredreka Schouten, “Obama Urges Donations to Super PAC Backing Him,” USA Today, 2/7/12)

• Obama Is “Relying On A Super PAC That Can Accept Money From Anyone,” Including Lobbyists And Special Interests. “In that campaign, he at least forswore money from independent groups and lobbyists. Now he is relying on a super PAC that can accept money from anyone.” (Editorial, “Another Campaign For Sale,” The New York Times, 2/7/12)

And Priorities USA Is Already Accepting Unlimited Donations From Lobbyists

Former Obama Officials Set Up A Super PAC That Is Accepting Lobbyists’ Contributions Towards Obama’s Reelection Effort. “Attention, Democratic lobbyists: You now have a way to give money to aid President Obama’s reelection effort. … Now a super PAC formed by two former Obama administration officials is working to further the Obama campaign and ready to accept your money.” (T.W. Farnam, “Obama Fundraising Targets Very Large, Very Small Donors,” The Washington Post, 8/3/11)

The Former Obama Officials Hold “No Objections To Using The Money To Help A President Who Spurns It.” “Priorities USA founder Bill Burton, who served as the national press secretary for Obama’s 2008 campaign, says the group has no objections to using the money to help a president who spurns it. ‘We decided we were going to play by the exact same rules as Karl Rove and the Koch brothers and not let them have any advantages in this election cycle,’ Burton said.” (T.W. Farnam, “Obama Fundraising Targets Very Large, Very Small Donors,” The Washington Post, 8/3/11)

“Last Year, Priorities Counted At Least Three Federal Lobbyists Among Its 60-Plus Contributors, Campaign-Finance Records Show.” (Fredreka Schouten, “Obama Urges Donations to Super PAC Backing Him,” USA Today, 2/7/12)

BUT OBAMA HAS ALREADY IGNORED HIS LOBBYIST PLEDGE 

Obama Is Ignoring His Pledge To Not Take Money From Lobbyists, Raising Millions From “Prominent Supporters Who Are Active In The Lobbying Industry.” “Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.” (Eric Lichtblau, “Obama Backers Tied To Lobbies Raise Millions,” The New York Times, 10/27/11)

Obama Gets Around His Own Rule Because The Bundlers Are Not Registered With The Senate. “Because the bundlers are not registered as lobbyists with the Senate, the Obama campaign has managed to avoid running afoul of its self-imposed ban on taking money from lobbyists.” (Eric Lichtblau, “Obama Backers Tied To Lobbies Raise Millions,” The New York Times, 10/27/11)

• “But Registered Or Not, The Bundlers Are In Many Ways Indistinguishable From People Who Fit The Technical Definition Of A Lobbyist.” (Eric Lichtblau, “Obama Backers Tied To Lobbies Raise Millions,” The New York Times, 10/27/11)

Obama’s Narrow Definition Of Lobbyists Has “Allowed His Re-Election Effort To Collect Millions Of Dollars From Bundlers Who, Though Not Registered Lobbyists, Are Active In The Influence Industry.” “Obama's vow has drawn scrutiny because it relies on the relatively narrow definition of lobbyist laid out in the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act. That has allowed his re-election effort to collect millions of dollars from bundlers who, though not registered lobbyists, are active in the influence industry.” (Michael Beckel, “Obama Campaign Refunding Money Donated By Federal Lobbyists,” Open Secrets, 1/27/12)

Obama Permits Bundlers To Bring In Contributions Up Until The “Minute” They Register As A Lobbyist

Politico: “Lobbyist Ron Klein Fundraising For Obama, Despite Pledge.”(Byron Tau, “Lobbyist Ron Klein Fundraising For Obama, Despite Pledge,” Politico 2/8/12)

• Former Florida Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) Bundled At Least $200,000 For Obama’s Reelection While Lobbying On Behalf Of Spirit Airlines. “Former Florida Rep. Ron Klein, now working as a partner for the law firm Holland & Knight, has raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the Obama campaign, while lobbying on behalf of Spirit Airlines, according to public records.” (Byron Tau, “Lobbyist Ron Klein Fundraising For Obama, Despite Pledge,” Politico 2/8/12)

In The Morning, The Obama Campaign Said That Klein Was Able To Bundle Up Until The “Minute” He Registered As A Lobbyist. “The Obama campaign says that Ron Klein, former Democratic congressman from Florida, turned Obama stalwart, turned lobbyist, is out as a bundler after registering as a lobbyist for Spirit Airlines in early January. ‘The minute he became a lobbyist, he stopped raising money for the campaign,’ a senior Obama for America official tells POLITICO.” (Glenn Thrush, “Ron Klein Out ‘The Minute’ He Started Lobbying, Obama Campaign Says,” Politico, 2/8/12)

• Even Though Klein Has Been Employed By The Firm Since, March 2011. “Holland & Knight is pleased to announce that former U.S. Representative Ron Klein (D-FL) has joined the firm's Public Policy & Regulation Group as a partner. Klein will play a major role providing strategic counsel to clients in the area of government regulation and compliance in the financial services, healthcare and energy sectors. He will split his time among the firm's three offices in South Florida and its Washington, D.C. office.”(Press Release, “Former U.S. Representative Ron Klein Joins Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Group,” Holland & Knight,  3/14/11)

That Same Afternoon, Klein Said He Had Not Heard From Anyone From The Obama Campaign Regarding His Lobbyist Position. “But Klein said he had not heard from anybody in the Obama campaign. And, he added, he fully expects to continue raising money for the president's re-election. ‘I understand the rules,’ he said.” (Michael Isikoff, “Obama Bundler To ‘De-Register,’” NBC’s “First Read,” 2/8/12)

• And Within Hours Of His Lobbyist Position Being Revealed, Klein Announced He Will De-Register So That He Can Continue To Raise Funds. “A former Florida congressman who has been a top campaign bundler for President Obama said Wednesday he is taking immediate steps to de-register as a lobbyist for a Florida-based airline so he can continue to raise funds for the president.”(Michael Isikoff, “Obama Bundler To ‘De-Register,’” NBC’s “First Read,” 2/8/12)

And The Obama Campaign Isn’t Returning Any Of The Minimum $200,000 Raised By Klein. “The official said Klein raised all of the cash prior to Dec. 31, 2011, meaning he never raised money as a lobbyist — and also meaning they don't have to return the estimated $200,000 to $500,000 he raked in.” (Glenn Thrush, “Ron Klein Out ‘The Minute’ He Started Lobbying, Obama Campaign Says,” Politico, 2/8/12)

Click To Watch

Question: “Quick question, do you agree with Obama’s position on super PACs?”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD): “I don’t know what his position exactly is.” (Rep. Steny Hoyer, Washington, D.C., 2/7/12)

The White House Plans To Release The Results Of An Independent 60 Day Review Of The DOE’s Loan Programs This Week. “The White House says it plans to release the results of an independent 60-day review the Energy Department's loan programs next week. In late October, the Obama administration said it was ordering a review of the Energy Department's loan programs in the face of growing criticism over a number of loans — including several auto-sector awards - and the bankruptcy of solar panel startup Solyndra LLC, which had received $528 million in government loans.” (David Shepardson, “White House To Release Energy Loan Review,” The Detroit News, 2/2/12)

• White House Spokesman Eric Schultz: “As we've said all along, we are going to release it publically, but we've also said all along that we're going to take time to review it, assess its findings and prepare for anticipated questions. We'll look forward to releasing the report by the end of the next week.” (David Shepardson, “White House To Release Energy Loan Review,” The Detroit News, 2/2/12)

In October 2011, The Obama Administration Launched A Supposedly Independent Review Of The DOE Loan Program

In Wake Of Solyndra, The Obama White House Said It Would Conduct An Independent Review Of The DOE Loan Program.  “The White House directed a well-known businessman on Friday to conduct an independent review of government loans to energy companies, as House Republicans announced they would consider subpoenaing records related to a 2009 loan to a California manufacturer of solar-energy equipment that is now bankrupt.” (Jackie Calmes, “Leader Picked For Review Of U.S. Loans on Energy,” The New York Times, 10/28/11)

• The White House Review Of Solyndra’s Loan Program “Indicated Some Concern That It Needed To Get Out Ahead Of The Congressional Investigation.” “In enlisting Herbert M. Allison Jr., a former executive who helped the Bush and Obama administrations rescue the financial system, the White House indicated some concern that it needed to get out ahead of the Congressional investigation into the loan portfolio of the Department of Energy and, in particular, the half-billion-dollar loan to the California manufacturer, Solyndra.” (Jackie Calmes, “Leader Picked For Review Of U.S. Loans on Energy,” The New York Times, 10/28/11)
• “On The Defensive,” The White House Ordered The Review In Response To Rising Criticism Over Solyndra. “On the defensive over a half-billion-dollar loan to a now-bankrupt solar company, the White House on Friday ordered an independent review of similar loans made by the Energy Department, its latest response to rising criticism over Solyndra Inc.” (Erica Werner and Matthew Daly, “White House To Review Energy Department Loans,” The Associated Press, 10/28/11)
• “White House Officials Said The Review Would Assess The Health Of More Than Two Dozen Other Renewable Energy Loans And Loan Guarantees Made By The Energy Department Program That Supported Solyndra.” (Erica Werner and Matthew Daly, “White House To Review Energy Department Loans,” The Associated Press, 10/28/11)

THERE HAVE BEEN MANY INDEPENDENT REVIEWS TARGETING THE DOE LOAN PROGRAM

Non-Partisan Government Accountability Office

“At Least Three Reports” Warned The Obama Administration That The Energy Department Did Not Have “The Controls Needed To Manage” Solyndra. At least three reports by federal watchdogs over the past two years warned that the Energy Department had not fully developed the controls needed to manage the multibillion-dollar loan program that provided more the loan to Solyndra Inc., a now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer.” (Matthew Daly, “White House Worried About Solyndra Default,” The Associated Press, 9/15/11)

Government Accountability Office:  “The Administration Didn’t Do Its Due Diligence” When Celebrating The $535 Million In Stimulus Funds For Solyndra. “It's not his statements the administration will regret; it's the loan guarantees. The President was celebrating $535 million in federal promises from the Department of Energy to the solar startup. The administration didn't do its due diligence, says the Government Accountability Office. ‘There's a consequence if you don't follow a rigorous process that's transparent,’ Franklin Rusco of GAO told the website iWatch News.”(Scott McGrew, “Solyndra Filing A Disaster For Obama,“ NBC Bay Area News, 8/31/11)

• Solyndra Was One Of Five Companies The Energy Department Failed To Properly Assess, Leaving The GAO “Greatly Concerned.” “Government auditors are questioning whether the administration may have made other bad bets on clean energy. Frank Rusco, a Government Accountability Office director who helped lead a review of the Solyndra loan and the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program, said GAO remains ‘greatly concerned’ by its 2010 finding that the agency agreed to back with loans five companies without properly assessing their failure risks. The companies were not identified in the report, but the agency has since acknowledged that Solyndra was one.” (Carol Leonnig, “After Solyndra Failure, Auditors Wonder What Other Bad Bets Obama Officials Made, The Washington Post, 9/1/11)

GAO Investigation Revealed Obama’s Department Of Energy Favored Some Loan Applicants And Disadvantaged Others. “That's when the Government Accountability Office issued an unusually blunt assessment of the Energy Department's loan program in general, concluding that the department had ‘treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others.’” (Matthew Most and Brian Ross, “Solyndra Collapse A ‘Waste’ Of Half A Billion By Obama, GOP Critics Say,” ABC News , 9/1/11)

Obama’s Energy Department Announced The Loan Guarantee Before Receiving Final Legal Reviews, Which The GAO Said “Showed Favoritism And Put Taxpayers At Risk.” “The department made the announcement before final marketing and legal reviews were in hand – an omission Government Accountability Office auditors chided, in a 2010 report, as the type of shortcut that showed favoritism and put taxpayers at risk.” (Ronnie Greene, “Recurring Red Flags Failed To Slow Obama Administration's Race To Help Solyndra,” iWatch News, 9/13/11)

GAO Auditors Are Worried That Similar Green Companies May Default Due To The DOE’s “Rush” To Provide Loans. “GAO auditors fear that similar defaults could happen with other projects, possibly including the other four it found weren’t properly vetted. The GAO last year uncovered the department’s rush to provide Solyndra its loan — less than 60 days after Energy Secretary Stephen Chu was sworn in to the fledgling administration — without completing required reviews.” (Carol Leonnig, “After Solyndra Failure, Auditors Wonder What Other Bad Bets Obama Officials Made,” The Washington Post, 9/1/11)

The Energy Department “Bypassed Required Steps” For Funding Awards To Five Of Ten Applicants That Received Conditional Loan Guarantees. “In July 2010, the Government Accountability Office said the Energy Department had bypassed required steps for funding awards to five of 10 applicants that received conditional loan guarantees. The report did not publicly identify the companies that were not properly vetted, but congressional investigators say one of them was Solyndra. The company was the first to receive a loan guarantee after the program was expanded under the 2009 stimulus law.” (Matthew Daly, “White House Worried About Solyndra Default,” The Associated Press, 9/15/11)

“A July 2010 Report By The Government Accountability Office Found That The Department Committed To Back The Loans Without Completing Required Studies Of Market, Legal And Technical Issues.” (Tom Hamburger, Kim Geiger and Matea Gold, “Obama Advisors Raised Warning Flags Before Solyndra Bankruptcy,” Los Angeles Times, 9/26/11)

• “‘Without This Information, It Is Not Clear That The Program Could Have Fully Evaluated The Risk Of The Loans It Committed To,’ Said Frank Rusco, An Analyst For The GAO.” (Tom Hamburger, Kim Geiger and Matea Gold, “Obama Advisors Raised Warning Flags Before Solyndra Bankruptcy,” Los Angeles Times, 9/26/11)
• ‘‘Questions Have To Be Raised About The Quality Of Their Analysis,’ Said Analyst Shyam Mehta Of GTM Research In Cambridge, Mass.” (Tom Hamburger, Kim Geiger and Matea Gold, “Obama Advisors Raised Warning Flags Before Solyndra Bankruptcy,” Los Angeles Times, 9/26/11)

The Government Accountability Office Criticized The “Arbitrary” Way Energy Loans Were Doled Out And Found That Of The First 18 Loans “None Were Properly Documented.” “The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears ‘arbitrary’ and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented.” (Peter Schweizer, “Obama Campaign Backers And Bundlers Rewarded With Green Grants And Loans,” Newsweek, 11/12/11)

Congressional Auditors Found Energy Department Gave “Favorable Treatment” To Solyndra, Bypassing Required Steps.  “A few weeks later, congressional auditors announced that Energy Department had given favorable treatment to some loan-guarantee applicants. A Government Accountability Office report found that the department had bypassed required steps for funding awards to five applicants, including Solyndra.” (Carol D. Leoning, Joe Stephens, and Alice Crites, “Obama’s Focus On Visiting Clean-Tech Compaines Raises Questions,” The Washington Post, 6/25/11)

Energy Department’s Own Inspector General Warned Loan Program Lacked Transparency And Accountability

The Energy Department’s Inspector General Has Said Obama’s Clean-Energy Loan Program Is Lacking In “Transparency And Accountability.” “Agents for Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman, who has called the department’s clean-energy loan program lacking in ‘transparency and accountability,’ joined in the search yesterday at the Fremont, California, headquarters of Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6.” (Jim Snyder, “FBI Raids Bankrupt Solyndra as Lawmakers Question Panel Maker’s Finances,” Bloomberg, 9/9/11)

• Inspector General: Obama’s Department Of Energy Failed To Maintain Emails About How Loan-Guarantees Were Awarded. “Earlier this year, the Energy Department’s inspector general criticized the agency for not maintaining e-mails discussing how loan-guarantee winners were selected.” (Carol Leonnig, “After Solyndra Failure, Auditors Wonder What Other Bad Bets Obama Officials Made, The Washington Post, 9/1/11)

A 2009 DOE Inspector General Report Noted That The “DOE Lacked The Necessary Quality Control For The Loan Guarantee Program.” “A 2009 report by the Energy Department's inspector general warned that the DOE lacked the necessary quality control for the loan guarantee program, which was created in 2005 to support clean-energy projects that could not obtain conventional bank loans due to high risks.” (Matthew Daly, “White House Worried About Solyndra Default,” The Associated Press, 9/15/11)

DOE’s Inspector General Found That The Loan Guarantee Program Couldn’t Always Demonstrate That They Resolved The Companies’ Risks Before Giving Out The Loans. “Concerns about the program and its risk controls were raised several times by the Energy Department's inspector general, Gregory Friedman. In a March 2011 report, Mr. Friedman said his office ‘found that the Loan Guarantee Program could not always readily demonstrate, through systematically organized records, including contemporaneous notes, how it resolved or mitigated relevant risks prior to granting loan guarantees.’ A report in 2009 also faulted the loan-guarantee program's controls.” (Deborah Solomon, “Solyndra Said To Have Violated Terms Of Its US Loan,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/28/11)

The Energy Department’s Inspector General Found That Contracts Were Steered To “Friends And Family.” “The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of ‘sufficient transparency and accountability.’ He has testified that contracts have been steered to ‘friends and family.’” (Peter Schweizer, “Obama Campaign Backers And Bundlers Rewarded With Green Grants And Loans,” Newsweek, 11/12/11)

Solyndra’s Private Sector Auditor Had “Substantial Doubt”

Auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers Said It Had “Substantial Doubt” About Solyndra’s “Ability To Continue.” “A report last year by auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers said Solyndra had suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows, raising ‘substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.’” (Matthew Daly, “White House Worried About Solyndra Default,” The Associated Press, 9/15/11)

OBAMA SAID THE QUESTION IN 2008 WAS WHETHER AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF, NOW HE SAYS THEY ARE NOT

THEN: Obama Asked, "Will This Country Be Better Off Four Years From Now?" "The question in this election is not 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' We know the answer to that. The real question is, 'Will this country be better off four years from now?'" (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Sarasota, FL, 10/30/08)

NOW: Obama Admits Americans Are Not Better Off Than They Were Four Years Ago. OBAMA: "Well I don't think they are better off than they were four years ago. They're not better off than they were before Lehman's collapse, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we're going through." (President Barack Obama, ABC News/Yahoo News' Live Interview, 10/3/11)

• OBAMA: "It Has Been Three Wrenching Years For This Country." "At a series of fundraisers in New York, where he raised more than $2 million for his campaign and those of other Democrats, Obama acknowledged frustration over the stalemate in Washington that has soured views of his leadership 'After all that is happening in Washington, it may be tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought,' he told supporters. 'It has been three wrenching years for this country,' said Obama, whose re-election prospects hinge on his ability to heal the economy from the financial crisis that struck before he took office and to lower the 9 percent unemployment rate." (Laura MacInnis, "Obama Pleads With Voters For Patience On 'Change,'" Reuters, 11/30/11)

84 Percent Of Americans Say They Are "Not As Well Off" Or "About The Same" Financially Since Obama Became President. (Washington Post-ABC News Poll, 1,000 A, MoE 3.5%, 1/12 - 15/12)

• Only 15 Percent Of Americans Say They Are Better Off Since Obama Became President. (Washington Post-ABC News Poll, 1,000 A, MoE 3.5%, 1/12 - 15/12)

"Nearly Half Of U.S. Adults, 49%, Say They Are Worse Off Financially Today Than A Year Ago, While 29% Say They Are Better Off And 21% Volunteer That Their Finances Haven't Changed." (Lydia Saad, "Half In U.S Feel Worse Off Financially," Gallup, 1/18/12)

• "The Worst Evaluations Americans Have Given Of Their Finances Since Gallup Began Measuring This In 1976." "With barely 3 in 10 saying their finances are better, this is among the worst evaluations Americans have given of their finances since Gallup began measuring this in 1976." (Lydia Saad, "Half In U.S Feel Worse Off Financially," Gallup, 1/18/12)

OBAMA ADMITS WHAT AMERICANS ALREADY KNOW: THEY ARE WORSE OFF THANKS TO HIS FAILED POLICIES

The Number Of Unemployed Americans Has Risen Under Obama In The “Worst Jobs Recovery Since The Great Depression”

THEN: When Obama Took Office, There Were 12,049,000 Unemployed Americans And The Unemployment Rate Was 7.8 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

• NOW: There Are 12,758,000 Unemployed Americans, A 5.8 Percent Increase, And The Unemployment Rate Is 8.3 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

The Economy Remains In “By Far The Worst Jobs Recovery Since The Great Depression.” “Even with the recent gains, this is also by far the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression, and the U.S. still has about 5.5 million fewer jobs than it did before the recession began in December 2007.” (Editorial, “The January Jobs Thaw,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/4/12)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, The Total Nonfarm Payroll Was 133,563,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

• NOW: The Current Nonfarm Payroll Is 132,409,000, A Decrease Of 1,154,000. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Said “Obama Is On Track To Have The Worst Jobs Record Of Any President In The Modern Era.” “Unless the economy turns around in the next 18 months, Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. That would be an accurate statement.” (Glenn Kessler, “Rick Perry’s Claim That Obama Has ‘Killed More Jobs’ Than Any Other President,” The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 8/22/11)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, 2,696,000 Americans Were Unemployed 27 Weeks Or Longer And 1,420,000 Americans Were Unemployed 52 Weeks Or Longer. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

• NOW: There Are 5,518,000 Americans Unemployed 27 Weeks Or Longer, An Increase Of 104 Percent, And 3,951,000 Americans Are Unemployed 52 Weeks Or Longer, An Increase Of 178 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

The Long-Term Unemployed Are Worse Off Than Those Out Of Work During The Great Depression. “Comparing the issue of long-term unemployment in the U.S. now with what happened in the 1930s, Mr. Joerres said those now out of work for a long time are actually worse off than during the Great Depression. The reason: back then, an out-of-work manufacturing employee could eventually come back to the same sort of work, even if several years of imposed idleness were imposed. Now, a long-term unemployed worker finds a job market and skill demands that essentially are in constant flux.” (Neal Lipschutz, “Is High, Single-Digit Unemployment The ‘New Normal?’” The Wall Street Journal’s “Davos Live,” 1/27/12)

• “There Are People Who Are Going To Bear Scars For The Rest Of Their Careers.” “‘There are people who are going to bear scars for the rest of their careers,’ said Henry Farber, an economist at Princeton University.” (Ben Casselman, “Unemployment Scars Likely To Last For Years,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/9/12)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, The Average Number Of Weeks Unemployed Was 19.8 Weeks. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

• NOW: The Average Number Of Weeks Unemployed Is 40.1 weeks, An Increase Of 103 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

The US Is At Risk Of Developing “An Underclass Of Semipermanently Unemployed Workers.” “The risk, economists say, is that the U.S. will develop an underclass of semipermanently unemployed workers, with severe consequences for productivity, public finances and even social stability. Europe, which faced a similar problem in the 1980s, is still dealing with the consequences.”  (Ben Casselman, “Unemployment Scars Likely To Last For Years,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/9/12)

• “Once You Get Into That Type Of Situation It's Very Hard To Get Out.” “‘We know that once you get into that type of situation it's very hard to get out,’ said Steven Davis, a professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business.” (Ben Casselman, “Unemployment Scars Likely To Last For Years,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/9/12)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, There Were 8,056,000 Americans Working Part-Time For Economic Reasons. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

• NOW: There Are 8,230,000 Americans Working Part Time For Economic Reasons, An Increase Of 174,000 Americans. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/7/12)

The Facts Are Clear: Obamanomics Has Failed Americans

THEN: When Obama Took Office, The Price For A Gallon Of Gas Was $1.847. (Energy Information Administration, Accessed 2/7/12)

• NOW: The Price For A Gallon Of Gas Is $3.439, An Increase Of 86.2 Percent. (Energy Information Administration, Accessed 2/7/12)

“Get Ready For Another Round Of Pain At The Pump: $4 (Or Higher) Gasoline.” “Get ready for another round of pain at the pump: $4 (or higher) gasoline. After rising 19 cents a gallon in the past four weeks, regular unleaded gasoline now averages $3.48 a gallon, vs. $3.12 a year ago and $2.67 in February 2010. Prices could spike another 60 cents or more by May.” (Gary Strauss, “Gas Prices To Spike 60 Cents Or More In May,” USA Today, 2/5/12)

• “Last Month Turned Out To Be The Most Expensive January Ever At U.S. Gasoline Pumps.” “Last month turned out to be the most expensive January ever at U.S. gasoline pumps, boosted by growing economic strength. January is typically a month of falling gasoline prices because fuel demand falters in the slower travel weeks that follow the year-end holidays. Not so this year.” (Ronald White, “Average U.S. Gas Prices Hover At Record-High Levels,” Los Angeles Times, 2/7/12)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, Each Person’s Share Of The National Debt Was $34,419.54. ("Debt To The Penny," TreasuryDirect.gov, Accessed 2/7/12)

• NOW: The Debt Per Person Is $49,669.09, An Increase Of 44.3 Percent. ("Debt To The Penny," TreasuryDirect.gov, Accessed 2/7/12)

Politifact: “Obama Is The Undisputed Debt King Of The Last Five Presidents.” “So by this measurement -- potentially a more important one -- Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested.” (“Nancy Pelosi Posts Questionable Chart On Debt Accumulation By Barack Obama, Predecessors,” Politifact, 5/19/11)

• Obama Is Responsible For “The Most Rapid Increase In The Debt Under Any U.S. President.” “The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.” (Mark Knoller, “National Debt Has Increased $4 Trillion Under Obama,” CBS News, 8/22/11)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, 31,983,716 Americans Received Food Stamps. (Department Of Agriculture, 1/9/12)

• NOW: 46,133,767 Americans Receive Food Stamps, An Increase Of 44.2 Percent.  (Department Of Agriculture, 1/9/12)

15 Percent Of The Population Depend On Food Stamps. “Food stamp rolls have risen 7.8% in the past year, the Department of Agriculture reported, though the pace of growth has slowed from the depths of the recession. The number of recipients in the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rose to 46.3 million, or 15% of the population …” (Phil Izzo, “Food Stamp Use On The Rise,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/6/11)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, 39,829,000 Americans Were Living In Poverty. (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

• NOW: There Are 46,180,000 Americans Living In Poverty, An Increase Of 15.9 Percent. (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

The Middle Class Is Shrinking And Millions Of Families Are Hurting. “The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.” (Hope Yen, “Census Shows 1 In 2 People Are Poor Or Low-Income,” The Associated Press, 12/15/11)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, The Median Income Was $50,946. (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

• NOW: The Median Income Is 49,445, A Decrease Of 2.9 Percent. (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

From June 2009, The Official End Of The Recession, To June 2011, Median Household Income Fell 6.7 Percent. “Between June 2009, when the recession officially ended, and June 2011, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 6.7 percent, to $49,909, according to a study by two former Census Bureau officials.” (Robert Pear, “Recession Officially Over, U.S. Incomes Kept Falling,” The New York Times, 10/9/11) 

• Median Income Is At Its Lowest Level Since 1997. “The report also indicated that median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower last year than any year since in 1997.” (Reid J. Epstein, “Poverty Rate Highest In 18 Years,” Politico, 9/13/11)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, The Tuition For An In-State Four Year College Was $6,591. (“Trends In College Pricing 2009,” College Board, 2009-10)

• NOW: The Tuition For An In-State Four Year College Is $8,244, An Increase Of 25 Percent. (“Trends In College Pricing 2011,” College Board, 2011-12)

The Cost Of College Is Currently At “An All Time High.” “Nationally, the cost of a full credit load has passed $8,000, an all-time high. Throw in room and board, and the average list price for a state school now runs more than $17,000 a year, according to the twin annual reports on college costs and student aid published Wednesday by the College Board.” (Justin Poe, “College Prices Up Again As States Slash Budgets,” The Associated Press, 10/26/11)

• The Cost Of College Has Increased By Thousands At Public Universities. “Public four-year universities charged residents an average of $8,244, up 8.3% from last year, while public two-year schools charged an average of $2,963, up 8.7%, says the report by the non-profit College Board. About 80% of the nation’s undergraduates attend public institutions.” (Mary Beth Marklein, “Tuition And Fees Rise More Than 8% At U.S. Public Colleges,” USA Today, 10/25/11)

THEN: When Obama Took Office, The Cost Of Health Insurance For A Family Was $13,375. (Phil Galewitz And Andrew Villegas, “Workers Face Higher Costs For Employer-Sponsored Insurance,” Kaiser Health News, 9/15/09)

• NOW: The Current Cost Of Health Insurance For A Family Is $15,073, An Increase Of 12.6 Percent. (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)

Factcheck.org: ObamaCare "Falls Short Of Making Health Care 'Affordable And Available To Every Single American,' As Promised." "Furthermore, the law falls short of making health care 'affordable and available to every single American,' as promised. The law provides subsidies to help some Americans buy insurance, expands Medicaid and doesn't allow insurance companies to exclude persons with preexisting conditions. But still, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected 23 million persons will remain uninsured - some because they can't afford coverage." (D'Angelo Gore, "Promises, Promises," Factcheck.org, 1/4/12)

• Factcheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care "Less Affordable." "At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year's premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made - that the health care law would 'lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.'" (D'Angelo Gore, "Promises, Promises," Factcheck.org, 1/4/12)

“On a conference call with members of President Obama’s 2012 reelection committee Monday evening, campaign manager Jim Messina announced that donors should start funding Priorities USA…”(Jake Tapper, “Changing Positions, Obama Campaign Will Push Support For Democratic Super PAC,” ABC News, 2/7/12)

OBAMA EMBRACES WHAT HE ONCE CALLED A “THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY”

In 2010, Obama Called Super PACs And Outside Spending Groups “A Threat To Our Democracy.” OBAMA: “Now, that’s not just a threat to Democrats -- that’s a threat to our democracy.  Every American business and industry deserves a seat at the table, but they don’t get to a chance to buy every chair.  We’ve seen what happens when they do.  They put the entire economy at risk and every American might end up suffering.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Philadelphia, PA, 10/10/10)

But Today, Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Reversed Its Position On Super PACs, “Encouraging Donors To Send Their Unlimited Contributions” To Pro-Obama Priorities USA PAC.  “President Obama's re-election campaign made an about-face late Monday in its opposition to super PACs, encouraging donors to send their unlimited contributions to one such group founded by a former administration spokesman. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina emailed supporters to formally endorse contributions to Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC founded by Bill Burton, a former White House deputy press secretary.” (Michael O’Brien, “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’ First Read, 2/7/12)

• Obama’s Decision Marks A “Stark Reversal” From A President Who Has Been Among The “Most Vocal Critics” Of Super PACs To One Who Is Embracing Them. “The decision represents a stark reversal for Obama, who has been among the most vocal critics of these outside political spending groups since the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the way for the rise of super PACs.” (Michael O’Brien, “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’ First Read, 2/7/12)

NBC News: “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC” (Michael O'Brien, "Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’ "First Read" , 2/7/12)

ABC News: “Obama To Benefit From ‘Special Interests’ Via Super PAC.” (Devin Dwyer, “Obama To Benefit From ‘Special Interests’ Via Super PAC,” ABC News, 2/7/12)

NBC News: “Last Night’s Announcements Looks Hypocritical No Matter How You Try And Rationalize It.” “But make no mistake: The White House is going to receive plenty of heat -- from good-government groups, liberals, and the media -- for this reversal. Why? Because after all of its criticism of Citizens United and Super PACs, last night’s announcement looks hypocritical no matter how you try and rationalize it.”(Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, And Brooke Brower, “First Thoughts: A ‘Super’ Reversal,” NBC News’ “First Read,” 12/7/12)

ABC News’ “Obama Reverses Course On Super PAC Donations.” (Michael Falcone, “Obama Reverses Course On Super PAC Donations,” ABC News’ “The Note,” 2/7/12)

The Washington Post: “Obama Gives Blessing To A Super PAC.” (Dan Eggen, “Obama Gives Blessing To A Super PAC,” The Washington Post, 2/7/12)

The Wall Street Journal: “In A Shift, Obama Campaign Moves To Support Outside ‘Super PAC.’” (Laura Meckler, “In A Shift, Obama Campaign Moves To Support Outside ‘Super PAC’” The Wall Street Journal, 2/7/12)

TPM: “Obama Campaign To Court Super PAC Cash They Loathe.” (Benjy Sarlin, “Obama Campaign To Court Super PAC Cash They Loathe,” Talking Points Memo, 2/6/12)

National Journal: “In Reversal, Obama Urging Super PAC Donations.” (Alex Roarty, “In Reversal, Obama Urging Super PAC Donations,” National Journal, 2/7/12) 

ABC News: “Changing Positions, Obama Campaign Will Push Support For Democratic Super PAC.”(Jake Tapper, “Changing Positions, Obama Campaign Will Push Support For Democratic Super PAC,” ABC News, 2/7/12)

Bloomberg: “Obama Encouraging Donors To Contribute To Super-PAC Backing Him.” (Julianna Goldman, “Obama Encouraging Donors to Contribute to Super-PAC Backing Him,” Bloomberg, 2/7/12)  

Roll Call: “Obama Backs Super PAC” (Steve T. Dennis, “Obama Backs Super PAC, “Roll Call, 2/7/12)

Politico’s Ken Vogel: Obama Is “Trying To Have It Both Ways Here.” VOGEL: “He's trying to have it both ways here. This is a president who going back to his earliest days in politics has made getting rid of the interests of the influence of big money in politics sort of a central part of his political identity. In 2008, he and Senator McCain combined to discourage outside spending. In 2010, he complained about it bitterly when Karl Rove and some of these republicans raised a lot of money for these outside groups. But after they rode these outside groups to beat democrats rather badly in the midterm elections, democrats started to back away from their opposition and now, you see them actively trying to raise the exact same kind of money.” (CNN’s “Out Front” 2/6/12)

• Click To Watch Politico’s Ken Vogel Discuss Obama’s Super PAC Hypocrisy

Politico’s Mike Allen: “He Was Against It Before He Was For It.” ALLEN:"Yeah, he was against it before he was for it. The Obama campaign looked at the huge numbers that were being racked up on the other side, probably $200 million, $300 million take by Karl Rove's Super PAC, the one that he started, American Crossroads, and they decided that they needed to get into the game. So, this is quite remarkable. They're saying up front that cabinet officials, campaign officials, White House officials, will appear at events for Priorities USA, which is the Democratic Super PAC started by the former White House aides, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney. Now they say the President, the First Lady, the Vice President will not appear. But this is a big billboard, telling the President's biggest donors, hey, you need to be stroking checks to Priorities USA which has had very slow fundraising so far. This is the ultimate jump-start." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 2/7/12)

• Click To Watch Politico’s Mike Allen Discuss Obama’s Super PAC Flip Flop

The Daily Beast’s Patricia Murphy: “Did Anyone Ever Believe The Obama Campaign Was Not Going To Get Into Super PAC Or That They Have Not Been Already? Please.” MURPHY:  “Well we have come a long way from the days of change you can believe in and hope that things can be different.  David Axelrod saying that we have to live in the world as it is, not the way we wish it could be. And did anyone ever believe the Obama campaign was not going to get into Super PACs or that they have not been already? Please.” (MSNBC’s “Now” 2/7/12)

New York Magazine’s John Heilemann: “The Obama Campaign Have Been In Two Successful Elections The Biggest Bunch Hypocrites On Earth About This Issue.” HEILEMANN: “Well, look, the Obama campaign, the Obama campaign have been in two successful elections the biggest bunch hypocrites on earth about this issue. In 2008, there was a public financing system that existed which he pledged to abide by and he had a rival who pledged to abide by it, and he decided, because he could raise a lot more money outside the system,  to not only opt out of the system, but to destroy public financing forever in American politics. He was the instrument of that and they did it for totally cynical reasons. There's not a principled argument. It was just there’s no way we can turn down this amount of money.  I say, as a campaign strategist, I say if they had not done what they did, I would have called it political malpractice. They should have done exactly that and won the election. But to stand around now and complain about, well, the system is such a mess, but we have to play in the system, as it is and we hate doing it, but you guys are complicit in making big money as bad as it is in presidential politics as anyone in the country except for maybe the Supreme Court justices in Citizens United. But, they are at the top of the list of people who have messed up money and politics in America.”  (MSNBC’s “Now” 2/7/12)

• Click To Watch MSNBC Contributors Discuss Obama’s 2008 Hypocrisy

IS OBAMA TRYING TO DISTRACT FROM HIS OWN BUNDLERS’ “FUGITIVE” TIES?

The New York Times: “Obama To Return Major Donations Tied To Fugitive.” (Mark McIntire, “Obama To Return Major Donations Tied To Fugitive,” The New York Times, 2/6/12)

“Last Fall, Carlos Cardona And Another Brother In Chicago, Alberto Rojas Cardona, Began Raising Money For The Obama Campaign And The Democratic National Committee.” (Mark McIntire, “Obama To Return Major Donations Tied To Fugitive,” The New York Times, 2/6/12)

• The Cardonas Are Brothers Of A “Mexican Casino Magnate” Who Fled The U.S. On Fraud Charges And Have Been Asking For His Pardon. “Two American brothers of a Mexican casino magnate who fled drug and fraud charges in the United States and has been seeking a pardon enabling him to return have emerged as major fund-raisers and donors for President Obama’s re-election campaign.” (Mark McIntire, “Obama To Return Major Donations Tied To Fugitive,” The New York Times, 2/6/12)
  
  
• Obama Campaign Officials Later Said They Would Return The More Than $200,000 Raised By The Cardona Brothers.  “Later in the day, the campaign said it was refunding the money raised by the family, which totaled more than $200,000.” (Mark McIntire, “Obama To Return Major Donations Tied To Fugitive,” The New York Times, 2/6/12)

Politico: “Obama To Return $200K+ In Donations” (Byron Tau, “Obama To Return 200k+ In Donations,” Politico, 2/7/12)

National Journal: “Two Major Obama Fundraisers, Donor Tied to Mexican Fugitive – Report.” (“Two Major Obama Fundraisers, Donor Tied To Mexican Fugitive – Report,” National Journal, 2/6/12)

MSNBC’S Willie Geist: “But now Mike Allen, the White House going after that money. Jim Messina, the campaign manager of the reelection campaign, says ‘we're not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back.’ What went into this decision?”

Politico’s Mike Allen: “Yeah, he was against it before he was for it. The Obama campaign looked at the huge numbers that were being racked up on the other side, probably $200 million, $300 million take by Karl Rove's Super PAC, the one that he started, American Crossroads, and they decided that they needed to get into the game. So, this is quite remarkable. They're saying up front that cabinet officials, campaign officials, White House officials, will appear at events for Priorities USA, which is the Democratic Super PAC started by the former White House aides, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney. Now they say the President, the First Lady, the Vice President will not appear. But this is a big billboard, telling the President's biggest donors, hey, you need to be stroking checks to Priorities USA which has had very slow fundraising so far. This is the ultimate jump-start.”

(MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 2/7/12)

OBAMA FLIP FLOPS, NOW EMBRACES SUPER PACS

Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Reversed Its Position On Super PACs, “Encouraging Donors To Send Their Unlimited Contributions” To Pro-Obama Priorities USA PAC.  “President Obama's re-election campaign made an about-face late Monday in its opposition to super PACs, encouraging donors to send their unlimited contributions to one such group founded by a former administration spokesman. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina emailed supporters to formally endorse contributions to Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC founded by Bill Burton, a former White House deputy press secretary.” (Michael O’Brien, “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’ First Read, 2/7/12)

Obama’s Decision Marks A “Stark Reversal” From A President Who Has Been Among The “Most Vocal Critics” Of Super PACs To One Who Is Embracing Them. “The decision represents a stark reversal for Obama, who has been among the most vocal critics of these outside political spending groups since the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that paved the way for the rise of super PACs.” (Michael O’Brien, “Obama Campaign Reverses Stance, Urging Donations To Super PAC, NBC News’ First Read, 2/7/12)

Politico: “Obama Embraces The Super PAC.” (Glenn Thrush, “Obama Embraces The Super PAC,” Politico, 2/6/12)

• “Obama’s Top Campaign Staff And Even Some Cabinet Members Will Appear At Super PAC Events.” (Glenn Thrush, “Obama Embraces The Super PAC,” Politico, 2/6/12)

TPM: “Obama Campaign To Court Super PAC Cash They Loathe.” (Benjy Sarlin, “Obama Campaign To Court Super PAC Cash They Loathe,” Talking Points Memo, 2/6/12)

National Journal: “In Reversal, Obama Urging Super PAC Donations.” (Alex Roarty, “In Reversal, Obama Urging Super PAC Donations,” National Journal, 2/7/12) 

The Washington Post: “Obama Gives Blessing To A Super PAC.” (Dan Eggen, “Obama Gives Blessing To A Super PAC,” The Washington Post, 2/7/12)

BUT JUST YESTERDAY, OBAMA WAS WORRIED ABOUT SUPER PACS IN CAMPAIGNS

In His Interview That Aired Monday Morning, Obama “Reviled The Negative Tone” Of The Super PACs, But By The Evening,  Obama “Offered His Support For Priorities USA.” “President Barack Obama — in an act of hypocrisy or necessity, depending on the beholder — has reversed course and is now blessing the efforts of a sputtering super PAC, Priorities USA Action, organized to fight GOP dark-money attacks. On Monday morning, Obama reviled the ‘negative’ tone of the super PACs, a dominant fundraising source in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. But by the evening word leaked to POLITICO that Obama had offered his support for Priorities USA, which has thus far raised a fraction of what GOP-backed groups have raked in.” (Glenn Thrush, “Obama Embraces The Super PAC,” Politico, 2/6/12)

• Obama Was Worried That There Were Too Many Super PACs.  “President Barack Obama didn’t disavow his big-money fundraising machine but did voice dismay about the presence of super PACs and negative campaigning in an interview that aired Monday. ‘One of the worries we have obviously in the next campaign is that there are so many of these so-called super PACs, these independent expenditures that are gonna be out there,’ Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer in an interview taped before the Super Bowl on Sunday. ‘There is gonna be just a lot of money floating around, and I guarantee a bunch of it’s gonna be negative.’” (Jennifer Epstein, “Obama 'Worries' Over Super PACs,” Politico, 2/6/12)

AND CALLED SUPER PACS “SHADOWY GROUPS” AND “A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY”

In 2010, Obama Called Super PACs And Outside Spending Groups “A Threat To Our Democracy.” OBAMA: “Now, that’s not just a threat to Democrats -- that’s a threat to our democracy.  Every American business and industry deserves a seat at the table, but they don’t get to a chance to buy every chair.  We’ve seen what happens when they do.  They put the entire economy at risk and every American might end up suffering.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Philadelphia, PA, 10/10/10)

• In Obama’s 2010 State Of The Union, Obama Said The Citizens United Ruling Would “Open The Floodgates For Special Interests – Including Foreign Corporations – To Spend Without Limit In Our Elections.” OBAMA: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities They should be decided by the American people.  And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.” (President Barack Obama, State Of The Union Address, Washington, D.C., 1/27/10)
• In 2010, Obama Called Super PACs “Shadowy Groups.” OBAMA: “As the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country.  But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.  We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.  The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks For Weekly Address, 8/21/10)

“The Lines Have Increasingly Blurred” On Obama’s “Evolving Stances” On Campaign Finance. “The decision, which comes nine months before Election Day, escalates the money wars and is a milestone in Mr. Obama’s evolving stances on political fund-raising. The lines have increasingly blurred between presidential campaigns and super PACs, which have flourished since a 2010 Supreme Court ruling and other legal and regulatory decisions made it easier for outside groups to raise unlimited donations to promote candidates. The outside groups are playing an increasingly prominent role in the presidential race by running aggressive advertising campaigns, often attacking opponents.” (Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, “Obama Yields in Marshaling of ‘Super PAC,’” The New York Times, 2/6/12) 

• “Obama Was Staunchly Anti-Outside Money During His Pre-White House Political Career.”  “The new posture is a reversal for the president, and one likely to trouble some in the progressive universe (see: Feingold, Russ). Obama was staunchly anti-outside money during his pre-White House political career, and first ran for the White House encouraging deep-pocketed Democrats to send checks only through his campaign. He wanted a consistently coordinated message and his advisers were willing to starve non-campaign organizations of cash in order to achieve it.” (Sam Stein, “President Obama Softens Super PAC Opposition,” The Huffington Post,, 2/7/12) 
• In 2008, Obama Did Not Want Any Financial “Support From Outside Groups And Took A Strong Stance Against The Influence Of Special-Interest Money In Politics.” Mr. Obama said in 2008 that he did not want support from outside groups and took a strong stand against the influence of special-interest money in politics, effectively shutting down independent activity on his behalf.” (Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, “Obama Yields in Marshaling of ‘Super PAC,’” The New York Times, 2/6/12) 

In 2011, Obama Campaign Press Secretary Ben LaBolt Insisted Obama And “His Campaign Staff Or Aides” Would Not Fundraise For Super PACs.  “Neither the President nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs.” (Melanie Mason, “Pro-Romney 'Super PAC' Reports $12-Million Haul,” Los Angeles Times, 7/5/11)

January 2012: Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina Attacks Super PACs For Being "Funded By Corporations And Anonymous Donors." “We'll be facing an onslaught of unprecedented spending from outside groups funded by corporations and anonymous donors.”  (Jim Messina, “This Is Not A Joke,” Barackobama.com, 1/4/12)