Donors With Agendas

On February 24, 2012 The New York Times wrote an article in the opinion pages titled Donors with Agendas.  The article has a small briefing of how super PACs are buying our democracy.  Super PACSs are federally registered PACs that raise unlimited contributions from the super-rich, corporations, labor unions, and other entities and spend these funds to make independent expenditures in federal elections.  In conjunction with the abuse of money and power in the article there have been other studies of these Super PACs and how much influence they have.  A recent study by Demos and the U.S Public Interest Group found that, as Politico reported, “Super PACs raised about 181 million in the last two years-with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people.  The study also found that 93% of the itemized contributions raised by Super PACs came in contributions of $10,000 or more, with more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave 500,000 or more. 

                Super PACs are for millionaires and billionaires.  They are for corporations and other wealthy interests.  The money buys influence.  A candidate is not going to vote against what his or her supporters want.  This would immediately stop contributions and may risk the winning of an election.  Super PACs allow the rich and wealthy interests to buy influence over government decisions, in the event that their candidate wins the election.  Whether the decision is morally correct or beneficial for the country as an whole does not matter.  Super PACs are geared for their own self interest and political ideologies.    Super PACs do not represent the majority of the people in our country, but yet they have majority of the influence.  The average person can vote, but how much influence do they really have? 

The "NEW" budget plan

On February 11 2012 New YorkTimes posted an article titled "Obama Budget Bets Other Concerns Will Trump the Deficit." The new budget is supposed to increase taxes on the rich and more spending on infrastructure and manufacturing. Even though Obama and congress has been trying to reduce the national deficit, there has not been much success during the Obama's presidency. Most of the deficit can be contributed to the war during the Bush era and the economic recession. With a more aggressive tax plan on the rich this may help bring down the deficit. Also investing money back into the country for employment of the U.S. citizen will be very beneficial to the economy. Although it is not mention in the article but with the war almost over, there will be less spending on those issues. Hopefully there will be a moment of peace for America.  The New budget also mentions of a $61 billion dollar “financial crisis responsibility fee” for the largest companies and a tax overhaul referred to as “everyone pays their fair share.”  Maybe this make the large companies uphold their business and assume responsibilities for their actions and not have to receive a bailout.