Sucker PAC'ed

President Obama today reversed his long-standing position on super PACs and his supporters donating to them. For a long time Obama has spoken of the dangers of the super PACs and the potential threat they pose to our elections and to democracy as a whole. Since the Citizens United decision back in January 2010, PACs have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend in political campaigns without having to disclose their contributors, nor do the politicians affiliated with these PACs have to admit to any collaboration with them. These PACs have dwarfed the standard PACs of the past, and hence have now become "super" PACs simply based on the financial muscle they can now flex in influencing voters through attack ads. Some have argued that this wouldn't happen, but it's pretty clear the impact super PACs are going to have on the 2012 Presidential election already as evidenced by the brutal Republican primary currently taking place.

Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.

But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.

Shifting of the Debate

Here's a great piece from The Huffington Post about the excess of government subsidies afforded to the rich in the country. Republican Senator Tom Coburn released a thorough, detailed list of many of the outlandish taxpayer-funded mechanisms that are afforded to millionaires in this country, everything from federal subsidies for preservation of their ranches and estates, to business entertainment deductions, to nearly $75 million in unemployment benefits. Coburn argues that "not everyone is in need of government handouts." I'd have to agree with him.

I'll be the first to say that when government is run efficiently, it can be the greatest ally to a society that the people have ever seen. But for too long government has not had the interests of its greatest number of constituents in mind, but rather has turned law to benefit more greatly a dwindling minority of the population: the rich. And it's really not hard to see why that might be. The most recent data shows that Congress is made up of about 46% of millionaires. And these elected officials are working tirelessly, it seems, to write law that benefits them, even if it might not be so great for the people who put them into office. In America as a whole, only 1% of the population is making over $1 million a year. So, wouldn't it be better to focus our policy-making on those people to balance the budget? That seems to be what Senator Coburn is looking to do. "The government's social safety net, which has long existed to help those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than some middle class families."

Government should never "pamper" people, as Coburn continues. It is there to act as a crutch, just like when a football player breaks his leg and is in need of a support staff to keep him off the leg so he can heal properly. That is what the social safety was put in place for. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance: these are some of the most successful and popular government programs in history. But when you're a millionaire, why are you in need of these programs? Isn't the whole purpose of becoming a millionaire so that you can support yourself and your family without the need of government aid? Did Senator Coburn just totally debunk one of his parties most storied, staunch arguments to government interfering in people's lives? Kind of seems like he did here.