Clinton money goes missing

Speaking of Hillary Clinton, how does $50 million dollars just disappear?

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.

From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?

Scandal, upon scandal and they're finally starting to stick.

Why John Boehner isn't going anywhere

Conservatives not enamored with John Boehner should realize the importance of money.  And in that regard, Boehner means this:

LINCOLN, N.D. (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner's fundraising skills put him in a class with few others. He has scooped up more than $43 million for accounts under his direct control and helped amass tens of millions more for Republican allies.

The Ohio lawmaker accounts for about one-fifth of the cash collected by House Republicans' campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee. Boehner has written almost $18 million in checks to the group, which has raised $101 million this campaign cycle.

He is spending Congress' August break on a 14-state bus tour to help the GOP hold the majority in the House, appearing at fundraisers for candidates, including one Friday night in North Dakota for first-term Rep. Kevin Cramer.

Money plus hard work means results. Boehner has provided both. That said, the GOP is still trailing Democrats in fundraising.

Even with Boehner's deep pockets and drawing power, the House Republicans' campaign committee lags its Democratic rival. Heading into July, the Democratic committee had raised almost $125 million this cycle and outraised the Republicans in 16 of the previous 18 months.

Immigration, Crime, Money

One of the things that irks me about the notion of legalizing 8 million illegal immigrants at once is the fact that if even only 0.1% of them are criminals (a decidedly low percentage based on normal rates of criminality), that equates to letting 8,000 felons into the country. That's bad.  But in reality, it's far worse.  Given the felony equivalency of America, that's over half a million felons or potential felons coming in.

If the statistics hold true, and 1 in 15 Americans (yes, I know these people are not Americans but the criminality rate in Mexico and Central America may not be that different if the system and the tracking were up to par with America's) have been to prison.  At that rate 533,333 future prison system detainees.

Obama's wrong again: Crimea is a win for Putin.

Obama yesterday claimed that Putin was not being clever strategically in rushing into Crimea.  Obama is 100% wrong. Russian leader Putin claims he's interested in protecting ethnic Russians in Crimea which is why he's sent "plainclothes" Russian military into the region after Ukraine's recent .upheaval.  But Russia has ulterior motives.  It's about the money, and the strategic military value of the region.

Crimea has some strategic importance to Russia.  Consider:

The Black Sea is Russia's only warm-water port.

Though Crimea is recognized worldwide as a part of Ukraine, the Russian Navy has kept its Black Sea Fleet stationed at a naval base in Sevastopol (in southern Crimea) since the late 1700s. In 2010, Russia negotiated an agreement that allows the country to share the all-important Sevastopol naval base through 2042, in exchange for deep discounts of about $40 billion on natural gas from Russia.

The Ukraine, which is a very big producer of corn and grain, sends much of it's exports through Crimean ports.  Crimea also has it's own agricultural base and Crimea also serves as a tourist destination.  These things are important for Russia economically and for helping to feed Russians.  Having Crimea under Russian control benefits Russia economically, and reduces the dependence on the Ukraine.

And let's not overlook the fact that an international crisis increases gas prices, which Russia exports to Europe.  As tensions stay high, Russia can generate additional revenue as a result.  Obama  just doesn't understand geo-political strategy.  He's once again proving that for him, it's about making himself look good.  He's trying to save face rather than looking at the situation realistically and making decisions accordingly.

Saturday Learning Series - Mises & Division of Labor & Money (3)

If you want to understand the Austrian School of Economics, and Mises, this lecture series will help explain it   for you.  In this continuation of the Saturday Learning Series, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Jörg Guido Hülsmann focus the discussion on the division of labor and money. Watch and learn.

No way out for GOP

One guy, no so much.

A long and bruising battle for the GOP nomination for president this year didn't bother me. Now it does. What changed? Nothing. Except there was one factor I hadn't taken into consideration. I've been pointing to Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama 2008 as the model for a long and hotly contested primary not being harmful ultimately to candidate Obama. But this year is not 2008 for one key reason. In 2008 Republicans could not keep their powder dry because they were busy waging a primary of their own. President Obama does not have that concern this time around. As he continues to travel the country raising a war chest for the general election, Republicans are travelling the country beating each other up and spending money.

The former issue was one I felt was an advantage for the GOP. It hones their debate skills, campaign skills, speeches and their ability to handle a hostile press. I still feel that despite the wounds, it would be a net positive for the eventual nominee. But the money thing, that's a killer. We need a candidate prepared to go blow for blow with Obama. That will take a lot of money.

Anti-Gingrich Spending Hammer

ouch.

Via Open Secrets (see snapshot below is from today), below is a summary of the independent expenditures (primarily from 527 PACs).  Out of $22.4 million spent on negative ads to date, 70.7% has been spent against Newt Gingrich.  Out of the money spent pro-Newt or anti-Newt, 83.9% have been run against Newt.  Out if all the money spent both pro and anti any candidate (i.e. all campaign spending by independent sources), 55.6% of all money spent, has been anti-Gingrich.

With all of that negativity aimed in his direction, not only is it amazing Newt Gingrich hasn't blown a gasket yet (indicating that he probably won't during the remainder of the election cycle), but it's truly astounding that he is in this race at all at this point.

That has to bode well for the long term of his candidacy if indeed he can win Florida even come close, the money should come.

Candidates Opposed/Supported

Candidate	Entire Cycle Total	Last Week Total	Last 24 Hours Total	Supported	Opposed
Gingrich, Newt (R)	$18,955,343	$7,069,723	$0	$3,049,023	$15,906,320
Romney, Mitt (R)	$6,311,434	$1,507,013	$0	$1,689,400	$4,622,034
Obama, Barack (D)	$2,086,413	$10,490	$0	$637,468	$1,428,699
Santorum, Rick (R)	$2,498,560	$0	$0	$2,099,559	$399,001
Paul, Ron (R)	$3,694,206	$173,918	$350	$3,561,216	$132,990
Perry, Rick (R)	$3,964,824	$0	$0	$3,964,824	$0
Huntsman, Jon (R)	$2,453,454	$0	$0	$2,453,454	$0
Cain, Herman (R)	$501,718	$0	$0	$501,718	$0
Total	$40,465,952	$8,761,144	$350	$17,956,662	$22,489,044

Hoping for confusion in the early states

That's not right.

Not too long ago I made a prediction about the early GOP primary winners. Of course I reserved the right to amend it as facts changed. We all knew they would and I of course need to tweak those predictions now. But that isn't my motivation for the headline. I'd rather the Republicans win in 2012 than be right about what happens along the way.

Nevertheless, I'm still hoping for a mish-mash of victors in the early primary states. Here's why.

Saturday Learning Series - Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

Last week, I ended the Saturday Learning Series with a Murry N. Rothbard video as a palate cleanser.  It was a simple yet effective counter point worth following up on here with more from the Mises school of thought via Mises Media. This video explains Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve. A little less dry yet equally effective as Rothbard.

The Question I'm Waiting For President Obama To Ask

I'm looking forward to hearing about this matter from a press that is ever so inquisitive of the President. Which matter is that?

Well as most people are well aware, the President recently stated that 'at some point you've made enough money'. I guess it's no longer above his pay grade to decide that sort of thing.

In any case, at what point does Barack say to Michelle, "at some point you've spent enough money", in relation to her extravagant Spanish vacation? And then upon further reflection, maybe he could ask himself, "have I spent enough of America's money?"

Yeah, it's a pipe dream, but since Americans are already asking him that question, maybe he will clue in at some point just by osmosis.

Obama still needs more money

Flashback to 2008:

Irony:  Giving more money to someone more than willing to spend it for you. 

Bigger irony: Putting him in a position to take it from you at will.

Biggest irony:  The person who took the sign didn't destroy it, so they probably put it on their own lawn.  You know the old saying - lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.  Or trillions in new debt.  Whichever. Theft begets theft, this time on a national scale.

I wonder if they still are Obama supporters.  Okay, no I don't.

Money, money, money - from where O?

The Obama administration, less quietly today, announced that the budget deficit expected over the next 10 years will grow by not $7 trillion, but rather $9 trillion. And yet they had the temerity to blame it on Bush.  That's two memes behind.

At the end of it all, the national debt  is expected to be 75% of the economy (GDP).  That's World War II levels, except that back then they were in the process of saving the world, not ramping up 'freebie' handouts.  Wow - that's huge!

But if you think about it an additional $9 trillion over 10 years equates to $900 billion in deficit PER YEAR!

$9 trillion in new debt on top of the current $11.7 trillion means a national debt over $20 trillion.  That number is beyond ridiculous.

And according to Fox News, the interest payments will be $774 billion (linkable source needed).   INTEREST PAYMENTS.

I don't know if enough Americans understand how devastating this will be to the economy, and it sure doesn't seem that the administration does.  If it did it would completely abandon health care reform as they have proposed it and start concentrating on cancelling programs right away.

The real reason Democrats win

Some might eye this as a bit cynical, but the representative republic that is the United States of America has a corruption problem with it's voting system. It's not ACORN, though they represent a problem with the system. The real reason Democrats win, is because of the money.

From the Washington Post:

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

This from the Yahoo/AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Taxpayers are increasingly exposed to losses and the government is more vulnerable to fraud under Obama administration initiatives that have created a federal bank bailout program of "unprecedented scope," a government report finds.

In a 250-page quarterly report to Congress, the rescue program's special inspector general concludes that a private-public partnership designed to rid financial institutions of their "toxic assets" is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."

And this from CQ Politics:

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most
powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would "waddle into" the AIPAC case "if you think it'll make a difference," according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

...

In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

And from CBS:

Spring in Washington is "earmark season" - a busy time for Congressman John Murtha.

"That's my business," Murtha said. "I've been in it for 35 years."

As head of a powerful Defense committee, Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. And he's not shy about directing money to those who give generously to his election campaigns.

CBS News has learned that this month, Murtha is steering new earmarks toward 10 companies that recently donated to his campaign. Murtha wants $8 million for Argon ST, a defense contractor whose CEO gave Murtha the maximum allowed by law - $2,400 by an individual. He's directing a $5 million earmark toward Advanced Acoustic Concepts, which also gave the max - $5,000 for a political action committee - to his campaign. In all, 10 recent Murtha donors are slated to receive $31 million in Murtha earmarks for 2010.

Taxpayer watchdogs may not like how it looks, but it's not against the law unless donations were required in order to receive the earmarks. Looking for evidence of wrongdoing, the FBI has recently raided offices of two other companies linked to Murtha.

...

Murtha wouldn't comment for our report. He did recently tell a home state newspaper that he's only trying to bring home the bacon.

[Hat tip for all links: Drudge]

So while ACORN is a problem, the real issue here is that Democrats know how to game the system. They get the big donors. They obviously play the behind the scenes game a little too well. It's corrupt, but it wins.

The problem for Republicans is that they still have the stench of complacent corruption on them. But in the current climate, absent a real grassroots change, it seems to be the way to stack the deck in favor of your side and it's stacked against the GOP. The choice for the GOP is to play the game to get the money to get the message out and win, while succumbing to corruption OR cleaning house and trying to win on principle from the ground up.

The path of least resistance is to join in on the cheat. That's the path politicians are prone to take. But if the Tea Parties continue to build momentum they may become the path of least resistance because it's cheaper to win on popularity than on back room deals.

The real reason Democrats win, is not the way that is good for the country. Maybe it's the Chicago way, but it's not the American Way. This may be the year of crossroads for the GOP. Let us hope they choose wisely.

The litany of McCain errors - Part 1

Firstly, let me say that by no means do I regard a review of the errors of John McCain's presidential bid as focusing on the past. Looking at what went wrong is crucial when planning for 2012, to ensure we don't make the same mistakes. In effect, getting it right next time means learning from those* mistakes. That is not to say that McCain did nothing right. He did a few things right, but I'll save that for another time.

Secondly, this analysis does not take into account many of the positions McCain took that flew in the face of the conservative base. McCain, clearly from a conservative standpoint, committed a number of errors with regards to policy positions. The list is pretty lengthy. The Gang of 14, border security, and the environment being ones that come to mind. And that may have had some dampening effect on conservative voter turnout or turned some of it to Barr. But that's not the reason for his loss on November 4th. He made a number of tactical errors, that with the advantage of time, will become more clear. Still, time is a luxury the GOP cannot afford. The political world is moving faster and the next election cycle has already begun. The extent to which I can't say. But this is not the focus of my analysis. I'm interested in looking at how the campaign was managed and run.

Thirdly, these are speciically campaign 2008 mistakes, not mistakes he's made as a Senator in the past.

As I've mentioned before, I think conservatives do a disservice to themselves by focusing on "what do we stand for?" rather than "how do we win?". We have a set of core principles we need to get back to, but doing so only straightens out the GOP (hopefully), it does nothing to ensure victory. It helps to be right on the issues, but the battle is won with the weapons you choose to use and how you choose to fight.

In 5 main categories, John McCain failed to deliver or capitalize on what was required for victory. Let's look at these in turn and see if we can't make sure we get them right next time around.

(1) Money
(2) Demographics
(3) Strategy
(4) Consistent message and 'brand' image.
(5) Communication.

Money

President-elect Obama raised $742 million and spent $712 million. When you compare that to John McCain, who raised $367 million and spent $326 million, there is a telling difference. Obama raised twice as much and spent 218% of what Senator McCain spent. Right out of the gate Obama guaranteed himself more money. Well, McCain helped make sure of that by pledging to stick to the federal fundraising limits he felt compelled to support. That he did that was at least consistent but strategically foolish.

However, it's not just about the money raised. It's also about how smartly that money gets spent. Let's assume the messages were equally effective (a poor assumption but good for making my point), then in order to overcome Obama's monetary advantage, McCain would have to be twice as smart strategically about how and where his money got spent. You can overcome a financial disadvantage by having a better strategy. But McCain started with such a disadvantage he had to be near-perfect in the execution of advertising placement.

Perfection was not evident from the McCain camp. Before we even get to where the money was spent, compare these numbers. Obama spent 57.2% of his expenditures on media buys, McCain 38.2%. The disadvantage grows beyond 2 to 1 and gets closer to 3 to 1. Obama's campaign administrative expenses were 24.2% of his expenditures and McCain's were 26.7%. But McCain was the smaller guy in terms of budget. Wasn't it Avis who said "We're number two so we try harder"? McCain didn't have the luxury of being as inefficient as his opponent. Yet he was.
Wasn't McCain supposed to be running a lean, decentralized campaign? According to Marc Armbinder that was the plan. Yes he spent $60 million less than Obama, but it wasn't lean and efficient enough. Every dollar of the McCain campaign that wasn't diverted to advertising and media was a lost dollar to Obama.

According to Karl Rove,

A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states. Mr. Obama also used his money to outmuscle Mr. McCain on the ground, with more staff, headquarters, mail and a larger get-out-the-vote effort. In mid-September the Obama campaign said its budget for Florida was $39
million. The actual number was probably larger.

But in any case, Mr. McCain spent a mere $13.1 million in the state. Mr. Obama won Florida by 2.81 percentage points. Mr. McCain was outspent by wide margins in every battleground state. But it would have been worse for him if RNC Chairman Mike Duncan and Finance Chairman Elliott Broidy hadn't stockpiled funds in 2007 and early 2008. The RNC provided nearly half the funds for the GOP's combined general-election campaign, while the DNC provided less than a tenth of the funds that benefited Mr. Obama.

To sum up;

• The federal funding barn door has been opened. Don't play by the rules that Senator McCain endorsed because there is an option to opt out of that route. Sticking to federal matching funds is a competitive disadvantage that is no longer a viable option.
• Raising money needs to be done as early as possible so that during the home stretch, efforts can be concentrated effectively spending the war chest not building it
• The vast majority RNC money should be used for other purposes than a cash-strapped Presidential nominee. The number of local races that could have used that money is substantial. McCain not only lost the Presidential race, his dependence on the RNC likely cost Republicans Senate and Congressional seats. Norm Coleman could have probably used an extra $250,000 very effectively.
• When it comes to spending money, concentrate your efforts where they need to be concentrated. Find a winning strategy and do not deviate from it in terms of targeting and therefore, spending.
  

*those mistakes are attributable to the McCain team, not just John McCain.

Part 2 on Demographics will follow tomorrow.

The real meaning of change

Obama throughout the campaign season promised everyone hope and change. Seeing as he's been selecting Clinton retreads for his cabinet, the whole 'new people are needed to solve the old problems' angle is sort of shot. He's clearly not all that concerned about how Washington is run dysfunctionally, or he'd clean house, no?

There must be some other meaning to hope and change. For a while there, it seemed like the Bush tax cuts would be repealed early. At that point I was thinking that Obama would take your taxes in dollars,




and in turn, you would hope to be in one of his special interest groups so he could pass you out some change.

[Sure it looks bigger in the picture, it's shiny and new and impressive, but can you forget that at this point you're out the other $99.75?]

But while that still might happen, and by might I mean "probably will", it's not so imminent. If he's been promising hope and change, there has to be some other meaning to it. At this point for conservatives it can be narrowed down to one possibility - we have to hope that starting in November 2010 and by November 2012 we can begin to change what socialism will be unleashed on the United States of America over the next two years.