Click the image for the full sized version.
Even though 87% of Americans agree that corruption is the most important challenge our next president will face, neither candidate has made it their issue, and we expect tonight’s debate to be no different. While Barack Obama and Mitt Romney square off on some of the most divisive topics of domestic policy, we want you to see how they measure up on the issue upon which all others depend: the corrupting influence of money in politics.
Our third infographic in the Capital in the Capitol series compares the sources of revenue upon which the candidates depend in their race to the oval office. The numbers are a crucial reminder that the candidates don’t have to talk about money this election—the money talks for them.
Perhaps neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney want to speak out about our government’s crippling dependence on special interest cash because both of their campaigns hinge on it. Contrary to what some might suspect, Barack Obama’s campaign has raised more money than Mitt Romney’s campaign. However, Romney’s super PAC has collected nearly four times as much money as Obama, whose primary source of election money is direct contributions.
But there are differences in who’s funding the candidates, and just because they won’t talk about it doesn’t mean we can’t. While the candidates talk about their stand on various issues of domestic policy, their campaigns will tell a different story: As long as politicians need tons of money to run for office, they’ll be indebted to the few who can afford to give it to them.
We know who’s paying for the president. Do you?
Although President Obama has been excellent under severely challenging conditions, one of several mistakes he has made is his allegiance to bipartisanship. That’s a good idea in principle, but not workable with the Republican obstructionists in Congress.
In addition to leaving some of the Bush infrastructure in place (EPA, HUD and others) which has resulted in these agencies undermining Obamaâs policies, the Republican-controlled Congress has refused to consider, let alone approve, Obamaâs appointeesâeven after nearly 4 years, hundreds of Obamaâs appointee positions are still vacant. This includes positions in the EPA and DOE. For critical appointments, he has used the Executive Order when Congress is in recess, for which, of course, Republicans were quick to criticize.
“Basically, the G.O.P. has blocked the administrationâs efforts to the maximum extent possible, then turned around and blamed the administration for not doing enough.” — Dr. Paul Krugman. And this NY Times reader commented with this succinct summary: http://tinyurl.com/85a22jc
The GOP’s use of filibustering/cloture absolutely skyrocketed starting when Barack Obama took office http://wapo.st/JFOz7G. By threatening an extraordinary number of filibusters during the 111th Congress, the GOP Congressional blockade has deliberately obstructed Democratâs efforts to solve urgent national problems. This practice has continued during the 112th Congress.
As for “small” government, the size of government typically expands under Republican administrations and is reduced in size under Democratic administrations. Here is a comparison of just three administrations: http://nyti.ms/IgTLRE Data is available for all administrations.
Business also thrives under Democratic administrations. See for yourself: https://www.bullsbearsandtheballotbox.com/ Mouse-over and click on a former President; click on PARTY COMPARISONâthen vs now
The Democrats have problems but theyâre not remotely as destructive as the Republicans. Neither do they even come close to being as problematic as the Republicans. Moreover, when progressive Democrats have control of Congress and with the re-election of Obama, we will resolve many more issues than with a Republican-controlled Congress. Most importantly, we can begin resolving corruption issues.
There’s so much misleading information and outright lies that each of us must take responsibility to inform ourselves by reading primary sources of information.
Before anyone passes this comment off as “sold a line”, I suggest that you first inform yourself with historical fact. Get the facts yourself, and help people get informed, so they can vote for their own best interests: http://on.fb.me/RcimWO
Dr. Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate in Economics. His blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, is loaded with graphic primary source data going back for many years. Check it out: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/