Obama falling behind on cash

There are a lot of reasons why Obama’s fundraising lags Romney’s. It’s always harder to govern than campaign, Fox viewers have been thoroughly brainwashed into seeing the Kenyan Socialist and his National Healthcare Takeover as A Major Threat To Our Democracy, Wall Street is too narcissistic to realize they’re not in jail because of Obama, and instead see him as ungrateful for their past beneficence. Also, a lot of voters are quite blatantly racist.

Finally, a lot of the people who trusted him to make things better feel betrayed. They thought he would punish the banks, stop the Bush assaults on privacy and human rights, and stop the economic cascade of mortgage foreclosures. Not only didn’t it happen, he started trying to trade away Social Security and Medicare, all in the name of bipartisanship – something Grover Norquist told us long ago was “date rape.”

But at some point, bitterly disappointed voters still have to make a decision. Do they hold back support from someone they no longer see as a friend, knowing it will result in the election of someone they do know is their enemy? It’s a tough decision:

In the battle for political cash, President Obama is finding himself in an unaccustomed place during the final months of the 2012 campaign: he is losing.

Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee easily outraised the formidable Obama money machine for the second month in a row. A nonstop schedule of high-dollar events around the country brought in $106 million during June to Mr. Obama’s $71 million, giving him and his party four times the cash on hand that it had just three months ago.

Mr. Obama’s fund-raising deficit in part reflects how steeply the terrain has shifted since 2008, when many Republican donors embraced the candidate and his campaign raised millions of dollars from Wall Street and other traditionally right-leaning industries. Now those donors are swinging hard back to the Republican Party — and to Mr. Romney, whose promise to curtail regulation and cut taxes has helped draw a torrent of five-figure checks.

In a worrisome development for the Obama campaign, Mr. Romney, who until now has been heavily dependent on donors giving the maximum federal contribution, also showed success in June drawing small donors, a traditional strength of the Obama campaign. Reflecting the intensifying general election matchup with Mr. Obama and conservative anger over the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the president’s signature health care law, Mr. Romney raised about a third of his total in checks of under $250, officials said on Monday. Mr. Romney and the R.N.C. now have about $160 million in cash.

“This month’s fund-raising is a statement from voters that they want a change of direction in Washington,” Spencer Zwick, Mr. Romney’s finance chief, said in a statement.

Well, yes. I think that’s true, but not in the way Mr. Zwick says. I believe if more Democrats saw the president acting like he was on our side – indicting bankers, telling the Republicans to go to hell the next time they play debt ceiling games, and announce he will not pursue his Grand Bargain, why, they might be more interested in laying out some cash to support their team.

Call it a hunch.

The fix

Taibbi on the Libor scandal:

When the rest of this scandal comes out, and it turns out that up to 15 more of the world’s biggest banks (including Chase, Bank of America, and Citi) were doing the same thing as Barclays, our regulators better start “inflecting their eyebrows” pretty damn vigorously. Because if it comes out that these other banks were all involved with this scandal (and it will come out that way, almost for sure), and their CEOs and COOs get to keep their jobs, that’ll be a sure sign that the fix is in. Let’s hope Ben Bernanke, Eric Holder, and Tim Geithner are listening.

Black lung is back

I kind of think this says something bad about our nation:

PRESTONSBURG, Ky. — Donald Marcum knew he was at least a passive participant in something that was against the rules, maybe even criminal. Every couple of months, his bosses had to submit to the Mine Safety and Health Administration five samples showing they were keeping dust levels under control. When he ran a continuous mining machine, which chews through coal and rock and generates clouds of dust, he was supposed to wear a pump to collect dust for eight hours.

That almost never happened. Most of the time, said Marcum, 51, who spent nearly 25 years in the mines of eastern Kentucky and suffers from the most severe form of black lung, the foreman or someone else would take the pump and hang it in cleaner air near the mine’s entrance.

“We just done what we was told because we needed to feed our families and really didn’t look at what it might be doing to our health,” he said.

In recent interviews, retired miners in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia — some of whom had worked as recently as 2008 — described similar tricks. Dust pumps ended up in lunchboxes or mine offices. Mine officials stalled regulators who had shown up for a surprise inspection and radioed to the men underground, who fixed the ventilation and cleaned up the work site.

“I don’t know if any [manipulation of dust samples] is going on today,” said Bruce Watzman, the National Mining Association’s senior vice president for regulatory affairs. “I hope not. We encourage our members to fulfill their obligations under the law.”

More than 40 years ago, Congress promised that the government would force mining companies to control levels of the dust that causes black lung. Instead, rampant cheating and exploitation of legal loopholes have become part of mining culture, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and NPR has found.

After decades of decline, black lung is back, with more cases of the fastest-progressing form of the disease robbing younger miners of their breath. As researchers struggle to explain this resurgence, there is widespread agreement that the samples used by regulators to assess dust levels in a mine bear little resemblance to the conditions miners typically face.</blockquote>

Train wreck coming on Medicaid

I really don’t understand why more people aren’t raising a stink about this. In case you didn’t know, Medicaid is the insurer of last resort for the elderly. That means if your elderly parent has tapped out all their savings and needs to go into a nursing home, Medicaid is what pays for that. Think that has some implications for most people? Why are they all so quiet?

Some cash-strapped states have seized on a section of the Supreme Court’s health-law decision to pare their existing Medicaid programs, saying the ruling lifts the March 2010 law’s ban on such cuts.


The court, which upheld most of the law, struck down penalties for states choosing not to expand Medicaid. A few states are also trying to go farther, arguing that the ruling justifies cuts to their existing programs.


Within hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 28, lawyers in the Maine attorney general’s office began preparing a legal argument to allow health officials to strike more than 20,000 Medicaid recipients from the state’s rolls—including 19- and 20-year-olds—beginning in October to save $10 million by next July.


“We think we’re on solid legal ground,” Attorney General William Schneider said in an interview. “We’re going to reduce eligibility back to the base levels in a couple of areas,” he said. Maine, like some other states eyeing cuts, earlier expanded its Medicaid program beyond national requirements.


Other states, including Wisconsin and Alabama, are expected to follow Maine’s lead, though there is disagreement over whether the high court gave the states such leeway. That could lead to battles between states and the federal government that could drag the health law back to the courts. New Jersey and Indiana also said they were evaluating the decision and did not rule out challenging the requirements.


The federal Department of Health and Human Services is still examining the court’s ruling and its implications for eligibility rules, an official said.

Site Meter