Democrat Math

(Published as a letter to the editor of the Gualala Independent Coast Observer)

Editor

When Alice and I returned last week from our travels to my birthplace (and where she grew up), Southern California, I was pleased to read an exposition on budgeting (Self-centered, ICO February 3, 2012) by Mary Mobert that mentioned me. I enjoy such discussions; Economics was my undergraduate minor and I was an Air Force Budget Officer for over ten years. However, her letter reminded me less of academic studies and more of the practical admonition to “compare apples to apples” and to “mind your decimal point.”

She noted that “Republicans spent a record $12.5 million in ads” in the Iowa caucus. However, adjusted for inflation, they spent the same in 2008. Interestingly, in 2008 Democrats spent $26 million for ads in the Iowa caucus, more than Republicans spent in 2008 and 2012 combined. Why isn’t this the record?

I had some trouble with her math until I put my computer in Democrat Math Simulator mode (DMS). Before, when I divided the $12.5 million the Republicans spent by the 122,000 Iowa voters who participated, I came up with $102.45 per voter. When I turned on the DMS, I got Mrs. Mobert’s $102,459 per voter. In another quote from her ICO letter: “Iowa campaign funds alone (the $12.5 million) would insure (sic) the salaries of 192,308 teachers, police, or firefighters (public employees) who earn an average of $65,000 a year.” When I turned off the DMS, the number became 192.3 public employees, or 192,115.7 less.

In 2008 Obama spent $730 million vs. McCain's $333 million. In 2012 Obama wants to spend $1 billion, which would pay for 15,384.6 public employees at $65,000 each (15,384,615 by DMS).

Now I see the Republican problem. We just can’t get as much out of a buck as Democrats can using their Democrat Math Simulator.

Mike Combs

Gualala

OBAMA'S MONEY (Published in the Independent Coast Observer)

Progressives complain that Mitt Romney is raking in millions from corporate donors while President Obama is getting by on nickels and dimes from “regular” folks. Such statements are often buttressed with selected facts from that all-knowing and completely neutral source - - “The Internet.” Well, I checked with “The Internet,” who just happens to be a good friend of mine, and obtained the Federal Election Commission data that lists Obama’s top donors for the 2008 election. 

Suffice it to say that the top donors weren’t regular folks like you and me. To the contrary, corporations like Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Google, JP Morgan Chase, Time Warner, General Electric, IBM, Morgan Stanley, and other such “evil” entities were prominent among the top 20 donors. Major universities like UC, Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia also contributed huge sums to the hundreds of millions of dollars raised.

Not bad for a fellow who in the 2008 Democrat primaries vowed to take only public money. However, in all fairness to Obama, he willingly took the public’s money after being elected, lots and lots of it, and gave us less freedom in exchange. (See, for example, Stimulus, ObamaCare, Green Energy.)

Early in this 2012 campaign, Obama’s minions stated their ambitious plan to raise at least $1,000,000,000. I suppose that some people under the age of 8 or 9 may well believe in the Easter Bunny, but most of us do not swallow the propaganda that the President’s Billion Dollar campaign chest is going to be magically filled by regular folks donating their kid’s lunch money.

Let’s face it. These huge sums will be used to try to destroy the Republican candidate, Chicago style. That person had better be ready to fight the Obama money and the bias of the mainstream media securely ensconced in the President’s camp.

Jim Littlejohn

Concerned Coastal Voters

Gualala, CA