Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

One of the more audacious moves that our legislators have pulled on American tax-payers was the passing of public financing for Presidential candidates. Under the guise of preserving the "integrity" of our political system, and not allowing companies and individuals to have too much "undue influence" on our elected officials, they generously offer matching funds for candidates, as well as a variety of other services, for which the tax-payers pick up the tab. In exchange, they agree to a wide variety of rules and regulations about the campaign instituted theoretically ensure fairness. Yesterday we were able to see an interesting dichotomy in the supposed "small-government party: John McCain accepted an $84 Million grant from the US government, while the big-government candidate, Barrack Obama, rejected it.

The irony of what happened here seems to be lost on many, who are focusing mostly on attacking Obama for a previous statement saying he would accept the funds. It is amazing for me to see the candidate that many -including myself- fear will do much to increase the size of government, also be the first candidate in 38 years to reject government subsidies for his campaign.

From every logical perspective, it makes no sense for Obama to accept it. He has had record breaking fund raising, having raised almost three times as much as McCain. The money he would be eligible for wouldn't benefit him as much as the restrictions would hurt. But instead of using this as a great opportunity to claim it as a victory for government reform and decreasing the size of government, Obama's camp is saying that the government simply isn't offering enough.

From the Politico.com article:

In order to fix the system, Kalman said, candidates who accept public financing should get more than $84 million and should be entitled to additional cash if they find themselves assailed by 527s – both provisions in the bill Obama co-sponsored.

Absolutely pathetic. Apparently its not enough that we're paying for bridges to nowhere, paying people to not work, and paying for McCain's campaign; Obama's thinks we need to pay more, in order to make it worth his while.

I really wish I could like Obama's policies as much as I like his persona. He's a great orator, he's charismatic, he just portrays that certain je ne sais quoi that one wants to have in the person who represents our country to the world. I just cannot get over the fact that he wants to expand entitlements, create socialized health care, and generally increase the size of our government. When I first heard that he was the first presidential candidate in 38 years to reject campaign finance I allowed myself to hope that perhaps this was a hint that he wouldn't be that bad, and perhaps that he'd consider at least some rhetoric about reducing the size of government. Instead what I got was what I should've expected to begin with, more of the same propaganda that the solution is to make the government do more, instead of less.