Part of the Bay Area News Group

Obama returns to Bay Area on May 8

By Josh Richman
Friday, April 11th, 2014 at 3:47 pm in campaign finance, Democratic Party, Democratic politics, Obama presidency.

President Obama will return to the Bay Area on Thursday, May 8 for a pair of high-priced events to raise money for the Democratic National Committee.

Tickets for a reception at the Palo Alto home of Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer start at $1,000 for individual guests, while $5,000 buys a place in the photo line; $7,500 buys access and photos for two; $10,000 buys co-chair status; and $32,400 buys all that plus membership in the DNC Presidential Partners Program.

Mayer hosted Obama for a DNC fundraiser in October 2010, when she was still an executive at Google.

“We need the resources to put Democrats in office to move our country forward,” says the invitation to this upcoming event. “Since we do not take money from special interests, corporate lobbyists, and political action committees, we rely on dedicated Democrats like you. Please join us for a reception to support this important work.”

Obama also is expected to do a roundtable with about 20 tech executives that same day somewhere in Silicon Valley, with seats going for the $32,400 maximum contribution. It’s not yet known whether he’ll do any official events while he’s here, or whether he’ll be staying overnight.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Elwood

    Be still, my heart!

    I may die from anticipation.

    Put me down for two memberships in DNC Presidential Partners Program.

  • CharliePeters

    Audit the fed

  • Elwood

    Perhaps when our leader is here to harvest the money from the suckers someone can ask him about this:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/128753-7-blockbuster-obamacare-charts-white-house-doesnt-want-america-see/

  • JohnW

    The link is a very one-sided story. Big surprise.

    First, it should be noted that the latest Paul Ryan budget keeps the Medicare “cuts” and most of the taxes mentioned in the link but dumps ObamaCare.

    Young paying more to subsidize older — yeah, same as in employer sponsored group coverage, where 85% of the under 65 population gets insurance coverage. There, everybody pays the same, regardless of age or health status. In the exchanges, they are still allowed to charge 3 times as much for older customers in the individual market. The young still get a very significant break compared to the deal they would get in the group health market.

    Fee on medical device makers. Boo hoo! Extremely profitable, high markup business that will now get even more business due to ObamaCare. Why do you think you see all those TV ads for motorized scooters telling all the old folks they should get one because the government will pay for it. They make more money on those than GM or Ford makes on a car. They line the pockets of members of Congress, who, in turn, pass laws limiting Medicare’s ability to reduce how much they pay for them.

    Tax on cadillac employer plans. Duh! Because those plans (mostly unions and public employees) are highly subsidized by tax payers due to the exemption.

    Tax on Big Pharma. Well, yes. Big Pharma agreed to that, because they now get more business due to ObamaCare.

    So called cuts to Medicare. What about the added benefits to Medicare under the ACA? Free preventive care for checkups, colonoscopies etc. Closing the Part D prescription drug donut hole.

    The cut in payments to hospitals is because they now get more paying customers and don’t need to be subsidized as much for uncompensated care.

    The cut in payments to Medicare Advantage providers is to bring the spending for Medicare Advantage in line with the cost for traditional Medicare. Why should taxpayers pay more for people who opt for Medicare Advantage than they do for traditional Medicare?

    .

  • Elwood
  • Elwood

    WSJ Explains it all to you: Obama is the Chamberlain of the 21st century.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303626804579509561220700616.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp

  • JohnW

    Would somebody who is bashing Obama about Ukraine please spell it out as to what they think it is the U.S. should be doing? Especially considering Europe’s reluctance due to their dependence on Russia for oil and natural gas. If you want military intervention against Russia, then say so. We can discuss the pros and cons.

  • Elwood

    Stiff. painful economic sanctions. Reinstate missile shield. NATO troops on the ground in forward positions. Warships in the Black Sea and unquestioned air superiority over Ukraine. Some things the barbarian Putin will understand.

    Like it or not, we are the policeman of the world. The Europeans are a bunch of pansies. Without us, barbarians like Putin will ride roughshod.

  • Elwood
  • JohnW

    This may surprise you, but I generally agree with you about the U.S. role in the world, which is why I’m hawkish about defense spending.

    We do have a destroyer in the Black Sea. Not the whole Sixth Fleet, but we’re showing the flag. Russian fighters buzzed it.

    I believe we have deployed some troops to Poland. Not too sure about your idea of air superiority over Ukraine, unless we are prepared to “engage.” Besides, the Russian activity has been mostly on the ground, not in air.

    I would like to see us getting some arms into the hands of the Ukraine government. I think that may be happening.

    I think the administration is wise to do the economic sanctions incrementally. It’s our main and most effective “weapon” in this situation. Need to leave something to escalate with as things develop. Keep our powder dry, so to speak. But the Russian economy is already hurting.

    Disagree with you about the missile shield.

  • JohnW

    This is not an anti-Obama thing, as the article notes. Topeka Public Schools have a large minority component (presumably pro-Obama). Three of the six school board members are black. I read the latest in the Topeka newspaper. They have increased the ticket allocation from 4 to 6 and have made plans for separate events for each school.

    This may be one of those “seemed like a good idea at the time” things. Topeka had a big observance of Brown v Board of Education at the 50 year mark 10 years ago. President Bush and many other big shots were there. I have a grade school friend who was teaching in the Topeka schools then. Asked her if they were excited about all the big names coming to Topeka to commemorate the Supreme Court decision. Her response: “John, you have to remember, we lost that case.”

  • Elwood

    It would seem we agree on as much or more as we disagree.

    I wouldn’t suggest sending in the entire Sixth Fleet, but one destroyer smacks of tokenism, as does our troop commitment to Poland which consists of one company (approx. 150 soldiers).

    Air superiority enables you to control what happens on the ground.

    I agree that getting arms to the new government of Ukraine would be helpful. (Providing they don’t immediately surrender them to the Russians.)

    Incremental sanctions might work if they were real sanctions. The sanctions put into place at this time are laughable. (And the Russians do laugh at them.)

    We never should have abandoned the missile shield.