ThinkProgress reported on Friday afternoon that BP decided to pull its ads from our site after we published a piece documenting the extent of the big oil company’s “greenwashing campaign.” Two days later, TP has been informed by our outside ad company, Common Sense Media, that BP would like to resume its ads on our site beginning Monday. This controversy provides an opportunity for me to better communicate our blog’s policy with respect to paid advertisers on our site. My view is that, in order to sustain our operation, ThinkProgress is happy to take money from those with whom we have policy or ideological disagreements, provided they understand that we will not soften or silence our progressive point-of-view. There are limits, of course, to ads that we will accept. For instance, we do not want ads that are degrading or offensive on our site. But for those advertisers who want to run messaging on our site that counters TP’s reporting, we trust readers will take both pieces of information and render their own judgments. Because we have an outside ad company servicing our ads, the editors and reporters on TP are not generally informed of who is purchasing ads on our site — and it’s better left that way. Advertisers will not influence our content, and we will not produce content to lure advertisers.

ThinkProgress is pleased to partner with the Personal Democracy Forum on a project called 10Questions, an effort in association with YouTube and Google to allow online readers to ask federal/state candidates direct questions in advance of the upcoming midterm elections. Some of the participating races include Minnesota’s 6th district House race (Rep. Michele Bachmann versus Tarryl Clark), California’s Senate race (Sen. Barbara Boxer versus Carly Fiorina), and Florida’s 22nd district House race (Ron Klein versus Allen West). There are many others. By visiting 10Questions.com, individuals will be given an opportunity to submit questions via online video or text. Once they are posted, citizens can vote on questions, pushing those they most want asked to the top. Questions can be posted and voted on through September 21st. The top ten questions — as selected by the public — will be posted and responded to by the candidates. The public can then vote on whether or not candidates answered the questions from October 15th through election day. It only works if you participate. So please take the opportunity to do so. Visit 10Questions.com.

As ThinkProgress noted, former House Speaker Dick Armey laid out a plan this week that would effectively dismantle Social Security and Medicare “as you know it” by privatizing a large portion of these critical social safety net programs. On Meet the Press today, Armey and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) discussed a different Republican plan to privatize and dismantle the social safety net, Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “Roadmap for America’s Future.” Granholm calls Ryan’s plan “far outside the mainstream,” noting that 85 percent of Americans don’t want to cut Social Security to solve the deficit.” Armey responds by laughing, claiming that “no one is talking about dismantling these systems:”

GREGORY: Governor, is this an example of what they called a mainstream political movement, some of these candidates and their views?

GRANHOLM: No. I think it’s far outside of the mainstream. In fact, one of the things, you just held up Paul Ryan’s proposal regarding Medicare and regarding Social Security, I think a lot of which you’ve jumped on to as well. There was a recent poll out that says 85 percent of Americans don’t want to see Social Security cut to solve the deficit. … If you care about democracy and what every citizen believes and you want to empower them, and they don’t want the social security system to be dismantled, and they don’t want the medicare system to be dismantled because your picking and choosing and this is a contact between generations to be able to make sure all of our seniors have the funds when they retire, that they’re not going to be homeless, that they’re not going to have to go to a shelter. I’m not kidding you. The idea that 85–

ARMEY: [Laughing] You just crack me up. No one is talking about dismantling these systems.

GRANHOLM: You just crack me up too, man. Well if you ask every actuarial that’s looked at it says you effectively dismantle the system.

Watch it:

As has been repeatedly noted, Ryan’s plan would destroy Social Security and Medicare as we know it, whether or not its advocates are talking about it that way. And while Armey laughs insensitively when Granholm brings up elderly homelessness, the problem was no laughing matter before the passage of these programs. Social Security and Medicare “ultimately made poorhouses obsolete.” Meanwhile, elderly homelessness is projected to rise by a third in the next ten years, and as the National Alliance to End Homesless notes, “Social Security, Medicare, and housing programs targeting the elderly will be critical for meeting the challenge and reducing risk of homelessness.”

Earlier this month, Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Mike Pence (R-IN) appeared on Meet the Press and were unable to explain their desire to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans with their rhetoric about deficit reduction. “Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there,” Boehner said, when asked if Republicans planned to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich.

Today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ran into the same trouble with MTP host David Gregory, and scoffed at the very notion of paying for tax cuts. “Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for?’” McConnell asked.

MCCONNELL: What are you talking about, paid for? This is existing tax policy. It’s been in place for ten years. [...]

GREGORY: For a final time, I’ll go back to my question which is, the extension of the tax cuts would cost $3.2 trillion. That’s borrowed money, that adds to the deficit. Do you have a plan to pay for that extension?

MCCONNELL: You’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for’?

Watch it:

In addition to incorrectly stating the effect that the expiration of the cuts would have on small businesses, McConnell basically summed up the Republican approach here, which is that cutting taxes for the rich is either free or worth exploding the deficit to implement. In reality, extending just the tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans — which President Obama has proposed allowing to expire — costs $830 billion over ten years and $36 billion next year alone.

This week, the Washington Post excoriated Republicans for almost unanimously backing a proposal by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would permanently extend all of the Bush tax cuts, calling it “a chilling sign of what a number of lawmakers believe passes for fiscal responsibility.” Of course, maybe McConnell and Senate Republicans simply agree with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s pronouncement that “deficits don’t matter.”