Liberal billionaire George Soros has accepted a position on the National Finance Council of the Ready For Hillary Super PAC, a group paving the way for a 2016 presidential run for the former first lady. Soros, 83, has long been a monetary influence behind liberal politics, but this is the first time he has accepted a formal role on an American political campaign. Soros has a long history of funding liberals and attacking conservatives, and spent more than $27.5 million trying to defeat President George W. Bush in 2004, including funding such groups as MoveOn.org.

The Washington Post article on this recent announcement referred to Soros as a “billionaire investor, philanthropist and backer of liberal causes,” but this significantly understates Soros’ position and influence. With a political philosophy so far left that it borders on Orwellian, Soros has had an incredible amount of influence in liberal politics through the generous endowments from his Open Society Foundations.

On Friday, CNN profiled liberal billionaire George Soros for their “Fast Facts,” calling him “one of the most successful investment financiers in the world” and an “active philanthropist.” The segment failed fail to note his massive contributions to lefty politics, or his calls for an “open society” that sound Orwellian at best.

The CNN profile highlighted key moments from Soros’s life, including his birth, immigration to the U.S. from Hungary, and major financial milestones in his road to becoming one of the wealthiest men on the planet. The only political donation that CNN mentioned at all was $1 million that Soros gave to promote marijuana legalization in California and Arizona.

That didn’t even hint at his vast political influence – even just promoting marijuana legalization. As of 2011, Soros gave more than $31 million to the Drug Policy Alliance.

America has a debt problem, driven in part by huge entitlements. The liberal solution? Make them bigger. “An expansion of Social Security not only would be good for America's retirees, it also would be good for the broader macroeconomy” argued New America Foundation political writer Steven Hill, in an article for “The Atlantic.”

According to Hill, the problem with Social Security is not the lack of money going into the system, but rather that there aren’t enough benefits coming out of it. “The bigger problem is that Social Security's payouts are so meager -- far too low for the program's new role as America's de facto national retirement system. It only replaces about 33 to 40 percent of a retiree's average final wage, which is simply not enough money to live on.”