Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Monetary Sovereignty blog
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

The Presidential Election Campaign fund con job

Monday, October 31, 2016 7:58
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Every year, you fill out a form that looks something like this:

The form changes annually, but for more that 40 years, there has been a line that has remained essentially the same.  It’s titled “Presidential Election Campaign.”

It gives you the option of directing $3 out of your taxes to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Like all federal “funds,” it is completely mythical. There is no “fund.”

Here is what the federal government says about this “fund:”

The 3$ Tax Checkoff

When you check “yes,” three of your tax dollars are placed in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. During each of the last five years, approximately 33 million taxpayers have checked the “yes” box.

That comes to a total of $500 million taken out of your tax dollars and deposited into this fake “fund.” How do I know it’s a fake fund?

Here is what the government says, in small type at the bottom of the page:

The Fund is not a separate account but is actually part of the U.S. Treasury.

Get it? The fund is not a “separate account.” In short, it’s not a “fund” at all.

Like the mythical Social Security Trust “Fund” and every other federal “fund,” it’s a charade. The purpose is to make you believe federal accounting is similar to private sector accounting, where dollars are deposited into special funds, to pay for specific programs.

Why does the government want you to believe that? So you will think federal spending is limited by federal income, in the same way private spending is limited.

But federal spending is not limited by income — not by taxes, not by borrowing (which isn’t really borrowing) and not by fund balances. Federal spending is limited only by what Congress and the President wish to spend.

Even without collecting any taxes at all, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

Why Did Congress Adopt the Public Funding Law?
Congress set up the checkoff in the early 1970’s as an alternative way of funding Presidential elections. Candidates that choose to accept public funds can reduce their dependence on large contributions from individuals and groups.

In the general election, the public funding system places the two major-party nominees on an equal financial footing in the campaign.

The Republican and Democratic nominees in the general election receive a fixed amount of checkoff dollars. Nominees from other political parties may qualify for a smaller, proportionate amount of checkoff funds if they receive over five percent of the vote.

In order to qualify for matching funds, a candidate in the primary elections must first raise over $5,000 in each of 20 states (i.e., over $100,000), consisting of small contributions ($250 or less) from individuals.

Have you ever read such nonsense? ” . . . reduce their dependence on large contributions” . . . “places the two major-party nominees on an equal financial footing

Have you noticed any reduction in dependence on large contributions? And are the two major parties ever on equal financial footing?

And if, as the right wing Supreme Court ruled (“Citizens United”), money is speech, by what Constitutional right has the federal government decided how much “speech” to allow each party?

Why do the Republicans and Democrats receive more “speech” than do other parties?

  • Checkoff dollars are given only to Presidential candidates who demonstrate broad national support.
  • General election nominees must agree not to accept any private contributions (from individuals or PACs, for example).
  • Candidates must promise not to spend more than $50,000 of their own money on their campaign.
  • Recipients of public funds must adhere to a limit on total spending.

” . . . not accept any private contributions”  But the PACs can spend as much as they wish.

“. . . not spend more than $50,000 of their own money.”  Is this an unconstitutional limitation on “free speech”?

” . . . limit on total spending.”  Another unconstitutional limitation on free speech?

The  Presidential Election Campaign Fund, and like all federal funds, is not only absurd, but it is a lie. Here is why:

Before America existed, there were no U.S. dollars. Then, a few men came together and arbitrarily created new laws from thin air.

These laws created dollars also from thin air. These laws could have created any number of dollars — a thousand, a million, a billion — any number at all.

The U.S. dollar is wholly a creation of laws, which in turn are creations of the federal government. The laws can say anything the government wants them to say.

The dollars in the Presidential Election Campaign “Fund,” and all federal “funds,” are nothing more than numbers in government bookkeeping accounts. The federal government has total control over the numbers in those accounts. It can increase or decrease the numbers at will.

If the numbers happen to be too low to justify some expenditure, the government simply can increase the numbers by pressing a computer key.

If, for instance, the account shows $1,000,000 and the government wishes to spend $2,000,000, the government can change the “1” to a “2,” and complete the spending operation.

No tax dollars needed. No borrowing needed. The U.S. government has complete control over its books.  That is the reality of Monetary Sovereignty.

So, the next time someone tells you:

*the Social Security Trust “Fund” will be insolvent unless taxes are raised or benefits decreased,
*or the Presidential Election Campaign “Fund” is deficient,
*or that Medicare is running short of dollars,
*or that your tax dollars pay for federal spending,
*or that the federal “debt” and “deficit” are unsustainable
*or that you and your children will have to pay for the federal “debt”

Know this: That person either is ignorant of federal financing or is lying.

U.S. dollars do not exist in any physical form.  They are accounting numbers. By the laws arbitrarily created by the federal government, these accounting numbers are under the government’s complete control.

So if you are one of the 33 million taxpayers who checked off that $3 mythical contribution to that mythical Presidential Election Campaign “Fund,” I hope it gives you some feeling of satisfaction.

Just understand that the whole federal tax process is a gigantic con, perpetrated by the very rich, and meant to make you believe the Big Lie, the lie that says the federal government cannot afford to narrow the Gap between you and the very rich.

Think about it the next time you pay your federal taxes. or Medicare won’t cover a medical expense.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==================================================================================================================================================================
LAWS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.

•The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between rich and poor.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.