Federal Reserve & PBS to be indicted for false and misleading statements to the public?

Photo above - Fed President guy on PBS last night, claiming everyone's Social Security checks will stop

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/chicago-federal-reserve-president-on-inflation-and-economic-uncertainty

I watched PBS last night. Smirking Congressman Santos, on the courtroom steps, announcing his re-election bid. After posting bail for 13 counts of lying and conspiracy. Should we regard that as that better or worse than Biden announcing his re-election bid as we struggle with massive inflation, a federal budget crisis, and millions of homeless Americans?

But that's not the point of today's column.

If we're going to start hauling government bigshots off to jail for “lying”, why stop with Santos? Shouldn't this open the door to all sorts of other indictments? Like state Affiliated media interviewing the Fed Prez Austan Goolsbee last night. Where he made the outrageous claim that social security checks will stop. Let me quote Goolsbee exactly from the link above: “we're not going to pay Social Security”.

Millions of PBS viewers swooned and fell to the floor. Well, they would have, if they'd actually been watching. But not that many people watch PBS. Anyway, years of data show that politicians and the media are regarded as the least trusted people in America. Watching state affiliated media interview a government bureaucrat - that could be the perfect storm of disinformation, no?

How do we know that Social Security WON'T be cut off? Because the Social Security Trust Fund is separate and distinct from the federal debt. You can Google it. It's not in any way part of the debt limit which congress is debating. The Fed (and state affiliated media) are now being enlisted in Team Biden's campaign. The effort to arm-twist congress into giving up on spending cuts. “Pass the debt limit bill with no changes, or millions of Social Security recipients will starve and be thrown into the street. And you . . . helpless social security recipients – call and write congress now. Do it today!!!” That's not a direct quote of course. Just the clear intent of the PBS segment.

But nobody watches PBS. You didn't last night, did you? If the Fed Prez had made his ridiculous threats on a legitimate news channel (perhaps MSNBC or even CNN) he might have been called out on it.

This writer devoted a column earlier this week to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen PERSONALLY calling corporate CEOS. Pressuring them to get on board with Biden's unlimited spending plans. Now the Federal Reserve and PBS have jumped in. Told retirees and workers to blame congress for the debt crisis. Not the Fed. Or the Treasury Department. Or the White House. Or decades of deficit spending. Don't blame us!!!!

Can I make a citizens arrest? Criminal charges against the Fed, Treasury Dept, and White House - for “false and misleading statements for political gain”? That's what Santos was charged with. And HE certainly deserved it.

Now what about the rest of the government? Shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MarineBob · 61-69, M

Defund pbs and npr

LeopoldBloom · M

@MarineBob Revoke the tax exemption for churches that take political positions.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@MarineBob Actually, this wouldn't fix anything. The government is less than 10% of PBS funding. Have you ever seen the scroll of donors at the beginning of each nightly news broadcast? There are dozens, including the Ford Foundation, major banks, wall street players, trust fund widows, on and on.

Here's a thought - make those donations non deductible, for tax purposes. PBS isn't like a church, or the red cross. They're an advocacy group for specific political causes.

As far as that goes, I'd like to question the deductibility of ANYTHING that's not direct humanitarian aid (Red Cross, Ukraine war victims, Hurricane victims, etc). I don't see why the Vatican, or Muslims, or the two dozen Hindu gods need tax deductible donations, which raise MY personal taxes. Can we have a vote on this?

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@LeopoldBloom I'll take this one step further. why should there be any deductions for religious contributions? why should MY taxes go higher to make up the shortfall who send money to . . ..

1. The vatican
2. Some muslim mullah
3. A shrine to one of the 10 hindu deities

I'm perfectly okay with tax deductions for humanitarian aid. Red Cross. Hurricane victims. Ukraine relief. The family whose apartment burned down. Cancer research. Not temples to graven images.

LeopoldBloom · M

@SusanInFlorida The entire tax break for religious institutions is uncalled for. They should have to demonstrate some tangible public benefit, just like every other tax-exempt institution.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@LeopoldBloom under the same standard, i would treat political contributions the same way. no deductability.

LeopoldBloom · M

@SusanInFlorida Political contributions aren't deductible. I made a lot of contributions in 2020 with ActBlue and they make it very clear that they're not deductible. With Citizens United, it's possible that a PAC could be set up as a non-profit under some pretext, so contributions to that would be deductible, same as any other non-profit.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@LeopoldBloom You may be right. But what is the accounting treatment of the "voluntary contributions" made on the Income Tax form. The one that provides $3 to the presidential campaigns, but allegedly "does not increase your taxes".

if the government is getting money because i check a box, but I'm not taxed on that contribution, isn't it defacto not subject to tax?

LeopoldBloom · M

@SusanInFlorida It doesn't increase your taxes. Checking the box takes $3 of your taxes and puts it into the fund. It's the only option I'm aware of where you can actually designate where your taxes go. Want to send your taxes to NASA instead of the Pentagon? Tough luck, you can't.

Since it's diverting your tax payment to a government program, it wouldn't be taxed again any more than whatever portion of your taxes goes to other government programs. It's just giving you a choice as to whether you want that $3 to go there or into the general fund.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_campaign_fund_checkoff

The follow-up question should be whether the government should fund campaigns at all, or if only government money should fund campaigns with private contributions not allowed.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@LeopoldBloom it diverts tax dollars that might otherwise go to education, healthcare, environmental improvements - and gives that money to someone running for president, to pay for his campaign.

nice!

LeopoldBloom · M

@SusanInFlorida So are you opposed to public funding of campaigns? That means only private funding.

Nothing wrong with that, but until Citizens United is overturned, public funding allows candidates who might not be well-known enough yet to be able to compete. But now I'm wondering if any such candidates were successful for that reason. Sounds like a question for the guys on electoral-vote. I'll let you know if they answer. If public financing hasn't actually promoted anyone, I don't see why we should have it, regardless of whether people can choose to allocate $3 for it.

I'm also wondering if it's even necessary with the internet. Some candidates turn down the public funding because it comes with limitations, because they know they can do better raising money through other channels.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@LeopoldBloom clearly im not familiar enough to have a specific recommendation. Proceeding from broad principles/experience though . ...

1. There are too many people running for political office already
2. giving away tax dollars to fund campaigns will only result in more of candidates
3. the money will mostly be spent on TV spots, radio ads, and billboards, further enriching corporations.
4. the media is already failing at doing its job when it comes to due diligence/background checks on fringe candidates who pop up out of thin air.

LeopoldBloom · M

@SusanInFlorida I agree with all that. Although, the field gets winnowed down pretty fast. Unless something unexpected happens, 2024 will be between Biden and Trump. Williams, RFK Jr., Haley, Ramaswamy, and anyone else is just a distraction. Slate just ran a feature on Ramaswamy, and he's even crazier than Trump. 2028 will be nuts with both sides wide open. I don't seen Harris being a factor unless Biden is reelected and doesn't complete his term.

The US has more elected officials per capita than most other countries. It's nuts that we elect judges, let alone water district commissioners.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@LeopoldBloom Well, I'm not voting for Trump or Biden. I refused to that last time, and my fears seem to have been completely justified.

I come back to something i posted a week or so ago. A majority of Americans don't want Biden as the democrat nominee, or Trump as the republican one. Yet that's what the string pullers are going to give us. We are being told to pick from a buffet of two stale leftovers.

LeopoldBloom · M

@SusanInFlorida That is correct. I saw something like 75% don't want either one. But Trump will be the nominee because a plurality of Republicans will vote for him in the primary. Biden will be the Democratic nominee because a) he's the president, and if he wants to run again, the party won't stop him, b) he beat Trump before, and c) if he didn't run, it would be a free-for-all on the Democratic side, with the risk of PUMA voters refusing to support the eventual nominee, while Trump cruises unopposed to the general election. So like it or not, strategically Biden is unfortunately the best option they have.

Neither will be around in 2028, so buckle up, that one will be a sight to see, especially since Harris won't be the front runner no matter what happens. Total chaos on both sides.