Part 24: Monetary Reform: Series 1

Hi Ellen [Ellen Brown],

I actually had you in mind, but I also had myself in mind and even Joe, who I think held a pretty good tone in responding to you in his last response.

I wasn't thinking so much about public banking there as I was that the NEED Act, per se, doesn't have to be the one and only subject. Then I did bring up publicly owned banks as an example, as they aren't in the Act but should be in my view.

My feeling is that a public banking section would be very popular with your readers and many others (if it were done correctly). It would expand the support base for the Act and public banking by those for the Act already (many with qualifications).

If public banking were added and the MA were automated, I think the Act would be really well-rounded relative to usual bills. It would address so many of the ows issues and more.

My favorite parts of the bill right now are Greenbacks and infrastructure spending (wide-open definition -- very Dennis Kucinich and very smart and compassionate) -- just what we need for full employment.

As for the Act, you've done a good job of sticking to your view that credit risk is a huge issue.

I believe that after I've mentioned several times now the disappearance of anticipated interest income even on virtual money (multiplier/thin-air money), that there's been some softening concerning the degree of jeopardy the banks will be in unless there's a great deal of smoothing done that is being left up in the air as far as details are concerned. In the Act as-is, it's all left to the MA to work it out with Treasury and Congress too.

I suppose that's okay up to a point. It leaves some wiggle room when answering potential objections, but people are becoming shy about promises that aren't chiseled in granite.

BTW, how are you, Ellen? Is your recovery still going well? I hope so.

Oh, and since your writing your new book on the history of banking and you've mentioned Italy of course, have you run into montes pietatius? If not, you might want to include them as a sort of High Middle Ages antecedent corollary to your writing on modern Shadow Banking but with a twist or two. They were low-interest and no-interest pawn "shops" in answer to interest rates as high as 80% by such as the Lombards. Let me know what you think about that.

Monetary Reform: Series 1


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.