DOGE Caucus senator pushes to end 'slush fund' for presidential candidates: 'Welfare for politicians'
EXCLUSIVE: In commemoration of Presidents Day, a top DOGE senator is seeking to claw back $400 million sitting in a "slush fund" set up to help presidential candidates that hasn't borne fruit since Y2K.
Through the Eliminating Leftover Expenses for Campaigns from Taxpayers (ELECT) Act, Sen. Joni Ernst said she hopes to defund an account she calls "welfare for politicians."
"This Presidents Day I am fighting for the integrity of the office because the last thing we need to spend tax dollars on is more political attack ads," said Ernst, R-Iowa.
"There is no better way to pay down the $36 trillion debt than by defunding welfare for politicians. Washington should be working to benefit all Americans instead of itself."
Drain The Swamp Act Seeks To Move Dc Bureaucracy Out Of Crazytown, Doge Leader Says
Ernst, the chair of the DOGE caucus in the upper chamber, remarked the fund has not been successfully utilized in decades.
Read On The Fox News App
The last winning presidential candidate to pull from the fund was Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000, and later in 2004.
Since then, a handful of unsuccessful candidates have utilized it, including former Vice President Mike Pence and Green Party candidate Jill Stein; both in the 2024 cycle.
Pence's campaign reportedly received more than $1 million from the fund amid his GOP primary bid, while Stein utilized $380,000.
The late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also received $84.1 million from the fund in 2008. An FEC release from that time said nominees of major parties are entitled to $20 million plus a cost-of-living adjustment back to 1974.
Defunding the account was first floated as one of several proposals in a DOGE-centric November letter from Ernst to Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Stein told Fox News Digital the candidates' fund was "raided" of $375 million, and that Democrats too have tried to moot the effectiveness of the fund by trying to put public funding "out of reach of grassroots candidates" through their H.R.-1 (the For the People Act) during the Biden era.
Top Doge Lawmaker Says Issues That Spurred Doge's Genesis Came Full Circle With Trump Fixes
A checkbox on the IRS' 1040 tax form asks filers whether they would like to pay $3 into the fund, which Stein said showed it is different than other public monies.
"It's outrageous," Stein said, calling the effort to end the fund "part of a bipartisan, anti-democratic effort to stifle competition in presidential elections – specifically by denying voters the option to support publicly financed candidates who refuse the legalized bribery of big corporate contributions."
Stein added that a majority of voters have called for presidential candidates outside the two major parties, citing a Gallup survey showing they "do such a poor job" of representing Americans.
"Publicly funded campaigns are the antidote to the massive legalized corruption that puts more money in the hands of billionaires than ever… the American people abhor the corporate buyout of our elections," Stein said.
"As life becomes increasingly unlivable for everyday Americans, while billionaire wealth skyrockets, the demand to end the sale of our democracy will be unstoppable, through simple reforms including publicly funded elections, inclusive debates, ranked choice voting, ending obstructive ballot access laws and voter suppression, and more."
"Eliminating public funding denies voters the option to support candidates who refuse pay-to-play politics."
A source familiar said FEC rules also allow candidates to continue seeking public funds for campaign debt.
IRS Code 9006, with footnotes dating the fund to at least the 1970s, allows for eligible candidates to be paid out of the fund "upon receipt of a certification from the [Federal Election] Commission."
"Amounts paid to any such candidates shall be under the control of such candidates."
In 2014, the portion of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund allocated to assist political parties with their conventions was redirected to pediatric cancer research through an act of Congress.
Then-Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., drafted a bill later signed by President Barack Obama that diverted such funds to an NIH research initiative.
Then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., gave the measure a major leadership push after he heard the case of a young Leesburg girl afflicted with the disease and decided to name the legislation the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act in her name.
Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Pence for comment.Original article source: DOGE Caucus senator pushes to end 'slush fund' for presidential candidates: 'Welfare for politicians'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Amid Trump's deportations, citizenship brings relief and security to some new Americans
Nabil Souidi said he's been 'I follow all the news, and I was like, no, I'm not going to travel until I get my citizenship,' said Souidi, who is originally from Algeria. He said he followed the Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Now, Souidi said, the trips he's been putting off – like visiting his brother in Canada – are back on. He said he's relieved to finally have his citizenship, and he's happy to be able to travel with ease. Advertisement His wife, Nesrine Bouziane watched the ceremony with their 2-year-old son, Amir Souidi. She filmed the entire ceremony, while her son quietly enjoyed some screen time. Bouziane said watching the news in the lead-up to the ceremony had been nerve-wracking, and she was nervous about whether her husband's application for citizenship would be accepted. The news about the Advertisement 'We're all Americans now,' said Bouziane, who was born in the United States. Bouziane and Souidi met through friends in Boston in 2019 when Souidi was visiting on vacation. Their relationship deepened over WhatsApp messages they exchanged over the next two years, and they married in 2021. They now live together in Nashua, and they're expecting their second child in August. 'I think it's a relief for him, and he's more comfortable,' Bouziane said of her husband securing his citizenship. Nesrine Bouziane, left, her husband Nabil Souidi, center, and their son, Amir Souidi, are pictured after Nabil Souidi was granted American citizenship in a naturalization ceremony on Friday hosted by New Hampshire's Secretary of State David Scanlan at the State Archives in Concord, N.H. Amanda Gokee This year was the second annual naturalization ceremony New Hampshire's Secretary of State David Scanlan has hosted at the State Archives. Similar events are held at other venues around the state. During Friday's naturalization event, 25 people from 17 different countries were granted American citizenship. 'It's that diversity that is really important to making us a strong, vibrant country that stands for freedom around the world,' said Scanlan. Governor Kelly A. Ayotte also addressed the new Americans, calling it an important moment in their lives and an important moment for the country. 'This is a wonderful day, and we are thrilled to welcome you as an American citizen,' she said. In recent months, Ayotte has made cracking down on illegal immigration a top issue, But on Friday, Ayotte congratulated the cohort of New Americans for successfully navigating the United States' immigration system. Advertisement 'It's not an easy process to navigate through our system, but you stuck with it,' she said. Eva Castillo, an immigrant rights advocate, urged the new citizens to start voting and remain active in their local communities around issues that are important to them. For new Americans, she said, citizenship can provide an extra sense of security, especially as some immigrant communities have grown fearful amid the Trump administration's deportation efforts. Once people have obtained citizenship, she said, it's only under extreme circumstances that they can be deported. 'That gives you an extra layer of protection,' she said in an interview after the event. Maykol Mamedes, 33, and his wife Samantha Mamedes, 31, said they, too, were breathing a sigh of relief that Maykol had been granted citizenship Friday. 'You feel more secure,' Maykol Mamedes said after the event. He is originally from Brazil, and he now lives with his wife and two children in Nashua. Of the two of them, Samantha Mamedes said she was more worried about paperwork and proving her husband's documentation, especially when there was a delay in renewing his green card and no way to prove he was in the United States lawfully. 'It's a good feeling knowing that we're on the tail end,' she said. Along with their two kids, the family said they planned to mark the occasion by going out to eat. And they had an extra reason to celebrate: Samantha Mamedes said her birthday was on the same day as the naturalization ceremony. Maykol Mamedes, left, and his wife Samantha Mamedes, right, their two children after a naturalization ceremony in Concord, N.H., on Friday. Amanda Gokee Amanda Gokee can be reached at
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work.
Does Medicaid need an overhaul? Does Republicans' proposed $800 billion cuts go too far – or not far enough? Readers respond in USA TODAY's Opinion Forum. With the deadline for President Donald Trump and Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on the horizon, Americans are turning their attention to a major provision of the budget bill: changes to Medicaid. The bill calls for sweeping changes, including cuts of nearly $800 billion to the program, a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month, and an overhaul of the current Medicaid and Medicare systems – consolidating them for the purpose of centralized enrollment. Additional changes include banning federal funding for gender-affirming care and transitioning procedures and reducing the amount of federal funding allotted to states for noncitizens. As Congress debates these provisions before a final vote in the Senate, Americans are sounding off – largely in support of the program. More than 71 million Americans benefit from Medicaid, and new polls from KFF Health found 83% of respondents have a favorable view of Medicaid. More than half of respondents who are enrolled in Medicaid say changes to the program will make it "very difficult" to afford medications (68%), see a health care provider (59%) or get alternate insurance coverage (56%). A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found half of American voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released June 16 found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid. But we wanted to hear from you, our USA TODAY readers, directly. We asked what changes, if any, you want to see to the program and how Medicaid has impacted your life or the lives of those you know. Do the proposed cuts go too far? Or not far enough? Here's what you told us for our Opinion Forum. I couldn't have made it as a mom ‒ or cancer survivor ‒ without Medicaid As a Stage 3 breast cancer survivor, mother to a son with profound disabilities and a full-time working member of society, I've had to navigate the unimaginable. Without Medicaid, I could not have managed any of it. The program covers our son's in-home care, and it gave me the ability to focus on both my treatment and career. For families like mine, Medicaid is not a luxury ‒ it is the foundation that holds everything together. Proposed cuts threaten the care millions rely on. We must protect Medicaid so parents are not forced to choose among their health, their job and their children's needs. — Caroline Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky Able-bodied people should be working. Entitlements weren't meant to last forever. As I understand it, the only people who would be cut from Medicaid are able-bodied adults who would need to work a minimum number of hours a week to keep receiving it. I don't believe that disabled people, older folks and children would be affected. Also, illegal migrants would be kept off, because American taxpayers are not responsible for paying their way. We have enough American citizens who need help. Those who are not supposed to get these entitlements should be cut. These entitlement programs were never meant to be a way of life. They were supposed to be a safety net only for those who really needed them. Able-bodied adults should work. There is pride in working for what you need or want. Handouts only cause dependency, which is not good for anyone. Every citizen who is able should strive to be independent. The same should go for food stamps. It should only be for the really needy disabled, elderly and children with low incomes. — Renee Bertoni, Holley, New York Real government waste is MAGA's excess I am a retired Health and Human Services Department worker. I think this administration is so shortsighted about Medicaid and food assistance cuts for working families and individuals. If low-income people and working families have inadequate food and no medical coverage, it hinders their ability to work and function in society. All people deserve medical coverage and nutritious foods! I don't think I will ever support Republicans again. This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people. These MAGA supporters are all lacking in human decency. Yes, I believe they will cut more and more because they are focused on self-indulgence. Increase taxes for the wealthy who have too much and know that "trickle-down economics" is just a buzz phrase. It doesn't work. Big cuts were made to the federal work force with no strategy and no concern for talented and dedicated employees, along with lots of publicity for fake fraud claims that didn't exist. The minions are hard at work trying to sell the public on their distorted strategy: more for them and less for everyone else. Let's think about the waste of the Trump military parade. That's what's shameful. — Joyce Schulz, Tawas City, Michigan As an ER doctor, I saw what cuts to Medicaid would cost us all As an emergency physician, I cared for uninsured patients who were signed up for Medicaid insurance in the emergency department. Medicaid health insurance allowed these patients to follow up with primary care doctors and providers who otherwise could not afford to care for uninsured people. Studies show that adding Medicaid insurance saves lives. And taking away Medicaid insurance leads to worse health outcomes. I am very concerned that any cuts to Medicaid insurance would lead to avoidable illness and even death for newly uninsured patients. Primary care physicians and specialists cannot afford to care for patients who lose their Medicaid health care coverage. Also, rural hospitals and rural clinics would lose a significant portion of their financial support from Medicaid. Primary care providers and rural hospitals would be forced to close their doors, leaving uninsured patients without access to care. I am afraid that Republican politicians will choose tax cuts for the rich over Medicaid health insurance for the poor. I think that Republican politicians should have their own government health insurance taken away from them. Why should taxpayers pay for the health insurance of these well-off Republicans who are voting to take away Medicaid from poor people? — Gary Young, Sacramento, California I've worked hard to get everything I have. Democrats don't seem to see people like me. I don't see the problem with having work requirements. If you can work, why not? As a taxpayer, I pay for my own medical insurance. I am single and have no dependents. I have no fault with us having a Medicaid program for the elderly, children and disabled, but that should be it unless you are working and need a short-term helping hand. I have been working full-time since I was 22, so I don't understand people having an issue with a work requirement to get medical coverage. I think we have to cut spending across the board. I hear Democrats talking about taking things away, but I don't seem to hear anything from them about how to cut spending. We are over $36 trillion in debt. If spending is not controlled, our country could go bankrupt, and then no one would have any programs to use. What is the Democrats' plan to get the debt under control? They had the past four years to do it, and you see where we are. I'm tired of the talk about these cuts going to the billionaires. We don't know for sure where it's going, and you can't understand how tired of this rhetoric people are. Additionally, I would like to see the cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Education all codified so these programs do not exist. There seems to have been a bit of waste and abuse over many years that needs to be dealt with. I make under $70,000 a year, so I have worked hard to get where I am. I was a Democrat for over 35 years, and about five years ago, I went Republican, as parties seem to have switched. I believe that the Democrat Party is full of elitists who feel we poor peons will do what they tell us, rather than realizing a lot of peons can think for ourselves and should not be condescended to and not told we are bad peons if we disagree with them. — Teresa Loy, Tucson, Arizona My brother was saved by Medicaid. Many more would die without it. My brother had AIDS/HIV and AIDS-related cancer. He was too sick to work and relied on Medicaid for all his medical benefits, both physical and mental. He eventually worked for the nonprofit Hope and Help in Orlando. He was a mentor to others, a champion, an activist, an orator and a published writer. He died in August 2020. All his efforts and the efforts of many would die in vain without their medication that was available through Medicaid. I'm extremely worried. The effects aren't self-contained, and the negative effects would permeate into an already strained system. Medical insurance is unaffordable in this country's economy, and it only gets worse. The Republicans need to vote according to the wants and needs of their constituents and reinstall empathy in their party. Maybe that will resonate and 'trickle down.' We have to limit tax cuts for the wealthiest. And here's a novel idea: Let's go back to a time when employers paid for employees' health care and pensions. Those two items can't be supported by today's salaries. — Karen O'Donnell, Lake Mary, Florida
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What would you need to earn to feel financially secure? A quarter of Americans say $150,000 or more
Almost half of Americans (45%) think they would need to make $100,000 or more a year to 'feel financially secure' or 'comfortable,' according to a new survey from Bankrate. Breaking that down further, a quarter of respondents in total (26%) put the number at $150,000 or more. Among them, 8% said they would need to earn between $200,000 and $499,999, while another 8% said $500,000 or more. On the flip side, nearly half of respondents (45%) said they would feel financially secure making less than six figures, with 34% saying they would feel comfortable making between $50,00 and $99,999. The online survey, conducted by YouGov and taken by 2,260 US adults in mid-May, also asked 'What annual income would you need to feel rich/attain financial freedom?' More than half (55%) put the number at $200,000 or more. Among them, a quarter (26%) said it would take at least $1 million a year, while 13% said they would need to earn somewhere between $500,000 and $999,999. More than half of respondents (56%) said they needed to earn more than they are currently making to feel secure. So what do Americans make in reality? Based on the latest Census data, median US household income in 2023 was $80,610. That's the mid-point on incomes, meaning half of US households made less. But that median is across all households regardless of size. In family households specifically — where two or more people live — the median was $102,800. Within that group, the highest median ($119,400) reported was among married couples. In terms of individual incomes in 2023, the median income of a full-time worker with earnings working year round was $60,070. Neither the Bankrate survey nor the respondents specified what was meant by the terms 'financially secure' or 'rich,' nor what financial freedom meant to them. The answer, of course, will always be highly subjective. How much you personally think you need is going to be influenced by many factors, including: Your current income, your age, whether you have children, where you live, how much debt you have and what your monthly expenses are. (Not to mention assets that contribute to your net worth, such as a 401(k) or brokerage account, a home or a business. But the survey didn't address that issue.) Among Bankrate survey respondents, 54% of those who already made $100,000 or more said they'd need to make at least $150,000 to feel financially secure. Gen Xers (ages 45 to 60) were most likely (35%) to say they'd need to earn $150,000 or more to live comfortably, compared to 26% of millennials (ages 29 to 44) and 20% of Gen Zers (ages 18 to 28). Among parents with children under 18, 35% indicated earning $150,000 or more a year would make them feel financially secure. And those most likely to say they'd need to earn $1 million or more to feel financially free were parents whose children were 18 or older (33%). Bankrate asked respondents how they would describe their current level of financial security. Overall, most (77%) said they did not feel 'completely financially secure,' including 32% who said they didn't think they ever would. Those most likely to say they did feel 'completely financially secure' were people making at least $100,000. Within that income group, 42% of respondents said they considered themselves secure. Only a quarter of those in the $50,000 to $79,999 income group and 12% of those making less than $50,000 said the same. In terms of life stages, large majorities of each generation said they don't feel financially secure, including 84% of Gen Xers; 80% of Gen Zers; 79% of millennials and 69% of Baby Boomers. 'Getting rich may have once been what many Americans fantasized about, but now, simply living comfortably feels like the new aspiration, as economic challenges make financial stability a rare luxury,' said Bankrate economic analyst Sarah Foster. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
