July/August 2011 20,000 Leagues Under the State
Beneath the surface of American government lurks a system of social programs for the wealthy that is consuming the federal budget. It’s time for progressives to do battle with tax expenditures.
By Suzanne Mettler
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious
Photo: Mark Thomas
Growing up during the Depression, Sam Marchesi had to drop out of school after eighth grade—soon after his father died—to work and help support his mother and his seven younger siblings. When World War II began, he enlisted in the Army and served in the Pacific. Upon his return, he took advantage of the educational and training benefits of the G.I. Bill, joining the 52 percent of fifteen million returning veterans who did so. He acquired vocational training in architectural drawing and on-the-job training as an apprentice carpenter, skills that enabled him to become a successful custom builder. When I interviewed Marchesi in the late 1990s for a study of the G.I. Bill, he reflected, “I think it was a great thing that the government did, to give us this opportunity to pick up where we left off. We had to face the world. We had to make a living. Thank God the government had the doors open for us.”
The G.I. Bill’s transformative effects on the lives of men like Marchesi have become legendary, but just as striking in hindsight is the clearly visible role that government played as the source of those opportunities. In more recent decades the federal government has expanded its efforts to provide college aid to all Americans. But instead of delivering a straight benefit, like the original G.I. Bill, most of that aid has come through roundabout means, like payments to banks to provide students with loans, or loopholes in the tax code to subsidize families to save for or pay for college. Generations of Americans have now graduated with the help of these costly-though-indirect programs. Yet over the years, in conversations with my own students, I’ve noticed that, unlike Marchesi, few of them recognize that they’ve received benefits from government. It’s hard to imagine them reflecting on their HOPE Tax Credits, or their 529 and Coverdell college savings plans and saying, “Thank God the government had the door open for us.”
And it’s not just my students. In 2008, I conducted a survey to gauge the degree to which Americans who had received various government social benefits recognized them as such. Not surprisingly, most beneficiaries of the G.I. Bill who took part in the survey acknowledged that they had been given a leg up by the government. But of the respondents who made use of tax-advantaged Coverdell or 529 education savings accounts, 64 percent said they had “not used a government social program,” as did 59.6 percent of those who used HOPE and Lifelong Learning Tax Credits.
more at link above..
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Time Travel and Political Control
NOTE: This article is part of a continuing series on quantum access and other exotic technologies that have been developed by black budget military and intelligence projects and applied to date principally for weapons uses, rather than for the benefit of humanity, who in the end have paid with public funds for their original development. This article originally appeared in Veritas Magazine, Australia.
The U.S. government has had Tesla-based quantum access time travel technology for over 40 years. Time travel technology has been weaponised with its principal impacts to date being for the sequestration in time loops of secret military installations, such as U.S. secret bases on Mars, political control of the human population, political surveillance, and attempted imposition of a catastrophic timeline on humanity by withholding or manipulating information about future events.
I Confirmation of U.S.’ use of Tesla-based time travel technology
Continue reading on Examiner.com Time Travel and Political Control - Seattle exopolitics | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/time-travel-and-political-control#ixzz1UysOfqa4
Two independent whistleblowers from the U.S. national security state have come forward with congruent, sophisticated, and extensive insider accounts of their experiences with Tesla-based time travel technology developed by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Mars colony eyewitness Michael Relfe is a whistleblower and a former member of the U.S. armed forces who, in 1976, was recruited as a permanent member of the secret Mars colony. In 1976 (Earth time), he teleported to the Mars colony and spent 20 years as a permanent member of its staff. In 1996 (Mars time), Mr Relfe was time-travelled via teleportation and age-regressed 20 years, landing back at a U.S. military base in 1976 (Earth time). He then served six years in the U.S. military on Earth before being honourably discharged in 1982.
In a two-volume book, The Mars Records, authored by his wife, Stephanie Relfe, B.Sc., Mr Relfe describes the two types of individuals at the secret Mars colony:
“To clarify: Remember there are two kinds of people that I remember.
“1. People visiting Mars temporarily (politicians, etc.) – They travel to and from Mars by jump gate. They visit for a few weeks and return. They are not time travelled back. They are VIP's. They are OFF LIMITS!!
“2. Permanent staff – They spend 20 years’ duty cycle. At the end of their duty cycle, they are age reversed and time shot back to their space-time origin point. They are sent back with memories blocked. They are sent back to complete their destiny on Earth.” (Vol. 2, p. 204)
Four independent whistleblower witnesses, including Michael Relfe, have confirmed the existence of one or more U.S. secret bases on Mars, as forward strategic military bases for occupation or defence of the solar system. These whistleblower witnesses include, besides Michael Relfe, former U.S. Army Command Sgt. Major Robert Dean, former participant in DARPA’s Project Pegasus Andrew D. Basiago and former U.S. Department of Defense scientist Arthur Neumann.
Andrew D. Basiago is a former participant in DARPA Project Pegasus (1968-72) that developed Tesla-based quantum teleportation and time travel in the time space hologram, initiating the U.S. program of time-space Chrononauts.
According to Mr Basiago, the U.S. government already had a fully operational teleportation capability in 1967-68, and by 1969-70, was actively training a cadre of gifted and talented American schoolchildren, including himself, to become America’s first generation of “chrononauts” or time-space explorers.
This training, he said, culminated in 1981, when, as a 19-year-old, he teleported to Mars, first by himself after being prepared for the trip by CIA officer Courtney M. Hunt, and then a second time in the company of Hunt. Both trips, Mr Basiago said, were made via a “jump room” located at a CIA facility in El Segundo, CA. The apparent purpose of the trips to Mars was to familiarise him with Mars because the CIA knew of his destiny pertaining to publicly establishing the fact that Mars is an inhabited planet and deemed it important that he visit Mars and experience its conditions first-hand.
Mr Basiago’s involvement in advanced U.S. time-space research as a child, as well as Courtney M. Hunt’s identity as a career CIA officer, have been confirmed by Dr. Jean Maria Arrigo, an ethicist who works closely with U.S. military and intelligence agencies, and by U.S. Army Captain Ernest Garcia, whose storied career in U.S. intelligence included both serving as a guard on the Dead Sea Scroll expeditions of Israeli archaeologist Yigal Yadin and as the Army security attaché to Project Pegasus.
Remote sensing in the time-space continuum
Mr Basiago has revealed that between 1969 and 1972, as a child participant in Project Pegasus, he both viewed past and future events through a device known as a “chronovisor” and teleported back and forth across the country in vortal tunnels opened in time-space via Tesla-based teleporters located at the Curtiss-Wright Aeronautical Company facility in Wood Ridge, NJ and the Sandia National Laboratory in Sandia, NM.
A chronovisor is a device that uses a screen or holographic template to locate and display scenes from the past or future in the time-space hologram. The chronovisor was originally developed by two Vatican scientists in conjunction with Enrico Fermi and later refined by DARPA scientists.
DARPA had, he explains, five reasons for involving American schoolchildren in such new, dangerous, and experimental activities:
1. First, the Department of Defense wanted to test the mental and physical effects of teleportation on children.
2. Second, Project Pegasus needed to use children because the holograms created by the chronovisors would collapse when adults stood within them.
3. Third, the children were tabula rasa (of the mind that has not yet gained impressions of experience) and would tend to see things during the time probes that adults would tend to miss.
4. Fourth, the children were trainees who upon growing up would serve in a covert time-space program under DARPA that would operate in tandem with the overt space program under NASA.
5. Lastly, the program sponsors found that after moving between time lines, adult time travellers were often becoming insane, and it was hoped that by working with gifted and talented children from childhood, the U.S. government might create an adult cadre of “chrononauts” capable of dealing with the psychological effects of time travel.
In contrast to the chronovisor probes, in which a form of virtual time travel was achieved, the teleporters developed by Project Pegasus allowed for physical teleportation to distant locations, sometimes with an adjustment forward or backward in time of days, weeks, months, or years. According to Mr Basiago, by 1972, the U.S. government was using “quantum displacement” of this kind to both send people forward several years in time to store sensitive military secrets in the future and backward several years in time to provide the government with intelligence about future events.
II The weaponisation of time travel
DARPA’s Project Pegasus (1968-73) under which the U.S. government program of quantum access Tesla-based teleportation and time travel was developed was historically under the control of then-U.S. President Richard M. Nixon’s cabinet member Donald H. Rumsfeld. According to Mr Basiago’s whistleblower testimony, Donald H. Rumsfeld, the sitting U.S. Secretary of Defence on September 11, 2001, was the defence attaché to Project Pegasus during the early 1970’s, when Mr Rumsfeld was officially serving as a counsellor to President Nixon and member of his Board of Wage and Price Stabilisation.
Mr Rumsfeld approached his Project Pegasus responsibilities with the intent to weaponise teleportation and time travel to the U.S. government’s advantage. He has been quoted as stating in Project Pegasus meetings at the time that the chief mission of teleportation was to deliver troops to the appropriate place in the battlefield.
Sequestration of secret U.S. military bases
It is clear from Michael Relfe’s two books on his 20 years at the secret U.S. base on Mars that U.S. time travel was principally used to the hide the presence of U.S. secret military installations on Mars from the public so that the installations remained accessible only to time scientists of the U.S. DoD.
Mr Relfe was recruited into the U.S. armed forces and time travel/teleported to Mars in 1976. Only individuals with access to secret time science records or technology of the U.S. Department of Defense could prove the existence of the U.S. secret Mars base from Michael Relfe’s conventional U.S. service records.
Time travel and political control of the human population
Time travel pre-identification and secret training of U.S. Presidents
On a November 11, 2009 Coast to Coast AM radio program, Mr Basiago publicly stated that DARPA'S Project Pegasus program involving time travel was identifying future persons of interest, including those who would serve as U.S. president, and then informing such persons of their destinies. Mr Basiago stated that in the early 1970s, in the company of his late father, Raymond F. Basiago, an engineer for The Ralph M. Parsons Company who worked on classified aerospace projects was present at a lunch in Albuquerque, New Mexico at which (then) future U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were guests shortly after they were informed that both would one day serve as President.
He also stated that in the early 1970s, the DARPA program, Project Pegasus, had identified future Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton utilising time travel technology. Mr Basiago met (then) future President Barack Obama in Los Angeles, CA in 1982 Mr while attending UCLA. Mr Obama, then a student at Columbia University, was visiting former classmates at Occidental College in Los Angeles. A statement was made by the ally of Mr Obama in the anti-apartheid movement which revealed that Mr Obama, then age 20, already knew that he would one day be the President.
Project Pegasus time travel was also used for political surveillance of future societal change agents.
Mr Basiago revealed that the reason Project Pegasus was able to identify Mr Carter, who was the then Governor of George, in 1971, as a future U.S. President, is that the program was in possession of a copy of Exopolitics: Politics, Government and Law in the Universe by Alfred Lambremont Webre—a book that this reporter would not write until 1999 and would not be published as a library book until 2005, but which bears a quote on its front pages of a statement made by President Jimmy Carter.
According to him, Mr Webre's book Exopolitics was, among other written works, physically retrieved from the future by Project Pegasus and brought back in time to 1971 or a prior time. At that time, 1971, Mr Webre was General Counsel of the New York City Environmental Protection Administration and had been placed under time travel surveillance by the U.S. government.
Mr Basiago has also stated that Project Pegasus identified Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, the great granddaughter of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a his future ally.
Thus, there is historical precedent for the covert political surveillance, via remote sensing in time, of a person of interest like Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, great-granddaughter of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Time travel and 9/11
Mr Basiago has publicly stated how in 1971 he viewed moving images of the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 that had been obtained from the future and brought back to the early 1970’s.
He has described how while serving in Project Pegasus, he viewed moving images of 9/11 at the secured U.S. defence-technical facility where they were processed after being retrieved from the future (at the Aerojet Corporation facility that once stood at the corner of Bullock Avenue and Leroy Place in Socorro, New Mexico).
In all likelihood, Mr Rumsfeld, as the defence attaché to Project Pegasus, would have known about and possibly had control over the data about 9/11 derived via “quantum access” and brought it back to the early 1970’s for analysis by the DARPA research and development program under his administrative authority.
Mr Basiago’s eyewitness account that Secretary Rumsfeld and others knew about 9/11 decades in advance because data about it was gathered via DARPA’s secret time travel program unlocks several of the more enigmatic facts in the 9/11 literature and may be the key to society’s unravelling of the ultimate accountability for the false flag operation that took place on September 11, 2001.
Time travel and natural catastrophe
A chronovisor probe in the early 1970s by DARPA’s Project Pegasus chose an archetypal target in Washington, DC. Project Pegasus chose to view the U.S. Supreme Court building in 2013 via chronovisor and Project Pegasus participant and Mr Basiago “found that the Supreme Court building was under 100 feet of stagnant water”..
A Farsight Institute remote viewing study of natural catastrophe targeted the archetypal target right across from the U.S. Supreme Court Building—the U.S. Capitol building—in 2013.
In all, 39% of the remote viewer reports viewed the U.S. Capitol in ruins alongside deep water.
Mr Basiago has also stated that “that because the chronovisors did not identify absolute, deterministic futures but rather alternate futures in the “multi-verse,” this catastrophic vision of Washington, DC might be from an alternative time line that does not materialise on our time line.”
Results showed that 29% of Farsight remote viewers targeting the U.S. Capitol in 2013 did not see a Washington, DC devastated by natural catastrophe.
Here, then, we have the 2012-13 catastrophic and 2012-13 non-catastrophic futures side by side. DARPA’s Project Pegasus chronovisor technology for probing future events in the time-space hologram was state-of-the-art in the early 1970s. Project Pegasus itself was under the policy oversight of Donald H. Rumsfeld as a Nixon cabinet member. It may have been that Presidential-level decisions were made in the early 1970s to commence underground shelter preparations, on the basis of Project Pegasus and other time-travel intelligence about the 2012-13 catastrophic timeline.
It is reasonable to speculate whether the U.S. and other governments and elites may have made a fundamental miscalculation and wrong conclusion in assuming that a 2012-13 cataclysmic timeline will be the actual future, when in fact it was an alternative future that would not materialise as the actual deterministic future in 2012-13.
It is also reasonable to speculate that the governments and political and financial elites have made a colossal moral error in creating safe underground bases for themselves, while making plans to leave an unwitting humanity on the surface to be ‘depopulated’ by a combination of giant solar flares, meteors from space, and a Mad Max scenario playing out—all of which is a future that does not materialise.
In a July 7, 2010 presentation, Dr. Courtney Brown of the Farsight Institute stated there are anomalies that suggest the U.S. government and elites are heavily invested in covertly preparing for the 2012-13 catastrophic timeline, while keeping the bulk of the human population in the dark.
These anomalies, such as rapid expansion of deep underground military bases to accommodate all U.S. government, military and police forces, and political and financial elites, suggest that they have accepted that the 2012-13 catastrophic future is the most probable future, and are feverishly completing underground facilities on Earth (as well as secret bases on Mars).
Societal impact of chronovision and teleportation
Basiago’s Pegasus revelations establish that a secret, advanced U.S. time-space program emerged 40 years ago. For four decades, this program has used esoteric technologies involving chronovision and teleportation to perform “remote sensing in time” of past and future events. For the past three decades, teleportation has also been used to send individuals from Earth to strategic U.S. bases on Mars. He is adamant that these technologies be revealed so that their positive and negative aspects can be debated and their positive aspects used to the advantage of humanity.
Chronovision, he said, could be used to create an international network of virtual museums in which images from the past would be shown to enlighten and educate the public. Misapplied, such technology could also be used to create a Fascist society based on 24-hour surveillance of individuals by government, which may have been portended by the DARPA project called “Total Information Awareness” that President George W. Bush established and placed under Admiral John Poindexter.
Teleportation is a second quantum access technology developed with public funds that the public is being denied the full benefits of. Teleportation could be used, Basiago said, to move people and goods more quickly and efficiently around the globe, without the pollution caused by planes, trains, and automobiles or the negative land use effects from airports, railroad tracks, and highways. Yet, if it is not declassified, teleportation will remain what it has been for 40 years, that is, a weapon for use only by the U.S. military, to have the option to put troops precisely where they are needed on battlefields.
“I take my responsibilities as a planetary whistleblower very seriously,” Basiago said.
“This is a truth campaign for positive human development on this planet. The people of this planet have a right to a true telling of the natural history of the solar system that we inhabit. This includes the truth that Mars is an inhabited planet and also that the United States’ secret space program has already sent individuals from this planet to the Red Planet. If we are to achieve a sustainable human future on this planet, we must demand that the US government reveal the teleportation that has been used to reach Mars so that it can now be used to revolutionise human transport on Earth. The people of this planet have a right to inhabit a future global society in which all human beings enjoy the life-advantaging benefits of all of the technologies that all of human ingenuity has ever produced. In both of these cases, whether a treaty protecting Mars or a global network of teleports results, the truth shall set us free.”
Continue reading on Examiner.com Time Travel and Political Control - Seattle exopolitics | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/time-travel-and-political-control#ixzz1UysYz0ue
The U.S. government has had Tesla-based quantum access time travel technology for over 40 years. Time travel technology has been weaponised with its principal impacts to date being for the sequestration in time loops of secret military installations, such as U.S. secret bases on Mars, political control of the human population, political surveillance, and attempted imposition of a catastrophic timeline on humanity by withholding or manipulating information about future events.
I Confirmation of U.S.’ use of Tesla-based time travel technology
Continue reading on Examiner.com Time Travel and Political Control - Seattle exopolitics | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/time-travel-and-political-control#ixzz1UysOfqa4
Two independent whistleblowers from the U.S. national security state have come forward with congruent, sophisticated, and extensive insider accounts of their experiences with Tesla-based time travel technology developed by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Mars colony eyewitness Michael Relfe is a whistleblower and a former member of the U.S. armed forces who, in 1976, was recruited as a permanent member of the secret Mars colony. In 1976 (Earth time), he teleported to the Mars colony and spent 20 years as a permanent member of its staff. In 1996 (Mars time), Mr Relfe was time-travelled via teleportation and age-regressed 20 years, landing back at a U.S. military base in 1976 (Earth time). He then served six years in the U.S. military on Earth before being honourably discharged in 1982.
In a two-volume book, The Mars Records, authored by his wife, Stephanie Relfe, B.Sc., Mr Relfe describes the two types of individuals at the secret Mars colony:
“To clarify: Remember there are two kinds of people that I remember.
“1. People visiting Mars temporarily (politicians, etc.) – They travel to and from Mars by jump gate. They visit for a few weeks and return. They are not time travelled back. They are VIP's. They are OFF LIMITS!!
“2. Permanent staff – They spend 20 years’ duty cycle. At the end of their duty cycle, they are age reversed and time shot back to their space-time origin point. They are sent back with memories blocked. They are sent back to complete their destiny on Earth.” (Vol. 2, p. 204)
Four independent whistleblower witnesses, including Michael Relfe, have confirmed the existence of one or more U.S. secret bases on Mars, as forward strategic military bases for occupation or defence of the solar system. These whistleblower witnesses include, besides Michael Relfe, former U.S. Army Command Sgt. Major Robert Dean, former participant in DARPA’s Project Pegasus Andrew D. Basiago and former U.S. Department of Defense scientist Arthur Neumann.
Andrew D. Basiago is a former participant in DARPA Project Pegasus (1968-72) that developed Tesla-based quantum teleportation and time travel in the time space hologram, initiating the U.S. program of time-space Chrononauts.
According to Mr Basiago, the U.S. government already had a fully operational teleportation capability in 1967-68, and by 1969-70, was actively training a cadre of gifted and talented American schoolchildren, including himself, to become America’s first generation of “chrononauts” or time-space explorers.
This training, he said, culminated in 1981, when, as a 19-year-old, he teleported to Mars, first by himself after being prepared for the trip by CIA officer Courtney M. Hunt, and then a second time in the company of Hunt. Both trips, Mr Basiago said, were made via a “jump room” located at a CIA facility in El Segundo, CA. The apparent purpose of the trips to Mars was to familiarise him with Mars because the CIA knew of his destiny pertaining to publicly establishing the fact that Mars is an inhabited planet and deemed it important that he visit Mars and experience its conditions first-hand.
Mr Basiago’s involvement in advanced U.S. time-space research as a child, as well as Courtney M. Hunt’s identity as a career CIA officer, have been confirmed by Dr. Jean Maria Arrigo, an ethicist who works closely with U.S. military and intelligence agencies, and by U.S. Army Captain Ernest Garcia, whose storied career in U.S. intelligence included both serving as a guard on the Dead Sea Scroll expeditions of Israeli archaeologist Yigal Yadin and as the Army security attaché to Project Pegasus.
Remote sensing in the time-space continuum
Mr Basiago has revealed that between 1969 and 1972, as a child participant in Project Pegasus, he both viewed past and future events through a device known as a “chronovisor” and teleported back and forth across the country in vortal tunnels opened in time-space via Tesla-based teleporters located at the Curtiss-Wright Aeronautical Company facility in Wood Ridge, NJ and the Sandia National Laboratory in Sandia, NM.
A chronovisor is a device that uses a screen or holographic template to locate and display scenes from the past or future in the time-space hologram. The chronovisor was originally developed by two Vatican scientists in conjunction with Enrico Fermi and later refined by DARPA scientists.
DARPA had, he explains, five reasons for involving American schoolchildren in such new, dangerous, and experimental activities:
1. First, the Department of Defense wanted to test the mental and physical effects of teleportation on children.
2. Second, Project Pegasus needed to use children because the holograms created by the chronovisors would collapse when adults stood within them.
3. Third, the children were tabula rasa (of the mind that has not yet gained impressions of experience) and would tend to see things during the time probes that adults would tend to miss.
4. Fourth, the children were trainees who upon growing up would serve in a covert time-space program under DARPA that would operate in tandem with the overt space program under NASA.
5. Lastly, the program sponsors found that after moving between time lines, adult time travellers were often becoming insane, and it was hoped that by working with gifted and talented children from childhood, the U.S. government might create an adult cadre of “chrononauts” capable of dealing with the psychological effects of time travel.
In contrast to the chronovisor probes, in which a form of virtual time travel was achieved, the teleporters developed by Project Pegasus allowed for physical teleportation to distant locations, sometimes with an adjustment forward or backward in time of days, weeks, months, or years. According to Mr Basiago, by 1972, the U.S. government was using “quantum displacement” of this kind to both send people forward several years in time to store sensitive military secrets in the future and backward several years in time to provide the government with intelligence about future events.
II The weaponisation of time travel
DARPA’s Project Pegasus (1968-73) under which the U.S. government program of quantum access Tesla-based teleportation and time travel was developed was historically under the control of then-U.S. President Richard M. Nixon’s cabinet member Donald H. Rumsfeld. According to Mr Basiago’s whistleblower testimony, Donald H. Rumsfeld, the sitting U.S. Secretary of Defence on September 11, 2001, was the defence attaché to Project Pegasus during the early 1970’s, when Mr Rumsfeld was officially serving as a counsellor to President Nixon and member of his Board of Wage and Price Stabilisation.
Mr Rumsfeld approached his Project Pegasus responsibilities with the intent to weaponise teleportation and time travel to the U.S. government’s advantage. He has been quoted as stating in Project Pegasus meetings at the time that the chief mission of teleportation was to deliver troops to the appropriate place in the battlefield.
Sequestration of secret U.S. military bases
It is clear from Michael Relfe’s two books on his 20 years at the secret U.S. base on Mars that U.S. time travel was principally used to the hide the presence of U.S. secret military installations on Mars from the public so that the installations remained accessible only to time scientists of the U.S. DoD.
Mr Relfe was recruited into the U.S. armed forces and time travel/teleported to Mars in 1976. Only individuals with access to secret time science records or technology of the U.S. Department of Defense could prove the existence of the U.S. secret Mars base from Michael Relfe’s conventional U.S. service records.
Time travel and political control of the human population
Time travel pre-identification and secret training of U.S. Presidents
On a November 11, 2009 Coast to Coast AM radio program, Mr Basiago publicly stated that DARPA'S Project Pegasus program involving time travel was identifying future persons of interest, including those who would serve as U.S. president, and then informing such persons of their destinies. Mr Basiago stated that in the early 1970s, in the company of his late father, Raymond F. Basiago, an engineer for The Ralph M. Parsons Company who worked on classified aerospace projects was present at a lunch in Albuquerque, New Mexico at which (then) future U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were guests shortly after they were informed that both would one day serve as President.
He also stated that in the early 1970s, the DARPA program, Project Pegasus, had identified future Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton utilising time travel technology. Mr Basiago met (then) future President Barack Obama in Los Angeles, CA in 1982 Mr while attending UCLA. Mr Obama, then a student at Columbia University, was visiting former classmates at Occidental College in Los Angeles. A statement was made by the ally of Mr Obama in the anti-apartheid movement which revealed that Mr Obama, then age 20, already knew that he would one day be the President.
Project Pegasus time travel was also used for political surveillance of future societal change agents.
Mr Basiago revealed that the reason Project Pegasus was able to identify Mr Carter, who was the then Governor of George, in 1971, as a future U.S. President, is that the program was in possession of a copy of Exopolitics: Politics, Government and Law in the Universe by Alfred Lambremont Webre—a book that this reporter would not write until 1999 and would not be published as a library book until 2005, but which bears a quote on its front pages of a statement made by President Jimmy Carter.
According to him, Mr Webre's book Exopolitics was, among other written works, physically retrieved from the future by Project Pegasus and brought back in time to 1971 or a prior time. At that time, 1971, Mr Webre was General Counsel of the New York City Environmental Protection Administration and had been placed under time travel surveillance by the U.S. government.
Mr Basiago has also stated that Project Pegasus identified Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, the great granddaughter of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a his future ally.
Thus, there is historical precedent for the covert political surveillance, via remote sensing in time, of a person of interest like Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, great-granddaughter of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Time travel and 9/11
Mr Basiago has publicly stated how in 1971 he viewed moving images of the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 that had been obtained from the future and brought back to the early 1970’s.
He has described how while serving in Project Pegasus, he viewed moving images of 9/11 at the secured U.S. defence-technical facility where they were processed after being retrieved from the future (at the Aerojet Corporation facility that once stood at the corner of Bullock Avenue and Leroy Place in Socorro, New Mexico).
In all likelihood, Mr Rumsfeld, as the defence attaché to Project Pegasus, would have known about and possibly had control over the data about 9/11 derived via “quantum access” and brought it back to the early 1970’s for analysis by the DARPA research and development program under his administrative authority.
Mr Basiago’s eyewitness account that Secretary Rumsfeld and others knew about 9/11 decades in advance because data about it was gathered via DARPA’s secret time travel program unlocks several of the more enigmatic facts in the 9/11 literature and may be the key to society’s unravelling of the ultimate accountability for the false flag operation that took place on September 11, 2001.
Time travel and natural catastrophe
A chronovisor probe in the early 1970s by DARPA’s Project Pegasus chose an archetypal target in Washington, DC. Project Pegasus chose to view the U.S. Supreme Court building in 2013 via chronovisor and Project Pegasus participant and Mr Basiago “found that the Supreme Court building was under 100 feet of stagnant water”..
A Farsight Institute remote viewing study of natural catastrophe targeted the archetypal target right across from the U.S. Supreme Court Building—the U.S. Capitol building—in 2013.
In all, 39% of the remote viewer reports viewed the U.S. Capitol in ruins alongside deep water.
Mr Basiago has also stated that “that because the chronovisors did not identify absolute, deterministic futures but rather alternate futures in the “multi-verse,” this catastrophic vision of Washington, DC might be from an alternative time line that does not materialise on our time line.”
Results showed that 29% of Farsight remote viewers targeting the U.S. Capitol in 2013 did not see a Washington, DC devastated by natural catastrophe.
Here, then, we have the 2012-13 catastrophic and 2012-13 non-catastrophic futures side by side. DARPA’s Project Pegasus chronovisor technology for probing future events in the time-space hologram was state-of-the-art in the early 1970s. Project Pegasus itself was under the policy oversight of Donald H. Rumsfeld as a Nixon cabinet member. It may have been that Presidential-level decisions were made in the early 1970s to commence underground shelter preparations, on the basis of Project Pegasus and other time-travel intelligence about the 2012-13 catastrophic timeline.
It is reasonable to speculate whether the U.S. and other governments and elites may have made a fundamental miscalculation and wrong conclusion in assuming that a 2012-13 cataclysmic timeline will be the actual future, when in fact it was an alternative future that would not materialise as the actual deterministic future in 2012-13.
It is also reasonable to speculate that the governments and political and financial elites have made a colossal moral error in creating safe underground bases for themselves, while making plans to leave an unwitting humanity on the surface to be ‘depopulated’ by a combination of giant solar flares, meteors from space, and a Mad Max scenario playing out—all of which is a future that does not materialise.
In a July 7, 2010 presentation, Dr. Courtney Brown of the Farsight Institute stated there are anomalies that suggest the U.S. government and elites are heavily invested in covertly preparing for the 2012-13 catastrophic timeline, while keeping the bulk of the human population in the dark.
These anomalies, such as rapid expansion of deep underground military bases to accommodate all U.S. government, military and police forces, and political and financial elites, suggest that they have accepted that the 2012-13 catastrophic future is the most probable future, and are feverishly completing underground facilities on Earth (as well as secret bases on Mars).
Societal impact of chronovision and teleportation
Basiago’s Pegasus revelations establish that a secret, advanced U.S. time-space program emerged 40 years ago. For four decades, this program has used esoteric technologies involving chronovision and teleportation to perform “remote sensing in time” of past and future events. For the past three decades, teleportation has also been used to send individuals from Earth to strategic U.S. bases on Mars. He is adamant that these technologies be revealed so that their positive and negative aspects can be debated and their positive aspects used to the advantage of humanity.
Chronovision, he said, could be used to create an international network of virtual museums in which images from the past would be shown to enlighten and educate the public. Misapplied, such technology could also be used to create a Fascist society based on 24-hour surveillance of individuals by government, which may have been portended by the DARPA project called “Total Information Awareness” that President George W. Bush established and placed under Admiral John Poindexter.
Teleportation is a second quantum access technology developed with public funds that the public is being denied the full benefits of. Teleportation could be used, Basiago said, to move people and goods more quickly and efficiently around the globe, without the pollution caused by planes, trains, and automobiles or the negative land use effects from airports, railroad tracks, and highways. Yet, if it is not declassified, teleportation will remain what it has been for 40 years, that is, a weapon for use only by the U.S. military, to have the option to put troops precisely where they are needed on battlefields.
“I take my responsibilities as a planetary whistleblower very seriously,” Basiago said.
“This is a truth campaign for positive human development on this planet. The people of this planet have a right to a true telling of the natural history of the solar system that we inhabit. This includes the truth that Mars is an inhabited planet and also that the United States’ secret space program has already sent individuals from this planet to the Red Planet. If we are to achieve a sustainable human future on this planet, we must demand that the US government reveal the teleportation that has been used to reach Mars so that it can now be used to revolutionise human transport on Earth. The people of this planet have a right to inhabit a future global society in which all human beings enjoy the life-advantaging benefits of all of the technologies that all of human ingenuity has ever produced. In both of these cases, whether a treaty protecting Mars or a global network of teleports results, the truth shall set us free.”
Continue reading on Examiner.com Time Travel and Political Control - Seattle exopolitics | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-seattle/time-travel-and-political-control#ixzz1UysYz0ue
Realigning the Public Perceptions of Anonymous and Wikileaks.
by Jacob Shiflett
Proponents of Wikileaks identify Julian Assange as an international hero and liken him to the Founding Fathers of the United States. Critics cast Wikileaks as a nefarious syndicate deserving the label of foreign terrorist organization. Some go even further by demanding Julian Assange be given the death penalty or summary execution. In either case, the situation and stakes are clear. We are living in the age of the information revolution. The invention of the personal computer and internet connected us all. It also produced participatory democracy—on an unprecedented scale—that caught the international power elite completely off guard. Now we observe these power brokers frantically scrambling to return the naïveté of the public back to the levels prior to globalization in the wake of this technological empowerment.
This should not come as a surprise. Authority figures rarely want to cede power to others. Nevertheless business leaders, government officials, and IGOs need to realize that there is no turning back. The technology is here to stay. The only question remaining is: where do we go from here? The consensus from these entities seems to be to target Wikileaks in order to cut the head off the proverbial snake. However, those who propose this measure fail to comprehend the size and scope of this lofty idea.
The cyber security giant H.B. Gary realized this when it started testing the waters in defense of Bank of America. In anticipation of a presumably embarrassing document dump by Wikileaks, Bank of America retained H.B. Gary Federal—by recommendation of the U.S. Department of Justice—as a security consultant. Everything seemed okay and out of the public eye until the CEO of H.B. Gary, Aaron Barr, began antagonizing the internet activist group known as Anonymous, which operates in tandem with Wikileaks’ transparency efforts worldwide as a guard dog. In both private correspondences and public statements, Barr boasted of having information that would cripple the infrastructure of the group and render them ineffective.
As soon as these claims hit the public domain, H.B. Gary and Aaron Barr became prime targets for Anonymous. H.B. Gary found itself wrecked and ravaged within 24 hours of Barr’s statements. The company that prided itself on cyber security had its files seized, sensitive materials publicized, and its website defaced. Adding insult to injury, immediately after the operation, Anonymous announced that a 16 year old girl compromised the security protocols of the cyber security giant.
The most fascinating outcome of this exchange, however, came by way of the sequestered files from H.B. Gary and Barr’s email account. In these files, Anonymous uncovered a comprehensive strategy concocted by Hunton & Williams, H.B. Gary, Palantir, and Berico to discredit Wikileaks. The Machiavellian plan included: disseminating misinformation, providing Wikileaks with false information and calling them out on it once they published the material, instigating feuds within Wikileaks, stalking Wikileaks employees, creating uncertainty over the security and confidentiality of Wikileaks’ sources, and conducting cyber attacks to mine information from the organization about its sources. What does this conspiracy tell us about democracy, about freedom of speech, about freedom of the press, and about the so-called transparent U.S. government?
This development provides critical insight that should realign public perceptions regarding a number of issues. First, it appears the U.S. government wants to play both sides of the fence, so to speak. U.S. officials feign outrage over “cyber crime” and “terrorism” while simultaneously conspiring with private entities and other nations behind closed doors to commit offenses that they publicly condemn. Second, cyber security firms and their clients—including U.S. government agencies—do not possess a higher degree of electronic protection than the average citizen. Third, Wikileaks should not be anyone’s central concern for the simple reason that, in the absence of Wikileaks, the leaks will continue through the independent efforts of groups like Anonymous. Lastly and most importantly, when comparing Wikileaks to significant leaks from the past, such as the Pentagon Papers’ acquitted whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, it appears that the U.S. wants to reframe social and poltical norms. The U.S., empowered by stringent counterterrorism measures in the wake of September 11, 2001, effectively conditioned the populace into believing that electronic acts of civil disobedience, protest, and crimes of conscience are equal to terrorism just because these interactions occur through the new medium of the internet.
Taking all of this into consideration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said that, “[c]onfidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise.” Are the arrangements made between the Department of Justice, Bank of America, and H.B. Gary, et al the type of “confidential communication” so eloquently described by Secretary Clinton? If so, how long can the U.S. government, its privileged corporate entities, and its allies operate with impunity under the guise of patriotism? More importantly, how long will the public, through its complacency and silent consent, permit the US government to target these individuals with Draconian electronic communication laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the USA PATRIOT Act?
Proponents of Wikileaks identify Julian Assange as an international hero and liken him to the Founding Fathers of the United States. Critics cast Wikileaks as a nefarious syndicate deserving the label of foreign terrorist organization. Some go even further by demanding Julian Assange be given the death penalty or summary execution. In either case, the situation and stakes are clear. We are living in the age of the information revolution. The invention of the personal computer and internet connected us all. It also produced participatory democracy—on an unprecedented scale—that caught the international power elite completely off guard. Now we observe these power brokers frantically scrambling to return the naïveté of the public back to the levels prior to globalization in the wake of this technological empowerment.
This should not come as a surprise. Authority figures rarely want to cede power to others. Nevertheless business leaders, government officials, and IGOs need to realize that there is no turning back. The technology is here to stay. The only question remaining is: where do we go from here? The consensus from these entities seems to be to target Wikileaks in order to cut the head off the proverbial snake. However, those who propose this measure fail to comprehend the size and scope of this lofty idea.
The cyber security giant H.B. Gary realized this when it started testing the waters in defense of Bank of America. In anticipation of a presumably embarrassing document dump by Wikileaks, Bank of America retained H.B. Gary Federal—by recommendation of the U.S. Department of Justice—as a security consultant. Everything seemed okay and out of the public eye until the CEO of H.B. Gary, Aaron Barr, began antagonizing the internet activist group known as Anonymous, which operates in tandem with Wikileaks’ transparency efforts worldwide as a guard dog. In both private correspondences and public statements, Barr boasted of having information that would cripple the infrastructure of the group and render them ineffective.
As soon as these claims hit the public domain, H.B. Gary and Aaron Barr became prime targets for Anonymous. H.B. Gary found itself wrecked and ravaged within 24 hours of Barr’s statements. The company that prided itself on cyber security had its files seized, sensitive materials publicized, and its website defaced. Adding insult to injury, immediately after the operation, Anonymous announced that a 16 year old girl compromised the security protocols of the cyber security giant.
The most fascinating outcome of this exchange, however, came by way of the sequestered files from H.B. Gary and Barr’s email account. In these files, Anonymous uncovered a comprehensive strategy concocted by Hunton & Williams, H.B. Gary, Palantir, and Berico to discredit Wikileaks. The Machiavellian plan included: disseminating misinformation, providing Wikileaks with false information and calling them out on it once they published the material, instigating feuds within Wikileaks, stalking Wikileaks employees, creating uncertainty over the security and confidentiality of Wikileaks’ sources, and conducting cyber attacks to mine information from the organization about its sources. What does this conspiracy tell us about democracy, about freedom of speech, about freedom of the press, and about the so-called transparent U.S. government?
This development provides critical insight that should realign public perceptions regarding a number of issues. First, it appears the U.S. government wants to play both sides of the fence, so to speak. U.S. officials feign outrage over “cyber crime” and “terrorism” while simultaneously conspiring with private entities and other nations behind closed doors to commit offenses that they publicly condemn. Second, cyber security firms and their clients—including U.S. government agencies—do not possess a higher degree of electronic protection than the average citizen. Third, Wikileaks should not be anyone’s central concern for the simple reason that, in the absence of Wikileaks, the leaks will continue through the independent efforts of groups like Anonymous. Lastly and most importantly, when comparing Wikileaks to significant leaks from the past, such as the Pentagon Papers’ acquitted whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, it appears that the U.S. wants to reframe social and poltical norms. The U.S., empowered by stringent counterterrorism measures in the wake of September 11, 2001, effectively conditioned the populace into believing that electronic acts of civil disobedience, protest, and crimes of conscience are equal to terrorism just because these interactions occur through the new medium of the internet.
Taking all of this into consideration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said that, “[c]onfidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise.” Are the arrangements made between the Department of Justice, Bank of America, and H.B. Gary, et al the type of “confidential communication” so eloquently described by Secretary Clinton? If so, how long can the U.S. government, its privileged corporate entities, and its allies operate with impunity under the guise of patriotism? More importantly, how long will the public, through its complacency and silent consent, permit the US government to target these individuals with Draconian electronic communication laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the USA PATRIOT Act?
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?
The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks
by Ellen Brown
October 8, 2008
"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."
Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s
The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations. In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world's largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a "government takeover," but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:
"The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs."
This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly "the lender of last resort" created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:
"The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed's request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed's use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters."
Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government's I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks' dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed's own website):
"The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable."
"To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable" means that the government gets the banks' toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government's triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered "risk-free" for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, "Bailout Bedlam," webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:
"The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank."
If the Fed's money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks' own reserves - reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?
Not Private and Not for Profit?
The Fed's website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed's mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads. The Fed's website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let's take a closer look. The website states:
* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations - possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."
* "The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."
So let's review:
1. The Fed is privately owned.
Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.
2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."
Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine."
He wrote: "When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."
3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.
The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed's operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered "for profit" corporations.
In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H. puts the total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually - this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.
The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks' interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers' -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.
Time to Change the Statute?
According to the Fed's website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:
"[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute."
As we know from watching the business news, "oversight" basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it's over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn't ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it "can alter its responsibilities by statute." It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG's stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed's stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we'll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.
If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly "federal" Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves.
by Ellen Brown
October 8, 2008
"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."
Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s
The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations. In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world's largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a "government takeover," but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:
"The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs."
This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly "the lender of last resort" created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:
"The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed's request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed's use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters."
Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government's I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks' dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed's own website):
"The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable."
"To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable" means that the government gets the banks' toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government's triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered "risk-free" for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, "Bailout Bedlam," webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:
"The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank."
If the Fed's money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks' own reserves - reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?
Not Private and Not for Profit?
The Fed's website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a "lender of last resort" to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed's mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system's most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads. The Fed's website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let's take a closer look. The website states:
* "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations - possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
* "[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."
* "The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury."
So let's review:
1. The Fed is privately owned.
Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.
2. The fact that the Fed does not get "appropriations" from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in "open market operations."
Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to "expand the money supply" (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called "open market operations" because the Fed buys the bonds on the "open market" from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the "reserves" that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as "fractional reserve" lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve "a total money-making machine."
He wrote: "When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check."
3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.
The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed's operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered "for profit" corporations.
In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their "reserves." The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in "reserve" can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H. puts the total "loans and leases in bank credit" as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually - this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.
The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks' interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers' -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.
Time to Change the Statute?
According to the Fed's website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:
"[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute."
As we know from watching the business news, "oversight" basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it's over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn't ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it "can alter its responsibilities by statute." It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG's stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed's stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we'll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.
If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly "federal" Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves.
The government of Bangladesh responds to The Economist!
Aug 5th 2011, 14:52 by The Economist | LONDON
The Economist received the following letter from the government of Bangladesh in response to a recent article:
"Our attention has been drawn to an article on India and Bangladesh, “Embraceable you”, published in The Economist in its issue dated July 30th. We are disappointed, as the report is less than well researched and contains elements of misinformation and a misrepresentation of facts. What is more unfortunate is that the writer uses some words and sometimes draws analogies which lack decency and professional ethics. We are furnishing relevant information to put the issues in the right perspective.
The writer is of the view that the ruling Awami League (and its allies) came to power through “bags of Indian cash and advice”. This is a blatant lie and aptly speaks about the writer’s utter disrespect for responsible journalism. The international community, including independent observers, hailed the historic elections in December 2008 as the freest ever in the history of the country, which was reflective of the aspirations of the people. His comment is also a slur on the democracy-loving people of Bangladesh – one of the largest democracies in the world. His observation that the transit facilities between the two countries are to meet Indian security needs at the expense of the interests of Bangladesh is also misplaced as both countries are expected to benefit immensely from it.
Bangladesh attaches the highest importance to its relations with India. These relations are time tested and based on shared history, culture, language, religion, traditions and values. The traditional relations were infused with a new dynamism following the landmark visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India in January 2010 as the leadership of the two countries agreed to embark on a new era of co-operation for mutual benefit with the objective of fighting the common enemy of poverty and under-development. This signifies closer engagement in areas as diverse as joint water resources management, land boundary demarcation, trade, power, connectivity, infrastructure, culture, education, etc.
The writer may be interested to know that as a part of the initiative of the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to return to the values and spirit that inspired the nation during the war of liberation, it has undertaken an exercise to honour those foreign friends who stood by the people of Bangladesh and contributed to the attainment of statehood in 1971. In this context it is widely felt that the seminal role played by the then Prime Minister of India, Mrs Indira Gandhi, deserves a special recognition. Thus she was conferred with the Bangladesh Freedom Honour (posthumously), the highest state honour for foreigners which was handed over to Mrs Sonia Gandhi when she visited Bangladesh to attend a special conference on autism. The writer has undermined both Bangladesh’s struggle to attain statehood through its glorious war of liberation as well as the hand of friendship and support extended by India to Bangladesh when he refers to the Freedom Honour as ‘a gong’ in a negative manner.
It may be noted that the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has undertaken a proactive policy for building up relations with not only India but with all of her neighbours in South Asia. Towards this end, there have been exchanges of high level visits from Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. One of the most significant developments in this regard has been the decision of the government to grant both Nepal and Bhutan use of Chittagong and Mongla ports for transit trade to third countries. In addition to this, Bangladesh is working to provide smooth and seamless connectivity between Bhutan, Nepal and India and to extend it through Myanmar to the countries of South-East Asia and beyond. Perhaps unknown to the writer is that this connectivity is not only through rail and road; Bangladesh has offered use of two airports situated in the north of the country to Bhutan for its own use. Bangladesh is also working on intensifying shipping linkages with Sri Lanka which will benefit not only bilateral trade but will also help to enhance trade relations with the Maldives, which has so far been stymied by a lack of air and shipping linkages between the two countries. Taking connectivity and regional co-operation one step further, Bangladesh is also working towards a joint water resources management in a sub-regional context involving Bhutan, Nepal, India and Bangladesh. This envisages water resources management for flood control and mitigation as well as augmentation of dry season flows of common rivers. An added benefit will be hydro-power generation to meet the incremental energy requirements of one of the most economically dynamic areas of the world today.
While mentioning about opposition’s boycott of Parliament, the writer says that the Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is “becoming increasingly autocratic”. This speaks about his poor knowledge about the numerous initiatives taken by the government to institutionalise democracy in the country. The writer is perhaps aware that the Dauphine University, a prominent Parisian university, awarded a gold medal to Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 25th May 2011 in recognition to her outstanding contribution to institutionalising and strengthening democracy, and also for her achievement in empowering the women of Bangladesh. In line with the spirit of accommodation, the present government, for the first time in history, has allocated the chairmanship of the two important standing committees of the Parliament to the opposition parties who hold only 40 seats out of 345. Even the post of deputy speaker was offered to the opposition. Despite the welcome gesture from the government, the opposition parties, quite ironically, have been boycotting parliamentary sessions for narrow political gains which undermines the country’s democratic process.
The initiative of the present government to try the people involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law, stems from the fundamental norms of a civilized society. It is reflective of the primacy of the rule of law and the rejection of impunity. The initiative draws from the overwhelming popular support for putting the perpetrators of war crimes on trial and is not prompted by any feeling of vendetta against any individual or any political party.
Without giving any research-based statistics, the writer mentions that “corruption flourishes at levels astonishing even by South Asian standards”. Fighting corruption and establishing good governance has been one of the priorities of the Government and neither any member of the present Prime Minister’s family nor any Cabinet member bears the stigma of being corrupt though corruption remains a major challenge for the country. Keeping with the election mandate, the present government introduced an electronic public procurement system to ensure transparency which was possible due to the government’s determination to digitalise the country. The allegation of building a personality cult around Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Father of the Nation of the Prime Minister, is just another example of poor judgment about the role of the great leader in the epic struggle of the country. The government, as per its election mandate, is trying to uphold the true history of the independence of the country which was subjected to distortion by successive military and pseudo-military governments. As regards to the “vindictive” treatment shown to Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel laureate, the writer should have known that it was Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself who had a distinct role in patronizing and thus in making micro-credit, Grameen Bank and Professor Yunus familiar globally. The government’s recent actions about Grameen Bank were taken to uphold the rule of law and not to harass anyone. The verdict of the courts, which are fiercely independent, was just reflective of the facts on the ground.
A closer look at the article indicates that the writer is carrying out the agenda of a quarter who are out to wage a smear campaign about Bangladesh and its present government led by the Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina who has, through her extraordinary courage, personal sacrifice and inspiring visionary leadership, brought the country back on track of democratic governance, made the country a model for women’s empowerment, food security, disaster management, poverty alleviation, and pursuing a people-centric peace building policy nationally as well as regionally and internationally. People in the region have already started enjoying the benefits of her government’s strong stand against terrorism and extremism."
Md. Shameem Ahsan
Director General (External Publicity)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dhaka
The Economist received the following letter from the government of Bangladesh in response to a recent article:
"Our attention has been drawn to an article on India and Bangladesh, “Embraceable you”, published in The Economist in its issue dated July 30th. We are disappointed, as the report is less than well researched and contains elements of misinformation and a misrepresentation of facts. What is more unfortunate is that the writer uses some words and sometimes draws analogies which lack decency and professional ethics. We are furnishing relevant information to put the issues in the right perspective.
The writer is of the view that the ruling Awami League (and its allies) came to power through “bags of Indian cash and advice”. This is a blatant lie and aptly speaks about the writer’s utter disrespect for responsible journalism. The international community, including independent observers, hailed the historic elections in December 2008 as the freest ever in the history of the country, which was reflective of the aspirations of the people. His comment is also a slur on the democracy-loving people of Bangladesh – one of the largest democracies in the world. His observation that the transit facilities between the two countries are to meet Indian security needs at the expense of the interests of Bangladesh is also misplaced as both countries are expected to benefit immensely from it.
Bangladesh attaches the highest importance to its relations with India. These relations are time tested and based on shared history, culture, language, religion, traditions and values. The traditional relations were infused with a new dynamism following the landmark visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India in January 2010 as the leadership of the two countries agreed to embark on a new era of co-operation for mutual benefit with the objective of fighting the common enemy of poverty and under-development. This signifies closer engagement in areas as diverse as joint water resources management, land boundary demarcation, trade, power, connectivity, infrastructure, culture, education, etc.
The writer may be interested to know that as a part of the initiative of the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to return to the values and spirit that inspired the nation during the war of liberation, it has undertaken an exercise to honour those foreign friends who stood by the people of Bangladesh and contributed to the attainment of statehood in 1971. In this context it is widely felt that the seminal role played by the then Prime Minister of India, Mrs Indira Gandhi, deserves a special recognition. Thus she was conferred with the Bangladesh Freedom Honour (posthumously), the highest state honour for foreigners which was handed over to Mrs Sonia Gandhi when she visited Bangladesh to attend a special conference on autism. The writer has undermined both Bangladesh’s struggle to attain statehood through its glorious war of liberation as well as the hand of friendship and support extended by India to Bangladesh when he refers to the Freedom Honour as ‘a gong’ in a negative manner.
It may be noted that the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has undertaken a proactive policy for building up relations with not only India but with all of her neighbours in South Asia. Towards this end, there have been exchanges of high level visits from Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. One of the most significant developments in this regard has been the decision of the government to grant both Nepal and Bhutan use of Chittagong and Mongla ports for transit trade to third countries. In addition to this, Bangladesh is working to provide smooth and seamless connectivity between Bhutan, Nepal and India and to extend it through Myanmar to the countries of South-East Asia and beyond. Perhaps unknown to the writer is that this connectivity is not only through rail and road; Bangladesh has offered use of two airports situated in the north of the country to Bhutan for its own use. Bangladesh is also working on intensifying shipping linkages with Sri Lanka which will benefit not only bilateral trade but will also help to enhance trade relations with the Maldives, which has so far been stymied by a lack of air and shipping linkages between the two countries. Taking connectivity and regional co-operation one step further, Bangladesh is also working towards a joint water resources management in a sub-regional context involving Bhutan, Nepal, India and Bangladesh. This envisages water resources management for flood control and mitigation as well as augmentation of dry season flows of common rivers. An added benefit will be hydro-power generation to meet the incremental energy requirements of one of the most economically dynamic areas of the world today.
While mentioning about opposition’s boycott of Parliament, the writer says that the Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is “becoming increasingly autocratic”. This speaks about his poor knowledge about the numerous initiatives taken by the government to institutionalise democracy in the country. The writer is perhaps aware that the Dauphine University, a prominent Parisian university, awarded a gold medal to Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 25th May 2011 in recognition to her outstanding contribution to institutionalising and strengthening democracy, and also for her achievement in empowering the women of Bangladesh. In line with the spirit of accommodation, the present government, for the first time in history, has allocated the chairmanship of the two important standing committees of the Parliament to the opposition parties who hold only 40 seats out of 345. Even the post of deputy speaker was offered to the opposition. Despite the welcome gesture from the government, the opposition parties, quite ironically, have been boycotting parliamentary sessions for narrow political gains which undermines the country’s democratic process.
The initiative of the present government to try the people involved in genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law, stems from the fundamental norms of a civilized society. It is reflective of the primacy of the rule of law and the rejection of impunity. The initiative draws from the overwhelming popular support for putting the perpetrators of war crimes on trial and is not prompted by any feeling of vendetta against any individual or any political party.
Without giving any research-based statistics, the writer mentions that “corruption flourishes at levels astonishing even by South Asian standards”. Fighting corruption and establishing good governance has been one of the priorities of the Government and neither any member of the present Prime Minister’s family nor any Cabinet member bears the stigma of being corrupt though corruption remains a major challenge for the country. Keeping with the election mandate, the present government introduced an electronic public procurement system to ensure transparency which was possible due to the government’s determination to digitalise the country. The allegation of building a personality cult around Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Father of the Nation of the Prime Minister, is just another example of poor judgment about the role of the great leader in the epic struggle of the country. The government, as per its election mandate, is trying to uphold the true history of the independence of the country which was subjected to distortion by successive military and pseudo-military governments. As regards to the “vindictive” treatment shown to Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel laureate, the writer should have known that it was Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself who had a distinct role in patronizing and thus in making micro-credit, Grameen Bank and Professor Yunus familiar globally. The government’s recent actions about Grameen Bank were taken to uphold the rule of law and not to harass anyone. The verdict of the courts, which are fiercely independent, was just reflective of the facts on the ground.
A closer look at the article indicates that the writer is carrying out the agenda of a quarter who are out to wage a smear campaign about Bangladesh and its present government led by the Honourable Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina who has, through her extraordinary courage, personal sacrifice and inspiring visionary leadership, brought the country back on track of democratic governance, made the country a model for women’s empowerment, food security, disaster management, poverty alleviation, and pursuing a people-centric peace building policy nationally as well as regionally and internationally. People in the region have already started enjoying the benefits of her government’s strong stand against terrorism and extremism."
Md. Shameem Ahsan
Director General (External Publicity)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dhaka
Saturday, August 6, 2011
20,000 Leagues Under the State
July/August 2011 20,000 Leagues Under the State
Beneath the surface of American government lurks a system of social programs for the wealthy that is consuming the federal budget. It’s time for progressives to do battle with tax expenditures.
By Suzanne Mettler
Growing up during the Depression, Sam Marchesi had to drop out of school after eighth grade—soon after his father died—to work and help support his mother and his seven younger siblings. When World War II began, he enlisted in the Army and served in the Pacific. Upon his return, he took advantage of the educational and training benefits of the G.I. Bill, joining the 52 percent of fifteen million returning veterans who did so. He acquired vocational training in architectural drawing and on-the-job training as an apprentice carpenter, skills that enabled him to become a successful custom builder. When I interviewed Marchesi in the late 1990s for a study of the G.I. Bill, he reflected, “I think it was a great thing that the government did, to give us this opportunity to pick up where we left off. We had to face the world. We had to make a living. Thank God the government had the doors open for us.”
The G.I. Bill’s transformative effects on the lives of men like Marchesi have become legendary, but just as striking in hindsight is the clearly visible role that government played as the source of those opportunities. In more recent decades the federal government has expanded its efforts to provide college aid to all Americans. But instead of delivering a straight benefit, like the original G.I. Bill, most of that aid has come through roundabout means, like payments to banks to provide students with loans, or loopholes in the tax code to subsidize families to save for or pay for college. Generations of Americans have now graduated with the help of these costly-though-indirect programs. Yet over the years, in conversations with my own students, I’ve noticed that, unlike Marchesi, few of them recognize that they’ve received benefits from government. It’s hard to imagine them reflecting on their HOPE Tax Credits, or their 529 and Coverdell college savings plans and saying, “Thank God the government had the door open for us.”
And it’s not just my students. In 2008, I conducted a survey to gauge the degree to which Americans who had received various government social benefits recognized them as such. Not surprisingly, most beneficiaries of the G.I. Bill who took part in the survey acknowledged that they had been given a leg up by the government. But of the respondents who made use of tax-advantaged Coverdell or 529 education savings accounts, 64 percent said they had “not used a government social program,” as did 59.6 percent of those who used HOPE and Lifelong Learning Tax Credits.
This disparity has far less to do with some inherent difference in character between the Greatest Generation and their grandchildren than it does with a fundamental change that has taken place in the relationship between citizens and the welfare state. Over the past few decades, while many standard social benefits have atrophied in real value, those packaged as “tax expenditures”—the formal name in federal budgeting parlance for subsidies provided through the tax code—have flourished, growing rapidly in value and number. These tax expenditures for individuals and families represented 7.4 percent of GDP in 2008, up from 4.2 percent in 1976. (Tax expenditures for business, such as those for the oil and gas industry, made up another 1 percent.) By way of comparison, Social Security amounted to 4.3 percent of GDP in 2008; Medicare and Medicaid, 4.1 percent.
These social tax expenditures comprise a major part of what I call the “submerged state.” By that I mean that they are public policies designed in a manner that channels resources to citizens indirectly, through subsidies for private activities, rather than directly through payments or services from government. As a result, they are largely hidden from the public: through them, government benefits people, providing them with opportunities and relieving their financial burdens, often without them even knowing it. Appearing to emanate from the private sector, such policies obscure the role of the government and exaggerate that of the market.
What’s more, the vast majority of Americans garner only modest assistance, if any, from the submerged state. In the case of social tax expenditures, that’s because the most expensive of these subsidies shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans.
The great drama now unfolding in Washington over how to deal with the government’s deficits and growing debt tends to be framed in conventional ways. Conservatives aim to use this moment to reduce the size of “big government” while liberals find themselves on the defensive, hoping to limit the damage and furious at the president and Democratic congressional leaders for not fighting harder. But these negotiations can actually be an important opportunity to advance progressive goals, if—as the Bowles-Simpson Commission and others have recommended— we scale back tax expenditures. Doing so could improve the nation’s balance sheet and restore some fairness to the tax code. Even more, it could address the real if inchoate sense many Americans have that government has been “growing,” as measured by deficits and new programs, but in ways that don’t benefit them. Saying good-bye to the submerged state could reconnect citizens with government and reinvigorate our democracy.
The clarion call of the conservative approach to governance that has dominated American politics for much of the past thirty years has been the demand to rein in the welfare state. Although few provisions have suffered outright termination, average benefit rates for several traditional and longstanding policies—such as welfare, unemployment insurance, Pell grants, and food stamps—have deteriorated in real terms, and in some cases the scope of coverage has atrophied. As deficit hawks continually remind us, costs have grown for the “entitlement” programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid— owing to inflation-protected benefits, soaring health care costs, and the sheer numbers of Americans aging into eligibility. Generally ignored, however, have been the rapidly escalating costs of tax expenditures for social welfare purposes—the sine qua non of our submerged state.
Known in informal parlance as “tax breaks” or “tax loopholes,”
these policies permit households to pay less in taxes if they are involved in some kind of activity or belong to a class that policymakers deem worthy of public support. From the time Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 until 2010, the number of such tax subsidies had increased by 86 percent, from 81 to 151. As of 2011, the federal government annually doles out more than $1 trillion in these tax expenditures.
Understandably, to many people tax breaks may seem substantively different from traditional social benefits. The latter are funded by tax revenues collected from the public and delivered through checks or services to particular citizens, whereas tax breaks function by allowing recipients themselves simply to keep more money, reducing the amount that they would otherwise owe. Traditional social programs also require the development of a bureaucracy to determine eligibility and deliver benefits, whereas the tax expenditures do not. For these reasons, many libertarians and conservatives object to the term “tax expenditures.” While conceding that tax loopholes constitute government intervention in the market, such thinkers equate closing them with raising taxes, unless the changes are offset by lower rates.
More at the above link..
Beneath the surface of American government lurks a system of social programs for the wealthy that is consuming the federal budget. It’s time for progressives to do battle with tax expenditures.
By Suzanne Mettler
Growing up during the Depression, Sam Marchesi had to drop out of school after eighth grade—soon after his father died—to work and help support his mother and his seven younger siblings. When World War II began, he enlisted in the Army and served in the Pacific. Upon his return, he took advantage of the educational and training benefits of the G.I. Bill, joining the 52 percent of fifteen million returning veterans who did so. He acquired vocational training in architectural drawing and on-the-job training as an apprentice carpenter, skills that enabled him to become a successful custom builder. When I interviewed Marchesi in the late 1990s for a study of the G.I. Bill, he reflected, “I think it was a great thing that the government did, to give us this opportunity to pick up where we left off. We had to face the world. We had to make a living. Thank God the government had the doors open for us.”
The G.I. Bill’s transformative effects on the lives of men like Marchesi have become legendary, but just as striking in hindsight is the clearly visible role that government played as the source of those opportunities. In more recent decades the federal government has expanded its efforts to provide college aid to all Americans. But instead of delivering a straight benefit, like the original G.I. Bill, most of that aid has come through roundabout means, like payments to banks to provide students with loans, or loopholes in the tax code to subsidize families to save for or pay for college. Generations of Americans have now graduated with the help of these costly-though-indirect programs. Yet over the years, in conversations with my own students, I’ve noticed that, unlike Marchesi, few of them recognize that they’ve received benefits from government. It’s hard to imagine them reflecting on their HOPE Tax Credits, or their 529 and Coverdell college savings plans and saying, “Thank God the government had the door open for us.”
And it’s not just my students. In 2008, I conducted a survey to gauge the degree to which Americans who had received various government social benefits recognized them as such. Not surprisingly, most beneficiaries of the G.I. Bill who took part in the survey acknowledged that they had been given a leg up by the government. But of the respondents who made use of tax-advantaged Coverdell or 529 education savings accounts, 64 percent said they had “not used a government social program,” as did 59.6 percent of those who used HOPE and Lifelong Learning Tax Credits.
This disparity has far less to do with some inherent difference in character between the Greatest Generation and their grandchildren than it does with a fundamental change that has taken place in the relationship between citizens and the welfare state. Over the past few decades, while many standard social benefits have atrophied in real value, those packaged as “tax expenditures”—the formal name in federal budgeting parlance for subsidies provided through the tax code—have flourished, growing rapidly in value and number. These tax expenditures for individuals and families represented 7.4 percent of GDP in 2008, up from 4.2 percent in 1976. (Tax expenditures for business, such as those for the oil and gas industry, made up another 1 percent.) By way of comparison, Social Security amounted to 4.3 percent of GDP in 2008; Medicare and Medicaid, 4.1 percent.
These social tax expenditures comprise a major part of what I call the “submerged state.” By that I mean that they are public policies designed in a manner that channels resources to citizens indirectly, through subsidies for private activities, rather than directly through payments or services from government. As a result, they are largely hidden from the public: through them, government benefits people, providing them with opportunities and relieving their financial burdens, often without them even knowing it. Appearing to emanate from the private sector, such policies obscure the role of the government and exaggerate that of the market.
What’s more, the vast majority of Americans garner only modest assistance, if any, from the submerged state. In the case of social tax expenditures, that’s because the most expensive of these subsidies shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans.
The great drama now unfolding in Washington over how to deal with the government’s deficits and growing debt tends to be framed in conventional ways. Conservatives aim to use this moment to reduce the size of “big government” while liberals find themselves on the defensive, hoping to limit the damage and furious at the president and Democratic congressional leaders for not fighting harder. But these negotiations can actually be an important opportunity to advance progressive goals, if—as the Bowles-Simpson Commission and others have recommended— we scale back tax expenditures. Doing so could improve the nation’s balance sheet and restore some fairness to the tax code. Even more, it could address the real if inchoate sense many Americans have that government has been “growing,” as measured by deficits and new programs, but in ways that don’t benefit them. Saying good-bye to the submerged state could reconnect citizens with government and reinvigorate our democracy.
The clarion call of the conservative approach to governance that has dominated American politics for much of the past thirty years has been the demand to rein in the welfare state. Although few provisions have suffered outright termination, average benefit rates for several traditional and longstanding policies—such as welfare, unemployment insurance, Pell grants, and food stamps—have deteriorated in real terms, and in some cases the scope of coverage has atrophied. As deficit hawks continually remind us, costs have grown for the “entitlement” programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid— owing to inflation-protected benefits, soaring health care costs, and the sheer numbers of Americans aging into eligibility. Generally ignored, however, have been the rapidly escalating costs of tax expenditures for social welfare purposes—the sine qua non of our submerged state.
Known in informal parlance as “tax breaks” or “tax loopholes,”
these policies permit households to pay less in taxes if they are involved in some kind of activity or belong to a class that policymakers deem worthy of public support. From the time Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 until 2010, the number of such tax subsidies had increased by 86 percent, from 81 to 151. As of 2011, the federal government annually doles out more than $1 trillion in these tax expenditures.
Understandably, to many people tax breaks may seem substantively different from traditional social benefits. The latter are funded by tax revenues collected from the public and delivered through checks or services to particular citizens, whereas tax breaks function by allowing recipients themselves simply to keep more money, reducing the amount that they would otherwise owe. Traditional social programs also require the development of a bureaucracy to determine eligibility and deliver benefits, whereas the tax expenditures do not. For these reasons, many libertarians and conservatives object to the term “tax expenditures.” While conceding that tax loopholes constitute government intervention in the market, such thinkers equate closing them with raising taxes, unless the changes are offset by lower rates.
More at the above link..
Political Animal Blog August 06, 2011 11:05 AM A timeline of events By Steve Benen
Political Animal
Blog
August 06, 2011 11:05 AM A timeline of events
By Steve Benen
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.
There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse.
Steve Benen is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly, joining the publication in August, 2008 as chief blogger for the Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal.
print 55 comments
Blog
August 06, 2011 11:05 AM A timeline of events
By Steve Benen
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.
There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse.
Steve Benen is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly, joining the publication in August, 2008 as chief blogger for the Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal.
print 55 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)