Posts Tagged ‘USA’

THE BEST KEPT SECRETS OF THE IRS

Posted: November 10, 2014 in WORLD VIEWER
Tags: , , , ,

IRS_logo

© Copyright 1993 By Frederick Mann, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Introduction
In order to legally and safely beat the IRS it is necessary for you to adopt a certain frame of mind. You need to have a certain independence of mind. You need to be able to read the U.S. Constitution for yourself. You need to be able to recognize how the Supreme Court “judges” and other politicians routinely violate the Constitution. You need to realize that practically all lawyers and accountants are handmaidens of the “terrocrats” – terrorist bureaucrats or coercive government agents. If you cannot already think for yourself, you need to learn to do so. You need to be able to think and do what is contrary to the entrenched among your family and friends. You need to become the authority of your own life. These and related issues are covered in the many other reports.

The Best Kept Secrets of the IRS

  • The Sixteenth Amendment, supposedly giving Congress the power to collect income taxes, was never ratified. (For the compelling evidence, get the book The Law That Never Was from Common Sense Press, PO Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103.) Furthermore, the 16th Amendment, even if ratified, is just a smokescreen that doesn’t grant any new taxing powers to Congress. The Supreme Court found in 1916 in the case Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.; 240 U.S. 1, that the 16th Amendment didn’t extend the taxing powers of Congress.
  • The Constitution does not empower Congress to delegate any function to the IRS.
  • The IRS is apparently a private corporation registered in Delaware.
  • The IRS is the Gestapo of the Federal Reserve bankers. The same sponsors pushed the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment through Congress in 1913.
  • The purpose of the IRS is not to collect taxes but to control and terrorize people.
  • It is doubtful whether money collected by the IRS goes to the government. Checks received by the IRS seem to be deposited by the Federal Reserve bankers, with “FRB” (for “Federal Reserve Bank”) stamped on returned checks.
  • Because of the limitations placed by the Constitution on the federal government, the IRS has no jurisdiction in the 50 states.
  • The Internal Revenue Code is not law.
  • The Internal Revenue Code defines the term “person” in such a way that it does not apply to most Americans.
  • For most Americans, the income tax is voluntary.
  • The federal income tax is an indirect or excise tax. The end-recipient of income cannot be liable for income tax.
  • The term “income” is so defined in the tax code that wages or salaries do not constitute “income.”
  • Most corporations in America need not subject themselves to the IRS in any way.
  • Corporations may only withhold taxes from an employee’s earnings if the employee specifically requests such withholding. No one can be legally forced to complete a W4 withholding form.
  • Employers who withhold part of the salaries or wages of employees against the will of the latter, commit theft.
  • The U.S. Constitution effectively defines “money” as gold and silver – Article I, Section 10: “No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.” The law agrees: “The terms ‘lawful money’ and “lawful money of the United States’ shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States.” (12 USC 152.) The Federal Reserve Note is not money; it is counterfeit currency. Hence receipts in Federal Reserve Notes, having no legal value, are not taxable.
  • It may be that most Americans can relinquish their “U.S. Citizenship” and declare themselves State Citizens, subject to neither Federal nor State income taxes.
  • There is a legal principle “void for vagueness.” The tax code is in many parts so vague that nobody (including IRS terrocrats) can understand it. A 1991 Supreme Court case found that if someone sincerely believes that he or she doesn’t have to file a tax return and pay income tax, then that person cannot be convicted of a crime. Several other courts have found accordingly.
  • Also in 1991, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that if someone claims they are not subject to the federal income tax, then the burden to prove the contrary is on the IRS. For most Americans the IRS can’t prove this.
  • Filing a 1040 or other tax return involves the surrender of the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate oneself. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that no one can be forced to incriminate himself or herself.
  • All IRS liens and seizures are illegal.
  • The IRS in its totality is a violent, criminal extortion racket with no legal basis whatsover.
  • There are methods for protecting income and assets so that, no matter what the IRS terrocrats do, it becomes difficult for them to violate our unalienable rights to own property and the fruits of our labor. One way is to use Trusts.
  • In his book Tax Fraud & Evasion: The War Stories, Attorney Donald W. MacPherson exposes the IRS as a paper tiger. The probability that any individual will be prosecuted for not paying taxes to the IRS are about one in 70,000. The probability that any individual will go to jail for not paying taxes are about one in 146,000. I believe that if you follow the advice in Beat-The-IRS Manual and The Pure Trust Package, the probability of having trouble with the IRS drops close to zero.

A Call to Action
2Practically everything the Federal Government does is evil, unconstitutional, criminal, and highly destructive. The IRS Gestapo plays a major role in keeping the criminal terrocrats in power. The IRS needs to be eliminated. In the words of Attorney Donald W. MacPherson, “The Beast must be destroyed.” What Federal Government we need (if any) can be financed through voluntary exchange for valuable products and services produced, augmented by voluntary contributions.

Please do your patriotic duty. Finance yourself – and worthy causes and institutions of your choice. Are you going to stay in the cattle herd – or join the human race of free sovereign individuals?

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Is it possible for Americans to legally stop paying income taxes?
It is possible for most Americans to legally stop paying both federal and state income taxes. This applies to most Americans who live and work in the 50 States. It does not necessarily apply to Americans working for the federal government, or those who work in federal military installations. The central issue here is federal jurisdiction which is covered under question #3. However, anyone who has entered into a contract with the IRS to pay them, has to fulfill that contract.

How the IRS tricks its victims into becoming “liable”
The IRS see it this way: By sending a 1040 tax return to the IRS, you voluntarily assess yourself, you acquiesce to IRS jurisdiction, and you become “liable” for federal income tax. Essentially, you enter into a contract with them.

Alternatively, when you open a bank account, on your signature card you sign something like, “Under penalty of perjury I certify that… The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number.” The signature card (without your knowledge) may also commit you to adhere to all current and future IRS regulations. Simply by opening a bank account you condemn yourself to being a “taxpayer” and you swear that your “social security number” is your “correct taxpayer identification number.”

By understanding this, you can learn how to undo it, because these supposed “contracts” with the IRS aren’t valid – as explained in detail in other Tax Reports.

2. Do all Americans have to file 1040 returns? If not, which Americans have to file?
Not all Americans have to file. Americans living and working outside federal jurisdiction (basically in the 50 States) don’t have to file. Those subject to federal jurisdiction (Washington DC, federal military installations, and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands) probably have to file. Once any American has filed a 1040 return, he or she has to continue to file, unless he or she takes special measures to revoke the “election” to pay income taxes. See question #4.

3. What does the U.S. Constitution say about federal jurisdiction and how does this affect who is subject to federal income tax?
Two clauses in the Constitution define federal jurisdiction:
(a) Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: “The Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings…”
(b) Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: “The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States…”

I have news for you, folks: The territorial and legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress extends to the ten square miles of Washington DC, military installations where States have explicitly ceded authority to the federal government, and U.S. Territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. In accordance, IRS income taxes apply (if they apply at all) to people who live and/or work in these areas, or who work for the federal government.

4. Does the Internal Revenue Code specifically tell you how to terminate or revoke your “election” to pay federal income tax?
Section 6013(g)(4) states the following: “TERMINATION OF ELECTION. – An election under this subsection shall terminate at the earliest of the following times: (A) REVOCATION BY TAXPAYERS. – If either taxpayer revokes the election, as of the first taxable year for which the last day prescribed by law for filing the return of tax under chapter 1 has not yet occurred.”

ORIGINALLY, MY ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 IMPLIED “YES.” HOWEVER, I WAS MISTAKEN. THE ABOVE IS REALLY AN “ELECTION” TO BE TREATED IN A DIFFERENT WAY BY THE IRS.

SO, THE CORRECT ANSWER TO QUESTION 4 IS “NO!

5. Why, in its literature, does the IRS consistently say that the federal income tax is based on “self-assessment and voluntary compliance?”
IRS literature often uses the terms “self-assessment” and “voluntary compliance.” The reason for this is that senior IRS personnel know that the law does not require most Americans to file income tax returns. The income tax does not apply to most Americans unless they voluntarily enter into a contract with the IRS. By filling out, signing, and filing an income tax return you voluntarily enter into a contract with the IRS. Once you have entered into such a contract it is not easy to get out of it. Tax abatement service companies provide the expert support to terminate the contract.

Like all government agencies, the IRS has a mission. Its mission as published in the Federal Register of March 25, 1974, includes: “The mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest degree of voluntary compliance… ” Do IRS Commissioners agree with the voluntary nature of federal income tax?

  • “Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe.” Johnnie M. Walker, IRS Commissioner, 1971, Internal Revenue 1040 Booklet.
  • “Our tax system is based on individual self assessment and voluntary compliance.” Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 Internal Revenue Audit Manual.
  • “In fairness to the millions of taxpayers who voluntarily file, report all their income and pay the tax due… .” Jerome Kurtz, IRS Commissioner, 1979 Internal Revenue Annual Report.
  • “The IRS’s primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system.” Jerome Kurtz, IRS Commissioner, 1980 Internal Revenue Annual Report.
  • According to Alan Stang (Taxscam: How The IRS Swindles You And What You Can Do About It), Robert J. Brann, Chief of Technical Services Branch, IRS, Washington, D.C., wrote to a “gentleman in New York” on March 11, 1981, “… In carrying out its responsibilities for administering the federal income tax laws, the Service encourages voluntary compliance by taxpayers. Voluntary co  mpliance places on tax payers the initial responsibility for deciding whether under the law they are required to file returns, and the responsibility for paying any tax that may be due… “
  • “… Encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance… ” Harold M. Browning, IRS District Director, Hawaii, 1984.
  • “Let’s not forget the delicate nature of the voluntary compliance tax system… ” Lawrence Gibbs, IRS Commissioner, Las Vegas Review Journal, May 18, 1988.
  • “We don’t want to lose voluntary compliance… We don’t want to lose this gem of voluntary compliance.” Fred Goldberg, IRS Commissioner, Money magazine, April, 1990.

During the Eighty-Third Congress in 1953, Dwight E. Avis, head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue, testified before the Ways and Means Committee, “Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day.”

The tax return for a manufacturer of tobacco products says, “The information is mandatory by statute. (26 USC 5061, 5703).” All mandatory tax returns mention penalties for not filing, for example, the Alcoholic Beverage Tax Return states, “… punishable upon conviction by a fine of not more than $100,000.00… ” Check your 1040 for the statute that says you must file, and the penalty for not filing – you won’t find them.

Congress has a legal research branch called the Congressional Research Service. A letter, dated June 26, 1989, from the office of Senator Daniel K. Inouye in Hawaii to a tax consultant Fred Ortiz states, that based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, “there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes.” [Emphasis added]

Let me cite three court cases that seem to support the notion that the federal income tax is voluntary:

  • “Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint [seizure by distress].” Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1959).
  • In case of any ambiguity of statutory construction, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, not the government. Greyhound Corp. v. U.S., 495 F. 2d 863 (1974).
  • “The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability… For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer, or one procedurally proper, by the IRS. Because this country’s income tax system is based on voluntary assessment, rather than distraint [seizure by distress], the Service may assess the tax only in certain circumstances and in conformity with proper procedures.” Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Construction, Inc., Ninth Circuit (1983).irs-thief

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “No person shall… be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” However, the Supreme Court has ruled:

  • The Fifth Amendment “applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings.” McCarthy v. Anderson, 266 U.S. 34.
  • “There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the [Fifth] Amendment.” Sullivan v. U.S., 15 F2nd 809.
  • “The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a “witness” as that term is used herein.” Garner v. U.S., 424 U.S. 648.

6. What is the significance of the 1991 Supreme Court case, Cheek vs. U.S.?
Cheek v. U.S. (No. 89-658; 1991 U.S. Lexis 348; 1991 WL 422 [U.S.]) This Supreme Court case represents a major turning point for those seeking to defend their rights against the IRS. Prior to this case, many courts applied the so-called “Cooley rule,” which was effectively used to prevent people from entering evidence for their own defence in tax cases. Typically, prosecutors would file preliminary (“in limine”) motions prohibiting defendants from entering evidence to defend themselves. Thus most tax prosecutions occurred in farcical kangaroo courts where the defendants were not allowed to defend themselves!

The Cheek decision changed that. Among other things it found:
(a) Defendants may enter evidence in their defense.
(b) Defendants can provide a “good faith” defense: if they sincerely believed (no matter how irrational the belief) that they didn’t have to file and pay income tax, then they can’t be guilty of a crime.

7. What is the significance of the 1991 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Ramon/Dolores Portillo vs. Internal Revenue?
Ramon and Dolores Portillo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (932 F.2d 1128 [5th Cir., 1991]) The Cheek case was a severs blow to the IRS in criminal cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit likewise dealt a severe blow to the IRS in civil cases. The court effectively found that in the case of an IRS assessment of tax deficiency, the burden of proof shifts to the IRS. In other words, they have to prove that you owe them money.

8. Who are the people who have most to fear from the IRS?
Those who file tax returns are most at risk. Because of the ambiguities of the Internal Revenue Code it is impossible to file a tax return without the IRS being able to nail you for filing a false return or committing perjury.

High-profile people like Leona Helmsley, Willie Nelson, and the late Red Foxx, who can be nailed as examples – providing wide media exposure.

People who use IRS-handmaiden lawyers and/or accountants to assist them in their tax affairs.

Tax protestors who stop filing and/or paying without properly terminating their contracts with the IRS.

The people who have least to fear from the IRS are those who have never entered into a contract with the IRS, those who know the weaknesses of the IRS, those who have properly “untaxed” themselves under the guidance of a competent tax abatement service company, and those who have organized their personal affairs so they don’t own any assets and don’t have any bank accounts the IRS or other government looters can seize.

It is important that you appreciate that the Internal Revenue Code is so complex and convoluted that nobody can understand it. This means that whatever tax return you file can be “proved” by the IRS to constitute fraud and perjury.

“Well, it’s a system so utterly complex and ultimately inexplicable that half the time the tax professionals themselves aren’t sure what the rules are – a system that even Albert Einstein is said to have admitted he couldn’t begin to fathom. You know, it’s said that his hair didn’t look that way until after he experienced his first tax form.” – Ronald Reagan, 1985.

Every year since 1987 Money magazine has run a contest in which 50 tax preparers complete the federal income tax return for a hypothetical family. In 1988 there were ten correct returns, in 1989 two, in 1990 one, and in 1991 zero. For the 1991 tax year the “target tax” was $26,619 – the tax amount for a correct tax return. Not one of the professional tax preparers got it right. At the low extreme, one tax preparer calculated the tax due as $16,219. She spent 25 hours on the job and charged a fee of $750. At the high extreme, another professional tax preparer calculated the tax due as $46,564. It took him 40 hours and he charged $3,000.

The contestants presumably fancied themselves as expert tax preparers, and did their utmost to win first prize. They consisted mostly of professional CPAs and former IRS agents. If you take your papers and records to two “professional tax preparers,” one might calculate your tax as $16,000, and the other as $46,000! Need I say any more?

Note that if you had hired any of these professionals to prepare your tax return, the result could have been prosecution for fraud and perjury. Not one of them got it right

9. Which 6 books should you read in order to understand the IRS and to safely beat it? (Where can you get them?)

  1. Congressman George Hansen: To Harass Our People: The IRS and Government Abuse of Power (Positive Publications, Box 23560, Washington DC 20024).
  2. Donald W. MacPherson: Tax Fraud & Evasion: The War Stories (phone 1-800-BEAT-IRS).
  3. Mitch Modeleski: The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue (Account for Better Citizenship, c/o PO Box 6189, San Rafael, California Republic, PZ 94903-0189/TDC).
  4. Irwin A. Schiff: The Biggest Con: How Government is Fleecing You (Freedom Books, 60 Skiff St #300, Hamden, CT 06517).
  5. Irwin A. Schiff: The Federal Mafia: How It Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes (Freedom Books, 60 Skiff St #300, Hamden, CT 06517).
  6. Alan Stang: Tax Scam: How the IRS Swindles You and What You Can Do About It (Mount Sinai Press, Research Publications, PO Box 84902, Phoenix, AZ 84902).

10. Is it possible for an informed citizen to legally and safely run rings around the IRS?
Yes. The informed citizen can beat the pants off the IRS. The best strategy might be to simply “disappear” as far as the IRS is concerned – see Report #16C: U.S. Tax Abatement Services. For extra safety it is advisable to use Trusts to safeguard assets. You may also want to use alternative banking services, as they become more available and more practical.

“Your mind will muse on the terror: “Where is the one who counted? Where is the one who weighed the tribute? Where is the one who counted the towers?” No longer will you see the insolent people, the people of an obscure speech that you cannot comprehend, stammering in a language that you cannot understand.”
– Isaiah 33, verses 18-19.
“To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals… is nonetheless robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.”
– U.S. Supreme Court – Loan Association v. Topeka (1874).

“In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that, “If the taxpayers of this country discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff, the entire system will collapse.””
– Senator Henry Bellmon, 1969.

 

credit-links

Ракетный подводный крейсер стратегического назначения Северного флота «Тула» успешно выполнил 5 ноября 2014 г. учебно-боевой запуск межконтинентальной баллистической ракеты «Синева».

Russian Submarine Launching R-29RMU Sineva SLBM

Russian R-29RMU Sineva ICBM Launch from a Delta IV class submarine.
The R-29RMU Sineva (Russian: Синева, lit. “blueness”), also designated RSM-54, is a Russian liquid-fuelled submarine-launched ballistic missile. It has the GRAU index 3M27, and is identified by NATO as the SS-N-23 Skiff. Carrying ten 100 kt warheads, it is designed to be launched from Delta IV class submarines, which are armed with 16 missiles each.

The first full-range test was reportedly conducted on October 11, 2008; the reported range was 11,547 kilometers. The R-29RMU entered service in 2007 and is expected to remain in service until at least 2030.

Current plans see the construction of approximately 100 such missiles.

Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree on the full ban for imports of beef, pork, poultry meat, fish, cheese, milk, vegetables and fruit from Australia, Canada, the EU, the US and Norway.

The ban will last a year, starting August 7.

The full list of banned products was published on the Russian legal information
website.

READ MORE: Putin bans agricultural imports from
sanctioning countries for 1 year

The Prime Minister also said Russia has stopped transit flights
by Ukrainian airlines to such destinations as Georgia,
Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey, adding that the country was
considering a ban of transit flights for European and US Airlines
to the Asia-Pacific region.

Western sanctions were a “dead-end track”, but Russia
has been forced to respond to the measures taken by the western
countries, Medvedev added.

Alcohol imports from both the EU and the US will not be
restricted.

“We are actually speaking of an embargo on imports of whole
categories of products from countries which have introduced
sanctions against Russian organizations and individuals,

Medvedev said.

Dmitry Medvedev instructed the Federal Customs Service (FCS) to
see that the banned imports could not cross the Russian border.

The Russian PM has also warned against possible attempts to use
the situation to drive up prices.

“I would like to warn that attempts to gain from price
speculation in this situation will be roughly stopped,”

Medvedev said.

The Russian PM added that Moscow still had a lot of trading
partners abroad, which it had not placed on the retaliatory
sanctions list.

Russia’s agricultural watchdog Rosselkhoznadzor has announced
plans to increase imports from Chile, which could include
vegetables, fruit, fish, shellfish, meat and milk.

Imports of fish, which last year amounted to 53,000 tons,
may grow two or three times. Shellfish imports might increase
from 3,000 tons to 15,000-20,000 tons
,” the watchdog said in
a statement.

Medvedev said he sincerely hoped“our partners’ economic
pragmatism will prevail over bad political decisions, and they
will think before trying to frighten Russia and impose
restrictions on it. And mutual trade and economic partnership
will be restored in the volumes which existed before. We would
have liked that to happen.”

In 2013, Russia imported $6.7 billion of meat and meat products
in total. The largest suppliers came from now-banned countries
like Denmark (6.6% of total Russian meat products), Germany
(6.4%), USA (5.3%), and Canada (3.8%).

https://i2.wp.com/rt.com/files/news/2b/9c/c0/00/42.jpg

Reuters / Ilya Naymushin

Unique opportunity

Medvedev believes the year-long embargo Russia is imposing will
boost domestic agriculture. He acknowledged that Russian farmers
would have to come a long way, but said it was a unique
opportunity to develop facilities to substitute for imports.

“We are only lagging behind in production of certain
varieties of meat and milk. We have to catch up and our farmers
are ready to do so, especially if we help them.”

Triggered by the ban, Russia’s domestic production of
agricultural products could grow by about $10.8 billion in the
next 18 months, Russian Agriculture Minister Nikolay Fyodorov,
told ITAR–TASS.

The Governor of the Krasnodar Region, Aleksandr Tkachev has been
quick to react to the news by saying farmers in the region will
use the chance to replace imported goods with their own produce.

“I have spoken to the heads of agricultural enterprises,
concerning the presidential decree on the ban of imports of
Western agricultural goods,”
Tkachev said, as cited by
ITAR-TASS. “The mood is on the whole optimistic. Krasnodar
farmers have received a strong stimulus to use all of their
potential.”

Krasnodar is already a big agricultural player in Russia. The
region is the third biggest producer of meat and eggs in the
country and the fourth biggest producer of milk.

The Astrakhan Region in Russia’s south also said it was ready to
increase agricultural production by 20–25 percent next year.

“There’s a real possibility that all the low quality goods,
which have been imported, will not appear on the Russian market
again. The country’s agriculture is now being given a historic
chance for a breakthrough, to increase production, the variety of
goods, and to improve processing technology,”
the Governor
of the Astrakhan Region Aleksandr Zhilkin, told ITAR-TASS.

Banning certain imports from the West will provide “historic
opportunities” for Russia’s more distant territories in the Ural
Mountains and in the Far East.

“Russia is the richest country in the world and has unique
marine resources that unfortunately go abroad. However, the
demand for these products on the international market are very
high,”
Irina Yarovaya, a Duma member from Kamchatka, said.

The new rule will help Russia develop its agriculture sector and
make it easier for Russian farmers to market their products, Igor
Rudensky, head of the Duma Committee on Economic Policy,
Innovation and Entrepreneurship said.

credit-links

Reuters / Kim Hong-Ji

Reuters / Kim Hong-Ji

The United States has accumulated over $70 trillion in unreported debt, an amount nearly six times the declared figure, according to a new study by University of California-San Diego economics Professor James Hamilton.

The unique aspect of Hamilton’s study  is that he examines federal debt that has not been publicly released, specifically the government’s support for “housing, other loan guarantees, deposit insurance, actions taken by the Federal Reserve, and government trust funds.”

Since the global economy hit rock bottom in 2008, US federal debt has gone through the roof, increasing from $5 trillion to an estimated $12 trillion in 2013. Meeting the interest payments alone on that debt burden presents a formidable challenge for US taxpayers: In addition to the debt, Americans must pay back around $220 billion annually just in interest.

And with interest rates set to rise from their historic lows, Americans will be confronted with a significantly higher bill in the future. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office anticipates that net interest expense on US federal debt will exceed the entire defense budget by 2021.

This fiscal horror story playing out across America, however, is actually much worse than publicly recognized.

Much of the current debt load is a direct result of the Great Recession of 2008, which saw an unprecedented effort on the part of Washington to rescue the US economy from financial ruin.

This led to a series of controversial operations on the part of the US Federal Reserve known as “quantitative easing” or “large-scale asset purchases.” The aim of these programs was that by buying long-term securities, the Fed would be able to lower the long-term interest rate, encourage investment and get the economy rolling again.

According to Hamilton, “the net effect of the Fed’s emergency lending between 2006 and 2008 was to increase the net indebtedness of the federal government by over a trillion dollars, balanced by acquisition of corresponding assets (the emergency loans).”

 

The real shocker in the report, however, came with the cost of Medicare and Social Security, which ran at $27.6 trillion and $26.5 trillion respectively.

Hamilton could not conceal his surprise at the findings.

“These numbers are so huge it is hard even to discuss them in a coherent way,” he said before providing a caveat on the US demographic situation. “The US population is aging, and an aging population means fewer people paying in and more people expecting benefits. This reality is unambiguously going to be a key constraint on the sustainability of fiscal policy for the United States.

“One would think we should be saving as a nation today as preparation for retirement, and if in fact we are not, the current enormous on-balance-sheet federal debt is all the more of a concern.”

It is not just the sick and elderly, however, who are adding to the US debt burden. Government loans for students also featured high in the report.

The US Department of Education approved $714 billion at the end of 2012, which is a significant jump from the $104 billion issued at the end of 2007.  But with the US economy failing to generate new jobs, many of these now college graduates lack the financial means to return their debt.

Although the report paints an extremely worrisome picture of America’s fiscal situation, some say it may actually be overly optimistic.

The US debt burden is much greater says Boston University economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, who served on President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $211 trillion. That’s the fiscal gap,” Kotlikoff said in an interview with National Public Radio. “That’s our true indebtedness.”

According to the US National Debt Clock, the US government has a $16.8 trillion debt, which comes out to be over $53,000 for each US citizen. Looking at those steadily accumulating numbers, it is difficult to see how the US will square the circle of a steadily-aging population together with the harsh reality of the modern economy.

Robert Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which examines the dangerous consequences of excessive corporate power in the United States.

credit-links

Political Review:
Putin to reach out to the U.S.
American People! The country is in danger! At the helm of idiots!
Glenn shows video of eating the heart, quoted Putin denounces Democrats, Republicans, government, president and asks all viewers disseminate information.

AFP Photo / Josep Lago

A Minnesota patient’s blood cancer has gone into complete remission after she was administered a strong dose of the measles vaccine as part of a clinical trial that confirms a “proof of concept” that some cancers can be eliminated with intravenous drugs.

Stacy Erholtz, a 50-year-old native of Pequot Lakes, was running out of treatment options for her blood cancer last year when she participated in a clinical trial at the Mayo Clinic, a nonprofit medical research group that has been conducting tests for 150 years.

Only one of two subjects in the experiment, Erholtz was injected with a measles vaccine strong enough to inoculate 10 million people. The disease, which had spread throughout her entire body, almost immediately became “undetectable” in front of Dr. Stephen Russell, the lead researcher on the project.

“It’s a landmark. We’ve known for a long time that we can give a virus intravenously and destroy metastatic cancer in mice,” Russell told the Star Tribune. “Nobody’s shown that you can do that in people before.”

Details of the research were first published Wednesday in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Researchers have long known that viruses are capable of killing cancer in animals. The virus attaches itself to a cancerous tumor then uses it as a host to replicate its own genetic material. The overwhelmed cancer cells eventually buckle under the pressure and release the virus.

Doctors carry out this process either by injecting the virus directly into the tumor, thereby reducing the potential of error, or injecting the virus into the bloodstream and allowing it to find the tumor itself. The latter method was used on Erholtz, as much of her cancerous tumors were located in her bone marrow.

Without trying to hype it too much, it is a very significant discovery,” Dr. John C. Bell of the Centre for Innovative Cancer Research in Ottawa told the Tribune, adding that the development represents a “benchmark to strive for and improve upon.”

Dr. Russell went on to explain that a single 11-year-old boy named David Edmonston has provided the strain that has been used to safely make all of the measles vaccines in the West. Though most people’s immune systems attack the strain, patients with multiple myeloma – such as Erholtz – often have suppressed immune systems, which can allow the virus to spread and do its work.

Doctors were able to subvert Erholtz’s immune system by extracting her cells, loading them with measles, and then injecting them back into her system.

That way it doesn’t get destroyed before it reaches its target,” he said.

Ten-thousand infectious units of the measles virus are contained in a normal vaccine, yet patients in this case were given one million infectious units before the level was again increased to 100 billion infectious units.

However, the other patient tested in the study was not as lucky at Erholtz; that patient’s immune system prevented doctors from administering another vaccine.

I think that if we had been able to give a bigger dose, we might have got a better outcome in that second patient,” Russell told journalist Dan Browning.

The exciting revelation comes at a time when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is working to contain a growing measles outbreak in Ohio. The contagious disease has infected 68 people, adding to what was already the largest measles outbreak in 18 years in the US.

Vaccines normally prevent such situations, although several of the early cases were initially misdiagnosed, Dr. Julia Sammons wrote in an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Because of the success of the measles vaccine, many clinicians have never seen measles and may not be able to recognize its features,” she wrote.

credit-links

Economic Affairs

Posted: March 25, 2014 in WORLD VIEWER
Tags: , ,

green-pdf