The Costs of Compulsory Education

by Aaron Smith

Education elites and their political cronies have implemented countless initiatives aimed at reforming education. From the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, every plan put forth has resulted in nothing but inefficient expenditures, new layers of bureaucracy, and continuing declines in student achievement.

Education will only be reformed once parents and entrepreneurs are free to create real alternatives to the broken systems that exist today. Repealing compulsory-education laws and allowing parents to spend their education dollars freely should be the first steps in this direction.

Curiously, compulsory-education laws, which conscript children into state-regulated programs of study, are rarely discussed in the context of education reform; these laws' ostensibly benevolent nature allows demagogues to marginalize detractors and quell any attempt at serious discourse. This results in far-reaching regulations that control how private actors educate, and thus prohibits students from getting the individualized education they need.

The origin of compulsory education was characterized by oppression and forced assimilation. The modern movement was initially led by Martin Luther and the early Protestants, who sought to inculcate the masses with their religious views. Despotic Prussia was the first to enact laws at the national level, and compulsory education quickly became a weapon of choice for states seeking to destroy troublesome cultures and languages. In the United States, Massachusetts began enforcing mandatory attendance in 1852, and by 1918 every state had enacted similar legislation. The primary impetus for policymakers was to assimilate poor immigrant children; labor unions were also ardent supporters, as they sought to decrease the supply of labor in the workforce.

Current laws vary by state in details, but they are quite homogeneous in spirit. All require a minimum amount of instructional time (ranging from 160 to 186 days annually) at approved institutions. The majority of Americans between the ages of 5 and 18 are compelled to meet this requirement, with several states enforcing slightly more lenient laws. Although parents are free to pursue private education for their children, such options are almost always regulated by state governments.

There is likely a minority of children who benefit from compulsory education. While these outliers are by no means insignificant, the benefits accrued to them do not justify the aggregate effects imposed. To objectively evaluate the merits of such laws, we must fully account for all of their costs. Evaluating the effects on private forms of education is a good starting point.

Private schools and homeschools are rarely truly free-market alternatives to government-regulated education. By mandating attendance, states have a virtual stranglehold on the nature of private education. After all, in order to become a state-approved program of study at which "official" attendance is recognized, private actors are forced to satisfy some combination of curricular, reporting, and testing requirements.

In New York, for instance, homeschools must submit a notice of intent, maintain attendance records, file quarterly reports, and submit Individualized Home Instruction Plans for state approval. 
Additionally, students must successfully complete an annual assessment, including mandatory yearly standardized testing for grades nine and above. Perhaps most problematic, however, is its mandate that instruction given to a child must be "at least substantially equivalent to minors of like age or attainments at public schools," an edict clearly susceptible to abuse by state officials. This forces parents to comply with the belief systems of distant regulators who are free to define "substantially equivalent" as they see fit.

In the event that a parent's personal values oppose those of the state, the state's interests will ultimately prevail. This conflict prompted Murray Rothbard to note that at the heart of the compulsory-education debate is "the idea that children belong to the State rather than to their parents." If you attempt to challenge this notion, your child may be labeled "truant," and you may be subjected to fines, imprisonment, and the forcible return of their child to his or her zoned public school. Compulsory education thus imposes the state's definition of "education" on all parties falling under its auspices — even those pursuing a "private" course of study.

The state's monopoly on what defines "education" inevitably suppresses alternative views, thereby eliminating the complexity and diversity that should be prevalent in the market. Instead, a homogeneous system is used to serve heterogeneous students — yet another cost of compulsory education. READ MORE

US Taxpayers Pay 25% of Israel's Defense Budget & List of US Politicians Who Hold Dual US/Israeli Citizenship

Keep at my fellow Americans we've got foreigners' bills to pay too!

Part I

A Reminder: U.S. Pays One Quarter of Israel's Defense Budget

Wednesday, March 04, 2015

(graphic: AllGov)

With Capitol Hill abuzz over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's appearance before Congress this week, there is no time like the present for a refresher on how much the American taxpayers spend on Israel's defense.

If it wasn't for Washington's longtime commitment to bolstering the Israel Defense Forces, Netanyahu and Israeli lawmakers would have a serious shortfall on their hands.

After all, the U.S. funds about 25% of Israel's annual spending on its military, thanks to $3 billion a year in aid.

"Since it was founded in 1948, Israel has become the largest single recipient of U.S foreign assistance — a total of $121 billion, almost all of which has been in the form of military assistance," Brandon Ward wrote at Journalist's Resource, citing a 2014 Congressional Research Service report (U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel [pdf]).

Among the items funded by the United States is Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system. The 2015 budget allows $175.9 million for the system on top of $234 million in 2014 and $704 million in the years before that, according to the report.

The really big-ticket item is a purchase of 19 F-35 fighter planes financed with a $2.75 billion grant. The planes were supposed to have been delivered this year, but problems with the F-35 program have pushed the delivery date to 2016 or 2017.

-Noel Brinkerhoff, Steve Straehley

To Learn More:

U.S. Foreign Aid To Israel: 2014 Congressional Report (Journalist's Resource)

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel (by Jeremy M. Sharp, Congressional Research Service) (pdf)

Supreme Court Rulings Open Loopholes for Water Polluters (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

When Israelis Kill Gaza Civilians, They do so with Weapons Provided by U.S. (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

U.S. Aid to Israel Equals $4.9 Million a Day for 64 Years (by Noel Brinkerhoff and David Wallechinsky, AllGov)

via AllGov

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Political Polygamy is Moral and OK for America

Part II

US Politicians Who Hold Dual US/Israeli Citizenship

August 18, 2014

"If Americans were ever polled on it—and they never are—the majority who now object to increasing aid to Israel would also likely object to quasi-governmental and governmental positions being staffed by people who—by citizenship or sheer strength of identity politics—are primarily occupied with advancing Israeli interests rather than those of the United States. It is obvious that the real reason AIPAC and its economic luminaries such as Fischer never substantiate any of the advertised benefits the U.S.-Israel "special relationship" delivers to America in return for all of the costs is simple—there simply aren't any. As greater numbers of Americans become aware that the entire "special relationship" framework is sustained by nothing more than Israel lobby campaign-finance and propaganda networks, the harder the lobby will have to work… In the very short term, Americans can only fight such undue Israel lobby influence by again—like during the drive to attack Syria—staging a mass action to demand their senators reject Stanley Fischer's nomination," Grant Smith, IRMEP

Past and Present:

1. Attorney General – Michael Mukasey
2. Head of Homeland Security – Michael Chertoff
3. Chairman Pentagon's Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle
4. Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) – Paul Wolfowitz
5. Under Secretary of Defense – Douglas Feith
6. National Security Council Advisor – Elliott Abrams
7. Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff (Former) – "Scooter" Libby
8. White House Deputy Chief of Staff – Joshua Bolten
9. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – Marc Grossman
10. Director of Policy Planning at the State Department – Richard Haass
11. U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) – Robert Zoellick
12. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board – James Schlesinger
13. UN Representative (Former) – John Bolton
14. Under Secretary for Arms Control – David Wurmser
15. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board – Eliot Cohen
16. Senior Advisor to the President – Steve Goldsmith
17. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Christopher Gersten
18. Assistant Secretary of State – Lincoln Bloomfield
19. Deputy Assistant to the President – Jay Lefkowitz
20. White House Political Director – Ken Melman
21. National Security Study Group – Edward Luttwak
22. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board – Kenneth Adelman
23. Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) – Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
24. National Security Council Advisor – Robert Satloff
25. President Export-Import Bank U.S. – Mel Sembler
26. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families – Christopher Gersten
27. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs – Mark Weinberger
28. White House Speechwriter – David Frum
29. White House Spokesman (Former) – Ari Fleischer
30. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board – Henry Kissinger
31. Deputy Secretary of Commerce – Samuel Bodman
32. Under Secretary of State for Management – Bonnie Cohen
33. Director of Foreign Service Institute – Ruth Davis
34. Federal Reserve Chair – Janet Yellen
35. Federal Reserve Vice-Chair – Stanley Fischer

Current (and past) Members of Senate:

  Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)

  Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)

  Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)

  Representative Howard Berman (California)

  Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)

  Representative Susan Davis (California)

  Representative Eliot Engel (New York)

  Representative Bob Filner (California)

  Representative Barney Frank (Former) (Massachusetts)

  Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)

  Representative Jane Harman (California)

  Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)

  Representative Steve Israel (New York)

  Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)

  Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)

  Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)

  Representative Nita Lowey (New York)

  Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)

  Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)

  Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)

  Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)

  Representative Adam Schiff (California)

  Representative Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)

  Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)

  Representative Brad Sherman (California)

  Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)

  Representative Henry Waxman (California)

  Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)

  Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)

House of Representatives:

  Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)

  Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)

  Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)

  Representative Howard Berman (California)

  Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)

  Representative Susan Davis (California)

  Representative Eliot Engel (New York)

  Representative Bob Filner (California)

  Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts)

  Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)

  Representative Alan Grayson (Florida)

  Representative Jane Harman (California)

  Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)

  Representative Steve Israel (New York)

  Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)

  Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)

  Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)

  Representative Nita Lowey (New York)

  Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)

  Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)

  Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)

  Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)

  Representative Adam Schiff (California)

  Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)

  Representative Brad Sherman (California)

  Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)

  Representative Henry Waxman (California)

  Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)

  Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)

---

There are no better people to run America than European American people. European peoples should be able to organize and advance their own interests just like every other group.

via american3rdposition

"Legalized" (but certainly not Moral or Constitutional) Govt Crime: CAFR SCHOOL

Charleston Voice 1st. Pub., 04.07.13

CAFR SCHOOL: School Districts And The Lottery (Rim of the World Unified School District)

This is an advanced lesson in government corruption - in legal, organized crime.

Covered here are the CAFR's for the "Rim Of The World" school district in San Bernardino County, and for the California State Lottery. District downloads below -

You can find your own district below -

Will Uncle Sam get your IRA?

Posted on February 13, 2015 by Pat Heller

I have written a number of times that I expect the U.S. government will eventually take or somehow get control of all assets in private retirement accounts, including precious metals individual retirement accounts. The basic reason for this expectation is that the U.S. government is running up tens of trillions of dollars of debts and unfunded liabilities. The trillions of dollars of private retirement account assets are just too big a target for the politicians and bureaucrats to leave alone.

Will Uncle Sam get your IRA?

Will Uncle Sam get your IRA?

An early attempt by the government to take control of such assets came soon after President Clinton took office. As now structured, income taxes are not paid on most retirement accounts until the assets are withdrawn. This event to collect income taxes usually occurs years down the road.

In the early 1990s, that concept was turned around. The proposal was to impose a 15 percent tax on all existing private retirement accounts, then tax new contributions also at the 15 percent rate.  The payoff for taxpayers was that any future withdrawals would be tax free.

A new plan was presented to the House Committee on Education and Labor in hearings on Oct. 7, 2008, by Professor Teresa Ghilarducci. This proposal was for the U.S. government to seize all private retirement assets and replace them with Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration. The only assets that would be allowed into these new Accounts would be U.S. Treasury bonds paying 3 percent interest (indexed for subsequent Consumer Price Index changes).

Further, the plan called for 5 percent of payrolls to be withheld, on top of existing Social Security and Medicare tax withholdings, for deposit into these GRAs.  The last feature of this proposal is that upon the death of the account holder, part of the remaining assets would be forfeited to the U.S. government. That was a huge change where all private retirement account assets, up to now, go to the heirs.

The one bonus to bribe Americans to go along with the nationalization of private retirement accounts was that the assets would be converted to government bonds as of their value at a designated earlier date when most paper assets such as stocks, bonds and currencies were mostly at a higher value than they were in October 2008. Given the opportunity to recoup some of the losses that retirement accounts had suffered in 2007 and 2008, this was a definite enticement.

In September 2010, the Departments of Labor and Treasury held joint hearings to advocate that, upon retirement, the assets in private retirement accounts would be converted into annuities, where the residual assets upon death would ultimately all be retained by the U.S. government.

In January 2014, during his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed the establishment of the MyRA. This is initially a voluntary program for lower-income Americans to set aside some after-tax dollars to earn income that can later be withdrawn tax-free. However, there are several limitations. First, these accounts can only own U.S. Treasury debt that pays the same interest rate as the Thrift Savings Plan’s Government Securities Investment Fund. This fund was paying less than 2 percent at the time of the President’s proposal. A second major limitation is that accounts could not exceed $15,000 in total value. Further, these accounts cannot exist longer than 30 years.

Starting two months ago, a small number of these MyRA accounts have been established.
 

Investment writer Doug Fabian has described an all-too-plausible scenario that he expects to happen before the end of President Obama’s term. He anticipates that there will be some major financial crisis in the United States, greater than the Great Recession of last decade, where investors will see the values of their stocks, bonds and other assets mostly plummet.

This could be triggered by any number of incidents. As some examples, Greece could leave the European Monetary Union, which would force many major American and foreign banks to write down tens of billions of dollars of bonds that they are now carrying at face value.  The developing fall in demand for upper-end U.S. housing could expand to all housing nationwide, leaving U.S. banks with massive bad debts that risk their survival. Or local, school district, regional, and state governments all across America could be forced into bankruptcy after the Governmental Accounting Standards Board issues their pronouncements in June requiring these entities to more fully report the extent of their tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities for employee pensions and retiree health care benefits. There are many other possible crises, but this gives you an idea of how massive a financial crisis could occur.

At the time when such a financial crisis hits, private retirement account assets will almost all drop in value – by a lot.  If, or when, this occurs, there will be a huge groundswell from people who no longer have enough wealth to retire. Mr. Fabian theorizes that this will be the perfect time for the federal government to modify MyRA accounts to accept unlimited asset transfers from existing private retirement accounts. By the federal government offering people the opportunity to get credit for the value of their assets before the financial crisis was triggered, Fabian expects that a high percentage of Americans would voluntarily be eager to turn their retirement assets into loans to the U.S. Treasury.

Such a scenario would be a power-grabbing politician’s dream. Instead of being thought of as a President who stole people’s retirement assets, the person in charge in such circumstances were be hailed as a savior. Unfortunately, I think the risk of such events coming to pass by the end of 2016 are high enough that Americans need to prepare their finances sooner rather than later.

Should any huge financial crisis come to pass, expect to see a surge in demand for precious metals, especially gold and silver. Other portable tangible assets such as rare coins and paper money will also likely experience stronger demand.  However, the increased demand for such assets will not be for placement in retirement accounts.  Instead, look for the surge in demand to be for assets that can be owned and possessed directly.

Patrick A. Heller was the American Numismatic Association 2012 Harry Forman Numismatic Dealer of the Year Award winner. He is the owner emeritus and communications officer of Liberty Coin Service in Lansing, Mich., and writes “Liberty’s Outlook,” a monthly newsletter on rare coins and precious metals subjects. Past newsletter issues can be viewed at http://www.libertycoinservice.com. Other commentaries are available at Coin Week (http://www.coinweek.com and http://www.coininfo.com). He also writes a bi-monthly column on collectibles for “The Greater Lansing Business Monthly” (http://www.lansingbusinessmonthly.com/articles/department-columns). His Numismatic Literary Guild award-winning radio show “Things You ‘Know’ That Just Aren’t So, And Important News You Need To Know” can be heard at 8:45 a.m. Wednesday and Friday mornings on 1320-AM WILS in Lansing (which streams live and becomes part of the audio and text archives posted at http://www.1320wils.com).  

via numismaticnews

The Morality of Capitalism: Liberty, Honesty and Humility

By Richard Ebeling - February 10, 2015

In American culture there is one persistent villain portrayed as the enemy of humanity, the perpetrator of deception, and the agent for social corruption and human harm: the businessman.

Whether in news commentaries or on the movie screen, the businessman is presented as a heartless, greedy manipulator so concerned with squeezing the last possible dollar out of anything he does, that he is willing to destroy the planet, kill his competitors, poison little children, and sell his own mother "down the river" if it will serve his material and financial purposes.

The only thing that saves us from the end of the world at the hands of these criminal private enterprisers is either some righteous individual who refuses to "take it any more" or the virtuous hand of a government agent dedicated to protecting mankind from those who, clearly, care nothing for the common good of humanity.

Critics of Capitalism Want to Abolish or Regulate It

This imagery of the businessman's way of gaining profits has been extended by many intellectuals, academics, and public policy pundits into a general criticism and, indeed, condemnation of capitalism.

What can be praiseworthy, ethical or just in a social and economic system that fosters people to focus only on their self-centered personal interest in the pursuit of material gain with little or no thought to the betterment and improvement of mankind?

The conclusion that many of these critics have reached over the years and decades is that the entire capitalist system must be done away with and replaced with an alternative social and economic system such as socialism; or, at a minimum, business enterprise has to be placed under the detailed supervision and regulatory hand of government bureaucrats presumed to be concerned with and devoted to the general welfare of the country as a whole instead of individual private interest.

I beg to differ from this interpretation of businessmen and the free enterprise system in general. Instead, I would argue that a truly free enterprise, competitive capitalism is the most moral and humanely beneficial way for people to live together that has ever been stumbled upon by mankind.

Capitalism's Premise: Individual Rights and Liberty

There are basically two way human beings can interact and associate with each other: through the threat or use of force or by mutual agreement and voluntary consent.

When have you ever walked into a shoe store looked around and, maybe, tried on a pair of shoes, but when you decided to leave without buying anything a gruff and intimidating character with a club or a gun said, "The boss says you ain't leaving without buying something"? I doubt it any of us have had any such experience.

Why? Because the philosophical and moral premise underlying transactions in the marketplace is that each participant has the right to say, "Yes" or "No" to an offer and an exchange.

Why does every person have this implied right to "Yes" or "No" without attempted physical intimidation or use of force to make him act against his will? This is due to the fact that the foundational American principle is that every one of us has an inviolable individual right to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property.

Virtually every other philosophical and political system throughout human history has been based on some version of the opposite. That is, that you do not own yourself; your life and property are at the disposal of the primitive tribe or the medieval king, or the social, national, or racial group or "democratic" community to which you've been designated as belonging.

That is the premise of all forms of political and economic collectivism. You work for the group, you obey the group, and you live and die for the group. The political authority claiming to speak and act for the group presumes to have the right to compel your acquiescence and obedience to the asserted needs and desires of that collective group.

Only liberal, free market capitalism as it developed in parts of the Western world, and especially in the United States, broke free of this age-old collectivist conception of the relationship between the individual and others in society.

The modern ideas of individual liberty and free enterprise that began to develop and be argued for about 350 years ago transformed the way men lived and earned a living, and the ethical premises underlying human association in society.

A new morality emerged under which human relationships became based on mutual consent and voluntary agreement. Men could attempt to persuade each other to associate and trade, but they could not be compelled and plundered so one person could get what he wanted from another without their consent.

For Americans, it is heralded as the fundamental principle under which our country was based: It is held to be a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights among which are their individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Capitalism Fosters Honesty and Good Manners

As a consequence of this principle of liberty, in the marketplace of the free society individuals learn and practice the etiquette and manners of respect, politeness, honesty and tolerance. This naturally follows from the fact that if violence is ethically and legally abolished, or at least minimized, in all human relationships, then the only way any of us can get others to do things we would like them to do for us is through reason, argument, and persuasion.

The reason why the shoe salesman is motivated to act with courtesy and deference toward us when we are in his store is precisely because he cannot force on us to buy a pair of the shoes he wants to sell. We can walk down the mall corridor and buy those shoes from another seller interested in winning our business, or we can just go home without buying anything that day.

The clichés of "serve with a smile," or "the customer is always right," in fact are inescapable resulting manifestations of the voluntarist principle at the basis of all market transactions.

No businessman is likely to keep his market share or even stay in business in the long run if he earns a reputation for rudeness, deception and dishonesty in his dealings with either other businesses or his consumer customers.

The famous Scottish economist of the 18th century, Adam Smith, long ago explained that the motivation for respectful, polite, honest and deferential behavior on the part of any businessman is his own self-interest. If he doe not, he may not long remain in business, as every private enterpriser knows who had learned to appreciate the importance of gaining and maintaining his brand-name and personal reputation in the eyes of all those with whom he has dealings.

Such polite, courteous, honest and deferential behavior may start out as the self-interested conscious and intentional attempt to merely succeed in the market pursuit of profits, when voluntary and free market dealings and transactions become the common and everyday way in which people associate.

But, over time, such rules of "good behavior" become habituated, a part of the routine of regular day-in and day-out interactions, until, finally, they are transformed into the customs and traditions expected in any and all human encounters, whether in the marketplace or not.

Thus, the practice of self-interested good manners and respectful tolerance fostered first in commercial buying and selling become embedded and reinforced as the general societal rules and ways of civilized and "polite society." And, thus, capitalist conduct makes its contribution to a more cultured and humane civilization.

Capitalism Creates a Spirit of Humility, Not Political Arrogance

Finish reading

US Government & Congress Awarding Tax Monies to Private Businesses for Waging War

It's worse. Businesses are 'awarded' the war contracts and then kick back to the politically compliant Washington politicians. Not only does congress end-around the Constitutional mandate that congress must declare war, but a 5th column of soldiers is being recruited to replace our own military - - a war force, including foreigners, that with salaried compensation can be trusted to kill Americans if ordered by the corporations. Indeed, the UN forces are but a 8-hour flight from putting boots on our home soil.

You can begin to see how our impending bankruptcy is not a debt that will be paid by them, but you and me.  Past wars have always been a corporate 'thang'... check 'em out.

Even if you do pay your taxes like a patriotic sucker, it's national suicide, as either way you still get a bullet in the head.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Murky Special Ops Have Become Corporate Bonanza

 By Ryan Gallagher, 09.08.2014

The U.S. government is paying private contractors billions of dollars to support secretive military units with drones, surveillance technology, and “psychological operations,” according to new research.

A detailed report, published last week by the London-based Remote Control Project, shines a light on the murky activities of the U.S. Special Operations Command by analyzing publicly available procurement contracts dated between 2009 and 2013.

USSOCOM encompasses four commands – from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps – and plays a key role in orchestrating clandestine U.S. military missions overseas.

Researcher Crofton Black, who also works as an investigator for human rights group Reprieve, was able to dig through the troves of data and identify the beneficiaries of almost $13 billion worth of spending by USSOCOM over the five-year period. He found that more than 3,000 companies had provided services that included aiding remotely piloted drone operations in Afghanistan and the Philippines, helping to conduct surveillance of targets, interrogating prisoners, and launching apparent propaganda campaigns.

“This report is distinctive in that it mines data from the generally classified world of U.S. special operations,” says Caroline Donnellan, manager of the Remote Control Project, a progressive thinktank focused on developments in military technology. “It reveals the extent to which remote control activity is expanding in all its facets, with corporations becoming more and more integrated into very sensitive elements of warfare. The report’s findings are of concern given the challenges remote warfare poses for effective investigation, transparency, accountability and oversight.”

According to the report, USSOCOM tendered a $1.5 billion contract that required support with “Psychological Operations related to intelligence and information operations.” Prospective contractors were told they would have to provide “military and civilian persuasive communications planning, produce commercial quality products for unlimited foreign public broadcast, and develop lines of persuasion, themes, and designs for multi-media products.” The contract suggested that aim of these “persuasion” operations was to “engage local populations and counter nefarious influences” in parts of Europe and Africa.

A separate document related to the same contract noted that one purpose of the effort was to conduct “market research” of al-Qaida and its affiliates in Libya, Tunisia, Mali, Northern 

Nigeria, and Somalia. Four American companies eventually won the $1.5 billion contract: Tennessee-based Jacobs Technology and Virginia-based Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI-WGI, and SRA International.

Notably, while some 3,000 contractors provided service in some capacity to USSOCOM, just eight of the contractors earned more than 50 percent of the $13 billion total identified in Black’s report. Those were: Lockheed Martin, L-3 Communications, Boeing, Harris Corporation, Jacobs Engineering Group, MA Federal, Raytheon, and ITT Corporation.

One of the largest single transactions ($77 million) was paid to a subsidiary of Alaska’s Shee Atika – a company that the report says provided “interrogation services” as well as translation assistance.

Last year, the then-commander of USSOCOM, Adm. William McRaven, told the House Armed Services Committee that U.S. special operations forces were engaged in “annual deployments to more than 100 countries.” But very little is known about the scope and purpose of those operations, given the extreme secrecy that often shrouds them. The report from the Remote Control Project, however, is a reminder of how public data can sometimes be used to obtain information about even the most shadowy government activities – in this case, offering a valuable glimpse into the burgeoning nature of the U.S. military’s special operations and, in particular, the supporting role played by private contractors.

“The Special Operations Command is outsourcing many of its most sensitive information activities,” says Black. “Remote warfare is increasingly being shaped by the private sector.”

USSOCOM had not responded to a request for comment at time of publication.

Photo: Rob Jensen/USAF/Getty Images

Email the author: ryan.gallagher@theintercept.com

via theintercept

Largest bracket of taxpayers in US made up by those making $15,000 a year or less...and

...  Half of all federal taxes paid by those making $250,000 or more. Sample $50,000 budget.

Posted by mybudget360

New IRS tax filing data sheds an interesting light on the American economy. Americans for the most part comply with paying their taxes as measured against other countries. However, when we look at tax data we get an interesting picture on the low wage economy. As it turns out, the largest tax bracket comes in the form of those making $15,000 or less per year (this group makes up 25% of tax filings).

What the data also finds is that households making $250,000 a year or more make up 2.4% of filers but pay 26% of all federal income tax. So when we hear about large spending proposals we have two ways to fund them. It means higher taxes or simply more deficit spending. We’ve already covered how inflation is really hitting the family budget even though we continue to hear stories to the contrary. Just look at the actual numbers on real life spending. The IRS data always gives us a nice look at how household spending is measuring up.

IRS tax data

Over 90 million tax returns report a household income of $50,000 per year or less. What this means is that over 60 percent of American households are reporting annual income of less than $50,000 per year. According to Census data the typical American household makes approximately $50,000 per year. Since most families are part of the two-income trap, the per worker wage of $27,000 per year makes sense.

Take a look at the IRS data below:

 Source: IRS

The bulk of the federal income tax is paid by those making $50,000 per year to $200,000. Then you have another big chunk of taxes being paid by those making $250,000 or more. Yet this is strictly federal income tax. This fails to capture the following taxes:

 -Social Security taxes
-Medicare taxes
-Sales taxes
-Property taxes

When these taxes are included, the burden is large on everyone. We can argue the merits of tax rates or the politics of paying taxes but the reality is, if we continue to run current deficits and spend as we do there will be more taxes or more debt. That is simply the reality of the situation.

Take a look at current expenses and revenues:

The government is spending over $3.8 trillion but brining in less than $3.4 trillion. If this was a regular household it would be digging a deeper hole each and every year. Yet the government has the ability to digitally print debt and fund its way out. However you have the slow methodical process of causing inflation to hit working class Americans which is the bulk of households based on IRS tax data.

I’ve covered budgets on households making $46,000 a year. Here is a budget for someone living in a high cost market:

Housing is the big variable here since high cost areas will consume a sizable portion of your budget versus most of the country where real estate is reasonably priced. But with Wall Street buying up many rental properties, rents have gone up much faster than incomes.

The IRS tax data paints an interesting picture of our current economy and revenues. If we want to continue spending like we are, we will be facing higher taxes or more debt.

That is just the simple math of the situation.


source mybudget360

▶ SHOCKING Report Reveals Government STEALING Pension Funds! - YouTube

The Money GPS ~ Author Exposing the Truth

Sources:
"Is Your Pension Courting Catastrophe? - Bloomberg View"
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles...
"Detroit attorney says pension cuts actually close to 50 percent - World Socialist Web Site"
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/...
"Public service unions not entitled to $28B pension surplus, says Supreme Court | Toronto Star"
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/20...
"Portugal raids pension funds to meet deficit targets - Telegraph"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fi...
"Hungarian savers say government is stealing their pensions | Reuters"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/1...
"Russia Seized Citizens Pension Funds. Could That Happen in the U.S.? - Businessweek"
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/...
"UPDATE 2-Poland reduces public debt through pension funds overhaul | Reuters"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/0...
"Argentina seizes pension funds to pay debts. Who's next? – Telegraph Blogs"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...
"How the West Was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly - And the Stark Choices ... - Dambisa Moyo - Google Books"
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ivXM...

The IRS is a Private Collection Agency for the US Federal Reserve

This taxpayer should've had a V8

The Internal Revenue Service is considered to be a Bureau of the Department of the Tresaury; however, like the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the Federal Government (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391), and in fact was incorporated in Delaware in 1933. 

It is pointed out that all official Federal Government mail is sent postage-free because of the franking privilege, however, the IRS has to pay their own postage, which indicates that they are not a government entity. [The US Govt is but the enforcement arm for the IRS…Ed]

They are in fact a collection agency for the Federal Reserve, because they do not collect any taxes for the U.S. Treasury. All funds collected are turned over to the Federal Reserve. If you have ever sent a check to the IRS, you will find that it was endorsed over to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, in turn, deposits the money with the International Monetary Fund, an agency of the United Nations (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, pg. 816), where it is filtered down to the International Development Association (see Treasury Delegation Order No. 91), which is part of the "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development", commonly known as the World Bank. Therefore, it is now clear that the American people are unknowingly contributing to the coming World Government.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the "Governor" of the International Monetary Fund (Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942; U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-81; 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11); Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10). The United States has not had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch. 214, pg. 654) and for all intents and purposes the U.S. Treasury is the IMF (Presidential Documents, Volume 29, No. 4, pg. 113; 22 U.S.C. 285-288).

Chief Justice John Marshall said: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." Alan Keyes, the former ambassador to the U.N., who ran for President in 2000 said: 

"We ought to have realized that the income tax is utterly incompatible with liberty. It is actually a form of slavery. A slave is someone the fruit of whose labor is controlled by somebody else. A slave is not somebody with nothing. Rather, he has only what the master lets him have ...

Under the income tax, the government takes whatever percentage of the earner's income it wants. The income tax, therefore, represents our national surrender to the government of control over all the money we earn. There are, in principle, no restrictions to the preemptive claim the government has." 

The income tax was intended to rob the earnings of the low and middle class; or as the saying goes, "the more you make, the more they take." However, the tax didn't touch the huge fortunes of Illuminati members. The tax was an indication that the U.S. was heading for a planned war, because they couldn't go into a war without money. Since the tax provided less than 5% of total Federal revenues, increases were later made to accommodate World War I, FDR's New Deal, and World War II. In July, 1943, workers in this country were subject to a payroll withholding tax in the form of a "victory tax" that was touted as a temporary tax to boost the economy because of the War, and would later be discontinued. However, the payroll deduction remained because it forced compliance.

Now come on, pssst... admit you didn't know this.

<< Prev : Table of Contents : Next >>

Soros' OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE: $2B available to Fund Anti-Americanism

From what we could see, the Open Society Institute is the largest of the Soros foundations. It is from these 'charitable' foundations subsidized by the US taxpayer , he is able to fund America's despoilage both domestically and in foreign lands. Links to other Soros foundations are at bottom of page. Find full reports for other foundations you're paying for, here. Don't you think it's long past due that all these special interests (more than 1,000,000 - churches included) are no longer subsidized by the American people?  There are thousands more agitating for the same destabilization as Soros - also with taxpayer subsidies!

IRS Rarely Audits Nonprofits for Politicking

What more evidence do the people require to conclude that "tax-exempt, ' non-profit, 'charity' orgs" are conduit mechanisms to payoff a privileged class? 

And the IRS asks for more money? When an employee's work record is poor and failing would you award him a raise, or fire him? Worse, you find out your watchman is sleeping on the job or a no-show yet billing you for a salary. The IRS does no meaningful auditing yet you're gonna award it a raise? Of course, keep in mind that in your instance you'd be using your own money not that extorted from others as is the IRS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By Julie Patel 22 January 2015

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John
Koskinen explains how his agency wants to
regulate politically active nonprofits during an
interview at the agency's headquarters in
Washington, D.C. Eleanor Bell/Center for Public
Integrity

When Republicans won control of the U.S. Senate in November, they could thank dozens of conservative "dark money" nonprofit groups for spending nearly $130 million to boost their preferred candidates or bash their political enemies.

Those nonprofit groups, including many that enjoy a preferred tax status because they purport to be focused on “social welfare,” are barred from engaging in electoral politics as their primary activity.

But the Internal Revenue Service, which is charged with policing the groups, almost never audits them to see if they’re spending too much money on politics, according to new information obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

The IRS told the Center for Public Integrity that it has only begun auditing 26 organizations specifically for political activity since 2010. That represents a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million nonprofits regulated by the agency.

More than 100 nonprofit groups have directly involved themselves in elections during recent years, some spending into the tens of millions of dollars. The rest — largely charities that are generally prohibited from campaigning for politicians — are seldom monitored to ensure they follow federal law.

The situation leaves the groups largely free to operate like political committees without fear of reprisal.

Their involvement in politics, meanwhile, has accelerated since 2010, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision ushered in unprecedented election spending by nonprofit organizations that don’t disclose their donors.

Such groups spent more than $336 million during the 2012 cycle alone compared to about $17 million during the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The lack of IRS oversight and enforcement stems from a confluence of factors — fewer employees are devoted to nonprofits at a time when the number of  “dark money” groups applying for tax exempt status has skyrocketed, and the agency meantime has failed to clarify the rules surrounding political activity.

Internal IRS documents also show declines in the number of IRS employees investigating nonprofit groups and the number of employees who approve organizations’ application for nonprofit status, which allows the groups to avoid paying certain taxes.

“The IRS is not doing its job,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., told the Center for Public Integrity. “There have been not only some obvious abuses of the tax exemption by some of these so-called social welfare groups, but I think some pretty flagrant ones.”

Help is not on the way. President Barack Obama last month signed into law a bill that chops the IRS’ annual budget by $345.6 million — reducing agency funding to 2008 levels.

It’s a decision IRS Commissioner John Koskinen says will result in hiring freezes and further job losses.

“The number of taxpayers keeps going up and the resources are down,” he said in an interview. “We are leaving billions of dollars uncollected because we do not have enough” employees.

The new information about the IRS’ internal resources comes in the agency’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in December 2013 by the Center for Public Integrity.

It follows an investigation the Center for Public Integrity published in July that found Congress has systematically weakened the IRS’ exempt organizations division in recent years, leading to the IRS all but quitting its regulation of politically active nonprofit groups.

The agency’s enforcement capabilities were further degraded because of political fallout from some employees’ decisions to delay approval of conservative groups’ applications for nonprofit status.

“The aftershocks from the political targeting scandal certainly don't facilitate prompt solutions,” said Mark Everson, a former IRS commissioner appointed by President George W. Bush. “I would imagine there is a real slowdown getting issues resolved because there is a tendency on the part of employees to make sure they aren't causing new problems.”

Cheryl Chasin, who worked for 32 years until 2010 in the IRS’ exempt organizations division, which oversees nonprofits, went further: “Anybody who at this point stuck their neck out [by delving into political spending] … would be slapped so hard and so fast they would bounce.”

Politically active nonprofits are simply “not afraid of the IRS or anybody else on this matter,” said Paul Streckfus, a former exempt organizations division employee who now edits a trade journal focusing on nonprofits. “Anything goes as far as spending” by these groups.

Politically active nonprofits include 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups, 501(c)(5) labor unions and 501(c)(6) trade groups.

It’s not that investigators can’t look at the issue: Auditors are empowered to probe groups for suspected political transgressions during the course of other audits, an agency spokesman said. The number of those audits, however, isn’t tracked.

The number of employees responsible for investigating nonprofits in the IRS exempt organizations division has dropped 9 percent from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013 — from 538 to 489.

There has also been a 16 percent decline in “determinations” employees — workers who process applications for nonprofit status. Their numbers fell from 297 in fiscal year 2009 to 248 in fiscal year 2013.

Meanwhile, applications for “social welfare” nonprofit status — the status obtained by many of the nation’s most politically active groups — increased by more than 17 percent, from 1,922 in fiscal year 2009 to 2,253 in fiscal year 2013.

The agency as a whole lost 13,000 employees in the past four years and has dealt with hefty budget cuts in recent years, and the exempt organizations division hasn’t been spared — even as its leaders “review how to most effectively use its staff,” said Bruce I. Friedland, an IRS spokesman.

Friedland also noted that the IRS has attempted to reduce the backlog of tax-exemption applications by, among other things, bringing in employees from another division to help.

A roster provided by the IRS of tax exempt and government entities division employees from 2001 to 2013 indicates support services for workers has also taken a blow.

For example, the 20 “employee development” positions in 2001 fell to three in 2013, plus four human resources positions.

Several IRS employees said the change was likely part of the overall decrease in training they encountered over the years. This, in turn, contributed to the uncertainty about how to handle applications for nonprofit status by a new wave of political groups.

“Practitioners [such as nonprofit tax attorneys] are saying they’re seeing a reduction in the quality of the work coming out of the IRS. A lot can be traced to that training budget being slashed,” said Streckfus, who worked for the IRS for six years during the 1970s.
Read more