Bush issues executive order forming advisory committee on income tax reform
January 14, 2005
On January 7, 2005, President Bush issued an Executive Order (search) to form an advisory committee "to assist in reforming the Federal Internal Revenue Code to benefit all Americans."
Talk of reforming the income tax is nothing new. Back on May 25, 1956, Coleman T. Andrews, who was Commissioner of the IRS under Eisenhower for 33 months before he resigned, gave a lengthy interview to U.S. News & Report. He is quoted as follows:
"....We're confiscating property now....That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him....the inevitable end of "steeply" graduated taxes on income and inheritances, and absolutism in any form is slavery.."
The second major plank of the communist manifesto is a progressive, oppressive income tax.
In that interview, Coleman also said, "If we keep on at the present rate of taxation, we will come eventually to the point where no one will have anything to invest and the "man on horseback" will be upon us. The Government will own everything, and we'll be forced to do the bidding of commissars imbued with the idea that they know better how to spend our money than we, and vested with the authority to do it."
At the time of this interview, the federal government was collecting $52 billion dollars for its operating budget. Over the years, the hunger of the federal government has increased to $1.7 trillion dollars (2004 budget). The creation of cabinets since 1953 has boosted federal spending by close to a trillion dollars per year. The secretary of health, education, and welfare (now known as health and human services) became a Cabinet officer in 1953 when the department was established, as did the secretary of housing and urban development in 1965, the secretary of transportation in 1967, the EPA in 1970, the secretary of energy in 1977, the secretary of education in 1980, (the Federal Department of Education became a cabinet in 1979 via Public Law 96-88), the secretary of veterans affairs in 1989, and the secretary of homeland security in 2003, when those departments were officially established.
Back in 1995, Congressman Christopher Cox wrote a column titled Why We Must Abolish the Federal Income Tax. He said in part:
"The chief Republican sponsor of the l6th Amendment, Rep. Sereno Payne of New York, supported it only because he believed that the country should have the option of taxing income in time of war. On July 12, 1909, Rep. Samuel McCall of Massachusetts looked into the future and asked a troubling questions about the l6th Amendment, which the House approved later that day: "Why drag every government power to Washington so that a vast, centralized government may devour the states and the liberty of individuals as well? I say this amendment should be more carefully considered that it has yet been considered. As to the general policy of the income tax," he said, "I am utterly opposed to it. I believe, with Gladstone, that it tends to make a nation of liars ... It is, in a word, tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of the rascals." In the intervening decades, the American people have had amply opportunity to consider the income tax, and they have found it sorely wanting. It has become exactly what McCall feared. It deserves to die." In his election run for the U.S. Senate in 1996 during a debate, former Congressman Fred Dalton Thompson [R-TN] stated that there was a lot of talk about getting rid of the income tax, but in his opinion, "It won't happen this year or probably the next." It didn't. In 1997, highly televised hearings were held by the House, Ways and Means Committee regarding the abuses of the IRS. There was talk of reform, not of abolishing the Federal Reserve's golden egg.
Citizen groups who advocate abolishing the IRS have one thing in common: They are angered by the fact that not a penny of the money collected by the IRS funds a single function of the federal government. One government report explains it this way:
President's Private Sector Survey On Cost Control: A Report to The President (Reagan), January 15, 1984; page 12:
"If the Government took 100% of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for several days. 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."
Simply stated, 100% of all income tax money collected goes to the privately owned Federal Reserve Banking System for transfer payments and to pay down the national debt created by Congress from funding unconstitutional expenditures. Because there is no money in the U.S. Treasury, all operating funding has to be borrowed from this private banking cabal.
There are numerous groups and organizations lobbying for alternative taxing schemes, i.e. flat tax, fair tax, VAT (Value added tax) or sales tax to replace the current system. Opponents of these taxing schemes maintain that America would only be trading one funding method for the private bankers for another and would accomplish nothing. Prior to 1913, America had no income tax or central bank and the federal government functioned within constitutional restraints. Once the progressive direct income tax was instituted along with the newly created Federal Reserve Banking System at the same time (1913), the government debt exploded because Congress was given a a blank check to borrow so they could spend beyond authorized limits under Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution..
The Federal Reserve is not federal, it is a credit monopoly controlled by powerful banking families. This private banking cartel issues Class A stock to its members, however, only families like the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs and others can own and buy stock in this private cartel. The average American who funds this private monopoly by paying interest on all money borrowed by Congress cannot own stock or any of their banks.
Millions of Americans have been petitioning and demanding that Congress exercise the option clause in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to buy out the assets of the Fed and return to constitutional currency instead of fiat money. Supporters of abolishing the FED stress that there's no reason for Congress to borrow money from this private banking consortium and that it's nothing more than making the middle man rich at the expense of the American people. Congress has refused for eight decades. Perhaps William Greider, author of Secrets of the Temple, gave some clues in his October 7, 1993 testimony to the House Banking Committee:
"The only players who are left out of this conversation are the American people and, to a large extent their elected representatives. Instead, they are provided a frustrating stream of evasive euphemisms and opaque jargon and platitudinous generalities and, sometimes, even downright deception. As more than one Federal Reserve governor confided to me, it would be very difficult - perhaps impossible - for the FED to have an honest discussion of monetary policy with Congress or the public because the level of ignorance is so profound.
"The lack of accountability is not simply a function of Fed mystique. Among elected politicians, there is also a widespread willingness not to know or understand. In fairness to Congress, the news media encourages this deference by promoting the conventional wisdom about the institution. Any politician who dares to become a critic can count upon damaging attacks from both editorial writers and news reporters....
"Frankly, the Fed does not even have to confront intelligent scrutiny from those the people have elected to represent them. That is, the Congress. In my experience, congressional oversight hearings are usually a dispiriting mixture of posturing and bile and trick questions that the Federal Reserve governors find quite easy to fend off."
On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden who was at the time, Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, Conspiracy, Fraud, Unlawful conversion, and treason. He opened his speech with these words:
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not. 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 lender."
McFadden's charges were not acted upon, some say because the very same members of Congress who helped engineer the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 owed their political careers to the private banking cartel. McFadden died in 1936.
Under Mr. Bush's new executive order, "The Advisory Panel shall submit to the Secretary of the Treasury a report containing policy options in accordance with section 3 of this order as soon as practicable, but not later than July 31, 2005." It looks like with this time table, the American people will be waiting until mid-summer to find out what recommendations this newly formed panel submits in its report to the president.
© 2005 NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]