>>>
you're reading...
Economics, Governance, Justice & NESARA legal issues, Media, Relations

Help alert the House Financial Services Committee to GAO fraud re United States currency

Today, at 2 PM Eastern Time, the House Financial Services Committee is holding a hearing on the benefits to the government of replacing all $1 dollar bills with $1 coins.  I attach a write-up.
The GAO has written 7 reports over the last 22 years, definitively costing the expected benefits.  These reports represent a fraud the purpose of which is to cover up the automatic gains that arise simply because Federal Reserve bank notes would be converted to United States government coins.   There’s not only an unreported gain of $1 per new $1 coin minted, for each swap there’s an ongoing gain from reduced interest payments.
Recognizing the size of the gain would alert the populace to the benefits of converting all Federal notes to United States notes.  The fraud is to prevent the public from realizing these vast gains.
The fraud is attacked in my lawsuit,  Johnson v. Treasury, which is now in the court of appeal.  The trial court file is available under the Treasury sub-menu at commondada.com.  The whole sorry tale is detailed in To Free A Lender-Owned Nation.
What I would like are messages posted to the committee ASAP, asking it to interrogate the GAO witness as to the following allegations in the complaint:

(iv) Understated Totals.  In conclusion, the 2011 GAO report [U.S. COINS: Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial 21 Benefit to the Government, GAO-11-281] estimates initiallosses for four years due to start-up costs, and a net benefit after 30 years of only $5.6 billion, if that.  In fact, because coins are United States currency, the government would also benefit from: (a) an early gain of $13.75 billion against the debt held by the public, from replacing the present 9.5 billion dollar bills with 150% as many coins;  (b) a further gain in excess of $30 billion from coins added over the 30 years;  and (c) a further $14.5 billion gain from 81.5% of the interest relief per note replaced by a coin.  Hence, the net government benefit after 30 years would exceed $58 billion, as a matter of accounting fact.

The same applies, with small adjustments to the sums, to the 2012 update [US COINS: Benefits and Considerations for Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin] of the report, which comprises the GAO’s prepared testimony for today’s hearing.
**************************
Of course, all this is likely too late to prompt any such question at today’s hearing.  But it is not to late to start a campaign pressing for a meaningful answer to the allegations.
Note Well!  The omissions labeled (a) and (b) in the above allegations are of a sort that will induce the fatuous but confounding response that the difference is a mere accounting convention, and that there is no meaningful net difference in benefit to the government because the Fed (which loses the $1 per $1 fiat amount that the Treasury gains) is just another part of the government.  But the omission labeled (c) represents a purely arithmetical mistake, which no credible expert should be able to dispute, except by demonstrable falsehood.
How long can this fraud continue, not whether it can continue, is the question.  Help unravel it ASAP!  And then demand, why such a multibillion dollar fraud, why for so long has it been promoted?
The answer should teach the public as to the determination of the banksters to suppress all informational hinting at the huge fiat seigniorage tax they have for years been invisibly accruing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Lorelei St. James,
On March 11, 2011, I posted you the below e-mail and attachment re the GAO’s now 22-year series of reports estimating the the net economic benefits that would accrue to the government, through replacing all Federal Reserve $1 bills with $1 coins.
Not only did you fail to acknowledge receipt of the e-mail, more importantly, you recently authored yet another GAO report based on the very same model, thus continuing to suppress virtually all of the face-value seigniorage tax and ongoing interest reductions that would thereby revert from private banking interests to reduce the public debt.  You submitted that report as testimonyfor a hearing on the matter today, before the House Financial Services Committee. 
Because you have yet to take my concerns seriously, I again attach the complaint that specifies these gross suppressions, with respect to the equivalent March, 2011 version of the GAO report.  This time, for your convenience, I quote for you the pertinent and precise allegations of mistake, as follows:

8. Financial Misinformation.  (i) Coin-Swap Question.  A March, 2011 General Accounting Office report (U.S. COINS: Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial Benefit to the Government, GAO-11-281) answered the following question for Hon. Richard Shelby, ranking member, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate:

What is the estimated net benefit, if any, to the government of replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin?

(ii) Game-Changing Seigniorage.  Answering this question requires costing the seigniorage benefits that automatically readjust when United States currency, coin or note, mixes with and/or replaces Federal Reserve currency.  Thus, answering this question on the small scales of coinage implicitly answers it on every scale, including complete conversion of the currency. These benefits are in fact so high that they swamp the benefits that the GAO report instead labors to compute, as follows.  Had the face-value seigniorage benefits been properly included in the GAO report, they would have trumpeted the huge and prompt debt reducing advantages of United States currency.

(iii)  Model Falsehoods.  The 2011 GAO report trustingly adopts a Federal Reserve model which impertinently presumes that the government must operate in debt, and which misrepresents that: (a) when a new $1 coin is put in circulation, the only government benefit is the relief from interest on $1 of debt;  and (b) there is no government benefit when a $1 coin replaces a $1 note, because the interest relief from $1 is offset by the loss of interest from $1 in Federal Reserve profits returned to the government.  In fact: (a) when a new $1 coin is issued, the government’s account is credited with $1;  and (b) when a $1 note is replaced by a new $1 coin, the government (when in debt) also obtains relief from interest on 81.5 cents, since the Federal Reserve owns only 18.5% of the debt held by the public.

(iv) Understated Totals.  In conclusion, the 2011 GAO report estimates initial losses for four years due to start-up costs, and a net benefit after 30 years of only $5.6 billion, if that.  In fact, because coins areUnited States currency, the government would also benefit from: (a) an early gain of $13.75 billion against the debt held by the public, from replacing the present 9.5 billion dollar bills with 150% as many coins;  (b) a further gain in excess of $30 billion from coins added over the 30 years;  and (c) a further $14.5 billion gain from 81.5% of the interest relief per note replaced by a coin.  Hence, the net government benefit after 30 years would exceed $58 billion, as a matter of accounting fact.

(v) Treasury Cover-Up.  In 1990, 1993, 1995, and 2000, GAO reports answered the coin-swap question using the same grossly false Federal Reserve model.  Throughout, the Treasury provided guidance and comments that approved the Federal Reserve model as reasonably accurate, while knowing better by long rooted, ongoing accounting practice.  Exhibit D on page 12 is the Treasury’s letter of comment on the 2011 report.  By silence, the letter continues and reinforces the 21 years of financial misinformation authoritatively published in the series of five GAO reports.

It is of course too much for me to expect you to address these obviously grave concerns into your further testimony today.  But I do request that you address them in a follow-up, public submission to the committee.
Sincerely,
Clifford Johnson
SOURCE from PBI VOlunteers
Advertisements

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

NAMASTE for your support.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 94 other followers

Archives

%d bloggers like this: