Thanks for this mailing as it addresses the issues involving the depression we are currently experiencing: the 'collapse' of public-agency investment.
This man is correct when he states 'your' monies have been invested etc, etc but the story goes much deeper: the monies he is referring to is not 'yours' it is tax money that has been utilized to create an entirely different investment world alien to the public's (and your organization's) knowledge.
A man named Walter Burien discovered these government-agency investments that are 'hidden' from the public which discloses, in detail, each and every government-agency investment. There are tens of thousands of these accounts nationwide.
The thieves list these accounts, etc in a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that was not revealed to the public; until Walter arrived and exposed them. If you visit Walter's site, www.CAFR1.com, you will enter the world of public-agency fraud.
Let me use the teachers' pensions as an example of the frauds committed against the teachers and the taxpayers: the thieves, as I have just said, created an account (an investment) that 'covers' the costs of teachers' pensions. This concept has virtue and integrity as it 'guarantees' your pension future. That is all well and good, IF it stopped there. But of course it doesn't.
The teachers' pension accounts as well as the many other government investment accounts (which grow to become very, very wealthy) are then used for 'other' things: buying private sector businesses as an example. Did you know that? (Did you know that the central government-agency owns 73% of ESPN who owns Disney and ABC)? Is it any wonder we cannot get the 'real' if not any true facts from the media?
It has been estimated that the National Education Association has (or possibly had) over $3Trillion dollars in investment assets.
I use the word "had" for this reason: Walter developed a method by which all public-agency accounts could be utilized to pay all public-agency debts, retirement funds, and to entirely eliminate the tax system, forever. This scared hell out of the Federal Reserve Bank (the thieves of the world) as they knew this was very feasibly possible. Hence, the Fed put us into a recession and now into a depression.
Why did the Fed do this? To secure collateral so the slobs in Washington can continue to borrow and chattel the taxpayer and most importantly THE FED IS CHANGING THE RULES REGARDING TRUE TITLE TO HARD ASSETS. The Fed knows these accounts are worth trillions and trillions of dollars but they failed to 'secure' their hold on those assets. People were learning how to secure true title to their homes, etc. People also are learning how to legally ignore the IRS and state tax-collecting agencies too.
Why do you think the 'government' (not really a government, a corporation; a corporation established by the Rothschilds and their Federal Reserve Bank) are offering these 'new' mortgages, student loans, cash for clunkers, refinance your mortgages, reverse mortgages, etc etc? IT IS BECAUSE WITH THE NEWLY REVISED DOCUMENTS THOSE THAT PARTICIPATE WILL NEVER HAVE RIGHT TO TRUE TITLE AND THOSE PEOPLE ALSO ARE OFFICIALLY RE-COMMITTING THEMSELVES AS BEING 'WITHIN' OF THE AMERICAN CORPORATION.
To say this another way, once you sign the 'new' documents you are (to them, legally) establishing that you are not a Natural, living, flesh and blood Citizen of the organic united States of America with Rights under the Constitution but are rather merely a corporate-fiction within the government-agency corporation subject to the rules of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) with civil rights (government-agency rights) as established under the law of equity (commercial law). Civil rights are arbitrary and capricious and can be changed at the whim and fancy of the 'government'.
The accounts that are mentioned in the writing below are evidence that the thieves are stealing from those accounts (necessitating the influx of new tax money) so the frauds can continue. Their main problem is too many people have learned about the CAFRs and have also learned how to "utilize" the tax system (just like the big boys do). That is also why they needed new generations of uninformed (the illegal immigrants) so they can continue with the system of tax-slavery they have developed.
There is much, much more to this but I hope this has given you some insight into how these 'investments' were created and why they are being raped.
Keith Kaye
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Marrs"
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 8:58 AM
Subject: WSJ and Michigan
Hi all,
Here is an editorial from today's WSJ. It is about Michigan and our retirement as the governor took 1.3 million from our retirement to fund some of this so called investment.
Bob Marrs
From a Wall Street Journal Article of: 09/04/09: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328792152010638.html
A central belief in Washington and most state capitals nowadays is that government should "invest" in certain businesses—"clean tech," say, or manufacturing—to drive job creation. We hope it all turns out better than it has in Michigan.
For the past 14 years, Lansing politicians have offered $3.3 billion in tax credits through the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and spent another $1.6 billion in outlays to create and retain jobs. The subsidies have ranged from tax breaks for Hollywood, to money for new industrial plants, to millions for TV ads starring Jeff Daniels and Tim Allen talking about business and tourism in the state.
It's one of the largest experiments in smokestack chasing in American history, but one thing it hasn't done is create jobs. An exhaustive new 100-page study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Michigan think tank, has reviewed where all the money has gone and what came of it. The study finds that for every 100 jobs that were promised with these tax credits over 14 years, only 29 arrived. Dare we call this cash for clunkers?
Economist Michael Hicks, a business school professor at Ball State, calculated the rate of return on the corporate tax credits. He found that for every $1 million in tax credits awarded, there were 95 lost manufacturing jobs in the counties where the companies were located—a result that is "strongly statistically significant." There was no gain in personal income in these counties. Perhaps more jobs would have been lost without the credits, but what is undeniably clear is that the businesses that got the government loot were not magnets for other employers.
Many of these handout programs were started in 1995 by former Republican Governor John Engler, who we criticized at the time in "A Governor's Gimmick." They have since been expanded 18 times under current Governor Jennifer Granholm. Two of the most celebrated initiatives were the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund and the Broadband Development Authority. Ms. Granholm's vision was that these grants and credits would create 500,000 jobs and $440 billion in new investment by 2010.
Liberals cheered this "progressive" alternative to tax cutting. But the jobs lured to Michigan were so few that the programs were killed in 2007. The broadband program's legacy was $14.5 million of bad loans eaten by taxpayers. Then State Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, an original supporter of the telecom program, called it "one of the biggest flops in state government."
An even bigger flop might be the Michigan Film Office. The program provides movie producers a 42% tax credit for rolling the cameras in Michigan. But because the credits are "refundable," they are mostly cash subsidies to the film industry to make movies. The Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency recently found that "if a film production company spent $10.0 million in Michigan, the State will gain less than $700,000 in income and sales tax revenues but will pay out about $4 million to the production company." So in a state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 15%, taxpayers last year gave out $48 million in subsidies to Hollywood millionaires.
Why doesn't this kind of industrial policy work? One reason is that the subsidies have to be financed by somebody, which means raising taxes more broadly on the rest of the state. The subsidized businesses may bring a few jobs, but the overall employment and investment impact is miniscule at best.
In Michigan these programs were responsible for 0.25% of all new jobs created in the last decade, according to the study. Meanwhile, in 2007 Michigan raised business taxes by $1.4 billion on other firms to pay for many of Ms. Granholm's favored companies. Despite all the giveaways, Michigan was recently ranked as having the third most antibusiness climate among states, in a survey of executives by CEO magazine. If Michigan had simply cut taxes for every business, as Mr. Engler did in the 1990s when the state briefly led the nation in new jobs, it's a good bet unemployment would be lower.
When Ms. Granholm gave her state of the state address earlier this year, she crowed about the similarities between the Michigan and Obama Administration strategies of using tax subsidies to aid favored businesses. "President Obama's priorities are nearly identical to ours," she declared, and we can only hope the results won't be.
[END]