Paul working for you.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

THAT MISSING $21,000,000,000,000: DR. MARK SKIDMORE ON THE ...

THAT MISSING $21,000,000,000,000: DR. MARK SKIDMORE ON THE ...


You know things are in a bad state when an economics professor at one of the country's most prestigious research universities, the Michigan State University, says that there's about $21,000,000,000,000 missing, and when he says that in spite of his best efforts to find out where it went, he meets a stone wall of obfuscation, buck-passing, and missing links. The story has now captured the attention of Mr. Greg Hunter, well-known financial commentator at thanks to Mr. V.T. for spotting and sharing this article):

What's intriguing here is not only the wall of obfuscation that Dr. Skidmore was confronted with, but also the conclusions he drew from it:
In one example, Skidmore found a huge transfer from the Treasury Department to the Army that, again, was not authorized. Keep in mind, the Army has an approved budget of  a little more than $120 billion a year.  Skidmore says, “In this one report . . . there is an appendix table that indicates there was a transfer from Treasury to the Army of about $800 billion.  That’s almost a trillion dollars flowing in.  There is a note that says we had to do this in order to reconcile past years.  That doesn’t make sense to me either because, these earlier years, you have a transfer from the Treasury of your $120 billion or $130 billion, and every year, the Army is granted the authority to spend this money in the ways they say they will.  How can you get (an additional) $800 billion in and call that an ‘adjustment’? I tried to call and talk to the office of the Inspector General to talk to the people who helped generate these reports.  I haven’t been successful, and I stopped trying when they disabled the links.”
So there you have it: look too closely or too far, and they simply "shut down the links." Never mind that it's your tax money that's at stake. Or is it? We'll get back to that question in a moment.

One can imagine the consternation this would cause to an economist. Economists are like physicists: they like numbers, measurements, wave forms (cycles), and when money, shows up either in excess or is drained from a, without any good explanation of why it's appearing or disappearing, the models go down the drain, and one is left scratching one's head, peering at the equations on the blackboard, and wondering where the hidden variable is.

So the conclusion Dr. Skidmore, and Mr. Hunter, draw is a reasonable one: the government is operating far outside the budgetary parameters laid down in the Constitution:

You heard correctly. The government cut off inspection of their own financial accounting to the public. Skidmore says, “I have been able to talk to a few people.  I tried calling the Congressional Budget Office.  I talked with somebody at the GAO, and one or two people at the Office of the Inspector General, who were generating these reports. . . .It’s a big question in why don’t people want to look at this?  I am just a blue collar economist at Michigan State University, and I am saying this does not make sense to me.  Why don’t we look at this? . . . Some high ranking government official authorized the disabling of all the links to the key documents.  We know that.”

Dr. Skidmore thinks the federal accounting of $21 trillion in missing money is crazy and far outside the realm of normal. So, is this a legitimate U.S. national security issue?  Dr. Skidmore says, “Yeah, and that is one of the reasons I decided to look at this.  How can this be, and what does this mean?   If trillions of dollars are flowing in and flowing out, it appears to be outside of our Constitution and outside of the rule of law.  If that is the case, that really is troubling because it suggests that there is a layer of things happening that are outside the rule of law.  I know, for example, that some activities, just for the sake of protection of the people involved in national security, have to be black budget. 

There is always stuff like that.  Usually, it’s authorized spending, and some percentage is this black budget where only a small percentage of people and some in Congress know about it, but this is way outside of that.  So, I am worried about it.” (Italicized emphasis added.)
Notably, Dr. Skidmore draws a similar conclusion that I and others have drawn when looking at this phenomenon of "missing money," namely, that we're looking at a component of the black budget.

Which brings me to that question, and to my high octane speculation of the day: what if some of this money is not from tax revenues? Once we ask that question, we begin to approach a first approximation of why constitutional protections may not be in play, for the budgetary constraints of law would seem not to apply if there are other revenue streams, particularly if those revenue streams are directly entangled with the national security. It's the presence of the possibility of those hypothetical revenues streams that brings me to my hypothesized "hidden system of finance" that I have written about in some books (Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, for example), and in talked about in numerous interviews and blogs.

In other words, if those hidden systems of finance exist, then one of the long term effects of their existence has been to make the federal government increasingly dependent on their existence, and thus increasingly free of constitutional restraint on the budgetary process. Couple this to the central bank monetized debt model, and voila, one has a virtually limitless slush fund for projects that all fall under "national security." In effect, this reduces the federal government to the status of a "front organization" whose primary purpose is now to become the money laundering system for this hidden system, and that's the root of the problem: the revenue streams from the hidden system and the public taxation system have been mingled.

There is yet another deleterious effect of such a scheme, which, once again, I believe to have been put into place after World War Two, and precisely in response to the "triple strategic problem" faced by the deep state at that time: (1) Nazi survival, (2) the Communist bloc, and most importantly, (3) the UFO. That effect is that as more "hidden dollars" enter the system, the return on black budget investments per dollar declines both as a function of the money in the system, but also in response to the mercantilist policies and the inevitable corruption they engender, means that weapons systems become increasingly complex, and increasingly perform below their advertised performance. Think of the F-35 here. The reason again is simple: the vast bulk of the funds is  being siphoned into research projects we never see.

See you on the flip side...

No comments:

Post a Comment