Ending a 36 year, 17+ Trillion Dollar U.S. Government Ponzi Scheme

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ending-a-36-year-17-Tril-by-Larry-Fisher-Government-Bullying_Government-Corruption_Government-Crime_Government-Crime-141019-350.html

Ending a 36 year, 17+ Trillion Dollar U.S. Government Ponzi Scheme
By Larry Fisher
OpEdNews Op Eds 10/19/2014 at 13:30:58

The American people have the right, the need, and the responsibility to question both the morality and the competence of the last 6 administrations regarding both the passage of President Jimmy Carter's 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and now an overt failure to question its constitutionality. Why? This legislation introduced the fox (corporations) into the federal government's chicken house by adding a permanent level of corporate-dominant Senior Executive Service (SES) political appointees to "manage" all non-partisan/technically qualified government service (GS) professionals, within BOTH the executive/judicial branches. How could this undermine the U.S. Constitution? Because, each administration's all-powerful, partisan/unqualified executive schedule (EX) political appointees "managed" BOTH the executive/judicial branches AND: (1) those subservient SES political appointee managers, and (2) their also subservient GS level non-partisan/technically qualified staffs. The only checks and balances there were to ensure that both branches remained independent and that the American people's best interests took precedence over each administration's political agendas was the 1978 CSRA's tenet that "whistleblowers will be heard and protected from reprisal.

Then, over the next 36 years, that 1978 CSRA whistleblower protection law was routinely violated and anyone who questioned the U.S. government's wrongheaded policies concerning its corporate-driven deregulation, outsourcing, global warming, pharmaceutical, war-related, and other questionable agendas was systematically eliminated. Both political parties used their EX/SES political appointee managers to undermine the U.S. Constitution by gradually transitioning both the executive/judicial branches' 2.8 million GS level civil servants from non-partisan/technically qualified to partisan/unqualified, either by actively undermining the government's infrastructures or by covering-up that fact. One of the covert/unconstitutional strategies used in dumbing-down the government included the elimination of the minimal college degree requirements from at least 3 (and probably more) of the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) GS level accountant, auditor, and Department of Energy (DOE) electrical engineer professional position standards. As the ranks of the GS level partisan/unqualified civil servants grew, they also now had a vested interest in working with the partisan/unqualified EX/SES political appointees to eliminate even more GS level non-partisan/technically qualified civil servants, this time to hide their own incompetence. Now, each incoming administration's presidents/vice presidents unconstitutionally controlled (or was controlled by) both executive/judicial branches' 3 levels of 2.8 million corporate-dominant EX/SES/GS partisan/unqualified civil servants. How?

The executive branches' corporate-dominant EX/SES/GS level civil servants worked hand-in-hand with corporate contractors to procure bogus/unconstitutional corporate goods/services and then hid all levels of collusion/corruption from the new/incoming administration. Then, the judicial branches' corporate-dominant EX/SES/GS level civil servants gave "free get-out-of-jail passes" to corrupt politicians, EX/SES/GS level civil servants, and corporate contractors who knowingly procured those bogus and unconstitutional corporate goods/services, via the government's also corrupt grants/contracts processes. An equally corrupt legislative branch (Congress) was also outsourcing its law-making responsibilities to the highest paying lobbyist. How could anyone possibly not doubt that corporations did not unconstitutionally own/control all 3 government branches, and even a now also partisan U.S. Supreme Court, to the detriment of the American people, and all citizens (worldwide)?

A coincidental 36 year, 17+ trillion dollar spike in the debt from a 1978 low of under a trillion dollars to its current 17.9 trillion dollar total documents this increase in the debt for what it really is. That is, a redistribution in wealth from the American taxpayers to the corrupt politicians, corporate-dominant EX/SES/GS civil servants, and corporate contractors who still manage the U.S. government and consistently undermine their best interests. Another way of describing the obvious is that the last 6 administrations, all 3 corporate-dominant EX/SES/GS level government branches, and their fellow corporate partners-in-crime have misappropriated 17+ trillion dollars of the American people's money by consistently undermining their best interests in but a few of the following ways:

[daleanime]

1. bookmarked

[Cryptoad]

2. I can wait,,,,

its suppose to start trickling down any day now!

[On the Road]

3. It's Getting Harder and Harder

to follow the definition of Ponzi scheme.

[hfojvt]

4. I am sure government employees will be happy to learn

how incompetent they are.

And as for the Ponzi scheme, the increase in the national debt does not come from some conspiracy about civil service employment.

It comes from the same three sources that I taught back in macroeconomics 101 in 1989.

Wars
recessions
tax cuts (mostly for the rich)

Another source is probably - a social security system set to pay out more than it takes in (not to mention medicare)

[JDPriestly]

6. So if you blame recessions and social security and medicare, how would you

a) prevent recessions and b) provide income and medical care to the aging, disabled?

If you have a recipe for preventing recessions, please let us know.

If you have and idea as to how to keep the elderly and disabled alive without social security and medicare, etc., please tell us what it is.

Personally, i agree with you that recessions, wars and tax cuts for the rich make it impossible for us to balance our budget. But I live on Social Security benefits after having paid into the system over my lifetime. Don't tell me that savings could replace those benefits to provide me income. We saved. When I was paying back student loans, I paid 7.5 to 8.5 percent interest on my private loans. Now that I am retired, I receive less than 1% interest on bank savings. The stock market is a rip-off in which wealthy hedge-fund managers rig the game so that small investors lose out.

Social Security saves lives. Medicare covers the medical expenses of the elderly because private insurance companies could not do it. Young people have no idea how expensive medical care is for older people. Even for healthy older people.

Sorry, but Social Security keeps me and most of my friends alive. It is naive to think that any money would be saved by doing away with it. The individual benefits paid by Social Security are barely enough to provide the necessities -- shelter, food and utilities plus some clothing for seniors. There could not be a more efficient, less expensive means of providing for elderly people. Would you like to have mom and dad living with you for the rest of your life? Do you really want to hear their blaring TV all night, blaring because they are both deaf and cannot afford several thousand dollars for a hearing aid?

If you did away with Social Security the cost of providing for the elderly would be shifted in some other way to the younger generation. It may seem unfair that there are so many members of the Baby Boomer generation and so few in the younger generation, but doing away with or reducing benefits from Social Security is not going to change that. The needs of the elderly will either be paid for by the young or the elderly will die. While in the abstract, a young libertarian may see the deaths of millions of older people as a socially useful event, in the emotional reality of most children, the death of a parent is traumatic -- one of the worst traumas you will know.

Most parents will suffer any pain or do without just about anything to make sure their children are safe and healthy. And most normal children will sacrifice just as much to take care of their ailing, elderly parents. It's the great mystery of life. LOVE. Amazing. Inexplicable. Irrational. But when I held my first baby in my arms for the first time, it blew me away. LOVE.

That's why we have Social Security and Medicare. Because when it comes down to the final moments and the doctor says to you, "We've done all we can," you will feel a loss that you have never felt. And you will mourn. You will get over it. But you will clutch and grasp at any hope to keep your loved ones alive. It's normal. It's life.

Forget about any desire to do away with Social Security and Medicare. It's not going to happen. You can change the names of the programs. But one way or another, the young will pay for the care of the old. It's the price you pay for being born. Remember the pain your mother suffered to give you life and get over your greed.

Deuteronomy 5:16

"Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/5-16.htm

It's part of our human life cycle. We care for each other because we are human. We are social animals. An infant child is dependent on his/her parents or adult caretaker for just about everything for at the minimum one year. Takes from 10 months to a year for a human baby to walk. That is what forces us to be social creatures. Forget the libertarian theory. It does not work. We are social creatures because of our biology, not because of our ideas.

[hfojvt]

10. who said anything about getting rid of social security?

The fact remains though that back in 1979 21% of the total federal debt was owed to government trust funds, by 2010 that was up to 33%. Further, the way social security taxes were rolled into the way the deficit was reported gave political cover to those with no interest in reducing the deficit.

Back when Bush was running for President, there was a projected surplus and Bush claimed he was gonna use 1/4 of that surplus for his tax cut. Except the current "balanced budget" was based on FICA taxes that were really debt.

I tend to not worry that much about debt. In fact, I am usually the one calling out those who squawk about the debt as being the very same ones who keep voting for tax cuts for the rich.

My point is the truth. Whereas this article claims that the $17 trillion in debt since 1979 come from some conspiracy involving civil service workers, the fact are that the causes of the debt come from

1. the recession of 1982
2. the Reagan tax cuts
3. Reagan cold war spending
4. Reagan (and Democrat) increase in FICA taxes

Then Bush added another $6 trillion (and more considering we are STILL paying for Bush wars, and the Bush recession, and are still stuck with the Bush tax cuts, most of them).

But you see, it was NOT because of the civil service act of 1979. It was Bush tax cuts, Bush wars and Bush recessions.

But another $2 trillion in debt was added to the Government trust funds as well.

[Enthusiast]

11. Increasing FICA taxes increased debt?

Only if that FICA revenue was squandered on enacting unnecessary tax cuts and unjustified military spending.

From my perspective, social security is the only thing in the entire government that is completely paid for and solvent.

Baby boomers paid extra into their FICA retirement so that caused more debt.

What an insane assertion.

Yes, the government owes the money, which is debt, but social security in and of itself did nothing to cause the debt. The stupid politicians brought about the debt by borrowing the money.

Social security is the greatest creditor to the US government. A failure to pay social security benefits would amount to a default by the US government. It would be no different than a failure to pay the Chinese.

[newfie11]

12. +infinity

As someone living on SS I agree. Without it I would be on the street.

[Warpy]

9. There is a fourth factor

and that is artificially depressed wages through not raising the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. People are paid so little they can pay no income tax (although it is withheld). They start needing food stamps and Medicaid to survive. Most importantly, they start to defund Social Security.

Starvation wages are key to most of the problems the government is experiencing. Washington is afraid to tell the rich to pony up and terrified of risking their ire by raising the minimum wage to a livable level because the 1% is terrified of inflation.

Until and unless the minimum wage is raised to a livable level, all the fiscal problems will not only exist, they will worsen. Robbing the rich and the military won't make up for all the nickels and dimes put into the government pot by marginal workers.

[Adrahil]

5. Welp....

I was a GS level civil servant for for 20 years (from 1984 to 2004) and I can tell you that that description doesn't really match my experience. The SES's at my command were all experienced people who rose from the GS ranks. They weren;t all perfect, but they weren't political hacks either. And the GS employees I worked with were no less competent that those I've worked with in private industry since, meaning mostly good folks, trying to do a good job, with a few turds every now and again. The problems I observed in the Civil Service were tied mostly to crappy Civil Service rules that made it very difficult to get rid of the few turds.

[Proud Public Servant]

7. Jesus, where to start

I work for the federal government (foreign service). I've worked with civil servants, and I've worked with contractors. In my experience, contractors actually tend to be brighter bulbs, on the whole, than the civil service (the exception being anyone involved in security services). Not that there aren't some great civil servants; there definitely are. But thanks to civil service tenuring, you can basically be "retired in place" for much of your career (and I've worked with many who are); contractors, because they can be dispensed with easily, generally can't afford to be that complacent, apathetic, lazy, or just plain dumb.

As for the EX/SES/GS, far from being dominated by corporate types, it's actually dominated by political types. That fabulous ground operation that gave us President Obama not once but twice? You think they went back to their old jobs once he got elected? Nope - lots of them came to DC and were rewarded with the spoils of office in the time-honored tradition of American politics. I've worked with and for these folks; some were nightmares who actively made government worse, but many were terrific managers (as were their GS counterparts in the SES) who breathed fresh air into ossifying bureaus.

Honestly, this is just wacky. And don't get me started on the misuse of the term "Ponzi scheme"...

[ReRe]

8. K&R

36 years and 6 Presidents later, here we are. Great information and I hope all who pass by partakes of it. Thanks for the link, unhappycamper.