Congressional Budget Office says US carbon tax will generate $1.2 trillion

in australia, there will be a day of reckoning for the absurdly high tariffs being offered to those who could afford to take advantage of the switch to solar, providing power to the grid:
31 May: BrisbaneTimes: Tony Moore: Queensland electricity prices to rise
Queensland electricity prices will increase $268 a year, or 22.6 per cent, for households on the typical tariff, the Queensland Competition Authority has confirmed.
QCA chairman Malcolm Roberts accepted the price increase would hit families and small businesses…
‘‘[Premier] Campbell Newman promised Queenslanders in writing that he’d [lower] their power bills,’’ Mr Pitt said.
‘‘It was a reckless promise and clearly a shameless pre-election stunt that Mr Newman never had any intention of honouring.’’…
Energy Minister Mark McArdle instead the blamed the carbon tax, which adds $19.83 a year – or 38 cents a week – to the $268 annual increase ($5.15 a week) to the residential electricity bill.
He repeated his concerns about the cost of providing the solar feed-in tariff, which in 2013-14 will add $32 a year (61 cents a week) to the $268 a year increase…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-electricity-prices-to-rise-20130531-2ng00.html

policycritic says:
May 31, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Myrrh says:
May 31, 2013 at 11:17 am
Lastly,
“Pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 those banks must keep only 10% of those new deposits on “reserve.” (Because these banks do not have to keep 100% on reserve, this banking system is called a “fractional reserve” system.)
Absolutely 100% wrong. The fractional reserve system disappeared decades ago; it is an artifact of the gold standard days. Absolutely does not exist today. Loans create deposits. Let me repeat that: loans create deposits, not the other way around.
A bank makes that loan based on its perceived credit-worthiness of the client. If the bank does not have enough money to cover the loan, it gets reserves from the Fed at the going interest rate (it has about two weeks to settle up) or from other banks through interbank transactions that are too complicated to get into here.
Understanding how this system really works is what is going to cause ‘the people’ to demand that it gets changed. Hanging onto the Eustace Mullins, Gary Kah, and Thomas Schauf version of it undercuts everyone, and keeps the populace as ignorant of the truth as Hansen is trying to make us ignorant about the climate.
? Why would the banks give up the scam they created when the ‘money’ was gold, when now they have unlimited amounts they can create out of nothing?
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=fractional-reserve+banking
“Fractional-reserve banking is the standard practice used by banks throughout the global economy. However, to fully understand the nature of this method, consider the two alternatives to fractional-reserve banking: full-reserve banking and no-reserve banking.”
“loans create deposits”, as in, you go to your bank to get a loan for 100,000 and they create money out of it, out of the i.o.u.?
The Federal Reserve was created as a private company, that has no changed. However they have spread that the original banking families which created it still own it and reap the profits – so they returned a few billion to the US Treasury in 2010, (why do all the links I’ve found go to that date only?, new meme?), how much was this really if the following is true?:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/YouBeJudge/chapter3.htm
“”The Federal Reserve earns interest on the government securities it owns.” (“The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears”, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)
“Here is how this “PONZI SCHEME” works: When the government needs $100 billion, action is taken as follows: (1) The U.S. Treasurer advises the Bureau of printing and engraving to print $100 billion of U.S. Bonds (2) The Treasurer advises the Federal Reserve it will need $100 billion of Federal Reserve Notes (3) The Federal Reserve advises the Bureau of printing and engraving to print $100 billion of Federal Reserve Notes and pays $20.60 per thousand denomination (4) The slight of hand trick takes place when the Federal Reserve Notes are swapped for the U.S. Bonds that pay interest. (See House of Representatives, Banking and Currency Committee hearing of September 30, 1941) It should be pointed out the Federal Reserve does not always exchange Federal Reserve Notes for U.S. Securities. They can simply create the money by a simple bookkeeping journal entry and eliminate the cost of printing and engraving.
“Congressman Burkick reconfirmed this when he said, “We want to sell $4 billion worth of U.S. Bonds, and we sell them in New York to those who haven’t got a dime, and they don’t need any money because they simply enter credit to the government on their books . . . They bundle up the bonds and take them down here to Washington D.C. and get an amount equal in currency. Then they’ve got the money! But they didn’t have the money before the government gave it to them.”
“Lewis W. Douglas, former director of U.S. Budget said, “When banks buy government bonds they create bookkeeping credit.””
And,
“In a series of letters written by Byron Dale to the Department of the Treasury provides further evidence of the crimes being perpetrated on our unsuspecting nation. Russell Munk, Assistant General Counsel, International Affairs, Department of the Treasury, responded: “If the money supply is to be increased, money must be created [as debt]. The Federal Reserve Board (or “the Fed” as it is often called) has several ways of allowing money to be created, but the actual creation of money always involves the extension of credit . . . A private commercial bank which has just received extra reserves from the Fed can make roughly six dollars in loans for every one dollar in reserves it obtains from the Fed. How does it get six dollars from one dollar? It simply makes book entries for its loan customers saying `you have a deposit of six dollars with us’ . . . You may want to know whether the bank is the one getting the benefit of the new money, since the bank owns the new money while the customer has merely borrowed the money. The bank does indeed get the benefit of the new money.””
And, do you really think the Fed Reserve only made a few hundred million in profit?
“In a letter dated March 16, 1988, Donna Pope, Director of the Mint, Department of the Treasury, wrote: “Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, which is also an agency of the Department of the Treasury. The notes are sold to the Federal Reserve at the cost of manufacture, not at face value.”
“In another letter from Russell Munk, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, he writes: “It costs the Bureau of Printing and Engraving a little more than 2 cents to make a Federal Reserve Note, whether the note is for $1, $5 or $10 [$20, $50, $100] . . . I hope this information is useful to you.”
“This information proves the MONEY-CHANGERS pay about $20.60 for $100,000.00 (1,000 x $100.00 = $100,000.00). Don’t you wish you could get that kind of return, plus interest on your money? The MONEY-CHANGERS do!”
How can I get in on this? How can you? Read the mortgage scenario on that page, why isn’t the profit of money created out of your debt coming to you with a handling fee payable to the bank?
How much did the Federal Reserve pay for the $93 billion it returned to the Treasury in 2010?
Did they claim it as expenses..?
A bit more from that piece:
“In a letter dated April 9, 1990 from the Coin Coalition, they wrote: “The government only makes about $500 million a year in seigniorage on quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies. Remember, this is rather like `funny money’. The former chairman of the House Coinage Subcommittee correctly points out that we could pay off the national debt with a single $3 trillion coin. Just mint it and keep the $3 trillion seigniorage.””
“Unfortunately our leaders represent our enemies and continue to aid and abet in the crime of keeping us as indenture servants. If they truly represented “WE THE PEOPLE”, they would mint the coin, pay off the unlawful debt, and free us from the unseen hands of the MONEY-CHANGERS. However, there is a problem using this method, this method would leave the MONEY-CHANGERS with $5 trillion in their pockets.
“Fortunately, there are two other solutions to putting an end to this thievery. The first solution is found in Article 30 of the Federal Reserve Act. According to Article 30, Congress can buy-back the Federal Reserve and all their assets for the original paid-in capital of $144 million. Utilizing this clause would leave the stock-holders with what they invested to begin with, a $144 million.
“Speaking of the Federal Reserve System, Justice of the Peace, Martin Mahoney said, “The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them.” Article 30 of the Federal Reserve Act does just that!
“However, the best solution to putting an end to this giant hoax would be for Congress declare the Federal Reserve unconstitutional and null and void. Such an Act of Congress would return all their ill-gotten gains back to the U.S. Treasury and the MONEY-CHANGERS would be left empty handed. This solution will be given later in the book.”
I do think you have to go back to the history of this, especially for the US members the beginning of the Federal Reserve, but the control of the money supply, whether it be gold or cockle shells or now just key strokes, it the issue here – the banking cartel has been in monopoly control since the Rothschild’s perfected the scam a few centuries ago, lending to the goverments and getting the interest payed by the tax payers.
Money that the government, i.e. the people, could print and control itself and issue as non interest loans, for example.
Here’s a potted history of the beginnings: http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.History.of.the.Money.Changers.htm
Meyer Amchel Rothschild said:
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes its laws”
(1743-1812)
http://www.libertyforlife.com/banking/federal_reserve_bank.html
And some on the IRS and the Federal Reserve, created together, the IRS is the collection arm for interest payments on the money created out of nothing. http://www.devvy.com/notax.html
Can you point to a full independent audit of this relationship? Any audit at all…?

Myrrh says:
May 31, 2013 at 6:45 pm

It’s 4:30 AM here and I need to get to bed. So I will only cover this until tomorrow (well, later today). Re: your

Can you point to a full independent audit of this relationship? Any audit at all…?

I don’t have the link; maybe I can find it tomorrow, but the cite info should let you search with Google, even though it’s become an advertising algorithm and you can’t find a damn thing anymore.
From: Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality
by G. Thomas Woodward, Specialist in Macroeconomics, Economics Division, July 31, 1996, Congressional Research Service Library of Congress , CRS Report for Congress, No. 96-672 E

AUDITS [Emphasis in original]
It has been commonly reported that the Federal Reserve is exempt from audits, or that it has never been audited, or that the General Accounting Office (GAO) cannot audit the Fed. This is not true. The Federal Reserve has always had an audit program for the Board of Governors and the regional Federal Reserve Banks, with the arrangements varying, including internal and external examinations. But these have always been independent audits or complete audits. GAO can and indeed does audit many aspects of the Fed’s operations; but some of the Fed’s activities are off-limits to GAO inspection.
The Board of Governors is required by the Federal Reserve Act to examine the accounts, books, and affairs of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. This is in addition to the Board’s oversight and supervision of regional Federal Reserve Bank activities. The operation reviews include open market and international transactions. The Board also examines compliance with approved procedures, policies, and regulations.
From 1914 to 1921, the Board of Governors was audited by the Treasury. From the creation of the GAO in 1921 until 1933, the Board of Governors (but not the regional Federal Reserve Banks and branches) was under the GAO’s jurisdiction. In 1933, the Board of Governors was removed from the GAO’s jurisdiction. From 1933 to 1952, audit teams from the regional Federal Reserve Banks performed the examination of the Board of Governors’ books. A private accounting firm has audited the Board of Governors’ balance sheet from 1952 to the present.
In 1978, the Federal Reserve’s Office of Inspector General was given authority to conduct audits, operations reviews, and investigations of Board of Governors’ programs and operations. In addition, GAO was given authority to audit the Board of Governors and the regional Federal Reserve Banks, branches, and facilities, subject to the limitation that it could not examine the Fed’s foreign exchange and open market monetary policy actions.
One of the difficulties in understanding the audit issue is in the different types of audits. Most people think of audits as financial audits. These are principally concerned with whether an institution has spent the money and maintains the funds as it has claimed in its financial statements, and whether it is complying with procedures designed to safeguard it from misappropriation of funds. This is no doubt the kind of audit most people have in mind when expressing their concern over whether the Fed gets audited.
But audits are also designed to review management efficiency and to evaluate the policy of an institution. It is the latter kind of audits that are the reason for the restrictions on GAO’s audit authority over the Fed. The concern is that more extensive audits will become policy evaluations second-guessing the Fed’s monetary policy, and not examinations of Federal Reserve financial safeguards and procedures. Under current law, policy is reviewed twice annually by the Congress.

All to be handed out in subsidies for companies owned by those who lobby for the tax.

Mangus Colorado – that’s not a history, that’s a hide the history.
Tax on labour for US nationals is unconstitutional, sorry, haven’t had a chance to find an easy explanation of this, I thought I’d bookmarked one, but here is a rant on that theme with links to the appropriate information: http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta24003.htm
Your IRS cheque doesn’t get paid into the Treasury, because a) you’re not subject to tax on labour and b) because the IRS is the collection arm for the interest payable to the lending by the Federal Reserve which as I’ve shown above is creating the money out of nothing by the Government simply giving it to them.
Where he says it is “illegal” is not quite clear, it would be illegal if it were paid into the Treasury because that is unconstitutional tax, and it is “illegal”, as unlawful in that it is a scam, a fraud, created by the Government and the Federal Reserve in the creation of money which the Federal Reserve then lends back at interest to the Government and they collect the interest from you pretending it is tax (which would be unlawful anyway) and so shouldn’t be collected in the first place.
Some have successfully challenged this fraud – but it is fraught with ‘legalese’, so for example, some say you should write on your IRS form “no contract” and send it back, but others say that in itself constitutes your recognition of it as a legitimate entity and you shouldn’t write anything at all on the form, not even sending it back.
So, there’s lots of aspects of the fraud in this, in calling it a tax it is confidence trick, but for example, you are sucked into that in employment situations where this private interest, that is all the interest collected by the IRS by calling it “tax” which goes direct to the privately owned Federal Reserve, is taken direct from companies employing you who are unlawfully not allowed to trade unless they collect this interest for them.
This is, imo, not something that can be tackled effectively piecemeal, the whole system of corrupt money changing by the fraudulently acts of Goverment and the Federal Reserve have to become common knowledge, so that everyone understands what the fraud actually is. That takes education, the spread of knowledge, and this of course is what the conmen banking cartel owners of the Fed Reserve don’t want you to know..
Anyway, follow the links on that page to get a perspective on the complications here, such as: http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta24007.htm
You are in the US in the enviable position where Common Law was explained in the drafting, Common Law being our inalienable rights and your default position setting limits on Government interference.
A potted history of background to Common Law, which is the Law of the Land in Britain and its former colonies which was the basis of your founders’ thinking: http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm
In Britain there is a movement to explain the differences between the Law (which is Common Law only), and acts of parliament which pass themselves off as The Law – again a fraud of deception by conmen. And this is really complicated by the ‘legalese’ put in place – if you’re ever asked by a policeman “do you understand?” and you reply “Yes.”, it is assumed contractual agreement putting yourself under their jurisdiction and so out of Common Law..
Some people are fighting against the various acts by arguments within the ‘legalese’ of the court system created to enforce these acts. I however think this is wrong way to fight it, it is a con, and that already makes it a fraud in Common Law.
Here’s a fun example bringing it back to Common Law, against the unlawful imposition of a “Council Tax” which was put in place when Maggie’s original “Poll Tax” went belly up: http://metro.co.uk/2011/03/07/judge-arrested-as-british-constitution-group-storms-court-643040/
This is a very real problem, the police being trained now don’t know the difference between this “private company masquerading as the Law” while the judge clearly knew he was acting for that private company and so refused to confirm his oath of office which he took under Common Law – the policemen didn’t have a clue what was going on.