The Dialectic
By Vicky Davis


The Name of the Game is The Dialectic - The Hegelian Dialectic. 
We need to learn to recognize it so that we don't act like stooges - falling for it time after time after time.  Below you will find an article written for a UN organization on Public Administration on the tax reform policy of the neo cons who are running our government [ into the ground].  The date on it is 2003.    
When Aaron Russo hit the scene with his movie on our tax system, I tried to tell people that he was actually working for the neo con government with his movie.  That it was yet another Hegelian Dialectic.  He is trying to create the public pressure to change the tax system the way the neo cons want it changed - which is to eliminate income tax (because they are destroying the income tax base by destroying the middle class).  Also, since they are destroying the government, consumption taxes will hit everybody who is residing in the United States which eliminates citizenship as a factor.  It separates the people from the government for taxation.  That way, the tax revenues could just as easily go to the Inter-American Union as opposed to the United States government.  
Collection of consumption taxes won't be difficult because retail is being taken over by the big box stores and for other local businesses, they are defining intermodal commerce zones which are designated areas under private control that will be exempt from local taxes - giving incentives for businesses to move to them.  These zones will be used to put small American businesses not connected to the socialist system - out of business. 
Reminder - this perception management play between the Bush Administration and the New York Times regarding survelliance of financial transactions in and out of the country - is yet another Hegelian Dialectic.  They are trying to break down the reciprocal banking laws between nations.  They are again trying to create public pressure on civil rights grounds when the real benefits will go to the very rich and very corrupt by being able to move money in and out of countries without worry about law enforcement authorities and taxing agencies being able to trace it. 
Here is another one.   The NEA will endorse same-sex marriage.  The schools are now supporting the gay agenda in schools.  And they are connecting up the schools with mental health professionals so that they can reach more kids with mind destroying psychiatric drugs.    What's the purpose of all this?   They want to eliminate schools as we know them - going instead to the internet  eLearning and on-the job vocational training.  This turns the schools into factories for workers rather than education citizens of a free nation.  (Remember that Bill Gates is going to work full time with his Foundation.  He has a deal with the UN to promote their agenda which means worker factories and global citizenship).
Article on U.S. Tax Policy and plans for reform
Today I found a UN website on Public Administration and in their newsletter, an article written by   From Detroit News, MI, by Jonathan Weisman, 13 June 2003  that is a report to the members of the UN on the status of 'tax reform' in the U.S.
I found the organization that this came from -
Bush Administration Tax Policy at a Crossroads
Washington - After the third tax cut in three years, some Bush administration policy-makers are pushing for a more fundamental overhaul of the system that would largely shelter investments from taxation, dramatically changing the way Americans are taxed and how the government is financed. But they're running into opposition from a surprising quarter: White House officials who fear such prescriptions could have dangerous economic and political consequences at a time of growing budget deficits. At the heart of the matter is an ambition of conservative tax theorists in and outside of the Bush administration to pursue tax cuts not only to relieve the burden on Americans, but to create a new system that they believe will make the economy stronger. Their ambitions outstrip what even some conservative tax-cutting Republicans think are feasible or wise. Until now, both camps have pursued tax-cutting in close alliance because they agreed that lower taxes were the right policy. But now, they've reached a crossroads and are divided about where to go next and why. "My look at tax reform tells me, I don't see it," outgoing White House budget director Mitchell Daniels said last week, referring to certain proposals crafted by the Treasury Department for another wave of tax-cutting. "The political problems are too intractable. ... Until (Bush) sees a system that has social justice and economic smarts, I don't think he'll spend any time on it."
Pamela Olson, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, said she doesn't see a division in the administration. She downplayed the significance of the next steps toward tax reform advocated by Treasury. "All we're doing is simplifying things, opening things up," Olson said. But tax theorists say they've achieved far more in three years than they'd expected. Since President Bush took office, this decade's federal tax bill has been cut by more than $1.7 trillion. That amount would more than double if tax cut provisions now set to expire are extended. Federal tax revenue, as a percentage of the overall economy, will fall this year to about 16.5 percent, its lowest level since the Eisenhower administration. The record federal budget surplus of $236 billion recorded in President Clinton's final year in office has turned into a record deficit now expected to surpass $400 billion this year, in part because of those tax policies. Specific changes to the tax code mean the government now depends more on taxing wages than investment income such as dividends, capital gains and interest. Because investment income and inheritances tend to flow to the very rich, the effective federal tax rate on households earning more than $416,000 will have fallen from 32.7 percent when Bush took office to 26.9 percent by 2010, while their share of federal taxation will have dropped from 24.3 percent to 22.8 percent.
The architects of the last three tax cuts in Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers say their combined effect will be to push the United States toward the Holy Grail of conservative tax theory: a tax system that they believe would promote economic efficiency and growth by focusing taxation on consumption while rewarding investment. [Keep in mind that big investors are NOT investing in the United States - they are investing in China and India. ]These administration officials argue that taxing returns on investment amounts to unfair and punitive "double taxation," since the income that was invested was taxed when it was earned. Critics have long held that such a system would unfairly shift the tax burden from the affluent to the working class, worsening income inequality. Besides, by granting businesses lucrative tax breaks on their income, then slashing taxes on dividends and capital gains, administration policy-makers are not ensuring that corporate income and investment gains are taxed only once, said William Gale an economist at the Brookings Institution; they are ensuring much of it isn't taxed at all. Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said that for the president, reforming the tax code to eliminate taxation of investments was never the primary motive. But to others in the administration, it was always a goal. "The discussions the president instigated will be a good precursor to tax reform," Hubbard said, "and that wasn't lost on anybody." Last year, Ernest Christian, a Treasury official in the Reagan administration and founder of the Committee for Strategic Tax Reform, devised a blueprint for stealth tax reform in "five easy pieces."
Placed against the tax cuts of the past three years, Christian's agenda is beginning to look like a road map: lower marginal income tax rates, including capital gains tax rates; eliminate taxes on dividends; accelerate the speed with which businesses can write investment expenses off their tax bills; expand the Roth Individual Retirement Account to all personal saving; and exclude export and other foreign trade income of American companies from taxation. The first piece, lower rates, has now been accomplished. The top income tax rate of 39.6 percent in 2001 has now fallen to 35 percent, while the tax rate on most capital gains has fallen from 20 percent to 15 percent. The second piece took a substantial leap toward completion when Washington slashed taxes on corporate dividends last month from a top rate of 38.6 percent to 15 percent for most dividends, and 5 percent for others. A year ago, the concept of the "double taxation of corporate earnings," as opponents refer to dividend taxation, didn't exist in the political lexicon. Now it's front and center. As for the third piece, tax cuts in 2002 and 2003 ramped up depreciation rates to the point where companies can now write off at least half the cost of their investments in the first year. And with his 2003 budget, Bush appeared to have followed Christian's fourth recommendation precisely by proposing "Lifetime Savings Accounts" that would allow every American, regardless of age or income, to shield $7,500 a year from investment taxation.


The accounts would be accessible at any time for any reason. A family of five could squirrel away $37,500 annually, a figure that very few Americans could even contemplate saving. "If you beat your breast, jump up and down, and come in with some revolutionary idea to change the tax code overnight, you're just going to scare the devil out of everyone; we don't do revolutionary things," Christian said recently "Now, the last stage, three years or so from now, is that we say we've done the substance (of tax reform) already, but the code is still complicated. Let's really simplify it a lot and finish the job." The current debate in the administration is centered on the savings accounts. Treasury's Olson and Andrew Lyon, Treasury's head of tax analysis, both highlighted the lifetime savings account proposals in speeches to two major financial trade groups earlier this month. Daniels, in an interview, dismissed the proposal as more of "a discussion piece" than a legislative initiative. It first appeared in the president's 2004 budget, described as a modest step toward simplifying the tax code by establishing a single, tax-favored savings account to replace existing medical, education and retirement savings accounts.
The broader ramifications of the proposal emerged only after the budget was released, Daniels said, and it took the White House by surprise. "I freely admit that I didn't and I don't think most people realize how fundamental a difference those proposals, if fully acted on, would be," Daniels said. He attributed the inclusion of the proposal in the budget to a "policy hitch," saying "pure tax policy tended to be sort of left at Treasury" and was not coordinated with the White House. A senior Treasury official, who spoke on condition of not being identified, strenuously disagreed and called the proposal "fully vetted and considered." The proponents of broad reform include academics for whom such theory is hardly radical, like Hubbard, who has returned to Columbia University, and his successor Gregory Mankiw, who is on leave from Harvard University. They also include tax lawyers like Olson and her predecessor Mark Weinberger, who both worked as advisers on a 1996 congressionally appointed commission that recommended the nation exempt investment income from taxation and tax all wages at the same rate.
Treasury's determination is giving conservative, anti-tax activists something to cheer for, and that may be the White House's intention, administration sources say. "In each of these fronts, we've found we've pushed and there's an open door," said Grover Norquist, an influential conservative activist at Americans for Tax Reform. "We'll keep moving forward as fast as we can. No one I have talked to has any expectation that we will have anything less than a tax cut every year of the eight years of the Bush administration." One Republican economist with close administration ties said White House officials have begun soliciting advice on tax proposals that could be sold as both reform and deficit reduction. The growing deficit and its potential impact on Bush's campaign for re-election is now drawing their attention. "If we ever reform taxes, in my judgment, you have to put all the chips on the table," said Daniels, specifically mentioning increasing capital gains taxes as an engine for balancing the budget.
From Detroit News, MI, by Jonathan Weisman, 13 June 2003