The GAO [formerly the Government Accounting Office] has changed its name without changing its acronym — quite a feat for a government agency. It even saves them from having to conjure up another catchy web address. It will be known henceforth as the "Government Accountability Office." As government grows and consumes everything in its path it becomes necessary from time to time to do some Orwellian adjustments. This new name is a real stroke of government genius showing a level of creativity previously unknown in the world of accounting. But let’s be fair — most of us recognize modern accounting as one of the fine arts not having any relationship to applied science.
The GAO describes itself: "The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as u2018the investigative arm of Congress’ and u2018the congressional watchdog.’ GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people…" Click here to read more about the GAO at their website.
Even though it is described as a "congressional watchdog," it actually colludes with the Congress in evading constitutional responsibilities. It is a watchdog for the Congress — not for the People — and the Congress does not expect its own dog to bite the hand that feeds it. The "aristocrats" in Congress decide what is "best" for the American People [their reelection and arrogation of more and more power and wealth] — and then they solicit the help of the GAO to cook the books. The GAO effects this more by sins of omission than commission. They are not generating reports and pie charts to show the Congress all of the obvious benefits of going back to our lawful money of gold and silver. I would love to see that!
There has recently been a changing of the guard at the GAO with the resignation of Comptroller David M. Walker and appointment of Gene L. Dodaro, as Acting Comptroller. Government officials resign for all sorts of reasons. But it would appear Mr. Walker has turned into a very vocal itinerate "whistleblower." The man is talking Trillions and Trillions in unfunded future obligations that we will never be able to meet. See and hear the former Comptroller on 60 Minutes.
The Main Bean Counter: Chicken Little — or Paul Revere?
No rat leaving a sinking ship, David Walker sounds very sincere and his appeal seems heartfelt. But I don’t think he’s quite ready to join the Ron Paul campaign. If you listen carefully you may agree that he has not completely left the realms of virtual accounting. I think this is also true of the three major think tanks in his entourage: Heritage, Brookings and the Concord Coalition. To repudiate every aspect of state socialism would be to vindicate the Founders and Framers, and Dr. Ron Paul, who keeps telling us to pay attention to their warnings instead of self-medicating with the palliative of economic denial. We cannot afford an ounce of it. It would be a pity to divert and waste the energy of such a consensus. A false diagnosis and a band-aid now will only make the crash more destructive and its effects more long lasting. The rhetoric of reform must yield to the reality of Revolution.
In his 60 Minutes interview David Walker states: "If you tell them the truth; if you give them the facts; if you explain this in terms of not just numbers but values and people, they will get it and empower their elected officials to make tough choices."
What is Truth?
If Mr. Walker would sample the population regarding its knowledge of the Constitution I think he would have to agree that simply telling them the truth is not going to cut it. I would like to quiz the GAO staff on the Constitution. If our lawyers aren’t learning it, how can we reasonably expect accountants to know much about it? I think it is not precise to speak of the People "empowering" the Congress to make "tough choices." The "empowerment" of Congress should flow from the People through their Constitution — and from no other source. There is no other lawful option.
Instead of trying to salvage some cherished remnant of socialism or collectivism, the three named think tanks should start collaborating with Dr. Ron Paul — and pointing their fellow citizens toward lawful and Constitutional solutions. They can put more links on their websites to places like Mises.org, LewRockwell.com, and Lexrex.com. They must fully recognize the Welfare/Warfare State is as unsustainable as it is unconstitutional. It is immoral and unlawful in any measure; heinous and obscene at present levels, and will wreak havoc if not repudiated in its entirety. You cannot establish any element of state socialism without first abandoning the principle of Equality before the Law. There are many very discoverable reasons for the fact that No Welfare State existed in 1789. There is not a word in the Constitution to support it. The Framers were on the right track — and Ron Paul is on the right track.
Either we will have Lawful Money and Banking, With Zero Socialism, or we will Not have Lawful Government — and we must choose in every generation. The generation that bankrupts America for the next few generations — or perhaps forever — will not be remembered as the "Greatest Generation."
Here is another gem from the GAO: "A quick look at the federal budget reveals how much we have expanded beyond the Constitution’s framers’ original thoughts and our modest beginnings." A quick look!? The longer more reflective look may cause nausea and perhaps a sensation of serious head trauma. Are the "framers’ original thoughts" anything like the "strictures of Constitutional law," or were the Framers incapable of getting their thoughts down on paper? We are a nation without excuse. It is dysfunctional to pretend the Framers left us without an immaculate set of instructions. The government had truly "modest beginnings." But somehow it lost its youthful virtue.
Will Rogers once said his job as a humorist was never hard because he had the whole government working for him. If you go to any government website you will certainly have to agree with him. He also said, "If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”
Disobeying the Constitution got us into this mess! Obeying it is the only way out!
What does the GAO recommend?
"What is needed is a more strategic, long-term, comprehensive, and integrated approach to help capitalize on related opportunities and manage related risks within current and expected resource levels…" It is interesting to note that their use of the word "capitalize" may have little to do with money or accounting. Down further we read: "Our current long-range fiscal path is clearly imprudent and fiscally unsustainable…" Then we see some language possibly related to covering the hind quarters: "Unless these issues are effectively addressed, they will surely begin to manage us." Is this a preface to a future "I told you so" speech? Yes! The "issues" will "manage us," sooner or later, if we fail to seize the day and Restore Limited Constitutional Government.
The GAO is advocating another "Reform." The Founders and Framers knew they needed a Revolution. I often go back to the Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language to get that certain nuance of meaning that we may have left behind along the way. In his third entry for "reform" I found an interesting tidbit: "Reform … amendment of what is defective, vicious, corrupt or depraved; as the reformation of parliamentary elections; reform of government."
One meaning of the word "Revolution" that I find a useful Metaphor, is the mechanical usage denoting one complete turn back to the beginning. Our most brilliant minds can connect all the dots back to the beginning if anyone can. They can also avail themselves of the wisdom of the Founders and Framers. We don’t need to learn Everything from our own mistakes. And we don’t need to keep trying to fix something that is corrupt and vicious in its origins, execution and consequences.
Certain warnings bear much repetition: “But we want no excuse for any supposed mistakes of our ancestors. Let us first see it prov’d that they were mistakes. ‘Till then we must hold ourselves obliged to them for sentiments transmitted to us so worthy of their character, and so important to our security: . . .” ~ Sam Adams
What’s in a name?
My suggestion: They should not stop at changing the word "accountability." Why not go all the way and call themselves the "VAO [Virtual Accountability Office]?" They should not use the term "Government" because they operate outside of constitutional authority almost exclusively. They should not use the word Accounting because there is nothing concrete to count. You cannot weigh fiat currency. And you absolutely cannot tell how much "liquidity" is being created by the Fed on behalf of their cronies — or perhaps counterfeited by the "Axis of Evil."
Suppose, as they now say, we are saving Billions, thanks to the fine people at the VAO, and suppose we are Missing Trillions. Do you see a problem here? According to the VAO Billions are allegedly well accounted for, while, according to other government sources, Trillions are Missing. As Mae West once said, "I’ve been a Thousandaire, and I’ve been a Millionaire and Millionaire is Better." Would you rather be missing a Billion or a Trillion? She also said, “Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.”
Why are we even talking virtual billions when virtual trillions are missing!? The VAO is off by a magnitude of perhaps 1000 to 1 or more in terms of what it should be talking about — and that’s only in fiat currency. Is it because they are only talking Virtual Economics — not real, finite, concrete, factual economics?
Still further down we read: "Without meaningful action, by 2040 our government could only have the resources to do little more than mail out Social Security checks and pay interest on the massive and growing national debt. This is obviously an unacceptable scenario." Should we be overwhelmed by a projection that by 2040 the "government" will only have enough virtual money to pay Social Security and the Interest on the National Debt — both of which are unconstitutional? Could this mean that by 2040 we will almost be ready to go back to the Constitution?
What are we waiting for?