Nexus - 0804 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

... GL@BAL NEWS ... NEWS THE LAST PRESIDENT TO DEFY THE FEDERAL RESERVE resident John F. Kennedy was the last President on record to defy the Federal Reserve System—and look what happened to him. The circumstances surrounding sination of President Kennedy remain unresolved at best. What is known, how- ever, is that Kennedy was in many ways a maverick, who, as President, often acted inde- pendently and at times in direct conflict with the agendas of many powerful Washington insider interests. One of the most powerful of these interests was the Fed. Economist Seymour Harris described Kennedy as "by far the most knowledgeable President of all time in the general area of economics". Professor Donald Gibson, in his 1994 book, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency, documents much of the Kennedy economic program, including: * Tax proposals to redirect the foreign investments of US companies; ¢ Making distinctions in tax reform between productive and non-productive investment; + Eliminating the tax privileges of US-based global investment companies; * Cracking down on foreign tax havens; + Supporting proposals to eliminate tax privileges for the wealthy; * Proposing increased taxes for large oil and mineral companies; Revising the investment tax credit; « Making a proposal to expand the powers of the president to deal with recession. President George W. Bush, to bolster his tax-cut proposal, has accurately demonstrat- ed how Kennedy, in 1961, passed a much larger and broader tax cut than the one he is presently proposing. At the time, Kennedy articulated a profound understanding of the economic principle of leaving the maximum amount of capital at the source of produc- tion, with the taxpayer. Most economists agree that the Kennedy tax cut contributed greatly to the prosperous economy of the 1960s. And President Reagan's 1981 tax cut contributed to the prosperity of the 1980s and 1990s. With regard to the Fed, James J. Saxon, Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, encouraged a policy of broader investment and lending powers to be granted to non- Fed-affiliated banks. This would involve allowing for the setting of interest rates by these independent banks and lenders that could compete with those set by the Fed and its affiliates. Saxon also decided that these non-Fed banks and institutions could under- write state and local bond issuances, an area that had been a bailiwick for Fed-affiliated banks. These policies set the Kennedy administration at odds with the powerful central banking system. The Fed seeks to increase further its monopolistic prerogative over the issuance of currency and the setting of interest rates. In June 1963, President Kennedy authorised the issuance of more than US$4 billion in debt-free "United States Notes" through the US Treasury. This extraordinary act com- pletely circumvented the Fed, which expects to be called upon to lend currency—at interest accruing to themselves—to the US Government. Perhaps Kennedy reasoned that this currency would reduce the national debt by avoiding the necessity of paying interest to the Fed. The last time a President tried this was in 1862, when Abraham Lincoln authorised the issuance of US$450 million in debt-free currency—known at the time as "greenbacks"—through the US Treasury, rather than borrow money from the banking establishment. Lincoln stated: "Government possessing power to create and issue currency...need not and should not borrow capital at interest... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the government, but is the government's greatest creative opportunity." It is a fascinating coincidence that Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were both assassinated. Kennedy opposed many powerful interests during his all-too- brief Presidency, not the least of whom were those in his own government, such as the likes of McNamara, Rusk, Rostow and the Bundy brothers, who were clamouring for war in Vietnam. The widow of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, in a 1994 interview with author A. J. Weberman, said the following: "The answer to the Kennedy assassination is with the Federal Reserve Bank. Don't underestimate that. It's wrong to blame it on [CIA official James] Angleton and the CIA per se only. This is only one finger of the same hand. The people who supply the money are above the CIA." (Source: by Chuck Morse, 29 March 2001, www.chuckmorse.com) FARMER UNJUSTLY LIABLE FOR VIOLATING GE SEED PATENT n 29 March 2001, a Canadian judge dealt a crushing blow to farmers’ rights by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third- generation Saskatchewan farmer, must pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violat- ing the corporation's monopoly patent on genetically engineered (GE) canola seed. Under Canadian patent law, as in the US and many other industrialised countries, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed or grow Monsanto's GE seed without signing a licensing agreement. If the biotech corporations and US trade reps get their way, every nation in the world will be forced to adopt patent laws that make seed-saving illegal. The ruling against Schmeiser establishes an even more dangerous precedent because it means that farmers can be forced to pay royalties on GE seeds found on their land, even if they didn't buy the seeds or benefit from them. Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from Monsanto's GE canola seeds blew onto his land from neighbouring farms, without his consent. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbours and an esti- mated 40% of farmers in western Canada grow GE canola.) Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples without his permis- sion. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GE crops, but the court says he must now pay Monsanto US$10,000 for licensing fees and up to US$75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop. The GE canola that drifted onto Schmeiser's farm was engineered to with- stand spraying of Monsanto's proprietary weedkiller, Roundup. But Schmeiser did not use Roundup on his canola crop. After all, if he'd sprayed his crop, the chemical would have killed the majority of his canola plants that were not genetically engineered to tolerate the weedkiller! Schmeiser didn't take advantage of Monsanto's GE technology, but the court ruling says he's guilty of using the seed without a licensing agreement. He has now filed a counter-suit against Monsanto, but needs help with legal costs (visit Schmeiser Defense Fund, www.percyschmeiser.com). Meanwhile, Monsanto has threatened to "vigorously prosecute" hundreds of cases against seed-saving farmers. (Source: Rural Advancement Foundation International, 2 April 2001, www.rafi.org) JUNE — JULY 2001 NEXUS +9 www.nexusmagazine.com