A former senior advisor at the Treasury Department pleaded guilty on Monday for leaking confidential banking records related to members of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/treasury-natalie-edwards-leaking-trump-documents-guilty-plea.amp">reported</a> that prosecutors believed 41-year-old Natalie Edwards began obtaining the sensitive information in October 2017 and continued for one year. She would send the information she received to a BuzzFeed News reporter. The outlet published multiple articles based on the leaked information.
“Edwards was a senior adviser at Treasury&#8217;s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, also known as FinCEN. Prosecutors said her crime began in October 2017 and continued for a year, with Edwards sending a BuzzFeed News reporter numerous Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”). Banks must file SARs with the Treasury Department when they spot transactions raising questions about possible financial misconduct such as money laundering, but federal law strictly limited their disclosure,” Fox reported. “The SARs related to wire transfers made by Paul Manafort and other figures in former Special Counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s investigation, including campaign official Richard Gates, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-maria-butina-the-russian-woman-accused-of-spying-on-us">Maria Butina</a> and the Russian Embassy.”
When she was arrested in October 2018 “she was <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/treasury-employee-charged-with-leaking-financial-info-of-trump-team">carrying a government-issued USB flash drive</a> containing not only thousands of SARs,” the outlet reported. She also had on that USB &#8220;highly sensitive material relating to Russia, Iran, and the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL, otherwise known as ISIS],&#8221; prosecutors said, according to Fox.
Prosecutors said it did not appear as though Edwards had any legitimate job-related reason to have that information, as she was “not known to be involved in any official FinCEN project or task bearing these file titles or code names.&#8221;
Edwards apologized to the court, saying, “I am sorry for what I have done and I apologize to you, your honor, and the court.&#8221;
Edwards faced up to five years in prison for the charge of conspiracy for leaking the bank records, but her plea deal will result in a sentence of zero to six months in prison.
“She transmitted the SARs to the reporter by ‘taking photographs of them and texting the photographs’ using an encrypted application, according to charging documents, which showed that Edwards eventually confessed to doing so. FBI agents obtained a pen register and trap-and-trace order for Edwards&#8217; cellphone during their investigation,” Fox reported.
Her defense argued that Edwards didn’t think the government was properly handling the information she uncovered and decided to go to the media with it instead.
&#8220;She said: &#8216;You know, if I can&#8217;t trust government officials to handle this, I think I can trust the media to handle this and to bring this to the attention of the American people,&#8217;” said her attorney, Marc Agnifilo.
Agnifilo also claimed prosecutors were “probably of the view that she was more politically motivated than she was for some conception like the good of our republic.&#8221;
Most of the information Edwards obtained did not result in charges against the people she targeted. Her information did provide media fodder to use against Trump and his associates, however.

Natalie Edwards

Former Treasury Official Who Leaked Confidential Trump Team Banking Records Pleads Guilty

Crime

Department of the Treasury

Donald Trump

Outrage ensued last month after it was reported that the Harriet Tubman $20 bill wouldn’t be released in 2020, as Obama administration officials had demanded before he left office.
President Donald Trump and his administration were immediately and predictably accused of racism and delaying the bill until 2024 for political reasons.
Now, three “current or former high-ranking government officials” who worked under the Obama administration have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/15/obama-officials-say-trump-administration-hasnt-delayed-new-bill-despite-harriet-tubman-firestorm/">told</a> The Washington Post that the Trump administration did not delay the printing of the bill, but rather couldn’t meet the deadline imposed by the Obama administration.
Two of the officials were appointed by President Barack Obama, and one was appointed by George. W. Bush but served under Obama. They told the Post that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is merely following a timeline set by the Obama administration that was not possible logistically. From the Post:
<blockquote>In 2016, President’s Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said a “final concept design” of the Tubman $20 would be released in 2020. He asked the government to accelerate the process of the redesign, saying the new look would be released by 2020, the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote.
But inside the agency, some government officials doubted that deadline could be met. A confidential 2013 report by the Advanced Counterfeit Deterrence committee, an interagency group that oversees the redesign of U.S. currency, said the $20 would not enter circulation until 2030, similar to the timeline announced by the Trump administration, according to Larry R. Felix, director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing from 2006 to 2015.</blockquote>
Misreported by the media was the fact that the Obama administration only demanded the concept of the new bill be released in 2020, not the new bill itself. Felix told the outlet this would not be possible as concept designs were never released so far in advance of bills entering circulation. He also told the Post he brought up his concerns before leaving the Treasury in 2015.
“Those announcements were not grounded in reality. The U.S. had not at the time acquired the security features to redesign and protect the notes,” he said.
This didn’t matter to Democrats and their media supporters, who breathlessly criticized Trump for an alleged indiscretion for pushing back the concept design. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) even called for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48646/chuck-schumer-wants-investigation-treasury-ashe-schow">an investigation</a> into the concept’s delay. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General now says it will investigate.
This wasn’t the first time a government official pushed back on the media narrative. In mid-June, Bureau of Engraving and Printing Director Len Olija said the reason for the delay was to protect the security of the bill, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48466/top-official-debunks-new-york-times-hit-piece-ryan-saavedra">previously reported</a>.
&#8220;To keep our currency safe and secure, it is unwise to give counterfeiters a look at a potential future note far in advance of a note going into circulation,&#8221; Olija wrote in a statement. &#8220;Additionally, if the concept of a note that was made public by the government were to change during that lengthy amount of time, it would create confusion in the global marketplace, further aiding counterfeiters.&#8221;

Treasury Officials Who Worked Under Obama Say Trump Administration Didn’t Delay Harriet Tubman $20 Bill

Steve Mnuchin

You get investigated. You get investigated. You get investigated. Democrats are opening up investigations like Oprah used to hand out free stuff to her audience.
The latest call for an investigation into the Trump administration comes from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who wants an investigation into the delay of the $20 bill that replaces Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman.
In <a href="https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/6-19-19%20-%20Letter%20to%20IG%20Thorson%20re%20Tubman.pdf">a letter</a> sent Wednesday to the Treasury Department&#8217;s Inspector General, Eric M. Thorson, Schumer asked for an investigation into &#8220;the circumstances surrounding&#8221; the department&#8217;s &#8220;decision to delay redesign of the $20 note featuring the portrait of Harriet Tubman, including any involvement by the White House in this decision.&#8221;
Schumer noted that in 2016, then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced the redesign would be released in 2020. Last month, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced the redesign was delayed until 2028 so that the bill could be redesigned to address &#8220;counterfeiting issues.&#8221;
&#8220;The primary reason we&#8217;ve looked at redesigning the currency is for counterfeiting issues,&#8221; Mnuchin said at the time, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/finance/445004-mnuchin-harriet-tubman-20-bill-designs-wont-be-released-in-2020">according to The Hill</a>. &#8220;Based upon this, the $20 bill will now not come out until 2028. The $10 and the $50 will come out with new features beforehand.&#8221;
In his letter, Schumer suggests President Donald Trump may have been the real reason the bill was delayed since during the 2016 campaign he praised Jackson and suggested replacing him on the $20 bill was &#8220;pure political correctness.&#8221;
Schumer wrote that it was &#8220;simply not credible that with all the resources and expertise of the U.S. Treasury and Secret Service, a decade or more could be required to produce a new $20 bill. If the Empire State Building could be completed in 13 months almost 100 years ago, the 21st century Treasury Department ought to be able to get this job done in a reasonable period of time.&#8221;
Schumer neglected to reflect on the slowness of modern government and take into consideration that the Empire State Building could not be built in 13 months in today&#8217;s society due to permit restrictions and regulations.
Schumer also asked the inspector general to &#8220;review the involvement of other participants in the interagency process related to the redesign &#8211; including the Secret Service, Federal Reserve, and the White House &#8211; to ensure that political considerations have not been allowed to infect the process for designing American currency.&#8221;
Trump suggested in 2016 that Jackson remain on the $20 bill and that a new official note &#8212; a $2 bill &#8212; feature Tubman.
Earlier this week, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48466/top-official-debunks-new-york-times-hit-piece-ryan-saavedra">reported</a> that Bureau of Engraving and Printing Director Len Olija wrote in a statement that suggestions the delay was for political reasons were false.
&#8220;To keep our currency safe and secure, it is unwise to give counterfeiters a look at a potential future note far in advance of a note going into circulation,&#8221; Olija wrote. &#8220;Additionally, if the concept of a note that was made public by the government were to change during that lengthy amount of time, it would create confusion in the global marketplace, further aiding counterfeiters.&#8221;
Further, Olija debunked claims from The New York Times that the new note was already designed.
&#8220;The illustration published by the New York Times was a copy of an old Series note with the signatures of former officials, with a different image imposed on it,&#8221; Olija concluded. &#8220;It is not a new $20 note, as incorrectly stated by the New York Times, in any way, shape or form. The facsimile contained no security features or offset printing included on currency notes. There is nothing about that illustration that even begins to meet technical requirements for the next family of notes.&#8221;
Monica Crowley, spokeswoman for Mnuchin, said the department&#8217;s timetable is consistent with what the former administration required.

Chuck Schumer Wants Investigation Into Treasury Department’s Delay Of Harriet Tubman $20 Bill

Charles Schumer

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) fired back at The New York Times late last week over a report that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had intentionally delayed a new $20 bill bearing the image of Harriet Tubman for political reasons.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/harriet-tubman-bill.html">reported</a>:
<blockquote>
Current and former department officials say Mr. Mnuchin chose the delay to avoid the possibility that Mr. Trump would cancel the plan outright and create even more controversy.
</blockquote>
Work on the new bill, which began in 2016 under former President Barack Obama, was, according to Mnuchin, delayed due to technical reasons related to new currency security features that are currently being developed.
Bureau of Engraving and Printing Director Len Olija confirmed in a statement last week that the BEP &#8220;was never going to unveil a note design in 2020.&#8221;
&#8220;To keep our currency safe and secure, it is unwise to give counterfeiters a look at a potential future note far in advance of a note going into circulation,&#8221; Olija wrote. &#8220;Additionally, if the concept of a note that was made public by the government were to change during that lengthy amount of time, it would create confusion in the global marketplace, further aiding counterfeiters.&#8221;
Olija then dispelled the Times&#8217; reporting, writing that &#8220;no Bureau or Department official has &#8216;scrapped&#8217; anything; it is too early to develop an integrated concept or design until security features are finalized. The aesthetics or look of the note has always come after and been driven by the security features.&#8221;
&#8220;The illustration published by the New York Times was a copy of an old Series note with the signatures of former officials, with a different image imposed on it,&#8221; Olija concluded. &#8220;It is not a new $20 note, as incorrectly stated by the New York Times, in any way, shape or form. The facsimile contained no security features or offset printing included on currency notes. There is nothing about that illustration that even begins to meet technical requirements for the next family of notes.&#8221;
Monica Crowley, a spokeswoman for Mnuchin, said in a statement:
<blockquote>
The scheduled release (printing) of the $20 bill is on a timetable consistent with the previous administration. The Secretary at this point is focused on security features and anti-counterfeiting measures related to the currency. The suggestion that the process is being delayed is completely erroneous.
</blockquote>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Treasury spokesperson response to today&#8217;s misleading New York Times story: <a href="https://t.co/PeMcoVL8tC">pic.twitter.com/PeMcoVL8tC</a>
&#8212; Treasury Public Affairs (@TreasurySpox) <a href="https://twitter.com/TreasurySpox/status/1139633270709243906?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 201</a></blockquote>
</div>
The Times quoted Larry E. Rolufs, a former director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, in an apparent attempt to try to cast doubt on Mnuchin&#8217;s explanation over the delay. The Times noted, though, that Rolufs said that having the new bill in circulation by next year was ambitious and that making the change was an invitation for backlash.
&#8220;The American people don&#8217;t like their currency messed with,&#8221; Rolufs said.
The Times also noted that Democrats in Congress have sought to politicize the issue:
<blockquote>
And last week, a group of House Democrats demanded that the Treasur secretary provide specific information about the security concerns that were impeding the currency redesign.
</blockquote>
The full statement from Bureau of Engraving and Printing Director Len Olija:
<blockquote>
The Advanced Counterfeit Deterrence Steering Committee, which includes membership from the BEP, the US Secret Service and the Federal Reserve System, was chartered to make design and security recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury. At this time, the ACD Committee and BEP remain focused on developing security features for the upcoming redesign.
As technology has evolved, banknote production has vastly changed over the last three decades. The next family of notes require new, overt and covert security features for the public, the banknote equipment manufacturers, and the central bank, to keep our currency safe and secure. Security features also need to work in mass production. A design can change during testing. The overwhelming success of the redesigned $100 in thwarting counterfeiting, is greatly due to the effectiveness of the blue security thread which is a public feature (and which a design was integrated around afterwards). That development alone of that security feature took approximately 10 years to finalize.
Moreover, BEP was never going to unveil a note design in 2020. To keep our currency safe and secure, it is unwise to give counterfeiters a look at a potential future note far in advance of a note going into circulation. Additionally, if the concept of a note that was made public by the government were to change during that lengthy amount of time, it would create confusion in the global marketplace, further aiding counterfeiters.
No Bureau or Department official has &#8216;scrapped&#8217; anything; it is too early to develop an integrated concept or design until security features are finalized. The aesthetics or look of the note has always come after and been driven by the security features. Everything remains on the table.
The illustration published by the New York Times was a copy of an old Series note with the signatures of former officials, with a different image imposed on it. It is not a new $20 note, as incorrectly stated by the New York Times, in any way, shape or form. The facsimile contained no security features or offset printing included on currency notes. There is nothing about that illustration that even begins to meet technical requirements for the next family of notes.
</blockquote>

Top Official Debunks New York Times’ Hit Piece On Mnuchin Over $20 Harriet Tubman Bill

On Friday, President Donald Trump&#8217;s nominee to the World Bank Group, David Malpass, was unanimously approved by its executive board to serve a five-year term as president.
Malpass is a senior U.S. Treasury official and is seen as a loyalist to the president because he served as senior economic advisor during Trump&#8217;s 2016 campaign. He was nominated by Trump in February, according to<a href="http://time.com/5565141/david-malpass-world-bank-group-president/"> TIME</a>. No other countries nominated a candidate.
The president of the World Bank is traditionally chosen by the U.S., which holds the most significant<a href="https://finances.worldbank.org/Shareholder-Equity/Top-8-countries-voting-power/udm3-vzz9"> voting power</a> at 16.7%, followed by Japan at 7.2% and China at 4.6%.
Malpass has been regarded by some as a controversial pick because in the past he has frequently criticized the World Bank and its sister organization, the International Monetary Fund, calling them &#8220;intrusive&#8221; and &#8220;entrenched,&#8221; the<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47832806"> BBC</a> reported.
In a 2011 speech, Malpass said that for 25 years he had been an opponent to the IMF and the World Bank.
&#8220;For 25 years, literally, I&#8217;ve been an opponent of the IMF and the World Bank and of the global &#8212; the system of trying to globalize US foreign policy and defer to foreign authorities in setting our policy,&#8221; Malpass said, according to<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/kfile-david-malpass-world-bank/index.html"> CNN</a>. &#8220;So I&#8217;ve been outspoken. I&#8217;ve done dozens of articles in the Wall Street Journal on how the IMF could be revised in order to make it less damaging.&#8221;
&#8220;I was the senior Treasury person in charge of the World Bank and all of those agencies when I was in the Reagan administration and they destroyed &#8212; we, we the United States, through our foreign aid programs, have destroyed countless countries,&#8221; Malpass added.
One of The Wall Street Journal articles that Malpass may have been referring to is one he<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100950033961014080"> penned</a> in 2001 where he wrote the World Bank &#8220;systematically impoverishes foreigners.&#8221;
&#8220;[T]he IMF keeps using its money, much of it from the U.S. taxpayer, to support economic policies that would never be tolerated in the U.S,&#8221; Malpass added. &#8220;The Clinton administration championed this double standard, and the Bush administration has gone along.&#8221;
One of Malpass&#8217; biggest criticisms of the World Bank was its lending to China, which he believes should borrow on global capital markets. Malpass said he hopes to focus on helping poorer countries as opposed to China, which he believes is too wealthy to need the aid.
Despite his criticism, Malpass helped secure the organization a $13 billion funding increase for the bank last year, reported<a href="http://www.apple.com"> Fox Business</a>.
In response to criticism, Sean Rushton, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said Malpass would &#8220;enhance the Bank&#8217;s effectiveness and efficiency,&#8221; in a statement to CNN. 
&#8220;Throughout his 40-year career, Under Secretary Malpass has worked to improve and reform the multilateral development banks. When policies at the MDBs (multilateral development banks) have failed to relieve poverty and direct resources where they were needed most, he has spoken out,&#8221; Rushton wrote. &#8220;In 2018, Malpass successfully advocated for a World Bank capital increase, including a major reform package negotiated with World Bank Management and shareholders around the world. There is no one better positioned now to oversee implementation of these reforms, which will enhance the Bank&#8217;s effectiveness and efficiency. He looks forward to listening to World Bank staff on how to best focus its practices and achieve its mission. &#8221; 
On the U.S. Department of Treasury&#8217;s<a href="https://home.treasury.gov/about/general-information/officials/david-malpass"> website</a>, Malpass&#8217; bio says that in 2018 he &#8220;successfully advocated for the World Bank&#8217;s capital increase as part of a larger reform agenda featuring improved monitoring and evaluation of World Bank lending, more efficient use of capital, and a focus on improving living standards in poor countries.&#8221;
After being selected on Friday, Malpass told World Bank employees that &#8220;Our twin goals of eliminating extreme poverty and achieving shared prosperity are more relevant than ever,&#8221; reported Fox Business.
&#8220;The Bank Group is strong financially and well equipped with the tools and talent to achieve measurable successes,&#8221; Malpass added.
The previous president of the bank was Jim Yong Kim who was appointed by the Obama administration but reportedly stepped down in February &#8212; three years early &#8212; to join a private equity infrastructure fund. 
While a member of the Trump administration, Malpass has reportedly represented the United States in several international economic settings including at IMF and World Bank Meetings, and the Group of 20 summits.
During the George H. W. Bush administration Malpass, 63, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Developing Nations and under the Ronald Reagan administration he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Economic Affairs.
Trump congratulated Malpass on the appointment on Friday.
&#8220;Congratulations David, a very big deal!&#8221; Trump tweeted.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congratulations David, a very big deal! <a href="https://t.co/ymtI2ueAgA">https://t.co/ymtI2ueAgA</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1114303378064936960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Malpass&#8217;s term will begin on April 9.

Trump Ally Appointed To Head The World Bank

Trump Administration

The federal government collected a record $1,665,484,000,000 in taxes last year, making it the best year of income for the government on record.
<a href="https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/1665484000000-feds-collect-record-individual-income-taxes-calendar">CNS News reports</a> that <a href="https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/mts/current.html">the December monthy receipts statement</a> from the U.S. Department of the Treasury lists 2018 as the best year for the feds ever, even though the president signed a major tax break into law at the end of 2017.
&#8220;The real federal individual income tax revenues collected in calendar 2018 were $9,312,450,000 more than the real individual income tax revenues collected in calendar year 2017,&#8221; CNS reports, even though 2017 was itself a record breaking year for tax receipts (that year, the federal government collected an astounding $1,656,171,550,000).
The massive tax cut did impact the federal government in overall tax collections. Those declined a little, from $3,407,503,740,000 to $3,330,470,000,000. Much of that decline came in the form of lost corporate income taxes.
<blockquote>
Corporation income tax collections declined significantly from calendar year 2017 to calendar year 2018. In calendar 2017, the Treasury collected $290,978,980,000 in corporation income taxes (in constant December 2018 dollars). In calendar 2018, the Treasury collected $195,790,000,000 in corporation income taxes&#8212;a drop of $95,188,980,000.
</blockquote>
But clearly, the government isn&#8217;t in dire straits &#8212; at least, until you consider the spending.
And therein lies the problem: even though the government is bringing in record cash, they&#8217;re sending it out the door quicker than ever. The debt has now crossed $22 trillion &#8212; a new record &#8212; and the new budget deal, expected to be inked this week and signed by the president before tomorrow night, when the government will shut down if unfunded, is expected to top more than $1.3 trillion &#8212; also a new record.
Those legislators concerned about a mere $5 billion for a border wall were clearly not as concerned when it came to spending for their own home districts or to expand other government agencies.
Although little has been made of expended numbers outside of border security, which has dominated headlines since the first iteration of the 2019 budget bill came to light in November, its rare for Congress to decrease spending year over year and in 2018 the federal budget set a record by clearing $1 trillion. In 2011, Congress instituted a temporary cap in spending increases in order to keep the government&#8217;s debt-to-income ration from jolting up to rapidly, but in both 2018 and 2019, Congress passed a resolution all but ignoring those spending caps.
That means that the federal budget can only increase over last year&#8217;s $1.3 trillion dollars &#8212; something that&#8217;s escaped discussion.
The good news is, of course, that the tax cuts have pushed tax receipts higher &#8212; for now. Democrats have pledged to re-visit the Trump corporate tax cuts as soon as they have an opportunity.

The Federal Government Collected More Taxes In 2018 Than Ever Before

Democratic Party

Republican Party

Taxes

The United States Treasury Department reported Tuesday that the national debt topped $22 trillion dollars for the first time ever after jumping around $30 billion last month.
The official debt number clocked in at a whopping $22.012 trillion,<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/12/national-debt-tops-22-trillion-first-time-ever/2849978002/"> according to USA Today</a>, and is rising at a steady clip, following a spike in new spending in a short-term 2019 budget, parts of which were passed in December. Another spike is likely this week, as Congress readies a second &#8220;budget compromise&#8221; that will provide more permanent funding to federal agencies (including around $1.5 billion for a border wall).
&#8220;The nation,&#8221; USA Today says, &#8220;has added more than $1 trillion in debt in the last 11 months alone.&#8221;
Much of that comes from a dramatic increase in domestic and military spending &#8212; a problem shared by both parties. The fruits of a $1.5 billion Republican tax cut passed in late 2017 also have yet to materialize, pushing the number slightly higher.
Financial experts warn that, while the debt isn&#8217;t technically a problem right now, such a high national debt could have a domino effect on interest rates across the board. And as the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio grows, the ability for the United States government to eventually pay back that debt decreases substantially.
Although President Donald Trump has earned some of the blame for the sudden spike in debt, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/13/that-22-trillion-national-debt-number-is-huge-but-heres-what-it-really-means.html">CNBC reports</a>, former President Barack Obama has so far had the greatest impact on U.S. debt, having &#8220;racked up nearly as much debt in eight years than in the entire 232-year history of the country before he took office.&#8221;
&#8220;He entered with $10.6 trillion in total debt and left with the country owing $19.9 trillion. That&#8217;s an average tab of $1.16 trillion a year,&#8221; the financial website continued. &#8220;Under President Donald Trump, the debt also has climbed. The $2.06 trillion increase works out to about $991 billion a year, or slightly less than the pace Obama had set.&#8221;
Congress isn&#8217;t blameless, either. Federal spending has ballooned over the last decade and it shows no sign of slowing. In 2018, Congress approved a $1.3 trillion budget, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/house-passes-spending-bill.html">according to The New York Times</a>, increasing spending across the board in nearly every government sector, boosting federal contributions to everything from nuclear waste management and the Secret Service to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/03/22/heres-what-congress-is-stuffing-into-its-1-3-trillion-spending-bill/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.0f32b9f77c6f">Asian carp abatement</a>.
This year&#8217;s budget is expected to be even costlier. Although the focus has largely been on how much will be appropriate for President Donald Trump&#8217;s signature anti-illegal immigration measure, the border wall between the United States and Mexico (so far around $1.4 billion), the full budget is expected to top $1.5 trillion &#8212; and that number will only go up in subsequent proposals.
&#8220;Over the next 10 years, annual federal deficits &#8212; when Congress spends more than it takes in through tax revenues &#8212; are expected to average $1.2 trillion, which would be 4.4 percent of gross domestic product,&#8221; <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/02/13/694199256/u-s-national-debt-hits-22-trillion-a-new-record-thats-predicted-to-fall">NPR reports</a>. &#8220;That&#8217;s far higher than the 2.9 percent of GDP that has been the average for the past 50 years.&#8221;
And neither party seems poised to do much about it.

OUCH: The National Debt Tops $22 Trillion For The First Time Ever

Money In Politics

A Treasury Department employee has been arrested for leaking thousands of bank records related to President Donald Trump&#8217;s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, his business partner Rick Gates, the Russian Embassy, and accused Russian agent Maria Butina.
Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/senior-fincen-adviser-charged-by-u-s-over-sars-disclosures?utm_source=google&amp;utm_medium=bd&amp;cmpId=google">reports</a> that Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, senior adviser at Treasury&#8217;s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), has been accused of leaking Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) to an unidentified reporter at Buzzfeed. The information had been written up by the media outlet as recently as Monday, October 15.
&#8220;Edwards began communicating with the unidentified reporter in July 2017, according to prosecutors,&#8221; Bloomberg reported. &#8220;Between October 2017 and January 2018, she saved thousands of FinCen files, including all the SARs cited in the case.&#8221;
Edwards and a &#8220;co-conspirator&#8221; who is not named in the complaint &#8220;exchanged approximately 301 messages with Report-1.&#8221;
Edwards was arrested Tuesday carrying a flash drive containing the SARs and a phone she used to send the information to the reporter. On Wednesday, she confessed to leaking the reports but &#8220;falsely denied&#8221; knowing the SARs would be published, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1101511/download">the complaint says</a>.
This report will be updated as more information becomes available.

BREAKING: Treasury Department Employee Arrested For Leaking Bank Records Of Paul Manafort, Others

Paul Manafort

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota upheld the use of &#8220;In God We Trust&#8221; on currency after 29 atheists, children of atheists, and atheist groups claimed the motto violated their First Amendment rights. 
The court deemed the use of the motto constitutional in a 3-0 decision, claiming that it was not coercive and has been in longstanding use, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-religion-motto/u-s-court-rejects-atheists-appeal-over-in-god-we-trust-on-money-idUSKCN1LD24K?feedType=RSS&amp;feedName=domesticNews">according to Reuters</a>.
Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender reportedly cited a 2014 Supreme Court decision that required a review of &#8220;historical practices&#8221; and said that the motto does not constitute an establishment of religion. He reportedly also said that the motto &#8220;comports with early understandings of the Establishment Clause&#8221; because our constitution allows the government to celebrate &#8220;our tradition of religious freedom.&#8221;
Reuters reports: 
<blockquote>
Michael Newdow, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an email called it &#8220;utterly revolting&#8221; that &#8220;the history of governmental denigration of a suspect class should trump [the] principle&#8221; that neutrality be the &#8220;touchstone&#8221; for analyzing claims under the First Amendment&#8217;s Establishment Clause.
</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx">According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury</a>, the phrase first appeared on U.S. currency in 1864 and was made the national motto by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.

‘In God We Trust’ Motto On Currency Deemed Constitutional By Court After Atheists Complain

Atheism

First Amendment

On Monday, in a major victory for conservative groups, the Treasury Department announced that some tax-exempt groups that participate in politics <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/many-political-tax-exempts-no-longer-required-to-report-donors">will no longer have to disclose their donor</a>s to the Internal Revenue Service. Those groups include Section 501(c)4 groups; conservative Section 501(c)4 groups were targeted by the IRS during the Obama Administration.
In October 2017, after a four-year-long struggle by conservative groups to prove that the IRS during the Obama Administration had targeted them, the IRS <a href="http://media.aclj.org/pdf/17.10.25-Proposed-Consent-Order-FILED.pdf">finally admitted in court</a> that the charges were true. The consent order acknowledged, &#8220;The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determinations process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some Plaintiffs&#8217; information that TIGTA determined was unnecessary to the agency&#8217;s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong. For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.&#8221;
In 2013, the Obama Administration had issued proposed guidance targeting 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations. Newsmax <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/bradleyblakeman/obama-501c4-nonprofit-tax/2013/12/02/id/539412/">reported</a>:
<blockquote>
The proposed guidance, issued by the Treasury Department and the IRS, seeks to provide more definitive rules regarding the types of activities that may qualify as political activity by creating a new term &#8212; &#8220;candidate-related political activity.&#8221; Under the proposed regulations, such &#8220;candidate-related political activity&#8221; would not promote an organization&#8217;s social welfare purpose, and as a result, the organization would be limited in the amount of time and money it could spend on such activities.
</blockquote>
Now, with the Treasury Department&#8217;s announcement, although charities and political groups will still be required to provide the names and addresses of donors, some tax-exempt groups will not have to provide the donors&#8217; names and addresses. Among those groups are an arm of the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated, &#8220;Americans shouldn&#8217;t be required to send the IRS information that it doesn&#8217;t need to effectively enforce our tax laws, and the IRS simply does not need tax returns with donor names and addresses to do its job in this area. This change will in no way limit transparency. The same information about tax-exempt organizations that was previously available to the public will continue to be available, while private taxpayer information will be better protected.&#8221;
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell added, &#8220;The IRS&#8217;s decision is a move in the right direction to end activist regulators&#8217; culture of intimidation to silence political speech.&#8221;
The GOP House passed a <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-ban-irs-from-requiring-nonprofit-donor-lists-1465936842?mod=article_inline">bill to eliminate the requirement</a> for revealing names and addresses in 2016, but the Obama administration blocked it. That same year, as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-treasury-restricts-donor-disclosure-requirement-for-some-nonprofit-groups-1531788345">The Wall Street Journal</a> notes:
<blockquote>
In 2016, a federal judge blocked then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris&#8217;s demand for Americans for Prosperity&#8217;s donor list, saying she needed it for investigative purposes. <a href="http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AFP-v.-Harris.4.21.16.pdf?mod=article_inline">In his ruling</a>, the judge pointed out that the state&#8217;s &#8220;pervasive, recurring pattern&#8221; of accidental Schedule B disclosures to the public made it impossible to believe the attorney general would keep Americans for Prosperity&#8217;s donor list confidential.
</blockquote>

TAKE THAT, OBAMA: Treasury Department Will Permit Non-Profits To Protect Names And Addresses Of Donors

Barack Obama

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Writing about Bitcoin&#8217;s future is a fool&#8217;s errand, so here goes: The cryptocurrency&#8217;s long-term value is dependent on whether it becomes a regular, widely-used medium of exchange. 
That&#8217;s why Bitcoin enthusiasts should temper their confidence in their predictive abilities following Stripe&#8217;s announcement Tuesday that it would stop accepting transactions denominated in Bitcoins.
In 2014, the multibillion payment processing firm became &#8220;<a href="https://stripe.com/blog/ending-bitcoin-support">the first major payments company to support Bitcoin payments</a>.&#8221; But since then, Stripe said, Bitcoin&#8217;s transaction fees and confirmation times have risen dramatically, making it far less practical than the dollar as a medium of exchange. 
Since December 1, Bitcoin&#8217;s transaction fees have <a href="https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html#1y">ranged from $6 to $55</a>. Transaction confirmation times have <a href="https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time?daysAverageString=7&amp;timespan=2years">skyrocketed</a>, too.
And what is Bitcoin&#8217;s long-term value if people find it significantly more inconvenient than fiat currency?
&#8220;People bet on bitcoin because it may develop into a full-fledged currency,&#8221; wrote economist Francois Velde in a 2013 <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/182863849/Chicago-Fed-Bitcoin-A-Primer-pdf">essay</a> for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
But Bitcoin is not, like precious metals, a store of value. 
And it is not, like dollars, guaranteed by the state. 
It is a currency whose strength lies in its &#8220;blockchain&#8221; structure &#8212; which precludes the need for an intermediary to process every transaction &#8212; and its apparent limited supply, which means a central bank can&#8217;t print away its value.
But Bitcoin&#8217;s underlying technology doesn&#8217;t change the fact that, as UCLA economist Lee Ohanian told me, &#8220;the parties in the transaction have to buy into the idea that Bitcoin has value, so that the seller in the transaction is confident that they can turn around and use Bitcoin as a buyer in the future.&#8221; 
&#8220;From this standpoint,&#8221; Ohanian said, &#8220;Bitcoin is like fiat money. There is no fundamental value to fiat currency.&#8221;
Take away people&#8217;s faith in Bitcoin&#8217;s value, and Bitcoin has no value. It is certainly based on sophisticated, genuinely valuable code. But the technology is open source. If governments aren&#8217;t already using it, they likely soon will, perhaps to strengthen existing fiat money, or, as Ohanian said, &#8220;to offer their own cryptocurrencies.&#8221;
Bitcoin and the state are inherently antagonistic toward one another. Much of Bitcoin&#8217;s raison d&#8217;etre stems from distrust of the state. But what state would tolerate not overseeing a widely-used medium of exchange?
&#8220;Throughout most of Western history, the state has involved itself in money,&#8221; Velde wrote.
One reason is that debtors and creditors benefit from the state&#8217;s governance of processes like bankruptcy &#8212; a legal system that only protects a currency backed by the state.
Another, Ohanian said, is the government&#8217;s want &#8220;to assess tax liabilities and to control resource flows to criminal or hostile organization.&#8221;
In fact, anxiety regarding governments&#8217; relationships with Bitcoin are likely a major factor behind the cryptocurrency&#8217;s recent sell-offs.
Its meteoric 1,300% rise last year, from just under $1,000 to over $19,000, was slowed by South Korean threats to crack down on cryptocurrency trading. 
Just the fear of state involvement has spooked investors.
&#8220;Believers in virtual currencies say that one of their selling points is freedom from government meddling,&#8221; <a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/01/daily-chart-14">writes</a> The Economist. &#8220;In Asia, the cutting edge of the crypto-world, it is governments that are making&#8212;and breaking&#8212;their fortunes.&#8221;
Since January 1, Bitcoin has twice dipped below $10,000, a nervous-making psychological marker, particularly for some of Bitcoin&#8217;s relatively late FOMO investors.
All of this means that even if blockchain improvements reduce Bitcoin&#8217;s transaction fees and confirmation times enough so that it can rival the dollar&#8217;s advantage in terms of convenience, governments may be a more intractable barrier to widespread adoption than technological limitations ever could be.
And while Bitcoin is tops on governments&#8217; cryptocurrency radar, it has a bevy of smaller competitors. Bitcoin may be the first big cryptocurrency, but will it be the last one standing?
&#8220;The risk to Bitcoin is if it is supplanted by an alternative means of secure electronic payment,&#8221; Ohanian said. &#8220;What if Bitcoin were the &#8216;Myspace&#8217; of cryptocurrencies, in which it became irrelevant if the &#8216;Facebook&#8217; of crypto-currencies comes along one day? We know what happened to Myspace.&#8221;
Early-adopters have made fortunes off Bitcoin, but speculations, by nature, make a few betters rich, and the rest angry. 
Bitcoin is a currency and it may one day become a widely-used medium of exchange. But it also may not.
As behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman has rigorously <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555">documented</a>, most people are confident in predictive abilities they don&#8217;t possess.
If Bitcoin reaches $100,000 or $1 million, as some people with magical fortune-telling abilities have <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/james-altucher-predicts-bitcoin-will-reach-1-million-by-2020.html">said</a> it surely will, people who sat out won&#8217;t be able to say they didn&#8217;t have a friend who told them to buy.
But if this is a modern-day tulip mania, Bitcoiners won&#8217;t be able to say they weren&#8217;t warned over and over and over.

Bitcoiners Are Wildly Overconfident In Their Ability To Predict The Future

Economy

Federal Reserve

Los Angeles (UCLA)

University of California

In an interview with Kremlin-owned Russian news agency Tass Thursday, former Federal Security Service (FSB) director Nikolai Kovalyov praised President Trump&#8217;s &#8220;consistency&#8221; on calls to ease sanctions.
As a member of the State Duma, the lower legislative house of the Russian Federaton, Kovalyov has a vested interest in U.S. sanctions relief. However, he claimed that better relations with Russia would mean a stronger anti-terror coalition for the United States.
Successive administrations have implemented executive orders to prohibit &#8220;<a href="http://tass.com/politics/928745">all transactions and activities</a>&#8221; of Russian spy agencies. Accused of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko">killing political opponents with thallium</a> (an element used in rat poison), making journalists disappear, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russia-is-harassing-us-diplomats-all-over-europe/2016/06/26/968d1a5a-3bdf-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html">harassing US diplomats</a>, hacking into U.S. cyber-systems, FSB spies have been willing to employ whatever tactics necessary to advance President Putin&#8217;s agenda and undermine U.S. national security interests.
Nonetheless, President Trump has chosen to throw out the old playbook, instructing the US Treasury Department Thursday to amend former President Obama&#8217;s sanctions order on the FSB.
&#8220;The new authorization will allow U.S. companies to pay up to $5,000 a year to the FSB &#8212; which oversees technology imports into Russia &#8212; to secure licenses from the security services to export information technology products to Russia, as long as other aspects of the sanctions order aren&#8217;t violated, <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/cyber_gl1.pdf">according to the document</a> published by the Treasury,&#8221; <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/us-treasury-amends-sanctions-order-to-allow-business-with-russian-fsb-2017-2">reports</a> Business Insider. &#8220;Obama issued harsh sanctions against the FSB &#8212; first in April 2015 and again in December of last year &#8212; which it accused of playing a role in hacking campaigns targeting U.S. citizens and infrastructure during the 2016 presidential campaign.&#8221;
Unsurprisingly, Trump&#8217;s olive branch to Russia appeared to please FSB operatives.
&#8220;This shows that actual joint work on establishing an anti-terrorism coalition is about to begin,&#8221; Kovalyov <a href="http://tass.com/politics/928745">stated</a> Thursday. &#8220;This is the first step on the way leading to cooperation in the war on terror.&#8221;
&#8220;Without easing these sanctions it would have been impossible to take the next step,&#8221; the FSB operative added. &#8220;These practical actions indicate that U.S. President Donald Trump has been consistent.&#8221; 
While Moscow has peddled the myth that Russian soldiers have been at the forefront of the battle against terrorism, particularly in Syria, the truth is Putin has only targeted ISIS compounds when it served Russia&#8217;s interests or that of its client state, Syria.
Putin&#8217;s patronage to the genocidal regime of Bashar al-Assad has meant that anti-Assad forces, including U.S. backed opposition, are first on the hit list.
<blockquote>
While Moscow has peddled the myth that Russian soldiers have been at the forefront of the battle against terrorism, particularly in Syria, the truth is Putin has only targeted ISIS compounds when it served Russia&#8217;s interests or that of its client state, Syria.

</blockquote>
To be clear, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9471271/russia-syria-bombing-map">Russia is lying when it says its air force has been primarily striking ISIS targets</a>. Maps published by the Institute for the Study of War and the <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9471271/russia-syria-bombing-map">Levantine Group</a> illustrate that Russian airstrikes have focused almost exclusively on forces opposing Assad. For the most part, Russia has left ISIS alone, prioritizing its main goal of keeping the Assad regime in power.
<img alt height="534" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/levant.jpg" width="780" />
Russia&#8217;s recent behavior suggests that any argument claiming that the U.S. can rely on Putin&#8217;s army to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS should be heavily scrutinized, if not dismissed, until Russia provides assurances that it&#8217;s committed to rooting out the Islamic State without preconditions.

levant

Russian Intelligence Officials Praise Trump’s Order To Relieve Sanctions Against Spy Agency

National Security

Russia

Vladimir Putin

Weeks after Secretary of State John Kerry fell on his knees and begged Europe&#8217;s top banks to begin investing in Iran, the Obama administration is set to allow American aircraft sales to the Islamic Republic. In an apparent effort to kick start Iran&#8217;s ailing economy, the US Treasury Department is now approving requests from both US and European plane makers to begin selling planes and aircraft equipment. The sales are seen as the &#8220;highest-profile trade breakthroughs since nuclear sanctions were lifted on the Islamic Republic in January,&#8221; according to <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-gives-airbus-go-ahead-to-send-17-airliners-to-iran-1474471204">The Wall Street Journal</a>.
Representatives from industry heavyweights Boeing and Airbus confirmed Wednesday that they would begin exporting jetliners to Iran to supplement the Iran Air fleet. Officials from both companies have made multiple trips to Tehran over the last couple of months in anticipation of a sales deal.
Airbus was the first company to have its sales license approved. The company plans on shipping 12 airplanes to Iran Air. Boeing was granted approval shortly after. The American plane maker hopes to sell 80 planes to Iran Air for a projected sum of $17.6 billion. Other companies are likely to follow suit now that Pandora&#8217;s box is open.
With the Treasury Department unblocking sanctions against plane sales to Iran, the once-isolated theocratic state is on its way to irreversibly integrating itself into the global economy. 
Iran&#8217;s current fleet of aircraft ranks among the oldest in the world. After years of crushing sanctions, the country has been left with outdated equipment and poorly functioning planes. 
While Iran Air is eager to modernize its fleet, clerical hard liners in Iran are not all that happy about increasingly normalized relations with the West. 
Western plane makers may face some obstacles of their own as well. Republican lawmakers have already attempted to block Boeing from selling aircraft to Iran. Although the sales are likely to get pushed through anyway, the anti-Iran coalition of Congressional Republicans and Democrats which has opposed the Obama administration&#8217;s nuclear deal with Iran every step of the way can still complicate the logistics of successfully executing financial dealings with Iran. 
&#8220;There is a still a long way to go and many more hurdles to overcome before Iran can actually take delivery of these planes&#8212;and thankfully Congress is committed to making the process as difficult and expensive as possible,&#8221; Illinois GOP Congressman Peter J. Roskam <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-gives-airbus-go-ahead-to-send-17-airliners-to-iran-1474471204">tells</a> the Journal. In addition, the two parties involved in the sales can be forced to use foreign currency (likely euros) as opposed to American dollars.

Obama Green Lights US Aircraft Sales To Iran

Iran

Donald Trump apparently knows he has no idea how to handle policy, domestic or foreign, so Trump supporters who believed in the all-knowing omniscience of their candidate have already been suckered with that pitch. Here&#8217;s a second way they have been suckered: that Trump has any interest in governing any different than a Democrat.
That was confirmed on Wednesday with the report in <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/here-is-who-donald-trump-wants-for-treasury-secretary/">Fortune</a> that Trump told donors that his pick as Treasury Secretary would be former Goldman Sachs banker Steve Mnuchin, Trump&#8217;s national finance chairman, who has donated money to Hillary Clinton. That revelation came from Anthony Scaramucci, a high-profile hedge fund manager and Trump fundraiser.
Trump has done a lousy job raising money so far, so that&#8217;s no credit to Mnuchin, who co-founded OneWest Bank Group LLC in 2004 and served as its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
Guess who Mnuchin has worked with? George Soros. He was an Investment Professional of Soros Fund Management LLC, according to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=1492034&amp;privcapId=2522804">Bloomberg</a>. <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-names-national-finance-chair-222846">Politico</a> reported that Mnuchin contributed over $7,000 to Hillary Clinton&#8217;s New York Senate bids in 2000 and 2006 as well as her run for the Democratic nomination in 2008, $2,000 to Barack Obama&#8217;s 2004 Senate campaign and $2,300 for his presidential bid in 2007. He has also donated to John Edwards, Chuck Schumer, Al Gore and John Kerry.
<blockquote>
Guess who Mnuchin has worked with? George Soros.

</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-06/trump-s-new-finance-chairman-was-sued-over-madoff-fraud-profit">Bloomberg</a> also reported that Mnuchin and his family &#8220;pocketed about $3.2 million in fake profit from his mother&#8217;s account with convicted con man Bernard Madoff &#8212; money that didn&#8217;t have to be returned to victims because it was taken out of the Ponzi scheme in time.&#8221; The suit against Mnuchin and his family was filed by a Madoff trustee, Irving Picard, who lost roughly $2 billion; he had to drop the suit after a federal appeals court ruled the he couldn&#8217;t claw back withdrawals of fake profit that were made over two years before the fraud collapsed, and Picard had to trace back the case six years.
Welcome to the Democrat world of Donald Trump, Trump supporters. It won&#8217;t be the last time he cons you.

Menu