Government Response

Wondering how the Department of Treasury has responded to this concept of slightly modernizing itself for the public?

Here, is disclosing the sequence of correspondences that began with a proposal describing to the Treasury how it can protect the economy from the harm created by the banking industry. The story is…

On Thursday, August 11, 2011, an Unsolicited Proposal was submitted to the Department of Treasury’s Office of Procurement Policy titled, “Using ‘Central Accounting’ to remedy the instability created by ‘Central Banking'”. Mainly, the proposal included a request for a $10 million budget, plus a technology licensing fee of $0.01 per transaction in exchange for establishing a system-accounting platform that empowers everyone to avoid “banks” & Wall Street for good as they participate in a transparent and efficient free-market. How is this achieved? Simple. By requiring the Treasury to directly empower individuals with the service of transmitting and receiving payments between one another using a system that automates the cash accounting function for them. This is how the government can automate the collection of taxes in a transparent manner while ensuring everyone is to remain equals in terms of information and finance:

Beginning of Abstract

According to, a research hub coordinated by both the Economic Policy Institute and The Century Foundation, the total loss of revenue for the IRS due to tax evasion since 2001 is approximately $3.09 trillion.

Figure 1:, 08/09/2011

To recognize that the average annual loss of revenue to the IRS across the past 10 years is $309 billion IS to recognize the average annual savings that the federal government may expect upon implementing a technology known as “central accounting”. Simply put, central accounting enables government to fulfill its responsibility of being a better “bookkeeper” between all market-participants, and itself, by having the Treasury offer a more modern medium exchange that functions within a universally-accessible, fact-driven environment. Taxes are moved automatically; dividends may also be automated–all of which are to occur in plain view of the economy, at large, as long as the information is deemed public. Politicians will find it impossible to propagandize false facts to further their careers, and people will no longer require the immediate services of Wall Street since they’ll be able to publish the performance of their businesses in real-time, thus allowing individuals to attract capital investment on their own.

Please also note that with the Treasury offering a central accounting option directly to the public, people will finally be protected from having to be forced into investment relationships with bank-charter recipients. For many, “banks” function as nothing more than an electronic payment gateway between individuals. This is not an acceptable excuse for any firm to obtain access to further capital in an environment that is supposed to reward competition. Converting our cash to interest-free online accounts that are directly hosted by the Treasury, accounts which allow people to directly transact with one another through a central accounting system, renders the business model for “banks” as obsolete and redundant since the whole purpose of money is to enable people to “evidence a change in the ownership of value”. Such a function, whether paper or electronically done, is the job of government; not “banks”. Ultimately, these institutions must be relegated to simple “investment firms” which have negligible influence over government and its responsibility.

This highly tangible and practical solution perfectly addresses the federal government’s need for an efficiency-maximizing solution that 1) forces out systemic-risk, 2) eliminates information-asymmetry, and most critical of all at this time, 3) increases revenue without having to raise a single penny in taxes.

End of Abstract

(Continue for detailed information)

 Central accounting is a simple software platform that harnesses the power of an intellectual device in physics known as the “system-clock”. The system-clock achieves an errorless rendering of the events that take place within a system by measuring how one variable changes with respect to the change in other variables. Applied to an economic system, the only change in the variables that require measuring are 1) ownership, 2) value, and 3) time. Thus, when an economic event occurs, the system-clock measures and facilitates “a change in the ownership of value with respect to the change in time”. By holding all economic events to the mathematical standard established by the system-clock, any events that are defined to take place in the future such as taxes, dividends, and payroll may be entirely automated. This feature of automating future financial commitments in a perfectly expeditious manner is precisely how the IRS can achieve an unprecedented level of competency of helping ALL citizens understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all (See: IRS Mission Statement).

Hosting the central accounting platform through the Treasury will enable the public to conduct trade with one another in an environment that not only allocates taxes immediately to the federal government, but also on behalf of smaller governments desperately in need of revenue at the state and local levels (see both video presentations located at for a full demonstration of benefits). State and local agencies will be relieved of their enormous dependencies as they are enabled to implement and manage their own revenue programs.

In addition to the savings, the Treasury will be generating an equally significant amount of new revenue due to it successfully promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability (See: U.S. Department of Treasury Mission Statement). Ask any economist and they will always declare that reliable information is the most critical resource in an economy. By offering the public the opportunity to conduct trade within a system that automatically performs the cash accounting function for any user, those who would otherwise not be able to afford such services from an accountant will suddenly find themselves easily competing with firms that typically spend inordinate amounts of cash on administration and finance costs.

Empowering all participants in the U.S. economy to automate the cash accounting function between one another, especially where government is concerned, is to maintain a completely factual perception of 1) asset prices, & 2) policy costs at all times. Naturally, the effect of eliminating uncertainty will dramatically improve economic activity. Improved asset prices benefiting from heightened and more confident economic activity will always translate to increased tax revenue; and being able to access precise costs as they relate to government policy will establish an unprecedented level of efficacy in the management of public resources. Tax rates will most certainly need reducing after debt levels subside.

Adding both the gains and savings anticipated for the purpose of considering this procurement presents an odd, yet very real cost-benefit analysis. If one were to appease the expectations of an ultra-conservative, they might offer that the central accounting platform hosted by the Treasury/IRS will take 43% longer to acquire less than half the number of users the company Facebook achieved between 2004 and 2011 (achieving 300 million users in 10 years vs. Facebook’s 700 million users in 7 years). An ultra-conservative may also demand that they be allowed to ignore half of the savings generated across another ten years of fiscal activity (1/2 of $3.09 trillion). But because implementing a system-clock in a central accounting platform puts into effect a technology-shift that eliminates systemic-risk, market-ignorance, and inefficiency, the ultra-conservative can in no way escape the gains made possible from a far more efficient market system. Therefore, we must acknowledge a major growth in markets by at least readmitting the other half of the savings (1/2 of $3.09 trillion).

Now, considering:

 1) all the facts demonstrated in the video presentations found on, and

2) the conservative assessment of $1.54 trillion in savings, and another $1.54 trillion in growth,

the cost of

1) a $10 million initial outlay to establish an enterprise version of the central accounting platform for the Treasury/IRS, and

 2) a software-technology licensing fee of $0.01/transaction (“the system-clock battery”),

should paint a clear enough picture, or present more than enough detail for the government to determine that this procurement is not just some novel opportunity for the Treasury and IRS to consider; it’s medicine.

Developing some lengthy cost-benefit or present value analysis is neither necessary nor practical since this technology-fix is tantamount to reopening the collapsed ventricles of the U.S. government using mathematical truth. If the mission statements of the Treasury and IRS are expected to continue to be taken seriously in a modern economy, they must be pursued using 21st century science. Without this modern foundation, the market will suffocate soon enough as it unsuccessfully tries to support the required activity that must accompany the population explosion it experienced in recent history.

Forcing out system-risk, eliminating information-asymmetry where prices of public assets and policies are concerned, and moving revenues in all directions using the most expedient means possible will more than see the patient through her disease–she will indeed grow to become stronger than ever without limit. That is, offering universal access to error-free, systemic information about the health of any part of the economy, and holding everyone to the same error-free mathematical standard of accounting will bring about the much-needed active participation of an “informed public” that is incapable of being mislead or manipulated. The public will adapt to become a thriving, healthy-functioning immune system capable of tackling any issue that innocently emerges from having “no information”–not those that cunningly emerge from having “bad information”.

How does the Department of Treasury respond to this proposal? On Wednesday, October 19, 2011, the following letter was issued:

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Washington, D.C. 20224

Dear Mr. Funk:

The IRS received your Unsolicited Proposal entitled; “Using ‘Central Accounting’ to remedy the instability created by ‘Central Banking'” dated Thursday, August 11, 2011, and would like to thank you for your expressed interest in wanting to assist the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in its mission. Within the IRS, your proposal was reviewed by the Office of Research and Analysis. Utilizing the criteria outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.6 for the evaluation, it has been found that your proposal did not demonstrate an innovative or unique method, approach or concept. The unsolicited proposal suggests ideas which extend beyond the scope of IRS operations, and any implementation would require prior changes to existing laws, statutes and regulations. For these reasons, the unsolicited proposal was not deemed meritorious and will not be accepted.

Your interest in IRS programs and operations is appreciated. Questions regarding this letter may be directed to…

This final reply was submitted on Friday, October 21, 2011:

From: Max Funk
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: IRS response to unsolicited proposal on Central Accounting to remedy instability created by Central Banking
Importance: High

…, this response is not intended for you, but the individual(s) responsible for the two following opinions stated in the letter dated October 19, 2011:

  1. “…it has been found that your proposal did not demonstrate an innovative or unique method, approach or concept.”
  2. “The unsolicited proposal suggests ideas which extend beyond the scope of IRS operations, and any implementation would require prior changes to existing laws, statutes and regulations.”

The first opinion is absurd.  Using a system-clock to arrange economic activity across a time-coordinate system to form a perfectly analytic economic continuum for the public’s benefit is the opposite of “conventional”.

The second opinion is conveniently short-sighted. The Treasury supplies the public with a  service called money that, in its current format, denies a human being their right to reject a bank charter recipient’s investment thesis IF that human being wishes to participate in a modern economy. In other words, if I wish to access the service of paying someone electronically for goods or services delivered, I am currently forced to surrender my money to investment firms the government legally recognize as “banks”; firms which form unproven opinions about events that are expected to materialize in the future. This is a First Amendment issue. The reason for not establishing a religion in the first place is because “We” did not want to see “the people” at the mercy of opinions that would not become true. Whether the opinions contain words (prophecies) or numbers (rates of return) is irrelevant. The priority of the Treasury/IRS must, above all else (“existing laws, statutes and regulations”), defend the people’s right to reject the unproven opinions of others–especially where trade is concerned.

Please accept my assurance that this response comes with no emotional ties, but when someone approaches the department bearing a remedy that protects the people from a) forced investment, b) systemic-risk, c) tax avoidance, d) economic ignorance & exploitation, and e) every other factor that contributes to keeping resources moving sluggishly, it is no different than witnessing a patient irrationally reject the cure. The Office of Research and Analysis has shown its staff to be unequal to the task of seeing to the needs of those whom they represent as they are either lazy or cannot clearly discern their own best advantage.

I have made myself accountable to see that the public is no longer at the mercy of others, so please expect to see this proposal again as I do not view the opinion issued as characteristic of the will of “the people”. If this assessment is proven right, I will see to it that the negligence demonstrated in the October 19th letter is equally accounted for. May we all be beneficiaries of the truth; and not our own selves.

Max Funk