Oh, Veronique, you write so much and seem to know so little about America’s #1 scam.

Veronique de Rugy
Veronique d Rugy. Is she lying or does she really not understand federal finance? Or?

VERONIQUE DE RUGY is a contributing editor at Reason.

She is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

According to the 2017 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (Think Tanks and Civil Societies ProgramUniversity of Pennsylvania), Mercatus is number 39 in the “Top Think Tanks in the United States” and number 18 of the “Best University-Affiliated Think Tanks”. 

The Koch family has been a major financial supporter of the organization since the mid-1980s. Charles Koch serves on the group’s board of directors.

The following is Ms. de Rugy’s article from the Libertarian website, REASON.com.

Social Security Is on the Brink of Collapse. The GOP Won’t Touch It.
In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. In 2035, that ratio will be only 2.3 workers per retiree.
VERONIQUE DE RUGY | 1.26.2023 12:01 AM

If you follow policy debates long enough, arguments you never thought you’d hear can become key components of the two parties’ policy platforms.

That’s certainly the case when it comes to some Republicans, and their new “never touch Social Security and Medicare” position.

Over the weekend, newly elected Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) tweeted that former President Donald Trump was 100 percent correct to demand that “under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security.”

Vance’s tweet was issued amid the debt ceiling fight, but Trump has long held this position.

The Republicans would love to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits because that would increase the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

The Gap is what makes the rich rich. If not for the Gap, no one would be rich. We all would be the same. The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich.

The GOP, the party of the rich, is always ready to help make the rich richer. Their big tax reduction during the Trump years enriched the rich and did nothing for the middle and poor.

The GOP complaints about funding the IRS had to do with protecting the rich. So long as the IRS is underfunded, they don’t have the manpower to investigate the complex tax returns of the rich, so currently, they focus on the middle and lower levels.

The only reason the GOP won’t try to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits is that they would be punished at the polls, not because they care about the health and well-being of the middle or poor. They don’t.

Watch for the GOP “solution” to the non-problem of Social Security and Medicare finances to be something that doesn’t hurt the rich, such as increasing the FICA income limit. Rich people aren’t worried about paying FICA taxes on an above $150M salary. Not only is that chump change for the rich, but many don’t pay any FICA because they aren’t salaried.

Now, to be fair, the GOP’s well-intentioned engagement in the overall debt ceiling dispute is limited by the short time Congress has to raise the limit, all but ruling out credible reforms of Medicare or Social Security.

GOP’s “well-intentioned” engagement in the debt ceiling dispute?? I didn’t realize Veronique was a humor writer. Or perhaps she believes her readers are fools.

Reforming these two programs will take a considerable amount of time and requires bipartisan action. However, this reality is no reason to assert that the programs’ benefits should never be touched.

In right-wing speak (Yes, Libertarians are closet right-wingers), “reform” Social Security and Medicare means cut benefits to the middle class and the poor.

I cannot wait to hear the grand plan that the “don’t touch Social Security and Medicare” Republican caucus has to address the $116 trillion over 30-year shortfall—that’s 6 percent of U.S. GDP—facing the two programs.

No action from Congress means no money to pay for all the benefits. That means enormous cuts that will hurt the low-income seniors who depend on the programs.

That is a bald-faced lie. The federal government could double, triple, or quadruple benefits for both programs while eliminating all FICA collections and still have money to pay Congressional, Presidential, and SCOTUS salaries.

Contrary to popular myth, FICA pays for nothing. Every FICA dollar ripped from your paycheck and sent to the U.S. Treasury is destroyed upon receipt.

The dollars come from the M2 money supply, so when you pay $1 in federal taxes, the M2 money supply declines by $1. But when those M2 dollars reach the Treasury, they instantly cease to exist in any money supply measure.

There is no money supply measure for federal funds simply because the federal government has the infinite ability to create dollars. Thus, the federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has infinite dollars.

Adding your tax dollars to infinity doesn’t change infinity.

Of course, if Vance and friends insist on not touching benefits, they could address the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls with enormous tax hikes.

Federal taxes don’t fund federal spending, so they can’t “address Social Security and Medicare shortfalls.”

For Social Security alone, when the trust fund dries out, they will have to agree to immediately raise the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 15.64 percent—or close to a 25 percent tax increase.

Add to that the tax hike necessary for Medicare and then repeat the exercise over the years to fill the entire shortfall.

The tax hikes would have no effect on Social Security and Medicare solvency. These federal agencies and all other federal agencies are solvent because they are funded by the infinitely solvent U.S. government.

The misnamed federal “debt” is not a debt of the federal government. The government has paid all its debt the same way: By creating dollars from thin air.

The federal debt is the net total of all federal deficits — the difference between total spending and total taxing. That difference is bridged by federal money creation so that all obligations are paid on time.

Have you ever wondered how the federal government can raise the debt ceiling whenever it wishes? According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the debt ceiling has been raised, extended, or revised 78 separate times since 1960.

And all these increases were done without tax increases (otherwise, the debt ceiling would not have been reached) because federal taxes don’t fund anything.

(State and local governments (unlike the federal government) are monetarily NON-sovereign. They don’t have the unlimited ability to create dollars, so their taxes do fund their spending.)

It’s not as if we haven’t been warning politicians that these troubles were brewing. Back in 2000, roughly when I started working on fiscal issues, experts already warned that the Social Security trust fund would run out of assets by 2037, triggering painful benefit cuts.

Not only does the Social Security trust fund not pay SS benefits, but it isn’t even a trust fund. To quote right-winger Pete Peterson:

WHAT ARE FEDERAL TRUST FUNDS?
Sep 20, 2016, Peter G. Peterson Foundation

A federal trust fund is an accounting mechanism used by the federal government to track earmarked receipts (money designated for a specific purpose or program) and corresponding expenditures.

The largest and best-known funds finance Social Security, Medicare, highways and mass transit, and pensions for government employees.

Federal trust funds bear little resemblance to their private-sector counterparts.

In private-sector trust funds, receipts are deposited and assets are held and invested by trustees on behalf of the stated beneficiaries.

In federal trust funds, the federal government does not set aside the receipts or invest them in private assets.

Rather, the receipts are recorded as accounting credits in the trust funds, and the receipts themselves are comingled with other receipts that Treasury collects and spends.

The misnamed trust funds are wholly owned and controlled by the federal government. It can add to them, subtract from them or do whatever else it wishes with them.

The notion that the trust funds will run out of money and so can’t pay Social Security or Medicare benefits is ridiculous on its face. The federal government pays whatever benefits it wishes, regardless of so-called “trust funds.’

Further, the government has the unlimited power to add to, or subtract from those fake trust funds whenever it wishes.

The whole Social Security/Medicare trust fund fiction is a giant scam to make you believe the government can’t afford SS and Medicare benefits.

When politicians whined that Medicare for All or Social Security for All needed to be “paid for” by tax increases or benefit cuts, the sole purpose was to make you agree to widening the income/wealth/power Gap between you and the rich.

It is America’s biggest, most crooked scam, and you have been falling for it since Social Security began on August 14, 1935. And you still fall for it without complaint.

It’s a scam that makes Bernie Madoff look like an angel.

One wonders why you don’t fret about the White House trust fund, the SCOTUS trust fund, the Congress trust fund, the Bureau of Labor Statistics trust fund, the Capitol Police trust fund, the Army trust fund, the Coast Guard trust fund, and all the other federal department and agency trust funds.

Oh, they don’t have trust funds? So where do they get their money?

Ah, the federal government simply pays the bills by creating dollars from thin air. Just pay thepreciselyand stop lying about “trust funds.” that is exactly what the federal government should do about Social Security and Medicare.

Today, the situation has deteriorated further, with the trust fund now on track to run dry in 2035, along with any practicable hope for fixing the problem.

The fake “trust fund” will run dry only if Congress and the President want it to run dry.

In other words, these problems shouldn’t surprise anyone. When Social Security started, life expectancies were lower. In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. That ratio is now below three workers per retiree and will be only 2.3 workers per retiree by 2035.

The number of workers per beneficiary is completely irrelevant. Workers do not pay for beneficiaries. FICA does not pay for anything. It’s destroyed. It exists only to con you. Period.

Add to this trend decades of politicians buying votes by expanding benefits beyond incoming payroll taxes, and you have a true fiscal crisis.

To the Libertains’ sneering and twisted minds, giving the populace benefits is “buying votes.” But the sole purpose of any government is to protect and enhance the people’s lives. 

If any government doesn’t provide benefits, it’s not doing what it was created to do.

That’s why it’s so alarming that so many in the GOP are giving up on educating a public that’s been brainwashed for years with misleading soundbites like “You earned your Social Security benefits, so you are entitled to the benefits now promised,” or “There’s an account with your name on it.”

There is, in fact, an account with your name on it, and it’s called a T-security account. If you have deposited money into a T-bill, T-note, or a T-bond, you have put dollars into your T-security account.

Those dollars belong to you. The federal government never touches them. When your account matures, the government returns the dollars in your account. The total of dollars in all T-security accounts is erroneously termed, “the federal debt.”

But it not federal and it is not debt. Your dollars belong to you, not the federal government, and there is no debt. Your dollars are safe and comfortably resting in your account just as though they were in your pocket or safe deposit box.

Just as the contents of bank safe deposit boxes are not bank debt, the contents of T-security accounts are not federal debt.

Such misinformation has made serious discussion of reform very difficult.

Yes, that is exactly what misinformation has done.

There’s no question that retirees deserve fair treatment, but the facts are that the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that workers do not have a legally binding right to Social Security benefits, and if Congress cuts benefits even by, say, 50 percent, it can do so—no matter how much anyone has paid into the program.

And so goes the “trust fund” myth. If they were trust funds, you would have a legal right to those benefits, but you don’t and SCOTUS has said so. And they are not trust funds.

Congress and the President have 100% control over benefits, which can be raised or cut, arbitrarily, as can the amount of money claimed to be in those fake “trust funds.”

What does that say about the mythical trust funds? What does that say about Veronique de Rugy’s claims?

It won’t come to that, but the ruling still stands. It’s also fiction that all the benefits that have been promised were earned by workers—they weren’t.

That’s in part because current retirees are paid with taxes from current workers, not from funds saved out of the payroll taxes retirees paid when they were in the workforce.

No, no, no. Current retirees are not paid with federal taxes. They are paid by the federal government’s infinite ability to create dollars.

The purpose of federal taxes is not to fund federal spending. The purpose of federal taxes is to control the economy by punishing what the government wishes to discourage and by rewarding (via tax breaks) what the government wishes to encourage.

It’s magical thinking to say that touching Social Security and Medicare is a nonstarter.

Touching Social Security and Medicare is not a financial nonstarter. The government could increase or decrease benefits at will.

But decreasing benefits could be a voter nonstarter and increasing benefits could a rich-donor nonstarter. That rug-of-war is the called the “debt-limit-debate. It’s a debate between the rich and the rest, except the “rest” don’t even know there is a debate, much less a solution.

Even more strange, many of the same Republicans want to spare these two programs while still putting Medicaid on the chopping block. Medicaid should be reformed too, but at least that program serves poor people.

By contrast, the seniors who receive Social Security and Medicare today are overrepresented in the top income quintile while younger Americans are overrepresented in the bottom quintile.

So these guys want to cut benefits for poor people on Medicaid while subsidizing relatively wealthy boomers with taxes taken from relatively poor youngsters.

Yikes.

No, the real “yikes” to to writers like Veroique de Rugy who repeatedly promulgate misinformation about the federal “debt” and the fictional Social Security and Medicare “trust funds.”

YIKES!!!!!

The GOP’s transformation into the party of big and fiscally reckless government is proceeding apace.

We agree there.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

CONGRESS, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, DONALD TRUMP, ENTITLEMENTS, POLICY, FISCAL POLICY, OHIO, DEBT, NATIONAL DEBT, DEBT CEILING, REPUBLICAN PARTY, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GDP, INCOME, POVERTY, TAXES, PAYROLL TAX, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, RETIREMENT BENEFITS, EMPLOYMENT, MISINFORMATION, SUPREME COURT, WEALTH, GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BIG GOVERNMENT, ECONOMY, ECONOMICS

Today’s buzzword: Intersectionality

Word definitions change. Author Lewis Carrol, in “Through the Looking Glass,” wrote this dialog:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Today’s word is Intersectionality, which Oxford Languages defines as: The interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

Why the Myth of White, Red, Black and Yellow Persists - BahaiTeachings.org
Which of these children is at fault for bigotry?

You are you. You are a minority of one.

As a minority, you have unique characteristics, some of which may subject you to prejudice at various times. As a minority of one, you also are part of larger minorities based on race, religion, age, intelligence, job, wealth, physical abilities, talents, health, etc.

Let’s say you are a man. You are part of the minority called “men,” which doesn’t include other minorities such as boys, girls, women, all deceased people and other living creatures.

If you are a 50-year-old man you live at the intersection of men and 50-year-olds, with each experiencing some unique form of bigotry or oppression.

Perhaps, by virtue of your being 50, you did not receive the job you were qualified to hold. Or, by being a man you didn’t receive that job.

The intersection of maleness and “50-ness” provided somewhat greater disadvantages than either one, alone.. Add race, health etc. to the mix, and you might be a 50-year-old, black, one-legged, gay man, who did not attend college, and is in poor health. (In mathematics, that is known as a “set.”)

Those intersections cumulatively preclude you from many aspects of life that would be enjoyed by someone with fewer disadvantageous intersections — that is, disadvantageous in the eyes of any certain evaluators.

As with all human descriptions, intersectionality can devolve into oppression hierarchies. For instance, who is more oppressed, a black, teenaged, Catholic boy or an elderly white, gay man?

And what sort of oppression are we talking about? Economic? Social? Legal? You may have been involved in discussions centering on the phrase, “You don’t know what it’s like to be {black, gay, female, poor, sick, etc.]. The speaker is attempting to dominate by disadvantage.

It’s “Because I’m _______________ I am worse off than you, so my opinion counts more than yours.”

And it goes even further to: “Because you are not black, gay, female, poor, etc. you can’t really imagine the problems of those who are, so any solutions you may suggest are based on your ignorance and are invalid.”

This devolves to, “The only people who can understand and solve the problems are people who have all those problems.”

And this devolves to: “We people who have all those problems are superior to you people who don’t have the problems.”

In that scenario, the white Christian American male might become the inferior and even the villain. Therin lies the irony, for that is the definition of bigotry — hating people because they are part of a group, or more accurately, not part of a group.

It is the fundamental reason why whites, especially Southern whites, and most especially straight, Southern white men object to teaching Critical Race Theory.

Despite ostensibly being part of the majority set, they feel discriminated against. They feel accused, and so, are resentful. Even with an innocent attempt at objectivity, every story has a good guy and a bad guy who tries to victimize the good guy.

So, it is a conundrum. If we ignore or deny the reality of bigotry in America — if we leave bigotry to its own devices without objection — we long have learned that evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

But if we try to take action against bigotry, without explaining the historical basis for the action, we risk creating even more hatred, resentment, and pushback.

So, perhaps our goal should not be to eliminate bigoted hatred; the goal should be to eliminate bigoted hateful actions. We all carry in our hearts various levels of dislike, but so long as we don’t act on those emotions, we should be considered innocent.

I despise the WWII Germans, Poles, Austrians et al who participated in the Holocaust murders. But I don’t hate those  Germans, Poles, Austrians et al who had nothing to do with the atrocities, but were just fallible humans caught up in the evil of the times.

And I certainly don’t hate those of today’s Germans, Poles, Austrians who do not participate in, or countenance, bigotry.

America’s overly sainted founders, from George Washington forward, surely knew slavery was evil. They, in fact, were not saints. 

They were men who did many good things and bad things, and I hate the bad things they did. Keeping slaves will forever be a blot on their memory.

It is up to me to weigh the bad and the good, and to decide to condemn or to praise each of them as individuals, and not only as “America’s founders” or as “slave keepers.”

Slavery is evil. There are degrees of evil. Slavery is near the top, right beside murder and torture.

But even in the most heinous of acts, we cannot judge by absolutes without knowing circumstances. Soldiers commit murder, but depending on circumstances, they can be heroes.

We all have sinned at various times, and we ask only to be judged by the totality of our lives. Christians ask forgiveness; Jews pray for atonement.

Keeping slaves today is quite uncommon. So, by what logic can a large group of people, alive now, be blamed for past slavery? 

Similarly, by what logic can any group of people be blamed for anything unless the goals of the individuals in that group correspond with the blameworthy facts.

Should all blacks be blamed for black crime or should the blame rest specifically with those who participate, aid, abet, or countenance black crime? Should all Republicans be blamed or credited for Donald Trump’s heinous actions, or should the blame or credit go to those who aid, abet, and countenance his actions?

Bernie Madoff was a Jew and a Democrat. Are Jews and Democrats to be blamed for his crimes? Donald Trump is Presbyterian. What does that say about Presbyterians?

Nothing, actually.

The answers are obvious, but that begs the question, how to inform without leveling blame. How can America learn of past crimes, so these crimes can be anticipated in the future — and still not level blame at groups of innocent people?

Governor DeSantis, and those of his ilk, burn the history books. His mantra is, “Florida is where woke comes to die.”

One dictionary describes “woke” as: “Alert to injustice and discrimination in society, especially racism.” Another describes it as: “Aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).”

Is there anything objectionable in these definitions? Is social justice what DeSantis proudly wishes to exterminate? What is his problem with “woke”?

Is the problem one of blame? More likely, DeSantis believes “woke” is not mere history, but rather is a device to empower blacks by blaming all whites for the injustices many blacks have endured and still endure.

Rather than clarify that deliberate or unintentional misunderstanding, he has chosen to deny the need for education — the “throw out the baby with the bathwater approach, and has banned lessons that would alert students to injustice, discrimination and racism.

For political purposes he has redefined “woke” to mean “blame today’s white children for yesterday’s slavery.” He hopes to gin up white fear, hatred, and resentment that will translate into votes for him.

And while he’s at it, he also hopes to gin up fear, hatred, and resentment at the entire gay community by claiming they are trying to “groom” (a favorite word among the anti-gays) straight children into being gay.

And he has succeeded, primarily because of latent bigotry and ignorance.

THE SOLUTION

“Intersectionality,” as a concept, is neither good nor bad. It is a description.

But somehow, it has become a code word for both sides of the bigotry debate.

Intersectionality refers to the fact that bigotry is not simple. It is composed of many parts and directed toward multiple aspects of the human condition. If, for example, you are a black, gay, Muslim, and someone hates Muslims, they will, by extension also hate straight blacks and gay blacks, and gay or straight Muslims. 

That is how the contagion of bigotry spreads: From intersection to intersection.

All hatred is based on fear. It is quite rare to hate without fear involved.

DeSanitis’s hatred for “woke” is based on his fear of being blamed for racism. His anti-woke, bigoted book-burnings, like all witch hunts, comes from his fear of knowledge and blame — his two  “witches.”

While it is not feasible to eliminate bigotry, a first step in reducing it is to reduce the fear, specifically the fear of being blamed. All “woke” courses should begin with, and emphasize:

Can a label help prevent fear and hatred?

This should be framed and hung in every history class and pasted as a label in every history book.

Then “woke” and Critical Race Theory will be able to accomplish their educational mission without pushback from those who feel accused. History is important.

As George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If we don’t teach our children about “bad” events in America, they will be condemned to repeat them.

We will see repeats of slavery, school segregation, Tuskeegee experiments, Japanese internment, mass shootings, Salem witch hunts, attacks on Congress, bigotry against blacks, Muslims, Jews, and gays.

For children to learn right from wrong, they must learn about both right and wrong.

So-called “woke” and CRT teach that, but the lessons must be taught without accusing those being taught.

Only then will we be able to eliminate the pushback against learning America’s real history.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

If you know any anti-vaxxers, be sure to thank them.

If you know any anti-vaxxers, be sure to thank them for winning Darwin Awards., Their victories help improve the intelligence of the human species.

Here are excerpts from an article that appeared in the February issue of Scientific American Magazine.\

How the U.S. Lost Years of Life
Many countries saw drops in life expectancy during the pandemic, but some populations have suffered more than others By Tanya Lewis on February 1, 2023

Over the past century people have been living longer lives around the globe. Then COVID hit.

Now, nearly three years into the pandemic, with highly effective vaccines widely available, life expectancy in many middle- and high-income countries has started to bounce back.

But in the U.S., it is still dropping.

A study last year found that life expectancy in most Western European countries recovered in 2021—most likely the result of high vaccination rates that reduced mortality, particularly among the elderly.

But the U.S. has continued to see declines, in part because of lower vaccination rates as well as a devastating opioid epidemic.

Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, the U.S. has seen life expectancy fall to a level not documented since 1996, according to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

And the effects are not felt equally: Native Americans, Black people, Latino people, and men in general have died at disproportionately high rates during the pandemic, from both COVID and other causes.

So yes, anti-vaxxers, we have learned to pay attention to the science. We do not believe the QAnon, Fox News, Trumpist anti-vax blather.

So again, thank you for winning Darwin Awards and thereby improving the human gene pool.

We’ll miss you.

My only regret is that you are forcing your innocent children to win Darwin Awards, too. But that is the way evolution works. The children pay the price for their parents’ ignorance.

Understanding Anti Vaxxers And Their Opposition to Vaccines
Scientists are certain vaccines work, yet the anti-vaxxer movement keeps growing.
Gabriella Canal

In 2013, there were nearly 4,000 pertussis cases in Texas. Otherwise called the whooping cough, this was the largest outbreak of the “100 day cough” since 1959.

That year also saw around a 12% increase of parental vaccine refusal compared to 2006, according to a survey published in the journal Pediatrics.

Is there a correlation? A review funded by the National Institutes of Health found that yes, the two issues were related.

But there’s another disease that has public officials far more concerned — measles. Left alone, measles can lead to brain damage and death. And like the whooping cough, it’s also on the rise.

The highly contagious measles virus was declared to be eliminated in 2000, due to an innovative vaccine program. Fifty years before that, more than 85,000 people were infected, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services.

And now, it’s making a comeback.

With more than 45,000 children in Texas opting out of their school vaccinations as of last fall, the state is bracing for an outbreak.

Why are parents knowingly withholding their children from vaccination? What is behind their vaccine hesitancy?

They’re part of what’s called the “anti-vaxxer” movement. Anti-vaxxers believe there’s a connection between vaccination and autism, as well as other brain disorders, and are concerned about long-term side effects, despite there being no scientific evidence supporting that theory.

I would love to see if there is a correlation between election deniers and vaccine deniers. I wonder whether they are the same people.

The CDC estimates that more than 21 million hospitalizations and 732,000 deaths among children born in the last 20 years will be prevented because of vaccinations.

And an estimated 1.4 million children under 5 worldwide still die each year due to lack of access to vaccines.

But as the “anti-vaxxer” movement appears on the national stage and documentaries like Vaxxed gain support from movie stars like Robert De Niro, the risks it poses to the health of the country are no longer hypothetical.

“It is ironic that in the anti-vaccination community, the very people who are denying protection to their children by foregoing vaccination are healthy and alive today because they, and possibly their parents, were vaccinated,” Jay Olshansky, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois said.

Well, who wouldn’t prefer to believe Robert de Niro over the medical establishment? He’s a celebrity, isn’t he?

‘The only logical choice’: anti-vaxxers who changed their minds on Covid vaccines
Nearly one-third of US parents are opposed to vaccinating their kids against Covid – so one-time vaccine skeptics are helping families find evidence-based answers.

Vaccine hesitancy was a growing problem even before the pandemic, particularly among parents. Now, nearly one-third of American parents are opposed to vaccinating their children against Covid-19.

For example, parents say they are still waiting for more information to come out on the Covid vaccines before deciding whether to vaccinate their children.

There is plenty of information available.

In the US right now, millions of children have been vaccinated and are followed closely with V-Safe and other databases to show the safety of the vaccine.

But it is almost impossible to change an anti-vaxxer’s mind with facts. Similarly, it is almost impossible to change an election denier’s mind with facts.

Both groups prefer conspiracy theories having to do with secret coverups known only to QAnon, Jenny McCarthy, Novak Djokovic, Robert Kennedy, Jr., et al.

But, what do doctors know?

Hey, if you can’t trust anti-vaxxers Jim Carrey and Charlie Sheen for your medical advice, who can you trust?

Parents also believe that Covid is mild in children and poses a low risk to them. But kids can suffer from long-term effects – and continued transmission also affects their emotional wellbeing.

In the US, more than 167,000 children have lost a caregiver to the virus. We’re seeing this massive epidemic of not just Covid but kids becoming orphans before their time.

Here are a few notable Darwin Award winners. You can read about them at the link, below.:

Notable Anti-Vaxxers Who Died From COVID-19
Bilal G. MorrisWritten By Bilal G. Morris , Senior Editor
Posted January 13, 2023

Vachik Mangassarian, actor
Ex-Washington State Trooper Robert LaMay
Kelly Ernby
Marcus Lamb
Bob Enyart
Marc Bernier
Phil Valentine
Dick Farrel
Tod Tucker
Dr. Jimmy DeYoung Sr.
Caleb Wallace
Herman Cain

It seems unfair that most Darwin Award winners are conservatives. Why did they receive all the good information?

But rather than feeling jealous or resentful, I thank each of them for their ultimate sacrifice in improving the human genome.

I also would like to thank the conspiracy theorists who tell the public that vaccines cause autism and other diseases, thereby expanding the pool of Darwin Award winners.

You live in our memory, if not in the real world.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The CRFB gives you Social Security choices. Hello, sucker.

The mouthpiece for the rich, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, has a web site that says this:

Social Security provides vital income security to millions of beneficiaries but is on a road toward insolvency.

The Social Security program currently pays more in benefits than it collects in revenue, and under the latest official projections, its trust funds will run out in 2035.

At that point, all beneficiaries regardless of age and income will face an immediate 20 percent benefit cut.

CRFB’s “The Reformer” allows users to choose from a number of options to modify Social Security tax and benefit levels in order to close the program’s 75-year shortfall and keep it sustainable for future generations.

See how your choices stack up!

The truth: The federal government cannot become insolvent. SS is a federal agency. Like the government, SS can’t become insolvent unless Congress and the President want it to.

The so-called SS “trust funds” are not real trust funds. They are line items on balance sheets that the federal government can control at will. They can increase or decrease the balances just by pressing computer keys.

The non-issue of sustainability is to make you believe you have to give up benefits so that by comparison, the rich get richer.

Then, the CRFB gives you a little online game that shows you how much to cut your benefits so that the federal government won’t run out of dollars.

Of course, it’s all a lie. As you (and they, surely) know, our Monetarily Sovereign government, the creator of the dollar, cannot run out of the dollars it freely creates every minute of every day.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

But the CRFB doesn’t provide that information. Instead, it provides the following choices, which ask you how much less you would like to receive from Social Security:

Increase (+) / Reduce (-) Initial Benefits
Slow Benefit Growth for Top 70% of Earners
Slow Benefit Growth for Top Half of Earners
Slow Benefit Growth for Top 20% Of Earners

Increase Retirement Age
Raise Age from 67 to 68
Index Age to Longevity After it Reaches 67
Raise Age to 69 then index to Longevity

Modify Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs)
Index COLAs to “Chained CPI”
Index COLAs to “Chained CPI” and Means-Test Them
Index COLAs to “CPI-E”

Then, the CRFB asks how much more you would like to pay to our poor, destitute federal government:

Increase (+) / Reduce (-) Payroll Tax Rate by:
Increase Taxable Maximum
Subject All Wages to Payroll Tax
Subject 90% of Wages to Payroll Tax
Tax All Wages Above $400,000
Raise Additional Revenue
Cover Newly-Hired State & Local Workers
Apply the Payroll Tax to “Cafeteria Plans”
Increase Taxation of Benefits
Invest in the Stock Market
Diversify the Trust Fund to Increase Returns
Divert 2% of Payroll Tax to “Carve-Out” Accounts
Allow Contributions into “Add-on” Accounts
And some other ideas that pretend to “save” Social Security but really are to make you believe the U.S. federal government is running short of the dollars it originally created from thin air, and still creates from thin air.
The one alternative the CRFB doesn’t provide is the correct one:
Provide Social Security benefits to every man, woman, and child in America, paid for by the federal government which has the unlimited power to create dollars.
Don’t be fooled by the CRFB and others of their ilk. Neither America nor Social Security can become insolvent unless that is what Congress and the President want.
The U.S. federal government has the infinite ability to pay for things, which it has been proving since 1940, when the net total of federal deficits was just $40 billion.
Today, the net total of federal deficits is more than $25 TRILLION, and there still is zero insolvency on the horizon.
A government never can run short of its own currency.
If you believe the answers to America’s financial questions are more taxes or lower benefits, and you don’t know who the sucker is, you are the sucker.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY