The federal government is free to you

MAGAs have earned the title of the Most Ignorant Group on Earth (MIGE). They continue to back a man and a party that act against the best interests of the vast majority of MAGAs.

The Republican Party backs:

  1. Tax breaks for the rich; tax increases for everyone who is not rich
  2. A coward who kneels to enemy dictators and their dictatorships
  3. A warmonger who started unnecessary wars and who has made enemies of our allies.
  4. A convicted serial molester of women
  5. An unpatriotic election denier who tried to overthrow the U.S.  government
  6. The most crooked thief in Presidential history, who has amassed billions in ill-gotten gains.
  7. An incompetent who has caused multiple business and economic failures
  8. A ruthless bigot, who destroys good, hardworking families who benefit America
  9. A fool who repeatedly hires incompetents that oppose the goal of the programs they were hired to run
  10. A sick, elderly, frail, low-IQ, hatemonger to do a job that requires intelligence, vigor, honor, and compassion.

So yes, MAGAs are quite thin in the brains department, but . . .

. . . but I suggest there is a group that beats MAGAs for sheer numbheadedness: The Libertarians.

They believe that the government is too big, and the “proof” of this is the size if the so-called “federal debt.”

But ask them how big the debt should be and they cannot answer, other than it should be smaller.

Megan McArdle

Here is an article that ran in the June 9 edition of The Week Magazine:

A devastating debt crash is coming by Megan McArdle (McArdle has describes herself as a “right-leaning libertarian”.) 

The ballooning national debt may be “an incredibly boring” topic, said Megan McArdle, but Americans “need to take a hard look at the bill that is rapidly coming due.”

Immediately, McArdle declares her ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty by using the words, “coming due.”

That wording blurs the line between private debt, which is repaid out of assets, and federal “debt,” which is deposits in Treasury security accounts that are repaid by returning the deposits to their owners. In the first instance, money changes ownership.

In the second instance, location, not ownership, changes.

Both the public and McArdle seem confused, since physical currency and bank reserves (actual dollars) aren’t counted in the official “debt held by the public” or “total federal debt” numbers.

The official federal debt consists primarily of: Treasury securities held by the public (T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds, TIPS, Savings bonds.) These together make up what the Treasury reports as the “federal debt,” and are liabilities of the federal government.

But Federal Reserve Notes (paper currency) also are liabilities of the government. In short, bank reserves are liabilities of the Federal Reserve. Treasury securities are liabilities of the Treasury.

Both are liabilities of the federal government. But only Treasury securities are counted in the official national debt reports

A dollar bill is a non-interest-bearing government liability with no maturity. A T-bill is an interest-bearing government liability with a maturity date.

When someone says, “The government owes $31 trillion,” they are referring only to Treasury securities, not to the many trillions of dollars of currency in circulation, reserve balances, and other government-created monetary liabilities.

The line between “money” and “debt” is largely one of arbitrary classification. A T-bill is a dollar with a maturity date and interest, whereas a Federal Reserve Note is a dollar with neither.

If Libertarians and those of similar ilk counted dollars (i.e., Federal Reserve Notes) the same way they count T-securities, the public immediately would understand that the concern about federal “debt” is nonsense.

People would say, “Are you telling me there are too many dollars in the economy” and the Libertarians would be left gasping. But say there is too much federal debt, and you sound prudent and judicious.

That would be true if you consider recessions and depressions “prudent,” because that’s exactly what happens when the federal government cuts debt. In fact, every depression in U.S. history started with a drop in government debt. Every single one.

Actually, to create a recession, you don’t even have to reduce federal debt. You can accomplish that mission simply by reducing federal debt growth:

The red line shows the year-to-year debt change, When the red line is above the horizontal black line, the federal debt is growing.

Even when debt is growing, but growing too slowly, we have recessions (vertical gray bars). Recessions are cured by increased deficits, which means a faster increase in debt.

The debt currently sits at $31.6 trillion and earlier this year surpassed 100% of gross domestic product. With annual budget deficits now reaching $2 trillion a year, this “slow-moving disaster” is out of control.

Ms. McArdle never explains why pumping dollars into the economy constitutes a “slow-moving disaster.”

The federal government now spend a third of all tax dollars on interest payments – more than it spends on national defense or Medicare.

Interesting comparison, because she also wants Medicare to be cut.

Her comments are designed to shock those who do not understand federal finances (Monetary Sovereignty) vs. state/local and personal finances *monetary non-sovereignty). The federal government, being the issuer of the dollar, has the infinite ability to create dollars. So:

    1. It cannot run short of dollars
    2. It never borrows dollars. T-securities do not provide the federal government with spending money. (See: The Drumbeat of Lies about Debt.)

    The article continues:

    Both parties also have refused to touch the “highly popular” entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare.

    They are “highly popular” because they benefit the average American. Libertarians generally prefer benefit to the rich, like tax cuts at the top, plus increases in FICA.

    “There is only one way this kind of profligacy can end”: a financial crisis that necessitates huge spending cuts and a major tax hike.

    Meanwhile, Americans have collectively “decided not to think about it until we make landfall on whatever hellscape we’re approaching.” If we do nothing, “a devastating crash becomes inevitable.”

    The Libertarians have been spouting the same nonsense for at least 86 years (See: Historical Bullshit and while the federal debt has increased from $40 billion to $32 trillion , an 80,000% increase (!), we have not seen the hellscape the Libertarians repeatedly predict.

    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FREE TO YOU. IT PAYS ITS OWN WAY.

    Contrary to popular belief, the Monetarily Sovereign federal government is self-supporting. It pays its own way by creating as many dollars as it needs.

    (State and local governments, being monetarily non-sovereign) cannot create dollars, cannot pay their own way, and so do cost you money via taxes.)

    The purposes of the federal taxes you pay are not to support the government. Federal taxes have two functions:

    1. To control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to restrict and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward.
    2. To assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring that taxes be paid in dollars.
    That’s it. Your taxes do not pay for the federal government.

    Even if the government completely stopped collecting federal taxes, it still could pay the for White House, the Supreme Court, Congress, the military, the FBI, the CIA, ICE, and every other federal agency, simply by creating dollars.

    Further, the federal government could fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, every other social program, highways, dams, and every infrastructure need, and still not collect a penny in taxes.

    In summary, if the Libertarians are concerned that the federal government has too much control over us, cutting the so-called “debt” would do nothing to reduce that control. The federal government has the financial power to control every aspect of our lives without collecting any taxes whatsoever.

    By focusing on federal debt, rather than on the actual control, the Libertarians provide the rich with excuses to reduce Social Security, Medicare, and every other human benefit the government easily could provide.

    And that is the real hellscape.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Monetary Sovereignty

    Twitter: @rodgermitchell

    Search #monetarysovereignty

    Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

    MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

    https://www.academia.edu/

    ……………………………………………………………………..

    A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

    MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Making America Greater

America is a big country with many kinds of people. We have had great people who have helped make America great. We have had terrible people who have dragged us down.

For most of our years, our good people have won, but lately the challenge has been to defend the great reputation we once have had.

Ironically, the very ones who are destroying the “shining city on a hill” that the world admired, use the phrase “Make America great again.

Though we still have good people who can bring us back, they are not in power now.

But soon. Soon.

      Made Us Great             |             Dragged us down

 

The Drumbeat of Lies About “Debt” Continues

Here are excerpts from an amazing article. It’s amazing, not just because it is completely wrong, but because the source — Eleanor Pringle and Fortune Magazine — are trusted to get economics right.

Tariffs are only generating 25% of the revenue needed to pay interest on national debt—despite pitch that it would be a silver bullet

Story by Eleanor Pringle, an award-winning senior reporter at Fortune covering news, the economy, and personal finance. Eleanor previously worked as a business correspondent and news editor in regional news in the U.K. She completed her journalism training with the Press Association after earning a degree from the University of East Anglia.

When President Trump announced his plans for a new tariff regime, he said the action was “primarily to pay down debt, which will happen in very large quantity.”

We have grown accustomed to this President spouting nonsense and the MAGA crew lapping it up, like flies on poop, but to have a magazine like Fortune not even question the premise –that tariffs pay down debt — is discouraging.

But fast forward a little under a year, and the revenues generated by customs duties aren’t enough to make a dent in interest payments on national debt—let alone the headline figure.

We could collect $100 trillion in tariffs, and they wouldn’t “make a dent” in interest payment on the national debt for two reasons:

  1. It isn’t debt; It’s deposits into accounts that are similar to bank savings account. The deposits are paid back simply by returning the dollars to their owners, the depositors. It’s a process similar to you transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account.
  2. Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not use taxes to pay down anything. The purposes of federal taxes are:

A. To control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward (like the rich) and,

B. to assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring that taxes be paid in dollars.

Unlike state and local taxes which do fund state and local spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending. The U.S. Treasury creates new dollars for that purpose. That is the difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty.

As of June 2026, U.S. national debt stands at $39.2 trillion according to Treasury data. That figure is growing by eye-watering sums: For the first eight months of fiscal year 2026, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports the federal budget deficit has totaled $1.2 trillion.

The implication as that a growing “debt” (i.e. deposits into T-accounts) is a danger or burden on the government or on taxpayers. It is not.

The implication also is that the federal deficit — the difference between taxes and spending, and therefore the number of growth dollars the government has added to the economy — somehow is a negative. It is not.

In fact, when we don’t run deficits, we have recessions and depressions. The reason is that by definition, a growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars, and federal deficits are an important source of those dollars.

In its monthly budget review published last week, the CBO also broke down the government’s incomings versus its outgoings. For the first eight months of the fiscal year (which ends in September), the government raked in $3.66 trillion but spent $4.9 trillion.

Translation: The federal government, which has unlimited dollars, added 1.34 trillion growth dollars (minus net imports) to the economy. And this is supposed to be bad news???

Income rose quicker than spending, the CBO reported, with revenues increasing by $174 billion while spending crept up $57 billion.

However, income would need to rise significantly to have any impact on the value of interest payments the Treasury is paying to maintain debt levels.

Again, the implication is that the $174 billion income for the government (that came out of the pockets of the American public) is a good thing because it helps pay for interest. (It doesn’t.)

Comparing these interest payments to income, the CBO reports that so far this fiscal year, tariffs have generated $189 billion, a little over a quarter of the payments required merely to service the debt.

Translation: Tariffs are taxes on buyers. So, the American public paid an extra $189 billion, which did nothing whatever to help the government pay interest. The government pays all its obligations by simply pressing computer keys and creating new dollars.

That said, the tariff regime suffered some setbacks, which means revenues may have come in under initial expectations: In February this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a tranche of tariffs the White House had rolled out in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The government was ordered to pay them back some $129 billion, according to Congressional documents.

That $129 billion will be added to the economy’s growth.

The figures did demonstrate that, before the ruling, tariffs were having a meaningful impact on the bottom line.

Finally, an accurate statement in the article, though not what Ms. Pringle might think: “tariffs were having a meaningful impact on the bottom line.” The “meaningful impact,” of the tariffs was to deduct billions from America’s Gross Domestic Product, the formula for which is: GDP = Federal and non-federal spending + Net Exports.

A new take The president has also indicated a new perspective on national debt. Previously, the White House had talked about paying down the debt, and using tariffs or visa revenues to do so.

Just as a reminder, this is what happens every time we have “paid down” the federal debt:

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.

1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.

1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.

1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.

1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.

1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.

1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

The reason is easy to see, even for professional economists: Eliminating federal deficits mathematically reduces two of the three factors in the equation:

Gross Domestic Product (the measure of the economy)=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.

In a recent interview with Fortune’s Editor in Chief, Alyson Shontell, Trump also shared an alternate view: That the nation’s debt is really not so bad if you see it through the lens of a real estate mogul.

The debt versus the total value of America and its natural assets, such as the Grand Canyon or surrounding oceans. “If you put down the value of these things, it’s like hundreds of trillions of dollars,” Trump says, and by that measure, “if you kept [the national debt] at $40 trillion, you’re way under-levered.”

His math is ridiculous, but he’s almost right about one thing. The debt is “not so bad.” On the contrary, it’s only bad compared to what it should be, because increasing the federal debt grows GDP. That is called algebra, which sadly seems to be alien to many economic experts.

Debt hawks are continuing to push for fiscal responsibility. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is urging lawmakers to keep deficit reduction in mind as discussions over advancing a third budget reconciliation bill in Congress progress.

The CRFB, along with other representatives of the ultra-wealthy, has been pushing the same narrative for years. If you’ve ever wondered why the rich always push for less federal spending, here’s why:

“Rich” is a relative term.

Someone with $100 in the bank would be considered rich if everyone else had only $1. But that same person would be poor if everyone else had $1,000.

What defines wealth is the financial gap between those at the top and those below. The bigger the gap, the richer they are. So, to increase their wealth, the rich have two options:

  1. Grab more for themselves and/or
  2. Make sure those below them get less.

Number 1 is accomplished partly by twisting the tax laws so that the very rich pay less than the average person, which is how billionaire Trump managed to pay only a few hundred dollars is taxes for years.

Number 2 is accomplished by pretending that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other benefits to average people are called “unaffordable,” “unsustainable,” and “insolvent,” and need to be fixed.

This is where the Big Lie in Economics comes into play — the lie that the federal government will run out of money and that we’ll have inflation unless federal spending for Social Security and Medicare benefits is cut.

The CRFB is calling for savings of at least $600 billion, adding: “The last two reconciliation bills are projected to add nearly $5 trillion to the debt through 2035.

Translation: Cut social benefits by $600 billion (but don’t cut tax loopholes for the rich) because the current bills will pump $5 trillion growth dollars into the economy, and those dollars will help average people. We can’t have that.

The upcoming budget resolution should instead facilitate the passage of legislation to reduce deficits, as reconciliation is intended to do.”

Final translation: “The upcoming budget resolution should instead facilitate the passage of legislation to reduce benefits to those who are not already rich.”

That’s how the rich have twisted the words “debt” and “deficit” to make themselves wealthier leaving you poorer. Ignorance comes at a high price.

The facts: Medicare, Social Security and other social benefits could be doubled or tripled, while FICA is eliminated, and the federal government still would not run out of money.

But Eleanor Pringle, Alyson Shontell, and Fortune Magazine do not tell you that.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

THE ART OF THE DEAL

WE WON! WE WON! AN ENTIRE CIVILIZATION WILL DIE TONIGHT! THEY DON’T HAVE THE CARDS! A SPECTACULAR MILITARY SUCCESS! COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY OBLITERATED! A FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT! EVEN MORE DESTRUCTIVE AND DEADLY! MUCH BETTER THAN THE DEAL I TORE UP. WE’LL RELEASE $100 BILLION IN FROZEN ASSETS. $300 BILLION FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT. I AM THE GREATEST!