Medicare for All: Your one misunderstanding that ruins everything Saturday, May 27 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

With regard to Medicare for All, here is one little huge misunderstanding that ruins America the world.

Ryan Cooper

Consider, for instance, these excerpts from an article by Ryan Cooper, a national correspondent at TheWeek.com.  — a man who advocates the passage of a Medicare for All bill, though ironically, his article helps prevent it.

The solution to America’s health-care problem is obvious: Medicare. For. All.

With Republicans busy trying to pass a spectacularly unpopular bill to strangle ObamaCare and grind Medicaid down to a tiny stump, simply expanding the most generous and functional part of the welfare state to everyone makes increasing political and practical sense as a bold counter-offer.

Single-payer dramatically strengthens the rest of the social safety net. It would get rid of the patchwork of janky mandates and systems that provide for unemployed or disabled people.

No more messing around with the obnoxious (and often unaffordable) COBRA or exchange plans.

Then, with health care decoupled from employment, unemployment insurance, paid family and sick leave, and disability benefits would be correspondingly strengthened.

It would cover “inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care” without any premiums, deductibles, or co-pays.

Medicare already has all three of those, in varying degrees based on income and tax-payment history.

No, Medicare does not cover all those things, “without any premiums, deductibles, or co-pays.”  Never heard of Medicare supplement insurance? Never heard of long-term care insurance? Never heard of Part D pharmaceutical insurance?

Medicare is a good program as far as it goes, but it’s a long way from a comprehensive plan, even for those over 65.

But, why shouldn’t “the greatest nation on earth” (we like to proclaim) provide comprehensive, top-notch health care for every man, woman, and child in America?

Sadly, Mr. Cooper provides a reason — a non-reason, really: Cost. And even more sadly, he focuses the entire rest of his article on this non-reason — his misunderstanding — that ruins everything.

Medicare-for-all isn’t going to be cheap. California has been considering such a plan recently, and the headline price is $400 billion, according to a state legislative analysis. By American standards, that’s an expensive program even for the federal government.

Yes, it is an expensive program for California, a monetarily non-sovereign state, but not expensive for the federal government. 

Nothing is expensive for our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, that creates an unlimited amount of its sovereign currency by the process of paying its bills.

California can run out of dollars; the federal government cannot. California taxpayers fund California spending. Federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending. That is the fundamental difference between a Monetarily Sovereign government and a monetarily non-sovereign government.

But it can still work. While ideally single-payer would be passed at the federal level, California (and New York) are good candidates for a proof-of-concept test run. If done right, it would be a huge success, and it would place all other social programs on a much sounder footing.

In fact, California and New York are terrible candidates, unless you oppose Medicare for All. 

Being monetarily non-sovereign, they will run short of dollars to fund comprehensive Medicare for All programs. So they will have to make cuts. And these cuts will “prove” to the doubters that Medicare for All can’t work.

It would be like a man trying to fly by flapping feathered wings — and failing — thereby “proving” man never will fly.

And what is the “concept” these programs would prove? That providing people with comprehensive health care, like the rich already enjoy, is a good benefit? Is this a concept that needs proving?

The important thing to remember regarding the state budget is that California already spends about $200 billion on Medicaid and Medicare — it’s just that those programs are administered at the federal level.

Per the state analysis, employers also already spend an additional $100 billion to $150 billion, so the state would “only” have to find $50 billion to $100 billion in fresh revenue.

Better check your numbers, Mr. Cooper. Medicare for All involves comprehensive (“inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care without any premiums, deductibles, or co-pays”) for every man, woman, and child in the state, not just those over the age of 65.

What about the billions of insurance dollars currently spent by individual people who aren’t on Medicare or Medicaid? Even most employer plans require contributions from employees.

All of the above is why California is a terrible test. Either the program will not be comprehensive or it will be unaffordable.  Either way, it absolutely, positively will “prove” to the doubters that a comprehensive Medicare for All plan cannot work.

Single-payer would be quite a lot cheaper than $400 billion, too, if it weren’t for America’s preposterously expensive medical prices. Good thing that will change.

Remember, single-payer gives the government far greater leverage over prices than currently exists, through bargaining leverage or simple price controls.

“Leverage over prices” means that Mr. Cooper wants the federal government unnecessarily to reduce what doctors, nurses, other medical workers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies receive.

Think about the effect that would have on the supply of doctors, nurses, and other health workers –– which already are in short supply.

And exactly how does it benefit America for hospitals to receive less income?

Though pharmaceutical companies often are reviled, they are the ones we expect to develop new drugs.  Is that something we want to cut?

What Mr. Cooper doesn’t take into consideration is while state and local spending does not add stimulus dollars to the economy, federal spending does. Every cut to federal spending is anti-growth, and federal spending costs taxpayers nothing.  Nothing!

Finally, the proposed California program would be substantially more generous than extant Medicare. All told, while it would be a huge outlay, it’s worth the money.

Yes, comprehensive Medicare for All will be “substantially more generous” not only than extant Medicare, but more generous (i.e. more expensive) than any but the most platinum of current health care plans.

And that is a good thing, if it’s supported by the Monetarily Sovereign, federal government (though a bad thing if supported by the monetarily non-sovereign, state and local governments).

Now, actually putting such a system through would be tough.

It’s virtually guaranteed that the Trump administration would refuse to allow a blue state to mess around with its Medicaid/Medicare money at all, and they would have to worry about rich people skipping out of the state to avoid taxes, not to mention state prohibitions on borrowing money.

Yes, the politics are such that Republicans don’t want any plan that will help the middle class and the poor, and Libertarians don’t want any plan that increases government spending. Both groups do the dirty work of the very rich.

They are the people responsible for insufficient economic growth, insufficient health care and the widening Gap between the rich and the rest.

The Gini Ratio indicates the “Gap” — the distance between the richer and the poorer. A ratio o f”0″ would indicate perfect equality, where everyone has the same. A ratio of “1” would indicate that one person has everything. A rising line indicates the rich are growing richer and the rest are growing comparitively poorer.

So, it’s up to you voters to make an offer the politicians can’t resist, and that only can happen if you understand that a Medicare for All plan need not cost you a single penny if it is funded by the Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

While state and local taxes fund state and local spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending. The federal government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.  

Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever. It never can run short of its own sovereign currency.

Some people are turned off of single-payer when they hear it means more taxes. I very strongly believe such sentiments are driven by an unreasonable skepticism about social insurance created by decades of duplicitous conservative agitprop.

Such sentiments are driven by the Big Lie — the lie that federal taxes fund federal spending, and that the poor are lazy takers who will stop working if they are given any benefits.

Educate the public about the realities of Monetary Sovereignty, and suddenly all objections to single-payer would disappear.

After all, who would not want to receive a lifetime’s worth of free, comprehensive medical care? And who would want to deny it to poor families?

Europeans who visit America are rightly flabbergasted that citizens of the world’s wealthiest large nation tolerate their countrymen having to scrounge for money to pay medical bills.

Worse than scrounging for money, some of us do without health care. The right wing blames the victims for being lazy.  They are sure that if the government provides benefits to the poor, this will disincentivize the poor from working. That is what the rich tell them.

But here’s the bottom line: The left must get behind single-payer, and trumpet it loudly. It’s critically important for the left to maintain the courage of its convictions. It is not enough to be against the American Health Care

It is not enough to be against the American Health Care Act, or to compromise for janky middle-of-the-road attempts at bipartisanship like ObamaCare. It’s long past time that the Democratic Party stood for something big and bold.

But to be “big and bold” one must understand the facts, and the primary fact is this: Comprehensive Medicare for All would not cost you one cent. In fact, federal spending for Medicare for All would stimulate economic growth.

Truly guaranteed health care would mean relief from the constant nagging worry that job loss, or a change in coverage plan, or a sudden emergency landing you in an out-of-network hospital would lead to untreated illness or financial ruin.

No more would illness mean taking up a second job trying to navigate the brain-melting complexity of a monstrous, wasteful billing system.

Medicare-for-all would be a relief on so many levels that many Americans simply can’t conceive of it. But if it were to pass, it would be immediately popular — and forevermore politically untouchable.

It will pass if columnists like Ryan Cooper first would learn the truth, then tell the truth.

Is that too much to ask?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

If China Can Fund Infrastructure With Its Own Credit, So Can We. Here’s how. Thursday, May 25 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The website called “Truthdig” published an article titled, If China Can Fund Infrastructure With Its Own Credit, So Can We, May 21, 2017, By Ellen Brown.

The article describes how the U.S. easily can fund infrastructure. That “how-to” applies to all federal spending, not just for infrastructure.

I’ll give you a few excerpts and my comments.

The estimated cost of fixing (America’s) infrastructure (is) $4.6 trillion.

While American politicians debate endlessly over how to finance the needed fixes and which ones to implement, the Chinese have managed to fund massive infrastructure projects all across their country, including 12,000 miles of high-speed rail built just in the last decade.

How have they done it, and why can’t we?

We can. Easily.

The Chinese government is Monetarily Sovereign. It is sovereign over the Renminbi. It never can run short of Renminbis.

Image result for repair infrastructure

How can we afford to fix it?

The U.S. government also is Monetarily Sovereign. It never can run short of dollars.

Even if all tax collections fell to 0, the Chinese and American governments could spend, forever.

A key difference between China and the US is that the Chinese government owns the majority of its banks.

About 40% of the funding for its giant railway project comes from bonds issued by the Ministry of Railway, 10-20% comes from provincial and local governments, and the remaining 40-50% is provided by loans from federally-owned banks and financial institutions.

In other words, the Chinese government gets its funding from its own bonds. It “lends” to itself, and because lending creates money, this “left-pocket-to-right-pocket” faux transaction seemingly provides Renminbis.

The Chinese even more easily could press a few computer keys and create Renminbis from thin air, just as the U.S. government creates dollars from thin air, every time it pays a bill. No need for special banks or financial institutions.

The process is this:

When a federal agency pays an invoice, it sends instructions (checks or wires) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account. When the bank obeys those instructions, dollars are created and added to the money supply.

The creditor’s bank then clears the transaction through the Federal Reserve.

In short, the federal government creates dollars from thin air, by paying bills, and then has its own bank approve the creation of those dollars. The approval process is quite similar to what is described at: Does the U.S. Treasury really destroy your tax dollars?

Like private banks, state-owned banks simply create money as credit on their books. The difference is that they return their profits to the government, making the loans interest-free; and the loans can be rolled over indefinitely.

The federal government has no need for profits or for interest-free loans. It even has no need for loans. It can create dollars, endlessly.

In effect, the Chinese government decides what work it wants done, draws on its own national credit card, pays Chinese workers to do it, and repays the loans with the proceeds.

In true effect, the Chinese government and the U.S. government create their own sovereign money from thin air, and in unlimited amounts.

The US government could do that too, without raising taxes, slashing services, cutting pensions, or privatizing industries

Correct. The U.S. government never needs to raise taxes in order to fund spending, never needs to slash services, never needs to cut pensions, and absolutely never should privatize.

It does these things because of the Big Liethe lie that federal taxes fund federal spending.

The Trump administration, road privatization industry, and a broad mix of congressional leaders are keen on ramping up a large private financing component (under the marketing rubric of ‘public-private partnerships’), but have not yet reached full agreement on what the proportion should be between tax breaks and new public money—and where that money would come from.

Private financing component” and “public-private partnerships” are weasel words for the privatization scam — a method for enriching political contributors.

Because the U.S. government can create unlimited dollars, there is no reason for privatization. Where special expertise is needed, the government can contract for it in the same way that it contracts for planes, guns, and bullets.

No need to make the profit-motivated companies managing partners. Just rent the expertise.

Koch-backed groups led by Freedom Partners . . . released a letter encouraging Congress “to prioritize fiscal responsibility” and focus instead on slashing public transportation, splitting up transportation policy into the individual states, and eliminating labor and environmental protections.

The rich don’t need public transportation, but the middle and the poor do. So naturally, the rich do everything possible to cut that benefit.  The reason: Gap Psychology, the desire of the rich to widen the Gap between them and the rest of us.

In a November 2014 editorial titled “How Two Billionaires Are Destroying High Speed Rail in America,” author Julie Doubleday observed that the US push against public mass transit has been led by a think tank called the Reason Foundation, which is funded by the Koch brothers.

Their $44 billion fortune comes largely from Koch Industries, an oil and gas conglomerate with a vested interest in mass transit’s competitors, those single-rider vehicles using the roads that are heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Republicans – at the behest of their mega-bank/private equity patrons – really, deeply want to privatize the nation’s infrastructure and turn such public resources into privately owned, profit centers.

More than anything else, this privatization fetish explains Republicans’ efforts to gut and discredit public infrastructure . . . .

The Republicans are consistent in their desire to transfer dollars from the middle and poor, to the rich. That is the sole purpose of privatization.

If the goal is to privatize and monetize public assets, the last thing Republicans are going to do is fund and maintain public confidence in such assets.

Rather, when private equity wants to acquire something, the typical playbook is to first make sure that such assets are cheaper to buy.

Noam Chomsky said: [T]here is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize. Then they don’t work and people get angry and they want a change. You say okay, privatize them . . . .

This is exactly what the Republicans are doing to the Affordable Care Act. They are chipping away at its funds, to make it less efficient.  

Then, when the public believes it won’t work, the Republicans can sweep in with a plan that widens the Gap between the rich and the rest. That is their fundamental plan.

Privatization means selling public utilities to private equity investors, who then rent them back to the public, squeezing their profits from high user fees and tolls.

And this is exactly what Mayor Daley did to Chicago, when he sold Chicago’s parking meters to a politically connected firm at a discount.

Not only did Chicago lose 99 years of revenue, but the parking rates immediately were increased, costing Chicago taxpayers millions more. (See: What President Obama learned from Mayor Daley)

Moving assets off the government’s balance sheet by privatizing them looks attractive to politicians concerned with this year’s bottom line, but it’s a bad deal for the public.

Decades from now, people will still be paying higher tolls for the sake of Wall Street profits on an asset that could have belonged to them all along.

Privatization “looks attractive to politicians,” not because they are “concerned with this year’s bottom line,” but rather because they are concerned with their own bottom lines, i.e campaign contributions.

Privatization is scam to take from taxpayers and give to the rich.

Countering the dogma that “private companies can always do it better and cheaper,” studies have found that on average, private contractors charge more than twice as much as the government would have paid federal workers for the same job.

Which is exactly why Republicans are so enamored of privatization.

In their 2015 report “Why Public-Private Partnerships Don’t Work,” Public Services International stated that “[E]xperience over the last 15 years shows that PPPs are an expensive and inefficient way of financing infrastructure and divert government spending away from other public services.

“They conceal public borrowing, while providing long-term state guarantees for profits to private companies.”

They also divert public money away from the neediest infrastructure projects, which may not deliver sizable returns, in favor of those big-ticket items that will deliver hefty profits to investors.

At this point, we should mention the fundamental difference between federal privatization vs. state and local privatization.

When the federal government privatizes, the private sector profits. Because of privatization inefficiencies, the private sector actually receives more money, when the privatization is more costly.

IF services or benefits are not cut, and/or taxes are not raised (huge “IF”), forcing the federal government to spend more pumps more stimulus dollars into the economy. Thus, ironically, an expensive deal can grow the economy.

The same cannot be said of state and local government privatizations. While federal taxpayers do not pay for federal spending, state and local taxpayers do pay for state and local spending. So expensive deals are costly to the public.

Past conceptions of an infrastructure bank envision a quasi-bank (not a physical, deposit-taking institution) seeded by the federal government, possibly from taxes on the repatriation of offshore corporate profits.

The bank would issue bonds, tax credits, and loan guarantees to state and local governments to leverage private sector investment.

No federal spending ever is funded by taxes.

To fund infrastructure work, all the federal government need do is send instructions to contractors’ banks, telling the banks to increase the balances in the contractor’s checking accounts — then have the FRB clear the transactions.

The federal government already has the Federal Reserve Bank.  No special infrastructure bank is needed.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, money is not fixed and scarce. It is created when loans are made and extinguished when they are paid off.

True.

The Bank of England report said that private banks create nearly 97 percent of the money supply today.

Whatever the percentage, it is true that banks create, from thin air, the vast majority of money in America as well as in the UK. Borrowing creates money; paying off loans destroys it.

This is something the Federal Reserve tried but failed to do with its quantitative easing (QE) policies: stimulate the economy by expanding the bank lending that expands the money supply.

Right, QE was a ridiculous exercise that did not expand bank lending. Bank lending is limited by bank capital and by borrowers’ needs, and QE did nothing to increase either.

Congress alone can stimulate the economy — by deficit spending, which adds dollars to the economy. Giving the Fed the task to stimulate the economy is merely an example of Congress shirking its own responsibilities.

The Fed really has but two assignments:

  1. Facilitate banking
  2. Moderate inflation.

That’s it. The economy is the responsibility of Congress and the President.

The stellar (and only) model of a publicly-owned depository bank in the United States is the Bank of North Dakota (BND). It holds all of its home state’s revenues as deposits by law, acting as a sort of “mini-Fed” for North Dakota.

The BND does not pay bonuses, fees, or commissions; has no high paid executives; does not speculate on risky derivatives; does not have multiple branches; does not need to advertise; and does not have private shareholders seeking short-term profits.

The profits return to the bank, which distributes them as dividends to the state.

A perfect solution for a monetarily non-sovereign state, which uses taxpayer dollars, but a wholly unnecessary Rube Golbergian solution for the federal government, which does not use taxpayer dollars.

The federal government could set up a bank on a similar model. It has massive revenues, which it could leverage into credit for its own purposes.

No. The federal government has no need to “leverage” anything. It has unlimited resources and total control over its ability to pay its bills.

Since financing is typically about 50 percent of the cost of infrastructure, the government could cut infrastructure costs in half by borrowing from its own bank.

There is no need for the federal government to cut infrastructure costs. In fact, the more the federal government spends, the better for the economy.

Public-private partnerships are a good deal for investors but a bad deal for the public. The federal government can generate its own credit without private financial middlemen. That is how China does it, and we can too.

Yes. The federal government can fund unlimited spending for infrastructure. It also can fund Medicare for every man, woman, and child. It can fund college tuitions for everyone who wants one. It can fund Social Security, also for every man, woman, and child.

The only limit to federal spending is an inflation that cannot be controlled via interest rate control.

There is no need to create special banks or circuitous money paths. Everything already is in place.

The federal government merely needs to deficit spend.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

More fakery, this time from Suderman’s boss. Thursday, May 25 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

“Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason. He writes regularly on health care, the federal budget, tech policy, and pop culture. He is also a pop culture columnist for Vox and a 2010 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow.”

How do I know? The Reason.com website says so.

We discussed Suderman’s comments in the previous post, “Peter Suderman’s twisted logic reveals the real motives of the right-wing”

Now, we hear from Suderman’s boss. Another quote from their site:

Nick Gillespie is editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason TV, the online platforms of Reason, the libertarian magazine of “Free Minds and Free Markets.”

The two sites draw over 4 million visits per month and have been named among the nation’s best political sites by Playboy, Washingtonian, National Journal, and others.

Nick Gillespie by Gage Skidmore.jpg

Gillespie

 

Gillespie wrote an article in response to yesterday’s news about the GOP health care (“no health care”) plan, as described in the Chicago Tribune:

23 million more uninsured by 2026 under GOP health care bill, new CBO analysis finds

The Congressional Budget Office says the health care bill Republicans pushed through the House this month would leave 23 million additional people uninsured in 2026, compared with former President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Compared with Obama’s 2010 overhaul, average premiums for people buying individual policies would be lower. That is partly because insurance on average would cover less of people’s health care costs.

The Republican legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $119 billion over the next 10 years, according to the CBO analysis.

The analysis undermines claims by House Republicans that their health legislation protects people with pre-existing conditions.

In some cases, people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to purchasecomprehensive health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, “if they could purchase it at all.”

House GOP leaders (had) managed to get their bill over the finish line by arguing that a last-minute addition of $8 billion would bolster protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

The CBO specifies that these people would have difficulty getting affordable coverage “despite the additional funding that would be available.”

In summary, the GOP plan would:

  1. Force 24 million additional people to be uninsured
  2. Cover fewer health care costs
  3. Not cover as many people with pre-existing conditions
  4. But it would cut the deficit

And that item #4 is what cheers Gillespie.  Although he admits that “less healthy people would face extremely high premiums,” and many would not be able to afford good health care at all, this seems not to be a key issue for Gillespie’s Libertarian bent.

No, he is more worried about “big government” than America’s health, for he says:

The United States is running out of other people’s money and we need to start the hard work of figuring out a sustainable level of government that we can both pay for and thrive under.

In some of his deregulatory gestures, Trump points in that direction, and he has clearly shown himself willing and able to push hard against the status quo.

You just have read a perfect expression of the Big Lie.

The United States is not “running out of other people’s money” simply because, being Monetarily Sovereign, it does not use “other people’s money.” 

Unlike state and local governments, which do use “other people’s money” (i.e. taxes), the federal government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.  It does not use tax dollars and cannot run short of dollars. Period.

Gillespie never tells us what he means by “a sustainable level of government.” and that is why I believe that any size government is too big for him.  Though he claims to be a “Libertarian” (an anti-government belief with an infinite number of definitions), he is, I suspect, an anarchist.

(He is welcome to prove me wrong by explaining what size government he feels is “sustainable, “and why.)

Here is a guy, Gillespie, who writes about economics and who claims his sites “draw over 4 million visits per month and have been named among the nation’s best political sites, and yet he is completely ignorant about the fundamentals of federal finance. Yikes!

But, as wrongheaded as they are, the Nick Gillespies of the world do not make me angry. They are tools for the rich, and I understand their motives.

What makes me angry, and what I don’t understand, is the people who would be hurt most by Gillespie’s and the GOP’s policies, continuing to vote against their own best interests.

And not just voting against their own best interests, but angrily and insultingly arguing against a program like Federally funded Medicare for all (Step 2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperitythat would solve so many of their problems.

If you go to any right-wing site, you will see nothing but name calling and other insults for anyone tries to help them.

Frustrating to be sure.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Peter Suderman’s twisted logic reveals the real motives of the right-wing Wednesday, May 24 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Peter Suderman, the noted purveyor of conservative nonsense, must have been channeling Donald Trump when he wrote an article titled: More Bad News for Obamacare: Study Finds Medicaid Has No Effect on Measured Health Outcomes
(Peter Suderman|May. 1, 2013 7:52 pm)

It is the classic, anti-poor, anti-Obama, anti-truth, Breitbartian, FOXian, completely illogical BS.

Image result for impossible constructions

Twisted logic

 

The title of his article tells it all. He references a study that he claims indicates Medicaid doesn’t help people to be healthier.

But, here is the actual conclusion from the study:

The New England Journal of Medicine
The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes

“This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”

Let’s parse this conclusion. The test went only 2 years, so medical effects would be limited.

The only “measured” outcomes were hypertension or high cholesterol levels, or on the use of medication for these conditions.” That’s it.

During the 2 years of the study, those 3 things — hypertension, high cholesterol and the use of medication didn’t change. What does that tell you?

For whatever reasons, the doctors didn’t change their treatments for hypertension or high cholesterol, so those measures didn’t change.

No change in treatments; no change in results. Big surprise?

If after 2 short years, the treatments for hypertension and cholesterol don’t change, why would anyone expect Medicaid insurance coverage to change anyone’s symptoms? As my grandchildren would say, “”Duh.”

Further, there was an “increased use of health care services.” By what logic does an increase in the use of health care services reflect poorly on Medicaid? Isn’t that exactly what Medicaid is supposed to do?

And is there any measure anywhere showing that an increase in the use of health care services has no positive effect on health? If so, we’ve just found something amazing: Doctors, nurses, and hospitals have no effect on health — or so says Peter Suderman.

If you dig further into the conclusions, you’ll find this:

“Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher.”

More people were discovered to have diabetes, and more people were treated for diabetes,  but their glycated hemoglobin levels didn’t change. The increased discovery and treatment are good — that’s the purpose of Medicaid — but what does lack of change in glycated hemoglobin levels have to do with Medicaid?

By what twisted logic does this indicate “Bad News for Obamacare”?

(“Doctor, you’ve been treating my diabetes, but it’s not getting better.  Must be the fault of my insurance.“)

“Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression, increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated  catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.”

So, according to Suderman, reductions in depression (possibly due to fewer worries about medical affordability), and increased use of preventive services (for all those hundreds of diseases not measured in the 2-year study and for all future diseases) are “Bad News for Obamacare.”

And, woe for the rich, Medicaid nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures by the poor. So these people were not driven into destitution.  And that supposedly is “Bad News for Obamacare.”

Absolutely nuts.

The real motives of the right-wing are twofold: To destroy anything associated with Obama (ironically, Romneycare), and to push the poor down, down, down.

Medicaid is a financial benefit, not in of itself a medical benefit.  But laughably, Suderman writes an article slamming Medicaid for successfully doing the two things Medicaid is supposed to do:

  1. Increase the use of health care services and
  2. Prevent catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

Would someone please write to Suderman and ask him if he was educated at Trump University.  Please.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »