Was the Revolutionary War a waste of time? Wednesday, Jan 16 2019 

Related image
Many years ago we fought for freedom against a king. Big mistake. What this nation really needs is a strong leader — a king — because this Constitution, separation of powers thing isn’t working out.

We are stuck with three branches government, the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. The idea supposedly was to have a separation of powers, so that no one branch gets too powerful. (The founders still were nutty about kings, I guess.)

But what if the three branches don’t agree, so nothing gets done? Then what?

For instance, I promised to build a wall that Mexico would pay for, but I didn’t ask Mexico, and now Mexico won’t pay. So what can I do? I made a promise, and how would it look not to build that wall?

For more than two years, I’ve tried to get a Republican Congress to agree with me, but they haven’t, and now half of Congress is Democratic. You know how bad those people are. Bunch of rats and snowflakes.

I told them I would close down the government if I didn’t get my way, and they refused, so I closed it. Now, the shithole people are whining they can’t pay their rent. My heart bleeds.

Fortunately, I have McConnell running the Senate.

He and the rest of the GOP don’t care whether the government is open or shut, so long as they get votes and get paid. Bunch of pussies afraid to cross me.

What’s really great about this is that in the future, I’ve shown what can be done, if you have at least one weak house in Congress.

I’ve proved I can close the government any time I don’t get my way on anything. Hey, if I can close the government for a stupid issue like a little $5 billion wall, think of what I could do for something really big, like cutting healthcare and Social Security, firing Mueller, and pardoning my whole family. The possibilities are endless.

Yes, I’m a President who sets the precedent.

That separation of powers thing was a bunch of garbage, anyway. Guys like Putin and Kim — both of whom I love, and they love me — they have it right. Make a decision and it gets done. No wasting time arguing with Congress, and no more witch-hunt investigations into my businesses and Trump University.

I can’t even trust the guys I put into the Supreme Court to stay loyal to me. I can’t fire ’em. (We’ll see about that.)

Some people might say this sets a bad precedent for future Presidents, but I say: “What future Presidents?”

Wait until you hear my next plan. Why start with someone new every few years?

Trust me, my way is better. I know more about governing than anyone.

MAGA

Is someone stealing from your organization? The 3 simple rules of stealing Sunday, Jan 13 2019 

Is someone stealing from your organization? Here is a short, quick place to start learning.

There are all sorts of stealing in business. There’s the bookkeeper who takes home a few pens or pads of paper or a computer for his kid’s homework

There’s the secretary who accepts jewelry and perfume from a key supplier in return for telling him what the competition is bidding.

There’s the officer who has his lawn mowed and trees trimmed by the company’s landscaping firm.

And there’s the outright crook, who finds ways to steal big money.

A short story: One day, when I took over the management of a small company, I asked the bookkeeper to show me the previous year’s audit statements. She showed me the outside accountant’s compilation.

For those of you not versed in accounting terms, a “compilation” is nothing more than the bookkeeper’s report printed on the outside accountant’s letterhead. In short, it is useless.

That was the first clue.

The second clue came when I told the bookkeeper I was going to bring in a new outside accountant to conduct an audit. The bookkeeper failed to show up for work the next day.

You know the end of this story. The outside accountant found that the bookkeeper had stolen at least $50,000, simply by writing checks to herself, then destroying the cashed originals that came back from the bank. (As I said, it was a small company.)

The title of this article is, “The 3 simple rules of stealing,” so here they are:

Rule 1: If stealing is possible, stealing absolutely will happen.Image result for stealing from the company

There is a reason for the prayer, “. . . lead us not into temptation.” As humans we are fallible, and given significant temptation, even the most honest among us would yield, particularly if the temptation is laid out right in front of us, and the risks are seen to be negligible.

The aforementioned bookkeeper wrote checks every day. She saw that for years, no one ever bothered to review them. Fundamentally, she may have been a good person, but the temptation was irresistible.

Think about your business. Is there any area in which someone could steal, take bribes, or otherwise illegally benefit at the company’s expense? If so, it absolutely is happening.

Rule 2: The people doing the stealing are the people you trust most.Image result for angelic man

These are the people who have worked for you longest, and/or work the hardest, seldom take vacations, and hardly ever call in sick.

They may be your personal friends, even relatives. You might be godfather to their children. These are the people you might trust with your life.  They don’t seem like dishonest “types.”

When the thievery is discovered, you’ll say, “I simply cannot believe he would steal from me, after all these years.”

When these otherwise trusted people are apprehended, they often justify their stealing by saying things like, “I was underpaid,” “I didn’t receive the credit I deserved,” “I needed the money for . . . ,” “The company is rich and I’m poor,” “Everyone was doing it.”

Rule 3: Whoever feels “insulted” that their honesty is questioned, or claims an investigation is a “waste of money” — that person is the thief.

Image result for insultedHonest people dislike thieves. They hate to see people “getting away with” something, while they themselves don’t. They welcome investigations that will uncover the crooks.

By contrast, thieves are angered and intimidated by investigations. If you start nosing around, asking questions, and rifling through files, only to be met with reluctance and “Don’t you trust me?” objections, you have found your crook.

And that’s it: Three simple rules. Read them again and think about your organization.

If you step back and look objectively at your organization, and if you see where it would be possible for a trusted person to steal or accept bribes, and if that person bristles or objects to the idea of an investigation, you’ll know you have a problem.

Stealing can assume myriad forms. Often, it involves one person having both administrative and supervisory roles over the same process. For instance, on outside projects, does the same person specify criteria, and obtain quotes, select the supplier, and then supervise and judge the work being done?

Has that trusted person been with you a long time? Does he/she work either without a direct supervisor or does the direct supervisor use a “hands-off” approach to supervising? Are they friends, relatives, or lovers?

Do you have any rules regarding gifts from suppliers? Have you spoken to your suppliers about these rules?

Just as an exercise, you might ask to see all the specifications and all the quotes for a certain job. Ask the author of the specifications to defend each requirement. Were all specifications necessary or did they favor one supplier?

Then review the quotes to see if there are substantial differences, and ask why a higher-priced quote was selected.

Even more important than the answers to your questions are the nature of the responses themselves. Did someone say, “Why are you asking?” Were the responses slow to come or reluctantly given?

The list of stealing opportunities is endless, but it usually begins with the three rules.

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

The best way to destroy a good plan is to implement it poorly. Thursday, Jan 10 2019 

The best way to destroy a good plan is to implement it poorly.

Have you had an experience similar to this: Many years ago, when I was a partner in an advertising firm, it was common for someone to make a suggestion — for instance, “advertise on morning TV” — and someone else might respond, “We tried that and it didn’t work.”

Image result for football coaches conferring

We tried running the ball last year. It didn’t work. We’ll never do that, again.

Those magic words, “We tried that and it didn’t work,” may be responsible for the destruction of more good ideas than any phrase in the English language.

They seem to sound like proof, when in fact, they are meaningless.

The “that” that had been tried, may have been quite different from the “that” being proposed.

Perhaps the commercials themselves were inferior. Perhaps the days, or the time periods, or the times of year, or the product timing — any number of things might account to the failure of morning TV.

If someone proposes a plan you hate, search for some time when a similar plan was implemented and failed, so you can point to it and claim “We tried that, and it doesn’t work.”

I was reminded of “we tried that and it didn’t work,” when I saw an article about New York State’s attempt to install a “Medicare for All” plan.

“Medicare of All” is a wonderful idea, but only if it is done right. I pray for the time when every American has all the medical support he/she needs, and no one is forced into sickness or death by lack of money, and serious illness does not lead to poverty.

Here are some excerpts from the above-mentioned article:

This Brewing Healthcare Battle Is a Preview of the Medicare for All War
By Harry Cheadle, Dec 13 2018

Near the top of any progressive wish list is the New York Health Act, the state’s version of Medicare for all—which is to say universal, government-provided—health insurance.

Single-payer healthcare, as such systems are also called, has been a left-wing lodestar for generations.

If the NYHA passed, it would make New York the first state in the union to guarantee free access to healthcare (and freedom from fear of health-related bankruptcy) to all of its residents, including undocumented people.

If passed and smoothly implemented, NYHA could be not just a way to improve the lives of New Yorkers but a model for the rest of the country as it debates the merits of Medicare for all, a policy backed by Bernie Sanders and many other potential 2020 presidential contenders.

If “Medicare for All” is so obviously beneficial to Americans, why has no state or the federal government, passed such a law?

The answer, of course, can be stated in one word: Money.

Providing comprehensive health care to every man, woman, and child would be expensive. Who would pay for such a plan?

Currently, every American already pays for comprehensive health care via insurance, and pays for the lack of comprehensive health care by doing without.

In short, we all pay for everyone, in one way or another, with the only questions being:

  1. Who will be covered
  2. What will be covered
  3. Who will pay?

The ideal would be for everyone to be covered for every medical-related cost, and for no one to pay. Anything less than that would be an incomplete plan.

Unfortunately, the New York plan does not cover everyone and everything, and taxpayers will pay.

But now that Democrats can actually pass the NYHA, single-payer supporters are facing a fight that could pit them against not just the insurance industry but a host of Democratic constituencies and leaders—a preview of the contentious debate over healthcare that might follow victories in 2020.

The foremost obstacle is the powerful medical industry lobby, which will likely deploy the usual counterattacks—think the “death panels” of the Affordable Care Act debate, or the fear-mongering “Harry and Louise” ads that helped scuttle reform in the 90s.

Then you have Democratic lawmakers who may hesitate to back a transformative proposal that would raise taxes on a lot of people, a governor who doesn’t seem particularly warm to the idea, a hostile federal government, and potential lawsuits from employers.

While the coming NYHA battle represents a possible turning point in the history of healthcare politics, it won’t be a pretty sight.

Yet if single-payer advocates could get past all that, they’d have a roadmap to victory in other states—and a model that could be replicated in DC.

Rather than providing a roadmap to victory, I fear New York will provide a roadmap to defeat.

The single biggest problem facing a New York plan is this: New York State is monetarily non-sovereign. It does not have access to unlimited numbers of dollars. It must rely on taxes to fund the program.

So the plan will not be able to cover everyone and everything, and in that regard, it will be incomplete — a failure that opponents will be able to use as a negative example, forever.

Richard Gottfried, the chair of the New York State Assembly’s Health Committee and the chief architect of the NYHA, recently explained what it would look like. “It would create universal complete health coverage for every New York resident without premiums, deductibles, copays, or restricted provider networks,” he said over the phone.

The bill would pay for this by pooling the money the state gets from the federal government for programs like Medicaid and Medicare, and also by raising taxes.

“There would be one tax on payroll income, predominantly paid by employers, and a parallel on unearned income like dividends, capital gains,” Gottfried explained.

This would transform the way New Yorkers pay for healthcare—instead of giving premiums to insurers, they’d be getting taxed—and according to a recent study by the RAND Corporation, overall health spending would drop by $80 billion, or 2 percent, by 2031, even as the roughly 1.2 million currently uninsured New Yorkers gained access to care.

Richard Gottfried, the chair of the New York State Assembly’s Health Committee and the chief architect of the NYHA, recently explained what it would look like. “It would create universal complete health coverage for every New York resident without premiums, deductibles, copays, or restricted provider networks,” he said over the phone.

Ultimately, all taxes are paid by people. Taxes that businesses pay, come either from employees or from customers.

Businesses simply are a legal concept that is a pass-through for dollars. Each dollar a business pays in taxes is deducted from some person.

The arguments against the NYHA are echoes of the normal arguments marshaled against single-payer healthcare — high taxes, long wait times for care under a government-run system, and job loss in the insurance industry.

“Long wait times” is a fake narrative. Medicare for All doesn’t affect health-care providers. It doesn’t affect doctors, nurses, hospitals, et al. It merely is an insurance plan, not a health-care program.  Think of Blue Cross with government money.

Last year, a California single-payer bill was effectively axed by Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, who said it was “woefully incomplete” and didn’t describe how the system would be paid for. (Single-payer advocates were so incensed they subsequently attempted to remove Rendon from office.)

Gottfried said that unlike the California bill, the NYHA clearly describes where the funding would come from, and unlike Vermont, New York has enough wealth to make paying for a single-system more practical.

It isn’t New York that would pay. It’s New York taxpayers who would be on the hook.

When all the objections are objected to and all the arguments are argued, there is one, and only one way for a Medicare for All plan to work. It must be funded via federal deficit spending.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can afford anything. It can pay the full cost of a comprehensive Medicare plan covering every man, woman, and child in America, including long-term care, all pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment, and it can do it without levying one cent in taxes.

Further, the money spent by the federal government would grow the economy and benefit everyone.

One industry would be hurt: Health-care insurance, but dozens of other industries would see new income. For a more thorough discussion see: Ten Steps to Prosperity: Step 2. Federally funded Medicare — Parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

A state-funded Medicare for All will encounter continual money problems, requiring unpopular taxes and even more unpopular cuts to benefits, thereby providing a negative example for those who would claim, “We tried that, and it didn’t work.”

By contrast, we know how to do Medicare, and we know how to deficit spend, and it remains only for us to put those together.

That combination would give America something it doesn’t now have: Healthcare for all citizens, rich and poor, young and old.

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

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

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

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The “national emergency.” Sunday, Jan 6 2019 

I just saw this article about our “national emergency.”

Each side accusing other of giving no ground on shutdown
By CATHERINE LUCEY and LISA MASCARO

“Not much headway made today,” Trump tweeted on Saturday after receiving a briefing from the team led by Vice President Mike Pence.

Democrats said the White House did not budge on the president’s key demand, $5.6 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The White House said money was not discussed in depth, but the administration was clear about the need for a wall and the goal of resolving the shutdown all at once, not piecemeal.

Trump had campaigned on the promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico has refused. He’s now demanding the money from Congress.

Trump is reportedly more seriously considering his idea to use military funding for the wall by declaring a national emergency. On Twitter Sunday morning, he claimed the “only reason [Democrats] do not want to build a Wall is that Walls Work!”

Trump and his followers are passionate about needing a wall to protect America from the hoards of criminal immigrants invading our fragile nation.

If you are one of those who believes Trump’s Wall is necessary, kindly answer these questions:

1. Where exactly will Trump’s wall be built? Where on the map.
2. How many illegal aliens have crossed into America at those points? That is, how many additional people is Trump’s wall projected to stop.
3. At a projected cost of $5 billion to build, plus millions more to staff, how much per additional illegal alien apprehended will the wall cost?
For instance, if the wall stops 1,000 men, women and children, the initial cost will be $5,000,000 (five million) per person. Is that acceptable?
4. At what point will enough be enough? When will all our border walls be high enough and strong enough, or will there be repeated requests for more, and more, and more?

Yes, many Trump followers are passionate about the vital and urgent need for additions to our existing fortifications. Trump says the situation is so dire he might declare a “national emergency” to get his wall:

“A lot of the people that wanted to come into the country, and really, they were to come in no matter how they wanted to come in — they were going to come in even in a rough way — many of these people are leaving now and they’re going back to their countries: Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries. They’re leaving. If you noticed, it’s getting a lot less crowded in Mexico.”

I know. It’s total gibberish, but Trump’s followers prefer gibberish to actual facts. That way they, like Trump, can switch positions without having to think.

His followers agree that the situation is dire, though they have no idea what the situation actually is. They are so frightened by Trump’s doomsday claims they probably would vote for a $50 billion, or even a $500 billion wall.

Ironically, these cowardly souls use the pejorative, “snowflakes” to describe those who don’t want to hide behind a wall. Cringing behind a wall is a sign of courage??

Anyway, on behalf of Trump’s vague scare-mongering, he has shut down the federal government, and his followers are overjoyed. Hey, who needs government, anyway?

There is a national emergency, but it’s not the few dangerous people who may cross at the “unwalled” locations. The national emergency is Donald Trump.

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

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: