-Warren Mosler for president


An alternative to popular faith

Warren Mosler, economist, perturbed by the misunderstanding of monetary policy by the current and past administrations, is running for President in 2012. He has been speaking at the Tea Parties, explaining to taxpayers that Washington is either at best ignorant of economic policy or at worst deceptive.” By Barry Ritholtz – The Big Picture, October 7th, 2009, 11:00AM

Warren Mosler has a better understanding of the economy than almost anyone I have known. If you want to see the real facts, in plain, clear English, go to http://www.moslereconomics.com/ and click the “7 Deadly Innocent Frauds” box on the left side of the page. I promise, you will learn something important.

In 2008, Warren helped edit an article I had written earlier. The article, endorsed by a number of eminent economics professors, is as follows:

Is It Time For a FICA Holiday?

Traditional thinking has produced an economic disaster, which the same traditional thinking cannot solve. As the U.S. and world economies slip into recession, we must remember this ultimately is a bookkeeping crisis. The housing “market” was destroyed, but not the actual houses. They still exist. Nothing real has been destroyed. Instead, we are starved for money.

This problem should be easier to remedy than a food shortage, water shortage or wartime destruction, because a money shortage can be cured by the simple expedient of adding money – something the federal government is uniquely empowered to do.

We propose a FICA payroll tax “holiday,” whereby the U.S. Treasury will make our Social Security and Medicare payments for us. This will add about $10 billion per week to our take-home pay, and another $10 billion to business income, both of which urgently are needed. When we eliminate this partly double, severely regressive tax, we will give consumers the income they need to make mortgage payments, to pay bills, and to do the shopping American business craves. The FICA holiday also will provide business with money for jobs and investment.

In contrast, the “top down” approach (saving Fannie Mae, buying toxic mortgages), while necessary, does not directly address consumer/business money needs, and has had only modest effect.

Common knowledge holds that Social Security and Medicare will face bankruptcy even with FICA. So proposed fixes invariably include benefit cuts, reducing consumer incomes, or tax increases, cutting consumer and business spending power – the opposite of what our economy requires.

Many people fear federal deficit spending when it supports Social Security and Medicare, but not when it supports the military. Social Security spending for 2008 is approximately $600 billion, about equal to the defense budget. Ironically, both candidates for President believed Social Security will run out of money and the military will not. The $1 trillion in “stimulus” spending was authorized without increased taxes. Both candidates advocated tax cuts.

Even during the darkest days of the Great Depression, the federal government never ran out of money. Massive government spending, before and during World War II, helped lift us from the Depression.

In 1971 President Nixon eliminated any risk of government insolvency by ending the last vestiges of the gold standard. At the stroke of a pen, he assured that neither the government, nor any of its agencies, could run short of money. Social Security and Medicare, being two of those 400+ agencies, are immune from bankruptcy.

If Congress authorizes the Treasury to make our Social Security and Medicare payments for us, thus allowing our take-home pay to rise, the economy will begin to recover. The elimination of FICA deductions would provide consumers and business with more than a trillion additional dollars annually, exactly what a healthy economy needs.

Won’t this increase the federal deficit? Yes, but President Nixon’s signature guaranteed the government never will run short of money to service its debts. This act removed taxes as a necessary source of federal money. Together with federal spending, taxation became a mere tool to create optimal output and employment. Whatever deficit accomplishes that goal is the right size.

Doesn’t a large deficit cause higher interest rates? No, interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve. The government can set rates at any level it wishes.

Doesn’t a large federal debt create a shortage of lending funds? No, the more money the government pumps into the economy, the more lending funds are created.

Won’t our children have to pay for the increased deficit? No, the government owes the debt and easily services a debt of any size. Our children are not the debtors. (In many cases, they even are the creditors.) Because the “right” size debt will continue to grow forever as our economy grows, it never should be reduced or paid back.

Meanwhile, each year the increased debt will help keep output high and unemployment low, benefiting our children with additional income, goods and services.

Won’t increasing the deficit by eliminating FICA, cause inflation? President Carter had modest deficits and high inflation. President Reagan had the highest deficits in American history and modest inflation. Contrary to popular faith, federal debt has not caused inflations, recessions, high interest rates or any other negative economic effects. On the contrary, large deficits have been associated with economic growth.

In summary, we offer new thinking – an accounting fix to an accounting problem: Eliminate FICA and pay for Medicare and Social Security the same way we pay for Congress, the military, the Supreme Court and every other federal agency, by functionally folding these two agencies into the general fund. The economic crisis has presented us with the rare opportunity to accomplish two important goals: Permanently fix the seemingly intractable Social Security and Medicare problems, and energize our economy.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

3 thoughts on “-Warren Mosler for president

  1. Warren, I see you now are being labeled “populist.” (“His populist economic message features. . . “)

    Your story is difficult to tell in the give-and-take of a debate, simply because Americans subscribe to the “too good to be true” philosophy. Eliminating the payroll tax, while maintaining Social Security falls into that description.

    One way to get past that philosophy is to tell the people, “The single most important change in the U.S. economy happened in 1971, a change which politicians have not yet grasped: The U.S. went off the gold standard. Here is why and here is what changed: [ quick list of changes] . . Ask my opponents how their suggestions today differ from what they would have been while we were on a gold standard, and they will not know.

    “Why. Because they are politicians. They do not understand economics. Yet, they wish you to send them to Washington, where they repeatedly will make decisions affecting our economy. They still submit obsolete gold-standard ideas for our non-gold standard economy. And that is why we have a stubborn recession today, and also one of the reasons we have had a recession every five years on average.”

    Your opponents will try to position you as a pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic, spender who will cause inflation. You have to position them as completely out of touch with the changes in our economy that occurred in 1971. Keep asking them, “How is your belief different from what it would have been when we were on the gold standard.?”

    If you hammer, hammer, hammer on how the economic world changed in 1971, and economists still haven’t caught up, you can position the terms of the debate, position yourself as the one guy who understands today’s economy, and position your opponents up as hopelessly out-of-date politicians, who will continue with the same old failed policies of yesterday.

    Liberals: Out-of-date tax and spend
    Conservatives: Out-of-date cut taxes but cut spending, too.

    In advertising, we called that “positioning.” Your opponents are out-of-date. What is your image? In a few words, what is your position? If it were me, I probably would say something like, “My opponents are stuck in the past. The world changed way back in 1971, when we went off the gold standard, and they didn’t change with it. Their ideas are 1971 ideas. Their decisions will be 1971 decisions. And they will continue to give us a recession every five years. I understand today’s economy. I can lead us out of this mess, with new ideas. Old ideas simply don’t work. I offer you new ideas for our new economy.”

    Good luck.

    Rodger

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s