The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
Here are some excerpts from an article titled, “Economic policy that’s stuck in reverse,” by Senator Jeff Sessions
Monday, January 24, 2011
As record levels of federal spending bring us ever closer to a tipping point, the Obama administration blissfully continues business as usual. We have seen no real plan, no strong leadership, no apparent willingness to confront the growing danger on the horizon.
At no point in his article does Senator Sessions say exactly what that “tipping point” or the “danger on the horizon” is. Will the federal government run out of money? Will we have uncontrollable inflation? Will taxes be forced up? The Senator never says, perhaps because the answer to all three questions is a resounding, “No.” Or perhaps because Senator Sessions has no idea what the answer is, and enjoys using scare words.
Last month, President Obama would agree to maintain current tax rates only if Congress would agree to increase federal deficit spending. We are headed toward a cliff, yet the president hits the accelerator.
Again, no explanation of “the cliff.” Does he mean he economic accelerator, the last thing the party not in power ever wants?
Meanwhile, others are moving in the opposite direction. England has a plan to cut its deficit by 86 percent in just four years. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has a plan to close his state’s funding gap without raising taxes. Even California’s new liberal governor has put forward a plan to cut state spending by 9 percent.
Here Senator Sessions demonstrates he does not understand the implications of Monetary Sovereignty. New Jersey and California are not monetarily sovereign, so cannot survive on tax money alone. They need to reduce spending or increase taxes. England is Monetarily Sovereign, but their politicians know as little about economics as do our politicians. If England ever were to reduce its deficit by 85%, they will have a recession or depression. (Worldwide, the nation with the smartest economists and politicians may be Monetarily Sovereign China, which so far has shown no fear of deficits, and thus has had the fastest recovery.)
Just days ago, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan ominously warned that U.S. debt may lead to a bond market crisis in two to three years.
Reminder to Senator Sessions: This is the same Alan Greenspan, under whose financial leadership, the nation went into the worst recession since the Great Depression. He has no credibility, nor do the people who quote him. Imagine a Fed chairman who is unaware the U.S. federal government does not need to create T-securities out of thin air, because it already has the power to create dollars out of thin air.
A debt crisis continues to spread through Europe that could reach our financial markets any moment. Now is the time to act. Yet the president continues to resist any meaningful steps to secure our financial future.
Specifically what has the European monetarily non-sovereign debt crisis to do with U.S. budgets? How will reducing our budgets stave off the European debt crisis? Senator Sessions never says, because presumably he has no idea.
To begin turning the corner, I propose that any effort to raise the debt ceiling be tied to no less than a sustained 10 percent reduction of current discretionary spending. Though this is only a first step, it would finally be a step in the right direction – one the country can easily absorb.
A “reduction in spending” is a synonym for a “reduction in money creation,” which invariably has led to recessions and depressions. See: Growth summary. Senator Sessions doesn’t read history. But, O.K., he has me sold. Let’s start with cutting Congressional salaries and perks. Let’s eliminate Congressional health insurance, and let those folks pay for it themselves. No more “fact-finding” junkets to warm climates in winter. Reasonable, Senator?
On Tuesday, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address. Soon after, he will come forward with a new budget. This is a defining moment for his presidency. His proposals cannot be timid. And he must demonstrate that he is at last willing to shed his Keynesian worldview.
Guarantee: Senator Sessions has no idea what a “Keynsian worldview” is. But it makes him sound learned.
As we enter the annual budget season, Washington will need to consider the kind of change this country has not accomplished since 1997 – when a strong Republican Congress passed a budget that converted soaring deficits into surpluses.
Hmm. Wasn’t it a Republican president named Reagan, who instituted our greatest post-war deficits? And is he really taking credit for the Democratic Clinton surpluses, which caused the Republican Bush recession? Ah, details, details.
We need a budget with a bold vision – like those unveiled in Britain and New Jersey; one that reduces both the size of the deficit and the size of the government. We need a budget that does not require tax increases as the price for spending cuts – because while the spending cuts may disappear, the economic drain of higher taxes will not. And we need a budget that turns us back from the cliff so we can head down a new road – toward leaner government, responsible spending and a thriving private sector.
Again, the cliff? What is that cliff? Will we ever be told? Probably not. Anyway, what we really need is Congressional leaders who understand economics, so we wouldn’t continue to average one recession every five years. Is that too much to hope for, at least from the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee?
By the way, I recently was interviewed on radio station WNZF by Abby Romaine. Click this link to hear the show: Radio Interview
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity.
3 thoughts on “–Economic policy that’s stuck in reverse, by Senator Jeff Sessions”
Great Radio interview! It sounds like the host did some prep before your call, and was interested in your point of view….how did you get her to do this?
I’m going to listen to it multiple times (go to school on it) and try to get in a call to my local talk radio here in DC/Baltimore!
I received this unsolicited note from Scott C. Mackenzie:
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) said, “I will not support (budget cutting) initiatives that will leave our military less capable and less ready to fight.” Emphasizing that U.S. forces “stand at a critical juncture in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he declared: “I will not support any measures that stress our forces and jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform. I will also oppose any plans that have the potential to damage or endanger our national security.”
Add this to your, “Cut-federal-spending-except-where-I-like-federal-spending” file. O.K., so the military is immune. Next stop: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Cut them if you dare.
Attention debt hawks: Starting to feel a little tight around the collar, as the realities sink in?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell