–What a dilemma: Republican Senator demands federal spending — for his state.

Mitchell’s laws: To survive, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Reduced money growth cannot increase economic growth. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

Pulaski County Daily News: Blunt urges continued FEMA disaster recovery funding for Joplin tornado

By: Press Office of U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, Posted: Monday, August 29, 2011 11:43 pm
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Aug. 29, 2011) — U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Republican) released the following statement regarding the reallocation of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding in the wake of Hurricane Irene recovery efforts:

“My staff and I are regularly communicating with Joplin officials to make sure that they’re getting the immediate help they need. The federal government has committed resources to help Missouri communities recover from crippling flood and tornado damage, and I expect that commitment to be fulfilled expeditiously. Recovery from hurricane damage on the East Coast must not come at the expense of Missouri’s rebuilding efforts. If FEMA can’t fulfill its promise to our state because we have other disasters, that’s unacceptable, and we need to take a serious look at how our disaster response policies are funded and implemented.”

U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt serves as a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations as well as the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He currently serves as Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies and Ranking Member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion.

Well, this is something of a conundrum. Republican Senator Blunt rightly wants money for his Joplin people. And he rightly recognizes that the East Coast disaster will require billions in federal aid. And he rightly does not want money taken from Joplin and sent to the East Coast.

But he wrongly subscribes to the Tea/Republican myth that the federal debt and deficit are too high. So what’s a loyal Republican to do? Ah, troubles, troubles.

It will be interesting to see how the Tea/Republicans — the group that has hurt more Americans than al Qaeda — will solve this problem of their own making. Ultimately, bad plans lead to bad results, and in this case, Americans will continue to pay the price.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Obama appoints yet another debt-hawk to lead us to recession and depression

Mitchell’s laws: To survive, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Reduced money growth cannot increase economic growth. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
========================================================================================================================================================================================

The one truth about ignorance. It usually appoints more ignorance that agrees with it. Consider President Obama’s proposed new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Krueger:.

Shot at a Sane Budget
Washington Post, By ALAN B. KRUEGER, Published: April 16, 2011

PRESIDENT OBAMA has been criticized as too slow to engage in major debates and too timid to make difficult decisions.
[…]
In one important respect, however, Mr. Obama’s deficit speech disproves the caricature, and contains a bold, serious and timely proposal.

I’m not talking about the president’s plan to curb the growth rate of Medicare expenditures beyond what is already included in health care reform, or his renewed pledge to allow the Bush tax cuts on top income earners to expire — both of which will be difficult to achieve.

Krueger wants to cut Medicare and to increase taxes, and that will be “difficult to achieve.” What a shame.

An earlier version of the Medicare proposal was projected by the Congressional Budget Office to produce only modest savings, and we all know what happened the last time the top tax rates were held hostage to middle-class tax cuts.

“Only modest savings.” Another shame. Just what the people of America need: Big cuts in their Medicare. And yet another shame: . . . top tax rates “held hostage” to middle-class tax cuts. No reason to cut taxes for the working people, is there?

What I have in mind is his endorsement of a trigger that would automatically kick in to reduce spending and tax expenditures if Congress and the administration fail to bring the debt under control.

Mr. Obama described what he called a “debt fail-safe”: “If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy — if we haven’t hit our targets, if Congress has failed to act — then my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.

In essence, Mr. Obama proposed a rule that will enable us to get ahead of the long-run budget problem, and provide predictability and certainty to the federal budget.

To Krueger, “getting ahead of the problem” is to cut the federal budget, thereby providing “predictability and certainty” that we will have a recession if we are “lucky” and a depression if we are not.

The so-called pay-go rule in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 — which required increases in spending or decreases in revenue to be offset by other spending cuts or revenue increases — helped lead to the surpluses that arose in the late 1990s.

Er, ah, excuse me, Mr. Krueger, but didn’t those surpluses lead to the recession of 2000?

We’ve also run the experiment in reverse: After the pay-go rules expired in 2002, increased spending on programs like Medicare prescription drugs and two rounds of tax cuts caused the deficit to soar.

Er, ah, excuse me again, Mr. Krueger, but didn’t that increased deficit end the 2000 recession and lead to eight recession free years, GDP growth slowing only when the deficit began to decline and the real estate bubble burst? Details, details.

While pay-go rules are helpful in the current environment, they are not sufficient given the burden the approaching retirement of the baby boom generation and rising health care costs will place on the debt. We need a supercharged pay-go rule, and that is what the president proposed. Because politicians prefer discretion, it took courage to propose an automatic trigger.

Yes, a supercharged spending cut to create a supercharged recession. Who could argue with that?

The proposal goes beyond the trigger proposed in December by Mr. Obama’s fiscal commission, which affected only tax revenue and kicked in only if tax reform was not enacted. Mr. Obama’s plan would automatically reduce direct spending and spending through the tax code.

Of course, the devil in any trigger is in the details. A key issue involves exceptions: What categories of spending or taxing would be exempted from the trigger, and how large a majority would be required to override the trigger?

Another important issue concerns the ratio of spending cuts to tax revenue. The president proposed a ratio of $2 of direct spending cuts (excluding interest on the debt) to every additional dollar of tax revenue in his speech. The House speaker, John A. Boehner, and many other Republicans have objected to raising additional tax revenue. But the two sides may be closer to some type of agreement than is commonly believed; they seem to agree that around $4 trillion needs to be trimmed from the budget over the next 10 to 12 years, but not on how to do it.

Again those nasty details. Cutting the budget is a swell idea, except for the detail that this causes recessions and the other detail that it causes human hardship for whomever depends on federal spending – like poor people, sick people, unemployed people, and every other citizen of America – except the wealthiest of us.

Discretion is hard for politicians to give up — and briefly satisfying, as dieters know when they dig out those hidden chocolate bars. What will help over time to lessen our appetite for more debt is to remove the temptation, and expectation, that when it comes to the budget we can always spend more than we have.

“. . . more than we have.”??? Pray tell, Mr. Krueger, exactly how much does the federal government “have”? Lord save us. This man does not understand the very foundation of modern economics — the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty — and he will be Obama’s chief economics advisor!

Alan B. Krueger, served as Chief Economist at the United States Department of Labor, received his Bachelors degree from Cornell University’s School of Industrial Labor Relations, and in 1987 he received his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. .

All that economics education and so little economics understanding.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Lesson in double talk: The government is broke. To hell with Joplin and the South.

Mitchell’s laws: To survive, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Reduced money growth cannot increase economic growth. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

In the post titled: “Might Irene have a positive effect,” I wondered whether this disaster would bring Congress and the President to their senses, and begin a move away from the ridiculous, “small-government,” Tea/Republican, economic hypotheses.

Washington Post: FEMA, to pay for Irene damage, delays funds for rebuilding in tornado-ravaged areas: By Ed O’Keefe, Published: August 28

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is temporarily suspending some payments to rebuild roads, schools and other structures destroyed during spring tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Southern states and other recent natural disasters to pay for damage caused by Hurricane Irene.

Has our Monetarily Sovereign government – a government with the unlimited ability to pay any bills at any time – somehow run short of money? No. A Monetarily Sovereign government cannot run short of money.

But Congress, caring little for the human suffering in Joplin and the Southern states, prefers to cut off the funding these people so desperately need, rather than increase the federal deficit. Why? No reason. None at all.

Imagine a drowning person begging for a life line, and the Tea/Republicans refusing: “No, although I have an unlimited number of life lines, it is against my principles (and the 2012 election) to assist you unless I unnecessarily can steal a life line from some other drowning person.

With initial damage assessments from the storm potentially in the tens of billions of dollars, the Obama administration will need to request supplemental funding from Congress, possibly provoking another fight over federal spending as a new congressional “supercommittee” prepares to identify trillions of dollars in government spending cuts.

You remember the “supercommitte,” don’t you? That’s the group assigned to the task of applying leeches to cure the nation’s anemia. They will be judged on the amount of blood they can drain from this dying patient.

FEMA said Sunday it will still pay people eligible for individual storm assistance and some states recouping emergency response costs from previous disasters, but it will restrict payments for older, longer-term public rebuilding and mitigation projects to ensure the solvency of the federal disaster relief fund.

The decision affects projects tied to spring tornadoes and other disasters dating back several years and “prioritizes the immediate, urgent needs of survivors and states when preparing for or responding to a disaster,” said FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen.

If you owned a home in Joplin, now destroyed, I’m sure you won’t mind if the government takes care of the East coast, first. After all, they have priority, and the government is “broke.” How do I know? John Boehner said so.

Federal officials Sunday would not estimate how much Irene’s damage could cost, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said damage estimates “are going to be in the billions of dollars . . . if not the tens of billions of dollars.”

Christie and other governors credited Obama for quickly issuing emergency declarations for their states in advance of the storm to provide money for their response efforts and to allow FEMA officials to assist state and local leaders in initial damage assessments.

Say, what? Republican Governor Christie is glad to receive federal money?????

But the moves will further sap the federal disaster fund, which over the weekend had about $900 million, according to FEMA, less than the $1 billion officials prefer to keep on hand.

On Saturday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) called on the Senate to quickly pass the House GOP’s version of the annual Homeland Security spending measure, which includes $1 billion in additional money for the disaster fund this year and $2.65 billion for fiscal 2012.

Problem solved: The damage from Irene will be “in the billions of dollars . . . if not the tens of billions of dollars.” FEMA has $900 million and there is an additional $1 billion in the Homeland Security spending measure. Anyone see a problem, here?

The Obama administration “has let the fund reach critically low levels, putting continued recovery at risk, without a plan for the future or a clear method for dealing with new disasters,” Rogers said.

Let’s see now, the Republican House Appropriations Committee Chairman, perhaps the ultimate “cut-spending” guy is angry at Obama, for paying funds out of the disaster fund, when he should have (pick one):

1. Not paid for disaster relief and let the people suffer, or
2. Asked the Tea/Republicans for more money.

Sure.

Despite potential funding shortfalls, Obama said Sunday that the federal government would continue providing full assistance to affected states and cities.

“As I’ve told governors and mayors across the affected areas, if they need something, I want to know about it,” he said.

Huh?? Mr. President, didn’t I just read, at the beginning of this article, that FEMA will suspend “some payments to rebuild roads, schools and other structures destroyed during spring tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Southern states . . .” Did you forget so soon?

Ah, don’t you just love the political double talk when the reality of human need meets the obstinance of wrongheaded theory? America, wake up. These fools are stealing your lives and the lives of your children. The Tea/Republican’s “cut-deficit” effort is mean, misguided and harmful, and you are paying for their ignorance.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Hurricane Question of the Day

Mitchell’s laws: To survive, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Reduced money growth cannot increase economic growth. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

Hurricane question of the day:

Will Tea/Republican Congresspersons refuse

federal disaster money?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY