–How President Obama should deal with filibusters:

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================
It seems we have come to the point where every time a President and his party want to accomplish something, the other party (not wanting the President to receive credit for anything good coming to America) decides to filibuster — and to hell with the nation. So much for patriotism.

I feel sure our founding fathers did not want one Senator to be more powerful than the President of the United States, and one party repeatedly to obstruct the work of Congress, though seemingly the Senate party chiefs favor that outcome.

Here’s what the New York Times says:

NY TIMES EDITORIAL: Filibustering Nominees Must End
Published: January 28, 2012

The system for reviewing presidential appointments is broken. The process has been hijacked by cynical partisanship and cheap tricks.

This is not a new problem, but it has gotten intolerably worse and is now threatening to paralyze government, as Republicans use the filibuster to try to kill off agencies they do not like. The number of unfilled judicial seats is nearing a historic high.

It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators. We agree with President Obama’s call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days.

This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly. The filibuster has sometimes been the only way to deny life terms on the federal bench to extremist or unqualified judges. But the paralysis has become so dire that we see no other solution.

Today, 18 judicial nominees wait for Senate votes even though they were approved by the Judiciary Committee, 16 unanimously. It can take a year for a nominee to receive a vote, an extraordinary hardship — since many cannot work while they wait — that threatens to reduce the pool of highly qualified candidates.

Goodwin Liu, a liberal law professor nominated last year to an appellate bench, was filibustered even though he was entirely in the legal mainstream, supported by conservatives including Kenneth Starr and Clint Bolick. His offense: He once dared to criticize Justice Samuel Alito Jr. as being too conservative.

It is not just judicial appointments that are frozen. When Congress created a vitally needed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the financial reform law, Republicans in the Senate decided to block confirmation of a chief so the agency could not exercise its full regulatory powers.

Senators also use filibusters to block nonpolitical positions, like the administrator of the General Services Administration — to demand passage of a pet project, out of pique or, most troubling, as part of the Republicans’ electoral strategy to block anything Mr. Obama wants.

The nation votes for a president, who needs to be able to appoint top officials and judges. The Senate needs to decide whether to give its consent or not. Voters could then watch and reach their own judgments. And with fewer vacancies, government and the judiciary could do the nation’s work.

I like to advise President Obama about his speeches, though there is no evidence he is aware of my existence, much less my advice. But, for better or worse, here is the “filibuster” speech I suggest for President Obama:

Let them filibuster. Let them filibuster a day, a week, a month. Let them filibuster until the November elections at which time you voters will let these fools know what you think of obstructionist Senators, who don’t give a damn about governing or what’s best for America, but care only about political gamesmanship and personal power politics.

Your Senators were sent here by you, and paid to accomplish something, to help protect you and build America. You didn’t send them here to sit on their butts and collect pay, perks and pensions, while one party member reads from the telephone book.

So, I’m just going to propose what I believe is best for America, and let the bastards filibuster. Each day I’ll remind you who’s stopping America’s business, and what their motive is. Then, when they get home, they can answer to you.”

That might work. What do you think? Meanwhile, I award three Benedict Arnolds to all those Senators who have filibustered, and will filibuster, not to protect America, but to advance a selfish political agenda.

Unpatriotic flagUnpatriotic flagUnpatriotic flag

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The President’s prayer for the November election . . .

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================
I’ll be on vacation the next couple of days, so I thought I’d leave you with this from my imagination and belief:

. . . and please, please, let it be Newt.

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Dr. Bernanke: “I’m puzzled. I keep drawing blood from the patient, but he hardly improves at all.”

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

O.K., that’s not a real quote from Mr. Bernanke, but it should be. He keeps doing exactly the opposite of what is needed to grow the economy, and when the economy doesn’t grow much, he does the same thing, even more so.

Let’s keep it in language simple enough even for politicians:

1. Adding money to the economy stimulates it; taking money from the economy slows it.

2. High interest rates force the federal government to pay more interest on its bonds, notes and bills. Low interest rates allow the federal government to pay less interest.

3. Government interest payments go into the economy (except for foreign payments). This enriches and stimulates the economy. Low interest rates provide less money, so enrich and stimulate less than do high rates.

And this is why, contrary to popular myth, low interest rates do not, can not and never will grow the economy. If you own any T-securities, you understand that the government pays you less when rates are low, which gives you less money to spend. (As my grandson would say, “Well, duhhh!”)

Fed says no rate hikes until at least late 2014
Reuters, By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Reserve on Wednesday said it will not raise interest rates until at least late 2014, even later than investors expected, in an effort to support a sluggish economic recovery. Without making major shifts to its outlook for the economy, the central bank described the unemployment rate as still elevated and said it expects inflation to remain at levels consistent with stable prices.

It depicted business investment as having slowed, dowgrading its assessment from the December meeting. Economic conditions “are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014,” the central bank said in a statement.

If the Fed can convince financial markets it will be on hold longer than they had anticipated, long-term interest rates could drop as investors price in the new information. There is also the possibility that officials will announce an explicit inflation target, perhaps a hard marker of 2 percent or a range of 2 percent or a bit below.
.
Fed officials appear likely to bide their time in determining whether more monetary stimulus is needed. Many economists expect they will eventually decide on another spurt of Fed bond buying – probably one focused on mortgage debt.

In response to the deepest recession in generations, the Fed slashed the overnight federal funds rate to near zero in December 2008. It has also more than tripled the size of its balance sheet to around $2.9 trillion through two separate bond purchase programs. The policy is credited with having prevented an even more devastating downturn, but it has been insufficient to bring unemployment down to levels considered normal during good economic times.

In December, the U.S. jobless rate stood at 8.5 percent, and some 13 million Americans were still actively looking for work but could not find it.

In short, the Fed’s low-rate policy reduces the federal deficit, which in turn, reduces economic growth.

One might ask how the Fed could not understand this basic truth. While I try to answer many questions about our economy, that is one question for which I have no answer.

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–As a voter, do you want honesty or someone who only will say what he thinks you want to hear?

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

President Obama’s State of the Union speech told of the many federal spending initiatives and tax cuts he wants. Very impressive. The entire talk might be summarized in this single, 20-second excerpt, from smack dab in the middle:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion.

That exercise in fantasy leaves us with three questions:

1. How is it possible to cut taxes and increase spending, while cutting the deficit? The President’s answer: Increase taxes on millionaires. Puleeeze! You could tax millionaires 100%, and you still wouldn’t get to $2 trillion, especially with the huge tax cuts on American industry and the federal spending projects he proposes.

2. Why should a Monetarily Sovereign nation, with the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, need to, or want to, reduce the life-blood of its economy: Money? What harm has the increase in the money supply (misnamed, the “deficit”) been causing?

3. How will cutting the deficit stimulate employment? There is no known mechanism by which a reduction in the money supply can grow the economy, improve business and increase employment.

So the speech was the usual assemblage of platitudes about the innate greatness of Americans (all of whom are descended from foreigners) and the wonder of America, and our manifest destiny to lead the world and set it free (despite the Patriot Act). The Democrats will be in awe and the Republicans will be in disgust. And the Tea Party . . . well does anyone really care about the Tea Party any more?

It brings to mind a fourth question:

4. When our leaders lie, exaggerate, misstate, cheat and otherwise tell us what we know simply could not be true, why do we calmly write it off as “politics.” Why aren’t we outraged? Why do we keep voting for the Obamas, the Gingrichs, and the Romneys of the world?

Is it simply that we Americans don’t want to hear the truth? Do we prefer to be lulled with fairy tales? Has it become impossible for an honest, intelligent, able, accomplished person to be elected?

If so, who is to blame?

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY