–Chicago Tribune says: Supreme Court, Congress, White House and Military projected to run out of money.

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. 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.
==========================================================================================================================================
Here are excerpts from a 4/24/12, Chicago Tribune editorial titled, “Profiles in Failure.”

As Democrats and Republicans in Washington perpetually trade blame for our deteriorating federal finances, the Supreme Court has moved three years closer to emptying its trust fund. Mark that on your calendar for 2033, not the 2036 proclaimed only a year ago.

Congress also is on life support. The legislative branch is expected to spend its last dollar in 2024. That’s . . . five years sooner than . . . projected as recently as 2010.

A year ago, trustees warned that the White House and also the military would be out of money by 2018. As of Monday, that date is 2016.

Shocking, isn’t it. Four federal agencies — the Supreme Court, Congress, the White House and the Military, all doomed to run out of money within the near future. Doesn’t seem possible, especially considering that the U.S. government has the unlimited ability to create dollars, and never, ever, ever can be unable to pay any bills of any size.

So how can agencies of the federal government run out of money?

Well, they can’t. No agency of the federal government can run out of money unless the government wills it. Confession: I modified the Tribune’s editorial. It really reads:

As Democrats and Republicans in Washington perpetually trade blame for our deteriorating federal finances, Social Security has moved three years closer to emptying its trust fund. Mark that on your calendar for 2033, not the 2036 proclaimed only a year ago.

Medicare also is on life support. The hospital insurance program for seniors is expected to spend its last dollar in 2024. That’s . . . five years sooner than . . . projected as recently as 2010.

A year ago, trustees warned that Social Security’s disability insurance fund would be out of money by 2018. As of Monday, that date is 2016.

The point is: The Supreme Court, Congress, the White House, the Military, Social Security and Medicare all are agencies of the federal government. None can be unable to pay their bills, unless Congress willfully cuts payments. All federal agencies’s bills are paid by the Treasury.

The Supreme Court, Congress, the White House, the Military do not have a special FICA-like tax to support them. They have no special tax at all. Yet miraculously, they do not go bankrupt. How can this be? No income; lots of bills to pay; and still they survive, year after year. How do they do it?

Simple. Taxes do not pay for federal spending. Unlike you and me, unlike state and local governments, unlike businesses, our Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not need a source of dollars with which to pay its bills.

I receive Social Security benefits. On the 4th Wednesday of every month, the number in my checking account suddenly is a couple thousand higher than it was the day before. How? The U.S. Treasury sent instructions (not dollars) to my bank, to raise the number in my account. My bank did as instructed and voila, my checking account is higher.

That is exactly the same way the federal government pays all of the bills for the Supreme Court, Congress, the White House, the Military and Medicare. It just sends instructions to increase numbers in accounts — which it can do endlessly.

If I sent a legitimate invoice to the federal government for $100 trillion, the government would instruct my bank to raise the number in my checking account by 100 trillion, and my bank would obey. Literally speaking, the government would not have sent me a hundred trillion dollars. It would have instructed my bank to increase the numbers in my account by a hundred trillion.

Again, literally speaking, my checking account does not and would not “contain” any dollars at all. It merely would show an accounting balance that reads 100,000,000,000,000.

Even though my account at my bank supposedly contained $100 trillion, my bank could not show me those hundred trillion dollars. They could assure me the dollars are in my account, and they could show me statements to that effect, but they could not show me the dollars that supposedly are in my account. In fact, they couldn’t show me any dollars at all. Dollars are invisible, non-physical accounting notations.

The point is, my revised version of the Tribune editorial, and the Tribune editorial itself, both are total bullsh*t. The only way the federal government could run short of dollars is for mathematics to run short of numbers. That’s all dollars are: Numbers in accounts.

The Social Security and Medicare “crises” are monstrous lies. They are inventions that do nothing but increase the income gap between the 1% and the 99%, by cutting payments to the 99%.

If Congress wished it, tomorrow the Treasury could add several trillion to the numbers in the Social Security and Medicare “trust funds,” simply by instructing changes in accounting balances. Why does the Tribune, along with virtually all other media, not understand this basic truth?

I don’t know. Bruce Dold, the Editorial Page Editor, and I have corresponded many times. He keeps thanking me (politely) for my information, then publishes yet another, amazingly wrong-headed editorial.

One thing Bruce refuses to do is justify his position with facts. He doesn’t argue. He doesn’t tell me why I’m wrong. He just thanks me. Sometimes he tells me he’s looked into it, and hasn’t changed his opinion. But always, politely.

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

9 thoughts on “–Chicago Tribune says: Supreme Court, Congress, White House and Military projected to run out of money.

  1. I don’t know. Bruce Dold, the Editorial Page Editor, and I have corresponded many times. He keeps thanking me (politely) for my information, then publishes yet another, amazingly wrong-headed editorial.

    “it is very difficult to explain something to someone who’s pay check depends on not understanding”

    Like

  2. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell today announced that next season, the NFL would instruct its scoreboard operators to honor every touchdown, extra, point, field goal and safety… with no limit.

    Immediately players and coaches revolted saying that such a policy would be sure to lead to a devaluation of points. Fans agree and fully expect a lack-luster season full of unmotivated players.

    Does this seem right?

    If the NFL decided to cap its points awarding, where eventually there would be no reward for scoring a touchdown, only then would the play become lackluster and unmotivated.

    Like

    1. Yes, I give credit to Warren Mosler for creating the scoreboard analogy, which should be pretty clear to anyone with a brain.

      Unfortunately, the fact that the federal government is the scoreboard, while you and I are the players, seems confusing to many people.

      Like

      1. It seems so clear. Now if the scoreboard decided to award 10 points every time the Broncos ran a running play and decided to take 2 points away every time the Cowboys substituted a player, then you’d have the makings of a ridiculously unfair and unsustainable system. Oh wait, that’s kind of the rules we’re playing by now, isn’t it?

        Like

  3. If you really want to create glassy-eyed stares, try explaining to a listener that the government never sends dollars to anyone. Because dollars have no physical existence, they cannot be “sent,” though that is a common shorthand term.

    Similarly, football points can’t be sent.

    What really happens is the government instructs banks to increase the numbers in bank accounts. They send instructions, not dollars. Similarly, the football officials send instructions to the scoreboard operator to increase the points.

    Further complication: You and I also send instructions, not dollars, but our problem occurs during the clearing phase. If we send too many instructions, our instructions may not clear.

    The federal government’s instructions always clear.

    By now, your listener is foaming at the mouth, so be careful. I may do another, entire post on this

    Like

  4. RMM,

    I understand your frustration. As I’ve come to understand Monetary Sovereignty, all of our news media and politicians seem so clueless. I like to compared it to when people believed the Earth was flat. The evidence and the logic is right “there” to see… but people don’t see it.

    I came across Modern Money last year during the debt ceiling debacle. I kept wondering “What’s going on here? Can’t the government just print money? Something about this doesn’t make sense.” I started googling those thoughts and that led me to Cullen Roche’s MMT primer (now MMR). And the rest is history.

    Keep up the good work.

    Like

  5. Thank you Rodger for this up to the minute explanation relating to the Social Security doomsayers. Like many others I am sure that Richard Escow (OurFuture.Org) to whom I alluded to earlier with his “…since Social Security is forbidden by law from contributing to the deficit, it’s absurd to connect its financing to discussions of the Federal debt”, has absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of monetary sovereignty. Like you I receive the benefits of those “instructions” on a monthly basis and for years have questioned the very existence of a “trust fund”. Kind regards.

    Like

Leave a reply to JK Cancel reply