–Epic battle: The Chicago Tribune editors vs. The Chicago Tribune editors

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.

●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●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.


Today’s (7/10/12) Chicago Tribune published an editorial titled, “Irrelevant and irresponsible”. Here are a few excerpts. See whether you agree with the Tribune editors or with the Tribune editors.

The federal government is in the midst of serious fiscal crisis and hurtling toward a much worse one.

Translation: In Tribune-speak, “Serious financial crisis” means the federal deficit and/or debt (the Tribune often uses these terms interchangeably — and incorrectly) are too high, and therefore a bad thing.

On Monday, President Barack Obama propos(ed) to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, for everyone except those making $250,000 a year or more. It’s a step that would widen the federal budget deficit by $175 billion a year, compared with letting all the cuts expire.

Translation: “Widen the federal budget deficit” is a bad thing.

Not that extending some or all of the tax cuts at the end of 2012 is a bad idea. Barring such an extension, rates will go up and money will be sucked out of an economy that is already sluggish. The current slowdown might turn into an outright recession. This is not the time for a tax increase.

Translation: Widening the federal budget deficit is a good thing.

But neither is it a time to ignore the steadily growing fiscal hole we are digging. Any extension should be part of a broader package that includes concrete measures to bring down the long-term deficit.

Translation: Widening the budget deficit is a good thing today, but for the same reasons, it’s a bad thing tomorrow.

One of the few instances when both (parties) accepted needed sacrifice was in last year’s debt ceiling showdown. The resulting plan called for some $900 billion in specified spending cuts over a decade. A so-called congressional supercommittee was tasked with finding another $1.5 trillion in savings, and if it failed — which it did — the deal called for $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts roughly balanced between defense and non-defense programs.

Translation: The $900 billion called for sacrifice by the lower 99% income group, because widening the budget deficit is a bad thing.

Romney is promising to tear up the deal because of its impact on the military. The cuts would be large, and they would take a lot of discretion away from the Pentagon, which are two legitimate complaints.

Translation: Widening the budget deficit is a good (“legitimate”) thing.

(Romney’s) plan, says Cato Institute analyst Christopher Preble, would mean nearly $2.6 trillion in additional defense outlays over the next decade — making it 45 percent higher (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than it was under President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War. A defense buildup of that magnitude is politically unrealistic and financially unaffordable.

Translation: Widening the budget deficit is a bad thing, because our Monetarily Sovereign government, having the unlimited ability to create dollars, can’t create enough dollars, so can’t afford to service the deficit.

Sometime before we arrive at the fiscal cliff that looms at the end of the year — that’s Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s term for the simultaneous automatic spending cuts combined with across-the-board tax increases — politicians will have to stop playing chicken and actually reach a compromise on the difficult fiscal choices the country faces.

Not widening the budget deficit is a “fiscal cliff,” which is a bad thing. Politicians should stop playing chicken and both widen and not widen the budget deficit — i.e., jump off the “fiscal cliff” while not jumping off the “fiscal cliff.”

But so far, Obama and Romney are devoid of serious proposals, leaving businesses and individuals to guess what will happen. Their irrelevance and irresponsibility leave the U.S. economy hobbled by uncertainty.

Obama and Romney have chosen to dodge the issue. If they and their similarly feckless comrades in Congress persist down this dead-end path, the consequences of their reckless posturing will not be so easy to evade.

Translation: Budget deficits are a bad thing. Budget deficits are a good thing. Though the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars, it cannot afford to pay for deficits. We don’t know why the President and Congress don’t understand this simple concept.

Obama and Romney are “feckless,” because they don’t increase the deficit while decreasing the deficit, which the government both can and cannot afford.

Question: Why would an intelligent person take two diametrically opposing sides of the same issue.
Answer: If he is intelligent enough to realize what he is doing, then he must have a secret agenda.

Question: Are the Tribune editors intelligent?
Answer: Yes, I believe they are.

Question: Do the Tribune editors realize they they are taking two opposing sides of the same issue?
Answer: I have corresponded with Bruce Dold, the Editorial page editor, several times, and have discussed this very fact. He ignores it.

Question: Does Bruce Dold have a secret agenda?
Answer: It’s the only conclusion I can imagine.

Question: What is Bruce Dold’s and the Tribune’s agenda?
Answer: Most federal spending helps the lower 99% income group far more than it helps the upper 1%, and when all federal taxes are considered, the lower 99% pay a higher share of their income than do the upper 1%.

Therefore, debt reduction increases the gap between the 99% and the 1%. I believe that is the secret agenda of the Tribune, which is owned by members of the 1%.

Question: What will happen?
Answer: Ironically, the Tribune editorial was titled, “Irrelevant and irresponsible.” Because the Tribune editors — and most newspaper editors — behave irresponsibly, their papers are becoming irrelevant. Fact checking via the Internet has become so easy, that papers are less often regarded as infallible guardians of the Truth, and more often regarded as mouthpieces for the rich.

The public, not trusting the papers, is leaving in droves. Circulation is down and papers are going out of business.

It seems that if you are going to be lied to, you’d rather to receive your lies in a more entertaining manner (a la Fox News) than in the deary format, surrounded by comparatively obsolete news, the papers provide.

Newspapers have two choices; They can appeal to an audience that wants the facts. Or they can appeal to an audience that doesn’t care about facts, but prefers entertainment. Otherwise, I foresee a time when there are left only a handful of papers in the entire United States.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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


3 thoughts on “–Epic battle: The Chicago Tribune editors vs. The Chicago Tribune editors

    1. Right.

      Economics is tyrannized by the words, “debt” and “deficit,” which have wholly different implications for a Monetarily Sovereign nation versus private debt and deficits. That tyranny is the cause of our current poor economy.


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