–Sucking Up: Has an Eminent Economist Sacrificed His Honor and Credibility to Grovel for a Job?

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

●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.


Your mind knows he is lying to you, but your heart hopes somewhere, buried in all the lies, rests a kernel of truth. That is the leeway you give to your favorite politician.

Your mind knows they have no plan, but your heart hopes somewhere in all the flipping and flopping there is hidden a secret proposal to save you. That is the permission you give to your favorite political party.

Your mind tells you the words say, in very plain English, they care nothing for you, and what they do will hurt you and your family. But you close your mind when listening to their speeches, and follow the hope in your heart. That is the free pass you give to politics.

If you are a Republican, the amazing lies heard from Republican speakers, especially from Paul Ryan, do not trouble you at all. “Just politics,” you say, “and anyway, Obama lies, too.”

So, when both Ryan and Romney pledge to “broaden the tax base,” a euphemism for “raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes on the rich,” you nod and smile. “Just politics. He doesn’t really mean that. Just politics. And anyway, Obama will do that, too.” “And anyway . . . And anyway . . . “

You repeatedly forgive the politicians, but your mind and your heart expect more from academics, who ostensibly are not running for office, and so, should be honest and dispassionate. And that is where reality enters the room:

Romney Adviser: Yes, We’re Going To Slash Taxes Without Increasing The Deficit
By Henry Blodget | Daily Ticker – Wed, Aug 29, 2012

Republican nominee Mitt Romney has not shared many specifics of his (economic) plan, but the basic outline has emerged: Romney wants to cut taxes radically across the board.

One of the big mysteries of Romney’s plan, meanwhile, is how he will manage to cut tax rates across the board without radically increasing the deficit. Romney economic advisor Glenn Hubbard . . . says Romney is committed to making his tax cuts “revenue neutral”–in other words, not leading to an increase in the deficit.

When I asked how this was possible, given the magnitude of the cuts (20% across the board on personal income taxes, along with a 10-point cut to corporate income taxes), Hubbard explained that the cuts would be offset by: Stronger economic growth, and “Broadening the base” of taxpayers (in other words, having poor and lower-middle-income Americans pay income tax.)

Earlier this year, the Tax Policy Center concluded that it would be impossible for Romney to cut income taxes across the board and make the cuts “revenue neutral” without also effectively increasing taxes on the lowest-income Americans.

Professor Hubbard maintains that Romney’s tax plan will not only accelerate economic growth–which it almost certainly would–but will do it without increasing the deficit and without changing the ratio of total taxes paid by any income group.

Using back-of-the-envelope math, this seems very hard to believe.

“Revenue neutral” means the government does not increase its deficit spending. Here is why “revenue neutral” absolutely forces a yearly reduction in Gross Domestic Product, leading to recession and depression:

The most common measure of an economy is Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is calculated like this:

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal spending – Net Imports.

So to accomplish a GDP growth of only $1, someone has to increase spending by at least $1 or Net Imports must decrease. But, if the federal government can’t spend that extra dollar (remember, it’s revenue neutral), the non-federal sector has no source for that additional dollar. While the non-federal sector can borrow, then repay, ultimately the federal government is the source of all dollars.

Ignoring for the moment, the disaster of “revenue neutral,” why would Hubbard, a respected economist, risk his reputation, credibility and his legacy by making such a ridiculous claim? According to Wikipedia, here are Hubbard’s credentials:

Hubbard received his B.A. and B.S. degrees summa cum laude from the University of Central Florida in 1979, and his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1983.

He is currently the Dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, where he is also Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics. Hubbard previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 1991 to 1993, and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors from 2001 to 2003. Hubbard is a Visiting Scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where he studies tax policy and health care.

Pretty impressive credentials, wouldn’t you say? So again, why would such an eminent scholar tell such an obvious lie, especially in his own field of expertise, economics? Here is a clue, again from Wikipedia:

He was tipped by some media outlets to be a candidate for the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve when Alan Greenspan retired, although he was not nominated for the position. In August 2012, Politico claimed Hubbard to be “a likely Romney appointee as Federal Reserve chairman or Treasury secretary

So you decide. Has Glenn Hubbard, the man of many degrees and honors, sold his soul to the devil, hoping it will bring him the honor of Fed Chairman or Treasury secretary? Like a boot-licking lackey, is he ready to say anything no matter how outrageous, to be appointed? Is he so desperate for a high level job, as to sacrifice his honor?

We forgive the Romneys and the Ryans of the world for lying to us. We already know they are scum.

But must we also forgive academics who display unrestrained, shameful, lying ambition, to grovel for jobs?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America

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 Imports


9 thoughts on “–Sucking Up: Has an Eminent Economist Sacrificed His Honor and Credibility to Grovel for a Job?

    1. The film “Inside Job” really drives home the point that these “economists” are bought and paid for by the power elite.


  1. Hubbard is an ideologue..plain and simple:
    He already “sold his soul”
    “We can have a bigger government, if that’s the public’s choice. It’ll just require higher taxes on every American.”
    “Do you want that,” he asked, “or do you want smaller government, smaller taxes?”…………..
    “a top Romney adviser who served as the chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.”……….


      1. I’ve called her out on her ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty in the past. Bought and paid for and “man worth talking to” Glenn Hubbard does the usual great snow-job that infers that we are a nation teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and that therefore government MUST BE SMALLER, all in one convenient soundbite. I’ve been following Warren Mosler’s commentary on “Demand Leakages” recently. Now there is an unassuming, intelligent and matter of fact guy.


  2. “But, if the federal government can’t spend that extra dollar (remember, it’s revenue neutral),”

    I think you’re confusing revenue with deficit. The plan says nothing about spending, and indeed Paul Krugman says that Romney’s plan will result in higher deficits than Obama’s plan, which would be good. And not unlike two of the past three Republican presidents whose higher deficits created goodlves reducing deductions economic growth after taking office during a recession.

    As for how to achieve revenue neutrality while lowering rates for everyone, it doesn’t require taxing the poor. Romney’s plan is only generally described, but it involves reducing deductions and credits, which are mainly used by the rich. He says it will not change the amount of tax paid by any income group, along with not changing the total amount of tax.

    You may not believe him, but he has not said anything thaat is internally contradictory.


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 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s