Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which 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.


Many of you have faced this political problem: Do you agree with the boss when you know the boss is dead wrong? Do you not merely agree, but speak earnestly in favor of the boss’s wrong ideas, knowing those ideas will lead to economic disaster?

And if you do the political thing, and agree and fight for the boss’s wrong ideas, and the disaster occurs, who is to blame? And what does that make you?

Washington Post
Romney’s tongue-tied eloquence
By Fareed Zakaria, Published: September 26, 2012

Peggy Noonan eloquently voiced what many conservatives believe when she said that Romney’s campaign has been a “rolling calamity.” And yet, shouldn’t it puzzle us that Romney is so “incompetent” (also from Noonan), given his deserved reputation for, well, competence?

He founded one of this country’s most successful financial firms, turned around the flailing Salt Lake City Olympics and was a successful governor. How did he get so clumsy so fast?

In fact, the problem is not Romney but the new Republican Party. Given the direction in which it has moved and the pressures from its most extreme — yet most powerful — elements, any nominee would face the same challenge: Can you be a serious candidate for the general election while not outraging the Republican base?

Why won’t Romney, an intelligent man, fluent in economics, explain his economic policy? Because any sensible answer would cause a firestorm in his party. It is obvious that, with a deficit at 8 percent of gross domestic product, any solution to our budgetary problems has to involve both spending cuts and tax increases.

Here, Mr. Zakaria flies wildly off track. Spending cuts and tax increases are absolutely, positively guaranteed to lead to recessions and depressions. It’s a mathematical certainty, as expressed in the formula readers of this blog know so well:

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

But there is something more fundamental at work. Apparently, Romney knows his Republican base is wrong, and he knows that decisions agreeing with that base will adversely affect America. So, what should he do? Agree with the base, hoping to be elected, knowing he will destroy our economy? Or disagree with the base, not get elected, and possibly save America?

Our soldiers make an even more extreme form of that decision: Bravely stand and fight and possibly die saving your platoon, or like a coward, run away to save yourself, assuring that the rest of your platoon will die?

Is the personal glory of the Presidency worth hurting America?

Ronald Reagan agreed to tax increases when the deficit hit 4 percent of GDP; George H.W. Bush did so when the deficit was 3 percent of GDP. But today’s Republican Party is organized around the proposition that, no matter the circumstances, there must never be a tax increase of any kind.

The Simpson-Bowles proposal calls for $1 of tax increases for every $3 of spending cuts. But every Republican presidential candidate — including Romney — pledged during the primaries that he or she would not accept $10 of spending cuts if that meant a dollar of tax increases.

Just a reminder that taxes reduce the “Non-federal Spending” part of the above equation, and thereby reduce GDP growth. So the no-tax-increases pledge is a good idea. The bad part of the idea is that cuts in Federal Spending reduce GDP growth. Simple mathematics dictates that tax increases economically are identical with spending decreases — both reduce GDP growth.

So Romney could present a serious economic plan with numbers that make sense — and then face a revolt within his own party. His solution: to be utterly vague about how he would deal with the deficit. Were he to get specific, he would be committing ideological blasphemy. So instead he talks about freedom and capitalism.

Said another way: Romney could tell the truth, save America, and possibly doom his own ambition to become President. Or he can, as he has, agreed with the Republican base, enhancing his personal ambition, but dooming America’s future.

He has chosen his route. What does that say about him?

Romney’s own inclinations are obvious. In 2002, he refused to take Grover Norquist’s “no tax” pledge. But by 2006, the ground had shifted and he raced to become the first presidential candidate to commit to it.

One of numerous Romney flip-flops, trying to “agree with the boss” to the detriment of America.

The same pattern has emerged on immigration. On ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Republican strategist Nicolle Wallace urged Romney to reach out to Hispanics by reminding them of Obama’s poor record on immigration reform. Except that the Republican Party is now strongly opposed to a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Romney has curried favor within the party by opposing the Dream Act, supporting Arizona’s harsh law under which police check people’s immigration status at will and proposing “self-deportation” as a way to get rid of undocumented immigrants. As with the deficit, he has a plan — but it’s secret.

Romney has tried to run a campaign while not running afoul of his party’s strictures. As a result, he has twisted himself into a pretzel, speaking vacuously, avoiding specifics and refusing to provide any serious plans for the most important issues of the day.

Here is a man who even disavowed his own signature political achievement — “Romneycare” — just to curry favor with the Republican political base.

Ironically, Romney already “ran afoul of his party’s strictures” — at least somewhat. The Republican base really wanted a nutcase like Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich. The base was cool on Romney. But, even after winning the nomination, he caved to the pressure, and went along with what this “intelligent man, fluent in economics” (according to Zakaria) knew was wrong. His personal ambition exceeded his patriotism. Romney first; America second.

To be awarded with the Presidency of the United States, and all that position’s powers and honors, you should at least display the courage of our fighting men and women — people who die for what they believe, and are not rewarded with the powers and honors of the Presidency. You will be expected to make difficult and correct decisions, each of which will have massive effect, not just on your platoon, but on the entire United States — indeed, the entire world.

What kind of leader will you be if you lack the competence and courage to stand up for what you believe is right, and against what you believe is wrong? Why would you accept the rewards of a leadership that requires you to send your people over a cliff?

For the sake of personal ambition, Romney has sold his soul to the devil. After the election, what will he see when he looks in the mirror?

Wanted for President of the United States: Competence and Courage. No Cowards Need Apply.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

P.S. Please: Spare me the “Obama is just as bad” comments. He isn’t.


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’s 99%

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