There were times when I thought Donald Trump was politically suicidal with his public philandering, his easily disproved lies, his blatant ignorance, his financial profiting from the Presidency, his nepotism, his sucking up to communists, and on and on.
But apparently, his “religious” followers admire philandering, lying, ignorance, criminal profiting, nepotism, communism, etc. So Trump survives.
Lately, I have realized that it is the Democrats who are politically suicidal. The Democrats have the marvelous ability to take a good idea, a popular idea — health care for everyone — and muck it up into a barely recognizable mess, until they now are on the defensive about something that should be a lay-down winner for them.
As readers of this blog well know: The federal government’s finances are not like state and local governments’ finances.
Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government (can) produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on (borrowing) to remain operational.”
Unlike state and local governments:
- The federal government has a sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar, over which it has total control.
- The federal government cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency.
- The federal government neither needs nor uses tax dollars.
- The federal government does not borrow.
Those four, simple truths are absolutely basic to economics. Yet they seem not to be understood by the vast majority of Americans, even including media writers and university economists — and especially not understood by the legions of Democrats chasing glory via the Presidency.
The following article demonstrates the Democrats’ suicidal ignorance:
Sanders admits he would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for programs
Kadia TubmanReporter,Yahoo News•June 27, 2019
Sen. Bernie Sanders, challenged at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate on how he would pay for universal health care and his other proposed programs, admitted income taxes on the middle class would have to go up — but maintained that the savings in medical expenses would more than offset the tax hike.
Sanders, who took the first question from NBC correspondent Savannah Guthrie, talked about his Medicare for All proposal for his allotted minute.
But when Guthrie followed up and pressed him about taxes on the middle class, he conceded, “Yes, they will pay more in taxes.”
If Sanders’s version (or any other candidate’s version) of Medicare for All were proposed by a state governor or a city mayor, the above answer would be correct. Additional taxes would be needed to pay the cost of the medical services.
But apparently, neither Sanders nor any other candidate (nor any Republican, for that matter) knows or admits to knowing that federal finances are completely, totally, 180 degrees different from state and city finances.
The federal government uniquely has total control over the U.S. dollar, cannot unintentionally run short of dollars, neither needs nor uses tax dollars, and does not borrow.
The U.S. federal government could finance even the most liberal, generous version of Medicare for All, at the tap of a computer key. No tax dollars involved.
Sanders said, “Health care in my view is a human right and we have got to pass a Medicare for All single-payer system. “Under that system, [the] vast majority of the people in this country will be paying significantly less for health care than they are right now.”
Not only is health care a “human right,” but it is an economic imperative for any nation hoping to compete and grow — certainly as much an imperative as military defense and effective government.
Yet there is Sanders, essentially hat in hand, pleading for universal health care on the basis of cost savings, when in reality cost is not a real issue. It is a fake issue put forth either in ignorance or in malicious intent, depending on one’s politics.
Quite simply, there is no financial reason why any American should be forced to pay one cent for health care insurance — either via taxes or via premium payments.
And if after all these months of researching and developing his Medicare for All plans, Sanders still has not learned this, he is mentally unfit to be left alone with a sharp object.
But it continues. Sanders also said:
“I believe that education is the future for this country and that is why I believe we must make public colleges and universities tuition-free and eliminate student debt, and we do that by placing a tax on Wall Street.”
“Every proposal that I have brought forth is fully paid for.”
Sanders believes (!) education is the future for this county? He believes so? What a relief that he believes something so obvious, that American states, counties, and cities have been funding elementary, high school, and even some college education, for centuries.
Unfortunately, states, counties, and cities are not Monetarily Sovereign, so they must have some form of income (taxes, fees, tourism, borrowing, etc.) in order to spend.
The federal government, being unique, is not similarly constrained. Yet Sanders, a federal politician, doesn’t recognize this difference. Tragic.
Sanders babbled on:
“People who have health care under Medicare for All will have no premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out of pocket expenses. Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.”
Then the Yahoo News reporter added her dollop of economic ignorance by quoting the Associated Press:
Still, taxes would significantly increase as “the government takes on trillions of dollars in health care costs now covered by employers and individuals, the Associated Press fact-checked.
“Independent studies estimate the government would be spending an additional $28 trillion to $36 trillion over 10 years, although Medicare for All supporters say that’s overstating it.
How those tax increases would be divvied up remains to be seen, as Sanders has not released a blueprint for how to finance his plan.
Note how the media automatically and wrongly translate “spending an additional $28 trillion to $36 trillion” into “tax increases.”
(Does that also mean federal tax cuts require federal spending cuts?)
There is zero relationship between federal spending and taxes. Again, the pretense is that federal finances are like state and local finances, where spending is funded by taxes.
Sen. Michael Bennet, who was the last candidate to earn a spot on the debate stage, took a shot at Sanders on taxes.
Bennet said he believed in getting to universal health care. “I believe the way to do that is by finishing the work we started with Obamacare and creating a public option that every family and every person in America can make a choice for their family about whether they want a public option which for them would be like having Medicare for All or whether they want to keep their private insurance. I believe we will get there much more quickly if we do that.”
“Bernie mentioned the taxes that we would have to pay, because of those taxes, Vermont rejected Medicare for All,” he added. Sanders shook his head in response.
If by “public option” Bennet means people should be given the choice between free, comprehensive, no deductible Medicare and long-term care vs. paying for private insurance, sure. Why not? That is exactly the choice people should be given.
Of course, the result is a given. Perhaps a dozen people in America would choose to pay for private insurance.
But then, the Democrats’ stupidity continues:
When asked which candidates would abolish private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan, only Sanders and Harris raised their hands.
Since the words “abolish private health care insurance” instantly click the insanity button in America, two Democrats dive right in and say, “Yes, that is what we would do.”
“Everybody who says Medicare for All, every person in politics who allows that phrase to escape their lips has a responsibility to explain how you’re actually supposed to get from here to there,” said South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
“I would call it Medicare for All Who Want It.”
Buttigieg said he would take parts of Medicare and give people an option to buy into it, providing “a very natural glide path to the single-payer environment.”
“Parts of Medicare”? Which parts would you leave out? Even Medicare itself is insufficient.
It has deductibles and partial payments, which are why many people pay for Medicare Supplement insurance. And it doesn’t cover pharmaceuticals, which is why people pay for Part D coverage.
And don’t even mention long-term care coverage, which Medicare doesn’t provide, and which even frightfully expensive private insurance covers only partially.
So add Buttigieg to the list of politicians who either don’t know what they are talking about or don’t want to give you the facts.
Bottom line, the federal government has the unlimited power to pay for comprehensive, no deductible health care insurance, including pharmaceuticals and long term care — and it can do so by pressing a computer key.
This whole charade results from the mean-spirited, selfishness of Gap Psychology (see: https://mythfighter.com/2018/04/06/how-does-gap-psychology-affect-you/) combined with flat-out ignorance of federal finances, and you, the public, are the patsies.
Cost is not the issue. Coverage is the issue — the only issue.
Even if you have no background in economics you should realize that federal spending is not funded by taxes. Didn’t the GOP massively cut taxes on the rich while increasing federal spending. That alone should have given you a clue.
Sorry folks, but ignorance has its penalties. Pay up.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)
The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.