If you’re sick, who would you trust with your healthcare, Trump and Kennedy or medical professionals?

What happens when religious ignorance, bigotry, hatred and cruelty are in charge? What if the people who are being “protected” don’t want the government to make their medical decisions?

Trump administration moves to cut off transgender care for children The sweeping proposals include cutting off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children. They contradict the recommendations of major medical groups. By ALI SWENSON, MATTHEW PERRONE and DEVI SHASTRI

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday unveiled a series of regulatory actions designed to effectively ban gender-affirming care for minors, building on broader Trump administration restrictions on transgender Americans.

Trump and JFK Jr. with witches standing around a huge boiling pot. People are standing in the pot — **We don’t know any gay people — we don’t even like them — but John Kennedy and I know more than the doctors about what’s best for them.**

The sweeping proposals — the most significant moves this administration has taken so far to restrict the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical interventions for transgender children — include cutting off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children and prohibiting federal Medicaid dollars from being used to fund such procedures.

“This is not medicine, it is malpractice,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said of gender-affirming procedures on children in a news conference on Thursday.

“Sex-rejecting procedures rob children of their futures.”

Thursday’s announcements would imperil access in nearly two dozen states where drug treatments and surgical procedures remain legal and funded by Medicaid, which includes federal and state dollars.

The proposals run counter to the recommendations of most major U.S. medical organizations. And advocates for transgender children strongly refuted the administration’s claims about gender-affirming care and said Thursday’s moves would put lives at risk.

“The multitude of efforts we are seeing from federal legislators to strip transgender and nonbinary youth of the health care they need is deeply troubling,” said Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, of The Trevor Project, a nonprofit suicide prevention organization for LBGTQ+ youth, who called the changes a “one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government” on a decision that should be between a doctor and patient.

Proposed rules would threaten youth gender-affirming care in states where it remains legal Medicaid programs in slightly less than half of states currently cover gender-affirming care. At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the care. The Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding Tennessee’s ban means most other state laws are likely to remain in place.

Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the federal government’s largest health plans that cover seniors, people with disabilities and low-income Americans. Losing access to those payments would imperil most U.S. hospitals and medical providers.

The same funding restrictions would apply to a smaller health program, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, when it comes to care for people under the age of 19, according to a federal notice posted Thursday morning.

Kennedy also announced Thursday that the HHS Office of Civil Rights will propose a rule excluding gender dysphoria from the definition of a disability.

In a related move, the Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to a dozen companies that market chest-binding vests and other equipment used by people with gender dysphoria. Manufacturers include GenderBender LLC of Carson, California and TomboyX of Seattle.

The FDA letters state that chest binders can only be legally marketed for FDA-approved medical uses, such as recovery after mastectomy surgery.

========================================

ASSOCIATED PRESS Fewer than 1 in 1,000 US adolescents receive gender-affirming medications, researchers find

As U.S. lawmakers debate issues around health care for transgender youth, it’s been difficult to determine the number of young people receiving gender-affirming medications, leaving room for exaggerated and false claims.

Now, a medical journal has published the most reliable estimate yet and the numbers are low, reflecting more clearly on medical practices now being weighed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received gender-affirming medications — puberty blockers or hormones — during a recent five-year period, according to the study released Monday.

At least 26 states have adopted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, and most of those states face lawsuits. A decision by the Supreme Court in a Tennessee case is expected later this year. President-elect Donald Trump has promised to roll back protections for transgender people.

“We are not seeing inappropriate use of this sort of care,” said lead author Landon Hughes, a Harvard University public health researcher. “And it’s certainly not happening at the rate at which people often think it is.”

The researchers analyzed a large insurance claims database covering more than 5 million patients ages 8 to 17.

Only 926 adolescents with a gender-related diagnosis received puberty blockers from 2018 through 2022. During that time, 1,927 received hormones. The findings, published in JAMA Pediatrics, suggest that fewer than 0.1% of all youth in the database received these medications.

Trump is holding a rope with a noose. — There are only two sexes (male and female). There also is only one color (white), one religion (Christianity), one political party (Republican), and one nationality (native-born American whose parents also are native-born). My ICE will deport everyone else. (But I’m not a hate-mongering bigot).

The researchers found that no patients under age 12 were prescribed hormones, an indication that doctors are appropriately cautious about when to start such treatments, Hughes said.

“I hope that our paper cools heads on this issue and ensures that the public is getting a true sense of the number of people who are accessing this care,” he said.

The database included insurance plans in all 50 states, but did not include youth covered by Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.

The study did not look at surgeries among transgender adolescents. Other researchers have found that those procedures are extremely rare among young people.

Not all transgender youth proceed with medical treatments, said Dr. Scott Leibowitz, co-lead author of the adolescent standards of care for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a leading transgender health group.

Transgender adolescents “come to understand their gender at different times and in different ways,” he said, noting that the best care should include experts in adolescent identity development who can work with families to help figure out what’s appropriate for each young person.

Leibowitz, who has worked in gender clinics in several U.S. cities, said the study “adds to the growing evidence base about best practices when serving transgender and gender diverse youth.

As America sinks lower on the national morality scale, Trump and Kennedy will tell doctors how to cure heel spurs in the military.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Is the trade deficit a problem? Not for the U.S.

Is this good news or bad news?

Country’s trade deficit narrows to a 5-year low. By Ana Swanson, The New York Times.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services narrowed more than 10% from August to September, as the Trump administration’s tariffs continued to weigh on trade,

data from the Commerce Department showed.

Imports grew just 0.6% from August to $342.1 billion, while exports rose 3% in the month, to $289.3 billion, according to data released Thursday.

Because exports grew more than imports, the U.S. trade deficit shrank, in line with the Trump administration’s goals.

At $52.8 billion, the trade deficit in goods and services hit its lowest level in September since June 2020, when the United States was in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trade experts have cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from a few months of Data and said that trade patterns have recently been distorted by businesses’ efforts to avoid paying tariffs.

President Donald Trump has long seen the trade deficit as a sign of economic weakness.

Trump repeats a standard error: treating the trade deficit as a report card on national health. His reason: The word “deficit” confuses people.

If we send more money to foreigners than they send us, that’s a money deficit. If they send us more goods and services than we send them, that’s our goods and services surplus.

A trade is an exchange of presumed equals (“I’ll send you ‘A’ if you send me ‘B.'”)

So why is it called a trade “deficit”? Isn’t it also a trade “surplus”?

Further, the U.S. creates dollars at will by pressing a few computer keys. Virtually no labor or raw materials are required, and we can make dollars endlessly.

The goods and services we receive rely on labor and raw materials, which are limited resources. We offer something that costs us nothing to create, and in return, we receive valuable items; yet, we refer to this as a “deficit.”

It’s quite strange. I would gladly accept that kind of “trade” any day of the year.

It feels more like stealing than trading. Each year, I experience what some might call a “deficit” with my grocer, my favorite restaurants, my gas station, and others. I exchange dollars—currency that my government can produce at no cost—for valuable food and gasoline.

I don’t feel cheated. While I worked for some of my income, as a retiree, most of my current earnings come to me effortlessly. Despite that, I can still exchange those dollars for valuable goods and services.

And still, by the current definition, I’m running a “trade deficit.” It’s nuts.

I wouldn’t have had to work as much if my government had given me dollars for health care, food, housing, education, etc., which it easily could have done at virtually no effort, just by punching a few more computer keys.

The sweeping tariffs Trump has imposed on imports from countries around the world this year, including on automobiles, metals and furniture, have led to big swings in trade.

Before tariffs went into effect, many U.S. businesses brought in a surge of products to avoid paying import taxes.

After Trump’s global tariffs took effect on August 7, imports slowed sharply, then recovered somewhat in September.

On August 29, the Trump administration also ended the “de minimis” exemption, which allowed foreign shipments valued at less than $800 to come into the United States tariff-free.

Opponents criticized the rule as a loophole that penalized U.S. manufacturers in favor of foreign competitors.

That’s another way of saying, “Make imports more expensive to consumers, so American manufacturers can charge consumers more and/or deliver inferior products.“

That might help a few American manufacturers, but do you want higher prices and inferior quality?

Is this good news or bad news? If Americans are buying fewer goods because they are more expensive or harder to obtain, the deficit will decrease. However, this also means a reduction in consumer welfare, which is essentially what inflation and recessions mean.

Currently, we are trading inflation for a shrinking trade deficit—a lousy trade by any definition.

In short, Trump has made trade worse to make the “trade deficit” numbers look better.

SUMMARY

The term “trade deficit” is often misunderstood; it can actually be considered a trade surplus by logical standards. We receive valuable and often scarce goods and services in exchange for dollars, which our government can produce in unlimited quantities at virtually no cost or effort.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The new curriculum

College undergoes conservative shift

Lawmakers in Texas are altering leadership and classes at UT Austin. By Vimal Patel The New York Times AUSTIN, Texas

In a state dominated by conservatives, the University of Texas at Austin stood out. Its leadership had often been a thorn in the side of the state’s politicians, resisting efforts to erode faculty power and championing diversity.

The university defended its race-conscious admissions policy all the way to the Supreme Court in 2016. It has long been a magnet for liberal students and student activism.

Today, the conservatives are winning. State Republicans have passed laws to curtail what is taught in college classes and installed new university administrators with partisan affiliations, among a host of new strategies to remake a public higher education system that they argue has been held hostage to left-leaning ideas and become hostile to conservative ones.

The University of Texas is one of their main targets. The campus is no longer led by an academic, but a Republican lawyer who worked for the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton.

The president has promised curricular changes, and the system is now conducting an audit of all gender studies courses, after a state House bill passed in May enshrined in state law that there are effectively only two genders.

Another piece of legislation, Senate Bill 37, gutted faculty control of universities, tightened a grip on what can be taught and gave appointed boards the power to approve academic leaders.

The Austin campus has opened the School of Civic Leadership, one of many such new schools on college campuses with the goal of attracting more conservative students. The university laid off several dozen employees last year after a state law made diversity and inclusion offices illegal at public colleges.

A similar story is playing out across Texas. This fall, the firing of a Texas A&M instructor teaching a gender studies course after a student complained put the university at the center of a national debate over a crackdown on professors’ speech. The instructor’s department head and dean also lost their administrative posts, and eventually, the Texas A&M president resigned.

Last month, the university system’s regents went further than Texas lawmakers, approving a policy that requires courses that teach “race or gender ideology” to have presidential approval.

The Texas Tech University System has also sought to limit how race and gender are taught in its schools and created a new course approval process.

But perhaps no campus embodies the depth of the change in Texas higher education more than UT Austin, located blocks from the Texas Capitol.

The Austin campus is one of a handful of universities that has responded warmly to a Trump administration offer to give funding preferences to schools that adhere to its list of policy prescriptions.

The proposal was widely panned by advocates of academic freedom. The handful of other schools that embraced it are right-leaning schools, such as New College in Florida. Some faculty and students worry lawmakers are trying to turn the University of Texas — a selective school with students from across the country — into a conservative campus.

But state officials and the university’s new leaders, along with the Trump administration, say their goal is to restore balance to universities. “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation,” Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said in October. “We must end indoctrination.”

Right-wing, fascist indoctrination is OK, however.

In a “state of the university” speech in October, Jim Davis, the University of Texas president, said changes on campus are meant “to create balance.” “We don’t want degree programs that are so narrow they develop only one perspective,” he said.

Right-wing perspective is allowed. The left-wing perspective that created Social Security, Medicare, poverty aids, and equal rights legislation is not allowed.

The Trump administration this year has led an aggressive attack against higher education, threatening to strip a set of mostly private institutions of large sums of money if they don’t conform to the president’s policies. But it is public university systems that are seeing the biggest changes.

For years, Florida, which, like Texas, has unified Republican control of state government, served as a lab for conservative changes. Other conservative states like Indiana, Ohio and Alabama have also demanded changes at their schools that have led to quick acquiescence, most notably the closure of diversity programs and new limits on professors.

But the main energy is in Texas, where Republicans who learned from Florida are going even further. The changes over the last year have been rapid fire, leaving students and faculty members reeling.

At a coffee shop across the street from the Austin campus last month, five students spoke of fear and helplessness. Sofia Gomez, a rhetoric and writing major, said a history professor told her of pulling a book about the experiences of a transgender man, a move the professor described as the toughest decision of her career. “I considered transferring out of UT,” said Gomez, “because if my professors are unable to teach me, and I’m not able to have candid conversations to get a proper education, what am I here for?”

The idea is that if we pretend gay people don’t exist, then they won’t exist.

A poll by the student newspaper, The Daily Texan, found 40% of faculty respondents are changing their syllabus or teaching approach to comply with state legislation. “I take classes that are supposed to be about politics, and a lot of professors are scared to even apply anything we learn to the modern day,” said Mia Reballosa, a junior majoring in government.

Next, we’ll get rid of vaccination and teach prayer instead. That should protect our children against disease.

“There’s this large looming fear on campus.” The university is exploring consolidating many liberal arts departments, an effort many faculty members believe is aimed at eliminating politically controversial departments.

Teaching religion instead of science is not controversial.

The university said the academic reviews will explore factors like student demand and academic rigor. “The university,” its statement read, “is also encouraging academic units that have allowed some of their hiring, programs and course offerings to become excessively politicized to instead recommit themselves to balanced inquiry, depoliticized curricula and welcoming a diverse range of views (especially on controversial issues).”

Balanced? Depoliticized? Deverse? Sure, as long as we get rid of immigrants, because they are replacing us. Right?

Mary Neuburger, head of Slavic and Eurasian studies, another department under threat, said she remained quiet until she had trouble sleeping at night. Then she began talking publicly. “There’s total chaos,” Neuburger said in an interview, noting a constant turnover of administrators.

“When you tell a unit they might not exist by the end of the year, what do you think that does for morale?” “I’ve been at UT for almost 30 years,” she added, “and I’ve never seen anything like this.

Somewhere, Hitler is smiling.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

When is “waste” not waste?

The Chicago Bears have scored at least one touchdown in almost every game. Therefore, the Chicago Cubs should be able to score at least one touchdown in every game.

If you think that comment is ignorant, why? Because baseball and football are different activities operating under different rules.

So what about this comment: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do.” It too is ignorant, and for the same reason. The federal government and families operate under different financial rules.

The statement was made repeatedly by President Barack Obama in 2011 and 2012. He also vowed to cut the debt by trillions of dollars, which makes him one of the more economically ignorant Presidents in American history.

The differences between football and baseball are well known. The differences between the finances of our Monetarily Sovereign federal government and a monetarily non-sovereign family still cause confusion, partly because the same words are used: “Debt,” “deficit,” “bond,” “note,” “bill,” “owe,” “pay.”

It’s just that the words have different meanings for the federal government vs. households. And although football and baseball share words—ball, win, score, game, position, league. player, helmet, team, catch, run — we are educated in the difference, and would laugh at anyone who confuses the two.

Federal “waste” is completely unlike family “waste,” and for the same reasons.

The Festivus Report is Senator Rand Paul’s way of complaining about what he considers to be wasteful federal spending. Here are a few items from the 2024 report. As you read, decide for yourself whether you consider any (all?) of them to be “wasteful.”

1. F-35 Sustainment Cost Overruns — Tens of Billions. The F-35 program is the most expensive weapons system in history. GAO and the DoD IG report that maintenance costs are projected to exceed expectations by $1.3 trillion over the jets’ lifetimes.

Why it’s considered waste: Underperformance; aircraft not meeting readiness targets; cost inflation far above projections.

2. Failed DoD Program: Future Combat Systems (FCS) — $18 Billion Lost. Canceled in 2009 after years of development.

Cost taxpayers over $18 billion with almost nothing field-ready. Why it’s a waste: The Largest failed weapons modernization attempt since the Cold War.

3. Hurricane Katrina & Sandy Aid Duplication — Several Billion. GAO found: Multiple billions in duplicated housing payments (FEMA + SBA + HUD). Fraud, improper payments, and administrative failures across federal disaster relief programs.

4. Nuclear Waste Repository Project: Yucca Mountain — ~$15 Billion. Congress spent roughly $15 billion designing and preparing Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste site. The project has been effectively abandoned for political reasons.

Why it’s a waste: The facility was never opened despite the massive investment.

5. ACA Federal Co-op Failures — $2.4 Billion. The Affordable Care Act created 23 non-profit insurance co-ops. 21 of the 23 collapsed, losing ~$2.4 billion in federal loans.

Why it’s a waste: Most co-ops failed within a few years, leaving almost no lasting benefit.

6. Border Wall Cancellations — $2 Billion in Stranded Materials & Contracts. When the administration changed in 2021, DHS paid over $2 billion in continued contract costs, demobilization, storage of unused materials, and cancellation penalties.

Why it’s a waste: Taxpayers paid for materials and contracts that never produced the intended infrastructure.

7. Federal Improper Payments — Over $200 Billion Annually. Not fraud—just errors. Medicaid improper payments in recent years: $50–80 billion. Medicare: $30–40+ billion. Earned Income Tax Credit: $15–20 billion. UI benefits during COVID spikes: tens of billions. Annual total often exceeds $200 billion, easily clearing the $1 billion threshold.

Why it’s a waste: Payments made to the wrong person, in the wrong amount, or with no documentation.

8. USPS Pre-Funding Mandate Losses — Tens of Billions. For years, USPS had to pre-fund 75 years of employee health benefits: This created massive financial losses of tens of billions.

While not “waste” caused by USPS mismanagement, it’s widely cited as economically irrational spending.

9. IRS Business Systems Modernization (early 2000s failures) — ~$2–3 Billion Lost: An attempt to completely modernize IRS IT systems. Vast portions had to be scrapped or rebuilt because contractors and the IRS couldn’t deliver working systems.

Why it’s a waste: Billions spent, but many components never functioned.

10. Afghanistan Reconstruction Waste — Over $19 Billion Identified From the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction: More than $19 billion in documented waste, fraud, and abuse. Examples: empty schools, unused power plants, abandoned buildings, failed police programs, and aircraft that were scrapped for pennies.

Why it’s a waste: Projects that were never usable or never used.

Have you already decided which, if any, of these expenditures are federal “waste”?

Let’s first clarify what we mean by the term “waste.”

Rand Paul claims “waste” includes: “Underperformance, not meeting readiness targets, cost inflation far above projections, failed modernization, duplicated payments, never opened, failed quickly, never produced, and payments made to the wrong person, in the wrong amount.”

Do you agree that those things constitute waste?

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition: to spend money or consume property extravagantly or improvidently.

Uncle Sam is throwing big stacks of dollars into a bonfire. — **I never use these tax dollars. I make new ones for spending.**

Virtually everything the federal government does would be considered “extravagant.” Let’s face it, for the federal government, “million” barely rates a footnote on any budget. Even “billion” may not be noticeable. “Trillion” is the standard.

I suspect Rand Paul is talking about something like “useless,” as in flushing money down the toilet or throwing it in a bonfire.

That is why I take issue with Paul, because I don’t feel money is being used uselessly in the ten examples. I don’t feel they “flush money down the toilet” or “burn money in a bonfire.” In fact, I suggest that those projects were valuable to the American economy.

Let’s begin with these facts:

None of the ten projects cost you, the American taxpayer, one cent. The federal government does not pay its bills with tax dollars. It pays with newly created dollars, ad hoc, simply by pressing computer keys, which it can do, endlessly.
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports. All federal spending grows the U.S. economy and enriches the American people as the dollars circulate.
Some things were accomplished. New products were invented; new systems were learned, and old systems were discarded. Learning what doesn’t work can be as valuable as learning what does.
None of the spending reduced the federal government’s ability to spend in the future. The government has the infinite ability to create dollars and use them for any purpose it chooses.

In short, for a Monetary Sovereign nation, “waste” is never about dollars. It is about real resources. Domestic failed programs circulate money into the economy. Only programs that destroy or export real resources can cause true economic loss.

Even then, the loss is mitigated by the political and financial positive effects of spending U.S. dollars in another nation. That nation, having dollars, is more likely to become a customer for U.S. businesses. Enriching other nations benefits our economy; we sell more to nations that have dollars than to nations that don’t

Consider number 10. “Afghanistan reconstruction.” To the extent that American businesses were involved, we benefited from the dollars these businesses received and from the experience they gained.

A substantial portion of Afghanistan’s reconstruction spending went to U.S. contractors, paid American engineers, logisticians, security firms, and auditors, flowed through U.S. banks, payrolls, suppliers, and insurers, and supported domestic production of equipment and services.

The only real loss would have been any U.S. raw materials used to make things left in Afghanistan.

Number 8, “USPS Pre-Funding Mandate Losses” isn’t even a cost. It’s just bookkeeping. Nothing was spent.

Public discussion of “wasteful federal spending” almost always misses the central point of Monetary Sovereignty: dollars are not a scarce federal resource.

Again, the U.S. government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot run out of dollars, does not need to obtain dollars from taxpayers, and creates new dollars every time it spends. Therefore, evaluating “waste” in terms of dollars alone is analytically meaningless.

A dollar spent by the federal government is not lost; it is added to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the commonly used measure of our economy. Every federal dollar spent—whether you approve of the program or not—enters the private sector as income.

Reminder: GDP = Federal Spending+Nonfederal Spending+Net Exports

In that sense, so-called “wasteful spending” is still “helicopter money,” and helicopter money is by definition stimulative, not lost. It enlarges GDP and strengthens private balance sheets.

A failed defense program, a scrapped IT project, a canceled contract, or even an improper payment all have the same macroeconomic effect: they increase domestic income. They are engineering or managerial failures, not monetary failures, for a Monetarily Sovereign government.

A resource constraint matters only when it prevents something else from happening. During the years of Afghanistan reconstruction, the United States did not experience full employment, nor did it cancel or delay major domestic projects because labor or industrial capacity had been “used up.”

Construction workers, engineers, manufacturers, and logistics firms were not exhausted; many sectors had idle capacity. In fact, much industrial and organizational capacity expanded during this period rather than contracted.

Most of the materials used—steel, concrete, fuel, vehicles, electronics—were manufactured goods that can be reproduced. Their destruction represents transformation, not permanent loss.

The real, irrecoverable losses were human lives, injuries, and trauma, and possibly some rare raw materials. Those losses are real and cannot be dismissed.

Claims of broader “economic waste” rely on treating money as a scarce resource and assuming a “crowding out” that did not occur. Absent full employment or canceled domestic production, those claims are hypothetical at best.

Meanwhile, the spending itself generated income, employment, industrial experience, and hard-won institutional learning. Removing dollars from the analysis leaves a narrower and more honest accounting of what was truly lost and what was gained.

SUMMARY

The strongest objection to this framing is that real resources are finite, even if money is not. Critics argue that Afghanistan reconstruction consumed labor, materials, and attention that could have been used at home.

This objection sounds persuasive, but it only holds if those resources were actually scarce.

The only “waste” is the federal collection of taxes, in the sense that the federal government creates dollars by spending and destroys dollars by collecting taxes.

Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Their only purposes are to control the economy and to assure demand for the dollar. Federal spending never is a sign of waste.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY