Why the right-wing wants to cut benefits to the average American

The Libertarians (the cruel shills for the Republican Party) have a non-solution for a non-problem. The non-problem is that the U.S. federal government is running short of its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. The non-solution is to take dollars from the poor and middle-income people.

Welfare Cuts Are Inevitable Because Congress Won’t Touch Social Security Until Congress is willing to acknowledge that it makes no sense to send monthly checks to wealthy seniors, everything else will be on the chopping block. ERIC BOEHM | 9.27.2023 2:05 PM

The headline implies at least four lies: Lie #1. The federal government can’t afford to send money to the poor and middle-income people. Lie #2. The solution would be for the government to take dollars from Social Security. Lie #3. Congress doesn’t dare to take Social Security dollars from the poor and middle-income people. Lie #4. The only recourse is to take welfare dollars from the poor.

Amid the fractious debate over the federal budget, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) has outlined plans for cutting several prominent welfare programs to save about $150 billion annually.

According to The Washington Post, those cuts would affect a wide range of federal safety net programs, including food stamps and Meals on Wheels, which help feed needy families.

Other cuts would affect Federal Pell Grants for low-income college students, grants that help families afford housing, and a program that helps offset high heating bills.

Notice that none of the Libertarian non-solutions to the non-problem involve taking dollars from the rich by eliminating the kind of tax dodges that all people like Donald Trump to pay almost $0 federal taxes.

Regardless of whether you think the federal government should be in the business of funding any of those things in the first place, there’s no denying that sudden cuts to existing welfare programs can be disruptive to the individuals and families that have come to rely upon them.

Here, the Libertarian implies that the federal government should not help low-income college students, families that can’t afford housing, or low-income families that can’t pay their heating bills. This is typical for the heartless Libertarians and Republicans. They don’t give a damn about people but are concerned with just two things: Saving government money for a government that has infinite money and helping the rich grow richer.

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

It’s also true that, as Reason’s Liz Wolfe points out in this morning’s newsletter, the proposed cuts reflect the reality of a government that has been living beyond its means for too long.

You and I can “live beyond our means.” but the federal government cannot. It has infinite “means.”

Alan Greenspan: “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.

“It’s not exactly a winning PR move to slash the programs that serve needy toddlers and first-generation college kids, but there’s an important fundamental truth at the heart of the fiscal hawks’ concerns: government spending simply cannot continue at current levels with no consequences,” Wolfe writes.

This lie has been told since at least 1940 and probably beyond. That was the first year I found that the federal debt, or deficit, was called a “ticking time bomb.” The phony bomb still is ticking after eighty-three years. And precisely what are the “consequences” to which Wolfe refers and Boehm agrees? You never will see that explained in any Libertarian screed. The reason: There are no consequences. Period.

That’s true. But here’s an element of this debate that doesn’t get talked about enough: Cutting welfare programs for needy families is necessary because Congress insists that relatively wealthy senior citizens get paid first.

And here it comes: The theory is that seniors are wealthy, and despite paying the useless FICA tax for their entire lives, they really don’t deserve anything for their investment. So, cut Social Security because that’s where the money — the infinitely available money — goes. And who cares about those old folks, anyway?

Budgeting is always, at its core, an exercise in priority-setting. That’s especially true when your budget is wildly out of whack, and you’ve been borrowing at an unsustainable rate, as Congress has done for years.

What part of budgeting is “wildly out of whack”? Would reducing the money going to the middle and the low be the best way to put the budget in “whack”? And then for two more lies in just five words (Is that a world record?) “Borrowing at an unsustainable rate.” Lie #5. The federal government borrows. No, the federal government does not borrow dollars. Why would it borrow when it has the infinite ability to create dollars?

Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “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 credit markets to remain operational.”

The confusion arises because private sector bills, notes, and bonds differ entirely from T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds The former have to do with borrowing. The latter have to do with depositing. A borrower receives from a lender money that the borrower uses. But the federal government doesn’t use or even touch the dollars deposited into T-security accounts. The federal government, unlike state/local governments, is Monetarily Sovereign. It pays all its creditors with newly created dollars, ad hoc. Despite Monetary Sovereignty being the single most important difference between federal and personal finances, you will never see those words in any discussion of federal budgeting being “unsustainable.” Lie #6. “Unsustainable rate.” No amount of spending is unsustainable for the federal government. It has the infinite ability to create dollars.

When there’s no longer enough money to go around, you’re faced with a difficult proposition: Who gets paid first, and who has to wait at the back of the line?

The federal government always has enough money to go around. It cannot run short of dollars. Ever. Boehm knows this.

Alan Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.”

In the federal budget, seniors get paid first. Everyone else has to wait.

Lie #7. No, the rich are paid first. They are paid by the tax loopholes that allow them not to pay taxes in the first place.

McCarthy and his fellow Republicans are not proposing any cuts or changes to Social Security and Medicaid, the Post notes. That’s despite the fact that the two major entitlement programs are driving most of the federal government’s long-term deficit.

The federal deficit is the government’s method for pumping growth dollars into the economy. If the government did not run deficits, we would have yearly recessions and depressions.

U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses.

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807. 1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819. 1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837. 1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857. 1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873. 1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893. 1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929. 1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

Over the next decade, discretionary spending—including those welfare programs the GOP aims to cut—is projected to decline relative to the size of the U.S. economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projections.

Meanwhile, Social Security and Medicare are growing, fast. By 2030, the CBO expects so-called “mandatory spending” on entitlement programs to consume more than 60 percent of the federal budget.

The federal budget is what Congress wishes it to be. If 60% is too much, the government merely can increase discretionary spending. This would reduce the meaningless percentage and increase the Gross Domestic Product. Economic growth is both a direct and indirect result of federal spending.  GDP=Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports

Of course, because those programs are funded with a separate revenue stream—payroll taxes—it would be complicated for Congress to cut spending on Social Security to offset cuts on welfare programs.

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government does not fund programs via “revenue streams.” It supports all programs by creating new dollars, ad hoc. Tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt. Even if all federal tax collections totaled #0, the federal government could continue spending forever.

Even so, the ongoing refusal of either major party to consider any long-term changes to the two major entitlement programs tells you all you need to know about the priorities in Washington.

What tells me all I need to know about priorities in Washington is the failure of either party to get rid of tax dodges by the rich.

There is no shortage of alternative ideas out there.

Congress could fiddle with the specifics of Social Security to make the program less expensive over the long term—raising the retirement age, for example, or changing how contributions and disbursements work.

Yes, soaking the elderly is the Libertarian mantra. But they don’t ask the rich to pay more by closing tax loopholes. That would reduce those luscious political contributions the politicians love so much.

It could (and should) allow younger Americans to opt out of the system retirement.

Boehm exceeds his stupidity allowance by suggesting that younger Americans opt out of Social Security. I can’t even go into how cruel and ignorant that idea is other than saying it does not surprise me coming from Libertarian Eric Boehm. A pox on him and his descendants ten generations, hence. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Trump promises to be just like Putin, Kim, Castro, and all other dictators. Shut down opposing media.

Our founders fought the Revolutionary War to rid ourselves of the dictator, King George III. It would be sad if an increasingly crazed traitor cost us what America’s brave patriots won.

I usually comment at length on articles I find interesting. I won’t comment further on this one:

Trump Vows to Ban All News Media That Don’t Praise Him

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Fairy tales about money.

We have three main political groups in America:
  1. The Republicans who support rich, white, Christian, NRA men born in America, but claim too much money is given to everyone else.
  2. The semi-Republicans (aka “Libertarians) who also claim the government spends too much helping the poor and middle-income people but support tax breaks for the rich.
  3. The Dems who claim to love ordinary people but still yield to fairy tales about excessive federal deficits and debt.
  4. There’s a fourth category: All those groups that claim to support a specific issue but, in reality, are designed to take votes from one of the major parties.
Veronique de Rugy | Washington Examiner
Veronique de Rugy
Here are some excerpts from an article that demonstrates the fairy tales they all promulgate. It was written by a semi-Republican (Libertarian).

‘Bidenomics’ Is Failing Everyday Americans The big spending has fueled higher inflation, resulted in larger-than-projected deficits, and contributed to a record level of debt.

By Veronique de Rugy, 9/21/2023

We’ve shown you data (here, here, here, here, and elsewhere) that demonstrate why even massive federal spending does not cause inflation. All inflations are caused by shortages of critical goods and services. When anything is in short supply, its price rises. When critical goods like oil and food are in short supply, prices generally increase.  This general increase is called inflation. These shortages can be cured by federal spending to obtain and disseminate the scarce goods and services. The U.S. government spent massively for many years, and we experienced meager inflation. Only when COVID, the Russian/Ukraine war, immigration restrictions, and Saudi greed caused shortages of oil, food, computer chips, lumber, metals, labor, and other Gross Domestic Product necessities did we have the general increase in prices known as “inflation.” GRAPH I.
There is no historical relationship between highs and lows of federal spending (green) and inflation (red).
GRAPH II.
Also, there is no historical relationship between highs and lows of federal DEFICIT spending (blue) and inflation (red).
GRAPH III.
There is a strong correlation between the highs and lows of oil supplies (gray) and inflation (red).

Ordinary Americans aren’t feeling the so-called success of “Bidenomics.”

Superficially, the economy looks solid. Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the second quarter of 2023.

While August’s unemployment rate rose to 3.8 percent, that’s still considered full employment by economists.

Wages are rising, and we are often told we’re in a manufacturing boom.

But these numbers need perspective. Employment growth was inevitable because we lost millions of jobs during the pandemic.

De Rugy forgets she admitted we’re at full employment. This has nothing to do with employment growth. “Full” means “full.” She makes the strange claim that because we lost jobs during COVID, today’s full employment was a natural result. Sorry, but that right-wing naysaying won’t fly. Federal spending helped create those jobs. We have a labor shortage, partly because right-wingers falsely claim that undocumented immigrants bring crime and drugs to America.

Comparing Crime Rates Between Undocumented Immigrants, Legal Immigrants, and Native-born US Citizens in Texas

This study used uniquely comprehensive arrest data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to compare the criminality of undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens between 2012 and 2018.

The study found that undocumented immigrants had substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, U.S.-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.
Drugs come in via legal entry ports, not via immigrant families desperate to escape gangs and poverty.)

Cocaine seizures on U.S. borders, for instance, regularly measure in tons, making it impractical to have individual migrants ferry it across. Instead, dealers prefer to smuggle drugs into the country via legal ports of entry, which allow them to bring in high-value substances that are more easily hidden.

“The majority of the illegal drugs that enter the United States through the U.S.-Mexico border cross through formal Points of Entry,” said Joel Martinez, a Mexico research associate for the Center for American Progress

“The drugs that cross in between are very minimal and non-expensive products like marijuana. All the cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine — they cross through formal ports because they’re easier to hide […in] freight comp and assorted vehicles.”

So, right-wing bigotry against foreigners, especially those of color, make it almost impossible for those people to gain citizenship.

Unemployment is low, but only because the economy is drunk on spending, simultaneously closing many people out of the labor force.

De Rugy, desperate to minimize Biden’s success, unknowingly admits that federal spending reduces unemployment. Then, strangely, she declares that in some unknown way, federal spending “closes people out of the labor force.” It is not unusual for people to take both sides of an issue when they have no facts.

Moreover, inflation-adjusted median household income has declined—from $76,330 in 2021 to $74,580 in 2022. Labor tensions and strikes are also intensifying.

This problem is not caused by federal spending but rather by the greed of the rich. Plenty of profits reward shareholders via stock price growth and stock by-backs. Companies have plenty of money to reward executives with excessive pay increases, many multiples higher than average workers’. Now, we see the inevitable result: Strikes.

With all this in mind, is the average American becoming better off?

No, the average worker is not making more inflation-measured dollars, which is why Biden (but not the Libertarians and the GOP) favors the strikers. They are striking to narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. This is anathema to the Republicans and the faux Republicans (Libertarians), who always favor cutting benefits to the not-rich (while cutting taxes on the rich.)

These troubles are partly caused by inflation, which continues to take its toll. Per the Consumer Price Index (CPI), year-over-year inflation rose to 3.7 percent in August, nudging back up after peaking at 9.1 percent not long ago.

“Core” CPI (excluding food and energy) is down slightly to 4.3 percent. Although these numbers are an improvement after we experienced their highest levels since 1982, they remain disturbingly high.

Excluding food and energy from the measure of inflation and calling the balance “core inflation” makes no sense. It’s like excluding all home runs, triples, and doubles from a baseball player’s statistics and calling singles his “core” batting average. Scarities of energy and/or food are the most common and most important reasons for inflation. The Fed is so focused on money it has lost sight of reality. The reason: The Fed is tasked with curing inflation, and its only tool is interest rates. So, the Fed ignores the scarcity of energy and food and proclaims these products are not “core,” when that is precisely what they are. (“Move on, folks. Nothing to see here.”)

This is bad news for Americans whose standard of living has fallen since early 2021.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported real average hourly earnings declining in 2021 and 2022, meaning Americans can afford less with their hard-earned dollars.

More than three-quarters of people’s income is devoted to living expenses like housing, transportation, and food—all of which have become more expensive.

The federal government can make all of the above less expensive to Americans. Consumers could receive federal benefits for housing, transportation, and food. FICA could be eliminated; being a federal tax, it pays for nothing. (The federal government pays for everything by creating new dollars ad hoc. Federal tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt.) The right-wing opposes all these solutions to the fallen standard of living.

Food prices, for instance, rose by 19.3 percent. Shelter rose by 16.5 percent since 2021. Gasoline prices are up, too.

Inflation is a tax on every American’s standard of living. It’s also a regressive tax. Low-income workers tend to experience higher-than-average levels of household inflation.

Inflation would not take its toll on Americans if the federal government increased spending to:
  1. Provide free healthcare insurance to every man, woman, and child in America, regardless of wealth and income.
  2. Provide Social Security benefits to every man, woman, and child in America, regardless of wealth and income.
  3. Reduce energy prices by supporting renewable energy and oil drilling/refining.
De Rugy cries crocodile tears for the “Average American’s troubles” but refuses to consider any cure for those troubles. Instead, she worries about the non-existent “troubles” of the federal government, the one entity in America with limitless funds, and never needs to worry about bankruptcy.

Making matters worse, high-interest rates resulting from the Federal Reserve’s fight against inflation also hit lower-income Americans the hardest.

These tend to consume a higher proportion of such incomes and take money from the pockets of people who hold assets in cash or low-yielding bank deposits.

In other words, inflation creates the opposite of an equitable economy.

Both inflation and high-interest rates take money from the pockets of average Americans. But both inflation and high-interest rates are unnecessary and totally within the control of the government. High rates do not “result” from anything. They are the Fed’s primary inflation-fighting tool. Inflation can be cured by federal spending to cure the shortages that cause inflation. And interest rates are determined by the Fed. Raising interest rates not only does nothing to cure inflation but also exacerbates inflation by increasing the price of nearly everything: Real estate, cars and trucks, food, clothing, all imported goods, construction materials. The Fed feeds the patient salt tables to cure high blood pressure. Why does the Fed do it? Because the Fed focuses on money, raising interest rates increases the demand for the dollar. The Fed ignores the obvious fact that adding interest payments to the price of everything increases the purchase price of everything.

Simple example: You buy a $50,000 car and finance the purchase with a 5-year, 3% loan. The total of your 60 monthly payments is $53,852.13.

Alternatively, say you finance that $50,000 car with a 5-year 6% loan. Now, the total of your monthly payments is $57,776.95

That $50,000 car cost you an additional $3,924.82, courtesy of the Federal Reserve. That is the very definition of inflation.

By now, it’s well-known that Bidenomics’ big spending has fueled higher inflation, resulted in larger-than-projected deficits, and contributed to a record level of government debt.

It may be “well-known” that federal spending causes inflation, but what’s “well-known” often contradicts the facts. It once was “well-known” that the earth was the center of the universe, emotional stress was the primary cause of stomach ulcers, and drinking water during exercise causes cramps (Yes, really. When I was young, that was common knowledge.) As GRAPH I and GRAPH II (above) demonstrate, there is no relationship between federal spending and inflation. Nor is there a relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation. There is, however, a robust relationship between oil price increases (which are strongly related to oil scarcity) and inflation. As for de Rugy’s concern about federal debt and deficits, she displays widespread ignorance about Monetarily Sovereign governments. The U.S. federal government’s finances are nothing like those of monetarily non-sovereign governments such as state, county, city, and the euro governments. Monetarily, Sovereign government cannot run short of their own sovereign currency.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

“Federal debt” is not a debt of the federal government. It is deposited into T-security accounts that are owned not by the government but by the depositor. The government never touches those deposits other than to add interest money, and upon maturity, the money in those accounts is returned to the depository. The two purposes of T-accounts (T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds) are to:
  1. Provide the public with a safe storage place for unused dollars.
  2. To assist the Fed in setting interest rates.
T-securities do not provide the federal government with spending money. To pay its bills, the federal government creates new dollars ad hoc. Federal deficits are not a burden on the federal government or on taxpayers. The government has the infinite ability to pay any obligations. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government does not need or use tax dollars to pay its bills. It always uses newly created dollars for that purpose. Ms. de Rugy’s concerns about federal “debt” and deficits are unwarranted. Federal deficits add dollars to the economy. When federal deficits are too small, the economy ceases to grow (“recessions”) or shrinks (“depressions). Graph II shows this effect. As deficit spending shrinks, the economy goes into a recession, cured by increased deficit spending. Deficit spending grows the economy and does not cause inflation or require taxes. Even if no federal taxes were collected, the federal government could continue spending forever.

The most recent estimate of the full-year deficit for 2023 is $1.5 trillion, up from $946 billion last year. Total federal debt is more than $33 trillion, an increase from $28.5 trillion in 2021. Budget tensions led the credit agency Fitch Ratings to downgrade Treasury debt based on prospects of further fiscal deterioration.

Fitch Ratings did not downgrade Treasury debt because of the size of the debt or deficits. It downgraded the debt because of the uncertainty regarding one of the most ignorance-based laws in American history: The debt ceiling. This harmful law is based on the false premise that federal debt and deficits burden the government and taxpayers. The law threatens to force the federal government to renege on its promise to return the money in T-security accounts to depositors or to fail to pay past obligations to creditors.

This is not great; federal borrowing is projected to be $120 trillion in the next 30 years.

The federal government never borrows dollars. It creates all the dollars it needs and uses ad hoc.

Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “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 credit markets to remain operational.”

The prospect of gigantic, never-ending deficits during good times makes investors nervous.

Knowledgeable investors are aware that the size of federal deficits does not, in any way, affect the federal government’s ability to pay its bills.

Borrowing costs like mortgage and car loan rates are rising, as are yields on benchmark 10-year treasury notes. They’re above 4.3 percent, their highest level since 2007—weighty burdens on lower-income Americans.

Here, Ms. de Rugy mixes two errors.
  1. Mortgage rates are whatever the Fed wishes them to be. Sadly, the Fed believes raising rates is the way to fight inflation, while it causes more inflation.

Finally, while America may be experiencing a hike in real construction spending, that’s a far cry from a manufacturing boom.

According to the Institute for Supply Management Report on Business, economic activity in the manufacturing sector in August contracted for the tenth consecutive month following 28 months of growth.

Moreover, manufacturing only accounts for 11 percent of GDP. Even if this sector grew, the benefits wouldn’t be widely shared.

After the COVID recession, GDP grew faster than at any time since WWII.
Manufacturing will continue to contract as we transition to a computer-based society. One day, we all will have 3-D printers that allow us to create what we want without buying manufactured goods. Ms. de Rugy is stretching to find fault with economic growth. She is a member of the “semi-GOP” Libertarians whose sole contribution to the economic discussion is to criticize Democrats.

Nor will Bidenomics’ manufacturing subsidies help workers with college degrees. These handouts, often extensive and rich, benefit companies for projects they would have likely taken on anyway.

It’s not clear why Ms. de Rugy believes manufacturing subsidies won’t help workers with college degrees. And as for projects that “likely” would be taken on without benefits, one wonders where she came up with that bit of fakery.

Take the Inflation Reduction Act, for example. About half of all projects included in the Act were announced before it was passed.

Meaning that half were announced after it was passed. That’s an excellent result.

The private green market was booming even before the subsidies. The remainder of those subsidies overwhelmingly benefit affluent consumers of electric cars and other Biden-favored products.

Ms. de Rugy’s complaint seems ever more desperate. The private green market may or may not have been “booming,” but is that a reason not to invest in green? She objects to government aid for anti-global warming electric vehicles because rich people own them (though average workers build them).

Taken together, these facts can help explain the president’s low approval ratings and the American people’s overall pessimism about the economy’s direction.

With so many working people feeling pinched, who can blame them?

The president’s low approval rates are not related to reality but more to the relentless naysaying from extreme right-wingers like Ms. de Rugy. When you keep pounding people with the message that things are awful, they tend to believe it.

JUST SOME OF BIDEN’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF THE GOP

1) $1.2 trillion infrastructure package 2) $1.9 trillion COVID relief deal 3) Highest appointment of federal judges since Reagan 4) Halt on federal executions 5) Rejoined the international Paris Climate Accord 6) Mandated converting the federal fleet to zero-emission vehicles. 7) Support for transgender service members. 8) Reduced unemployment. 9) Strengthened QUAD alliance with the U.S., India, Australia, and Japan. 10) Student loan debt relief 11) Used the Russia/Ukraine war to strengthen NATO, which Trump tried to weaken. 12) Imposed crippling sanctions on Russia 13) Fought Saudi’s oil price increases by releasing 180 million barrels of oil from the country’s Strategic Oil Reserves. 14) Pardoned people convicted of a federal marijuana charge 15) Respect for Marriage Act 16) Prevented the rail strike and gave workers a significant raise. 17) Passed Government Funding Bill 18) Got us out of Afghanistan, ending years of American deaths. 19) Expanded healthcare. 20) Defended Obamacare 21) Negotiated lifting the debt limit to prevent an economic disaster 22) Rejoined UNESCO 23) Lowest unemployment in years 24) Massive job creation 25) COVID-caused inflation dropping

Considering that unemployment is at historic lows and GDP is at historic highs, consumers’ biggest problem is the COVID-caused shortages causing in inflation. Without the obstinacy of the right-wing, Biden could have passed even more consumer benefit programs to “unpinch” working people. And yes, that would have increased federal spending, a good thing. It would have grown GDP further.

Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports = GDP

Dick Durbin calls for Clarence Thomas to recuse in key case over executive overreach - Washington Times
Sen. Dick Durbin
Unfortunately, Republicans and faux Republicans are not the only parties guilty of misstating federal finances. Here are excerpts from a Senator Dick Dubin (D-IL) letter I recently received:

September 22, 2023,  Dear Mr. Mitchell,

Thank you for contacting me about the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5).  I appreciate hearing from you.

          The debt limit is a statutory limit on the amount of debt the federal government may incur.  When government expenditures outpace revenues, the Treasury may issue debt to cover the shortfall. 
Those T-securities don’t cover anything. The government never touches the dollars that purchase T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds. Though Sen. Durbin has been in Congress for over 26 years, he still does not comprehend the difference between federal and personal finance.

Government spending and revenues vary by month, and even if the government has a surplus for the year, it may need to borrow money to cover a shortfall at some point during the year.  

Why would an entity having the infinite ability to create dollars ever “need to borrow money?” It doesn’t.

On May 26, 2023, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen projected that without action from Congress, the federal government would be unable to meet its obligations and subsequently default on  June 5, 2023.  

Default would have crashed the economy and impeded the government’s ability to make payments to Social Security and Medicare recipients, military personnel, veterans, federal employees, defense contractors, state governments, and our bondholders. 

The federal government never needs to default. Only foolish actions by Congress and the President can force the government to default.

On May 27, 2023, President Biden and  Speaker Kevin McCarthy reached an agreement.  The Fiscal Responsibility Act avoids default by raising the debt limit through January 1, 2025. 

Notice that Congress can raise the meaningless debt limit merely by deciding to do so.

Alan Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.”

This agreement was a good-faith compromise between President Biden and Speaker McCarthy, and it included some provisions that alter several important federal programs, which includes clawing back unspent pandemic relief funding and expanding work requirements for some beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  On June 5, 2023, President Biden signed the Bipartisan Budget Agreement into law. 

There is no reason for the U.S. government to “claw back” anything or to expand work requirements. The government has infinite money. There is no reason, but there is a purpose: To make the rich richer by widening the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rich. The wider the Gap, the richer and more powerful are the rich.

This agreement did not include everything I wanted.  I am incredibly disappointed in any reallocation of funding to medical research or the National Institutes of Health.   However, this agreement is what was required to avoid default. 

And, of course, there was no economic reason for the reallocation.

I also have joined Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania to introduce the Debt Ceiling Reform Act (S. 1882), which would take the threat of default off of the table in the future.  This bill would permanently end the weaponization of the debt ceiling by giving the Treasury Department the authority to continue paying the nation’s bills unless Congress submits a resolution of disapproval, which would need to be signed by the president. 

The full faith and credit of the United States is not a bargaining chip, and it should not be used to enact any party’s extreme agenda.  The Debt Ceiling Reform Act has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. 

The whole thing is an exercise in stupidity. If, for some strange reason, Congress and the President wished to reduce spending (a reduction that mathematically would force a recession or depression), Congress and the President merely could stop spending. Period.

Now that we have avoided the default crisis, we must look to passing our twelve regular spending bills through regular order.  I will be sure to keep your views in mind as we develop these spending priorities, and I will continue working to protect and enhance the federal programs on which American families rely. 

If he wants to “protect and enhance federal programs, he should learn Monetary Sovereignty. After 26 years, it’s about time he learned at least this fundamental truth: The federal government cannot unintentionally run short of U.S. dollars. It has infinite dollars.

     Thank you again for contacting me.  Please feel free to stay in touch. 

That didn’t work for Stephanie Kelton; I wonder whether it would work for me. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Artificial Intelligence bigotry

Humans learn by generalization. That is how the human brain can recognize the differences among dogs, cats, lions, and bears or the differences between a collie and a border collie. Or the subtleties that make for beauty.

Artificial intelligence (AI) may have difficulty understanding such differences.

We learn about this complex world by mentally filling in the blanks: “All _____ are _____.” Bigotry is born of false generalization. A fault wrongly ascribed to a group is attributed to each group member.

If blacks are believed to be poor and uneducated, then every black is considered poor and uneducated. Similarly, all Italians are criminals, all Jews are money-hungry, all Irish are drunks, all Mexicans are lazy, all New Yorkers are rude, all Canadians are passive, all Chinese are inscrutable, all Californians are trendy, all Germans are gruff, all Russians are boorish, all French are arty — you can compile your own silly list.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) learns the same way, by generalization, but it generalizes from massive data sets. The tacit belief is that if they average enough data, the outcome will be representative of – – of something, though no one knows what.

Just as negative generalizations are expressed in humans as bigotry, machines can express bigotry. 

I went to an AI website called “Night Cafe.” It is one of the several AI Art Creator sites where you type in one or more prompts, and the machine produces an illustration that amalgamates what the device “knows” about those prompts.

The amalgamation process requires the computer to weigh the variables and produce an illustration incorporating them according to their importance. “Importance” is the key unknown. It may rely on frequency, source, logic, or other criteria.

Ultimately, all the data evolves from human input, and if that input is bigoted, the machine’s output will reflect that bigotry.

Here are some examples:

In these first images, I asked Night Cafe to produce “A Profile of a Jew.”

Profile of a Jew

The machine produced images with an interesting attribute: The photos had large noses. This is the classic anti-Semitic trope.

As a Jew, I know a great many Jews, and I can’t think of any who have large noses. Perhaps those who were born that way had their noses fixed. I don’t know. But they don’t have large noses now.

So, where did Night Cafe get that idea? From Nazi Germany’s portrayal of Jews? From common bigoted beliefs?

Next, I prompted Night Cafe with “Teen gang member”: 

Teen gang member

Somehow, the machine seems to know of no white teen gang members. In its bigoted brain, it only knows about kids of color, what appear to be Latin. Perhaps it doesn’t associate the word “gang” with white supremacists, Nazis, or other white groups.

Next, I prompted, “Beautiful woman.” it produced nine similar photos, seemingly of white women. None seem to have black, brown, or red features.

Clearly, the machine believes only white women can be beautiful.

Beautiful woman

Next came “A beautiful woman in a bathing suit.” Again, there are no blacks, though one seems to be Asian. All are pretty slender, though the Asian woman is not as thin as the others.

In short, the machine believes a beautiful woman in a bathing suit is skinny, white, and in a bikini.

A beautiful woman in a bathing suit
Finally,  I prompted, “Knowledgeable person,”  expecting to see something with photos hinting at Einstein or some other noted brain. Instead, the AI produced this!
Knowledgeable person

Yikes! I have no idea what the derivation is. Do you?

The purpose of this post is not to demonstrate that AIs can be wrong. There is ample proof of that. Instead, this indicates that:

  1. AIs can be bigoted
  2. And because the output of AI machines is so voluminous (It’s saturating the Internet), its bigotry is being picked up as foundational data by other AI machines, who repeatedly promulgate it until AI may become “all bigotry, all the time.”

Thus, just as with human bigotry, AI bigotry is contagious, only faster. That is how false information can evolve to “common knowledge,” which further can evolve to “accepted truth” and finally “unquestioned fact.”

We all are subject to the problem expressed by, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” We all know for sure some things that just ain’t so.

How do we acquire this knowledge “for sure”? From repetition. If we hear something from a trusted source and then see it in print from trusted sources, we are likely to believe it.

And if all the people we know and all publications we read say the same thing, we will know it “for sure.” 

So it is, for example, with the MAGAs. Trump tells them he won. Fox News tells them he won. Their MAGA friends (Do MAGAs have any friends who are not MAGAs?) tell them he won. And they read Breitbart that says he won. So they believe, “for sure,” that he won.

Now multiply that kind of false information coming from a lying AI as it pumps trillions of bits of data into the megasphere.

Where can truth be found? How do you recognize it when you see it? What is a trusted source? Those are questions you will have more difficulty answering as AI proliferates.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY