There are some things only the government should do.

Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

—————————-

We are social animals. Rules, laws, codes, and mores are the natural consequence of that shared life. We establish governments to organize and formalize those rules. The fundamental purpose of governments is to improve and protect the lives of the governed. Those of a libertarian bent decry government as being intrusive upon their freedoms. Yet, the very purpose of laws is to limit any individual’s freedom to do harm to society. For humans, anarchy tends to devolve into chaos. For arch Libertarians, every law (or at least every law they dislike, today) is pejoratively defined as “Socialism,” and that supposedly ends the argument. They opt for “small government” which tends to translate into, less taxing of the rich and fewer benefits for the poor. But Socialism, like most “isms,” neither is bad nor good, in of itself. The assessment depends on conditions and how the “ism” is applied. When Ronald Reagan famously declared, “Government is the problem,” he was President of one of the more successful governments on this planet — successful in the sense that it oversaw one of the freest, wealthiest, most powerful nations in history. Clearly, Reagen was not a Libertarian when he uttered those words, which in any event have been misconstrued and twisted over time. And as it turned out, Reagan was not a small-business President. Today’s Libertarianism leans heavily toward a form of Conservatism that favors the rich over the poor, to the point where virtually any benefit for the poor is denounced as encroaching on “our” (meaning the rich’s) freedoms. Despite the “Socialism!” howls of today’s Republicans, and the “Big Government!” screams of the Libertarians, some things truly are better left to the federal government. Three of these things are discussed at: The military, the nation’s banks, and healthcare.
Sure you paid us insurance premiums, but do you really expect us to pay for your healthcare?
When deciding what should be done by government and what should be done in the private sector, here are five of the key issues: Coordination: America is a huge nation, huge in area, huge in population, with huge demographic and legal diversity. Very few businesses are able to coordinate nationwide projects. National coordination is best handled by a national government. Labor supply Even the federal government doesn’t employ sufficient labor to handle large projects. Example: The National Highway System. But the federal government has the means and political power to hire, set the rules for, and supervise private contractors nationwide. Expertise Some projects require a wide range of technical expertise. The federal government, far more than any single business, benefits from the extensive military and non-military research projects it funds. Affordability and financial risk Here is where the federal government really shines. It literally can afford anything and when speculative projects don’t work, the government can afford to absorb the loss. Profit motive This may be the most important reason for the government, rather than the private sector, handling a project: The profit motive. The federal government doesn’t have one. It can go “where no man has gone before.” It can try experiments. It can fail and try again. It can focus on the mission rather than on the profit. When NASA was instructed to send a man to the moon, all its attention was on that mission, not on whether moon flights might be profitable. Subsequently, it has sent missions all over the solar system. Now, fifty years later, private industry has decided there might be money to be made in sending a few rich people briefly into space, though not even yet to the moon. That is the difference between the federal government’s efforts and private industry’s. Left to its own devices, private industry might never travel to the moon. The financial risk too great; the profit, too uncertain. And in that vein, I give you the following article:
Major Insurers Running Billions of Dollars Behind on Payments to Hospitals and Doctors Posted on October 10, 2021 by Lambert Strether: “We should bail them out. Obviously.” Jay Hancock, of Kaiser Health News. Anthem Blue Cross, the country’s second-biggest health insurance company, is behind on billions of dollars in payments owed to hospitals and doctorsbecause of onerous new reimbursement rules, computer problems and mishandled claims, say hospital officials in multiple states. Anthem, like other big insurers, is using the covid-19 crisis as cover to institute “egregious” policies that harm patients and pinch hospital finances, said Molly Smith, group vice president at the American Hospital Association.  Hospitals are also dealing with a spike in retroactive claims denials by UnitedHealthcare, the biggest health insurer, for emergency department care, AHA says.
What is the underlying problem? Money, or more specifically, the profit motive.

While the primary mission of Medicare and Medicaid is to pay for medical expenses, the primary mission of private-sector health care insurance companies is to make a profit.

A government agency can be inefficient, uncaring, and downright ignorant. So can private insurance companies. The single biggest difference is the profit motive, or the lack thereof.
Disputes between insurers and hospitals are nothing new. But this fight sticks more patients in the middle, worried they’ll have to pay unresolved claims. Hospitals say it is hurting their finances as many cope with covid surges — even after the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in emergency assistance from the federal government. “We recognize there have been some challenges” to prompt payments caused by claims-processing changes and “a new set of dynamics” amid the pandemic, Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning said in an email. “We apologize for any delays or inconvenience this may have caused.”
“Any delays or inconvenience” sounds benign, but it is a serious, often existential problem. Nurses rely on their salaries. Doctors, too. Hospitals have creditors who rely on repayment. And patients suffer emotionally and medically from those delays and inconveniences. When an insurer reneges on its payment responsibilities, a falling domino effect occurs, where thousands of people are injured, some permanently.
Virginia law requires insurers to pay claims within 40 days. In a Sept. 24 letter to state insurance regulators, VCU Health, a system that operates a large teaching hospital in Richmond associated with Virginia Commonwealth University, said Anthem owes it $385 million. More than 40% of the claims are more than 90 days old, VCU said. For all Virginia hospitals, Anthem’s late, unpaid claims amount to “hundreds of millions of dollars,” the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association said in a June 23 letter to state regulators.
Clearly, Anthem values its own finances above the finances and health of many thousands of people.
Nationwide, the payment delays “are creating an untenable situation,” the American Hospital Association said in a Sept. 9 letter to Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux. “Patients are facing greater hurdles to accessing care; clinicians are burning out on unnecessary administrative tasks; and the system is straining to finance the personnel and supplies” needed to fight covid. Complaints about Anthem extend “from sea to shining sea, from New Hampshire to California,” AHA CEO Rick Pollack told KHN. Substantial payment delays can be seen on Anthem’s books. On June 30, 2019, before the pandemic, 43% of the insurer’s medical bills for that quarter were unpaid, according to regulatory filings. Two years later that figure had risen to 53% — a difference of $2.5 billion. Anthem profits were $4.6 billion in 2020 and $3.5 billion in the first half of 2021.
While Anthem thrives, everyone else suffers. The villain all of this is not just Anthem, but the profit motive. That is where the problem begins. If Anthem were like the federal government and wasn’t concerned about profits, everyone would have been paid, and those payment dollars would have benefitted the entire economy.
Alexis Thurber, who lives near Seattle, was insured by Anthem when she got an $18,192 hospital bill in May for radiation therapy that doctors said was essential to treat her breast cancer. The treatments were “experimental” and “not medically necessary,” Anthem said, according to Thurber. She spent much of the summer trying to get the insurer to pay up — placing two dozen phone calls, spending hours on hold, sending multiple emails and enduring unmeasurable stress and worry. It finally covered the claim months later.
Apparently, the claim was a good one. Anthem paid it, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the claim should have been paid. The delay was unwarranted. The fundamental purpose of the delay was the profit motive.
“It’s so egregious. It’s a game they’re playing,” said Thurber, 51, whose cancer was diagnosed in November. “Trying to get true help was impossible.” Privacy rules prevent Anthem from commenting on Thurber’s case, said Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning. When insurers fail to promptly pay medical bills, patients are left in the lurch. They might first get a notice saying payment is pending or denied. A hospital might bill them for treatment they thought would be covered. Hospitals and doctors often sue patients whose insurance didn’t pay up.
Yes, there are times when Medicare refuses to pay, but those have to do with disagreements about the rules and coverages. The federal bureaucrats making those decisions are not constrained by profits or affordability. They simply interpret the rules. They have no m oneyreason to lean away from the creditor.
Hospitals point to a variety of Anthem practices contributing to payment delays or denials, including new layers of document requirements, prior-authorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves— not support staffers — speak to insurance gatekeepers. “This requires providers to literally leave the patient[’s] bedside to get on the phone with Anthem,” AHA said in its letter.
Ah, the old “prior authorization” insurance scam. How many millions of patients have been tripped up by that one? A frightened, inexperienced patient is told he/she needs a procedure. In a panic about her health, her personal life, and the future, she neglects to tell the insurance company in advance. Payment is denied, not because the procedure isn’t proper, but simply because she didn’t go through the formality of prior authorization. Gotcha! Medicare seldom requires prior authorization.
Anthem often hinders coverage for outpatient surgery, specialty pharmacy and other services in health systems listed as in-network, amounting to a “bait and switch” on Anthem members, AHA officials said. “Demanding that patients be treated outside of the hospital setting, against the advice of the patient’s in-network treating physician, appears to be motivated by a desire to drive up Empire’s profits,” the Greater New York Hospital Association wrote in an April letter to Empire Blue Cross, which is owned by Anthem.
Medicare and Medigap do not use provider networks. With Original Medicare and Medigap you can use any healthcare provider that accepts Medicare-assignment. With Original Medicare, you do not have to wander through the “in-network, out-of-network” jungle.
Anthem officials pushed back in a recent letter to the AHA, saying the insurer’s changing rules are intended partly to control excessive prices charged by hospitals for specialty drugs and nonemergency surgery, screening and diagnostic procedures.
A for-profit organization has to worry about “excessive prices. For the government, “excessive” prices merely mean that the federal agency will pump more stimulus dollars into the economy.
Claims have gotten lost in Anthem’s computers, and in some cases VCU Health has had to print medical records and mail them to get paid, VCU said in its letter. The cash slowdown imposes “an unmanageable disruption that threatens to undermine our financial footing,” VCU said.
“Lost” is the way a for-profit organization increases its profits.
United denied $31,557 in claims for Emily Long’s care after she was struck in June by a motorcycle in New York City. She needed surgery to repair a fractured cheekbone. United said there was a lack of documentation for “medical necessity” — an “incredibly aggravating” response on top of the distress of the accident, Long said. The Brooklyn hospital that treated Long was “paid appropriately under her plan and within the required time frame,” said United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo. “The facility has the right to appeal the decision.” United’s unpaid claims came to 54% as of June 30, about the same level as two years previously.
When more than half of all claims are not paid, something is terribly wrong. There simply cannot be that many false claims.
When Erin Conlisk initially had trouble gaining approval for a piece of medical equipment for her elderly father this summer, United employees told her the insurer’s entire prior-authorization database had gone down for weeks, said Conlisk, who lives in California. “There was a brief issue with our prior-authorization process in mid-July, which was resolved quickly,” Gordon Shydlo said.
Brief issue” is private insurance-speak for “the longer you have to wait, the more money we make. Maybe you’ll just give up, altogether.”
When asked by Wall Street analysts about the payment backups, Anthem executives said it partly reflects their decision to increase financial reserves amid the health crisis.
Decision to increase financial reserves” is insurance-speak for “decision to make more profits.”
“Really a ton of uncertainty associated with this environment,” John Gallina, the company’s chief financial officer, said on a conference call in July. “We’ve tried to be extremely prudent and conservative in our approach.”
Translation: “To be really prudent and conservative, we’ve decided not to pay claims. You’d be amazed at how that reduces our costs. But you better send in your premiums on time.”
Several health systems declined to comment about claims-payment delays or didn’t respond to a reporter’s queries. Among individual hospitals “there is a deep fear of talking on the record about your largest business partner,” AHA’s Smith said.
“Business partner” is a synonym for “the guy who is squeezing my reproductive organs in his fist.”
Alexis Thurber worried she might have to pay her $18,192 radiation bill herself, and she’s not confident her Anthem policy will do a better job next time of covering the cost of her care. “It makes me not want to go to the doctor anymore,” she said. “I’m scared to get another mammogram because you can’t rely on it.”
And that is exactly what your insurance company wants. Plenty of premiums with no costs. An excellent business model. That is where the profit motive can devolve in the health care business. Health should be a recognized basic human right. In a Monetarily Sovereign nation, federal support of healthcare costs taxpayers nothing. Comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare for All is the correct solution. But, until the public realizes it, it won’t happen. The politicians are too well-bribed by the insurance industry. 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.

The most important problems in economics involve:
  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:
  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Dumb comment of the week (by someone who should know better

This will be short and sour. News item:
Janet Yellen warns US risks running out of money by October 18 | Financial  Times
Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary is clueless about the U.S. dollar.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen drop-kicked the idea — popular online — of minting a trillion-dollar coin as a potential debt-ceiling exit ramp. She told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week”: “I wouldn’t be supportive of a trillion-dollar coin. I think it’s a gimmick. And it jeopardizes the independence of the Federal Reserve. You would be asking to essentially print money to cover the deficit.
If Yellen really means what she said, she should be fired immediately for gross ignorance. She’s the Secretary of the Treasury, for heaven’s sake. First, she objects to a “gimmick” for solving the real “gimmick,” the debt-ceiling. What could be more of a “gimmick” than a 1939 law that tells the U.S. federal government it no longer should pay for what it already has bought and agreed to pay for? What could be more of a gimmick than Congress repeatedly voting, for purely political purposes, to ignore, then reinstate, the law for various periods of time? What could be more of a gimmick than these “extraordinary” steps the Treasury takes to suspend the debt limit? Second, doesn’t that law, in itself, threaten the “independence of the Federal Reserve” by making it legal — even mandatory — for U.S. Treasury checks to bounce? Third, the so-called debt limit doesn’t cover the deficit; it covers the so-called “debt,” which isn’t really a federal debt. It’s the total of all Treasury security accounts owned by the public, which are paid off simply by returning the dollars in them Fourth, what the heck does she think the government does now, if not “print money” to pay for what it owes?

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.”

Does Treasury Secretary Yellen really believe that the U.S. federal government needs to borrow and tax in order to acquire spending dollars — the dollars the government previously created from thin air, way back in 1780? If Yellen really cared about her job, she would say, “The debt limit is a gimmick that should be ended, today. It does nothing to protect America. It’s based on a lie, and all it does is make us look like potential deadbeats, whose word can’t be trusted, and who might not pay for what we already have purchased.” It’s no wonder the public is so easily confused by liars when we have damn fools like Janet Yellen in positions of influence. 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.

The most important problems in economics involve:
  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:
  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The Pandora Box: Your taxes and your charities

The problem is this: Federal taxes are unnecessary. They do not fund federal spending. Because the U.S. federal government (unlike state/local and euro governments) is Monetarily Sovereign, it has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. It never unintentionally can run short of dollars. Rather than spending tax dollars, the federal government creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays for something. Your Medicare and Social Security benefits, indeed every dollar coming out of Washington, are newly created. What becomes of your tax dollars? They are destroyed upon receipt by the U.S. Treasury. They begin in checking accounts as part of the M1 money supply measure, and as soon as they hit the Treasury, they cease to exist in any money measure. Not only are federal taxes not spent, but they are a terrible drag on the economy. The estimate is that this year, nearly $4 trillion will be taken from the U.S. economy by useless federal taxes. That is a gigantic, and unnecessary, loss for the U.S. economy. While politicians lie about you and your children owing some percentage of the federal debt (You don’t), your real debt is what you owe in federal taxes. Your federal tax dollars are lost forever. (Perhaps ironically, your state/local taxes are recirculated into the economy, so they do wind up in someone’s pocket.) If all federal tax collections were eliminated, the U.S. economy would be boosted by about $4 trillion, which calculates to an approximate 18% gain in annual Gross Domestic Product. Federal taxes are the single biggest deadweight on U.S. economic growth. Nothing else comes close. So we should get rid of those unnecessary taxes — except for two problems: First, taxes theoretically help the federal government control certain aspects so the economy, by taxing what it wishes to discourage and giving tax breaks to what it wishes to encourage. Second, by taking more from the rich than from the poor, federal taxes theoretically help narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest.

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.

The love of money isn’t the root of all evil. Gap Psychology — the desire to widen the Gap below and to narrow the Gap above — is the root of all evil. Those are the theories. Here is the reality:
A growing worry for charities: Tax havens for the rich By Haleluya Hadero , AP Business Writer A spotlight that has been thrown on how many of the rich and powerful shield their wealth is also intensifying a fear among philanthropy experts: That the tax havens being used by the wealthy will increasingly siphon money away from charitable causes. Wealthy Americans have long sought to use charitable contributions to reduce their tax burdens.
That is how the federal government encourages charitable giving. (Because much charity is religiously based, it could be argued that those tax deductions are unconstitutional, but that is a separate issue,)
But the “Pandora Papers” report, issued last week by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, revealed how world leaders, billionaires and others have stashed trillions of dollars out of the reach of governments by using shell companies and offshore accounts, which are considered legal. One maneuver described in the report, a “dynasty trust,” can exist in perpetuity in states like South Dakota. Using these trusts, Americans can legally shield themselves from estate and other taxes — and thereby remove a major incentive for charitable giving. When the wealth of an American individual or couple exceeds a threshold — $11.7 million or $23.4 million, respectively — each dollar value above that level, once bequeathed, is subject to a federal estate tax of up to 40% for each generation. But a carefully crafted dynasty trust helps succeeding generations avoid those taxes. And the longer the trusts last, the longer the user can avoid taxes and the longer he or she may lack a financial incentive to donate to a charity. Experts note some Americans are also legally able to avoid state income taxes on revenue generated by their assets by setting up trusts in states that don’t levy income taxes. One of them is South Dakota, which also doesn’t have its own estate, capital gains or inheritance tax, thereby making it an especially attractive destination to park wealth.
Of course, that is not the only way the rich avoid paying taxes. For example:
President Trump Defends Himself Against Report He Did Not Pay Taxes For 8 Years May 8, 2019, Heard on All Things Considered Jim Zarroli Trump lost so much money during the decade that he was able to completely avoid paying taxes in eight of the 10 years from 1985 to 1994, but Trump noted in a tweet this morning that big losses on paper, at least, were common in real estate at the time. He said developers got massive write-offs that allowed them to declare a loss in most cases. It was sport, he said. It’s called tax shelter. Tomasz Piskorski, who teaches real estate at Columbia Business School, says that was pretty much true. Real estate developers had lots of legal ways to avoid paying taxes.
Think of it. You and I paid more federal taxes than did billionaire Donald Trump. There are dozens of ways in which the rich can avoid paying taxes — ways not available to the average taxpayer. In fact, the U.S. tax code, rather than helping to narrow the Gap, actually widens the Gap, and not just for today’s taxpayers, but for the rich taxpayer’s children and grandchildren, into perpetuity. That is how dynasties are built, and how relative poverty is maintained.
“There’s every reason to think that the ultimate effect of this type of wealth being put into these vehicles will also be a long-term loss in revenue for charitable organizations,” said Ray Madoff, a professor at Boston College Law School who teaches philanthropy policy and taxes. 
Tax policy, after all, consistently affects charitable giving. After the tax law changes pushed through Congress by President Donald Trump in 2017, charitable donations dropped 1.3% in 2018compared with the prior year, the Treasury Department reported.  According to a recent study by the consulting firm CCS Fundraising, 25% of donors cited the tax deduction as a motivation for their charitable giving. A joint study from Bank of America and the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy found that 22% of the wealthy donors surveyed would reduce their donations if tax deductions for charitable giving were eliminated. The same study found that 51% of wealthy donors said they sometimes contribute to charity to receive a tax benefit.
In summary, the dilemma is this:
  1. Federal taxes do not provide the federal government with spending money. Being Monetarily Sovereign, it creates all its spending money, ad hoc.
  2. Federal taxes are harmful to economic growth by removing dollars from the economy.
  3. Federal taxes, as currently written, widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.
  4. But, federal taxes help the government control the economy.
  5. For example, federal taxes encourage charitable giving.
If we want our government to encourage economic growth and to narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest, while maintaining federal control over the economy, including encouraging charitable giving, what should we do? Because The federal government has no need for tax dollars, it should begin to:
  • Eliminate taxes on what it wishes to encourage
  • Spend on what it wishes to encourage
  • Tax only what it wishes to discourage
The first taxes that should be eliminated are FICA taxes and taxes on Social Security benefits. These taxes are the most regressive and senseless taxes in America. The fundamental purpose of government is to improve and protect the lives of the governed. That is why people create governments.

A good government would aid the poor and middle classes before retirement and encourage retirement security. The FICA tax and taxes on Social Security benefits are in direct opposition to those goals.

A good government would provide healthcare to its governed. It would spend money on comprehensive medical insurance plans. It would not require deductibles. It would pay for education, grades K-12+.

A good government would encourage charitable giving by offering income-scaled benefits to contributors as a reverse income “tax” on money contributions to legitimate charities, with low-income contributors receiving more benefits.

A good government would eliminate tax laws and loopholes that primarily benefit the rich.

Because the rich run America via bribery, we cannot obtain a “good government” until the populace understands Monetary Sovereignty. When the people stop believing The Big Lie that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending, and that federal debt should be reduced, only then will the rich no longer continue to amass greater and greater power over the rest of us. Is this really too much to hope for? 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.

The most important problems in economics involve:
  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:
  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Jonah Goldberg. Could he be more wrong?

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch. Goldberg’s column is provided by Tribune Content Agency. Mr. Goldberg proves, once again, that having a platform doesn’t assure you know where you stand.
Jonah Goldberg: Biden needs a do-over | Jonah Goldberg | newsadvance.com
Jonah Goldberg
Jonah Goldberg: The problem isn’t raising taxes, it’s spending, spending, spending I’m a lifelong conservative.
Immediately, we see a problem. Anyone who claims to be a “lifelong” anything, really is telling you: “I’ve made up my mind, so don’t bother me with facts, and especially don’t bother me with facts the might disprove what I have believed since birth.”
One of the most important lessons of the last two decades is that black swan events — game-changing surprises — aren’t nearly so rare as we’d like. In 2001, a terrorist attack resulted in two decades of military conflict. Adding up defense, health care for vets and other related costs, the price tag amounts to an estimated $5.8 trillion to $8 trillion. In 2007-08, a financial crisis almost wrecked the economy. The combined loss of tax revenue and increased expenditures put the cost around $2 trillion. A 2018 Federal Reserve Board study estimated the cost to each American at $70,000.
Really? $70,000 cost to each American? Somehow I don’t recall paying $70,000 for anything other than a down payment on a house. Even my car cost a bit less than $70,000. I’ll bet you didn’t pay that mythical $70,000 for the government’s debt, either. It’s the typical “play-with-numbers” lie that debt-naggers like to spread, the sole purpose of which is to scare you. You didn’t pay for the terrorist attack, and you never will. You didn’t pay the government’s share in curing the financial crisis, and you never will. You, very simply, never will pay for federal spending. The purpose of federal taxation is not to provide spending money for the government, but rather to control the economy. Taxes help the government discourage what it doesn’t like and encourage what it does like. The federal government creates all the dollars it needs by sending instructions to banks, telling the banks to increase the balances in checking accounts. When the banks obey those instructions, instant dollars are created. The federal government never can run short of instructions.
The social and political costs are still unfolding. Historically, financial crises spark intense, and long-lasting, populist revolts. Normal recessions do not have the same effect. (This is something to keep in mind as a debt crisis becomes more likely.)
The only “debt crisis” would come if Congress fails to raise (or better yet, eliminate) that ridiculous “debt ceiling,” aka the deadbeat law. You know, it’s the one where Congress decides whether or not to pay the bills it already owes.
Then there’s the pandemic. In November, economists David Cutler and Lawrence Summers estimated the costs in lost growth, income, life expectancy, etc. to be more than $16 trillion, roughly 90% of U.S. annual gross domestic product. The federal government has spent nearly $6 trillion combating the pandemic.
Because the U.S. federal government has the infinite ability to create its own sovereign currency, that $6 trillion amounts to less than one molecule of water from all of earth’s oceans. It won’t cost you a single cent, nor will your children and grandchildren owe it. To pay all its bills, the federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc. It never runs short of dollars. And please don’t get me started on Larry Summers. You can read about him here.
Much of that spending was necessary or defensible. Government is supposed to respond to extraordinary circumstances with extraordinary measures. Which brings me to the case for raising taxes. What happens when the next black swan touches down? Do we have the financial bandwidth to handle a new pandemic or financial crisis? How about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? A nuclear terror attack? And, remember, the current pandemic isn’t over yet.
I assume “financial bandwidth” is supposed to be a clever way of asking, “Does the U.S. federal government have enough dollars to [name of emergency goes here].” The answer is: Our Monetarily Sovereign government has enough “bandwidth” to pay any debt of any size, any time. Even if the U.S. government collected $0 taxes, it could keep spending, forever.
World War II was a noble and necessary expenditure of national resources. But it was expensive, driving national debt to 110% of GDP. Afterward, there was a broad consensus that we had to pay it down.
“Broad consensus to pay it down?” I think not. In 1940, the Gross Federal Debt was $50 billion. In 1945 it was $260 billion. By 1960 it was $291 billion. Today, it’s about $25 trillion. The The federal government never has had any difficulty paying its bills, and never will. And by the way, the 110% debt/GDP ratio is 110% irrelevant. Classic apples/oranges comparison. The “debt” is the total of deposits into Treasury Securities (T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds). GDP is total spending in the economy. The Debt/GDP ratio demonstrates nothing, predicts nothing, and means nothing with regard to the federal government’s ability to pay. Anytime you see a reference to that ratio, know this: The user doesn’t know what he is talking about. It is impossible to look at the Debt/GDP ratio for any nation and learn the financial health of that nation.
Today, our debt level is even worse, but to say there is no similar consensus is an understatement on par with saying “America isn’t in a bipartisan mood.”
This is true. The Republicans are pro-rich. The Democrats are pro everyone else. And ne’er the twain shall meet. The Trump administration ended all bipartisanship. Under his leadership, politics now is all spite and vindictiveness. Although Debt/GDP is not a good predictor of the economy, “Federal Debt Held By The Public” is a good predictor. When federal debt growth declines, we have recessions. How does that square with Goldberg’s comment that our growing debt level is even worse?
When debt growth declines we have recessions (vertical gray bars) which are cured when debt growth increases
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., insists that progressives have already compromised by coming down from a desired $6 trillion in additional spending on a raft of new entitlements and social welfare programs. Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., is universally hailed — or demonized — as a “moderate” because he will “only” agree to a reconciliation package of $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion on top of $1 trillion in traditional infrastructure spending. Even 10 years ago, favoring that much spending would have marked Manchin as a Bernie Sanders liberal.
Joe Manchin is a Democrat trying to survive in a Republican state. In straddling that fence, he pleases no one, least of all himself, I suspect. He seems to have only one priority: Cutting — he doesn’t care what — so that he can pretend the moderate role.
Some of this spending may be for desirable or worthy things. But none of it makes sense given the fact we’re broke, never mind facing the possible return of inflation.
Good job, Jonah. Two lies in one sentence. First, the U.S. government never can be “broke.” Never. Not ever. No way. The federal government could spend $100 trillion, without taxing, borrowing, begging, or stealing. Second, inflation is not caused by government spending (as has been proved by the any, many years of high spending and low inflation). Inflation always is caused by shortages of key goods and services, most often food, energy, and sometimes, labor. Scarcity causes prices to rise. In fact, inflation can be cured by increased federal spending, if the spending is directed toward curing the shortages.
And the White House’s risible claims that it won’t cost anything only makes sense if you think raising taxes to pay for new entitlements is costless.
The White House’s claims are true. The spending costs nothing. It’s the useless, needless taxes that costs unnecessarily.
Yes, Keynesians favor increased spending and lower taxes to get out of a recession by stimulating consumer demand (and yes, we are all Keynesians now). The thing is, we’re not in a recession and demand is not our problem.
No, supply is a problem, and the reason for the supply problems is excessive taxation and insufficient federal spending to increase supply. Today’s inflation is caused by oil and food shortages, labor shortages, and computer chip shortages. All could be solved via more federal spending, not less.
So, in theory, raising (some) taxes in order to pay for previous spending on previous black swans and thus prepare for the next one makes sense.
Here, Goldberg continues to demonstrate abject ignorance of federal finances. While state/local taxes do fund state/local spending, federal taxes fund nothing. Nothing at all. Federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt. Raising federal taxes is recessionary because they remove dollars from the economy. By simple mathematics, GDP growth demands money growth.
The problem is we live in nonsensical times. There is zero appetite in Washington to deal with the debt. That’s in part because voters don’t care about it either — and that’s because they’ve figured out the politicians never really cared to begin with. Republicans squandered their remaining credibility on the issue under President Trump, and Democrats have simply rejected the premise that debt matters at all. Democrats want what they imagine to be a European-style welfare state but blanch at taxing the middle class at European levels to pay for it — which you’d have to do.
Ooh, the dreaded “welfare” state, which the Republicans hate, only if the welfare goes to the poor and middle classes. Welfare for the rich, in the form of tax loopholes that allowed Donald Trump to earn billions and pay virtually no taxes — that welfare is just fine, thank you. Goldberg doesn’t discuss welfare that would (should) cost taxpayers nothing. As a shill for the rich, he does not want the rabble to receive benefits, lest they might narrow the Gap between them and the rich. That’s part of the Gap Psychology that drives us.
Even for those of us who don’t want to live in a European welfare state, raising taxes to pay for the government Americans may want has an upside: It should teach us to keep politicians on a short leash. If Americans thought they would pay for the $6 trillion they’ve already borrowed and spent on the pandemic, they’d be less likely to support spending trillions more. They might say, “Let’s save that for a rainy day — or a black swan.”
Goldberg summarizes with absolute nonsense. He doesn’t bother to mention (doesn’t know??) that the euro nations are monetarily non-sovereign (like the U.S. states, counties, and cities), so they can’t create their own sovereign currency. They don’t have a sovereign currency. They gave up their sovereign currencies when they adopted the euro. So they must tax and tax. By contrast, federal taxes don’t pay for the federal government. State/local taxes do pay for state/local governments. When you don’t even understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty (federal) and monetary non-sovereignty (state/local) you should not be allowed to write about either one. Goldberg should be spanked and sent to bed. The government has not “already borrowed.” The federal government never borrows. Why would it? It has the unlimited ability to create dollars.

–Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.” –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.” –Quote from Ben Bernanke when, as Fed chief, he was on 60 Minutes: Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending? Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account. 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.” –Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, 9 January 2014 Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money? Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.

I may even begin to sympathize with Trump’s claim about the “Fake News Press.” Nah, I can’t go that far, especially with him and his media pals occupied with the fake, unnecessary, harmful, based-on-ignorance “debt ceiling.” Maybe I should send him a Monopoly game, where he can read in the rules:

“The Bank never “goes bankrupt” but can issue as much money as is necessary in the form of IOUs.”

The Monopoly Bank is a good corollary to the U.S. federal government. It too never can go bankrupt andcan issue as much money as is necessary in the form of IOUs (aka “U.S. dollars). Simple enough even for a columnist?? 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.

The most important problems in economics involve:
  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:
  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY