Outstanding article from The Week Magazine Sunday, Jan 20 2019 

The Week is one of the best news magazines I know. Part of its method is to provide a short opinion, then a counter-opinion, then a summary opinion. A really good approached to offering both sides.

The Week also publishes individual, long articles, and what follows is one I think you will find to be truly outstanding.

You also can find the article and subscribe to the magazine online by clicking the link, below. And as a bonus, you will learn a new word, “kakistocrats.”

Trump and the obliteration of America
By David Faris
January 20, 2019

Today marks the two year anniversary of President Trump’s ignominious reign over the United States. We are now at the midpoint of Trump’s first, perhaps only, term as president of the United States, what we can now understand as our collective Trumpening.

It is natural to ask about the consequences of handing the office of the presidency to a friendless, joyless, violence-worshipping narcissist. Unfortunately, what we know about the repercussions of this period is vastly outstripped by the disasters to come. For all the many ignominious assaults that the country has endured over the past two years, we have not yet experienced even a fifth of the calamities this man and his misrule will ultimately inflict upon us.

But we know a few things.

We know that President Trump has, perhaps permanently, transformed the presidency with his malevolence, ineptitude, and divisiveness. Donald Trump is by far the laziest and least informed person ever to inhabit the White House. In two years, he has defined deviance so far down that he may have forever altered the expectations of the office of the presidency itself.

As we have learned from a thousand anonymously sourced news analyses, the president’s time is largely unstructured, filled mostly with blocks of compulsive Fox News watching, an activity that he telegraphs to the public by live tweeting it. America’s voters are constantly being told, by the president of the United States, to watch particular Fox programs and to applaud quotes by right-wing gadflies uttered without any serious pushback from other guests on what is now effectively Republican state television.

Aides, despairing of any real hope that Trump will take his job seriously, desperately schedule short blocks of “policy time” for their addled boss, a man so bereft of any lawmaking depth that he has repeatedly sent his congressional enablers scrambling to meet his capricious demands and volte faces.

He has lit millions of taxpayer dollars on fire visiting his own gauche resorts, time he might have spent reining in the unprecedented corruption emanating from nearly every executive agency he staffed either with members of his dimwitted entourage or the very “globalists” he continues to hypocritically decry.

Every day, this darling of the evangelical movement lives his truth, which happens to line up with every one of the seven deadly sins of sloth, envy, greed, pride, anger and gluttony. Lust, at least, he seems to have left mercifully in his recent past.

Heralded as the first post-partisan president, a transactional dealmaker sent to blow up the shriveled gridlock in Washington, Trump has instead governed as the president of the Red States of America. Journalists working outside of the right wing mediasphere are demonized as “enemies of the people” and hounded by his supporters.

He rarely visits states that voted for Hillary Clinton unless there’s a golf course there, and signs bills designed explicitly to punish voters in Democratic strongholds. While he constantly caterwauls about Democrats obstructing his agenda, he has never once crafted a public message designed to expand his appeal beyond his MAGA base and clearly views his political future as dependent only on the narrow coalition of people who voted for him in 2016.

Fueled by a lifetime of resentment against elites, racial minorities, and immigrants, he is incapable even of treating disasters and tragedies in blue states and territories with the gravity they deserve.

Texas is a “great state” hit by an unfathomably catastrophic hurricane, while Puerto Ricans “want everything done for them” and California wildfires are the fault of government mismanagement. Here again what was once unthinkable — a president openly despising people who voted against him and punishing them for their supposed thought crimes — has become routine.

A complete trainwreck as a policy leader, Trump has also managed to be a miserable failure at the president’s ceremonial duties.

Instead of comfort to the afflicted, he drags his witlessness and anger into every room with him, teaching victims of calamity that their moral worth depends on who they voted for or which racial caste they were born into. He feuds endlessly with black women, uses the fever-swamp sobriquet “Democrat Party” to describe his opposition, bestows a childish nickname (“Adam Schitt”) on each of his multitudinous detractors, and seems to reserve his admiration only for fellow American white nationalists and overseas strongmen.

That this dispiriting display of churlishness, petty grievance mongering, and inept blame-wielding has resulted in consistently low approval ratings is little comfort for the future.

At least a third of the country has told pollsters over and over again that there is no line the president can cross, no standard of action that he can violate, no indecency incapable of being waved away by pointing to the unemployment rate or manufacturing gains.

Millions of Americans — thankfully not yet a majority — are willing to tolerate from our chief executive execrable behavior that no sane person would put up with from their friends, co-workers, or loved ones. He is able to do this because he is the apotheosis of a 40-year-long Republican-led assault on objective truth, expertise, and policy evaluation.

Like domestic abusers and cult leaders and con men, the activity that consumes the preponderance of President Trump’s time is relentlessly hammering away at our self-worth and our sense of objective reality. His war on truth operates on multiple fronts and never rests.

Arrayed against him are journalists, and at The Washington Post and Politifact they employ a truth-value spectrum, where the number of ‘Pinocchios’ or a four-category schematic lends a sort of nuance to the kind of nonsense claims politicians clobber each other with in staged debates or campaign ads.

Was Barack Obama ‘lying’ when he said, “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?” I guess, but the real problem there was the inability to be straight with voters, to able to say something like, “A small number of you may be forced to change insurance plans, for the greater good of your fellow citizens.”

Donald Trump’s lies are not like this. He fills up the public record with things that are not just artful rearrangements of things that are basically real, but rather outlandishly, transparently, undeniably untrue.

I’m not here to recount this litany of lies for you. Set aside for a moment the running count of the total number of lies that he has told — the content of each is irrelevant. The point is for you to forget what it is like to have the president try to tell the truth, to disorient you, to get you to make a false confession.

This is our truth, he wants us to say. That’s why the president of the United States gets up every morning, uncaps a bottomless flask filled with lies and magnificently ill-informed opinions, and spends entire days and evenings pouring it out over all of us. It is working. We have become inured.

We are told that to point out the president’s preposterous, outrageous lies is to play directly into a game whose rules only he sets and understands. This is how you got Trump, we are told over and over again by our abusers and their apologists.

In the haze of this unending sensory and rhetorical assault, President Trump has also, loosely, governed the United States as the leader of the most disinterested and unproductive unified government in American history. Has the president delivered on the promises he made? His economic policies, it should be obvious, have been radically different than what you might have gathered from his rally bluster.

The man who campaigned on behalf of ruined factory towns and raw-dealed blue collar workers immediately appointed a gallery of sniveling economic con artists to his Cabinet. Together, they have mildly tweaked American trade policy but have tripled down on Reagan-era economic orthodoxy, blowing a long-term hole in the deficit with reckless tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

Fleeting manufacturing gains have not been married to any coherent reorientation of American economic policy that will survive the next recession. He has ruined the lives of many people — workers in Ford manufacturing plants and soybean farmers in the Midwest, for instance — that he explicitly promised to rescue.

Thus far there has been no 2008-style disaster so obvious that it penetrates the epistemic closure of even the most fervent diehards. The stock market is up. Unemployment is down.

Trump’s overseas misadventures, for all of their gobsmacking foolishness, have not yet begun to even approach anything on the scale of the Iraq disaster. For many Americans, that is enough. If you tuned the dude out on Twitter (and you don’t work for or depend on the shuttered federal government) you might be able to convince yourself that nothing all that important is amiss.

But it is in the realm of policy where we are likely to experience the worst aftershocks, untraceable to the fault line of origin, for many years hence.

President Trump’s open dismantling of the country’s diplomatic apparatus and soft power capital is likely to haunt us in future dealings with other countries. When future presidents find it impossible to negotiate agreements and treaties with allies and adversaries, because all trust in American policy continuity has been broken and because an entire generation of foreign policy talent has been vaporized, they can thank President Trump.

Presidents and prime ministers know that Trump is temporary, that Trumpism might be fleeting. But they now regard America’s voters themselves with wariness. When will they next erupt in a petulant display of shortsightedness? Who will be the next rogue elevated to the presidency?

The transition to a post-American global system, multipolar and more complex, was inevitable. But we did not have to gratuitously piss away a century’s worth of accumulated goodwill in the process.

Republicans since the turn of this century have been bent on dismantling the very international institutions that could help ease the shift to a world in which America is no longer its most powerful country.

But it is Trump who has finished the job of blowing apart the post-World War II international order, a loss that while currently a kind of abstraction will be deeply felt during the next serious crisis. For all the many faults of the Pax Americana, one led by China, hampered by an untrusted, isolated United States and reeling from crisis to crisis inflicted by a warming planet, will be worse in ways we can scarcely yet imagine.

The Trump administration’s blinkered economic policies, so far the only thing where voters broadly give him some credit, are setting us up for a future meltdown that we will be very poorly equipped to manage.

The decade-long Republican assault on the public sector is driving new workers away from civil service, and will leave every important agency within the federal government scrambling for properly trained talent when the time finally comes to either hire them or depend on them in a crisis.

Who wants to work for an employer who threatens either to furlough you or drag you into work without pay every time Congress and the president can’t agree on a budget? The destruction of these institutions, constructed painstakingly over decades, may cripple a theoretical Democratic administration trying to expand Medicare or reform the systemic graft in our financial system. Just holding together what we now still have may become an impossible task.

America is also deliberately, as a matter of official Republican policy, hemorrhaging money during a long economic expansion. If Trump is in charge when the economy crashes, he will surely listen to the Randian ideologues in his coterie, who will tell him to cut spending, which will make it all incomprehensibly worse. Millions will suffer needlessly.

If Republicans manage to slip out of office before the reckoning, the next Democratic administration will be forced to run unthinkable, politically toxic deficits in order to pull us out of the economic spiral. Everything that the leaders of the Democratic primary field want to do will be made more challenging by the wreckage they will first be compelled to wade through. Heads they win, tails we lose.

A Trumpist minority that, during these relatively good economic times seems bent on cruelty to minorities and immigrants, will turn darker and more sadistic when the good times come to an end, or when their status as a numerical minority is finally reflected in our politics.

They will not go quietly and they almost certainly will go violently. They will add social mayhem to the economic wreckage. It will not be pretty.

And yet we do not know, cannot know, the precise shape of the horrors to come. What we know is that over the past two years, we have cheapened and embarrassed ourselves.

Even if this man and his enablers are removed from their offices next year, or even if the latest bombshell leads to Trump’s impeachment, we will be like a teenager slinking back home at midnight, stinking of booze, promising that we only had one beer and that we’ll never do it again.

The moment of release will be poisoned by the memory of what has already transpired. Something about America, as an idea, has been obliterated.

If there is some silver lining to be found, it is that Trump’s opponents have rediscovered the importance of institutions that they long took for granted. Normal people are talking about regulations at the Department of Justice, the separation of powers, and the Emoluments Clause.

A new generation of young people is engaged in the political process and determined to seize power from the Baby Boomers who have destroyed their futures. The hot blog of the administration is a geekfest called Lawfare.

Far from destroying his media tormentors, President Trump has instead sent people scrambling for subscriptions and stories. And millions of people have realized the ways that our democracy is deficient, from the suppression of voter rights via Voter ID laws and felony disenfranchisement procedures to the unequal representation in the Senate suffered by so many Americans.

Whether that encouraging fervor is sufficient to rescue American democracy from the grip of kakistocrats, white nationalists, grifters, and traitors remains to be seen.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

 

Was the Revolutionary War a waste of time? Wednesday, Jan 16 2019 

Related image
Many years ago we fought for freedom against a king. Big mistake. What this nation really needs is a strong leader — a king — because this Constitution, separation of powers thing isn’t working out.

We are stuck with three branches government, the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. The idea supposedly was to have a separation of powers, so that no one branch gets too powerful. (The founders still were nutty about kings, I guess.)

But what if the three branches don’t agree, so nothing gets done? Then what?

For instance, I promised to build a wall that Mexico would pay for, but I didn’t ask Mexico, and now Mexico won’t pay. So what can I do? I made a promise, and how would it look not to build that wall?

For more than two years, I’ve tried to get a Republican Congress to agree with me, but they haven’t, and now half of Congress is Democratic. You know how bad those people are. Bunch of rats and snowflakes.

I told them I would close down the government if I didn’t get my way, and they refused, so I closed it. Now, the shithole people are whining they can’t pay their rent. My heart bleeds.

Fortunately, I have McConnell running the Senate.

He and the rest of the GOP don’t care whether the government is open or shut, so long as they get votes and get paid. Bunch of pussies afraid to cross me.

What’s really great about this is that in the future, I’ve shown what can be done, if you have at least one weak house in Congress.

I’ve proved I can close the government any time I don’t get my way on anything. Hey, if I can close the government for a stupid issue like a little $5 billion wall, think of what I could do for something really big, like cutting healthcare and Social Security, firing Mueller, and pardoning my whole family. The possibilities are endless.

Yes, I’m a President who sets the precedent.

That separation of powers thing was a bunch of garbage, anyway. Guys like Putin and Kim — both of whom I love, and they love me — they have it right. Make a decision and it gets done. No wasting time arguing with Congress, and no more witch-hunt investigations into my businesses and Trump University.

I can’t even trust the guys I put into the Supreme Court to stay loyal to me. I can’t fire ’em. (We’ll see about that.)

Some people might say this sets a bad precedent for future Presidents, but I say: “What future Presidents?”

Wait until you hear my next plan. Why start with someone new every few years?

Trust me, my way is better. I know more about governing than anyone.

MAGA

Is someone stealing from your organization? The 3 simple rules of stealing Sunday, Jan 13 2019 

Is someone stealing from your organization? Here is a short, quick place to start learning.

There are all sorts of stealing in business. There’s the bookkeeper who takes home a few pens or pads of paper or a computer for his kid’s homework

There’s the secretary who accepts jewelry and perfume from a key supplier in return for telling him what the competition is bidding.

There’s the officer who has his lawn mowed and trees trimmed by the company’s landscaping firm.

And there’s the outright crook, who finds ways to steal big money.

A short story: One day, when I took over the management of a small company, I asked the bookkeeper to show me the previous year’s audit statements. She showed me the outside accountant’s compilation.

For those of you not versed in accounting terms, a “compilation” is nothing more than the bookkeeper’s report printed on the outside accountant’s letterhead. In short, it is useless.

That was the first clue.

The second clue came when I told the bookkeeper I was going to bring in a new outside accountant to conduct an audit. The bookkeeper failed to show up for work the next day.

You know the end of this story. The outside accountant found that the bookkeeper had stolen at least $50,000, simply by writing checks to herself, then destroying the cashed originals that came back from the bank. (As I said, it was a small company.)

The title of this article is, “The 3 simple rules of stealing,” so here they are:

Rule 1: If stealing is possible, stealing absolutely will happen.Image result for stealing from the company

There is a reason for the prayer, “. . . lead us not into temptation.” As humans we are fallible, and given significant temptation, even the most honest among us would yield, particularly if the temptation is laid out right in front of us, and the risks are seen to be negligible.

The aforementioned bookkeeper wrote checks every day. She saw that for years, no one ever bothered to review them. Fundamentally, she may have been a good person, but the temptation was irresistible.

Think about your business. Is there any area in which someone could steal, take bribes, or otherwise illegally benefit at the company’s expense? If so, it absolutely is happening.

Rule 2: The people doing the stealing are the people you trust most.Image result for angelic man

These are the people who have worked for you longest, and/or work the hardest, seldom take vacations, and hardly ever call in sick.

They may be your personal friends, even relatives. You might be godfather to their children. These are the people you might trust with your life.  They don’t seem like dishonest “types.”

When the thievery is discovered, you’ll say, “I simply cannot believe he would steal from me, after all these years.”

When these otherwise trusted people are apprehended, they often justify their stealing by saying things like, “I was underpaid,” “I didn’t receive the credit I deserved,” “I needed the money for . . . ,” “The company is rich and I’m poor,” “Everyone was doing it.”

Rule 3: Whoever feels “insulted” that their honesty is questioned, or claims an investigation is a “waste of money” — that person is the thief.

Image result for insultedHonest people dislike thieves. They hate to see people “getting away with” something, while they themselves don’t. They welcome investigations that will uncover the crooks.

By contrast, thieves are angered and intimidated by investigations. If you start nosing around, asking questions, and rifling through files, only to be met with reluctance and “Don’t you trust me?” objections, you have found your crook.

And that’s it: Three simple rules. Read them again and think about your organization.

If you step back and look objectively at your organization, and if you see where it would be possible for a trusted person to steal or accept bribes, and if that person bristles or objects to the idea of an investigation, you’ll know you have a problem.

Stealing can assume myriad forms. Often, it involves one person having both administrative and supervisory roles over the same process. For instance, on outside projects, does the same person specify criteria, and obtain quotes, select the supplier, and then supervise and judge the work being done?

Has that trusted person been with you a long time? Does he/she work either without a direct supervisor or does the direct supervisor use a “hands-off” approach to supervising? Are they friends, relatives, or lovers?

Do you have any rules regarding gifts from suppliers? Have you spoken to your suppliers about these rules?

Just as an exercise, you might ask to see all the specifications and all the quotes for a certain job. Ask the author of the specifications to defend each requirement. Were all specifications necessary or did they favor one supplier?

Then review the quotes to see if there are substantial differences, and ask why a higher-priced quote was selected.

Even more important than the answers to your questions are the nature of the responses themselves. Did someone say, “Why are you asking?” Were the responses slow to come or reluctantly given?

The list of stealing opportunities is endless, but it usually begins with the three rules.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The best way to destroy a good plan is to implement it poorly. Thursday, Jan 10 2019 

The best way to destroy a good plan is to implement it poorly.

Have you had an experience similar to this: Many years ago, when I was a partner in an advertising firm, it was common for someone to make a suggestion — for instance, “advertise on morning TV” — and someone else might respond, “We tried that and it didn’t work.”

Image result for football coaches conferring

We tried running the ball last year. It didn’t work. We’ll never do that, again.

Those magic words, “We tried that and it didn’t work,” may be responsible for the destruction of more good ideas than any phrase in the English language.

They seem to sound like proof, when in fact, they are meaningless.

The “that” that had been tried, may have been quite different from the “that” being proposed.

Perhaps the commercials themselves were inferior. Perhaps the days, or the time periods, or the times of year, or the product timing — any number of things might account to the failure of morning TV.

If someone proposes a plan you hate, search for some time when a similar plan was implemented and failed, so you can point to it and claim “We tried that, and it doesn’t work.”

I was reminded of “we tried that and it didn’t work,” when I saw an article about New York State’s attempt to install a “Medicare for All” plan.

“Medicare of All” is a wonderful idea, but only if it is done right. I pray for the time when every American has all the medical support he/she needs, and no one is forced into sickness or death by lack of money, and serious illness does not lead to poverty.

Here are some excerpts from the above-mentioned article:

This Brewing Healthcare Battle Is a Preview of the Medicare for All War
By Harry Cheadle, Dec 13 2018

Near the top of any progressive wish list is the New York Health Act, the state’s version of Medicare for all—which is to say universal, government-provided—health insurance.

Single-payer healthcare, as such systems are also called, has been a left-wing lodestar for generations.

If the NYHA passed, it would make New York the first state in the union to guarantee free access to healthcare (and freedom from fear of health-related bankruptcy) to all of its residents, including undocumented people.

If passed and smoothly implemented, NYHA could be not just a way to improve the lives of New Yorkers but a model for the rest of the country as it debates the merits of Medicare for all, a policy backed by Bernie Sanders and many other potential 2020 presidential contenders.

If “Medicare for All” is so obviously beneficial to Americans, why has no state or the federal government, passed such a law?

The answer, of course, can be stated in one word: Money.

Providing comprehensive health care to every man, woman, and child would be expensive. Who would pay for such a plan?

Currently, every American already pays for comprehensive health care via insurance, and pays for the lack of comprehensive health care by doing without.

In short, we all pay for everyone, in one way or another, with the only questions being:

  1. Who will be covered
  2. What will be covered
  3. Who will pay?

The ideal would be for everyone to be covered for every medical-related cost, and for no one to pay. Anything less than that would be an incomplete plan.

Unfortunately, the New York plan does not cover everyone and everything, and taxpayers will pay.

But now that Democrats can actually pass the NYHA, single-payer supporters are facing a fight that could pit them against not just the insurance industry but a host of Democratic constituencies and leaders—a preview of the contentious debate over healthcare that might follow victories in 2020.

The foremost obstacle is the powerful medical industry lobby, which will likely deploy the usual counterattacks—think the “death panels” of the Affordable Care Act debate, or the fear-mongering “Harry and Louise” ads that helped scuttle reform in the 90s.

Then you have Democratic lawmakers who may hesitate to back a transformative proposal that would raise taxes on a lot of people, a governor who doesn’t seem particularly warm to the idea, a hostile federal government, and potential lawsuits from employers.

While the coming NYHA battle represents a possible turning point in the history of healthcare politics, it won’t be a pretty sight.

Yet if single-payer advocates could get past all that, they’d have a roadmap to victory in other states—and a model that could be replicated in DC.

Rather than providing a roadmap to victory, I fear New York will provide a roadmap to defeat.

The single biggest problem facing a New York plan is this: New York State is monetarily non-sovereign. It does not have access to unlimited numbers of dollars. It must rely on taxes to fund the program.

So the plan will not be able to cover everyone and everything, and in that regard, it will be incomplete — a failure that opponents will be able to use as a negative example, forever.

Richard Gottfried, the chair of the New York State Assembly’s Health Committee and the chief architect of the NYHA, recently explained what it would look like. “It would create universal complete health coverage for every New York resident without premiums, deductibles, copays, or restricted provider networks,” he said over the phone.

The bill would pay for this by pooling the money the state gets from the federal government for programs like Medicaid and Medicare, and also by raising taxes.

“There would be one tax on payroll income, predominantly paid by employers, and a parallel on unearned income like dividends, capital gains,” Gottfried explained.

This would transform the way New Yorkers pay for healthcare—instead of giving premiums to insurers, they’d be getting taxed—and according to a recent study by the RAND Corporation, overall health spending would drop by $80 billion, or 2 percent, by 2031, even as the roughly 1.2 million currently uninsured New Yorkers gained access to care.

Richard Gottfried, the chair of the New York State Assembly’s Health Committee and the chief architect of the NYHA, recently explained what it would look like. “It would create universal complete health coverage for every New York resident without premiums, deductibles, copays, or restricted provider networks,” he said over the phone.

Ultimately, all taxes are paid by people. Taxes that businesses pay, come either from employees or from customers.

Businesses simply are a legal concept that is a pass-through for dollars. Each dollar a business pays in taxes is deducted from some person.

The arguments against the NYHA are echoes of the normal arguments marshaled against single-payer healthcare — high taxes, long wait times for care under a government-run system, and job loss in the insurance industry.

“Long wait times” is a fake narrative. Medicare for All doesn’t affect health-care providers. It doesn’t affect doctors, nurses, hospitals, et al. It merely is an insurance plan, not a health-care program.  Think of Blue Cross with government money.

Last year, a California single-payer bill was effectively axed by Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, who said it was “woefully incomplete” and didn’t describe how the system would be paid for. (Single-payer advocates were so incensed they subsequently attempted to remove Rendon from office.)

Gottfried said that unlike the California bill, the NYHA clearly describes where the funding would come from, and unlike Vermont, New York has enough wealth to make paying for a single-system more practical.

It isn’t New York that would pay. It’s New York taxpayers who would be on the hook.

When all the objections are objected to and all the arguments are argued, there is one, and only one way for a Medicare for All plan to work. It must be funded via federal deficit spending.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can afford anything. It can pay the full cost of a comprehensive Medicare plan covering every man, woman, and child in America, including long-term care, all pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment, and it can do it without levying one cent in taxes.

Further, the money spent by the federal government would grow the economy and benefit everyone.

One industry would be hurt: Health-care insurance, but dozens of other industries would see new income. For a more thorough discussion see: Ten Steps to Prosperity: Step 2. Federally funded Medicare — Parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

A state-funded Medicare for All will encounter continual money problems, requiring unpopular taxes and even more unpopular cuts to benefits, thereby providing a negative example for those who would claim, “We tried that, and it didn’t work.”

By contrast, we know how to do Medicare, and we know how to deficit spend, and it remains only for us to put those together.

That combination would give America something it doesn’t now have: Healthcare for all citizens, rich and poor, young and old.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to 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 you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: