And just when I began to feel so good about Congress and the President, at long last, . . .

And just when I began to feel so good about Congress and the President at long last beginning to understand and tell the truth about economics, then I am splashed by ice water coming from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Image result for splashed with ice water

You know the CRFB.

They are the ones who run interference for those in Congress who want you to believe the common myth that federal finances are just like your finances.

Here’s what they say:

Important to Pay For Child Tax Credit Expansion

Democratic lawmakers are planning to unveil legislation to substantially boost the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000, providing monthly payments to households and higher payments for younger children.

While this thoughtful proposal to expand support for children deserves consideration, it cannot legitimately be classified as COVID relief and should be fully paid for under the House PAYGO rules and normal principles of budgeting.

Briefly, “PAYGO” is an ill-considered concept that requires federal spending to be matched by taxes or T-security deposits.

It’s part of the myth that federal finances are like personal finances (and state/local government finances), where outgo must be funded by income. That’s why CRFB speaks of “normal principles of budgeting.”

Those “normal principles” are normal for you, normal for your state, county, and city, and normal for businesses. But they are not normal for the federal government, and this is what CRFB does not want you to understand.

When you pay for your spending, you must have a money source.

You must have a paying job, or you must borrow, or you must have savings. That’s because you are monetarily non-sovereign.

State and local governments, and businesses operate the same way. They too are monetarily non-sovereign.

The federal government is different. It is Monetarily Sovereign. It uses neither income nor borrowing. It creates, ad hoc, every dollar it spends,, each time it pays a creditor.

The federal government does not borrow and the taxes it collects are destroyed upon receipt.

The federal government does not have money; it creates money. Last year, it was able to spend trillions of dollars it did not have, and yet never ran short, and never bounced a check.

You can’t do that, nor can any other monetarily non-sovereign entity.

Soon, the Biden administration will spend another $2 trillion the government doesn’t have, and still no checks will bounce. That is Monetary Sovereignty.

The following is a statement from Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

We are still in the midst of a pandemic and economic crisis, and more borrowing will be needed to provide necessary relief and support the economic recovery.

However, emergency borrowing authority must be reserved for pandemic-related needs, not for enacting long-sought-after policy priorities.

It’s amazing how many misstatements the CRFB can pack into three short sentences:

What they call “borrowing” (T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds) merely consists of accepting deposits into T-security accounts. The government does not use those deposits. They remain in the accounts, accumulating interest, until maturity, at which time they are returned. You do not lend to the federal government. You make deposits into your own T-security account.
There is no need to “reserve emergency borrowing authority.” The government can accept as many dollars into T-securities accounts as it wishes, any time it wishes (though again, it doesn’t use the dollars in those accounts. That’s why it isn’t “borrowing.)
I’m not sure why the CRFB tries to differentiate between “pandemic-related needs” and “long-sought-after policy priorities.” Spending is spending. All federal spending is funded exactly the same way: Via money creation.

House PAYGO rules make clear that new spending increases and tax cuts not related to the COVID response or climate change must be paid for.

Expanding the child tax credit clearly doesn’t qualify under either of these exemptions, as it is clearly meant as a permanent policy and is in many ways duplicative with the proposed $2,000 per child recovery rebates.

All federal spending is “paid for.” Apparently, the CRFB falsely means, “paid for via borrowing or taxing.” This demonstrably false statement has been disproven every year. In 2020 alone, trillions of dollars of federal spending easily were “paid for” without the need for tax increases or borrowing.

Replacing the current $2,000 child tax credit with a more broadly available $3,000 to $3,600 credit would help address the disadvantages that kids face in the federal budget.

But we shouldn’t borrow from our kids in order to pay for their care when there are plenty of offsets available.

This mixed-up sentence speaks of “borrowing from our kids,” which probably means future (totally unnecessary) tax increases. But then it talks about “offsets.” And what are those so-called “offsets” that don’t “borrow from our kids?

Overall, this policy will cost over $100 billion per year and more than $1 trillion over a decade if made permanent. Reducing child poverty is a worthy policy priority and one worth paying for.

Senator Mitt Romney’s recent proposal to consolidate existing support for children and workers and repeal regressive tax breaks represents one possible package of offsets.

The $5.8 trillion of tax increases and budget savings proposed by President Biden during the campaign also offers many alternatives.

Offsets could also be phased in to avoid imposing tax increases during a pandemic or disrupting a fragile recovery.

So, to help reduce child poverty, we should “consolidate existing support for children and workers”?? Ah, that lovely little word “consolidate” which in CRFB language means an even smaller word: “Cut.”

And, of course, “repealing tax breaks” is a synonym for “increasing taxes.” (Historically, the breaks the CRFB has seemed to favor eliminating are those that benefit the poor and middle classes.)

It is the “children and workers” who would have to pay the increased taxes and suffer the reduced support.

Offsets could also be phased in to avoid imposing tax increases during a pandemic or disrupting a fragile recovery.

This is a worthy policy aimed at achieving a worthy goal. That’s no reason to throw budget discipline out the window. Borrowing for the pandemic isn’t an excuse for unrelated tax cuts, nor is it a reason to enact permanent policies that aren’t properly financed.

So let’s see. The recovery is “fragile,” but we should have “budget discipline,” which means increasing taxes during this fragile recovery. How wise.

So the government should do something temporary — cut taxes and increase spending — and when we recover the government can increase taxes and cut spending.

“But we shouldn’t borrow from our kids.” Except that “borrowing from our kids” is exactly what future tax increases and spending cuts would do.

If empty-headed claims were dollars, the CRFB would be the wealthiest organization in the world.

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Well, the Democrats finally prove they understand Monetary Sovereignty

Well, the Democrats finally have proved they understand Monetary Sovereignty.

Image result for handing money — **No one is asking, “How much will it cost.”**

How do I know? Read the following excerpts. Amazingly, no one is asking, “Who will pay for it?”

Is it possible that at least one political party gets it?

House Democrats to include $250-300 monthly child payments in stimulus
House Democrats will release legislation Monday to provide millions of U.S. families $3,600 a year for each child under 6 and $3,000 for every child age 6 to 17.

The legislation, spearheaded by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), will likely be added to President Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus package.

Biden wants his American Rescue Plan to use an expanded child tax credit to cut the child poverty rate in half. Under the plan, the IRS would send $250-300 monthly payments to households for a year, starting in July.

The White House and Senate Democrats have reviewed Neal’s proposal and support it, The Washington Post reports.

After trillions of dollars in stimulus, the Democrats already are on board with an additional $1.9 trillion — and no one is asking, “Who will pay for it?”

Why? Because apparently they must realize that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government pays for everything simply by creating new dollars, ad hoc. Always has, always will.

And then there’s this:

Yellen says those earning up to $60,000 should get full stimulus checks
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday that individuals earning up to $60,000 should receive the $1,400 checks proposed in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package.

“The exact details of how it should be targeted are to be determined, but struggling middle class families need help,” Yellen said on CNN’s State of the Union.

The White House has said that Biden won’t budge on sending families another round of stimulus checks, but he is willing to negotiate on where the income cutoff should be to determine who’s eligible.

“He wouldn’t want to see a household making over $300,000 receive these payments,” Yellen said. She added that if Congress approves Biden’s plan the U.S. will return to full employment in 2022.

How much more than $1.9 trillion will those checks cost? No one seems to be asking, because it doesn’t matter. A Monetarily Sovereign government can afford anything.

And no, taxpayers will not pay for it. While state and local taxpayers do pay for state and local government spending, federal taxpayers do not pay for federal government spending.

State and local governments are monetarily non-sovereign, while the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. There is a vast difference between the two. Those who do not understand that difference, do not understand economics.

“But,” cry the deficit hand-wringers, “this will cause inflation.”

WRONG,

Inflation never is caused by government spending. Inflation is caused by shortages, usually shortages of food and/or energy. In fact, inflations can be cured by additional government spending to obtain and distribute the scarce goods.

“But,” cry the Republicans and Libertarians, “this will cause excessive demand, which will cause inflation.”

WRONG.

Inflation is a general increase in prices, but putting money in the pockets of the middle- and lower-income groups never has caused a general increase in prices.

The cost of certain, specific products could rise temporarily, but there will not be price increases for products and services overall.

The primary effect will be for people to be able to afford life’s basics — food, housing, clothing, education — and additionally pay off debts will being able to save for a “rainy day.”

“But,” cry the rich, who because of Gap Psychology, (the desire to distance oneself from those below and to come closer to those above, on any social scale) do not want the middle- and lower-income groups to narrow the Gap between them and the rich, claim: “The people will simply use the money to pay off loans and add to savings, which will do nothing to stimulate the economy.”

WRONG.

Paying off loans and adding to savings not only will encourage spending on things the impoverishment has forced people to do without, but it will help prevent future recessions. The populace will have the resources to continue spending during otherwise lean times.

“But,” cry the most selfish among us, “if we give people money that will discourage them from working, and where would America be without workers?”

WRONG.

Among certain classes there is the false belief that the poor are inherently lazy, and would rather collect meager welfare checks than exert the effort to improve their lives.

Receiving money begets the desire for more money, which is obtained via labor. The vast majority at any income level would gladly work for more money, if they knew how, where, and what. The primary cause of poverty is circumstance, not laziness.

Actually, on average, the poor labor harder than do the rich, the main difference being the better cards the rich have been dealt.

“But,” cry the uninformed, “all that federal spending is socialism.”

WRONG.

Socialism is not government spending. All governments spend. Socialism is government ownership and control. Sending check to people does not constitute ownership or control. It does not, in any way, constitute socialism.

The primary complaints about the stimulus programs being “excessive” will come from the Republicans, who want the economy to fail under President Biden. These are the people who put politics before patriotism.

They want America to suffer, so they will have election talking points. It’s a traitorous lust for power that has become all too common among the right.

Sadly, we fear the left could fall into the trap. Only recently, left-wing supporters of “Medicare for All,” tried to explain it would be paid for via circuitous, convoluted, complex bookkeeping rather than simply telling the truth: The federal government will pay for it, the way it pays for everything: Via ad hoc money creation.

We only can pray that the past year’s multi-trillion dollar federal deficit, combined with federal tax decreases and a growing economy, will educate the populace about Monetary Sovereignty.

Perhaps then, we can use the federal government’s unlimited resources to eliminate poverty and to fund the many heretofore underfunded strategies that will improve our lives.

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Just when things are looking brighter, dim bulb Larry Summers gets screwed in.

So far as I can tell, too many media writers, politicians, and even economists do not understand the functional implications between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. Yet that ignorance does not stop them from pontificating about economics.

It is as though none of them understood the difference between a noun and a verb, yet insisted on pontificating about linguistics.

Image result for larry summers — **Example of the Peter Principle**

Larry Summers is a perfect example.

We’ve written about him before. “OMG! Please Mr. Biden, please: Not Larry Summers”, and “My humble apologies to Larry Summers. Or not”.

His writings truly are not fit for birdcage lining.

And yet, we continue to be punished by them as revealed in Ryan Cooper’s excellent article:

Senate Democrats whisked through a budget resolution Friday morning, clearing the way for the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package proposed by President Biden.

Despite some lamentable amendments, retreats, and odd details that will have to be ironed out, overall Biden’s proposal is an excellent and badly-needed bill.

It might just keep America ticking over until everyone can be vaccinated (currently about 10 percent of Americans have gotten at least one shot).

Exactly correct, Mr. Cooper, although the package should be much larger and destined for a longer term, similar to the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

So right on cue, in step the savvy journalists at Politico and economist Larry Summers, playing some obnoxious D.C. insider games and doing their best to ruin the country.

Late on Thursday, Summers published a ponderous op-ed in The Washington Post fretting that maybe the COVID relief package is too big.

It might contain so much spending that it will push the economy above its potential full capacity, causing inflation and financial instability, he worried.

Then the jokers at Politico’s Playbook newsletter (your best source for ill-disguised advertorials and tips on hiding political bribes) repeated his argument.

Many “liberal wonks have been whispering about” Summers’ argument “for weeks,” worrying the package “could harm the economy next year, when Democrats will be defending narrow congressional majorities in the midterms,” they write. Politico claimed on Twitter that it was being circulated in the White House as well.

First, a bit of background. Inflations never are caused by federal spending in of itself. Inflations are caused by shortages of goods and services, primarily shortages of food and/or energy. Scarcity makes prices go up.

So the only time federal spending could cause inflation (i.e. a general increase in prices) is if at least one of two things happens:

The government buys so much stuff, that shortages are caused or
The government gives people so much money that they go on a buying tear, and cause shortages.

We already know #1 is not part of a package that essentially is comprised of money flowing to people’s pockets. And as the author of the article shows, #2 isn’t going to happen, either:

Let me first talk about the merits of the argument, because they shed light on the motivations here. In brief, these worries about “overshooting” the stimulus are completely ridiculous.

Jobs data released Friday show the economy is basically stalled out — with unemployment at 6.3 percent, and the fraction of prime-age workers who are employed four points below where it was before the pandemic (just barely above the bottom of the Great Recession), the U.S. is something like 10 million jobs in the hole.

Moreover, as economist Paul Krugman points out, the pandemic relief package is mostly not stimulus per se — it is more aimed at keeping the economy on ice until everyone can be vaccinated.

The boost to unemployment insurance and aid to state and local governments, for instance, will partly go unspent if we hit full employment rapidly.

Indeed, we may need another round of real stimulus once the vaccines are out.

And even if we were somehow to hit full capacity and inflation starts to spike, the Federal Reserve can easily raise interest rates to compensate — a fact Summers bizarrely skates over by limply suggesting they might not for some reason.

Right on. Summers, as usual, doesn’t know what he is writing about.

He still is in the camp that claims the Weimar and Zimbabwe hyperinflations were caused by government money-printing. They weren’t.

They were caused by shortages, with the currency-printing being a wrong-headed, government response.

While Zimbabwe never figured this out, Germany did. It cured its hyper-inflation with more spending, not less — spending to build the greatest war machine the world ever had known, which included purchases and distribution, not only of munitions but of food, energy, and salaries to a starving populace.

However, this argument about exceeding potential deserves close scrutiny. Summers bases his case on the recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of economic capacity — that is, how much America can produce without causing spiraling inflation.

The only problem with the CBO estimate is that, as J.W. Mason and Mike Konczal argue in detail at the Roosevelt Institute, it is worthless garbage. For one thing, it is impossible to know for sure where full capacity might be when it is far off.

It is much wiser to simply stimulate until we see full capacity.

For another, the CBO estimate of what full employment looks like is based on the labor market in 2005, adjusted for demographic changes. There is no justification whatsoever for using this year, instead of 2000 or 1967 or 1944 or any other year.

Indeed, for the vast economic resources of the United States, only a war of far greater magnitude even than WWII, could cause general shortages leading to general price increases — OR — an oil shortage.

That latter event is not unthinkable, at some future date, but it is not in the foreseeable future, and definitely would have nothing to do with this year’s stimulus spending.

Barring an oil shortage, it is absolutely, positively impossible for the whole, or even a significant part of the American economy to hit full capacity. It cannot happen in the near future, and with advances in alternative energy production, it will not happen in the far future.

It would require that all the factories (or even most of them) run at full capacity, and none able to add capacity.

And this impossible scenario is what Summers says is supposed to keep us from curing the current recession?? Yikes!

Indeed, at a 2013 IMF conference, one famous economist argued convincingly that the mid-2000s was definitely not a full-employment period, despite the huge housing bubble juicing up spending:

If you go back and you study the economy prior to the [2008 financial] crisis, there’s something a little bit odd. Many people believe that monetary policy was too easy. Everybody agrees that there was a vast amount of imprudent lending going on.

Almost everybody believes that wealth as it was experienced by households was in excess of its reality … was there a great boom? Capacity utilization wasn’t under any great pressure. Unemployment wasn’t under any remarkably low level.

Inflation was entirely quiescent. So somehow, even a great bubble wasn’t enough to produce any excess in aggregate demand. [IMF]

That economist was named Larry Summers.

Not only does Summers not know what he is talking about. He doesn’t even know what he has talked about.

In any event, it functionally is not possible for the monster economy of America to have “excess” (i.e. unfulfillable) aggregate demand, at least not for a period extended enough to cause inflation.

Our remarkable ability to “catch up” with needed production, is beyond the imagination of the deficit hand-wringers.

Overall excess demand is classic textbook theory that never happens in real life, barring a giant meteor fall or a pandemic.

Oops, I guess even a pandemic won’t do it, either.

This weak argument and jarring inconsistency shows this discussion has little to do with economics. This is about political jockeying for influence, and the warped culture of D.C. journalism.

Summers has been frozen out of a job in the Biden administration, and so he is characteristically trying to elbow into the conversation by writing articles about how everyone but him is wrong.

In keeping with his prior history as a neoliberal ideologue — Summers was previously best known for bullying a deputy into lowballing the size of Obama’s Recovery Act, and preventing the regulation of dangerous financial derivatives — he’s worrying about inflation at the worst possible time.

Larry Summers is the classic example of the Peter Principle — the guy who gets promoted beyond his abilities, to wit:

Summers resigned as Harvard’s president after a no-confidence vote by the faculty, a financial conflict of interest, and his claim that there are so few women in science and engineering because there aren’t enough smart women.

Summers pressured the Korean government to raise its interest rates and balance its budget in the midst of a recession (!)

He advocated regime change in Indonesia

He opposed tax cuts that were proposed by the Republicans.

He told Governor Gray Davis to relax California’s environmental standards to help California’s economy and lift the stock market.

Summers favored eliminating the Glass-Steagall Act which prevented banks from offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services. This led to the Great Recession of 2008.

In short, Larry Summers is to economics as Donald Trump is to the Presidency, an incompetent who has but one skill: Being appointed to high office.

Then the Playbook goofballs, who cover life-and-death political questions as amusing palace intrigue, then gleefully stoke the flames by credulously covering his argument — and apparently exaggerating his influence among “liberal wonks,” who dismissed his argument out of hand, and among the Biden team.

At any rate, the stakes for real life here are not small. The single worst thing Biden could do for his party’s prospects in the 2022 midterm elections would be to undershoot the recovery.

But with any luck, this will simply be an annoying footnote to history, and perhaps a lesson not to read Playbook even for insider tips.

The real lesson is not to assign any credibility to anything Larry Summers says or writes, and not to assign any credibility to the people who follow his advice.

As soon as the relief package hits the economy, let us begin with the Ten Steps, #1. Eliminate FICA. That surely will make Larry Summers faint.

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The best comedy show on TV

The problem in America is that we don’t seem to recognize humor when it stares us in the face. We have become too serious and earnest at things that should make us howl with laughter.

This thought occurred to me when I began binge-watching Schitt’s Creek.

If you haven’t seen it, do. If you have seen it, try to imagine having a serious argument about which character is dopier, which character is funnier, and which character could be President of the United States based on the intelligence of the American voter.

In real life, they all are thespians who pretend to be nincompoops, who pretend to be serious.

And that is exactly what we have in Washington, DC, — actors who perform like nincompoops, who pretend to be serious — and that also is what seems to merit SERIOUS DISCUSSION.

Consider the plot of a recently canceled TV show:

It begins with the lead role, a hapless guy named “Tramp.” He is the ne’er-do-well son of a rich crook, recovering from 3 marriages, multiple liasons with hookers, and six bankruptcies.

This boob has tried everything to make money, including a phony university, a crooked charity, and multiple useless products all named after him — water, steaks, airlines, hats, candy, alcohol.

Image result for bannon — **Lives in a chicken coop**

To aid his efforts, he has surrounded himself with an assemblage of the most comical nutballs ever to flunk out of elementary school.

There’s a rumpled guy named “Bannon,” who lives in a chicken coop.

There is someone named “Carson,” a token person of color, who sleeps 23 hours a day.

“Price” is a blowhard who preaches against “fiscal irresponsibility run amok” while stealing millions from the government.

“Manafort” the bumbling tax cheat who keeps getting caught, is joined in the low-life ensemble by an enormous company of jesters and crooks, among whom are: “Stone,” “Cohen,” “Flynn,” “Gates,” “Testa,” “Collins,” “Papadopoulos,” “Hunter.” “Sater,” “Stormy,” and the loathsome “Epstein,” who was dropped from the troupe on sex charges.

Each brings their own brand of humor to the party:

All Tramp’s businesses fail of course, but in failing, all are riotously hilarious. He even manages to screw up gambling casinos, which in the real world, is almost impossible to do.

Tramp has male children whom he loathes, plus two female children, one whom he lusts after, in the most obvious ways — a bit of offbeat humor.

By accident, Tramp becomes the star of an insipid show called, “The Apprentice Sucks Up.” It’s a show in which Tramp, despite all his business failures, now pretends to be a rich, brilliant businessman. He even publishes books about his great business acumen, though he himself barely can read, much less write a book.

The idea of the show is for woeful losers to compete to become the incompetent businessman’s “apprentice” (whatever that means), based on the winner’s ability to “win” (whatever that means) the most cockamamie, ridiculous competitions one can imagine.

The contestants are charged with supposedly business-related responsibilities like cupcake decorating, getting lost guiding tourists around London, or selling a poisonous cleaning solvent to pedestrians.

You might ask what these activities have to do with being a businessman’s “apprentice,” but that is the whole point. NOTHING makes any sense at all.

During the final five minutes of each episode, the plump and pompous Tramp strides in grimly, carrying a golf club (Tramp never smiles in this comedy show), plops himself down, growls some playground insults at the contestants, then dramatically points his tiny finger at one, and gravely announces, “You’re fired.”

It’s a show within a show because the kicker is that Tramp somehow falls into becoming President of the United States. You’ll recognize the plot. It is a ripoff of the comedic Peter Sellers movie, “Being There“ — an incompetent rising far, far above his abilities.

The sole difference: The Sellers character was a nice, honest person. The Tramp character is pure rotten.

And that all is just the foundation.

Then we get to the truly hilarious stuff.

One of the Senators in Tramp’s party, a great suck-up admirer of the President, announces that California wildfires are caused by lasers from space operated by a Jewish billionaire. Why Jewish? Why space lasers? In this show, you do not ask”Why?” You just sit back and laugh.

At one point, Tramps’ favorite daughter, who has her plastic face and figure touched up before each episode, starts a business that — you guessed it — fails.

Then there is the squirrely TV network, Fox Alternative News (FAN), whose slogan is, “We give you the alternative facts you want to hear.” It’s a take on the old TV sitcom, “WKRP In Cincinnati,” equally idiotic, except meaner.

FAN’s “opinionators” (“Our opinion is your opinion.”) run a segment known as “FANtasy” in which they defend everything the Tramp character does and says, no matter how deranged or crooked. You’ll crack up hearing the convoluted defenses they present, while his brain-dead followers stand in the audience, cheering in agreement.

(It turns out that the red dye in the hats Tramp’s followers wear, has seeped into their brains, causing them to believe Tramp is God. Silly, but somehow droll.)

One FAN guy’s name is Tucker, who claims to be “As honest as your mother,” so he’s known as Mother Tucker. And there’s the dippy, echoes-between-the-ears Laura, and funniest of all, Sean, he of perpetual snide sarcasm.

They form perhaps the most outrageously humorous trio on TV since the three stooges, except Moe, Curly, and Larry were brighter. The FAN people try to be SERIOUS, but they come off as pitiful and snarky.

As a side note, a Washington newspaper keeps a metronomic count of Tramp’s lies, an astounding 35,000 and rising rapidly — which comes to one lie every hour, every day, every night, and every holiday, for four years.

He does all this lying while munching deep-fat, fried chicken nuggets. The audience finds that so many lies coming from a greasy, crumb-covered face to be gut-busting. Literally.

At every lie, the camera pans to a group of toothless fools who nod dumbly while waving swastika-decorated Confederate flags and screaming “USA.” You’d have to see it to understand why it’s so funny.

And there is the “Q” group assuring its thousands of demented followers that, the opposing party is kidnapping babies and eating them. Thankfully, the eating scene never is shown, but Tramp’s followers intone, “MAGA, MAGA,” possibly imitating swallowing sounds.

You’ll love the repeated scenes of Tramp demanding loyalty from an incompetent acolyte,, then throwing the acolyte under a bus. I believe this is an inside joke because his followers understand it, though no one else does.

All of this is done in perfect deadpan, which of course adds to the gag.

You’ll enjoy the unforgettable scene of Tramp voting by mail while simultaneously claiming that mail voting is crooked. That one is a real knee slapper.

The main quibble about this comedy is that many of the situations are so ridiculous and unbelievable that the humor falls flat. Real humor requires some edge of truth; this has very few.

One cute scene that long will be remembered shows the President urging his followers to march on Congress, and telling them “I will lead you.” Then as they march off determinedly, he jumps into a car and goes the other way. Great comic timing on that one.

But immediately afterward, we see the group attack Congress, being led by a semi-naked guy wearing horns on his head. Too ridiculous and unrealistic to be funny. Obviously, it never could happen.

Meanwhile, we repeatedly cut to the VERY SERIOUS MEDIA having VERY SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS about whether Tramp’s conspiracy theorists should be expelled from Congress, have their Twitter accounts closed, or be assigned to leadership posts on key committees. The FAN opinionators opt for the latter.

Now, imagine the opinionators having SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS and learned debates about aliens, Illuminati, reptilian humanoid shape-shifters, human-initiated contact with extraterrestrials, UFOs, astrotheology, alien moon bases, soul farming, and other zaniness the GOP believes. It’s just part of the show.

The running joke through all the nuttiness: Tramp’s followers continue to take him VERY SERIOUSLY, and his political party continues to invent serious, weird excuses for all his crazy, bumbling behavior.

It’s all so hyper-crazy that though it is extraordinarily funny, in a slapstick way, it begins to wear thin after a while, so the show will not be picked up for a second season.

My suggestion: Just sit back and enjoy the performances. You never will see anything as funny, again.

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: