Unleashing the guard dog: The misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

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

A story: Imagine that you live in a dangerous neighborhood, where robberies, burglaries, and other attacks are common.Image result for leashed vicious dog

So you buy a big rottweiler, or a pit bull, or some other kind of “attack” dog. And everywhere you go, you keep this dog with you for protection.

You take your dog for licensed obedience training because that is your town’s new law. And you keep your dog on a leash because that also is your town’s new law:

“A licensed, well-trained, supervised, and leashed dog, being necessary to the security of a town resident, the right of the people to keep and walk dogs, shall not be infringed.”

And indeed, should you fail to take your dog for licensed, obedience training, and should you fail to keep your dog on a leash, you could be arrested, fined, and your dog taken from you.

As a result of the new “dog law,” you and many other good people of your town buy licensed, trained dogs, which always are kept on leashes, and the incidence of robberies, burglaries, and other attacks declines.

It is true that some bad people in your town buy unlicensed, untrained dogs, which are not kept on leashes. And these dogs have attacked people.

But, there always are law-breakers in every town, and that fact is no reason not to have laws. 

On balance, the registered-training, control, and leash laws have helped protect the community.

Sadly, in your town, the local, conservative, “originalist” judges rule that in the law, the words, “A licensed, well-trained, controlled, and leashed dog, being necessary to the security of a town resident” have no meaning.

So now, anyone can own vicious, untrained attack dogs, and let them out unleashed and unsupervised.

And as could be expected, the number of dog attacks — including attacks by multiple dogs — increases dramatically. Many people are terribly injured. Many people die.

Which brings me to this article:

The Second Amendment has failed America
By, Joel Mathis

Enough. No more. Stop.

The gun massacres in America are now coming so quickly, one after another, that it’s impossible to process our grief and anger before the next one occurs.

There is a sickness in our land, and it cries out for an immediate, righteous, and even radical response.

And we can start by understanding and declaring that the Second Amendment is a failure.

It’s not just a failure because guns are used so widely, and to such ill effect. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a failure because the right to bear arms — the right it so famously defends — is supposed to protect Americans from violence. Instead, it endangers them.

As the conservative National Review noted last year, “supporters of a right to bear arms have rooted their arguments in a murky pre-constitutional right to self-defense.”

The right to bear arms is based on an old understanding in English common law: If somebody attacks you, you have the right to protect yourself.

There’s nothing controversial about that, is there?

The language of self-defense was made explicit in D.C. vs Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling cementing individual gun rights.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

We interrupt Mathis’s article to explain that Scalia was a self-described “originalist.” That means he claimed to believe:

The interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be.

For two hundred years, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to mean exactly what the framers said (“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . .)

During WWII, we used to have well-regulated militias in the United States. My father belonged to one. He didn’t own a gun himself, but the militia owned them.

The purpose of those militias was to back up the army in protecting the nation, not as “defense within the home,” which is the job of the local police.

(The irony and falsity of the “home defense” theory is that statistically, if you have a gun in your home, you are more likely to be shot than if you don’t.)

Then in 2008, the conservative arm of the Supreme Court, led by self-annointed “originalist” and famous gun lover, Justice Antonin Scalia, decided that though the framers explicitly referenced “a well-regulated militia,” they really didn’t mean it.

And they really didn’t mean “the security of a free state,” either. Scalia and the other originalists decided that what the framers really said had nothing to do with a militia or a free state.

Rather, what they supposedly meant is: “Any boob who can fog a mirror has the right not only to own guns in his home, but to carry them in the streets. No regulated militia or security of the free state is necessary.

(One wonders why the framers were not wise enough to say it that way.)

The result of this decision has been mayhem, with not just daily shootings, but daily mass shootings. 

I suggest Scalia’s tombstone be engraved:

“Here lies Antonin Gregory Scalia, who has abetted the mass murder of thousands, which continues to this day.”

Continuing Mathis’s article:

But in reality, guns are used far more often on offense, by bad guys who have easy access to deadly firepower in unthinkable quantities.

On balance, guns do more harm in America than good. The damages are easily measured, while the benefits are mostly theoretical and rare.

This means the Second Amendment, as currently observed, doesn’t actually work under the terms of its own logic.

In recognizing this, America doesn’t have to throw away a formal right to self-defense, or eliminate guns entirely.

But it’s time to reexamine Second Amendment rights with a bigger emphasis on the amendment’s underlying justification, which is to help Americans be and feel safe, and less emphasis on the right to carry a deadly weapon. 

Despite Scalia and his conservative accomplices, we do have a few laws about guns. We disallow fully automatic guns. (Why? Where is that in the 2nd Amendment?)

And we disallow felons from having guns. And we require a minimal amount of licensing. (Where does the Constitution state those restrictions?).

At any rate, the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not “to help Americans feel and be safe,” but rather to protect the “free state,” i.e to protect America.

Now that a disingenuous Supreme Court has completely perverted the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, where do we go from here?

It probably is too late to start over. The above-mentioned boobs already have millions of guns.

But if the right wing Supreme Court would allow, we could follow the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the last few words.

Perhaps the state National Guards could function as the militia, and they could dole out guns only as needed for the security of America — just as the 2nd Amendment says.

Additionally, two possibilities are these laws:

1. Any person who commits a felony while carrying a gun, shall be sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life, in addition to the term for the felony itself.

2. Any provider of a gun that is used in a felony shall have the same criminal and civil liability as the actual perpetrator of the felony. (This latter is similar to the “dram shop” laws for liquor.)

At a minimum, we should stop pretending that the 2nd Amendment says what it clearly doesn’t and allow communities to enact laws that will reduce the killing.

See: Do guns really kill people?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

Dumb, dumber and dumbest: Cavuto, Bartiromo and Dobbs

When dumb, dumber and dumbest battle, it’s difficult to know which is which. For example:

Fox News Host Neil Cavuto Tells Viewers Trump Is Wrong: ‘China Isn’t Paying These Tariffs. You Are.’

President Trump said, “Remember this, our country is taking in billions and billions of dollars from China. Out of that many billions of dollars, we’re taking a part of it and giving it to the farmers because they’ve been targeted by China. The farmers, they come out totally whole.” 

Neil Cavuto pointed out that, once again, Trump was not telling the truth when it came to who pays for tariffs.

“I don’t know where to begin here,” the Fox News host said. “Just to be clarifying, China isn’t paying these tariffs. You are. You know, indirectly and sometimes directly.”

“It’s passed along to you through American distributors and their counterparts in the United States that buy this stuff from the Chinese and have to pay the surcharges. Not the Chinese government.”

Cavuto said that this latest round of tariffs “will be felt by consumers directly.”

As usual, Trump is lying, stupid, or both. And Cavuto is correct. Tariffs on foreign goods are paid by the purchasers of those goods.

As ignorant as Trump is, it simply is not possible that he doesn’t understand this. The man is surrounded by advisors, and surely there is someone in the White House who has told him that basic fact.

Then again, considering the bigots, liars, incompetents, crooks, and sycophants (BLICS) with whom Trump has surrounded himself, we can’t be sure of anything that goes on in Crazyland.

Trump wins round 1 of the dumb, dumber, dumbest contest by default. Cavuto didn’t even compete.

Now we come to round 2:

Lou Dobbs Lashes Out at Fox Business Host Who Confronts Him About Trump’s Exploding DebtBy Justin Baragona

Cavuto groused that both political parties had abandoned “any hint of fiscal restraint.” Cavuto bashed the Trump administration for having “not done a good job containing” federal spending rates.

“Well, somebody has done a good job and that is President Trump,” Lou Dobbs, a rabidly pro-Trump primetime host, shot back. “And it is this economy.”

Cavuto then directly confronted Dobbs, asking him if he truly believes Trump has done a good job “reining in spending,” prompting Dobbs to dismissively tell his colleague that he has to “work this thing out with the president.”

“Fact, fact, do you think this president has done anything to contain the deficits and the debt that had spiraled, still, from what levels he had from Barack Obama?” Cavuto fired back.

“Uh-huh. I do, indeed,” Dobbs said in response, prompting Cavuto to demand specifics. Dobbs ended up lashing out at Cavuto instead.

Cavuto: “I asked you a question about the debt! Do you worry about that or not? ”

Later on in the segment, following the Dobbs-Cavuto clash, pro-Trump colleague Maria Bartiromo insisted that Trump would absolutely “take a knife to spending” if he gets a second term in office. “Mark my words.”

Now we have a three-way dumb, dumber, dumbest contest.

First, Cavuto talks about “financial restraint” and Trump “not having done a good job containing” federal spending rates. This is dumb.

Federal deficit spending adds dollars to the economy, which are necessary for economic growth. Reductions in deficit growth lead to recessions, and increases in deficit growth cure recessions.

When federal deficit growth (red line) declines, we have recessions (vertical gray bars), which are cured by increased deficit growth.

Further, reductions in debt lead to depressionsEvery depression in U.S. history has been caused by debt reductions:

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

The reason is obvious: To reduce the federal debt requires increasing federal taxes and/or reducing federal spending, both of which take dollars out of the private sector (aka “the economy.”)

It is functionally and mathematically impossible to grow an economy (or even to keep it level) by taking dollars out of the private sector.

Dobbs responded to Cavuto’s question by claiming that Trump has done something to contain the deficits and the debt.

This is dumber.

“Containing” deficits and debt always lead to recessions if we are lucky, and depressions if we are not.

Finally, Maria Bartiromo chimed in by saying, “Trump would absolutely take a knife to spending” if he gets a second term in office.

This is dumb for two reasons:

  1. Trump has no reason to cut spending. The Republicans don’t want cuts. The Democrats don’t want cuts. The voting public really doesn’t want cuts (in the programs they like). And Trump loves spending, especially spending money that isn’t his.
  2. If Trump cut spending, the economy would tank, and Trump would see that happening, and he would panic.

So I judge the contest this way:

Neil Cavuto: Dumb
Maria Bartiromo: Dumber
Lou Dobbs: Dumbest

Dobbs wins not only because Cavuto was correct about tariffs, but because of Dobbs’s blind loyalty to a fool, and because Dobbs could not bring himself to answer Cavuto’s simple question.

Bartiromo didn’t say enough to win, but what little she said, earned her 2nd prize.

Of course, in any such contest, Trump always will win hands down. He’s a professional fool among amateurs.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

“There’s No Such Thing as ‘Free Money.'” Yes, there is, Mr. Greenhut.

Economics is a unique science.

It is the only science in which people who have no background, no education, no history, and no knowledge, feel absolutely confident in their opinions about it.

I’m sure they don’t feel confident in arguing about quantum mechanics or about relativity, or about rocket science, but when it comes to economics, everyone is an “expert” — often a laughable expert with a way-too-loud megaphone.

I suggest Steven Greenhut is one such “expert.” Here are excerpts from his recent article:

There’s No Such Thing as ‘Free Money’ or Meaningless Deficits
STEVEN GREENHUT, Reason Magazine

Vice President Dick Cheney famously said that “deficits don’t matter.”

Such conservatives weren’t interested in using federal spending to fight poverty and inequality, but they didn’t want growing deficits to curtail their military efforts in Iraq or quash their desire to step up tax cuts.

Greenhut is 100% correct about the motivations of the conservative right.

Cheney’s ideological heirs now argue that deficits are fine as long as interest rates are low and the Gross Domestic Product keeps growing.

Deficits not only are “fine,” but deficits are absolutely necessary for economic growth, and this has nothing to do with low interest rates.

Federal deficits add dollars to the economy. It is functionally impossible for an economy to grow, without the money supply growing.

In fact, the formula for Gross Domestic Product, our most common measure of economic growth, is a money measure.

GDP = Federal and Non-federal spending + Net Exports

When federal deficit spending doesn’t grow, the economy doesn’t grow. Reduced deficits cause recessions, and increased deficits cure recessions, as the following graph demonstrates:

Recessions (vertical gray bars) begin with reduced deficits; they are cured by increased deficits.

Sorry, but deficits and debt do matter.

There’s no short-term crisis, for sure, but debt “will depress economic growth over time and could potentially lead to a fiscal crisis if borrowers lose faith in the country’s ability to pay,” explained Yuval Rosenberg in The Fiscal Times.

Federal “debt” is nothing more than deposits into Treasury security accounts (T-bills et al).  The government pays back the “debt” every day simply by returning the dollars in those accounts.

And what does this phrase mean, “borrowers lose faith in the country’s ability to pay.”? Makes no sense, unless he means “lenders lose faith . . . ”

Even then, the federal government does not borrow. It accepts deposits into T-security accounts and it never touches those dollars.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, creates all the dollars it needs, ad hoc, each time it pays a creditor. The government never has any difficulty returning those dollars to the account holders.

See: It is 2019, and the phony federal debt “time bomb” still is ticking. Thursday, Jan 24 2019.

Periodically, I remind you about a disaster that was considered to be so imminent, it repeatedly was referred to as a “ticking time bomb.” I have evidence of the warning as early as 1940, and then every year thereafter.

I’m talking about the federal debt that not only was said to be a “ticking time bomb,” but “unsustainable” and “the time bomb of doom“!

Year after year, that time bomb of doom has kept ticking, and here we are, in 2019, with a  healthy economy, and still that bomb hasn’t exploded. Eighty years of warnings, eighty years of being wrong, eighty years, and people still believe the doomsday sayers.

The phony “time bomb” began to “tick” back in 1940, when the total debt was $40 Billion. Today, 80 years later, it has risen 52,500% (!) to $21 Trillion, and still it ticks.

Go to the above reference, and you’ll see that year, after year, after ridiculous year, “experts” like Greenhut repeatedly referred to the federal debt as a “ticking time bomb.”

Wrong for 80 consecutive years.

Continuing with his article:

Furthermore, he (Rosenberg) notes, debt hampers government’s ability to react to real emergencies “such as recessions, wars or natural disasters.

As debt soars, federal payments to service the debt will crowd out the government’s core spending responsibilities.

The above is a perfect example of closing one’s eyes and ignoring the reality standing before one.

Here we are, looking at 80 past years of a dramatically increasing debt (deposits), and the federal government’s continual “ability to react to real emergencies “such as recessions, wars or natural disasters.

Since 1940, America has fought dozens of wars, all over the world, had numerous recessions, and dealt with all manner of natural disasters. And today, the nation is wealthier than ever.

Explain that Messrs. Rosenberg and Greenhut.

In a way, these denials-of-the-obvious remind me of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf  (aka “Baghdad Bob”). He was the Iraqui, who during Desert Storm, kept going on television to deny that American tanks were in Baghdad, while they were visible over his shoulder.

Rosenberg’s and Greenhut’s comments are that ridiculous.

And now for the source of their ignorance: They don’t understand the differences between personal financing and federal financing.

You could borrow an immense amount of money to upgrade the kitchen and take Hawaiian vacations and then claim that it doesn’t matter as long as you can cover the monthly interest payment.

But that’s a road to eventual ruin.

The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it is sovereign over the dollar.

At the beginning of this nation’s existence, our new federal government created laws, and those laws gave the government the unlimited ability to create U.S. money.

So the government created millions of U.S. dollars — from thin air.

So long as those laws and others like them, exist, the federal government will continue to have the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars.

Here’s how they do it:

To pay a creditor, the federal government sends instructions (not dollars) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

At the moment the bank obeys those instructions, brand new dollars are created.

So long as the federal government doesn’t run out of instructions, it won’t run out of dollars.

You and I don’t have this ability. Neither do our cities, counties, and states. And neither do France, Germany, and Italy, all of which don’t have a sovereign currency, but rather use the euro.

All are monetarily non-sovereign.

Ask Messrs. Rosenberg and Greenhut what “Monetary Sovereignty” means, and they won’t have a clue, even though it is the basis for modern economics.

Now we get to what Greenhut thinks is absolutely necessary and what he thinks, isn’t:

Some debts can’t be helped—e.g., capital expenses—but look at the nonsense that our massive federal budget is funding.

Easy debt drives easy spending. It enables our government to do things it shouldn’t do, such as wage unnecessary wars and create boondoggles like the Green New Deal or a space force.

Which capital expense “can’t be helped,” Mr. Greenhut? Building a wall on our southern border? Buiding cages to house children we have taken from their parents?

Which wars are “unnecessary” and which are necessary?

And as for the “Green New Deal,” it describes the various efforts to reduce climate change. To you, that’s a boondoggle?

We’ll end with Greenhut’s final bit of nonsense:

Deficit spending creates constant pressure for tax hikes. We shouldn’t spend what we don’t have.

“Constant pressure for tax hikes”???? You mean the recent tax cuts, that came with the billions in increased deficit spending?

Will someone please contact Messrs. Greenhut and Rosenbert with the facts so that they don’t continue to make fools of themselves.

It would be the charitable thing to do.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

 

Congress re. Medicare and the deficit: The easy we make impossible, but it takes longer

We already have created Medicare for seniors. The hard work was accomplished years ago. And in those years since, we have accumulated excellent knowledge in how to run a Medicare program.

Now, to create Medicare for All, we need only to do three simple things:

I. Eliminate FICA
The U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government never can run short of dollars. Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending and paying its bills, forever.

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.”
St. Louis Federal Reserve: “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 (borrowing) to remain operational.”

Contrary to the popular myth, FICA does not fund Medicare. The dollars collected for FICA (and indeed, all federal tax dollars) are destroyed by the U.S. Treasury upon receipt.

The federal government creates brand new dollars, each time it pays a creditor.

And lest you believe increased deficit spending (necessitated by the elimination of FICA) would cause inflation, history says that is not so.

Federal deficit spending (red) does not cause inflations (blue)

Most inflations and all hyperinflations have been caused by shortages, (usually shortages of food and/or energy), not by excess money. These shortages often are caused by insufficient federal deficit spending.Image result for german money in a wheelbarrow

The “money-in-a-wheelbarrow” meme demonstrates a government’s response to inflation, not the cause of inflation.

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

II. Expand Medicare to include all age groups. This does not require a fundamental change, but rather an expansion of the already existing program, so that it covers everyone.

III. Make it more inclusive by removing deductibles and covering long-term care. The theoretical purpose of deductibles is to dissuade people from over-using Medicare.

But because Medicare costs taxpayers nothing, even possible over-use would pump growth dollars into the economy — a benefit to all Americans.

Further, long-term care eventually is needed by a high percentage of people, but it is unaffordable for many. Having the federal government pay would remove a great burden from most American families.

I was reminded of the above by the following article that appeared in the 8/1/19 Chicago Tribune (excerpts follow).

Many in GOP-led Senate torn over pact to boost debt limit
By Andrew Taylor Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A hard-won, warts-and-all budget pact between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Donald Trump is facing a key vote in the GOP-held Senate, with many conservatives torn between supporting the president and risking their political brand with an unpopular vote to add $2 trillion or more to the government’s credit card.

Credit cards are, for you and me, a method of short-term borrowing. But unlike you and me, and state/local governments,  the federal government does not borrow.

Given its unlimited ability to create dollars, it has no reason to borrow dollars. What often and misleadingly is termed federal “borrowing,” actually is the acceptance of deposits into Treasury-security (T-bill, T-note, T-bond) accounts.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign has no need for the dollars in those accounts, so does not touch them. Rather, the dollars remain in the accounts until maturity, at which time they, together with interest, are returned to the depositor.

The purposes of T-securities are to:

  1. Provide a safe depository for unused dollars, which stabilizes the dollar, and
  2. Assist the Fed in controlling interest rates.

They do not help the federal government pay its bills.

The Trump-supported legislation backed by the Democratic speaker would stave off a government shutdown and protect budget gains for the Pentagon and popular domestic programs.

It’s attached to a must-do measure to lift the so-called debt limit to permit the government to borrow freely to pay its bills.

The so-called debt limit is akin to burning your wallet to prevent you from paying your exisiting creditors. It is not “financial prudence,” as many politicians would have you believe.

The vote, expected Thursday, is a politically tough one for many Republicans.

The tea party-driven House GOP conference broke against it by a 2-1 ratio, but most pragmatists see the measure as preferable to an alternative fall landscape of high-wire deadlines and potential chaos.

The government otherwise would face a potential debt default, an Oct. 1 shutdown deadline, and the return in January of across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration.

Hmmm . . . The choice is between high-wire deadlines, potential chaos, debt default, an Oct. 1 shutdown, and sequestration,  vs. simply eliminating the useless debt ceiling.

For new arrivals to the Senate, particularly those who ran against a broken Washington culture, the sweeping measure represents a lot of what they ran against: unrestrained borrowing and trillion-dollar deficits, fueled by a bipartisan thirst for new spending.

Unrestrained borrowing” does not exist, simply because the federal government (unlike state and local governments) does not borrow.Image result for nasa

Trillion-dollar deficits” add trillions of growth dollars to the economy.

New spending” is the method by which the federal government benefits Americans via spending for the military, health-care, anti-poverty efforts, science and technology, education,, anti-global warming, medical advances, national parks, disaster recovery, and the myriad other benefits we Americans expect and rely upon.

“This budget process, if we can even call it a process, put taxpayers at the mercy of a House speaker who has no interest in prudent budgeting,” said freshman Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

State and local taxpayers fund state and local government spending. But, contrary to popular myth, federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending.

To cut federal growth spending is not “prudent.” It demonstrates ignorance of federal financing and national needs.

Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the deal “marks the death of the tea party movement in America.”

Good riddance to the tea party, the party of austerity and hatred of the poor and middle-classes.

The pact is a victory for pragmatists eager to avert chaos caused by a potential government shutdown, a possible debt crisis, or a freeze to agency budgets — including the massive Pentagon budget — at current levels.

The agreement lifts the limit on the government’s $22 trillion debt for two years and averts the risk of the Pentagon and domestic agencies from being hit with $125 billion in automatic spending cuts that are the last gasp of the 2011 Budget Control Act.

Every debt crisis ends the same way: After ignorant statements about faux “prudence,” and ignorantly equating federal finances to personal finances, and falsly claiming that federal taxpayers will foot the bill, Congress and the President agree on a temporary fix.

This assures that, having learned nothing and proved nothing, Congress will expose the public to the same ignorance and chaos a few more months down the line.

And these are the people to whom we trust our futures.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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