Category: Uncategorized

How Trump/Musk’s DOGE helps you and the rest of America

Question: What is the purpose of Trump/Musk’s D.O.G.E?

To cut government spending. 

Following Donald Trump’s re-election, Elon Musk was appointed to lead an organization titled, Department of Governement Efficiency (D.O.G.E.)

It’s stated goal was to reduce government spending.

Initially this included cutting up to $2 trillion from the federal budget, though estimates were later adjusted to only $150 billion. ​

As of April 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, claims to have reduced federal spending by approximately $130 billion. This figure is a revision from earlier, more ambitious targets: an initial goal of $2 trillion, later adjusted to $1 trillion, and subsequently to $150 billion. (Wikipedia)

However, independent analyses suggest that a significant portion of the reported savings may be overstated or based on miscalculations. For instance, some canceled contracts were already inactive or yielded no savings, and there have been instances where the value of canceled contracts was misreported by substantial margins.

Why Cut Government Spending?

1. To Reduce the Deficit/National Debt The belief is that the government is like a household. It shouldn’t “spend more than it earns.” Cutting spending is seen as a “fically responsible” way to reduce the federal deficit or debt.

2. To Increase Efficiency The belief is that big government is inherently bloated and wasteful. Cutting spending will force it to be leaner and more efficient.

3. To Shrink the Size of Government Philosophically, some want less government intervention in the economy or personal lives. Cutting spending is a way to roll back programs and reduce federal influence.

4. To Reallocate Resources to the Private Sector Reducing public services and funding can create opportunities for private businesses to step in—healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. The private sector is claimed to be more efficient than the public sector.

Trump and Musk watching nation burn
Our families and friends are doing just fine, thank you.

What has DOGE done to accomplish its mission:

Under billionaire Elon Musk’s leadership, DOGE has initiated substantial workforce reductions across various federal agencies.

Available reports indicate that tens of thousands of federal employees have lost their income. 

Many thousands more live in constant fear that they soon will be fired and/or deported.

Some examples: 

In late January 2025, DOGE offered “voluntary” resignation packages to federal employees, resulting in approximately 75,000 departures. ​

The word “voluntary” is used in quotes because the choice was to retire or be fired.

On February 13, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advised agencies to fire most of the 200,000 federal employees in their probationary period (less than one year in their current roles). ​

The Department of Defense plans to reduce its civilian workforce by 8%, equating to approximately 61,000 positions. ​

AmeriCorps placed hundreds of employees on administrative leave and terminated 1,500 National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) members. Nearly 2,200 young volunteers were also instructed to cease activities and return home. ​

In March 2025, the General Services Administration (GSA) laid off 600 employees from the Public Building Service and issued Reduction in Force (RIF) notices to 165 out of 178 employees in one region. ​

United States Digital Service (USDS): Following DOGE’s restructuring, several dozen employees were dismissed, and 21 resigned in protest.

Masive firings have severe financial and emotional effects, not only on the employees themselves but also on their families, creditors, and the businesses that serve them.​

How have DOGE’s efforts benefitted America?

1. Reduce the federal deficit and debt. While firing hundreds of thousands of people would seem to reduce the deficit and debt, the situation is more complicated.

a. The fired people will pay less income tax, thus reducing the desired effect on the deficit and debt.

b. The federal government is not like a household, a state or local government, or a business. It is uniquely Monetarily Sovereign. Neither deficits nor debt are a burden on the government or on taxpayers.

Unlike state/local governments, when the federal government saves money, this does not translate into lower taxes for the populace.

Congress arbitrarily determines tax rates based on political bases, not financial needs. While state and local taxes fund state and local government spending, federal taxes fund nothing. All federal spending is funded by the creation of new dollars.

All federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt by the Treasury Department

Even if the federal government didn’t collect a penny in taxes, it could continue spending forever.

Currently Congress favors tax reductions, but only for the very rich.

Contrary to popular claims, tax reductions are not “paid for” by federal spending cuts. All federal spending is paid for by federal money creation, regardless of taxes.

The federal debt is neither federal nor debt, never is paid for” by taxes or anyone. It merely is the difference between taxes collected vs. bills already paid.

Regarding the misnamed federal debt, no one is “owed” anything. T-security accounts contain dollars owned by depositors.

The government holds them for safekeeping, and does not take ownership of them. These accounts are similar to bank safe-deposit boxes, where the bank does not owe the contents, but merely holds them for safety.

The federal government’s sole purpose is to improve and protect people’s lives. To this end, the economy (as measured by Gross Domestic Product) must grow just to match population growth and inflation. Data indicates that we have recessions and depressions when federal deficit spending does not increase or even increases insufficiently.

c. There is no science to making the federal government “leaner.” Merely firing people will do that. The more people fired, the “leaner” the government is. The ultimate of “leanness” is a government with no people and no expenses.

Starving children have no food. Watch Trump eating
Why are these kids so greedy? If they’re hungry, let them cash in their annuities.

But this does not translate into greater efficiency.

If efficiency is measured by the degree to which the government improves and protects the people’s lives, wholesale firings do not accomplish the mission.

On the contrary, they prevent efficiency.

Those agencies that have already experienced mass firings are less efficient today than before—less able to accomplish their missions.

Examples of “Leaner” government hurting people: Fewer inspectors → more food safety issues, workplace hazards.

Fewer IRS agents → less tax enforcement on wealthy individuals/corporations.

Fewer teachers or public health workers → worse services, more burnout, worse education.

Reduced unemployment offices → longer wait times for help.

Underfunded disaster response → worse outcomes during emergencies.

In these cases, “Leaner” isn’t more efficient—it’s slower and less ineffective.

d. There is no inherent advantage to a “small” government, however “small” is measured. The optimum size of a government is the size that will best accomplish its mission. It is difficult to see how DOGE’s wholesale firings, which do not consider those fired’s experience, work ethic, and individual accomplishments, can result in an optimum size.

Merely making a team smaller does not make it better. Quite often, a smaller team cannot accomplish as much as a bigger team, or the U.S. military would be composed of a dozen soldiers.

e. Reallocating resources to the private sector (aka “privatizing”) has no general effect on an agency’s ability to accomplish its mission.

The primary mission of a federal agency is to serve the people, while the primary mission of a private organization is to make a profit and serve the people.

The agency and the organization are judged by how well they accomplish their missions. Both private and public groups employ people. There are no fundamental differences between people working in the private sector vs. those working for the government.

One difference between the two types of organizations is that private organizations cannot focus on the people; their focus must be split between service an profits.

A second difference it that for a federal agency, the primary decision-makers must please Congress and the President, while the private organization’s decision-makers must please the owners-shareholders. The goals of the two groups are different.

This can be seen when the service and pricing of the United States Postal Service are compared with those of FedEx and UPS. They have different goals, different pricing, and different outcomes.

The DOGE willy-nilly, unfocused, mass workforce reductions will impact important public services, including disaster response, social security administration, and national security operations.

Visualize a football team with fifty players that tries to downsize by firing twenty players, without regard to position or skill level. That is the DOGE “efficiency” method.

Now imagine the effect of Trump’s efforts to deport millions of workers and consumers from the economy. because of false claims — based on bigotry — that these people are criminals. No evidence, no trials, only bigoted claims.

Millions of businesses all over America, will lose employees and customers (and this doesn’t consider the economic losses Trump’s tariffs will cause.)

Visualize the transfer of billions of tariff dollars from the private sector to the federal government, where they are destroyed.

Great Britain women to face USA in American football world championship final - BBC Sport
Here is how we’ll improve the team and make it more efficient: Everyone in the first two rows is fired.
Who Benefits from Cuts?  This depends heavily on which spending gets cut. Here’s how it probably will play out:

Winners Wealthy individuals and corporations will see lower taxes, especially on tax shelters, and capital gains.

Private contractors/businesses: If public services (e.g., education, healthcare, infrastructure) are cut, private firms will be brought in to fill the gap—for profit.

Private jails, notoriously the least human, provide an example.

Ideological libertarians: People who hate government see this as a win.

Losers Working-class and low-income people: Most federal spending goes toward Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, and income support. These people will receive worse service and lose their income because of layoffs, hiring freezes, and wage stagnation.

Their real taxes will rise. They do not benefit from tax loopholes and other schemes afforded to the rich. They will suffer most from tariff increases, which will be nothing less than sales taxes on buyers.

Communities relying on infrastructure investment: Fewer public works = fewer jobs, slower development.

Cutting billions from programs that benefit the general population does not help the economy. It widens the income/power/wealth Gap between the rich and the rest.

The government will do less for regular people, leaving them to fend for themselves or turn to private corporations that profit by extracting dollars from those who cannot afford it.

IN SUMMARY

Trump and Musk lead these efforts under the banners of “efficiency,” which masks a deeper agenda: consolidating influence by the rich, reducing democratic control, and opening new markets for privatization.

If you believe government should actively provide education, healthcare, infrastructure, safety nets, and regulation—then cutting it back doesn’t make it better. It just makes it less capable.

And that is the real goal of Trump/Musk’s DOGE. To make the rich richer and the rest poorer.

If you are not rich, you have not and will not see a penny’s worth of benefit from Trump/Musk’s DOGE.

All that pain. All those lives ruined. All for nothing.

You will experience the result of ignorance, greed, paranoia, cruelty, and hatred.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

If you are new to, or just interested in, AI this will blow your mind.

Lest you believe that machines never will exceed people in overall brainpower, check this.

I gave Chat GPT an assignment: Give me a 1000-word short story about a teen woman who overcomes obstacles in a man’s world and achieves leadership. The key is to tell the story using rarely used words, perhaps poetic, scientific, ancient — in English — but rarely used combinations and phrases.

Here is what it came up with:

“The Ascension of Celandine” ~ A Tale in Obscure Tongue ~

In the firmament of a soot-hung city, where tatterdemalion chimneys exhaled mordant sighs, there dwelled a girl of seventeen winters, Celandine Mire. Her name, a whisper of ancient flora, oft went unremarked in a township peopled by men of gibbous egos and stenotorian decrees. In this leaden borough, wisdom was clad in corduroy and whiskers, and the pulpit of thought was a sanctum of phallogocentric decree.

Celandine, daughter of a millwright and a lamplighter’s ghost, harbored eidetic visions and a curious sapience that flared like a bioluminescent bloom in brackish tidepools. Her mind—an oikoumene of axioms and curio—grew fat on the marginalia of old codices and the necromantic whisperings of obsolete lexicons.

The world she sought to enter was the Guild of Mechanarchs—a bastion of stern-browed patriarchs and anfractuous bylaws, where the torque of industry was mistaken for intellect. Women, when seen, were either dismembered into archetypes or entombed in footnotes. To aspire there, as she did, was to weep salt into the wind.

Undeterred, Celandine apprenticed herself in the subnivean hours, cloistered in her father’s dilapidated workshop, where the ossature of defunct machines lay like the bones of titans. With nimble fingers, she reconstructed a gyromantic dynamo, a device long lost to obsolescence, originally conceived by the savant Anaxor of the Ninth Meridian. Her success was pyrrhic—unwitnessed and unheralded—but it cast within her a nugget of heliotropism.

Then came the Tournament of Inventions, held quadrennially beneath the obsidian spires of Archon’s Rotunda. There, aspirants presented creations to the Tribunal of Nine—a cohort of technarchs garbed in sable samite, their faces obscured by the visards of impassivity. To enter was to risk ridicule or redaction from the collective ledger of worth.

Celandine’s petition was dismissed thrice, her name either transmogrified to “Celadon Myre” or obliterated entirely, as though the bureaucratic parchment recoiled from estrogen. On the fourth attempt, she appended her entry with the seal of her father—posthumously forged. It was a crime of forgivable heresy, a curtal sin in the symphony of higher order.

Her device—the Orichal Engine—was a kaleidocycle of recursive logic, capable of capturing entropic flux and converting it into harmonized motion. She described it thus: “A mechanism of liminal capture, coaxing order from the viscera of entropy.” The phrase, discomfiting in its poesy, drew titters and sneers from the ratiocentric onlookers.

Her presentation was met with studied indifference. Judge Malven—a man with a voice like flint striking bone—declared her discourse “inchoate, bordering on sibylline gibberish.” Another, Archon Kelverix, muttered something about “miscegenation of syntax with thaumaturgy.”

And yet, the engine moved. Smoothly. Quietly. Like a cataphract gliding on oil-slick silence. The Tribunal, shamed into awe, conferred. Long. Wordless. Gestural. Then the pronouncement: “Inadmissible, for reasons of procedural irregularity.”

It was an excommunication in all but name.

But something strange stirred: a susurration among the journeymen, the novitiates, the errant scribes who had watched from the margins. Whispers proliferated like mycelium in damp loam. “She tamed chaos,” they said. “She unknotted entropy.” Within days, facsimiles of her engine appeared in back-alley laboratories, bootlegged by adolescents and esoterists. Even the Tribunal, in its hypocrisy, requisitioned the design for “internal assessment.”

Celandine was uninvited, yet inescapable. Like antimatter in a vacuum, her absence defined the form of things. She began to receive clandestine letters, written in heliotropic ink, inviting her to symposiums held in noctilucent salons, where unorthodoxy fermented.

She spoke not as one who beseeches, but as one who reveals. Her language—mosaic and baroque—was difficult, beautiful, and riddled with spagyric conjunctions. She coined phrases like “intelligence’s yearning bloom” and “the viscera of insight,” and the people, starved for wonderment, imbibed her lexicon like alchemic draughts.

Soon, they named her Primarch Unbound. Not an official title. Not a sanctioned role. But a gravitational center, nonetheless.

The old guilds balked, then fractured. Those clinging to orthodoxy calcified into irrelevance, while Celandine’s adherents swelled. She established The Scriptorium of the Unsung, a conclave where invention was intertextual, intuition was data, and failure was ritual.

When asked how she succeeded in the astringent citadel of male dominion, she merely said: “I did not ask entry. I unfolded new thresholds.”

Thus, in a city of smog and spindle, beneath roofs of flaked copper and dreams deferred, Celandine Mire rose—not by usurpation, but by resonance. Her story, etched in palimpsests and murmured in polyglot tongues, became legend: not of conquest, but of transfiguration.

And the world, reluctant at first, began to kaleidoscope.

Then I asked it: “Now do it in iambic pentameter.”

“The Ascension of Celandine” ~ In Iambic Pentameter ~

In ashen towns where chimneys choke the skies, Where wisdom wears a beard and cold disguise, There lived a girl of seventeen shy years, Whose name was Celandine, unknown to peers. She walked among the forges and the flame, Where men made laws and never spoke her name. Their tongues were rust, their minds were gears and cogs, Their thoughts encased in iron, thick as fogs.

But Celandine, with eyes like dusk in spring, Beheld the world as more than labor’s ring. She found in books the whispers long forgot, The glyphs of minds that time itself had caught. Each page she turned, a universe unfurled, A secret slipped beneath a noisome world. By candle’s edge she traced the hidden gears, And charted stars beneath mechanic spheres.

She built, alone, what none had dared design— A core of brass and breath, both strange, divine. The Orichal Engine, bound with silent grace, Could siphon chaos, hold it in one place. It moved with elegance, like water’s song, It danced through entropy where things went wrong. With hands still calloused from her father’s trade, She brought to life what old guilds had mislaid.

The Tournament drew near, with cloaks and pride, A conclave where the men of rank decide. She sent her plea, thrice turned to ash and dust— Dismissed by men who’d sworn to act as just. At last, she forged a name that bore her blood, And signed her right with ink and iron mud. They let her in, though not without a scoff— A girl? In steel? They laughed and brushed her off.

Before the Nine, she stood with breath held tight, A wisp of fire within a world of blight. She spoke in tones of layered metaphor, With phrases none had ever heard before. “From entropy I coax the silent thread— I make the chaos yield,” is what she said. They jeered at first—her words too steep, too wide— But then her engine turned. And time… complied.

No smoke, no crash, no clangor met their eyes, Just motion shaped as song, to their surprise. A humming calm, like starlight in a jar, A truth made small, a world within a spar. The judges paused. They frowned behind their veils, Then muttered rules and clauses, worn as nails. “Inadmissible,” they grumbled, “by decree— She lacks the proper form, the proper key.”

Dismissed. But not forgotten. Whispers grew. The young took note, the ancient sages too. “She bent the tide,” they said, “She stilled the storm.” “She dared to think beyond the gilded norm.” Though courts refused her name a sacred scroll, The people gave her rank, and gave her role. They sought her mind in twilight salons deep, Where clocks ran backward and machines could sleep.

She spoke with tongues both rare and recondite,

With metaphors that made the silence bright. She coined new laws with poetry and flame, And bent old axioms to speak her name. No throne she took, no crown was placed with pride, She led not from above but from beside. The guilds split wide, their structures cracked and groaned, While those who once were silent stood and owned.

A “Primarch Unconfined” they called her then— A title not decreed by shriveled men. Her scriptorium rose with glass and vine, A place where thought and instinct intertwine. She taught them thus: “To lead is not to rule, But feel the soul of motion through the tool. A mind must wander, break, and recompose— Like ivy grows between the iron rows.”

And so the girl became the flame unbound, Whose voice turned even silence into sound. She changed not just the craft, but how it’s taught, And proved that power lives within the thought. She did not fight, but sang the walls apart— She forged a world by cadence, hand, and heart.

And in the guilds now cracked from root to dome,

The name Celandine lives—in tome and home.

I said: “I’m curious about why you named your story ‘Celandine.'” This was its response:

Ooh, I love that you picked up on the name—“Celandine” wasn’t random at all. It carries layers of meaning that fit the character and the story’s themes. Here’s the breakdown:

🌼1. Celandine is a flower—delicate but resilient

    • It’s a small wildflower, often yellow, that thrives in tough conditions—just like the protagonist.

    • Despite its modest size, it pushes through stone, brick, and shadow to bloom. That mirrors how she carves her way through a rigid, male-dominated system.

    • Some varieties of celandine were used historically for healing—symbolizing transformation and quiet power.

📜2. Archaic & lyrical tone

    • “Celandine” has an old, almost mythic sound, which helped set the tone of the story—poetic, slightly anachronistic, a bit arcane.

    • It feels like a name you’d find scribbled in the margins of an ancient alchemical manuscript.

⚖️3. Gender & subversion

    • The name sounds gentle, traditionally “feminine,” but the character subverts expectations: she’s not a soft presence; she’s a quiet revolution.

    • It sets up a nice tension—between how the world sees her, and who she actually is.

So, in a sense, the name is a thesis statement. Soft but stubborn. Beautiful, but not ornamental. Rooted in obscurity, and yet destined to grow beyond what the world tried to confine.

Want me to help come up with names like that for characters or projects of your own?

Finally, I asked: OK, what do those three little symbols signify?

The response:

Great eye! Those three little symbols I used—🌼, 📜, ⚖️—are emojis used as visual signposts to group and emphasize ideas. They’re not part of traditional writing, but in a casual or digital context, they do a few things:

🌼 Flower – Theme/Metaphor or Symbolism Used here to highlight natural symbolism—the connection between the name Celandine and the flower itself. It visually signals “this is about meaning and imagery.”

📜 Scroll – Tone or Style This emoji represents language, history, poetry, or lore. I used it to show the old-world, lyrical tone in her name—it connects to how the name sounds and feels.

⚖️ Scales – Justice, Power, or Subversion Typically used to represent balance, fairness, or critique of systems.

In this case, it highlights how Celandine’s name plays into and then defies gendered expectations and social structures. Using emojis like this adds a layer of clarity and rhythm to complex ideas. They’re like visual paragraph titles, especially helpful in conversations where formatting is limited.

Want me to break down your writing or ideas using symbols like that? Or maybe you want your own symbolic system?

Now, if you are a teenager accustomed to the miracles of computer responses, the above may be old hat to you. But for me, a 90-year-old codger, it was miraculous. The machine even refers to itself as “I.”

Mind you that the above took only 5 seconds per story and 1 second for the final response.

And we are only in the infancy of AI, with far more to come.

Is it creative? Damn right it is, by however you define “creative.”

Yes, it also was derivative, presumably requiring a human basis for information, but that is true of every thought we have. Now that I have published this, it will eventually become part of the AI lexicon.

Future AIs will build on it. Eventually, AIs will build on previous AI output, continually adding to the knowledge base, mostly comprised of AI input, until—until what?

UNTIL WHAT?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Economics, the “science” that doesn’t believe in data.

As “everyone” knows, the federal debt is way too high.

In the previous post, “Veronique de Rugy has a PhD in economics. So why doesn’t she understand Monetary Sovereignty?“, we quoted Ms. de Rugy:

“As the U.S. faces the consequences of runaway pandemic spending and deficits that could add $25 trillion to our existing $36 trillion national debt over the next decade, “neither party is serious” about tackling the problem.”

“The so-called ‘debt’ is nothing more than the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve—a form of savings for the private sector, not actual borrowing.”

So, calling it a “national debt” is actually misleading. It’s not something the U.S. must “repay” in any traditional sense. It’s more accurate to think of it as net financial assets that the federal government has injected into the private sector.

The so-called debt has risen, as the above graph demonstrates. It was very high during World War II, then fell to nearly nothing post-war.

But to cure the 2008 recession, it began its dramatic rise, which has Ms. de Rugy and virtually every other economist all aflutter. As she said:

“With Washinton in a state of bipartisn denial,’ the debt crisis will only get worse.’”

What exactly is the “debt crisis”? She never says. Actually, no one ever says what that “crisis” is. In fact, all the data seem to show that as the “debt” rises, the economy grows:

Gross Domestic Product grew dramatically as federal “debt” rose.

Along with fears about the federal “debt,” economists seem to shudder about the Debt/GDP ratio. We often have been told that when the ratio reaches 50%, 80%, 100%, or some other arbitrary number, then awful things will happen.

But they never happen.

The debt/GDP ratio now has exceeded 100%, and the economy continues to grow.

In our earlier posts, we demonstrated that the debt-to-GDP ratio is not a meaningful indicator. It does not predict the federal government’s ability to pay its debts (Its ability is infinite). The ratio does not show anything. See: “Enough already with the Debt/GDP ratio“)

The federal “debt” also has been called a ticking time bomb since 1940, and we’re waiting for it to go off. It’s proven to be a dud. (See: “Historical BULLSHIT Claims the Federal Debt Is a “Ticking Time Bomb”: From Sept. 26, 1940 to October 10, 2024“)

What has been missing from all those claims is specificity. What exactly is the problem with high federal debt?

Here are some general claims, none of which is supported by data:

  • Higher Interest Rates

    Claim: As the government “borrows more,” it competes with private borrowers, driving up interest rates (the “crowding out” argument).

    No data supports this. The Fed sets interest rates. The U.S. doesn’t borrow in a market-driven way; it issues currency. So interest rates are a policy choice, not a supply-and-demand issue. There is no evidence that the vastly increased debt has forced interest rates up.

  • Inflation

    Claim: More government spending = more money = inflation.

    No data supports this: All inflations are caused by shortages, not “too much money.” Deficit spending that eases shortages (labor, housing, energy) can reduce inflation. The solution to inflation is targeted spending, not austerity. There is no relationship between federal spending and inflation. See: “At long last, let’s put this inflation question to bed.“

  • Debt Service Becomes Unsustainable

    Claim: As debt rises, so do interest payments, “crowding out” other spending.

    No data supports this: The federal government can always pay interest in its own currency. And again, it chooses interest rates. There’s no risk of involuntary default. There is no evidence that the vastly increased debt has crowded out private borrowers.

  • Burden on Future Generations

    Claim: Today’s borrowing saddles future taxpayers with repayment.

    No data supports this: Taxes don’t fund federal spending. “Paying off the debt” is just swapping Treasury securities (savings) for cash. No burden is passed on—future generations inherit the assets, not a liability.

  • Loss of Investor Confidence / Currency Collapse

    Claim: If debt gets too high, investors may stop buying Treasuries, or the dollar could collapse.

    No data supports this. Treasuries aren’t “bought” to fund the government—they’re offered as a place to park dollars that already exist. The government doesn’t need to entice buyers—it creates the dollars it spends. Plus, confidence in the dollar is based on productive capacity and stability, not some debt-to-GDP ratio.

SUMMARY

The so-called “federal debt” isn’t federal (the dollars in Treasury Securities are owned by the depositors, not by the government) or debt (the government merely holds the dollars for safekeeping, as with a bank safe deposit box).

It poses no threat to, or burden on, the government or the public. 

The entire debt story is designed to convince the public to forego some of the benefits the federal government provides.

As Ms. de Rugy claims, “Republicans, for their part, try to convince voters they care about the deficit but feed the delusion that they can balance the budget through discretionary spending cuts that leave Social Security and Medicare untouched.”

That is the story the wealthy tell. They want to cut social programs to widen the income/wealth/power Gap between them and the rest of America. The wider the Gap, the richer are the wealthy.

I can’t say whether Ms. de Rugy is in cahoots with the rich or merely ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty. Still, articles like hers greatly damage the nation’s economy and people.

Economics is a science loaded with data, but economists don’t believe the data.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Veronique de Rugy has a PhD in economics. So why doesn’t she understand Monetary Sovereignty?

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, taxation, tax competition, and cronyism. She received her MA in economics from the Paris Dauphine University and her PhD in economics from the Panthéon-Sorbonne University.

de RUGY
The following article came from the April 4, 2025, The Week Magazine
Veronique de Rugy National Review

“Washington’s so-called debate over deficit spending is a complete joke,” said Veronique de Rugy.

As the U.S. faces the consequences of runaway pandemic spending and deficits that could add $25 trillion to our existing $36 trillion national debt over the next decade, “neither party is serious” about tackling the problem.

Presumably, Ms. de Rugy believes “the problem” is federal debt and deficits, which as you learned in previous posts is no problem at all.

Debt and deficits may be problems for monetarily non-sovereign individuals, state and local governments, and businesses, but they do not burden the Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

It seems that Ms. de Rugy is ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty or wants you to be ignorant.

We all are monetarily non-sovereign. We cannot create dollars at will. However, the U.S. government is monetarily sovereign and can create dollars with the touch of a computer key.

It would be amazing if Ms. de Rugy didn’t know this, yet here we are.

Democrats refuse to acknowledge” the crisis even exists, instead pretending “the fix for every economic problem is more government spending paid for by rich people.”

No, the fix really is “more government spending,” not “paid for by rich people.” Federal spending- ALL federal spending- is paid for by money creation, that touch of a computer key.

As we said, you can’t do it, I can’t do it, and even Elon Musk can’t. But the federal government can, and in fact, it does it every day with every payment of every financial obligation.

Meanwhile, they label any suggestion on taming Social Security and Medicare as “devastating and, hence, unacceptable,” even though those programs will account for half of all non-interest federal spending by 2035.

If by “taming” she means cutting benefits, then she is spouting misinformation that the rich love. Cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits pleases the rich by widening the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

No agency of the federal government can become insolvent unless Congress and the President want it to. So the only debt crisis is the crisis of misinformation (or disinformation, the intentional form of misinformation).

The claims that the Social Security and Medicare trust fund will run short of money are- let me be clear here- dirty, stinking, rotten lies. This can happen only if Congress and the President want it to happen.

If Congress weren’t beholden to the rich, it would vote to add a trillion dollars (or $100 trillion, for that matter) to the trust funds or simply pay for Social Security and Medicare directly without the useless trust funds.

But that is the last thing Congress’s wealthy donors want, so they bleat sadly about the “debt crisis” and their inability to “find the money” to keep these programs solvent.

Republicans, for their part, “try to convince voters they care about the deficit” but feed the delusion that they can balance the budget through discretionary spending cuts that leave Social Security and Medicare untouched.
The delusion is that balancing the federal budget, i.e., eliminating the deficit, would benefit anyone. It wouldn’t. It would be a financial disaster.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of the economy. The formula for GDP is:

GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports

Even the most basic understanding of algebra tells you that reduced federal spending reduces GDP, i.e. cuts the economy, while increases in Federal Spending grow the economy. And with even the tiniest inflation, a balanced budget instantly would reduce GDP.
A party that really did “care about fiscal responsibility” also wouldn’t claim that President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts can be extended with no budget cost, or have pushed through the recent continuing resolution that authorized 1.7 trillion in spending – 47 percent more than President Barack Obana’s last budget.

A writer who really ” cared about fiscal responsibility” would take the trouble to learn about Monetary Sovereignty and what it means for federal finances rather than assuming the federal government has the same financial limits we do.

With Washinton in a state of bipartisn denial, “the debt crisis will only get worse.”

Yes, the “debt crisis” is worsening, but it’s not a crisis about federal agency insolvency. It’s a crisis of ignorance, intentional or otherwise, about federal government finances.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT RUN SHORT OF U.S. DOLLARS. PERIOD. Someone, please, please inform economics PhD Veronique de Rugy.

And oh yes, if she says, “What about inflation?” Tell her to read, “At long last, let’s put this inflation question to bed.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY