What are the purposes of the student loan program?

What are the purposes of the student loan program?

A street made out of dollars leads to a school — **The road to school is paved with dollars.**

1. It provides financial assistance to students who may not be able to pay for their education upfront. 2. Educated individuals tend to have higher earning potential and contribute more to the economy. 3. Education provides individuals with critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills that are valuable in both personal and professional life. 4. Education can be a pathway out of poverty for many individuals, providing them with the tools and opportunities to improve their socioeconomic status. 5. Student loans provide a significant source of revenue for educational institutions, helping them maintain and improve their programs and facilities.

Federal student loans account for about 92% of the total outstanding student loan debt in the United States, while private student loans account for approximately 8%. Federal loan rates range from 6.5% to 9%, and private loan rates range from 3.5% to 17%. Approximately 40% of the loans provided by the government to help students pay for their education are delinquent or in default. The federal government collected approximately $4.92 trillion in tax revenue for the most recent fiscal year (FY 2024). According to the Federal Reserve, the student loan debt balance in the U.S. has increased by 66% over the past decade and now totals more than $1.74 trillion.

Washington Post, January 18, 2025, By Danielle Douglas-Gabriel In his last week in office, President Joe Biden capped a tumultuous effort to deliver widespread student loan forgiveness by canceling another $600 million in education debt for longtime borrowers and those defrauded by their colleges. With Biden’s final round of student debt relief, he has approved a total of $189 billion in loan cancellation for 5.3 million borrowers — more than any other president. Yet higher education experts are split on whether his mission to ease the debt burden for millions of Americans did more harm than good. Many of Biden’s sweeping debt relief policies have either been struck down by the courts or tied up in litigation that has left the student loan repayment system in disarray.

Ironically, the lawsuits and court cases depend on Republican obstruction, the party of the wealthy. Millions of people who would have benefited from debt relief voted for Trump. Now, more than ever, the wealthy have control over America. They always wish to be more prosperous, which requires widening the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. The children of the rich do not need to borrow for college, but the children of the rest do. Therefore, forcing the rest to be indebted widens the Gap, making the rich richer. It’s the same motivation for why the rich complain about the cost of Medicare and Social Security but never about the costs of special tax breaks available only to the rich.

college graduates are higher than the poor — **College graduates see a successful future**

The “federal spending causes inflation” trope is how the rich justify voting against spending that benefits the not-rich.

Still, the president’s relentless pursuit of debt forgiveness, primarily through long-existing federal programs, has helped millions of people. “Four years ago, President Biden made a promise to fix a broken student loan system. We rolled up our sleeves and, together, we fixed existing programs that had failed to deliver the relief they promised,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said Thursday. The Education Department announced three separate rounds of student loan forgiveness in Biden’s last week in office. On Monday, the department canceled loans for 150,000 borrowers mostly through a 1994 statute called “borrower defense to repayment,” which lets the agency cancel federal student loans when colleges violate students’ rights and state law. A majority of those cancellations were for students who attended defunct schools owned by the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, including Stevens-Henager College, Independence University and California College San Diego. “My Administration has taken historic action to reduce the burden of student debt, hold bad actors accountable, and fight on behalf of students across the country,” Biden said Monday. “For the first time in the history of the student loan system, we saw the federal loan program deliver on its promise to more than 5 million student loan borrowers,” said Persis Yu, deputy executive director at the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC), an advocacy group. Conservatives have also succeeded in stalling Biden’s Saving on a Valuable Education (Save) repayment plan, which ties monthly student loan payments to earnings and family size, and offers a shorter path to loan forgiveness. A court injunction has halted Save and the Education Department has suspended payments for the 8 million people enrolled in the plan but denied them credit toward loan forgiveness during the forbearance period. While President-elect Donald Trump is likely to end the program, it is unclear what his administration will do with all of those borrowers. Republicans have become hardened against what many have called a fiscally irresponsible giveaway to college graduates at the expense of taxpayers.

To the Trump right-wing, “fiscally irresponsible” means anything that benefits the middle and the poor. It does not include tax breaks for the rich. Think of :

Private foundations or charitable trusts
Real estate depreciation deductions, tax-deferred exchanges (like 1031 exchanges)
Family limited partnerships (FLPs)
Offshore accounts and trusts
Business owners can deduct expenses, including travel, entertainment, and even personal use of company assets.
Grantor-retained annuity trusts (GRATs) and dynasty trusts
Carried interest
Deferred compensation plans
Foreign tax credits
Opportunity zone investments
Grantor trusts
Conservation easements
Like-kind Exchanges (Section 1031)

a doctor overworked overburdened drowning in patients — **The future of the poorly educated**.

Have you taken advantage of any of the above? They all reduce federal taxes, thus taking dollars from the federal government. If they were used by middle—and lower-income taxpayers, the rich would complain that they are “fiscally irresponsible giveaways” or that programs (like Medicare and Social Security) are running short of money. But you will hear no complaints from the rich about the abovementioned tax breaks. The rich complain only when the rest of us receive something from the government.

House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) accused the Biden administration of giving “handouts with zero accountability.”

“Handouts with zero accountability” is how Donald Trump paid virtually no taxes during the years he made billions.

“Instead, the administration should have been working to address the fact that student loan debt is too high, completion rates are too low, and far too many students are left worse off after paying for college than if they had never enrolled in the first place,” Walberg said Monday. “

Which is precisely what Biden’s loan forgiveness does.

It is shameful that, in its final days, the Biden-Harris administration is doubling down on efforts to push as much forgiveness as possible through the door, once again ignoring the rule of law.”

Neither Walbert nor the rest of the Republican Party has solutions for reducing excessive student loan debt, low completion rates, and the financial strains students face after college. In fact, as the techies say about flawed programs, “Those aren’t bugs; they’re features.”

Congressional Republicans are likely to push wholesale changes to the federal lending system through the budget reconciliation process, including a proposal to eliminate Plus loan programs for graduate students and parents. For his part, Trump has derided Biden’s student loan forgiveness policies as “vile,” but has not put forth a plan of his own.

This is a common complaint by Trump, who routinely criticizes anything the Democrats do, then promises to come up with a better plan and, in the end, fails to do so. Who could forget the eight years of broken promises to develop an “improved” version of Obamacare?

Persis Yu, the Deputy Executive Director and Managing Counsel at the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) said, “The last Trump administration looked the other way when students’ and borrowers’ rights were denied — routinely siding with predatory schools and servicers.

The fact that education benefits America was known to our first settlers, whose first acts were to create schools. The first free public school in what is now the United States was established in 1635 in Boston, Massachusetts, funded by taxpayer dollars Today, grades K-12 are still funded by taxpayer dollars, without direct student cost, by monetarily non-sovereign governments. So surely, grades 13+ can be financed by our Monetarily Sovereign government without taxpayer dollars. These days, advanced education is more important than it was four centuries ago, so all the same reasons for free elementary and high school now exist for free college and advanced. The solution to educating everyone who wants it is federal funding of all education. Further, the federal government should fund student salaries to compensate for lost working hours. The “federal debt” excuse is meaningless for a Monetarily Sovereign government. The “inflation” excuse is false. Inflation is caused by shortages of oil, food, shipping, labor, etc., none of which is affected by federal spending on education. We seem to have plenty of money for the military, Congress, the White House, and SCOTUS, as well as tax breaks that benefit the rich. (There is no FICA for tax shelters.) Rich property and business owners receive massive tax breaks; renters and salaried employees get nothing. Trump famously stated, “I love the poorly educated.” It seems he is so enthusiastic about the poorly educated that he wants millions more to join that group. The federal government does not need to lend. Federal lending is a Mafia-like solution for students of modest means who are desperate to climb the social/financial ladder, but become trapped in future-destroying debt. The government should give benefits to the people rather than lend, which would not only help the individuals receiving benefits but, unlike lending, add growth dollars to the economy. We should end all student loan programs and start anew with comprehensive student support programs for grades K-16+, financed by the federal government at no cost to federal, state, or local taxpayers. “Comprehensive” should encompass tuition, books and materials, room and board, tutoring, transportation, and salaries to cover lost work time. This would decrease the number of poorly educated individuals, increase the number of well-educated individuals, and alleviate a significant financial burden on students, their families, and state or local governments. 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/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The solution to inflation: View inflation as a lack of supply problem, not an excessive demand problem

Background

Inflation is a general, progressive elevation in the prices of services and goods within the economy.

It is not an increase in one price or a dozen prices. It is a general increase in prices. And it is not a momentary price change; it is a progressive change taking place over months and years.

The U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars.

The Federal Reserve views inflation as an “excessive demand” problem, raising interest rates to combat it. The Fed’s theory is:

–Higher interest rates make borrowing more expensive for consumers and businesses. This tends to reduce spending on big-ticket items like houses and cars and can lead to decreased business investment.

–As interest rates rise, saving becomes more attractive. People may save more rather than spend, reducing overall economic demand.

–Higher interest rates reduce the overall demand for goods and services by curbing spending and borrowing. With lower demand, prices will stabilize or decrease, helping control inflation.

–The Fed aims to bring demand in line with supply by slowing down economic activity. This helps prevent the economy from overheating and keeps prices from rising too quickly.

–Higher interest rates can also influence inflation expectations. If businesses and consumers expect inflation to be controlled, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, helping stabilize prices.

Unfortunately, bringing down demand is recessionary. Also, when interest rates rise, businesses’ borrowing costs increase. This includes loans for expansion, equipment, and operational expenses.

Businesses facing higher borrowing costs may raise prices to maintain profit margins, potentially leading to higher consumer prices.

Historically, however, inflation has not been an excessive demand problem but a lack of supply problem.

business owner talks to customer — **I’m sorry, ma’am. We could lower our prices if we didn’t have to pay such high interest rates on our business debt.**

Rule #1. A price or prices can rise progressively only if there is a scarcity of crucial products or services- notably oil, food, and labor.

Prices cannot increase when products and services are plentiful.

Price increases would be temporary without scarcity as plentiful supply would naturally reduce prices.

For instance, it is believed that inflation can be caused by:

Expectations: If consumers or businesses expect prices to rise, they may temporarily increase their purchases or adjust their pricing.

However, without underlying scarcity, the market will self-correct.

Currency Devaluation: Devaluation can increase import costs, resulting in higher prices for imported goods.

However, if these goods are plentiful globally and alternative sources exist, the price increases may be reversed.

Devaluation is intended to boost exports, thereby injecting money into the economy. Contrarily, the supporters of devaluation often criticize government deficit spending for the same reason, as it also increases the money supply.

Increased Demand: Increasing demand typically indicates a healthy economy. If supply can match demand, prices will stabilize.

However, when supply falls short of demand, shortages lead to prolonged price increases.

Inflation occurs due to scarcity. Whether it involves oil, food, labor, or other essential inputs, this scarcity increases prices.

When there is no underlying scarcity, price increases due to expectations, devaluation, or demand growth will be temporary and self-correcting.

Rule #2. There is no “excessive demand”; instead, there is “inadequate supply.” Inflation always is supply-based, never demand-based.

Increased demand is an essential requirement for economic growth that should be encouraged rather than suppressed.

This perspective alters the understanding of demand-pull and cost-push inflation typically taught in economics classes.

Demand-pull inflation supposedly occurs when demand for goods and services exceeds supply, leading to higher prices. This should be viewed as inadequate supply, i.e., shortages, and cured by addressing the scarcity of goods and services, not the demand.

Cost-push inflation has been said to occur when rising production costs (e.g., wages and raw materials) lead businesses to increase prices, resulting in inflation. Production costs rise only when shortages, e.g., labor shortages push up wages, and raw material shortages push up purchase costs.

This inflation should be cured by addressing the shortages of labor and raw materials.

Rule #3. Recession is not an effective cure for inflation. Both recession and inflation can exist simultaneously (i.e., “stagflation”).

The two frequently attempted solutions for inflation—reducing federal spending and raising interest rates—are detrimental to growth and can lead to recession.

Reducing federal spending can worsen inflation by creating raw materials and labor shortages. Raising interest rates may also increase inflation by elevating business and consumer costs.

Rule # 4. To prevent/cure problems, cure the cause(s). Because inflation should be viewed as a supply problem, not a demand problem, curing supply constraints is the preferred approach to managing inflation.

This includes increased government investment in infrastructure, shipping, basic materials, innovation (R&D), and workforce development through education and training.

Encouraging demand and ensuring supply keeps pace supports sustainable economic growth and helps combat inflation without leading to a recession.

Summary: To prevent and cure inflation:

Government policies should prioritize increasing supply through strategic investments rather than relying on monetary policy to reduce demand. Increasing demand is essential for economic growth.
When inflation is related to oil shortages, the government should fund increased oil exploration, drilling, refining, and delivery, as well as increased funding for renewable energy creation and distribution.
When inflation is related to food costs, the government should fund aid to farming, farm education, farm equipment, storage, and shipping.
When inflation is related to increased labor costs, the government should fund education and training. It should also reduce labor costs by eliminating FICA and reducing business taxes.
Other inflation-causing shortages should be addressed via federal support
Discontinue efforts to reduce federal spending, the deficit, and the debt. So-called “excessive” federal spending does not cause inflation, and it can be part of the cure.
Stop raising interest rates as a cure for inflation. Low rates do not cause inflation, and high rates increase the cost of goods and services—exactly the opposite approach to inflation prevention and cure.

A Monetarily Sovereign government should view inflation as a lack of supply problem, not an excessive demand problem, to prevent and cure inflation without a recession.

Cure the supply problem, and you cure inflation without a recession.

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/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The Christian right wing wants to take money from the poor and give it to the rich — just what Jesus would do. Right?

This article discusses the “religious” right’s planned efforts to reduce federal debt by cutting healthcare for low-income individuals and the disabled, while diverting funds to wealthy individuals. Is taking from the poor and giving to the rich what Jesus would do?

Taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich is the worst blasphemy and the path to hell.
Revealed: The GOP’s ‘draconian’ strategy to cut Medicaid as Trump returns REUTERS/Anna Rose Layden Phil Galewitz, KFF Health News, January 13, 2025 Under President Joe Biden, Medicaid enrollment hit a record high, and the uninsured rate reached a record low. Donald Trump’s return to the White House and a GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives are expected to change that. Republicans in Washington say they plan to use funding cuts and regulatory changes to dramatically shrink Medicaid, the nearly $900-billion-a-year government health insurance program that, along with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, serves about 79 million mostly low-income or disabled Americans. The proposals include rolling back the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which over the last 11 years added about 20 million low-income adultsto its rolls. Trump has said he wants to drastically cut government spending, which may be necessary for Republicans to extend 2017 tax cuts that expire at the end of this year.

There are two problems with this notion:

There is no need to cut federal spending. Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government cannot run short of dollars. It has the unlimited ability to create new dollars, simply by touching computer keys. The federal debt never is a burden on the government or on taxpayers.
The Trump tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. Trump literally wishes to take from the poor and give to the rich.

The Republicans plan to take healthcare dollars from the poor or disabled and give those dollars to the rich.

Trump made little mention of Medicaid during the 2024 campaign. The first Trump administration approved work requirements in several states, though only Arkansas implemented theirs before a federal judge said it violated the law.

The “work requirements” rule assumes the poor or disabled are malingerers, who would rather stay home and live in poverty than work. It is the sneering, superior attitude of those who have much toward those who have little.

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told KFF Health News that Medicaid and other federal entitlement programs need major changes to help cut the federal debt. “Without them, we will watch this country sadly enter into fiscal collapse.”

Conservatives have been preaching this false narrative about fiscal collapse since 1940. (See: “Historical BULLSHIT. Claims the Federal Debt Is a “Ticking Time Bomb”: From Sept. 26, 1940 to October 10, 2024″) In 1940, the federal debt was $40 billion. Eightyfive years later, has risen to $35 trillion, and the economy is healthier than ever. No “fiscal collapse” in sight.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the Budget Committee, said Congress needs to explore cutting federal spending on Medicaid. “You need wholesale reform on the health care front, which can include undoing a lot of the damage being done by the ACA and Obamacare,” Roy said. “Frankly, we could end up providing better service if we do it the right way.”

For eight years, Republican party has promised a “better” version of ACA. They use the word “reform” to describe cutting benefits. Trump has long talked about making the ACA less expensive, but the question is less expensive for whom?

Trump’s past proposals would certainly have made the ACA less expensive for the federal government, but with the trade-off of higher out-of-pocket premiums for people, more uninsured, and higher spending and greater risk for states. Advocates for poor people fear GOP funding cuts will leave more Americans without insurance, making it harder for them to get care.

Of course it will. Ironically, the poor voted for Trump.

“Medicaid is an obvious target for huge cuts,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. “An existential fight about Medicaid’s future likely lies ahead.” Medicaid, which turns 60 in July, is nearing the end of a disruptive period, after COVID pandemic-era coverage protections expired in 2023 and all enrollees had to prove they still qualified. The unwinding’s disruptions could pale in comparison to what happens in the next four years, said Matt Salo, former executive director and founder of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “What we are going to see is an even bigger seismic shift in who Medicaid covers and how it operates,” he said. But Salo said any efforts to shrink the program will face pushback. “A lot of powerful entities — state governments, managed-care organizations, long-term care providers, and everyone under the sun who wants to do well by doing good — wants to see Medicaid work efficiently and be adequately funded,” he said. “And they will be highly motivated to push back on something they see as draconian cuts, because it could affect their business model.” The GOP is looking at several tactics to reduce the size of Medicaid: Shifting to block grants. Switching to annual block grants could lower federal funding for states to operate the program while giving states more discretion over how to spend the money.

There is no magic to block grants. Money for Medicaid must come from somewhere. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the infinite ability to create dollars without levying taxes. The monetarily non-sovereign states do not have this power. Who should pay, the infinitely rich federal government or the perpetually strapped states? If giving block grants saves the federal government money, what will the states do? Answer: Cut Medicaid. They will have no options because they will have less money to work with.

Currently, the government matches a certain percentage of state spending each year with no cap. Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have sought to block-grant Medicaid with no success. Arrington said he favors ending the open-ended federal funding to states and replacing it with a set annual amount based on how many people each state has in the program.

The sole purposes are to force the states and state taxpayers to pay more, and ultimately, to force the poor and disabled to receive less care. The poor or disabled either will have to do without health care, or somehow buy coverage from private insurance companies, owned and managed by the rich. Either way, the rich win and the poor lose — the perfect Republican formula.

Cutting ACA Medicaid funding. The ACA provided financing to cover, through Medicaid, Americans with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $20,783 for an individual last year. The federal government pays 90% of the cost for adults covered through the law’s Medicaid expansion, which 40 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted.

Even with the federal government paying 90% of the cost, ten Republican states have opted out of the ACA expansion. In the 10 states that didn’t expand Medicaid, 1.6M can’t afford health insurance. The majority of residents in this coverage gap are people of color, an analysis found.

Cheyenne Flushes Out Local Water Thief ... — **The governors of the 10 states that didn’t expand Medicaid flushed billions of their own taxpayers’ dollars down the toilet.**

Opting out has cost the states billions of dollars, not only in federal dollars, but in savings:

Expanding eligibility allows states to cut spending in other parts of their Medicaid programs.
It allows states to cut spending outside of Medicaid — particularly on state-funded health services for the uninsured.
Finally, expansion may increase state revenues due to taxes related to Medicaid expansion or taxes on the increased economic activity it triggers.

A report from the Commonwealth Fund estimated that states not expanding Medicaid could collectively have lost out on more than $7 billion in 2020 alone. Nine of those ten states voted for Trump in the past election. The lesson: You get what you vote for.

During the first Trump term, federal courts ruled that Medicaid law doesn’t allow coverage to be conditioned on enrollees’ working or seeking jobs. But the GOP may try again. “If we can get strict work requirements on able-bodied adults, that can be a huge cost savings by itself,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) told KFF Health News. Because most Medicaid enrollees already work, go to school, or serve as caregivers, critics say such a requirement would simply add red tape to obtaining coverage, with little impact on employment. If the GOP’s plans to shrink Medicaid are realized, Democrats and health experts say low-income people forced to buy private insurance would face challenges paying monthly premiums and the large copayments and deductibles common to commercial plans that typically don’t exist in Medicaid. He said the GOP will look to scale back Medicaid to its “traditional” populations of children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. “We need to rebalance the program that most people think is underperforming,” he said. Most Americans, including large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats, view the program favorably, according to polls.

“Rebalance” is another GOP synonym for “cut benefits for the needy and create new benefits for the wealthy.” 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/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

This is important. I want your opinion. How would you vote regarding these religion-related questions?

The Constitution prohibits the government from supporting or opposing any religion.

Christians (e.g., Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, Later Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses) are known for their proselytizing efforts. Others (e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto) are not.

The question becomes: Is a display of one or more versions of the Ten Commandments a form of support and proselytizing or merely education?

48 Inch Four Evangelists Wall Crucifix — **Is this art or religion? Should it hang in any government-funded place?**

Imagine you are a Supreme Court Justice. I would very much like your opinion regarding:

Can something titled “The Ten Commandments” exist outside religion as purely secular?
Should the government support teaching religious concepts purely as an educational exercise?
Is there a bright line between religious and secular teaching that allows for teaching religious concepts?
Would a secular course about “The life and teachings of Christ, Moses, and God” be allowed in a secular class.”
In a public school class, do atheists have the right to teach that God does not exist? Should the words and beliefs of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), or the words of Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, or the words of Allah and prophet Muhammed be taught?
How can we ensure that a secular approach to teaching about religions does not turn into the promotion of a single religion’s beliefs?
Should displays of religious-themed artwork be allowed in a secular class? What about an art history class?
Is this art or religion? Should it be displayed in any government-funded place?

The following article appeared in the Florida Sun-Sentinel.

More Christianity in classrooms?

Trump’s victory may embolden efforts by lawmakers on right
Text of the Ten Commandments is posted with other documents June 20 at the Georgia Capitol in Atlanta. John Bazemore/AP By Moriah Balingit, Associated Press

FL_IC_1052010619_1052034372_003-0112_Education_Religion_in_Schools_57881--b2940.jpg — What is the “10 Commandments”? The above picture is shown in the article.
It is similar to the Protestant version of the “10 Commandments” because of the “graven image” line. The Catholic version does not mention graven images. There are other versions. It’s not clear whether others will be posted in the Georgia Capital.

WASHINGTON — Conservative lawmakers across the country are pushing to introduce more Christianity to public school classrooms, testing the separation of church and state by inserting Bible references into reading lessons and requiring teachers to post the Ten Commandments.
The efforts come as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office pledging to champion the First Amendment right to pray and read the Bible in school, practices that are already allowed as long as they are not government sponsored.
While the federal government is explicitly barred from directing states on what to teach, Trump can indirectly influence what is taught in public schools and his election may embolden state-level activists. Trump and his fellow Republicans support school choice, hoping to expand the practice of using taxpayer-funded vouchers to help parents send their children to religious schools.

Technically, federal spending is not taxpayer-funded. As Monetary Sovereignty teaches, federal spending is funded by federal money creation.

That said, what would you, as a SCOTUS justice, say about federal funding of vouchers for religious schools?

What about federal funding of secular schools that include one religious class? What about tax breaks for private schools that include one religious course?

What are your thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance that young students often recite (sometimes getting the words wrong)? While it may not genuinely foster “allegiance,” it still seems to hold significance for some lawmakers.

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

It would be noteworthy to find even one person whose patriotism has been strengthened by this pledge. Yet, despite its lack of usefulness, it effectively excludes those who do not believe in God or who have a different understanding of divinity.

As a SCOTUS Justice, what is your opinion?

There is a push to incorporate more Christianity into the mainstream public schools that serve the overwhelming majority of students, including those of other faiths.
And with the help of judicial appointees from Trump’s first presidential term, courts have begun to bless the notion of more religion in the public sphere, including in schools.
Trump’s Jewish family. Are they concerned? Are Trump, SCOTUS, MAGA concerned? Is anyone?

“The effect of even Trump being the president-elect, let alone the president again, is Christian nationalists are emboldened like never before,” said Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

One wonders what Trump’s Jewish daughter, Ivanka, and his Jewish grandchildren, Arabella, Joseph, and Theodore Kushner, think about all this Christian nationalism.

Large numbers of Americans believe the founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation.
A smaller group, part of a movement widely called Christian nationalism, champions a fusion of American and Christian identity and believes the U.S. has a mandate to build a Christian society.
Many historians argue the opposite, claiming the framers created the United States as an alternative to European monarchies with official state churches and oppression of religious minorities.
Efforts to introduce more Christianity into classrooms have taken hold in several states. In Louisiana, Republicans passed a law requiring every public school classroom to post the Ten Commandments. In Texas, officials approved a curriculum intertwining language arts with biblical lessons. And in Oklahoma, the state superintendent of education has called for lessons to incorporate the Bible from grades 5 through 12, a requirement schools have declined to follow.
Utah state lawmakers designated the Ten Commandments a historical document, in the same category as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so teachers could post it in their classrooms. And attorneys general from 17 GOP-led states recently filed a brief supporting Louisiana’s Ten Commandments mandate.
Schools are allowed — and even encouraged — to teach about religion and to expose students to religious texts. But some say the new measures are indoctrinating students, not educating them.
Some states have allowed teachers to use videos from Prager U, a nonprofit founded by a conservative talk show host, despite criticism that the videos positively highlight the spread of Christianity and include Christian nationalist talking points.
Trump commissioned the 1776 Project. It was panned by historians and scholars who said it credited Christianity for many of the positive turns in U.S. history without mentioning the religion’s role in perpetuating slavery, for example.
The project was developed into a curriculum and is now taught in a network of publicly funded charter schools supported. It also has influenced state standards in South Dakota.
Challenges to some state measures are now working their way through the courts, which have grown friendlier to religious interests thanks to Trump’s judicial appointments.
In 2022, a football coach was fired for praying with players at midfield after a game. The high court said a public school can’t restrict an employee’s religious activity just because it could be construed as an endorsement of religion, reversing a five-decade precedent.

Inquisition ‑ Spanish, Roman & Torture | HISTORY — **In God’s name**

“Could be construed” as an endorsement without actually being an endorsement? Who does the construing? What if a student construed it as an endorsement?

The ruling could pave the way for conservatives to introduce more Christianity in public schools, said Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina. “Donald Trump’s judicial appointees have emboldened states” to test the separation of church and state, he said.
Joseph Davis of Becket, a public interest law firm focused on religious freedom that is defending Louisiana over its Ten Commandments mandate said the Supreme Court has endorsed the idea that “it’s OK to have religious expression in the public spaces,” Davis said, “and that we should sort of expect that … if it’s a big part of our history.”
But critics say some measures to introduce more historical references to Christianity in classrooms have taken things too far, inserting biblical references gratuitously, while erasing the role Christianity played in justifying atrocities perpetuated by Americans, like genocide of Native people and slavery.

The background for the “separation of church and state” is based on history. A theocracy, where religious leaders wield governmental power, inevitably suppresses dissent by claiming divine authority. Questioning the government becomes tantamount to questioning the divine.

The Inquisition and the Puritan witch trials are instances where religious authority was used to justify persecution and maintain control. (Ironically, Trump often claims his criminal trials were “witch trials.”)

The Brattle Group's Report on Reparations for Transatlantic Chattel Slavery in the Americas and the Caribbean. — **Part of American history anti-woke wishes to deny. It was approved by SCOTUS.**

The separation of church and state is a foundational concept that protects religious liberty for all, not just a few.

Ironically, again, the governments that now wish to include Christian teaching in publicly funded places also wish to ban a related concept called “woke.”

Woke culture emphasizes the importance of addressing and rectifying social injustices, including systemic racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination. “Woke” advocates for equal rights and opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background, and promotes inclusivity in various aspects of society.

It encourages individuals, especially those from privileged backgrounds, to support marginalized groups.

If Jesus were to speak on the concept of being “woke,” it’s likely that His message would focus on the same empathy, justice, and love for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances that woke does.

“Woke” would seem to be identical to the values expressed by Jesus and most religions.

Yet, the most pious Christians oppose “woke” because they feel it is overly sensitive, divisive, excessive in political correctness, and most importantly, critical of white-supported slavery.

The Christian right interprets “religious freedom” as meaning freedom for Christians to rule America. How would you, as a SCOTUS judge, interpret “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

In the next four years, interpretations of that simple sentence may become the most influential decisions by SCOTUS for America’s future democracy.

I’m interested in your opinion.

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/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and

Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

The Republicans plan to take healthcare dollars from the poor or disabled and give those dollars to the rich.

Share this:

Share this: