Your cost for federal debt ignorance

Ignorance is expensive. Used car dealers prove that to customers every day.

Caitlin Owens

Unfortunately, so do writers like Caitlin Owens, who is described as “a health care reporter for Axios. She covers health care politics, policy, and business,” but seemingly doesn’t understand federal finances. Quick intro: Unlike state/local governments, the U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the infinite ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. It never, unintentionally, can run short of dollars. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Bills are paid by creating new dollars, ad hoc. Even if the federal government collected zero taxes, it could continue to pay its bills, forever. Keep that in mind as you read what Owens wrote:

The next president’s $4 trillion problem Caitlin Owens / 6.26.2023

Whoever wins the White House next year will quickly face a series of legislative deadlines with impossible price tags:

$3.6 trillion in tax cuts and $350 billion in Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring. That’s after another debt-limit cliff.

Passing legislation that could be north of $4 trillion is “ridiculous when you already have debt that’s headed to record levels,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the CFRB.

The so-called “federal debt” is not debt, and it is not a financial problem. It is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts, which are easily paid off every day. The government simply returns the dollars in those accounts to the account owners. No problem at all. No tax dollars are needed or involved.

Why it matters: The deadlines could force political horse-trading of epic proportions. Alternatively, gridlock or alarm over the nation’s debt may lead to Americans seeing higher taxes and fewer benefits.

There is no reason for alarm. There is no reason for higher taxes. There is no reason for fewer benefits. This all is a con to make you think federal benefits to you are unaffordable.

The big picture: The 2024 election could very well be a rematch between the same two presidents who signed each measure into law.

Republicans’ 2017 tax law, and the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that Democrats first passed in 2021, are signature policy accomplishments for each party. They’re also both extremely polarizing and became law under party-line votes.

In the past, the coinciding expiration dates may have been fodder for a grand bargain in which both sides etched out wins — and still could be.

But the recent debt-limit fight showed that these days, even a crisis can barely force Democrats and Republicans to agree.

Between the lines: Most Democrats would happily extend the ACA subsidies. But allowing taxes to rise may be a tough political sell — especially since the party increasingly represents wealthier parts of the country.

The above paragraphs show that Ms. Owens believes federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending. They aren’t. The federal government could, if it wished, pay a $10 trillion or a $100 trillion bill tomorrow merely by pressing a computer key.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.”

Former Federal Reserve Chairman 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.”

The debt-limit fight, mentioned by Ms. Owens, was a charade for the benefit of the public. The sole purpose of a debt limit is to convince the populace not to ask for federal benefits. Behind the scenes, the very rich, who control Washington, want the Gap between the rich and the rest to widen. The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich. (It’s called Gap Psychology) — the desire of the rich to become richer by widening the income/wealth/power Gap below them.) Federal benefits narrow the Gap, and the rich don’t want that.

Reality check: Budget hawks warn that the nation’s finances are on a disastrous path. Letting at least some of these policies expire — or finding a way to pay for extensions — would be the responsible course of action.

Reality check: The extensions could be paid for merely by passing a law that pays for the extension. That is how all federal debts are financed. Congress and the President simply pass laws.

Political horse-trading could increase the cost of a deal — if the limit on the state and local tax deduction is eliminated, for instance.

Increasing the deal’s cost would benefit America by pumping growth dollars into the economy. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports. Mathematically, the more the federal government spends, the more GDP grows.

Even one-party control of Congress and the White House wouldn’t necessarily make the process headache-free.

The nation’s debt level will only rise over the next two years, forcing Republicans to choose between raising taxes and dropping another $3.6 trillion onto the balance sheet, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

“I think there will be a faction of the Republican party who would not want to go into a debate, even with significant tax cuts, if it would blow a hole” in the deficit,” Campbell said.

Again, Ms. Owens repeats the false trope that federal finances are like personal finances, where the “balance sheet” should be minimized. She gets this from that fountain of lies, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), an organization devoted to convincing you the federal government should spend less and tax the not-rich folks more. It’s called “austerity,” a formula for economic disaster. Ask any Euro nation how that has gone.

And while most Democrats would happily extend the ACA subsidies, and nearly all of them have criticized the Trump tax cuts as handouts to the wealthy, allowing taxes to rise may be a tough political sell — especially as the party increasingly represents wealthier parts of the country.

Raising federal taxes should be a hard sell because it’s unnecessary. The sole purposes of federal taxes are:

To control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government hopes to encourage
To create demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring dollars to be used for tax payments

Federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

“It could potentially be a really good deal for Democrats if they were to agree to extend the tax cuts and extend the ACA subsidies. Then they don’t get blamed for raising people’s taxes, and they get the subsidies,” former House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, a Democrat, told Axios.

It also would be a good deal for the economy because both steps would leave more growth dollars in the economy.

Yes, but: Budget hawks warn that the nation’s finances are on a disastrous path, and letting at least some of these policies expire or finding a way to pay for extensions would be the responsible course of action.

That is a bunch of BS. America’s finances are not on a disastrous path. Increased federal spending is absolutely necessary for economic growth. Here’s what happens when the federal government cuts spending to run a surplus.

U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses.

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. 1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

There are also scenarios where political horse-trading could even increase the cost of a deal— like if the limit on the state and local tax deduction is eliminated or if Democrats successfully demand more of their preferred policies to more closely match the cost of extending the tax cuts.

Increasing “the cost of the deal” would add growth dollars to the economy. Remember that GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports formula. Increase federal spending and mathematically, you increase GDP because two terms in the formula (Federal Spending and Nonfederal Spending) will increase.

What we’re watching: One of the simplest ways to bring down the price tag of any of this would be to just pass temporary extensions.

There is no reason to bring down the price tag. None at all.

“I can’t imagine that any Congress is going to pass a bill that costs $4 trillion,” Yarmuth said. “My guess is if they did something, it would be a much shorter duration.”

But limiting the price tag by extending the measures for only a couple of years is “a horrible way to do tax policy,” Goldwein said.

“There are other ways to have a deal that would be fairer to both sides that don’t involve sticking the bill to our grandkids,” he added.

And so, the article ends with the oft-stated but totally BS notion that federal spending would be paid for by “our grandkids.” Anyone making that claim is demonstrating ignorance of federal finances or being intentionally deceptive. Federal spending is paid for by federal new money creation. The federal debt is paid for by returning T-security account deposits. Federal taxes pay for nothing. They are destroyed upon receipt. IN SUMMARY The nations finances are on a “disastrous path” only if one believes federal finances are like personal finances, which they are not. Federal taxes don’t fund federal spending; they remove growth dollars from the economy. So tax cuts are inherently good for the economy and for you. Unfortunately, the Trump tax cuts mostly were gifts to the rich; they widened the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. The Affordable Care acts (ironically called “Obamacare,” though Obama did virtually nothing to enable its passage), has benefitted millions of Americans. The rich hate it because it narrows the Gap between the rich and the rest. Ignorance of federal financing is costly to those who currently benefit, or would benefit, from more federal spending, namely everyone in America, and most of the world’s population. Ms. Owens would serve her readers better if she learned the facts of Monetary Sovereignty and the diferences between federal financing and personal financing. Her misstatements, and the mistatements of those who agree with her, cost you money. They widen the Gap between the very rich and the rest. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The Republican solution to student debt

Here is the Republican solution to student debt, as brought to you by the Libertarian Reason.com

Can Republicans Fix Student Debt? Unlike Democrats, Senate and House Republicans have released proposals that would actually tackle the root causes of increasing student loan debt. Emma Camp | 6.16.2023

As a long-awaited Supreme Court decision on President Joe Biden’s massive student loan forgiveness plan looms, Senate Republicans have unveiled a plan of their own to address the nation’s climbing student loan debt burden.

However, instead of promising blanket forgiveness, the Senate Republicans’ plan aims to reform how student loans are given out in the first place—seeking to direct students toward high-quality programs and limit access to schools that provide a poor return on students’ investment.

As you will see later in this “plan,” the Republicans believe the only purpose of attending college is to make more money. They measure “return on students’ investment” solely by the salaries students will receive after graduation.

The plan is composed of five separate bills. Three of the bills focus on ensuring that prospective borrowers are aware of the financial tradeoffs of taking out student loans and the financial outcomes for alumni of specific institutions.

The last two tackle the federal student loan system itself, cutting down the number of repayment plans and limiting the circumstances in which federal student loans can be given out.

The first bill in the package focuses on increasing transparency from colleges.

The bill seeks to require colleges and universities to provide a wide range of data on student outcomes and enrollment trends to the National Center for Education Statistics, which would create a database of this information aimed at helping prospective students make informed educational decisions.

Transparency is a good thing.

“Student outcomes” might have to do with graduation rates, dropout rates, advanced degrees, and employment after graduation. But they wouldn’t measure what students learn.

And most importantly, it doesn’t address the student loan indebtedness problem.

Can anyone tell me why a nation whose competitiveness relies on its young people to being educated wants to “limit the circumstances in which federal student loans can be given out?”

If the Republicans ran a company, would they want to limit the circumstances in which the company could profit?

It’s absolutely nuts, especially since the U.S. federal government has infinite dollars.

The proposal’s second bill would require colleges and universities to use a standardized financial aid offer form to maximize transparency around the true cost of attending a given institution.

The third bill in the proposal has similar aims, requiring that students applying for federal student loans receive information detailing sample payments for their loans, as well as how long they would expect to be paying off their student loans and what income they can expect to make after graduating from a given school.

These two “solutions” are reasonable in that they provide borrowing information. But they still fall far short of solving the student loan indebtedness problem.

They merely say, “Here’s what it will cost you, and if you can’t afford it, don’t go to college or take out a loan.”

But the purpose of the student loan program is to enable more children to attend college, not to winnow down the number that can afford it.

The fourth bill cuts down on the number of repayment plans available to borrowers.

The bill would consolidate the host of current repayment options down to two—a standard 10-year repayment plan and a Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plan with minor changes.

The REPAYE plan is an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan, which currently allows borrowers to pay a monthly amount fixed to their income, achieving forgiveness after at least 20 years of payments.

Importantly, the fourth bill also cuts off access to federal student loans for students attending programs that do not result in median earnings higher than those of adults who only have a high school diploma—or a bachelor’s degree, in the case of a graduate program.

To Republican minds, the purpose of attending college is to make more money. Otherwise, it supposedly is a waste of time and money.

The right-wing mentality says that the arts — music, dance, painting, theater, writing, sculpture, etc., — should be measured by how much money you can make from them.

History and philosophy also should be measured by the money you can make, not by their contributions to human culture. Mathematics, too. And teaching. And physics.

To the right-wingers, if your education doesn’t pay you more money, the government shouldn’t help you, no matter how valuable to America it might be. WHY?

Most importantly, the Republicans assume college has no social benefits. But, the 18 through 24 age period is a maturation time, a time to go from childhood to adulthood.

College provides the non-financial benefits of learning about the world along with other young people of like age.

Again, the Republicans measure everything by dollars, while falsely claiming the government doesn’t have enough dollars.

The final bill in the package would eliminate Graduate PLUS Loans—a type of federal student loan whose borrowing cap was removed in 2006.

The removal of this cap has been directly connected to a rapid increase in graduate school tuition, as—unlike for undergraduate programs—graduate students were able to borrow an unlimited amount from the federal government, incentivizing universities to jack up prices.

The function of the student loan program is to help more students afford college. So, of course, colleges have more room to “jack up” prices with more students able to pay. That is a fundamental result of affordability.

The government must pump more growth dollars into the economy when colleges increase prices. That benefits the economy.

Capping loans merely means that fewer students will be able to afford advanced degrees. How does that benefit America? It doesn’t. It simply reduces the number of highly educated Americans and widens the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

Notably, House Republicans have also introduced their own legislation aiming to reform federal student loans.

Their proposal would provide “targeted” student debt relief to those who have consistently made payments but have seen their debt increase anyway.

The GOP (aka, “the party of the rich”) wants to give “targeted” relief to those who were able to afford debt payments, conveniently leaving out those who were financially weaker and unable to make payments.

The proposal would also reform existing income-driven repayment plans and mandate considerable warnings for borrowers before student loan payments resume in October.

“Colleges and universities using the availability of federal loans to increase their tuitions have left too many students drowning in debt without a path for success,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) in a Wednesday statement.

No, Sen. Cassidy, the government has left students drowning in debt by lending them money that should have been given.

Grades K-12 have been government supported for centuries. Grades 13+ also should be government-funded, not just at community schools, but top schools, too.

The more kids who decide to go for advanced degrees, the better off America will be.

“Unlike President Biden’s student loan schemes, this plan addresses the root causes of the student debt crisis. It puts downward pressure on tuition and empowers students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to academically and financially succeed.”

No, it cleverly disempowers poorer students and widens the education gap between the rich and the rest. It does nothing about the “root causes of the student debt crisis.”

The Republicans’ plans offer a constructive solution to the problems that plague the federal student loan system. Rather than focusing on short-term solutions—like Biden’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness boondoggle—Republicans’ plans target the sloppy government policies which directly cause rising student debt.

In particular, the Senate’s attempt to eliminate Graduate PLUS Loans and both plans’ proposals to reform income-driven repayment plans take direct aim at some of the most fiscally irresponsible federal student loan policies.

To Republicans, “fiscally irresponsible” means money going to the poor and middle classes. Notably, it does not mean the tax loopholes given to the rich.

While both bills face an unlikely path toward actually becoming law, they provide a clear template for what a sensible response to the student loan crisis looks like—and policies that are actually likely to lower the cost of college, not raise it.

Except, the bills ignore the fundamental purpose of education in America: To improve America.

The original Colonists understood that. Sadly, today’s inferior crop of politicians is so taken with what’s in it for them that they completely ignore the question, “What’s in it for America.”

THE ROOT CAUSES OF THE STUDENT DEBT CRISIS

Educating young people benefits America. That is why the American colonies mandated free education for our children.

And that came when reading, writing, and arithmetic were much less important to our agrarian society than they are today.

Yet, taxpayers willingly bore the cost of education.

Today, primary education and especially advanced education are far more critical. The world has advanced, and to remain competitive, America must rely on its educated young people.

There are three root causes of the student debt crisis:

Attending college is expensive. Many families find tuition, food and lodging, books, and materials unaffordable.
Not having a job is expensive. Many children can’t afford college because their families need them to stay home and work full-time. Even with a free ride that includes everything in point #1, some kids can’t afford not to work full time.
The federal government, which has infinite dollars, lends rather than giving money to the students.

The latter point is an extension of the false belief that our Monetarily Sovereign government’s finances are like personal finances.

The ignorant idea that the federal government spends too much contradicts the simple formula: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports.

GDP is the measure of our economy, so by formula, increased Federal Spending grows our economy, and decreased Federal Spending shrinks our economy. Simple algebra.

Thus, the Federal Government never should lend to Americans; it only should give to Americans.

The student debt crisis results from requiring students to borrow from the government rather than receiving dollars with no payback requirement.

The government neither needs nor even uses the dollars that are paid back. The solution to the student debt crisis is straightforward. Just as local governments fund local schools, the federal government should fund colleges and universities.

In fact, the federal government can do it more easily than can local governments because the federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign; it cannot run short of dollars.

The federal government even should pay students a salary for attending college, so the students’ college attendance does not penalize the student’s family monetarily.

It is beyond stupid for the U.S. government to take dollars from students when America’s competitive position depends on our young people being educated, and the government has infinite money to pay for their education.

Of course, a government that refuses to recognize Monetary Sovereignty and the formula GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports is already beyond stupid, so the extra stupidity is to be expected.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

To prevent your children from reading this book, have it removed from the library so no one can read it.

The Republican rule of law is if a sixth grader feels “uncomfortable” with a book, or a school board deems it “pornographic,” that book must be banned from the library.

And I agree.

It isn’t enough to suggest that parents who are moved by sex, simply to tell their children not to read it. And it isn’t enough that parents preclude their children from going on the Internet, where every type of sex is readily available.

The Internet should be banned, too.

And as everyone knows, homosexuality is, by definition, pornography, so any book that involves gay, loving couples also should be banned. And I agree with that, too.

And if you disagree, my beliefs take precedence over your beliefs.

Therefore, I want — no, demand — that the book containing the following passages be removed from all libraries, public and religious.

Our children (who never hear such language from their friends) should not be exposed and made to say they feel “uncomfortable” (although that’s not the language a sixth grader would use without extensive coaching from his parents.)

OK, so there is no actual evidence that reading about sex has any adverse effect on a child, but I know what’s best for my kids and for your kids, too.

Here are the offending passages from that filthy book:

“You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.” (Ezekiel 16:17)

“If two men, a man, and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

“When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister.

Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys and whose issue was like that of horses.

Yes, you know what “members” are.

Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.” (Ezekiel 23:18-21)

“A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.” (Proverbs 5:19)

“Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.” (7.3)

“Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.” (7.7)

“My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.” (1:13)

“I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment.” (8:10)

“Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits.” (4:16)

And that isn’t a garden she wants him to blow on.

“My beloved put his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.” (5:4)

A “door”?

Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’”

Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines. When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law.

So before the allotted time elapsed, David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law.

Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage. (1 Samuel 18:25-27)

“And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.” (Genesis 19:33-36)

No one should be forced to read that. Of course, no one ever is forced to read it, but anyway . . .

Now when she had brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.”

But she answered him, “No, my brother, do not force me, for no such thing should be done in Israel. Do not do this disgraceful thing! And I, where could I take my shame?

And as for you, you would be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you.”

However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay with her. (2 Samuel 13:11-14)

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

I don’t object to the part about stoning people to death. It’s the sex that kids shouldn’t know about.

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish.

But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.”

But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. (Judges 19:22-29)

Again, I don’t mind if my child reads about cutting up a woman into twelve pieces and strewing them about. But that reference to rape is disgusting.

Now, some of you heathens may not object to these passages, but sex is filth, filth I tell you, and it has no place in the home or in the library.

My blissful children have been tutored that babies come from the stork. That’s how I was raised, and my ignorance is as it should be.

So, I insist that the book be banned. If your kids need something to do, give them guns so they can stand their ground against rampaging gays.

P.S. Of course, it already has happened.

When book banning begins, there always will be someone whose morality or judgment is superior to yours, and they object to something.

And for some strange reason, the objectors seem to get their way. I wonder why.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

What should America do about population shrinkage?

America must return to being the welcoming, caring nation we always have been proud to be. This is not solely a moral imperative, though morals are part of it. It also is a financial and economic imperative.

Two features of America have contributed to our national greatness.

Our population has grown
We have given our people the opportunity to improve their lives.

The American dream is the belief that you can come here, be welcomed, and if you work hard, you can make a good life. We have been proud to be the world’s “shining city upon a hill.”

President Ronald Reagan defined his vision of “the shining city upon a hill.”

“In my mind it is a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Of late, we have not been that shining city upon a hill. Our doors have not been open, even to those who are citizens.

We have shut out from society, too many of our neediest. We have built walls within and without. We have closed the doors of opportunity to immigrants, people of color, women, unmarried mothers, children without parents, non-Christians, and the poor.

Three of those groups, unmarried mothers, children without parents, and immigrants have not received the empathy and compassion an “America the beautiful” should (and could) provide.

In that sense, we have descended to a mean-spirited, selfish cold city behind a harsh wall, and America has not benefitted.

We have lost the services, the brainpower and the physical labor of the marginalized groups. We also have lost much of their consuming ability which also would have lifted our economy.

We have been, at best, uncaring about the plight of those groups, and at worst, deliberately cruel. In doing so, we have hurt ourselves. We have cut off our right hand to service the left.

Here are the data:

Nonmarital childbearing has increased dramatically in the United States. In 1960, roughly 5 percent of births were outside of marriage.

Today, over 40 percent of children are born to single mothers. This trend is troubling, considering that children are, on average, at risk for poorer outcomes when raised outside a married-parent home.

Nonmarital childbearing, once rare in the United States, has become commonplace. This is the case among low- and moderately educated women and across racial lines.

While nonmarital childbearing among highly educated women is still rare, it has nonetheless increased over time, particularly among younger women giving birth for the first time.

Although nonmarital births were already common among Hispanic and black women in earlier decades, today, they are the majority or vast majority of all births.

Among white women and women of other races, nonmarital births were once the exception, but now they are quite typical.

Because of marriage’s decline, far fewer children today reap the benefits of a married-parent family than in past decades.

This is particularly the case among minority children and those from less-educated households.

At the very least, nonmarital childbearing—and the forces behind its rise—should be of great concern when considering the well-being of children.

According to The Hill, the share of American families with children living with a single parent has tripled since 1965. Approximately 75 percent are headed by a mother only.

In 2020 nearly 19 million children, amounting to 25 percent of all children in the U.S., were living in single-parent households.

That percentage is nearly three times the level in 1960 of 9 percent.

Should the government be concerned about, and do something about, the dramatic increase in children born to or living with unmarried parents?

Marriage is not nature’s construct. It is a legal, not a biological creation. It was invented by humans and is followed by most, but not all, humans.

While nature does not frown on unmarried couples living together and having babies, most of society’s laws do. Laws treat married couples differently from unmarried couples, both financially and socially.

Being an unmarried mother requires two full-time jobs, that of raising children in a nurturing household, and that of breadwinner to support the household.

From Psychology Today Magazine: According to the U.S. Census, single moms are one of the most disadvantaged groups—with nearly 30 percent living in poverty.

Many of these single moms cannot provide for their families as they often have lower-paying jobs.

Poverty impacts both sides of the economic equation, productivity, and consumption. Because single mothers have a greater tendency to live day-to-day financially, they produce less and buy less, so they contribute less to the economy.

The government cannot, and should not, even try to change people’s personal desires. Instead, it should support the single parents to help them become more productive.

Childcare and transportation aid, job training, food and rent support would help single parents be more productive for themselves and for America.

Then there’s this:

In 2020, the total fertility rate in the United States reached its lowest point on record.

Fertility rebounded slightly in 2021, but Americans continue not to have enough children to maintain the current population.

This is particularly the case among minority children and those from less-educated households.

And this:

U.S. population growth is slowing down. Here’s why that’s a bad thing 2020, The Editors, Jesuit Magazine

In December, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the nation’s population rose by only 0.5 percent between 2018 and 2019, the slowest growth rate in 100 years since an influenza epidemic contributed to a decline in the number of Americans in 1918.

This would be the lowest since the government started taking population counts around 1790 — even lower than the Great Depression.

T

Two factors are primarily responsible for this slowdown.

The country’s “natural increase” (births minus deaths) is declining steadily as people wait longer to have children.

The annual number of immigrants to the United States has dropped by almost half since President Trump took office, partly due to policies like turning away refugees.

By contrast, Canada recorded a population growth of 1.4 percent from 2018 to 2019, almost all attributable to an increase in the number of immigrants admitted to that country.

A population slowdown may not sound bad in this climate change era as we try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other causes of injury to our environment.

Unfortunately, a sustained population loss would be incompatible with economic growth.

Fewer people would mean a decline in business activity, imminent labor shortages, and a worsening age imbalance that would leave more senior citizens without enough caregivers.

The United States should pursue a healthy birth rate and a welcoming attitude toward newcomers to maintain population growth.

And this:

Congress hasn’t passed a meaningful overhaul to the nation’s immigration system since 1986, even though everyone—representatives of both parties in Washington, successive Presidential Administrations, federal and local agencies, and activists on all sides of the issue—agrees that it has long been unworkable.

And yet, as Dexter Filkins writes in his sobering and richly detailed report from the southern border, the outline of a political solution is unmistakable. “In principle, a legislative compromise on immigration is not difficult to imagine: tougher security on the border, a Republican priority, in exchange for expanded legal immigration, a Democratic priority,” he writes.

“But the prospect of a deal has dissolved in the mutual hostility that typifies congressional politics.”

Also known as Trumpian, name-calling, insulting, lying, dishonest, bigoted politics.

In the absence of meaningful reform, the burden of a disjointed and often unjust set of laws has fallen on the people ensnared in the system: migrants who take immense physical and financial risks to cross the border, overburdened law-enforcement agents pulled in several different directions, and communities that struggle to welcome new members with little outside guidance or support.

It’s a picture of a problem more complex than anyone seems willing to admit.

Add the difficulty of compromise with a party that believes supporting an outright criminal is the path to election success, and the solution is hidden by myths.

Myths:

Myth: Immigrants, primarily non-white, undocumented immigrants, are dangerous criminals. (The fact: Four academic studies show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems.) Immigrants tend to have fewer run-ins with the law than do citizens.
Myth: Immigrants are takers who do not pay taxes. (The Fact: Undocumented immigrants significantly contribute to the U.S. tax system by paying sales, income, and property taxes.
In 2021 alone, these households contributed $30.8 billion in total taxes, including $18.6 billion in federal income taxes and $12.2 billion in state and local taxes. Yet, they are not eligible for Social Security benefits or the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) though they pay taxes to these and other programs, like Medicare and Medicaid. Immigrants contribute more in tax revenue than they take in government benefits.)
Myth: Immigrants take jobs from citizens. (The fact: Immigrants often have jobs that Americans tend not to take. So instead of competing with Americans for work, immigrants complement American workers. If not for immigrants, the U.S. workforce would be shrinking.
Immigrants drag down the U.S. economy. (The fact: Immigrants are crucial to offsetting a falling birth rate. If not for immigrants, the U.S. workforce would be shrinking. Immigrants increase the demand for goods and services, further boosting economic growth.
Myth: Immigrants bring drugs into America. (The fact: Drug smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids: Nearly 99 percent are U.S. citizens.
(In 2021, U.S. citizens were 86.3 percent of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers—ten times greater than convictions of illegal immigrants for the same offense.
(Over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal crossing points or interior vehicle checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens (subject to less scrutiny) are the best smugglers when crossing legally.
(The location of smuggling makes sense because hard drugs at ports of entry are about 97 percent less likely to be stopped than are people crossing illegally between them.
(Just 0.02 percent of the people arrested by Border Patrol for crossing illegally possessed any fentanyl whatsoever.) The government exacerbated the problem by banning most legal cross-border traffic in 2020 and 2021, accelerating a switch to fentanyl, the easiest-to-conceal drug.)

So, what are we afraid of? Why are we building walls? Why is the citizenship approval process so Byzantine and slow? Why are we talking about deporting “Dreamers” or having “tougher security” on our borders?

Why has immigration become one of the biggest issues facing America when we need the people?

Answer: Right-wing bigotry and hatred stoke the fear that punishes us all.

Summary

Each year, ever more children are born to unmarried women. The typical father/mother family structure is becoming less the rule.

Additionally, we are having insufficient births to replace deaths.

Our code of laws and mores needs to be rewritten to accommodate these trends — tax laws, social benefit laws, immigration laws.

Immigrants are unlikely to be criminals, do not take jobs from citizens, pay more taxes than they receive in benefits, seldom bring drugs into America, and help overcome America’s falling birthrate.

In short, immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, and unwed mothers can greatly benefit America if given assistance by the federal government.

The alternatives — direct punishment or by ignoring their plight — not only is immoral but counter-productive for the nation. We need these people to be brought into the fold.

Bottom line: America’s economy needs a growing supply of educated workers and consumers. Immigrants, and single parents, and their children should be aided, not discouraged.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: