On tying your shoes together before the race Saturday, Feb 2 2019 

Sometimes I must wonder about the sanity or intelligence of the Democratic party leaders.Image result for tie two shoes together

How is it possible for a political party to give the American people such great benefits as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, poverty aids — and still lose elections to the GOP, a party that wants only to benefit the very rich?

Massive liberal ignorance has led to unnecessary taxation and unnecessary limitations on the very gifts it provides. Here is a perfect example:

Kamala Harris Just Showed Why Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Plan Won’t Work

By Peter Suderman, Jan 30, 2019

Transitioning to a fully government-run system would require eliminating private health insurance for nearly 180 million Americans.

In its traditional form, a single-payer health care system would effectively outlaw private health insurance as we know it.

The Medicare for All plan backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for example, would end today’s private health insurance market in a period of four years, forcing nearly 180 million Americans off of their existing plans in the process.

Why in heaven’s name would anyone want to “force” American’s to give up their current health care plans? Original Medicare doesn’t force anyone to give up their current healthcare plans and accept Medicare. Why would Medicare-for-All do that?

I understand the motive behind Obamacare forcing people to give up their current private plan. The motive is based on ignorance, but I understand it.

The ignorance is the false belief that the federal government can run short of its own sovereign currency, so healthy people must be forced to accept — and pay for — Obamacare — so the federal government won’t go broke. Yes, it’s a financial impossibility, but that’s the belief.

But that ignorance about our government’s Monetary Sovereignty (i.e. the federal government’s unlimited ability to pay for anything, even if not a single dollar in federal taxes is collected) does not need to hamper Medicare-for-All, which presumably would be free to all.

And even if Medicare-for-All weren’t free to everyone, wouldn’t allowing everyone to pay for their own private health insurance, if they wished to, cut the cost to the federal government?

To the plan’s most ardent backers, this is an objectively positive development. After Sen. Kamala Harris, who supports the Sanders plan, said at a presidential town hall Monday night that she favors eliminating all private health insurance, even for people who like their plans, a policy staffer for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Yes, we’re going to get rid of the entire health insurance industry. That’s a feature, not a bug.”

But as Harris appears to have discovered, most people don’t see it that way. There is even resistance within her own party. In the 24 hours following her remarks, a number of prominent Democrats distanced themselves from the idea, including Sens. Dick Durbin (Illinois), Tim Kaine (Virginia), and even Harris’ fellow senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, with Feinstein saying, “Well, I’m not there.”

Harris, it seems, is not quite there anymore either; or if she is, she is also somewhere else. Last night, she gently moderated her position, with a spokesperson telling CNN that she is open to other policy paths, although she continues to support a single-payer plan that would end private health insurance as well.

It is not exactly a walkback, but it is a tacit acknowledgment of the resistance to her initial remarks. She continues to support a plan that would make today’s private health insurance plans illegal while forcing most everyone onto a government-run insurance system. But she supports alternatives as well, presumably ideas like creating a government-run insurance plan that would be sold alongside private plans, or allowing more people to buy into the existing Medicare system, or something like it.

Only a Democrat could promote what would be a good plan, then intentionally shackle it with unnecessary criteria.

In other words, she also supports plans that are not full-fledged single-payer, the entire point of which is to replace all existing insurance with, yes, a single government-run health coverage plan.

No, replacing all existing insurance with a single government-run health coverage plan is not the entire point. The entire point is to provide health care insurance to everyone who wants it — free for those who prefer the government’s free version.

Why would anyone believe it’s necessary to destroy private insurance? ‘Tis a mystery.

What Harris encountered was the obstacle that has bedeviled health care reformers on both the left and the right for decades: Although public satisfaction with the health care system writ large is often fairly low, polls consistently find that a majority of people like their own health insurance plans and doctors, and they recoil from plans that would cause them to lose their existing coverage arrangements.

That dynamic is what helped kill a planned health care overhaul under President Bill Clinton, and it is why President Barack Obama sold the Affordable Care Act on the false promise that it would not cause anyone to lose their existing health insurance coverage or doctor.

It is also one of the reasons that the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare failed, and it remains a major impediment to overhauling Medicare. Similarly, recent surveys find that Medicare for All is only popular until people are told that it would eliminate private health insurance.

So, for heaven’s sake, give the people what they want.  Those who want free, comprehensive Medicare coverage get it. Those who want to pay for private insurance get it.

Now if only the politicians and writers like Peter Suderman would “get it.”

When it comes to health care, the public really, really, really does not like disruption. But the entire point of single-payer, which is to say the entire point of Sanders-style Medicare for All, is disruption on a massive scale.

“Disruption on a massive scale” is the entire point of Medicare-for-All???? That is the dopiest thing you’ll ever hear. Was the entire point of original Medicare “disruption on a massive scale,” or was it simply to provide health care insurance?

Thank goodness the Kamala Harises and Peter Sudermans of the world weren’t around when original Medicare was created, or it wouldn’t exist, today.

All of the other problems—the massive increase in federal spending, the administrative complexity, the job loss, and the medical provider reimbursement cuts—are in some sense secondary.

The incredible unpopularity of any plan that openly proposes to upend current coverage for tens of millions of people is a political barrier no one has managed to overcome. That is why Democrats have typically avoided advertising that their plans would do so, and why some are attempting to brand ideas that are not full-fledged single payer as Medicare for All.

O.K., Kamala and Peter, here’s a thought for you: Offer free, federally funded, comprehensive, no deductible, unlimited Medicare, including drug and long-term coverage, to every American who wants it. Period.

Those Americans, who would rather pay for health care insurance from a private company, can do so.

Is that so difficult to understand? What is the necessity of tying your shoes together before the race, Democrats?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How does the federal government “pay for” a big federal tax cut? Thursday, Jan 31 2019 

How does the federal government “pay for” a big federal tax cut? The same way the federal government pays for a big federal spending increase. By creating dollars from thin air.

Back in the early 1780s, there were no U.S. dollars. Then, suddenly, the U.S. federal government created millions of them, simply by creating laws.

Just as the federal government faces no limit to laws, it faces no limit to the dollars laws create.

Today, the government continues to create dollars from thin air. Here’s the process:

When any agency of the federal government writes a check to pay a creditor, that payment actually instructs the creditor’s bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

Those new dollars are added to the nation’s M1 money supply.

The check then is cleared through the Federal Reserve Bank, and the world has more dollars.

Image result for bernanke and greenspan

How do we get these guys to understand that federal taxes don’t fund federal spending?

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.”

Alan Greenspan: “Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.

That is how the federal government “pays for” spending and for tax cuts. Thus, the federal government cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

Though paying bills is the method the government uses to create dollars, you wouldn’t know that from reading articles that confuse federal finances with state and local government finances.

How Democrats’ tax obsession could backfire
W. James Antle III

When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) announced her candidacy for president, she promised a laundry list of new federal programs — Medicare-for-all, universal pre-kindergarten education, debt-free college — plus the “largest working-class tax cut in decades.

Answer: Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government (unlike state and local governments) can pay for anything. It cannot unintentionally run short of dollars.

How did she propose paying for that tax cut?

By getting rid of President Trump’s tax cut for “corporations” and the “top 1 percent.”

But there’s a flaw in the plan: While repealing the Republican-passed tax cut in its entirety, including the parts of it that benefited neither corporations nor the top 1 percent, would save an estimated $2 trillion, Harris’ big ticket items would undoubtedly cost trillions more.

In other words, her grand tax plan just doesn’t add up.

It doesn’t “add up,” because it begins with the false assumption that federal finances are like personal finances, or like state/local government finances. It begins with the false assumption that the federal government needs tax dollars in order to spend.

It begins with the false assumption that deficits are a burden on the federal government and on taxpayers, when in fact, federal deficits are necessary for economic growth, and are a burden on no one.

This is a problem not just for Harris, but across the Democratic 2020 presidential field.

The candidates — and their voters — want a big increase in federal spending to support new social services.

But they seem to have yet to realize that simply nudging the top marginal income tax rate back up won’t pay for it all.

Deficits are already spiking even without this new spending, and over the long term, Republican tax cuts only account for so much of the red ink.

Red ink is a burden for state and local governments, for businesses, and for you and me. But federal “red ink” is what grows the economy.

When we don’t have federal red ink, we have depressions or, at best, recessions.

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.

And there’s another downside to the idea of hiking the top marginal income tax rate: It could alienate affluent, college-educated suburbanites, which have become some of the Democratic Party’s most valuable voters.

Many of them used to vote Republican but refused to vote for Donald Trump. While many of them are in their peak earning years, they’re not wealthy enough to absorb a major tax increase. In fact, such an increase could drive them back into the GOP’s arms.

Nevertheless, freshman Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) has suggested raising the top marginal tax rate all the way back to 70 percent, where Ronald Reagan found it 38 years ago.

She wants the cut-off to be at the “tippy top” — people making around $10 million a year. That won’t raise much revenue, but applying it to everyone who pays the current top rate would start dipping into valuable Democratic voters’ pockets.

Those are the people, who have the education and financial experience to understand Monetary Sovereignty, if it is explained to them.

Sadly, the Democrats are afraid even to try.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) “wealth tax” is a little bit different, and may be a more viable option for Democrats.

She wants to hit those Americans who have assets in excess of $50 million with a 2 percent tax, in addition to a 3 percent levy on those whose assets top $1 billion.

Economist Emmanuel Saez estimated to The Washington Post that the tax would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

There is a real purpose for raising taxes on the very wealthy: Not to send dollars to the U.S. Treasury which has no need for income, but rather to narrow the gap between the richest and the rest.

The single most important problem facing America and the world — even more important Image result for poor in america 2017than the suicidal push to reduce the money supply — is the large and growing Gap between the rich and the rest.

That large and growing Gap is a direct threat to Democracy, for it gives the rich excessive power to bribe our politicians, to own our media, and even to influence universities and their economists.

The author of the above article, W. James Antle III, doesn’t understand Monetary Sovereignty, nor does Sen. Kamala Harris.

Either that, or they do not have the courage to disagree with the popular but false wisdom that federal financing is like personal financing.

Such a pity, because the understanding and then the application of Monetary Sovereignty, as discussed in the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below), could end poverty, and turn America into the “shining city on a hill” that of which President Reagon spoke.

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

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

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How Trump got outfoxed and conned by Foxconn Thursday, Jan 31 2019 

Is there anything much more satisfying than a nice, heaping plate of “I told you so”?

The story begins with the world’s greatest businessman and negotiator. I know he is, because he has told me so — many, many times.

Forget his multiple bankruptcies (How does anyone go bankrupt with a gambling casino?) Forget how he has put himself under the thumb of Vladimir Putin, and has been conned by Kim Jong-un.

Forget about that wonderful business, Trump University, for which he was fined $25 million.

And forget about all the indicted and found-guilty incompetents, with whom he has surrounded himself.

The story begins in September, 2017.

Wisconsin Gov. Walker to sign $3 billion incentive package for Foxconn

Image result for trump foxconn

Trump shovels for Foxconn

The Wisconsin Assembly sent a $3 billion incentive package for Taiwan-based Foxconn to Gov. Scott Walker on Thursday, signing off on a deal to lure the electronics giant to the state with the biggest subsidy to a foreign company in U.S. history.

This deal was handled with the usual Trump braggadocio and self-congratulations, which because he is the greatest businessman in history, guaranteed it would be a failure.

Here is an excerpt from a September 2017 post we published about the project, “Who put the “con” in Wisconsin? Foxconn, that’s who.”

This is what I predict:

    1. Foxconn never will hire 13,000 people. Not in a year, not in ten years, not ever.
    2. Many of the people it does hire, will come from neighboring Illinois, will shop in Illinois, and will pay taxes to Illinois. The Chicago commercial area is a must larger source of qualified workers than is the entire state of Wisconsin, and it is nicely convenient via road and commuter rail.
    3. Republican pols, upon receiving advance info about which land Foxconn plans to use, will buy it early, making out like bandits. They probably already have begun to acquire options.
    4. Foxconn, having demanded a direct line to a politically leveraged Wisconsin Supreme Court, easily will fend off any challenges to its sweet deal.
    5. Foxconn will pollute Wisconsin’s land and water, and if sued, will win its case in the highly political, dysfunctional, right-wing, pro-business, anti-environment Wisconsin Supreme Court.
    6. Screwed Wisconsin taxpayers, will pay big, and never will see any net benefit.

    “Walker joined President Donald Trump in announcing Foxconn’s plans to build in Wisconsin at a White House event in July, heralding it as a game-changer for American manufacturing.”

    So there it is. In addition to being a giveaway to big business and to greedy politicians, and a rip-off of the average taxpayer (the Republican standard operating procedure), the Foxconn deal provides endless bragging rights to Trump and Walker for all the non-existent jobs they will claim they brought to Wisconsin.

    Trump and Walker will be long gone from office by the time the Wisconsin taxpayers figure out they are enmeshed in this deal, forever.

Well, I was wrong about one thing. Trump still is in office, and still bragging and failing, but already the headlines are rolling in:

‘Foxconn Was a Major Con’: Backed by Trump Promises and $4 Billion in Subsidies, Company Admits Factory Jobs Not Coming
Posted on January 31, 2019 by Yves Smith

And:

TRUMP’S “INCREDIBLE” FOXCONN FACTORY DEAL WILL NO LONGER INCLUDE A FACTORY
Vanity Fair, Hive; BY BESS LEVIN
JANUARY 30, 2019 5:49 PM
The Taiwanese company, which received more than $4 billion in tax subsidies, is scrapping its initial plans, but will keep the money, thanks.

And:

Wisconsin is finally facing the reality of Foxconn’s plans
By Tim Culpan, Chicago Tribune, Jan 31, 2019

So Foxconn Technology Group may not make display panels in Wisconsin after all.

Those who’ve been following Foxconn for a long time won’t be surprised. Chairman and founder Terry Gou is as much a salesman as he is a manufacturer, having spent decades honing his pitch not just to clients but also governments.

Then-Gov. Scott Walker, backed by President Donald Trump, loved exactly what he sold: the promise of thousands of jobs to make stuff in the U.S. Walker loved it so much that he pledged as much as $3 billion in sweeteners, a deal that likely cost him his governorship.

Now, according to a Reuters interview with one of Gou’s right-hand men, such plans to manufacture display panels may be scaled back or even shelved.

Foxconn’s Wisconsin-made screens likely would have been put into televisions. Woo this week acknowledged that “in terms of TV, we have no place in the U.S. … We can’t compete.”

It’s simply a matter of economic reality. The same reality that existed when Trump was handing out red truckers’ hats and promising to Make America Great Again.

Foxconn’s U.S. panel project didn’t make sense, evidenced by a comment Gou himself made saying that such plans weren’t a promise but a wish.

Foxconn is now publicly conceding that manufacturing panels in Wisconsin isn’t viable.

In 2018, the first year of the Wisconsin experiment, the company couldn’t hit its employment target. Instead of creating a very modest 260 full-time jobs, Foxconn filled just 178 positions, Reuters reported.

And that, you folks who voted for Trump, is what $3 billion will buy you, if you have the world’s greatest negotiator working the deal and bragging about it, afterward.

I told you so.

Now, about that wall he promised, but never even asked for when he had a Republican Senate and a Republican House . . .

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

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

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The vote is unanimous Wednesday, Jan 30 2019 

Vote for me!

Yes, vote for him!

« Previous PageNext Page »

%d bloggers like this: