Why do you want to starve the poor? The Gap Psychology of the rich. Saturday, Jan 11 2020 

Why do you want to starve the poor?

Oh, you don’t. Well, your government does. Here are excerpts from an article that appeared in a recent issue of the New York Times:

SNAP cuts can be costly elsewhere
Recipients of food stamps are healthier, studies found
By Austin Frakt and Elsa Pearson The New York Times

The Department of Agriculture recently finished work on a new rule that may take food stamps away from nearly 700,000 Americans by tightening work requirements.

Why do you wish to tighten work requirements on the poor? Is it that you harbor Puritanical instincts demanding that people labor to receive benefits from the federal government?

Image result for American poor workers

Too many benefits to the lazy poor.

Many of the rich don’t work, or they labor only minimally. Yet, they receive massive tax benefits from the U.S. government. Why the “special” rules for the poor?

Why don’t you demand that the rich labor in real jobs to receive those tax benefits? Why do you demand that the poor be required to work in order to receive their minimal benefits?

Give me one good excuse.

Fake Excuse 1. No, your tax dollars do not pay for food stamps, so you can’t use that excuse. The federal government creates brand new dollars to pay for food stamps. Federal tax dollars do not pay for anything.
Fake Excuse 2. And no, even if the government gave loafers food stamps, that would not lead to nationwide indolence. Food stamps comprise such a meager amount of money, you know full well that you wouldn’t quit your job in order to receive them.

Any others?

Image result for rich people on yachts

Not enough benefits to the hard-working rich.

Continuing with the excerpts:

Several times in the past year, the government has proposed cutting food stamp eligibility. The new rule is intended to save almost $8 billion over five years.

The problem with that reasoning is:

Fake Excuse 3. While food stamps are an important part of many poor people’s survival income, $1.6 billion represents pocket change to the federal government, barely noticeable to a government that spends trillions.
Fake Excuse 4. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, does not need to save money. It freely creates all the dollars it needs simply by pressing computer keys.

The article continues:

It’s not clear how much money would actually be saved, research suggests, given the costs that might come from a decline in the health and well-being of many of the country’s 14.3 million “food-insecure” households.

The Department of Agriculture defines food insecurity as a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. It affects low-income, single-parent, and black and Latino households the most, but it cuts across many demographic lines and affects 11% of American households overall.

Citing a strong job market, the Trump administration has said helping able-bodied adults was no longer necessary.

Sonny Perdue, the agriculture secretary, said: “We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand.”

Sonny, doesn’t believe in giving people money, because . . .  well, just because:

Sonny Perdue, 72, Secretary of Agriculture, Net worth: $5 million
The former Georgia governor built a fortune in agribusiness and real estate. Shortly after joining Trump’s cabinet, he transferred control of investments worth at least $8 million—including a stake in a multimillion-dollar grain-merchandising business—to his four adult children.

Correction: Sonny doesn’t believe in giving money to poor people who desperately need it. Giving billions to his rich kids is just fine, however.

Continuing the excerpts:

Food insecurity is linked to worse health outcomes, including poor mental health, high blood pressure and diabetes, with children particularly vulnerable.

Low-income people may be eligible for federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, better known as food stamps. The details vary by state.
“SNAP recipients often work, but their employment can be unsteady,” said Dr. Seth Berkowitz, an internist and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

Seasonal variation in some labor markets — like agriculture or even retail consumer jobs when sales may spike around the winter holidays — can put people temporarily out of work, making it hard for them to keep food on the table. “The way these work requirements are imposed could pull support out from under people even when they are working.”

The real motive of the GOP (“Party of the Rich”) is not to force people to labor for their money, but rather to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. (See: Gap Psychology)

Because there is no limit to the lust of the rich to be richer and ever richer, there also is no limit to the punishment they dole out to the poor. Whatever rule the Department of Agriculture publishes, it will not ever be enough to satisfy the rich.

Depend on this: Immediately after the rule is published, the Party of the Rich will begin to demand an even harsher rule.

One study found that receiving SNAP benefits was associated with a reduction in annual health care spending of about $1,400 per person among low-income adults.

Another study found that each additional $10 of monthly SNAP benefits was linked with a lower risk of hospitalization for Maryland residents enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid.

In Massachusetts, an increase in SNAP benefits slowed the increase in Medicaid hospitalization costs.

The authors of the article, Austin Frakt and Elsa Pearson, in typical New York Times fashion, try to make their point based on cost, not on compassion or concern for Americans’ health.

This probably is wise, because compassion totally is missing from the GOP, from Trump and from the “religious” right (who are perhaps the least religious people on earth). That lack of religion is proved every day at the U.S. southern border.

And as for cost, it is a phony concern. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can afford anything.

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children WIC is similar to SNAP, but as its name suggests, it provides nutritional support only for low-income mothers and their young children.

What about low-income fathers? What about low-income teens? What about low-income adults who don’t have children?

The only social concern exhibited by the “religious right” involves the survival of fetuses. There is no concern for the pregnant woman or for the fetuses after they are born. In their world, abortion is bad, but feeding children and adults is worse. 

How do they know? Jesus told them.

For additional help, people often turn to local food pantries, such as those that partner with the Greater Boston Food Bank.

Local food pantries are funded by the private sector and local governments, none of which is Monetarily Sovereign. They can run short of money. The federal government cannot.

Illogic is taking money from those whose money is limited instead of taking it from a government with unlimited funds.

Research suggests food pantries are also effective at providing immediate relief. They have far fewer eligibility requirements than SNAP or WIC — sometimes none — but limit when and how often clients can receive food.

Some pantries are even on college campuses, helping the almost 40% of college students who report struggling to afford food.

Food pantries also serve as a community entry point for a variety of initiatives, including cooking and nutrition classes.

The federal government has the financial power to do all of the above, yet the burden falls on the private sector and local governments.

A review of 12 pilot pantry-based programs found these could improve participants’ nutritional knowledge and diet.

One of the interventions studied a novel approach to food pantry design that allows clients to choose their own food and take part in monthly nutritional goal setting.

Three months in, participants were less likely than those using a traditional food pantry to experience severe food insecurity.

A year later, they were eating more fruits and vegetables.

What a concept. Actually allowing poor people to choose their own food! Who would have believed it would allow the poor to eat more healthfully? Not the federal government, which is dominated by the Gap Psychology of the rich, who run America, and the “religious” right, which runs the GOP.

While interventions can help, they are not long-term solutions nor do they address underlying problems, like food deserts (communities where healthy food is hard to find) and food swamps (those where unhealthy food abounds). We eat what’s available and affordable, even if that’s bad food.

The Trump administration’s solution to food insecurity is to cut funding for food stamps. Presumably, the rationale is: By starving the poor to death, there will be fewer poor to feed. Problem solved.

Feeding America estimates at least 30% of those with food insecurity nationwide aren’t eligible for SNAP. In some states, it’s nearly 50%.

Tightening eligibility for the program, as new work requirements would do, would only increase that number.

And that, dear friends, is how we make America great, again.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

"Who is the dummy?" Sunday, Jan 5 2020 

A few notes on: “Who is the dummy?”

Related image

A note on religion:
‘He was sent to us’: at church rally, evangelicals worship God and Trump (at least Trump was mentioned second by His worshippers who will continue to venerate him for all his many sins, just so long as he supports white supremacy and opposes a woman’s right to abortion).

Evangelicals praying to Trump.

A note on party before country, “That was then, this is now” version:
Then: Lindsey Graham, who is one of the president’s closest allies, warned that should the Turkish carry out an invasion of Syria, Congress would impose bipartisan sanctions that he expects to be “veto-proof,” and he said he has already spoken to Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen about the sanctions.
Then: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement that said that a “precipitous withdrawal” posed the danger of allowing ISIS to “regroup,” and he argued that a new conflict between Turkey and “our partners in Syria” would risk Turkey’s ties to the U.S. and cause it to be more isolated.
Then: Florida Senator Marco Rubio tweeted, “If reports about US retreat in #Syria are accurate, the Trump administration has made a grave mistake that will have implications far beyond Syria.” He noted that it would “confirm #Iran’s view of this administration,” potentially causing an escalation in their attacks and possibly a broader regional war.
Then: Maine Senator Susan Collins called it a “terribly unwise decision by the president.”
Then: Utah Senator Mitt Romney tweeted that the pullback is a “betrayal” that “says America is an unreliable ally.” The move, he said, “facilitates ISIS resurgence” and “presages another humanitarian disaster.”
Then: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on “Fox and Friends” that “if you make a commitment, and somebody is fighting with you, America should keep their word.”
Then: Fox and Friends Host Brian Kilmeade urged McCarthy, “Call the president before it’s too late.”
Then: Trump tweeted: “If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off-limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!).”

Now: A member of U.S. Special Forces serving alongside the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria told Fox News on Wednesday they were witnessing Turkish atrocities on the frontlines.

“I am ashamed for the first time in my career,” said the distraught soldier, who has been involved in the training of indigenous forces on multiple continents. The hardened service member is among the 1,000 or so U.S. troops who remain in Syria.

“Turkey is not doing what it agreed to. It’s horrible,” the military source on the ground said. “We met every single security agreement. The Kurds met every single agreement [with the Turks]. There was no threat to the Turks — none — from this side of the border.” 

Now: Not “totally destroying and obliterating the Economy of Turkey (you’ve done before!).”
Now: “Kremlin-controlled state TV hosts throw buckets of mud on #Ukraine, insist it should investigate Biden and conclude that ‘Republican majority in the Senate won’t allow President Donald Trump—whom we elected— to be impeached. It’s impossible,’”
Now: Surveys have shown that Trump retains very high levels of support with Republicans: Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Kevin McCarthy, and Brian Kilmeade.

A note on Trump’s promises: Then: Trump pledged to release an unredacted transcript of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Now: Ha!

So, now, about the title question: “Who is the dummy?”

Answer: We all are. He is the President, raking in illegal money and false honors. It is we who put him there. And half of America still believes what he says.

H.L.Mencken: “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

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

Another con job on you: Postal bankruptcy Friday, Jan 3 2020 

Here are a few excerpts from a recent article in Reason.org:

Reforming the U.S. Military Pension and Retiree Health Care Benefit Systems
In absolute numbers, US military faces $50 billion in unfunded pension liabilities plus $70 billion in unfunded liabilities for retiree health care.
By Evgenia Sidorova, December 30, 2019

Given the challenges that state and local governments are having with unfunded pensions, it’s important that Congress look at similar, even if less severe, issues at the federal level.

Since 2007, the US military has lost over $69 billion. As a result, the military hasn’t contributed to its health fund since 2012, according to its latest financial statement.

In choosing a reform strategy for the pension and retiree health care benefit systems for the US military, Congress should follow best practices for pension solvency, such as prioritizing paying off debt, setting realistic assumed rates of return, and requiring the military to fully make its required contributions.

What??! The US military has lost over $69 billion, its pension plans are insolvent, and it needs to pay off debt??! Can this be true?

Image result for postal worker

No federal agency can be insolvent — not the military, nor Social Security, nor Medicare, nor the postal service.

Nah. Actually, the article was not talking about the US military. It was talking about a different agency of the federal government, the US Postal Service.

Replace the word “military” with the words, “postal service” and you see the actual excerpts. I was making a point.

For reasons that make absolutely no sense today, the USPS is the one federal agency that is treated like a privately-held business: It is expected to pay its own way by extracting money from America’s private sector.

Consider this line from the article: “Given the challenges that state and local governments are having with unfunded pensions, it’s important that Congress look at similar, even if less severe, issues at the federal level.

The federal government financially is nothing at all like state and local governments, but it treats the USPS as though it were.

Related image

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.”

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign.

It never unintentionally can run short of its own sovereign currency, the US dollar.

It has the financial power to fund any size pension program, without collecting a penny in taxes.

The USPS is, in true effect, a giant tax-collection machine, whose net income dollars would have the same effect as do federal taxes: They would be recessionary in that they would remove dollars from the private sector.

We say “would” because fortunately, the post office loses money every year, so at least those dollars you spend on stamps and other services are returned to the private sector.

But:

FedSmith.com
Postal Service Now Going on 12 Years of Losses 
It reported a net loss for the year of $3.9 billion, $1.2 billion more than its loss in the previous year. It also lost money in each quarter in FY 2018.

The mounting financial losses are starting to weigh on the Postal Service and draw warnings from government watchdogs.

The Government Accountability Office recently said in a report that the Postal Service will have to make some tough financial decisions in the near future because of the state of its finances.

And yet another GAO report said that health benefits of Postal retirees are currently on an “unsustainable path,” warning that the Retiree Health Benefits fund will be depleted by 2030 if no other payments are made into the fund.

What sort of “tough financial decisions”? Cut payroll? Cut services? Either one punishes the American people and the American economy.

One certainly could make the argument that the postal service is as important to the future of America as is the military.

But for good reason, you seldom hear about military budgets being “unsustainable,” or about the military needing to make a profit or break even.

The USPS is required to deliver mail — including advertising literature — to everyone and everywhere. Like virtually all federal agencies, it loses money, which is exactly what all federal agencies should do.

Why should all federal agencies lose money? Because when a federal agency spends more into the private sector than it receives from the private sector, that economic surplus stimulates economic growth.

No federal agency should make a profit or even try to make a profit. Instead, the sole focus of any federal agency should be on to provide the best possible service to the public, regardless of cost.

The US federal government should fund the best possible postal service, aiming for a system in which all letters are delivered instantly and all packages are delivered the same day, and everything is delivered free. That, not the illusion of monetary self-sufficiency, should be the goal.

The current system is illogical, unproductive and arguably unpatriotic.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Everyone wants price transparency in health care, except for . . . well . . . almost everyone. Tuesday, Dec 31 2019 

Price transparency in health care is a great idea.

Let’s say your house needs a new roof. You solicit three bids, you obtain references, and you choose the cheapest, best-referenced roofer. That’s the way to make expensive purchases.

Image result for older person looking at a computer

How do I do this?

Let’s say you need a knee operation. You can do the same: Solicit three bids from doctors, anesthesiologists, hospitals and the hospitals’ pharmacies, and then you obtain references for all of the above.

Finally, you’ll choose the cheapest, best referenced of each. Right?

Not a chance.

Maybe, just maybe, you’ll find reliable and informed (from Aunt Suzie?) references for doctors, and maybe the doctors all will give you estimates of cost, and maybe the doctors won’t tell you, “Cost depends on what we find.”

Even then, will you really manage to receive cost estimates for all the ambulances, nurses, anesthesiologists, hospitals, rehabs, and pharmaceuticals, many of which you can’t anticipate?

The whole process is way too complex, uncertain, and beyond your lay understanding. And anyway, your insurance may pick up 80%, or less, so why even bother?

Overall, it’s an impossible task, but it is exactly the “solution” the rich people think you should follow, and to assist you, they contribute to articles about medical care “price transparency,” when they should be talking about free medical care.

The idea is to make you believe you actually can do something about high medical prices, and if you don’t, it’s all your fault.

How Price Transparency Can Control the Cost of Health Care
March 1, 2016 Publisher: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Publication: Health Policy

Many people are calling for greater price transparency in health care, where patients can clearly see the price of a treatment and determine how much they will pay out-of-pocket before receiving care.

Experts have long agreed that price transparency in the health care industry has a number of positive consequences.

It is an important information-gathering tool for consumers who want to compare prices so they can make more informed decisions about their health care.

Most people in American want greater price transparency and would compare health care prices if given the option, according to Public Agenda.

Oh, sure you would.

If, by some miraculous intervention, you managed to learn what your doctor, hospital, nurses, medicines, etc. will cost, then what?

Are you going to shop around for the cheapest nurses and ambulance service? Will you search out the cheapest anesthesiologist and the bargain-priced hypodermic needle?

When was the last time you did that?

The Healthcare Financial Management Association highlights a number of tools that can be used to increase price transparency, like Member Payment Estimator by Aetna®, as well as crowdsourced platforms like ClearHealthCosts.

Check out the Member Payment Estimator and you’ll be told:

“The Member Payment Estimator lets employees — our members — estimate how much they’ll pay out of pocket for medical tests, office visits and procedures ahead of time. No more surprise bills. Or bills that are higher than expected.

“About 43 percent of households put off care because of costs. Our online tool lets employees compare costs for up to 10 doctors or facilities at once.

“This helps them avoid paying more than they have to.”

Isn’t that exactly what you want? To slog through price comparisons of medical factors you don’t understand and can’t evaluate for quality, so you can judge whether to go to Hospital A which has the cheapest aspirin prices or Hospital B, which offers a half dozen room-rate alternatives?

Even if that labor appeals to you, the deck still is stacked against you:

Many providers and insurance companies have succeeded in keeping health care prices opaque using non-disclosure agreements and restrictive gag clauses in contracts.

Because of this, a majority of states have been unsuccessful in achieving greater price transparency to help consumers make educated choices about their health care.

And, surprisingly, even the insurance companies don’t want medical price transparency.

Insurers and hospitals love secret prices
Steven Pearlstein
The Washington Post
As costs skyrocket, the Department of Health and Human Services is proposing new rules that would require hospitals to publish “their minimum and maximum rates for 300 common services.”

And, given this list, you, being an “expert” in medical procedures, will easily calculate which “common services” will apply to your next procedure, and then you will add up all those costs to make your medical decision. Sure you will.

And you’ll especially be delighted when you learn that the big bucks went to the thousands of “uncommon” services, which just happened to be the ones your procedure involved.

It would also make insurers reveal the prices they’ve negotiated for services and publish them on an interactive website that lets customers compare providers.

Thus, knowing your hospital’s gross profit on 300 common services, you’ll be able to . . . uh, what? . . . . go to the least profitable hospital??

Hospitals and insurers have teamed up to fight this. Hospitals claim that the rule would compel them to stop offering discounts and raise prices. That’s nonsense.

Look at New Hampshire. The state began “listing how much customers of different insurance plans would be charged at different hospitals and labs for medical imaging such as X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs.”

After five years, out-of-pocket costs fell 11 percent while the cost of imaging for insurers went down as well.

That’s nice. The costs your insurer pays would decline. But . . .

And the insurance companies? You might think lower costs would make them happy.

But they don’t actually want to drive down prices; in fact, “both hospitals and insurers profit more when prices and premiums are high.”

The thing the insurers “really care about is whether they are getting a better price than their competitors.” Transparency would expose this con game.

In summary:

  1. The medical community doesn’t want price transparency
  2. The insurance companies don’t want price transparency
  3. And you shouldn’t want price transparency if it is a substitute for free Medicare for all — which is exactly what it would be.

And that is the whole con. You are supposed to believe that price transparency is a good alternative to free health care, which our Monetarily Sovereign government easily could fund.

The insurance companies surely don’t want Medicare for All, because it would put them out of business.

And the rich, who control America, don’t want Medicare for All, because that would narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

And strangely, even you don’t want Medicare for All because you cruelly have been lied to and told it is “socialism” (It isn’t).

As a result, you prefer to keep your incomplete, expensive health insurance policy and all its deductibles, or do without health care insurance at all.

After all, if it doesn’t cost you anything it’s too good to be true.

You want to pay, pay, pay — unlike the rich and the politicians who get their comprehensive health care free.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

« Previous PageNext Page »

%d bloggers like this: