At what point do your leader’s denials and delusions become a problem for you?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Image result for criminal with gunLet’s say your mayor tells you crime in your city is at an all-time low, so he now can reduce the size and budget of the police department. But statistics show that crime is at an all-time high.

Would you be intelligent enough to see his ignorance of fact as a problem for you and your family?

Let’s say your state governor tells you your water supply is clean and pure, so “job-killing” water regulations no longer are needed. But statistics show your water has dangerous levels of lead.

Would you be intelligent enough to consider your governor’s denial of clear evidence as worrisome?

Let’s say your Senators and their political party tell you your banks are completely honest, so there is no need for “economically stifling” oversight. But, you keep reading articles about how your banks not only caused the last recession but are continuing to commit the same offenses.

Would you be intelligent enough to recognize your Senators’ and their political party’s divorce from reality as harmful to you and the nation?

Let’s say your Congressperson first tells you he agrees with the scientists that your food supply is in danger from harmful bacteria and dangerous chemicals, so monitoring is needed. Then he denies he said that, and tells you the scientists are lying. Later, he tells you the food supply is not in danger, then it is in danger, and now it is not in danger, so costly monitoring is not needed.

You repeatedly see stories of botulism and chemically tainted food on our shelves and the vast majority of scientists say food monitoring is necessary, but your Congressperson tells you he was just kidding and he was just joking.

Would you be intelligent enough to doubt what your Congressperson repeatedly tells you, then denies he has told you? Would any of the above bother you? Affect you? Affect your children? Would you care at all?

I ask you to think about your answers, because of these articles:

Asked about health care, Trump trips over his own ignorance  5/1/17

Yesterday, for example, the president appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” and host John Dickerson did his best to ask Trump to explain the plan the White House is championing, with a particular emphasis on one of its most controversial provisions. The president argued:

“Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I just watched another network than yours, and they were saying, ‘Pre-existing is not covered.’ Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I mandate it. I said, ‘Has to be.’”

When Dickerson pressed Trump on whether he’s prepared to “guarantee” protections to those with pre-existing conditions, the president replied,

“We actually have – we actually have a clause that guarantees.”

There is no such clause. The Republican bill guts benefits for consumers with pre-existing conditions, clearing the way for states to do the exact opposite of what Trump said yesterday.

Trump, making up nonsense as he went along, went on to say in the same interview that the GOP bill has been “totally fixed,” adding,

“I’ll tell you who doesn’t cover pre-existing conditions. Obamacare. You know why? It’s dead.”

Just so everyone’s clear, the president has no idea what he’s saying.

A longtime healthcare lobbyist, who also did not want to be identified criticizing Republicans, said he’d never seen legislation developed with such disregard for expert input. “It is totally divorced from reality,” he said.

Do you understand that your leader’s ignorance of fact is a problem for you and your family?

What about this:

Donald Trump’s new China claims contradicted by reality  5/1/17: As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump swore he’d label China a currency manipulator.

But wait, Trump says. There’s a perfectly good reason that (he) didn’t label China a currency manipulator because (he) changed China’s approach to monetary policy. Consider this exchange on “Face the Nation” yesterday between the president and CBS’s John Dickerson.

TRUMP: …I did say I would call China, if they were, a currency manipulator, early in my tenure. And then I get there. Number one, they – as soon as I got elected, they stopped. They’re not – it’s not going down anymore, their currency.

DICKERSON: But that had been true before. That had been true–

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No.

When the CBS host asked specifically, “You were the one who got China to stop manipulating their currency?” Trump replied,

“I think so.”
Last week, Trump made a similar comment, arguing,
“President Xi, from the time I took office, he has not, they have not been currency manipulators. Because there’s a certain respect because he knew I would do something or whatever.”

The facts are not in dispute: China’s currency manipulation stopped in 2014. The evidence is unambiguous and unchallenged.

Two possibilities: The first is Trump knows China didn’t change its policies because of him, but he’s so embarrassed by his handling of the issue– and the ease with which he abandoned a promise he made to voters – that he’s brazenly lying, hoping his demonstrably false claims will distract some people from the truth.

The second is that Trump is so delusional, he actually believes his presidency shaped events in China three years ago.

Do you consider your leader’s denial of clear evidence as worrisome?

As Trump dissembles on Russia scandal, Republicans back his play 5/1/17

Russia and its autocratic leader were quite unpopular in GOP circles for many years.

In 2014, a CNN poll found that only 16% of Republican voters saw Russia as an ally. The same poll last week found that 56% of Republican voters now see Putin’s government as friendly.

The poll asked Americans about the possibility that Trump’s team colluded with Russia while Moscow launched an illegal espionage operation to attack our democracy.

The results found that one-in-five Republicans wouldn’t care if such collusion took place, while 44% of GOP voters would see this as a “minor problem.”
In a Fox News interview that aired on Friday, Trump started complaining about “made-up stories like Russia.”
“I call it the fake Russia story. Russia story was made up because the – they were embarrassed by their loss. They had this tremendous loss, a loss like nobody has ever seen before.
“So they made up this Russia thing to try and deflect because they’re embarrassed by what happened. The Russia is a phony – what do you see is the Russia story?
“The Russia story. And you see all of these other phony stories. It’s so bad and for me to have great approval ratings in light of all the faux press and the fake press I think is amazing.”

Trump does not actually have “great approval ratings,” and his claims about the nature of the election results are completely detached from reality.

The Russia scandal broke during the 2016 campaign, and the FBI began its counter-espionage investigation in July 2016. In Trump’s mind, the entire controversy was a reaction to his unexpected election victory in November 2016, which only makes sense if everyone involved in this story collectively had access to a time machine.

Do you recognize the GOP divorce from reality as harmful to you and America?

A timeline of every ridiculous thing Trump has said about climate change, 4/2/17

Donald Trump called global warming an urgent problem, and he’s called it a hoax. He’s claimed it’s a scam invented by the Chinese, and he’s denied that he ever said that. He’s promised to “cancel” the historic Paris climate agreement, and he’s said he still has an “open mind” on the matter.

2/6/09: Trump and three of his children signed a 2009 letter to President Barack Obama calling for a global climate deal.“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today.  If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

2/14/10: Trump changes his mind: “(Al) Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan, and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.”

2/16/10: Trump claims scientists admitted global warming is a “con.” Climate deniers wrongly claimed hacked emails showed that scientists had conspired to fabricate evidence of global warming. Trump said (inaccurately) on Fox News that there was an email “sent a couple months ago by one of the leaders of global warming, the initiative…almost saying—I guess they’re saying it’s a con.”

11/6/12: Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

2014: Trump donates money to fight climate change. Trump donated $5,000 of his foundation’s money to Protect Our Winters, an advocacy group dedicated to “mobilizing the outdoor sports community to lead the charge towards positive climate action.” As the group’s website explains, “If we’re serious about slowing climate change, it’s imperative that we decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and focus on cleaner sources of energy and electricity.”

9/21/15 Trump: “I’m not a believer in man-made global warming.”

12/1/15: Trump says it’s “ridiculous” for Obama to pursue the Paris climate agreement.

12/30/15: “So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the—a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, okay? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

1/24/16:Trump says his claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax was a “joke.”

May 2016: Trump wants to build a sea wall to protect his resort from global warming.“If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct…it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates…In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring.”

5/26/16: Trump pledges to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement. Trump said that during his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including” his landmark climate regulations, “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement,” and “stop all payments of US tax dollars to UN global warming programs.”

7/26/16: Trump says he “probably” called climate change a “hoax.” Bill O’Reilly asked Trump whether it was “true” that he had “called climate change a hoax.” Trump replied that he “might have” done so.

9/26/16: Trump picks leading climate skeptic to run the EPA transition. He chose Myron Ebell, who has a long history of opposing efforts to fight climate change; he’s even accused climate scientists of “manipulating and falsifying the data.”

9/26/16: Trump denies saying climate change is a Chinese hoax.

11/23/16: Trump has “open mind” on Paris agreement but still thinks scientists are misleading us.

11/27/16: Trump’s “default position” is that climate change “is a bunch of bunk.”

12/1/16: Ivanka Trump “wants to make climate change…one of her signature issues.”

12/7/16: Trump picks climate change denier, Scott Pruitt, to lead the EPA.

1/20/17: Donald Trump environment boss Scott Pruitt admits climate change is not a hoax
“I do not believe climate change is a hoax,” Pruitt said, contradicting both himself and the new President.

1/20/17: White House climate website replaced with pledge to eliminate Obama’s climate regulations.“President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan.”

3/16/17: Trump plans to cut to climate research because it’s “a waste of your money.”

3/28/17: Trump signs executive order gutting many of Obama’s climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan.

3/29/17: Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’ A supervisor at the Energy Department’s international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases “climate change,”“emissions reduction” or “Paris Agreement” in written memos, briefings or other written communication.

Are you intelligent enough to doubt what Trump repeatedly tells you, then denies he has told you, then tells you again, and then denies it again?

Does any of the above bother you? Affect you? Affect your children? Do you care at all?

One last disrespect from Donald Trump: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

Is that you whom he disrespects?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

THOUGHTSs

•All we have are partial solutions; the best we can do is try.

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Six examples of how the media brainwash you.

STwitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

In just one, short article, the March 31 edition of THIS WEEK Magazine demonstrates how the media are complicit in the brainwashing of America.

First, it quotes Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post:

If the budget plan President Trump released is any guide, his new goal is to make the nation “dumber, dirtier, hungrier, and sicker.” Predictably titled “America First,” this brutal document calls for a 9 percent boost in annual defense spending, paid for with deep cuts to almost everything else.

Trump is proposing a stagggering 31% cut in funding to the Enviromental Protection Agency and would also deeply slash funding for foreign, aid, medical and scientific reserach and anti-poverty programs, eliminating funding for National Public Radio, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Image result for children pollution
Pollution and climate change don’t create jobs

No, those deep cuts to programs that improve your life and the lives of middle and lower income people, will not “pay for” anything, nor will they “create jobs,” as Trump claims.

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it never can run short of its own sovereign currency.

Even if tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

The article then quotes Ed Rogers of the Washington Post:

“Spending cuts are always painful, but what choice do we have when every man, woman, and child in the nation is currently on the hook for $166,000 of our $19 trillion national debt.

“The reality is that we just can’t afford to keep spending at the rate that we are.”

That was 100% BS.

Not only can the federal government afford to spend as it has been, it can afford to spend far more. We have documented this lie about unaffordability since 1940, and it never changes.

We always are told “can’t afford” to keep spending at our current rate, but somehow, though we spend even more, we keep affording it.

The people of America are not liable for any of the so-called federal “debt.” Have you noticed any bill collectors coming to your door, to ask you for your $166,000 share?

Then there was the quote from Stephen Moore in Spectator.org:

“He (Trump) wants to surgically remove trillions of dollars of wasteful spending. The pushback from those groups, the welfare state, and the liberal media has already begun.”

Note the words, “welfare state.” Those are code for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other aids to the middle and lower income groups. Trump, being rich, disdains those groups (despite his phony pandering to coal miners).

The “liberal media” refers to anyone who wants to help the non-rich, a crime in the eyes of the rich.

Trump knows that the only way to “surgically remove trillions of dollars from (so-called) wasteful spending” is to gut social programs — or gut the military, on which he wishes to lavish more billions.

And the next bit of brainwashing comes from Nick Gillespie, in Reason.com:

“Overall federal spending will still come in around $4 trillion, with nearly the same deficit: $559 billion. Worse, for those of us who actually care about our spiraling national debt, Trump’s  budget does nothing to curb spending on Medicare, Social Sercurity, and the other entitlement programs, which everyone knows are where the real money is.”

The so-called “spiraling national debt,” actually is the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. These bank deposits are not a burden on the federal government or on taxpayers. Never have been; never will be. The federal debt scare is a fake.

Sure, we in of the upper 1% income group want to cut your Medicare, your Social Security, and your other entitlement benefits. Isn’t that what you want, too? 

And yes, that’s where the real money is, so how will the conservatives cut the budget without cutting your benefits?

Always remember, budget cuts (aka “austerity”) mean cuts to the private sector (aka “the economy.”) Always.

Now, we move on to the quote from the WashingtonExaminer.com editorial.

“The goal of the budget is not to wipe out the deficit. Nor is Trump saying that medical research is a bad thing, or that children should go hungry”

“Wipe out” the deficit? More weasel words. The goal of the right wing is to reduce the deficit, though yes, some of the more extremist would like to wipe it out altogether. But, deficit spending is the federal government’s method for growing the economy.

Cutting the deficit to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

And, uh, excuse me, if Trump cuts medical research budgets and the budgets for providing food to children, what exactly does he expect to happen?

“He’s just establishing the conservative principle that some activities are better handled by the private sector, or by a level of government closer to the individual.”

The phrase “better handled by the private sector” means privatizing — the 1%’s method for reaping big profits.

We often have written about privatization, for instance: “I smell the meat a’cookin’. The new privatization scam.”  Anytime you hear a politician recommend turning some job over to the private sector, you can be sure he is salivating over unregulated, risk-free profits.

And that “level of government closer to the individual” means state and local government, which being monetarily non-sovereign, usually are cash strapped and must pay for services with increased taxes.

By contrast, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, so never can be cash strapped, and never needs to increase taxes. It doesn’t need taxes at all; the federal government creates dollars, ad hoc, by paying bills.

The rich love it when the middle and the poor have to pay more state and local taxes, because that widens the Gap between the rich and the rest.

And finally, we come to a more subtle bit of brainwashing, courtesy of Doyle McManus in the LATimes.com:

“With Congress in Republican hands, Trump has a golden opportunity to downsize federal spending and make it more efficient.“

No reason is given for why the word’s most powerful nation, a nation of 340 million people, needs a smaller government, while its underfunded cities, counties, and states should spend more.

And what is there in Trump’s suggestions that would make the government more efficient?

There, in just four paragraphs, THIS WEEK Magazine has used six quotes to brainwash you into believing federal finances are like state and local government finances, and like your finances.

If you want to know what federal finances really are like, read, Does the U.S. Treasury really destroy your tax dollars?

THIS WEEK wants you to believe the federal government can’t afford to pay for services that are valuable to you.

Meanwhile, know this: Anyone advocating federal deficit/debt reduction, or privatization, or shifting costs from the federal government to the states, is trying to scam you like a Nigerian prince.

Don’t believe them, and for heaven’s sake, don’t vote for them.

Or, you simply can send your money to that Nigerian prince.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

THE RULES

•All we have are partial solutions; the best we can do is try.

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A parable: The little, fat guy with the BB gun

To help you understand today’s international political scene, we offer you this parable:

Once, there was a little, fat guy, with a goofy haircut, who walked through the neighborhood threatening everyone — men, women, and even children — with his tiny BB gun.

He caused a great fuss. The neighbors all hated the little, fat guy because no one likes to be threatened or to have their children threatened.  But no one knew what to do about the fuss he was causing.

Occasionally, the neighbors told him to be quiet, but the little, fat guy wouldn’t be quiet, and in fact, as time went on, he became louder and ever more threatening and belligerent.

And some of the children were afraid.

One fateful day, the little, fat guy walked into a biker bar and repeatedly threatened the men with his tiny BB gun. Again and again, in his squeaky voice, he said very bad things and made very bad gestures.

After a time, the biggest biker, a six-foot, eight-inch, mountain of muscle, bone, and sinew, turned slowly, and in a voice that echoed like a clap of thunder said to the little, fat guy, “BE QUIET.”

But the little, fat guy refused to listen and he refused to be quiet. Instead, he began to call the big biker bad names and to make even worse threats.

Finally, the little, fat guy took out his tiny BB gun and shot a BB at the big biker.

Having taken all he was willing to take from the little, fat guy, the big biker reared back, and swinging his giant fist of steel, he crushed the little, fat guy’s skull.

Then the big biker stomped the little, fat guy’s body flat, poured alcohol on it and set it on fire.

When the flames burned out, all that was left of the little, fat guy was a greasy smear on the floor, topped with a tiny pile of ashes.

Later, the neighbors wondered among themselves why they had paid any attention to the little, fat guy’s threats, and allowed him to become such a fuss in the neighborhood.

And that is the story of the little, fat guy with the goofy haircut, who made the fatal mistake of shooting a BB gun at the biggest biker in the bar.

Hey, whoever wrote “Trump’s” tax “plan” may be on to something.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

O.K., so it actually isn’t a “plan.” It’s a simplistic, one page, double-spaced, little note that purports to guide a replacement for our gigantic tax code. It is a little paper that essentially says “we should cut taxes, increase spending, and cut the debt, but you figure out how.”

It reminds one of the double-spaced, “print-in-large-letters” response that we pre-computer high schoolers created, when our teacher gave us the assignment to write about some subject, and we tried to stretch our ignorance over the greatest number of pages.

But at least, we wrote several pages; Trump delivered only one page. And it isn’t actually Trump’s; he had people to write it for him.

But what else could we expect from the best-selling author of “The Art of the Deal,” who never wrote a word of it?

That said, the people who wrote “Trump’s” teeny, weeny non-plan may actually be on to something.

Here is what my favorite voice of the rich had to say:

CRFB President: Trump’s Tax Plan Will Add $5.5 Trillion to the Debt
Maya MacGuineas, Apr 27, 2017

President Trump is on the right track by turning focus toward fixing our nation’s broken tax code.

See how low the bar has become, that when Trump says our tax code is bad, it’s as though he has become a brilliant observer of something no one knew.

Tax rate cuts are important and a driver of growth, but do not be hoodwinked: no way will they pay for themselves.

Actual tax collection cuts (not just tax rate cuts) drive growth in one key way: They add dollars to the private sector.  

Adding dollars to the private sector takes place when the federal government runs domestic deficits. It is the domestic deficit spending that drives economic growth. This is the absolute economic fact that MacGuineas and her CRFB always pretend not to understand.

Growth is sluggish; our 35% corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world; our strategy for international taxation is a mess; and the income tax seems to get more complicated and opaque every year.

Her comment about the 35% shows why it is not tax rate cuts, but rather, actual tax collection cuts, that are important. Very few corporations pay that 35% rate.

But these problems cannot be solved by simply lowering all business taxes to 15% while cutting taxes for individuals. In fact, the President’s current proposal is likely to worsen our country’s growth prospects by ballooning our record high national debt.

The President’s plan could add over $5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

And this is why we say, the people who wrote “Trump’s” non-plan may actually be on to something.  Anything that stresses MacGuineas about future deficits is good news for America.

Under current law, the primary way to “add over $5 trillion to the national debt” is for the federal government to run multi-billion dollar deficits.

No deficits, no economic growth. (See here [Point 3.])

As a result, debt would rise to a higher share of the economy than any time in history.

If her $5 trillion dollar figure is correct, the federal “debt” will not rise enough.

Last year the debt increase was $875 Billion.   It got us where we are today. But the deficit growth has been declining.

Red line is the increase in the Federal Debt

A mere $5 Trillion increase in federal debt, over the next decade, actually implies a decrease in federal debt growth — the debt growth that cured the Great Recession.

And history shows that when debt growth declines, we have recessions.

Vertical gray lines are recessions, which come when debt growth declines and are cured when debt growth rises.

Continuing with MacGuineas’s comments:

When it comes to tax cuts, there is always the free lunch crowd claiming if we cut taxes, they will pay for themselves through growth. Here in the real world, smart, pro-growth tax cuts can at best cover a fraction of their costs.

“Pay for themselves” means that tax rate cuts supposedly will result in more tax collections. Thankfully, this never has happened.

In fact, large tax cuts can actually harm economic growth by creating a massive debt load.

Federal debt is nothing more than the total to deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.

My local bank advertises and gives rewards — even pays interest — to obtain deposits.  So why deposits should be a burden on the world’s safest, most powerful bank, is anyone’s guess. But it is a common whine among debt worriers.

MacGuineas then offered up her 4-step plan. Steps #1 and #2 are the usual right-wing juggling act that involves taking a lot from lower and middle-class individuals and giving some to rich people and some to rich corporations, and the rest to the government (the latter having no use for tax money)  — resulting in a net loss for the private sector, aka “the economy.”.

But Step #3 is the real goal of the very rich: Cut benefits to the middle classes and the poor:

Step three is to reform our entitlement programs.

Social Security, health, and interest spending are responsible for 82 percent of projected spending growth over the next decade; and both Social Security and Medicare are headed toward insolvency.

The usual “Big Lie.” The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot become insolvent, even if federal taxes were $0. For that reason, no federal agency can become insolvent unless Congress wishes it.

Thoughtful reforms can improve health outcomes, encourage work, strengthen retirement security, and reduce the long-term debt all while protecting the most vulnerable.

And so, that is MacGuineas’s wonderful solution: “Thoughtful reforms” (aka “Cut benefits” for the people). Ah, those thoughtful reforms.

And so we trudge to MacGuineas’s final step:

The final step is to do everything else we can to encourage economic growth.

Faster economic growth needs to be broadly shared so it lifts all incomes, improves everyone’s wealth, and helps our fiscal situation.

Policymakers need to fire on all cylinders — pursuing reforms to taxes and entitlements but also regulations, immigration, federal investment, trade, and energy.

A critical component of the growth agenda is to get our debt under control.

Yep, to encourage economic growth we must “fire on all cylinders” and encourage economic growth.  Wow! Why didn’t anyone think of that?

Most importantly, we must give to the rich, while taking from the middle and the poor. That is the real message.

As for Trump’s one-page, double-spaced, magnum opus, it’s both too much and too little. It’s too much for the debt harpies, who would delight in sending America into a depression, as federal surpluses always do.

And it’s too little if the goal is to grow the economy.

The progressives (are there any?) will hate his one-page paper because it widens the Gap between the rich and the rest. The conservatives will hate it because it doesn’t widen the Gap enough (Is there ever enough?)

The middle will hate it because it doesn’t allow deductions for state and local taxes, and doesn’t make the corporations “pay their fair share,” whatever that may be. And Trump will hate everyone who criticizes

And Trump will hate everyone who criticizes it, because he loathes any sort of criticism.

But the .01%, the truly rich, will love it. Trump’s businesses will love it. Ivanka, the walking, talking conflict of interest will love it. And Jared, the inexperienced, all-purpose expert about everything,  will love it.  

So yes, the people who wrote Trump’s one-page tax “plan” for him are on to something.

And it’s something bad for you and me.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

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 (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY