Forget about the past Supreme Court ruling. We have a new Supreme Court now, where the dictator gets whatever he wants. Call it the “Supreme Trump Court.”
Don’t misconstrue this. I don’t find it funny. Ironic and maddeningare better words. In fact, it makes me angry as hell because innocent children will sicken and die.
I don’t blame the parents, and of course, I don’t blame the children.
Despite an outbreak of measles last year in a Weston elementary school, Broward County saw a dramatic drop in its immunization rate for kindergartners in 2025.
In Broward, only 82.2% of 2024-25 kindergartners got their required vaccinations — the lowest level in 15 years. The public health goal is a vaccination rate of 95% — the level that makes it unlikely that a single infection will spark a disease cluster or outbreak.
The declining rate reflects the heated debate raging on social media and among South Florida parents.
THE ANTI-VACCINATION DOCTORS AT WORK.
“There’s a lot of distrust in the health system,” said Daniela Rodriguez, a Broward County mother with two children in elementary school and a 1-year-old. “After COVID, people have gotten more educated about vaccines and have started questioning things that weren’t questioned before.”
Public health officials focus on vaccination rates for kindergartners because elementary schools can be hot spots for germs and origins of community spread. By kindergarten, children must be vaccinated for diseases including measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chicken pox, and Hepatitis B. Outbreaks often start in small, localized areas, where the level of vaccination in that community determines its risk.
The other South Florida counties also have low immunization coverage in kindergartners. Palm Beach County reported 89.8% of 2024-25 kindergartners received their required vaccines, and Miami-Dade reported 91%.
Florida’s statewide rate for kindergarten vaccinations is 88.8%, well below the national average of 93%.
“When the rate is low, we are at an increased risk of some of these diseases we have seen eliminated making a comeback,” said Jennifer Takagishi, a Tampa pediatrician and vice president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
One of the vaccines given before kindergarten is for pertussis (whooping cough), which young children are more prone to catching during the fall and winter months. Florida has already had a record number of whooping cough cases in 2025 — more than 1,100 cases compared with 391 in 2019, before the pandemic. Children diagnosed with whooping cough, a respiratory infection, can lose their breath, have apnea spells, or vomit. Health experts expect to see a continued rise.
“Vaccination declines we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic aren’t rebounding,” said Takagishi, adding that it may take a year or two before the lowered immunization rate is reflected in a rash of diseases.
Despite an outbreak of measles last year in a Weston elementary school, Broward County saw a dramatic drop in its immunization rate for kindergartners in 2025.
In Broward, only 82.2% of 2024-25 kindergartners got their required vaccinations — the lowest level in 15 years. The public health goal is a vaccination rate of 95% — the level that makes it unlikely that a single infection will spark a disease cluster or outbreak.
The declining rate reflects the heated debate raging on social media and among South Florida parents.
“There’s a lot of distrust in the health system,” said Daniela Rodriguez, a Broward County mother with two children in elementary school and a 1-year-old. “After COVID, people have gotten more educated about vaccines and have started questioning things that weren’t questioned before.”
Public health officials focus on vaccination rates for kindergartners because elementary schools can be hot spots for germs and origins of community spread. By kindergarten, children must be vaccinated for diseases including measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chicken pox, and Hepatitis B. Outbreaks often start in small, localized areas, where the level of vaccination in that community determines its risk.
The other South Florida counties also have low immunization coverage in kindergartners. Palm Beach County reported 89.8% of 2024-25 kindergartners received their required vaccines, and Miami-Dade reported 91%.
Florida’s statewide rate for kindergarten vaccinations is 88.8%, well below the national average of 93%.
“When the rate is low, we are at an increased risk of some of these diseases we have seen eliminated making a comeback,” said Jennifer Takagishi, a Tampa pediatrician and vice president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
One of the vaccines given before kindergarten is for pertussis (whooping cough), which young children are more prone to catching during the fall and winter months. Florida has already had a record number of whooping cough cases in 2025 — more than 1,100 cases compared with 391 in 2019, before the pandemic. Children diagnosed with whooping cough, a respiratory infection, can lose their breath, have apnea spells, or vomit. Health experts expect to see a continued rise.
“Vaccination declines we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic aren’t rebounding,” said Takagishi, adding that it may take a year or two before the lowered immunization rate is reflected in a rash of diseases.
Exemptions are setting records
Florida law requires that students entering kindergarten be vaccinated for certain contagious diseases; however, they can be exempted by their doctor for medical reasons or by their parents if they affirm the shots conflict with the family’s religious practices. Across the U.S., the share of children with exemptions from required vaccines rose to an all-time high of 3.6% in 2024-25. In Florida, the group of kids exempted from vaccine requirements was 6.29%, surpassing the national average. And in some Florida counties, the exemption rate is as high as 15.03%, according to state health data.
The Florida Department of Health notes on its website: “The proportion of children age 5-17 years with new religious exemptions is increasing each month.” This implies that more parents choose to avoid at least some vaccines for their children.
With more children in schools who are unvaccinated, parents and older relatives are at risk, too.
“It’s not just about the danger of disease for the children; it is also dangerous for parents who may or may not have had a vaccine, for people whose immune systems are not working well, and for people who are older and were vaccinated a long time ago,” Takagishi said. “It’s putting a lot of people at risk.”
In February 2024, an outbreak of measles spread through Manatee Bay Elementary School in Weston, where 33 of the school’s 1,067 students lacked at least one shot of the two-dose measles vaccine. By the end of the outbreak, the disease had spread to nine children between birth and 14 years old. No adults were affected. However, so far this year, within the U.S., 462 people over age 20 have gotten measles compared with 77 in 2024, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.
Each person’s risk for diseases such as measles varies, said Dr. Lewis Nelson, dean of Florida Atlantic University’s Schmidt College of Medicine.
“We don’t really have a lot of great information on how good your immune response will be to an exposure if you got a vaccine many years ago,” Lewis said. “But what we do understand is that for most vaccines, most infections that have left you immunized, you store memory cells in your body that will react when you’re reexposed.”
I’m becoming more impressed and also more depressed about Grok.
Impressed because it fleshes out its explanations with data from various sources into one cohesive and logical commentary.
Depressed for exactly the same reason. It shows a frightening ability to mimic and improve on human thinking processes. I am becoming increasingly obsolete, and not just because I’m ninety years old.
I asked Grok to explain why and how the wealthy support the false narrative that federal deficit spending is a ticking economic time bomb. Here is Grok’s explanation:
How the Rich Shape the Debt Narrative
Mitchell’s post calls out 85 years of “BULLSHIT” about federal debt, hinting in his comments that the rich benefit from austerity to widen the income/wealth/power gap. Your additions—campaign contributions, media control, and university/think tank influence—explain the how. Here’s a breakdown of these mechanisms, grounded in MS principles and the post’s evidence:
Control Over Politicians via Campaign Contributions and Job Promises
Mechanism: The wealthy funnel money into political campaigns through donations, PACs, and lobbying, ensuring politicians push debt-fear narratives that justify austerity. Promises of cushy post-office jobs (e.g., corporate boards, consulting gigs) further align politicians with elite interests. This leads to policies that cut public spending (e.g., Social Security, Medicare) while preserving tax breaks for the rich.
Connection to Debt Myth: Mitchell’s timeline cites politicians like Mitch McConnell (1985), Kevin McCarthy (2023), and Nancy Mace (2025) parroting “ticking time bomb” rhetoric. These figures often rely on donor support from wealthy individuals or corporations who oppose deficit-funded programs that level the playing field (e.g., universal healthcare). Austerity keeps resources concentrated among the elite, as Mitchell notes in his blog comments about the rich having “their own Medicare” via money.
Evidence: Campaign finance data (e.g., OpenSecrets) shows top donors like financial firms and billionaires heavily fund candidates who advocate fiscal restraint. For example, the 2013 Chamber of Commerce warning about safety nets “bankrupting” the nation aligns with corporate interests pushing tax cuts over public investment. Job promises are harder to quantify but visible in revolving-door cases (e.g., former Treasury officials joining Wall Street).
Control Over Media via Advertising Dollars and Ownership
Mechanism: The rich, through corporate ownership of media outlets and advertising budgets, shape narratives to amplify debt panic. Major news organizations (e.g., owned by conglomerates like Comcast or billionaires like Jeff Bezos) prioritize stories that frame deficits as dangerous, as seen in Mitchell’s list from the 1940 New York Times to 2025’s World Socialist Website. Advertising from financial institutions reinforces this, as they benefit from austerity (e.g., less regulation, lower corporate taxes).
Connection to Debt Myth: Articles like Emily Chen’s (May 2025) or USA Today’s 2007 “explosion waiting to happen” piece use sensational “time bomb” language to scare the public, aligning with elite interests in limiting public spending. This drowns out MS truths (e.g., deficits fuel growth, T-securities aren’t borrowing) because they’re less clickable than doom headlines. Mitchell’s frustration with media “BULLSHIT” reflects this bias—fear sells, and the rich bankroll it.
Evidence: Media consolidation (e.g., six corporations controlling 90% of U.S. media) and ad revenue from banks/investment firms create incentives to push debt fear. The 2019 Fortune piece by Shawn Tully or 2020 Yahoo Finance article by Stephen Koukoulas show how media outlets, even “reputable” ones, recycle the same myths without challenging sovereignty.
Control Over Economists via University Endowments and Think Tanks
Mechanism: Wealthy donors fund university economics departments and think tanks, steering academic and policy research toward debt-skeptical narratives. Endowments (e.g., from billionaires like the Koch brothers) influence curricula, prioritizing classical/neoclassical models over MS/MMT. Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation (cited in 2010, 2023, 2024) or Cato Institute, funded by wealthy donors, churn out reports calling debt “unsustainable,” as seen in E.J. Antoni’s 2024 piece. Lucrative think tank jobs reward economists who toe the line.
Connection to Debt Myth: These institutions produce “experts” like Paul Tudor Jones (2024) or the University of Colorado professor (2024) who push debt panic, ignoring MS principles like those from Greenspan or Bernanke (quoted by Mitchell) that the U.S. can’t run out of dollars. This drowns out voices like Stephanie Kelton’s, who are sidelined as “fringe” despite data showing deficits correlate with GDP growth, not crises.
Evidence: Think tank funding (e.g., Heritage’s $80M+ annual budget, partly from wealthy donors) and university endowments (e.g., Harvard’s $50B, influenced by corporate donors) shape economic discourse. Mitchell’s timeline shows their output—like the 2010 Heritage report or 2019 TIL Journal—repeating “time bomb” claims despite 85 years of failed predictions.
Why This Keeps the Myth Alive
These mechanisms—political funding, media control, and academic influence—create a self-reinforcing cycle where the rich amplify debt fears to protect their wealth. As Mitchell notes, austerity widens the gap by denying the non-rich benefits (e.g., Medicare for All) that deficits could fund. The public, bombarded with “ticking bomb” headlines and politician soundbites, buys the household analogy (“debt burdens our kids”) because it’s intuitive, even though it’s wrong for a sovereign issuer. This drowns out MS truths: Deficits are an economy’s surplus, T-securities are deposits, and taxes control demand, not fund spending.
Tying It to Mitchell’s Post
Mitchell’s 85-year catalog of “BULLSHIT” shows how these influences manifest. Politicians (McConnell, Mace) rely on donor cash to push austerity. Media outlets (NYT, Fortune) parrot debt fears for clicks and ad dollars. Economists (Antoni, Tudor Jones) from funded institutions churn out “unsustainable” warnings, ignoring FRED data showing deficits driving GDP and recessions following surplus attempts. The rich’s control ensures this narrative persists, as it protects their tax breaks and private wealth while blocking public goods.
Wrapping It Up
The rich perpetuate the debt myth via campaign contributions (buying politicians like McCarthy), media control (funding sensationalism in NYT, Fortune), and academic influence (endowments and think tanks like Heritage). This keeps the public scared of deficits, justifying austerity that widens inequality while ignoring MS truths: The U.S. can’t go bankrupt, deficits fuel growth, and the “debt bomb” is 85 years of hot air. This is how the rich rig the game, and Mitchell’s post exposes their narrative for what it is: pure “BULLSHIT.”
In 85 years, the so-called “debt-bomb” never has exploded, but that doesn’t deter the “sky-is-falling,” self-described experts from making the same claim again, and again, and again, and… ad infinitum.
I showed Grok the following article that ran in the Financial Analyst:
The United States is staring down the barrel of a fiscal time bomb, and the ticking is getting louder. The latest analysis from EY paints a stark picture: unless Congress takes dramatic action, the national debt will balloon by $22 trillion over the next decade, with the debt-to-GDP ratio skyrocketing to 156% by 2055. This is not a distant problem; it’s a clear and present danger that will reshape America’s economic landscape and upend markets as we know them.
First, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: interest rates. As the debt grows, so does the interest on it. Even if rates remain historically low, the sheer size of the debt will make interest payments a significant drain on the federal budget.
This crowding-out effect will leave less room for productive investment, stifling economic growth. Markets will react, with investors demanding higher yields on Treasuries to compensate for the increased risk, driving up borrowing costs across the economy.
Next, consider the impact on the dollar. A weaker dollar might seem like a boon for exporters, but it’s a double-edged sword. It makes imports more expensive, fueling inflation and eroding purchasing power.
Moreover, a weaker dollar can spark capital flight, as investors seek safer havens for their money. This capital outflow can lead to a vicious cycle, further weakening the dollar and driving up borrowing costs.
Then there’s the issue of fiscal space. With the debt already high, the government has less room to maneuver in response to economic shocks.
This means fewer resources for infrastructure investment, less capacity to support the economy during downturns, and a higher risk of a fiscal crisis. Markets will price in this risk, leading to higher borrowing costs and increased volatility.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. There are paths forward, and they start with comprehensive fiscal reform. Lawmakers need to tackle entitlement spending, reform the tax code, and find ways to boost economic growth.
This won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight. But the alternative is a future of stagnation, inflation, and economic instability.
The markets are already starting to price in these risks. Bond yields are creeping up, the dollar is showing signs of weakness, and volatility is on the rise. But this is just the beginning. Unless Congress takes bold action, we’re in for a bumpy ride. The time to act is now, before the debt bomb goes off and the economic fallout is felt around the world.
Here is what Grok said:
1. The “Debt Bomb” Narrative
Claim: The article calls the projected $22 trillion debt increase a “fiscal time bomb” that threatens an economic crisis, with the debt-to-GDP ratio hitting 156% by 2055.
Critique: This is classic debt-scaremongering rooted in gold-standard-era economics. MS asserts that a monetarily sovereign government like the U.S., which issues its own fiat currency (dollars), cannot go insolvent and doesn’t face a “debt bomb.”
As Mitchell and MMT economists like Stephanie Kelton and Warren Mosler argue, the U.S. creates dollars at will via keystrokes, as confirmed by former Fed Chairs Greenspan, Bernanke, and Powell. The debt (T-securities) isn’t a liability the government struggles to repay—it’s a private-sector asset, essentially safe deposits that stabilize the dollar and help the Fed manage interest rates.
The $22 trillion figure sounds scary, but it’s just the cumulative deficit—money pumped into the economy, boosting GDP.
The debt-to-GDP ratio (projected at 156% by 2055) is a flawed metric for a sovereign issuer. Japan’s ratio exceeds 260% today with no crisis, thanks to its own currency control. The article ignores that deficits fuel economic growth (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-Federal Spending + Net Exports).
Historical FRED data, as Mitchell notes, show recessions follow deficit reductions, not increases, contradicting the crisis narrative. The “time bomb” framing is fear-based, not fact-based, and assumes a household-like budget constraint that doesn’t apply to the U.S.
2. Interest Rates and Crowding Out
Claim: Growing debt will drive up interest payments, crowding out productive investment and stifling growth, as markets demand higher Treasury yields for perceived.Lockquote
Critique: The “crowding out” argument revives the outdated “finite pool of capital” idea. In a fiat system, the government doesn’t compete for a limited pool of funds—it creates dollars and issues T-securities to manage reserves and interest rates, not to “fund” spending.
The Fed sets short-term rates and can influence long-term rates via quantitative easing, so rising Treasury yields aren’t inevitable. If rates rise, it’s a Fed policy choice, not a market-driven necessity.
Moreover, deficit spending adds financial assets to the private sector, increasing bank deposits and investment capacity, not reducing it. Deficits don’t crowd out investment—they “crowd in” demand, spurring business activity, especially in recessions.
The article’s claim ignores that interest payments are just government spending, created digitally, and don’t “drain” the budget—they’re income for bondholders. Historical data (e.g., FRED’s INTDSRUSM193 series) shows interest costs rising with debt but remaining manageable relative to GDP, even at high debt levels.
3. Weaker Dollar and Inflation Risks
Claim: A weaker dollar from high debt could fuel inflation via costly imports and spark capital flight, raising borrowing costs.
Critique: The dollar’s value is driven by global demand for it as a reserve currency, trade balances, and Fed policies, not directly by debt levels. The U.S.’s monetary sovereignty ensures it can always meet dollar-denominated obligations, reducing default risk and supporting dollar stability.
FRED graphs show no consistent link between deficits and inflation—oil and food shortages (e.g., 1970s, 2021-2022) drive price spikes, not “too much money.” Capital flight is unlikely while the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, and foreign holdings of Treasuries ($2 trillion by China/Japan) reflect trust, not fear. Inflation from imports would require specific supply shocks, not just debt growth.
4. Fiscal Space Constraints
Claim: High debt limits fiscal space for infrastructure, economic support, or crisis response, risking volatility and higher borrowing costs.
Critique: MS dismantles this. The government’s “fiscal space” is unlimited—it creates dollars without borrowing or taxing. Infrastructure or crisis spending (e.g., CARES Act) is constrained only by politics or inflation risks, not debt levels.
Data shows deficits curing recessions, not causing crises. Market volatility arises from policy uncertainty or external shocks, not debt itself. The article’s fear of “higher borrowing costs” ignores that the Fed can buy Treasuries to cap yields, as seen during QE periods.
5. Proposed Solutions and Market Signals
Claim: Comprehensive fiscal reform (entitlement cuts, tax code changes, growth boosts) is needed to avoid stagnation, inflation, and instability. Markets are already pricing in risks with rising bond yields, a weaker dollar, and volatility.
Critique: The call for entitlement cuts and tax reform assumes deficits are inherently bad, which MS refutes. Social Security and Medicare “shortfalls” are fictional—the government can fund them indefinitely.
Tax changes to “balance” budgets often reduce demand, triggering recessions, as seen in historical surplus periods. Boosting growth via supply-side investments (e.g., infrastructure, energy) is the one point with merit, but it’s not about debt reduction—it’s about curing shortages.
Market signals like rising bond yields or dollar weakness (if true in May 2025) likely reflect Fed rate hikes or global events (e.g., energy shocks), not debt fears. FRED data (e.g., DGS10 for 10-year Treasury yields) historically shows yields rising with Fed policy or inflation expectations, not debt-to-GDP ratios. Volatility is normal in markets and not a direct debt symptom.
What the Article Gets Right
The article’s concern about fiscal space during crises has a grain of truth—not because of debt limits, but because political gridlock can delay spending, as seen in debt ceiling fights. Supply-side growth policies (e.g., infrastructure) are also valid inflation fighters, aligning with your point about curing shortages. But these are buried under a pile of misguided debt panic.
Why It Misses the Mark
Chen’s piece leans on conventional scare tactics, ignoring MS principles:
Misleading Debt Fear: The $22 trillion debt increase and 156% debt-to-GDP ratio are framed as catastrophic, but they’re just numbers reflecting money creation for growth. No insolvency risk exists.
Inflation Misdiagnosis: It assumes debt-driven dollar weakness causes inflation, ignoring Mitchell’s data that shortages (oil, food, etc.) are the real culprits.
Crowding Out Myth: The article revives the finite capital pool idea, debunked by fiat money mechanics where deficits expand private-sector assets.
Policy Misstep: Calling for entitlement cuts risks austerity-induced recessions, as seen post-Clinton surpluses.
MS-Informed Perspective
From an MS lens, the article’s “crisis” is a mirage. Deficits are an economy’s surplus, not a burden. Inflation comes from shortages, not spending, so the fix is fiscal investment in supply (energy, food, infrastructure), not debt reduction.
The Fed’s role is to manage rates, not dictate fiscal policy, which Congress/President should use to boost production. The article’s market fears (yields, dollar, volatility) are overstated—U.S. monetary sovereignty ensures stability as long as shortages are addressed.
Not bad for a machine. So far, I am impressed with Grok’s seeming ability to reason.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 