The Big Lie is alive and well and living in DC and the Chicago Tribune Monday, Mar 20 2017 

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

Readers of this blog know that unlike state and local governments, the U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign.

A key feature of a Monetarily Sovereign government is that taxes do not fund its spending. Unlike state and local governments, the U.S. government creates its sovereign currency, the dollar, ad hoc, by spending.

Paying creditors is how the federal government creates dollars. 

Thus, even if the federal government did not collect a single dollar in Image result for taxpayertaxes, it could continue spending — even dramatically increase spending — forever.

“The Big Lie” is the lie that federal finances are like state and local finances, and like your personal finances. You and your state and local governments need income in order to spend. These governments need to tax and in many cases, need to borrow.

The federal government needs no income. It creates unlimited dollars simply by spending. Here are examples of The Big Lie, from today’s Chicago Tribune:

What Trump’s budget blueprint gets right
A forced reassessment of never-ending programs

We’re grateful to White House budget director Mick Mulvaney for reminding everyone of the ultimate source of every dollar. “We’re trying to focus on both the recipients of the money and the folks who give us the money in the first place,” he said Thursday.

There are no “folks who give” (the federal government money to spend). While you do pay taxes, the government neither needs nor uses those tax dollars.

Upon receipt by the federal government, your taxes disappear from the money supply. Unlike what commonly is believed, and unlike the way state and local governments operate, your federal tax dollars are not saved for future spending.

Your federal tax dollars effectively are destroyed upon arrival.

Among the agencies that would be zeroed out are the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which got $445 million last year), the Appalachian Regional Commission ($146 million), the National Endowment for the Arts ($148 million) and the National Endowment for the Humanities ($148 million).

The plan would cut the Environmental Protection Agency by $2.6 billion, the Agriculture Department by $4.7 billion and the State Department by nearly $11 billion

One phrase that was not heard much from opponents of the plan was “$20 trillion in federal debt.” But that’s what decades of chronic overspending have created. Just servicing that debt will cost taxpayers $270 billion this year — which is $270 billion that can’t be spent on other functions, such as the ones President Donald Trump proposes to cut.

The misnamed “federal debt” is not what you may think.  This “debt” actually is the total of deposits in T-security (T-bills, T-notes, T-bonds) accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.  The so-called “debt” is just federal bank account deposits.

When you want to invest in a T-security, you instruct the Federal Reserve Bank to credit your T-security account, and simultaneously to debit your personal checking account at your local bank.  In essence, paying the “debt” involves a transfer of your dollars from your checking account to your T-security account.

The entire federal debt easily could be paid off tomorrow.

Paying off the federal debt is no burden on you, on me or on the federal government. Taxpayers are not involved in any aspect of the federal debt. Paying the “debt” is just a transfer of existing dollars.

What about that $270 billion in interest payments? When the federal government pays any bill, including interest, it creates the necessary dollars, ad hoc. Here’s how: It sends instructions (not dollars) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

At the moment the creditor’s bank does as instructed, new dollars are created and added to the money supply. No tax dollars are involved. The federal government has the unlimited power to send such instructions to banks. It never can run short of instructions, and the banks always will obey those instructions.

These new dollars stimulate the economy; they grow Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the formula for which is:

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports

As you can see, federal spending for interest payments on the so-called “debt,” stimulate GDP growth. Rather than being a concern, the “debt” (deposits) facilitates economic growth.

When the Tribune refers to interest as “$270 billion that can’t be spent on other functions” that is a perfect expression of The Big Lie.

Not only is the federal government unlimited in what it can spend on other functions, but that $270 billion adds dollars to the private economy, which it spends on other functions.

The $270 billion in interest payments is a benefit to the economy, not a cost.

And as for those millions and billions being cut from agencies, not only are important agencies being hamstrung, but those cuts are dollars the economy never will see. Those cuts will not contribute to economic growth.

Is it really so outrageous to think public broadcasting can support itself in the age of Netflix? Is that $148 million for the NEA indispensable, given that Americans donated $17 billion last year — more than 100 times as much — to support the arts?

If Appalachia still depends on special assistance from Washington, what does that say about the effectiveness of the 52-year-old Appalachian Regional Commission?

If Trump thinks the EPA can function with less money, shouldn’t the agency and its defenders be asked to prove its value?

Utter nonsense. Any agency can “support itself” with less money. No amount of money is “indispensable.” The questions are, however:

  1. What is the economic purpose of the cuts?
  2. What will the cuts do to the effectiveness of the agency?
  3. Why not give the agency more dollars, rather than fewer?

Those questions have not been addressed by the politicians or the media, whose sole goal seems to be to reduce GDP, i.e. reduce economic growth, by cutting federal spending.

Plenty of local and state organizations count on federal funding, and they warn that some states and cities wouldn’t make it up if it went missing. But there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that these programs are not as high a priority to those states and localities as competing ones are.

States are monetarily non-sovereign. They need income, and that comes from taxes, from borrowing, and from the federal government. Federal spending on state projects saves taxpayers money.

Federal spending saves you tax money.

And now (ta da), the Chicago Tribune tacitly admits it has been telling the Big Lie all along:

(The) states, unlike the feds, can’t run enormous deficits every year.

That’s right, folks. State finances are not like federal finances. The federal government CAN run enormous deficits every year — and it can do it forever. Not only that, but federal deficit spending adds dollars to the economy and grows the economy.

So, Chicago Tribune and Mick Mulvaney and President Trump and Congress, what exactly is the problem you wish to solve by cutting federal spending?  

The Trump administration’s proposals will force lawmakers and citizens to reconsider not only the benefits of all the targeted outlays but also the cost of continuing them.

Our leaders have gotten used to operating as though Washington could live beyond its means forever. If this blueprint destroys that illusion, it will have done a great service.

But wait. The Tribune just admitted the feds, unlike the states, can run enormous deficits every year. That being true (and it is), why is there “an illusion” for Washington to live “beyond its means”?

The federal government creates dollars by spending dollars.  It has no “means” to live beyond. There is no “cost” of continuing federal spending.

Finally, you might ask, why do the Tribune and the politicians repeatedly tell The Big Lie (even though occasionally they stumble over themselves as the Tribune just did)?

The reason: That is what the very rich want. Most federal spending benefits the not-rich, the so-called 99%. The rich don’t like that; they want the Gap between the rich and the rest to widen.

So the rich bribe the politicians (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later); they bribe the media (via ownership and advertising revenue); and they bribe the economists (via university contributions and “think tank” employment) to tell the populace The Big Lie that the federal government would have to raise taxes if it continues to spend.

But, there is absolutely no reason to cut federal spending on important services. The federal government could and should implement the Ten Steps to Prosperity (see below).

The federal government has the power to narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest while enriching and growing the economy if it simply stopped telling The Big Lie.

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 (Guaranteed Income)) 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

Time Magazine and the Big Lie in economics Sunday, Jul 24 2016 

The Big Lie in economics, very simply, is: “Federal taxes fund federal spending.”

Nearly all the popular misunderstandings in economics devolve from that five-word statement, or rather, misstatement.

While state taxes fund state spending, and city taxes fund city spending and euro-nation taxes fund euro-nation spending, U.S. federal taxes most assuredly do not fund federal spending.

In fact, even if all federal tax collections ceased, and not one tax dollar was sent by the private sector to the federal government, the government still could continue spending, forever.

The reason: The U.S. federal government, unlike the states, cities, and euro nations, uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign.

It has the unlimited ability to create any amount of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. It never can run short of dollars.

Faced with an invoice of a trillion dollars or even a trillion, trillion, trillion dollars, the U.S. government could pay it today, simply by creating dollars, ad hoc.

Because tax collections have zero effect on the federal government’s ability to pay, we taxpayers are not liable for federal debts.

Even if the government were faced with that above-mentioned, theoretical bill of a trillion, trillion, trillion dollars, we U.S. taxpayers would not owe one cent. Nor would our children and grandchildren have any liability whatsoever.

Yes, you and your kin, and all your neighbors and friends, and everyone in your state, and in the entire country could cease paying federal taxes today, and that would have no effect on the federal government’s ability to pay its bills. (You’d have to keep paying state, county and city taxes, however. They are monetarily non-sovereign.)

Those are the facts, the absolute facts of economics. How then can you explain the persistence of such misleading articles as this one by James Grant and Time Magazine:

The Big Lie Time Magazine

The United States of Insolvency
James Grant, the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer
$13,903,107,629,266. Can the nation afford this much debt? James Grant offers his view

This much I have learned about debt after 40 years of writing and study: It is better not to incur it. Once it is incurred, it is better to pay it off. America, we have a problem.

We owe more than we can easily repay. We spend too much and borrow too much. Worse, we promise too much. We conjure dollar bills by the trillions–pull them right out of thin air. I won’t insist that this can’t go on, because it has. I only say that it will eventually stop.

I don’t know the date, but I believe that I know the reason. It will stop when the world loses confidence in the dollars we owe.

Come that moment of truth, the nation will resemble Chicago, a once prosperous polity now trying to persuade its once trusting creditors that it is actually solvent.

There, in a couple of short paragraphs, you see the commonly promulgated Big Lie about our economy — some half truths leavened with a giant dollop of lies.

Begin with the misleading title of the article: “The United States of Insolvency.” Grant and Time immediately tell you a lie.

The United States never can become insolvent — i.e. unable to pay its bills — unless Congress and the President want it (via the misleading “debt limit” game they play to confuse you).

Grant/Time said, “It is better to pay (the debt) off.” They lied to you.

The debt is nothing more than the total of T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. In short, bank deposits. There is no reason to pay off these bank deposits, though the federal government could do it tomorrow, if it wished.

The purpose of the so-called “debt,” i.e. T-securities, is to twofold: To help the Fed control interest rates and the money supply, and to provide a safe investment for the private sector.

Grant/Time said, “. . . more than we can easily repay.” They lied to you. We could repay those deposits today, simply by transferring them back to the owners’ checking accounts. No new dollars needed.

Grant/Time said, “We conjure dollar bills by the trillions–pull them right out of thin air,” which is absolutely true. It’s what we always have done, for the past 240 years of our existence. It is what all Monetarily Sovereign nations, like Canada, China, Australia, Japan, the UK, et al do. Creating money from thin air is what grows our economy.

In the past, whenever we stopped “conjuring” dollars, the economy stopped growing and we went into recessions and depressions.

Grant/Time said, “It (growing debt) will stop when the world loses confidence in the dollars we owe.”

This is a more subtle form of the Big Lie. The world simultaneously would have to lose confidence in China’s, Australia’s, Canada’s, the UK’s, and Japan’s money, as well as the euro and the money of all other governments for the U.S., the wealthiest nation on earth, to have difficulty issuing dollars.

Grant/Time said, “. . . the nation will resemble Chicago . . . ” They lied to you.

The U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. Chicago’s government is monetarily non-sovereign. The former has the unlimited ability to create dollars. The latter does not.

It’s as though Grant/Time don’t understand the difference between butter and a butterfly. The false comparison between federal financing and personal financing is an often-used lie.

Through wars, recessions, depressions, and inflations the U.S. government never has run short of dollars, and indeed, cannot run short of dollars.

You have been lied to for years and years. President Obama lied to you back in 2011, by making the same false comparison between federal financing and personal financing. He said:

“It comes down to this: We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount — by $4 trillion.

“So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford to do both.

“Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.

“This is not class warfare. It’s math. The money is going to have to come from someplace.

He lied to you then, and he continues to lie to you now, boldface, absolute lies.

Yes, the money has to come from someplace. The federal government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill. Obama knows it. His advisors know it. Stephanie Kelton, the chief Democratic economist on the Senate Budget Committee knows it (though she is prevented from revealing it).

Why did Obama lie to you in 2011? Why did Grant and Time Magazine lie to you last April? Why have the media, the politicians and the university economists lied to you for decades?

Because they are paid by and controlled by the very rich, and the very rich want to control you by levying unnecessary taxes, and by restricting your benefits.

Obama is paid by rich contributors who will support him and his family after he leaves office. Grant was paid by Time which is owned and controlled by the very rich.

The rich control America. The Gap between the rich and the rest is what makes them rich (without the Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are.)

The rich widen the Gap by limiting the amount of healthcare you receive — refusing the free healthcare the government easily could provide.

They widen the Gap by limiting your Social Security — taxing it and by starting it later and later.

They widen the Gap by limiting your educational possibilities (via via the disgraceful student loan program).

They steal your money to impoverish you so you will need to beg them for help, and then you will send them contributions in hopes of getting that help.

You, the people of America are the victims of The Big Lie. You have been so brainwashed by our thought-leaders, that you angrily will defend The Big Lie. Consider the irony of the victims defending the victimizers.

WHAT ABOUT INFLATION?
If you understand Monetary Sovereignty, and try to explain it, eventually you will encounter this retort: “Yes the government always can print money, but that will cause inflation; look at Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.”

The people, who tell you that, seldom understand they tacitly have admitted the federal government never can run short of money (“. . . always can print money. . . “), so they have dissolved their entire argument about taxes being necessary, and all they have left is their argument about hyperinflation.

They base their concern on the false belief that Dollar Value = 1/Supply, that is, the greater the Supply of dollars, the less their Value (i.e inflation). That is what the rich want you to believe

However, the real formula is Dollar Value = Demand/Supply. The greater the Demand for dollars, the greater the Value of dollars.

And Demand is based on Reward/Risk. And Reward is interest. That is why, for the past century, the Fed has controlled inflation at close to its target rate of 2%, by controlling interest rates.

And as for the bogeyman of Zimbabwe/Weimar hyperinflation:

  1. The U.S. never has had a hyperinflation, despite two centuries of “debt” growth — even today, while Time publishes scare articles, inflation is quite low, and
  2. Hyperinflations are not caused by money creation. They are caused by specific economic factors. Zimbabwe’s was caused by Robert Mugabe’s stealing of farm land from farmers and giving to people who didn’t know how to farm. The resultant food shortage caused hyperinflation. Weimar’s hyperinflation was caused by onerous repayment requirements put on Germany by the Allies.

Excessive money creation is a common response to hyperinflation. In short, hyperinflations cause excessive money creation and not the other way around.

The Big Lie — Federal taxes fund federal spending — has been used for centuries to control you.

So long as you continue to believe the Big Lie, the very rich and powerful will continue to control every aspect of your and your family’s lives, their health, their education, and their finances — from birth to death.

The rich want you to believe resistance is futile, but it’s not. You merely first must understand you are being lied to by The Big Lie.

Then demand the truth and close the Gap.

Begin with the Ten Steps to Prosperity.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
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 afford better health care than 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 AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate taxes would be an 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

Why I am so tired of “doing the Semmelweis” Saturday, Jun 25 2016 

Does the name Ignaz Semmelweis sound familiar? I empathize with him and the memory of him exhausts me.

Here is a bit of history:

The year was 1846, and our would-be hero was a Hungarian doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis.

It was a time when physicians were expected to have scientific training.

So doctors like Semmelweis were no longer thinking of illness as an imbalance caused by bad air or evil spirits. They looked instead to anatomy. Autopsies became more common, and doctors got interested in numbers and collecting data.

Semmelweis wanted to figure out why so many women in maternity wards were dying from puerperal fever — commonly known as childbed fever.

When Semmelweis crunched the numbers, he discovered that women in the clinic staffed by doctors and medical students died at a rate nearly five times higher than women in the midwives’ clinic.

(After much research), Semmelweis hypothesized that there were cadaverous particles, little pieces of corpse, that students were getting on their hands from the cadavers they dissected.

And when they delivered the babies, these particles would get inside the women who would develop the disease and die.

So he ordered his medical staff to start cleaning their hands and instruments not just with soap but with a chlorine solution.

Semmelweis didn’t know anything about germs. He chose the chlorine because he thought it would be the best way to get rid of any smell left behind by those little bits of corpse.

And when he imposed this, the rate of childbed fever fell dramatically.

What Semmelweis had discovered is something that still holds true today: Hand-washing is one of the most important tools in public health. It can keep kids from getting the flu, prevent the spread of disease and keep infections at bay.

You’d think everyone would be thrilled. Semmelweis had solved the problem! But they weren’t thrilled.

For one thing, doctors were upset because Semmelweis’ hypothesis made it look like they were the ones giving childbed fever to the women.

Eventually, the doctors gave up the chlorine hand-washing.

Semmelweis kept trying to convince doctors in other parts of Europe to wash with chlorine, but no one would listen to him.

Even today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says hand hygiene is one of the most important ways to prevent these infections.

Semmelweis failed because the establishment did not want to know the truth, and definitely did not want the public to know the truth.

Semmelweis ultimately died in an asylum. Women continued to die of childbed fever.

Now, 170 years later, people die of hospital-caused infections. Yet, you still have to remind careless nurses and doctors to use hand cleaner each time they visit your room.

When it comes to human belief, facts are far less important than emotion. Despite the absolute fact that hand cleaning prevented childbed fever, doctors didn’t want to believe it and didn’t want the public to believe it.

And that is why I empathize with Semmelweis.

It is an absolute fact that the U.S. government originally created the U.S. dollar from thin air, simply by creating laws from thin air. The laws made the dollar everything it is, and subsequent laws will make the U.S. dollar everything it will be.

The dollar is wholly the creation of U.S. laws, nothing more.

And just as laws have no physical existence, so too the dollar has no physical existence. You cannot see, feel, taste, smell, or hear a law. Similarly, you cannot see, feel, taste, smell, or hear a dollar. It is nothing more than a legal entity.

As the creator of the legal entity named a “dollar,” the U.S. government was, and is, sovereign over that legal entity. It created as many dollars as it wished by the stroke of a pen, and gave these dollars the value it wished, also by the stroke of a pen.

Still today, the government creates as many dollars as it wishes, this time by the press of a computer key. And still today it gives those dollars the value it wishes, also with a computer key.

The U.S. government has the power of Monetary Sovereignty, though it often has not used that power to help the populace.

It is an absolute fact that the U.S., a Monetarily Sovereign nation, cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency.

And it is an absolute fact that today’s establishment, like the doctors of Semmelweis’s day, do not want you to understand Monetary Sovereignty.

Because the public believed the doctors, who had authority, women did not understand the need for hand washing. So they died in agony.

And because today’s public believes the media, the politicians and the university economists, people do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, so we die the agony of economic deprivation.

We have poverty. We have sickness and unaffordable health care. We have hunger and homelessness. We have a corroded infrastructure. We have a corroded educational system. We have federal taxes.

And all are unnecessary and could be cured or at least ameliorated if people only understood Monetary Sovereignty.

Every day I see articles about the “unsustainable” federal debt. They are wrong.

The so-called “federal debt,” is nothing but the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. It is utterly sustainable. It could be paid off tomorrow, simply by transferring the dollars that exist in those accounts back to the owners’ checking accounts, from whence they came. No new dollars required.

That is an absolute fact.

Every day, I see articles about “unaffordable” social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, aids to the poor and aids to education. They are wrong.

Because the U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, and never can run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar, it can afford anything that costs dollars.

Unlike states, counties, cities, businesses, you and me, all of which are monetarily NON-sovereign, the federal government doesn’t need or even use income. It pays its creditors by creating dollars ad hoc, from thin air.

Even if every federal tax — FICA, income taxes, luxury taxes, inheritance taxes et al — fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

That is an absolute fact.

And every day, I see articles claiming that if the federal government taxed too little, or spent too much, we would have a Zimbabwean or Argentinian hyper-inflation. They are wrong.

Being Monetarily Sovereign, the U.S. government controls the value of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.

Originally, it exercised this control by ruling that each dollar was worth a certain weight of silver or gold, a ruling the government arbitrarily changed many times over the years. The more silver or gold backed each dollar, the more the dollar was worth.

Today, silver and gold no longer back the value of the dollar. That function now is fulfilled by interest rates.

The higher the interest rates, the more in demand are dollar-denominated bonds, notes, and bills, and the more in demand are the dollars with which to buy these bonds, notes, and bills. The increased demand for dollars increases the value of dollars, which is counter to inflation.

When the U.S. Federal Reserve senses inflation, it raises interest rates, and when it deems inflation too low, it lowers rates. By controlling interest rates, the Fed controls inflation.

These are absolute facts, just as true as Semmelweiss’s assertion that hand-washing helps prevent disease — and just as disbelieved by the public.

And as Semmelweis’s peers did not want the public to understand the truth about hand-washing, todays politicians, media and university economists do not want the public to understand the truth about Monetary Sovereignty.

Potential loss of prestige and power motivated Semmelweis’s peers to tell their big lie; potential loss of prestige and power is what motivates today’s BIG LIE in economics.

It begins with the rich. What makes them rich? The power and prestige Gap between them and the rest of us. If there were no Gap, no one would be rich and no one would be poor. We all would be the same.

So the rich want to widen the Gap. That is their primary motivation.

And to widen the Gap they bribe the politicians (via campaign contributions), bribe the media (via ownership of the media), and bribe the economists (via contributions to universities).

They bribe these people to tell THE BIG LIE, so all you read and hear is based on THE BIG LIE, and as a result, you believe THE BIG LIE.

What is THE BIG LIE? Here it is in just 5 words: FEDERAL TAXES FUND FEDERAL SPENDING.

Unlike state taxes, unlike county taxes, and unlike city taxes, federal taxes do nothing but remove dollars from the economy. They do not fund anything. Once received they disappear from the money supply. They are a net loss for the economy and for taxpayers.

Belief in THE BIG LIE has caused more economic damage than all the wars, all the floods, all the droughts, all the volcanic eruptions and all the crime in world history.

The absolute fact is: Federal taxes are too high and federal spending is too low.

My friend Stephanie Kelton, the chair of the economics department at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, understands Monetary Sovereignty well. She was hired by Bernie Sanders to be his chief economics advisor.

Yet, Bernie’s proposals are filled with commentary about how certain federal taxes would support his suggested federal programs.

Bernie knows this is a lie, because Stephanie knows it is a lie. They know federal taxes do not fund federal spending. They know the federal government cannot run short of the currency it invented. They know our social programs are not financially “unsustainable.”

They know the federal deficit, far from being an economic problem is an economic necessity for growth. They know every depression in U.S. history has been introduced with federal surpluses, and nearly all recessions have been introduced with deficit reduction.

But in our climate of economic ignorance, Bernie and Stephanie are afraid to tell the truth to the public. It would be Galileo arguing with Pope Urban VIII.

Like poor, old Semmelweis, I’ve spent 20 years trying to help the public see what would benefit them, and the public has used those 20 years to respond with invective.

The facts are:
–The Gap between the rich and the rest is too wide and it’s widening. The middle class is decimated and the poor are in worse shape than they were 20 years ago.
–The Gap could be reduced greatly, and the economy could prosper, by recognition of Monetary Sovereignty and by the implementation of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

Imagine you are a doctor with morbidly obese patients, who also smoke. You try to show them how and why to lose weight and to stop smoking. But they tell you you’re not only wrong, but angrily tell you’re stupidly wrong. And your patients keep eating, keep smoking, and keep sickening and dying too soon.

At what point do you grow tired? At what point do you ask, “Why should I care, if they don’t.” At what point do you surrender? After all, my wife and I already have Social Security and Medicare and belong to country clubs and enough money to last us.

But then I think of my children and grandchildren and the world they will occupy, all because of national ignorance and the refusal to learn — not just refusal, but angry, insulting refusal.

So I write yet one more article hoping that somehow this will be the one that causes the truth to prevail, but knowing it probably won’t — like the sucker hoping his lottery number will come through.

It’s not that I have nothing else to do. I can write fiction and poetry. I can paint. I can keep playing tennis and schmoozing with my friends.

I tell myself, this is more important.

But, I really, really am growing weary of telling my obese, smoking, refusing-to-learn “patients” how they can live better, longer lives, when they don’t seem to care about themselves.

I really, really am tired of “doing the Semmelweis.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

=============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

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 afford better health care than 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 AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate taxes would be an 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

Krugman proves America never will have Medicare. Friday, Apr 8 2016 

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

============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

In a New York Times article titled, Health Reform Realities, Nobel Prize winning economist/columnist, (O.K., it wasn’t a real Nobel Prize) Paul Krugman tells us why there never will be a Medicare program in America.

“What?” you say. “There already is a Medicare program in America.”

Yes, that is reality, but reality does not seem to affect the opinions of this Hillary Clinton sycophant, as he does his very best to destroy all things Bernie Sanders.

Here are a few excerpts:

Health reform is the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. It was the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare was established in the 1960s.

Well, so he did remember that Medicare exists, though later you’ll see he forgets.

It more or less achieves a goal — access to health insurance for all Americans — that progressives have been trying to reach for three generations. And it is already producing dramatic results, with the percentage of uninsured Americans falling to record lows.

Obamacare is, however, what engineers would call a kludge: a somewhat awkward, clumsy device with lots of moving parts. This makes it more expensive than it should be, and will probably always cause a significant number of people to fall through the cracks.

He’s right about that. The Affordable Care Act, as we previously have said, is a classic Rube Goldberg machine, with many problems “fixed” by rubber bands and tape.

By contrast Medicare already exists, it’s relatively easy, and we know how to do it. And Medicare for All, would solve the problems Krugman mentions, and no one would “fall through the cracks.”

The question for progressives — a question that is now central to the Democratic primary — is whether these failings mean that they should re-litigate their own biggest political success in almost half a century, and try for something better.

My answer, as you might guess, is that they shouldn’t, that they should seek incremental change on health care (Bring back the public option!) and focus their main efforts on other issues — that is, that Bernie Sanders is wrong about this and Hillary Clinton is right.

In Krugmanland, Bernie always is wrong and Hillary always is right.

But the main point is that we should think clearly about why health reform looks the way it does.

If we could start from scratch, many, perhaps most, health economists would recommend single-payer, a Medicare-type program covering everyone.

He sort of, kind of, almost seems to acknowledge that Medicare for Everyone would be a good plan. But he covers his butt with the mealy-mouth words, “. . . many, perhaps most, health economists . . .

That way, he himself doesn’t have to recommend it, because . . . well because it’s a Bernie Sanders plan. But he doesn’t want to admit his blind bias, so he invents other reasons why the plan is no good.

Leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Single-payer isn’t a politically feasible goal in America, for three big reasons that aren’t going away.

Er, uh, Paul, we already have single-payer in America. It’s called “Medicare.” The main problem: It begins at age 65 (corrupted to 67).

As for political feasibility, here’s a brief history: President Teddy Roosevelt’s platform included health insurance when he ran for president in 1912.

But the idea for a national health plan didn’t gain steam until it was pushed by U.S. President Harry S. Truman. On November 19, 1945, seven months into his presidency, Truman sent a message to Congress, calling for creation of a national health insurance fund, open to all Americans.

Although Truman fought to get a bill passed during his term, he was unsuccessful and it was another 20 years before Medicare would become a reality.

President John F. Kennedy made his own unsuccessful push for a national health care program for seniors.

But it wasn’t until 1965 – after legislation was signed by President Lyndon B Johnson – that Americans started receiving Medicare health coverage.

What does that little history tell you? It tells me that doing the right thing can take time and effort, and if you don’t give up, and don’t make excuses for initial failure, eventually you can succeed, and make America better.

Now, as you read Krugman’s next paragraphs, imagine you are Teddy Roosevelt, or Harry Truman, or Jack Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson, and Paul Krugman is your political/economics advisor. What would you say to him, when he tells you . . . ?

“First, like it or not, incumbent players have a lot of power. Private insurers played a major part in killing health reform in the early 1990s, so this time around reformers went for a system that preserved their role and gave them plenty of new business.”

Would you say: “But Paul, despite those ‘incumbent players,’ who were around in all the years prior to 1965, and still are around, we do have Medicare today.

“Second, single-payer would require a lot of additional tax revenue — and we would be talking about taxes on the middle class, not just the wealthy.”

Would you say, “But Paul, you just mouthed the Big Lie, the easily rebutted statement that federal taxes fund federal spending. No Paul, they don’t, and you know it.”

“It’s true that higher taxes would be offset by a sharp reduction or even elimination of private insurance premiums, but it would be difficult to make that case to the broad public, especially given the chorus of misinformation you know would dominate the airwaves.”

You might say, “So Paul, not only are higher taxes unnecessary, but there actually would be a huge financial savings for America, via the elimination of private insurance premiums.

The only problem would be the ‘chorus of misinformation’ which you, yourself are supplying.”

“Finally, and I suspect most important, switching to single-payer would impose a lot of disruption on tens of millions of families who currently have good coverage through their employers.

You might say that they would end up just as well off, and it might well be true for most people — although not those with especially good policies.

But getting voters to believe that would be a very steep climb.”

You might say, “Paul, if by ‘disruption,’ you mean that people would receive free medical care rather than having to pay for much of it, I’d guess most people would opt for ‘disruption.’

‘As for “especially good policies,” what says that Medicare for All would not supply policies that are even better than those “especially good” private policies?

‘And Paul, getting voters to believe it wouldn’t be such a steep climb if columnists would disseminate lies about the program. I’m referring to you, Paul.

“Now Paul, do you have any other phony and cowardly reasons why our next President should not fight to achieve Medicare for All”?

“There are many items on the progressive agenda, ranging from an effective climate change policy, to making college affordable for all, to restoring some of the lost bargaining power of workers.

“Making progress on any of these items is going to be a hard slog, even if Democrats hold the White House and, less likely, retake the Senate.

“Indeed, room for maneuver will be limited even if a post-Trump Republican Party moves away from the scorched-earth opposition it offered President Obama.

“So progressives must set some priorities. And it’s really hard to see, given this picture, why it makes any sense to spend political capital on a quixotic attempt at a do-over, not of a political failure, but of health reform — their biggest victory in many years.”

Would you say, “Paul, it’s a good thing you weren’t around to advise President Lyndon Johnson, who during his term:

–Passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968
–Appointed the first black justice to the Supreme Court (Thurgood Marshall)
–Passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act
–Established the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts
–Created Head Start, food stamps, Work Study, Medicare, and Medicaid
–Continued NASA’s Apollo 8 program, with the first manned flight to the Moon
–Passed the Immigration Act of 1965

“Paul, would you have told President Johnson to’get some priorities’ and not to ‘spend political capital on quixotic attempts’?

“Well Paul, maybe you would have, if you were talking to Bernie Sanders and were more interested in lifting Hillary Clinton than in lifting America.”

Thankfully, Krugman and his ilk were not around to advise Lyndon Johnson, or if they were, Lyndon didn’t listen.

And that is exactly what you should do with Krugman: Don’t listen, and especially don’t listen to the Big Lie.

We have Medicare today. We could have Medicare for All, tomorrow.

We just need the right leader — and no Krugmans need apply.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

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

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. A common phenomenon is for the line briefly to dip below zero, then rise above zero, before falling dramatically below zero. There was a brief dip below zero in 2015, followed by another dip – the familiar pre-recession pattern.
Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Mitchell’s laws:
•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.
•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.

Liberals 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 rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
e

Next Page »