In the event you think the Republicans finally have awakened to shed the nutball Tea party, read excerpts from an article in the Washington Post.

Boehner demands ‘trillions’ in spending cuts in exchange for lifting debt ceiling
By Paul Kane and Lori Montgomery, Monday, May 9, 2011

NEW YORK — House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is demanding that the White House agree to at least $2 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for lifting the limit on federal borrowing to finance the government’s massive deficits.

And if the White House does not agree to the suicidal spending cuts, what then, Rep. Boehner? Destroy America?

In a Monday evening address to the Economic Club of New York, Boehner will say that in the ongoing negotiations over the federal debt limit, he is demanding that President Obama and Senate Democrats agree to spending cuts greater than the value of the planned increase in federal borrowing. Even under the House Republicans’ budget-slashing proposal, the Treasury would need to borrow an additional $2 trillion to make it into 2013 without defaulting on its loans.

Before a meeting at the White House, House Speaker John Boehner and Republicans spoke about the upcoming budget negotiations.

“The cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions. They should be actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future,” Boehner says in his prepared remarks, which were distributed before his speech.

“Cuts of trillions”? I assume Rep. Boehner is aware that such cuts would throw us into a depression, which means he is more interested in a Tea/Republican victory next year, than the welfare of the American people.

These cuts would come from discretionary spending programs — those that are financed anew each year in the federal budget process — as well as from mandatory spending programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and other items such as agriculture subsidies. Boehner was vague on the time frame for the spending cuts, meaning that they could be phased in over many years.

Translation: Remember, these are the same politicians who cry crocodile tears, while lying that our children and grandchildren would pay the federal debt, but are ready to punish our children and grandchildren to lower Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits. Talk about hypocrisy! Boehner relies on Americans being so selfish, so uncaring, we will agree to reduced Medicare and Medicaid for future generations, so long as current recipients are not touched. Lord save us if that is what we have become.

After a week of mixed signals about how hard GOP leaders will push for the controversial Medicare-overhaul proposal, Boehner is standing behind the partial privatization of the popular health-care plan for the elderly. However, in recent days, many GOP aides and several Republican leaders signaled that the proposal is not likely to be a focus of the ongoing budget negotiations led by Vice President Biden and a bipartisan group of six congressional leaders, because President Obama’s staunch opposition makes the plan virtually dead on arrival.

Thank goodness for that!

In short, the Tea (formerly Republican) Party, rather than developing a plan to help America (for instance, by increasing federal deficit spending on health care and Social Security, and/or by cutting taxes), has decided to pursue the extremist, Tea Party, wealthy-first agenda, come what may. In short, it’s “To hell with the poor and middle class; to hell with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security recipients; to hell with the future of America. All we care about is protecting the our rich contributors and the next election.

I find traitors to this nation disgusting.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign, and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a dopey teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it screwed up the economy.”

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Imagine you are President of the United States. What would you do about the economy? To help clarify your thoughts, here are excerpts from two articles that appeared in the 4/28/11 Washington post:

Economic growth slows to 1.8% in early 2011 By Neil Irwin

The economy’s growth slowed at the start of the year, according to new data that show the recovery is so weak that it doesn’t take much to knock it off its stride.

The 1.8 percent pace of increase in gross domestic product in the first quarter, according to a Commerce Department report Thursday, is down from a 3.1 percent gain in the final months of 2010. It is also lower than the level of growth that, over time, would be expected to drive down joblessness. The U.S. economy needs to grow about 2.5 percent annually to keep unemployment steady given continual growth in the labor force and in worker efficiency; even stronger GDP growth is needed to bring unemployment down . . . . at a time when the government is straining for ways to jump-start the economy and when forecasts had called for a strong start to the year, the slowdown came as a disappointment.

So clearly, the economy has not yet recovered from the recession, and may be sinking back into the pit. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their health care, lost their ability to attend college (or even high school) and lost their futures and their children’s futures. They see threats to Social Security, our infrastructure, our medical and scientific research, our schools and our safety.

Now read this:

More Democrats defiant on debt ceiling By Peter Wallsten

A growing number of Democrats are threatening to defy the White House over the national debt, joining Republican calls for deficit cuts as a requirement for consenting to lift the country’s borrowing limit. Defying the White House, the senators are joining Republicans in calling for deficit reductions as a condition for lifting $14.3 trillion ceiling.
[ . . . ]
And although many lawmakers and aides say a bipartisan deal is likely, the insistence on conditions by a small but pivotal group of Democrats suggests that any agreement would almost certainly have to include substantial cuts in the deficit. . .

The Tea (formerly Republican) Party, and now even the Democrats all want deficit spending to be reduced and the economy stimulated. So, Mr. President, what should you do?

(Can the madness of Congress and the debt-hawks be made any clearer than this?)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign, and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a dopey teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it screwed up the economy.”

Perhaps the biggest problem with Monetary Sovereignty is it’s so counterintuitive. It does not match our everyday experience. You and I don’t create unlimited money out of nothing. Even the states, counties and cities and many nations can’t do it. But the federal government routinely creates dollars and T-securities seemingly from thin air. It just feels wrong.

And because it feels wrong, the notion that deficits can climb and climb, and still remain “sustainable,” (whatever that means) feels wrong. The fact that federal taxes and federal borrowing do not pay for federal spending feels so wrong as to be laughable. And why won’t our children and grandchildren have to pay for the debt? It just feels wrong.

And surely, if we keep printing money, we’ll be another Weimar Germany, won’t we? And, if I spend more than I earn, won’t I eventually go bankrupt, and if so, why won’t America? And why does everyone – I mean everyone– say the federal deficit should be reduced, if it isn’t true? And really, if every politician, newspaper editor, columnist, economist and teacher says the federal deficit must be reduced, why should people believe me?

All 300+ posts on this blog attempt to defeat each of those doubts with facts. But intuition is a powerful opponent. And I long have felt the need for an ultra short piece anyone can understand, not only intellectually but intuitively. And this is what I’ve come up with. Tell me what you think.

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

In 1971, the U.S. went off the gold standard, and became “Monetarily Sovereign,” which created two basic questions:

1. How much can a Monetarily Sovereign government deficit spend?
2. How much should a Monetarily Sovereign government deficit spend?

The answer to #1 is: An infinite amount. That is what “Monetarily Sovereign” means. The federal government’s “printing presses” are limitless. They can create endless dollars to pay endless bills and to service endless borrowing. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government never can run short of money. That’s why federal taxes and borrowing, which are relics of the gold standard, don’t pay for federal spending.

The answer to #2 is: Enough to grow the economy but not enough to cause excessive inflation. (A little inflation is considered desirable.) Deficit spending is the government’s process for adding dollars to the economy. Money is the lifeblood of an economy; a growing economy requires a growing supply of money. Federal deficit spending is a compromise. Too little and we have recession or depression. Too much and we have excessive inflation.

Today, lack of growth, not excessive inflation, is our major problem, so we should increase deficits to stimulate growth. If excessive inflation were to emerge, we will have two methods to control it:

1. We can reduce federal deficits and/or
2. We can raise interest rates to increase the value of the dollar.

Both would reduce inflation, though historically, reduced deficit spending has caused recessions, while increased interest rates have not. Which is the better choice?

This is a foolish time to focus on preventing excessive inflation, when our urgent need is to grow the economy.
========================================================================================================================================

What do you think? Can it be simpler?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign, and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a dopey teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it screwed up the economy.”