We’re bankrupt when we wanna be

If you have been reading about federal finances lately, you rightly might assume that the federal government either is, or is about to be bankrupt. The message depends on three facts:

The speaker or writer does not want to spend money on a particular project and/or
The speaker or writer is ignorant about federal finances and/or
The speaker or writer assumes you are ignorant or don’t care.

In many case, all of the above.

Uncle Sam is holding a huge horn of plenty that is spewing dollar bills, intricate details, HDR, beautifully shot, hyper... — **My dirty little secret is, I don’t need your tax dollars. I always have been able to create all the dollars I need.**

The simple fact is that is it functionally impossible for the U.S. federal government to run short of money, become insolvent and/or be unable to pay any debt, no matter how large, even without collecting a single penny in taxes.

Being Monetarily Sovereign, the government has the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars simply by:

Voting, then
Touching computer keys, then
Spending.

Those three easy steps require no income from any source — not from taxes, fines, tariffs or even the laughably sad “Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt” program (Yes, that’s a real thing.)

Why does the federal government collect taxes?

–To control the economy by taxing what it wants to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what it wants to reward and
–To assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring that taxes be paid in dollars.

State and local taxes fund state and local spending, but federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

Here is what the government thinks about funding the military:

Drones, missiles, battleships: What’s in Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense spending ask
By Anna Mulrine Grobe Staff writer, April 29, 2026, 5:00 a.m. ET

The Trump administration is hoping to spend $1.5 trillion on defense next year. That’s roughly 42% more than the United States, by far the world’s most expensive military, spends now.

That’s also getting close to 5% of U.S. gross domestic product. The last time the defense budget was significantly higher as a percentage of gross domestic product was during the Reagan administration’s Cold War military buildup in the mid-1980s, when it reached nearly 7%, or during the Vietnam War, when it was more than 9%.

While the huge budget increase plan aims to make good on President Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to rebuild America’s military, it also represents a big shift in national spending priorities.

It’s a pace that potentially diverts billions of dollars from education, healthcare, and other initiatives while adding roughly $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

If the government wished, it could spend an additional trillion or ten trillion on the military, while not “diverting” any money from education, healthcare, etc. and not collecting any taxes at all.

It simply could, as we mentioned, vote, touch computer keys, and spend. That is how Monetarily Sovereign nations always function.

However, the current government wants to cut benefits to the people, because cutting those benefits widens the income/wealth/power gap between the rich and the rest.

The wealthiest 2% already get all the healthcare they want and have no need for social benefits.

It’s the remaining 98% who depend on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other types of financial assistance. Not receiving these benefits makes them relatively poorer, which makes the rich richer.

In the proposed U.S. military budget for the fiscal year 2027, the Army and Navy would each see their budgets grow by a quarter, while the Air Force would get a 34% boost. The Defense Department’s newest branch of service, the Space Force, stands to see its budget more than doubled to about $71 billion.

Even think tanks that describe themselves as hawkish, such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, called the administration’s proposed U.S. military budget for the fiscal year 2027 “extraordinary.”

With a bigger budget than the next nine countries combined, the U.S. already has the most expensive armed forces in the world. In terms of sheer active personnel numbers, America ranks third behind China and India, according to the Peterson Foundation.

Worth noting: The cost of the conflict with Iran is not factored into the current defense request. That will take more money – an additional $1 trillion, by some estimates.

But America’s current war is clearly influencing both public and private investments, in everything from more drones (and defenses against them) to more missiles and Navy ships.

Private investment in the military and defense sectors has surged recently, namely in defense tech and startups. In the first quarter of this year, defense startups backed by venture capital raised $468 million, a 180% increase from the same period in 2025.

There is no shortage of funds for the military, which is important to America’s security, while health, food, housing, education, etc. are not important — at least from the right-wing perspective.

This brings us to the needless and endless efforts to prevent the non-existent threat of federal insolvency:

Social Security benefit cuts are coming — and President Trump shoulders some of the blame
Story by Rich Duprey

Markets and policy headlines have offered up a familiar pattern lately: long-term risks get discussed loudly, then quietly kicked a few years down the road. Social Security is the clearest example of that dynamic. The system still pays full benefits today, but the math underneath it is shifting in a way that investors — and retirees — can’t ignore forever.

So here’s the real question behind today’s headline: benefit cuts are coming, and could be as soon as six years away, yet it’s just as much political shorthand for a much slower-moving problem.

But let’s unpack what the data actually says.

Social Security trust funds face depletion in the early 2030s (around 2033), after which payroll taxes would only cover approximately 77% of scheduled benefits, requiring Congress to choose between raising the payroll tax to ~15%, reducing benefits by 20-25%, raising the wage cap, or increasing retirement age.

The author promulgates the disinformation that the federal government must raise taxes and/or cut benefits. Neither is necessary.

The third –the real— option is for the federal government simply to create the dollars to fund these programs.

But that would shrink the income, wealth, and power gap between the rich and everyone else—the last thing any Republican administration wants to see happen.

The delayed policy response to Social Security’s structural funding gap—where fewer workers per retiree (2.7 in 2025 dropping to 2.3 by 2035) cannot sustain current benefit levels—creates market risk through reduced consumer spending, as retirees account for roughly 19% of total U.S. consumption.

The mistaken belief is that the FICA payroll tax directly funds Social Security. It doesn’t. This idea was introduced by President Roosevelt as a way to discourage Congress from cutting Social Security, using a psychological “I-paid-for-it, so-I-deserve-it” approach.

He even threw in a so-called “trust fund” that was nothing more than an accounting entry, not a genuine trust fund. The idea was to make Social Security look like a private sector insurance annuity.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked out, as benefits are being reduced under the “You didn’t pay enough” excuse. It’s like an insurance company saying, “We have to cut your benefits because we didn’t get enough new customers to cover you.” Instead of bolstering Social Security, FICA restricts benefits that the federal government could otherwise provide.

Social Security is not a traditional investment fund. It’s a pay-as-you-go system where today’s workers fund today’s retirees through payroll taxes.

Not exactly. The government still pays for SS benefits, but it limits those payments to what FICA collects, and to compound the lie, it unnecessarily collects taxes on the payments.

Payroll tax rate: 12.4% of wages (split employer/employee); Workers per retiree: ~2.7 in 2025; Projected workers per retiree by 2035: ~2.3. That shrinking ratio is the core pressure point. Fewer workers are supporting more retirees, and that imbalance compounds every year.

You also are supposed to believe that you only pay half of FICA and your employer pays the other half. The truth is that you pay the whole thing, because your employer includes the cost of FICA when figuring what salaries the company can afford.

Finally, notice that the highest salaried employees pay the lowest percentage of their salaries in FICA, and that the very wealthiest earners’ income is not FICA-taxed at all. The money they receive from capital gains and interest is not subject to FICA.

Surprisingly, the system still runs a surplus on paper for parts of the cycle — but that surplus is shrinking fast. The 2025 Trustees Report estimates the combined trust funds will be depleted in the early 2030s, most commonly cited around 2033 for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance fund.

As we said earlier, they are fake trust funds, created to deceive. Keep in mind that there is no Military Trust Fund to be “depleted.” That would be unthinkable. But cutting Social Security and Medicare is just fine.

That’s the first misconception to clear up: there is no “benefit cut date.” There is a trust fund exhaustion estimate, after which automatic reductions apply under current law.

The clock is ticking toward a 23% automatic benefit cut. It’s not just a retirement crisis—it’s a looming shock to the entire U.S. consumer market. © 24/7 Wall St.

What “Cuts in Six Years” Actually Means

Trust fund depletion timeline (early 2030s); Political delay window (mid-to-late 2020s); Here’s what happens mechanically, based on SSA rules:

After depletion, payroll taxes continue. But they only cover about 77% of scheduled benefits. The gap becomes an automatic reduction unless Congress acts. That’s another way of saying benefits don’t disappear, but they are statutorily reduced if no new funding is added.

Congress easily could act. For instance, it simply could vote to add a few trillion dollars to the “trust fund.” No new taxes would be needed. Congress continually votes to add dollars to various programs, without changing tax laws.

The Congressional Budget Office (2026 Long-Term Outlook) estimates that closing the financial gap would require one of the following:

Policy Option Estimated Impact: Raise payroll tax rate to ~15% Fully closes gap
Raise wage cap (currently $184,500) :Covers ~60% of shortfall
Reduce benefits across the board: 20%–25% reduction
Gradual retirement age increase: Partial long-term fix

The CBO “forgot” one possibility: Add several trillion dollars to the trust fund: The financial gap disappears.

In short, the “six-year warning” is really about when lawmakers must act to avoid automatic reductions later in the 2030s.

The Trump Factor — and the Tax Policy Wildcard
Now to the politically sensitive part of the headline.

During President Donald Trump’s administration and subsequent policy proposals tied to his fiscal agenda, several tax relief measures aimed at seniors and middle-income workers have been discussed in legislative drafts often referred to by supporters as part of a broader “big, beautiful bill” framework.

One frequently cited feature the temporary tax relief for seniors from 2025–2028, structured as deductions or credits designed to reduce taxable income, contained in Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”

Here’s where the Social Security linkage comes in:

Social Security is funded primarily through payroll taxes. Certain tax cuts and exemptions reduce taxable wage or income bases. That can indirectly reduce inflows to the trust fund. According to analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, broad-based senior tax relief measures would reduce federal revenue by tens of billions of dollars over a multi-year window.

The Monetarily Sovereign federal government neither needs nor uses tax income for anything. It creates all the dollars it needs and uses. Who says so? These experts say so.

That doesn’t “raid” Social Security in a direct sense. But it does affect the broader fiscal environment the program depends on.

In plain English: If you reduce revenue elsewhere while Social Security already runs a structural gap, you make the fix slightly harder — not impossible, but tighter.

Of course, there is no need for a Monetarily Sovereign government to suffer from reduced revenue. It creates its own revenue.

Granted, supporters of the policy argue the offset comes from broader growth effects and targeted relief for retirees facing higher living costs. That said, the SSA’s own projections do not assume offsetting growth large enough to materially change the depletion timeline.

Again, this all relies on the false claim that FICA funds Social Security.

So the debate isn’t about intent. It’s about arithmetic.

The Real Market-Relevant Risk: Policy Compression
Investors often miss this point because Social Security isn’t a traded asset — but it still affects macro conditions. Why? Because if lawmakers delay action too long, the eventual fix becomes more abrupt. That usually means:

Faster payroll tax increases; More sudden benefit formula changes; Or larger one-time fiscal adjustments
And those ripple into consumer spending.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, households 65+ account for roughly account for roughly 20% of total consumption, meaning any benefit reduction would hit demand directly.

But if the government funds increased benefits, demand would be increased, thereby increasing Gross Domestic Product. The entire economy would benefit.

That’s not theoretical — it feeds into retail, healthcare, and consumer staples earnings.

Key Takeaway
When all is said and done, Social Security is not “collapsing” in six years. It is moving toward a point where lawmakers must choose between higher taxes, lower benefits, or both.

Or, they could choose federal funding, which would grow the economy at no cost to anyone.

Regardless of how headlines frame it, the math doesn’t negotiate.

As my old math instructor used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure. And there are 535 members of Congress, plus the President, who are lying to you about Social Security and Medicare finances.

The federal government should eliminate FICA and pay for SS and Medicare — for everyone.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A puzzle perhaps you can solve

The puzzle is, can something be too simple to be believed? In the mid-19th century, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that washing hands with a chlorinated lime solution could significantly reduce the incidence of puerperal fever (childbed fever) among women in maternity wards. Despite his compelling evidence and efforts to convince his colleagues, many doctors ridiculed him and refused to adopt his practices.

From Wikipedia: Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician and scientist who was an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures and was described as the “savior of mothers.” Postpartum infection, also known as puerperal fever or childbed fever, consists of any bacterial infection of the reproductive tract following birth, and in the 19th century was common and often fatal. Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of infection could be drastically reduced by requiring healthcare workers in obstetrical clinics to disinfect their hands. In 1847, he proposed hand washing with chlorinated lime solutions at Vienna General Hospital’s First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors’ wards had three times the mortality of midwives’ wards. The maternal mortality rate dropped from 18% to less than 2%, and he published a book of his findings, Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever, in 1861. Despite his research, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time, and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum, he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating.

I hope I won’t be similarly confined because, for 25 years, I have struggled to explain what seems to me to be the simple concepts of Monetary Sovereignty. The question: Is Monetary Sovereignty so simple, so obvious, that you believe “it can’t be that easy‘? (It is.) Or, “if it were that simple, someone else would have thought of it.” (Others have.) Or, “that’s not what schools, economists, and the media teach.” (That’s the problem.) Here are three simple facts about our economy. 1. Money is not a physical thing. Gold, silver, and paper are not money, but they can represent money.

A dollar bill is a title to a dollar, not a dollar itself. All forms of money merely are bookkeeping entries. For example, a $10 gold coin is just a title to $10. The coin always is worth exactly $10 as money, though it may be worth thousands as barter. As money, that gold coin is worth neither more nor less than a $10 paper bill or the $10 on your checking account bank statement. Thus, money is just government-approved numbers on a statement. The U.S. government has the infinite ability to create these bookkeeping entries simply by pressing computer keys. 2. A government having the infinite ability to create, spend, and control a specific currency is sovereign over that money and it is called “Monetarily Sovereign.” The governments of the U.S., Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia are examples of Monetary Sovereignty over their respective currencies.
Alan Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.”
The governments of Italy, France, Germany, and Greece are monetarily non-sovereign. They do not have their own sovereign currencies. Instead, they use the euro, over which the European Union (EU) is sovereign. These nations can run short of euros, while the EU cannot. The nations rely on taxes; the EU needs no taxes. The Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government cannot unintentionally run short of its money. Given a creditor’s demand for a million, or a billion, or a trillion trillion dollars, the U.S. government could pay immediately, without collecting a single penny in taxes. What does that tell you about federal debt? Just as the U.S, cannot unintentionally run short of dollars, the EU cannot run short of euros. Contrast with any monetarily non-sovereign entities — euro nations, businesses or people — which do not have the infinite ability to pay bills and can run short of whatever currency they are using. 3. Government spending of its Monetarily Sovereign currency is not inflationary. Historically, all inflation is supply-based — i.e, shortage(s) of critical assets, usually oil and/or food — not demand-based. While government spending can increase demand for specific products, this doesn’t cause inflation, which is an overall increase in the prices of almost all products.

These three fundamentals seem simple and straightforward. Yet, for perhaps 25 years, I have failed to help most people understand them. #1 confuses those who mistakenly believe the pieces of green-printed paper in their wallet are actual dollars, not just titles to dollars. #2 is vaguely understood except by all those who believe federal finances are the same as personal finances.. #3 is denied outright by those whose vision of supply and demand makes them believe excessive demand caused inflation rather than a lack of supply. To help people understand, I have given examples of the Monopoly game, which can be played without physical paper “money”—just a balance sheet—and that, by rule, the Bank (a corollary for the federal government) cannot run short of money. I have presented graphs demonstrating how inflations are closely related to oil costs, not to federal spending. I have presented graphs showing that recessions occur immediately after reductions in federal deficit spending growth and are cured by increased federal deficit spending growth. I have shown that every depression in U.S. history has come shortly after the federal government reduced deficit spending.

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807. 1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819. 1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837. 1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857. 1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873. 1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893. 1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929. 1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

I have published articles by thought leaders from 1940 to today who falsely claimed that the federal debt is a ticking time bomb. During those 84 years, the debt grew from $40 billion to $30 trillion, yet this so-called “debt bomb” never exploded. I encounter articles daily discussing the dangers of federal debt and deficits. Currently, Congress is struggling with the absurd federal debt limit, which ignores the government’s unlimited capacity to meet its financial obligations. Even this morning, I read again about how federal agencies like Social Security and Medicare are in danger of running short of money, though Congress could supply all the funds needed just by voting. Every day, dollars are deducted unnecessarily from paychecks to “pay for ” some federal expense when, in fact, federal taxes pay for nothing. The federal government already has infinite dollars. Think. With infinite dollars, why would it need taxes? A simple question with a simple answer, yet most people are stumped by it

The sole purposes of federal taxes are:

1. To control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward and

2. To assure demand for the dollar by requiring taxes to be paid in dollars.

3. To help the rich become more affluent by providing tax breaks not available to the rest of us.

The wealthy promote the idea of “small government,” not because they genuinely believe the unfounded claim that “government is the problem,” but because they recognize that government establishes regulations they prefer to avoid. These regulations regarding clean air, clean water, food safety, and fair treatment by banks and businesses hinder the wealthy’s relentless pursuit of power and wealth, often at the expense of the rest of society. Most Congresspeople understand all these points but continue disseminating disinformation for political reasons. (Wealthy political donors pay a lower percentage of their incomes than the rest of us, so useless tax collections widen the Gap between the rich and us. The Gap makes them rich; we all would be the same without it.) Sadly, while the rich don’t want us to understand, most of us blindly follow their lead, just as the unfortunate pregnant women followed the fatal lead of mid-19th century doctors. Through the years, I have provided examples, data, and proofs. At the same time, again, some disingenuous Congressperson, deceptive economist, misleading writer, or uninformed friend assures you that Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent without tax increases or benefit cuts. Monetary Sovereignty is not complicated. It’s not, as they say, “rocket science.” It’s dead simple. However, I do not know how to help the populace understand what will benefit them. Consider the suggestion: “Eliminate FICA.” Is that too difficult to contemplate, or is it too easy to believe? What is the psychology of the millions who cannot accept the often-proven fact that the federal government has infinite money while accepting the never-proven nonsense that a Presidential election was stolen? Would you be outraged if your local car dealer tried to overcharge you or if your favorite football team refused to honor your tickets? Where is your passion against paying thousands of dollars in unnecessary taxes? Where is your anger about billionaire Trump paying far less taxes (almost nothing, actually) than you do? Why aren’t you frothing at the mouth about your doctor bills when the federal government could and should fund comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America without collecting a penny in taxes? Why aren’t you screaming on the phone about proposed cuts to Social Security? If you heard about a billionaire who refuses to give his infant child enough money for medical care, would you be outraged? Well, the government is a multiple trillionaire, and you are its child. Get outraged. If I can’t convince people to make meager efforts to contact their Congresspeople about something that will save them many thousands of dollars and their health, improve their lives and their children’s lives, all at no cost, what is the purpose of reason? You’ve gone through the effort of reading this far. Why not make it meaningful? Call your Senator and Representative. Today. Now. “Why not” is the puzzle. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell; MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Encouraging the public to commit financial suicide. “Work ’til you drop.”

REASON Magazine is a Libertarian publication that disseminates false information encouraging Americans to vote against their best interests.

Here is another example from this shameful publication.

Congress can reduce the deficit by $7.7 Trillion in 10 Years
The Congressional Budget Office projects that future deficits will explode. But there’s a way out.
VERONIQUE DE RUGY, REASON MAGAZINE

With public debt at an all-time high, the government should do the same.

Immediately, Veronique de Rugy reveals her abject ignorance of economics. She equates federal financing with personal financing.

The two are diametrically different. The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create new dollars. It never can run short of dollars and never can be unable to pay any debts denominated in dollars.

The public is none of those things. It is monetarily non-sovereign. It has a limited ability to create new dollars. It can, and often does, run short of dollars. It can, and often is, unable to pay its debt denominated in dollars.

Yet astoundingly, Veronique says the government “should do the same.” This unforgivable ignorance is responsible for every recession and depression in U.S. history.

Recessions (gray bars) are caused by reduced debt growth and are cured by increased debt growth. By mathematical formula, Gross Domestic Product growth requires federal spending growth and federal debt growth.

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

This feat isn’t that hard now that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a series of budget options showing Congress how to do it.

In Libertarian terms, “how to do it” invariably requires reducing benefits to the public — specifically, the part of the public that is not rich.

It’s worth repeating that maintaining spending at the current level is not a viable option.

Given the dramatic increase in annual federal government spending over the next 30 years—from 22.3 percent of GDP to 30.2 percent—combined with federal tax revenues that have remained fairly constant at around 19 percent, CBO projects that future deficits will explode.

It’s forecasted to triple from 3.7 percent of GDP today to 11.1 percent in 2052. Over the next 10 years, primary deficits (deficits excluding interest payment on the debt) amount to $7.7 trillion. Meanwhile, deficits with interest payments total $15.8 trillion—roughly $1.6 trillion a year.

You’ll notice that Veronique never says why maintaining spending is “not a viable option.” All she does is quote large numbers to shock you.

In effect, she claims that Monetary Sovereignty is not a viable option, because it allows the government to create dollars.

The “not a viable option” claim resembles the “ticking time bomb” claim about the federal debt, that has been wrong for more than 80 years. In that time, the federal debt has grown more than 55,000%, yet the nation survives quite well, thank you.

Sadly, Libertarians refuse to learn from actual experience. They cling to the myth that a Monetarily Sovereign government should impose austerity, despite the repeated and inevitable failures of such a system.

Note, by the way, that half of our future total deficits will be driven by interest payments on the debt. This fact isn’t surprising considering the size of our deficits and the rise in interest rates.

Federal interest payments, which the government has the infinite ability to make, add growth dollars to the economy.

The U.S. federal government daily demonstrates that interest payments pose no burden on a government having the infinite ability to create the dollars with which it makes the payments. And for the same reason, interest payments pose no burden on federal taxpayers.

Given these realities, no one will be surprised that the ratio of debt to GDP, now roughly 100 percent, will, under the most conservative estimations, jump to 110 percent in 10 years.

In the next 30 years it will likely double. More realistically, in 2052 debt as a share of GDP will be 260 percent. And that’s assuming no major recessions or emergencies.

As we have seen here, and other places on this blog, the debt / GDP ratio is meaningless. Neither a low nor a high ratio indicates the health of an economy. The ratio predicts or demonstrates nothing.

Any time you read or hear about the “dangers” of a high debt / GDP ratio, you will know you are reading ignorance and lies.

GDP does not fund debt. Further, GDP is one-year figure while debt is a cumulative-over-many-years figure. No comparability at all.

Low ratios and high ratios can be seen equally among the world’s most and least healthy economies.

Despite these awful numbers, legislators in both parties are currently debating how best to add trillions more to the country’s credit card balance.

The federal government does not have anything comparable to a “credit card balance.” Libertarians use that term to trick you into believing that the federal government is about to go bankrupt. It isn’t and it can’t.

Many, for instance, want to add a new entitlement program in the form of the extended child tax credit.

The rich hate entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security because such programs benefit the poor and the middle, thereby closing the Gap between the rich and the rest.

Libertarians argue for the rich by feigning a brand of frugality that widens the Gap.

It is in this setting that the CBO published its report on budget options. The two-volume document highlights options for deficit reduction.

One volume details large possible spending reductions while the other lays out small ones—so the options are plenty. They include important reforms of some of the major drivers of future debt: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

The misnamed “reforms” actually are reductions in benefits to the poor and middle classes. The rich love cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, while boosting dollars for the military and cutting taxes on the rich.

And heaven forbid there be a new benefit for the not-rich, extended child tax credit.

Ms. de Rugy, as a tool of the rich, dishonestly calls these cuts “reforms,” to dissuade you from objecting.

All told, it’s possible to achieve deficit reduction of $7.7 trillion over 10 years.

The mathematics are clear: A deficit reduction of $7.7 trillion will reduce GDP by about $7.7 trillion and lead to a recession if we a lucky, and a depression if we are not.

That’s enough to accomplish what some people mistakenly believe to be out of reach: balancing the budget without raising taxes.

While “balancing the budget” is prudent for people, businesses and local governments, it is a disaster for the federal government. Sadly, Ms. de Rugy, being ignorant of economics, doesn’t understand this.

There are also a few options to simplify the tax code by removing or reducing unfair individual tax deductions and by cutting corporate welfare.

Lest you believe the previous sentence indicates the Libertarians are willing to crack down on the rich, read the next sentence.

For instance, it’s high time for Congress to end tax deductions for employer-paid health insurance. This tax deduction is one of the biggest of what we wrongly call “tax expenditures.”

Get it? First Ms. de Rugy wishes to cut Medicare and Medicaid. Then, to further “balance the budget,” she wishes to cut employer paid health insurance.

See the pattern? Starve the poor and middle classes to achieve a recession or depression. The very rich couldn’t be happier. They love widening the Gap between the rich and the rest. The wider the Gap, the richer they are.

It’s responsible for many of the gargantuan distortions in the health care market and the resulting enormous rise in health care costs.

The CBO report doesn’t eliminate this deduction; instead, it limits the income and payroll tax exclusion to the 50th percentile of premiums (i.e. annual contributions exceeding $8,900 for individual coverage and $21,600 a year for family coverage).

The savings from this reform alone would reduce the deficit by roughly $900 billion.

Why the limit? Why 50th percentile? No reason other than perhaps it seems more “generous” than eliminating the entire deduction.

A second good option is to cap the federal contribution to state-administered Medicaid programs.

Ah, more cuts to programs that help the poor. Ask Ms. de Rugy why not simply eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all poverty aids. That would really “balance the budget.”

That federal block grant encourages states to expand the program’s benefits and eligibility standards—unreasonably in some cases—since they don’t have to shoulder the full bill.

CBO estimates that this reform would save $871 billion.

There is no reason for a Monetarily Sovereign nation to save $871 billion of the same dollars it has the infinite ability to create.

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

The states are monetarily non-sovereign and are supported by taxpayers. The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign and is not supported by taxpayers.

To pay its bills, the federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc. All federal tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt by the U.S. Treasury.

Ms. de Rugy wishes unnecessarily to balance the budget by punishing the poorest Americans. One wonders about the kind of person who would recommend such cruelty.

CBO also projects that Uncle Sam could reduce the budget deficit by $121 billion by raising the federal retirement age.

CBO’s option would up this age “from 67 by two months per birth year for workers born between 1962 and 1978.

As a result, for all workers born in 1978 or later, the FRA would be 70.” Considering that seniors today live much longer than in the past and can work for many more years, this reform is a low-hanging fruit.

In yet another disgrace, Ms. de Rugy wishes to cut Social Security by raising the retirement age. This has scant effect on the rich, but would be a hardship for the poor.

Her “solution” involves moving retirement three years away for working people, in short to keep them working ’til they drop.

The rich, of course, can retire at will.

Congress could save another $184 billion by reducing Social Security benefits for high-income earners. I support a move away from an age-based program altogether since seniors are overrepresented in the top income quintile.

Social Security should be transformed into a need-based program (akin to welfare).

Nevertheless, the CBO’s option would be a step in the right direction.

A not-so-clever suggestion by Ms. de Rugy to make Social Security “akin to welfare.” The political right hesitates to cut Social Security directly, but would do it by making it “welfare,” and then cutting welfare.

As right wingers “know,” people accepting welfare are lazy takers, not worthy of help.

Further, with inflation, the need-based option falls ever more heavily on the poor, exactly what REASON wants.

There are so many more options for long-term deficit reduction. All Congress needs is a backbone. Considering the end-of-year spending bill going through Congress right now, I am not holding my breath.

SUMMARY

The article, which appeared in Reason.com, is a breathtaking litany of anti-poor, anti-middle, pro-rich recommendations to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

It is disgusting in its ignorance and cruelty, it’s lack of facts and its dissemination of false beliefs.

The sole purpose is to make the rich richer by widening the Gap between them and the rest of us.

Lacking any recognition of Monetary Sovereignty, the author promulgates the usual right-wing austerity that punishes all but the rich. It is an inexcusable exercise in dishonor and immorality by Ms. de Rugy and her Libertarian accomplices.

The suckers love being lied to. There’s one born every minute.

Oh, how the suckers love being lied to.

Trump reverses position on Great Lakes restoration
By Todd Spangler Detroit Free Press

Facing a potentially tough re-election effort in Michigan next year, President Donald Trump returned to Grand Rapids on Thursday, promising to fund a Great Lakes restoration program that his administration has threatened to cut the last three years.

Trump told the crowd that he has “always” supported the Great Lakes.

Making it sound as though he was restoring money that had been taken away by someone else — when it was his administration that proposed to eliminate or virtually end the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

“I’m going to get, in honor of my friends, full funding of $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which you’ve been trying to get for over 30 years,” he said.

“It’s time.”

Oh, yes, suckers. I tried to take away what you already had, and now that a few of you have caught on to my bullshit, I won’t take it away. Instead I’ll tell you it’s a gift from me.

And you’ll believe me, just like you suckers always do

Image result for trump crowd cheering — You suckers will believe me, just like my three wives did.

It was the second major reversal for the administration on Thursday:

On his way to Michigan, facing bipartisan backlash over the budget plan to cut $18 million in funding for the Special Olympics, Trump said he would restore that funding after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos spent several days being pilloried for the move.

Hey, suckers, it was all Betsy’ fault for doing exactly what I told her to do.

Gee Betsy, I hope it’s not too uncomfortable under that bus. It is, after all, your job to take the blame for my lies, isn’t it?

Trump has also taken heat for a budget that cuts Medicare, a program the president had steadfastly promised not to touch.

Of course, I want to cut Medicare. What did you think? Did you suckers really buy into my bullshit? Wow, you really are even more stupid than I thought.

Let me explain it, even though you still won’t get it: I want to cut Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security, and all poverty aids, to make you financially desperate.

Then, my wealthy business owner pals and I can pay you peanuts, and force you to work into your 80’s — maybe even longer — because I won’t let you save enough to retire.

My old trick was to screw immigrants out of their wages, but screwing you legally is much better — less hassle.

Image result for trump loves dictators — **My best buds**

But you’re so stupid, all I have to do is say, “Socialism, socialism,” and you’ll vote against your own best interests.

Meanwhile, I’ll make millions in personal deals with the ultimate socialists, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and that rich Saudi prince, whatever his name is.

Thankfully, I don’t have to worry about you figuring this out. There’s a sucker born every minute.

Remember, I’m your savior, honest Donald J. Trump. I would never lie to you.

As told to:

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: