–The stupidifying of our children

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Cutting the deficit is the government’s method for taking dollars from the middle class and giving them to the rich.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
==========================================================================================================================================
Many articles have been written about the failings of American schools and our children’s low ranking worldwide. Part of the blame can be attributed to inadequate local funding and excessive university costs:

The Next America
Analysis: How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter

The initial difference between state education rankings and the average per-pupil spending is clear and rather obvious: States that spend more on their students tend to rank higher, and states that spend less rank lower. But if the answer were that simple, education reform would be a breeze.

Like every complex story, outliers and exceptions to the rule exist.

Children learn from their parents, their school teachers and their peers. In total, if the teaching is substandard or incorrect, the students will tend toward ignorance.

Ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty is widespread among university economics professors, who themselves were taught by professors ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty. The ignorance was handed down from teacher to student to fellow student — from generation to generation.

But, economics isn’t the only discipline where fact is ignored. Consider, for instance, biology. Here are excerpts from an article describing how vouchers have led to formalized superstition being taught in our schools.

Creationism spreading in schools, thanks to vouchers
Zack Kopplin (a 19-year-old student at Rice University, and one of the leading American voices against the teaching of creationism in schools), 01/16/2013

So far, I have documented 310 schools, in nine states and the District of Columbia that are teaching creationism, and receiving tens of millions of dollars in public money through school voucher programs. Here are a few highlights from creationist voucher schools I have identified:

Private Christian schools are rightly free to teach Christian dogma. Public schools should not. American law separates the religious world from the public world for good reason: Religion never is wrong.

Democracy is a method for debating and evaluating different opinions. In religion, there is no debate. God speaks; we obey. But how do we know what God is saying? The high priests tell us. So the reality: The high priests speak; we obey.

Those who disagree are vilified as sinners for not accepting “God’s (the priests’) word. Thus, does theocracy devolve to totalitarianism, and that is why America separates religion from politics — or tries to.

Here are more excerpts from the creationism article:

●The Beverly Institute in Jacksonville, Florida, teaches “Evidence of a Flood,” and “Evidence against Evolution,” and ”The Evolution of Man: A Mistaken Belief.”

● Christian Academy in McDonough, Georgia says,“The universe, a direct creation of God, refutes the man-made idea of evolution. Students will be called upon to see the divine order of creation and its implications on other subject areas.

●Life Christian Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma says their life science class will “lead the student to recognize that God created all living things and that these living things are fearfully and wonderfully made.” Evolution is taught only in history class, where students “evaluate the theory of evolution and its flaws.” The school uses the creationist Bob Jones and CSI curriculums.

●The principal of the Claiborne Christian School, in West Monroe, Louisiana, says in a school newsletter, “Our position at CCS on the age of the Earth and other issues is that any theory that goes against God’s Word is in error.” She also claims that scientists are “sinful men” trying to explain the world “without God” so they don’t have to be “morally accountable to Him.”

●Trinity Academy, in Gary, uses the creationist A Beka curriculum and says it “presents the universe as the direct creation of God and refutes the man-made idea of evolution.”

●Rocky Bayou Christian School, in Niceville, Florida, says in its section on educational philosophy, “God mandates that children be discipled for Christ. They must be trained in the biblical world view which honors Jehovah, the sovereign Creator of the universe. It recognizes that man was created in the image of God” and says “Man is presumed to be an evolutionary being shaped by matter, energy, and chance… God commands His people not to teach their children the way of the heathen.”

●Wisconsin Lutheran High School, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, says in its biology syllabus that it teaches, “evolutionists are ‘stuck’ because they have no god, therefore they must believe in evolution” and “young earth evidence a disaster to evolutionists.”

While we adherents of Monetary Sovereignty and MMT rail against the unnecessary money shortages endured by our schools — shortages the federal government easily could and should end — we also must acknowledge that if the money is not well managed, it may be spent for evil.

Ignorance, by teacher and parent, can overcome the intent of even the best funded school programs. Creationism is ignorance and teaching Christianity in public schools is traitorous. Adding dollars to the effort only exacerbates the harm.

So, yes our schools are underfunded. Similarly, our healthcare, retirement, anti-poverty, infrastructure and energy programs are underfunded. We always must remember, even with money, each can be perverted by those with evil intent, but that is not a reason to withhold money.

To detractors of Monetary Sovereignty, I agree that money does not solve all problems. Along with money there needs to be intelligence, honesty and effort. The shortage of money tends to worsen problems.

Too many of our children are taught creationism and mainstream economics. Unless they are particularly strong of mind, they will grow up ignorant — ignorant of subject and of the harm they do in passing this ignorance to their children and their peers.

Then they become the politicians and the judges who run our nation.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–“Framing” has brainwashed America, but Krugman will save us.

“Framing” has brainwashed America, but Krugman will save us.

Framing Conservative Arguments
by bfrederk, Daily Kos

The conservative movement is tremendously successful at generating language to define positions and ‘frame’ arguments. “Frame” is in scare quotes because framing refers to presenting one’s positions in a way that it is most likely to garner support. It is more effective political rhetoric, but it is often intellectually dishonest. When you cannot win with your actual argument, you ‘frame’ it in a certain way so that you can win.

Here is how the politicians and the media (almost all of which are owned or paid by the upper 1% income group) frame the debate about the federal budget

January 21, 2013 9:22 pm
America’s debt dilemma: A looming crisis
By Robin Harding

As the Obama administration begins its second term this week, the Financial Times explores the real fiscal choice for the US: not the short-term frenzy of cliffs, debt ceilings, deficits and sequesters, but how – or whether – to pay for an older population. The answer will decide the very nature of the US economy in the 21st century.

Down one path, the retirement contract is untouched, but tax levels have to rise by 30 per cent or more; the US would look like a mature European economy.

Down the other, taxes stay low, but barring a revolution in healthcare costs, provision for at least some retirees – current or future, rich or poor – must be slashed.

And there it is. The argument has been framed: The public is told to choose from two possibilities: Increase taxes or slash healthcare. The third possibility, increase the deficit, is not even considered, let alone debated.

But wait!! (as the TV ads say) Here comes Paul Krugman to the rescue (O.K., belatedly, but he’s getting there, sort of):

Weekend Reader: Paul Krugman’s End This Depression Now!
January 26th, 2013 Allison Brito

Allow me to offer a better option—Paul Krugman’s End This Depression Now! Originally published electronically and in hardcover last spring, it’s been brought to our attention again with its forthcoming release in paperback on January 28.

As a leading economist, New York Times columnist, distinguished Princeton professor, and 2008 Nobel laureate, Krugman’s solution to the nation’s expanding deficit is stunningly simple: Spend more, at least for now.

That’s right — while politicians are warning of excessive government spending, Krugman says that federal spending is what got us out of the Great Depression, and can quickly return us to prosperity today.

“Now is the time for the government to spend more, not less, until the private sector is ready to carry the economy forward again—yet job-destroying austerity policies have instead become the rule,” he says. Krugman’s enduring Keynesian outlook and his hopeful, progressive approach to growth are an essential contribution to a national discourse dominated by deficit “hawks.”

Yes, I’m jealous. Krugman received a Nobel for almost, but not quite (at long last) saying what my book and 900+ blog posts have been saying for 15 years (To understand economics, you must understand Monetary Sovereignty. Most economists and politicians don’t.), and the MMT folks have been saying even longer than that.

What he gets right is: The government needs to spend more, not less. And austerity, aka deficit reduction, is job destroying, economy destroying and life destroying.

Sadly, what he gets wrong is: “ . . . until the private sector is ready to carry the economy forward again . . . “ thus demonstrating he really doesn’t get it. This suggestion indicates a desire to return to austerity, once we emerge from the recession. Yikes!

Message to Professor Krugman: The federal government should deficit spend, and after that, deficit spend, and then deficit spend – until we are at a point of full employment of such scarce resources as people and energy – that is, until we face an inflation we can’t cure by raising interest rates (as we always have done).

Barring that kind of inflation, which is so far off, I hope your grandchildren live long enough to see it, the government needs to continue growing the economy with deficit spending.

Anyway, this is a good first step for Professor Krugman, whom I’m sure will tell us he “always believed that,” and in a few years, when he decides that deficit spending should continue he will tell us he “always believed that, too.”

Welcome to the party, Professor. Better late than never.

And I’m still jealous.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–It happens here, there and everywhere. Is this really so hard to understand?

The UK wisely kept its own currency, the pound, rather than join the mutual suicide pact of the euro nations. So the UK remains Monetarily Sovereign. It never can run short of its sovereign currency, the pound. It never needs to borrow pounds or to ask anyone for pounds.

Unfortunately, UK politicians, like U.S. politicians, act as though their nation were monetary non-sovereign. They seek balanced budgets; they cut spending; they raise taxes — all harmful to their economies, and especially harmful to the middle- and lower-income groups.

Excerpts from Financial Times
Britain slides back towards recession
By Sarah O’Connor and Claire Jones

Britain’s economy shrank 0.3 per cent in the final quarter of last year, bringing it closer to a possible “triple-dip” recession and piling pressure on the coalition government.

Chancellor George Osborne, whose austerity programme has come under increasing criticism as the economy has faltered, said he would “confront” the UK’s problems and not “run away” in response to the data, which was worse than economists had predicted.

He said. “. . . we face problems at home because of the debts built up over many years and problems abroad with the eurozone, where we export most of our products, in recession.”

Er, ah, excuse me, Chancellor, but you “face problems” because of your austerity program. You are pulling money out of your citizens’ pockets and expecting this to grow the economy.

But don’t feel bad. Our politicians in the U.S., being on the dole from the 1%, are doing exactly the same thing.

Said Chris Williamson, an economist at Markit, a data company. “. . . the data pile ever more pressure on the chancellor to seek ways to revive the economy in the March Budget.”

If you’re waiting for Chancellor Osborne to revive the economy, I wish you a very long life. He is clueless about Monetary Sovereignty.

The opposition Labour party hit out at the government, holding it responsible for the poor economic figures. Ed Balls, shadow chancellor, said: “These deeply disappointing figures expose just how dangerously complacent the prime minister was when he said last autumn that the ‘good news will keep coming’.”

Mr Balls called for the government to abandon its plans for fiscal consolidation. “A plan B now should include a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed and a temporary VAT cut to boost family incomes and our struggling high streets,” the shadow chancellor said. “We should also bring forward infrastructure investment including building thousands of affordable homes and establish a British Investment Bank to boost lending to small businesses.”

Possibly helpful, sort of helpful and very helpful. The jobs guarantee possibly could help – or ever hurt — depending on the details. The temporary VAT cut will help, but why make it temporary? Make it permanent. And government spending on infrastructure definitely will help.

Like American politicians, UK politicians pretend their nation is not Monetarily Sovereign, so the middle- and lower-income classes must pay the price. Austerity always, always, always widens the gap between rich and poor, by crushing the poor.

That is the true purpose of austerity, as ordered up by the 1%.

My question is, if every time austerity happens, recession happens, how long will it take the voting public to realize that austerity causes recessions, which in turn, punishes the 99%, and that the politicians are paid by the upper 1% to widen the income gap?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Yet another effort by the 1% to widen the gap and screw the 99%. Enough never is enough.

The richest 1% feel it isn’t enough that President Obama raised FICA again, so that a salaried worker making $50,000 a year will pay an additional $1,000 in taxes. No, there needs to be more pain for the middle- and lower-income 99%. The gap must be wider.

And the richest 1% feel it isn’t enough that the qualifying age for Social Security has been raised two years, and discussions are underway to raise it further. The gap must be wider.

And the 1% feel it isn’t enough that every politician is making plans to cut federal spending, and virtually all of these cuts will negatively impact the 99% far more than the 1%. No, it isn’t enough, it never is enough and it never will be enough. The gap must be wider; there must be ever more pain for the non-rich.

And here it comes:

Governors Push Bigger Reliance on Sales Taxes
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON, New York Times
Published: January 24, 2013

WASHINGTON — Republican governors are moving aggressively to cut personal and corporate income taxes, including proposals that would increase reliance on state sales taxes, setting up ambitious experiments in tax reform that could shape what is possible on a national level.

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal is pushing to repeal the state’s personal and corporate income taxes and make up the lost revenue through higher sales taxes. Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska is calling for much the same thing in his state. Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas wants to keep in place what was supposed to be a temporary increase in the state sales tax to help pay for his plan to lower and eventually end his state’s income tax.

They are focusing attention on the idea, long championed by conservatives but accepted up to a point by economists of all stripes, that the economy would be better served by focusing taxation on consumption rather than on income.

Translation: The 1% would be better served by a reduction in their taxes and an increase in taxes more heavily impacting the 99%.

Taxing consumption has the potential to lift economic growth by encouraging more savings and investment.

Translation: Taxing consumption has the potential to reduce consumption, which will reduce economic growth, by encouraging less spending. Reductions in economic growth negatively affect the 99% far more than the 1%.

But the shift could also increase inequality by reducing taxes predominantly for the wealthy, who spend a smaller share of their income than middle- and lower-income people.

Exactly. That is the whole point.

Beyond citing economic growth, the governors and their supporters say their plans would help make their states more competitive in attracting employers and high-skilled workers, simplify their tax systems and curb pressure for more government spending.

Translation: Beyond reducing economic growth, their plans would please their wealthy supporters, punish lower skilled workers and curb pressure for the federal spending that would benefit the 99%. But it would be simple, just as death is a simple solution for disease. (Tax “simplification” is the sales slogan for more onerous taxation.)

For Mr. Jindal and other Republican governors who are considering a presidential run in 2016, there are obvious political benefits to having a robust income tax-cutting record to present to conservative primary voters.

Translation: He’ll be able to say, “Support me. I have a great record for widening the gap, and crushing the 99%.”

But Democrats say the approach would lead to cutbacks in education, health care and other vital services while shifting relatively more of the tax burden to those who can least afford it.

“These aren’t pro-growth policies — they’re shell games that reward the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else,” said Danny Kanner, a spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association.

Again, that is the whole conservative point.

While all politicians, Democrats as well as Republicans, rely on financial support for the wealthy (even more so with the right-wing Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision), the Republicans lately have evolved to become the true “Party of the Rich.” There is no limit, and will be no limit, to their efforts to reward the 1% at the expense of the 99%.

The ongoing goal of royalty always has been to put ever more distance between themselves and the peasants. Enough never is enough.

As recently as Reagan, I tended to vote Republican. But of late, the party has become way too crazy. Today, if you earn less than a half million dollars a year, or have less than perhaps $20 million – $30 million in net assets, you are a fool to vote Republican (unless your hatred for blacks, browns and poor women is stronger than your concerns about your own finances).

Sadly, there are an awful lot of fools in America. And they and their money are being parted.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: