–Charles Krauthammer’s scary misinformation on Social Security

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
================================================================================================================================================================================

Recently, the noted commentator, Charles Krauthammer, wrote an article titled, “Et tu, Jack Lew?” In this article, he said:

The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. If you don’t believe me, listen to the OMB’s own explanation (in the Clinton administration budget for fiscal 2000 under then-Director Jack Lew, the very same). The OMB explained that these trust fund “balances” are nothing more than a “bookkeeping” device. “They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains – nothing.

I was amazed. Krauthammer actually gets it? He’s right, of course. There are no dollars in the so-called “trust fund,” simply because FICA, and indeed all federal tax money, is destroyed upon receipt. This is one of the features of a Monetarily Sovereign government. It has the unlimited ability to create money, so it has no need to store money.

But alas, Krauthammer’s understanding was not to be, for in the very next paragraph he said:

Here’s why. When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it does not get squirreled away in some lockbox in West Virginia where it’s kept until you and your contemporaries retire. Most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury – and is spent. On roads, bridges, national defense, public television, whatever – spent, gone.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not spend tax money on anything. In fact, there is no relationship whatsoever, between federal taxes and federal spending. This has been true since 1971, the end of the gold standard, and Krauthammer et al have not yet noticed the most influential economic change in our lifetimes. Today, even were federal taxes to fall to zero, this would not affect by even one dollar, the federal government’s ability to spend. (This is not the case for the states, counties and cities, which are not Monetarily Sovereign and so do spend tax money.)

Krauthammer goes on to say:

In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100. There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox. They are called “special issue” bonds.

Special they are: They are worthless. As the OMB explained, they are nothing more than “claims on the Treasury [i.e., promises] that, when redeemed [when you retire and are awaiting your check], will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.” That’s what it means to have a so-called trust fund with no “real economic assets.”

Wrong again. Federal spending is not financed by raising taxes or borrowing.

When you retire, the “trust fund” will have to go to the Treasury for the money for your Social Security check.

Yes, the Treasury will do what has been doing and is designed to do: Create the dollars to pay Social Security benefits.

So when (Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew) tells you that there are trillions in this lockbox that keep the system solvent until 2037, he is perpetrating a fiction certified as such by his own OMB. What happens when you retire? Your Social Security will come out of the taxes and borrowing of that fiscal year.

No, federal taxes and borrowing do not fund federal spending. Both could be eliminated, and the federal government could continue to spend trillions. Yes, there can be inflation implications, but the federal government neither needs nor uses tax money for anything.

Think about it. If you had a money-printing press in your basement, and had the unlimited ability to print money, would you borrow the money you previously had printed, and could continue to print, forever? Would you ask for tax money so you could pay your bills? Would you have any unpaid debts? Would creating money cause a “deficit”?

Krauthammer’s (as well as politician’s, other media writers’ and mainstream economists’) confusion comes from three sources:

1. Prior to 1971, when the federal government was not Monetarily Sovereign, it did spend borrowed and tax money.
2. The states, counties and cities, being monetarily non-sovereign, do spend borrowed and tax money.
3. You and I and all businesses, are not Monetarily Sovereign. We do need a source of income before we can spend.

In short, Krauthammer et al, do not realize the federal government is completely different from all the monetarily non-sovereign entities. He confuses federal “debt” and federal “borrowing” with personal debt and personal borrowing.

So when your Social Security benefits are cut needlessly, you’ll understand why. It’s the Krauthammers of the world, ignorant of economic reality, who are driving our economy. And this indeed is scary.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Ohmigosh. So THAT’s what less government means!!

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
========================================================================================================================================================================

Reality comes as a shock to the Tea Party:

Tea Party voters, by almost 2-1, oppose Social Security cuts
1:00 pm March 3, 2011, by Jay Bookman

From the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON— Less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s mounting deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, illustrating the challenge facing lawmakers who want voter buy-in to alter entitlement programs.

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was “unacceptable” to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security “unacceptable.”

Isn’t it fun to march around, shouting you want less government — until you realize what you’ve been shouting? The Tea Party (and the rest of the right wing) remind me of rebellious teenagers, who don’t want any help or suggestions from their parents. But when they need money for the dance, or for some clothes or to go to college, then it’s “Mommy, Daddy, help me. Ple-e-e-ase!”

One can only hope the politicians and the public come to their senses, soon.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

–Watch, as politicians flush Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security down the drain

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
====================================================================================================================================================================================================

I’ll give you straight talk; I won’t mince words. It was inevitable, the debt hawks, not having found enough places to cut federal benefits, now want to cut your Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as just about every other federal benefit they could think find:

By ERIK SCHELZIG Associated Press, Feb. 27, 2011

House Republicans specifically want to target entitlement programs, like Medicaid and Medicare, the speaker (John Boehner) said.
“To not address entitlement programs, as is the case with the budget the president has put forward, would be an economical and moral failure,” Boehner said. “By acting now, we can fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans without making changes for those in or near retirement.”

Your benefits from these three programs already are far too low, and the debt hawks want to cut more. Why? They have absolutely no idea. Write to any debt hawk and ask this simple question: “Why do you want to cut the deficit?” If you get any answer at all (unlikely), it will be something nebulous like, “The deficit is unsustainable,” or “We’re living beyond our means.” In short, generalized BS based on nothing.

Never, will you receive a solid statement of exactly what would happen in the future, if the government keeps spending. Never will you be shown any supporting data. The reason: What will happen is: We will prosper.

But here is a solid statement of what will happen if government spending declines: We will have another recession or a depression. We will have fewer doctors, less medical research, poorer roads and bridges, worse education, poorer security, more states not able to pay their bills, more poverty and overall a reduction in our quality of life. How do I know? Read some of the posts in this blog, beginning with Summary, and work your way forward.

I’m sure you recall all that phony wailing about our children and grandchildren being hurt by deficits. Total nonsense. Use your brain. What do you think cutting federal programs will do to our children and grandchildren?

And the gall of these people talking about “fulfilling the mission of health and retirement security” by cutting spending. That’s classic double-speak. It’s like the southern senators criticizing the freedom marchers for “upsetting law and order.” No, Jim Crow upset law and order, and to fulfill the mission of health and retirement requires more money, not less.

And then there is the complete crap about how cutting federal spending somehow will alleviate unemployment. Are you kidding? What next? Cure hunger by withholding food?

In short, cutting federal spending is nuts. Anyone who thinks the economy works better or can grow, with less money, is equally nuts. The Tea Party anti-government mantra is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on America. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Every dollar cut from the so-called “deficit” (more properly, “money supply”), is a dollar taken right out of the economy and right out of your pocket. These Tea Partiers make Bernie Madoff look honest.

Boehner wants to cut social programs “without making changes for those in or near retirement”. In other words, he wants to screw you young people. Why? Because he knows the older people would vote the Republicans out of office, if they get screwed, but he figures you young folks are so detached from retirement, you won’t realize what is being done to you until it’s too late. Anyway, aren’t most rich people older? No need to upset the wealthy contributors.

Today, you may not understand Monetary Sovereignty (though the basic concept is dead simple), but I suspect you’ll begin to understand it better when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and the rest of the economy go down the drain, and you’re left with insufficient medical care, insufficient retirement and a lousy world for your kids and grandchildren.

Then, you’ll have only yourself to blame, because you didn’t even take the trouble to learn Monetary Sovereignty, and instead, like little obedient sheep, you marched to the voting booth and elected those jerks. You didn’t contact your Congressperson; you didn’t write to the media; you didn’t argue; you didn’t demand. You just bent over and let them do it to you.

And that, my friends, is the straight talk I promised you.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty,Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary

–Oil hits $100 per barrel. What does this mean for the economy?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
====================================================================================================================================================================================================
Oil hits $100 per barrel. What does this mean for the economy? Here are some thoughts:

There is a close historical relationship between oil prices and inflation. If this relationship continues, inflation soon will rear its ugly head.

The economists, media and politicians wrongly will blame the federal deficit (which since the end of the gold standard, has had no relationship with inflation), and will work even harder to cut federal spending. This cut will slow or even end the recovery. Meanwhile, the Fed will raise interest rates, which contrary to popular myth, actually is stimulative (high rates increase federal interest payments into the economy).

In fact, if you’re looking for a relationship, check this out: Since 1985, oil price changes have generally paralleled GDP changes. Rising oil = rising GDP:

GDP vs oil

I suspect the reason is: As GDP increases, it increases the demand for oil, which responds with price rises (either via market forces or via Saudi perception of demand. So, at least partly, the recent increases in GDP are responsible for the $100 oil.

So, in a convoluted, round-about way, rising oil prices will hurt the recovery, though in fact, there seems to be no direct relationship between the two. The pundits will blame high federal deficits, higher interest rates and higher oil prices for our reduced growth, when the real culprit will be reduced federal deficits.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty,Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary Sovereignty, Monetary