How YOU can help cure the coronavirus crisis. Yes, you.

The coronavirus is not just a medical crisis. It is a crisis of ignorance, a financial crisis that easily could be avoided if anyone in Washington had a brain.

Sadly, with a proven psychopathic leader, who has dismissed all the knowledgeable and experienced people who did not worship him sufficiently, and replaced them with brainless, corrupt sycophants, the likelihood of coronavirus morphing into full-blown economic crises is quite strong.

Here are excerpts from an excellent, THE WEEK Magazine article, that was written with more intelligence than exists in the entire, Trump administration:

How to fight a coronavirus recession
Jeff Spross, THE WEEK, February 27, 2020

At this point, the spreading COVID-19 coronavirus is not just a clear and present danger to American lives, but to our economy as well.

The major quarantines in China have curtailed both the country’s exports of goods and parts, as well as its imports from the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Other outbreaks of the virus are popping up around the globe, and U.S. officials are saying it’s all but certain to spread domestically as well.

But there are steps the U.S. government could take to protect the American economy from a recession, if they move as quickly as possible.

Specifically, the Federal Reserve should cut interest rates, and Congress and President Trump should put together a fiscal stimulus package to support the economy going forward.

There are four things history, both long and recent, should have taught us, they are:

  1. To cause recessions, cut deficit spending, and to prevent and cure recessions increase deficit spending. Recessions are symptoms of money shortages.
  2. Cutting interest rates does little to cure recessions. Cuts do not stimulate purchases enough to overcome the fact that low interest rates reduce the amount of interest money the federal government pumps into the economy.
  3. The federal government has the unlimited ability to deficit spend. It never can run short of dollars, and never needs to levy taxes to fund spending.
  4. Federal deficit spending does not cause inflations. All inflations and hyperinflations are caused by scarcity, usually shortages of food and/or energy (oil).  To cure inflations, the government must cure the scarcities, which generally requires more, not less, deficit spending.

.

Reductions in federal debt growth lead to inflation
This graph demonstrates that insufficient deficit growth (blue line) leads to recessions (vertical gray bars), and those recessions are cured by increases in deficit growth.

Almost half of U.S. companies that have business with China told a recent survey they expect to see revenue declines if things can’t return to normal by May — and one-fifth said they could lose half their revenue if COVID-19 isn’t contained by the end of August.

The Fed’s next meeting is not until mid-March. But to some degree, Fed officials could convince the financial markets to begin offering more credit right now simply by declaring unequivocally that they will cut at the next meeting.

This might be a good psychological step if it doesn’t convince Washington that nothing else is needed.

During the Obama administration, at the height of the “Great Recession,” rates were cut significantly, but fiscal stimulus was necessary to grow the economy.

The vertical gray bar is the “Great Recession.” The blue line is interest rates.

Here is a closeup of the graph showing how little effect interest rate cut had:

Rates were beginning to be cut in 2007. Yet, the recession began in 2008 and didn’t end until 2009.

The central bank’s recent cuts have been very modest adjustments of 0.25 percent each, and it should take the next meeting as an opportunity to do at least that much.

In fact, economist Kevin Warsh — a former Fed official, and usually a monetary policy hawk — has already called for the central bank to do just that. Financial analysts just told Politico they anticipate two rate cuts in April and June, and U.S. financial markets are already pricing in an 85 percent chance of a rate cut by mid-summer. 

Yet even with financial markets anticipating rate cuts, the stock market has dropped like a stone.

The reason. Rate cuts have at best, a modest stimulative effect, and may even have a recessive effect.

Fiscal policy should also get in on the act. Obviously, the government should be making whatever public investments are necessary to respond to the virus directly: more resources for health responders to screen for symptoms, monitor the spread, and care for people who have become infected.

Congress is already debating spending packages of $4 billion to over $8 billion — and policymakers have blasted the Trump administration for a tepid response so far.

No one should be surprised at the “tepid response.” Remember, this is the administration that moved heaven and earth to eliminate ACA (Obamacare), not because it was bad but because it has Obama’s name attached to it.

This also is the administration that favors cuts to Social Security and Medicare, increases in the FICA tax, and is rabidly opposed to Medicare for All.

But we also need broader measures to support economic activity as a whole, and get more spending money out there.

A good example is the tax cut passed in response to the 2001 recession: President George W. Bush signed the tax cut in February, and by the end of April rebate checks were going out to Americans in the mail.

And that 2001 recession ended in the 4th quarter of 2001.

Another example is the temporary payroll tax cut that was part of the 2009 stimulus under President Obama. Federal payroll taxes bring in a colossal amount of money — roughly six percent of GDP each year — and reducing them or even eliminating them for a temporary period would leave that money in the economy for spending.

Indeed, since payroll taxes are automatically collected out of each paycheck, a halt to the tax would immediately put more money in Americans’ pockets.

If there were a clear head in Washington, the payroll tax (FICA) would be permanently eliminated in its entirety. (See Step 1. of the Ten Steps to Prosperity, below.)

Contrary to popular myth, the FICA does not fund Social Security, nor does it fund Medicare. In fact, the FICA tax does not fund anything.

Every single FICA dollar deducted from your paycheck and every single FICA dollar paid by your employer is destroyed upon receipt by the U.S. Treasury. They cease to exist in any money supply measure.

The reason is quite simple. The federal government (unlike state and local governments) is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. It never can run short of dollars.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
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.”
St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

Even if the federal government collected $0 taxes, it could continue spending forever. It creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.

Spending, i.e. paying bills, is the federal government’s method for creating dollars. 

Now, there are real limits to what monetary and fiscal policy can do in a situation like this.

Both an interest rate cut and deficit spending are ways to increase aggregate spending.

But when a disease like the coronavirus shuts down economic activity, people can’t shop and spend money, and they also can’t go into work to produce the goods and services that other still-healthy populations are ready and willing to buy.

As dramatic as the stock market’s 10 percent nose-dive is, this effect on normal consumers and workers is the real threat to the economy.

If workers can’t man a factory because they have to stay home — or have been ordered to stay home — to avoid spreading a disease, no amount of money pumped into the economy can coax more production out of them.

This is also why a fiscal response to the coronavirus should focus on pure cash stimulus, since it will be hard to predict what specific areas of real-world work and production will and won’t be affected.

The author of the article is correct that a substantial pure-cash stimulus is necessary. Checks should go out to every man, woman, and child in America.

But he overstates the “can’t shop, can’t spend, can’t go to work,” claim.

At any given moment, even under the worst of circumstances, only a very small percentage of American people will be homebound. The vast majority of people who contract the disease, will recover in a few days and be forever immune.

And remember, Amazon.com, online grocery, restaurant delivery, and all the other on-line services available to the home-bound.

That said, many businesses will be hurt, so not only should the federal government provide dollars to consumers; it should provide dollars to the businesses most likely to suffer and most critical to the economy.

Tax cuts and rebates should go especially to industries supplying food and oil (to prevent the scarcities that cause inflations), health care, transportation, communication, and infrastructure.

Finally, we should think about longer-term policy changes that could help prevent future outbreaks.

I would begin with the Ten Steps to Prosperity

For instance, if the U.S. had a national paid sick leave system, employees would not feel nearly so much pressure to come into work when they’re ill or showing symptoms.

And guaranteeing affordable health care access for all Americans, such as with a Medicare-for-all program, would allow everyone to get treated as soon as possible when they think they might be sick, as opposed to forgoing a doctor visit entirely in order to avoid the costs.

And our failures to properly regulate market structures or enforce antitrust law have left us with highly-concentrated and monopolized global supply chains with little redundancy; we’re vulnerable to shortages and collapse if one key part goes down.

Good ideas. There is no reason not to plan and implement them — other than Washington ignorance.

Trump economic advisor Larry Kudlow may have brushed off the need for stimulus, saying the outbreak isn’t likely to become an “economic tragedy.”

But when it comes to COVID-19, moving now with an aggressive emergency-style stimulus is the best way to ensure that prediction actually comes true.

We have written about Kudlow before, here, here, and here. I consider him to be at Trump-level in competence (i.e. incompetence). He is a Trump acolyte, whose knowledge of economics seeming can be purchased cheap. Either that or he truly is ignorant.

Finally, the title of this post is, “How you can help cure the coronavirus crisis. You can help by contacting to your Congresspeople and telling them what is in this post.

At first contact, you will receive a stock non-answer to which you should respond by trying again and again and again. Write letters interspersed with phone calls, Emails, and texts. And urge your friends and family to write, call and text. And urge them to do the same.

Pols respond to volume. A dozen contacts won’t do much, but ten thousand will make a dent.

This is an election year, when all Representatives and 1/3 of Senators are running, and are more responsive to constituents. Take advantage of it.

Ten contacts won’t do much. But ten thousand will make a huge dent. And follow up with letters and calls to your local newspaper, radio, and TV. Do a YouTube bit.

One young girl is making a dent regarding climate change.

Maybe, just maybe, you too can change the world.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The secret Michael Bloomberg doesn’t want you to know.

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

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

You might think that a guy who is a businessman, a multi-billionaire, a guy who provides massive financial information to the world, a guy who has been both a Republican and a Democrat — you would think that guy would understand money.

Mike Bloomberg Headshot.jpg
I’m Michael Bloomberg and I (should)  know money.

Sadly, no. Or at least he doesn’t understand federal money.

It’s so disappointing, so disheartening, to read the same-old, same-old ignorance coming from this new guy on the Presidential block.

How Mike Bloomberg’s new retirement plans stack up vs. other Democrats
Dhara Singhand, Ben Werschkul, Yahoo Finance•February 16, 2020
Mike Bloomberg unveiled on Sunday his presidential campaign’s plans for retirement and Social Security, tackling the subject for the first time as a contender for the Democratic nomination.

In laying out his retirement security plan, the former Republican and New York City mayor’s plan echoed most of his fellow Democrats by promising an increase in Social Security payouts.

Yet he also drew distinctions between their proposals and President Donald Trump’s, by introducing a new minimum benefit to ensure that all recipients are at least above the poverty line.

O.K., so far, so good, depending on how big the increase will be and what form it will take.

I’m not a fan of trying to determine whether a person is above the poverty line; it’s too difficult because of the many different forms of “income” (free food, free education, free housing, etc.), but the sentiment is good.

That said, it all falls apart:

With Social Security projected to run out of funds in the coming years, Bloomberg’s proposal also made mention of “consider [ing] options for preserving and strengthening Social Security’s long-term finances, while maintaining and enhancing benefits for the neediest recipients.”

Social Security is an agency of the U.S. federal government. Social Security’s long term finances are identical with the long-term finances of the U.S. government, i.e. infinite.

The U.S. government cannot run short of dollars. Who says so?

Well, Alan Greenspan says so:

Image result for alan greenspan
Greenspan

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Who else says so?

Well, Ben Bernanke says so:

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.”

Image result for ben bernanke
Bernanke

Who else says so?

A representative from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank says so:

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on (borrowing) to remain operational.”

So, if it is impossible for the U.S. government to run short of dollars, it makes no sense to say that an agency of the federal government, the Social Security Administration, can run short of dollars. It is just plain wrong.

Yes, it impossible for Social Security, an agency of the government, to run short of dollars, unless that is what the government wantsor wants you to believe.

So, Mr. Bloomberg, please spare us your “considering of options.” There’s nothing to consider. Simply fund Social Security with federal spending. Period.

Get rid of the phony and regressive and useless FICA tax. It pays for nothing.

Get rid of the phony and useless Social Security Trust Fund. It pays for nothing. It’s a mirage, the sole purpose of which is to fool the peons into accepting limitations and reductions in benefits and increases in taxes, while the rich, like you, Mr. Bloomberg, receive endless tax benefits. 

The article continues:

It also lays out a plan to “supplement” lower-income retirement options by creating a public savings option with automatic contributions for all income earners — similar to what South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar have also proposed.

“Americans who have worked for decades deserve the opportunity to retire without facing constant financial pressure,” Bloomberg said in a statement.

“As president, I will strengthen Social Security to allow seniors to do just that.”

Sounds good on the surface, except for that “automatic contributions for all income earners” part. Is this one of those “work-’til-you-drop” plans, where you get nothing unless you have a job?

The rich love those kinds of plans because the rich always think of the poor as lazy slackers who will take unfair advantage of handouts from the government. (Of course, the rich sweat from their hourly labors, and receive no breaks from the government. Right?)

However, the candidate was vague about how he’d pay for his ideas, especially with some estimates showing the retirement trust fund could become insolventsometime within the next 20 years.

Bloomberg’s rivals have released much greater detail on how they’d fund big-ticket changes, which include taxes on higher salaries and capital gains.

And there you have it. The false premise that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

But if federal taxes were necessary to fund federal spending, how did net deficit spending total well over $20 Trillion (with a big “T”) in the past 80 years? That’s $20 Trillion of spending that was done without taxes.

Apparently, Bloomberg is like the rest of the pols, afraid to say the truth, that the U.S. government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither uses nor needs tax revenue, as it creates new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a creditor.

Or, Bloomberg is like the rest of the pols, unwilling to say the truth, because he wants to prevent the poor from coming any closer to the rich — an example of Gap Psychology (the desire of those higher in any social hierarchy to separate themselves from those lower).

I had great hopes for Bloomberg, because much of his thinking is good, and he has the money to kick Trump’s butt.

I just wish, at long last, someone would tell the truth about Monetary Sovereignty, and cut the “How will you pay for it”? nonsense.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The “Bold Plan to Strengthen and Improve Social Security”

Social Security certainly needs “strengthening and improving.”

The amounts being paid are at starvation levels. The people who need it most often receive the least or none at all.

It contains an unnecessary “gambling” element; you must try to guess how long you will live, to determine when you should begin to receive benefits.

Image result for pickpocket
The sole purpose of FICA

Most of Social Security’s shortcomings are based on the myth that it is funded by FICA. It is not. FICA funds nothing — not Social Security, not Medicare, nothing.

FICA dollars disappear upon receipt by the Treasury. They do not enter those mythical “Social Security Trust Funds.”

They do not enter the economy. Federal spending is unrelated to tax collections, which is why there is a $20 trillion federal “debt.”

According to misleading statements by the federal government:

The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury.

They serve two purposes: (1) they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) they hold the accumulated assets.

These accumulated assets provide automatic spending authority to pay benefits. The Social Security Act limits trust fund expenditures to benefits and administrative costs.

The funds do provide an unnecessary accounting mechanism, but they do not hold anything. They aren’t even trust funds.

According to The Motley Fool there are three elements to a trust fund:

  1. The Grantor: The person who establishes a trust fund and contributes property to it.
  2. The Beneficiary: The person or people who will eventually benefit from the assets in the trust fund.
  3. The Trustee: The person or organization responsible for administering the trust as it was intended.

In the Social Security “trust funds,” the grantor is the federal government, which supposedly populates the funds, but uses your property.

The trustee is the federal government which supposedly manages the assets, except you make the biggest management decisions of all: When to begin taking benefits.

Here is how the Foundation for Economic Education describes it:

Though Congress legislated the Trust Fund, it is not the grantor, because a grantor puts his own property into a trust, which Congress did not do.

As for the Board of Trustees, who in a true trust would hold the legal title to its property,  (the Board not have) title to anything.

Nor do the purported trust “beneficiaries” have property in the fund to which they have an enforceable property right, as beneficiaries of a true trust do.

Board Chairman Altmeyer revealed that Social Security maintains no accounts containing funds earmarked for individuals, and never had.

Its accounts, then, are just record-keeping entities: file folders, not piggy banks.

Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson stated that under Social Security, “There is no contract created by which any person becomes entitled as a matter of right to sue the United States or to maintain a claim for any particular sum of money. Not only is there no contract implied but it is expressly negatived, because it is provided in the act, section 1104, that it may be repealed, altered, or amended in any of its provisions at any time.

And the government’s brief for the Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor (1960) argued that a current or prospective Social Security beneficiary does not acquire an interest in the Trust Fund—that is, a property right to its assets—and that the belief that Social Security benefits are “fully accrued property rights” is “wholly erroneous.” The Court concurred.

All this confirms the observations by Suffolk University Law School Professor Charles Rounds, a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel:

“Despite the term ‘trust,’ the Social Security system contains nothing that remotely resembles the common law trust.

“There is no segregation of assets, no equitable property rights, no private right of enforcement (all characteristics of the common law trust).

“It is merely a system of taxation and appropriation sprinkled with trust terms to hide its true nature.”

Demonstrating the uselessness of FICA, is the “tax holiday”:

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 temporarily reduced the amount of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) taxes owed by employees by two percentage points from 6.2% to 4.2%.  This reduction expired on December 31, 2012.

The “holiday” resulted in no change in Social Security benefits.

The purpose of the tax holiday was to stimulate economic growth, particularly favoring the lower- and middle-income Americans. Isn’t that something the government should do all the time?

To summarize, so far:

  1. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending, nor do they fund Social Security benefits. Federal spending does not rely on federal taxing.
  2. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. It creates dollars, ad hoc, by paying creditors.
  3. Just as the federal government cannot run short of dollars, no agency of the federal government can run short of dollars, unless Congress wills it.
  4. There are no Social Security trust funds. They are just bookkeeping devices.
  5. The non-existent “trust funds” cannot run short of dollars unless Congress wills it.

Keep these points in mind as you read excerpts from the following article:

Dean Baker: A Bold Plan to Strengthen and Improve Social Security Is What America Needs
Posted on November 9, 2019 by Yves Smith
By Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, where he is a senior economist.

The Social Security 2100 Act proposed by (Democrat) Connecticut Representative John Larson is getting closer to being passed by the House of Representatives. If it were to be approved and become law, it would both improve the program’s benefit structure and its financial picture.

The biggest item on the benefit side is that it guarantees a benefit of at least 125 percent of the poverty level for anyone who has worked for at least 30 years.

The logic here is straightforward; we should be able to ensure that anyone who has put in a full lifetime of work will not be in poverty in their retirement years.

An income of “At least 125 percent of the poverty level” does not guarantee anyone will not be in poverty, unless the government also can guarantee no one will live in a higher-cost area like New York, much of California, or many big American cities.

Further, why is it necessary for someone to have “worked for at least 30 years”?  Is there a moral code requiring labor for 30 years.

And what about people whose labor is not as a salaried employee? Does their labor not count?

The second big change on the benefit side is that it changes the cost-of-living formula for adjusting benefits by tying it to an index of consumption items purchased by the elderly rather than the overall Consumer Price Index.

The inflation adjustment for Social Security benefits has long been a major issue, with many politicians wanting to change the formula to reduce benefits.

Well, of course, that is what “many politicians” want. It is what the rich, motivated by Gap Psychology, pay them to “want.”

The third feature on benefits is a change in the formula that will increase average benefits for a bit less than $400 a year. This has provoked some opposition since this increase will go to not just lower-income seniors, but also middle-class and relatively affluent seniors.

The average benefit this year is just over $17,600, certainly not enough to maintain a middle-class lifestyle.

All this effort for a $400 per year benefit increase? And if $17,600 is “not enough to maintain a middle-class lifestyle” (It isn’t), would an increase of $400 to $18,000 be enough?

Hardly.

And now we come to the most economically ignorant part:

Rep. Larson proposes to cover this increase, as well as the projected Social Security shortfall, by having a gradual increase in the payroll tax and applying the tax to very high-income workers.

On the latter point, the income subject to the payroll tax is currently capped at just under $133,000. This means that someone earning millions of dollars each year would pay no more in Social Security taxes than someone earning $132,900.

Larson’s bill would make wages over $400,000 subject to the tax.

Note that the tax is on wages. But rich people receive most of their income from non-wage sources: Stocks, bonds, rents, etc.

And, as we have shown, taxes do not fund Social Security benefits. FICA taxes merely remove dollars from the economy, with a disproportionate coming from the pockets of the middle- and lower-income people.

In addition to being unnecessary and a burden on the economy, FICA is, and would remain, the most regressive tax in America.

No wonder the rich love it. FICA widens the Gap between the rich and the rest.

His other change is an increase in the payroll tax of 0.1 percentage point annually, split between workers and employers. This increase would continue for 24 years, for a total increase of 1.2 percentage points on both the worker and the employer.

While this is a middle tax increase, it is much smaller than increases we saw in the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. More importantly, if we can sustain decent wage growth, it is a tax that should be easy to bear.

It is an unnecessary tax that is especially “easy to bear” for the rich, for they pay so little of it.

The article continues:

After adjusting for prices, wages have risen 1.5 percent annually over the last five years. If we can continue this pace of wage growth, the Larson bill would take back much less than 10 percent of the pay increase in taxes.

Of course, wage growth may not continue, but then our focus should be on getting decent wage growth, not blocking revenue needed for Social Security.

One wonders what “take back” means. The wage increases come from the private sector, and the taxes go to the federal government. So the government would not be taking “back” anything. It simply would be taking.

The article ends with this bit of nonsense:

In short, this is a well-considered bill that would accomplish good for current and future retirees. Congress should move on it.

No, it is an ill-considered bill, put forth by a Congress that either is ignorant of economics, or has been paid by the rich to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest — or both.

There is nothing “bold” about the plan, and it does nothing to “strengthen” Social Security, which is infinitely strong, based on the federal government’s infinite ability to fund it.

A “bold” plan would be to institute the “Ten Steps to Prosperity” (below), beginning with Step #1, Eliminate FICA.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Why are the Democrats so cowardly?

The Democrats have a great plan. They want to expand Medicare to cover everyone, which could be accomplished very simply by lowering the eligibility age of the current Medicare plan from 65 to 0.

The hard work already has been done. The process has been created. The government, the hospitals, and the doctors all know how to handle the paperwork. Everything is in place.

Just lower the eligibility age, cover everyone, and go.

No need for Medicaid, ACA, Medigap or Parts A, B, C, etc., etc. No deductibles. Just one simple plan for every man, woman, and child in America.

And certainly no need to tell everyone they will be forced to give up their current plans. Simply offer Medicare to everyone, and let nature take its course.

But no. The Democrats get all hung up trying to answer one simple question, “How will you pay for it?”

The correct answer, the honest answer, would be: “Federal deficit spending.”

1. Federal financing is not like state and local government financing. The federal government, unlike state and local governments, is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

The federal government never can run short of dollars. It could fund any Medicare for All plan with the push of a computer key.

2. Unlike state and local government deficits, the federal deficit and federal debt are not a burden on anyone. They do not burden the federal government; they do not burden taxpayers.

Unlike state and local taxes, which fund state and local government spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

3. Contrary to a popular myth, federal deficit spending does not, and never has, caused inflation. Inflation, a general increase in prices, is not caused by too much money. Inflation is caused by shortages of food and/or fuel.

Those historical photos showing people carrying paper money certificates in wheelbarrows, fail to show the actual cause of the inflation: Food and fuel shortages. The printing of those certificates was an ineffectual response to inflation, not the cause.

One of the surest cures for any inflation is government deficit spending to acquire and distribute the scarce food and fuel.

Sadly, those Democrats who know all this to be true, are too cowardly to explain it to the public. Instead, they go along with ridiculous articles like the following:

The Democratic plan for a 42% national sales tax
Rick Newman, Senior Columnist, Yahoo Finance — October 28, 2019

If you’re a Democrat who supports “Medicare for All,” pick your poison.

You can ruin your political career and immolate your party by imposing a ruinous new sales tax, a gargantuan income tax hike or a surtax on corporate income that would wreck thousands of businesses.

This is the cost of bold plans.

Or better yet, you can tell the truth about federal financing, and tell everyone who will listen that Medicare for All will be financed the same way as “Military for All,” as well as Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House.

They all are funded by federal deficit spending.

There is no FICA tax supposedly paying for the Military, the Congress, the Supreme Court, or the White House. There is no tax supposedly paying for Congressional health care, Congressional travel, and Congressional lunches.

The reason why there is no FICA tax, or any other tax, dedicated to paying for these expenses is very simple. Federal taxes pay for nothing. Those dollars deducted from your paycheck, and those dollars you “voluntarily” send to the U.S. Treasury are not needed or used for anything.

They do not fund Medicare. They do not fund Social Security. They do not fund the military, or the Congress, or the Supreme Court, or the White House, or any other of the myriad federal initiatives.

Federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt.

Here is the A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies. You don’t pay for any of them. Even if all federal tax collections totaled $0, the federal government could fund all these activities.

Supporters of Medicare for All, the huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone.

Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending.

That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.

Right. IF (big “if”) Medicare for All was paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to double.

That is exactly why Medicare for All should not be paid for by taxing people.

It should be paid for via federal deficit spending, which would cost you nothing. Yes, for a Monetarily Sovereign government, lunch really can be free.

Oh, are you worried that the so-called federal “debt” would be an unsustainable “ticking time bomb”? If so, you’re in bad company, for that is exactly what phony “experts” said way back in 1940, and they’ve been saying it every year thereafter.

In 1940, the federal debt was only $40 Billion, and it was a “ticking time bomb,” according to Robert M. Hanes, president of the American Bankers Association.

Today, the federal debt exceeds $22 Trillion, a gigantic 55,000% increase, and that time bomb still is ticking. And the country still is here. And the government still is sustaining.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) spelled out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money.

A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy.

A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them.

Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody.

Or, the government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon.

Or here’s a good one: Just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.

Or do none of the above, and simply create the money by federal spending, just as the federal government has been doing since 1940, the year Robert M. Hanes had his meltdown.

We’ve written about the CRFB several times before. They are mouthpieces for the very rich, who, because of Gap Psychology, do not want the middle class to receive federal benefits.

The CRFB comes up with all sorts of scare tactics to make you believe federal financing is like state and local financing or personal financing. So they print big deficit numbers and say, in effect, “Oooohh. Look at these big numbers. Aren’t they big?

The best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting.

Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage.

It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.

If by “best idea,” Mr. Newman means “another bad idea,” I’d agree. So would the voters.

It’s possible that Medicare for All would cover health care for more people at a lower total cost than we spend now, meaning the average cost per person would go down.

Yes, the cost would be lower, especially if the people are asked to pay nothing for health care, and it all was provided free by the government — and especially if we eliminated the useless, harmful FICA tax, the single, worst, most regressive, pays-for-nothing tax in America.

The problem is transitioning from what we have now to whatever Medicare for all would be.

And it’s a giant problem, like crossing the Mississippi River without a bridge or a boat. The other side might look great but you’ll die before you get there.

The author, Mr. Newman, wants you to believe that having created the entire Medicare program, now simply cutting the eligibility age from 65 to 0 is an insurmountable problem.

That’s like saying that after having built from scratch, a 5,000 square foot house, changing the knob on the front door is ” . . . a giant problem, like crossing the Mississippi River without a bridge or a boat.” Pulleeze.

Warren, Sanders and others tout the virtues of this magical health care program without explaining what it would cost.

Sanders has at least suggested some possible ways to pay for it, including premiums paid by enrollees, a wealth tax on millionaires and income tax rates as high as 52%.

Warren has been cagier, saying only that under her plan “costs” would go down for middle-class families. Under pressure to explain, Warren has pledged to come up with a financing plan soon.

Now, maybe she doesn’t have to.

So again I ask, why are Warren, Sanders, and the rest of the Democrats so cowardly? When all other options lead to failure, why not simply tell the truth?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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 the rest.