–If President Obama really wants to reduce gun violence . . .

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.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.
=================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Jesus: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
In a June 22, 2011 post titled, “Actually, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t legalize private gun ownership, but so what? There is a solution to gun violence,” I wrote:

Chicago was home to one of the most murderous neighborhoods in America. It was called “Cabrini Green,” ironically named after Mother Cabrini. For three weeks, in 1981, then Mayor Jane Byrne, moved into Cabrini Green. She was surrounded by police. For that period, murders ended, demonstrating that sufficient numbers of police greatly can reduce the murder rate in even the worst area.

I also wrote:

I suggest that Congress and the individual states pass an “aid and abet” law that reads: “If a gun of any type and/or ammunition for that gun, is used in the commission of a felony, the manufacturer, distributor, importer and/or supplier of that gun and/or ammunition, shall be liable, civilly and criminally, in equal measure with the perpetrator of the felony.”</

I was wrong, or at least partially wrong, for focusing on the penal side of gun control without acknowledging the fundamental cause of gun violence.

Chicago, my hometown, notoriously has suffered from gun violence, most of it in its south and west sides, where the majority are lower income people, and where gun ownership is highest. Although more police are concentrated in these areas, their presence has not been sufficient to stop gun crime, or even slow it to reasonable levels.

Near Chicago, you’ll find a series of suburbs, together known as the “North Shore.” Aside from being north of, and close to, Chicago, they share two features: They are affluent and they are low crime, especially low violent crime.

The primary crimes seem to be exceeding the speed limit, DUI, illegal drug sales in high school and burglary. Gun crime is so rare as to rate headlines in the Chicago newspapers. In Wilmette, the southernmost of the North Shore villages, most burglaries are committed by people coming up from Evanston, a far less affluent suburb, which has a far higher crime rate.

The people on the North Shore are not killing each other. Drive-by shootings are unheard of. Very few people feel the need to carry a gun on the street, and “Stand your ground” is not an issue. Why?

The pattern is clear and undeniable: Gun crime is most often committed by people from the lower economic groups. The other pattern that is clear and undeniable: Despite NRA claims, gun ownership does not prevent gun crime; in fact, gun ownership exacerbates the problem.

In short, gun crime is due to the income/wealth gaps between the economic groups, and the lower the group, the more gun crime it will suffer.

Although periodic mass shootings in schools attract national headlines, those are not symptomatic of daily gun crime. Those mass shootings are symptomatic of individual mental breakdowns; gun crime is symptomatic of financial need – two completely unrelated problems.

When the NRA demagogs claim that arming school teachers is the best way to protect our children, they simply are wrong, and they know it. Adding guns consistently and predictably increases gun crime. Homes, neighborhoods and towns that have guns are more likely to encounter gun violence.

The NRA has the statistics, but they are paid to ignore or to lie about them. Rather than spending millions to convince America that more guns = more safety, the NRA would do its members a great service by focusing on the fundamental reason for gun crime: The gap.

It is the gap in income, the gap in wealth, the gap in education, the gap in health, the gap in food and shelter and in hope and opportunity. Those are the gaps that cause gun violence.

When President Obama and Congress eliminate jobs and cut spending on Social Security, Medicaid and other social programs, they essentially are creating criminals and putting guns in their hands. The real criminals are those who voted for deficit reduction, and those who vote for its continuance.

The focus should not be on gun ownership or gun registration or background checks or shotguns in school or on the 2nd Amendment. The focus should not be on the guns at all. Perhaps the NRA is onto something when they say, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” The focus should be on people.

If President Obama really wants to reduce gun violence, he will focus on increasing deficit spending for social programs to reduce the gaps.

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

–Demagogs, guns and kangaroos

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.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.
=====================================================================
Jesus: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Those who appeal to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of a population in order to gain power are known as “demagogs.” They call for immediate action, often counter-productive, to cure a national crisis, often distorted or exaggerated. They create and accuse scapegoats. They appeal to the public’s lowest common denominator.

In that regard, I give you Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association, who says this:

“Our individual liberty is the very essence of America. It is what makes America unique. If you aren’t free to protect yourself — when government puts its thumb on that freedom — then you aren’t free at all.

“But they insult, denigrate and call us crazy for holding fast to that belief. In their distorted view of the world, they are smarter than we are. They are special and more worthy than we are. They know better than we do and if we dare disagree, they scorn us, demonize us and try to shut us up. We will not be demonized, we will not be silent.”

Of which historical leader do these paranoid rantings remind you? Think about it.

“There isn’t a mom or a dad anywhere who wouldn’t feel better seeing a police car in the parking lot when they drop their kids off at school. But the powerful elites, who will always have their own security, called our proposal absurd.

Notwithstanding the fact that “a police car in the parking lot” is not at all like arming teachers, in Wayne’s world, the solution to gun violence is more guns.

NRA-commissioned study supports having armed guards in schools
By Peter Finn, Published: April 2

A 225-page study commissioned by the National Rifle Association has endorsed and amplified the gun rights group’s immediate response to the mass killing in Newtown, Conn.: that all schools in the United States should have police or armed staff members trained to confront a shooter.

Former congressman Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.), who led the $1 million study, said schools could use “school resource officers” — typically local police trained to work in schools — or arm teachers or administrators designated by school boards or superintendents.

The report does not provide specific recommendations for the ratio of armed personnel to students or what kind of guns school personnel should carry. Hutchinson said those are local decisions, but weapons could include handguns, shotguns or semiautomatic rifles.

Just what we need in our schools: Handguns, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. Visualize firing a shotgun in a school. But why stop at semi-automatic rifles? Why not fully automatic machine guns? Isn’t that also part of “freedom”?

For sane people, there is a better way:

Australia’s gun controls a political template for the U.S.

CANBERRA (Reuters)– The battle for gun control in Australia, after the country’s worst massacre in which 35 people were shot dead, was risky both personally and politically. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard alienated a large part of his conservative, rural base and was almost thrown from office.

But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides.

“Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair…I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative,” wrote Howard.

“It was the right thing to do, but people had to be persuaded of it. And this is why our friends in the United States … should now consider seriously taking it in a big way to the public square.”

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since. Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.

But some Australian gun owners, like hunter Stephen O’Donnell, still oppose Howard’s gun control laws O’Donnell, a license kangaroo shooter, can only use a single shell, bolt-action rifle, limiting his ability to control mobs of kangaroos. “If I could have a semi-automatic, that would be a much more efficient way of doing it. You could take multiple targets a lot quicker,” he said.

Australia had its “Wayne LaPierres,” its demagogs, who convinced the populace that the only path to safety and freedom was to own a big gun. But Australia’s politicians were brave enough to say what obviously, clearly and factually is the truth: More guns = more killings. Fewer guns = fewer killings.

So, what should America do? Hmmm . . .

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Looking down. The disdain for those below us, Ireland version.

We humans admire and envy those who have more. Though we may protest, we subconsciously or consciously try to emulate the rich and famous. They set society’s standards, and one of the standards they set is the desire to widen the gap between “us” and those “below us.”

Were there no gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the gap, the richer they are. The middle classes feel that way about the poorer classes, and one common belief is that in some way, the poorer must be at fault for their poverty.

They are lazy. They are ignorant. They are criminal. They are unmannerly. They look, smell, dress and act “wrong,” and if only they were more like us . . . If only.

The real winners in the gap widening exercise are the super-rich. The rest of us are pawns in their game. They allow us to do their dirty work.

Some time ago, I saw the movie, “Les Miserables,” the Liam Neeson verson. No singing and dancing, here. It made a great impression on me, as I had been too lazy to read the 1500 page book by Victor Hugo, the well-known preface of which is:

“So long as there shall exist, by virtue of law and custom, decrees of damnation pronounced by society, artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth, and adding the element of human fate to divine destiny; so long as the three great problems of the century—the degradation of man through pauperism, the corruption of woman through hunger, the crippling of children through lack of light —are unsolved; so long as social asphyxia is possible in any part of the world;—in other words, and with a still wider significance, so long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use.”

The following article reminded of the poverty created by the dishonest and greedy richest class, and enforced upon the people by the dishonest and greedy somewhat-less-rich classes:

Irish News
31 March 2013

A single adult will be allowed less than €30 a week to participate in sports activities and social events such as going to the cinema, according to austere insolvency guidelines.

Stop here and think about that sentence. Some powerful people have decided how much pleasure less powerful people are allowed.

An estimated 100,000 households will be told to live in what Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin has described as the “fiscal equivalent of penal servitude” for between three and seven years.

Critically, the guidelines state that any decision to be made about the “reasonableness or otherwise” of living expenses under 15 separate categories will be a matter for “the creditors” to decide on a case-by-case basis.

If you are in debt, you will beg your creditors for their measure of mercy. They, from on high, will judge what level of mercy you deserve.

Banks, therefore, will have the final say on what thousands of heavily indebted individuals and families will be allowed to spend on what are widely accepted to be household basics if they wish to avail of debt relief, settlement or personal insolvency.

Under the guidelines, a single adult is to be prescribed per month: food (€274.04), clothing (€35.73), personal care (€33.73), health (€31.09), savings and contingencies (€43.33).

This is under the theory that you not only are at fault for being in debt, but your indebtedness is proof you have a child’s mind, and cannot be trusted to run your own affairs. Instead, omnipotent strangers will run your life, your spouses life and the lives of your children.

In the Sunday Independent today, Labour Senator John Whelan writes: “How this has got through a Cabinet, much less a Cabinet with Labour ministers, is beyond me.

The Irish Labour party is somewhat analogous the U.S. Democratic party, professing to be liberal but in actuality having adopted the cruelty toward the poor of the conservatives. Sound familiar, Mr. Obama?

“It will not only be the final nail in the coffin of so many people’s lives and hopes and aspirations, but it will also be a final nail for the Labour Party.

“They demonstrate that the despairing cries of many people have clearly fallen on deaf ears. We have lost our way as a party. People feel we have abandoned them. We abandoned the disabled and the carers and low income families dependent on child benefit.

“It is high time – and past it – for senior Labour people, long-serving and experienced, to stand up and be counted. We promised and pledged to protect the most vulnerable. I can’t see how we can stand over this.”

Those very words could have been spoken about Barack Obama and his followers. On one side of his mouth he pledged to protect the most vulnerable, while the other side of his mouth wants to cut social spending, negatively impacting the 99%, while widening the gap between them and the 1%.

Fianna Fail finance spokesman Michael McGrath said: “If the domestic economy is to recover, people will need to have reasonable levels of income.”

To grow the economy, people must have more spending money. Simple and obvious. Yet, the conservatives and the compliant faux-liberals, have convinced the 99% that having less money is beneficial.

People who wish to avail of the new personal insolvency legislation will have their spending restricted not only on food, clothing, personal care, health, savings and contingencies, but also on household goods, services and energy as well as communications, education, transport, insurance, housing and childcare as well as what is called “social inclusion and participation”.

The Insolvency Service of Ireland adds that its model “does not allow for the cost of a holiday”; only €2,000 is to be allowed for the cost of a car, but it will be prohibited if an applicant lives in an urban area with “adequate public transport links.”

In “Les Miserables,” starving people were reduced to begging in the streets. They were disdained by those above — inn owners, shop keepers, factory owners, who in turn, were disdained by the aristocracy.

Michael McGrath said guidelines would create a “debtors’ gaol” where more than 100,000 families will live “a subsistence-style existence” for up to seven years.

Seven years? Perhaps seven and seventy. When does it end, and how does it end?

The U.S. Republicans are the party of caste-system contempt — contempt for the poor, contempt for non-white, contempt for those whose education is lacking, contempt for gays, contempt for women, contempt for foreigners, contempt for those whose religiosity is “insufficient,” contempt for those “weak” enough to care about people rather than caring about the flag.

But the Democrats, ah the Democrats — the party that created Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and civil rights activism and legislation, what of them? They have disappeared.

Today, in our two-party system, we have Republicans and Republicans-lite.

Compassion has disappeared. The lost American dream was for silly dreamers, not for cold-hearted “patriots.”

Ireland has an excuse, of sorts. Years ago, it surrendered the single most valuable asset any government can have: Its Monetary Sovereignty. Today, predictably, it is dying, ruled by bankers and the rich.

The U.S. government still has its Monetary Sovereignty, but at the behest of the rich, it pretends it is like a euro nation. It pretends its misnamed “debt” is “unsustainable,” and that the banks, not the people, must be protected.

Way back, on June 5, 2005, I spoke before Randy Wray’s class at UMKC, when I said, “Because of the euro, no euro nation can control its own money supply. The euro is the worst economic idea since the recession-era, Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The economies of European nations are doomed by the euro.”

Little did I know then, that the economy of America would be doomed by the same mentality that created the euro. In the eurozone, including Ireland, austerity is the inevitable result of monetary non-sovereignty. Austerity begets more austerity and a deepening death spiral of economic despair.

In America, austerity is the result of the cruelty and greed of those “above.” It appeals to our baser instincts. It allows us to feel superior, while we grow more inferior.

So we join the 1% in punishing the 99% for being members of the 99%. If you would like to see the future of America, look to Ireland. Look to Les Miserables.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Buffett, Obama and the taking of the American public

As readers of this blog know, the primary goal of the super-rich is to widen the income gap between them and the middle, so as to increase their power.

Readers also know federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. The federal government is not like state and local governments, and not even like euro-nation governments.

State and local government taxes do pay for state and local government spending. These governments are not Monetarily Sovereign. By contrast, the U.S. government is sovereign over its currency, the dollar.

Being Monetarily Sovereign, the U.S. government has the unlimited ability to pay any bills and never can run short of dollars. If all federal taxes fell to $0 or rose to $100 trillion, neither event would affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to pay its bills, forever.

What then, should one make of the following?

For Immediate Release:
Contact: John Kartch, jkartch@atr.org, 1 april 2013 202-785-0266

Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway investors will voluntarily pay “Buffett Rule” tax

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett today announced he had written a donation check to the U.S. Treasury in order to personally comply with “The Buffett Rule.” In addition, all investors in Berkshire Hathaway will have 30 percent of their capital gains and dividends withheld by the company and sent directly to Washington.

After which, those Buffett investors are free to file amended tax returns, and get all their money back. We call that the “Romney Ruse,” commemorating Mitt’s fake income tax returns, in which he claimed not to have taken all his charitable deductions, but was free to file amended returns.

Championed by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, the Buffett Rule is a proposed 30 percent tax on all income over $1 million.

Translation: A “donation check” would have only one economic effect: To remove dollars from the U.S. economy, and thereby be recessionary. Mr. Buffett’s “heroic” effort would hurt America, while making him seem like a hero, which presumably would be the purpose.

But why would Obama be thrilled about it? Because there would be another effect. Read on.

The Oracle of Omaha will personally unveil a three-foot by six-foot donation check at an afternoon press conference on the Treasury steps. According to a statement released in advance of the event, Buffett said, “As I wrote in the New York Times, ‘My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.’ Today, I, Warren Buffett, am personally getting serious about shared sacrifice.”

The White House praised Buffett’s action. “Let me be clear,” said President Obama. “This puts to rest any GOP-driven allegations that Warren Buffett was a hypocrite on the tax issue or was just engaging in a bit of moral preening.”

Translation: Standing in front of reporters, bragging about a big check he has written, is not “moral-preening” in Obama-world. It alludes to a clever scheme. Keep reading.

Because the federal tax code is already steeply progressive, the Buffett Rule, if enacted, would raise just $31 billion in tax revenue over the next decade, according to the Joint Tax Committee. To put that in context, that is less than one-tenth of one percent of federal spending over the next ten years.

Translation: The self-aggrandizing publicity would be priceless. But this whole “pay my share” idea is more than publicity.

Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or by email atjkartch@atr.org.

Translation: Actually, this act by the Oracle (and we use the word “act” in all its meanings) is a tax increase, albeit tiny, but Americans for Tax Reform hasn’t yet figured that out.

You might think the Oracle doesn’t understand the difference between Monetarily Sovereign and monetarily non-sovereign. You also may think the President, Congress, the Counsel of Economic Advisers — not one of these 1000+ experts — understands fundamental economics.

But don’t be deceived. Something deeper actually is happening.

Buffett’s apparently heroic surrender of dollars to the government would allow Obama to rationalize his desired cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and all the dozens of benefits to the middle class.

That is what Obama’s incessant urging for “balance” means: Take a bit from the rich and a lot from the middle, the purpose being to widen the gap between them.

Bottom line: Buffett would get the saintly public relations he craves, while giving up the relatively few dollars he wouldn’t miss. Obama could cite this great sacrifice by the rich to justify an even greater sacrifice by the middle. The rich would be thrilled that the gap widens, giving them even greater power over the rest of us.

One day, Buffett and his super-rich pals will give Obama that big Obama library in Chicago, great speaking gigs, and lots of money for his family. Think: Bill Clinton.

So everyone would be happy — except for the 99% who are not among the rich, and who will see their federal benefits fall. But who cares about them? They aren’t the big campaign donors and they won’t provide Obama and his family with the big library he wants and with those six-figure speeches.

The Buffett Rule; the Romney Ruse; the Clinton Con; the Obama Obfuscation. The American people are taken with these guys. Yes, that’s the word: “Taken.”

H.L. Mencken: “No one . . . has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: