Unleashing the guard dog: The misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


A story: Imagine that you live in a dangerous neighborhood, where robberies, burglaries, and other attacks are common.Image result for leashed vicious dog

So you buy a big rottweiler, or a pit bull, or some other kind of “attack” dog. And everywhere you go, you keep this dog with you for protection.

You take your dog for licensed obedience training because that is your town’s new law. And you keep your dog on a leash because that also is your town’s new law:

“A licensed, well-trained, supervised, and leashed dog, being necessary to the security of a town resident, the right of the people to keep and walk dogs, shall not be infringed.”

And indeed, should you fail to take your dog for licensed, obedience training, and should you fail to keep your dog on a leash, you could be arrested, fined, and your dog taken from you.

As a result of the new “dog law,” you and many other good people of your town buy licensed, trained dogs, which always are kept on leashes, and the incidence of robberies, burglaries, and other attacks declines.

It is true that some bad people in your town buy unlicensed, untrained dogs, which are not kept on leashes. And these dogs have attacked people.

But, there always are law-breakers in every town, and that fact is no reason not to have laws. 

On balance, the registered-training, control, and leash laws have helped protect the community.

Sadly, in your town, the local, conservative, “originalist” judges rule that in the law, the words, “A licensed, well-trained, controlled, and leashed dog, being necessary to the security of a town resident” have no meaning.

So now, anyone can own vicious, untrained attack dogs, and let them out unleashed and unsupervised.

And as could be expected, the number of dog attacks — including attacks by multiple dogs — increases dramatically. Many people are terribly injured. Many people die.

Which brings me to this article:

The Second Amendment has failed America
By, Joel Mathis

Enough. No more. Stop.

The gun massacres in America are now coming so quickly, one after another, that it’s impossible to process our grief and anger before the next one occurs.

There is a sickness in our land, and it cries out for an immediate, righteous, and even radical response.

And we can start by understanding and declaring that the Second Amendment is a failure.

It’s not just a failure because guns are used so widely, and to such ill effect. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a failure because the right to bear arms — the right it so famously defends — is supposed to protect Americans from violence. Instead, it endangers them.

As the conservative National Review noted last year, “supporters of a right to bear arms have rooted their arguments in a murky pre-constitutional right to self-defense.”

The right to bear arms is based on an old understanding in English common law: If somebody attacks you, you have the right to protect yourself.

There’s nothing controversial about that, is there?

The language of self-defense was made explicit in D.C. vs Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court ruling cementing individual gun rights.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

We interrupt Mathis’s article to explain that Scalia was a self-described “originalist.” That means he claimed to believe:

The interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be.

For two hundred years, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to mean exactly what the framers said (“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . .)

During WWII, we used to have well-regulated militias in the United States. My father belonged to one. He didn’t own a gun himself, but the militia owned them.

The purpose of those militias was to back up the army in protecting the nation, not as “defense within the home,” which is the job of the local police.

(The irony and falsity of the “home defense” theory is that statistically, if you have a gun in your home, you are more likely to be shot than if you don’t.)

Then in 2008, the conservative arm of the Supreme Court, led by self-annointed “originalist” and famous gun lover, Justice Antonin Scalia, decided that though the framers explicitly referenced “a well-regulated militia,” they really didn’t mean it.

And they really didn’t mean “the security of a free state,” either. Scalia and the other originalists decided that what the framers really said had nothing to do with a militia or a free state.

Rather, what they supposedly meant is: “Any boob who can fog a mirror has the right not only to own guns in his home, but to carry them in the streets. No regulated militia or security of the free state is necessary.

(One wonders why the framers were not wise enough to say it that way.)

The result of this decision has been mayhem, with not just daily shootings, but daily mass shootings. 

I suggest Scalia’s tombstone be engraved:

“Here lies Antonin Gregory Scalia, who has abetted the mass murder of thousands, which continues to this day.”

Continuing Mathis’s article:

But in reality, guns are used far more often on offense, by bad guys who have easy access to deadly firepower in unthinkable quantities.

On balance, guns do more harm in America than good. The damages are easily measured, while the benefits are mostly theoretical and rare.

This means the Second Amendment, as currently observed, doesn’t actually work under the terms of its own logic.

In recognizing this, America doesn’t have to throw away a formal right to self-defense, or eliminate guns entirely.

But it’s time to reexamine Second Amendment rights with a bigger emphasis on the amendment’s underlying justification, which is to help Americans be and feel safe, and less emphasis on the right to carry a deadly weapon. 

Despite Scalia and his conservative accomplices, we do have a few laws about guns. We disallow fully automatic guns. (Why? Where is that in the 2nd Amendment?)

And we disallow felons from having guns. And we require a minimal amount of licensing. (Where does the Constitution state those restrictions?).

At any rate, the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not “to help Americans feel and be safe,” but rather to protect the “free state,” i.e to protect America.

Now that a disingenuous Supreme Court has completely perverted the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, where do we go from here?

It probably is too late to start over. The above-mentioned boobs already have millions of guns.

But if the right wing Supreme Court would allow, we could follow the entire 2nd Amendment, not just the last few words.

Perhaps the state National Guards could function as the militia, and they could dole out guns only as needed for the security of America — just as the 2nd Amendment says.

Additionally, two possibilities are these laws:

1. Any person who commits a felony while carrying a gun, shall be sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life, in addition to the term for the felony itself.

2. Any provider of a gun that is used in a felony shall have the same criminal and civil liability as the actual perpetrator of the felony. (This latter is similar to the “dram shop” laws for liquor.)

At a minimum, we should stop pretending that the 2nd Amendment says what it clearly doesn’t and allow communities to enact laws that will reduce the killing.

See: Do guns really kill people?

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


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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

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

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

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

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

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

9. Federal ownership of all banks

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

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


The Power of the Partial Solution

Another mass murder with a gun. It’s starting to become ho-hum. The 5-stage process goes like this:

Image result for gun violence
Just another day in America

  1. Someone shoots a lot of people.
  2. In the ensuing outrage, demands are made that “something must be done.
  3. Gun control laws are suggested
  4. The NRA, America’s paid proxies for the gun manufacturers, says that no law will prevent mass shootings.
  5. The bribed politicians pretend to argue; columnists speculate; then all agree that mass shootings cannot be prevented, so nothing is done.

Soon after, begin again from #1.

It’s happening more frequently now, and ironically, the more often it happens, the more inured we become to tragedy.

NRA tells you, there is no gun problem,
but the solution to the problem is more guns.

The NRA then says there are no acceptable solutions, because we cannot prevent all gun killings in America.  For every proposed solution, someone will claim, “That solution wouldn’t have stopped this [named] crime.

In truth, there are no total solutions to any crime. Still, we have laws.

Laws against speeding do not prevent all speeding. Laws against fraud do not prevent all fraud. Laws against burglary do not prevent all burglary.

All laws are only partial solutions.

Because no law will eliminate all gun killings, we must be willing to accept laws that at least will reduce gun killings.

We must be willing to search for and to accept partial solutions.

In evaluating proposed laws, we must ask:

  • Will this law have a net positive effect? That is, will it do more good than harm?
  • Is it feasible? That is, can the law be enforced by the police and the courts?
  • Is it fair? That is, does it apply regardless of income, age, or ethnic background?

Last year we published the post titled, “Five partial solutions to gun violence.” Because we now are entering stage #5 (above), perhaps we should review those partial solutions, which are listed at the end of this post.

We have a choice. We can take the actions described below, which will not completely eliminate shootings. But they will save thousands of American lives, while reducing the urge to buy guns for “self-defense.”

Or, we can take no action, and know full well that the gun killings will continue and probably increase, as more people buy more guns to defend themselves against their fellow Americans.

Yes, we have a choice. We only have to demand it.

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


Five Partial Solutions to Gun Violence

No, there are no 100% solutions to gun violence.

But, yes, we can institute certain partial solutions, greatly diminishing the deaths and woundings that occur every day.

1. Interpret the Constitution properly.  Our founders placed the words, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . . ” at the beginning of the 2nd Amendment for a reason. Clearly, they understood that allowing everyone to have all kinds of “arms,” without limitation, was dangerous to the public.

We are a nation of laws. Regulation always has been and always will be, the key to public safety.

Even gun enthusiasts would be first to admit that the public should be prevented, by regulation from “keeping and bearing” certain “arms”: 50 caliber machine guns or bazookas or cannons or poison gas, or surface-to-air missiles, or atomic arms, etc.

So the question is not one of regulation vs. no regulation, but merely what kind of regulation?

And the Constitution tells us the answer to that question: “A well-regulated militia.” That is the kind of regulation needed. Guns should be under the control of well-regulated militias. They can be federal militias or even state militias, for those states more addicted to guns, but guns are too important not to be regulated.

2. Federalize gun manufacture and importation The misrepresentation of the Constitution, the bribing of Congress by the gun manufacturers and the gun importers and the NRA, the propaganda telling us that guns make us safer, despite daily evidence they don’t — these all are funded by one motive: The profit motive. Eliminate the gun manufacturer’s and importer’s profit motive, and the elements that put too many guns into the hands of too many people disappear.

3. Apply the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)laws to gangs. A great many gun killings are committed by street gang members. Entire neighborhoods, even towns, are held hostage by the fear of turf wars, drive-by shootings, revenge shootings, and robberies. Street gangs are criminal enterprises under RICO.

Under RICO, a person who has committed “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an “enterprise”.

Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count.

In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.

Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.

Some patterns of activity include:

It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt. (Bottom line: Every gang member does this, so merely belonging to a gang is considered a crime.)

. . . to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. (For example, if your gang deals in drugs, guns or women, you, as a member of the gang, are liable.)

. . . to conspire to violate any of the provisions [of the law]. (Even talking about breaking the law with your fellow gang members is a felony.)

Your police know who the gang-bangers are. They have lists.  The police could round up many of them,  tomorrow.

But rather than arresting gang-bangers, again and again, only to see them let them soon back on the streets to shoot someone, we can break up the gangs and take the gangsters off the streets permanently.

4. Additional penalties for gun carry during a felony Enact a law that essentially says: If you carry a gun while committing a felony, twenty years automatically will be added to the term of the felony itself.

5. Tax gun ownership.  Governments tax personal property, and the amount of tax is determined by the type of property.Place a heavy, annual tax on guns. Make gun ownership expensive.The ostensible purpose of the tax would be to pay for the widespread death, injury and damage to this nation and to its citizens, caused by guns.Anyone caught with a gun, for which no tax has been paid, would be subject to jail, and have the gun confiscated and destroyed.

Denying that guns are a danger to innocent people, while claiming that guns protect “good guys,” as the greedy gun manufacturers tell us, simply hasn’t worked, cannot work and never will work.

The quote, often misattributed to Albert Einstein applies here: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

Rather than foolishly continuing to repeat failure, common sense must prevail.

There is no way to identify in advance, the so-called “good guys” who should have guns. A “good guy” can become a “bad guy” in an instant, given some minor provocation or no provocation at all.

Even many mass killers have been seeming “good guys,” by any of the myriad definitions.

The only solution is over time to make guns harder and harder to get and use, by a five-pronged offensive:

  1. Interpret the Constitution properly
  2. Remove the profit motive from gun manufacture and sales
  3. Eliminate gangs via the RICO statutes
  4. More jail time for gun-carry during felonies. Get them off the street.
  5. Make gun ownership expensive

Anyone, sincerely hoping to reduce gun violence will renounce the insatiable gun manufacturer’s profit-motivated propaganda, and recognize that for a safer society we must begin to reduce the number of guns in the hands of the populace.

There are many things we are not allowed, yet we agree to the prohibitions, because we understand we must give up something to gain something. That is what being in a society means.

We must give up the unquestioned attachment to guns to achieve a safer society. Other nations have done it. We Americans can do it, too.

Does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence?

Yesterday, we published “Five Solutions to Gun Violence.”

It contained five proposals, each of which if implemented, would reduce gun violence — if that is what the American public wants.

The title question is, “does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence,” or does it prefer to address small side problems, while pretending it is doing something about the main cause of gun violence?

The “more-guns = less-gun-violence” myth is akin to “more-anger = fewer-anger-crimes,” or “more-greed = fewer-crimes-of-greed.”

Reality doesn’t work that way.

If you really want to make sure someone stays lost give him a bad roadmap. Sending him on a wild goose chase will waste his time and energy far better than simply doing nothing.

In that vein, today I saw an article titled,“Omar Mateen, an ‘Americanized Guy,’ Shows Threat of Lone Terrorists” Here are a few excerpts to show how far off course we have been sent:

Omar Mateen had been on a terrorism watch list for incendiary comments he once made to co-workers at a local courthouse.

But the F.B.I. soon ended its examination of Mr. Mateen after finding no evidence that he posed a terrorist threat to his community.

Thus, we see the beginnings of the “blame the FBI” bad roadmap. The notion is that if only the FBI had done its job, Mateen would have been prevented from killing all those people in Orlando.

That is what the gun manufacturers want you to believe. They want you to waste your time, energy, and intellect trying to find ways to make the FBI better able to stop gun violence. They want you to follow a bad roadmap.

The government investigation could take months, but an early examination of Mr. Mateen’s life reveals a hatred of gay people.

This is the second bad roadmap — the search for reasons why this individual did what he did.

The hope is that if we knew he killed those people because he hated gay people, we could prevent future killings by . . . by what?

By somehow convincing bigots that gay people are good people? Is that the plan upon which we will expend thousands of hours and millions of words?

He was a man who could be charming, loved Afghan music and enjoyed dancing, but he was also violently abusive.

Family members said he was not overly religious, but he was rigid and conservative in his view that his wife should remain mostly at home.

The F.B.I. director said on Monday that Mr. Mateen had once claimed ties to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah — two radical groups violently opposed to each other.

He could act like the NRA’s mythical “good guy,” and he also could act like a “bad guy.” No news there. That describes millions of Americans. Where does that lead us in any effort to reduce gun violence?

Investigators now face the question of how much the killings were the act of a deeply disturbed man, as his former wife and others described him, and how much he was driven by religious or political ideology.

Let’s say that after wasting months of tedious investigation, we conclude he was “deeply disturbed” (whatever that means). What then? How does “deeply disturbed” get us one inch closer to preventing the next gun murder?

Arrest all the “deeply disturbed” people, forever?

Unlike Al Qaeda, which favors highly organized and planned operations, the Islamic State has encouraged anyone to take up arms in its name, and uses a sophisticated campaign of social media to inspire future attacks by unstable individuals with no history of embracing radical Islam.

So, shall we search for all the “unstable individuals with no history of embracing radical Islam”?

How many millions of those do you think live in America? What about your dopey brother-in-law, or your goofy next-door neighbor. Are they unstable, with no history of embracing radical Islam?

What shall we do when find them? Arrest them all and keep them in jail indefinitely, for being “unstable”?

Mr. Mateen might have been gay but chose to hide his true identity out of anger and shame.

A senior federal law enforcement official said on Monday that the F.B.I. was looking at reports that Mr. Mateen had used a gay dating app, and patrons of Pulse were quoted in news reports as saying that he had visited the club several times.

So he may have been a guy ashamed of his identity. Should the FBI arrest all Americans who secretly are insecure about some aspect of their lives?

He came to the F.B.I.’s attention in 2013, when some of his co-workers reported that he had made inflammatory comments claiming connections to overseas terrorists, and saying he hoped that the F.B.I. would raid his family’s home so that he could become a martyr.

The F.B.I. opened an investigation and put Mr. Mateen on a terrorist watch list for nearly a year.

Mr. Mateen said he had made the incendiary remarks “in anger” because his co-workers had ridiculed his Muslim background and he wanted to scare them. The F.B.I. closed its investigation and took him off the terrorist watch list.

The F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Mateen a third time, but determined that his ties to the suicide bomber were not significant. The bureau had no further contact with Mr. Mateen.

Mr. Comey defended the work of his agents, although the bureau’s handling of the case is likely to be the subject of scrutiny and criticism in the coming weeks.

They interviewed him multiple times and put him on a terrorist watch list, all to no avail. Meanwhile, the gun industry laughs at their efforts, for none of this has any effect on gun violence. It’s all misdirection.

In fact, the inevitable failures to prevent gun violence beget more gun purchases. Orlando will prove to be another financial windfall to the gun makers, as more people are sold on the false notion that carrying a gun will protect them from future mass murders.

Still, cases such as these rankle F.B.I. counterterrorism agents, who believe they draw criticism for any choices they make — either for leaving cases open too long, or for closing cases that don’t seem to have enough evidence.

Don Borelli, a retired F.B.I. counterterrorism supervisor in New York, said there was a danger in criticizing agents who close investigations for lack of evidence. “Can we allow people’s futures to be affected if there is no proven basis for it? That’s the flip side to all this,” he said.

Sally Yates, the deputy attorney general, told reporters on Monday that the Justice Department might look to adopt new procedures that would alert counterterrorism investigators if someone who had been on a terror watch list tried to buy a gun.

And if she had been alerted, then what? How would Ms. Yates use that information to prevent future shootings?

“Why did he do this?” his father asked. “He was born in America. He went to school in America. He went to college — why did he do that? I am as puzzled as you are.”

To prevent our finding answers, the gun lobby and their voice, the politicians, has led us down a number of false paths. The purpose is to misdirect us.

They want us to scatter our efforts, by asking:
–“Why did he do it?”
–“What can be done about terrorism?”
–“What can be done about mass murder?”
–“What can be done about undocumented immigrants?”
–“What can be done about Muslims?”
–“What can be done about the mentally unstable?”
–“What can be done about hatred and bigotry?”
–“What can be done to preserve gun rights?”

Thousands of Americans are shot every year. Only a tiny percentage are shot by terrorists, mass murderers, the mentally unstable, undocumented foreigners, Muslims, or bigots. The vast majority of shootings are done by people who do not fit into any of the above categories.

The shooters are people who suddenly get angry, or who want to steal something, or who are part of a street gang guarding its turf. They are husbands and wives and children. They are smart and stupid.

Trying to solve the problems of terrorism, mass murder, the mentally unstable, etc., will make only the most minuscule difference in the overall shooting statistics. Each of these problems is more a diversion than a path to a solution.

That is the gun lobby’s plan. Change the subject. Change the focus, so no solution can be found.

The gun lobby doesn’t want you to know this, but the one common denominator for those thousand of American shootings is the easy availability of guns.

Anyone in America can buy a gun. Even if you are a convicted sex offender, multiple murderer, proven terrorist, child molester out on bail, you easily and legally can buy a gun.

Simply go to a gun show. Simply buy one online. Simply buy one from your neighbor or from a stranger in the street.

There is one, and only one way to reduce the vast number of gun murders: Reduce the availability of guns. Period.

Today, we hear politicians and media pundits debating everything from terrorism to insanity, pretending they are looking for solutions to all the gun murders. It’s all a facade, a pretense.

It’s like preventing dog bites by putting up a “no-collies allowed” sign. Even if the sign worked, and you eliminated all collies, there still will be thousands of dog bites.

The only way dramatically to reduce the number of shootings is to reduce the availability of guns as described in: Five Solutions to Gun Violence:

–Interpret the Constitution properly
–Remove the profit motive from gun manufacture and sales
–Eliminate gangs
–Greater penalties for gun carry during felonies
–Make gun ownership expensive; tax and license gun ownership

If we don’t do this, the gun lobby will continue to have us chasing our tails, searching in the wrong places for small solutions to small problems, while the big problem continues to bedevil us.

We return to the question that started this post: Does the American public really wish to reduce gun violence, or does it prefer to address small side problems, while pretending it is doing something about the main cause of gun violence?

=Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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


Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. A common phenomenon is for the line briefly to dip below zero, then rise above zero, before falling dramatically below zero. There was a brief dip below zero in 2015, followed by another dip – the familiar pre-recession pattern.
Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
•Deficit spending grows the supply of money
•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
•The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..