Tag: Medicare

–Get rid of big government

An alternative to popular faith

Ever since Ronald Reagan said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem,” (then proceeded to run the largest federal deficits in history), the chic thing has been to criticize big government as an affront to our self reliant, can-do, cowboy heritage. The media pundits, both major political parties and the Tea Party repeatedly call for less government.

On March 24, 2009, Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana said, “There has never been a challenge that the American people, with as little interference as possible by the federal government, cannot handle.” Oh, really? Today, May 31, 2010, the Chicago Tribune published a wonderful article written by Leonard Pitts, all government haters should read. I’ll quote a few passages:

“. . . Bobby Jindal . . . is singing a new song . . . Now, he’s BEGGING for federal ‘interference.’ He wants federal money, federal supplies, wants the feds to help create a barrier island to protect Louisiana wetlands from oil.
[…]
“One hears pointed questions about President Barack Obama’s engagement or lack thereof in the unfolding crisis. One hears accusations that the government was lax in its oversight duties and too cozy with the oil industry it was supposed to be regulating. One hears nothing about deregulation, about leaving the free market alone to do its magic […] the sudden silence of the apostles of small government and free markets is telling.

“Yes, government is not perfect […] Any bureaucracy serving 309 million people . . . is likely to have flaws. […] But . . . people like Jindal rail against the very concept of government itself, selling the delusional notion that taxation and regulation represent the evisceration of some essential American principle. They wax eloquent about what great things the free market and the free American could do if government would just get off their backs.

“One thinks of one’s meat oozing with salmonella, one’s paint filled with lead, one’s car getting 12 miles to the gallon, one’s self being breezily denied a job for reasons of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation and yes, one’s ocean covered from horizon to horizon with a sheen of oil. And one shudders.

“[…]there are no small government disciples in massive oil spills. No, . . . Bobby Jindal turned righteously to that big, sometimes bloated, often intrusive federal government and asked for help. He said, Send money, send resources. You will notice he never once said, send less.”

Yes, it is so terribly chic, so wonderfully clever to criticize big government, as though each of us were ready to shoulder the responsibilities of the army, Social Security, Medicare, roads, bridges, education, policing and the thousands of other tasks we happily delegate to the bureaucracy.

I have spoken about this on many occasions, for instance YOUR CHILDREN WON’T PAY FOR DEFICITS and EUROPEAN WELFARE STATE and TEA PARTY CONFUSION, but Leonard Pitts said it better.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Europe and the welfare-entitlement state

An alternative to popular faith

Today, the Wall Street Journal’s editors managed to pack one sentence with more misleading inferences than I thought possible. The sentence was: “Greece’s problems are familiar across Europe: a welfare-entitlement state that is unaffordable given the country’s anemic economic growth.”

First, Greece’s economic problems are familiar across Europe, because most of Europe is in the European Union, an ill-conceived, economically doomed arrangement. These nations have essentially the same problem, and it has nothing to do with a welfare-entitlement state. It has to do with each EU nation’s inability to control its own money supply — a charter requirement for belonging to the EU. So when one nation encounters its individual economic crisis, it is prohibited from creating the money necessary to save and rebuild its economy.

The EU nations are on a “euro standard,” similar to a gold standard, in that the supply of their money is controlled by the EU. In this, the EU nations resemble California, Illinois, Cook County and Chicago, which are on a “dollar standard.” None can create the money needed to rebuild its economy.

Because a political entity on a “standard” cannot arbitrarily create money, it eventually will need to receive money from outside, either in the form of export payments, or payments from the owner of the money. For Greece, the owner is the EU. For California et al, the owner is the U.S. government.

For Greece to survive, it must receive money from the EU. It cannot survive on taxes alone, because taxing does not add money to the state. California, to survive, must receive money from the federal government.

The so called “welfare-entitlement” state merely is description of what every nation is and must be: A source of funds for the common good. Since all countries are “welfare-entitlement states, to greater or lesser degree, at what point does the state offer too much welfare?

–When the government pays for its army?
–When the government pays for roads, bridges, levees and docks?
–When the government pays for police and fire protection?
–When the government pays unemployment benefits? Food stamps? Medicaid? Housing?
–When the government pays for primary education? Secondary education? Advanced education?
–When the government pays to rebuild parts of a city that has flooded or hit by a hurricane or volcano?
–When the government provides FDIC insurance?
–When Social Security and Medicare benefits are provided to people over the age of 95? 55? 35? 10? All?
–When the government pays for vaccines? Inspects food? Supervises investments? Makes medical expenses tax deductible? Creates and enforces laws?

Where should a welfare entitlement state begin and end? I’d guess the WSJ editors, who criticize the “welfare-entitlement” state, have no idea. But, the term makes for a handy whipping boy, like “socialism” and “bailouts” and “big government” and “activist judges,” that everyone dislikes in general, but wants in the specific.

Finally, the “welfare-entitlement” state is not unaffordable because of the nation’s anemic economic growth. The government doesn’t pay its bills with Gross Domestic Product. Of course, some argue that increased GDP growth begets increased taxes, making government spending more affordable. But high taxes cause anemic economic growth, so in essence you have a circular argument and a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What makes EU governments’ spending unaffordable is the EU system, which prevents unilateral money creation. By contrast, no amount of U.S. spending is unaffordable for the U.S. government.

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


No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In and Conference

Mainstream economics has led us to an average of one recession every five years. People have been fed obsolete hypotheses for so long and so often, we now have knee-jerk agreement among the media, the politicians and some economists.

But deficits neither are normal nor inevitable. Many prominent economists have discovered a better way to foster economic growth. They will host a conference to discuss their ideas, and you are invited.
==================================================================

April 28th: Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In and Conference
________________
“The Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In Conference will be the important event in Washington on April 28. This will feature important work by honest scholars. It deserves (your)attention, and […] respect.”
— James K. Galbraith, The University of Texas at Austin. [April 19, 2010 via email with permission]
________________
The deficit hawks are at it again: attacking Social Security and Medicare with obsolete economic notions. We offer a counter-narrative to the false but conventional notion that Federal deficit spending is harmful, that it is a burden to the next generation, that deficit spending risks insolvency — basically that the Federal Government Budget is some how analogous to a household budget when, in fact, it is quite different.

The Teach-In Conference on Fiscal Sustainability on April 28th, 2010 in Washington, DC aims to do just that with some real world, honest economics.

We can move beyond the false economic orthodoxy that got us into the current economic mess and that is now being promoted to attack Social Security and Medicare — and harming our nation and it’s people. You can participate.

The tentative program schedule: Interesting topics and excellent presenters as of 04/16/10:

8:30–8:45 AM Welcoming Remarks
8:45–10:15 AM What Is Fiscal Sustainability? Bill Mitchell, Research Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at the University of Newcastle, NSW Australia, and blogger at billy blog

10:15–10:30 AM BREAK
10:30 AM–12:00 PM Are There Spending Constraints on Governments Sovereign in their Currency? Stephanie Kelton, Associate Professor of Macroeconomics, Finance, and Money and Banking, Research Scholar at The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability (CFEPS), University of Missouri – Kansas City, Research Associate at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, and blogger at New Economics Perspectives

12:00–12:15 PM BREAK
12:15–1:45 PM The Deficit, the Debt, the Debt-To-GDP ratio, the Grandchildren and Government Economic Policy Warren Mosler, International Consulting Economist, Independent Candidate for the US Senate in Connecticut, and blogger atmoslereconomics.com

1:45–2:00 PM BREAK
2:00–3:15 PM Inflation and Hyper-inflation Marshall Auerback, International Consulting Economist, blogger at New Deal 2.0 and New Economic Perspectives, and Mat Forstater, Professor of Economics, Director of CFEPS, Department of Economics, University of Missouri — Kansas City, Research Associate at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, and blogger at New Economic Perspectives

3:15–3:30 PM BREAK
3:30–5:00 PM Policy Proposals for Fiscal Sustainability L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics, Director of CFEPS at the University of Missouri – Kansas City, and Senior Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; and Pavlina Tcherneva, Assistant Professor of Economics at Franklin and Marshall College, Senior Research Associate at CFEPS and Research Associate at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and bloggers at New Economic Perspectives

How you can participate:
1. Contribute to the cost of the Conference — Please click below and make a donation of $50 (or more if you want) to show support. It’s about strength in numbers (the entire budget is under $10,000).
Make Donation
2. Attend the Teach-In — watch these pages for location and other logistical information
3. Spread the word — write a blog post, talk with your friends.
4. Educate yourself — some great introductory resources are:
o Teaching the Fallacy of Composition: The Federal Budget Deficit, by L. Randall Wray
o Fiscal sustainability 101, by William Mitchell
o 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds, by Warren Mosler
o In Defense of Deficits, by James K. Galbraith
o A Quick Summary, by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Please do what you can to help bring the truth to light. Deficits are not normal. Social Security and Medicare can survive without benefit cuts.

Every little bit helps. Thank you.
________________
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


.
.

–What does the Tea Party want? Ask Sarah Palin

An alternative to popular faith

It’s a peculiarity of the human species, that if you speak from the pulpit of patriotism or religion, you can spew almost any kind of nonsense, and gather followers.

Take Sarah Palin, perhaps the nation’s leading demagogue. She shouted this irrationality to a cheering Tea Party crowd, “Is this what their ‘change’ is all about? I want to tell them, nah, we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion – and you can keep the change.” The mob screamed in ecstasy, without bothering to wonder what she meant.

Does “they” just refer to Democrats, or is “they” the whole U.S. government? Hard to tell. Ironic, how hating the government now equates with patriotism and the Constitution.

According to Mrs. Palin, “they” have violated the Constitution in some unexplained way. And she indicates “they” will take Tea Party guns and religion away. She doesn’t explain how “they” will do that, but so long as she wraps herself in the flag and religion, her worshipers won’t remind her she has no idea what the hell she’s talking about.

I empathize with Tea Party folks, because one thing they want, I also want: Lower taxes. But I would be embarrassed to allow a hate-mongering, anti-everything, nitwit like Sarah Palin be my guide.

Really folks, is this the best you can do? There are excellent, economic ways to reduce taxes (which you will see if you comb through this blog site). But knock it off with the American flags, the Constitution, guns and religion, none of which have anything to do with lowering taxes.

Unfortunately for Tea Party “logic,” they not only want lower taxes, but lower deficits and less government. At the same time, they want a stronger army, better schools, federal supervision of banks and other financial firms, better roads, defense of our borders, defense against terrorism, safer food, better retirement, better unemployment insurance, police, health care, rescue from hurricanes and other disasters, more jobs and a better environment.

Hey, Tea Party. The things you want cost money. So if you want both lower taxes and a reduced deficit, where will the money come from? Cutting both taxes and the deficit requires dramatically reduced government spending. So, how will that get you the things you want? It won’t. All it will get you is a Sarah Palin.

Sure, raw, mob emotion can make you feel strong. Look what it did for Joseph Goebbels. But eventually, morning will come and you will realize your torches, pitchforks and white sheets were silly. Only then, can we have the rational discussions that will help us create and take the steps to improve our nation.

Sadly, the “T” in Tea Party does not yet stand for “Think.”

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