–The magic of executive orders. How the President circumvents Congress and plays politics with the law

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

You don’t often hear about Presidential executive orders, but they have the force of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that executive orders must clarify or further an existing law, and not make law, so Presidents always point out how their executive orders do exactly that. The effect might be quite different, however.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that interned Japanese-American citizens for the entire World War II. Such an order would encounter a violent reaction today, but it was considered the law back in those paranoid days.

You probably weren’t aware of this, but President Obama has issued dozens of executive orders, all of which are listed in the Federal Register.

This list gives you an interesting view into the mind of the President. For instance, take the first executive order listed, EO13535 (Abortion; enforcing and implementing restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:). The purpose of this EO is “to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered). Why would a Democrat issue such an order? For political purposes, as part of an earlier deal with Republicans, or is this what Obama truly believes?

Then there is EO 13526, which lists the ways documents may be classified (according to secrecy), and how these classifications may be challenged and removed. The media probably has spend thousands of hours studying this EO, and other related EOs.

Or consider EO 13491, which says, in effect, torture of military prisoners is limited to what is contained in Army Field Manual 2–22.3. Page 5-21 of this big manual has a section that prohibits waterboarding. The next page gives this guidance for prohibited activities:

• If the proposed approach technique were used by the enemy against one of your fellow soldiers, would you believe the soldier had been abused?

• Could your conduct in carrying out the proposed technique violate a law or regulation? Keep in mind that even if you personally would not consider your actions to constitute abuse, the law may be more
restrictive.

The list of EOs is long and detailed, but fascinating, because it shows you more about this President than is contained in his speeches. Though the language sometimes can be obscure, I found myself drawn into this document, as I tried to visualize the real meanings and purposes of each EO.

The more I read, the “better” (worse?) it was.

Read through a few, and you may feel the same.

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

==========================================================================================================================================
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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Foolishness across the ocean. Will the UK attempt mass economic suicide?

I came across a website called The Robin Hood Tax. It seems to have originated in the U.K., but the goal is to spread the idea around the world. In their own words:

A tax on banks that would give billions to tackle poverty and climate change, here and abroad.

This tax on the financial sector has the power to raise hundreds of billions every year globally. It could give a vital boost to the NHS, our schools, and the fight against child poverty in the UK – as well as tackling poverty and climate change around the world.

Remember now, the UK brilliantly did not surrender its Monetary Sovereignty. It did not adopt the disastrous euro. It retained the pound. So the UK, like the U.S., has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency. It can pay any bill of any size at any time. It never can be forced into bankruptcy.

However, the UK, like the U.S., is burdened with politicians, media and economists who still live in the pre-1971, gold standard days. Though economics changed dramatically in 1971, the economists still spew the same, debt-hawk, gold-standard nonsense. It’s as though upon discovering the world is round, not flat, sailors still worried about falling off the edge.

Here, again in their own words, is how the Robin Hood tax would work:

In a nutshell, the big idea behind the Robin Hood Tax is to generate billions of pounds – hopefully even hundreds of billions of pounds. That money will fight poverty in the UK and overseas. It will tackle climate change.

Hundreds of billions of pounds pulled out of the economy. This is supposed to be beneficial? And “poverty and climate change”? How did those two initiatives get to be the focus of this tax – a tax that most assuredly will not reduce poverty or prevent climate change? (No tax could.)

A tiny tax on the financial sector can generate £20 billion annually in the UK alone. That’s enough to protect schools and hospitals. Enough to stop massive cuts across the public sector. Enough to build new lives around the world – and to deal with the new climate challenges our world is facing.

Now it’s £20 billion? And, now it’s “schools and hospitals,” too? And building “new lives around the world”? Have they left anything out? How about motherhood and the American – oops – the British way of life?

As a result of the financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has calculated UK government debt will be 40% higher. That 40% equates to £737 billion pounds, or £28,000 pounds for every taxpayer in the country. Having to pay back that debt means cuts in vital services on which millions of people around the country rely.

No, paying that debt will cut nothing. The British government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can pay any debt. No vital services need be reduced. Pure scare tactics. What is the British word for “bullsh*t”? Poppycock?

Total cost to the UK of financial crisis in terms of lost output according to the IMF was 27% of 2008 GDP.

Yes, the financial crisis caused reduced output – which has absolutely nothing to do with UK debt. I’m surprised they didn’t blame British debt for causing starvation in Armenia, and the bird flu.

So it’s time for justice. It’s time for justice for ordinary families and businesses. For the one in five British families faced with a choice between buying food or paying the heating bill. For the millions of people around the world forced into poverty by a financial crisis they did absolutely nothing to bring about.

The Robin Hood Tax is justice. The banks can afford it. The systems are in place to collect it. It won’t affect ordinary members of the public, their bank accounts or their savings. It’s fair, it’s timely, and it’s possible.

Ah, yes. The old class-warfare ploy. Justice = soak the rich. And who are the geniuses behind the Robin Hood Tax? The usual suspects. According the their web site:

We are charities, green groups, trade unions, celebrities, religious leaders and politicians.

Who could doubt the expertise of that bunch? But wait, now we get to the real winners:

President Sarkozy of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain

Hmm, France, Germany and Spain. Aren’t those three countries that each voluntarily surrendered the single most valuable asset any nation can have – its Monetary Sovereignty – and are now in a crisis of their own making? By all means, let’s follow them over the cliff.

FSA Chairman Lord Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffet

Just shows money and economic knowledge don’t always go together. Turner has called for more central planning ala the communist countries. Buffet wants a tax increase on the wealthy, which would reduce the money supply.

And here are my favorites:

Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs and 1,000 other economists from across the world.

Therein lies the problem. People, who are completely ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty, award prizes to other people, who are completely ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty, who then teach the media, the politicians and the public how to be ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty. It’s the most vicious of vicious circles.

So you have it. Yet another group of debt-hawks believing taxes are beneficial. If anyone can explain how removing money from the economy can reduce poverty, reduce unemployment or grow the economy, I sure would like to hear it.

I award 1 dunce cap to The Robin Hood Tax. It would be more, but they are just one more debt-hawk group of which there are dozens. And as any debt-hawk will tell you, if I give out too many dunce caps, I could have an unsustainable dunce cap deficit, which would lead to a huge dunce cap debt, and I’d need to start taxing people dunce caps – or I might need to borrow dunce caps from a bank.

Makes sense?

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–#OWS is a angry baby. It’s hurting. It doesn’t know why. And it doesn’t know how to stop the pain.

At this point, #Occupy Wall Street reminds me of an angry baby who has not yet learned to talk. It’s hurting, but does not understand the problem is an open diaper pin. So it screams and kicks its feet, hoping that somehow, mother will find the solution. So far, mother thinks the baby is just being bad.

#OWS first must to begin to understand Monetary Sovereignty, else they easily will be talked out of any goals they produce. The “1%” will ask them how they intend to pay for what they want, and there will ensue a fruitless discussion about whom to tax and how much.

#OWS can march against poverty until the cows come home, and nothing will happen until they themselves understand that the federal government has the unlimited ability to support the poor, the sick, the homeless, the uneducated, the cheated — all without taxing the wealthy.

So long as #OWS believes the federal government’s funding is limited, the “1%” will have no difficulty making #OWS look like lazy, irresponsible fools, looking to steal hard-earned money from the rich.

Last week, I was asked to provide Occupy Wall Street with recommendations for goals, so I sent the following: (You have seen this before at OWS goals):

The goal is not to punish the rich or to destroy businesses, or to eliminate capitalism. The goal is to lift the lower income classes, and the means are:

1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Provide free Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone, from cradle to grave.
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Provide long-term nursing care insurance for everyone
5. Provide free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Provide a salary for everyone attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate income taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America

Begin to institute #1-#9 today, in the order shown, and if/when excessive inflation starts to occur, institute the first inflation-fighting program the Fed always uses: Raise interest rates. If that doesn’t do enough, begin to cut deficit spending.

But without an understanding of Monetary Sovereignty, these goals will make little sense.

Predictably, the “1%” response to the protests has been calls for “law and order,” the same words used to justify the bashing of freedom marchers in 1965, on the road from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery. And today we see the same thuggery by the police, all over America.

(What is it about police and the military, all over the world, that they unquestioningly will use angry force against their peacefully protesting friends and neighbors, if told to do so, or even if not told to do so? Why are police so afraid of these young people? A good psychological study of the military is needed, here.)

At any rate, this protest is proceeding exactly as predicted: Protests begin in one small area, to be copied in other areas. The protests are led by the young, whose idealism remains intact. The military (police, national guard, army) respond with excessive force, causing revulsion among the older and initially aloof Americans, who deep in our hearts, recognize the difference between good and evil.

Here is a recent example of the predictable police overreaction and brutality:

Typical police thuggery.

Eventually, the politicians may recognize the swing in voter sentiment, and begin to back the goals of the movement. But there have to be goals, and before the goals there must be understanding. So far, the politicians don’t know what line to fall in. They can smell the votes, and are just waiting for an excuse.

I award #Occupy Wall Street my 59th dunce cap, for not even trying to understand basic economic reality, i.e. Monetary Sovereignty, and for protesting without presenting realistic goals.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–What Spirit Airlines and BrandsMartUSA can teach us about bad government service.

A poor service experience with BrandsMartUSA and an truly horrendous service experience with Spirit Airlines (described in the comment section, below), made me think about the question of private vs. government service.

Here is what everyone knows:

1. Private industry provides better products and service than government industry, and the fundamental reason is motivation. Government agencies are uncaring about the public, and think only about quitting time, while private industry is motivated to improve and to grow by providing a lower price, a better product and better service.

2. Government workers will make you wait in line forever, then send you to another line, where you again will wait forever. Private industry workers know their job depends on their company’s success, so they try harder to please customers.

3. Private industry is hampered by government regulation, and would be more efficient if government would just get off their backs.

Everyone knows this and as is usual with “everyone knows,” everyone is wrong – or at least partly so. In fact, I believe government quite often provides better service than does business, at least big business. Here’s the reasoning behind my heretical statement:

Big business and big government each employs thousands of people, working anonymously in cubicles. For both big business and big government workers, rewards for individual performance are scarce, and few of these workers actually contact their customers. They labor silently and invisibly, mostly immunized from the realities of their product’s or service’s efficacy. They just do their jobs and keep their heads down.

From nearly all standpoints, business workers and government workers are the same people. They work. They don’t want to be criticized. They know they have very little to do with their organization’s success or failure. They recognize they are but minuscule, easily replaced cogs in giant machines.

I can see but one major difference between government agencies and private companies: Their leaders’ motivations. The leaders of government agencies follow the bidding of Congress. They don’t focus on invention, creation or competition. They focus on execution and staying out of trouble. They want to do a good, safe job while avoiding criticism and complaints from the public or from Congress.

The leaders of big business are motivated by sales, growth and profits. Customer complaints are tolerated up to the point where there is an impact on dollar inflow. They do focus on invention, creation and competition, the goal being to grow bigger, stronger and especially, richer.

Classic big private companies are banks, oil companies, car manufacturers, pharmaceutical firms, insurance companies and chemical companies. Classic big government agencies are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Pentagon.

Though big companies like to boast about their customer service, and how much they care for the ecology and their product quality, in reality they tend to do only what they must, either for competitive reasons or government regulation.

Imagine where the oil companies would drill if not for federal regulation. Or how even more dishonest the banks would be. Or how little attention to safety and gas mileage the car companies would pay. Or what poisons the pharmaceutical companies would sell. Or the toxins the chemical companies would spread. Imagine how poorly the airlines would treat you, left to their own devices. Things are bad enough with federal oversight; imagine without.

By contrast, federal agencies are self supervised. The good they do is not the incidental result of a drive for profits, but rather because that is their fundamental assignment.

My impression is that Medicare is more honest and helpful than most insurance companies; Social Security is more honest and helpful than most retirement funds. Back in the days when airline rates were regulated, service was far better than it is today. And deregulation of the banks has proved to be a disaster.

I suspect the American public would be better served by Medicare, rather than private insurers, for everyone – better served by federally owned banks than by private banks – better served by airline fare regulation and better served by federal universities than by private universities.

The point of this fact-deficient diatribe is that big government is necessary to control big business, and often provides better service, because it is not profit-constrained. Those who see big government as an Orwellian “big brother” weighing down our freedoms, are missing the big picture. The Tea Party reminds me of teenagers who tell their parents to “Get off my back,” until something goes wrong and they come running back to mommy, crying “Save me; save me.”

Rather than marching against all government involvement, and crying “socialism” every time someone suggests a government initiative, we should search for the points where we can benefit from the creative energy of capitalism together with the controls of government action and oversight.

And now that I’ve had my say, you may wish to read about Spirit Airlines in the first comment.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: