–Congratulations. You have become President of the United States. What is your plan?

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. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

This is the challenge: You are the President, now. What will you do? The economy has been terrible since 2008 – more that three years and headed nowhere.

In “Nine steps to prosperity; a short message to #Occupy Wall Street,” this blog proposed the following program for recovery:

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

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.

Some readers have argued with the details of the various plans, programs, concepts, beliefs and ideas expressed in the 450 posts and thousands of comments over the past two years. So now I ask all readers to present a plan of their own. That is, if you were President, what would you do?

No fair copping out with caveats about how the President doesn’t have total control and the Tea/Republicans and Democrats won’t let you do this or that or the other thing. Let’s assume you, the President, are a great communicator and can convince the voters to back your ideas, so the vote-hungry Congress will follow along.

What is your plan?

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

–Supreme Court predicted once again to vote against America

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. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

You undoubtedly know of the controversy, which now has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, over the federal requirement that people buy private insurance to qualify for benefits under the Affordable Care Act.

But you may not see why America, as a civilized nation, should have universal health care insurance, i.e. Medicare for all, paid for by the federal government. You may have been sold the Tea/Republican “self reliance” myth, where real Americans don’t need or want government help. Or were you sold the “sustainability” myth, which claims federal deficit spending is not sustainable, whatever that may mean. Or perhaps, you have been sold a bill of goods to believe the “federal finances are just like my personal finances” myth.

Aside from the fact that our Monetarily Sovereign nation can afford any spending, and aside from the fact that federal deficit spending has not caused inflation for more than 60 years, you may not know some of the benefits the new law would have provided you.

The irony is that had Congress voted to tax Americans, as it does with FICA, there would be no controversy. We have been brainwashed to accept tax payments as our requirement for being Americans. But, because Americans are being asked to pay private companies, instead of the government, there is a massive (politically motivated) hullabaloo.

One of many ironies is, paying taxes to the federal government harms the economy, while paying private insurance companies does not. Isn’t it amazing how we have been programmed to disdain our own best interests?

At any rate, a right-wing Supreme Court, that leans toward convoluted interpretations of laws meant for 16th century life, may well rule the entire law unconstitutional. Remember, this is the same court that claims corporations have the same rights as American citizens, so what can you expect?

Numbers of uninsured drop among those age 19 to 25
by: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar | from: AARP | September 21, 2011

Two surveys released Wednesday — one by the government, another by Gallup — found significantly fewer young adults going without coverage even as the overall number of uninsured remained high.

A separate Gallup survey reported that the share of adults 18-25 without coverage dropped from 28 percent last fall to 24.2 percent by this summer. That drop translates to roughly 1 million or more young adults gaining coverage.

The government’s National Center for Health Statistics found that the number of uninsured people ages 19-25 dropped from 10 million last year to 9.1 million in the first three months of this year, a sharp decline over such a brief period.

The new health care law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ health plans until they turn 26. Previously, families faced a hodgepodge of policies. Some health plans covered only adult children while they were full-time students. Others applied an age cutoff.

Today, many people still are denied health insurance coverage:

Health Insurers Deny Coverage to Many Who Apply for Individual Policies
Denial rates of 20 percent or more are common
by: Phil Galewitz | from: Kaiser Health News | September 13, 2011 America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, says 87% of people who apply nationally for individual coverage are offered a policy. That figure, however, includes people who are turned down for one policy but offered another that may cost more or have fewer benefits.

The federal website contains denial rates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, and is updated periodically. The most current information is for the first three months of 2011. The data show that denial rates routinely exceed 20% and often are much higher, according to a Kaiser Health News review of 20 of the most populous states and the District of Columbia. The data reflect applications that are turned down for any reason.

The information provides fresh evidence of the challenges facing people buying individual health insurance. It also shows the likelihood of whether consumers are approved for a policy depends on which state they live in and the insurer they choose.

The new law would prohibit denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions.

Fewer lifetime limits on health insurance

The New Health Care Law and Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits
by: Susan Jaffe | from: AARP Bulletin | August 23, 2010

Currently, more than 100 million Americans have insurance that stops when medical claims exceed their policy’s lifetime limit. On Sept. 23, lifetime limits are effectively banned for all plans that begin or are renewed after that date. Insurance companies can no longer cut off policy holders when their medical expenses reach a lifetime limit. Annual limits on coverage will be phased out over the next few years, beginning this year.

Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, D.C., said, “There has never been a cap on the total amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay.”

The Supreme Court case, which threatens to eliminate the entire law, together with all its benefits, is entirely unnecessary. The government should not ask people to pay for health care. It should pay, ala Medicare.

Instead, a weak-kneed Obama administration “compromised” with (aka caved to) the Tea/Republicans and agreed not to seek a single payer (Medicare) option. So very soon, all you millions who now or soon would have, benefitted from the new law, may lose those benefits.

So whom do you blame? The feeble, inept Obama team, or the “defeat-Obama-no-matter-whom-it-hurts” Tea/Republicans? Either way, your life and the lives of all Americans may be made worse by a right-wing Supreme Court.

I award Congress two traitor images for putting election politics ahead of what is good for Americans.

Unpatriotic flagUnpatriotic flag

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

–Why doesn’t President Obama support #Occupy Wall Street?

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. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

A friend asked me, “Why doesn’t President Obama give #Occupy Wall Street a great big, public hug and kiss?”

Good question. After all, they are the antithesis of the Tea Party, which essentially has ruined the first three years of Obama’s presidency, and which was embraced by the Republicans. Tea/Republicans are an elitist organization (though many of its members don’t seem to understand that). The Teas want to cut taxes on the wealthy while reducing benefits to the poor. They hate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, most of which benefits go to the lower classes.

It’s no wonder that the Tea/Republicans have come out so strongly against #OWS, as witness this from Paul Krugman’s 10/9/11 column in the New York Times:

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
[…]
Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
[…]
What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

So where is Obama? Since the vast majority of our voters empathize with #OWS’s mood, if not its proposals (so far, it has none. See: Nine Steps to Prosperity), you would think a vote-hungry politician like Obama would be camping out on Wall Street, in “Tent 1.” Yes that’s what you would think, if you believed he supports the regular folk. But he doesn’t.

Sorry to tell you this, liberal voters. You elected him, but doesn’t love you. He is an elitist who graduated from Columbia and Harvard law school, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. He taught at the University of Chicago. This is all elitist stuff. He bought a house for somewhere between $300K and $950K less than it was worth (depending on how you count acreage), thanks to a huge favor from his pal Tony Rezko, convicted swindler. Regular folk don’t get deals from Tony Rezko.

The Obama administration is loaded with bankers and bank-related cronies, and as you may have noticed, while the banks caused all the fraud problems, their friend, Barack Obama bailed them out — and not one banker has been arrested, much less tried and convicted of the most massive fraud, not just in U.S. history, but in world history (Try to name one bigger).

To pull the wool over voters’ eyes, he instituted the HAMP program, which punished suffering people even more, by seeming to be a solution to mortgage problems, but was a fraudulent waste of time. Just what these poor people needed: A waste of time.

Obama’s solution to the Social Security “problem” is to raise the regular folks’ qualifying age, and he goes along with the Tea/Republicans on the need to cut federal spending, most of which benefits the less fortunate. So this man has been far, far from a supporter of regular folk. He’s acted more like a charter member of the “Screw You, I’ve Got Mine” clan.

Yes, he’s a bit better than the Tea/Republicans, who at least are honest in that they make no secret of their disdain for the underclass. But really, from where does Obama get his political contributions? And what happens to those contributions if he supports #OWS? Think about it.

So, eventually, Obama may may be dragged, kicking and screaming, into support for #OWS. He can count votes. But his reluctance is telling.

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

–Remind me again. Why have Americans been dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

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. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

Remind me again. Why have Americans have been dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Washington Post
Iraq, siding with Iran, sends essential aid to Syria’s Assad
By Joby Warrick, Published: October 8

More than six months after the start of the Syrian uprising, Iraq is offering key moral and financial support to the country’s embattled president, undermining a central U.S. policy objective and raising fresh concerns that Iraq is drifting further into the orbit of an American arch rival — Iran.

Iraq’s stance has dealt an embarrassing setback to the Obama administration, which has sought to enlist Muslim allies in its campaign to isolate Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad. While other Arab states have downgraded ties with Assad, Iraq has moved in the opposite direction, hosting official visits by Syrians, signing pacts to expand business ties and offering political support.

After Iraq sent conflicting signals about its support for Assad last month, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke firmly against regime change in Syria in an interview broadcast on Iraqi television Sept. 30. “We believe that Syria will be able to overcome its crisis through reforms,” Maliki said, rejecting U.S. calls for the Syrian leader to step down. His words echoed those of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who weeks earlier proposed that Syrians should “implement the necessary reforms by themselves.”

On other issues as well, the Maliki government in recent months has hewed closer to Iran’s stance — Iraq, for example, has supported Iran’s right to nuclear technology and advocated U.N. membership for Palestinians — as the U.S. military races to complete its troop withdrawal over the coming months.

Few policy objectives are more important to Iran than preserving the pro-Tehran regime in Syria, longtime Middle East observers say.

“This is Iran’s influence, because preserving the Assad regime is very much in Iran’s national interest,” said David Pollock, a former adviser on Middle East policy for the State Department during the George W. Bush administration. “Iran needs Iraq’s help trying to save their ally in Damascus.”

U.S. officials acknowledged disappointment with Iraq over its dealings with Assad, while noting that other Middle East countries also have been reluctant to abandon Assad at a time when the outcome of the uprising remains uncertain.

“The Iraqis should be more helpful, absolutely,” said a senior administration official involved in Middle East diplomacy.

Not only do our politicians not understand Monetary Sovereignty, as demonstrated in the many preceding posts, but apparently they also do not understand world politics and religious history. So the question becomes, exactly what do they understand?

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