What is the real reason the Republicans hate Obamacare? Monday, Mar 6 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Republican party hates Obamacare (ACA). That much is abundantly clear. But why?

For seven years and seventy votes, the Republicans have done everything in their power to “repeal and replace.” But what do they hate about the program?

Is it just the name “Obamacare”? (If so, they should refer to it as “Romneycare,” since that is a more accurate appellation.)

Or are there certain features they would like to change?

Here is the answer, exposed in some excerpts from a Chicago Tribune article:

Chicago Tribune, March 6, 2007
Plan to dismantle ACA begins to take shape
By Noam N. Levey and Lisa Mascaro, Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are readying an ambitious push this week to begin moving legislation to replace major parts of the Affordable Care Act, a crucial test of their ability to fulfill one of their party’s main campaign promises.

The plan marks the first time GOP lawmakers will do this since the law was enacted seven years ago.

The legislation could affect health insurance for tens of millions of Americans — not only those with coverage under the ACA, but also people with employer-provided insurance and Medicaid.

That was your first clue. What is the commonality among those with ACA, those who rely on employer-provided insurance and those with Medicaid?

The House legislation — which was being finalized over the weekend, according to GOP officials — aims to fundamentally restructure the system that the ACA created, which has extended health coverage to more than 20 million previously uninsured Americans.

GOP plans call for scrapping insurance marketplaces that require insurers to offer a basic set of benefits and that provide government subsidies to help low- and moderate-income Americans who don’t get health benefits at work to buy health plans.

Are you starting to see a pattern?

Republican legislation would create a new system of subsidies that are linked to consumers’ age, rather than their income, according to leaked drafts. That would make insurance harder to buy for millions of Americans, especially low-income working people, outside analyses suggest.

Getting the picture?

GOP leaders would eliminate taxes that have helped offset the cost of the ACA’s coverage expansion, including taxes on medical device-makers and insurance companies and on households making more than $250,000 a year.

Instead, Republicans are proposing to tax the health insurance that employers provide their workers. Employer-provided benefits are tax-free. The change could cause the price of insurance that many Americans get on the job to go up.

The House plan would phase out hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid that has allowed many states to expand their Medicaid programs to millions more poor Americans.

House Republicans also want to give states more flexibility to reshape their Medicaid programs, allowing states to potentially limit benefits or require poor patients to pay more for their medical care.

House Republicans have proposed to allow insurers to charge higher premiums to those who let their policies lapse.

Leading conservatives in the House and Senate have said they will oppose legislation that does not fully repeal the ACA.

Yes, it is clear. The one thing the Republicans hate most about ACA is not the name or any single factor. They hate helping the middle-classes and the poor.

The “party-of-the-rich” knows that ACA helps narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest. (Without the Gap, no one would be rich — we all would be the same — and the wider the Gap, the richer they are. The primary goal of the rich is to widen the Gap.)

And that is why the Republicans are salivating like rabid dogs to get rid of a program that helps narrow the Gap. (They similarly would like to cut Social Security and Medicare, under the pretext that the government can’t afford them.)Image result for trump crowd

Visualize now, those crowds at now-President Trump’s campaign speeches. Visualize their wide-eyed passion for the man who would save them from the “establishment” and who would “drain the swamp.” Who are those people? Are they the rich or the rest?

They are the ones who elected Trump, and now ironically, they are the ones who will be hurt most by “repeal and replace.”

To borrow Trump’s favorite twitter word, “Sad.”

In truth, ACA is a complex, convoluted, Rube Goldbergian program. It was made so because of belief in The Big Lie that federal taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending, and that low deficits benefit the economy.

(Unlike state and local governments, our federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it never can run short of its own sovereign currency, and it creates dollars ad hoc, whenever it spends. Thus, federal deficits grow the economy.)

Yes, the jury-rigged ACA should be replaced, but not in the way the “party-of-the-rich” proposes. ACA should be replaced by Step #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below): FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE 

That would provide medical care for every man, woman, and child in America, at zero cost to anyone. Medically, it would put the rich and the rest of us on a par.

It’s not what the Republicans want.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (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.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
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.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) 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 business taxes would be a 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.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
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.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (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.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
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.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) 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 business taxes would be a 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.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
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.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

What do you call a lie that is constructed from another lie? Sunday, Feb 26 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

A lie is a lie is a lie. But what do you call a lie about something that in itself is a lie, which is based on a third lie, all of which is constructed from a fourth lie?

A lie to the fourth power? A four-fold fabrication? A questionable quaternary?

Here are excerpts from an article in the Feb. 25th, Washington Post:

Trump is upset the media is not reporting a meaningless statistic about the national debt
By Ana Swanson

On “Fox & Friends” Saturday morning, former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain credited President Trump with reducing the national debt, after just one month in office.

Do you remember crazy Herman Cain of “9-9-9” fame? He’s back.

The level of debt fluctuates day to day and week to week, depending on seasonal changes in growth and when the government makes payments, collects tax revenue, issues new debt and other debt matures — making the data very susceptible to cherry-picking.

Using the same logic, for example, you could claim that after four days in office Trump increased outstanding public debt by more than $10 billion.

Facts: The numbers are so small as to be meaningless, and Trump had nothing to do with them. So that was what we’ll call lie #2.

Then, building on Herman Cain’s lie, Trump tweeted (what else?) the following:

Less than an hour later, the statistic appeared on another highly visible platform. “The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo,” Trump tweeted.

On Thursday, the public debt outstanding was $19.9 trillion — or, to be more exact, $19,913,903,120,188.10. And while that is less than it was on Inauguration Day, it’s $29.2 billion more than it was on Feb. 8.

All that goes to say you can’t pay attention to infinitesimal movements in the debt week-to-week.

Trump’s “The media has not reported” lie is all part of his claims that media reports are biased against him. But, the tiny bit of debt datum is even worse than meaningless; it is misleading.

For instance, if the media had broadcast that the debt went up in Trump’s first four days, he would have complained (rightly), that the media were broadcasting “Fake News.”

So that was lie #3.

“Great optimism for future of U.S. business, AND JOBS, with the DOW having an 11th straight record close. Big tax & regulation cuts coming!”

Federal “debt” data doesn’t create optimism or reality about business or jobs — and now after four weeks, Trump is taking false credit for the rise in the Dow, the average that has risen from about 8,000 to above 20,000 — under Barack Obama.

So that was lie #4.

But lie #1, the Big Lie — the lie that reducing federal debt is in some way a good thing — that lie is promulgated not only by Trump, but by the Washington Post.

The so called “federal debt” is not really a “debt” in the way the public thinks about debt. For you and me and businesses and state governments and local governments, debt is a burden. We all are what is known as “monetarily non-sovereign.”

We can run short of the money to repay our debts, and even at best, a large debt can reduce our ability to spend on other things. Given enough debt, we can go bankrupt, lose our credit rating and be unable to borrow further.

None of this is true for federal debt, which is nothing more than the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. In short, the federal “debt” is bank deposits, quite similar to savings account deposits.

To “lend” to the federal government, you instruct your bank to take dollars from your checking account and deposit them into your T-security account at the Federal Reserve Bank.

To pay you back, the federal government it simply transfers those same dollars back to your checking account.

And no tax dollars ever are involved in any part of the round-trip transaction. Even if the federal government collected $0 taxes, it could continue servicing any size “debt,” forever. The federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.

The federal government could pay off the entire “debt” (deposits) tomorrow, and not a single tax dollar would be used. The government simply would transfer all the dollars residing in T-security account back to the checking accounts of T-security holders.

Paying off federal debt is similar to the way your bank transfers dollars from your savings account to your checking account.

If, instead of calling it “federal debt” we properly called it “federal deposits,” no one would worry about size. Big privately-owned banks boast about the size of their deposits, and don’t refer to them as “debt.”

In relatively rare cases, privately-owned banks can run short of dollars; the Federal Reserve Bank cannot. It is an agency of our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, which never can run short of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

In fact, the federal government is so safe, it insures private bank depositors against loss.

So the federal “debt” is not a burden, not a worry, not a problem for anyone — not for the federal government and not for U.S. taxpayers.

Federal “debt” (deposits) is a reflection of the size of our economy, so long-term it is related to Gross Domestic Product.

The red line on the above graph shows that the federal “debt held by the public” (deposits) was $280 billion in 1970, and rose to $14 trillion last year —  a fifty-fold increase in only 46 years — and the federal government still has no difficulty servicing it, nor ever will.

In summary, President Trump:

  1. along with the Washington Post, falsely claimed a reduction in federal “debt” (deposits) is a good thing (aka the Big Lie).
  2. falsely claimed he caused a reduction in federal “debt” (deposits)
  3. falsely claimed the media should have broadcast this great “accomplishment”
  4. falsely claimed this also caused the Dow to increase

How about calling it a “tetrad of tall tales.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (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.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
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.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) 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 business taxes would be a 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.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
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.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Sally Yates, American hero. There will be more. Tuesday, Jan 31 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

In the wars to protect the American dream of a righteous, compassionate nation, there have been heroes and there have been villains.

Today we have a hero:

Chicago Tribune: 1/31/2017: President Donald Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates Monday night, after Yates ordered Justice Department lawyers Monday not to defend his immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world.

In a press release, the White House said Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.”

Sally Yates knew what would happen to her for her defiance of a leader who preached fear, a leader who would have us crouching behind a great wall, while innocent people of a religion are refused entry.

Sally Yates rose one brave voice of protest, a small voice in the scheme of things, but an important voice.

There will be more.

She follows in the tradition of our founders who defied the king and built America. There were heroes then.

How many of us today would risk our jobs to defend our Constitution and the people and the religions it was designed to protect?

How many of us will make excuses to ignore the ideals and ideas that made America special?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

“. . . a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . “

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me”

Sally Yates is one who stepped forward. There were many more, and there will be many more, until cruelty and cowardice once again have been defeated by American compassion and courage.

Godspeed Sally Yates. May your name long be celebrated.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

ECONOMICS 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.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives 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 the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•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..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Steve Chapman (who?) doesn’t know the difference Thursday, Jan 12 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

I’ll answer the title question, now: Steve Chapman is a member of the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. He blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman. His Email is: chapman@chicagotribune.com. His Twitter is: @SteveChapman13.

Here is what he looks like:

And here is what he wrote for today’s newspaper. It received 2/3 of a page in the Opinions section:

Runaway deficits forever
Trump and Congress won’t balance the budget

Immediately, the word “Runaway” tells us this is going to be an exercise in ignorance. The deficits aren’t going to be “insufficient,” “economically stimulating,” “or necessary,” all of which would be correct.

No, they will be “Runaway,” implying not just large, but out of control.

Upon becoming House speaker in 1995, Newt Gingrich decided it was crucial to adopt a plan to eliminate the federal deficit. In a meeting of House Republicans, Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich balked. “Where is it in stone that we have to balance the budget in seven years?”

Gingrich had a quick answer: “Let’s put it to a vote. Who wants to put it in stone?” Everyone but Kasich voted yes. The Republicans had made a commitment they would have to keep.

Translation: The Republicans promised to reduce the amount of stimulus money the federal government will pump into the private sector. Yes, they promised to reduce the amount of money they will add to business balance sheets and to consumers’ pockets.

Why is this considered something to boast about?

It’s like promising to take away millions of Americans’ health care. It’s like promising to rig state elections by rampant gerrymandering. It’s like promising to make it harder for minorities to vote. It’s like promising to elect a President whose every word seems to be a lie and/or an attack on the media, the disabled, women, Mexicans, Muslims and all who disagree with him.

See a pattern to their promises?

Contrast that show of determination with the vote last week by Senate Republicans for a budget resolution that projects an increase in the public debt of $9 trillion over the next decade.

The supporters said that for arcane reasons involving budget rules and the repeal of Obamacare, the resolution is needed. But in practice, they insisted, they don’t intend to allow such a flood of red ink.

Just to make this abundantly clear:
1. The federal government cannot run short of dollars.
2. You can run short of dollars.
3. The federal government’s “red” ink is the economy’s “black” ink

“So,” you might ask, “why would anyone want the economy to receive fewer dollars, while the federal government keeps more dollars, when it’s the economy that needs more dollars to grow, while the federal government creates all the dollars it needs?”

Why, indeed.

The fiscal responsibility upheld by Gingrich and company — which led to a balanced budget not in 2002 but in 1999 — is not visible on either side of the aisle today.

That so-called “fiscal responsibility” led to the recession of 2002. 

Between 2009 and 2015, the deficit shrank from $1.4 trillion to $438 billion — but last year it rose, and the Congressional Budget Office expects it to balloon to $1 trillion by 2024.

Chapman “forgot” to mention that in 2008, the deficit rose dramatically, which cured the recession that came as a result of deficit cutting from 2006 to 2008.

He also forgot to mention that every depression in U.S. history, and most recessions, have been introduced with deficit reduction.

Just a slight omission.

Nor is the incoming president likely to accept serious budget discipline as President Bill Clinton did.

President Clinton’s budget “discipline” led to the recession of 2001. (See graph above).

On the contrary, Donald Trump will probably cause a lot of congressional Republicans to stop worrying and learn to love the deficit.

Ah, if only the Republicans (and the Democrats) were that smart.  Everyone, including the public, should stop worrying and learn to love the deficit, for it is the deficit that grows Gross Domestic Product.

GDP = Federal spending + Non-federal spending + Net exports

If GDP growth relies on federal spending, non-federal spending and exports, which of those three comes from federal deficit spending. I’ll give you two guesses.

Right, federal spending comes from federal deficit spending.  That’s a tautology.

And non-federal spending, which is enriched by deficit spending, also grows from federal deficit spending.

So is there any mystery why federal deficit spending grows the economy?

House Republicans have a plan to balance the budget by 2026, but the details are lacking. Not only that, but they also will have to contend with the next president. The Tax Policy Center in Washington reported in October that his proposals would add $7.2 trillion to the government debt over the next decade — comparable to what has been piled up in the past eight years.

Chapman says the Republicans predict $9 trillion. He also says The Tax Policy Center predicts $7.2 trillion.  What’s a lousy $2 trillion, when you’re piling on the bull dung?

Trump’s promises have proven to be as reliable as a hormonal teenager’s, “I’ll love you forever” promise.

And $7.2 trillion debt growth over 10 years isn’t nearly enough. It would amount to a debt growth of about 50%. Compare that with the last decade — 2007-2017 — in which federal debt grew almost 300% — and it wasn’t enough.

In short, Chapman is trying to alarm you about what amounts to comparatively slow debt (and GDP) growth, when faster growth is needed.

(Yes, debt growth isn’t the same as deficit growth. We explain that in numerous other posts. But, since Chapman mixes the two, we’re trying to work from his logic.) 

There are other alarming signs. Trump’s border wall with Mexico will cost $8 billion by his calculation and double or triple that by other estimates. He claims Mexico will pay for it. But he and Congress aren’t prepared to wait for him to get the money. They plan to start construction now and send Mexico the bill.

Plenty of money for a ridiculous wall, but not enough money to fund healthcare for the poor. Perfect.

This is the equivalent of taking out a loan that you plan to pay off with the lottery ticket you just bought. In the best (and least plausible) case, we’ll have to wait awhile for the Mexican treasury to cut the check — “a year or a year and a half,” Trump blithely estimated at his news conference Wednesday.

Federal financing is not “equivalent” to personal financing.

This is Trump at his best. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, so he gives a cockamamie “year or year and a half,” knowing his backers don’t want or even expect him to tell the truth.

There is Trump and there is the Truth, and ne’er the twain shall meet.

(Ask Trump backers why they settle for lies, and you will receive a one-word answer: “Hillary.” Everything is excused by saying, “Hillary.” When Trump’s Presidency proves to be a horrifying disaster, the Trump-lovers will say, “Hillary would have been worse.” Depend on it.)

In the worst case — which happens to be the one President Enrique Pena Nieto has embraced — we won’t get a single peso and American taxpayers will eat the expense.

No, American taxpayers will not eat any expense for the wall. The federal government does not use tax dollars to fund federal spending. It does not use tax dollars for anything.

Even if all tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could build a dozen walls, plus fund Social Security and Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America, and still not run short of dollars, while controlling inflation.

So go ahead, Donald, build your dopey wall. The money will grow the economy, so long as you don’t cut other spending.

Anyway, either Chapman is ignorant of this fact or he is lying.  Take your choice.

Scrapping the Affordable Care Act, it turns out, would be a fiscal loser overall because of the taxes it imposed and the Medicare savings it implemented. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently reported that a full repeal would add between $150 billion and $350 billion to the debt over the next 10 years.

I favor scrapping ACA and replacing it with fully funded Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America. (See Step #2 of the “Ten Steps to Prosperity,” below.) You should, too.

Under a fiscally responsible approach, the CRFB advised, “savings from repealing parts of the ACA must be large enough to not only finance repeal of any of ACA’s offsets, but also to pay for whatever ‘replace’ legislation is put forward. This is not an easy task, and it will likely require policymakers to retain or replace the majority of ACA’s health and revenue offsets.”

Let’s make the above paragraph easier to understand. It very simply means: “We plan to screw the middle classes and the poor.”

Clear enough?

But Congress and the president-elect appear to have every intention of torching the ACA now and fighting the budget fire later. Reducing taxes soon while pledging to cut spending eventually is a familiar tactic, and it functions reliably to enlarge budget problems rather than solve them.

Translation: “Enlarge budget problems” means: “Take fewer dollars out of the economy and add more dollars to the economy.”

This is a problem?

The ongoing retirement of the baby-boom generation puts great pressure on the budget, which has to cover more and more retirement checks and Medicare bills.

Another looming strain is the interest on the debt, which has been pleasantly manageable because interest rates have been so low. But they are bound to rise in the coming years, and if Trump gets his fiscal plans enacted, interest alone could cost taxpayers upward of $1 trillion a year a decade from now.

Both Congress and the president-elect have told Americans they will balance the budget. But that promise is written in sand.

Because the federal government never can run short of its own sovereign currency, there never, never, never is “great pressure” in the federal budget. Never.

This is a problem?

As for interest on the debt (i.e. T-securities), it benefits the public, especially T-security holders. If you own any T-bills, T-notes, or T-bonds, you benefit from interest. You will benefit even more, when rates are raised.

This is a problem?

I’ll tell you what the real problem is: Communicators like Steve Chapman either are ignorant of, or are lying about, the differences between federal finances (Monetary Sovereignty) and personal finances (monetary non-sovereignty).

Either way, columns like his are more harmful to America than the Russian hacking of our secrets. If the public ever figures that out, there will be a revolution.

At the beginning of this post, I’ve given you Chapman’s contact information.  Tell him what you think.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (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.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can 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 ANNUAL 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 benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
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.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring 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.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) 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 a 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.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
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.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »