Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Huff Post
Nancy Pelosi Says She’d Back Simpson-Bowles Plan
04/27/2012

WASHINGTON — Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.

But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.

I’m no longer surprised that Pelosi (as stalking horse for President Obama) would sacrifice Social Security and Medicare in favor of the ridiculous, completely unnecessary anachronism, known as the “debt ceiling.”

Obama is a liberal only by comparison with the Tea/Republicans. Today, we have no liberals. The liberals are conservatives and the conservatives are fascists.

During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, the California Congresswoman said that she would support what’s known as the Simpson-Bowles plan. The co-chairs — former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Morgan Stanley director Erskin Bowles, a Democrat — have worked recently to revive it, and the political class speaks of it as if it passed and is an official recommendation of the commission.

The “political class” speaks of it as though it actually made any sense, which of course, it doesn’t.

At the end of March, a version of the Simpson-Bowles plan was given a vote on the House floor. It was annihilated, 382-38, with Pelosi and most Democrats voting against it.

But Pelosi, the day after the vote, said that she could still support the plan if it stuck more closely to the original version put out by Simpson and Bowles. “I felt fully ready to vote for that myself, thought it was not even a controversial thing … When we had our briefing with our caucus members, people felt pretty ready to vote for it. Until we saw it in print,” she said. “It was more a caricature of Simpson Bowles, and that’s why it didn’t pass. If it were actually Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it.”

Heaven help the working poor. Or the non-working poor. Or the working or non-working middle class. Or all of America.

Yet when the Simpson-Bowles plan had been originally unveiled, Pelosi called it “simply unacceptable.”

The Simpson-Bowles plan is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that trims four trillion dollars off the deficit in ten years. Its cuts to social spending and entitlement programs made it “simply unacceptable” to the Democrats’ liberal base almost as soon as it was announced. Pelosi’s rhetorical retreat from that hard-line position has progressives worried they’ll have nobody left to defend the social safety net, even Medicare and Social Security.

Wake up, America. Obama is not whom you thought he was. He’s far right wing on everything except, perhaps, Israel. The problem is, Romney is exactly whom you think he is: A clueless rich man, who will say anything, no matter how nuts, to tell you what he thinks you want to hear.

So the November choice will be: The Fraud vs. the Sleaze. You decide who is who.

The Washington Post reported:

[President Obama] warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases.

Perfect: Cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and additionally increase taxes by $800 billion, thereby assuring a recession if we are lucky and a depression if we’re not.

The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, [White House chief of staff William] Daley recalled.

Gulped? How about them having the backbone to shout: “This if f*cking stupid. How can you grow the economy with spending cuts and tax increases?”

Remember, Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

But cuts to Social Security and Medicare will decrease Federal Spending, decrease Private Investment and decrease Consumption, while a tax increase also will decrease Private Investment and decrease Consumption. With all elements of GDP decreased, what would increase GDP?

I’m just coming around to thinking that Obama will be remembered as the worst President since Jimmy Carter — maybe worse, yet. And then, I start to think of Romney as President . . .

Yikes.

Please folks, contact your Senators and Representatives. Don’t bother trying to explain Monetary Sovereignty to them. They never will understand it. Just tell them: “If you cut entitlements and/or raise taxes, I won’t vote for you.” That, they’ll understand.

Five dunce caps to Pelosi, each to be shared with Obama. (Two people can share one hat if the heads are small enough.) Fortunately there is no Simpson-Bowles committee on dunce caps.

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

I first thought it was ignorance, then stupidity. Now, I’m convinced it is insanity: The notion that cuts in federal spending, along with increases in federal taxes, will is some magical way, grow the economy.

No rational human could believe applying leeches will cure anemia, but that is what Congress and the President tell the American people: Cut off the arms and legs and head and heart of the economy to create health, wealth and happiness. Yikes!

Here are a few excerpts from the latest folly:

White House threatens to veto student loan bill
By ALAN FRAM | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House threatened a veto Friday of a Republican bill keeping the interest rates on federal student loans from doubling this summer, objecting that the measure would finance its $5.9 billion cost by abolishing a (preventive) health care program.

The veto warning came as GOP leaders hunted for votes for the measure, which they were trying to push through the House. They were running into opposition from outside conservative groups like the Club for Growth, which was pressuring Republicans to oppose the legislation because, they said, the government should not subsidize student loans.

Abolishing a preventive health care program will benefit the nation??? And the ironically named “Club for Growth” thinks the government should not subsidize education. Well, what should the government subsidize if not education?

Republicans noted that many Democrats had voted earlier this year to take money from the preventive health fund to help pay to keep doctors’ Medicare reimbursements from dropping. Obama’s own budget in February proposed cutting $4 billion from the same fund to pay for some of his priorities.

Hmmm . . . Pay doctors, but reduce illness prevention. Wonder who thought of that gem?? This is what happens when you begin with the false premise that deficits must be You confront economic realities.

The House bill would keep interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent . . . Senate Democrats (would extend) the lower interest rate and pay for by boosting payroll taxes paid by high-earning owners of some private firms. Republicans oppose it.

Sadly, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans understand or will admit that federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. If federal taxes rose to $100 trillion, gazillion or fell to $0, neither event would affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to spend.

So they run wildly in circles, trying to figure out how to pour two gallons of milk from a one-gallon bottle, when all they need do is buy an additional bottle. Those who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty do not understand economics.

Friday’s vote comes with congressional Republicans and Democrats, as well as Obama and his near-certain GOP opponent this fall, Mitt Romney, competing at every turn over who has the best prescription to wring jobs out of the still-struggling economy. The student loan battle fits nicely into that theme, with 7.4 million low- and middle-income students and their parents reliant on Stafford loans and a college education symbolizing the ticket to economic success.

Will someone please tell the “Club for Growth”?

On Thursday, Boehner tried putting the focus on Obama’s travel this week to three college campuses. He said Obama should repay taxpayers for the use of Air Force One for the trip.

Never mind that taxpayers do not pay for federal spending.. Boehner’s legacy will be as the fool who said the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. is “broke.”

For House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the emphasis was the GOP’s cuts in the preventive health program, whose initiatives she said include breast cancer screening and children’s immunizations. She contrasted that with a Democratic bill extending the low student rates by cutting subsidies to oil and natural gas companies, which is opposed by the GOP.

Pelosi characterized the Republican view as, “‘We prefer tax subsidies for big oil rather than the health of America’s women.'”

These arbitrary trade-offs are amazing. Who decided on health vs. oil? How about Congressional salaries vs. oil? How about military cost overruns vs. Secret Service hookers? Who decides on these weird tit-for-tats?

Heritage Action for America, a conservative group, was lobbying Republicans to oppose the GOP bill and let interest rates rise, saying to do otherwise would burden taxpayers.

Another legacy established. How will the HAA explain their position when people begin to understand Monetary Sovereignty?

Several conservative GOP lawmakers said Thursday they hadn’t decided how to vote. Some Democrats were eager to vote to keep student loan rates low, though it meant accepting GOP health care cuts.

Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., said some Democrats “may feel upon reflection that they’ve got to swallow hard but swallow” those health care reductions. He said he hadn’t decided how to vote.

I award Congress, the President and all those who subscribe to the “cut-deficit” philosophy, five dunce caps, which I will have to pay for by taxing Congress, the President et al, five of the dunce caps previously awarded:

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Sometimes, people argue about one thing, when they really mean something else.

A father tells his daughter not to date John, because John has poor manners, or because John doesn’t have a job, or because John gets poor grades in school, or because John is too fat, or too old or too young, or because John dresses funny.

But what the father really means and doesn’t say is, “Don’t date John because he’s black and we’re white.” That’s personal bigotry. His daughter understands the message.

Now, long after Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus sent the Arkansas National Guard to block school integration, and Alabama’s Governor George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, institutionalized bigotry has become somewhat more subtle.

Our Supreme Court’s hearing on Arizona’s disingenuous immigration law is an example. You will hear many comments, explanations and excuses for this law, all of which skirt the central issue: Arizona’s bigots don’t like Mexicans. Period.

Think of the words used to describe illegal immigrants. “Rapid population growth and demographic transformation, downward pressure on wages, the burgeoning crime wave, deteriorating public services and increasing tax-payer burden.” I cut and pasted from a “reasonable,” anti-immigrant web site. The South knows these deceptive words well. They were used to describe the “nigras” of yesteryear.

What is the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant? A piece of paper. Nothing more. Otherwise, they look the same. They act the same. They have the same traditions and mores. Undocumented aliens are no more likely to commit a crime than documented, in fact, less likely. They pay taxes, just like the legals, and they aren’t stealing jobs. They create jobs by being consumers. They came here to create a better life — just as your parents did.

There simply is no meaningful difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant. The lives of Arizona citizens are not affected by the legality or illegality of any immigrant.

The laws on immigration are not like other laws. They are not based on real harm to other people. They are an exclusionary effort by xenophobes, who were lucky enough to have their citizenship, and now invent excuses for why others shouldn’t enjoy the same benefits. It’s what the British term, ‘I’m all right, Jack.”

The legality of an immigrant is just an arbitrary definition that has no effect on you, me or on any other citizen. A change in the law could make all those illegal immigrants, legal tomorrow. How would that change the life of any Arizona citizen? Not at all. Our archaic immigration laws require years and years of jumping through hoops, but serve no useful function for our society. There is no valid reason why a person cannot become a citizen in just a few months.

And, now comes Supreme Court Justice Scalia with the rest of his notorious band. You remember, Justice Scalia, he of the strictly interpreted Constitution (i.e. “I don’t care about people. I only care about 18th century law.”) This is the strict interpreter who presumably would vote for slavery, because our founders had slaves.

During the hearing, he asked sarcastically:

“The state has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there?” And, “What does ‘sovereignty’ mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?” And, “Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you’re not concerned about harassing them.” And, “We have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?”

Ah, the innocence of his “reasonable” questions. Why of course a state can close and defend its borders. We see it all the time — those gates and guards on every road between states — don’t we? And no, we don’t have to please Mexico; we can act like the boorish, bullying gringos the rest of the Americas thinks we are.

His “reasonable” comments remind one of another reasonable idea from yesterday: “separate-but-equal.” Bigotry gets its power from “reasonable” people.

This 2nd worst Justice, on one of the truly inferior Supreme Courts in history, tells us he is oh-so-concerned about Arizona’s ability to defend itself and it’s borders. Indiana, in the center of our country, has a similar law. Do they also need to “defend” their borders? Perhaps from Tennessee?

While Scalia is our 2nd worst Justice, he is not alone in his exercise in bigotry and truculence. I predict many on the Supreme Court will assume police have sufficient clairvoyance to determine just by looking, whether a person is illegal, so that without evidence or warrant, they can demand proof of citizenship.

Of course, none blonde and blue-eyed will be interrogated.

This court that gave us Citizens United (because money doesn’t buy elections) and Bush v. Gore (because states’ rights, which suddenly have become important, were meaningless, then) now aches to besmirch its already shameful legacy with yet another outrageous decision.

I predict this Court, with its young, activist (yes, activist) justices, will continue eroding our human and civil rights, and in the future, the Lazarlus poem on Statue of Liberty America will be lost to memory.

Apparently, it already is.

I award Justice Scalia two traitor images.

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

The belief that taxpayers pay for federal spending is so common and so ingrained, there probably is no cure, yet we keep trying.

INSIDE WASHINGTON: Who pays when prez politicks?
By NANCY BENAC | Associated Press – 7 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama flies Air Force One when he leaves town. So does Candidate Barack Obama.
Either way, taxpayers are on the hook for a hefty amount.

The souped-up Boeing 747 that typically serves as Air Force One costs $179,750 an hour to operate, according to the latest Pentagon calculations, meaning that expenses for presidential travel mount quickly.

And, no matter what the reason for the president’s trip, there are all sorts of other necessary big expenses anytime he moves around the country: advance teams, cargo planes, armored cars, Secret Service protection, communications and medical staff and more.

Presidents always are quick to stress that they reimburse the government for the costs of their political travel.
That’s true, but they do so under rules that still leave taxpayers paying most of the tab.

Interview 1000 people and 999 will tell you that taxpayers indeed do pay for Presidential travels. And of those, 999 will be wrong. Federal taxpayers don’t pay for anything.

When the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign in 1971, the government gave itself the unlimited ability to pay any bill of any size — without taxes or borrowing — in fact, without having income of any kind. So who pays for federal spending. The answer: Nobody pays for federal spending. It’s the ultimate free lunch.

The government pays its bills by sending instructions to banks to mark up creditors’ checking accounts. No taxes necessary. No borrowing necessary. Just instructions. Taxpayers don’t pay for federal salaries. Taxpayers didn’t pay for the GSA’s infamous Las Vegas trip. Taxpayers didn’t pay for the Secret Service hookers. Taxpayers didn’t pay for military cost overruns. Federal taxpayers simply do not pay for anything. Period.

The next time you read an article telling you how taxpayers’ money is being spend on any federal project, know this: The author of that article is clueless about Monetary Sovereignty, the basis for all economics. Now repeat after me: Taxpayers do not pay for federal spending.

So why does the federal government require us to pay federal taxes? They have not yet figured out the differences between a Monetarily Sovereign nation and one that is monetarily non-sovereign.

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY