Tag: monetary non-sovereignty

This article got me so damn angry I could spit. Why Democrats lose elections.

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 following article got me so damn angry, I could spit:

Opinion: Pelosi’s ‘Medicare for All’ Problem
Democrats want it, but at what cost?
Jonathan Allen, RollCall.com

Democrats were advised to stay away from promoting the “Medicare for All” plan that has energized the party’s grass-roots activists and its rank and file in Congress.

“Keep the focus on the Republican plan and make them own it,” the polling memo from GBA Strategies & Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research reads. “The Republican plan is extremely unpopular and Democrats have little to gain by shifting the spotlight to new Democratic proposals or fixes.”

Democrats have little to gain by telling the truth??

Democrats have little to gain by providing health care to every man woman and child in America??

The Democrats have little to gain by doing what its grass-roots activists want??

Is this the nuttiest idea, ever?

Democrats’ polling data shows that health care is a top-of-mind issue for many voters. The data was accompanied by a three-page memo on messaging, two pages of which were dedicated to likely GOP attacks on a single-payer system.

Notably, none of those arguments were refuted in the message document.

The Democrats are so clueless, they don’t know how to justify giving everyone a longer, healthier life.

If you can’t even sell long life and health, what the heck good are you? Why are you in Congress?

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is trying to squash her own party’s desire to fight for a health care system in which the government is the single payer for necessary medical expenses and the health insurance industry is all but eliminated as a middle man.

Pelosi said she’s supported the idea for decades but that the American public isn’t there yet.

Well, Nancy, if the Democrats aren’t “there yet,” and you aren’t “there yet,” is it any wonder your constituents aren’t “there yet”?

Or do you expect the people to do the leading, while you trail miserably behind?

And now, here comes the really, really stupid part:

“I say to people, ‘If you want it, do it in your states. States are laboratories,’” she said. “States are a good place to start.”

What a cowardly comment. “Let the states do it. We are too frightened to take a chance. We are afraid to lose elections — which is we have been doing consistently for the past 8 years!”

Image result for lady hiding under desk
Our political leaders

Is this why you are in the House, Nancy — to hide under your desk and hope the states will do something for your constituents??

No, Nancy, states are not a good place to start. States are monetarily NON-sovereign.

Like you and me, they do not have the unlimited ability to create dollars.

Making the states “laboratories” practically guarantees the failure of any Medicare for All plan, because of the states’ need for taxes.

By contrast, the Federal Government is Monetarily Sovereign. It never can run short of its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

The Federal Government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill. That is something I can’t do, you can’t do, the states, counties and villages can’t do — but it is exactly what the federal government does every day.

It is how the federal government was created to operate.

The federal government creates dollars by deficit spending.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers now has 112 members of the caucus signed up for his “Medicare for All” bill — nearly 60 percent of the rank and file.

The problem is that Sanders’s bill and Conyers’s bill talk about “affordability,”  and “cost cutting,” and “taxes”, none of which are appropriate to a federally funded program.

The federal government can afford to fund a comprehensive, no-deductible, Medicare for All program, plus long-term care for everyone, without using a single tax dollar.

Moreover, the dollars the federal government would create to fund these programs would stimulate economic growth, create millions of jobs, and dramatically improve the health and lifespans of Americans. 

When I asked a Pelosi aide about her position, I was sent a Vox piece on the cost of California’s single-payer health care plan — $400 billion per year, or twice the state’s budget.

Right. The so-called state “laboratories” would have to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars.

In a vacuum, most Americans think the government should provide health care for all — either through a single-payer or hybrid system — but the question isn’t usually asked with a price tag attached.

Conyers’ plan would require massive tax increases not only on the 1 percent but on the top 5 percent of earners.

No, no, no, dammit, no.

Federal funding of Medicare for All would not require a single tax dollar.  Zero. Zilch. Nada.

The Monetarily Sovereign federal government uniquely does not spend tax dollars. It creates new dollars, ad hoc, by spending.

Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending — and creating dollars — forever.

Pelosi outlined her alternative at the California Democratic Party’s convention earlier this month.

“We must defeat the repeal of the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “But that is not our only fight. We must go further. The Affordable Care Act enables every state to create a public option.

“I believe California can lead the way for America by creating a strong public option.”

What unmitigated bullshit.

Monetarily NON-sovereign California and its taxpayers are supposed to “lead the way,” while the cowardly, lying national Democratic party pretends to lead — from behind?

Let’s just get this straight. The states, counties, and cities cannot afford Medicare for All without increasing taxes, and with price inflation on medical services, the problem only will worsen.

The federal government can afford Medicare for All, with zero additional taxes. All medical price inflation will do is cause the government to pump more stimulus dollars into the economy.

In that sense, medical price inflation will help grow America.

Pelosi’s a tough customer who has shown a willingness to stand up to her base at times, but it’s getting harder for leaders in Washington to tell activists that they’re wrong and survive the backlash.

This will be a big test of Democrats’ faith in her leadership and of Pelosi’s ability to navigate the increasingly treacherous shoals of modern politics.

Yeah, some “tough customer” she is — hoping California, not her, will lead.

No, this election will be a big test of Democrats’ courage and willingness to tell voters the truth.  So far, they have shown neither.

The voters have been lied to continually since August, 1972 (when the federal government became Monetarily Sovereign).

So, perhaps the public can be excused for not understanding the financial differences between the monetarily NON-sovereign states and the  Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

But the Democratic politicians have no such excuse. Professor Stephanie Kelton (UMKC), who understands Monetary Sovereignty quite well, and has been an adviser to Sanders and the Democrats, has been ignored by the weak-willed ninnies now leading the party.

I feel for her. I don’t see how she can stand dealing with those useless people.

Democrats. Either do your jobs or get the heck out of Congress.

Really, I’m so damn angry I could spit.

Are you angry, too?

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 (Economic Bonus)) 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

You live on the edge of insolvency, though you may not realize it.

mTwitter: @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 U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, which simply means it has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the dollar.

The federal government never can run short of dollars, which it creates ad hoc, every time it pays a creditor. The federal government needs no income. Even if federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending, paying its bills, and creating dollars, forever.

Those are the fundamental truths of Monetary Sovereignty.

By contrast, your state, county, city, business, you and me all are monetarily non-sovereign. The dollar is not our sovereign currency.  We can run short of dollars. We all need income to pay our bills.

I live in Illinois. It is insolvent. It is so broke it can’t even pay its Lotto winners their prize money.  So it discontinued its Lotto, which makes it even more broke.

Illinois isn’t the only state with financial problems. Maine and New Jersey are in the news for similar situations. And not just Illinois, Maine, and New Jersey, but thousands of monetarily non-sovereign governments — villages, cities, counties, and states — are on the edge of insolvency, if not already insolvent.

And there is a reason.

To remain solvent, a monetarily non-sovereign entity must have more dollars flowing in than flow out.

Imagine the fictional town of Mini. The entire town consists of one house. The sole resident is one man, the Mayor of Mini.

The Mayor receives all his income from his Mini salary, and Mini receives all its income from the Mayor’s taxes. No dollars flow across Mini’s borders, either in or out. The same dollars just keep flowing back and forth.

Image result for endless loop
For one to have a surplus, the other must have a deficit.

Immediately you see the problem. The Mayor has no dollars left for food, clothing, etc. And Mini has no dollars left over for any town functions.

The only way Mini and the Mayor both can survive is if they both receive additional dollars from outside.

If for instance, a tourist comes by with dollars, and rents a room in the Mayor’s house, the influx of dollars allows the Mayor to survive financially, and even to increase his tax payments, which allows Mini to survive.

While a Monetarily Sovereign entity never can be unwillingly insolvent, a monetarily non-sovereign entity long-term must have more dollars coming in than going out.

Similarly, to financially survive long-term,  not only you but your village, your county, and your state all must be net exporters of goods and services, i.e. net importers of dollars.

But, there is a problem. In a closed system, not everyone can be a net exporter or net importer of anything. For one entity to be a net importer, another must be a net exporter.

(The monetarily non-sovereign euro nations struggle because the Monetarily Sovereign European Union is too stingy with euros. The individual nations all must be net exporters of goods and services to survive — a practical impossibility.)

When that tourist to Mini showed up, the Mayor became a net importer of dollars (a net exporter of a service), and Mini also became a net importer of dollars (from the Mayor’s extra dollars).

But where did the tourist obtain his dollars? 

For the tourist, and for villages, cities, counties, states, you and me all to survive financially long-term, every single one of us must run a long-term surplus of dollars, and some other entity must be able to run a long- term deficit without becoming insolvent.

Ultimately, that entity is the U.S. federal government. It uniquely has the unlimited ability to run deficits forever. That’s what makes it Monetarily Sovereign.

The implication is clear: When the federal government shifts any financial burden to a state, county, or village, it moves that entity toward insolvency.

Some politicians will tell you that the states, counties, and villages can do a “better job” serving the public, because of being “nearer” to the public, and for that reason, some of the costs should be transferred from the federal government to the states, counties, and villages.

Do you see what’s wrong with that idea?

  1. It’s wrong on the face of it, because the states are not “nearer” to anyone. Southern Illinois, for instance, is solid Republican, and Chicago is solid Democrat, with each suburb of Chicago varying between left and right. So, to whom, is Illinois “closer”?
  2. Illinois is broke. Forcing it to pay even more costs is ludicrous. The federal government never can be “broke.”

And then there are the politicians who tell you that the federal deficit is “too high” and “unsustainable.” But as we have seen, the deficit is necessary to fund all those monetarily non-sovereign entities, the states, counties, villages, businesses, you, and me.

Dollars have to come from somewhere, and ultimately that “somewhere” is the federal government that originally created them.

Now it’s true that new dollars also come from banks in the form of loans, but those new dollars must be paid back, and when they are paid back, the loans and the new dollars disappear.

The only dollars that never need to be paid back are the deficit dollars created by the Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

Return now to the title of this post, “You live on the edge of insolvency, but may not realize it.”

If not for the dollars you receive as income, you would be insolvent. In essence, you live on the edge of insolvency.

You cannot rely solely on other monetarily non-sovereign entities to supply you with dollars. They all have the same problem. They too need a continual inflow of dollars. They all need income.

Only the federal government doesn’t have that problem. It neither needs nor uses income. Tax dollars sent to the federal government cease to be a part of the money supply the instant they are received. In short, tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt.

Image result for sun rays and planets
The earth is warmed only if it receives more heat than it emits.

Think of the federal government as the sun, and any individual state as a planet.

Every second, the sun runs a “deficit” of heat rays. It sends out more heat than it receives.

The planet is kept warm only if it receives more heat than it gives off.

An individual state is solvent only if it receives more dollars than it spends.

Think of what would happen if the “politicians” of the universe decided that the sun’s heat deficit was “unaffordable” and “unsustainable,” and the earth would have to do with less heat from the sun.

Think of what would happen if the “politicians” of the universe were to decide that the sun must run a balanced budget, meaning the heat it sends out must be balanced by the heat it receives from the rest of the solar system.

Everything in the solar system would become heat insolvent, and the entire solar system would turn to ice.

Today, our politicians tell us the federal government’s dollar deficits are “unaffordable” and “unsustainable.” So the states will be forced to do with fewer dollars, and the government will need to run a balanced budget.

If that happens, we all will be dollar insolvent and our economy will turn to ice.

And that is exactly what history reveals to us:

U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses.
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

U.S. recessions tend to come on the heels of deficit growth reductions:

Monetary Sovereignty
Deficits are vertical gray lines. As the federal deficit growth line drops, we approach recessions, which are cured only when deficit growth rises.

Federal deficit growth is necessary for economic growth.

All of us — the states, counties, villages, businesses, you, and me — we all live on the edge of insolvency. Only the Monetarily Sovereign federal government can save us.

Remember this the next time a politician or blogger tells you the federal government “can’t afford” something, and the deficit and debt are “unsustainable,” and the government should run a balanced budget.

At the behest of the rich, the politicians try to make you insolvent and turn your world into ice, so the rich can make you their desperate slave.

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 (Economic Bonus)) 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

 

Jobs: The all-purpose excuse for feeding the Rich and for anarchy

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 GOP, being our #1 Party of The Rich, (the Dems are a distant #2) hates regulations.

Correction: The GOP actually loves regulations that restrict the middle and the poor. Regulations on immigration, easily bypassed by The Rich, are perfectly fine. The Rich build and expand the Wall to prevent poor immigration while allowing rich immigrants to pay a fee and walk right in. (See: The high cost of immigration and USCIS fees.)

No, what The Rich hate are regulations that prevent their stealing making money and/or widening the Gap between the Rich and the rest.

The infamous Trump University, that stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the poor, did not result in any prison time for the perpetrators. But let an impoverished mother shoplift some food or clothing for her family, and the Law, created by The Rich, will come down hard: Fingerprinting, a mug shot, and even a jail record are likely.

Destroy the economy by selling worthless debt instruments, and no rich banker is punished. But sell a few ounces of marijuana, and you will be treated harshly. That is the way The Rich operate.

The Rich are clever about their thievery. Every time the GOP dumps regulations designed to protect workers and the general public from rich predators, they pull out their all-purpose excuse: Jobs.

The excuse works like this:

Image result for oil spill in river
Do we need any regulations? 

 If a company is forced to obey a regulation — any regulation — the company must expend time, effort and money.

Therefore, according to The Rich, all regulations are anti-job, and should be eliminated.

It’s a Libertarian, anarchist approach to governing.

Here are examples from an article in the Chicago Tribune:

Trump, GOP dump Obama-era rules
Lauren Rosenblatt Washington Bureau, Chicago Tribune, 7/2/17

Trump and the GOP-led Congress overturned 14 Obama-era regulations in a number of areas, including the environment and guns.

Here’s what the repeal of these regulations will mean:

Companies no longer have to disclose payments made to foreign governments involving oil, gas or minerals
This regulation required companies to annually disclose any payments made to foreign governments related to the commercial use of oil, natural gas or minerals, specifically the type and total amount of each payment to a certain project or government.

The rule was designed to ensure the American people knew where these companies were drilling and who they were paying. Supporters said it was important for transparency and national security.

Opponents said it was unnecessarily bureaucratic, decreased efficiency, productivity and competitiveness and sacrificed American jobs.

One only can wonder why disclosing payments to foreign governments, something the lowest-paid bookkeeper can do in five minutes, “decreases efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness, and sacrifices American jobs.”

Nothing new needs to be done. Every business has that information at its fingertips. The only reason for the lack of disclosure is to hide The Rich’s evil doings from the American public.

Image result for mining pollution
Another stream lost to America

Mining companies have fewer regulations on waste management
The stream protection rule placed restrictions and offered new guidelines on where and how mining companies can dump waste.

The rule required companies to record how their mining processes changed the ecosystem and to develop a plan for later restoring those ecosystems.

Supporters said it would protect waterways, forests and wildlife, potentially contribute to reducing climate change, improve public health and encourage companies to use more innovative technology.

Opponents argue that these benefits come at the expense of jobs, shrink the list of potential mining sites and reduce profits.

Yes, it probably does “shrink the list of potential mining sites,” for instance near a fresh stream or lake, or in a pristine forest, because today’s Congress believes profits for The Rich are more important than clean rivers.

And because every business regulation can be said to “reduce profits,” does that mean there should be no business regulations? Appaently, so.

Companies no longer have to maintain five-year record of workplace injuries
This regulation clarified that employers must maintain proper records of any workplace injury or illness for five years and could be cited for any violations during that time period.

The clarification was in response to some interpretations that employers could only be fined if the violation was caught within six months.

Supporters worry the six-month time frame allows employers to brush aside any injuries and does not give enough time to identify and correct ongoing problems.

Opponents of the regulation say the five-year time period put extra burdens on companies while doing little to protect worker safety.

The “extra burden” excuse is nonsense. When a company maintains an ongoing record of workplace injuries, as it must, the so-called “extra burden” consists of a filing cabinet capable of holding five years worth of records.

The sole purpose of the new law is to make it much harder for poor workers to sue companies for negligence.  Contrary to business propaganda, the vast majority of such suits are legitimate and beneficial in that they motivate companies to adopt safety standards that protect employees.

The above are only a tiny sampling of the “jobs” excuses for taking protections from employees and from the public, and putting dollars into the pockets of The Rich.

Every single business regulation ever created has required businesses to do something, so every one of them can be considered a “burden.” The sole question is: Do the protections for employees and the public outweigh the “burden.”

You seldom hear the right-wing worry about employees or the public. All the concern seems to be for businesses. Is that the “balance” we want?

Image result for coal mine accidents in west virginia
Memorial to 29 miners killed in a WV mine explosion.

For instance, should coal mine safety standards, that protect employees, be relaxed so that coal mining companies can make more profits?

Should cars be less safe? Airplanes? Food? Drugs?

Should the banks that caused the “Great Recession” be less regulated? Should stock brokers be relieved of “honest dealing” regulations?

Should doctors be allowed to commit life-destroying malpractice with impunity? Should oil and gas drillers be allowed to spoil pristine areas?

The vast majority of regulations have a good public purpose. Yes, tiny minority don’t, but that does not call for a massive dilution of oversight.

There is another part to the issue. Do all regulations really cost us jobs? For instance, consider automobile safety requirements. When I was young, cars didn’t have seatbelts, airbags, shatter-resistant glass, etc. Now they do.

Have these saved lives?  Yes.  Have they cost jobs, or have they actually increased job availability in industries that sell seat belts, air bags, shatter-resistant glass, etc?

Bottom line: All business regulations require some sort of action by businesses, and so can be said to add to costs and thus “cost jobs.”

But, each regulation should be evaluated individually, to determine whether or not it really costs jobs in the near-term and/or the long-term, and if so, do public and employee concerns outweigh any such job losses.

That is the sensible way to deal with regulations, but it is not the Congressional way.

Instead, we are treated to the ignorant decision by the administration to balance every new regulation with two deleted regulations, no matter what they may be.

Can you imagine any rule less thoughtful than that?

Call it a “Twitter solution,” a pronouncement that can be made in 140 characters, containing no consideration of consequences. (“There are too many regulations so let’s just get rid of them all.”)

The real purpose of most regulation cuts is not to increase efficiency, and certainly not to protect the public or to protect employees or to save jobs.

The real purpose of most regulatory cuts is to enrich The Rich.

President Trump is very rich. He has surrounded himself with a cabinet composed of very rich people, who decide for their own, personal benefit.

His Secretary of the Treasury came from Goldman Sach, one of the banks that never was punished for ruining America. His Attorney General is predisposed against the poor. His Secretary of Health and Human Services opposes Medicaid.

His Secretary of Education opposes free public education. His Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency does not accept human-caused global warming. His Secretary of Energy is completely ignorant about energy policy and wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy.

His Secretary of Housing and Urban Development believes the poor are at fault for their own poverty. His Secretary of the Interior passionately supports mining and drilling, and is another climate change denier.

In summary, The Rich support Libertarian anarchy, so they may plunder unimpeded. The Rich claim such plunder is to benefit you, the worker, by creating jobs.

“Job protection” is a ploy to pull you into accepting their extermination of your legal protections.

What else did you expect from The Rich? Compassion?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

THOUGHTS

•All we have are partial solutions; the best we can do is try.

•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 no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•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.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The latest healthcare plan: When meanness meets stupidity

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

Imagine that a man, his wife, and his children are dissatisfied with their house. It was built in a hurry, to the previous owner’s specifications, and there are things they would like to change.

So they begin to discuss ways in which they can tear down their existing house and build an entirely new house. But no one can agree on what the new house should be.

The husband wants fewer rooms; his wife wants more. The kids want a bathtub and basement playroom. The husband wants an office and a theater in a two-story Tudor. His wife wants a small kitchen in a ranch. Some want modern; some want traditional. They can’t even agree on colors, or on cost, or on landscaping. Nothing.

They argue for months and years, and after more than 7 years of debate, they still can’t agree on anything about the new house.Image result for burn down the house

Finally, the husband makes a decision. He will burn down their current house, and decide at some future time, to build a new house, specifications unknown.

Meanwhile, his wife and kids will live in the street, cold and wet, until everyone can do what they have failed to do for 7 years: Decide on the blueprints for the new house.

The husband will live in a luxury apartment at Mar-a-Lago with Donald Trump and his other rich friends.

You have just read the GOP’s latest healthcare plan for the poor and middle classes.

GOP’s Plan B for Obamacare repeal began with quiet push from Koch network
Los Angeles Times, By Lisa Mascaro, Reporter

The influential Koch network, backed by the billionaire industrialists, floated the idea most recently at a retreat last weekend in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Among those attending the gathering at the luxurious Broadmoor Hotel was Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who has been working with the White House behind the scenes on the idea.

“This two-step plan to keep our two promises — both repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a system that provides affordable and portable health insurance — seems like a no-brainer to this gym rat,” Sasse wrote in a letter to the president he made public Friday.

Trump echoed the idea in a tweet arriving just moments after Sasse discussed the idea Friday morning on the “Fox & Friends” morning news show.

“If Republican Senators are unable to pass what they are working on now, they should immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!” Trump tweeted.

See all those rich Republicans, sitting smug and satisfied with their own platinum health care plans, and deciding that because they can’t agree on a new plan for you poor and middle classes, they will eliminate your existing plan, and perhaps come up with some sort of new plan, sometime in the future.

The logic is undeniable: If they couldn’t come up with a plan after 7 years of debate, simply destroy what you have and maybe, just maybe, they might be able to come up with a good plan, later.

Meanwhile, you poor and middle classes may or may not have healthcare coverage, but does it really matter? Not to the Party of the Rich. After all, the rich are the “makers” and the rest of you are the “takers,” and you deserve whatever fate the rich decides for you.

The turn of events alarmed many in Washington because it was a reversal of Trump’s early view to do the Obamacare overhaul all at once.

Trump reversing his view is normal. The man’s views always are wobbly, because his knowledge of anything always is vague.

So, he easily is swayed by the most recent person to tell him how incredible he is.

Senate Republicans expressed interest, desperate to find a Plan B that doesn’t preserve Obamacare’s taxes on the rich or cater to centrist senators trying to fend off deep Medicaid cuts.

They also want to avoid turning to Democrats for help.

There you have the real GOP motivations:

  1. Cut taxes on the rich
  2. Cut benefits for the poor and middle
  3. Eliminate anything that has the name “Obama” attached to it.
  4. Avoid giving the Democrats credit for anything.

Senators left town for the long Fourth of July recess without agreement on the legislation drafted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), which falls short of a full Obamacare repeal.

Instead, the bill ends Obamacare’s taxes and mandates — giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans — while leaving 23 million more Americans uninsured, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

McConnell was working the phones Friday from his home state of Kentucky as he struggles to secure 50 votes for passage, rewriting the bill to address concerns of conservatives who want a more robust repeal, and centrists worried that constituents will lose their healthcare coverage.

The irony is that McConnell’s constituents, the people of Kentucky, will lose massive amounts of money and health care if the current GOP plans become law.

But McConnell doesn’t care. Kentuckians would vote for him even if he were caught committing a mass murder of children (which, by the way, is exactly what the Republicans’ BCRA would do).

Remember:

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

Whether the Trump-Sasse idea, which has also been backed by another key conservative, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, gains traction remains to be seen.

Another Kentucky Senator who cares nothing for the people of Kentucky, but who is solid to be re-elected.

But as Republicans seek a resolution to the Senate standoff, the proposal may have appeal. It would allow senators to make good on their repeal promise, while punting until later the tough job of coming up with a replacement.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said, “What we would do is have the repeal go into effect at some date in the future, and give us the time in the meantime to develop the alternative.”

Apparently, 7 years has not been enough time for the GOP, but somehow, the problem will be solved “at some date in the future.”

It’s possible — perhaps even likely — that Congress would never agree on a replacement. That risks abandoning 22 million Americans who have received health coverage thanks to Obamacare, including many who voted for Trump.

If you go to any right-wing blog, you will see comments from Trump voters, showing that despite all the facts, they will continue to back Trump and vote Republican, as they lose their health care, their health, and their children’s health.

But no matter. That is the cult effect Trump has created.

It could also create even more disruption in the individual insurance market and lead to a return of high-priced polices as well as discrimination against people with preexisting health problems.

Trump already has created disruption in the insurance markets. Insurance rates rely on probability statistics, but Trump’s erratic meanderings have forced insurance companies to impose “worst-case” (i.e. higher) premiums.

McConnell warned senators he would have no choice but to reach out to Democrats for a bipartisan deal that would likely “include none of the reforms we would like to make.”

Oh, horrors! Reach out to Democrats to construct a bipartisan plan, an approach the Democrats have been pushing for years?

My heavens, that might create a plan that would cover even more of the poor and middle! Unthinkable.

Getting the health care issue off the agenda would also free up time for the other main Republican priority — tax reform — which has stalled amid the Senate’s logjam, and is also a Koch network priority.

Tax “reform,” always means tax the 99% more and the 1% less. So the GOP is torn: Cut health care for the 99% or cut taxes for the 1%.

Which is more important to the right wing?

Nathan Nascimento, a vice president at the Koch-backed Freedom Partners chamber of commerce, said: “The best way to provide relief to Americans suffering under Obamacare has always been to fully repeal Obamacare and work together to fix our broken health care system.”

Translation: The best way to provide relief to Americans who receive otherwise unaffordable health care is to eliminate their health care now, and maybe come up with something later.

Freedom Partners encouraged Congress to use the little-known Congressional Review Act to roll back more than a dozen Obama-era regulations – even helping to compile the list — which Republicans now count as one of the chief achievements of this Congress.

The GOP counts as an “achievement” anything that is anti-Obama, no matter what effect it has on the populace.

Trump had once panned the two-step approach, disagreeing with McConnell and other congressional leaders who early on also preferred the repeal now-replace later strategy.

When Sasse floated it anew, the administration signaled its support.

Since Trump repeatedly has shown he does not know what is in Obamacare, the only conclusion one can draw is that Trump recently spoke with someone who told him he is great and incredible, and should support the “destroy and maybe rebuild” plan.

Trump said the House of Representatives plan was “mean.” The Senate plan was at least as mean, perhaps meaner. The latest Kock plan combines meanness with stupidity.

Perfect.

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 (Economic Bonus)) 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