Taking the wrong path won’t get you to the right destination

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..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Science is a search for facts. But often, agreed-upon facts can lead to diametrically opposing conclusions. Related image

Consider the differences between Monetary Sovereignty (MS) and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Both are attempts to demonstrate the superiority of facts over intuition.

They agree on the same set of basic economic facts, some of which seem to be so counter-intuitive, that even many economists are confused:

The U.S. federal government is sovereign over its currency, the dollar. The U.S, cities, counties, and states are not.
Being sovereign over its currency, the U.S. government cannot unintentionally run short of U.S. dollars. The U.S. cities, counties, and states can and do unintentionally run short of dollars.
To pay its bills, the U.S. federal government needs no income. The cities, counties, and states do need income.
The federal government creates dollars ad hoc, each time it pays a creditor. The cities, counties, and states do not.
Needing no income, the U.S. federal government does not need to tax or to borrow. Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue paying its creditors, forever.
Unlike the cities, counties, and states, the federal government does not borrow. What misleadingly is termed “borrowing” and “debt” actually is the acceptance of deposits in T-security accounts by the Federal Reserve Bank, i.e bank deposits. The Bank pays off this “debt” every day, by transferring the dollars that already exist in T-security accounts, back to the checking accounts of the T-security holders. The federal government could pay off its entire “debt” today, if it chose, without creating a single, new dollar.
Because the federal government never unintentionally can run short of dollars, no agency of the federal government can run short of dollars unless Congress and the President will it. Despite what you may have been told, Social Security, Medicare, the military, the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court et al, being federal agencies, cannot run short of dollars unless Congress and the President want them to.

These are the absolute Truths of the U.S. economy, on which both MS and MMT agree. Yet from these Truths, the two philosophies diverge, notably regarding what actions the federal government should take.

The very heart of MMT beats at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), where the professors have created a monument to their beliefs, an organization called The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability.

As you might imagine, an organization bearing that title must foster the belief that the two most important problems facing the American economy, or any economy, are a lack of jobs and inflation.

Regarding jobs, consider these excerpts from an article in the May 27th, 2017 issue of NewScientist Magazine:

Technology for Tomorrow, a manifesto for change
Put workers before robots, p. 21 by Matt Reynolds

If robots aren’t already lining up to take your job, they will be soon. A much-cited study from the University of Oxford found that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are at risk of being automated over the next 20 years.

Automation is set to affect everyone from cashiers to credit analysts: even if your job can’t be fully automated, there is a good chance parts of it can be.

The implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), buttressed by “machine learning,” means that in the future, precious few jobs will not be done, wholly or in part, by machines — and this even includes the conceptual creation of those machines.

“Intelligent” machines already have taken jobs from humans, and will do so at an accelerated rate. If nothing is done, this looming lack of human jobs will impoverish the populace. So, what should be done?

MMT believes the problem can be stated very simply as “lack of jobs.”

MS believes the real problem is “lack of money.”

To solve what it considers to be the “lack of jobs” problem, MMT suggests implementing a “Jobs Guarantee” (JG) by which the federal government guarantees that everyone who wants a job will be given a job.

However, in reality, there is no shortage of jobs, nor has there been since the Great Depression. If you go to the Monster.com employment site and click “Chicago,” you will see: Jobs in Chicago, Illinois, 1000+ Jobs Found

The site doesn’t say how many more than 1000 jobs it lists, but the question is: Why are there so many jobs available if the problem is “lack of jobs”?

Is it because Chicago is such a big city? Not really. Consider little Mullen, NE, pop. 501, and near no other cities. Here is what Monster.com said on June 11, 2017: “Jobs within 10 miles of Mullen, NE: 65 Jobs Found.”

Then we have the thriving metropolis of Harlem, MT, pop. 830, where 52 jobs within 10 miles were found by Monster.com.

Would you consider 65 jobs available within 10 miles of a town having 501 residents, or 52 jobs close to a town of 830, to imply a “lack of jobs”?

And these are not special cases. They are typical. Go to Monster.com, and prowl around.

And those are just the jobs listed on one web site, Monster.com. Think about all the other job sites, and the classified sections of newspapers and the employment agencies, and the charitable organizations devoted to helping people find jobs, etc.

Yes, there is no shortage of jobs; there are plenty of available jobs, thousands of jobs, millions of jobs. But, for any individual job seeker, the vast majority are not the right jobs.

Look at all the jobs in your local paper, and see how few are appropriate for you.

And therein lies the problem — or one of the problems.

The MMT JG program does not, cannot offer the right jobs; it just offers jobs, any jobs.

There is no possible mechanism for JG to offer the right jobs to every resident of Mullen, NE and Harlem, MT, and every other Mullen and Harlem resident in America, who wants a job.

Think about the staffing and design of a federal agency capable of:

Finding and offering the right job for every job seeker in every Mullen and Harlem around America
Watching over those jobs (for ongoing working conditions, comparable benefits and pay, etc.), and most importantly,
Making sure those are additional jobs, not just replacement jobs.

As technology reduces, year-by-year, the availability of those “right” jobs, JG will look less and less like a solution to anything.

And the MMT folks know it.

So why do they persist with JG? Here is what the article’s author, Matt Reynolds, says, and what MMT believes:

Work isn’t just about money. It gives us a sense of purpose and identity, which is why using technology to track workers to enforce optimal performance is so dehumanizing.

There you see a mashup of the nonsense promulgated by the rich: You masses cannot feel a sense of purpose and “identity” (whatever “identity” means) unless you labor. Presumably, the harder you labor, the more “purpose and identity” you will feel.

The rich, by contrast, feel just fine minimizing their own labor by employing people like you to do the work, while they lounge on yachts. Apparently, we should be thankful to the generous rich, who forego their own “purpose and sense of identity,” and give it to us workers.

And, if work gives us a sense of purpose and identity, why is tracking workers to enforce optimal performance “dehumanizing”? Wouldn’t optimal performance be what provides that purpose and identity?

And by the way, why do you buy labor-saving devices if labor gives you a sense of purpose and identity?

Yes, some jobs — jobs that make people rich, famous, and revered — can provide some measure of purpose and identity, but for the vast majority of us working stiffs, jobs are for money and hobbies are for pleasure, and we still look forward to weekends and vacations away from work.

Not many people on their deathbed say, “I wish I had spent more time digging in the coal mine or sitting in my office cubicle, answering ‘Yes, sir’ to my boss.”

The MMT professors seem to believe, deep within their souls, that the poor need to labor to fulfill their destinies, so they should be thankful to receive any job, no matter how onerous or empty.

The MMT professors are creatures of graphs, numbers, and formulas: A thousand unemployed and a thousand available jobs; put them together and poof(!) problem solved.

No, MMT, the problem is not a lack of jobs; the problem is a lack of money. And that is what the Ten Steps to Prosperity is designed to address, Particularly Steps #1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.

Finally, we must mention two comments from the article:

Bill Gates has suggested a robot tax, for instance, which firms would shell out when they supplant humans with machines.

Gates’s suggestion is a perfect example of why money and brains don’t always go together. A robot tax simply would hinder the development and implementation of robots, a bad idea for many reasons. (Why not a tax on all machinery, not just robots, so that thousands of people must be employed to do what a handful do now? Back to the pre-industrial age.)

As the author says:

The EU rejected a robot tax proposal in February, and such simplistic measures don’t get to the heart of the problem.

That’s partly why a universal basic income — a guaranteed small monthly income from the state — has been gaining interest; it lets people pursue their own priorities, including caring for relatives or running their own business. We have preliminary evidence that this can work.

That suggestion is Step #3 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity.

The MMT professors understand the facts of the economy; they should teach them to the populace. If only MMT would forget about JG and join MS in promoting the Ten Steps. Taking that path would lead to a better world.

And MMT, please begin your trip into the 21st century by changing the name from The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability to the Center for Prosperity.

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

Is the House of Representatives obsolete?

The House of Representatives long has stood on questionable philosophical ground, but lately, it has been acting like the bad kid in the playground.

The fact that Representatives serve 2-year terms enshrines an “always-running” mentality, providing little time or inclination for intelligent lawmaking.

In the House, slogans pass for communicating and catchphrases pass for thought. Representatives spend most of their waking hours dialing for dollars, and making deals to keep challengers out.

Image result for paul ryan — Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House

This sophomoric existence has manifested in “quick-and-dirty” legislative attempts. The House moral seems to be, “Let’s get something passed — anything — no matter how illegal, immoral, or inane, then turn the problem over the the ‘parents’ of Congress, the Senate, to do the real thinking.”

Consider the House’s disgraceful “repeal & replace of Romneycare er, ah, Obamacare:

House Republicans have passed their ambitious plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, sending the measure to the Senate, where it is expected to be significantly revised. (ABC News’ John Parkinson and Mary Bruce contributed to this report. )

The House passed a bill they knew was no good, sent it to the Senate to be “significantly revised,” then crowed about what a great job they did.

Following the House vote, House Republicans celebrated with a press conference at the White House Rose Garden with President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Trump touted the bill as a “great plan” even though they got “no support from the other party.”

They also got no support from the majority of the nation, who found the elimination of 24 million of Americans from health care coverage to be morally and economically repugnant.

(Trump) congratulated and thanked House Speaker Paul Ryan and praised House Republicans for coming together. “What we have is something very, very incredibly well-crafted,” Trump said of the bill.

So well crafted, even the Republican-dominated Senate couldn’t stand the stench of it.

Trump added. “As much as we’ve come up with a really incredible health care plan, this has brought the Republican Party together. We’re going to get this finished.”

They got it “finished,” all right — finished and dumped, never again to see the light.

And on Thursday night, he tweeted, “It was a GREAT day for the United States of America! This is a great plan that is a repeal & replace of ObamaCare. Make no mistake about it.”

If this was a great plan, one wonders how miserable a plan would have to be for Trump to consider it bad.

“It’s going to be an unbelievable victory when we get it through the Senate and there’s so much spirit there,” Trump said.

“Unbelievable” is the appropriate word for Trump’s announcement. Few believed it.

Republicans, who have been promising to repeal and replace Obamacare for seven years, said they planned on keeping their promise to constituents.

And that is all they cared about, keeping the promise of “repeal & replace.” So, having created a pile of dung, and patting themselves on the back, the House held its nose and decided to create more dung — another ill-considered “repeal & replace” — this time, of Dodd-Frank.

House votes to kill Dodd-Frank. Now what?
by Donna Borak @donnaborak

House lawmakers effectively gutted the Dodd-Frank financial regulations that were put in place during the Obama administration.

The bill passed despite vehement objections by Democrats to preserve the sweeping law aimed at preventing another financial crisis and protecting American consumers.

The bill would give the president the power to fire the heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a consumer watchdog agency created under Dodd-Frank, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at any time for any — or no — reason.

Remember, it was malfeasance by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the banks, that led to the great recession. The CFPB was designed to prevent that malfeasance.

It also gives Congress purview over the CFPB’s budget, meaning lawmakers could defund the agency entirely.

The GOP proposal would also bar the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from overseeing the so-called living will process, which requires banks to write up plans on how they would safely be unwound in the event of a collapse.

Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip said the bill would repeat recent history and put Americans at risk of losing millions by taking “referees off the field.”

Minority lawmakers also argue the bill would gut consumer protections and allow banks to make risky investments that required taxpayers to come to the rescue of the nation’s largest financial institutions almost a decade earlier.

Now the bill’s destiny will be in the hands of the Senate.

Those who closely follow the debate believe there’s no chance the bill would pass the Senate as is. Rather, they expect the upper chamber to advance a separate regulatory relief bill of their own.

By killing Dodd-Frank, the House would create the same “Banks, do whatever the hell you want” situation that led to the Great Recession of 2008. Apparently, nothing has been learned.

Why did the bad kids of the House do it? Because they expected the adults of the Senate to step in and clean up the mess.

The motto of the House seems to be: “Pass anything, then get back to soliciting campaign funds. Let the Senate fix it.”

How is the House designed to fail?

The abovementioned 2-year term, which puts Representatives into an everlasting election cycle, leaving little time or energy for actual legislating.
Gerrymandering, which almost guarantees re-election of incumbents, which gives Representatives little motivation for legislating.

The 2-year term and the population-based representation were supposed to make the House more responsive to the people, when compared to the Senate with its 6-year term and state-based representation.

The opposite has occurred:

Reelection Rates Over the Years

Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats

Senate races still overwhelmingly favor the incumbent, but not by as reliable a margin as House races.

Thus, House Representatives, lacking the time, energy, and motive to legislate in any sensible manner or to respond to constituents, has become an anachronism, virtually worthless — no, less than worthless — an impediment.

It repeatedly vandalizes the legislative process by producing amateurish, noxious bills it knows cannot be passed, then steps back to let the Senate scrub the walls of their graffiti.

The House either should be eliminated or repaired. I suggest two fixes:

Institute a 4-year term to coincide with the Presidential election. This not only would allow more time for legislating and for challenges to House seats, but it would save election costs for the states.
Institute strict rules and definitions to reduce, as much as mathematically feasible, Gerrymandering.

These fixes would help return the House to being a “for the people” organization.

Or, we should just get rid of the House altogether, and let the Senate officially take over.

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

Here we go again: More privatization scam

We have discussed the privatization scam many times before. It is the scam in which traditionally government-owned-and-operated functions are turned over to rich guys in the private sector.

One excuse for privatization is the religion that the private sector always is more efficient, honest, and responsive to the public, than is the federal government. No evidence for this exists, but it is widely believed by people who don’t understand one simple reality:

While the motive of a federal government agency is to provide a service to the public, the motive of a business is to provide a profit to the owners.

It is true that there are many efficient, honest, responsive businesses, and many that are not (Hello banks and other businesses that created the Great Recession). The same is true of government agencies –neither more nor less true. Image result for thumb on the scale

However, the thumb on the scale is the profit motive, which inexorably tilts the private effort toward cutting quality and service, while increasing costs.

Let’s face it: If private businesses were so efficient, honest, and responsive, we wouldn’t see so many bankruptcies and so many businessmen being fined for their misdeeds.

(Does multiple bankruptcies and being fined for misdeeds sound like any businessman you know?)

Another excuse for privatization is the private sector’s willingness to take on projects a government can’t afford. This, however, applies only to monetarily non-sovereign state and local governments, not to the Monetarily Sovereign federal government, which never can run short of its own sovereign currency and can afford anything.

And, if a state or local government can’t afford a project, the result of privatization either is greater efficiency (which rarely happens) or a combination of service reductions and price increases (which almost always happens).

Thus, privatization of state and local government projects generally is a fast road to the public paying more to receive less.

By contrast, privatization of federal projects is the fast road to large profits for the already rich “in-crowd” of campaign contributors.

Here are some excerpts from an article that appeared in the 6/5/17 LA Times:

President Trump announces plan embracing privatization of air traffic control system

President Trump will push for the separation of air traffic control operations from the Federal Aviation Administration.

“We’re really moving into the modern decade of technology in air traffic control. It’s a system where everyone benefits from this,” White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said in a conference call with reporters.

There are about 50,000 airline and other aircraft flights a day in the United States. Both sides of the privatization debate say the system is one of the most complex and safest in the world.

You may wonder, “Why privatize a system that is one of the most complex and safest in the world.”

U.S. airlines have been campaigning for more than two decades to separate air traffic control operations from the FAA.

That effort picked up steam last year when the union that represents air traffic controllers agreed to support a proposal to spin off air traffic operations into a private, nonprofit corporation in exchange for guarantees that controllers would retain their benefits, salaries and union representation.

The federal government could give those guarantees without privatizing the system.

Airlines have been lobbying vigorously for the change, saying the FAA’s NextGen program to modernize the air traffic system is taking too long and has produced too few benefits.

The changes would involve moving from the current system based on radar and voice communications to one based on satellite navigation and digital communications.

The federal government could pay for those changes far more easily than any private operator could.

Airlines and the controllers union say that the FAA’s effort to modernize the air traffic system has been slowed down by the agency’s dependence on inconsistent funding from Congress and occasional government shutdowns and controller furloughs.

As a result, the FAA has had difficulty making long-term commitments with contractors.

We have a military, funded by the federal government. The military continuously upgrades its systems. The military makes long-term commitments with contractors. Why can’t the FAA do what the military does?

Privatization would not solve the funding problem.

Union officials have complained that the FAA has been unable to resolve chronic controller understaffing at some of the nation’s busiest facilities and pointed to the modernization effort’s slow progress.

What would a private company do to “resolve chronic understaffing.” Same situation as above. Privatization would not solve the real problem: Funding.

But FAA Administrator Michael Huerta has said the agency has made progress during the past decade in updating its computers and other equipment in order to move from a radar-based to a satellite-based control system.

Huh? If the agency has “made progress,” why hasn’t it made more progress? Funding?

Democrats have largely opposed the changes, warning that the proposed board overseeing the estimated 300 air traffic facilities and about 30,000 employees would be dominated by airline interests.

Hmmm . . . a board dominated by the businesses it oversees. What could possibly go wrong with that? It would be akin to having a bunch of anti-regulation people run the SEC, the Treasury Department, and the EPA.

Oops, President Trump already did that. Anti-regulation is a Trump pattern, as you can see by examining his cabinet appointments.

The oft-bankrupt creator of the notorious Trump University con and the Trump Foundation scam has good reason to despise business regulation. Allowing the airlines to dominate the FAA would be in line with his policies.

They have also pointed to the unprecedented safety under the current system and noted repeated computer system failures in recent years by U.S. airlines, questioning whether they are ready to handle complex technology modernizations.

No wonder the airlines oppose regulation. They themselves can’t handle the change. If they dominate the board, they wouldn’t have to spend so much on “complex technology modernizations.”

Business aircraft operators, private pilots and nonhub airports have also expressed concerns they may need to pay more and get less service under a private corporation even though airlines have promised that won’t happen.

Would you trust the airlines’ promises, especially if they are the ones who will run the FAA?

In general, the privatizing scam works like this:

Skim money from a federal agency.
Act “shocked, shocked” that the agency can’t do its job.
Determine that the “solution” is to privatize.
Turn over the operation to a company owned by a big political donor.
Watch as the cost goes up, the service goes down, and the donor gets rich.

Consider a parallel situation, airport security:

The TSA said it has found no difference in performance between federal workers and private contractors.

What would really help long lines is if Congress stopped siphoning off money from the TSA, said Christopher Bidwell, vice president of security for Airports Council International North America, an advocacy group for airports.

Sounds familiar? Congress underfunds, then says the solution is not money but privatization.

“Because TSA is underfunded, basically,” Bidwell said, “the void has been filled on a voluntary and temporary basis by airports and airlines as well.”

Every passenger pays an $11.20 round-trip security fee. Bidwell said since 2014, Congress has been redirecting a third of that money, which adds up to over a billion dollars a year. And since 2013, TSA has laid off around 10 percent of its staff.

Bidwell said there just aren’t enough workers, public or private. Until that changes he said, many long lines await.

Congress has no financial need to take dollars from TSA. The federal government never can run short of its own sovereign currency.

Congress underfunds in an attempt to make TSA fail, then blame the failure on government — and then privatize as a phony solution to the underfunding.

This is the same privatization scam Trump wishes to perpetrate.

Unfortunately, we also must deal with the Libertarians (aka the Anarchists) who believe any government is bad government, so will go along with any plan, no matter how inept, that eliminates government.

For instance:

Should Progressives Call for Privatizing Parts of Government?
By Rob Kall

We need to privatize government to protect ourselves from Trump-appointed foxes in the henhouse.

There’s the irony — the belief that privatization — i.e. appointing rich private donors to get paid for government work somehow protects us against the henhouse foxes.

That’s usually something that conservative and corporations want, but now, we have a government that has been taken over by, despoiled by and infected by a psychopathic narcissist who allows decisions to be made by an extreme right wing bigot, Steve Bannon.

So instead, we are to be taken over by an extreme right-wing corporate bigot?

So the way that Americans need to protect themselves is to take a bottom up approach to privatizing government. Not privatize it so it is run by big corporations, as Republicans and corporatist Democrats routinely do, but privatize it so it is run by groups of responsible, respected individuals who are accountable to people.

They could even be elected in privately held but open elections.

Hmmm . . . now let me think: “Elect responsible individuals accountable to the people.” Isn’t this what’s called “government“?

We need to replace the EPA since it is no longer a trusted organization/institution. We need to replace health care organizations. We need to replace the Justice Department.

Hmmm, again. Is this something like the notorious “Repeal and Replace” idiocy promoted by the Republicans, who had great plans for “Repeal,” but after seven years, still have no idea how to “Replace”?

I wouldn’t be surprised, if these efforts take root, that the government agencies that we are defending ourselves us by privatizing, would go after the new privatized entities, accusing them of horrific crimes.

I’m not sure how that works, Mr. Kall. When the government decides to privatize an agency, they no longer exist.

So who exactly would “go after the new, privatized entities,” the government that made the decision to privatize, or the agency that no longer exists?

Bottom line: Federal privatization is a scam when done at the behest of a crooked President, or an exercise in ignorance if done by the Libertarians.

Either way, it’s a bad idea.

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.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.
==================================================================================

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The story of the inutile President of the inutile Party

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 one sense, the President of the United States is the second most powerful force on earth.

He commands the most devastating military ever created. His words alone can change the flow of the world’s history. A single, 140 word, groggily phrased, morning Tweet, can send the media, the markets and the moment into a tizzy.

He lifts a finger and the world shudders.

The third most powerful force on this planet is, at any given moment, the American political party then in power. It creates all U.S, laws, then appoints a servile Supreme Court that will approve those laws. And with the U.S. being the gorilla filling a small room, U.S. laws matter greatly to the world.

Together, a President and his dominant political party can be an imposing duo. But they are nothing — nothing — compared to the ultimate power in America and in the world: The voting people.

An impotent President and his acquiescent party may demand, then plead, “Surrender all that is valuable to you and follow us,” and a hopeful populace, praying for salvation, may march blindly and trustingly. Image result for herd of sheep at cliff

But when a chasm appears, and “Follow us,” becomes, “You people go ahead; we’ll linger safely back here, picking up your valuables,” the great mass may hesitate, then mill about in confusion, then resist. Then, “Mussolini” its retribution on the leaders who led it astray.

Today, we have passed through the “blindly and trustingly” stage, and have entered the “mill about / resist” phase. What is your destination?

The vast inertia of our huge populace has not yet been detoured by its leadership’s obvious lies, broken promises, stealing, nepotism, hate-mongering, ignorance, incompetence, and failures. But, like a runaway freight train applying its squealing brakes, America’s suicide mission has begun to slow . . .

. . . Because lately has come Doubt, the beginning of the end for any movement. Doubt infects contagiously, like influenza in a kindergarten. Doubt shatters the false image of a heroic leader presenting the exaggerated squint of eye and the melodramatic thrust of chin.

Doubt pulls back the curtain and reveals the Ozian fakery.

Doubt may have, begun with the Wall, which when shown to be an ill-considered, expensive, impossible, pointless arrogance, desperately was redefined by the leader’s toadies to be a “fence,” then a “barrier,” then “troops,” then “border guards,” and now . . . now what? Now forgotten?

Will they just say, “Mission accomplished,” and move on to the next fakery?

The Wall, as Trump’s followers understood it would be, no longer exists. It lies in the bunk barrel along with “Mexico will pay for it” “Trump University,” “Obama is not a citizen,” “Obama tapped my phones,” and “I will reveal my tax returns.”

The Doubt may have grown with the endless, almost comical attempts to destroy Barack Obama’s signature achievement: Romneycare.

Fifty votes, or was it sixty? Seventy? Who could keep track of the ridiculousness? The leaders lounging on the side, repeatedly urged, “Follow me,” while offering the people no plan and no path to be followed.

And when a plan finally was produced, it was exposed as a confused jumble of demented lies, a suicidal map of misdirection, dense smoke, and fun house mirrors. And seeing the people mill and struggle, the leaders hastily, frantically produced another map, far worse even than the first.

Seven years have passed and the map still is in development, while the leaders urge, “Follow me.” But to where?

Now Doubt, planted by Ignorance and fed by Failure, approaches the chasm into which even many of Donald Trump’s most ardent lemmings may refuse to march. The chasm is called “Climate Change denial,” and the wisest see its reality.

The leaders had claimed climate change was an illusion, a “Chinese hoax.” But millions no longer are fooled. (Some lemmings can be fooled by anything and will march lockstep to their death when ordered. Their numbers decline.)

So, on the Wall of hatred, then on the “Trumpcare” of neglect, and now on the denial of Climate Change, the people have taken the lead, while the erstwhile leaders trail sadly behind in the dust.

When the President said, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” the people of Pittsburgh said, “You don’t represent us. “Our agreement was not with Paris, but with all the nations of the world.”

The President said, “In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord”

But, a growing list of states, cities, and corporations replied, “No, you do not protect us by endangering our children and the world in which we live.”

At recent count, 187 U.S. mayors commit to uphold Paris Climate Agreement. See the latest list. Is your mayor among the rapidly growing group?

This was the statement from mayors whose cities protect the 52 million Americans who refuse to be Trump’s lemmings:

“We will continue to lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

“We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks. We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean energy economy, and stand for environmental justice.

“And if the President wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic Paris Agreement, we’ll build and strengthen relationships around the world to protect the planet from devastating climate risks.

“The world cannot wait — and neither will we.”

While the President and his party dither, the mayors lead. They have turned you from the precipice, and are returning you to sanity.

Trump refuses to say whether he still believes climate change is a hoax. But you are pushed by his lemmings and sycophants and cult followers who, not knowing what they are supposed to believe, still ardently believe . . . but won’t say what they believe so strongly.

Fervency and ignorance dance hand in hand, while Truth and Logic have lost their voice.

Sean Spicer, Trump’s apologist, who is impervious to shame, said, “We’ve never seen before at this point in a presidency such sweeping reassurance of American interest.” He said, “He let American allies know exactly what they can expect from us going forward — what he called “a principled realism, rooted in common values and shared interests.”

What does Spicer mean? Who is reassured by “climate change is a Chinese hoax”? And exactly what does “reassurance of interest” tell us? Are our allies reassured? Not if you ask them. Are Americans reassured? Not if you ask them, either.

Perhaps we’ll have to wait for the next tweet to explain it. Or not.

And do our allies really “know exactly what they can expect”? And what are those “common values and shared interests” the President referenced? The public responses from our soon-to-be, if-not-already former allies seem to put lie to the claims of “shared interests.”

Orwell lives bigly in the White House. Ivanka and Jared sneak lucrative business arrangements via their government security clearances. A petulant President responds with charity for none and malice toward all.

Trump’s fevered mind swirls. Enemies surround him. The walls close. He fears for his survival. The bully is a coward.

But will you survive? Will your battle scars eventually heal, or will the lemmings of the right push you and your children over the edge?

The war is upon you. Two sides face — fools and facts — and you are asked to choose.

It is 3:00 AM. The inutile President awakens, groggily remembering yet another insult. And then another. Angrily, he reaches for the red phone. This time, a simple tweet will not suffice to quell his fury. He must lash out at the derisive laughter.

“Hello, General,” he barks through clenched teeth . . . .

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.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: