At what point do your leader’s denials and delusions become a problem for you?

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

Image result for criminal with gunLet’s say your mayor tells you crime in your city is at an all-time low, so he now can reduce the size and budget of the police department. But statistics show that crime is at an all-time high.

Would you be intelligent enough to see his ignorance of fact as a problem for you and your family?

Let’s say your state governor tells you your water supply is clean and pure, so “job-killing” water regulations no longer are needed. But statistics show your water has dangerous levels of lead.

Would you be intelligent enough to consider your governor’s denial of clear evidence as worrisome?

Let’s say your Senators and their political party tell you your banks are completely honest, so there is no need for “economically stifling” oversight. But, you keep reading articles about how your banks not only caused the last recession but are continuing to commit the same offenses.

Would you be intelligent enough to recognize your Senators’ and their political party’s divorce from reality as harmful to you and the nation?

Let’s say your Congressperson first tells you he agrees with the scientists that your food supply is in danger from harmful bacteria and dangerous chemicals, so monitoring is needed. Then he denies he said that, and tells you the scientists are lying. Later, he tells you the food supply is not in danger, then it is in danger, and now it is not in danger, so costly monitoring is not needed.

You repeatedly see stories of botulism and chemically tainted food on our shelves and the vast majority of scientists say food monitoring is necessary, but your Congressperson tells you he was just kidding and he was just joking.

Would you be intelligent enough to doubt what your Congressperson repeatedly tells you, then denies he has told you? Would any of the above bother you? Affect you? Affect your children? Would you care at all?

I ask you to think about your answers, because of these articles:

Asked about health care, Trump trips over his own ignorance  5/1/17

Yesterday, for example, the president appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” and host John Dickerson did his best to ask Trump to explain the plan the White House is championing, with a particular emphasis on one of its most controversial provisions. The president argued:

“Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I just watched another network than yours, and they were saying, ‘Pre-existing is not covered.’ Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I mandate it. I said, ‘Has to be.’”

When Dickerson pressed Trump on whether he’s prepared to “guarantee” protections to those with pre-existing conditions, the president replied,

“We actually have – we actually have a clause that guarantees.”

There is no such clause. The Republican bill guts benefits for consumers with pre-existing conditions, clearing the way for states to do the exact opposite of what Trump said yesterday.

Trump, making up nonsense as he went along, went on to say in the same interview that the GOP bill has been “totally fixed,” adding,

“I’ll tell you who doesn’t cover pre-existing conditions. Obamacare. You know why? It’s dead.”

Just so everyone’s clear, the president has no idea what he’s saying.

A longtime healthcare lobbyist, who also did not want to be identified criticizing Republicans, said he’d never seen legislation developed with such disregard for expert input. “It is totally divorced from reality,” he said.

Do you understand that your leader’s ignorance of fact is a problem for you and your family?

What about this:

Donald Trump’s new China claims contradicted by reality  5/1/17: As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump swore he’d label China a currency manipulator.

But wait, Trump says. There’s a perfectly good reason that (he) didn’t label China a currency manipulator because (he) changed China’s approach to monetary policy. Consider this exchange on “Face the Nation” yesterday between the president and CBS’s John Dickerson.

TRUMP: …I did say I would call China, if they were, a currency manipulator, early in my tenure. And then I get there. Number one, they – as soon as I got elected, they stopped. They’re not – it’s not going down anymore, their currency.

DICKERSON: But that had been true before. That had been true–

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No.

When the CBS host asked specifically, “You were the one who got China to stop manipulating their currency?” Trump replied,

“I think so.”
Last week, Trump made a similar comment, arguing,
“President Xi, from the time I took office, he has not, they have not been currency manipulators. Because there’s a certain respect because he knew I would do something or whatever.”

The facts are not in dispute: China’s currency manipulation stopped in 2014. The evidence is unambiguous and unchallenged.

Two possibilities: The first is Trump knows China didn’t change its policies because of him, but he’s so embarrassed by his handling of the issue– and the ease with which he abandoned a promise he made to voters – that he’s brazenly lying, hoping his demonstrably false claims will distract some people from the truth.

The second is that Trump is so delusional, he actually believes his presidency shaped events in China three years ago.

Do you consider your leader’s denial of clear evidence as worrisome?

As Trump dissembles on Russia scandal, Republicans back his play 5/1/17

Russia and its autocratic leader were quite unpopular in GOP circles for many years.

In 2014, a CNN poll found that only 16% of Republican voters saw Russia as an ally. The same poll last week found that 56% of Republican voters now see Putin’s government as friendly.

The poll asked Americans about the possibility that Trump’s team colluded with Russia while Moscow launched an illegal espionage operation to attack our democracy.

The results found that one-in-five Republicans wouldn’t care if such collusion took place, while 44% of GOP voters would see this as a “minor problem.”
In a Fox News interview that aired on Friday, Trump started complaining about “made-up stories like Russia.”
“I call it the fake Russia story. Russia story was made up because the – they were embarrassed by their loss. They had this tremendous loss, a loss like nobody has ever seen before.
“So they made up this Russia thing to try and deflect because they’re embarrassed by what happened. The Russia is a phony – what do you see is the Russia story?
“The Russia story. And you see all of these other phony stories. It’s so bad and for me to have great approval ratings in light of all the faux press and the fake press I think is amazing.”

Trump does not actually have “great approval ratings,” and his claims about the nature of the election results are completely detached from reality.

The Russia scandal broke during the 2016 campaign, and the FBI began its counter-espionage investigation in July 2016. In Trump’s mind, the entire controversy was a reaction to his unexpected election victory in November 2016, which only makes sense if everyone involved in this story collectively had access to a time machine.

Do you recognize the GOP divorce from reality as harmful to you and America?

A timeline of every ridiculous thing Trump has said about climate change, 4/2/17

Donald Trump called global warming an urgent problem, and he’s called it a hoax. He’s claimed it’s a scam invented by the Chinese, and he’s denied that he ever said that. He’s promised to “cancel” the historic Paris climate agreement, and he’s said he still has an “open mind” on the matter.

2/6/09: Trump and three of his children signed a 2009 letter to President Barack Obama calling for a global climate deal.“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today.  If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

2/14/10: Trump changes his mind: (Al) Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan, and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.”

2/16/10: Trump claims scientists admitted global warming is a “con.” Climate deniers wrongly claimed hacked emails showed that scientists had conspired to fabricate evidence of global warming. Trump said (inaccurately) on Fox News that there was an email “sent a couple months ago by one of the leaders of global warming, the initiative…almost saying—I guess they’re saying it’s a con.”

11/6/12: Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

2014: Trump donates money to fight climate change. Trump donated $5,000 of his foundation’s money to Protect Our Winters, an advocacy group dedicated to “mobilizing the outdoor sports community to lead the charge towards positive climate action.” As the group’s website explains, “If we’re serious about slowing climate change, it’s imperative that we decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and focus on cleaner sources of energy and electricity.”

9/21/15 Trump: “I’m not a believer in man-made global warming.”

12/1/15: Trump says it’s “ridiculous” for Obama to pursue the Paris climate agreement.

12/30/15: “So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the—a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, okay? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

1/24/16:Trump says his claim that global warming is a Chinese hoax was a “joke.”

May 2016: Trump wants to build a sea wall to protect his resort from global warming.“If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct…it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates…In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring.”

5/26/16: Trump pledges to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement. Trump said that during his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including” his landmark climate regulations, “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement,” and “stop all payments of US tax dollars to UN global warming programs.”

7/26/16: Trump says he “probably” called climate change a “hoax.” Bill O’Reilly asked Trump whether it was “true” that he had “called climate change a hoax.” Trump replied that he “might have” done so.

9/26/16: Trump picks leading climate skeptic to run the EPA transition. He chose Myron Ebell, who has a long history of opposing efforts to fight climate change; he’s even accused climate scientists of “manipulating and falsifying the data.”

9/26/16: Trump denies saying climate change is a Chinese hoax.

11/23/16: Trump has “open mind” on Paris agreement but still thinks scientists are misleading us.

11/27/16: Trump’s “default position” is that climate change “is a bunch of bunk.”

12/1/16: Ivanka Trump “wants to make climate change…one of her signature issues.”

12/7/16: Trump picks climate change denier, Scott Pruitt, to lead the EPA.

1/20/17: Donald Trump environment boss Scott Pruitt admits climate change is not a hoax
“I do not believe climate change is a hoax,” Pruitt said, contradicting both himself and the new President.

1/20/17: White House climate website replaced with pledge to eliminate Obama’s climate regulations.“President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan.”

3/16/17: Trump plans to cut to climate research because it’s “a waste of your money.”

3/28/17: Trump signs executive order gutting many of Obama’s climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan.

3/29/17: Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’ A supervisor at the Energy Department’s international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases “climate change,”“emissions reduction” or “Paris Agreement” in written memos, briefings or other written communication.

Are you intelligent enough to doubt what Trump repeatedly tells you, then denies he has told you, then tells you again, and then denies it again?

Does any of the above bother you? Affect you? Affect your children? Do you care at all?

One last disrespect from Donald Trump: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

Is that you whom he disrespects?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

THOUGHTSs

•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

Hey, whoever wrote “Trump’s” tax “plan” may be on to something.

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

O.K., so it actually isn’t a “plan.” It’s a simplistic, one page, double-spaced, little note that purports to guide a replacement for our gigantic tax code. It is a little paper that essentially says “we should cut taxes, increase spending, and cut the debt, but you figure out how.”

It reminds one of the double-spaced, “print-in-large-letters” response that we pre-computer high schoolers created, when our teacher gave us the assignment to write about some subject, and we tried to stretch our ignorance over the greatest number of pages.

But at least, we wrote several pages; Trump delivered only one page. And it isn’t actually Trump’s; he had people to write it for him.

But what else could we expect from the best-selling author of “The Art of the Deal,” who never wrote a word of it?

That said, the people who wrote “Trump’s” teeny, weeny non-plan may actually be on to something.

Here is what my favorite voice of the rich had to say:

CRFB President: Trump’s Tax Plan Will Add $5.5 Trillion to the Debt
Maya MacGuineas, Apr 27, 2017

President Trump is on the right track by turning focus toward fixing our nation’s broken tax code.

See how low the bar has become, that when Trump says our tax code is bad, it’s as though he has become a brilliant observer of something no one knew.

Tax rate cuts are important and a driver of growth, but do not be hoodwinked: no way will they pay for themselves.

Actual tax collection cuts (not just tax rate cuts) drive growth in one key way: They add dollars to the private sector.  

Adding dollars to the private sector takes place when the federal government runs domestic deficits. It is the domestic deficit spending that drives economic growth. This is the absolute economic fact that MacGuineas and her CRFB always pretend not to understand.

Growth is sluggish; our 35% corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world; our strategy for international taxation is a mess; and the income tax seems to get more complicated and opaque every year.

Her comment about the 35% shows why it is not tax rate cuts, but rather, actual tax collection cuts, that are important. Very few corporations pay that 35% rate.

But these problems cannot be solved by simply lowering all business taxes to 15% while cutting taxes for individuals. In fact, the President’s current proposal is likely to worsen our country’s growth prospects by ballooning our record high national debt.

The President’s plan could add over $5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

And this is why we say, the people who wrote “Trump’s” non-plan may actually be on to something.  Anything that stresses MacGuineas about future deficits is good news for America.

Under current law, the primary way to “add over $5 trillion to the national debt” is for the federal government to run multi-billion dollar deficits.

No deficits, no economic growth. (See here [Point 3.])

As a result, debt would rise to a higher share of the economy than any time in history.

If her $5 trillion dollar figure is correct, the federal “debt” will not rise enough.

Last year the debt increase was $875 Billion.   It got us where we are today. But the deficit growth has been declining.

Red line is the increase in the Federal Debt

A mere $5 Trillion increase in federal debt, over the next decade, actually implies a decrease in federal debt growth — the debt growth that cured the Great Recession.

And history shows that when debt growth declines, we have recessions.

Vertical gray lines are recessions, which come when debt growth declines and are cured when debt growth rises.

Continuing with MacGuineas’s comments:

When it comes to tax cuts, there is always the free lunch crowd claiming if we cut taxes, they will pay for themselves through growth. Here in the real world, smart, pro-growth tax cuts can at best cover a fraction of their costs.

“Pay for themselves” means that tax rate cuts supposedly will result in more tax collections. Thankfully, this never has happened.

In fact, large tax cuts can actually harm economic growth by creating a massive debt load.

Federal debt is nothing more than the total to deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.

My local bank advertises and gives rewards — even pays interest — to obtain deposits.  So why deposits should be a burden on the world’s safest, most powerful bank, is anyone’s guess. But it is a common whine among debt worriers.

MacGuineas then offered up her 4-step plan. Steps #1 and #2 are the usual right-wing juggling act that involves taking a lot from lower and middle-class individuals and giving some to rich people and some to rich corporations, and the rest to the government (the latter having no use for tax money)  — resulting in a net loss for the private sector, aka “the economy.”.

But Step #3 is the real goal of the very rich: Cut benefits to the middle classes and the poor:

Step three is to reform our entitlement programs.

Social Security, health, and interest spending are responsible for 82 percent of projected spending growth over the next decade; and both Social Security and Medicare are headed toward insolvency.

The usual “Big Lie.” The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot become insolvent, even if federal taxes were $0. For that reason, no federal agency can become insolvent unless Congress wishes it.

Thoughtful reforms can improve health outcomes, encourage work, strengthen retirement security, and reduce the long-term debt all while protecting the most vulnerable.

And so, that is MacGuineas’s wonderful solution: “Thoughtful reforms” (aka “Cut benefits” for the people). Ah, those thoughtful reforms.

And so we trudge to MacGuineas’s final step:

The final step is to do everything else we can to encourage economic growth.

Faster economic growth needs to be broadly shared so it lifts all incomes, improves everyone’s wealth, and helps our fiscal situation.

Policymakers need to fire on all cylinders — pursuing reforms to taxes and entitlements but also regulations, immigration, federal investment, trade, and energy.

A critical component of the growth agenda is to get our debt under control.

Yep, to encourage economic growth we must “fire on all cylinders” and encourage economic growth.  Wow! Why didn’t anyone think of that?

Most importantly, we must give to the rich, while taking from the middle and the poor. That is the real message.

As for Trump’s one-page, double-spaced, magnum opus, it’s both too much and too little. It’s too much for the debt harpies, who would delight in sending America into a depression, as federal surpluses always do.

And it’s too little if the goal is to grow the economy.

The progressives (are there any?) will hate his one-page paper because it widens the Gap between the rich and the rest. The conservatives will hate it because it doesn’t widen the Gap enough (Is there ever enough?)

The middle will hate it because it doesn’t allow deductions for state and local taxes, and doesn’t make the corporations “pay their fair share,” whatever that may be. And Trump will hate everyone who criticizes

And Trump will hate everyone who criticizes it, because he loathes any sort of criticism.

But the .01%, the truly rich, will love it. Trump’s businesses will love it. Ivanka, the walking, talking conflict of interest will love it. And Jared, the inexperienced, all-purpose expert about everything,  will love it.  

So yes, the people who wrote Trump’s one-page tax “plan” for him are on to something.

And it’s something bad for you and me.

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

Do you accept our Constitution as the law of our land?

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

America is special.

We are special because every 4-8 years, we peacefully change our leadership.  We do not suffer coups or other forms of violent resistance.Image result for constitution

Even when a majority votes for one candidate, but our Constitution dictates that the other candidate has won, we accept the decision.

That is why Donald Trump, and not Hillary Clinton, is our President.

Many feel this violates the spirit of a democratic government, but we respect our Constitution. We respect it even above the word of any of our gods, which is why we accept the separation of Church from State.

On specific issues, many of us may not like what it tells us, but our mutual acceptance of those words makes America special.

We are a diverse, multiethnic nation, but our Constitution gives us the strength of unity. We are strong because we are one.

We are one because of our Constitution.

Our government is divided into three branches, and one branch — the judiciary — is tasked with the responsibility to defend our Constitution. Sometimes it must stand alone and strong against the other two branches, that often feel free to ignore Constitutional restraints.

If the judiciary ever were to yield that strength to the Congress or to the Presidency, America would cease to exist as we know it.

If Congress ruled, America would be a system of feifdoms.

If the President ruled, America would be a dictatorship.

That is why it always is disturbing when a President displays contempt for the Judicial branch.

Donald Trump’s racial comments about Hispanic judge in Trump University case
By Tom Kertscher on Wednesday, June 8th, 2016, Politfact

This was the exchange about the judge between Trump and host John Dickerson on CBS’ Face the Nation. The interview was recorded on June 3, 2016.

Dickerson: Let me ask you about, what does the Mexican heritage of the judge in the Trump University case have to do with anything?

Trump: First of all, I’ve had terrible rulings, forever.

I had a judge previous to him and it would have been a very quick case. This is a case I should’ve won on summary judgment. This is a case — the plaintiff in the case was a woman.  She was so bad that under deposition it was over. I mean, she couldn’t have been the — it was a disaster.

Dickerson: But Mr. Trump, what does this have to do with his parents being from Mexico, how does that —

Trump: Excuse me, excuse me, I’m just saying. We’re getting terrible rulings. We go to the judge, we say to the judge, “Hey, you can’t let her out of the case.” He let her out of the case. We said, “Well, if you’re going to let her out of the case, she’s the plaintiff. If you’re going to let her out of the case, the case is over.” No, the case isn’t over. OK? Now —

He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias. I want to build a wall. I’m going to build a wall. But just so you understand, this judge has treated me very unfairly, he’s treated me in a hostile manner. And there’s something going on.

Dickerson: And you think it’s not because — you think it’s because of where his parents came from?

Trump: Look, I have a case where thousands of people have said it was a great school. They’ve written reviews where they say it’s a great school. Not a good school, like great. They gave it the highest marks.

I have thousands of these papers. It should’ve been a summary judgment case, meaning the case should’ve been dismissed.

Dickerson: Yeah, I guess I’m just still confused how — what his Mexican parents have to do with that. Let me —

Trump: Excuse me. I want to build a wall. I mean, I don’t think it’s very confusing. Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country. And we need a little more common sense, John. And I’m not blaming. I’m proud of my heritage, we’re all proud of our heritage. But I want to build a wall.

Now, the Hispanics, many of them like what I’m saying. They’re here legally. They don’t want people coming and taking their jobs and taking their house and everything else. They don’t want that.

Trump’s position: Because he wants to build a border wall, a judge who was born in America, but whose parents came from Mexico, can’t be fair with regard to Trump University.

Get it?

(Trump University was so “great,” Trump paid a gigantic $25,000,000 penalty for the scam.)  But the real point is not that Trump is a crook, but that he repeatedly disparages the foundation of our American government — the protector of our Constitution, the judiciary — whenever he doesn’t get his way.

Trump is like the petulant child who is angry at the parents who feed, clothe, and send him to college but they won’t let him misbehave.

Chicago Tribune
Federal judge in Hawaii extends order halting Trump’s travel ban

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson: “The entirety of (Trump’s) Executive Order runs afoul of the Establishment Clause, where ‘openly available data support a commonsense conclusion that a religious objective permeated the government’s action.”

Trump called Watson’s ruling an example of “unprecedented judicial overreach.”

And then, after Trump had lashed out at the judiciary about his Trump University scam, and his Muslim ban, apparently he wasn’t finished, when he tried for a third, unconstitutional Executive Order:

Judge cites Trump’s comment in ‘sanctuary city’ ruling
By SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press
Published: April 26, 2017, 11:33 AM

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick quoted Trump to support his decision to block the president’s order to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

Trump called the sanctuary cities order a “weapon” against communities that disagree with his preferred immigration policy, Orrick said. The judge also cited a February interview in which he said the president threatened to cut off funding to California, saying the state “in many ways is out of control.”

The first comment was evidence that the administration intended the executive order to apply broadly to all sorts of federal funding, and not a relatively small pot of grant money as the Department of Justice had argued, the judge said.

The second statement showed the two California governments that sued to block the order — San Francisco and Santa Clara County — had good reason to believe they would be targeted, Orrick said.

Trump reacted to the decision on Twitter on Wednesday morning, calling the decision “ridiculous” and saying he would take his fight to the highest court, tweeting: “See you in the Supreme Court.”

Trump tweeted: “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings.” Trump tweeted that the 9th circuit has “a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80 percent).” He said, “They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system.” 

Among the many, many things Trump doesn’t understand is that the Supreme Court generally takes certain types of appeals — those where there is a high probability of an overturn. It doesn’t take appeals of decisions with which it agrees.

Thus all Circuit Courts experience a high percentage of overturns — 80% is near average  — and the Ninth has not been the highest.

Among Trump’s comments was this one: “(The ruling is) an “egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge.” Does it get any worse than that? District judges, appeals judges and Supreme Court judges are appointed, not elected. Trump seemingly is ignorant of that fact.

Orrick wrote that the jurisdictions successfully showed they “are currently suffering irreparable harm” because the order violates rights granted to states by the Constitution . . . ”

Presidents are Constitutionally precluded from coercing cities, counties,  and states in that way.

Bottom line: Every time Trump doesn’t get a favorable court ruling, he stomps his feet and criticizes the judge.

This is his long-standing pattern, which demonstrates the importance of an independent judiciary.  For instance, there was this tweet with regard to Judge James Robart, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” (The next day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump had “no regrets” about his criticism of judges.)

Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, described Trump’s criticism of the judiciary as “demoralizing and disheartening.” But Trump has “no regrets.”

He wishes to learn nothing about our Constitution and indeed has learned nothing.

Imagine the arbitrary havoc this Congress and Trump could cause without the leash held by our judges and our Constitution. 

This is why America even can survive President Donald Trump. We have a judiciary and a Constitution, and we are people who believe in both.

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

Robert Reich’s “fake news” on Trump’s tax plan.

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

Let’s begin with three facts:

  1. I am no fan of Robert Reich. (See: What next? Kristallnacht?)
  2. I am no fan of Donald Trump. (See: The secret GOP checklist of Presidential requirements.)
  3. Whatever Trump’s tax plan turns out to be, it will benefit him far more than it will benefit you. For “Trumpayola”, the White House is a gigantic piggy bank. Related image

So when a man, whom I believe lacks knowledge of economics, criticizes a President whom I know lacks honesty and also lacks knowledge of economics, how shall I focus my criticism of Reich’s article, 5 Reasons Why Trump’s Corporate Tax Cut is Appallingly Dumb, April 25, 2017?

Reich’s career is impressive. As he himself says:

ROBERT B. REICH is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fourteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock”, “The Work of Nations,” and”Beyond Outrage,” and, his most recent, “Saving Capitalism.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, INEQUALITY FOR ALL.

Trump’s career also is impressive: By lying, stealing and relying on daddy to fund him with millions of dollars and then save him from disaster, Trump has amassed a fortune and become President.

Given that background, here are Reich’s “5 Reasons Why Trump’s Tax Cuts Are Appallingly Dumb.”

1. The White House says the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Baloney. After corporate deductions and tax credits, the typical corporation pays an effective tax rate of 27.9%, only a tad higher than the average of 27.7 percent among advanced nations.

Whether or not America’s corporate tax rates are higher or lower than the average of other nations, does not in any way address the wisdom of corporate tax cuts.

Federal taxes reduce corporate profits. Tax cuts increase profits. Is Reich saying that increasing corporate profits would be bad for America?

2. Trump’s corporate tax cut will will bust the federal budget. According to the Congress’s own Joint Committee on Taxation, it will reduce federal revenue by $2 trillion over 10 years. This will either require huge cuts in programs for the poor, or additional tax revenues from the rest of us. 

Here, Reich demonstrates shocking ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the dollar. It never can run short of dollars.

Reducing tax revenue does not require the federal government to make “huge cuts in programs for the poor, or additional tax revenues from the rest of us.” 

Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending forever.

It would be astounding if a former Secretary of Labor and the author of fourteen books, including one titled, “Saving Capitalism,” did not understand the fundament truths of federal finance and of Monetary Sovereignty.

One only can wonder, is it ignorance or intent?

3. The White House says the tax cuts will create a jump in economic growth that will generate enough new revenue to wipe out any increase in the budget deficit. This is supply-side nonsense.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reviewed tax cuts since 1945 and found no evidence they generate economic growth. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both cut taxes, and both ended their presidencies with huge budget deficits. Bill Clinton raised taxes, and the economy created more jobs than it did under Bush or Reagan.

This is wrong in so many ways, one scarcely knows where to begin. Well, let’s begin with this: The formula for Gross Domestic Product, the most common measure of the economy is: GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.

It is clear that cutting taxes will, by formula, increase GDP.  Every dollar paid in federal taxes is a dollar lost to the economy and causes a reduction in GDP.

There is, however, a distinct difference between a reduction in tax rates, and a reduction in tax collections.  As the CRS said, “Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.” But virtually no one paid that 90% rate.

Bottom line: Trump is correct that cuts in federal tax collections will increase economic growth.

But Reich says Trump also claims, tax cuts will bring in enough new revenue to wipe out any increase in the budget deficit. Reich calls this “supply-side nonsense.”

Reich is correct when he calls this “supply-side nonsense.” Cutting tax rates does not increase tax collections.

But Reich is horribly wrong when he implies that reducing the federal deficit should be a government goal. Dollars are created in two ways and destroyed in two ways:

Dollars are created by federal deficit spending and by most forms of lending. Dollars are destroyed by federal taxes and by loan payoffs.

Deficit reduction (aka austerity) always is recessionary.  When Reich uses the words, “Appallingly Dumb” those words should be applied to any deficit reduction scheme.

Further, when Reich says, “The Congressional Research Service (CRS) reviewed tax cuts since 1945 and found no evidence they generate economic growth,” that simply is not true.

Here is what the CRS report actually said:

“There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth.”

The CRS was talking not about “tax cuts” (meaning cuts in tax collections) but rather about cuts in top tax rates. Huge difference, which Reich surely must know.

Since virtually no one was paying those top tax rates, of course there was no “conclusive evidence” of a relationship to economic growth. If any taxes at all were collected, the amounts would have been too minuscule to make any conclusive difference in GDP.

Finally, when Clinton raised taxes and reduced deficits (he actually ran a surplus), he caused a recession, as federal surpluses always do.

4. American corporations don’t need a tax cut. They’re already hugely competitive as measured by their profits – which are at near record highs.

Reich is saying, American corporations don’t “need” higher profits. What can one say about such an idea other than it is, to use Reich’s own words, “appallingly dumb.”

What next? We don’t “need” economic growth?

5. The White House says corporations will use the extra profits they get from the tax cut to invest in more capacity and jobs. Rubbish. They’re now using a large portion of their profits to buy back their shares of stock and to buy other companies, in order to raise their stock prices. There’s no reason to suppose they’ll do any different with even more profits.

Ah, yes, one last bit of silliness from Reich.

If corporations are using a “large portion” of their profits to buy back shares, to whom are those dollars going. Answer: To shareholders, just as dividends do. Buybacks are another form of dividends.

Unless you oppose corporations paying dividends, you shouldn’t oppose corporations buying back stock.  The dollars go to exactly the same hands.

The sole objection (and it is an important one) is that the dollars would be better spent on increased salaries that go to lower-paid workers (the “99%”) than to the 1%.  Buybacks increase the Gap between the rich and the rest.

But, in no case are dollars better directed to the federal government in the form of taxes. Federal taxes take dollars from GDP.

[Aside: State and local taxes do not reduce GDP. Those tax dollars remain in the money supply.]

In summary, it’s difficult to say what hurts the economy more: Trump’s preference for the rich over the rest, or Reich’s promulgation of “The Big Lie,” that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

Take your pick.

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