Tag: monetary non-sovereignty

How our friends hurt us more than our enemies can

Image result for the truth will set you free
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————

When a right-wing, debt hawk warns about the deficit and debt being “unsustainable,” we can write it off as typical misdirection from a right-wing political group looking to justify cutting social programs, while raising taxes on the 99% (and, as always, lowering taxes on the 1%).

Image result for misdirection
Misdirection

But when a left-winger does the same thing, all we can do is ask, “Are there any progressives at all, in our government”?

Here are writer Noah Rothman’s comments about Democrat, California, Senator Kamala Harris’s comments:

“I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare-for-all bill because it’s just the right thing to do. Taxpayers are paying huge amounts of money” for emergency-room care.

A Medicare-for-all system would generate “a return on investment for taxpayers.” This is, to be gentle, nonsense.

Rothman is correct. It is nonsense, but not for the reasons he thinks.

Yes, a Medicare-for-all system would not “generate a return on investment for taxpayers.” But the reason is that federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending and do not profit from federal savings.

Unlike state and local governments, which are monetarily non-sovereign, and do use taxpayer dollars, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign and has no use for taxpayer dollars.

The federal government uniquely creates brand new dollars — its sovereign currency —  the dollar, every time it pays a bill. No other government can do that.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute pegged the cost of a Medicare-for-all system in America at $32 trillion over ten years, requiring an average tax hike on all Americans of $24,000 annually (to say nothing of the billions in lost economic activity as Americans tighten their belts).

This is a monstrous lie, aka the “Big Lie.“

Whether the cost is $32 trillion or $320 trillion, federal taxes would not fund it. Even with $0 tax collections, the federal government creates, ad hoc, all dollars necessary to pay all its bills.

And rather than causing ‘lost economic activity,’ and American belt tightening, that $32 trillion addition to our economy would add to GDP growth. No belt tightening needed, quite the opposite.

Remember this formula:  Gross Domestic Product = FEDERAL SPENDING + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.

In short, the more the federal government deficit spends, the more GDP increases.

(Conversely, when federal deficit spending is eliminated, we have depressions):

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

Moreover, Federal Spending also increases Non-federal Spending by adding dollars to the private economy.  If the government pays you and businesses more, you will have more to spend and businesses will have more to spend.

When Democrats pitched the public on the ACA, the “cost” estimated to taxpayers was supposedly just $848 billion over ten years after implementation, but the Congressional Budget Office insisted that the actual figure was just over $2 trillion.

That’s an incredible strain on the nation’s budget, but it pales in comparison to the galactic numbers Senator Harris and her ilk heave about recklessly.

She is playing to the cheap seats, but it’s telling that her instinct is to pitch a single-payer plan by insisting it is an attack on, not an endorsement of, profligacy.

To say the above paragraphs are 100% bullsh*t is to do a disservice to bullsh*t, which at least fertilizes growth.

  1. Federal spending does not cost taxpayers one dime. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government does not spend taxes. The tax dollars you send to the government cease to be a part of any money-supply measure, as soon as they are received. Said another way, federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt.
  2. Whether or not federal spending exceeds the budget does not “strain” anything. The government pays all its bills by sending instructions to creditors’ banks, instructing the banks to increase the numbers in the creditors’ bank accounts. This creates dollars.
  3. Growing the economy is not “profligacy.” Increased federal deficit spending is necessary to grow the economy, and decreases in deficit spending shrink the economy.

Even in Harris’s home state, the Democratic Party’s infatuation with the idea of socialized health care was crushed against the immovable object of fiscal realities.

A peek under the hood revealed that, under all the gauzy rhetoric about access to taxpayer-funded health-care coverage representing a human right, there is no feasible way to make that a reality.

The bill could not address the hurdles associated with cost control, delivery of care, and how to finance the thing. The Assembly bill was estimated to cost the state approximately $400 billion every year, more than double California’s total annual budget.

Here, Rothman demonstrates either abject ignorance regarding the difference between Monetary Sovereignty (the federal government) vs. monetary non-sovereignty (California’s government), or he is lying.

State and local governments, being monetarily non-sovereign, do not have the unlimited ability to create their sovereign currency for the simple reason: They do not have a sovereign currency. They use the dollar, the federal government’s sovereign currency.

So state and local governments can and do run short of dollars. The federal government cannot and does not run short of dollars. Not knowing the difference is a sure sign of economic ignorance.

Is Barack Obama’s health-care reform law a triumph of progressive public policy? Or is it, as Republicans have long insisted, a poorly-conceived measure with more adverse than positive effects?

First, if we are going to be honest, it’s not Obama’s health-care reform law; it’s Republican Mitt Romney’s.

Second, it really is a poorly-conceived measure, because it makes the tacit and false assumption that it’s taxpayer funded. And because of that tacit and false assumption, ACA was developed as a Rube Goldbergian program designed to minimize the nonexistent, Federal taxpayer funding.

A very simple, federally funded, comprehensive, Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America, would cost taxpayers nothing and protect everyone. No FICA needed.

Republicans may soon have to defend a suboptimal status quo from an unpopular liberal campaign to nationalize the health-care system.

“Nationalize” is the right-wing’s code word for “socialize,” and it is wrong. The health-care system would not be “nationalized” or “socialized” by Medicare for All.

The only change would be for the federal government to take the place of health care insurance companies.

The system still would use privately run hospitals, private doctors, private nurses, privately owned drug stores, and privately owned pharmaceutical manufacturers. Everything about the system would remain private except for the insurance companies. They would disappear.

And is that a bad thing? Remember, insurance companies need to make a profit, which means charging premiums and minimizing payments to the public. It’s one of the reasons why insurance companies resist paying for expensive medications and treatments.

There are lawyers who make their living suing insurance companies to obtain health care treatments for their clients.

But the federal government does not need profits, does not need premiums and does not need to minimize payments to the public. In fact, every federal payment to the public adds to GDP.

Democrats have convinced themselves that the rising popularity of Medicare-for-all among Democrats amounts to a national wellspring of new faith in progressivism and, by extension, themselves.

They’re welcome to test that proposition at the ballot box. But, first, Democrats may want to rethink their messenger.

No, first the Democrats must have the courage to explain to the voters that:

  1. The federal government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.
  2. Federal spending does not cost taxpayers or their grandchildren, anything.
  3. The voters can have unlimited health care, provided by a privately-run health-care system.
  4. And by the way, it all can be done without causing inflation.

Now, what are the “good” reasons not to have comprehensive, federally funded Medicare for All?

There are none.

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

 

Make America compassionate, again

Image result for the truth will set you free
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Mr. Trump, tear down this wall.

President Trump is right about one thing: We Americans have allowed our former greatness to slip through our fingers, and yes, we have the opportunity to “make America great, again.”

But, that does not mean making America meaner, more frightened, or more selfish.

The way to make America great again is to make America compassionate again.

It takes far more strength of character and moral courage to be compassionate than to be cruel. It’s oh, so much easier to curse at the downtrodden than to help lift them.

Related image
The power of compassion

It’s oh, so much easier to put forth negative examples as excuses for being mean-spirited, than to look past the ragged clothes and different mores and to see the treasure within.

Do not despise the poor, the hungry, the homeless. They are not the enemy. The enemy is poverty. It is the real root of all evil, and we can help reduce poverty. We have that power. We need only use it.

A brave leader strengthens the moral fiber of his nation with a kind and helping hand. A fearful leader needs a harsh steel fist to maintain control.

Weak nations lead a frightened existence. A great nation is not a fearful people. A great nation does not defend itself with petty malice against the powerless. The measure of a nation is how it treats its last in line.

We Americans were great when we fought evil during World War II. Then, we fought for our existence.

But, we even were greater following the war, when we reconstructed Europe with the wise compassion and generosity of the Marshall Plan.

For you who are too young to remember the Marshall Plan (that may be nearly all of you), here are a few highlights:

The initiative was named after United States Secretary of State George Marshall, who served as the United States Army Chief of Staff during World War II.

The plan had bipartisan support in Washington, where the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats controlled the White House with President Harry S. Truman..

The purpose of the Marshall Plan was to aid in the economic recovery of European nations after the war.

The Marshall Plan offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they refused to accept it. In fact, the Soviet Union prevented its satellite states (i.e., East Germany, Poland, etc.) from accepting.

Immediately, you see the vast differences between our formerly great selves and today’s anxious America.

  1. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President worked together, instead of trying to sow hatred and defeat each other.
  2. Rather than punishing our enemies, as we did after World War I (which led to WWII), we helped to rebuild them.
  3. The Soviet Union took the opposite course, building walls and enslaving their formerly enemy populations.

The results of our “clever compassion” vs. the Soviet’s “Iron Curtain,” are widely acknowledged. Compassion proved to be smarter and more productive than grim vengeance.

The result should have been predictable to anyone who understands human nature.

President Truman signed the Marshall Plan on April 3, 1948, granting aid to 16 European nations. During the four years the plan was in effect, the United States donated $17 billion in economic and technical assistance to help the recovery of the European countries.

The $17 billion was in the context of a US Gross Domestic Product of $258 billion in 1948, and on top of $17 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan.

In just the seven years after the end of the War, we Americans gave Europe $34 billion, about 13% of our GDP.

Today, that same 13% of our $19 trillion GDP would amount to $2.5 trillion.

(Try to imagine today’s weak politicians providing an additional $2.5 trillion to help our own poor, much less the poor of other nations.)

History shows that the Marshall Plan not only was compassionate. It was smart.

The Marshall Plan was replaced by the Mutual Security Plan at the end of 1951; that new plan gave away about $7 billion annually until 1961 when it was replaced by another program.

By 1952, as the funding ended, the economy of every participant state had surpassed pre-war levels.

Over the next two decades, Western Europe enjoyed unprecedented growth and prosperity. Marshall aid had provided the critical margin on which other investment needed for European recovery depended.

The Marshall Plan stimulated the total political reconstruction of western Europe.

By contrast, the eastern European nations, trapped behind the walls of the Iron Curtain, struggled in misery.  The Soviets saw no benefits from their Iron Curtain. They continuously had to expend resources guarding their borders, imprisoning violators and defending against sabotage.

The cost was great; the reward, non-existent.

Our compassion was not naïveté. We knew full well that some of the people and some of the nations receiving our dollars had collaborated with Hitler. Consider that Germans were among the largest recipients of our aid.

But rather than take the low road by and using the bad as examples and excuses for punishment, we demonstrated American greatness with compassion.

President Ronald Reagan’s finest line was, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” That line will be remembered, forever.

Walls protect rooms. Walls protect houses, and jails. Walls protect the weak, but walls do not protect great nations. Great nations have neither need nor desire for walls.

By now we should have learned that our southern walls have not protected us from drugs and crime. More walls will do not better.

The drug dealers and the criminals know how to circumvent walls. A wall only deters the powerless and the innocent, the very sort of people who have built America.

Being Monetarily Sovereign, our government creates dollars at will. It has the unlimited ability to provide benefits to you, to me, and yes, to immigrants and foreigners — and contrary to popular belief, this aid doesn’t even cost us taxpayers, one cent.

Our Marshall Plan magnanimity actually grew our economy, created American jobs, increased business profits, and benefitted us all — at no cost to anyone.  We cast our bread upon the waters and it was returned to us many times over.

We need a “Marshall Plan for America.

Rather than punishing the poor for being poor, and rather than deporting the homeless and tempest-tossed, we must help them, lift them and make them an effective addition to America’s population.

That is how to make America great, again.

Image result for mr. gorbachev tear down this wall plaque
How a President is remembered. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

People who have had the strength, courage, and desire to gather up their children and to make a perilous trip from their homes to a strange land — those people remind us of our immigrant ancestors.

What we are proud to call “America” comes from such people, who began with nothing and who created our great nation.

Today, we must remember our heritage. Today, we must remember who we are, what we are, and why we are here.

That is why I say, “Mr. Trump, tear down that wall.” We have the power to feed the hungry and to shelter the homeless, and helping the needy will make us stronger. There is no cost for such kindness. It will benefit us all.

All nations wish to be admired. All Presidents wish to be remembered kindly by history. How will we and our President be remembered?

There is one, and only one, to make America great, again. We must make it compassionate again.

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

What is the motive to ruin America?

Image result for the truth will set you free
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

People’s actions are based on motive. Sometimes the motive seems clear and rational. Sometimes the motive is hard to spot, and may even appear to be counter-productive.

Image result for avoiding poor people
Avoid. No eye contact.

 

But consciously or subconsciously, logical or illogical, productive or not, there always is a motive.

Further, motives are interrelated. The motives in America affect the motives elsewhere, and your motives affect my motives, and everything connects.

Here is a story about how and why some motives connect to seemingly unrelated issues, for instance how “Gap Psychology” connects to the debt ceiling, directly and also in a round-about way.

We’ve spoken of Gap Psychology before, at:

Why you believe the Gap Psychology Con Job, and Why Are You So Suprised, and Why Reducing Crime Does Not Require Fighting Crime, and Gap Psychology and the Big Lie.

Briefly, Gap Psychology describes the near universal desire to distance oneself from those below us on the income/wealth/power totem pole, and to come closer to those above us.

Imagine you are elected CEO of a company. You wish to fill several positions, among which are: Chief Financial Officer, Sales Manager, and Production Manager.

In your interviews of candidates, which qualifications do you consider most important? For example, Chief Financial Officer: Will you look for someone with a strong accounting background, or will you hire a close pal, who thinks accounting is a waste of time?

For Sales Manager, will you prefer a seasoned salesperson, or will you hire your brother’s wife, who thinks selling is an immoral intrusion on people’s prerogatives?

For Factory Manager, would you prefer someone who has a strong record of installing labor-saving, money-saving production systems, or will you employ your neighbor who hates machines because he thinks they take jobs from working people, so he prefers to eliminate all machinery from your factories?

The answers to these questions all are based on an implied motive, that your most important goal is to make the company succeed.

But what if that is not your real motive? What if your motive is something completely different? What if your primary motive is to be loved, admired, even envied and considered a “big shot” by your family and friends?

In that case, you might hire your family and friends, even when seemingly more qualified people are available. It happens often in business. And when it happens, the results usually are not optimal, because unqualified employees adversely affect the company’s results and the morale of its employees.

And in that case, not only have you failed in your leadership, but in short order, you no longer will receive the love and admiration you coveted.

I ask the questions because of an article I just read on the NPR website:

Trump’s Nominee To Be U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Chief Scientist Is Not A Scientist.
September 4, 2017

President Trump’s nomination of his former Iowa campaign manager, Sam Clovis, for the post is raising concern in the scientific community and beyond about the politicization of science policy in the Trump administration.

Among the concerns: Clovis isn’t a scientist. He holds a doctorate, but it’s in public administration and not a scientific discipline.

“Frankly, I’m appalled,” says Brenda Brink, a member of the Iowa Farmers Union, “because he’s not made any bones about being a scientist and yet he’s been appointed to this position where he’s elevated to the level of a scientist.”

That is not all that is controversial about Clovis. As reported by CNN, he used to run a blog on which he wrote racially charged posts, once related being gay with pedophilia and questioned whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States.

What does the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) do? Here is what its website says:

The Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) was established in accordance with the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to provide strategic coordination of the science that informs the Department’s and the Federal government’s decisions, policies and regulations that impact all aspects of U.S. food and agriculture and related landscapes and communities.

OCS advises USDA’s Chief Scientist and the Secretary of Agriculture in the following areas of science:

  • Agricultural Systems and Technology
  • Animal Health and Production, and Animal Products
  • Plant Health and Production, and Plant Products
  • Renewable Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment
  • Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health
  • Agricultural Economics and Rural Communities

If you were hiring someone to be the Chief Scientist, some of the things you might expect to find on a résumé are knowledge and experience in: Science, systems, technology, health, production, energy, environment, food safety, and/or economics.

Employing your former campaign manager, a racial bigot and non-scientist, may not be the best choice to head the USDA’s Office of Chief Scientist if your goal is to “make America great, again,”

But it might be perfect if your motive is to satisfy your ego by undoing everything your predecessor has done, i.e. by widening the Gap between you and the former President.

Or, consider Scott Pruitt, Trump’s administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. One would think the mission of the EPA is to . . . well, to protect the environment. It is what the agency says on its own website:

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.
EPA’s purpose is to ensure that:

  • all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
  • national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
  • federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
  • environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
  • all parts of society — communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments — have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
  • environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
  • the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

Based on the above, you might believe the mission of the agency is to: “Protect human health and the environment, access to accurate information, and play a leadership role in protecting the global environment.”

But President Trump appointed a former Oklahoma attorney general who built his career suing the E.P.A., and whose LinkedIn profile still describes him as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,”

Mr. Pruitt has made it clear that he sees his mission to be dismantling the agency’s policies — and even portions of the institution itself.

But as he works to roll back regulations, close offices and eliminate staff at the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environment and public health, Mr. Pruitt is taking extraordinary measures to conceal his actions, according to interviews with more than 20 current and former agency employees.

Mr. Pruitt has taken aim at an agency whose policies have been developed and enforced by thousands of the E.P.A.’s career scientists and policy experts, many of whom work in the same building.

“There’s a feeling of paranoia in the agency — employees feel like there’s been a hostile takeover and the guy in charge is treating them like enemies,” said Christopher Sellers, an expert in environmental history at Stony Brook University.

His aides recently asked career employees to make major changes in a rule regulating water quality in the United States — without any records of the changes they were being ordered to make.

And the E.P.A. under Mr. Pruitt has moved to curb certain public information, shutting down data collection of emissions from oil and gas companies, and taking down more than 1,900 agency webpages on topics like climate change.

William D. Ruckelshaus, who served as E.P.A. director under two Republican presidents and once wrote a memo directing agency employees to operate “in a fishbowl,” said such secrecy is antithetical to the mission of the agency.

“Reforming the regulatory system would be a good thing if there were an honest, open process,” he said. “But it appears that what is happening now is taking a meat ax to the protections of public health and environment and then hiding it.”

Something will happen like (the water poisoning in) Flint Michigan, and the public can’t get any information about what happened or why,” he said.

Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to undo a major water protection rule are one example of his moves to quickly and stealthily dismantle regulations.

The rule, known as Waters of the United States, and enacted by the Obama administration, was designed to take existing federal protections on large water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River and expand them to include the wetlands and small tributaries that flow into those larger waters.

The original estimate concluded that the water protections would indeed come at an economic cost to those groups — between $236 million and $465 million annually.

But it also concluded, in an 87-page analysis, that the economic benefits of preventing water pollution would be greater: between $555 million and $572 million.

As Mr. Pruitt prepared a proposal to reverse the rule, E.P.A. employees were told by his deputies to produce a new analysis of the rule — one that stripped away the half-billion-dollar economic benefits associated with protecting wetlands.

“On June 13, my economists were verbally told to produce a new study that changed the wetlands benefit,” said Elizabeth Southerland, who retired last month from a 30-year career at the E.P.A., most recently as a senior official in the agency’s water office.

Ms. Southerland and other experts in federal rule-making said such a sudden shift was highly unusual — particularly since studies that estimate the economic impact of regulations can take months or even years to produce, and are often accompanied by reams of paperwork documenting the process.

In short, when President Trump examined résumés, he chose the man who wished to destroy the protective agency he was supposed to lead.

Or, consider Tom Price, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has voted to repeal ACA (Obamacare) and has opted for massive cuts to Medicaid, while pretending otherwise.

Or consider Ben Carson, Trump’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). That agency’s stated mission is to:

“Create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination, and transform the way HUD does business.”

Yes, improve the quality of life, but apparently not too much. Got to keep them folks down.

Don’t Make Housing for the Poor Too Cozy, Carson Warns.
By Yamiche Alcindor, May 3, 2017

When Mr. Carson assumed the helm of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he had no government experience, no political experience beyond a failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination and no burning desire to run a major federal bureaucracy.

But his views on poverty alleviation were tough-minded and well-known. As he toured facilities for the poor in Ohio last week, Mr. Carson nodded, plainly happy, as officials explained how they had stacked dozens of bunk beds inside a homeless shelter and purposefully did not provide televisions.

And then there is Rick Perry, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, who has no knowledge of the agency’s mission. (“The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions).

He famously forgot he wanted to abolish the Department, and now has apologized for that.

Recently, in perfect obedience to an anti-science administration, Perry defended the administration’s desire to eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, which supports research into new energy. technologies.

The list goes on and on. A Secretary of State having no political or foreign policy experience, a Secretary of Education who wishes to take funds from public education, a Secretary of the Interior who: “Wishes to rescind safety regulations on fracking, loosen safety rules on underwater drilling, allow coal mining on public lands, and opposes controlling emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from oil and gas wells.”

Why does President Trump appoint so many people whose personal motivations are opposed to the public protection missions of the agencies they were appointed to lead.

Why does he not want to protect the populace who need government protection?

This is where motive meets reality.

Donald Trump is a rich man. His friends are rich. He empathizes with the rich. They all are glad to be rich, and those who didn’t simply inherit their riches worked hard to become rich. 

“Rich” is not an absolute, it is a comparative. If everyone had the same, no one would be rich. For you to be rich, someone else must be poorer. That means, there must be a “Gap,” or really, Gaps between various levels of income/wealth/power.

The people who worked to become rich actually worked to widen the Gap between them and those “below” them, and to narrow the Gaps above them. The wider the Gaps below, the richer they are.

Thus, for the 1% to become richer, as nearly all wish to do, it is necessary to widen the Gap below, and that is accomplished either by making more or by forcing the 99% to have less.

Gap Psychology is a powerful motivator. It is why some wear diamonds rather than moissanite (which is almost as hard as diamonds is more brilliant, and sparkles in more colors). It is why some buy mansions rather than mere houses or apartments.

It is why some give enough to charity so that their names will appear on hospital and school buildings, and it is why some charities publish lists of donors and the amount they gave.

It is why some go to high-end restaurants when their taste buds crave a Big Mac and why some attend the President’s ball at the White House, though they hate dances.

And it is why President Trump appoints people, who by their actions, will reduce the income/wealth/power of the 99%.

He already has favored plans to cut the healthcare of the less fortunate. He already has announced programs that negatively will affect poor immigrants, but have no effect on rich immigrants.

Soon he will present tax “reform” plans that will widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. When he excuses the Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists, he knows that bigotry causes more hardships among the poor than among the rich. Bigotry widens the Gap.

Trump wishes to deport the 800 thousand children known familiarly as “dreamers.” This will devastate many families. My guess: None of these families are rich.

The “debt ceiling” is an attempt to justify reductions in social benefits to the 99%, while also justifying increases in FICA as “necessary to ‘save’ Social Security.”

Virtually everything the right-wing, and to a lesser extent, the left does contains the ulterior motive of widening the Gap. If Trump merely ruins America for the 99%, he has made himself and his rich family and friends richer. That is his primary motive.

Whenever you are informed of any proposed government program, ask yourself one simple question: “Will this widen the Gap between the rich and the rest?”

There is no faster or better way to evaluate your government representation.

Then vote accordingly.

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

 

 

 

The tax “reform” Trojan horse. A sneak attack on social benefits

Image result for the truth will set you free
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————
“Reform” is such an appealing word. It implies “improvement,” but all it means is “change” (re- form). And when Congress changes things, it generally tries to benefit its biggest contributors, the rich.

So, next time you hear or see the words “tax” and “reform” in the same sentence, hide your wallet and take your impressionable children indoors. You are about to feel strong winds from Washington carrying heavy BS rain.

The GOP is looking for ways to pay for tax cuts. Your 401(k) may bear the cost.
By Thomas Heath, August 31, 2017 at 2:58 PM

President Trump called for “fundamentally reforming” the tax code, and said he would work with Congress to achieve it at a speech in Springfield, Mo., on Aug. 30. (The Washington Post)

Ah, yes. Donald Trump, the great reformer, having presented his non-existent plan to replace Obamacare (Romneycare), by trying to leave 20 million lower-income men, women, and children without health care, now will build on his success by “fundamentally reforming” the tax code.

We assume his attitude toward lower-income people will not change.

House Republicans may tinker with the hugely popular 401(k) retirement benefit as part of their tax reform package.

Politico reported that one proposal would be taxing the money that workers place into their 401(k) savings plans up front instead of imposing the tax when they take the money out in retirement — 20, 30 or 40 years hence.

The idea would raise billions of dollars. 

Image result for trojan horse
Tax “reform,” a Trojan horse for benefit reduction

Immediately, you see all “reform” plans will be based on the myth that the federal government needs and spends your tax dollars.

Contrary to popular myth, your tax dollars are not spent or even saved. Upon receipt, your tax dollars no longer are part of any money supply measure. Hence, federal taxes are destroyed.

While monetarily NON-sovereign state and local governments do need and use tax dollars, the Monetarily Sovereign federal government uniquely pays its bills by creating new dollars ad hoc.

Even if there were zero federal taxes, the federal government could continue spending forever. State and local governments do not have that privilege; their financial systems resemble your finances and are totally different from federal finances.

Not only does the federal government not need to “raise billions of dollars,” but doing so actually takes billions of dollars out of the economy, and cuts into economic growth. A federal tax is the economy’s deficit.

Unfortunately, both political parties have spent the last 75 years convincing you, the public, that federal finances are just like state and local finances, business finances and personal finances.

However, the facts are:

  1. Being uniquely Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government pays its bills by sending instructions (not dollars), in the form of checks or wires, instructing creditors’ banks to increase the balances in creditors’ bank accounts. At the instant the banks obey those instructions, brand new dollars are created.
  2. The so-called “debt” is nothing more than the total of deposits in Treasury Security accounts, which are very much like savings accounts, and are not a future burden on the federal government or on future taxpayers. The federal government could pay off the entire “debt” tomorrow, without collecting a penny in taxes, simply by returning the dollars currently residing in those T-security accounts.
  3. Federal deficits are merely the difference between spending and taxing; they and could be sustained forever. In fact, federal deficits are necessary for economic growth. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports. Cut federal spending and you cut GDP. That is why a lack of deficits leads to depressions and recessions.
  4. Being the creator of the dollar, and being sovereign over the dollar, the federal government can give the dollar any value it wishes. The Fed controls inflation to its target rate of about 2.5% by controlling the Demand for the dollar. Through more than 75 years of wars, natural disasters, and recessions, the Fed has made inflation average close to the Fed’s target rate. The federal government also can control the value of the dollar simply by declaring a value, just as it did for the very first dollars in 1780.

The 401(k) program, which began with the Revenue Act of 1978, has a mixed bag of supporters and critics.

Some say the tax-deferred accounts are in­cred­ibly successful at encouraging Americans to save for retirement.

Critics say it favors wealthier people who can afford to save and get a nice tax break while leaving behind low-income workers who cannot afford to do without the cash now.

The 401k has encouraged people to save for retirement, for two reasons: People don’t understand the implications of “save today but pay tomorrow,” and they don’t understand the federal government’s unlimited ability to fund Social Security.

Save Today But Pay Tomorrow
There are many tax savings that are not available in a tax-deferred account.

Long term capital gains and dividends are taxed at lower rates than are such gains when taken from a tax-deferred account. Similarly, you never want to hold municipal bonds in a tax-deferred account.

In short, a tax deferred account such as 401k, saves you taxes today but depending on your future income, you may pay far more in taxes, tomorrow.

Funding Social Security
The funding for Social Security, as with the funding for all other federal programs, is widely misunderstood.

You have been told that Social Security (and Medicare) are funded by FICA tax payments via “Trust Funds.” You probably visualize your FICA payments going into an account, where they are saved until they are distributed to pay your benefits — something like an annuity insurance policy.

Wrong. You’ve been scammed.

Because the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, it creates brand new dollars every time it pays a bill. The so-called “trust funds” are accounting fictions. Even if there were zero FICA collections the federal government could continue paying Social Security and Medicare benefits, forever.

The federal government has the financial ability to provide Social Security  (Step #3, below)and Medicare (Step #2, below) benefits for every man, woman, and child in America, without collecting a single penny in FICA taxes.  (Step #1, below)

President Roosevelt, the originator of Social Security knew this. His stated reason for collecting FICA was not to provide funds, but rather to ensure that the government could not take away Social Security.

Roosevelt reasoned that if people thought they paid for SS, they would rebel against eliminating it.

As FDR foresaw, endowing Social Security with its own revenue stream has protected it over the years from grasping politicians — mostly conservatives, who have aimed since 1935 to eviscerate the program.

The weekly or bi-weekly payroll deductions that go to the program have given workers a proprietary interest in benefits that has been hard to undermine.

Not only have you been scammed by the completely unnecessary collection of FICA from your paycheck, but you have been scammed in a 2nd way: Rich people don’t pay FICA.

First, there is a payroll limit, above which no FICA is collected. And second, there are many categories of income — categories like capital gains, partnership profits, etc. that rich people generally are in — which are not subject to FICA.

In short, FICA is an unnecessary tax on the 99%, a perfect way to widen the gap between the rich and the rest — exactly what the rich want.

But it gets even worse. By pretending that FICA pays for benefits, the rich-bribed politicians not only have reduced your Social Security benefits (to “save” SS), but your benefits are taxed at your highest tax rate.

At this point in the post, we know:

  1. The federal government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.
  2. The government creates brand new dollars, every time it pays a bill.
  3. Therefore, the federal government, unlike state and local governments, has no need for taxes, and in fact, destroys your tax dollars upon receipt.
  4. Federal deficit spending is necessary for economic growth
  5. The federal “debt,” just being deposits in T-security accounts, is infinitely “sustainable.”
  6. The federal government, being sovereign over the dollar, can give the dollar any value it chooses, and so has the unlimited power to prevent inflation.

Everything you read and hear about “tax reform” and the “debt limit” is based on the lie (“The Big Lie”) that dollars are scarce to the federal government. 

When you begin a proposal with a lie, everything that comes after is tainted by that lie.

We already have demonstrated that FICA not only is unnecessary, but being regressive, it punishes the 99% and widens the Gap between the rich and the rest.

So it is with some surprise that we hear Donald Trump and the GOP wish to eliminate FICA. It is so unlike them to want to benefit the middle class. What is going on, here?

Read this:

Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Social Security payroll tax may be his worst idea yet.

President Trump’s tax reform agenda is in trouble. That’s not news, but one proposal that his team has floated as a way, ostensibly, to cut taxes on the middle class is.

According to the Associated Press, they’re toying with the idea of eliminating the payroll tax, which funds Social Security and part of Medicare, or cutting it drastically.

This is an absolutely terrible idea, partially because it smells like a back-door way of cutting Social Security benefits. It needs to be nipped in the bud.

“This proposal is a Trojan horse,” the veteran Social Security advocate Nancy J. Altman told me. “It appears to be a gift in the form of middle-class tax relief, but would, if enacted, lead to the destruction of working Americans’ fundamental economic security.”

Get it? Roosevelt was right.

Yes, FICA should and could be eliminated. It is an unnecessary and regressive tax on the 99%.

But so long as the public believes the federal government needs and uses tax dollars, eliminating FICA is an open door to the justification of SS & Medicare benefit reduction.

Not only has the public been brainwashed into believing federal taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending, but the tax “reformers” wish to cut taxes on the rich so they can justify cutting benefits to the rest of us.

We should adopt the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below), but only if the public understands why the government has the unlimited ability to take those steps.

Bottom line: Today’s breed of tax “reformers” will be delighted to make you poorer and the rich richer, by cutting your benefits and raising your taxes, and telling you this is good for America (meaning the 1%).

Learn the truth. Demand the truth. Fight like hell.

Otherwise, you and your children are screwed.

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