Democrats’ political suicide

There were times when I thought Donald Trump was politically suicidal with his public philandering, his easily disproved lies, his blatant ignorance, his financial profiting from the Presidency, his nepotism, his sucking up to communists, and on and on.

But apparently, his “religious” followers admire philandering, lying, ignorance, criminal profiting, nepotism, communism, etc. So Trump survives.

Lately, I have realized that it is the Democrats who are politically suicidal. The Democrats have the marvelous ability to take a good idea, a popular idea — health care for everyone — and muck it up into a barely recognizable mess, until they now are on the defensive about something that should be a lay-down winner for them.

As readers of this blog well know: The federal government’s finances are not like state and local governments’ finances.

Image result for bernanke and greenspan — *It’s our little secret. Don’t tell the people we don’t use their tax dollars.*

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government (can) produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on (borrowing) to remain operational.”

Unlike state and local governments:

The federal government has a sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar, over which it has total control.
The federal government cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency.
The federal government neither needs nor uses tax dollars.
The federal government does not borrow.

Those four, simple truths are absolutely basic to economics. Yet they seem not to be understood by the vast majority of Americans, even including media writers and university economists — and especially not understood by the legions of Democrats chasing glory via the Presidency.

The following article demonstrates the Democrats’ suicidal ignorance:

Sanders admits he would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for programs
Kadia TubmanReporter,Yahoo News•June 27, 2019

Sen. Bernie Sanders, challenged at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate on how he would pay for universal health care and his other proposed programs, admitted income taxes on the middle class would have to go up — but maintained that the savings in medical expenses would more than offset the tax hike.

Sanders, who took the first question from NBC correspondent Savannah Guthrie, talked about his Medicare for All proposal for his allotted minute.

But when Guthrie followed up and pressed him about taxes on the middle class, he conceded, “Yes, they will pay more in taxes.”

If Sanders’s version (or any other candidate’s version) of Medicare for All were proposed by a state governor or a city mayor, the above answer would be correct. Additional taxes would be needed to pay the cost of the medical services.

But apparently, neither Sanders nor any other candidate (nor any Republican, for that matter) knows or admits to knowing that federal finances are completely, totally, 180 degrees different from state and city finances.

The federal government uniquely has total control over the U.S. dollar, cannot unintentionally run short of dollars, neither needs nor uses tax dollars, and does not borrow.

The U.S. federal government could finance even the most liberal, generous version of Medicare for All, at the tap of a computer key. No tax dollars involved.

Sanders said, “Health care in my view is a human right and we have got to pass a Medicare for All single-payer system. “Under that system, [the] vast majority of the people in this country will be paying significantly less for health care than they are right now.”

Not only is health care a “human right,” but it is an economic imperative for any nation hoping to compete and grow — certainly as much an imperative as military defense and effective government.

Yet there is Sanders, essentially hat in hand, pleading for universal health care on the basis of cost savings, when in reality cost is not a real issue. It is a fake issue put forth either in ignorance or in malicious intent, depending on one’s politics.

Quite simply, there is no financial reason why any American should be forced to pay one cent for health care insurance — either via taxes or via premium payments.

And if after all these months of researching and developing his Medicare for All plans, Sanders still has not learned this, he is mentally unfit to be left alone with a sharp object.

But it continues. Sanders also said:

“I believe that education is the future for this country and that is why I believe we must make public colleges and universities tuition-free and eliminate student debt, and we do that by placing a tax on Wall Street.”

“Every proposal that I have brought forth is fully paid for.”

Sanders believes (!) education is the future for this county? He believes so? What a relief that he believes something so obvious, that American states, counties, and cities have been funding elementary, high school, and even some college education, for centuries.

Unfortunately, states, counties, and cities are not Monetarily Sovereign, so they must have some form of income (taxes, fees, tourism, borrowing, etc.) in order to spend.

The federal government, being unique, is not similarly constrained. Yet Sanders, a federal politician, doesn’t recognize this difference. Tragic.

Sanders babbled on:

“People who have health care under Medicare for All will have no premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out of pocket expenses. Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.”

Then the Yahoo News reporter added her dollop of economic ignorance by quoting the Associated Press:

Still, taxes would significantly increase as “the government takes on trillions of dollars in health care costs now covered by employers and individuals, the Associated Press fact-checked.

“Independent studies estimate the government would be spending an additional $28 trillion to $36 trillion over 10 years, although Medicare for All supporters say that’s overstating it.

How those tax increases would be divvied up remains to be seen, as Sanders has not released a blueprint for how to finance his plan.

Note how the media automatically and wrongly translate “spending an additional $28 trillion to $36 trillion” into “tax increases.”

(Does that also mean federal tax cuts require federal spending cuts?)

There is zero relationship between federal spending and taxes. Again, the pretense is that federal finances are like state and local finances, where spending is funded by taxes.

Sen. Michael Bennet, who was the last candidate to earn a spot on the debate stage, took a shot at Sanders on taxes.

Bennet said he believed in getting to universal health care. “I believe the way to do that is by finishing the work we started with Obamacare and creating a public option that every family and every person in America can make a choice for their family about whether they want a public option which for them would be like having Medicare for All or whether they want to keep their private insurance. I believe we will get there much more quickly if we do that.”

“Bernie mentioned the taxes that we would have to pay, because of those taxes, Vermont rejected Medicare for All,” he added. Sanders shook his head in response.

If by “public option” Bennet means people should be given the choice between free, comprehensive, no deductible Medicare and long-term care vs. paying for private insurance, sure. Why not? That is exactly the choice people should be given.

Of course, the result is a given. Perhaps a dozen people in America would choose to pay for private insurance.

But then, the Democrats’ stupidity continues:

When asked which candidates would abolish private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan, only Sanders and Harris raised their hands.

Since the words “abolish private health care insurance” instantly click the insanity button in America, two Democrats dive right in and say, “Yes, that is what we would do.”

OMG! Why?

“Everybody who says Medicare for All, every person in politics who allows that phrase to escape their lips has a responsibility to explain how you’re actually supposed to get from here to there,” said South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“I would call it Medicare for All Who Want It.”

Buttigieg said he would take parts of Medicare and give people an option to buy into it, providing “a very natural glide path to the single-payer environment.”

“Parts of Medicare”? Which parts would you leave out? Even Medicare itself is insufficient.

It has deductibles and partial payments, which are why many people pay for Medicare Supplement insurance. And it doesn’t cover pharmaceuticals, which is why people pay for Part D coverage.

And don’t even mention long-term care coverage, which Medicare doesn’t provide, and which even frightfully expensive private insurance covers only partially.

So add Buttigieg to the list of politicians who either don’t know what they are talking about or don’t want to give you the facts.

Bottom line, the federal government has the unlimited power to pay for comprehensive, no deductible health care insurance, including pharmaceuticals and long term care — and it can do so by pressing a computer key.

This whole charade results from the mean-spirited, selfishness of Gap Psychology (see: https://mythfighter.com/2018/04/06/how-does-gap-psychology-affect-you/) combined with flat-out ignorance of federal finances, and you, the public, are the patsies.

Cost is not the issue. Coverage is the issue — the only issue.

Even if you have no background in economics you should realize that federal spending is not funded by taxes. Didn’t the GOP massively cut taxes on the rich while increasing federal spending. That alone should have given you a clue.

Sorry folks, but ignorance has its penalties. Pay up.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

An excellent idea, soon to be ruined

“In a generation hard hit by the Wall Street crash of 2008, the government forgives all student debt and ends the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation to a lifetime of debt for the ‘crime’ of getting a college education,”
Sen. Bernie Sanders

I could not agree more. Education is our prime device for creating America’s economic growth and leadership.

The notion of making education difficult to obtain, while punishing those who get an education, either is madness or stupidity — both, really.

Two of The Ten Steps to Prosperity — Step 4: Free education for everyone, and Step 5: Salary for attending school (see below) address the issue.

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Alan Greenspan: “Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Sadly, the following two articles tell why the madness and stupidity will not easily be solved.

Sanders, Progressives Unveil Bill To Cancel Student Debt
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS — BY LAURIE KELLMAN AND ELANA SCHOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the first Democratic presidential debates, Sen. Bernie Sanders and House progressives are unveiling legislation cancelling all student debt, going further than a signature proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren as the two jockey for support from the party’s liberal base.

Excellent idea. We absolutely should cancel student debt. We should take the millstones from the necks of our future social, economic and political leaders. See: Student debt, the intentional crisis.

By canceling all student loans, Sanders says the proposal addresses an economic burden for 45 million Americans.

The key difference is that Warren’s plan considers the income of the borrowers, canceling $50,000 in debt for those earning less than $100,000 per year and affecting an estimated 42 million people in the U.S.

There is no economic reason to consider the income of borrowers. Warren’s plan is based on the false idea that federal spending is financially limited and is paid for by taxpayers.

I’m sure Warren knows that the federal government has the unlimited ability to spend, and that federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending. (The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, does not use tax dollars.

Instead, each time it pays an invoice, it creates new dollars, ad hoc.)

Sadly, Warren seems to lack the courage to tell voters the truth.

Questions face both candidates about how to pay for all of that plus their proposals for free tuition at public colleges and universities.

Sanders’ effort at one-upsmanship on student loans, named the College For All Act, would cancel $1.6 trillion of debt and save the average borrower about $3,000 a year, according to materials obtained by The Associated Press.

The result would be a stimulus that allows millennials in particular to invest in homes and cars that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford.

Yes, not only would the elimination of student loans benefit students, but the additional dollars in the economy would grow the economy.

But here is where the excellent idea goes sour:

It would cost $2.2 billion and be paid for — and then some — by a series of taxes on such things as stock trades, bonds and derivatives, according to the proposal.

Absolutely wrong. Unlike state and local taxes, federal taxes do not pay for anything. In fact, they are destroyed the instant they reach the U.S. Treasury.

Thus, Warren guarantees her plan will be rejected by the rich (who actually run America):

Warren’s plan, which she has suggested in published reports will be introduced as legislation, would be paid for by imposing a 2% fee on fortunes greater than $50 million, a wealth tax designed to target the nation’s top 0.1% of households.

Not only will this idea be dead on arrival at the U.S. Senate, but it also will prove to be uncollectable. The rich always find ways to duck taxes.

Warren projects the levy would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years, enough to pay for a universal child-care plan, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and student loan debt forgiveness for an estimated 42 million Americans — with revenue left over.

Even if the economy operated the way Warren seems to think, she is proposing that the federal government take $2.75 trillion from the economy, and because there would be “revenue left over,” return less than $2.75 trillion to the economy — a net loss for the economy.

But if the free college and student debt relief advocates don’t hit their revenue goals, they could simply add to the deficit — as President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have by passing more than $1 trillion in tax cuts without paying for them.

Exactly right. And just like the tax cuts and everything else that takes dollars from the federal government and gives them to the private sector, the student debt relief would stimulate the economy.

Here’s one more example of economic ignorance, ironically titled, “Bernie Sanders doesn’t have a clue about Economics 101 (and that’s scary)”
By Andy Puzder | Fox News

The Mercatus Center, a think tank at George Mason University, “conservatively” found that Sanders’ “Medicare-for-All” would cost taxpayers $32.6 trillion over a 10 year period, or an average of about $3.26 trillion per year after associated cost saving.

The question is where would Sanders find the additional $3.26 trillion in revenue to cover these costs?

Mercatus found that “doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.”

That makes sense as the federal government’s total revenue from all sources for fiscal year 2018 was $3.3 trillion, or about the $3.26 trillion annual cost of Sanders’ proposed healthcare plan.

If the plan had been proposed for a city government, a county government, or a state government, the above would be correct. Those governments are monetarily non-sovereign. They do need to use tax dollars for spending.

But the federal government’s finances are unique — nothing at all like state and local government finances. The Monetarily Sovereign federal government has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

The federal government never can run short of dollars. Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

Puzdner’s article ends with this ignorant nonsense:

Should we ever enact Sanders’ economic policies we would end up with higher taxes — on everyone — declining growth, fewer jobs, vastly more borrowing and massive underfunded programs(some new, some old) unable to meet the expectations of everyone who wants to take advantage of them — because their costs will grossly exceed our revenue.

All of which will last until, as Margaret Thatcher once said, the government “runs out of other peoples’ money.”

Absolute tripe. Our Monetarily Sovereign government can go on forever with “costs that grossly exceed revenue,” simply because the U.S. federal government has no use for revenue.

I pray for the day when the populace finally learns the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. Then, the politicians, magazine writers, and economists will claim in Trumpian fashion, “Hey, we knew it all the time.”

Meanwhile, the elimination of student debt is an excellent idea, soon to be ruined.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Why Trump and his followers don’t mind him killing their children

If the above headline seems overwrought, read the following, and then you decide:

Following Trump pledge, EPA rolls back coal rules
Chicago Tribune, 6/19/19
By Ellen Knickmeyer, Associated Press

The Trump administration on Wednesday completed one of its biggest rollbacks of environmental rules, replacing a landmark Obama-era effort that sought to wean the nation’s electrical grid off coal-fired power plants and their climate-damaging pollution.

Coal is the dirtiest energy source

Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler said coal-fired power plants remained essential to the power grid, something that opponents deny. “Americans want reliable energy that they can afford.”

President Donald Trump campaigned partly on a pledge to bring back the coal industry, which has been hit hard by competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy. Environmental groups pledge court challenges.

“The Trump administration’s outrageous Dirty Power Scam is a stunning giveaway to big polluters, giving dirty special interests the greenlight to choke our skies, poison our waters and worsen the climate crisis,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.

Joseph Goffman, an EPA official under President Barack Obama, said he feared that the Trump administration was trying to set a legal precedent that the Clean Air Act gives the federal government “next to no authority to do anything” about climate-changing emissions from the country’s power grid.

The Obama rule, adopted in 2015, sought to reshape the country’s power system by encouraging utilities to rely less on dirtier-burning coal-fired power plants and more on electricity from natural gas, solar, wind and other lower or no-carbon sources.

The new Trump rule eliminates the Obama EPA’s targets that would have required states to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.

Of course, Trump’s climate change deniers will tell you that:

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but not enough to cause climate change, or
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it helps plants grow, which remove CO2, or
CO2 increases and decreases naturally, or
Climate change is a good thing, because everyone likes warm weather or
Climate change is a Chinese hoax, or
Whatever other nonsense Trump can dream up to get the vote of coal miners (who now represent only .0012 of the total U.S. labor force) and the contributions of coal mining companies.

Here is what National Geographic tells you:

Effects of global warming
The signs of global warming are everywhere, and are more complex than just climbing temperatures.

Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts.

All of these changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere:

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth’s poles.

Much of this melting ice contributes to sea-level rise. Global sea levels are rising 0.13 inches a year, and is occurring at a faster rate in recent years.

Rising temperatures are affecting wildlife and their habitats.

Rain and snowfall have increased across the globe. Yet some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages.

Some species—including mosquitoes, ticks, jellyfish, and crop pests—are thriving. Booming populations of bark beetles that feed on spruce and pine trees, for example, have devastated millions of forested acres in the U.S.

Other effects could take place later this century if warming continues. These include:

Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.

Large parts of the U.S., for example, face a higher risk of decades-long “megadroughts” by 2100.

Less freshwater will be available since glaciers store about 3/4 of the world’s fresh water.

Some diseases will spread, such as mosquito-borne malaria and the 2016 resurgence of the Zika virus.

Ecosystems will continue to change: Some species will move farther north or won’t be able to adapt and could become extinct.

This is the world Trump and the GOP are creating for your children. He and his followers don’t seem to care about your children– or presumably even theirs.

But it gets even worse:

Coal and Air Pollution
Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is linked with asthma, cancer, heart and lung ailments, neurological problems, acid rain, global warming, and other severe environmental and public health impacts.

Some of the ways Trump is killing your kids (but he, his followers and the GOP don’t care):

Science Direct

Human health and environmental impacts of coal combustion and post-combustion wastes

The burning of coal leads to the emission of poisonous gases with underlying health impacts and environmental problems.

“Daddy, why am I sick?”

In coal combustion, the carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen react with oxygen and produce their respective oxides: carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO), respectively.

The emission of these gases has been correlated with many health problems directly and indirectly, including skin, cardiovascular, brain, blood and lung diseases, and different cancers.

For example, CO enters into the bloodstream and reacts with hemoglobin and reduces the formation of oxy-hemoglobin complex by decreasing its ability for O2 transformation

Hence, the CO can alter biological functions at the cellular level and cause many abnormalities including slow reflexes, and coagulation confusion or disorders.

The CO2 emission from coal combustion, during power generation, also leads to the interaction of CO2 with particulate matter (PM 2.5), which thereby changes the air quality and leads to increased asthma attacks and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases with underlying poor life expectancy rates.

Inhaling particulate matters may cause some dangerous diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer.

The sulfur, in coal, oxidizes upon combustion and pollutes the air, water, and land by releasing SOx (SO2, SO3, SO32- and H2SO4).

The formation of the poisonous SO2 gas, a major pollutant in air, may accelerate the rate of diseases and decrease life expectancy.

In addition to SO2, other SOx like sulfate (SO32-) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), damages the environment in the form of acid rain.

High exposure to SO2 causes suffocation, wheezing, coughing, and reductions in lung function by affecting mucous and cellular mucins.

SO2 gas also damages nearby flora and crops, leading to leaf injury, affecting plant growth and reducing the diversity of plant species

Moreover, acid rain (H2SO4), a hydrated product of SO3, potentially damages skin cells, destroys building material, and pervasively affects vegetation and food chain by contaminating the flora and fauna through the leaching of heavy metals.

Nitric oxide (NO2), another major pollutant with highly corrosive properties and a strong oxidizing ability, is formed as a result of coal combustion in power plants and contaminates the air.

NO2 forms the most important part of acid rain, as nitrous acid HNO2 and nitric acid HNO3, which causes a large number of skin diseases.

The entrance of SOx and NOx air pollutants into the bloodstream and cells destabilizes normal heartbeats (rhythms) and culminates in heart attacks and other heart related problems.

In addition, high levels of NO2 in the air causes a reduction in the pulmonary function in humans, asthma attacks and genetic mutations.

The ozone gas formed as a result of NO2 reaction with the volatile organic compounds in the air causes ozone-related asthma exacerbations in infants.

–I wasn’t born like this.

Particulate matter increases the concentration of free radical based reactive oxygen species (ROS) and contributes to DNA mutation, and damage of protein and lipids which may constitutively activate membrane proteins which leads to the development of some serious diseases, including lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases and reproductive disorders. T

The interaction of PM with DNA leads to the formation of DNA adducts impairing neurodevelopment, intelligence quotient (IQ) levels and intelligence in children.

So there it is folks. Trump and the GOP are killing America’s children (and you), just so he can gather a few votes and stay in power. It’s that simple.

Do you care? Are you happy to put their lives into the hands of Donald Trump and the GOP?

Make your choice and let your voice be heard.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The words of (History can’t teach me anything) Peter Suderman

Anytime I encounter the irresistible urge simultaneously to feel superior to someone’s else’s ignorance, while shaking my head in wonderment (Yes, that’s a real thing; you should experience it, sometime) I read an article by Peter Suderman.

Image result for peter suderman — — Forget facts. Forget history. He knows what he knows.

According to his site: Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason. He writes regularly on health care, the federal budget, tech policy, and pop culture.

Before joining Reason, Suderman worked as a writer and editor at National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, Doublethink, and Culture11.

His writing has appeared in The New York Times, Slate, The Wall Street Journal, Vox, Politico, The New York Post, Newsweek, The Washington Examiner, and numerous other publications.

He lives in Washington, D.C.

His latest demonstration of his inability to learn from facts and history is titled, “Deficit Politics May Have Gone Away, but Debt and Deficits Are Worse Than Ever”

This is how his article opens:

“For most of the Obama era, the federal deficit—and, by extension, the debt—was a crisis.

“This was a bipartisan belief, held, or at least paid respectful lip service, by the Tea Party radicals and top administration aides as well as by President Obama himself.

“Hence the battles over the debt limit; the imposition of sequestration cuts that, fully implemented, were intended to reduce spending by more than $1 trillion over a decade; the concurrent increase in tax rates on high earners; the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, better known as the Supercommittee; and the Simpson-Bowles debt-reduction proposal to which it led.”

Nevermind that the “Great Recession” was cured by massive deficit spending. And never mind that the past 10 years of economic growth have been marked by 10 years of increasing federal debt.

And never mind that every depression in U.S. history has coincided with federal debt reduction (Look it up, here.)

Hey, why let facts get in the way of intuition swayed by profound ignorance?

I won’t go through all the nonsense of his wholly laughable, but overly long, treatise. Rather, I will take you to its ending:

“Sustaining this casual attitude toward fiscal looseness thus requires believing that there is essentially no limit, no meaningful upper bound, to the amount of debt that the federal budget can sustain, an idea that even many of today’s more sophisticated debt-doesn’t-matter boosters don’t subscribe to.

“Alternatively, it requires a high degree of confidence that our nation’s political class will more or less responsibly take our national ledger right up to the brink but no further, finding the precise last moment in which to exercise fiscal restrain.

“If you believe this, I would gently suggest you acquaint yourself with some politicians.

“Otherwise, you have to worry, at least a little, that today’s trajectory is toward crisis, if not now, if not at current debt levels, then at some future date we’ll only discover when it’s too late to prevent, when the consequences can’t be avoided.

“And that worry should be increased a little more by the possibility that today’s free-lunchism is not only increasing the likelihood of an eventual crisis, but making it harder to solve, if and when it does arrive, by seeding amongst voters the idea that hard choices won’t ever be necessary.

“It is making the already challenging project of achieving public consensus harder still.

“So yes, the predicted crisis may not have arrived quite yet. It may even hold off for a while longer.”

“But the nature of politics means it draws ever closer, and ignoring the issue, as we are now, only makes it worse.”

Hmm . . . did his repetition of the words, “crisis,” “trajectory is toward crisis,” “an eventual crisis,” and “the predicted crisis ” remind you of the famous words, “ticking time bomb”?

Here’s a reminder from,“It is 2019, and the phony federal debt “time bomb” still is ticking.”

Back in 1940, the federal budget was a “ticking time-bomb which can eventually destroy the American system,” said Robert M. Hanes, president of the American Bankers Association.

By 1960: the debt was “threatening the country’s fiscal future,” said Secretary of Commerce, Frederick H. Mueller.

By 1983: “The debt probably will explode in the third quarter of 1984,” said Fred Napolitano, former president of the National Association of Home Builders.

In 1984: AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland said. “It’s a time bomb ticking away.”

In 1985: “The federal deficit is ‘a ticking time bomb, and it’s about to blow up,” U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. (Remember him?)

Later in 1985: Los Angeles Times: “We labeled the deficit a ‘ticking time bomb’ that threatens to permanently undermine the strength and vitality of the American economy.”

In 1987: Richmond Times–Dispatch – Richmond, VA: “100TH CONGRESS FACING U.S. DEFICIT ‘TIME BOMB’”

Later in 1987: The Dallas Morning News: “A fiscal time bomb is slowly ticking that, if not defused, could explode into a financial crisis within the next few years for the federal government.”

In 1989: FORTUNE Magazine: “A TIME BOMB FOR U.S. TAXPAYERS”

In 1992: The Pantagraph – Bloomington, Illinois: “I have seen where politicians in Washington have expressed little or no concern about this ticking time bomb they have helped to create, that being the enormous federal budget deficit, approaching $4 trillion.”

Later in 1992: Ross Perot: “Our great nation is sitting right on top of a ticking time bomb. We have a national debt of $4 trillion.”

In 1995: Kansas City Star: “Concerned citizens. . . regard the national debt as a ticking time bomb poised to explode with devastating consequences at some future date.”

In 2003: Porter Stansberry, for the Daily Reckoning: “Generation debt is a ticking time bomb . . . with about ten years left on the clock.”

In 2004: Bradenton Herald: “A NATION AT RISK: TWIN DEFICIT A TICKING TIME BOMB”

In 2005: Providence Journal: “Some lawmakers see the Medicare drug benefit for what it is: a ticking time bomb.”

In 2006: NewsMax.com, “We have to worry about the deficit . . . when we combine it with the trade deficit we have a real ticking time bomb in our economy,” said Mrs. Clinton.

In 2007: USA Today: “Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen.”

In 2010: Reason Alert: “. . . the time bomb that’s ticking under the federal budget like a Guy Fawkes’ powder keg.”

In 2011: Washington Post, Lori Montgomery: ” . . . defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode.”

In 2014: CBN News: “The United States of Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb”

*On Jun 18, 2015: The ticking economic time bomb that presidential candidates are ignoring: Fortune Magazine, Shawn Tully,

*On February 10, 2016, The Daily Bell: “Obama’s $4.1 Trillion Budget Is Latest Sign of America’s Looming Collapse”

*On January 23, 2017: Trump’s ‘Debt Bomb’: Deficit May Grow, Defense Budget May Not, By Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr.

*On April 28, 2017: Debt in the U.S. Fuel for Growth or Ticking Time Bomb?, American Institute for Economic Research, by Max Gulker, PhD – Senior Research Fellow, Theodore Cangeros

Feb. 16, 2018 America’s Debt Bomb By Andrew Soergel, Senior Reporter: Conservatives and deficit hawks are hurling criticism at Washington for deepening America’s debt hole.

On April 18, 2018 By Alan Greenspan and John R. Kasich: “Time is running short, and America’s debt time bomb continues to tick.”

On January 10, 2019, Unfunded Govt. Liabilities — Our Ticking Time Bomb. By Myra Adams, Tick, tick, tick goes the time bomb of national doom.

On January 18, 2019; 2019 Is Gold’s Year To Shine (And The Ticking US Debt Time-Bomb) By Gavin Wendt

Keep in mind that the phony “time bomb” began to “tick” at least as far back as 1940, when the total debt was $40 Billion. Today, 80 years later, it has risen 52,500% (!) to $21 Trillion, and still the bomb ticks.

In eerily Trumpian fashion, Suderman doesn’t seem embarrassed by being wrong, wrong, wrong, over and over and over again.

Like Trump, he just knows in his gut that he is right, and let the facts be damned.

Well, at least it gives me the wonderful chance again to “feel superior to someone’s ignorance, while shaking my head in wonderment.”

Thank you, Peter.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: