Parental leave: A good idea. Congress: First ignore, then screw up.

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:

The ignorance of the oppressed
and the treachery of their leaders.


The single most important problem in economics is the wide and growing Gap between the rich and the rest. Therefore, anything that narrows the Gap tends to get my positive attention. “Parental leave” is one of those things.

Parental leave would be an important benefit to middle-income groups, a vital benefit to  low-income groups, and meaningless to the rich — exactly the kind of program I love, and exactly the kind of program the rich deplore.

There are infinite versions of parental leave, depending on the length and amount of the benefit. Fundamentally, it would recognize the fact that in today’s America, women of child-bearing age often are important money earners.

There are three times when these women and their families need financial help:

–During those pregnancy days when the women physically are unable to go to work
–At birth, and shortly thereafter, when again, the women are physically unable to work.
–During the months following childbirth, when the combination of physical weakness and the demands of infant care, impact family work ability

Every woman is different. True story: I know a young woman, who when pregnant, worked every day, then one day left the office to deliver her baby, and was back at work the next day. (Her mother took care of the infant.) That was exceptional, and not even advisable, but it was what she wanted and was able to do.

The purpose of this article is not to debate the amount or timing of the benefit, nor to determine whether it is “unfair” to families that don’t have children, or whether some women are malingerers who would take excessive and unneeded advantage.

Rather, the purpose is to discuss how any parental benefit program would be financed.

Here is what an article in the Chicago Tribune said:

Social Security Can’t Be a Piggy Bank for Parental Leave
The U.S. retirement system isn’t strong enough to support a proposal to let new parents borrow against future benefits.
By Michael R. Strain, February 9, 2018, 8:00 AM EST

During the State of the Union address last month, when the president called for helping “working families by supporting paid family leave,” Speaker Paul Ryan and Vice President Mike Pence remained seated, unable to muster enthusiasm.

Republicans have traditionally opposed government-provided paid leave, but the Trump administration, led by first daughter Ivanka, is trying to change that.

The GOP, which more and more has become “the party of the rich,” tends to oppose anything that helps the so-called “99%.” Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunch programs, food stamps all repeatedly are under fire by conservatives, who make two claims, both false:

–The recipients are lazy slugs, who game the system and who should work harder to support themselves.
–The federal government can’t afford the program.

The former is a function of Gap Psychology, about which you can read at, “Why you believe the Big Lie: The Gap Psychology con job.

The latter is the focus of this Tribune article:

The State of the Union speech breathed new life into the idea, along with a compelling proposal to fund paid leave without — its advocates claim — burdening employers, reducing job opportunities for women or increasing taxes.

The idea is simple and elegant: Allow new parents to collect early Social Security benefits after the arrival of a child, provided that they are willing to delay collecting benefits when they begin their retirement decades into the future.

Embedded in the “simple and elegant” idea, are three beliefs, two of which are true and one of which is dead wrong:

  1. Employers should not have to pay employees for not working. True. When companies bear this burden in any form — paid vacations, paid sick days, etc. — the cost simply becomes part of the salary consideration, so ultimately is paid by the employee.
  2. Families of child-bearing age should not be punished in the job market. True. There was a time when prospective employers actually asked women whether they planned to get pregnant.  That doesn’t happen as much anymore, but some employers still are reluctant to hire women between twenty and thirty years of age, especially to jobs that require a great deal of training and responsibility.
  3. Federally-funded family leave programs would require federal tax increases. False. The U.S., being Monetarily Sovereign, creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays an invoice, so has no need for tax dollars.

Consider a 26-year-old new mother with five years of work experience earning $31,100 per year. Under this plan, she could receive 12 weeks of paid leave, at a rate of close to $300 per week. In exchange, she would delay claiming retirement benefits by about six weeks.

This idea is gaining traction. Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican, is working with Ivanka Trump on drafting a bill. Earlier this week, two other Republican senators, Joni Ernst of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah, discussed the plan in a press call hosted by the Independent Women’s Forum, which first outlined the new approach.

Some prominent conservative intellectuals are also getting behind the idea.

A born-rich woman and a do-nothing Senator have created an idea that gives to the present and takes from the future, exactly what financial experts suggest one never should do.

If this reminds you of the disgraceful student loan program — in which young people are punished long-term by ongoing debt, you are correct.

Punishing families by taking money from future Social Security payments, is an idea one would expect from conservatives.

Helping the young by enslaving the old is a favorite GOP gambit, who simultaneously (and ironically) preach saving for the future.

To its designers’ credit, this is the best federal paid-leave proposal being discussed. My Bloomberg View colleague Ramesh Ponnuru agrees, writing that he hasn’t “seen a better plan.” Its underlying philosophy — that society should invest more in the young and less in retired individuals — is sound.

But it’s still a bad idea.

Yes, it’s a bad idea, especially since it does not ask “society” to invest more in the young” — it asks the elderly to invest more in the young —  nor is there any merit to giving less to the elderly.

And now comes the heart of what conservatives want — the widen the Gap between the rich and the rest part:

Spending on Social Security is projected to rise by 1.5 percentage points of annual economic output over the next three decades.

Policy should be focused on decreasing projected spending to preserve Social Security for future generations.

Social Security spending needs to be cut, not redirected.

This idea, being promulgated by the rich, tells you two lies:

  1. Social Security benefits are so lucrative, they can be cut without punishing the elderly, who anyway, aren’t productive members of our society
  2. Federal taxes pay for Social Security.

Lie #1 is ridiculous and disgraceful. Social Security benefits already are shamefully low, below poverty levels, and the notion that the elderly can be cast aside as no longer productive is beyond contempt.

Lie #2 is just that: A lie. The truth is that federal taxes — FICA, income taxes, any other taxes — do not pay for anything. They do not pay for Social Security. They do not pay for Medicare. They do not pay for the military, or for roads or for the White House, or for Congress.  Not one dime of federal taxes is used for anything.

When you send your tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury, they instantly disappear from any measure of the money supply. They no longer exist in the economy. They effectively are destroyed.

By contrast, when you send your dollars to your state and local taxing authorities, those dollars are deposited in a private bank, where they remain in the nation’s money supply.

That is a fundamental difference between a Monetarily Sovereign government, like the U.S. government, and a monetarily non-sovereign government, like your state and local governments.

State and local governments need income in order to spend. The federal government neither needs nor uses income. It creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, by paying bills.

And one wonders what else Congress might want to finance using future Social Security benefits if a family-leave plan creates that possibility.

Depending on the party in power, the federal government always can afford that party’s favorite projects.

Currently, the favorites are the military and the “Wall.” They will be funded, even while taxes are reduced.

The federal government never has, and never will, run short of dollars, which is why all concerns about federal deficits and federal “debt” are misguided

Social Security will soon pay out more to retirees than it receives in tax revenue and interest income, and its “trust fund” reserve is projected to be exhausted in 2034.

By the time today’s new parents reach retirement age, either benefits will have been reduced or taxes will have increased.

Social Security does not use tax revenue to pay benefits, and the so-called “trust fund” is a bookkeeping fiction. Of what purpose is a trust fund for a Monetarily Sovereign government that has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency?

Image result for blank 4- column table of items
No Monopoly money? Make a table like this. No column needed for the Bank, which never can run short, even with no taxes.

If you ever have played the board game “Monopoly,” you know that the Bank never runs short of money. Players can use any item as asubstitute or keep a record of transactions. The Bank creates Monopoly dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.

The federal government operates the same way as the Monopoly Bank. If you can’t run short of money, why be concerned about running short of money?

Future lawmakers could decide that retirees shouldn’t be “penalized” with lower benefits because they took paid time off. Any policy where the benefits are enjoyed today and the costs aren’t realized for decades should be met with skepticism.

This was not a concern for the GOP Congress, who gave benefits to the rich in the form of tax cuts, and the “costs” never will be realized.

On balance, then, it’s best to think of the family-leave plan as another middle-class entitlement program. Given projected federal debt and deficits, another entitlement is something the U.S. does not need, however laudable the goal. (This is especially true in light of the fact that four out of 10 working women already report access to paid time off following the birth of a child.)

If there is anything the rich hate, it’s “entitlement programs,” specifically entitlement programs for the 99%.

Entitlement programs for the rich, such as special tax breaks for non-salary income, are just fine, however.

Apparently, the writer of the article, Mr. Strain, believes that if 40% of working women have access to some unknown amount of paid time for some unknown duration, under certain, unknown circumstances, the problem is solved.

Finally, advocates of the plan are quite wrong to suggest that it won’t burden employers. It’s true that it wouldn’t require employers to finance the leave taken by their workers, but it would impose other significant burdens.

Subsidizing time away from work through the Social Security system would increase both the number of parents who take long periods of leave and the weeks of leave new parents take.

The increased use of leave would materially disrupt business operations, particularly for smaller firms.

Image result for servant and master
The poor are lazy.

This is under the theory that middle- and low-paid people are congentially lazy, and will look for ways to cheat the system.  (Of course, rich people never do such things.)

Since women tend to be the main users of parental leave, businesses would probably respond to this disruption by hiring fewer less-educated women of child-bearing age, offering women fewer hours of work per week, and by promoting fewer women into management roles.

The costs of paid leave will disperse throughout the labor market, creating invisible victims whose employment opportunities are diminished.

“Hiring fewer less-educated women of child-bearing age, offering women fewer hours of work per week, and by promoting fewer women into management roles” is exactly what happens now.

The difference is that today families not only are punished because they might have children, but also are punished when they actually do have children. A federally-financed family leave program could remove the second punishment.

Paid leave has many benefits. But the costs of letting families borrow against Social Security to finance it are too high.

Michael R. Strain at; To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at

Yes, paid leave has many benefits, especially if funded by the federal government, and isn’t another version of the awful student loan program, that gives today and punishes forever.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


The 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.



–The failure of common sense in economics. How the President and Congress ignore economic facts and play Russian roulette with our lives.

Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

There is something of a rule in problem-solving that questions beginning with “How” are to be preceded by a thorough examination of questions beginning with “Should.” President Bush II failed to do that when he asked his advisors questions like, “How do we fight a war in Iraq and Afghanistan” and “How do we arrest Saddam Hussein.” The correct questions were “Should we fight a war in Iraq and Afghanistan” and “Should we arrest Saddam Hussein.”

A football coach does not begin with “How can we increase our passing yardage?” He begins with “Should we increase our passing yardage?” A company does not begin with, “How can we increase the number of our stores?” It begins with a thorough examination of “Should we increase the number of our stores?”

Sadly, President Obama, Congress, the media and the old-line economists work feverishly to answer the question, “How can we reduce the federal deficit?” They believe a thorough examination of “Should we reduce the federal deficit?” is unnecessary. They already “know” the answer, despite massive evidence to the contrary.

When you ask the wrong question, you find the wrong answer. Congress and the President can’t agree on an answer, because the question is wrong. It’s akin to asking, “How should we sail a ship without falling off the edge of the world?”

The correct question is, “Should we reduce the federal deficit?” Many people give perfunctory, knee-jerk answers, such as, “The deficit is not sustainable” or “Our children will pay for it.” But no answers have been based on the one, overriding, undeniable fact:

Federal deficits = net non-federal saving

Cut deficits and you cut saving. Cut saving and you cut economic growth. Cut economic growth and you enter recessions and depressions and the unemployment that accompanies them. The facts are that simple and undeniable. But, the President and members of Congress do not work from facts; they work from what each believes is common sense.

Common sense consists of beliefs most people consider obvious and sound, things “everyone knows.” Yet, your common sense may be different from my common sense, because it is affected by our different personal experiences, as well as by analogy, religion, social mores, history, logic, teaching, folklore, aphorisms, leaders and every form of information transfer, all of which vary from person to person.

The earth must be flat, not round, else the oceans would pour out. Nothing can be in two places at the same time – except in Quantum Mechanics. Running fast does not make your watch run slower – except in Relativity. If a roulette wheel lands on red five times in a row, it is more likely to land on black the next spin. Common sense.

Because common sense does not require research, it allows for fast decisions and is powerfully built into our genes. We have great difficulty departing from our common sense beliefs, because they are evolutionarily valuable. We experience and use common sense every day of our lives. We do not need research to tell us to avoid walking blindly into a street or reaching into a fire. Anyone who intentionally does these things is a “fool.”

So powerful is common sense, we angrily consider all those who depart from of our visions of common sense to be fools. Here are examples of common sense for most Americans:

1. Debt is a burden on the debtor; the more debt, the greater the burden. Debtors can be forced into bankruptcy by creditors.
2. A deficit is worse than a surplus. Outgo requires income. Taxes and borrowing pay for government spending.
3. Everything has a cost and a limit. Nothing can be created from nothing. Nothing goes on forever. There is no such thing as a free lunch. No pain; no gain. If it sounds too good, it is.
4. The greater the supply, the less the value. “Printing” money causes inflation. You can have too much of a good thing.
5. Dollars are real and scarce. They can be held, stored and moved.

Every one of these common sense beliefs either is always false or often false, when applied to the U.S. federal government, because:

1. Federal debt is not a burden. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government cannot be forced into bankruptcy (except by Congress). It can service any debt of any size, any time.
2. Federal deficits stimulate the economy while surpluses cause recessions and depressions. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses taxes or borrowing to pay its bills.
3. The federal government creates money by marking up the bank accounts of creditors, in a cost-free, pain-free, limit-free process. To the federal government, money is a “free lunch.”
4. Increasing the supply does reduce value, unless demand increases more. Money demand is increased by interest rates. Since we went off the gold standard, there has been no relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation.
5. Dollars have no physical reality. They are nothing more than numbers in bank accounts. Even dollar bills are not dollars; they are receipts or titles for dollars. Dollars are not scarce to the federal government.

These truths are counter to intuition, counter to common sense and counter to the beliefs of most Americans, yet they are truths, nonetheless.

Very soon, Americans will face the cold reality of recession or depression, caused by Congress’s and the President’s following their “common sense,” rather than economic fact. Federal spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and many other vital federal services will decline. We will suffer “invisible” pain from the loss of scientific and medical research, declining infrastructure, a weaker military, poorer schools, less food and drug inspection, and worse investment protections. Our standard of living will decline. Unemployment will worsen. Destitution will increase. Our children and our grandchildren will lead meaner lives. Their futures will be impoverished.

And most Americans will not realize what has been done to them.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.


–The single, most misunderstood fact in all of economics. It will blow your mind.

Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
When you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. Congress and the President are asking, “How should we reduce the federal deficit?” The correct question is, “Should we reduce the federal deficit?” And the answer is “No.”

Sometimes, something is so simple it can be hard to understand, as though “It just couldn’t be that easy.” This is one of those times.

The media don’t understand it. The columnists don’t understand it. The Tea Party, the Republicans, the Democrats and the debt hawks don’t understand it. For sure, President Obama doesn’t understand it. The old-line economics professors do understand it, but they’re afraid to admit it, because it makes them look like boobs for not telling you, all these years.

It is the single most important equation in economics. It’s so simple as to be laughable, yet it will amaze you (unless you are among the one-in-ten-thousand who already understands it). And once you understand it, you will look at the politicians in wonderment at their incredible ignorance.

Are you ready? Here it is:

Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Saving

This is not a hypothesis. It’s not a theory. It’s not my opinion or anyone else’s opinion. It is an accounting fact. In a closed economy (where money exports equal money imports), your annual savings, plus my annual savings, plus everyone else’s annual savings equals annual federal deficit spending, to the penny. In such an economy, Federal Deficits = Net Private Savings.

This means, if the federal deficit is reduced $1, our combined savings will be reduced by exactly $1 — not $.99; not $1.01 — exactly $1.00.

Today, the politicians in Washington are talking about a $4 trillion (!) deficit reduction. That means our savings will be reduced by $4 trillion. There are about 310 million people in America. A deficit reduction of $4 trillion will reduce the savings of each man, woman and child in America by an average of $12,900.

That’s $12,900 out of your pocket, another $12,900 out of the pockets of your spouse, each of your children and each of your grandchildren. A four-person family will lose $51,600 in savings. If both your parents are alive, they’ll lose another $25,800 in savings.

Why do the politicians want to reduce your savings? Sheer ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty. They think “deficit” is a bad word and want to eliminate it. But a federal deficit is money in your pocket. And a federal surplus? That’s money taken out of your pocket.

How can this be? Again, simple. When federal spending exceeds federal taxes, it’s called a “deficit.” When the federal government spends, its payments for goods and services enter the economy. When you pay taxes, the money leaves the economy. So federal deficits add money to the economy, and where does that money go? Into your pocket as savings. Similarly, federal taxes take money out of your pocket.

(If you want to see a longer, more erudite explanation, you might try Deficit = Savings, or Mosler letter to the President but I think you get the picture.)

Now tell me, how much would you like the federal deficit to be reduced? That is, how much of your savings would you like to lose? Tell your Congressperson.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.


–Is NPR in league with the Tea Party, or simply clueless?

Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

It was at 11:00 AM Central time, today, that I heard a discussion on National Public Radio, station WBEZ. The participants claimed the media are hamstrung by the need to present both sides of each issue.

They lamented the fact that “fairness” required them to give equal weight to opposing opinions, even when one opinion was far more persuasive than the other — and shouldn’t the media have more leeway in exercising their judgement on this?

Aside from the fact that columnists and editorials do exercise a form of censorship (aka “judgement”), there is one other aspect to the conversation that troubled me. The specific subject was the federal deficit. Both participants agreed the deficit must be reduced, so the “two sides” were: Raise taxes or don’t raise taxes.

As readers of this blog know, those are not both sides of the deficit issue. Those “two sides” are mere details in the real issue: Increase the deficit or don’t increase the deficit.

The media, including public radio, have been derelict in not presenting the “increase the deficit” side. And its not as though they don’t know or can’t find out. They easily can access such sources as this web site, Warren Mosler’s The Center of the Universe), Bill Mitchell’s Billyblog ), almost the entire faculty at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (far ahead of traditional Nobel winners like the University of Chicago and Harvard) and many,many others, to see powerful arguments, substantiated by facts, about why the federal deficit should be increased.

Why do they never broadcast these opinions and facts? It’s yet another puzzle surrounding the entire Monetary Sovereignty subject. Because “everyone” agrees the world is flat, the media don’t consider the possibility it may be round, so nothing is said.

There is only one solution. I’m following it and I urge you to follow it: Contact your local NPR station ( and ask them to do as they claim to do: Broadcast both sides of the issue – the real both sides. If enough people request it, NPR finally may realize they are missing an important part of the economics debate.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.