Once again, Reason Magazine promulgates the Big Lie to stifle the economy.

The “Big Lie” comes in various forms. It is stated as:

  1. Federal spending is funded by federal taxes.
  2. The federal debt will lead to insolvency.
  3. Cuts in federal spending are financially prudent.
  4. Federal finances are like state/local government finances.
  5. Federal spending causes inflation.
  6. The federal government should live within its means.
  7. The federal debt is a ticking time bomb.
  8. China will stop lending to us.
  9. Profligate federal spending reduces our ability to deal with financial crises.
  10. Federal debt reduces economic growth
  11. The “debt”/GDP ratio is too high

All are widely promulgated, even by some economists and virtually all politicians and media writers — and all are absolutely untrue. They all are facets of The Big Lie.

Consider the following article from Reason Magazine:

The Next Pandemic Will Be Caused by the National Debt. It Will Crater the Economy.
Debt held by the public equals about 100 percent of GDP. That’s hurting growth and will fuel a major crisis. By Nick Gillespie,7.2.2020
Nick Gillespie is an editor at large at Reason, the libertarian magazine of “Free Minds and Free Markets.”

When President Donald Trump said on March 6 that the coronavirus “came out of nowhere,” it wasn’t quite accurate.

Actually, it was 100% wrong:

  1. A pandemic is caused by germs, not by debt, and . . .
  2. Federal debt not cause a financial crisis (lack of federal debt causes financial crises), and . . .
  3. A pandemic has been anticipated by every administration of the past few decades.

The Obama administration compiled a detailed plan for dealing with a pandemic — a plan the Trump administration completely ignored, costing many thousands of lives.

So far, more than 125,000 Americans have died — most unnecessarily — and many more will follow. To say Trump’s statement was not “quite accurate” is like saying the Pacific Ocean is somewhat damp.

Now, move to another comment that is “not quite accurate,” another statement of “The Big Lie.”

There’s another totally predictable crisis that promises to be even more damaging to our way of life: The national debt—the amount of money the federal government owes—is already choking down economic growth, but in the future, it could lead to “sudden inflation,” and “a loss of confidence in the federal government’s ability or commitment to repay its debts in full.”

It must be extremely difficult to pack so much misinformation into one short paragraph, but Nick Gillespie has accomplished the seemingly impossible.

1. The misnamed “national debt” is not the amount of money the federal government owes. It is the amount of money deposited into Treasury Security Accounts at the Federal Reserve bank.

The government does not “owe” this money; the government does not even “have” this money. It is owned by, and controlled by, the depositors.

To invest in a T-security (T-bill, T-note, T-bond), you open a T-security account. Visualize a bank vault into which you put your money, jewels, deeds, etc.

The bank does not “owe” you the value of your deposits. It possess them but does not own them. It merely holds them for you, and gives them back to you upon your demand.

Similarly, the government does not owe you your deposit. The bank possesses your deposit, but does not own it. It simply keeps it for you, and whenever you want it back, the government returns your deposit to you, plus accumulated interest.

2. Your deposits (the so-called national “debt”) do not “choke down” anything. In fact quite the opposite. Until COVID-19, both the economy and the federal “debt” had been growing massively.

The federal “debt” is a reflection of federal deficit spending which stimulates economic growth. In fact, whenever the national debt has been reduced, America has suffered a depression or recession.

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.

Even when the federal debt grows insufficiently, America suffers recessions.

Recessions (vertical bars) occur after a period of reduced Federal Debt Held by the Public (red line) and are cured by increased Federal Debt.

The reason, quite simply, is that a growing economy requires a growing supply of money, so recessions are caused when the money supply does not increase sufficiently.

Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports

That also is why recessions are cured when the federal government pumps dollars into the economy via deficit spending.

3. Contrary to popular myth, federal debt does not cause inflation, much less “sudden inflation.”

All inflations in world history have been caused by shortages of vital goods or services, most often food or energy.

While Federal Debt (red) has risen massively in the past 70 years, Inflation (blue) has risen moderately.
There is no relationship between changes in Federal Debt (red) and changes in Inflation (blue).

4. There never has been, and never will be a “loss of confidence” in the federal government’s ability to pay its debts.

All federal debt either is denominated in dollars or denominated in a currency that can be exchanged for dollars.

The federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars — every knowledgeable economist knows this — so the federal government cannot run short of dollars with which to pay its debts.

Further, there is a vast difference between what erroneously is termed “the federal ‘debt'” and the federal government’s debts.

The federal “debt” is the total of deposits into T-security accounts, which the federal government pays off simply by returning the dollars in those accounts.

Federal government “debts” are dollars owed to creditorGreenspan quote.pngs for goods and services purchased by the federal government.

These debts are paid off by the creation of new dollars.

The federal government accomplishes this by sending instructions to each creditor’s bank, telling the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

When the bank does as instructed, brand new dollars are created and added to the nation’s money supply. The federal government can do this endlessly

Mr. Gillespie’s scare-article continues:

“Such a crisis could spread globally” causing some “financial institutions to fail.”

That’s all according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which has been warning Americans about the long-term consequence of the ballooning debt for years.

Yes, the CBO and other organizations have issued the same warning for at least 80 years, and we still are waiting for that “loss of confidence in the federal government’s ability to pay.”

Since 1940, the growing federal debt has been called “a ticking time bomb.”  After 80 years, it surely is the slowest “time bomb” in history.

But despite being wrong for 80+ years, the warnings continue.

Congress and presidents from both major parties have accepted Dick Cheney’s false maxim that “deficits don’t matter.”

Instead, they just keep spending more than we take in during good times and bad, even though being so deeply in hock will make us less able to deal with a future crisis.

Sadly, Mr. Gillespie does not understand the difference between the Monetarily Sovereign, U.S. government, and the monetarily non-sovereign state & local governments.

A Monetarily Sovereign government never can run short of its own sovereigBernanke quoten currency. A monetarily non-sovereign entity (like you and me) has no sovereign currency, so can become insolvent.

The amount of money the government owed to the public was 79 percent of gross domestic product at the end of 2019, up from 31 percent in 2001.

The COVID-19 lockdowns and subsequent emergency spending will push the curve above 100 percent of GDP by the end of 2020, and it’s expected to keep rising.

Emergency spending and plunging tax revenues are making a bad situation worse.

CBO forecasts that the budget deficit this year will be 17.9 percent of GDP, meaning that the government is running much larger deficits, racking up significantly more debt, than it did even at the height of the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

Also, contrary to popular myth, the “debt”/GDP ratio is meaningless.  GDP is a measure of spending in any one year. Federal “debt” measures the net amount of deposits into T-security accounts.

Two completely different measures and two completely time scales. The “debt”/GDP ratio isn’t just apples and oranges. It’s apples and adverbs — two measures that could not be more different.

Mr. Gillespie sounds the ominous warning about the ratio exceeding 100%. As of June 2019, the nation with the highest debt-to-GDP ratio is Japan with a ratio of 253%.

The next highest ratio is from Greece, which at 181.1%, lags significantly behind Japan.

Other nations with high debt-to-GDP ratios include: Cape Verde: 123.4%, Portugal: 121.5%, Congo: 117.7%, Singapore: 112.2%, Mozambique: 110.5%, Bhutan: 108.64%, United States: 105.4%, Jamaica: 103.3%, Cyprus: 102.5%, Belgium: 102%, Egypt: 101.2%

The nations with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios include: Brunei: 2.4%, Afghanistan: 7.1%, Estonia: 8.4%, Swaziland: 9.95%, Russia: 13.5%, Burundi: 14.4%, Cayman Islands: 14.5%, Kuwait: 14.8%, Libya: 16.5%, Republic of the Congo: 17%, Kosovo: 17.12%, Palestine: 17.5%, Cuba: 18.2%, United Arab Emirates: 18.6%, Guinea: 18.66%

As you can see, there is zero relationship between the “debt”/GDP ratio and a nation’s ability to pay creditors.

It, very simply, is a meaningless ratio used by those who either wish to scare the public, or who are ignorant of economics.

Economists such as Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman and proponents of modern monetary theory (MMT) look at the absence of inflation and higher interest rates so far as justification for ever-more spending and borrowing.

While it’s true that the cost of paying interest on the debt is still dwarfed by other expenditures, that’s because historically low interest rates have made government borrowing cheap.

But there’s no reason to believe that interest rates won’t rise over time. According to conservative estimates from the CBO, as the total budget grows as a percentage of GDP, the cost of paying interest on the debt will increase faster until, by 2050, it accounts for about 24 cents of every dollar spent.

And these estimates don’t take into account emergency spending for COVID-19, which will make servicing the debt even more costly over time.

No, economists don’t “look at the absence of inflation and higher interest rates so far as justification for ever-more spending and borrowing.”St louis fed quote.png

The U.S. federal government does not borrow. Unlike state/local governments, the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars, so why would it borrow?

That is what the Fed means when it says “the government is not dependent on credit markets.”

T-securities not represent borrowing. They represent the acceptance of dollar deposits for safe-keeping.

And low interest rates are meaningless for a government that has the unlimited ability to create dollars.

High interest rates actually have a stimulative component. The higher the rate, the more interest dollars — i.e. growth dollars — the federal government pumps into the economy.

The justification for ever-more spending is quite simple: Federal spending not only grows the economy, but federal spending buys valuable goods and services for the American people.

It is federal spending that brings us roads, bridges, dams, healthcare, the military, scientific research & development, education, farming, courts, a government — the list goes on and on.

And now, Mr. Gillespie reveals either ignorance or perfidy:

Like a monthly credit card payment that eats into a household budget, federal debt means less money to buy other things.

He equates federal finances with personal finances. Either he doesn’t understand the difference, or he hopes you don’t understand the difference.

The U.S. federal government neither has nor needs anything resembling a “credit card.” It creates unlimited dollars at the touch of a computer key. The government does not borrow, and it pays creditors simply by issuing instructions to banks.

And when governments run large, persistent deficits, it also has a devastating impact on economic growth over time.

Our current debt levels could reduce GDP by about one-quarter over 23 years, according to research by Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.

It’s a case of what French economist Frédéric Bastiat referred to as “the unseen” because we’ll never get to experience how much wealthier we otherwise would have been had the federal government practiced fiscal prudence.

Anemic growth will impact the poorest Americans most of all, causing their material progress to slow considerably. It means less leisure time, smaller homes, older cars, and less health care.

Could it be that Mr. Gillespie doesn’t realize the Reinhart and Rogoff conclusions have been debunked, not only for mathematical errors, but perhaps more importantly, because Reinhardt and Rogoff did not differentiate between Monetarily Sovereign governments and monetarily non-sovereign governments.

The former do not borrow and cannot run short of money. The latter do borrow and can run short of money. Quite a difference to overlook.

Remember that equation: GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports. There is absolutely no mechanism by which a reduction in federal spending can increase GDP.

Mr. Gillespie may be one of the last remaining economic writers who still believes  austerity can grow an economy, though he never explains how that works.

In the short-term, there’s no question that the government can and will be able to borrow massively, and interest rates are likely to stay low for the time being as the world shifts into recession.

The federal government does not borrow. Interest rates will stay low if that is what the Federal Reserve wants. The Fed has absolute control over the interest the federal government will pay on T-security deposits.

And now we move from the merely wrong to the outright ridiculous:

But there’s also the specter of investors here and abroad refusing to buy U.S.-issued debt as our economy flattens, China flexes its economic and political might, and alternative instruments such as bitcoin and gold offer safe refuge.

The federal government doesn’t need China or anyone else to buy its “debt.” The Federal Reserve itself has the unlimited ability to buy T-securities, which it does, every day.

The government “lends” to itself in an endless circle of finance.

And, bitcoin offers “safe refuge”?? Is this a joke?

Gold, which has only minimal intrinsic value, pays no interest or dividends, costs money for storage and shipping, and the value of which is not guaranteed by anything or anyone — that is “safe refuge”?

Many nations have suffered depressions while on gold standards.

And it keeps getting worse and worse and worse:

Even the most hubristic economist or president would have to admit that there will come a time when the U.S. dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency.

That change won’t necessarily be as dramatic as when German paper marks became worthless after World War I, but it will massively reduce purchasing power even as it increases the cost of everything.

Mr. Gillespie wrongly believes that “reserve currency” endows the U.S. dollar with some valuable status.

A “reserve currency,” of which there are many, depending on the bank, is nothing more than a currency a bank keeps in reserve to facilitate foreign exchange and trade. 

The U.S. dollar, the euro, the British pound, the Mexican peso, the Chinese yuan, the Brazilian real, all are reserve currencies for various banks.

The value of these currencies does not rely on being held in reserve by banks. It’s just a currency exchange convenience.

And then Mr. Gillespie tosses in the inevitable reference to German hyperinflation, which had nothing to do with reserve currencies or with over-spending or with anything else pertinent to the discussion.

The German hyperinflation, like all hyperinflations, was caused by shortages of life’s necessities — food, clothing, housing, energy — the result of onerous financial conditions placed on Germany by the Allies after WWI.

Germany simply ran out of money to pay for goods and services, so these items became scarce, and when a needed item is scarce, the price goes up. Period.

The German hyperinflation was cured when Germany issued a new currency and used it to purchase needed goods additionally to buying the greatest war machine the world had ever known. 

German government war spending actually cured the hyperinflation by curing the shortages.

Finally, Gillespie argues against his own proposition:

Between 1940 and 1945, federal spending increased tenfold from $10 billion to over $100 billion to pay for the war effort.

But when victory was won, the government immediately cut military spending.

That cut in federal spending led to the recession of 1945.

Our out-of-control spending has been driven by the persistent rise in the cost of entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. Gillespie, as a stout libertarian, hates “entitlements,” (aka, benefits to the public). He would prefer a government that does not provide Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Social Security, roads, bridges, dams, education, a military, courts, Congress, national parks, scientific research & development, food & drug inspection, weather reports, and the myriad of other benefits the public receives from the government.

To a libertarian, any government is bad government, and any government spending should be reduced or eliminated. 

When the debt crisis materializes and our options are severely limited because of decades of profligate spending, politicians sitting in the Oval Office and Congress will claim that it all just came out of nowhere, like that crazy virus back in 2020.

But nothing could be further from the truth: Budget wonks are already sounding the alarm. We need to heed these warnings now or suffer an economic lockdown later from which there may be no escape.

Back in 1940, the federal “debt” was about $40 billion. Today it is over $20 trillion, and our options are no more limited now than they were then. (Actually, our options are less limited, because federal money creation no longer is hampered by a gold standard.)

The “Big Lie” reflects ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty, which is the single biggest problem facing America’s and the world’s economies.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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


The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax

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 the rest.


More fakery, this time from Suderman’s boss.

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

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..

“Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason. He writes regularly on health care, the federal budget, tech policy, and pop culture. He is also a pop culture columnist for Vox and a 2010 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow.”

How do I know? The Reason.com website says so.

We discussed Suderman’s comments in the previous post, “Peter Suderman’s twisted logic reveals the real motives of the right-wing”

Now, we hear from Suderman’s boss. Another quote from their site:

Nick Gillespie is editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason TV, the online platforms of Reason, the libertarian magazine of “Free Minds and Free Markets.”

The two sites draw over 4 million visits per month and have been named among the nation’s best political sites by Playboy, Washingtonian, National Journal, and others.

Nick Gillespie by Gage Skidmore.jpg


Gillespie wrote an article in response to yesterday’s news about the GOP health care (“no health care”) plan, as described in the Chicago Tribune:

23 million more uninsured by 2026 under GOP health care bill, new CBO analysis finds

The Congressional Budget Office says the health care bill Republicans pushed through the House this month would leave 23 million additional people uninsured in 2026, compared with former President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Compared with Obama’s 2010 overhaul, average premiums for people buying individual policies would be lower. That is partly because insurance on average would cover less of people’s health care costs.

The Republican legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $119 billion over the next 10 years, according to the CBO analysis.

The analysis undermines claims by House Republicans that their health legislation protects people with pre-existing conditions.

In some cases, people with pre-existing conditions would not be able to purchasecomprehensive health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, “if they could purchase it at all.”

House GOP leaders (had) managed to get their bill over the finish line by arguing that a last-minute addition of $8 billion would bolster protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

The CBO specifies that these people would have difficulty getting affordable coverage “despite the additional funding that would be available.”

In summary, the GOP plan would:

  1. Force 24 million additional people to be uninsured
  2. Cover fewer health care costs
  3. Not cover as many people with pre-existing conditions
  4. But it would cut the deficit

And that item #4 is what cheers Gillespie.  Although he admits that “less healthy people would face extremely high premiums,” and many would not be able to afford good health care at all, this seems not to be a key issue for Gillespie’s Libertarian bent.

No, he is more worried about “big government” than America’s health, for he says:

The United States is running out of other people’s money and we need to start the hard work of figuring out a sustainable level of government that we can both pay for and thrive under.

In some of his deregulatory gestures, Trump points in that direction, and he has clearly shown himself willing and able to push hard against the status quo.

You just have read a perfect expression of the Big Lie.

The United States is not “running out of other people’s money” simply because, being Monetarily Sovereign, it does not use “other people’s money.” 

Unlike state and local governments, which do use “other people’s money” (i.e. taxes), the federal government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.  It does not use tax dollars and cannot run short of dollars. Period.

Gillespie never tells us what he means by “a sustainable level of government.” and that is why I believe that any size government is too big for him.  Though he claims to be a “Libertarian” (an anti-government belief with an infinite number of definitions), he is, I suspect, an anarchist.

(He is welcome to prove me wrong by explaining what size government he feels is “sustainable, “and why.)

Here is a guy, Gillespie, who writes about economics and who claims his sites “draw over 4 million visits per month and have been named among the nation’s best political sites, and yet he is completely ignorant about the fundamentals of federal finance. Yikes!

But, as wrongheaded as they are, the Nick Gillespies of the world do not make me angry. They are tools for the rich, and I understand their motives.

What makes me angry, and what I don’t understand, is the people who would be hurt most by Gillespie’s and the GOP’s policies, continuing to vote against their own best interests.

And not just voting against their own best interests, but angrily and insultingly arguing against a program like Federally funded Medicare for all (Step 2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperitythat would solve so many of their problems.

If you go to any right-wing site, you will see nothing but name calling and other insults for anyone tries to help them.

Frustrating to be sure.

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.
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.