AARP accidentally admits the government doesn’t need FICA

AARP logo and symbol, meaning, history, PNG, brand
Your benevolent friend.
The AARP is the self-anointed protector of the aged. Its website says:

“AARP represents the needs of the more than 100 million older Americans with lifestyles and political views as diverse as any group in the United States.

“We concentrate on the issues most important to those in the 50+ community as they age: economic security; health care; access to affordable, quality long-term care; creating and maintaining livable communities; consumer protections; caregiving; and ensuring that our democracy works better for all.”

Unfortunately, AARP has long published articles claiming that the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are running short of dollars and soon will need to cut benefits or increase taxes – specifically FICA – which supposedly supports those trust funds. It’s all wrong:

1. The so-called “trust funds” are not real trust funds. They are merely bookkeeping notations that track dollars coming and dollars going out.

The federal government can raise, lower, or erase those numbers whenever it wishes.

2. Those “trust funds” don’t pay for anything. The government pays for Social Security and Medicare benefits like it pays for everything else: the military, roads, dams, Congress, the Supreme Court, the White House, NASA, etc.

It signs legislation that approves the creation of dollars and then pays for things with those newly created dollars. It can do this endlessly.

Here is a sample — a direct quote, actually — of what AARP has been telling people:

The trust funds from which Social Security benefits are paid won’t run short of money until 2035 — a year later than was predicted in last year’s report. 

And, the Medicare trust fund for part A, which helps pay for inpatient hospital visits will cover all its bills until 2036 — five years longer than forecast last year.

And here’s the key paragraph. It contains facts you seldom are told by any of the media:

Other Medicare programs, including Part B doctor’s services and outpatient care and Part D prescription drugs, will have enough money indefinitely because premiums and federal contributions are automatically adjusted each year to cover costs.

That is the phrase to remember: ” . . . federal contributions are automatically adjusted each year to cover costs.” It states very simply and clearly that the government pays whatever is needed to keep Part B viable forever. It is a tacit admission that at least some part of Medicare is not beholden to “trust funds” or to tax collections. This begs the obvious question: If the government pays for some of Part B, why doesn’t it pay for all of Part B and Part A? I asked the Copilot AI this question, and this is what it said: ”

“The reason Part A is not fully funded by the government is likely due to the historical structure of Medicare and the way it was initially designed.

Alan Greenspan - Wikipedia
Greenspan

“Part B is partially funded by monthly premiums paid by beneficiaries and general tax revenue. The rationale behind this split may be to ensure that beneficiaries contribute to the cost of outpatient services while still receiving essential coverage.”

Those monthly premiums come out of your Social Security benefits. You need the money; the federal government doesn’t. The inevitable conclusions are:

1. Since federal contributions are automatically adjusted each year, no calculation is made about whether the federal government can afford these contributions; affordability is assumed. 

2. When Medicare and Social Security were created (1935 and 1965, respectively), the U.S. was still on a form of gold standard. Its money-creation ability was limited by its gold supplies. It was only partially Monetarily Sovereign.

This ended in 1971, when the government became fully Monetarily Sovereign. As Alan Greenspan said during a 1985 congressional hearing, “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.” 

Ben Bernanke - Wikipedia
Bernanke

3. Thus, the federal government can pay for Social Security and Medicare without levying any taxes. Ben Bernanke said during an interview with Scott Pelley on March 12, 2009, when asked if the money the Federal Reserve (Fed) spends is tax money, “It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.”

4. From an affordability standpoint, the federal government could afford to fully fund a comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare and a far more generous Social Security—for all Americans of any age—without ever levying taxes.

This fact leaves doubters with two objections, both unmoored from fact:

Objection: Federal funding of Medicare and Social Security is Socialism.

Fact: Socialism is government ownership and control, not just spending. The above proposals would change nothing regarding ownership and control, so they would not move us any closer to Socialism.

Objection: Federal funding of Medicare and Social Security would cause inflation.

Fact: All inflations in history have been caused by shortages of crucial goods and services, not by federal spending. (See: If excessive federal deficit spending causes inflation, how do you explain this graph?)

Galileo Galilei

The most recent inflation was caused by COVID-related shortages of oil, food, computer chips, lumber, metals, labor, and other necessities, not by low interest rates or excessive federal spending.

The shortages and inflation are being cured by additional federal spending to acquire and distribute the scarce goods.

Summary AARP acknowledges the easily and often proven fact that although state and local taxes fund state and local spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending. The federal government easily could fund Medicare and Social Security for all and forever. The claims about the imminent need to limit benefits or raise taxes do not comport with reality, which is that the government should increase benefits and eliminate FICA forever. If you are tired of the dire warnings that serve only to widen the income/wealth/power Gap between you and the very rich, tell this to your Congressional representative. Do it today and every tomorrow, and tell your friends to do it too. As Galileo taught us, some truths take a while to be accepted. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell; MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A better way to budget federal spending: The only sensible way.

Infinity is a big number. It’s so big you can’t even visualize it, much less count it.
Night Sky Images | Free HD Backgrounds, PNGs, Vectors & Templates - rawpixel
The federal government has more dollars than there are atoms in the universe.
Infinity is bigger than all the atoms in all the molecules in all the dust grains in the entire universe, which is estimated to be 10^82 — that’s 1 with 82 zeros behind it — way bigger. It’s bigger than a googol, which is 10^100, which is one followed by one hundred zeros. Infinity is bigger than a centillion, which is one followed by six hundred zeros, and bigger even than a googolplex, ten^googol. I mention these staggering numbers, all of which are far smaller than infinity, to give you an idea of the U.S. federal government’s capability, which is this: The U.S. government can create infinite U.S. dollars any time it chooses, merely by deciding to do so.

Ben Bernanke, former Federal Reserve Chairman: “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.”

Scott Pelley (60 Minutes): Is that tax money that the Fed is spending? Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.

Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “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 credit markets to remain operational.”

Given that infinite capability, the U.S. government cannot run short of dollars, no matter how many it spends, how little it taxes, or how big its deficits are. Even if the federal government levied zero taxes, it could continue spending forever (the same as infinity, but on a time scale). And what is true for the U.S. government also is true for any agency of the U.S. government. The Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force, the Senate, the House, the White House, the Supreme Court, Medicare, Social Security, and all the other 1000+ agencies of the federal government — none of them can run short of dollars unless that is the desire of the President and Congress. So why do we concern ourselves with meaningless concepts such as federal deficits, debt, and borrowing when determining how much to spend on various projects? Why do we talk about “affordability” and “sustainability”? Everything is affordable and sustainable for an entity with access to infinite (more than a googolplex) dollars, and there never is a reason to borrow. With affordability, sustainability, and borrowing off the table, what criteria should the government use to plan expenditures? Need and effect are the only criteria that have a purpose. Take any federal agency, for instance, the House of Representatives: How much money does the House need to run most efficiently, and what are the overall effects of giving them that money? Or think about America’s healthcare. How much money would a comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare plan covering every man, woman, and child in America need, and what would be the overall effect of providing that money? The U.S. government can “afford” and “sustain” any numbers you can mention without either borrowing or taxing. Just press those computer keys Ben Bernanke mentioned. Social Security for All: How much money is needed to eliminate poverty, hunger, homelessness, and most crime in America? Develop a number and press those computer keys. Or education: How much money is needed to provide everyone with the education they desire, whether it be high school, college, advanced degree, or research facility? There are no financial limitations. So, what are the limitations? Planning, know-how, and labor. We need to know how to spend those unlimited dollars to achieve our goals, and we need enough educated labor to make it all happen. Despite the bleating and moaning about deficits and debt, money truly is no object. We can do it all, and now, with AI (Artificial Intelligence), our capabilities have expanded massively. We really can create a paradise on earth. Of course, when all objections have been satisfied, we come to the last refuge of the debt worriers: Inflation. They tell you that if the government spends “too much,” we’ll have inflation. That is what many people have been taught to believe, despite one small fact: Historically, there is no relationship between federal spending and inflation.
In the massive inflation years of the late 1970s, federal spending ranged between $300 Billion and $700 Billion annually.
In the massive inflation years of the late 1970s, federal spending ranged between $300 Billion and $700 Billion annually. In the 1980s, while inflation dropped to 2% and below, federal spending kept rising, reaching a high of $6 Trillion annually, still with low inflation. Then suddenly came the COVID shortages, and just as suddenly, inflation rose to 8%+. Now, as federal spending continues at massive levels and shortages decline, inflation, too is coming down. The reason: Inflation, far from being a result of federal spending, is the result of national shortages, most often shortages of oil and/or food. The famous Zimbabwe inflation was caused by a food shortage. The government took farmland from farmers and gave it to non-farmers. Government spending was an inept follow-up to the already existing inflation. Had the government spent to aid production and acquisition of food, there would have been no inflation. Argentina: Food, clothing, and, surprisingly, energy shortages caused by the Russia/Ukraine war. America: COVID-caused shortages of oil, food, shipping, computer parts, metals, lumber, labor, and other essentials. Before COVID, inflation was near zero despite massive federal spending for many years. Then came COVID, and its shortages caused inflation to hit double digits. SUMMARY Congress, the media, and even economists worry about government spending when they should worry about private sector needs. That is the fundamental purpose of government — to provide the private sector with what the private sector needs. Worrying about spending is a reasonable approach for households, businesses, and local governments, all monetarily non-sovereign. They do not have the infinite ability to create dollars. They can, and often do, run short of money. They require taxes and borrowing to remain solvent. By contrast, this approach is wrongheaded for our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, which can create money and needs neither taxes nor borrowing to remain solvent. As I write this, the federal government is about to shut down over worries, not about economic needs but about federal spending, the exact opposite of what the government should consider. The Republicans have forgotten about needs. The Democrats consider needs but are hypnotized by the false analogies with household finances. The situation today resembles a billionaire refusing a life-saving cancer medicine because it costs $1 per year. Nonsensical. I look forward to the day when people understand that federal money is an unlimited resource. If used correctly, it will solve most problems facing this nation and create a paradise on earth. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY