Tag: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

–More “Constitutional” phony baloney from the Tea Party

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
================================================================================================================================================

Each day I become more convinced that being a member of the Tea Party is a litmus test for childishness. Back in April, I wrote the post “What does the Tea Party want?” in which I explored some of the truly inane pronouncements by this group. It is an amazing attribute of the human species that anything sober and logical (Monetary Sovereignty) will be rejected by a large group, but anything outrageously juvenile (Lady Gaga) will be revered by an even larger group.

In the earlier post, I commented not only on the Tea Party’s adoration of such sages as Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, but it’s hopelessly confounding message:

Unfortunately for Tea Party “logic,” they not only want lower taxes, but lower deficits and less government. At the same time, they want a stronger army, better schools, federal supervision of banks and other financial firms, better roads, defense of our borders, less crime, more guns, defense against terrorism, safer food, better retirement, better unemployment insurance, police, health care, rescue from hurricanes and other disasters, more jobs and a better environment.

I reminded readers that what the Tea Party wants costs money, the money they don’t want the government to spend. But now that bit of TP logic has been superceded by the next puerile demand, to which the eagerly submissive GOP has agreed. Not only must the House of Representatives waste an hour or a day listening to someone read the U.S. Constitution aloud (“Now follow along, children. See Spot jump.”), but every new bill must contain a statement by the lawmaker who wrote it citing his constitutional authority to enact the legislation.

Puleeze. The most contentious bill passed by Congress – hated by the TP – already contains such a statement, and that hasn’t prevented two judges from ruling one way and a third judge from ruling the other. What is called the “Individual Mandate” of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act already includes these sentences:

The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the requirement) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce . . . In United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533 (1944)), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.

Well, I guess that should satisfy the TP.

The problem is that the Constitution was written 200+ years ago to address problems of the time, and must be interpreted to address today’s problems. And while “originalist” Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas claim to have special insight into the original intent of the Constitution framers, they don’t, they don’t even try, and anyway, why should anyone want that?

The Supreme Court has nine members rather than just one, because the Constitution, like the Bible, is either vague, outdated or repeatedly misconstrued concerning almost all we wish to know. Every Justice has pledged to obey the Constitution, yet seldom do we see a 9 – 0 decision. Does this mean some Justices intentionally disobey the Constitution every business day?

Reality check: The true issue is not whether a law obeys or disobeys the Constitution, but rather, whether the sponsors are Democrats or Republicans (aka TP sycophants). But that bit of truth does not perturb the TP members, who live in a magical world of dreams, where all wishes come true, even (especially?) those that are self-conflicting.

It seems our Representatives prefer time-wasting, populist, pandering nonsense, to actually learning about, and coming to grips with, real problems, which is why the recovery has been so slow, and why millions of Americans have no jobs, no homes, no health insurance and no retirement.

What next from the Guns ‘n’ God Group? A rule that the House must stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–Are you for immigration reform? What does that mean?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
==========================================================================================================================================================

Congress has been debating immigration reform, and like all political “reforms,” the word means different things to different people. Health insurance “reform” means federally provided, affordable insurance to everyone, or to no one, or somewhere in between. Budget “reform” means cut spending, increase taxes, both or neither. Tax reform means make taxes simpler or fairer or lower or higher.

But what does immigration reform mean? Does it mean fewer or more immigrants? Does it mean an easier or more difficult procedure? And more importantly, what is the goal? Is it to:
–Protect our nation from terrorists and other enemies?
–Protect American workers from competition?
–Protect America from crime?
–Save our limited resources?
–Keep American white? Or Christian? Or English speaking?
–To relieve an overcrowded America?
–Just keep Mexicans out?

For example, consider Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who wants to end automatic or “birthright” citizenship for all children born in the United States. What is the benefit to America? He says it’s to prevent non-citizens from coming here on a visa, and intentionally having a child, thereby circumventing immigration laws. Aside from the probability the number of such people is small, what is the problem? What if some women do that? Who has been harmed? How has that diminished America?

Or consider those Republican lawmakers from southern states and lawmakers who wish to copy Arizona’s harsh law. They would give police the massive job of screening all suspects for immigration status. Why? They claim the undocumented immigrants are too costly, using medical and educational facilities without paying taxes. But how true is this really? What percentage of undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes? And what would be the police costs and the court costs and attorney costs and the logistic costs of pursuing all these people, trying them and deporting them, only to have them return again and again? And what would be the cost in human suffering, or do we now consider undocumented immigrants to be something less than human?

These lawmakers claim their goal also is to protect their states from crime, but do undocumented immigrants cause more or less crime than citizens?

Rather than allowing the xenophobes, who wish to create a “fortress America,” to coopt the word “reform,” perhaps those, who still belief the words on the Statue of Liberty, might wish to define reform in our own terms. How about if “immigration reform” means make immigration much faster and easier? How about recognizing that going through danger, cost and effort is prima facie evidence of people who truly want to be Americans, and such desire might make them more loyal and more devoted to our nation than those lucky enough to be born here?

Surely, we can protect America without building a North Koreanesque barrier. Is Mexico our enemy? Are the great open plains so crowded? Is the American worker too weak to compete? Are resources truly limited to a Monetarily Sovereign nation that at the snap of an finger, can spend trillions on the world’s greatest war machine? And don’t immigrants actually contribute to our resources? My immigrant parents did.

Yes, let’s have immigration reform. Let’s open the welcoming arms of a great, confident, powerful America, rather than hiding behind the barbed wire curtain of a crouching, fearful, mean spirited bunch of petty losers.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–When will the economy recover?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
======================================================================================================================================================================

At long last, when will the economy recover? Wait a minute. Look at this graph:

graph 1

Considering that the data only goes through September, 2010, one easily can infer that the economy already has recovered. Yes, the stock market has not recovered, but that could be good news. It could mean it still has plenty of recovery left in it.

And yes, unemployment still is a big problem:

But that could be a good thing, too (although not for those who are unemployed.) A high level of unemployment mitigates against inflation. The government could continue to use its infinite spending ability and not be concerned it was causing inflation. For instance, FICA could be eliminated, as it should be, rather than the tentative, temporary step now taken. And the standard deduction could be raised, also as it should be. And Social Security benefits could be increased, and Medicare could be expanded, again as they should be.

And interest rates have stayed way down:

graph 3

And that’s another good thing, because it means the Fed has plenty of room (not that “room” really is needed) to raise rates if inflation should rear its ugly head.

There are plenty of leading indicators one might explore, but these graphs give me cause for optimism, if only the federal government will seize the moment.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–What will help the poor? Taxes vs. Spending

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
==========================================================================================================================================================================

Now that the new tax bill has passed, three related issues will remain in the news:

1. Will tax reductions cause inflation? (In the unlikely event they do, the Fed will prevent/cure inflation by raising interest rates)

2. Will tax reductions bankrupt Social Security and Medicare? (No. Because the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, federal spending is not constrained by taxes. If FICA were reduced to $0, this would not affect by even one penny the federal government’s ability to support Social Security and Medicare. Tax reductions cannot bankrupt the U.S. or any of its agencies.)

3. Should taxes on the rich be increased as soon as the current law expires? That is the question discussed in this post.

Some people favor higher taxes on the rich, because they believe this somehow will help the poor. The concept is that by taxing the rich, we close the “gap” between rich and poor, and this closed gap benefits the poor.

I discuss this “gap” further at Closing the Gap and at A Partial Solution for the Gap.

I strongly empathize with the desire to aid the poor. But bringing down the rich is not the way. Whether Bill Gates has $50 billion or is brought down to “only” $10 billion, does not affect the poor. We have had 90% top tax rates, and that did nothing to help the poor. In fact, increasing taxes on anyone, rich or poor, removes money from the economy, which slows the economy. Slowed economic growth always hurts the poor more than the rich, as witness the most recent recession. Who was hurt most, the rich or the poor?

As I mentioned, the federal government does not spend tax money. Unlike state and local governments, which are not Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government spends money it creates ad hoc. If the wealthy were taxed at the 99.99% rate, this would not increase by even one cent, the federal government’s ability to spend, i.e. to help the poor.

The poor benefit most when the economy is growing fastest, because that increases the availability of jobs and money. So to help the poor, we must stimulate the economy. That is, if we want to help the poor, we very simply should help the poor. The Federal government could:

–Increase Social Security benefits.
–Initiate free universal health care insurance.
–Increase unemployment benefits.
–Pay a salary to all students. ( SALARY)
–Eliminate FICA. (FICA)
–Increase the standard deduction on income taxes.
–Allow home rent to be tax deductible.
–Increase food stamps.
–Pay states and cities to reduce sales taxes

There are many ways to help the poor. We should focus on that, not on punishing the rich, which may provide some emotional satisfactions, but does not provide financial benefits to anyone. Let me see some of your ideas for helping the poor.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”