We did it for COVID. We did it for the Great Recession.” Why can’t we do it all the time?

We did it with the “Economic Stimulus Act 2008. The federal government simply sent people money.

Generally, low and middle-income taxpayers received up to $300 per person or $600 per couple.

The purpose was to stimulate economic growth and to cure the recession.

It worked:

As federal deficits (blue) declined, we fell into a deep recession, cured only by a robust increase in federal deficit spending (red).

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a common measure of the economy. The above graph should come as no surprise. The formula for economic growth is:

GDP = Federal Spending+ Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports

Mathematically, as federal deficit spending decreases, economic growth falls, and as federal deficit spending increases, economic growth increases.

If you want economic growth, you want federal deficit spending to increase.

I’ve written about this many times. It’s simple algebra. I’m not sure why this is a mystery to the politicians who think a debt limit is prudent finance. It’s exceedingly ignorant finance.

I mention this again because of an article I just read on MEDPAGETODAY:

Uninsured Rate Hits Record Low of 8.3%
— But that number will slowly rise as pandemic health insurance protections unwind, experts say
by Joyce Frieden, Washington Editor, MedPage Today May 24, 2023

WASHINGTON — The uninsured rate in the U.S. has fallen to a record-low 8.3%, but that percentage is expected to gradually increase as insurance protections from the COVID-19 pandemic wind down, according to officials from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Why will insurance protections “wind down.” For the same reason we currently have a debt=limit battle in Congress. Sheer ignorance.

The federal government has repeatedly proved that it has the infinite ability to pay for anything. Why is it “winding down” payments for healthcare insurance?

The temporary policies enacted in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic “have contributed to a record low uninsurance rate in 2023 of 8.3% and record-high enrollment in both Medicaid and ACA [Affordable Care Act] marketplace coverage,”said Caroline Hanson, Ph.D., principal analyst at the CBO, during a briefing sponsored by Health Affairs.

“As those temporary policies expire under current law, the distribution of coverage will change and the share of people who lack insurance is expected to increase by 2033.”

CBO is projecting an uninsured rate of 10.1% by 2033, and “while that’s obviously higher than the 8.3% that we’re estimating for 2023, it is nevertheless lower than the uninsured rate in the last year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,” which was about 12%, she said.

Think about it. America has about 330 million people. A ten percent uninsured rate means 33 MILLION (!) people in America will have to do without health care insurance. I hope you’re not among them.

Whether or not you have insurance, here are some data that should concern you:

“A widely cited study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2009 analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey and found that uninsured individuals had a 40% higher risk of death compared to their insured counterparts. This study estimated that lack of health insurance contributed to approximately 45,000 deaths annually in the United States.

“Another study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2017 conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous research. The analysis concluded that uninsured individuals faced a 25% higher risk of mortality compared to those with insurance.”

When you don’t have healthcare insurance, you die younger. 

“Throughout the 2023-33 period, employment-based coverage will remain the largest source of health insurance, with average monthly enrollment between 155 million and 159 million,” Hanson and co-authors wrote in an article published in Health Affairs.

Employer-based health care insurance has two features seldom discussed.

  1. It ties employees to their employer, making job negotiation and movement much more difficult
  2. It is paid for by the employee because the employer figures the cost as part of the employment. Salaries could be higher without this “perk.”

If the federal government funded a comprehensive Medicare for All plan, employees would earn more without costing employers more.

However, they added, “in addition to policy changes over the course of the next decade, demographic and macroeconomic changes affect trends in coverage in the CBO’s projections.”

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 gave states a 6.2-percentage-point boost in their Medicaid matching rates as long as the states didn’t disenroll anyone in Medicaid or CHIP for the duration of the COVID public health emergency.

Hanson noted that this law “allowed people to remain enrolled regardless of their changes in eligibility. So, for example, even if they had an income increase that would have made them ineligible but for the policy,” they were still able to stay on Medicaid.

The COVID public health emergency has been canceled now. Disenrollments can begin.

As a result of the law, Medicaid enrollment has grown substantially since 2019 — by 16.1 million enrollees, she said. But that has been superseded by another act of Congress, which allowed states to begin “unwinding” the continuous eligibility rules and start disenrolling people from Medicaid and CHIP beginning on April 1.

In total, “15.5 million people will be transitioning out of Medicaid after eligibility redetermination,” said Hanson. “Among that 15.5 million people, CBO is estimating that 6.2 million of them will go uninsured and the remainder will be enrolled in another source of coverage,” such as individual coverage or employment-based coverage.

Of those who are leaving Medicaid, how many are leaving voluntarily and how many are “falling through the cracks” because they didn’t receive their disenrollment notification or failed to fill out the required paperwork to reapply?

“We recognize that before these continuous eligibility requirements were put into place, people were losing Medicaid coverage, both because they were becoming no longer eligible for Medicaid, and … because they did not complete the application process despite remaining eligible,” said CBO analyst Claire Hou, PhD. However, she added, “we’re currently not aware of any data that would allow us to quantify the size of those two different groups.”

All of the above would be unnecessary if our Monetarily Sovereign federal government (which has unlimited funds) simply would fund a comprehensive, no-deductibles Medicare for All program.

Hanson delivered some bad news for those footing the bill for private health insurance. “We are projecting relatively high short-term premium growth rates in private health insurance, and this is for a few reasons,” she said.

“One is the economy-wide inflation that we’re experiencing in 2023 and that we have been experiencing, and that has not fully reflected itself in premiums yet.

And another contributor is the continued bouncing back of medical spending after the suppressed utilization that we saw earlier in the pandemic.”

The study authors project average premium increases of 6.5% in 2023, 5.9% during 2024-2025, and 5.7% in 2026-2027.

The current and projected-to-increase hardship on the American people is totally unnecessary. The federal government efficiently could ameliorate this hardship by: 

  1. Funding comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America
  2. Funding Social Security benefits for every man, woman, and child in America.

Both would add dollars to Gross Domestic Product, thus growing the economy.

Instead, Congress battles over the unbelievably stupid debt ceiling. How do those people manage to dress themselves in the morning, much less be elected to America’s Congress? It boggles the mind.

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

Insurance for all . . . and more.

A government’s sole purpose is to improve and protect people’s lives. No rational person would take dollars from the economy and give them to a federal government that has the infinite ability to create dollars.

Our Monetarily Sovereign government’s greatest asset is its infinite ability to create and spend its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. The federal government cannot unintentionally run short of dollars.

 

It can pay any bill and fund any enterprise based on dollars and do it without the need to collect a penny in taxes. In fact, federal taxes (unlike state/local taxes) are destroyed upon receipt.

The U.S. federal government has infinite dollars.

Though the federal government may not always be good at running things, it is outstanding at paying for things.

Consider retirement. Social Security pays for retirement life by issuing money. Though the government collects the FICA tax, this tax doesn’t fund Social Security. Like all other federal taxes, FICA dollars are destroyed.

But Social Security, unlike private retirement plans, does not rely on stock market or bond market investments or any other form of income, and it does not need to make a profit or even to break even.

Pay no attention to the Henny Penny claims of the Social Security fund’s insolvency. Social Security can become insolvent only if the federal government wants it to. Benefits could double or triple or begin at age 0 rather than in the 60s, and SS always will be able to pay benefits.

Consider Medicare. This program, too, is funded by federal money creation. Despite what you have been told, Medicare is not financed by taxes but by federal money creation.

Medicare does not do medical treatments; Medicare pays for medical treatments.

Social Security and Medicare replace insurance companies as retirement and healthcare insurance providers. Having no need for income or profits and having the unlimited ability to pay for anything, the federal government is a much better source of insurance dollars than any private sector insurance company.

We previously have recommended instituting Medicare for All and Social Security for All. In that same vein, we recommend Life Insurance for all.

The federal government already provides life insurance for its civilian employees. Worldwide Assurance for Employees of Public Agencies (WAEPA) is one version:

As a non-profit formed For Feds, By Feds, we understand what it takes to help provide peace of mind. More than 46,000 Feds and their families choose WAEPA’s portable life insurance coverage to help protect the future of their families.

While we actively provide more than $10 billion in coverage to Feds, we’ve refunded over $100 million in premiums since 1996. That’s one way how WAEPA serves Feds who serve our country.

Short-Term Disability Insurance — WAEPA’s newest product provides paycheck protection for eligible illnesses or injuries.
 
You can receive up to $6,500 in coverage a month for up to six months to replace lost income if you’re out of work due to recovery.
 
Underwritten by New York Life Insurance Company, 51 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010

Another is Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI):

The Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program is a life insurance program for Federal and Postal employees and annuitants, authorized by law (Chapter 87 of Title 5, United States Code).

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers the Program and sets the premiums.

FEGLI does not build up cash value. You cannot take a loan out against your FEGLI insurance. OPM has a contract with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) to provide this life insurance.

MetLife has an administrative office called the Office of Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance (OFEGLI). OFEGLI is the contractor that adjudicates claims under the FEGLI Program.

While Medicare and Social Security replace private insurance companies, WAEPA and FEGLI pay private insurance companies to administer their programs.

Either approach has advantages, but all have two glaring weaknesses.

  1. The federal government unnecessarily extracts premiums from the private sector.
  2. None of the programs offers comprehensive coverage, as though the government needed profits or even breakevens. It doesn’t.

The WAEPA website includes this chart:

It shows neither plan is comprehensive nor complete, which is not surprising. Two other federal programs, Medicare and Social Security,  are not comprehensive or complete.

But why? Given that the federal government has infinite financial resources, why should any plan it supports offer less than the optimum? 

Why does Medicare have a 20% deductible, along with limited coverages and not covering drugs or dental care, etc., without an extra cost? Why are Social Security benefits so meager? In WAEPA and FEGLI, why is one spouse’s life insurance death benefit less than the other’s?

The federal government repeatedly acts as though it can run short of dollars. It works like a monetarily non-sovereign entity. And why does the federal government extract a tax to fund something when it has the unlimited ability to support anything?

BOTTOM LINE

  1. The federal government has infinite dollars. It can pay any debt denominated in dollars. No such obligation is a burden on the government or on taxpayers.
  2. A healthy economy needs a continual input of dollars. Federal deficit spending prevents and cures recessions.
  3. A government’s sole purpose is to improve and protect people’s lives.
  4. No rational person would take dollars from the economy and give them to a federal government that has the infinite ability to create dollars.

Therefore, the federal government should fully fund the following comprehensive, no deductible, tax-free programs for every man, woman, and child who wants to participate:]

  • Healthcare insurance (aka Medicare for all)
  • Retirement insurance (Social Security for all)
  • Life insurance
  • College
  • Salary for attending college
  • Food support [aka Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)]
  • Rental (living quarters) support

Objections:

  1. Federal spending causes inflation: In previous posts (here, here, here, and elsewhere, we have demonstrated that federal deficit spending does not cause inflation. Shortages cause inflation. Inflations are cured by curing the shortages, which can be accomplished with the aid of federal deficit spending.
  2.  If given these benefits, people would refuse to work. We suggest this is not true, as demonstrated by the fact that people at all wealth strata continue to work.

    The total of human wants never is satisfied.

    If the government pays for an apartment’s rent, the family wants a bigger apartment, a car, a yacht, or a vacation home. People always want more for themselves, their children, and charity.

The single most valuable asset owned by the U.S. federal government is its Monetary Sovereignty — its unlimited ability to create and control the value of the U.S. dollar.

Unfortunately, the government and many information sources refuse to acknowledge this great asset, so we slog along with poverty, hunger, homelessness, illness, lack of education, recessions, and depressions.

The federal government has the power to mitigate or prevent them all with the application of its Monetary Sovereignty. 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

……………………………………………………………………..

 

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The crime rate is way up. What is the best way to prevent crime in America?

Every politician wants to be known as “tough on crime.” No one wants to be seen as “soft on crime.”

The Republicans especially like to rage at crime, especially when the criminals are immigrants, not Christian, poor, and/or black — not so much when the criminals are white, Christian, and Republican.

You don’t hear the same Fox News outrage when it comes to Trumpers Rep. Matt Gaetz, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Steve Bannon, and all the other traitors who defended and/or attempted what previously was unthinkable in America –a coup — so inconceivable, that many people still refuse to believe the crime they have seen actually occurred.

We also don’t hear much from Republicans regarding gun control while guns are used in thousands of crimes, annually,

Even a respected judge is not immune to “soft-on-crime” criticism. Here are excerpts from a Fox News article written by none other than Sen. Josh Hawley, who, as a coup encourager and thus a traitor to the U.S., is not the best one to complain about criminals.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Jackson’s soft-on-crime sentences are disturbing By Josh Hawley

“While serving on the Sentencing Commission, she (Judge Jackson) supported eliminating the existing child pornography mandatory-minimum sentence.)

(She opposes all mandatory minimums as being blind to circumstances and substituting generalizations for specifics.)

“Those views carried over to Judge Jackson’s time on the bench. Over and over again, she handed down sentences well below the congressionally endorsed Sentencing Guidelines recommendations.}

(Not to mention the many times all judges do that — it’s the purpose of using human judges rather than robots — and she often handed down sentences above those guidelines, but why quibble about facts when you are a mean-spirited Trumper writing for Fox News?)

“Unfortunately, Jackson is not the first judge to do that.”

Right, judges normally impose a range of punishments.

“But she stands out because she also consistently sentenced child pornography offenders below even what liberal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., were seeking.”

(It wasn’t consistent, and prosecutors always ask for the maximum. In most cases, judges look at circumstances and don’t grant the maximum the prosecutors seek. All of Hawley’s shrieking is about normal judicial procedure. The notion that Judge Jackson encouraged child pornography stretches credulity.)

Hawley knows all this, but he is a renowned liar who writes for Fox,, a proven-to-be-lying network. They are Trumpers, and we expect nothing less from them.

But even the most softhearted, squishy Democrats have no idea what “tough on crime” really means:

The Washington Post
The 5-Minute Fix
By Amber Phillips with Caroline Anders

Crime is looking like it’s going to be a big issue in November’s midterm elections — and that has Democrats on the defensive.

“We must invest in our police departments,“ said Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.), a former police chief who is running for Senate in Florida.

Ask virtually anyone, winged right or left, about being tough on crime, and you will hear such suggestions as:

  • More police
  • More money spent on policing
  • More laws
  • Tougher judges
  • Longer jail sentences
  • Harsher jail conditions

Everything has to do with increasing the punishment for committing crimes and nothing for reducing the cause of crimes.

Republicans especially are interested in punishment, especially of the aforementioned poor immigrant, brown, non-Christian, blacks:

It (crime) has been fed and fueled in multiple ways by the Democratic Party’s far-left turn,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said of the country’s recent crime wave.

Strange, how Mitch suddenly seems unconcerned about a mob of people attacking the nation’s capital, attempting to overthrow the United States government, and even causing deaths and injuries. And for certain, he is not worried about gun crime.

To Mitch, criminals are street, not white-collar, criminals, who are born bad and born black.

Syracuse Police Handling of 8-Year-Old Black Boy Reminds Us How Anti-Black Blue Lives Can Be

From 2019 to 2020, the homicide rate in the United States jumped nearly 30 percent, according to FBI data, marking the largest increase since we started keeping track of those stats. 

Third Way, a Democratic think tank, found that cities (run by Democrats and GOP-led) in red states were hit harder by the 2020 murder surge than blue states were.

Democrats who have been recently elected as mayors in liberal cities such as New York and Seattle have campaigned on being tough on crime.

“There is little doubt that the sheer stress and strain of the pandemic, not to mention the economic dislocation, helped to push up homicide rates,” criminologist Richard Rosenfeld told Witte.

Democrats are nervous about getting tagged as anti-police — again. This time, they’re already campaigning on more funding for police departments.

And none of this “tough on crime” blustering addresses the root cause of most street crime: Poverty. Poverty is the mother of crime.

Yes, crime has many parents — that “stress, strain, and economic dislocation” to name three. But walk through any wealthy area, and you will fear street crime far less than in an impoverished area.

Republicans are adamant in their desire to apprehend and punish street criminals. However, while apprehending and punishing after the fact may be their focus, Republicans have no desire to address prevention.

They are adamant in their opposition to gun control, to keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals, and to reduce the lethality of the guns being sold, which would have a significant impact.

Similarly, Republicans vote against anti-poverty benefits, i.e., Social Security for All, Medicare for All, School lunch programs, housing aid, food aid, college for all, and the myriad other easily affordable (by the federal government) programs that would reduce poverty and crime in America.

The right dismisses them all with one word, “socialism,” then blindly continues to chatter about the need for tougher police and harsher sentences.

(White-color crime and political crime are OK, except if found on a Biden laptop)

Even the Democrats have been dragged into the false rhetoric:

“Fund the police,” Biden roared at his State of the Union address this spring, to bipartisan applause.

Yes, fund the police. We do need well-trained, well-paid police. Digging recruits from the bottom of the barrel, and then without training, setting them loose on the public, is no way to be tough on crime.

Fund the police, but also fund the people.

Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, having the infinite ability to spend dollars, can cure poverty in America without levying one cent in taxes or causing inflation.

There is a reason why poor areas of the country endure more street crime than wealthy areas. It’s not that poor people are innately more dishonest. They simply have less money and less of what money can buy. 

They have the same desires the rich have but fewer means of satisfying them. So they steal. It has been the same for time immemorial. 

We can curse the darkness by arresting a hungry kid for stealing food from a grocery store and locking him up forever, or we can light a candle by giving him food, shelter, and reasonable hope for his future.

For some reason, we have lately shown a greater desire to beat down than to lift up, and that truly is wrong. It is wrong morally and as an effective solution.

Beating down may satisfy the mob’s bloodlust, but it will not reduce crime, and it will turn on the innocent.

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.

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
  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.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Ask your U.S. Senators and Representative this one question

In the unlikely event you don’t already know whether your U.S. Senators and Representative are ignorant about economics, or are liars, or in rare cases, honest and knowledgable, ask each of them this one question:

“Can the U.S. government run short of dollars?”

Their answers will tell you everything you need to know about their knowledge of federal economics and their honesty. If they tell you that, “Yes, the government can run short of dollars,” that indicates they either are shockingly ignorant of federal finances, or they are shockingly dishonest. If they tell you, “No, the government cannot run short of dollars,” then you can follow up with such questions as:
  • “Why does the government claim Social Security, a federal agency, is running short of dollars?”
  • “Why does the government collect FICA taxes?”
  • “Why does the government collect income taxes?”
  • “Why would Social Security for All be unaffordable?”
  • “Why would Medicare for All be unaffordable?”
  • “Why does Medicare have deductibles?”
  • “Why would free college, for all who want it, be unaffordable?”
  • “Why does the government lend, rather than give, to college students?”
  • “Why does America have so many impoverished men, women, and children — people who struggle to find enough to eat and a place to live?”
I recently sent “the one question” to my Senators and my House Representative. If they respond with anything coherent, I will publish their answers.

[Why would any sane person take dollars from the economy and give them to a federal government that has the infinite ability to create dollars?]

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.

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
  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.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY