Obamacare and the great “states’ rights” con

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..


When we have been fooled, we deny or point at others. But no one can deceive us as effectively as we can. We know what words, what thoughts, will turn us best.

There may be a handful of Congresspeople who have the courage to say and do what they believe is ethically or economically right. But for the most part, Congress is amoral, caring about two things only: Money and votes.

I know for certain that many members of Congress understand Monetary Sovereignty. They understand that the U.S. federal government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar.

They know that by controlling both the supply and the demand (via interest rates), the U.S. government controls the value of the dollar (inflation).

They know that federal taxes and taxpayers do not fund federal spending, so federal deficits are not a burden on future taxpayers or on the government.

And they know that the monetarily non-sovereign state and local governments, businesses, individual citizens have none of these powers. State and local taxpayers do fund state and local spending for governments which often do run short of dollars.

Given those facts, it’s clear that we taxpayers benefit when the federal government spends more and the state and local governments spend less. 

The words “states’ rights” are meant to convey the notion that the federal government is too big. The ruling class asks us to reduce the federal government and to lay more financial responsibility on the local governments.

The pitch is insidious: “The federal government, being too huge, and being housed far way, in Washington, DC, ‘does not understand’ your local problems as well as your nearby state government. Image result for obamacare repeal

The pitch is: Your state government “knows and cares more for you.”

It is utter nonsense.

The criminal next door is the most deceptive. The one you trust most can swindle you best. Your mirror is the truest liar.

Consider Illinois. There is no “Illinois,” and you know it. There is Chicago. There is Scales Mound, IL. There is Morrisonville, IL. There is Kenilworth, IL. There is Jonesboro, IL.

Are they alike? No, they are places on a map surrounded by a thick black line, with the word “Illinois” inscribed, but they are no more alike than the sun and the sun flower. In Illinois, Chicago is progressive and downstate is conservative.

What then is Illinois? It’s as though you owned two blue hats and one red hat. So what is your hat color?

  1. The problems and needs of Chicago are not the problems and needs of Scales Mound, Morrisonville, Kenilworth, nor Jonesboro.  Using the “states’ rights” logic, one easily could argue for “counties’ rights” or even “cities’ rights.”
  2. Today, very little reason exists for most Illinois laws to differ from Texas laws or Minnesota laws.
  3. Illinois politicians neither are more honest, more competent, nor more caring about Illinois taxpayers than are members of the U.S. Congress. Money and votes: It is all we are to them.
  4. Illinois not only is broken but broke, and so deeply in debt it functionally has lost the ability to borrow or even to pay its existing debts. Illinois is Greece without the history. Everything from schools, to roads, to fire and police protection, to infrastructure to pride is severely stressed and badly in need.

If Rolls Royces were a penny each, Illinois couldn’t afford a wiper blade. Yet the “states’ rights'” advocates want Illinois to pay more so the “too big” federal government can pay less.

The concept of “states’ rights,” began with the original Colonies, which were small, European-style nations. Their leaders wanted federal protections but treasured their own powers.

That hasn’t changed.

Ultimately, this deceit was formalized with the 10th Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As though 18th century authors could list in one short document, all the necessary needs of a 21st-century superpower.  Really? Laughable, and you know it.

Today, the myth that each little state should have different laws still remains. But why? What is the logical purpose?

Why must criminal and civil laws in Illinois be different from criminal and civil laws in Iowa or Texas? Is a murderer in one state deserving of a different trial and a different punishment from a murderer in another state? Why not one national murder law?

Is there a logical reason why the air and water in one state should be cleaner than the air and water in another state, or why food should be less adulterated and pharmaceuticals should be purer, from one state to another?

Why does each state have different healthcare laws? What is the logic?

“They” say local laws provide citizens with “more choices.” But you don’t need more choices. You need fewer and better choices.

Who are “they”?  The very rich — the ruling class — are “they.”


  1. Politicians disclaim responsibility for laws that defy voter bias.
  2. Federal politicians have been told by the ruling class to trim federal budgets and to shift financial responsibility to the states.
  3. Supreme Court justices, concerned less with the practical effect of laws and more with their political agenda, are children of their own prejudices. They claim to seek a federalist “balance of power” between the states and the federal government, but such a “balance” does not, cannot, exist.

“Balance of power” between federal and state governments is an impossible concept, a meaningless concept, having zero relationship to fact.

Southern states claimed states’ rights when defending “separate-but-equal” bigotry laws. But America understands that morality, amorality, and immorality all cross borders. There was no justification for one state to need black or white drinking fountains while adjacent states did not.

Yet, today’s conservative Supreme Court might rule differently, based on “states’ rights,” and we will believe it if already we are wont to believe it.

For seven years, the Republican Party has debated a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (i.e ACA and Obamacare, nee Romneycare). Seven years. The lie could have been found in one year.

Still, the Republican electorate believed the lie they told themselves.

Most concerns with ACA purportedly had to do with costs to the consumer and with states’ rights, though the real concern was the name applied to it:  Obamacare. OBAMA care.

During those seven years, numerous “repeal and replace” votes were taken and numerous plans were submitted, and numerous revised votes and revised plans are sure to be submitted in the tomorrows ahead.Image result for obamacare repeal

They all will be built upon two wounds to America:

  1. Fewer poor will afford health care
  2. The states and the American people will be burdened with more financial liability.

All the plans will roll back the very purpose of ACA: More people protected. That widening of the Gap is exactly what the rich want.


Federal spending costs taxpayers nothing, while local spending is a cost to taxpayers.

Since federal politicians are no less honest, understanding or compassionate than local politicians, why move expenses from the federal government to state governments? Why spare the infinitely wealthy to burden the impoverished?

“States’ rights” advocates will claim this gives the states “freedom of choice.” But that is an ephemeral and meaningless excuse. Choice among bad alternatives is no choice at all.  And, whose “freedom” of choice? Certainly not yours.

The real purpose of “repeal and replace” is to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. Without the Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are. They widen the Gap by taking from you and giving to themselves.

Federal taxes do not fund federal spending; state taxes fund state spending.

Most state taxes are regressive: Sales taxes, property taxes, water/garbage fees — all are inverse proportion to income and wealth.

Thus, moving expenses from the federal government to state and local governments widens the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest — the primary goal of the rich.

So they can pay less tax money while costing you more tax money the rich sell you the false notions that:

*The federal government is too big (or spends too much)
*Federal deficits are a burden on you, while state and local deficits are not a burden
*The federal government cares less and knows less about your needs
*The Constitution’s 10th Amendment requires state spending over federal spending, and
*State spending gives individuals and families more “freedom” of choice

All lies. All part of the con.

You will see it in the Republican Obamacare “solution,” which undoubtedly will continue to include lower payments by the federal government, higher payments by the states, fewer people insured, and fewer doctors and hospitals available to the serving class — exactly what the ruling class wants.

As the realization sinks in, you serving class folks may rue the day you voted to make this happen to you, though even the Democrats can’t claim innocence.

They should have pressed leaders for Step #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity: Federally funded Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America.

Should have.  Should have. Should have.

If by now you feel hopelessness creeping in, you may be starting to see reality. The ruling class, the billionaires, run the world. They are the royalty, the kings and queens of yore, forever skirmishing, battling, climbing for the best view.

In the wars, ending Obamacare is an inch in the endless effort to widen the Gap between the ruling class and the serving class. In that effort, no Gap is wide enough.

The very rich, Donald Trump, and his “Heinrich Himmler,” Steve Bannon, don’t care about you or your healthcare or your children or your life.  You only are necessary to provide the serving class part of the Gap.

For them, you are a mere rung in their climb to the top.Image result for GINI index

[The GINI index. A rising line indicates greater inequality — a widening Gap between the ruling class and the serving class.]


The ruling class cares only about widening the Gap, and Obamacare is their latest “states’ rights” con, just another tactic to keep the serving class down.

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 (Guaranteed Income)) 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 end of American states?

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..


The United States of America is exactly what it’s name says it is: States that united. These states were sovereign nations that came together to defend against a common enemy.

Like the citizens of European nations, each American state’s citizens had national pride, and much preferred not to dilute its heritage and morès. So when forced to unite under a Constitution, the states’ politicians insisted on retaining various rights, as referred to in the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Despite what commonly is believed, these are not enumerated powers. The Supreme Court has held that federal law “neither can be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes.”

As recently as 1992, in New York v. United States, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the federal government (only) can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power, or through the commerce power.

The question then is: Has time made the 10th Amendment functionally obsolete? Or more specifically, has time made the states obsolete?

While the states formerly were nations, today they merely are artificial, geographical boundaries. They do not define heritages, mores, lifestyles, beliefs, politics, religion or any other human traits.

Consider, for instance, Illinois. There is approximately zero relationship between Chicago and southern Illinois, the latter whose residents resemble people in Kentucky or Tennessee, far more than people in Chicago. The same could be said of New York City, tucked into the southeast corner of a largely rural, heavily forested state.

State boundaries are historical artifacts, signifying nothing. Yet, we retain the artificial, obsolete Electoral College. (Because the original colonies that came together to create the United States of America greatly feared mob rule, which some felt would happen with a direct presidential election, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College.)

State boundaries lead to senseless legal differentiations: By what U.S. rationale does Texas enforce a death penalty while Illinois has none? We all are Americans. Is the need for a death penalty in Texas different from the need in Illinois?

Why does the federal government allow abortions nationally, while some states put up barriers to abortion (and ironically, those states have a death penalty)?

Why do voting laws, for federal elections, differ among the various states? It’s a U.S. federal election. Yet, some states demand more proof of eligibility to vote, than do other states do. What is the logic?

Chicago’s public school system is insolvent, because Illinois is insolvent. So Chicago children suffer from lack of teachers, overcrowded and unsafe schools and lack of school programs. Were Chicago’s schools to be supported by the federal government, hundreds of thousands of American children would receive a better education. This would benefit all of America, not just Chicago.

Is a division into financially struggling, legally byzantine states the most efficient, effective way to run a nation? If we had to start over, to build a government for 320 million people, would we divide it into 50 monetarily Non-sovereign entities, and allow each government to create its own unique laws — laws that may contradict the laws of neighboring states?

What governing advantage do states provide for the United States?

Admittedly, there are socio-economic and cultural differences, within counties or even within cities. But it is far easier for voters to understand and to influence, the politics of a county or city, than of a state. Within cities and counties, the weather generally is similar, as is access to water, access to food and geology. State boundaries are arbitrary lines, drawn for outdated, political reasons, having no functional purpose.

While tradition probably precludes the elimination of states, we should eliminate state sovereignty:

1. Eliminate state, county and city courts; have all courts be federal.
2. Eliminate state governments.
3. Eliminate the functions currently operated by monetarily Non-sovereign states and hand them to the Monetarily Sovereign federal government. Lack of money would cease to be the all-purpose excuse for insufficient government services.

(Despite what libertarians tell you, America’s biggest financial problem is not due to the federal government being too big. The problem is the state governments are too big and the federal government is too small.

Consider Puerto Rico, which is a territory, but has exactly the same monetarily Non-sovereign financial problems as a U.S. state:

Misery deepens for those in Puerto Rico who can’t leave

The entrenched economic crisis is leading people to either cut their personal spending to the basics or flee in search for jobs.

Nearly 10 years into a deep economic slump, it is no closer to pulling out, and, in fact, is poised to plummet further. The unemployment rate is above 12 percent.

The government has tried to boost revenue by hiking the sales tax to 11.5 percent, and closing government offices.

A $58 million bond payment due Saturday went unpaid. If defaults continue, analysts say it will face numerous lawsuits and increasingly limited access to markets, putting a recovery even more out of reach.

A list of cost-cutting measures proposed by a group of hedge funds that holds $5.2 billion of debt has riled citizens: laying off teachers; cutting medical benefits; and reducing subsidies to the main public university.

Meanwhile, a report commissioned by the government called for wage levels to be lowered, paid holidays cut, and energy costs reduced.

Some economists warn that measures like new taxes could further depress the economy, a concern shared by small business owners.

Puerto Rico’s fundamental problems are identical with Greece’s: Like all euro nations, Puerto Rico and all U.S. states, counties, and cities, are monetarily Non-sovereign.

To survive long term, all monetarily Non-sovereign entities (including you and me) require income to exceed outgo.

In contrast, the federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, requires no income; it creates dollars, ad hoc, by paying bills.

You and I receive income from salaries, investments and other businesses, pensions, borrowing and from the federal government (Social Security, Medicare, poverty aids, etc.)

Unlike the federal government, but like the states, we cannot create dollars at will. Without income, we cannot pay our bills.

State governments receive income from several sources: Taxes, borrowing, tourism, net exports of goods and services, outside earnings, and importantly, from the federal government.

There are important differences among these sources. Taxes remove dollars from the populace, and unless the state were to spend all tax dollars within the state (unlikely), taxes represent a net loss to a state’s economy.

State borrowing must be repaid — plus interest — so borrowing never is a long-term solution to state financial survival.

Tourism and net exports of goods and services can pay for and overcome the net economic losses caused by taxation. Tourists pay local taxes with dollars earned elsewhere, so tourism transfers dollars from one government to another.

Similar in effect to tourism is: Outside earnings. A person might work and earn a salary from a company based in one location while living and paying taxes in another.

Dollars are transferred from the “work” location to the “domicile” location. We see this often with suburbs, which survive on taxes earned in the neighboring big city. Dollars flow from the city to the suburb.

In all of the above — taxes, borrowing, tourism, net exports of goods and services and outside earnings — Puerto Rico, the U.S. states and all euro nations, including Greece, are financially identical.

They all are monetarily Non-sovereign, so cannot create money at will.

All the U.S. states, counties, cities, businesses, and people are engaged in a complex money-transfer game, with the federal government being the one entity that adds permanent dollars to the game. (Banks also add dollars by lending, but these are temporary dollars, as the loans must be repaid.)

The U.S. federal government creates dollars by spending, and it destroys dollars by taxing. To date, the federal government has created 13 trillion more dollars than it has destroyed: $13 trillion net dollars.

Many of these dollars have gone into the states, which then redistribute the money to counties and cities:

America’s fiscal union

From 1990 to 2009, the federal government spent $1.44 trillion in Virginia but collected less than $850 billion in taxes, a gap of over $590 billion. But relative to the size of its economy, Virginia derived a smaller benefit from America’s fiscal union than states like New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia, where the 20-year transfer exceeded 200% of their annual GDP.

Transfers to Puerto Rico, which is a US territory, not a fully incorporated state, exceeded 290%.

New York transferred over $950 billion to the (federal government) from 1990 to 2009. But relative to the size of its economy, Delaware made the biggest contribution, equivalent to more than twice its 2009 GDP.

Per the following chart by The Economist:

monetary sovereignty

The states in the upper half of the chart sent more dollars to the federal government than they received. They are being bled — unnecessarily — by a government that neither needs nor uses those dollars. It creates its own dollars.

Interestingly, Puerto Rico receives, proportionate to its GDP, the most dollars from the federal government, and still it suffers economically.

One is left to wonder where the money went, and how bad Puerto Rico’s economy would be without federal support.

One also is left to wonder why the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. federal government impoverishes its states (which in turn, impoverish their counties and cities) by draining tax dollars from them — dollars the federal government neither needs, uses, nor even has. (All dollars sent to the federal government disappear from the nation’s money supply. There is no statistic showing how much money the government “has,” because such a statistic would be meaningless for an entity that creates dollars at will.)

I don’t know the specifics of Puerto Rico’s financial condition. Do Puerto Rico’s failures, resemble the failures of my home state, Illinois, because of intense political criminality? (Illinois politicians routinely are sent to prison, and many more should be.) Or does Puerto Rico have a different problem? I don’t know.

But I do know there serves no public purpose for the citizens of Puerto Rico or any state, to suffer austerity because the state engages in a futile effort to pay its debts.

All of the above shows why U.S. state governments serve no purpose and should be eliminated.

The federal government should stand in for the states, supplying services and dollars directly to counties and cities, without state government intermediaries.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.