–Everything you need to know about the Tea/Republican Party, in 5 short paragraphs

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Much has been written about the Republican Party’s takeover by the Tea Party and the “religious” right wing, but the following may put it all in simple perspective:

House Republicans pass sweeping domestic cuts, spare Pentagon
By Lisa Mascaro
Tribune Washington Bureau
3:10 p.m. CDT, May 10, 2012

1. WASHINGTON _ House Republicans approved a sweeping package of budget cuts to food stamps, Meals on Wheels and other domestic programs _ while sparing the Pentagon _ in an election-year showcase of party priorities.

2. Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the legislation, which is expected to stall in the Senate, but House Speaker John A. Boehner’s decision to call a vote gives the GOP an opportunity to highlight its agenda and attack President Barack Obama’s efforts to reduce the deficit. The bill was approved on party lines, 218-199.

The Tea/Republicans know the bill will be defeated in the Senate, and if not, vetoed by President Obama. So why did they vote for it — unanimously? They wish to demonstrate to the lunatic right-wing fringe that they are opposed to anything that helps the poor.

You don’t believe it? Read on.

3. The legislation is “literally taking food out of the mouth of babies” while continuing tax breaks for the wealthy, said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the minority leader. The cuts would replace across-the-board reductions to both defense and non-security programs that had been agreed to as part of last summer’s debt-ceiling deal with the White House.

That terrible debt-ceiling deal was forced by the Tea/Republicans. But now, they can’t even live up to their own agreements. First they demand a disastrous deficit cut. Then when the Democrats cave, the Republicans up their demands, to cut anything that helps the 99%. The military is spared only because the 1% own the industrial complex that supplies the military.

4. Republicans countered they were tackling the nation’s deficit problems while preventing steep military cuts that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said would be devastating.

5. “Were hearing lots of comments about how this hurts people, how this hurts the poor,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the House Budget Committee chairman. “Let’s take a look at our poverty-fighting efforts. … These programs aren’t working.”

This is the same heartless bullsh*t the Tea/Republicans use when discussing the deficit. If money is spent on a problem (recession or poverty) and the problem isn’t 100% cured, the Tea/Republicans claim the money spent “didn’t work.” They said the stimuli “didn’t work,” because we’re still fighting the recession, not admitting that without the stimuli we’d be in the depths of a depression.

According to the lunatic Tea/Republican fringe, reneging on agreements you yourself forced, then cutting federal spending, will stimulate the economy and help the poor. I used to say this merely reflected ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty — indeed of all economics — but no more. It is a calculated effort to increase the gap between the rich and the not-as-rich, bought and paid for the Koch brothers et al.

You now know everything you need to know about the Tea/Republicans.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Will the NATO summit in Chicago be peaceful or will there be riots?

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Already, millions have been spent on preparations for this extravaganza. Is the summit worth the cost, inconvenience and danger?

npr

In a little more than a week, thousands of dignitaries, protesters and media are expected to pour into the city as world leaders gather to discuss the future of Afghanistan, and any evolving threats. Chicago officials and protesters alike say they’re ready.

They’re ready for what? Does this sound peaceful?

Protest Groups Detail Plans For NATO Summit
May 10, 2012 1:31 PM

CHICAGO (CBS) – Activists planning anti-NATO protests, marches, concerts and counter-summits gathered Thursday at the headquarters of Occupy Chicago to discuss a week’s worth of events leading up to the NATO summit on May 20 and 21.

WBBM Newsradio’s Mike Krauser reports, with the permit hassles protesters have been having with city officials, protest organizer Andy Thayer said he’s looking for some presidential intervention.

“This president has got to say to Rahm Emanuel, ‘Cut the hell out, guarantee people’s First Amendment rights in the city of Chicago,” Thayer said. “In terms of public convergence, the last time I checked, the First Amendment had not been annulled in the city of Chicago, and so people should feel free to walk the streets.”

Occupy Chicago representative Rachael Perrotta said the First Amendment is the only permit the group needs to stage protests, so the group won’t be seeking any permits for their events protesting the NATO summit. Occupy Chicago will join forces with the Anti-Nato Coalition to stage a weeklong series of demonstrations and forums, addressing issues ranging from foreclosures to immigration reform, and from education to the environment.

From May 18 to May 20, organizers plan to stage a so-called “barefoot summit” at the Petrillo Music Shell in Grant Park – a kind of Chicago Woodstock with local bands, poetry readings, and speeches

Given the enormous cost, the massive inconvenience to the residents of Chicago and the real danger of turmoil, what is the purpose of the NATO summit? Here’s what NATO says:

NATO’s 25th summit meeting

At the Chicago Summit, 20-21 May 2012, NATO will drive forward key principles and policies that will shape the Alliance of 2020 and beyond. It will deliver on decisions taken at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, turning them into concrete programmes and initiatives.

Allies will commit to maintain the necessary capabilities and to developing cooperation and dialogue with partners. And at a time of austerity, it will be a question of striking the right balance between fulfilling NATO’s shared responsibilities and balancing national budgets.

The summit will principally focus on three main themes:

–the Alliance’s commitment to Afghanistan through transition and beyond;

–ensuring the Alliance has the capabilities it needs to defend its population and territory and to deal with the challenges of the 21st century; and

strengthening NATO’s network of partners across the globe.

NATO is an essential source of stability. In order to maintain its capacity to safeguard the security and values of its members, it needs to continue developing the means to do so and building partnerships beyond the North Atlantic region.

Considering the massive cost and inconvenience, and the real danger of assembling so many high ranking people in one building, I have two questions:

1. Haven’t you been discussing these things every day for the past couple of years?
2. Have you people never heard of video conferencing?

We now live in the 21st century. The world has changed. Even teenagers know how to communicate electronically. Is a physical summit the smartest way for thousands of dignitaries to meet?

Really?

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–What caused an entire nation to go insane, and can that happen here?

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

As I have read about, and listened to, the Tea/Republicans, I wondered to myself, “Would it be possible for our entire nation to go insane?”

During bad economic times, people seek the comfort of “law and order” and they look for someone to blame for their troubles. The Tea/Republican Party, understanding the dementia that comes with human dissatisfaction, has done everything possible to prevent the U.S. from coming out of the recession (remember “the party of ‘No’?”).

It has blocked every initiative that would have helped end the recession and the widening gap between the 1% and the 99% (advocating low taxes for the rich, while demanding cuts in Social Securty, Medicare and Medicaid).

It has claimed stimuli “didn’t work,” based on the reality that though the stimuli helped greatly (without them we would have slipped into depression), the Tea/Republicans made sure the stimuli were not large enough for a cure.

The Tea/Republicans fielded a group of candidates unparalleled for incompetence and pure craziness (Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and Bachmann) all of whom expressed extreme “solutions” the voters, in desparation, grabbed for.

And finally, the Tea/Republicans settled on Mitt Romney, a candidate having no beliefs whatsoever.

With millions of people prepared to vote Tea/Republican (Indiana just did), it seems clear an entire political party – even our whole nation – can go completely insane. It has happened before.

In the late 1930’s Germany went insane, under much the same circumstances as we have here. See these excerpts from Wikipedia and elsewhere:

During 1921 and 1922, the Nazi Party grew significantly, partly through Hitler’s oratorical skills, partly through the SA’s (brownshirts) appeal to unemployed young men, and partly because there was a backlash against socialist and liberal politics in Bavaria as Germany’s economic problems deepened and the weakness of the Weimar regime became apparent.

The Nazi Party might never have come to power had it not been for the Great Depression and its effects on Germany. By 1930 the German economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures.

Today in America, we have a backlash against socialism (aka “big government”), unemployment, widespread business failures and the seeming weakness of the Obama regime.

The inability of the democratic parties to form a united front and the continued decline of the economy, all played into Hitler’s hands. Some major business figures such as Fritz Thyssen were Nazi supporters and gave generously.

In the U.S. we have the inability of the two major parties to work together, and major business figures such as Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Harold Simmons and the Koch brothers giving generously to right wing causes.

During 1931 and into 1932, Germany’s political crisis deepened. By now the nazi brown shirts had 400,000 members, and its running street battles with the other party paramilitaries (who also fought each other) reduced some German cities to combat zones.

Paradoxically, although the Nazis were among the main instigators of this disorder, part of Hitler’s appeal to a frightened and demoralized middle class was his promise to restore law and order.

The America street battles have just begun. The various protest groups, many loosely united under the “Occupy” banner, plan for bigger demonstrations. Chicago’s NATO summit is a target for even greater demonstrations. If (when?) these demonstrations become violent, our frightened and demoralized middle class will demand a stronger police response, to restore law and order.

Germans voted for Hitler primarily because of his promises to revive the economy (by unspecified means).

The Tea/Republicans never have specified how they would revive the economy. Certainly, their plans to cut Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid would hurt the economy.

In 1933 Adolf Hitler abolished labor unions and political parties, and imprisoned their political opponents, first at improvised camps, then in concentration camps. Nazism had been established.

American right wing attempts to hamstring, then abolish labor unions, already have begun. See:

Scott Walker Told Billionaire That He’d ‘Divide And Conquer’ Unions

A new video has surfaced in which Governor Scott Walker promises a wealthy Koch brothers ally that he will use a “divide and conquer” strategy to turn Wisconsin into a “right to work” state. The video, which was filmed by Brad Lichtenstein on January 18, 2011, directly contradicts Walker’s repeated claims that he has no interest in pushing anti-Union legislation.

In the video, Diane Hendricks — a billionaire roofing-supply magnate who has close ties to the Koch brothers — asks Walker whether he could “work on these unions” and make Wisconsin a “right-to-work state.”

“Oh yeah,” Walker responds. “We’re going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer.

Governor Walker was handsomely rewarded for his promise; since the video was filmed, Hendricks has given Walker’s campaign $510,000. According to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, this makes her Walker’s biggest supporter, and the largest known donor to any candidate in Wisconsin history.

Now back to Nazi Germany:

Initially, there was much indifference surrounding anti-Semitism. (But) a denunciation system was put in place, which relied on the people of Germany to turn in Jews and others who were not “suitable” for the German population.

This system offered a great deal of incentive for people – if they turned in others, they eliminated the possibility of being persecuted themselves. The officers who were in charge of monitoring the denunciations became so overwhelmed with the multitude of cases they faced on a daily basis, that they began to take people for their word without looking further into the cases.

Think of the anti-alien laws being passed in the American South, where it has become illegal knowingly to hire an undocumented alien. Citizens are encouraged (required?) to turn them in to the police. The police can detain people whom the police (with no evidence whatsoever) believe are illegal, so accusing someone of being illegal is sufficient for their arrest.

Thus, many people were denounced without just cause, and sent to concentration camps to die. For whatever personal reasons people rapidly began to take to this system, the important fact is that it worked. People liked being in control of who was in their neighborhood. Plus, they were offered financial incentives in many cases. A denunciation, reliable or not, could be worth a great deal of money. And at a time where money was scarce, people did anything they could to get their hands on cash.

So far, no reward system in America, but do not be surprised if that comes soon. (“Receive a reward for turning in an illegal alien.”)

Convinced that a plot was afoot to depose him, Hitler ordered the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Gestapo to assassinate his political enemies both in and outside the Nazi Party (the “Night of the Long Knives”) which resulted in up to 200 deaths. While some Germans were shocked by the killing, others admired Hitler’s decisive actions to restore order.

When a recession or depression makes people feel they have lost control over their lives, they seek to regain control through law and order, and by taking action against scapegoats.

Thus, has the Tea/Republican party taken advantage of the basest human instincts. We are no better than the Germans. They, like us, were good, honest, hard-working people, trapped in a depressed economy, and searching for some way out.

Partly, it was the “Anything-is-better-than-this syndrome. (Here, it’s “Anybody-is-better-than-Obama.”) And partly, Germans had an urgent need for a scapegoat. In their case it was the Jews; In America, it’s the illegal aliens, gays and the rich.

Those good, honest, hard-working Germans became so emotional, they even overlooked mass murder, in order to improve their lives. That is how crazed good people can become.

The Tea/Republicans have nothing logical to offer America. There is no mechanism by which cutting the deficit or deporting aliens can cure the recession or improve our lives. None. Yet our good, honest, hard-working (unemployed) people are willing to vote for anything, no matter how destructive and irrational, so long as it is different.

And that is the way any nation can become crazed. We are no exception. I see it creeping into Kansas, into Indiana and into the entire South, where those who claim to be most religious also are least tolerant, the most filled with hatred.

All we lack now is a great orator like Hitler was, to turn our entire nation insane. We are living on a razor’s edge.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Paul Krugman may be starting to get it.

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Perhaps a bit late to the party, but welcome anyway, economics Nobel winner Paul Krugman shows signs of understanding the economy.

Paul Krugman: The Problem With Deficit-Mania
May 9th, 2012 12:01 am
National Memo

The following is an excerpt from End This Depression Now!, the recently published book by Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

By the fall of 2009 it was already obvious that those who had warned that the original stimulus plan was much too small had been right.

I was one of those, and I didn’t wait until fall of 2009. Here’s what I said in an April 9, 2008 Email to the Chicago Tribune.”

“Every U.S. depression, and the vast majority of recessions,, have coincided with reduced growth in the money supply. Today again, the U.S. economy is starved for money, which no amount of interest rate reductions can cure. To a small degree, interest rate reductions actually reduce the amount of money in the economy, because the federal government is required to pay less interest on its debts.

“There is one cure, and one cure only, for a recession, or depression: Increase the money supply. How? By federal deficit spending.

“The federal government creates money when it pumps more money into the economy than it removes by taxation. The $150 billion stimulus package is an example, albiet too little and too late.

“To prevent a serious meltdown of our economy, the federal government must pump $500 billion – $1 trillion into the economy. The government should reduce or eliminate certain taxes and/or increase spending on certain projects.

“Example: The federal government estimates its 2008 collection of the FICA tax at $821 billion. Were FICA eliminated, workers and business (each of which pays half) would benefit immediately. The recession, would end; a depression would be prevented.

“Contrary to common wisdom, this $821 billion addition to the federal debt would not cause inflation. The Reagan/Bush $6 trillion addition to the debt did not cause inflation, which easily was prevented with interest rate control.

In summary, this recession, was preventable and now is curable, simply by pumping money into the economy. Cutting interest rates has not, and will not, accomplish anything. Americans should be outraged at the ineptness demonstrated by Congress, the President and the Fed. There is no reason for this disaster, when the prevention and cure so easily could be implemented.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell”

So there it was, way back in April 2008, not fall of 2009, it was clear to me, that the proposed stimuli were “too little, too late.

Now continuing with Krugman’s comments:

This was exactly the kind of situation in which White House aides had originally envisaged going back to Congress for more stimulus. But that didn’t happen. Why not?

One reason was that they had misjudged the politics: just as some had feared when the original plan came out, the inadequacy of the first stimulus had discredited the whole notion of stimulus in the minds of most Americans and had emboldened Republicans in their scorched-earth opposition.

There was, however, another reason: much of the discussion in Washington had shifted from a focus on unemployment to a focus on debt and deficits. Ominous warnings about the danger of excessive deficits became a staple of political posturing.

As the opening quotation makes clear, Obama himself got into this game; his first State of the Union address, in early 2010, proposed spending cuts rather than new stimulus. And by 2011 blood-curdling warnings of disaster unless we dealt with deficits immediately (as opposed to taking longer-term measures that wouldn’t depress the economy further) were heard across the land.

Right on target.

The strange thing is that there was and is no evidence to support the shift in focus away from jobs and toward deficits. Where the harm done by lack of jobs is real and terrible, the harm done by deficits to a nation like Americain its current situation is, for the most part, hypothetical. The quantifiable burden of debt is much smaller than you would imagine from the rhetoric, and warnings about some kind of debt crisis are based on nothing much at all.

In fact, the predictions of deficit hawks have been repeatedly falsified by events, while those who argued that deficits are not a problem in a depressed economy have been consistently right. Furthermore, those who made investment decisions based on the predictions of the deficit alarmists, like Morgan Stanley in 2010 or Pimco in 2011, ended up losing a lot of money.

Yes, you go boy! Absolutely correct. Debt-hawk predictions have been wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Yet exaggerated fear of deficits retains its hold on our political and policy discourse. I’ll try to explain why later in this chapter. First, however, let me talk about what deficit hawks have said, and what has really happened.

Back in the 1980s the business economist Ed Yardeni coined the term “bond vigilantes” for investors who dump a country’s bonds—driving up its borrowing costs—when they lose confidence in its monetary and/or fiscal policies. Fear of budget deficits is driven mainly by fear of an attack by the bond vigilantes. And advocates of fiscal austerity, of sharp cuts in government spending even in the face of mass unemployment, often argue that we must do what they demand to satisfy the bond market.

But the market itself doesn’t seem to agree; if anything, it’s saying that America should borrow more, since at the moment U.S.borrowing costs are very low. In fact, adjusted for inflation, they’re actually negative, so that investors are in effect paying the U.S.government a fee to keep their wealth safe. Oh, and these are long-term interest rates, so the market isn’t just saying that things are OK now; it’s saying that investors don’t see any major problems for years to come.

Never mind, say the deficit hawks, borrowing costs will shoot up soon if we don’t slash spending right now. This amounts to saying that the market is wrong—which is something you’re allowed to do. But it’s strange, to say the least, to base your demands on the claim that policy must be changed to satisfy the market, then dismiss the clear evidence that the market itself doesn’t share your concerns.

The failure of rates to rise didn’t reflect any early end to large deficits: over the course of 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 the combination of low tax receipts and emergency spending—both the results of a depressed economy—forced the federal government to borrow more than $5 trillion.

And at every uptick in rates over that period, influential voices announced that the bond vigilantes had arrived, that America was about to find itself unable to keep on borrowing so much money. Yet each of those upticks was reversed, and at the beginning of 2012 U.S.borrowing costs were close to an all-time low.

But debt-hawks think the finances of our Monetarily Sovereign federal government are the same as monetarily non-sovereign personal finances, so they simply do not pay any attention to facts.

1. The Wall Street Journal runs an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The Disciplinarians of U.S. Policy Return,” predicting that interest rates will go way up unless deficits are reduced.

2. President Obama tells Fox News that we might have a double-dip recession if we keep adding to debt.

3. Morgan Stanley predicts that deficits will drive ten-year rates up to 5.5 percent by the end of 2010.

4. The Wall Street Journal—this time in the news section, not on the editorial page—runs a story titled “Debt Fears Send Rates Up.” It presents no evidence showing that fear of debt, as opposed to hopes for recovery, were responsible for the modest rise in rates.

5. Bill Gross of the bond fund Pimco warns tha tU.S.interest rates are being held down only by Federal Reserve bond purchases, and predicts a spike in rates when the program of bond purchases ends in June 2011.

6. Standard & Poor’s downgrades the U.S.government, taking away its AAA rating.

And by late 2011 U.S.borrowing costs were lower than ever.

The important thing to realize is that this wasn’t just a question of bad forecasts, which everyone makes now and then. It was, instead, about how to think about deficits in a depressed economy.

To date, the right wing, Tea/Republican Party, with its anti-spending crusade, has done everything in its power to crush the U.S. economy. I believe this was not out of economic ignorance, but was a deliberate plan, the purpose of which was to create voter dissatisfaction with President Obama.

The plan worked, in part, because Obama himself fell for it. He and his advisers, being ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty, began to parrot the “cut-the-federal-debt” mantra, and that ignorance very well could be his undoing.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY