Tag: taxpayers money

–Et tu, Wall Street Journal?

An alternative to popular faith

The average person doesn’t understand the difference between federal government finances, state government finances and personal finances. The same could be said of most politicians and most editorial writers.

But one expects more of the Wall Street Journal, whose editors are, after all, immersed in finance all day long. So it was saddening to read WSJ’s March 1, 2010 editorial titled “Back to the ObamaCare Future.”

The editorial begins, “Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive for ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006.” Do you detect the problem? The WSJ thinks a state-run, health-care program provides a learning template for a federally run program, despite the crucial differences in ability to fund programs. (States’ access to money is limited; the federal government’s access is unlimited.)

The WSJ properly criticizes Governor Deval Patrick for wanting to set hospital and doctor rates. Why does the governor want to do that? So he can cut the rates. You see, the Massachusetts program is running a deficit (of course), so rather than committing political suicide by raising taxes, the governor wants to assure worse health care by discouraging doctors and hospitals from operating profitably in his fair state.

The editorial continues, “The administered prices of Medicare and Medicaid already shift costs to private patients, while below-cost reimbursement creates balance-sheet havoc among providers.” Yes, that’s right. Medicare pays too little, which forces our most talented doctors into boutique programs, where annual fees run anywhere from $50 to $5,000 (or more?) Eventually all the best doctors will be unaffordable to the very people Medicare is supposed to help. And smaller hospitals will disappear. This because of federal price controls.

The editorial continues, “It doesn’t even count as irony that former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending.” Sure, states need to control costs, but why doesn’t President Obama understand the difference between state spending and federal spending?

Let’s see if we can clarify the difference: Taxpayers pay for state spending. Taxpayers do not pay for federal spending. Can I make it any simpler?

Because states do not have the power to create unlimited amounts of money, they must rely on taxes and borrowing. Eventually, the ability to borrow runs out, and everything falls on the taxpayer. Ultimately, there is a direct relationship between state taxes and state spending.

The federal government does have the power to create unlimited amounts of money, and so does not need to rely on taxes. It does not even need to borrow (See: https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/it-isnt-taxpayers-money/)

The biggest problem with Medicare (and Social Security, for that matter) is that it’s limited by FICA collections. Medicare is a version of federal price controls, which WSJ properly criticizes. Government price controls always are damaging. As WSJ said, “. . . hospital rate setting in the 1970s and 1980s . . . didn’t control costs . . . and it killed people.”

If government medical rate setting doesn’t work, and in fact kills people, please tell me again how the universal health care plan is designed to save money.

And if the federal government has the unlimited ability to create money, without ever charging the taxpayer, please tell me again why the universal health care plan is designed to save money.

Oh, the unnecessary damage the debt hawks have caused — not just financial damage, but human damage — and all for refusing to acknowledge that federal deficits not only are beneficial, but necessary for a growing economy.

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

–More “debt bomb” nonsense

An alternative to popular faith

Well, they just keep on doing it. The February 8, 2010 Forbes Magazine’s cover story is titled, “The Global Debt Bomb,” by Daniel Fisher.

It contains the usual scary words, for instance: “The world has issued so much debt in the past two years fighting the Great Recession that paying it all back is going to be hell –for Americans, along with everybody else. Taxes will have to rise around the globe, hobbling job growth and economic recovery.” Etc., etc., etc. You get the idea.

Never mind that this is exactly the same “sky is falling” commentary — even using the words “debt bomb” — we have been hearing from pundits since 1940 (See https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/federal-debt-a-ticking-time-bomb/). Never mind that “government debt” is an exact synonym for “government money,” which needs to grow if an economy is to grow.

Never mind that “paying it back” is not, and since 1971 (the end of the gold standard) never will be, a problem for a sovereign nation with the unlimited ability to create money. Never mind that using this unlimited ability has not caused inflation, which in any event could be cured by raising interest rates. And never mind that taxpayers do not pay for federal debt and tax rates are not related to federal debt.

In short, never mind history, and just keep making the same old, wrong predictions, using the same old words, because let’s face it, fear-mongering sells magazines, and why make up new words when cribbing the old words is so much easier.

Pick up that issue of Forbes, read Fisher’s article, and wherever you see the word “debt” replace it with the word “money.” That will show you the reality. Also, if you know how to contact Fisher, you might ask him to supply historical proof that, as he says, “. . . the taxpayer will have the devil to pay.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
www.rodgermitchell.com

–Robin Hood Obama takes from rich and poor

An alternative to popular faith

        You have been led to believe recessions are an unavoidable part of the natural business cycle. Like bad weather, there is nothing we can do to prevent them, and when they come, we simply must deal with them.
        Wrong. Recessions neither are unavoidable nor natural. They always occur because of mistakes, both innocent and deliberate, by our political leadership.
        Today we experience a classic example. For the past two years, the economy has experienced a money shortage, also known as a recession. In belated response, the government properly has pumped stimulus money into the economy via deficit spending. This addition of money to a money-starved economy is beginning to help (though the stimulus has been too little and too late — but that’s another story.)
        Where did the government obtain the stimulus money? Not from taxpayers. The definition of “deficit spending” is money spent without taxes. The government created the money simply by crediting bank accounts and debiting its own balance sheets. Despite what the media say, tax payers and tax money, which never pay for federal spending, were not involved.
        Read this article — wording in green:

“1/15/10: WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis.”
        If stimulus spending helps the economy grow, what will new taxes do? Right. Help the economy shrink.

“‘We want our money back,’ he said.”
        He neglected to indicate who “our” is. Surely not the American public, who have paid, and will pay, nothing for the bank bailout funds. And why does the government want the money? It has no use for it. In fact, money sent to the government immediately is destroyed when federal balance sheets are credited. The government has the unlimited ability to pay bills by crediting bank accounts. Unlike you, me and every other U.S. entity, the government does not use income to pay its bills.

         “In a brief appearance with advisers at the White House, Obama branded the latest round of bank bonuses as ‘obscene.’ But he said his goal was to prevent such excesses in the future, not to punish banks for past behavior.”
        Typical populist rhetoric, fomenting class warfare. He’s a benevolent Robin Hood, taking from the rich and, oh yes, also taking from the poor by removing money from the economy. Taxing banks does punish them, but President Obama doesn’t want to punish banks. Sure. Believe that and I have some costume jewelry I want to sell you.

        “The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. ‘If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers,’ Obama said.”
         That’s $90 billion to be ripped out of the economy and destroyed. Does anyone really believe they will see one penny of that $90 billion? Does anyone believe that will put even one nickle in their pockets? If so, contact me about that jewelry.

         “Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.”
         Instead of paying bonuses and salaries to living people, who then will pass the money on by spending and saving, the government wants the money extracted from the economy, then sent to the government, where it will be destroyed. (If you don’t believe the government destroys all money sent to it, tell me where the government stores the tax money it receives.)
        By the way, did I mention that President Obama has other populist taxes in store for you? Think about the tax on what he calls “Cadillac” health plans.
         And this is why future recessions are certain. They neither are normal nor unavoidable. They are caused by politicians who either through ignorance or populist electioneering, actively cause recessions.
        If banks don’t want to pay this extra tax, and unions don’t want the “Cadillac health plan” tax, they will have to bribe Democratic legislators to vote “properly.” This is the old political trick of proposing something onerous, so the prospectively injured party pays up. Cynical, but effective, and no one ever said President Obama is not an effective politician.

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

–Punish bank executives for being too rich

An alternative to popular faith

         Here is the key sentence from an article by Jackie Calmes, Published: January 11, 2010 in the The New York Times:
        “With popular anger building as big banks show profits and pay sizable bonuses while unemployment remains high, the Obama administration has come under pressure at home and abroad to support a financial transactions tax on institutions and to heavily tax their executive compensation.”
        What an amazing sentence.
         First, consider the popular anger that “big banks show profits . . .” Would the citizenry prefer bank losses caused by bad bank management? What’s the approved size for profits?
         Second, consider the “sizable bonuses.” Banks are businesses. What should they do with profits aside from pay employees and shareholders? Are other businesses held to that standard?
         Third, consider “unemployment remains high.” What is the relationship here? Should banks hire millions of people, to get the employment rate down? Or, should banks engage in less than optimal business strategies, like lending to bad risks, to get the profits down?
         Fourth, consider the “financial transactions tax on institutions.” Get real. Any tax on a business is passed along to its customers. Ultimately, you and I will pay that tax.
         Fifth, consider “heavily tax their executive compensation.” A special tax created just for bank executives? What about a special tax just for Walmart executives? What about a special tax just for executives who live in New York, preferably Long Island?
         Nothing could better demonstrate the financial ignorance of the Obama administration. Or if it’s not ignorance, then it’s worse: pure pandering to populist, class-warfare motives. Oh, it temporarily might make you feel good to “get those rich jerks,” until you realize (if ever) that you are the one getting the shaft.

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