Do you understand how “The Big Lie” affects you and everyone else? The answer is here.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Quote from Ben Bernanke when, as Fed chief, he was on 60 Minutes: Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending? Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.

Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the (Monetarily Sovereign) ECB, Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money? Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Big Lie in economics, simply stated is: The U.S. government unintentionally can run short of U.S. dollars.

In 1792, the U.S. government created the first U.S. dollars from thin air. It arbitrarily passed laws that created as many dollars as it wished, and gave those dollars the value it wished. Since then, the U.S. government continues to create U.S. dollars, and it arbitrarily has changed the value of the dollar many times.

Since its founding in 1776, the United States has had a variety of monetary systems including bimetallic systems where the dollar was backed by both gold and silver (1792-1862), a fiat monetary system (1862-1879), a full gold standard (1879-1933), and a partial gold standard (1933-1971).

Each new system changed the value of the dollar.

A Billion Dollars Was Transferred Over Venmo In January | Money cash, Money stacks, Investing — **The federal government has the infinite ability to create dollars, without inflation.**

From 1971 to present the United States has been on a fiat monetary standard.

The U.S. government can create laws from thin air, and those laws can create dollars from thin air. The U.S. government cannot unintentionally run out of laws or dollars. For that reason, no agency of the U.S. government can run out of dollars unless Congress and the President wish it. Any time you hear or read about the U.S. government not being able to “afford’ some expenditure, or about some federal agency running short of funds, or about federal taxes needing to be increased, you are subject to The Big Lie. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government neither needs, nor even uses, tax dollars to fund its spending. It creates dollars by spending; that is its primary dollar-creation method. Similarly, any time you read or hear that the federal “debt” is unsustainable, or the federal deficit is “unaffordable,” you are being told The Big Lie. Here is an article that exemplifies The Big Lie you are expected to believe:

Go-broke dates pushed back for Social Security, Medicare The annual Social Security and Medicare trustees report says Social Security’s trust fund will be exhausted in 2035, instead of last year’s estimate of 2034. By Fatima Hussein and Tom Murphy Associated Press WASHINGTON — A stronger-than-expected economic recovery from the pandemic has pushed back the go-broke dates for Social Security and Medicare, but officials warn that the current economic turbulence is putting additional pressures on the bedrock retirement programs.

The annual Social Security and Medicare trustees report released last week said Social Security’s trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2035, instead of last year’s estimate of 2034.

The year before that it estimated an exhaustion date of 2035. The projected depletion date for Medicare’s trust fundfor inpatient hospital care moved back two years to 2028 from last year’s forecast of 2026.

In the post titled, “’Wolf,’ ‘The sky is falling.’ ‘Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent'” you read why the Medicare and Social Security so-called “trust funds” are not trust funds at all, but rather are mere balance sheet notations on the government’s books — notations that the federal government can change at will. You might ask, “How is it possible for an agency of a government to run short of the dollars the government has the infinite ability to create.” The answer: It isn’t possible unless that is what the government wants. If Congress and the President wanted Medicare and Social Security to pay more benefits, they simply would pass a law mandating Medicare and Social Security to pay more benefits. And, if Congress and the President wanted to reduce or even eliminate the FICA tax, they would pay for the mandate the same way they pay for the military and all other federal expenses: By writing checks. No tax dollars are involved. And if Congress and the President wanted the nation to have free, no-deductible, comprehensive Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America, they could do that by passing laws. No tax dollars necessary. And if Congress and the President wanted every man, woman, and child in America to receive Social Security — even with triple the current benefit levels — they could pass the appropriate law. Again, no tax dollars need to be collected. The article continues:

“Economic recovery from the 2020 recession has been stronger and faster than assumed in last year’s reports, with positive effects on the projected actuarial status of the trust funds in these reports,” the report states.

The “actuarial status” assumes the FICA tax funds Medicare and Social Security “trust funds.” It doesn’t. FICA funds nothing. FICA,indeed all federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt. (This is not true of state/local taxes, which remain in the economy.) The federal government funds Medicare and Social Security by creating new dollars, ad hoc.

President Joe Biden said in a statement that the report “shows that the strong economic recovery driven by my economic and vaccination plans has strengthened programs that millions of Americans rely on and has put our nation in a better fiscal position.”

The U.S. cannot be “in a better fiscal position”; it already is in a perfect fiscal position. The government has zero fiscal need for taxes. Even without taxes, the federal government has the infinite ability to pay any bills it ever receives.

Social Security pays benefits to more than 65 million Americans, mainly retirees as well as disabled people and survivors of deceased workers.

Medicare covers roughly 64 million older and disabled people.

When the Social Security trust fund is depleted, the government will be able to pay 80% of scheduled benefits, the report said.

Medicare will be able to pay 90% of total scheduled benefits when the fund is depleted.

Wrong. The government already pays 100% of benefits and will be able to pay 100% of future benefits, no matter how many people are collecting benefits or how large those benefits prove to be. All dollars sent to the U.S. Treasury are destroyed upon receipt.

Income for Medicare’s hospital insurance fund is projected to be higher than estimates from last year because the number of covered workers who help fund it and their average wages are both expected to be higher.

Income is irrelevant for a government that has the infinite ability to create dollars.

A main source of financing is payroll taxes on earnings paid by employees and employers. About 183 million people paid those taxes in 2021.

Payroll taxes are nothing more than a deduction from the private sector — a net loss for Gross Domestic Product and the economy. They do not finance anything. The sole source of federal financing is the federal government’s Monetary Sovereignty.

The trustees of Social Security and Medicare include the secretaries of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Labor, as well as the Social Security commissioner.

They are supposed to be joined by two public trustees, however those positions have been vacant since 2015.

The “Trustees” do nothing. They have no power. It’s all just a bookkeeping function, which is handled automatically by computers. That is why trustee positions can be vacant without harm.

A representative from the White House did not respond to an email inquiry about whether the president intends to nominate new public trustees.

Trustees are unnecessary.

The trustees report is an added reminder of the U.S. government’s financial troubles, as it juggles historically high inflation, recovery from a pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The economy may have “financial troubles.” It can run short of dollars. But the government cannot have financial troubles. It has infinite dollars with which to pay its bills. And it has the unlimited ability to control inflation.

AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins said the reports “send a clear message to Congress: despite the short-term improvement, you must act to protect the benefits people have earned and paid into both now and for the long-term.”

The first step to “protect the benefits” is to stop telling The Big Lie.

“The stakes are too high for the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Social Security for their health and financial wellbeing,” she said.

This year, Social Security retirees got a 5.9% boost in benefits, the biggest cost-of-living adjustment, also known as COLA, in 39 years.

You, retirees, could have received a 10% or 100% or greater boost in benefits if Congress and the President wished it. Congress and the President have absolute control over benefits. The destructiveness of The Big Lie, is shown in the following article:

500,000 Floridians could lose health coverage, study says Christopher O’Donnell,Tampa Bay Times More than 500,000 Floridians could lose their health insurance if Congress fails to extend tax credits passed through the American Rescue Plan Act, a new report warns.

The tax credits dramatically lowered premiums for millions of Florida families who this year obtained their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

But those subsidies will expire at the end of this year as attempts by Congress to extend them have stalled.

Can you answer this question? Why would a Congress, that has infinite dollars at its fingertips, not be able to lower premiums for millions of families?

If lawmakers cannot reach an agreement, premiums could rise by 53% in 2023, forcing millions of Americans to go without health insurance.

Florida would be one of the states hardest hit, according to a study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute.

Roughly 96 percent of the 2.7 million Floridians enrolled in the Affordable Care Act were eligible for the tax credits this year. Without them, a household of four with an income of $111,000 will pay hundreds of dollars more in premiums next year.

Families that earn above that limit would no longer be eligible for the program. They could face an average increase of about $2,000 per year in premiums if they have to purchase private insurance.

The likely impact, the study warns, is the number of uninsured in Florida could rise by 25 percent, from 2 million to 2.5 million.

Families without health insurance typically forego critical preventative and early treatment of health issues until their condition forces them to seek emergency room care — the same strain on hospital resources and budgets that the Affordable Care Act was intended to relieve.

“A 53% increase on premiums could be very painful for a whole lot of families in the state of Florida.”
Of course, it’s not just Florida. The unnecessary pain will extend to families all over America. Can you answer this question? Why is this even an issue, for a government having unlimited financial resources?
Opposition to extending the tax credits has focused on the cost.

Extending them would increase the federal deficit by $25.3 billion in 2023 and by $305 billion over 10 years, the study says.

House Democrats can extend the credits via a reconciliation bill to clear Republican opposition.

But the fate of that program and many others depends on negotiations between President Joe Biden and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin to get the president’s social spending bill through the Senate.

Can you answer this question? Why are 100% of Republicans plus one Democrat opposed to providing federal financial aid to families?

U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist, D-St. Petersburg was critical of Republican Gov. DeSantis. Florida is one of only 13 states that continues to reject a provision of the Affordable Care Act — passed over a decade ago — that would expand Medicaid eligibility to more than 400,000 of the poorest Floridians.
The federal government pays 90% of the cost. So by expanding Medicaid, Florida will pay only 10 cents to receive each dollar the federal government pumps into its economy. Can you answer this question? Why would Florida refuse those many millions of support dollars? And why does Florida reject federal aid for its poorest residents?
In 2021, Florida lawmakers did pass legislation to make Medicaid available for for mothers and babies, extending their coverage from 60 days to a full year following childbirth.

But Floridians who earn less than the federal poverty level of $13,590 are not eligible for Medicaid as they would be in states that have fully expanded Medicaid.
Can you answer this question? Why are the poorest Floridians not eligible to receive federally supported Medicaid?
Since it took effect in 2014, the Affordable Care Act — often called Obamacare — has made health insurance affordable to more Americans by creating health insurance marketplaces and subsidizing the cost of premiums.

It helped the program add 2.5 million more Americans this year, expanding nationwide enrollment to a record 14.4 million.

“People who previously turned away and looked at alternative options like short term insurance were able to reconsider and saw a really affordable rate,” said Katie Roders Turner, executive director of the Family Healthcare Foundation.

She said a family of four that her group helped find insurance had just been hit with a $6,000 emergency room bill after their child developed a high fever because their short-term insurance policy included a large deductible.

Desperate people were buying junk insurance policies because they couldn’t qualify for federally supported insurance.

A lady named Graciela Lopez said subsidies in the Affordable Care Act enabled her to afford the coverage she needs to cover life-saving treatment. She was diagnosed with breast cancer three years ago and had a double mastectomy.

She sees an oncologist every three months and another specialist twice a year. She is also on daily medication that would cost $1,000 per month without insurance.

Most of the cost is covered through a marketplace plan offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield, which costs her $169 per month.

Insurance also pays for a substantial portion of the daily medication she takes to lower hormone levels that could trigger her cancer.

She is worried she won’t be able to afford a substantial premium hike.

“If I change my insurance, I have to find different oncologists,” she said. “I have to keep my insurance as long as I can.”
Can you answer this question? Why does Gracie Lopez, along with millions of other Americans, not receive free, comprehensive, no-deductible health care insurance paid for by the federal government? The answers to all of the above financial questions are:

The widespread (and false) belief the federal Monetarily Sovereign finances are the same and your personal (monetarily non-sovereign) finances, and that the federal government, like you, can run short of dollars.

The widespread (and false) belief that federal taxpayers fund federal spending or that the federal government borrows dollars.

The widespread (and false) belief that if Monetary Sovereignty were correct “someone” would have done “something” about it, and provided free Medicare, free Social Security, and other financial aids (See “Ten Steps To Prosperity” below) to every man, woman, and child in America.

The widespread (and false) belief that federal spending “overheats the economy” and causes inflation.

Gap Psychology, the desire of the rich who run America, to widen the income/wealth/power Gap beween them and those below them.

Both political parties are responsible for disseminating The Big Lie. The Republican party, being the party of the rich, is somewhat more culpable, but both parties, virtually all media, and most economists are guilty to some degree.

ANY TIME YOU READ OR HEAR . . .
. . . the U.S. government can’t ‘afford’ some expenditure, or about some federal agency running short of funds, or about federal taxes needing to be increased, you are a victim of The Big Lie.” (The federal government can’t unintentionally run short of dollars.)

. . . in reference to some proposed federal expenditure, “Who will pay for it?”, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (The government will create the dollars.)

. . . the phrase “taxpayers’ money” in reference to federal spending, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (Federal taxpayers’ dollars are destroyed, not spent.)

. . . that the federal deficit or debt are “unsustainable,” you are a victim of The Big Lie. (Federal deficits and so-called “debt” are infinitely sustainable.)

. . . concerns that China will stop lending to us, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (The federal government does not borrow dollars.)

. . . that federal spending causes inflation, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (Inflation always is caused by shortages, and actually can be cured by federal spending.)
Congress and the President could repudiate The Big Lie by changing laws, with a few strokes of a pen. We are now heading into midterm elections. Congress and the President care about two things: Money and votes. If you disagree with The Big Lie, contact your political leaders, and tell them how they can receive your money and/or vote.

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How you will be cheated out of your health care insurance

We begin with these, indisputable facts:

Fantasy Writing Diploma Course - Centre of Excellence — **The federal government has the infinite power to create laws, and these laws have the infinite ability to create dollars. The government cannot run short of laws or dollars.**

A. Federal laws are created from thin air by the federal government. The government creates any, and as many, laws it wants, so long as those laws are in keeping with the Constitution, which also was created from thin air by the government.

The federal government never unintentionally can run short of laws. It has the infinite ability to create laws.

B. Among the many laws the government created from thin air are the laws that created the U.S. sovereign currency: The U.S. dollar.

Initially, the government’s laws created as many dollars as the government wanted, and gave them the value the government wanted.

This infinite ability to create any number of dollars and to specify their value is known as “Monetary Sovereignty.”

The U.S. government is sovereign over the dollar.

This infinite ability to create dollars does not rely on tax collections. Even if the government collected zero taxes, it could continue creating dollars forever.

The federal government never unintentionally can run short of dollars or laws.

Similarly, the federal government has no need to borrow dollars, and indeed the government does not borrow dollars. It pays all its bills by creating new dollars, ad hoc.

The purpose of federal taxes is not to supply the government with dollars, but rather to control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage, and giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to encourage.

C. Having absolute control over all aspects of the U.S. dollar, the federal government has absolute control over the value of the U.S. dollar, i.e. inflation. The government has the power to change the value of the dollar at will, a power it has exercised many times over the years.

Thus, the federal government has the absolute power to control inflation.

Keeping the above facts in mind, we can review the following article that describes how and why the federal government will cheat you out of your health care insurance.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB)
Two Ways to Reduce Prescription Drug Costs
July 26, 2021

High and rising prescription drug costs are contributing to the budgetary pressure faced by the federal government. Also, a significant number of patients face very high out-of-pocket costs.

Interesting choice of words: “budgetary pressure.” The government not only creates infinite dollars from thin air; it also creates infinite budgets from thin air. And it changes those budgets at will.

So, yes, the cost of drugs easily could exceed the budget, but since the government never unintentionally can run short of dollars, there is no financial pressure.

Any budgetary pressure the government may feel is self-inflicted and essentially meaningless. (Visualize Jeff Bezos budgeting $5,000 to buy a TV set, and discovering the TV set costs $5,001. He may feel budgetary pressure, but will not feel financial pressure.)

Our two new briefs focus on options to reduce prescription drug prices. They include:

Medicare Part B could inject price competition into drug classes that have clinically comparable options but wide price variation – blunting the advantage that higher-priced drugs have under the current formula.

Injecting Price Competition into Medicare Part B Drugs

Currently, Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient physician services, pays for physician-administered drugs by reimbursing physicians the average cost for each specific drug plus a 6 percent add-on percentage of that cost. This arrangement creates misaligned incentives that blunt price competition and advantage higher-priced drugs – especially within drug classes that have clinically comparable options but a wide variation in prices.

This policy option looks at implementing “clinically comparable drug pricing,” where Medicare payments for physician-administered drugs would be set at a single price for groups of drugs within the same therapeutic class. That price would be set at the weighted average of prices manufacturers charge for each of the clinically comparable drugs.

This reform should encourage physicians to administer lower cost drugs and manufacturers to lower prices to maintain market share. The policy would reduce Medicare costs and would likely result in savings for Medicare Advantage plans and commercial payers.

The federal government pays its bills by creating dollars ad hoc. Thus, the government legitimately can be said to have infinite dollars. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt by the Treasury.

So, there is no economic value to price competition. In fact, each penny the federal government sends into the economy is economically stimulative, at no cost to anyone.

However, the CRFB seems to claim that physicians make more money when physician-administered drugs are priced higher, and this can influence the choice of drugs. I am not sure how prevalent this situation is, but in any event, there is no fair way to prevent it.

The “weighted average” approach can penalize patients by making some of the more effective, costlier-to-produce drugs unavailable.

As a rule, price competition shifts costs from the government to the private sector, which penalizes the economy as a whole, while also penalizing drug research and development.

Over the next decade (2021-2030), implementing “clinically comparable drug pricing” could:

Reduce total (gross) Medicare spending by at least $122 billion in just three drug classes.
That includes $56 billion of savings to fee-for-service Medicare, $37 billion in lower beneficiary premiums and cost sharing, and $29 billion in savings for the Medicare Advantage program.

In more accurate words, implementing “clinically comparable drug pricing” could reduce the federal stimulus to economic growth by $122 billion in just three drug classes, while having no financial benefits for the private sector..

The policy would also generate private sector spillover savings. For example, in the rheumatoid arthritis class of drugs, the policy could reduce commercial drug costs by at least $21 billion.

Actually, there could be zero private sector spillover savings, if the government simply would pay, but the pharmaceutical industry would receive $21 billion less from the government.

Limiting Evergreening for Name-Brand Prescription Drugs
To encourage medical innovation, the FDA grants temporary market exclusivities to new name-brand drugs. These exclusivities prohibit generic drug competitors’ access to the market for a limited period.

However, drug manufacturers are often able to take advantage of the current rules, using “evergreening” strategies to extend their exclusivity periods and either delay generic drug market entry or limit the number of patients who switch to a new generic.

One evergreening tactic manufacturers employ involves introducing a new “line” or version of their drug shortly before a generic competitor is released.

This new line can be granted its own exclusivity period. For example, a manufacturer may introduce an extended-release formulation just before a generic of the original immediate-release formulation enters the market. This can allow a brand manufacturer to maintain market share in the face of generic competition – increasing its profits and increasing payer and patient costs.

New FDA exclusivity rules could lead to meaningful savings for consumers, commercial insurers, and government payers. The policy change could also speed up the market entry of brand extended-release and other reformulations, providing clinical benefits to patients.

Under a comprehensive, no-deductible, Medicare-for-All plan, there would be no cost for consumers, and government payers (who have infinite dollars) need no dollar savings. More stimulus dollars would be pumped into the economy by federal spending.

As for commercial insurers, they probably would go the way of the manufacturers of street corner phone booths, horse-drawn wagons, Betamax, and audio cassettes. Medicare for All could offer better service at no cost (and no need to ask for permission to have surgery).

Over the next decade (2021-2030), this policy could:

Reduce federal deficits by at least $10 billion.

I.e. reduce federal economic growth and job stimulus by $10 billion

Save Medicare Part D $7 billion in drug costs and Medicare beneficiaries $4 billion in lower premiums and cost sharing.

I.e., reduce federal economic growth stimulus by $7 billion. If Medicare for All were free, as it should be, premiums would be cut hundreds of billions of dollars, and there would be no need for cost-sharing.

Reduce federal and state Medicaid drug spending.

Medicare for all would eliminate the need for federal and state Medicaid drug spending.

Reduce private sector drug costs by $9 billion.

There is no economic need for the private sector to spend anything for drugs.

In Summary:
Incredibly, the CRFB seems to prefer saving money for the infinitely endowed federal government at the expense of the money-deprived.

The CRFB suggestions are based on these myths:

Federal finances are like private finances
The federal government is funded by federal taxes
The federal government can run short of dollars.

In truth, the federal government has infinite dollars available, has no need for tax dollars, and never can run short of its own sovereign currency. It needs to run deficits in order to grow the economy and prevent recessions, and it has absolute control over every aspect of the U.S. dollar including inflation.

Spending by the rich encourages the media, the politicians, and the economists to promulgate these myths. The purpose is to widen the income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer, aka Gap Psychology.

Here are the CRFB notables, whose mission in life seems to be to help the rich become richer by widening the Gap between the rich and the rest. They have been quite successful.

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Just when you’re ready to give up on this world . . .

I’m 86 years old. I already have lost my wife, and even with the most favorable of circumstances, I don’t have much time, and certainly, not much good time, left to enjoy.

So, in the past few years, I had begun to believe in a bleak, short future.

Psychopathic Donald Trump and his immoral, bigoted, hate-mongering acolytes have gained sway.

The amoral Mitch McConnells, the Lindsey Grahams, the Marjorie Taylor Greenes have risen, not on the basis of any good works, but rather because they appeal to the basest instincts of humanity.

Fox News and the loathsome Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, Qanon, Breitbart, the many other conspiracy theorist websites, all have become so popular, that their brand of hatred threatens to win the next American elections.

Even a vicious and violent attack on Congress, attempting to overthrow the foundation of American democracy — our elections — no longer provokes outrage, at least among the millions who are committed to Trumpism.

The ongoing efforts to restrict voting rights, women’s rights, healthcare, and aid for the needy have received near-unanimous voting support from one of our two, major political parties.

Everywhere I turn, I see acrimony, malice, and prejudice replacing respect, love, and human concern.

So, just when I was ready to give up on the America of “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” — just when I believed that the “Shining city on a hill” of which Ronald Reagan often spoke — just when I believed my America was irretrievably lost, I came upon this article:

Chicago woman goes on a hunger strike for slavery reparations - Chicago Tribune — **Rachelle Zola**

‘Am I willing to die for this?

’ By Nara Schoenberg Chicago Tribune, nschoenberg@chicagotibune.com

She’s white. She’s 73. And she’s on a 40-day hunger strike for slavery reparations. Rachelle Zola began the 40-day, all-liquid hunger strike to support HR 40, a House bill that would set up a commission to study reparations.

Ms. Zola had never been to Chicago. She didn’t have friends or family here. But in summer 2019, she bought a 1969 Mercury Sable with no heat and an oil leak, and drove here from Tucson, Arizona, with a single goal.

Zola wanted to live among Black and brown people. She went to the North Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side, and began attending meetings and seminars, theatrical productions, symposiums and conferences.

She accepted every invitation, telling those who were curious that she was there to listen and learn.

“Everybody was like, this white woman keeps showing up,” Zola said, laughing. But Zola, a former special education teacher who joined the Peace Corps at age 59, pressed on. Deeply moved by the stories of racism she heard in Chicago, she started sharing them on YouTube.

And then, on May 16, she took a step that was even more radical. She embarked on a hunger strike on behalf of one of the most ambitious and elusive goals of the U.S. racial justice movement: reparations — or making amends through payments or policy — to Black people for slavery.

This is the point at which the bigots, the haters, and the deniers leave the “shining city.” They try to diminish the true horror of slavery and its long-lasting effects that even today, stain our land.

Bright-eyed and energetic during a recent interview, Zola has made it to Day 32 of her all-liquid diet of water, Pedialyte and bone broth. “My question to myself was, am I willing to die for this? And it became ‘yes’ because of all of the (Black and brown) people I know,” Zola said.

“Am I willing to die for my brothers and my sisters when there’s an injustice? The answer is yes.”

Still, she said, she won’t knowingly put her health in danger, and at this point she’s doing well. Her hunger strike, which she hopes will extend to at least day 40, has received support from Dominican University in River Forest, and she’s being hosted during the day by Cosmopolitan United Church in Melrose Park, where she sits on the front lawn, ready to talk to passersby.

Zola’s specific demand is that Congress pass HR 40, a bill establishing a federal commission to hold hearings on slavery and discrimination, and to recommend remedies.

The bill was first introduced more than 30 years ago.

Zola is a bit of a mystery — sometimes even to her closest friends: She’s an intensely spiritual person who receives callings to go to out-of-the-way places and perform daunting tasks. A world traveler who makes friends — and dispenses hugs — with astonishing speed.

In Chicago, she wants to be a conduit for other people’s stories — a white person who can capture the attention and curiosity of other white people.

She bristles with outrage and hurt as she tells the story of a 17-year-old Black girl who, upon noticing the scared faces of two white passersby, thought there was something terrible behind her, perhaps a mad dog.

But when the girl turned and looked, Zola said, there was nothing, and the girl realized that she, herself, was the object of the strangers’ terror.

We digress, for a moment, to point out the “whataboutisms” and the denials that exist among those who have not personally experienced bigotry. Consider Trump appointee and former Attorney General, William Barr:

By Newshound Ellen: In Bill Barr’s America, racism is a thing of the past and if Blacks didn’t behave so badly, they wouldn’t have problems with the police.

And he cited an old quote from Jesse Jackson as “proof” that being afraid of Blacks doesn’t make you (i.e. him) a racist.

I wonder how many Black people who have been needlessly stopped by the police Barr has actually talked to. I’m going to guess none.

Meanwhile, get ready for your jaw to drop as Barr pointed to racist behavior by Blacks to justify racist behavior by whites. It was part of a lengthy interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN today.

Barr: “Racism usually means, you know, that I believe that because of your race, you’re a lesser human being than me and I think there are people in the United States that feel that way. but I don’t think it is as common as people suggest.

“And I think we have safeguards to ensure that it doesn’t really have an effect on someone’s future.“

BLITZER: “There’s no doubt there’s been a lot of progress. but do you think Black people are treated differently by law enforcement than white people?”

BARR: “I think there are some situations where statistics would suggest that they are treated differently. but I don’t think that that’s necessarily racism.

“Didn’t Jesse Jackson say that when he looks behind him and he sees a group of young black males walking behind him, he’s more scared than when he sees a group of white youths walking behind him? Does that make him a racist?”

Here we have Trump’s Attorney General, the man who occupied America’s highest Justice Department position, claiming that being “treated differently” because of your skin color is not racism (What is it, then?)

And that racism “doesn’t really have an effect on someone’s future.”

And racism “isn’t common” and “there’s been progress,” (so why worry about it?) and even Jesse Jackson is afraid of black men, but that isn’t racist. (Except if it isn’t racist, what was he afraid of?)

“Whataboutisms” and denials — in short, “Racism is rare, and I’m not a racist, but even blacks are racist, so being treated “differently” is OK.”

It’s the garbled excuses similar to, “I never did it and I won’t do it again.”,

Zola also recalled the story of a Black man who attended a parent-teacher conference for his son, then in sixth grade. The teacher acknowledged that the man’s son was doing his work and performing well, but still, there was a concern.

The son was rude, the teacher said, asking pointed questions in class. The man noted that his son was just doing what kids are supposed to do in a learning environment. A white boy would have been praised for such curiosity and initiative, he said.

And then there were the injustices closer at hand. On a crystal-clear morning Monday, Zola was joined at a table in front of Cosmopolitan United Church, as she often is, by her friend Mazell Sykes, 71, of Maywood.

The duo met early in Zola’s Chicago odyssey when Zola visited the North Lawndale Justice Community Court, where Sykes leads peace circles. The two women, one Black, one white — both with short hair, long bangs, eye-catching necklaces and “Rachelle for H.R. 40? T-shirts — chatted easily and laughed at each other’s jokes, but the mood shifted when a reporter asked Sykes what had brought her out in the hot sun.

She spoke about slavery in general, and about rape in particular. “The thing that would get me the most is that a white man could take a Black girl, a Black woman, and have sex with her, and she had no rights, and he could do that as often as he wanted. It was nothing,” she said.

“I just want people to just, down in their gut, imagine how that would feel, if someone did that to you. I was raped when I was a kid, so I know how it feels, but it only happened to me one time. But just think that you live in this situation, and you know this man can come and have you whenever he wants you.

“Can you just in your gut feel, how would you go on after that?”

Actually, no. The men who run America, particularly the white supremacist, bigoted conservatives of today, cannot feel in their gut what being raped feels like.

They, like Barr, claim it’s rare but also common, non-existent but even blacks do it, and things are getting better, even though they weren’t bad before, so why get upset about it?

Growing up in Mississippi, the descendent of slaves, she had to skip school three days at a time — to pick cotton, she said. “It’s not a game, it’s not a fairy tale. We lived it,” she said.

“The white man would come to my father’s house at night, and he would tell my father, tomorrow I need this whole field chopped. So that means your children aren’t going to school tomorrow.”

She and her siblings would cry, she said, and the other kids would laugh at them as they rode by in the school bus. “When we did go to school, just imagine: me missing three days of class. What can the teacher teach me? Where would she start? And then, if she gave me homework or makeup work, how was I going to do it? It was a vicious cycle, and this — this was my life in Mississippi.”

Has Mississippi changed so much, now? Has Alabama? Georgia? Louisiana?

Is an inordinate number of American blacks being shot by American police? Are police denying and covering up the killings of blacks, even when confronted with body camera footage?

What happens when there is no video to support the black victim’s version?

Zola, who grew up on Long Island, said she didn’t have a Black friend until 2015, and that while she was outraged after the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers in 1991, she didn’t go out and protest.

The point isn’t guilt, she said; that’s not what she’s about. The point is the depth of the suffering that Black people have experienced and continue to experience, and how easy it can be for white people to look the other way.

“I look at myself as a case study,” she said. “How could I get to be this age and not know the harm? The quick answer is I wasn’t reading those books. I wasn’t reading ‘Just Mercy.’ I wasn’t reading ‘The New Jim Crow.’ I wasn’t reading any of it. What’s amazing now? ‘The Long Shadow’ — that documentary of 90 minutes — if that doesn’t touch your heart, I don’t know what will.”

Zola was 59, married to the love of her life and painting the walls of their rental home in Colorado when she was hit by a deep, unshakable knowledge that she was supposed to leave the country. “It was shocking for both of us,” she said of herself and her then-husband, from whom she was divorced seven years ago.

She felt she had no choice but to go; he said he’d stay — this was her path, not his.

She called the Peace Corps, and within months, the former special education teacher was in Jordan, training teachers. The experience, she said, was intense and transformative. People gave her candy, food and drinks. They watched out for her and helped her.

“I never felt such love as I felt in Jordan,” she said. In 2015, she went on a personal pilgrimage in Shikoku, Japan, walking 700 miles in 67 days with a 25-pound backpack. She went to Ecuador in 2016, after a series of earthquakes hit the country, and worked in a children’s home. She also lived and worked in Mexico.

Jordan, Japan, Ecuador, Mexico, and yet she was being true to the American self-view that proclaims:

“The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

She is far more true to the America I want to love than is the former American President who told you Mexicans are rapists, and the Chinese spread myths about global warming, and the Muslims are terrorists and traitors, and immigrants (who “aren’t people; they are animals”) come from “shithole countries,” and our soldiers, who give their lives, are “suckers.”

“Things come up that she knows she can contribute to, or help, or be of service in some way, and that’s where she goes. That’s why she’s on the planet, I guess,” said her friend Diana Keck, 78, a psychotherapist in Boulder, Colorado.

“She’s just an extraordinary woman, and I’m pleased to say one of my best friends.”

Zola said she was hoping that, by now, the hunger strike would have gained more traction. She and Sykes got honks and waves Monday morning while sitting at the table in front of the church, but no one stopped to ask questions.

Politicians have been conspicuously absent.

Worse than absent, politicians have been America’s primary deniers and liars. Politicians, more than any other group, have been responsible for the moral decline of America.

Social media response has been uneven, with one TikTok getting 32,000 views, but many getting a few hundred or a few thousand.

Still, she presses on cheerfully, trying to get someone to help her with her TikTok skills and looking forward to a Q&A with “The Long Shadow” director Frances Causey, scheduled for Wednesday.

After the hunger strike ends, she said, she’d like to get a van and go from town to town, speaking about reparations, getting the word out. The details still need to be worked out, but — as is so often the case with Zola — the vision is clear.

“This is phase one, and I’m not going away,” she said.

So perhaps, in my doddering years, I may — may — have hope for America, for I now, thanks to Nara Schoenberg, have found a real American, a diamond amidst the coal.

She is a voice of kindness and compassion amidst the cacophony of lies and hatred, greed and intolerance, that have become the new normal in America.

I pray Rachelle Zola forever will be remembered as the true American who lifted her lamp of humanity beside America’s golden door.

I pray she, not Trump, will make a permanent difference in America.

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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.”

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming cheat the poor.

Actually, if you live in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming, your poor fellow citizens are not the only ones being cheated.

Poor or rich, if you live in those states, you are being cheated, too. Common Issues and Barriers to Access - Accessibility at UB - University at Buffalo

Medicaid incentive fails to sway holdout states

By Geoff Mulvihill and Jeffrey Collins Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Democrats’ nearly $2 trillion coronavirus relief package includes a big financial incentive for the states that have opted against expanding Medicaid to provide health coverage for more low-income Americans. It’s proving to be a tough sell.

Top Republican elected officials in the dozen states that have resisted expanding coverage under a key provision of former President Barack Obama’s health care law. Some have softened their opposition, but the key gatekeepers— governors or legislative leaders — indicated they have no plans to change course.

The federal government already pays 90% of the costs of expanding Medicaid coverage to more low-income adults.

If you are a political leader of any of these dozen states, all you needed to do was allow your low-income residents to receive health care.

The federal government would have been paying essentially the full cost for more than four years.

But you have refused free money from the federal government.

Thirty-six states have signed on to the expansion. Two more — Missouri and Oklahoma — are scheduled to begin their expansions in July.

Under the enticement included in the new coronavirus relief bill adopted by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden, the federal government would boost its share of costs in the regular Medicaid program, which offers coverage for the poorest Americans.

An analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation found the additional federal money would cover 150% to 400% of the cost for the holdout states to expand Medicaid.

In Texas, the incentives would send the state about $5 billion over two years. More than 1.4 million people in the state could become eligible for coverage.

For Georgia, the estimate says it would add a net $710 million to state coffers and in Tennessee, $900 million.

But your Republican state leaders have refused the money. Why? Two reasons?

It would help low-income people, and the GOP is the Party of the Rich. It cares nothing for the poor. Remember, when it gives tax breaks, it gives them to the rich.
It is a program initiated by the Democrats. Because the GOP hates the Democrats, they refuse everything proposed by Democrats. You, a taxpayer in those dozen states, are punished by that hatred.

“It’s the literal offer you can’t refuse, but let’s see if anyone refuses it, anyway,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser at the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

In Mississippi, one of the nation’s poorest states, advocates say up to 300,000 people — about one-tenth of the state’s population — could become eligible for health coverage if the state adopted the expansion.

Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, said he’s not going for it. He opposed it, even as the Mississippi Hospital Association said it could bring up to 19,000 jobs to the state.

“My position has not changed,” he said this week. “I am opposed to expanding Medicaid in Mississippi. I am opposed to ‘Obamacare’ expansion.”

Who cares that the poor can’t afford healthcare? Not Reeves. Not the GOP.

He calls it the “Obamacare expansion,” so naturally he opposes it, no matter the benefit to Mississippi.

In three of the states — Kansas, North Carolina and Wisconsin — the Democratic governor favors expansion but can’t convince a Republican-controlled legislature.

“It’s not a big enough bribe,” said Richard Hilderbrand, the chair of the Kansas Senate health committee.

Most politicians see the political advantages in helping the disadvantaged. After all, it is the American way, to help the underdog. Healthcare is a fundamental benefit that states provide to all their citizens.

But when your mind and heart are so hardened against the Democrats and against the people who traditionally vote Democratic, even money and jobs aren’t enough to reward you for being moral.

Many Republicans remain concerned about the long-term costs of the program and are ideologically opposed to expanding government health care to working-age adults.

These are the same politicians who themselves receive free health care insurance compliments of the voters, but are “ideologically opposed” to others receiving such a benefit. (“I’ve got mine; who cares about you.”)

“I acknowledge that there are some gaps in coverage that need to be addressed, but I think they can be addressed in ways that do not require us to create a whole new level of entitlement in the state of North Carolina,” said state Senate Leader Phil Berger, a Republican

“Some gaps” is a euphemism for “poor people are screwed.” And “they can be addressed” means “I don’t have a plan and I have no intention of creating one, and every time someone comes up with a plan, I vote against it.”

It’s a similar story in Wisconsin, where the GOP-dominated Legislature and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers are at odds over the expansion. The Democrats’ coronavirus aid package doesn’t change that, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said earlier this month.

“It’s a non-starter, and we will continue to oppose the liberal wish list item of Medicaid expansion,” he said.

“Oppose the liberal wish list” means “I will vote against anything that helps our poor Wisconsinites or is proposed by Democrats. I’m against both those things.”

Hempstead, of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said Medicaid expansion is a way to address one of the biggest shortcomings in the national health care landscape: How to get coverage for a group of adults whose incomes put them below the poverty line — $12,880 for a person living alone.

In states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, there are about 2.2 million such people, the Kaiser study found. They usually don’t qualify for traditional Medicaid programs. They also do not make enough to be eligible to buy subsidized private coverage on the health insurance marketplaces established under Obama’s overhaul.

Another 1.8 million in those states who make slightly more — up to $17,774 for an individual — qualify for subsidized coverage but often can’t afford it. They could be covered through an expansion of Medicaid.

The GOP says, “Who cares about those people? Let ’em get sick and die. Let their kids get sick and die. How much money did they contribute to my political campaign?”

Studies have found that adding coverage for these lower-income people reduces charity care in hospitals, allows some to be healthy enough to work and creates additional health care industry jobs.

The financial benefits partially or totally offset the states’ share of the costs over time.

Even in the holdout states, those arguments catch the attention of some Republicans. In Alabama, Gov. Kay Ivey left open the possibility of expanding Medicaid at some point in the future, but there are no plans to do so.

“The problem has always been how to pay for it,” Ivey spokeswoman Gina Maiola said.

Excuse me, Gov. Ivey, but the federal government already has told you how to pay for it. The feds will pay for it. You can’t get away with the phony “pay for it” excuse. Voters aren’t that dumb.

The real problem is a relatively recent one. It began during the Obama administration. The GOP measures loyalty to party and Trump above loyalty to America.

Any Republican who agrees with anything said or proposed by a Democrat, no matter how beneficial and accurate that thing may be, will be labeled a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only).

The party will attempt to ostracize you. Trump will insult you and work against you in the next election. You will be called a “socialist” and a “communist.”

You only will receive respect from the GOP if you are a Trump bootlicker, who for instance, wishes to eliminate Obamacare with nothing to replace it, or to lie about the CORONA virus.

It was not always thus. There actually were times past when the two parties could pass legislation to benefit America’s less fortunate. (Hard to believe, isn’t it?)

Today, Fox News, NewsMax, and conspiracy theories run the GOP. Those folks think your patriotism is not measured by how much you care about Americans, but rather about how much you hate immigrants and Democrats, and how hard you wave a flag — especially a Confederate flag.

So you of the “dirty dozen” states that refuse federal money, continue to pay your state taxes, knowing those state tax dollars could be less if there were more federal dollars coming in.

At least you have the good feeling that comes from not lifting a finger, even when paid to do so, to help those in your state who are less fortunate than you.

We only can hope this is temporary. One day, Trump and his Trumpist stooges will be gone, and America can return to being the compassionate beacon of morality most of us want it to be.

We want a return to America the beautiful, not America the mean-spirited, selfish, uncaring, hard-hearted, bigoted . . .

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:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
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.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: