Which America are we, and how did we get here?

Are we this America?

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Or are we the America described by the commenters to this article: Mexico-US tariff deal: Questions, concerns for migration”?

Here are typical comments.

lacy: “concerns over what it could mean for people fleeing poverty and violence in Central America.” what about concerns for the American people?

Northfaced: It’s not that you want to work and have a future for your children. It’s that Americans want that same thing. And it’s an issue of numbers. 5 people can’t have the same job. Thus, we do not need any more people in this country at all. Our own birth rates cover what is needed.

Tim: “Bring us your tired masses” was before there was any public assistance. That term should no longer be valid. But some–millions a year–are taking advantage of that further loophole, to the tune of $77k or more per illegal landing here. Per year. Times millions. Just sat in line at the grocery store where the person in front of me paid for sushi and other non essential items with a combo of WIC card and Lone Star public assistance card. Then she got into her $40k jacked up F-150 truck. See the problem here????

Warren: Question. Why would we ever let in a million foreigners every year who most likely will never obtain legal status and probably don’t care one way or the other?

James: Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and other Central American countries have a population that is improperly educated if at all, unwilling to work, untrained and unskilled, who are depending on their respective Governments for food, medical care and even the most basic of goods and services. THE MORE WHO LEAVE THEIR COUNTRIES IS THE PLAN. THIS IS THE BUSINESS MODEL FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP. It is working.

SR: i find it appalling that any American would welcome mass illegal immigration into the US. for any reason. it’s not the responsibility of the US to help every impoverished nation when most of the problem resides within those nations.

no libs: The root cause of the migration? Easy. Thoughts of sanctuary cities and FREE everything. In other words, the democrat paradise.

gene: The root cause is the media all day everyday stating “Claim asylum and you stay with free housing healthcare and food“. If your homeland is that bad stay and fix it.

Larry C: We have plenty of what they claim to be fleeing here and they would be faced with the same … if they were to get … here so they may as well stay … where they at least know and speak the language (spanish) …!

DanI; there is a bad housing shortage here. rents are commonly over 4 figures. and lesser places are horrible. new homes start at 200k for a cheap townhouse, and single fam homes are a third of a mil. we can’t manage influx of lots of new broke uneducated people. we have plenty of that already. add to that the over the top debt this country has, and we are not able in any way to handle it. THAT should be in the news for them to see.

lisa: It will only be a victory for the U.S. when we quit having hundreds piling up at our border demanding to be let in. Until then, keep those tariffs handy.

Shawn: Just get em out and keep em out.. Plain and simple come in the legal way.

The comments go on and on, all in the same vein.

On the surface, you might think the objections to immigration involve the need for the U.S. government, and taxpayers, to pay for immigrants’ benefits.

Or immigrants taking jobs away from Americans. Or immigrants supposedly not contributing to the economy, but only taking from the economy.

But those are mere excuses for a deeper concern: Gap Psychology.

Regular readers know that Gap Psychology describes the desire to distance oneself from those below in any income/wealth/power measure, and to come closer to those above.

It is Gap Psychology that gives us the seemingly ridiculous situation in which many of us resent the relatively few dollars received from the federal government by a poor person, yet have no concern about the astounding $150 billion that has been blessed upon Jeff Bezos, the head of Amazon.

Some might defend the Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffetts of the world as deserving their wealth because they created it. But did they?

Did Bezos create the Amazon wealth, or did the 600 thousand Amazon employees have a hand in it? And what about the lenders who carried Amazon’s famous debt for all those unprofitable years? And then there are America’s generous (to the rich) tax laws.

Is Bezos more important to the future of America than are the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living here? If we spread Bezos’s $150 billion around to the 11 million undocumented immigrants, each would have almost $14,000.

Is Bezos really more important to the future of America than those 11 million people? Thousands of those people will become entrepreneurs, scientists, teachers, architects, doctors, judges, artists, in total contributing more to America than any Jeff Bezos.

Yet, because of Gap Psychology, the aforementioned “lisa,” “Northfaced,” “Tim,” “Warren,” et al are outraged about an “influx of new broke uneducated people” who, like America’s immigrants through the years, will build this nation far beyond what a dozen Warren Buffetts can accomplish.

The outrage stems not from the question of what is best for America, but rather from the fear that the lower levels might close in on the next levels.

In short, Gap Psychology creates the ironic situation in which we don’t resent the vast privileges of the rich as much as we resent the meager benefits to the poor.

We accept the rich and famous being given preference everywhere, but heaven forbid a poor person cutting ahead in line, and the fight will begin.

No facts can overcome Gap Psychology. You can offer proof that the undocumented immigrants are less criminal, more productive, less taking, more giving, and even more patriotic than native-born Americans, and it will make no difference to lisa, et al.

You can demonstrate why taxpayers do not pay even one penny toward federal aid to immigrants, and you can show that immigrants are no burden on the federal government. It will make no difference.

The issue is not in the facts. The issue is the fear that “they” will climb past us, and in doing so, push us further down some measurement ladder.

So if facts alone will not solve the immigration “problem,” what will?

I suggest that just as Gap Psychology is a reflection of “What am I?”,  the solution must involve the same reflections.

Am I and my America brave or fearful? Heroic or cowardly? Generous or selfish? Cruel or compassionate? Wise or ignorant? Admired or disdained? Loved or loathed?

Image result for shining city on the hill
. . . conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” vs. “America first.”

And this is where our leadership can take us. It sets the tone.

Sadly, today’s America has a “me-first,” “America-first,” selfish, “I’ve-got-mine, to-hell-with-you,” cowardly, lying, anti-science leadership.

Draft-dodging, cheating, bullying and destroying the underdog are seen as clever and strong.

Compassion is thought to be a sign of weakness.

That is today’s America, as given to you by our leaders.

It is not the America of the Declaration of Independence. It is not the America of the Bill of Rights.  It is not the America described on the Statue of Liberty. It is not the America of the Gettysburg Address or of the “I have a dream” speech. America is not Reagan’s “shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

We have become the harsh, selfish, Fox News, Breitbart, Tea Party, Trump/McConnell, despised America, populated by claims of “fake news,” enemies, “stone-cold losers,” and grade-school insults on Twitter.

We have enabled this America, and only we can change it.

If we will.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Here are excerpts from and article in The Verge.

NASA is opening the space station to commercial business and more private astronauts
By Loren Grush, Jun 7, 2019

Today, NASA executives announced that the space agency will open up parts of the International Space Station to more commercial opportunities, allowing companies unprecedented use of the space station’s facilities, including filming commercials or movies against the backdrop of space.

NASA is also calling on the private space industry to send in ideas for habitats and modules that can be attached to the space station semi-permanently.

Now that is a truly excellent idea. As Elon Musk and many other creative souls have ceaselessly demonstrated, government employees are not the only people on this planet who can generate ideas.

Rather than trying to do everything internally, allow the massive resources of the private sector to provide free creativity.

A new interim directive from NASA allows private companies to buy time and space on the ISS for producing, marketing, or testing their products.

It also allows those companies to use resources on the ISS for commercial purposes, even making use of NASA astronauts’ time and expertise (but not their likeness).

If companies want, they can even send their own astronauts to the ISS, starting as early as 2020, but all of these activities come with a hefty price tag.

Wait! Why the “hefty price tag”?

Is it to make sure only serious and thoughtful ideas are proposed?

But, won’t the realities of production and testing be costly enough to separate the dabblers from the legitimate idea generators?

It’s a significant turn for NASA, which has long been antagonistic toward commercializing the ISS.

Russia is more open to ads and branding on the ISS (as it was with the Mir space station) and has sent tourists to the ISS before.

But NASA has strictly prohibited the use of its side of the International Space Station for commercial purposes.

Up until now, any company wishing to send products to the ISS had to show that there was some educational component to the undertaking or that it revolved around some kind of technology demonstration.

No purely commercial projects are allowed to be sent to the ISS, and NASA astronauts are even prohibited from working on experiments if there’s a possibility that the research will be used to make a profit.

Utter nonsense.  Virtually all research may one day be used for a profit.” No one can identify research that never will be used for profits. There is none.

Instead, just consider the irony of communist Russia encouraging commercial ads and branding, while capitalist America opposes profits.

In August, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine formed a committee to look into ways of opening up the space agency to commercialization, arguing that doing so could provide new sources of revenue and name recognition for NASA.

“Is it possible for NASA to offset some of its costs by selling the naming rights to a spacecraft or the naming rights to its rockets?” Bridenstine said to a group of advisers for NASA in August.

“I’m telling you there is interest in that right now. The question is: is it possible? And the answer is I don’t know, but we need somebody to give us advice on whether or not it is.”

Related image
Sorry. You’re not profitable. Bye.

OMG! The idea is not to advance science, but rather to find new sources of revenue for a Monetarily Sovereign government that never can run short of dollars, and in fact has so little use for revenue that it actually destroys all revenues upon receipt.

This is a program that would evolve from idea generation to money generation: “We don’t care if any scientific progress is made. Hey, pay us enough and you can run weddings up there.”

NASA leadership has made it clear that the space agency wants to eventually transition control of the International Space Station and its region of space, low Earth orbit, to the private sector someday.

Image result for privately owned outer space
No trespassing. Property of General Low Earth Orbit, Inc.

They not only want to privatize the ISS, but also privatize low earth orbit?? How about, “This Space Property of General Low Earth Orbit, Inc. No trespassing. If you want to pass through this region of space, buy your ticket on the ground.”

It costs NASA $3 to $4 billion a year to operate the ISS, and by handing over control of the station, NASA could have more money to pursue much more ambitious missions, like the agency’s goals of building a new space station around the Moon and sending humans back to the lunar surface.

The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has infinite money. It cannot unintentionally run short of money, and neither can any of its agencies, unless that is what the government wants.

The federal government could give NASA the $3 to $4 billion a year simply by tapping a computer key.

In 2018, the president’s budget request called on ending direct funding for the ISS by 2025 and ceding operations of the orbiting lab to private companies.

Our current President is just another crooked politician, like the infamous Paul Powell of Illinois, who when talking about patronage jobs reportedly shouted, “I can smell the meat a’cookin’.” 

Privatizing ISS and space (!), simply makes crooked politicians salivate.

To help achieve this, NASA commissioned 12 companies to study ways of establishing a heavy commercial presence in this region of space.

Each company detailed ideas for new private space habitats that could either be attached to the ISS or fly free in low Earth orbit.

Such platforms could serve as “destinations” for research and even private visitors, according to NASA, generating revenue and opening up entirely new business models.

Here, the goal becomes cloudy. Apparently better science isn’t the prime consideration, but rather the objective is to “establish a heavy commercial presence in this region of space.”

But why? Why is our prime concern, not to advance science, but rather to establish a commercial presence in space?

Turning away from science, and focusing on commerce, will assure that the wealthiest .1% will own us forever. Any resultant science will be in the hands of the big corporations and their leaders.

Imagine if Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, et al owned all uses of radio waves, the Internet, cures for cancer, GPS, DNA, computers, gene editing, water on the moon, blockchain, and every other discovery of modern science.

Public science is differently motivated than is private science. Public science, funded by a sovereign government, is motivated by the common good. Private science, funded by the private sector, is motivated by profits.

Ownership of ideas is power. Privatizing the sources of ideas transfers all the power to the wealthiest individuals in the private sector.

“You see, the space agency is looking at probably another 10 years of the ISS being in orbit, and saying, ‘Okay, how do we move forward?’” Jeff Manber, the CEO of NanoRacks, which coordinates shipments and experiments on the ISS, tells The Verge.

“Let’s put our toes in the water on purely commercial projects. Let’s begin to allow tourism. And let’s begin to have the first commercial platforms supported by NASA. And so it’s a very important step forward. This is the beginning of a new chapter.”

Clearly, Jeff Manber “smells the meat a’cookin’.”

There’s nothing wrong with commercial projects, but why do they have to be purely commercial projects? And why is that where we put our toes in the water?

And what makes that a “very important step forward”?

Using the space station will come with some restrictions. NASA is allocating 5 percent of its resources on the station for these commercial activities.

Only 175 kilograms per year in commercial cargo can be sent to the ISS, and NASA crew will only dedicate 90 hours a year to commercial activities.

NASA has also released a list of approved commercial activities that the agency will allow on board. Private astronaut missions to the ISS are limited to two flights a year, and the astronauts will only be able to stay for 30 days.

Right now, the only viable option for crew getting to the ISS is via new spacecraft being developed by SpaceX and Boeing for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, which still haven’t flown people yet.

Bottom line, the restrictions are not derived by scientific limitations, but by restricted funding.

Image result for warren buffett
Warren Buffett: Those who regularly preach doom because of government budget deficits might note that our country’s national debt has increased roughly 400 fold during the last of my 77-year periods. That’s 40,000%!
If you had panicked at the prospect of runaway deficits and bought gold.
You would now have less than 1% of what would have been realized from a simple, unmanaged investment in American business.

We walked on the moon 50 years ago, and since then, politicians have decided not to fund future efforts. Fifty years is an eternity in science.

Imagine the scope of the scientific advances that would have been possible, had the government made dollars available. Rocket ports on the moon to facilitate space travel? The capture of asteroids to protect Earth? Medicine in weightless conditions? Discoveries of life on other moons?

Fifty years of space science stagnation, all because ignorant politicians claimed there weren’t enough dollars — dollars of which the U.S. federal government has an infinite supply.

And still spreading the myth of federal money shortages, the politicians continue to dither about cost:

Using the space station’s facilities will be incredibly expensive. It’ll cost $11,250 per astronaut per day to use the life support systems and toilet and $22,500 per day for all necessary crew supplies, like food, air, medical supplies, and more.

Even power will cost $42 per kilowatt-hour.

Ultimately, one night’s stay would be about $35,000 for one person, according to Jeff DeWit, NASA’s chief financial officer.

Will these folks be rich tourists, hoping to take selfies with the moon, or will they be scientists, hoping to develop ideas that benefit humankind? It doesn’t seem to matter; the only criterion is the ability to pay.

If these people would benefit the people of America, why the desire to charge $35,000 per person? For the same reason American governments pay to educate children, why not pay to educate people in space?

Why is money, of which the federal government has an unlimited supply, the criterion?

Some companies might want to go even bigger and send their own module up to the International Space Station. If they do, NASA has made sure that they will have an available docking port.

Why would a company send up a module? Profits. Why not have the federal government hire the private sector to go up in modules, with the discoveries all coming to the benefit of the populace?

NASA made today’s announcement at the Nasdaq Marketsite, with representatives of more than a dozen commercial aerospace companies in attendance.

And some are already taking NASA up on its new policy. Space habitat developer Bigelow Aerospace, for instance, says it has already booked four private flights of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, and will send up four of its own private astronauts on each mission once the vehicle finally starts carrying people.

Is the purpose of Bigelow Aerospace’s booking four private flights for its own, private astronauts, to benefit humankind — or to benefit Bigelow Aerospace?

And it’s possible that even more opportunities for commercial activities are on their way. NASA executives made it clear that these new policy changes are just the beginning, and that they’re eager to get feedback from the industry.

“This is the beginning of us actively starting open dialogue with the industry to figure out how we can open up space to commercial activities, where revenue can be generated from private sector companies,” said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for human exploration.

If there is anything less intelligent than a federal agency hoping to take dollars from the private sector, I’ve yet to hear it.

The federal government has unlimited dollars. Every dollar taken from the private sector is one fewer dollar for economic growth. That is why federal taxes inhibit economic growth and tax cuts encourage economic growth.

In a healthy economy, the flow of dollars is from the Monetarily Sovereign federal government to the private sector, and not the other way around.

Until the populace understands this, we will have repeats of the unnecessary 50-year lag on trips to the moon and beyond — as well as lags in every field of science.

In summary, the federal government should fund more private access to space to increase the development of worthwhile ideas, not to send private sector dollars to the federal government.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Social Security: How you are being conned

Yes, you are being conned, and the following article from the May 10, 2019 issue of The Week magazine unintentionally tells you how.

Social Security will be insolvent in only 16 years, said Eric Boehm in Reason​.com. That’s the finding of a new report by the program’s trustees, which says Social Security’s costs will exceed its income in 2020.

To put this as gently as possible, you are being fed 100% bovine excrement, with some equus poop tossed in.

It is absolutely impossible for any agency of the U.S. government to become insolvent unless the government wants it to become insolvent. Period.

Image result for greenspan and bernanke
A.G.: “A government can’t become insolvent from obligations in its own currency.”
B.B. “And the suckers never catch on.”

Unlike our state and local governments, our federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

In the beginning, the federal government created an arbitrary number of the original U.S. dollars from thin air.

It continues to do so. (See: “Does the U.S. Treasury really destroy your tax dollars?“)

It also gave those original dollars an arbitrary value, and it continues to do that, too. (See here.)

Even if total FICA collections, which you have been told (erroneously) fund Social Security, were $0, the U.S. government could continue paying SS benefits, without limit.

In fact, even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending forever, and still not borrow.

To cover benefits, the program will have to start dipping into its $3 trillion trust fund.

“If nothing changes,” those reserves will be exhausted by 2035 and recipients will receive only about three-quarters of their expected benefits.

The so-called “trust fund” is a bookkeeping fiction, designed to make you think federal finances are like personal finances.

There is no trust fund. There merely is a bookkeeping account, over which the federal government has total control.

If the government (i.e. Congress and the President) wished, that fictional “trust fund” could show a balance of $100 trillion. Or $0.

Those dollars do not “come from” anywhere. The government owns the balance sheets and puts any entries it wishes into them. (See: Monopoly)

“That may sound like a long way off, but 51-year-old workers today will just be hitting retirement age when the cuts kick in.”

Americans have long known this shortfall is coming, said Noah Rothman in CommentaryMagazine​.com, “and they do not care.

More bovine scat being fed to you. Americans do care, but they have been conned into believing that the only solution is higher taxes or reduced benefits.

In 2005, President George W. Bush unveiled a major effort to reform Social Security. It failed.

In 2012, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan outlined ways to trim the program’s costs.

“They were defeated.” Then in 2016, Donald Trump “explicitly ran against conservative efforts to rein in entitlement spending.” He won.

Americans have voted themselves into an entitlement crisis.

The politicians lie when they tell you that “reforming” Social Security requires benefit cuts or increased taxes. The real reform would be to eliminate FICA taxes and to increase benefits.

There is not a single financial reason why this cannot be done.

Congress could restore the program to health by letting the government invest some “of the Social Security trust fund in the stock market,” said Brett Arends in Barron’s

A truly dopey idea. Not only is the stock market a high-risk investment, inappropriate for an annuity-like account, but the investment is completely unnecessary. The federal government has the unlimited ability to fund Social Security, and with no deductibles.

Further, the notion of the federal government investing in publicly-traded corporate stock is the ultimate of the socialism (i.e. federal ownership and control) that conservatives love to decry.

Federal law says the fund can invest only in low-yielding securities backed by the U.S. Treasury.

That’s why Social Security has earned a “dismal” return of 17 percent on its investments over the past five years.

U.S. stocks over the same period: 49 percent. “Stock returns are more volatile from year to year, to be sure.” But Canada, Australia, and New Zealand invest their national pension funds in stocks and other assets, “and the results have been amazing.”

The “invest in stocks” idea has only two purposes:

  1. To further brainwash you into believing that the Social Security “trust fund” is a real trust fund that is running short of dollars, and
  2. To enrich wealthy shareholders, stockbrokers, and bankers.

Such radical free-market solutions aren’t needed, said Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times.

There are low-risk ways to shore up the program. Right now, the payroll tax that largely funds Social Security only covers wage income up to $132,900.

Two Democratic bills in Congress would remove that cap over time and increase “the payroll tax on the wealthy, who get away with paying an unwarranted low tax rate.”

Wrong. The Social Security program could be “shored up” by completely eliminating FICA, and by ending the pretense that FICA funds Social Security benefits.

But hiking taxes won’t address the key reason Social Security has a cash-flow problem: our rapidly graying society, said Robert Samuelson in The Washington Post.

Wrong, again. The “cash-flow problem” is an invention of the rich, who do not want the non-rich to receive money. (See: “The Gap Psychology con job“)

An American who reaches age 65 can now expect to live for about another 20 years, up from 15 in 1950. That means retirees are claiming more from Social Security than the program’s creators ever intended.

But seniors today are far healthier than in previous generations. “We could be working longer—and should be.” Politicians could stabilize Social Security by gradually lifting its eligibility age to 70.

But our leaders won’t even propose this change “because it is not a vote getter. They should be ashamed.”

Speaking of the program’s intentions, here they are:

Luther Gulick recalling why President Franklin Roosevelt Social Security seeminly was based on payroll contributions, 1941:

“I raised the question of the ultimate abandonment the payroll taxes in connection with old age security and unemployment relief in the event of another period of depression.

“I suggested that it had been a mistake to levy these taxes in the 1930’s when the social security program was originally adopted.

“FDR said, ‘I guess you’re right on the economics. They are politics all the way through.

“‘We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits.

“‘With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.

“FDR also mentioned the psychological effect of contributions in destroying the ‘relief attitude.'”

In short, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the creator of Social Security, did not intend that taxes fund Social Security. They only served as an excuse not to eliminate Social Security.

Image result for bernie madoff
I thought if the government can get away with it, I could, too.

Roosevelt knew that taxes only give the illusion of funding Social Security, but he believed that illusion would protect the program from the “damn politicians.”

Unfortunately, the dishonesty of politicians has proven too great, for they now have turned Roosevelt’s plan inside out; they use FICA as a false excuse for cutting benefits.

The fake FICA/Social Security relationship is a con that is far greater than anything Bernie Madoff ever thought of.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How you can change the world with just two words

All creation involves destruction.

This fundamental truth requires no great insight. Visualize anything that has been created — a painting, a building, a song, a poem, an idea, a theory — and you will see that what preceded it was wholly, or partly, destroyed in its making.Related image

The blank canvas, the random pile of bricks, the notes and the spaces between those notes, the meanings of words, the false beliefs, the earlier truths — all are destroyed by creation.

War is destruction and is one of the most creative of all human endeavors. No fields of the creative arts and sciences are unrelated to war.

This is not to claim that destruction, in of itself, is creative or beneficial. Rather, that beneficial creativity requires some measure of destruction.

With this as background, I suggest that the world can be changed, massively and irretrievably, by the two-word destruction: End FICA.

FICA, otherwise known as the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, supposedly funds Social Security and Medicare. Even its title, which includes the words “insurance contributions” is a lie.

Image result for high rise constructionFICA is a federal tax. Like all federal taxes, it funds nothing. (See: Does the U.S. Treasury really destroy your tax dollars?FICA has nothing to do with insurance or with contributions to insurance.

You wrongly have been told that Medicare, for instance, is funded through trust funds. But these so-called “trust funds” are not anything like private trust funds.

These “trust funds” are fictional accounts that are debited and credited arbitrarily by the federal government. The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which “pays for” Medicare Parts B and D, receives whatever funds Congress authorizes. 

There are no limits on what Congress can authorize. This “trust fund” can run short of dollars only if Congress wants it to run short. This financing has nothing to do with tax collections. It all is strictly arbitrary.

You never had been told that fact.

The elimination of FICA would immediately accomplish one great thing. It would reduce the needless, harmful destruction of private sector dollars, that currently are sent to the U.S. Treasury, where they are destroyed.

Yes, every one of your federal tax dollars that you send to the U.S. Treasury is destroyed upon receipt. It is not saved somewhere for future use. It is destroyed.

By definition, large economies have more money than do small economies. Thus, a growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars. Taking dollars from the U.S. economy restricts economic growth, and even can lead to recessions an depressions.

U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses, which remove dollars from the economy .

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001

Unlike you and me, and unlike businesses, and state and local governments, the U.S. federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign. (See: Monetary Sovereignty, the key to understanding economics.)Image result for planets colliding

As such, the federal government does not save tax dollars in order to pay bills. Instead, the federal government creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a creditor. (See: Have you ever played Monopoly?)

In this regard, no one can answer the question, “How much money does the federal government own?” Retaining the unlimited ability to create dollars at will, the federal government can be said to “own” infinite dollars — or no dollars at all.

Those FICA tax dollars, that are destroyed by the U.S. Treasury, were taken from the salaried class, the very people upon whom economic growth most urgently relies.

More importantly, FICA is resoundingly regressive. It is a tax that widens the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. (See: Gap Psychology.)

All of the above-referenced benefits of FICA elimination pale in comparison to the real benefit. The destruction of FICA would open the way toward the understanding of one great economic truth: Monetary Sovereignty — the unlimited power that a money creator has over its own sovereign currency.

The very existence of FICA lends credence to “The Big Lie,” the false belief that federal taxes fund federal spending.

The Big Lie itself encompasses several sub-lies, such as:

  1. Federal debt is an unsustainable burden on the federal government and on federal taxpayers.
  2. Federal finances are similar to state and local government finances and similar to personal finances.
  3. Social Security, Medicare, and many other federal agencies are in danger of becoming insolvent.
  4. Federal wasteful spending is a burden on federal taxpayers.
  5. Federal deficit spending leads to inflations and hyperinflations.
  6. Federal social spending (incorrectly termed “socialism”) is unaffordable and unsustainable.
  7. Cuts to federal deficit spending (aka “austerity) are financially prudent.

In science, one fact begets another. Many decades after Relativity and Quantum Mechanics first were proposed, discoveries still are being made based on these two great theories. They have shown light on many dark corners of physics.

So too, does Monetary Sovereignty shine a light on the dark corners of economics.

The elimination of FICA would require the open discussion of Monetary Sovereignty, because the immediate question would emerge,  “Who will pay for it?”

Answering that question requires understanding the realities of federal economics, i.e. the realities of Monetary Sovereignty.

Every knowledgable and honest economist understands two truths:

  • The U.S. federal government created an arbitrary number of the original U.S. dollars from thin air and gave them an arbitrary value.
  • The U.S. federal government continues to create U.S. dollars from thin air and retains the power to give them an arbitrary value.

Thus, it functionally is impossible for the federal government to run short of its own sovereign currency, a power it has demonstrated for the entire 240 years of its existence.

And because the federal government cannot run short of dollars, no agency of the federal government can run short of U.S. dollars unless that is what Congress and the President want.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, poverty aids, roads, bridges, education, et al — all federal agencies — cannot become insolvent unless that is what Congress and the President decide, FICA or other tax collections notwithstanding.

The question, “Who will pay for it?” answers itself.  Eliminating FICA will force the federal government to admit that the federal government will pay for goods and services the same way it always has — by creating dollars, ad hoc.

Eliminating FICA will force a rational conversation about Monetary Sovereignty, from which the public finally learns that federal taxes pay for nothing.

(This is unlike state and local governments, which are monetarily non-sovereign, and in which taxes do pay for state and local government spending.)

Further, the U.S. federal government has the unlimited power to give its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar, any value it chooses.

It is a power the federal government has demonstrated many times with respect to silver and gold, and other currencies, most recently in 1971, when the government arbitrarily decided the value of the dollar would float freely on world currency markets.

The federal government retains the power to change that decision, and so, can control and prevent inflation, at will.

Question: What is a U.S. dollar worth? Answer: Whatever the U.S. government says it is worth. The government is sovereign over the dollar.

No doubt, you have been told that federal deficit spending will lead to a Zimbabwe-like hyper-inflation. Yet, no hyper-inflations have been caused by money “printing.”

Inflations are general increases in prices. They always are caused by shortages of goods and services (usually food), with government currency printing being an ignorant government reaction.

Even cursory logic demonstrates the facts. If the price of milk rises, what is the cause? Government money printing? No, the cause is a shortage of milk. That is true of all price increases, including general price increases.

Prices increase when there is insufficient product or services to meet demand. Inflation = shortages.

The cure for inflations, including hyperinflations, always is the same: Increase the availability of whatever products are in short supply, most often, food.

The elimination of FICA will force illuminating discussions of these basic facts.

Finally, you might ask,

“If Monetary Sovereignty is so straightforward, logical and factual, why would the politicians, the media and the economics professors not want you, the public, to know the truth?”

The fundamental reason has to do with Gap Psychology, the human desire to widen the income/wealth/power Gap below, and to narrow it above.

Image result for bernanke and greenspan
It’s our little secret. Don’t tell the people we don’t use their tax dollars.

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.”

Alan Greenspan: “Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “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.

The very rich, who run America and the world, want to become richer. That is the heart of Gap Psychology.

“Rich” is not an absolute; it is a comparative. So there are two ways for the rich to become richer: Either acquire more for themselves or allow you to have less.

The best way to allow you to have less is to prevent the government from giving you more. The rich do not want you to understand that you can have free medical care, free education, free housing and food, free clothing, and all the other things the rich can afford but you can’t.

The rich want to widen the Gaps between themselves and you. So they bribe the sources of information to tell you these things cannot be given to you.

They bribe the politicians via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment, later.

They bribe the media via ownership and advertising dollars.

They bribe the university economics professors via university contributions and jobs at think tanks.

Thus all the misinformation you receive regarding Social Security “insolvency,” and federal debt “unsustainability” and the need for FICA and other federal taxes, etc. originates with the bribes from the rich.

They spend billions to convince you that federal deficits are a danger to you and your children, and the good things in life are unaffordable to the government, and there is no such thing as a free lunch, etc., etc. etc.

It’s called “brainwashing.”

And it works. You undoubtedly have been brainwashed.

Do you know a college professor, or a politician, or a media writer? Ask him or her, “Why exactly is FICA necessary?” If the answer is, “To pay for Social Security,” you will know for certain that he or she has been brainwashed or has been bribed.

Then ask, “Is federal financing the same as state and local government financing?”  and listen for the double-talk.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars, so does not use tax dollars to pay for anything.

This is different from state and local governments, which are monetarily non-sovereign, and which do use tax dollars to pay creditors.

The rich have it all. There is no reason why you too cannot have it all. The rich don’t want that, but you can have it if you don’t fall for the brainwashing.

Think. It’s in your power to change the world.

Begin by demanding the end of FICA. Destroy this harmful tax and along with it, the Big Lies about limits to federal financing.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY