Tag: Ten Steps to Prosperity

Why do we even have a national government, anyway?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Have you ever asked yourself, “Why do we need a national government?”

Probably not, because except for the relatively few extreme Libertarians, most of us understand that anarchy is a bad solution for human society.

But why? What is the purpose of government? I suggest the purpose of government can be summarized in one word: “Protection.”

Government is designed to protect the weak from the strong, the good from the evil, the domestic from the foreign. Government protects us from bad people, bad water, bad food or no food at all.

If a government doesn’t provide protection, why have a government?

Image result for magic lamp
Freedom, choice, and liberty

 

Imagine you find a magic lamp. You rub it and out pops a genie who says, “I am the American Genie. I can do anything for America.

“I can feed, house and clothe the poor, educate the children, care for the sick and the elderly, support the arts, fight crime, and protect the nation from its enemies. No limits.

“And it will cost you absolutely nothing.  You just have to tell me what to do.”

What will you tell the genie to do? Anything? Nothing?

Would you have the genie help the unfortunate, or would you withhold help and instead, demand self-sufficiency by the poor? Would you help feed the poor, or would you say that helping them makes them dependent?

Would you let some children suffer and die as a lesson to others? Would you feel that helping them takes away their freedoms?

Would you have the genie fight crime or would you feel that the genie already was too powerful and should be made smaller?

The U.S. government is the “genie.” Being Monetarily Sovereign, its wealth is unlimited. It can afford anything. Its spending costs you nothing. Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending forever.

Financially, the U.S. federal government has the ability to provide food, housing, clothing and health care for everyone — but should it?

These are the questions that face all governments, even those that are not Monetarily Sovereign. These are the questions that define the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.

Here are excerpts from a New York Times article that deals with these questions:

A Republican Principle Is Shed in the Fight on Health Care
By Jeremy W. Peters, http://www.nytimes.comView OriginalMay 8th, 2017

WASHINGTON — As they take their victory lap for passing a bill that would repeal and replace much of the Affordable Care Act, President Trump and congressional Republicans have been largely silent about one of the most remarkable aspects of what their legislation would do: take a step toward dismantling a vast government entitlement program, something that has never been accomplished in the modern era.

All government programs are “entitlement,” in that each program is supported by those who believe Americans are entitled to the service.

Is the military an “entitlement” program? As an American, are you “entitled” to military protection?

Are food, water, and drug inspection “entitlement” programs? Are you “entitled” to clean, food and water, and safe drugs?

Are you “entitled” to protection from dishonest bankers and contractors, protection from tornados, hurricanes, and floods, protection from burglars and robbers?

Are our children entitled to good schools, warm clothing, and a safe, healthy environment, even if we are poor?

Are you, as an American, entitled to medical care and other protections you cannot afford to buy for yourself. Are these the sort of protections you would want your government “genie” to provide?

Which exactly are the “entitlement” programs you feel the government should not provide, if any?

Fighting the expansion of the so-called welfare state is a fundamental premise of the American conservative movement.

“Welfare state” is a term that, like “entitlement program,” is what the government does for poorer people.  The term does not seem to include benefits to the rich, like tax benefits and other “first-in-line” benefits, which are “just rewards.”

So conservatives have now cast aside their high-minded arguments of political principle . . . the free market, personal responsibility and smaller government.

If you are a conservative, what exactly is a “free market”? How does it work? Is it similar to a lawless market?

And what is “personal responsibility.” For what should a person be responsible vs. for what should a government be responsible?

And how do you define a “smaller” government? How many people should the federal government employ? How much money should it spend?

What is the purpose of a “smaller” government? 

Conservatives had pushed Congress to pass a clean repeal bill in the first days of Mr. Trump’s presidency. They feared that the longer they waited, the more time Democrats would have to argue that Republicans wanted to callously rip benefits away from hard-working Americans.

But if Republicans don’t want to “callously rip benefits away from hard-working Americans,” what exactly do they want regarding benefits to hard-working Americans?

With new government benefits, he said, comes incredible political power.

Is it “political power,” not “entitlements,” that the discussion really is all about?

William Voegeli, a senior editor at the Claremont Review of Books, a conservative journal, pointed to a long list of government programs that Republicans have promised to defund or eliminate — the National Endowment for the Arts, public broadcasting, the Department of Education and, of course, the Affordable Care Act — amid the expansion of the liberal “administrative state,” to use a term popular inside the Trump administration.

You are a citizen of the United States. The government is aMonetarily Sovereign “genie,” so the National Endowment for the Arts, public broadcasting, the Department of Education and Affordable Care Act cost you nothing.

How would your life be better without these programs that cost you nothing?

“You run on election cycle after election cycle with Republicans complaining but never taking the obvious next step,” Voegeli said. “And eventually you’re going to get a lot of restless conservatives out there.”

Who are the “restless conservatives out there”? Are they the rich or are they the rest of us? Is it we “not-rich,” who don’t want the American government “genie” to provide free benefits to the people?

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said Republicans had “accepted the fact that the electorate sees health care as not just any commodity, like purchasing a steak or a car. It’s something now people have a sense the government ought to guarantee.”

Are you among those conservatives who believe the government “genie” should not provide free health care? If so, why?

Then Mr. Trump, who had campaigned on preserving programs, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that his party had aimed at in the past, said on Twitter less than two weeks before Inauguration Day that a replacement must accompany a repeal — much to the surprise of Mr. Ryan and the party leadership on Capitol Hill.

The complexity of unraveling the Affordable Care Act became evident to Republicans even before Mr. Trump was sworn in, as they started planning their legislative agenda for his first 100 days. Led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, the party assumed that a repeal would be one of the first items — if not the first — on its calendar. 

Why would you say that the Republicans had “aimed at” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?” How would you have benefitted if these programs had been cut?

What would have happened if ACA simply had been repealed?  Why did Ryan want to repeal it, without a replacement?

The health and human services secretary, Tom Price, told NBC News that the goal was something that Republicans usually dismissed as utopian fantasy: universal coverage.

“What we’re trying to do is to make certain that every single person has health coverage,” he said.

How would the Republicans make certain that “every single person has health coverage,” without federal funding? Why have Republicans dismissed universal health care coverage as a “utopian fantasy”? Do they really believe that the U.S. government is not Monetarily Sovereign?

Republicans in the past often framed the debate in terms of personal freedom, choice and liberty — as opposed to the soft tyranny that can come through well-meaning laws.

“The debate over power and authority here is really a slugfest over who makes key decisions,” said Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “and whether the key decisions in health care ultimately should end up in the hands of a government office or in the hands of individuals who are exercising free choice.”

How does single payer health care insurance impinge on “personal freedom, choice, and liberty? What is the “choice” gained by people who financially are forced to do without insurance?

Here are six false beliefs that bedevil the discussion of universal health care funded by the federal government:

1. The false belief that the federal government is not Monetarily Sovereign, that federal taxes fund spending, and that with a federal single-payer system, healthy people pay for sick people.
The reality is that the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses tax dollars, and with federal single-payer, no one — neither the sick nor the healthy — needs to be made to pay for health care insurance.

2. The false believe that a smaller federal government would be less intrusive or oppressive than a larger federal government or a state or local government.
The reality is that life itself can be oppressive, especially for the poor, and providing benefits that otherwise would be unaffordable for the poor does not make a government oppressive. Federal benefits make life less oppressive.
Further, transferring obligations to the states, merely makes the states an extension of the “too big” federal government, and does not diminish the supposed “oppressiveness” of government. Such a transfer actually enlarges government.

3. The false belief that federal financial obligations are more affordable if transferred to state and local governments.
The reality is that state and local governments are monetarily non-sovereign, so their expenses are funded by taxpayers. Unlike federal health care support, when the states fund health care, the healthy do pay for the sick.

4. The false belief that state government provides more freedom of choice than does the local government.
The reality is that each person has their own needs and desires, and a state is even less likely to provide for these needs and desires than is the federal government, because of the financial constraints the states face.
Many states already have proved they care nothing about the well-being of their poorer residents by refusing to expand Medicaid, even when the federal government offered to pay for the expansion.

5. The false belief that the poor and middle-classes are lazy “takers,” who only want “free stuff,” and who need to be taught self-sufficiency.
The reality is that the poor and middle-classes on average, work harder than do the rich. They are not rich for lack of trying, but rather for lack of luck.

6. The false belief that federal benefit spending will cause hyperinflations like those experienced by Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe.
The reality is that the U.S. never has had a hyperinflation — not through wars, recessions, depressions or natural disasters.
Further, the Fed successfully controls inflations via interest rate control.

In Summary: There are no moral or logical reasons for denying federally-funded, comprehensive Medicare to every man, woman, and child in America. The federal government can afford it.  It won’t cost anyone anything. And rather than being oppressive, free health care is liberating.

The rich don’t want it. They want to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest, so any benefits to the not-rich are an anathema.

The rich spend billions to brainwash the populace into advocating benefit restrictions on the not-rich. The use terms like “freedom,” “choice,” and “liberty,” when they really mean: The freedom to suffer, the choice of misery, and the liberty to be slaves to the rich.

In a great nation, there is no excuse for anyone being denied the finest health care, just because of finances. Donald Trump was right. We can “make America great again.” But cutting benefits is not the way to do it.

Parents should never have to decide if they can afford to save their child.

We are fortunate that we have an American “genie,” that can afford benefits to the populace. By what rationale do we reject that free service?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Gap Psychology: Why are you so surprised, America? It is you who allowed this.

During Barack Obama’s 8-year Presidency, not one criminal bank CEO was arrested, much less prosecuted, much, much less convicted.

Now, Obama is scheduled to receive $400,000 for a one-hour speech at a luncheon organized by Cantor Fitzgerald LP, a mid-sized New York-based investment bank.Image result for obama money

Why are you surprised?

I’ve told you for years that our thought leaders are bribed by the rich:

The economists are bribed by contributions to universities and by employment at “think tanks.”

The media are bribed by ownership and by advertising dollars.

And the politicians are bribed by campaign contributions and by promises of lucrative employment later.

And now, the former President of the United States is about to cash in his voucher. It’s all so normal, I wonder why you find this strange or outrageous or unseemly.

Like all crooked politicians (are there any other kind?), Obama always has followed the money. Remember, it was the infamous Chicago pols who put this inexperienced young “community organizer” (i.e. agitator)  into office in the first place.

What do the rich get for their efforts and their money? Several things:

  1. They get to romp with the powerful. (When was the last time you were invited to a private meeting with the President? Ever play golf with your Senator? Ride in Airforce 1? Pay enough, and you will.)
  2. They get tax breaks, and business advantages, and personal favors, and most importantly:
  3. They get to widen the Gap between them and the rest of us (aka “Gap Psychology”).

The “Gap” is the distance between the rich/powerful vs. the “others.” And indeed, there are many Gaps.  There even are Gaps between multi-billionaires and just plain, ordinary billionaires.

In the old days, Gaps often were based on family heritage. You may have heard the poem:

“Boston, dear Boston, the land of the bean and the cod
Where the Cabots speak only to the Lodges,
and the Lodges speak only to God” 

Today, there remains a bit of that in some parts of Europe, with their dukes and earls and counts and princes and all. But in America, money and political power talk, sing, and dance far better than do family names.

The Gaps are what make some people richer and more powerful than others. Without the Gaps, no one would be rich. We all would be the same.

The wider the Gaps, the richer and more powerful they are. If everyone on earth owned a million dollars, there would be no Gaps and no one would be considered rich. But if one person had just a thousand dollars, and everyone else on earth had only one dollar, that one thousand-dollar-person would be considered rich — the richest person in the world.

“Gap Psychology” says that we humans commonly wish to distance ourselves from those below us on some income/wealth/power scale, while aspiring to be closer to those above.

Would you rather be invited to Bill Gate’s house or to the hovel of someone who lives in a slum? C’mon, be honest.

The Gaps are important to all of us, and the rich are prepared to spend mightily to widen the Gaps. They buy yachts and diamonds and huge “show-off” homes, not because the yachts provide a better water experience, or the diamonds are prettier than visually identical zircons, or the “show-off” homes are more comfortable.

The rich buy these things because you can’t. They buy stuff to distance themselves from you. And you, in turn, buy a new Lexus to distance yourself from the guy who can afford only a new Chevy. And he sneers at the guy who can afford only a used Chevy.

It’s Gap Psychology.

And your daughter’s wedding dress that cost you thousands, and she’ll wear only once (you hope) — Gap widening. And what do you think is the real purpose of your wife’s gold jewelry?

And why does she need a designer purse? She could carry her stuff in a shopping bag. Gap Psychology.

Widening the Gap is the single, most compelling goal, not only for the rich, but for most of us. Yes, we have other goals like health, and helpfulness, and joy, and charity, and blah, blah, blah. But the overriding goal of the human species is to widen the Gap below and to narrow the Gap above. This goal is the basis for ambition, progress and winning, and for virtually all fields of human accomplishment.

Widening the Gap is a survival technique for any social animal. Being close to the powerful and far from the weak is smart.

At some level, we all look in the mirror to evaluate what we see. The only way to evaluate ourselves is against some standard. And that standard is other people.

There are two ways you can widen the Gap: Move yourself up or push others down. Either works equally well as a Gap-widening device.

For the rich, Gap-widening means making more money & power and/or making others poorer.

This brings us to The “Big Lie,” the lie that federal financing is like personal financing, in that income is necessary for spending. But, unlike you and me, and the states, counties and cities, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign.

It creates, ad hoc, its sovereign currency, the dollar, by spending. That is the federal government’s method for adding dollars to the economy.  Thus, the federal government never can run short of dollars.

The federal government needs neither to borrow nor to tax since it has no use for income. It creates all the dollars it needs, simply at the touch of a computer key. Whatever the government owes in payment for goods and services, it creates the necessary money simply by sending a wire or writing a check.

Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government still could continue spending, forever.

So why have you been told otherwise? Why have you been told that, for instance, FICA funds Social Security and Medicare, when it doesn’t?

Why have you been told the Social Security “Trust Fund” is running low, though in fact, there is no “trust fund.” It is a bookkeeping fiction.

Why have you been told the federal “debt” (which isn’t really a debt) and the federal deficit (which is necessary for growth) are “unsustainable”?

Why have you been told your children owe the federal debt,  when the so-called “debt” is nothing more than the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank — i.e bank deposits no one owes.

Why have you been told that federally funded Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America would be “unaffordable,” so instead you must live with weak, complicated substitutes like partly funded Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA?

Why have you been told the federal government, which can afford anything and pay anything, is too big, and so should transfer some of its financial obligations to the states, counties, and cities, which being monetarily non-sovereign, can afford nothing?

Why have you been told that the poor, if given financial assistance, will cease working because they are lazy, though in fact, the poor already work harder than do the rich?

Why have you been told these lies by the bribed politicians, media, and economists?

To rule a people requires the cooperation of the people being ruled.

To widen the Gap between the rich and you, the rich need your participation in their game. The rich need you to believe and to defend the idea that Gap-widening is necessary and beneficial and natural.

The rich need you to believe and to defend the idea that federal benefits are unaffordable, inflationary, and undeserved.  The rich need you to believe and to defend the idea that it is only right and logical for their lives to be better than yours.

The rich need you to believe you must pay FICA so that Social Security and Medicare can exist. And that your healthcare must be unaffordable.  And your children’s education either must be unaffordable or must put you deeply into debt. And that the government cannot survive without your tax dollars.  And that you deserve to struggle to feed, clothe, and house your family.

The rich need you to believe inflation — even hyper-inflation — is the inevitable result of federal deficit spending on benefits to you, though the rich have been saying this for more than 75 years without evidence, and a Monetarily Sovereign government has absolute control over the value of its sovereign money.

The rich need you to believe that those “below” you on the totem pole of life, are congenitally inferior and both intellectually and morally deserve their lowly status.

The rich need you to believe this so you will believe you yourself deserve your inferior status compared with the rich. 

The rich need you to believe these things because the rich fear that if ever you discover the truth, you will demand more from the federal government and more equality from the rich.

And that will narrow the Gap between you and the rich, which would make the rich less rich by comparison.

By keeping you in ignorance, the rich make you a co-conspirator in their Gap widening program.

Perhaps you have joined them in saying those poorer than you are lazy, or stupid, or criminal, or immoral, or in many other ways, subhuman.

If you have joined the rich in their bigotry, you have played right into their hands, and have helped assure yourself and your family of an increasingly lower status, compared to the rich. You have done their dirty work by helping to widen the Gap.

So don’t be surprised when Obama suddenly rakes in $400,000 for a one-hour speech that undoubtedly will produce less information than your morning newspaper.

The speech is just payback for valuable services rendered — payback for helping the rich widen the Gap between them and you, and for telling paeons The Big Lie.

“Thank you, Mr. President, for keeping me out of jail and for helping me get even richer.  I told you I’d take care of you. Now, you and your wife can join us billionaires. And, I’ll hire your daughter, too.”

The rich have succeeded in their promulgation of the Big Lie, which is why when someone tries to explain the facts, they will be met with anger and mockery.

It is you, America, who allowed this.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

THOUGHTS

•All we have are partial solutions; the best we can do is try.

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Hey, whoever wrote “Trump’s” tax “plan” may be on to something.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

O.K., so it actually isn’t a “plan.” It’s a simplistic, one page, double-spaced, little note that purports to guide a replacement for our gigantic tax code. It is a little paper that essentially says “we should cut taxes, increase spending, and cut the debt, but you figure out how.”

It reminds one of the double-spaced, “print-in-large-letters” response that we pre-computer high schoolers created, when our teacher gave us the assignment to write about some subject, and we tried to stretch our ignorance over the greatest number of pages.

But at least, we wrote several pages; Trump delivered only one page. And it isn’t actually Trump’s; he had people to write it for him.

But what else could we expect from the best-selling author of “The Art of the Deal,” who never wrote a word of it?

That said, the people who wrote “Trump’s” teeny, weeny non-plan may actually be on to something.

Here is what my favorite voice of the rich had to say:

CRFB President: Trump’s Tax Plan Will Add $5.5 Trillion to the Debt
Maya MacGuineas, Apr 27, 2017

President Trump is on the right track by turning focus toward fixing our nation’s broken tax code.

See how low the bar has become, that when Trump says our tax code is bad, it’s as though he has become a brilliant observer of something no one knew.

Tax rate cuts are important and a driver of growth, but do not be hoodwinked: no way will they pay for themselves.

Actual tax collection cuts (not just tax rate cuts) drive growth in one key way: They add dollars to the private sector.  

Adding dollars to the private sector takes place when the federal government runs domestic deficits. It is the domestic deficit spending that drives economic growth. This is the absolute economic fact that MacGuineas and her CRFB always pretend not to understand.

Growth is sluggish; our 35% corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed world; our strategy for international taxation is a mess; and the income tax seems to get more complicated and opaque every year.

Her comment about the 35% shows why it is not tax rate cuts, but rather, actual tax collection cuts, that are important. Very few corporations pay that 35% rate.

But these problems cannot be solved by simply lowering all business taxes to 15% while cutting taxes for individuals. In fact, the President’s current proposal is likely to worsen our country’s growth prospects by ballooning our record high national debt.

The President’s plan could add over $5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

And this is why we say, the people who wrote “Trump’s” non-plan may actually be on to something.  Anything that stresses MacGuineas about future deficits is good news for America.

Under current law, the primary way to “add over $5 trillion to the national debt” is for the federal government to run multi-billion dollar deficits.

No deficits, no economic growth. (See here [Point 3.])

As a result, debt would rise to a higher share of the economy than any time in history.

If her $5 trillion dollar figure is correct, the federal “debt” will not rise enough.

Last year the debt increase was $875 Billion.   It got us where we are today. But the deficit growth has been declining.

Red line is the increase in the Federal Debt

A mere $5 Trillion increase in federal debt, over the next decade, actually implies a decrease in federal debt growth — the debt growth that cured the Great Recession.

And history shows that when debt growth declines, we have recessions.

Vertical gray lines are recessions, which come when debt growth declines and are cured when debt growth rises.

Continuing with MacGuineas’s comments:

When it comes to tax cuts, there is always the free lunch crowd claiming if we cut taxes, they will pay for themselves through growth. Here in the real world, smart, pro-growth tax cuts can at best cover a fraction of their costs.

“Pay for themselves” means that tax rate cuts supposedly will result in more tax collections. Thankfully, this never has happened.

In fact, large tax cuts can actually harm economic growth by creating a massive debt load.

Federal debt is nothing more than the total to deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.

My local bank advertises and gives rewards — even pays interest — to obtain deposits.  So why deposits should be a burden on the world’s safest, most powerful bank, is anyone’s guess. But it is a common whine among debt worriers.

MacGuineas then offered up her 4-step plan. Steps #1 and #2 are the usual right-wing juggling act that involves taking a lot from lower and middle-class individuals and giving some to rich people and some to rich corporations, and the rest to the government (the latter having no use for tax money)  — resulting in a net loss for the private sector, aka “the economy.”.

But Step #3 is the real goal of the very rich: Cut benefits to the middle classes and the poor:

Step three is to reform our entitlement programs.

Social Security, health, and interest spending are responsible for 82 percent of projected spending growth over the next decade; and both Social Security and Medicare are headed toward insolvency.

The usual “Big Lie.” The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot become insolvent, even if federal taxes were $0. For that reason, no federal agency can become insolvent unless Congress wishes it.

Thoughtful reforms can improve health outcomes, encourage work, strengthen retirement security, and reduce the long-term debt all while protecting the most vulnerable.

And so, that is MacGuineas’s wonderful solution: “Thoughtful reforms” (aka “Cut benefits” for the people). Ah, those thoughtful reforms.

And so we trudge to MacGuineas’s final step:

The final step is to do everything else we can to encourage economic growth.

Faster economic growth needs to be broadly shared so it lifts all incomes, improves everyone’s wealth, and helps our fiscal situation.

Policymakers need to fire on all cylinders — pursuing reforms to taxes and entitlements but also regulations, immigration, federal investment, trade, and energy.

A critical component of the growth agenda is to get our debt under control.

Yep, to encourage economic growth we must “fire on all cylinders” and encourage economic growth.  Wow! Why didn’t anyone think of that?

Most importantly, we must give to the rich, while taking from the middle and the poor. That is the real message.

As for Trump’s one-page, double-spaced, magnum opus, it’s both too much and too little. It’s too much for the debt harpies, who would delight in sending America into a depression, as federal surpluses always do.

And it’s too little if the goal is to grow the economy.

The progressives (are there any?) will hate his one-page paper because it widens the Gap between the rich and the rest. The conservatives will hate it because it doesn’t widen the Gap enough (Is there ever enough?)

The middle will hate it because it doesn’t allow deductions for state and local taxes, and doesn’t make the corporations “pay their fair share,” whatever that may be. And Trump will hate everyone who criticizes

And Trump will hate everyone who criticizes it, because he loathes any sort of criticism.

But the .01%, the truly rich, will love it. Trump’s businesses will love it. Ivanka, the walking, talking conflict of interest will love it. And Jared, the inexperienced, all-purpose expert about everything,  will love it.  

So yes, the people who wrote Trump’s one-page tax “plan” for him are on to something.

And it’s something bad for you and me.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Do you accept our Constitution as the law of our land?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

America is special.

We are special because every 4-8 years, we peacefully change our leadership.  We do not suffer coups or other forms of violent resistance.Image result for constitution

Even when a majority votes for one candidate, but our Constitution dictates that the other candidate has won, we accept the decision.

That is why Donald Trump, and not Hillary Clinton, is our President.

Many feel this violates the spirit of a democratic government, but we respect our Constitution. We respect it even above the word of any of our gods, which is why we accept the separation of Church from State.

On specific issues, many of us may not like what it tells us, but our mutual acceptance of those words makes America special.

We are a diverse, multiethnic nation, but our Constitution gives us the strength of unity. We are strong because we are one.

We are one because of our Constitution.

Our government is divided into three branches, and one branch — the judiciary — is tasked with the responsibility to defend our Constitution. Sometimes it must stand alone and strong against the other two branches, that often feel free to ignore Constitutional restraints.

If the judiciary ever were to yield that strength to the Congress or to the Presidency, America would cease to exist as we know it.

If Congress ruled, America would be a system of feifdoms.

If the President ruled, America would be a dictatorship.

That is why it always is disturbing when a President displays contempt for the Judicial branch.

Donald Trump’s racial comments about Hispanic judge in Trump University case
By Tom Kertscher on Wednesday, June 8th, 2016, Politfact

This was the exchange about the judge between Trump and host John Dickerson on CBS’ Face the Nation. The interview was recorded on June 3, 2016.

Dickerson: Let me ask you about, what does the Mexican heritage of the judge in the Trump University case have to do with anything?

Trump: First of all, I’ve had terrible rulings, forever.

I had a judge previous to him and it would have been a very quick case. This is a case I should’ve won on summary judgment. This is a case — the plaintiff in the case was a woman.  She was so bad that under deposition it was over. I mean, she couldn’t have been the — it was a disaster.

Dickerson: But Mr. Trump, what does this have to do with his parents being from Mexico, how does that —

Trump: Excuse me, excuse me, I’m just saying. We’re getting terrible rulings. We go to the judge, we say to the judge, “Hey, you can’t let her out of the case.” He let her out of the case. We said, “Well, if you’re going to let her out of the case, she’s the plaintiff. If you’re going to let her out of the case, the case is over.” No, the case isn’t over. OK? Now —

He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias. I want to build a wall. I’m going to build a wall. But just so you understand, this judge has treated me very unfairly, he’s treated me in a hostile manner. And there’s something going on.

Dickerson: And you think it’s not because — you think it’s because of where his parents came from?

Trump: Look, I have a case where thousands of people have said it was a great school. They’ve written reviews where they say it’s a great school. Not a good school, like great. They gave it the highest marks.

I have thousands of these papers. It should’ve been a summary judgment case, meaning the case should’ve been dismissed.

Dickerson: Yeah, I guess I’m just still confused how — what his Mexican parents have to do with that. Let me —

Trump: Excuse me. I want to build a wall. I mean, I don’t think it’s very confusing. Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country. And we need a little more common sense, John. And I’m not blaming. I’m proud of my heritage, we’re all proud of our heritage. But I want to build a wall.

Now, the Hispanics, many of them like what I’m saying. They’re here legally. They don’t want people coming and taking their jobs and taking their house and everything else. They don’t want that.

Trump’s position: Because he wants to build a border wall, a judge who was born in America, but whose parents came from Mexico, can’t be fair with regard to Trump University.

Get it?

(Trump University was so “great,” Trump paid a gigantic $25,000,000 penalty for the scam.)  But the real point is not that Trump is a crook, but that he repeatedly disparages the foundation of our American government — the protector of our Constitution, the judiciary — whenever he doesn’t get his way.

Trump is like the petulant child who is angry at the parents who feed, clothe, and send him to college but they won’t let him misbehave.

Chicago Tribune
Federal judge in Hawaii extends order halting Trump’s travel ban

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson: “The entirety of (Trump’s) Executive Order runs afoul of the Establishment Clause, where ‘openly available data support a commonsense conclusion that a religious objective permeated the government’s action.”

Trump called Watson’s ruling an example of “unprecedented judicial overreach.”

And then, after Trump had lashed out at the judiciary about his Trump University scam, and his Muslim ban, apparently he wasn’t finished, when he tried for a third, unconstitutional Executive Order:

Judge cites Trump’s comment in ‘sanctuary city’ ruling
By SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press
Published: April 26, 2017, 11:33 AM

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick quoted Trump to support his decision to block the president’s order to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

Trump called the sanctuary cities order a “weapon” against communities that disagree with his preferred immigration policy, Orrick said. The judge also cited a February interview in which he said the president threatened to cut off funding to California, saying the state “in many ways is out of control.”

The first comment was evidence that the administration intended the executive order to apply broadly to all sorts of federal funding, and not a relatively small pot of grant money as the Department of Justice had argued, the judge said.

The second statement showed the two California governments that sued to block the order — San Francisco and Santa Clara County — had good reason to believe they would be targeted, Orrick said.

Trump reacted to the decision on Twitter on Wednesday morning, calling the decision “ridiculous” and saying he would take his fight to the highest court, tweeting: “See you in the Supreme Court.”

Trump tweeted: “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings.” Trump tweeted that the 9th circuit has “a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80 percent).” He said, “They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system.” 

Among the many, many things Trump doesn’t understand is that the Supreme Court generally takes certain types of appeals — those where there is a high probability of an overturn. It doesn’t take appeals of decisions with which it agrees.

Thus all Circuit Courts experience a high percentage of overturns — 80% is near average  — and the Ninth has not been the highest.

Among Trump’s comments was this one: “(The ruling is) an “egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge.” Does it get any worse than that? District judges, appeals judges and Supreme Court judges are appointed, not elected. Trump seemingly is ignorant of that fact.

Orrick wrote that the jurisdictions successfully showed they “are currently suffering irreparable harm” because the order violates rights granted to states by the Constitution . . . ”

Presidents are Constitutionally precluded from coercing cities, counties,  and states in that way.

Bottom line: Every time Trump doesn’t get a favorable court ruling, he stomps his feet and criticizes the judge.

This is his long-standing pattern, which demonstrates the importance of an independent judiciary.  For instance, there was this tweet with regard to Judge James Robart, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” (The next day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump had “no regrets” about his criticism of judges.)

Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, described Trump’s criticism of the judiciary as “demoralizing and disheartening.” But Trump has “no regrets.”

He wishes to learn nothing about our Constitution and indeed has learned nothing.

Imagine the arbitrary havoc this Congress and Trump could cause without the leash held by our judges and our Constitution. 

This is why America even can survive President Donald Trump. We have a judiciary and a Constitution, and we are people who believe in both.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY