Tag: Ten Steps to Prosperity

Obamacare and the Big Lie

Today, in its seemingly unending effort to promulgate The Big Lie (i.e. that, “federal taxes fund federal spending”), the Chicago Tribune published an editorial titled, “Why Obamacare Failed.”

Here are some excerpts:

Come November, Illinois consumers likely face staggering price hikes for individual insurance policies.

Some types of plans could cost an average of 43 percent to 55 percent more. Ditto across the country:

Many Illinois consumers will find fewer choices because major carriers fled this market.

The Affordable Care Act has been criticized (because) its success depended on states supporting their marketplaces and enrolling healthy consumers.

Yes, the ACA depended on monetarily non-sovereign states and monetarily non-sovereign people paying for the health insurance that the Monetarily Sovereign federal government easily could have, and should have, paid for. (See: Medicare for All.)

Those insurers fled because they didn’t want to lose more money on a market they think likely will never be profitable for them.

So let’s look at the failings and how they can drive solutions:

Obamacare failed because it flunked Economics 101 and Human Nature 101. It straitjacketed insurers into providing overly expensive, soup-to-nuts policies.

It wasn’t flexible enough so that people could buy as much coverage as they wanted and could afford — not what the government dictated. Many healthy people primarily want catastrophic coverage.

Obamacare couldn’t lure them in, couldn’t persuade them to buy on the chance they’d get sick.

Obamacare failed because it charged the public for benefits the government should fund.

The Tribune’s “logic” could apply to all government spending. (i.e. Allow each individual to pay only for as much federal highway as he wants, as much grade school as he wants, as much fire protection as he wants, as much military as he wants, as much food inspection as he wants, as much air safety as he wants, etc.)

And how does anyone know in advance how much healthcare funding he will need? If someone miscalculates and suddenly needs more hospital care than he can afford, what should America do about that person?  What about a poor person who can’t even afford an annual exam?

The rich love pay-for-service plans. Being able to pay for more, they receive the best service.  This may be O.K. in Las Vegas casinos, but not for healthcare.

Obamacare failed because the penalties for going uncovered are too low when stacked against its skyrocketing premium costs.

Next year, the penalty for staying uninsured is $695 per adult, or perhaps 2.5 percent of a family’s taxable household income. That’s far less than many Americans would pay for coverage.

Financial incentive: Skip Obamacare.

True, and that is the whole point of federally funded healthcare insurance.

We shouldn’t penalize people for not being able to afford insurance. Medicare for All would solve that problem.

Obamacare failed because insurance is based on risk pools — that is, the lucky subsidize the unlucky.

The unlucky who have big health problems (and big medical bills) reap much greater benefits than those who remain healthy and out of the doctors’ office.

But Obamacare’s rules hamstring insurers.

They can’t exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and can’t charge older customers more than three times as much as the young.

Those are good goals, but they skew the market in ways Obamacare didn’t figure out how to offset.

True: That is why regular Medicare exists.

Old people get sick more often than do young people. Private insurance is based on the profit motive. If private insurance companies had their way, old people either could not find health insurance or could not afford to pay for it.

Apparently, the rich insurance executives would be happy if insurance companies could “exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and charge older customers more than three times as much as the young.”

Federally funded Medicare for All would solve that problem.

Obamacare failed because it allowed Americans to sign up after they got sick and needed help paying all those medical bills.

Insurance should be structured so that, although you don’t know if you’ll need it, you pay for it anyway, just in case; your alternative is financial doom.

But if you can game the system and, for example, buy auto coverage after you crash into your garage, then you have no incentive to buy insurance beforehand.

True. But Medicare for All would be funded by the federal government, thus solving that problem.

Obamacare failed because it hasn’t tamed U.S. medical costs. Health care is about supply and demand: People who get coverage use it, especially if the law mandates free preventive care.

Iron law of economics: Nothing is free; someone pays. To pretend otherwise was folly. Those forces combined to spike the costs of care, and thus insurance costs.

When the Chicago Tribune says, “People who get coverage use it, especially if the law mandates free preventive care,” they really are saying, “Only the rich should receive full health care, including preventive care. You middle- and lower-income people should settle for the lower quality of the health care you can afford.”

And as for that supposed “Iron law of economics, nothing is free.” Total hogwash.  It is the fundamental expression of what has become known as THE BIG LIE.

The federal government, unlike you, and me, and the cities, counties, and states, is Monetarily Sovereign. It creates free dollars every single day. 

No, your federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Even if FICA and all other federal taxes fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever. Dollars are created by laws, and laws are free.

And no again, this would not cause inflation. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government has absolute control over the value of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. It has the unlimited ability to cause, prevent, or cure inflation.

Obamacare failed because too many carriers simply can’t cover expenses, let alone turn a profit, in this rigidly controlled system. Take Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, the state’s dominant Obamacare insurer.

Last year, for every dollar the carrier collected, it spent $1.32 buying care and providing services for customers, according to BCBS President Maurice Smith. No wonder BCBS is proposing rate increases from 23 percent to 45 percent for its individual plans.

Correct: That is the fundamental weakness of private health-care insurance. It relies on the profit motive. 

Federally funded Medicare for All would solve that problem.

The solutions to Obamacare are implicit in its failures. A repaired or replaced system has to be more flexible, letting insurers offer a wider range of plans so that consumers, not lawmakers or bureaucrats, dictate what’s best for them.

“A wider range of plans” is code for: Plans that cover less and have larger deductibles, i.e poor plans for the poor, and platinum plans for the rich.

The Tribune is correct that the solutions are implicit in its failures. The failure is privately funded insurance that relies on the profit motive.

The solution is to remove the profit motive and provide federally funded insurance: Medicare for All.

That system should protect those who carry continuous coverage, not coddle those who duck in and out of plans when their health needs change.

In short, the Tribune does not want to “coddle” you people who struggle every day to make ends meet.

They don’t want to “coddle” you coupon-clippers, who buy your clothing at resale stores, and drive ten-year-old cars.

They don’t want to “coddle” you if you don’t know how you will pay for rent and food, much less for college tuition or for student debt.

The very rich people know you are a lazy, good-for-nothing “taker,” always trying to get something free, when you should pay for it like the rich people do, even when you can’t.

(We’re talking about those rich people who apparently aren’t “coddled,” even when they bribe politicians to create tax dodges, tax havens, and  tax manipulations. Allowing the rich to duck their taxes — that’s not coddling in the world of the Chicago Tribune.)

A new system also should let Americans not covered via an employer reap tax credits to help finance their insurance purchases on the open market.

Ah, the old “tax credits” scam. It’s the right-wing’s gift to the insurance companies, so they can charge as much as they wish and profits can be supported further by “tax credits.”

Never mind that tax credit savings won’t nearly cover health insurance costs. And never mind that a “tax credit” means a great deal more to those in a high tax bracket than to you.

Apparently, the Tribune owners think everyone is in a high tax bracket.

No, they really don’t. They are well aware that what they are proposing will widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

And tell us again: Why can’t insurers sell policies across state lines? Imagine the pricing competition that would unleash.

O.K., so long as you’re asking, we’ll tell you.

Historically, insurance has been one of the most scam-based industries in the world. It’s complex and filled with fine print.  So, by necessity, is highly regulated — by the states.

But if insurance were sold across state lines, who would regulate it? Answer: The state with the flimsiest regulations.

People would shop around for the state in which the insurance companies have done the best bribery job, and that is where the lowest priced (worst) insurance scams would be found.

The Tribune seems to hate regulations.  Presumably, it wants to allow the rich insurance executives to do whatever they please. Let the consumer be damned.

Anyway, there would be no need to sell insurance across state lines if the government offered federally funded Medicare for All.

Not only would high insurance costs not be a problem, but federal payments for those high costs actually would benefit the economy.

The bottom line: The pro-rich, anti-poor want you not just to be dissatisfied with Obamacare (reasonable),  but to let your dissatisfaction turn you to an even worse system that will enrich the rich and impoverish the rest.

And it all begins with The Big Lie.

The real solution to the faults of Obamacare is found in Steps #1 and #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
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 afford better health care than 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 AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate taxes would be an 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 really want to reduce street crime? Really?

Though the ostensible purpose of laws is to prevent crime, the effect of all laws is to create crime. If there were no laws, there would be no crime.

Every time a legislature passes, and a president or governor signs a law, a new  crime is created.

Each of us, consciously or not, evaluates five considerations when deciding whether or not to commit a crime:

  1. Our perception of morality and of ourselves.
  2. Our likelihood of being caught
  3. Our likelihood of being punished
  4. Our view of the severity of the punishment
  5. Our life without breaking a law.

This is true for all crime, “white collar” and violent crime.

The real purpose of all laws is not to reduce crime, but rather to control the populace according to legislators’ wishes.

When lawmakers perceive the populace doing something the lawmakers don’t like, the first step is to criminalize, i.e pass a law against, the act.

That notably was true in 1920:

Prohibition in the United States

Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933.

Criticism remains that Prohibition led to unintended consequences such as the growth of urban crime organizations.

Alcohol was legal in neighboring countries. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or smuggled into the United States.

Journalist H. L. Mencken: “Prohibition worked best when directed at its primary target: the working-class poor.”

Historian Lizabeth Cohen writes: “A rich family could have a cellar-full of liquor and get by, it seemed, but if a poor family had one bottle of home-brew, there would be trouble.”

Working-class people were inflamed by the fact that their employers could dip into a private cache while they, the employees, could not.

The varied terrain of valleys, mountains, lakes, and swamps, as well as the extensive seaways, ports, and borders which the United States shared with Canada and Mexico made it exceedingly difficult for Prohibition agents to stop bootleggers.

Prohibition created a black market that competed with the formal economy, which came under pressure when the Great Depression struck in 1929.

State governments urgently needed the tax revenue alcohol sales had generated. Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932 based in part on his promise to end prohibition, which influenced his support for ratifying the Twenty-first Amendment to repeal Prohibition

While alcohol is a harmful and addicting drug, and Prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption somewhat, the social cost was far greater than the benefits.

By now, you probably have noticed the incredible similarity between Prohibition and today’s “War on Drugs,” which is, in reality, a war on the poor.

Previously we discussed:

An easy solution to violent crime:

Reduce violent crime by reducing poverty. Reduce poverty by implementing the Ten Steps to Prosperity (See below).

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by poor people. They feel they have no legal alternatives for obtaining money, so they take it illegally.

And much violent crime is related to the “War on Drugs,” which is even less effective than was the “War on Alcohol.” (Fortunately, we have been wise enough to avoid a “War on Cigarettes,” nicotine being one of the most common addicting drugs in America.)

Many communities, particularly black communities, have been destroyed by the War on Drugs. Once convicted, jailed and released, young men are unable to find jobs, so are encouraged to commit more crime, in a never-ending cycle of violence. 

They also are encouraged to leave school and to join violent gangs as a way to protect themselves in the mean streets.

Not only does the “War on Drugs” create and encourage crime, destroy communities, discourage school attendance, and cost millions of lives and billions of dollars, but it doesn’t reduce the availability of drugs — and never will.

Any K-16, child who wants illegal drugs, has no difficulty finding sources.  Drugs exist in elementary schools, high schools, colleges and on the street.  They are everywhere.

The American public has been misled into believing that violent crime can be stopped via additional punishments and police brutality.

But is that the America we want — an America where even innocent citizens are victims of police savagery and long incarcerations — especially when the “solution” doesn’t work, and especially when two productive solutions are available.  

We cannot continue doing the same things, hoping to get a different result.

We greatly can reduce the need for street crime by reducing poverty (via the Ten Steps to Prosperity). And we greatly can reduce the reward for street crime by eliminating one of the most important causes: The laws against drugs.

For it is not drugs that are the problem, but rather the problem is the laws against drugs  — the laws that create crime.

Street drugs, like other drugs (alcohol, nicotine, marijuana in some states) all should be treated similarly: Production and usage should be legal. Producers should be regulated, licensed and taxed.  Importation should be regulated. Users should not be prosecuted.

Are you among those who think America can’t afford the Ten Steps to Prosperity?  Do you think reducing poverty is unfair and only makes the poor lazy? Do you prefer to continue doing what doesn’t work?

Or, do you really want to reduce street crime? Really?

It comes down to this: The Ten Steps plus legalization of drugs, or more of the same?

Take your choice.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
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 afford better health care than 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 AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate taxes would be an 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.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The National Enquirer and the Clinton Foundation

The previous post expressed the view that the Clinton Foundation was exactly what it purported to be: A charitable foundation, similar to the thousands of charitable foundations all over the country.

So far as we know, the Clintons don’t receive any money from the Foundation, though we expect that their travel expenses on behalf of the Foundation would be reimbursed.

If there is any evidence the Clintons profit in any way from their Foundation (aside from tax deductions), I’d be interested to hear about it.

Go the the Clinton Foundation web site, and you will see the FAQs, among which are:

Who contributes to the Foundation? Where can I find a list of Foundation donors?

We are proud to have more than 300,000 contributors; 90% of our donations are $100 or less. Like all philanthropic organizations, the Foundation depends on contributions to pursue our work around the world. While not required by any law, but in keeping with a long-held commitment to transparency, the Clinton Foundation has for years listed all contributors dating back to the Foundation’s beginning on our website.

Do the Clintons receive any income or personal expense reimbursement from the Foundation?

No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.

If anyone has facts to show otherwise, I’ll be glad to publish them.

After the previous post was published, we had to admonish certain readers who claimed the Clinton Foundation was some sort of scam, though no facts were provided. For instance:

“You left out what the purpose of this ‘charity’ is, and who stands to benefit most. I think you might find the mud is there. Recall the saying that Democrats go into politics to get rich, Republicans are already rich so they go in for influence.”

and

“You imply it’s not possible? You hear often how charities are used as personal enrichment devices. Scandals are a dime a dozen.”

and

“Rodger, you conflate elected politician and appointed civil servant. The former gets a pass because the Supreme Court says corporations are people and can give boat loads of Free $peech to elect candidates for public office. However, we all know this is legal bribery with its corrupting influence. Who are we kidding? It really disgraces our electoral process, but that’s the system we got. The Secretary of State, on the other hand, as all appointed civil servants, must be beyond reproach. Even if innocent, there must be no appearance of impropriety to maintain confidence in the person and the office.”

and

“Its problematic because this is this is not the first time questionable campaign fund-raising practices have been associated with the Clintons. Younger readers might be interested when President Bill Clinton raised contributions by inviting donors to sleep overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.”

and

“The Clintons just can’t help themselves despite all evidence they should know better, as a past President and First Lady, lawyers both. You know you’re going to run for President in the future, why do you put yourself in these positions.”

and

“It is the smoke we are talking about, Rodger. Surely you are not so naive to think these bozos can’t hide their tracks well enough a lot of the time, and with connections good enough to get out of jail when they slip up?”

You’ll notice these comments have one thing in common: No facts; all innuendo. Zero evidence of wrongdoing.  It’s what I call the “National Enquirer method.”

These readers can be excused, because they are not economists, writers or professional columnists, who are expected to have standards for presenting accusations.

Which brings us to Charles Krauthammer, who is a columnist. Here are excerpts from today’s commentary about the Clinton Foundation. He cleverly titled the article: “The bribery standard,” though he provides zero evidence of any bribery:

Clinton’s scandals are sprawling, multi-layered, complex things. They defy time and space.

“Defy time and space”? Nothing like a bit of melodrama to set the stage for a fact-free piece.

The real question (about Clinton’s Emails) wasn’t classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place?

It wasn’t convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?

Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality?

If she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she did 30,000 Emails — at will.

But destroy what?

“Why?” “What?” “Was?”

All those leading questions, devoid of facts.  Do they remind you of what you read in the gossip news? (“Which beautiful star was seen cuddling with which married executive at one of Hollywoods most exclusive restaurants?”)

And in that vein, Mr. Krauthammer wrote::

The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc.

Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration.

It’s not “disguised as a charity.” It is a charity supervised by the Clintons, who by the way, are not paid for their work.

Apparently, “sucking money” is more exciting than “receiving donations.”

It seems Mr. Krauthammer does not want this charity to secure connections, produce favorable publicity or employ people.

And what the heck is the “coming Clinton Restoration”?

Money is not “channeled to ‘Clinton Inc.'” whatever that is.  If Mr. Krauthammer has any evidence whatsoever, that the Clintons illegally or even unethically received any money, he has a front page exclusive — a columnist’s dream.

But since I’ve not seen his byline on any front pages, and probably never will, I’m guessing he has no such evidence. It’s all speculation and grimy gossip column stuff.

So far as I know, the money is used the same way all other legitimate charities use money: For three purposes:

  1. For investment, to build up the assets of the charity
  2. To pay expenses of the charity
  3. To fund good works.

That is how charities operate. I can only imagine that Mr. Krauthammer never has been involved with a charitable foundation, else he would understand these things.

Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.”

Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.

This is supposed to be a scandal? “If you give to this charity, I’ll get you a meeting with an important person.”

That sort of back-scratching probably doesn’t happen more than ten thousand times a day in Washington.  I myself have received calls asking whether I’d like to attend a many-dollars-per-plate dinner to meet such-and-such politician.

And mostly the favors are far more personal than “give to this charity.” Usually, they are “give to my re-election committee.”

The next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.

To be sure, Bahrain, home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary.

The fact that he did is telling.

What’s “telling” is Mr. Krauthammer’s putting 2 and 2 together and getting 22.

Mr. Krauthammer presents zero evidence Mrs. Clinton herself received any money or benefitted in any way from the crown prince’s donation.

Mr. Krauthammer presents zero evidence the crown prince of Bahrain needed to bribe anyone to see Mrs. Clinton (In fact, Mr. Krauthammer admits otherwise.)

Mr. Krauthammer presents zero evidence there was any connection at all, between the donation and a meeting with Mrs. Clinton.

It’s all “wink-wink, hint-hint,” completely lacking substance.  Its print amateurism and misdirection at its worst. It’s a perfect example of why the media is so mistrusted these days.

More than half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.

The title of the article was “The bribery standard.” Are these 85 donors supposed to be an example of “bribery”?  If so, who was bribed? The charity?

Yes, it’s obvious that access and influence were sold. But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors received something tangible of value — a pipeline, a permit, a waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling — in exchange.

It’s hard to believe the Clinton folks would be stupid enough to commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath?

Translation: “Obvious” means I have absolutely no evidence, but I want you to have a negative interpretation.

“No one has demonstrated definitively” also means there is absolutely no evidence, but hey, who needs evidence when rank speculation is so much more titillating.

“There might be” means “I have my fingers crossed.”

And then there is yet another gossip columnist question: “Who knows what lies beneath?” which means, “I have no idea what I’m talking about, but doesn’t this sound delicious!

We are hardly bothered by the routine practice of presidents rewarding big donors with cushy ambassadorships, appointments to portentous boards and invitations to state dinners.

The bright line seems to be outright bribery. Anything short of that is considered — not just for the Clintons, for everyone — acceptable corruption.

It’s a sorry standard. And right now it is Hillary Clinton’s saving grace.

What??!  That’s it? After all the leading questions and implied bribery, that’s it? Bemoaning the idea that Mrs. Clinton must be following “routine practice,” warrants the “Bribery” headline?

To be clear, this post is not a defense of Mrs. Clinton. I much would have preferred Elizabeth Warren or even Bernie Sanders, though when it comes to honesty, Mrs. Clinton is light years ahead of Donald Trump (He of Trump University and multiple bankruptcies).

Rather this post is a protest against the “Enquirization” of the media and of the political discourse. The “I’m only askin'” excuse for spreading innuendo is disgusting.

Donald Trump does it all the time. “Is Obama really a citizen.” “What was Cruz’s father doing near Lee Harvey Oswald?” And let’s not forget his silly insinuations about Mrs. Clinton’s health.

Trump is Trump. He is amoral. We know it and we expect it of him.

But we have every right to be shocked and angered when the media, even the right wing media, descend into the muck with him.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
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 afford better health care than 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 AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate taxes would be an 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
d

Is Moody’s a criminal enterprise or just plain ignorant?

I’ve written about Moody’s before. You may know Moody’s as one of the “Big Three” credit rating agencies that gave high grades to worthless securities, and helped start the Great Recession.

You also may know standard practice for rating agencies is to be paid by the businesses they rate, a clear conflict of interest and an open invitation to criminality.

And, if you are a regular reader of this site, you know that unlike cities, counties, states, euro nations, businesses, you, and me (all of which are monetarily NON-sovereign), a Monetarily Sovereign (MS) nation never can be forced into bankruptcy. Never.

A Monetarily Sovereign nation can pay any bill of any size at any time, simply by creating its money. For MS governments, ability to pay never is an issue. The only issue is willingness to pay. 

Thus, an MS credit rating cannot legitimately be based on the amount of indebtedness. If the MS nation is willing, it can pay any bill.

An MS nation, even with minimal debt, could be given a low credit rating, if it has a history of refusing to pay its bills.  But, an MS nation, even one with huge debt, should receive a high credit rating if it always pays its bills.

To summarize, the “Big Three” credit agencies have a history of mis-rating securities, being paid by the subjects of their ratings and, as you will see, probably not recognizing the fundamental differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty.

Reader “elizabethharris001” brought to our attention, an article in the Jerusalem Post titled, “Moody’s warns Israel new budget could downgrade credit rating.” The article said, in part:

Credit rating agency Moody’s on Thursday warned that the 2017- 2018 state budget proposal could be a step toward undermining Israel’s solid A1 credit rating.

Israel has a “solid A1 credit rating,” because it always pays its bills, in full and on time.

Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon swept aside legal limits on spending increases and the deficit target in his budget proposal, which accommodated the many, expensive promises made in coalition deals.

The plan is expected to raise Israel’s debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio, which fell below 65 percent in the past year.

This will have no effect on Israel’s ability or willingness to continue paying its bills, in full and on time.

“The rating or outlook could come under downward pressure if the commitment to fiscal discipline over the medium term was to wane,” the agency wrote in its annual Credit Analysis of Israel’s government.

“With the improvement in debt-to-GDP having already slowed compared to the mid-2000s, renewed fiscal easing puts at risk Israel’s credibility for budget discipline,” the report said.

When Moody’s mentions “budget discipline,” it is talking about austerity, the same process that has destroyed the economies of the euro nations — the same process that is responsible for every depression in U.S. history, as well as most recessions.

The Moody’s report was not all gloomy, however. It also praised Israel’s dynamic economy and its relatively strong performance when compared to many other advanced countries, still struggling in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis.

Israel has a “strong performance,” but its debt above 65% of GDP warrants a reduction in credit rating? Think about the “logic” of that.

By confusing (intentionally??) MS nation finances with business finances (where large debt can impact ability to pay) Moody’s claims Israel’s debt requires a reduced credit rating.

Utterly false and misleading — demonstrating an ignorance bordering on criminal.  Is Moody’s even consistent in its false evaluations?

From Trading Economics:
Government Debt to GDP in Japan averaged 123.60 percent from 1980 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 229.20 percent in 2015.

Moody’s credit rating for Japan was last set at A1 with stable outlook.

Before we continue, Moody’s credit ratings, from top to bottom are: Aaa, Aa1, Aa2, Aa3, A1, A2, A3, Baa1, Baa2, Baa3, and lower.

Japan’s 229 and Israel’s 65 apparently warrant the same rating, and neither Japan nor Israel has been given Moody’s highest rating, despite the fact that both are Monetarily Sovereign and can and do pay all their bills on time.

Let’s look at a few other countries, courtesy of Trading Economics:

Canada: Debt to GDP of 91.50; Moody’s credit rating: Aaa

Canada, an MS nation with a much higher Debt/GDP ratio than Israel’s, and no better record of paying its bills, has an Aaa rating, four levels higher than Isreal’s current rating (which is about to be lowered).

As if that weren’t strange enough, let’s look at really crazy:

“Austria’s public debt reached a new peak of 86.2 percent of GDP in 2015 compared to 84.3 percent in 2014.”  Moody’s credit rating: Aaa, the highest rating.

So Austria, with a “worse” Debt-to-GDP ratio that Israel’s, and no better record of paying its bills, has a higher credit rating — and Austria, unlike Israel, is monetarily NON-sovereign.

Austria is part of the eurozone; it uses the euro, not it own sovereign currency. Austria does not have the unlimited ability to pay its bills. Unlike Israel, Austria could go bankrupt. But it has Moody’s highest rating.

And then here’s another eurozone nation, Germany:

“Germany recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 71.20 percent in 2015.” Moody’s credit rating: Aaa.

Germany too, is monetarily non-sovereign, and could be unable to pay its bills, but has Moody’s highest rating.

Finally, we come to the United States:

The United States recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 104.17 percent in 2015. Government Debt to GDP.  The United States averaged 61.94 percent from 1940 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 121.70 percent in 1946 and a record low of 31.70 percent in 1974.

Moody’s rating: Aaa

I call your attention to that 31.70 lowest Debt/GDP ratio. It comes right before a recession.

Monetary Sovereignty

In fact, there is an uncanny relationship between debt reduction and recessions. Most recessions follow a period of federal debt reduction.

And then there’s this inconvenient fact:

U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal surpluses.

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.

Finally, while Gross Domestic Product is a measure comprising 12 months, Federal Debt is a historical measure comprising the entire life of the United States. In short is the classic apples/oranges, meaningless ratio.

Bottom line: Moody’s (as well as the other two major rating agencies, S&P and Fitch) either do not understand how Monetary Sovereignty works or are paid not to understand.

They evaluate nations as though the nations were monetarily non-sovereign businesses. The rating agencies don’t reveal the basic fact that an MS nation cannot be forced into bankruptcy. It can pay its bills forever, despite its Debt/GDP ratio.

Any credit rating is based on just two factors: Ability and willingness to pay bills.

Because an MS nation has the unlimited ability to pay, Debt/GDP has no meaning when evaluating credit. No matter what its Debt/GDP ratio, any nation may or may not be willing to pay its bills.

The Big Lie states: “Federal taxes fund federal spending.” But for an MS nation, spending is funded by money creation, not by taxes nor by borrowing.

The Big Lie is a carefully crafted story. It is designed by the very rich to convince everyone there isn’t enough money available to narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest.

The Big Lie forces countries to cut the spending that would benefit the lower and middle classes. It caused our too-slow growth following the “Great Recession.” It is the method by which the very rich retain power over the world.

The credit agencies are willing, and well-paid, accomplices to the Big Lie.

Is it ignorance or paid criminality? You decide.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
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 afford better health care than 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 AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate taxes would be an 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