Sen. Rick Scott “bravely” opposes wasteful federal spending, but even here, he’s wrong.

Sen. Rick Scott is a brave man. He wants to “reduce waste and save taxpayer dollars.”

Wow, what a courageous position. What next, Sen. Scott, laws favoring motherhood, apple pie, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the American flag?

DUMPSTER DIVING- SHE'S SAVING WHAT BIG CORPORATE STORES THROW AWAY - YouTube — **Dumpster diving can uncover some valuable stuff.**

Sadly, despite his cloying attempts at false patriotism (He didn’t criticize Trump for forceable attempts to overturn America’s Presidential election and for snuggling up to QAnon, Proud Boys, 3 percenters, et al), Scott is dead wrong about waste and taxpayer dollars.

Federal Waste
“Waste” is in the eye of the beholder.

To a Republican, anything that benefits the poor — Obamacare, food stamps, free school lunches, etc. — and any other Democratic spending proposal, constitutes “waste.”

So, to prevent such “waste,” Scott wants to:

1. Create a 13 member bipartisan Commission to review the efficiency and public need for each federal agency.
Require the Commission to review and report to Congress on all legislation introduced in Congress that would establish a new agency, or a new program to be carried out by an existing agency.
2. Require the Commission to annually recommend, in the form of legislation, whether the reviewed agencies should be abolished, reorganized, or continued and whether the responsibilities of agencies should be consolidated, transferred, or reorganized.
3. Require Congress to vote on the Commission’s timeline for the abolishment of agencies within a year of the bill’s passage.
4. Expedite the process for Congress to vote on a joint resolution either adopting or rejecting the recommendations of the Commission.

Here are some of the “bold” statements from Scott & Friends:

Senator Rick Scott said, “Our nation is on track to reach $30 trillion in debt and reckless, unaccountable spending by politicians in Washington has put us on a path of economic self-destruction.

The so-called “path of economic destruction” has been in existence for at least 80 years. In 1940, the federal debt was about $40 billion.

Today, it is about $25 trillion and as a result, our economy is the strongest in the world. We still await the “economic destruction.”

Senator Joni Ernst said, “Congress’s job is to hold federal agencies accountable and to work to prevent unelected bureaucrats from wasting hardworking taxpayer dollars.

Congress is elected. Would the commission be composed of Congresspeople or of “unelected bureaucrats”? If Congresspeople, why would they be trusted more than Congress itself? If unelected, why should they overrule our elected Congress?

Senator Mike Braun said, “When I built my business back on Main Street, if you weren’t constantly evaluating whether your money was being well-spent, you’d soon find yourself out of business. The federal government should do the same.

False comparison. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, is nothing like Braun’s hypothetical, monetarily non-sovereign business back on Main Street.

Senator Mike Crapo said, “The federal government must be limited, and taxpayer dollars must be used efficiently to effectively help Americans.

Mike Crapo, not understanding economics, doesn’t realize that the federal government (unlike state and local governments) doesn’t spend taxpayer dollars. It creates new dollars, ad hoc, each time it pays a creditor.

Representative Michael Cloud said, “Hardworking American taxpayers have to make difficult decisions every day to make ends meet and so should Congress. It is vital we restore trust with the American people in how Congress spends taxpayer dollars.

Rep. Cloud, also not understanding economics, doesn’t realize the federal government does not have to “make ends meet.” It has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

The problem is that we already have a bipartisan commission to evaluate laws and agencies. It’s called “Congress.” It’s a 541 member commission, elected by the U.S. voters.

In essence, Scott and his pals wish to substitute the will of our elected Congress with 13 elected or unelected (?) Commissioners who will decide whether Congress is right or wrong.

Perhaps, for efficiency, should we simply should do away with Congress and allow these 13 Commissioners to do the work? That would eliminate a great deal of waste in salaries and expenses, wouldn’t it?

Once we get past all the Scott & Friends cloying sophistry and economic ignorance, we only can conclude that Scott wants to take credit for a no-brainer, flag-waving piece of drivel.

After all, who would dare to argue against fighting federal waste?

Well, me for one.

Sure, we all love federal spending that accomplishes something we like, and we dislike federal spending that accomplishes something we hate.

I, for one, think making children stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance is a waste of time, and the entire federal tax-collection is a monstrous waste of resources.

Those are my opinions. Put me on the Commission.

Except for one fact:

Federal “wasteful” spending is better than no spending at all.

Consider the infamous Gravina Island Bridge, commonly referred to as the “Bridge to Nowhere.” It was to connect Ketchikan, Alaska with Gravina Island, containing the Ketchikan Airport as well as 50 residents. The bridge was projected to cost $398 million.

Most people would have classified that as a colossal waste, except for two facts:

It would have cost taxpayers nothing. The federal government would have created the dollars at the touch of a computer key. No tax dollars would have been involved.
At least (probably more than) $398 million would have been pumped into the U.S. economy. Jobs would have been created in several industries.

No harm; no foul.

The project eventually was canceled, and that cancellation cost the economy the $398 million it would have received. So which was worse, the cancellation or the project itself?

A BIT OF HISTORY
Years ago, Senator William Proxmire created the “Golden Fleece Award,” a tongue-in-cheek criticism of what he considered federal wasteful spending.

It was great public relations for Proxmire, but sadly for America, some of the recipients of the Golden Fleece Award were research projects that later resulted in valuable results.

That’s the way it is with research. You don’t know where it will lead. Only later can you look back and determine whether if was worthwhile or “wasteful.”

By contrast with “wasteful,” there are some expenditures that are “harmful.”

I believe spending billions on the border wall was a harmful waste when the same billions could be used to vet and process valuable immigrants, while using the justice system to apprehend those that commit crimes.

And for what? To prevent the entry of drugs, the vast majority of which come in via legal channels.

With that wall, we do ongoing harm to innocent human beings and to the American economy. How many potential scientists, soldiers, teachers, business leaders, and consumers have we lost because of that wall.

IN SUMMARY
“Wasteful spending is in the eye of the beholder. What some consider waste, others consider practical.

Federal “wasteful spending” is not like private sector wasteful spending, i.e not like your wasteful spending nor mine, not like business wasteful spending, nor state/local government wasteful spending.

Private sector wasteful spending adds nothing to the economy. It doesn’t add money or accomplishment.

Taxpayers do not pay for federal spending. Sadly, federal taxpayers pay for nothing. Federal taxes are the ultimate wasteful spending.

Federal “wasteful spending” adds money to the economy, and if it is not actually harmful, so-called federal “wasteful spending” stimulates economic growth.

Dumpster diving can uncover some valuable stuff.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The unspoken lie that is even bigger and more damaging than the “Big Lie.”

The “Big Lie” in economics is: Federal taxes fund federal spending.

12 Photos of Mitch McConnell Looking Sad — **Hell, we can change any law we want to. Don’t let the voters know the government can’t run short of dollars.**

State and local taxes fund state and local spending, because state and local governments are monetarily non-sovereign, while the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign.

But federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending forever.

The federal government is the creator and issuer of the U.S. dollar. It doesn’t need or use tax dollars. The sole purpose of federal taxes is to aid the government in controlling the economy by taxing what it wishes to discourage and giving tax breaks to what it wishes to encourage.

That’s why the federal government is able to pass multi-trillion dollar spending bills without worrying about “Who’s going to pay for it?” They just create the money.

State and local governments are merely users of the U.S. dollar. They do need and use tax dollars.

And that makes all the difference.

That Big Lie leads to wooly-brained concerns that the U.S. government can run short of the very dollars it creates, and that its agencies can become insolvent.

But as big and nutty as the Big Lie is, there is an even bigger, nuttier, and more damaging lie:

The unspoken lie:
The federal government does not have the power to change its own laws.

Who would believe that? Well, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) for one. Here is what they tell people:

Some of the nation’s most important government programs are financed with dedicated revenue sources using federal trust funds. Four of those programs are within 14 years of insolvency.
FY 2022: Highway Trust Fund (HTF)
FY 2026: Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund
CY 2032: Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund
CY 2035 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Trust Fund

By law, trust fund spending cannot exceed revenue once reserves are depleted. Insolvency would trigger a 7 percent cut to disability benefits, a 13 percent cut in Medicare payments, a 25 percent cut in highway spending, and an abrupt across-the-board 27 percent cut in Social Security retirement benefits.

This situation supposedly is so dire, the CRFB article repeats it, just to make sure you are sufficiently frightened:

Under the law, trust fund programs cannot spend in excess of their dedicated funding sources.

Once the trust funds are depleted, the programs may only spend incoming revenue. For the Highway Trust Fund, this means new projects will be immediately halted and spending ultimately reduced by one-quarter.

For Medicare, all payments will be cut by 13 percent or delayed by an equivalent amount upon insolvency.

“By law”? “Under the law”?

Whose law are they talking about? Do they mean Russia’s law? China’s law? The CRFB’s law?

No, they are talking about America’s law, you know, the law that is created by Congress and the President.

It is the law that is not chiseled into marble, but rather changed every month of every year, at the whim and behest of Congress and the President.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent Congress and the President from changing the law and allowing trust fund spending to exceed revenues. A federal clerk on a typewriter could do it.

The CRFB continues on its errant path, with lie after lie:

Policymakers must restore solvency to the major trust funds to avoid abrupt across-the-board benefit and spending cuts.

However, solvency solutions can also improve the sustainability of the national debt, increase economic output and income, and improve policy outcomes.

Whoops, there’s the CRFB’s favorite word: “Sustainability.” What does it mean? No one knows, but it surely must be something important.

In 1940, the federal debt was $40 billion. Today, it has grown to about $25 TRILLION! That’s a 62,500% increase. Let me pretend to put it in scare headlines, like the CRFB does.

OUR FEDERAL DEBT HAS INCREASED SIXTY-TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED PERCENT IN EIGHTY YEARS!

And yet here we are, sustaining a debt that supposedly can’t be sustained, along with the strongest economy in the world.

The article continues:

CBO’s budget projections generally assume trust fund programs continue spending as scheduled after insolvency, as if lawmakers used general revenues to support the funds. Under CBO’s baseline, debt will double from a near-record 100 percent of GDP in 2020 to over 200 percent of GDP by 2051.

Wait! What? “Used general revenues”? What does that mean?

It means that with all the wailing and weeping about “unsustainable,” the CRFB acknowledges that the federal government simply can pay for the bills and not rely on phony trust funds.

(Although the CRFB erroneously says the government could use “general revenues” the federal government does not use revenues for anything.)

The federal government simply could write checks to support all the spending of the Highway Trust Fund, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, and the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund — or better yet, do away with those trust funds altogether and simply pay the bills.

That’s what it does for every other agency of the government.

There is no need for the dire consequences of insolvency.

Recognizing that the phony trust funds represent important benefits to Americans, here are the CRFB’s “solutions” to the Highway Trust Fund’s fake impending doom:

Policy	10-Year Savings
Revenue Options
Increase gas and diesel taxes by 10 cents	$140 billion
Impose 1 cent per mile Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax on all vehicles	$150 billion
Impose 5 cent per mile Vehicle Miles Traveled tax on commercial trucks, only	$160 billion
Impose $5 per barrel per barrel tax on oil	$160 billion
Impose $25 per ton carbon tax in place of the gas tax	$700 billion

Spending Options
Freeze Highway Spending for Five Years	$60 billion
Replace Surface Transportation Block Grants with Matching Grants’	$70 billion
Cut Federal Transit Spending in Half	$60 billion
Reduce Federal Share of National Highway Performance Program by 15%^	$50 billion
Repeal Davis-Bacon Act	$20 billion

In short, the CRFB wants the federal government to remove $1.31 TRILLION from the economy as “revenue,” while adding $260 BILLION less than planned — a $1.57 trillion loss for the economy.

Do you think taking $1.57 TRILLION stimulus dollars from the private sector will affect economic growth? Who doesn’t think so?

Well, the CRFB doesn’t seem to think that’s a problem at all.

And here’s what the CRFB would like to do with Medicare Part A. (We should mention that the federal government simply pays for Medicare Part B. No trust fund, there. That’s exactly what they should do for Part A.)

Spending Options	Billion
Improve Medicare Advantage Coding Intensity Adjustments	$370
Establish Graduate Medical Education Fund Outside Medicar	$105
Modernize Medicare and Medigap Cost-Sharing Rules	$140
Eliminate Medicare Payments for Bad Debts	$80
Reduce and Reform Post-Acute Care Payments	$90

Revenue Options
Increase the HI Payroll Tax Rate by 0.5 Percentage Points	$455
Broaden the HI Payroll Tax Base to Cover Employer Health Benefits	$310
Expand the Base of the Net Investment Income Tax, Dedicate Half of all NIIT Revenue to the HI Trust Fund	$225
Apply the Payroll Tax to Business Income for Self-Employed Workers to Reduce Tax Avoidance	$200
Impose an Excise Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Dedicate the Revenue to the HI Trust Fund	$80

Here, the CRFB wants to remove $2.055 TRILLION from the private sector. So between just two of the phony “Trust Funds,” the CRFB suggests removing $3.7 TRILLION from the economy in just ten years.

What effect do you think that would have?

And that doesn’t even count what they want to do with the Social Security “Trust Funds.”

The CRFB use the euphemism, Social Security “reforms.” If they were being honest, they would label the Social Security “benefit cuts and tax increases.”

And if all this wasn’t damaging enough, let’s move on to what the CRFB wants to do about the $25 trillion federal “unsustainable” debt. The CRFB thinks that’s too high. How many trillions should we remove from the economy to pay that off, even though the so-called “debt” is nothing more than the total of deposits into T-security accounts, which are paid off simply by sending the dollars back?

These deposits are similar to deposits into a bank safety-deposit box. Money goes in, and when you want it, you take the money out. It’s not real debt at all.

The bottom line of all this is: The federal government can change any laws it wishes to change. It has full power to:

Fund all federal benefits simply by issuing checks.
Eliminate all “debt” by returning the money currently in T-security accounts.

All this “woe-is-us” wailing and moaning about debt and solvency is meant to mislead you. Federal finance is similar to the Monopoly game in which the federal government makes all the rules.

Pass a couple of laws and the federal government would be “debt”-free and its agencies would be flush with spending money, and you wouldn’t have to worry about your Social Security, Medicare, and road funds disappearing.

All it requires is for you, the voter, to understand the realities of Monetarily Sovereign federal finance.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Bold and Pitiful: The Biden budget proposal

Here are a few short excerpts from a much longer article that ran in the New York Times:

New York Times
Biden Team Preparing Up to $3 Trillion in New Spending for the Economy
Jim Tankersley

WASHINGTON — President Biden’s economic advisers are preparing to recommend spending as much as $3 trillion on a sweeping set of efforts aimed at boosting the economy, reducing carbon emissions and narrowing economic inequality.

The scope of the proposal under consideration highlights the aggressive approach the Biden administration wants to take as it tries to harness the power of the federal government to narrow economic inequality, reduce the carbon emissions that drive climate change and improve American manufacturing and high-technology industries in an escalating battle with China and other foreign competitors.

It’s bold; it’s pitiful.

No. the proposed $3 trillion isn’t pitiful. It’s bold and wonderful.

And no, the individual spending plans aren’t pitiful. They comprise the boldness this nation really needs to keep its leadership position in the world, and to help keep the world a viable place for humanity to exist.

The pitiful parts of that New York Times article are the phrases shown below in bold italics:

The plan begins beginning with a giant infrastructure plan that may be financed in part through tax increases on corporations and the rich.
Whether it can muster Republican support will depend in large part on how the bill is paid for.
Officials have discussed offsetting some or all of the infrastructure spending by raising taxes on corporations, including increasing the corporate income tax rate above the current 21 percent rate and a variety of measures to force multinational corporations to pay more tax in the United States on income they earn abroad.
Officials have weighed financing that plan through initiatives that would reduce federal spending by as much as $700 billion over a decade, like allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug costs with pharmaceutical companies.
The officials have discussed further offsetting the spending increases by raising taxes on high-earning individuals and households, like raising the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 37 percent.
They have debated whether to lower the income threshold for the top marginal rate, to tax all individual income above $400,000 at 39.6 percent, in order to raise more revenue for his spending plans.
Mr. Biden’s broader economic agenda will face a more difficult road in Congress than his relief bill, which was financed entirely by federal borrowing.

If they were talking about a state or local government spending program, yes those phrases would be appropriate. Those governments are monetarily non-sovereign. They must pay for their spending through taxes and borrowing.

But the federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, does not use tax money or borrowed money to pay for spending.

In truth, federal tax money is destroyed upon receipt, and the federal government does not borrow. That is a fundamental difference between federal finances and state/local government finances.

Dealing with each of the seven phrases, above: America The Beautiful - Inspiration316 Radio

All federal spending is financed via money creation.To pay for anything, the federal government sends instructions to creditors banks, instructing the banks to increase the balances in creditors’ checking accounts.
.
When the banks do as instructed, new (M1) money is created and added to the money supply.
The bill will be paid for by the federal government’s infinite ability to create its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.
Raising taxes on corporations hurts American business, just as cutting taxes on corporations stimulates business.
Federal spending adds stimulus dollars to the private sector. Attempts to reduce federal spending reduce stimulus payments.
Tax increases offset nothing, though there may be some Gap-closing benefitto taxing billionaires.
The proposal to tax incomes of $400,000 plus is counterproductive, however, because those are the people building businesses for U.S. growth. Perhaps incomes of $1 million or more should see increased taxation.
The federal government does not borrow. Having the unlimited ability to create dollars, why would it borrow? Those T-securities, sometimes referred to as “borrowing,” are nothing more than accepting deposits into T-security accounts. It’s like putting dollars into interest-paying safe deposit boxes.
.
To pay off the misnamed “debt” the government simply takes the dollars out of those “boxes” and sends them back to the account owners.

Biden is hoping to do a number of great things: Advance clean energy, modernize the infrastructure with the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, and electric vehicle charging stations., tax cuts to fight poverty, the most aggressive spending yet by the United States to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change.

He would aid the development of other “high-growth industries of the future” like 5G telecommunications. He would spend money for rural broadband, advanced training for millions of workers and 1 million affordable and energy-efficient housing units.

His proposal includes money for improvements to the electric grid and other parts of the power sector.

Documents suggest Biden will include nearly $1 trillion in spending alone on the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, ports, electric vehicle charging stations and

There would be investments in the caregiving economy and in skills and training needed by our workers to compete and win the global economy of the future.”

Biden’s campaign predicted that Mr. Biden’s investments would create 5 million new jobs in manufacturing and advanced industries, on top of restoring all the jobs lost last year in the Covid-19 crisis.

The second plan under discussion is focused on students, workers and people left on the sidelines of the job market. It would spend heavily on education and on programs meant to increase the participation of women in the labor force, by helping them balance work and caregiving. It includes free community college, universal pre-K education, a national paid leave program and efforts to reduce child care costs.

That plan would also make permanent two temporary provisions of Mr. Biden’s recent relief bill: expanded subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans to buy health insurance and tax credits aimed at cutting poverty, particularly for children.

Doing all of the above, which the federal government easily could fund, and could do so without causing inflation, would truly advance the lives of Americans and the other people of the world. It would demonstrate America’s leadership, and its ability and willingness to do good, not only for America but for the world.

Donald Trump spoke boldly, but actually proposed narrow, mean-spirited, harmful little things like eliminating healthcare for the poor, walling-in America, preventing Muslims from entering, fostering hatred against Mexicans and the Chinese, denying and delaying prevention of COVID, and widening the wealth/income/power Gap between the rich and the poor.

Lacking compassion for the poor, people of color, foreigners, and any who did not worship him, Trump spread hatred and bile. He supported bigotry, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists. Then ironically, he called it all, “Make America Great, Again.”

Not since Lyndon Johnson, and Franklin Roosevelt before him, has any President proposed a plan to help America become that “America the beautiful” we of which we can be proud.

And that is why Republicans are united in opposition to biden They oppose everything Biden proposes, especially plans that really would establish the greatness of America.

The very last thing the Trumper, FoxNews, QAnon, NewsMax GOP wants is a successful Biden administration. This is the greatest fear of the Republican party.

But Biden can succeed if he has the courage to tell the American public the truth about Monetary Sovereignty.

If only. If only.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Federal deficit spending causes inflation except when . . .

As “everyone” knows and claims, federal deficit spending causes inflation . . . except when it doesn’t.

As you can see from the graph below, it doesn’t.

Each place where the red and blue lines diverge indicates a lack of correlation between federal deficit spending and inflation.

**BLUE line = Federal deficit spending. RED line = inflation. Vertical gray bars = recessions.**

Lack of correlation between federal deficit spending seems to be more the rule than the exception. All inflations and hyperinflations have been caused by scarcity, usually shortages of food and/or energy.

That said, it is possible, though rare, for federal deficit spending to cause a shortage during major wars, especially a shortage of fuel. War machinery uses a great deal of oil, and inflation is highly related to oil prices.

But contrary to popular belief, federal spending to stimulate economic growth, or to reduce poverty, or to provide benefits to the underclasses, does not cause inflations.

It also does not “overheat” the economy (whatever that means), or any other similarly vague terms used by economists to make you think they know what they are talking about.

In fact, federal deficit spending not only cures recessions (as the graph shows), but it also can cure inflations, if the spending is used to purchase from abroad, then distribute to the public, the items that are in short supply.

For example, the most common cause of inflation these days is an oil shortage, which can be cured domestically by the federal government buying oil on the open market and distributing it to the private sector.

That is the purpose of the Strategic Petrolium Reserve:

According to the United States Energy Information Administration, approximately 4.1 billion barrels of oil are held in strategic reserves, of which 1.4 billion is government-controlled.

The remainder is held by private industry. In 2004 the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve had the largest strategic reserve, with much of the remainder held by the other 27 members of the International Energy Agency.

Global oil consumption is in the region of 0.1 billion barrels per day. The 4.1 billion barrels reserve is equivalent to 41 days of production. The reserve is intended to be used to cover short-term supply disruptions.

Covering a 50% shortfall would deplete the reserves in 82 days.

It is those “short-term supply disruptions,” not federal deficit spending, that cause inflation.

How did the federal government obtain 1.4 billion barrels of inflation-preventing oil in its strategic reserve? Answer: Federal deficit spending.

I remind you of this because we now have, just balancing on a knife’s edge, a Democratic administration, which historically has tried to provide benefits for the lower- and middle-income groups.

The resistance to Medicare for All, Social Security for All, College for All, Basic Nutrition for All, along with improved infrastructure, usually comes from the party of the rich, the GOP.

Their excuses for not providing benefits to the “not-rich” can be summarized by three lies:

The federal government can’t afford it without tax increases. (But our Monetarily Sovereign government has the unlimited ability to create dollars, i.e “print money.” So taxes are not necessary. See here.).
The lazy poor will use benefits as an excuse not to work (except that is a proven myth, promulgated by the rich, and has no basis in fact. See here.).
Deficit spending will cause inflation. (See the above graph).

O.K., politicians, what’s your next excuse for not implementing the Ten Steps to Prosperity? (below).

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: