Three things to remember as you watch Trump, Clinton speeches

Soon you will hire someone for the difficult job of being President of the U.S. As with any talent hunt, you’ll want to take into consideration certain key factors, while eliminating extraneous factors.

For example, the ability to be a good President does not rely on who cheated on a spouse, or who stole money. Personal morality never has been a good measure of Presidential effectiveness.

(Lyndon Johnson, for instance, may have been one of our least moral, but most effective, Presidents.)

Though the “job interview” speeches may seem complex, with both candidates offering excessive solutions to non-problems and bashing the other candidate for trivial offenses.

But it’s quite simple, really. There are three, and only three, issues:

1. The single biggest problem facing the U.S. economy and the world’s economy is: The Gap between the rich/powerful, and the rest, is too wide and continues to widen. (See: This is the single biggest problem facing America)

The Gap is responsible for our most serious ills:

  • Poverty: “Poor” is a relative term. The rich/powerful always have sucked the best out of the economy, leaving only the dregs for the rest.
  • Street crime: Have you noticed that most street (as opposed to white collar) crime occurs in poor neighborhoods and/or by poor people? Having little wealth and power, and with no hope of obtaining more, the poor resort to physical crime.
  • Gun violence: Street crime not only includes gun violence, but fear of street crime breeds the need for guns, which breeds more gun violence.
  • Poor health and early death: Unaffordable health care and bad (but cheap) food, shorten lives.
  • Lack of education: No one knows how many millions of children are born with native intelligence, but are unable to use that intelligence because they cannot afford a good education. The cost to America’s growth, well-being, power and prosperity is immeasurable.

By enabling poverty, street crime, gun violence, poor health, early death, and lack of education, the Gap adversely affects everyone — the entire nation — even including the rich.

When you listen to each of the candidates’ proposals, ask yourself this: Will this proposal help narrow the Gap between the rich/powerful, and the rest?

2. The single biggest Lie about our economy is: “Federal taxes fund federal spending.” (See: Monetary Sovereignty and Free Lunch)

This “Big Lie leads to:

  • Unnecessary, regressive taxes: The FICA tax, which purportedly funds Medicare and Social Security, in reality, funds neither. Even if FICA were eliminated, Medicare and Social Security could continue paying benefits, forever. The only thing FICA (and sales taxes, and income taxes on the non-rich accomplish is to widen the Gap)
  • Unnecessary reductions in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs. The false belief that the federal government “can’t afford” these programs, leads to ongoing attempts to reduce benefits.
  • Lack of federal spending to support infrastructure, research & development, scientific progress, and education.

When you listen to each of the candidates’ proposals, ask yourself this: Will this proposal reduce FICA, sales taxes and/or income taxes on the non-rich? Will it increase funding for social programs and science?

3. The single biggest consideration about the candidates is: What are their qualifications?

  • Will they do what they say they will do? What is their history? Whether in business or in government service, have they done what they promised to do?
  • What is their experience? When hiring for any job, past experience is one of the most important attributes a candidate can have.
  • Are their proposals truly feasible? One can promise to bring everlasting peace, and defeat all our enemies, but is this reality?
  • What is the nature of their lies? All politicians lie. The real question is not whether they lie, or even how much they lie, but how will their lies affect you? A lie about a personal indiscretion is much less important than a lie about one’s experience.

When you listen to each of the candidates’ proposals, as yourself this: Considering the nature of the candidate, is this proposal possible or even likely to occur?

In summary, ask yourself three simple questions:

  1. Will this proposal help narrow the Gap between the rich/powerful, and the rest?
  2. Will this proposal reduce FICA, sales taxes and/or income taxes on the non-rich? Will it increase funding for social programs and science?
  3. Considering the nature of the candidate, is this proposal possible or even likely to occur?

Those questions will help you wade through the clutter, the obfuscations, the personal insults and the moral digressions, and decide who should be President of the United States.

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

Commitment denial: A story of cardiologists and economists

You may have noticed on this site, repeated examples of economists parroting the Big Lies in economics: Federal taxes fund federal spending, federal deficit spending is “unsustainable,” Medicare and Social Security are running short of money.

We never have seen a precise explanation for “unsustainable,” but we expect the economists want you to believe some combination of:
–The U.S. federal government is running short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar
–Taxpayers pay for federal spending
–Deficit spending causes inflations
–Deficit spending causes recessions and depressions
–At some unknown future time, the federal government will not be able to pay off its debts

All of the above are false.

The facts are: The U.S. government cannot run short of dollars; taxpayers do not pay for federal spending; deficit spending doesn’t cause inflations; deficit spending prevents and cures recessions and depressions; the federal government could pay off all its debt tomorrow.

Why do many economists, who of all people should know better, disseminate harmful myths about our economy?

In previous posts we have attributed the Big Lies to bribery by the rich — specifically those people who want to widen the Income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. (Without the Gap, no one would be rich — we all would be the same — and the wider the Gap, the richer they are.)

The rich bribe economists by employing them in “think tanks” and by making donations to their universities.

There may, however, be an additional factor: Commitment denial

Are Good Doctors Bad for Your Health?
New York Times, by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 11/15/15

“Get me the best cardiologist” is our natural response to any heart problem. Unfortunately, it is probably wrong.

One of the more surprising research papers published recently appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine. It examined 10 years of data involving tens of thousands of hospital admissions.

It found that patients with acute, life-threatening cardiac conditions did better when the senior cardiologists were out of town.

And this was at the best hospitals in the United States, our academic teaching hospitals.

As the article concludes, high-risk patients with heart failure and cardiac arrest, hospitalized in teaching hospitals, had lower 30-day mortality when cardiologists were away from the hospital attending national cardiology meetings.

And the differences were not trivial — mortality decreased by about a third for some patients when those top doctors were away.

The research began as an investigation of how much harm cardiology meetings did (by calling doctors away from their hospitals), and instead found that heart patients did better when the hospitals’ best cardiologists were away!

There were several speculations about why this might be true:

One possible explanation is that while senior cardiologists are great researchers, the junior physicians — recently out of training — may actually be more adept clinically.

Another potential explanation is that senior cardiologists try more interventions.

When the cardiologists were around, patients in cardiac arrest, for example, were significantly more likely to get interventions, like stents, to open up their coronary blood vessels.

We usually think more treatment means better treatment.

We often forget that every test and treatment can go wrong, produce side effects or lead to additional interventions that themselves can go wrong.

The point of this post is not specifically to discuss medicine, for which I have very little background. Instead, the point is to discuss the medical establishment’s response to this research: Commitment denial.

When the AMA and several doctors were questioned about the research results, the responses could be summarized as, “We’re pleased that doctors made sure their staff was fully prepared.”

Get it? Rather than worry about why such results occurred, they tried a “lemons into lemonade” approach, in effect claiming that greater mortality with top doctors was a good thing.

Also, they questioned the research itself, and seem less concerned about the possibility the research may have uncovered a real problem.

Doctors themselves intuitively believed the results were impossible. And why should they not?

They have devoted their entire lives to the “self-evident” postulate that better, more experienced doctors always create better patient outcomes.

They are committed to denying otherwise.

In the same vein, many economists have devoted their lives to the belief that federal taxpayers, (like state and local taxpayers) fund their governments’ spending, and that deficits and debts are economically bad.

To them, it’s “self evident.” No proof needed, and no contrary evidence accepted.

Economists have written papers and read papers on the subject, given speeches and heard speeches , attended meetings and had informal discussions with fellow economists, received awards for their hypotheses, taught classes and corrected students who said otherwise — day after day after day — all of which have solidified their beliefs.

In short, the economists, like the doctors, are not just financially committed, but also emotionally committed to their versions of the Big Lie.

You probably have not heard much about the above-mentioned medical research. The doctors and media don’t discuss it.

Nor have you heard much about the Big Lies in economics. The economists and media don’t discuss them.

They believe what they believe, and anything that disagrees “obviously” is wrong.

Each group of doctors and economists fervently prays the data simply will disappear — the head-in-sand approach, though in each case, the data point to ways in which physical and financial lives may be saved.

In human psychology, a saved life sometimes is less valuable than a saved self-image.

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

The Republican Balanced Budget Amendment

If you enjoy economic fiction and a restatement of The Big Lie, there may be no better place to begin than the Republican 2016 platform.

On page 23, you will find the following:

Balancing the Budget

The federal fiscal burden threatens the security, liberty, and independence of our nation.

The current Administration’s refusal to work with Republicans took our national debt from $10 trillion to nearly $19 trillion today. Left unchecked, it will hit $30 trillion by 2026.

The term “fiscal burden” is a lie. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can pay any bill of any size at any time. It never can run short of its sovereign dollars to pay its financial obligations. The notion of “burden” simply does not apply.

Even more, the so-called “national debt” is not really a debt as you may understand the term. The misnamed national “debt” is nothing more than the total of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.

In short, the so-called “debt” is bank account deposits. It entirely could be paid off tomorrow, simply by transferring the dollars that exist in those accounts to the checking accounts of T-security holders. No new dollars and no taxes needed.

Thus, the “debt” poses no “burden” on the government and no “threat to security, liberty, and independence of our nation.”

At the same time, the Administration’s policies systematically crippled economic growth and job creation, driving up government costs and driving down revenues.

Oh, the irony. Deficit spending is what brought the nation out of the worst recession in our history. In fact, federal deficit spending is what has cured every recession.

monetary sovereignty

The blue line is the relative change in federal debt. The vertical bars are recessions.

Declines in the blue line have led to recessions, and increases have cured recessions. The reason: A growing economy, by definition, requires a growing supply of money, and federal deficit spending increases the money supply.

When Congressional Republicans tried to reverse course, the Administration manufactured fiscal crises — phony government shutdowns — to demand excessive spending.

The ironies simply don’t end. It was Republican Ted Cruz who threatened to shut down the government unless federal deficit spending (the one factor that grows the economy) was reduced.

The Administration’s demands have focused on significantly expanding government spending and benefits for its preferred groups, paid for through loans that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. This is the path to bankrupting the next generation.

“It’s preferred groups” are the poor, the middle-classes and the children. The “Administration’s demands” included money for health care, education, and retirement.

Our children and grandchildren do not pay for federal spending. As our readers know, The Big Lie in economics can be stated in just five words: “Federal taxes fund federal spending.”

While state and local taxes do fund state and local spending, the federal government, being uniquely Monetarily Sovereign, creates dollars ad hoc, by paying its bills.

That is the fundamental difference between federal financing and state/local government financing. Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the government could continue spending, forever.

The Republican path to fiscal sanity and economic expansion begins with a constitutional requirement for a federal balanced budget.

We will fight for Congress to adopt, and for the states to ratify, a Balanced Budget Amendment which imposes a cap limiting spending to the appropriate historical average percentage of our nation’s gross domestic product while requiring a super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions only for war or legitimate emergencies.

Only a constitutional safeguard such as this can prevent deficits from mounting to government default.

Through wars, recessions, and depressions — through massive increases in federal deficits and federal “debt” — the U.S. government never has defaulted, and never will. It has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.

While the federal deficits and debt pose no threat whatsoever to the government, a reduction in federal deficit spending would destroy the American economy.

Taxes take dollars from your pocket and therefore, are recessive. Reduced federal spending also takes dollars from your pocket and also is recessive.

Money is the lifeblood of an economy. There is no way that reduced deficit spending, i.e. reducing the lifeblood, can grow the economy.

Cutting federal deficit spending to grow the economy would be like applying leeches to cure anemia.

Why then do the Republicans demand deficit reduction? Because most federal deficit spending benefits the lower income groups, and the Republicans are the party of the very rich.

Republicans hate such social benefits as Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and aids to education (unless they can privatize these programs for the benefit of Wall Street investors).

By contrast, they love war spending because it already benefits Wall Street — the military/industrial complex.

The Gap is what separates the rich from the rest of us.

Without the Gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are. So the very rich do everything possible to widen the Gap, and that includes cutting social benefits.

A balanced budget amendment would put America into a permanent depression, in which the very rich would rule and the rest of us would have to beg them for sustenance.

A balanced budget amendment would be heaven for the very rich and hell for the rest of us. And the Republicans know it.

But amazingly, the Republican platform gets even worse:

Preserving Medicare and Medicaid

More than 100 million Americans depend on Medicare or Medicaid for their healthcare; with our population aging, that number will increase. To preserve Medicare and Medicaid, the financing of these important programs must be brought under control before they consume most of the federal budget, including national defense.

The above is a restatement of The Big Lie, that somehow the federal government can run short of its own sovereign currency and be unable to pay its bills. This is fear-mongering at its worst, an outright lie.

Medicare’s long-term debt is in the trillions, and it is funded by a workforce that is shrinking relative to the size of future beneficiaries.

Contrary to popular belief, your FICA payments do not fund Medicare. Taxes do not fund federal spending. Even if FICA were eliminated, the federal government could fund Medicare, not just for the elderly, but for every man, woman, and child in America.

FICA is a regressive tax, affecting the poor and middle classes far more than it affects the rich. It can and should be eliminated, while Social Security and Medicare are expanded.

We propose these reforms: Impose no changes for persons 55 or older.

If the proposal were good, why not give it to those 55 or older? The cynical reason: The proposal is terrible, so to get votes from the older people, they are exempted.

Give others the option of traditional Medicare or transition to a premium-support model designed to strengthen patient choice, promote cost-saving competition among providers, and better guard against the fraud and abuse that now diverts billions of dollars every year away from patient care.

You probably don’t know what this means. The confusion is intentional.

It means you will receive less money to pay for medical care than Medicare now spends. For the government to spend less, you will have to spend more.

The problem is that while the federal government has the unlimited ability to pay its bills, you don’t. So you will be impoverished, which will grow the Gap between the very rich and you.

Also note that the proposal has nothing to do with “patient choice,” “cost-saving competition among providers,” or a “guard against the fraud and abuse.” The proposal strictly is: You spend more so the government can spend less.

And finally, the following:

Set a more realistic age for eligibility in light of today’s longer life span.

Translation: Your Social Security and Medicare benefits will begin later. Who benefits from that?

In summary, the above sections of the Republican 2016 platform are a paeon to the very rich, designed at the behest of the rich to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

It is designed to fool you who rely on your leaders to aid and protect you. But these leaders have been bribed via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later.

They care nothing for you, and so they lie and hope you believe them.

Do you?

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

You understand The Big Lie. You just don’t know it, yet.

The Big Lie in economics is:

Federal Taxes Fund Federal Spending

Unlike state and local governments, whose taxes do fund spending, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has total sovereignty over the dollar. It can create as many dollars as it wishes, any time it wishes.

You read and hear the Big Lie almost every day.

Each time someone asks “Who’s going to pay for that?” when discussing a federal program, they express the Big Lie. The answer to their question is: The federal government will pay for it by creating dollars, ad hoc.

Obamacare is based on the Big Lie because it requires people to pay the federal government for services. The federal government neither needs nor uses such payments.

The Big Lie hides the fact that all federal tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt.

The federal government “has” no dollars. Rather it sends instructions to banks (in the form of checks or wires), telling the banks to increase the balances in checking accounts. When the banks do as instructed, dollars are created.

The concept, “federal taxes destroy dollars,” is counterintuitive and difficult to explain, particularly since state and local taxes do not destroy dollars. At first blush, the average person cannot imagine why the federal government taxes, if it destroys tax dollars.

(The reasons are psychological, and allow the government to control the citizenry by rationing services.)

Interestingly, I’ve found that everyone knows federal taxes destroy dollars, without knowing they know it.

Here’s the essence of a conversation I had just yesterday, with a friend:

RM: Federal tax dollars are destroyed as soon as they are received by the government.

Friend: No they aren’t. They are spent by the federal government. Taxes are how the government pays for spending.

RM: Do you think the federal government can run out of dollars?

F: No, the government always can print more dollars.

RM: If that is the case, the federal government doesn’t need to tax. It could stop taxing tomorrow and simply create the dollars it needs.

F: But that would cause inflation.

RM: Why would the end of federal taxation cause inflation?

F: Because if the government simply printed dollars, the dollar supply would go up, which would cheapen the dollar, and that’s inflation.

RM: So what you’re saying is: Federal spending causes inflation by increasing the dollar supply, and federal taxes prevent inflation by reducing the dollar supply.

F: Yes.

RM: Which shows you understand that federal tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt. If they still existed, they wouldn’t offset federal spending, and couldn’t prevent inflation.

And by the way, this isn’t true of state and local taxes, which are deposited in banks.  Dollars exist only when they are circulating in the economy. The federal government has no dollars. It destroys every dollar it receives.

The fact that the federal government not only has no need for taxes, but actually destroys tax dollars upon receipt, is the single most important concept in all of economics.

It is the foundation of Monetary Sovereignty. It is what makes the Ten Steps to Prosperity (see below) possible.

Not understanding why the Big Lie (Federal Taxes Fund Federal Spending) is in fact, a lie, has led to the euro disaster. It’s why many states, counties, and cities teeter on the edge of financial disaster, while the federal government never has any difficulty paying its bills.

It’s why the UK was wise in retaining its pound, and not surrendering to the euro.

It’s why many states, counties, and cities teeter on the edge of financial disaster, while the federal government never has any difficulty paying its bills.

In short, everyone believes federal tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt. They just don’t know they believe it.

To claim that eliminating federal taxes would cause inflation is simply another way to say federal taxation destroys dollars.

It’s the first big step toward understanding economics.

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 EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and 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