Tag: the government creates money

–Should federal earmarks be ended?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.

On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated support for a moratorium on earmarks. This is in line with GOP conservatives who want to reduce federal spending. Never mind that earmarks are a minuscule part of federal spending. Earmarks have a bad name; many people feel there is something inherently wrong with earmarks, as though they somehow were a form of stealing. They are closely associated in people’s minds with “pork barrel” spending, which also has a bad name.

But what is an “earmark.” It is nothing more than spending directed at a specific project. In one sense, virtually all government spending could be called an “earmark,” though the term usually is more narrowly focused on small projects in a particular Congressperson’s district. Building a road, fixing a bridge, refurbishing a school, providing an ambulance or hiring a fire fighter all can be earmarks.

In common usage, an earmark is an appropriation inserted in a large bill, the appropriation being too small to incur a veto from the President or even a rejection by Congress. Thus, an earmark can bypass both Legislative and Executive branch intent. But does that mean earmarks are bad? Not at all. The vast majority of earmarks are worthwhile. Not only do they buy valuable assets and services, but they provide specific remedies for local problems that otherwise would go unnoticed by Congress and the President. And, just as important, money paid for earmarks adds to the national money supply, which is stimulative.

There are three key arguments against earmarks, all of them suspect:

Argument 1. Earmarks waste money that otherwise would go to worthier projects.
The worthiness of any project is in the eye of the beholder. Is a school in Nevada worth more or less than an equally-priced prison in Oregon? Is a sewer in Illinois worth more or less than a dam in Minnesota? These are discussions in which neither Congress nor the President could or should be involved. That is why each Congressperson serves an individual district, rather than only serving the nation as a whole. Earmarks give voters in individual cities, counties and states the ability to receive funding for important, local projects.

Argument 2. Earmarks add to the federal deficit. I won’t repeat the arguments you can find on virtually every page in this blog. For example, see: https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/introduction/ A quick summary of the facts. Adding to the federal debt is absolutely necessary for economic growth. Even the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska, would have employed many people, profited many businesses, and even might have provided a slight convenience for a few people. And it would have done no harm to anyone.

Argument 3. Earmarks aren’t fair; some Congresspersons get more than others. The question of “fairness” is similar to the question of worthiness. Who judges what is fair and what is not? Smart voters take into consideration what their representatives can do for their specific area, not only what the representative can do for the entire nation. People who receive less, whether it be earmarks, salary, bonus or just a good place in line, often feel the system is unfair. People who receive more, like it just fine.

When you read that Mitch McConnell has done a sudden U-turn from his previous position of supporting earmarks, and now hates them, you can be sure he is doing it for political, not financial or even logical, reasons. If he and the other politicians were to succeed in ending earmarks (unlikely), I pity all the local cities and counties, the businesses and charities and even the states, whose voices will not be heard and needs not be met. How else can these people receive attention, consideration and federal money, if not for earmarks?

Ending earmarks is like banning cars to prevent auto accidents. Or to use the old cliche, “Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–Another attempt to explain why taxpayers don’t pay for federal spending

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.

In my never-ending effort to explain more clearly why federal spending costs taxpayers nothing, here is a new thought that perhaps will make the concept more intuitive. It was precipitated by a question from Mr. Tyler Fairleigh, which is published in the comment section at Monetary Sovereignty.

Imagine John Jones sells something to the federal government for $100. John sends the government a “bill.” A bill is nothing more than a little note containing this instruction: “Please credit John Jones $100.” It costs John nothing to send that note. In fact, John could send such a note (bill) to the government every day for the next ten years, and still it would cost John nothing.

Of course, the government is under no obligation to do as John requests, but the point is, that little note costs John nothing. He need have no money in the bank to send it.

Assume, the government checks its records and finds that indeed it owes John $100, so it sends him a check for $100, which he deposits in his bank. The government’s check is not money; it is an instruction. The check is a little note containing this instruction: “John’s bank. Please mark up the number in John’s account by $100.”

The government has the power to send an unlimited number of instructions (aka “checks”) at any time. These instructions do not require the government to “have” any money. They merely are instructions made by a monetarily sovereign government.

So John’s bank obediently raises the number in his account by $100, then informs the Federal Reserve Bank of what it has done. For accounting reasons, all sorts of accounts are credited and debited, some of which may or may not be related to taxes. But in reality, all that has happened was, John’s bank received an instruction from the federal government and did as it was told.

These instructions also cost taxpayers nothing. Taxpayers are not even involved. Even if no one was paying taxes, our monetarily sovereign government still could send an unlimited number of instructions to banks all over the world, and they all would obey. Why? Because they know the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States will mark up their accounts by the exact amount of the check. Why? Because the U.S. government is monetarily sovereign, meaning it has the unlimited power to mark up accounts.

Compare this with Greece, Spain, Illinois, California, General Motors, Chicago, you and me. None of us in monetarily sovereign, so none of us has the unlimited power to mark up bank accounts. Our power is limited by the number in our own bank account or by what we can borrow.

Yes, you too could send an unlimited number of such instructions, but unless your bank account had a high enough number, your bank would not obey these instructions (aka bounce your check). But no bank bounces the federal government’s instructions. Never has; never will. A monetarily sovereign nation cannot be forced into bankruptcy.

And what about that worrisome federal debt? It is the total of the T-securities (aka IOUs) the government creates from thin air. It can do this forever.

To pay the debt, the federal government merely sends notes to the various T-security holders’ banks, instructing them to mark up accounts. Taxpayers don’t owe the government’s debt, nor do your children nor grandchildren. You aren’t even involved.

And as for the federal deficit, it is just a balance sheet entry, showing the difference between taxes collected and money spent, or more accurately, the difference between the number subtracted from taxpayers’ bank accounts and the numbers added to vendors’ bank accounts. Of course, taxes do not pay for spending. The government could add numbers to vendor’s bank accounts without subtracting from taxpayers’ accounts.

So that’s it. Government spending is just instructions to banks. The debt is just IOUs created from thin air. Paying the debt is just instructions to banks to raise numbers in accounts. The deficit merely is an arithmetic difference. And taxpayers neither pay for, no owe, any of this.

Does that make things clearer?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–What should the U.S. do next? Hunt like a lion

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.

A reader, KK Tipton, asked what I suggest our government actually do, since being monetarily sovereign, it has the unlimited power to create money, without support from taxes or borrowing. First a little background:

Yes, the spending by a monetarily sovereign government is constrained neither by tax receipts nor by borrowing. So with no financial constraints, it could, as KK humorously suggests, build “ . . .two walls of aircraft carriers, end to end tomorrow, to protect our shores. Why not?”

Well, the “why not?” has to do with the only constraint on federal spending: Inflation. There is a point at which federal spending could become so massive as to cause inflation. Pump $100 trillion into the economy next month and I can guarantee a great big inflation.

However, we are nowhere near that point, and have been nowhere near that point since 1971, the year in which the U.S. federal government became monetarily sovereign. Even the inflation of 1979 was not caused by federal deficit spending, but rather by oil prices.

Graph 1

The above graph shows that inflation (red line) generally reached its peak at a time when federal deficit spending (blue line) was reaching a trough, and that inflation peaks correlated most closely with peaks in energy prices (green line).

Because federal deficits stimulate the economy and are constrained only by inflation, the goal is to maximize stimulation while keeping inflation at an acceptable level, perhaps 2% – 3%. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) holds that inflation can be cured by increasing taxes. This is true, but it’s like preventing facial acne by cutting off your head. Increasing taxes removes money from the economy, which is anti-growth, causing recessions and depressions. (See: A quick summary of the facts )

I prefer to prevent and cure inflation by increasing interest rates, which increases the reward for owning money. This increases the demand for money and makes money more valuable. MMT followers say high interest rates increase business costs, thereby actually causing inflation. Nice theory, but not in accord with the facts. Contrary to popular wisdom, there is no relationship between high rates and slow growth, or low rates and fast growth. See: Interest Rates . Both Chairmen Greenspan and Bernanke may have learned this after 20 rate reductions accomplished nothing.

Given all of the above as a background, here’s what I suggest we do:

1. Eliminate T-securities. A monetarily sovereign nation does not need to borrow the money it created earlier – money it can create without limit. This would end all federal debt along with the misguided concerns about federal debt – concerns that have helped destroy our economy..

[All of the next suggested activities would be done incrementally, the way a lion stalks its prey. Make a small move, then stop to see what happens, then make another move, always getting closer and closer to your goal of maximum growth with acceptable inflation.]

2. Eliminate the FICA tax. This is a tax collected weekly or monthly, so it neatly allows for the “lion stalking” approach. A more complete discussion is at Ten reasons to eliminate FICA, but briefly, this would put about $1 trillion (See: Budget of the United States Government 2011) into the economy next year, exactly where it is needed most: Half in the hands of business; half in the hands of employees.

3. Eliminate taxes on business. These are projected to be about $300 billion next year, less than 12% of total federal projected receipts of $2.6 trillion. Business is the engine of our economy. Pulling money out of the engine is the worst way to grow an economy.

4. Gradually reduce personal income tax collections, which are projected to be $1.1 trillion next year, by increasing the standard deduction. We could begin by freeing from taxes, anyone earning less than $50,000 a year. Then we could incrementally raise the amount, until the last people in America paying personal income tax would be Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. (Of course, we would have to find jobs for all those accountants, tax lawyers, IRS employees, prosecutors and federal prison guards, whose livelihoods depend wholly or partly on income taxes. But a healthy growing economy should take care of that.)

As you can see, I would begin by slowly but persistently eliminating taxes, and putting the money back in the hands of the people. After the tax situation was resolved, I would begin to increase spending, on humanitarian things like Social Security, universal health care insurance and unemployment insurance. I would fund the states by providing a per-capita allowance. Being monetarily non-sovereign, they cannot create money, and so require outside support (See: “–Here is the financial solution for your state, county and city”).

So there you have a quick summary. Like a lion, creeping up on a covey of ignorant debt hawks, I first would reduce/eliminate taxes, then increase federal spending.

What are your thoughts?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–Letter sent to National Public Radio re: “The U.S. is broke”

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
================================================================================================================================================================

Yesterday (11/9/10), I sent the following letter to the people at National Public Radio. I’ll let you know in the unlikely event they respond. Even this self-styled, independent, “open-minded” medium, funded primarily by private donation, simply cannot bring itself to consider the possibility that the federal debt is not too high, and in fact, is necessary for economic growth. If NPR can’t handle the facts, what hope is there the for-profit media, which solely are interested in ad dollars fueled by popular wisdom, will understand?

You pride yourself on balance, but there is one area in which you are completely out of balance. Day after day I hear your interviewers talking to people who claim the U.S. is “broke,” and the federal debt is “unsustainable” and needs to be reduced. Entire radio programs are devoted to debating about which spending initiative should be cut. Interviewees tell us whether payments to doctors should be reduced. Or Social Security cut. Or can we afford health care?

Day after day your programs tell listeners the government can’t afford this and can’t afford that. Today, on one of your programs, I heard someone say the federal budget for Public Radio should be eliminated — a delicious irony, since you helped bring this on yourself by never presenting the other side of the story.

In 1971, the end of the gold standard, the federal government became monetarily sovereign. This changed everything in economics. Suddenly, the federal government had the unlimited ability to create money and to service any size debt. It is 100% impossible for any monetarily sovereign nation to be “broke.” There is nothing the government cannot afford.

Additionally, in a monetarily sovereign nation, federal spending is not constrained by taxes or borrowing. If taxes and borrowing both fell to $0, this would not change by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to spend any amount on any initiative.

The only thing that constrains federal spending is inflation, and as you can see, we are nowhere near inflation; in fact, deflation is the current worry. Meanwhile, millions of Americans suffer for lack of federal spending on health care, Medicare, Social Security, roads, bridges, poverty, affordable housing, education, etc. — all because of the incorrect belief the government is “broke.”

I would be glad to present the other side of the story. It’s time your audience heard a balanced presentation of this critical issue. If it’s a debate, my first question will be, “If America is broke, as you say, exactly when did it become broke? After that, my questions will become harder.

It’s time for a little balance

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”