Dear Editor
To Jim Petric's (sic)questions: “why does our mounting monster debt of some
$17 trillion and unfunded promised entitlements of $60 trillion NOT
sincerely, inarguably scare the shit out of you?
“I am not a Tea Partier, nor a Republican--hell, I wouldn't belong to a
political party that would have me--but a former old school Kennedy
Democrat who simply cannot fathom why folks on both sides of the aisle
aren't begging and clamoring for and demanding government spending within
our means.” (John Petric' column Oct. 31)
Jim and any duckies who are interested. What you seem to be asking for is a
quick and easy to comprehend answer, which is a bit difficult because much
of the related concepts have been distorted or substituted with falsified
simplicities. What is going on is mostly a political struggle over the
fiscal capacities of the Federal government. A large portion of the
scramble and mumbling cannot be simply based upon "common sense." Some
economic and fiscal literacy is necessary to understand where, when and by
whom the fraud of the faux "debate" is being perpetrated. A lot of people
are as a result of keeping the secrets of the Wall Street temples secret
or at least masked by a lot appeal to un-true truisms and the deliberate
obfuscation of how reserve accounting actually works for banks and for the
government at different levels. Think cocaine, snake oil elixirs and
stage magic and you will be on the right track.
Here is a condensed answer: Jim, first off what is often assumed to be a
"national debt" is actually not a debt, but technically a national
deficit. Within fiscal related economics "debt" is something that an
ordinary household or individual takes on with a promise to pay that debt.
A deficit at the federal level is the difference between currency units
that have been spent into the economy in different ways by the Federal
government. Part of the problem with understanding the current fiscal
situation is that the TINA-"free market" ideologues intentionally confuse
the concepts in order to confuse and panic people in going along with
their corporate privatization of governance. There is a massive difference
between the federal government as the issuer of the national sovereign,
fiat currency, and a household which needs to earn or otherwise acquire
the currency credits to pay off various debts. Taxes collected by the
Federal government are NOT the basis upon which the Federal government
funds fiscal priorities, at all.
Most progressives have adopted the language of free market economics, as
if there is no actual and valid alternative to the political dramatists
and "free market" ideologues. I've seen it many, many times, a self
professed progressive will moan about the problems of inequality, and then
they don't have a clue about how to remedy the resulting problems other
than taxing the rich. Taxation is primarily a way of adjusting the
distribution of wealth, and unfortunately it has been used to tax the
middle class primarily and let the piles of gold bars and other wealth
accumulate for those already wealthy. Many progressive are econo-phobic
actually and share this with a large percentage of the rest of the
population. However, when the calls for reducing inequality are
announced, they will tend to shuffle their feet and call for taxation of
the rich, and other than that they remain clueless.
There is another way and that is to put people to work and provide a basic
or better income as was done with the WPA by FDR and how the soldiers were
paid during WWII. As long as we keep our sovereign fiat currency we will
always pay off any actual Federal debt, such as trade deficits. China for
instance has an account at the US Federal Reserve where it is earning
interest of their trade deficit with the US.
I will cut this off, mostly because the complete answer to your questions
will involve covering a lot more territory. The short story is that the
verbiage coming from the TINA seats is 99 percent political and not fiscal,AT
ALL. The 17 trillion you mention, depending on to which part you are referring,
is close to meaningless, simply because it is not like a household debt,
because again we still have a sovereign fiat currency, which Spain,
Greece, Italy, et al no longer have because they gave up their sovereign
currency to join the European Monetary Union. Please, ask more questions
and I will strive to respond until you are satisfied.
for now,
Tadit Anderson
Columbus