Fiscally Responsible?

We need to invest in our people and our future -- job opportunities, training, research and development, improved immigration laws to attract and retain talented, hard-working people from other nations, education (I have advocated for enriched pre-school opportunities for every child and free higher education (perhaps with a community service component included)), support for the arts, family planning, universal health care (and a much less expensive system, with better outcomes, as in every other nation in the industrialized world), a vastly improved infrastructure, child care, and transit opportunities. Those investments pay off in helping to restore our nation's competitive edge in relation to other nations, their employees, and their students. I also believe in creating a more equal playing field for employers and working people so that U.S. corporations are not exporting jobs to the detriment of our nation and its people. Priming the pump with government investments is crucial during a recession. The real damage was done during the Bush administration, when we were engaged in horrendously expensive (and humanly tragic) wars and, at the same time, enormous tax breaks were given to the wealthy. (It is the first time in our nation's history that we were engaged in wars and, at the same time, taxes were reduced. Insanely irresponsible.)

Driving up the accumulated debt has been the objective of government haters like Grover Norquist, who has been preaching "Starve the beast" for years. He knows, as we are seeing now, that social programs will be the first ones to go once our debt has skyrocketed. A true fiscal conservative would make certain that there are sufficient revenues by increasing taxes -- and that we cut out the waste in the federal budget, particularly in the military budget. Next time your representative in Congress talks about being a "fiscal conservative," -- or next time he/she complains about the federal debt -- ask if he/she continued to support F-22 funding (a boondoggle that continued primarily because there were contractors or sub-contractors in 44 states and members of Congress simply wanted to take the federal bacon back home). 

Education is a core duty of government. Without an educated citizenry, our nation has no future. In fact, we have lost our competitive edge in large part because our government has not ensured that enough of our students are getting a world-class education. While other nations are investing heavily in education, their students are out-scoring and out-performing our students. And we wonder where the jobs are? We must re-commit to providing the best possible education for our students. That should include enriched pre-school programs that will make an enormous difference in the physiological development of our children's brains and in their capacity later to learn and compete. Just as our forebears had the wisdom to provide a free secondary education for every child, so too should we exercise the wisdom to provide, for all capable students, a free higher education, with perhaps a community- or national-service component included.

Universal health care does not require the "nationalization" of any health care providers. It simply requires that we catch up with the rest of the industrialized world. Every other nation in the industrialized world provides essential health care to every citizen.No one in any other nation in the industrialized world takes out bankruptcy because of medical bills. That only happens in the U.S. Are you proud of that? Our system, by comparison to the rest of the industrialized world, is a failure: (1) Our system costs more than twice as much as the average in the rest of the industrialized world. (2) Our medical outcomes are mediocre by comparison with other nations. (3) We are the only nation where people are without essential health care. If you're proud of that, I can only say that our values are world's apart. In my view, one's economic status should not determine whether he/she -- or his/her children -- should die or suffer needlessly. We can do so much better than we do -- yet real reform has been prevented because of the rapacious for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and the elected officials who do their bidding rather than protect the public interest. 


Showing 15 reactions


Jerry Khachoyan commented 2012-10-31 23:35:41 -0600 · Flag
Spoke to soon. Seems like Rocky does understand (to some extent) that the US cannot “run out of money”.

http://www.facebook.com/YourFriendRocky/posts/483147588383558?comment_id=92859610&offset=0&total_comments=3
Jerry Khachoyan commented 2012-10-31 00:04:05 -0600 · Flag
Woah, didn’t expect to see a debate about Monetary Sovereignty on this page but glad I do!

My Fasola and Mr Roll,
Most candidates do not understand MMR/MMT/MS. This is not surprising. The only issue here is by having this candidate in office, will the idea of monetary sovereignty ever have a chance to shine?
With someone like Rocky Anderson in, who is against money in politics, I think chances increase, thats why I will be writing him in, and not because I agree w/ all his policies (esp economic).

But I would hope by having this debate here, Rocky reaches out to (Insert your MMT/MMR/MS guy here….Warren Mosler, Cullen Roche, Roger Mitchell) and realizes his erroneous thinking on fiscal policy.

-TheArmoTrader
Charles Fasola commented 2012-10-30 15:21:20 -0600 · Flag
Inflation is very easily controlled and rather than being caused by excessive money is mostly caused by rising energy costs.
Charles Fasola commented 2012-10-30 15:17:33 -0600 · Flag
Mr. Roll, MMR is truth. Yet it is not alone. Monetary Sovereignty and MMT MMT espouse the same basic premises. Those who do not understand monetary sovereignty do not understand economics and do not understand the role of federal taxes. Finally, a monetarily sovereign nation can always pay any obligations. It is not ever revenue constrained unless moronic laws are passed by our ignorant representatives which do so.
Thomas Roll commented 2012-02-20 17:43:17 -0700 · Flag
My message is not getting through. It is apparent from your “fiscally responsible?” solution’s statement that your understanding of the federal government financial system is that it is like a household (or local or state government). It is not. This isn’t theory, it’s fact. Federal taxes (unlike state and local taxes) do not provide revenue (money) for the federal government to go and spend. (Please read up on Modern Monetary Realism at pragcap,com). The real dangers of our fiat monetary system are two-fold: 1. Continuing excessive deficits will eventually lead to inflation. 2. Incomplete understanding of our system may cause loss of confidence of our system(once again leading to inflation). If you’re going to be truly fiscally responsible, you must understand Modern Monetary Realism (MMR) and not fall into the “spending revenues” trap that is so easy to convey to the public, but is based on a fallacy.. Once you get this straight, then you can move on to try and solve this economic mess we’re in.
aye ehl commented 2012-02-19 19:00:12 -0700 · Flag
Gentlemen. Ladies. I for one, am certain there are as many options for a system(s) of fair and just economic growth and benefit as there are opinions (aka- theories). So with that being said, here is another… I would offer that the current federal reserve system “geographical districts” portion of the current model in practice be continued. Now, these districts (in geography only) would be used as “testing grounds” for theories that have been put to vote and have won the majority vote of the populace of those districts. An agreed upon length of time can be used to evaluate the effects of the tested theory in specific areas of the economy and, always using the NOW, CURRENT, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM EFFECTS ON THE ECONOMY as the standard for which all future testing would be based. The economically improved districts would retain those theories until the populace voted to change it with another. Those districts experiencing unacceptable levels of improvement could authorize a vote to immediately implement a well functioning districts’ theory and practice, or try another theory of their voting. I would surmise that eventually, with communication between the districts and the endeavor of each to utilize the most beneficial theory, all will converge upon one accepted theory, or, retain the theory which they feel works best for them. Again, with the communication within the districts, there will need to be an arbiter organization of the people, for the people and by the people that will ensure that no matter the theory being practiced within any district, all will have areas of compatibility enough to be able to conduct interstate commerce with one another. What say ye?
Thomas Roll commented 2012-02-14 15:34:04 -0700 · Flag
Has anybody contacted Cullen Roche, yet? I don’t have one tenth the understanding of economics as that man.
John Nixdorf commented 2012-02-14 09:35:37 -0700 · Flag
Thomas Roll is convinced he is the sole arbiter of what constitutes sane and enlightened fiscal policy. Anybody who disagrees does so because they “understand nothing” and simply need a sufficient level of education. Since every single candidate Thomas has considered has this same flaw, perhaps Thomas should run for president. Elections are a choice for the people of which candidate best matches their own views and who would best represent them as a President. If nobody else has the understanding of finance which Thomas Roll has, then he would be his own ideal candidate and electorate.
Thomas Roll commented 2012-02-12 19:15:07 -0700 · Flag
I didn’t say I agreed with his stances. In fact, I disagree with many of the the solutions for which Rocky stands.
However, there are two top reasons one should be voting for a president:
1. Foreign affairs (with which I agree 100% with Rocky).
2. Economic affairs (to which I have time and again tried to persuade Rocky and his campaign staff to educate themselves – to no avail).
Most everything else is B.S., which has been proven time and again because it is only these two major affairs that the “corruptible influence” of big money has swayed in BOTH major parties. This “corruptible influence” is Rocky’s strong suit. Unfortunately, he has shot 50% of his strong suit to hell because he understands nothing about the Federal monetary system and apparently refuses to educate himself.
I’ve been trying for 2 months to get him off his butt and do something about it with no results.
He doesn’t get my vote unless he at least makes the attempt.
K H commented 2012-02-12 10:26:29 -0700 · Flag
@Thomas Roll – Don’t you think you might be nitpicking just a bit? Obviously you’re entitled to do as you wish, but if that is the only reason you’d choose not to vote for him (as opposed to the other candidates – all a far cry from just), then perhaps you’re not being totally fair. In my opinion, having expertise in a number of other essential areas that are key to engendering REAL reform trumps a lesser grasp (which may or may not be true for him) of the federal monetary system. Besides, he seems to be proposing so many varied changes that such a system, as it has been managed, may not even exist in the manner in which it has for long if he were to be elected. That being the case, a complete understanding of it would be irrelevant in terms of what he’d like to do.
Thomas Roll commented 2012-02-12 06:47:44 -0700 · Flag
Your stances make all the sense in the world, EXCEPT, you have one major flaw (the same flaw as all other candidates whose issues I’ve studied).
You do not comprehend the federal government’s monetary system: FEDERAL TAXES ARE NOT REVENUES. When the government spends money, it creates it out of thin air (the fiat system). When it taxes money, it destroys that money out of existence.
Taxes serve two practical purposes: 1. it creates a demand for the U.S. dollar (because that is the only thing in which one can pay taxes), and 2. it prevents the excessive build-up of circulating money (which, if allowed to excessively increase, would cause rampant inflation).
The federal government’s budget is not like a household, state, or local government (or the Eurozone, either), However,while a “balanced” budget has little or no meaning in our fiat money system, fiscal responsibility does. It is plain that Rocky’s platform on fiscal responsibility (while morally upright and accurately aimed) is based on a fallacy.
The above is the reason I will not vote for Rocky Anderson, If he should demonstrate an understanding of the monetary system, he will regain my vote.
(p.s. I recommend his “camp” contact one Cullen Roche at pragcap.com for fiscal policy understanding.
@BenEastwood4 mentioned @RockyAnderson link to this page. 2012-02-08 22:45:38 -0700
Fiscally Responsible? http://t.co/YHEis2MQ via @rockyanderson Obama's flip flop on PAC's, what will all that corporate money buy next term?
Aaron Kahn-Bork commented 2012-02-03 19:57:46 -0700 · Flag
Just found your email address, I’ll send my question there as well.
Aaron Kahn-Bork commented 2012-02-03 19:56:19 -0700 · Flag
I’m hoping to get a response from Rocky Anderson personally, which doesn’t seem unreasonable seeing as right now this is the only comment on this page.

I think your ideas and policies are fantastic and I’d love to see you in the White House, but if I’m going to vote for you (and possibly volunteer for your campaign), I need to hear more specifically about how you’ll create jobs. Although Obama has let us down in many ways, unemployment is decreasing. I’d like to know how you plan to continue that trend if you’re elected.

Thanks,
Aaron
Rocky Anderson (Admin) published this page in Issues and Solutions 2012-01-16 03:24:29 -0700
Homepage of Rocky Anderson
Activist, Attorney, and Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson's Official Homepage