Debt-Ceiling Hike Denier And Proud

“Debt-Ceiling Hike Denier And Proud” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

The government “not paying for all sorts of things” is how Tom Foreman messily defined a default on the debt-ceiling for the Chicken Littles of his news network. In one of many doom and gloom debt-ceiling segments for state broadcaster CNN, Foreman forewarned that a default on the country’s debt “would not be just about D.C., but it could be about YOU.”

In the same phillipic, Foreman carelessly conflated a debt default with a failure to raise the debt ceiling before its Oct. 17th deadline. But then President Pain has been setting the tone for the media, having accused Republicans, in his “Oct. 8 news conference on the shutdown and debt limit,” “of refusing to “meet our country’s commitments, pay our bills,” and of generally precipitating an “economic shutdown.”

The notion, however, that not raising the government’s credit limit must necessarily result in a default on the debt is untrue.

The government takes in approximately $250 billion a month in revenue. Servicing the national debt costs about $30 billion a month. Three trillion dollars is what the federal government expects to loot in the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1, 2013 and will end on Sept. 30, 2014.

On reflection, the U.S. Treasury collects enough to pay down the interest on the debt as well as a portion of the principal.

Claiming that the president is powerless to prioritize won’t wash either. “There is no constitutional feature that says the president cannot allocate revenues,” David Stockman told Lou Dobbs. Paraphrased, the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan said this: Unless President Obama orders it, there will be no default on the government debt, because Obama has the power to prioritize and allocate the revenue coming in. Oct. 17 is a phony date, designed to intimidate Republicans—and anyone trying to stand against a massive increase in the “public debt.” The Beltway is silent about the ability of the president to honor the country’s debt, because of an opposition to entitlement reform. …

Read the complete column. “Debt-Ceiling Hike Denier And Proud” is now on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

Military Deaths, Not Death Benefits, Are The Real Scandal

Family, Foreign Policy, Military, War

Watch this ceremony at the Dover Air Force Base. Soldiers receive the coffined body of a slain comrade on its arrival in Dover. They handle it with exquisite care, hands clad in white gloves. What a stark, pathos-filled, sad ceremony, every move so tender and respectful.

CNN has shown this dark side of the wars all mainstream media laud because the “survivor benefits to the families, which include a $100,000 payment made within days of the death,” were suspended, the president having refused to use his power to prioritize in the allocation of revenues.

The real scandal is not the death-benefit short-term lapse, but that American men and women are still dying (and killing) in these dumps for no good reason. What a wanton waste of promise-filled young lives.

A webcam ought to be installed permanently at Dover—a debt clock of sorts—to remind Americans of this G-d-awful grief and waste.

MORE Debt Dross

Debt, Government

Before Republicans caved on the debt-ceiling, Tom Foreman of the state broadcaster CNN warned that interest rates may climb, if what he billed incorrectly as a default on the debt came to pass.

That would be a much-needed correction. Interest rates should more realistically reflect the risk of lending to the U.S. government—and borrowing in general. That has to happen eventually.

Foreman also worried that the 148 million Americans (!!!) who are currently partaking in government programs will suffer. Not if they bite the bullet and decide, instead, to partake in the economy, if only for minimum wages.

The profligate president fretted too that not enough people will risk buying Treasury bills from the U.S. government. That’s a good thing too.

Like white on rice, the U.S. is on any country with significant foreign currency reserves. We’re even borrowing from … Brazil, which is now the United States’s fourth-largest creditor. The countries who buy U.S. government bonds to finance our debt are enablers. Anything that discourages this dubious investment will encourage the U.S. government to live within its means.

Janet Yellen’s Monetary Mindset

Federal Reserve Bank, Political Economy

The president has appointed Janet Yellen to chair the Federal Reserve. Here is some information about her monetary mindset, by way of a post written on 03.14.10, when Yellen was made vice chair of the Fed:

In an economy of high unemployment and inflation, Barack Obama has gone and appointed as … chair of the Federal Reserve a woman called Janet Yellen, by whose “economic” model inflation is the result of “too many people working and too much economic prosperity.” Or at least, that’s how Larry Kudlow distills the theory.

That such an economic theory exists attests to the degree to which economics and politics have become intertwined. Certainly “Keynes’s political creed guaranteed a hand-in-glove relationship between the state and its stooge economists. Most of what Keynes advocated entails giving the state enormous confiscatory powers.”

Is “the Phillips-curve model,” Yellen’s preferred theory, an extension of Keynesianism, or is it just some form of free floating statism? I have no idea. But since most economists are servants of the state in-waiting, following the Phillips Curve—which posits “a consistent inverse relationship: when unemployment is high, wages increase slowly; when unemployment is low, wages rise rapidly”—has given rise to “a menu of policy options.” Examples, courtesy of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, are:

with an unemployment rate of 6 percent, the government might stimulate the economy to lower unemployment to 5 percent. Figure 1 indicates that the cost, in terms of higher inflation, would be a little more than half a percentage point. But if the government initially faced lower rates of unemployment, the costs would be considerably higher: a reduction in unemployment from 5 to 4 percent would imply more than twice as big an increase in the rate of inflation—about one and a quarter percentage points.

OF COURSE, the unquestioned premise of these phillipic prescriptions is that “stimulus” does indeed lower said unemployment rates. Only in The Oink Sectors.

“Super-confused Keynesianism” is Robert Wenzel’s apt description of Yellen’s theories.