Attorney Chris Horner writes in with this bombshell which shows how “evangelism” has replaced factual analysis at the EPA, which is helped along by a compliant mass media. See the attached document obtained via FOIA.
His take on it includes:
* Obtained from the ongoing “Richard Windsor” FOIA, precisely as FOIA intended this allows the American public to see what bureaucrats and, in this case, ideological activists in government say among themselves and their pressure group allies, helping us keep a proper perspective about what these same activists tell the public.
* What this memo shows is the recognition that EPA needed to move its global warming campaign away from the failed global model of discredited Big Green pressure groups and their icons, that it has proved “consistently — an unpersuasive argument to make.” In it we see the birth of the breathtakingly disingenuous “shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness…”.
It also shows the conviction that if they yell “clean air” and “children” enough they, the media and the green groups will get their way.
SPECIFICS:
Notable points consistent with what critics of this evangelism have been saying include:
– the analogy to religion and faith-based pursuit of the “mission” — “a monumental effort driven by a positive motivation” — to reach the “unchurched”, which framing they recognized “will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows internally”.
– the same is true of the candor with which the memo acknowledges Obama’s EPA would wrap [fill in the blank] agenda item in poll-tested rhetoric, to “use various hooks” — “children” naturally among their headline list, as in “highlighting the children’s health dimension to all of our major initiatives” — to try and “create a causal link” between the incoming appointees’ “mission” and the actual concerns of those impacted by the missionaries.<
[See “shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness…”] Sure enough, with the rollout of Obama’s GHG rules in June we saw the remarkable pivot after which the “global warming” agenda was suddenly, somehow in fact about “clean air” and children struggling to breathe; the American Lung Association stood in for the old faithful alarmist groups which have squandered most of their credibility in recent years, to host the president’s announcement. Observers may have scratched their heads about that; this provides the genesis.
Elsewhere the memo acknowledges the campaign, revealed further in many other “Richard Windsor” emails, of trying to rebrand a global warming movement that is so obviously a child of affluent whites to an issue of race and “EJ” or “social justice”.
Possibly most refreshing is the acknowledgement of EPA’s symbiotic relationship with a “cadre of reporters” who EPA expects to demand an agenda — according to EPA, just like pressure groups — to which demands EPA will respond.
March 09 EPA Strategy Memo to LPJ (PDF obtained via FOIA)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The EPA notes that people care about both clean water and drinking water systems above climate change, and the EPA has their own documentation on the severity of these issues and the costs to fix them. So do professional engineering organizations. But instead of drawing a line in the sand when it comes to funding and fixing those problems, they see the problem is that they need to do a better job of promoting the issue of climate change so that it is higher on the list.
They’ll bypass hurdles through using the “Clean Water Act”. http://www.cfact.org/2014/11/13/proposed-water-rule-puts-americans-at-epas-mercy/
Sir Harry,
Your phony misrepresentations are no more than petulant snipes.
Without providing any specific or germane beef you have nothing to offer.
So what is your objective?
Marketing, not science. That’s how I read that EPA memo.
Say rather, propaganda. It’s nothing as innocuous as trying to convince folks to buy a particular brand of dish detergent.
Don’t lose your head. Buy “Progressive Products” exclusively or you might.
The next-to-last paragraph of the memo mentions the EPA brand. They are trying to convince Americans to buy into their branded way of “thinking”. But they are avoiding the word brainwash.
It reads like something Goebbels himself would write. Why is propaganda ever so revolting?
Evangelical behavior lacks the perspective of understanding the facts within the primary issue. This is typical of fanatics, they lose sight of reality. They live in a self-created fantasy with resulting dangers of any delusion. Delusion causes lack of functionality which causes further insecurity. Insecure people form groups to defend themselves against the dangers of the majority living in reality. The insecure group with fanatical views give themselves a name. It’s called politics. The EPA is pure politics. Politics is the opposite/converse of science.
The EPA would do much better if it ran a campaign about hungry polar bears eating asthmatic children.
What most angers me about these revelations is that I’m not surprised. I should be very surprised yet I’m not, and that is not my doing. The morons we call climate scientists and journalists, more out of courtesy lately, have betrayed the public trust for a very long time.
Evangelists, ha ha.
Actually, I see a self-righteous back-to-nature member of the Cannabis Generation, issuing an organic-only, local-only agrarian society FAT WA on the rest of us, so we won’t be so materialistic.
Two can play.
It isn’t about verifiable data and science, no.
The EPA is about branding, messaging, and playing on the fears of the Collective, to achieve the Obama administration’s socialist agenda. ‘Green on the outside, Red on the inside….’
Rephrasing: It is the Environmental Propaganda Agency of the Obama administration.
Mac TK
The problem with that analysis is that the EPA does not change its stripes when the Prez is a Republicabubble. It is a long standing attitude that outlives presidents. What is happening now is Congress etc are chopping the budget of the EPA and whole departments are closing ‘by force’. The US needs an EPA but it has to be responsible to government – as part of a Department, not as a Third Force with powers parallel to the Prez and the Elected branches. The “Obama Admin” thing doesn’t fly with me. The EPA was created by Nixon. It is not about parties.
It is convenient to blame Obama for things but the problem will persist long after he has retired. Polarization is not the answer. Everything the government does has to be implemented by people accountable to the elected representatives. All else is tyranny, which was supposed to have been dealt with by the American Revolution. What’s the point of replacing an unaccountable King with an unaccountable Agency?
Can you tell I have just seen the movie “Kill the Messenger”?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kill_the_messenger_2015/
Wasn’t EPA / Massachusetts about the EPA not agreeing with the Greene to regulate CO2? After the SCOTUS ruling the EPA management changed and AGW activists took over. That was the moment the EPA because a politicaly driven entity for zealots
Thanks, Chris Horner, Anthony.
The church of global warming goes on, when will they ever learn?
sir Harry Flashman you said “If you don’t believe the science of AGW….” , so please explain what you explicitly mean by the “science of AGW” , your statement lacks the universal clarity of science such as the laws of thermodynamics and as such need to be clarified so I for one can understand what exactly you are claiming.
Thanks,
Joe
What’s this? Business as usual in a bureaucratic government? Okay, thanks for checking in.
Sir Harry Flashman January 26, 2015 at 12:01 pm
Time will tell.
With time, anything will ‘tell’. Harry, you’re blowing smoke up your own patoot, with that statement. You’re going to sit around and wait, then? And then what? Splendiferously chide those who will listen? Don’t let your “belief” in AGW amount to an excuse for the propagandist rhetoric from the EPA. They have an agenda, and it has squat to do with ‘science’. The EPA isn’t out to inform the masses. They are out to hoodwink them, and I think they succeeded with you.
Unless he’s a paid shill…
It has occurred to me that there is a to get rid of the EPA. It would start by by getting environmentalism declared a religion. It wouldn’t be too hard to do because it is mostly based on faith and the only time science comes in is to support the faith. If we could get the religion of environmentalism created then the first amendment of the constitution knocks the EPA off of the books. Just a thought. Compare environmental science to creation science.
Sadly, none of this will make any difference. The True Believers who follow the Global Warming Evangelists will accept no data that refutes their beliefs. They act very much like Creation “Scientists” who also ignore, alter, or dispose of any evidence that refutes creationism (or rather, supports evolution).
We all have our preferences as to writing style, but the central point of this article rings perfectly true…. the bureaucratic federal model is broken. Hopelessly.
Advocacy should never be the role of a Federal agency. Bureaucrats should only be entrusted to carry out specific tasks assigned to them by the legislative and executive branches, subject to oversight from the general public through the voting booth, and constitutional review from the judicial branch.
And, BTW, a healthy fourth estate should serve as an additional journalistic watchdog, not serve a stealth role as advocate. Once the public catches a member of the fourth estate betraying its public trust by mutating into a non-journalistic agency, then the public has every right and duty to ostracize and walk away from that member.
Just a note on the original Sir Harry Flashman………………
” Fraser decided to write Flashman’s memoirs, in which the school bully would be identified with an “illustrious Victorian soldier” experiencing many 19th-century wars and adventures and rising to high rank in the British Army, acclaimed as a great soldier, while remaining “a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward—and oh yes, a toady.”[1]
The SHF above seems to be aptly named……………….. ;^D
He’s freely admitted to same, in these pages. He also claimed a few weeks ago, that he was done with our company and would no longer post. When challenged to make good on his word, he ignored the request.
– – – – – – –
I suggest that the EPA document is more accurately characterized as planning on creating tactical mythological stories and less accurately characterized as doing something like a religion does.
Mythology is a more fundamental concept than the concept of religion; namely religion is a derivative concept of mythology. Mythologies are universal and timeless stories from which a religion borrows and then adapts to their specific historical situations. I think it is an over reach to attribute making a new religion of environmentalism to the EPA through its document; instead I think in their document they are planning creation of myths to be easily and naturally incorporated into both the already existing subjective (non-scientific) part of our general culture and also to be incorporated into existing popular / traditional religions. It looks like the EPA has plans for tactical mythological constructs / stories to be used on targeted audiences. NOTE: Perhaps the word ‘collectives’ is a better word than ‘targeted audiences’.
John
Talking of the EPA and it’s integrity, in the same breath can we mention the UNIPCC?
“UNIPCC Rev 4: INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL FLOWS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE BACKGROUND PAPER”
This Background paper is entitled: “INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL FLOWS UNFCCC TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE”. (1) Clearly establishes are their objectives regarding using fiscal sink holes named (1) the “Resource Allocation Framework (RAF)” and (2) “Additional Funding Components”.
(i) A RESOURCE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK (RAF)
“Where by: China, India and the Russian Federation are likely to receive the most under the RAF formula, followed by Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, followed by a group of countries that includes Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela.”
(ii) ADDITIONAL FUNDING COMPONENTS
“Two (2) funding components: (A) “GHG Emissions” mitigation at an estimated cost of 380Billion by 2030 and (B) “Adverse Impact” mitigation at an estimated cost of USD171Billion by 2030 of which “Coastal Zones” (Increasing Sea Level) is $11Billion.”
The Background Paper goes on to describe, as a means of sourcing additional funding, “Governments establish(ing) indirect levy’s” with Cap and Trade being named as such a levy vehicle. So there you have it: Governments now in play as the collection agency for tax payers monies (contributing) to be handed over for the UN to run their “Adaption Fund” and to be distributed as described within the RAF.
The absolutist attitude of the EPA and its lack of scientific rigor would suggest that there has to be more to this than meets the eye and those are “old” unadjusted for current value numbers.
http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/application/pdf/background_paper.pdf
Interesting paper, Newsel. Especially the Acknowledgments page (p. 270). They are all financial institutions, with the exception of the World Wide Fund for Nature and a couple of others. This is an elite scam being perpetrated on the majority of the world.
In other words, the UN isn’t working with governments, it’s working with private banks. !!
I note that early on in the document, the Allyn Brooks-LeSure remarks upon a “mythical 100 days”. He then constrained himselves by those “mythical” 100 days. The writer seems to regard this mythical 100 days as some sort of, well, “mystical” period (of grace?) after which they would be free to unleash whatever hell they wanted upon the populace, in the guise of acting in their best interests.
Well may that be, but the correct interpretation of the “mythical 100 days” is quite different.
It refers, specifically, to Napolean. In 1814 he was imprisoned, for life, in the island of Elba (thus:- Able was I ere I saw Elba). The Western world breathed a sigh of relief and set about rebuilding Europe and France, after 20 years of bloody war, and participating in the Industrial revolution.
However, Napoleon had different ideas, and aided by numerous sympathisers, he effected an escape from Elba, and returned to France, landing somewhere by Juan les Pins.
To cut a long and fascinating historical period short, Napoleon then set off through France, gathering followers and soldiers, and headed for Paris. The newly installed French government scarpered, to a man, and Napoleon installed himself back in Paris, as President (again).
The Brits didn’t like this idea very much, and fortunately, they had a good General, named Wellington, hanging around, more-or-less unemployed, so they gave him an army (very small a army, about 30,000 rag-taggers, sort of bundled together, after all, a few days before, Europe had faced eternal peace). The Brits were luckier than they realised, for Wellington was a very fine General indeed.
He was the sort of boring General whose idea of a holiday was to ride around France pondering upon how he would fight battles there. It so happened that he had just spent some time wandering around a hill which attracted his soldier’s eye, as being a good place to fight a defensive battle, which the Brits were good at. And there he waited, and for all we know shouted “Ya-Boo” and stuff at Napoleon.
Napoleon got cross at this, some people say he was a bit under the weather at the time, anyway he attacked good old Wellington, and his Tommies.
The plan of battle appears to have been normal for the time. Napoleon blasted away for a few hours with his mighty cannon “By God, said the Duke (for that is what Wellington was,) the man’s just a pounder!” The Brits of course, did what they always excel at, they just lay down on the job. Well, to be fair, the Duke is reported to have said, when the firing started, “Lie down, men”, And so the Tommies, all 30,000 of them, just lay down in the mud, for it had rained earlier. Then eventually Napoleon stopped his carronading, and commenced his advance, and his 30,000 good French Braves, started off up that long hill towards the Brits.
After while, when he thought it was about a good time, the Duke (who’d been riding his white horse on the hill top all through the pounding) the Duke said “Stand up, men” and 30,000 Tommies stood up, rifles ready and firing.
That was Waterloo.
My point is, the writer of the article above, seems to think that “the mythical 100 days” was some sort of fairy tale, perhaps when things didn’t go so well, but then he’d be free to carry out his nefarious plans.
But the truth is quite different, in real life, in history, the actual 100 days was a measurement of the period between the beginning and the end of Napoleon’s mad dash for freedom.
Since he doesn’t know the truth about the 100 days, it is almost certain he doesn’t know the result.
After Waterloo, Napoleon was confined to a remote island in the Atlantic Ocean, never to leave. He died there. His body was eventually returned to France where it rests today.
And Allyn Brooks-LeSure?
The only way to start the process to “get rid of “, or strictly limit the EPA and other overly bureaucratic federal agencies is to elect a truly conservative President such as Ted Cruse, not a Bush or Romney or Huckabee. I would go for Sarah Palin, but she would have to lower her voice to alto.
@J. Philip Peterson
You ever worked in DC? I have. The issue is not who we elect for President. It’s all the unelected underlings who run the joint. They’ve been there for years, some, decades. They know how government works. They know where the bodies are buried. They handle the transition from one admin to the next, and that is when the biggest shenanigans go on, i.e.: they tell the incoming group that X is in the works, or they don’t tell, and simply git-er-done under the radar. The only thing that terrifies them is sunlight and an enraged populace that will turn on the sunlight. I’ve become convinced that the theatre of electing a president obscures reality.
Here’s another problem:
I worked as a consultant in DC for 9 months, sent there by Bell Labs to manage one of their products that was government-wide. When I arrived, I found out that the congressional regulations for this product had already been written by, literally, low-level assistant 20-somethings (from various congressional offices, some interns) in advance of how I and about 20 experts were assigned to make sure it would work. They produced two copies. One copy for each Brinks truck that they used to deliver to Congress. And we were then told that we had to make the system work according to the docs these complete idiots had produced. A complete utter insanity.
@J. Philip Peterson,
This is not a Republican, Democrat, Independent issue. In my view, this is where the bamboozle starts. It is ignorance on the part of the American people of how things work. And I lay it all at the feet of The Fourth Estate: the press. Ordinary working people don’t have time to investigate this stuff. They have jobs, kids, little league games, dinner, laundry, etcetera, etcetera. The Fourth Estate was formed and protected under the Constitution to represent the people under the separation of powers doctrine. Ever since that foul judge in Florida ruled that Fox News was not required to tell the truth (circa 2000/2001) we have infotainment for news, and babble for public debate with zero consequences.
So what is your suggestion to fix this?? I don’t doubt at all what you say – what is the solution?
Something similar happened to the FAA years ago. A Naval Admiral was appointed to be its director (Admiral Engan???). He was going to streamline/modernize the Agency, and get rid of a lot of the red tape. The entrenched bureaucrats in the agency fought him at every turn. He finally gave up and resigned. Most of the time, the entrenched bureaucrats think they own “their Agency”, and no one is going to tell them how to run it.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the present case of Climate Change/Global Warming, and its promotion by the Federal Government and the EPA, I believe the people advocating this Doctrine are either ignorant or evil, because of the harm, that it will end up doing to the world in general and to the poor in particular.
Ted Cruz is just going to fall on his sword for Israel and start a war with Iran.
Ted Cruz doesn’t have the spine to represent the American people and their interests. He is completely under the thumb of his religious father who is waiting for Jesus to show up in Jerusalem.
So who should be the conservative”” candidate?? Name a good one…
@J Philip Peterson,
Frankly, I don’t have a clue. What I am waiting for is someone who understands how the federal monetary system works. (That sure as hell isn’t Hillary; what few understand is that it was her husband who created the 2008 Financial Crisis, but I will lay off the description of that.)
@J Philip Peterson,
Actually, I think it’s more important to complain to the news outlets that they don’t have the balls to tell the truth, and that we’re tired of it. They have a financial interest in our eyeballs. And our ears. If the people are complaining that the news outlets aren’t touching newly-taboo subjects–pick your poison–and that the hoi polloi are rumbling for more accuracy, that is a better use of our time.
I mean, think of it logically. Who is going to be asking questions of the candidates over the next two years? I can tell you–because I know and I’ve heard it directly–that the NYC anchors and reporters at ABCNBCMSNBCFOX think all of us are idiots and morons who can be led by the nose. That’s what earning eight figures can do to you. I cancelled my cable service after I heard this, and I’m a news junkie.
The BS I hear from NPR enrages me. If you want outright stupidity on the economy, listen to Marketplace. I may not be a scientist (reason I’m here to learn from the considerable brains on this board) but I am 100% informed on how the economy really works. I mean, operationally. Dollars and cents. Not some highfalutin’ economic theory or set of theories (the University of Chicago school needs to be wiped off the surface of the earth) that mean squat.
You’ll appreciate then, Poly, that Trump is making some noise in representing true conservatives in 2016 … looks like he’s dipping in his toe to test the water.
@Streetcred,
Trump isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. He has the nuance of a dullard.
BTW, contrary to what most people think, he only makes his money from licensing his name on the buildings that carry his name. He explained it at Wharton years ago. At that time he was taking a 3-4% fee. And he pretends he’s the builder and owner, all part of the licensing agreement. Pre-build buyers in Baja California found this out when a Trump enterprise went belly-up in late 2008. They tried to get their money back from Trump, and he had to admit that the only thing Trumpy about the project was the name. The real owners and builders were overseas and out of US jurisdiction. They were screwed last I heard.
@J. Philip Peterson,
This former Republican serving as a civil servant really nails it on Bill Moyers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=EYS647HTgks
“What I am waiting for is someone who understands how the federal monetary system works”
We Can’t wait, if we do we will end up with another climate kook such as Hillary…
@J Philip Peterson,
But some congressmen do understand, J Philip Peterson. They’re just afraid to say. [I will work to make sure Hillary does not win. I’ve got a mouth like a Cuisinart, and I will use it. I don’t care about her climate position; the whole package bothers me. She’s strong, but she doesn’t have the balls to stand up to anyone.]
This will probably enrage everyone here, but we need to increase deficits to get people back to work. I realize this is completely counter-intuitive to everyone. But you have to stop and think really, really, really logically. Who makes the dollar? Not some factory in downtown China. Congress is the only entity in the whole wide world that is able to appropriate new interest-free dollars into existence, which it does by “spending.” The Federal Reserve can’t do it. Not without Congressional approval. The Federal Reserve saved the banks worldwide to the tune of $29 trillion. What did Congress do for Main Street? ZIP.
And that Congressional “spending” goes into the bank accounts of the private sector. So, how it works: the economy now has an increased money supply based on THE AMOUNT OF CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING. Got that?
So what does the US Treasury–not the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury–do next?
The US Treasury–not the Federal Reserve–ISSUES treasury securities in the amount of the spending.
Because we are the reserve currency, everyone in the country and worldwide rushes to buy them at auction on the 15th of the month. Whoever offers the most for them, gets them. They are considered the safest financial asset in the world because they are backed by the “full faith and credit of the USA.”
So people exchange their US cash for treasury securities. Anyone who has more than $250Gs in their commercial bank accounts want them because the FDIC does not insure more than $250Gs in a commercial bank.
By selling treasury securities in the amount of the Congressional “spending” the money supply is restored to balance. Spending first, then treasury securities. Or in Federal Reserve economist parlance: “Reserve add before Reserve drain.”
HOWEVER. HOWEVER. People erroneously refer to this as the government “borrowing money from the private sector to pay for the government.” Complete nonsense. (BTW, the Federal Reserve cannot purchase these treasury securities at auction, only the US private sector and foreign govts, banks, and investors.)
The deal of issuing treasury securities that offer interest goes back to our gold standard days (WWI), when the government did not want the people trading their dollars in for gold and upsetting the gold supply the government needed for international payments. So they first issued Liberty Bonds, using patriotism to get people to go along. After WWI, they called them treasury securities because pension funds, trust finds, rich individuals, and businesses liked them.
Nowadays, the Federal Reserve uses purchase and sale of treasury securities on the Open Market (via 50 “primary dealers”) to maintain the overnight interest rate that banks charge each other. The market does NOT set the interest rate, contrary to what the babes on CNBC say. In Canada, it’s called the Prime Rate. Also called the Fed Funds Rate here.
The above is how it works in Great Britain, Canada, Japan, Australia, and the US. The problem is the people don’t know. And the people have been impoverished as a result.
When the economy is ice-cold: raise the damn deficit.
I have never contributed to a political candidate. I almost did when Art Robinson ran the first time. If we had the right candidate I would contribute individually, and I believe a lot of other “silent majority” others would too…
Your #1 question of any of them should be: tell me in 10 sentences of less how federal accounting works.
Hint: a State governor must balance his budget. States operate like households. They are revenue-constrained. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT.
Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr had no clue what they were doing. You will notice that middle class wages started to decline with Reagan. The top understood what Nixon did on August 15, 1971, and made hay.
That’s also why President Obama is an idiot when it comes to the economy. His judgment is so poor that it is damaging American life, imo. He’s dragged that same lack of knowledge and judgment to the climate, sanctions against Russia (we’re going to lose our reserve currency status to China if he doesn’t stop), infrastructure [repair], jobs, and his incredible misunderstanding of what the neocons are telling him to do in the Ukraine. I cannot believe that I believed in him at one time. His Treasury Secretary, Jacob Lew, is the one who rammed through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the start of the Financial Crisis of 2008. You never, not ever, want a government in surplus. Never. Because it will mean the private sector is in deficit. There have been seven balanced budgets, or surpluses, in our 238 year history. Each was followed by a depression. 1836 (Andrew Jackson) was the first.
As Bloomberg wrote in 1999: the US is in surplus for the first time since 1927-1930. Sound familiar? Only delayed by the dotcom (2001) and housing bubbles.
Typo: it’s an autocorrect problem that I didn’t catch.
infrastructure repair
All three of the Presidents you mentioned were Governors before becoming president. Reagan – California, Clinton – Arkansas and GWB – Texas. So, I’m not really following your logic.
@Reg Nelson,
Correct. All three were state governors. So they applied state accounting to federal accounting. Which is wrong. In Clinton’s presidential case, they instituted a Balanced Budget Act (1997), which underscored his lack of knowledge, and his stupidity about how things worked at the federal level. Arkansas had a Balanced Budget Act, which was appropriate because it was a US state; it needs to earn income, it needs revenue to match its outlays. The federal government does not.
State governments, local governments, businesses, and households, must earn income. They are currency users, or they have to go into debt with banks. State governments, local governments, businesses, and households cannot create their own currency. In the US, that is USD. State governments, local governments, businesses, and households have to earn the currency before they can spend it.
The federal government, on the other hand, is the creator of the currency. It is not constrained by revenue. (Hold on, I will explain. Taxes do not pay for revenue.*)
Technically, that is Congress. Congress, under the Constitution, can appropriate new interest-free dollars into existence by simply voting for new “spending”, Yes, those are fiat dollars, worthless pieces of paper if in physical form. Fiat dollars have been in existence since 1934 (also during Benjamin Franklin’s time). Fiat dollars is how we paid for WWII. Fiat dollars is how the middle class was created after WWII.
Think of a teeter-totter. You can because the US dollar is a closed system. There is no entity worldwide that can create US dollars other than the United States of America. (Unless you’re a counterfeiter.)
So, one side of the USD teeter-totter is the US Government. The other side is everyone who is not the US Government. This ‘other side” is the US private sector, state and local governments, businesses, US banks, households, you and me, foreign goats, foreign banks, foreign investors: currency users.
The teeter-totter is the creator of the USD vs the users of the USD.
If the creator of the USD (the government) is in surplus, the users of the USD are in deficit. Well, actually, the foreign sector can be in surplus, but the private US sector will be in deficit. That is what came to light in September 2008. Staggering debt on the part of the US private sector.
————————-
*Taxes are a thermostat. When the economy is ice-cold and you have unemployment, you cut taxes. In fact, unemployment is the proof (the sign) that you need to cut taxes and increase spending. When the economy is running hot and there is full employment, you apply taxes to remove money from the economy, otherwise you risk inflation: too many dollars chaining too few goods.. We are not at that stage.
The federal government does not need taxes for revenue. In fact, the definition of the word ‘deficit’ as it applies to the USA is an accounting artifact that registers the difference, after the fact, between what Congress is spending and what it is taking in in taxes. It is an accounting number, nothing more. It indicates that the federal government has needed to spend more to produce jobs for Americans out of work because of an economic downturn.
“foreign goats” should obviously be “foreign govts.” Thank you autocorrect.
More autocorrect nonsense: “too many dollars chaining too few goods..” should read “too many dollars chasing too few goods.”
pc- You’re one of the exceedingly few who have ever used the term,neocon correctly.
@ur momisugly policycritic You are mistaken if you think the States have balanced budget. There are billions of dollars of unfunded pension obligation that are never included in the calculations. In addition to this, there are numerous specific bond issues that end up being borrowed\funneled into the general fund.
You can argue whether the State’s debt crises is worse than the Federal debt crisis, if you want, but it’s splitting hairs, both are doomed at some pointed, some more quickly than others.
@Reg Nelson,
I am not saying that US states have balanced budgets. I am saying that they are constrained by a need to produce revenue. Somehow.
The federal government is not.
@Alan Robertson,
Thx.
We must act now.
We must use lots of buzzwords.
We must use lots of “quotes”.
For those who are interested, author of email M A Brooks-LaSure is now in Melbourne Australia.
Victoria
Consulate-General of the United States of America
Consulate-General:
Level 6, 553 St Kilda Road
Melbourne Vic 3004
Mr Michael Allyn BROOKS-LASURE
Vice-Consul
Mrs Chiquita White BROOKS-LASURE