Skip to main content

One of the most emotional issues in American politics is the sovereignty of the United States itself, and its independence from foreign powers, interests, other nations and their ruling elites, and emerging globalizing elites who place their own interests against the nation interest of America and its people. The issues of fiscal sustainability and fiscal responsibility should be discussed from the viewpoint of our national interest, not from the viewpoint of abstract financial ratios, or supposedly critical indicators that generate a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

When we look at fiscal policy in the United States from the viewpoint of our national interest, among the first things we must consider is maintaining the national sovereignty of the United States. Most Americans want the United States to remain autonomous and independent, and to not be subject to the economic control of any foreign power, whether another nation, an international organization, or an international political grouping of a more informal character.

This desire is a constant throughout our history and it is the basis for the relative unpopularity of the United Nations here. A very important dimension of our national sovereignty is sovereignty in our own currency. The Constitution gives Congress authority: “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” That authority, through interpretation by the Supreme Court over the years, has come to mean that it is constitutional for Congress to cause the issuance of fiat money, whose value may be regulated by the government, at will in order to serve the public purpose.

Today the Federal Reserve Bank interprets the power to “print money,” as the power to “mark up” accounts in the banking system by computer, in the process of augmenting the money supply or in implementing spending by the Treasury. There is no limit on the power of the Government to create money this way, provided that Congress doesn't set such limits itself.

In addition, to its unlimited power to create fiat money, the United States also has a constitutional obligation that is worth mentioning when talking about economic sovereignty, since the classical notion of sovereignty is also related to obligation. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states:

". . . .the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned."

Of course, constitutionally, the Government can only spend what Congress has appropriated; but, beyond that, there are other constraints that Congress has set for the Government which are not mandated by the Constitution, and which limit the degree of economic sovereignty of the Government. Here are three:

-- the Treasury is not allowed to run a negative balance at the Federal Reserve,
-- the Treasury must issue debt when it expects to deficit spend, and
-- the Treasury cannot issue debt beyond the statutory debt limit,

The first two constrain the Government by forcing it to remove money from the non-Government sector before it can deficit spend; even when Congress has already appropriated the deficit spending. The last constraint is intended to impose an arbitrary limit on deficit spending by bringing it to a halt, even after it has been appropriated. Its purpose right now seems to be to provide periodic and very public opportunities for political kabuki theater during which the two parties can express their core political values as they apply to fiscal policy, while they dismantle the heritage of the New Deal.

The kabuki opportunities carry a very high cost, however, since the constraints making them possible:

-- cause Government shutdown crises,

-- sometimes create doubt that the Government will voluntarily become insolvent and fail to meet its obligations, and most important of all,

-- are responsible for the existence of the National Debt of $14 Trillion, and for the “welfare” for the rich and foreign nations paid to them every year in the form of interest on Treasury securities, which, except for the Congressional requirement to issue debt, the Government would never have to pay.

Why does the Congress limit the fiscal flexibility of the Government, including its own flexibility, with constraints like the three above?

Why are some in Congress trying to get a balanced budget amendment passed to further limit flexibility in Government spending and fiscal policy?

Why do many in all three branches want to limit the monetary power of the Federal Government and its potential for helping America achieve in public purposes?

Why, in short, are so many politicians so much in favor of limiting the currency and fiscal sovereignty of the United States?

Why are we letting them do it?

Why aren't we as protective about our currency/fiscal sovereignty, as we are about other aspects of sovereignty, such as our territorial integrity, and our political independence?

Before I try to answer these questions, I'll review what fiscal/monetary sovereignty is.

 What It means To be Sovereign In Your Own Currency

Deficit hawks in the United States envision a day when the United States Government will go broke, unless we curb government spending on entitlements. Well, governments can go broke in the sense that they can run out of money they need to pay their debts. But not all governments. Only Governments:

-- whose monetary systems are commodity-based, such as those on the gold standard; or

-- those using fiat money, whose official fiat currency is issued by supra-ordinate authorities, or

-- those who owe debts in a fiat currency issued by another governmental authority,

can all “go broke,” involuntarily.

Governments issuing their own non-convertible, freely-floating, fiat currency, subordinate to no higher authority, and owing no debt to anyone else in a currency other than their own, can never “go broke,” or put another way, become insolvent, due to events in financial markets, or decisions made by other nations. This is true, because all they need to do to spend money is to issue credits to non-government sector accounts in banks, and all they need to do to pay back other Governments who have lent them their own currency, is to credit the accounts of the lender Governments in that currency, an action which they have full authority to do, absent any political constraint they may have placed on themselves preventing them from exercising their full monetary sovereignty.

We call such Governments “sovereign” in their own currency. And because they have this kind of sovereignty, they also have flexibility to facilitate economic activity to accomplish public purposes that Governments without that kind of sovereignty don't have. But with that fiscal flexibility also comes fiscal responsibility – the responsibility to use the operationally unlimited spending power of an economically sovereign government to use that spending power for public purpose and not for private gain.

One of the Governments that fit these criteria and so can never go broke is the US Federal Government. Other common examples are Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and the UK. Governments that don't fit these criteria and that can go broke include the nations of the EU, such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. Even France and Germany can go broke, since they no longer issue their own currency. Other examples include all those developing nations with loans from the IMF, the World Bank, and other international authorities that must be paid back in US Dollars, or any other currencies they cannot issue; as well as state, local, provincial, and other governments subordinate to a super-ordinate currency-issuing authority such as California.

Most governments that are sovereign in their own currency haven't been fiscally responsible in a very long time. While some have performed better than others in seeking and achieving public purposes, most have continued to act as if they are constrained by the gold standard, and have attempted to either reduce spending at the expense of the less well off, or to fail to pursue programs for full employment, or to fail to make enough investments that will fulfill other pubic purposes. In most of these cases, deficit hawkism and specifically the desire to either reduce deficits, or to balance budgets, has trumped the desire to fulfill public purposes.

In short, governments sovereign in their own currencies have been acting like governments on the gold standard, or those who owe debts in currencies they don't issue. They have been acting in a fiscally irresponsible way given their fiat monetary systems, while at the same time claiming to be fiscally responsible. They can get away with this, because very few people make the distinction between governments sovereign in their own currency and governments that are not. And even fewer go on to recognize that what may be fiscally responsible for gold standard governments, or governments that are not economically sovereign, is most certainly fiscally irresponsible for economically sovereign Governments.

In systems where governments are economically sovereign like the United States, it is a big mistake to measure how well the nation is doing fiscally by using deficit, the national debt, or debt-to-GDP ratios. That mistake is one the United States and most other nations with monetary sovereignty are making right now.

Those measures, in fact, are the wrong things to measure. The government is a scorekeeper that can always credit accounts when it needs to spend or pay what it owes, or even set interest rates by flooding the market with reserves and driving short-term interest rates down to near zero. In such systems, the money is always there for the non-governmental sector, not in the sense that the government has accumulated some physical stock of it, but in the sense that the Government can always spend or pay back by crediting accounts, regardless of any physical stock it may have.

In such systems, fiscal responsibility is not about what the Government has accumulated either in debt or in surpluses, since given its unlimited ability to create new currency, these neither constrain nor support its further ability to spend What it is about, however, is the Government's success in spending on worthwhile things that produce actual value, rather than spending on worthless outcomes.

Why Are We Self-limiting Our Currency Sovereignty?

There are a few contributing reasons. First, most Americans don't understand that the power of Government to help the economy to recover from recessions and to achieve full employment, is dependent on the ability of the Government to deficit spend and to add net financial resources to the private sector. To the extent that the ability to deficit spend is limited by fiscal rules, the fiscal sovereignty of Government is impaired, diluted, or, in the case of balanced budget amendments like the one gathering steam in Congress, largely destroyed.

Second, most Americans don't understand that deficit spending and the resulting deficits and debts, carry no solvency risk. They view the US Government as an analogue to a household, and they think that, like a household, the Government cannot spend more than the revenue it raises through taxing or borrowing without risking insolvency, and that the more it borrows, the more it will need to borrow and the less its ability to borrow will be. Of course, the Government is different from a household in many ways, but most importantly, in that: all money in the United States ultimately derives from Government-issued money, and the Government, of course, can always add more money to the private sector if it chooses to do so.

Third, most Americans don't understand that every dollar of Federal deficit spending adds a dollar of net financial assets to the non-Government sector of the economy. The asset can be base money, if the Treasury is allowed to spend without issuing debt, as it sometimes has been, or it can be in Treasury securities if it is required to continue debt issuance. Many think that when Government deficit spends it impoverishes the private sector, because it competes with it for resources. But this is clearly not the case, when there is an output gap and much of our productive capacity is unused.

Fourth, most Americans don't understand that global elites and corporations don't want the United States to retain its currency/fiscal sovereignty, because they make more risk—free money if the Government's currency power is constrained, and if we must buy/”borrow” our previously created USD, rather than make more. So, long as we issue debt instruments rather than just issue currency, they have a risk--free place to put the money they've previously acquired, and get an interest return besides. Over the next 15 years, the interest paid on the debt will be roughly $12 Trillion. If the Government can and does use its full currency sovereignty, and deficit spends, without issuing further debt, then the global elites can say goodbye to that money.

Fifth, global elites recognize that if Governments use their power to create currency to benefit any other groups other than the global elites themselves, then that potentially harms the elites and makes their USD holdings worth less. Perhaps not immediately, because demand is slack and businesses will try to increase production rather than raise prices for their valued goods. But, eventually when full employment is reached, they fully expect that either the need to regulate inflation will subject them to increased taxes, or, alternatively, the occurrence of inflation will cause the de-evaluation of their own money and Treasury Securities.

Conclusion

Issues about governments sovereign in their own currencies, as well as others having to do with fiscal sustainability and fiscal responsibility have been addressed at the Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In Counter-Conference last April 28th. It provides the answers to the continuing attempts of the deficit hawks and austerity mongers to orchestrate and implement a political process that will result in transferring more wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very well-off and the corporations, and that has already resulted in the failure of many nations, including our own, to end the sufferings of the unemployed and others victimized by the wholly avoidable crash of 2008.

The primary anti-deficit hawk message of the Teach-In was this: Since the United States Government is sovereign in its own currency: We. Are. Not. Running. Out. Of. Money. The. Money. Was. There. All. Along. The. Money. Is. There. Now. The. Money. Will. Be. There. Tomorrow. And. It. Will. Be. There. For. Our. Children. And. Our. Grandchildren. Too.

This is a message that needs to be sent to Congress, to the President, and to Republican budget-cutters like Paul Ryan, Jon Kyl, Mike Pence, and all the tea party folk, whose “pay off the national debt by cutting spending and taxing to get a surplus,” austerity nonsense, will ruin the United States, and create the second great depression, if we go along with it. We must not forget that every dollar less of deficit spending translates to at least a dollar subtracted from the dollars available to the non-Government sector, and the amount may well be more than a dollar if the dollar less is in a high fiscal multiplier segment of the economy. The attempts by budget-cutters to cut high-multiplier deficit spending will accelerate the downward spiral of the macro-economy, especially as compared with the impact that increased taxes on the wealthy may have had.

Finally, I have to wonder why the very legislators who are always so quick to wrap themselves in The American Flag, are also the ones who are quickest to put forward and implement fiscal rules that will constrain American currency sovereignty and subject the best interests of the American people and the public purposes of the United States to the interests of globalizing elites, foreign Governments like China, Japan, Middle east oil exporting nations, the Eurozone, Wall Street, the bond markets, and the wealthy like themselves. The fiscal rules Congresspersons have implemented and new ones they are seeking to implement to force the nation to pay off the national debt through economic surpluses, have the effect of subordinating the national interest, which they are elected to uphold, to the interests of multi-national corporations, global elites, and foreign nations.

We must recognize this problem for what it is. It isn't just a technical issue of economics. It's an issue of patriotism. It's an issue of whether our economy will be run for we, the people, or interests both domestic and foreign who place their own needs for more wealth above the interests of  most Americans to be able to influence our own economic futures and opportunities.

If you're really worried about your children and your grandchildren, not to mention yourself, then you need to stop the deficit hawks and the deficit doves from destroying the economic sovereignty of the United States with their fiscal rules. You need to insist instead on the freedom and economic independence of the Government from the bond markets and all other elite interests. You need to insist that we act in our own national interest and not in the interest of the global elites. You need to insist that the Government keep its spending/currency creation power intact and use it for the public purpose.  You need, in other words, to insist that we remain a Government sovereign in its currency, and to begin to act like one, taking responsibility for the miserable state of the economy within our national borders.

(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well stated! I've often thought about why this is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Voice, Roby NJ

    being allowed, too. Sigh.

    Hope has a hole in it when Republicans come, bringing shackles and sorrow; branding their greed on the backs of the poor. - Wendy Connors

    by Wendys Wink on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 06:34:09 AM PDT

  •  oh boy GBCW (us wants to be alone) (0+ / 0-)

    we loved the world as long as the world called us king
    but now as the world starts calling us brother we dont like it anymore?
    sounds like you dont want the burden of beeing the world reseve currency anymore good i am sure someone else will happily take over.

    •  Nope (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maddogg, Roby NJ, psyched

      I don't care one way or the other whether the USD is the reserve currency. From the MMT point of view having the reserve currency means that other nations are likely to send us their real wealth in return for electronic bits of information. On the other hand, it's also meant that we've lost many jobs to foreign manufacturers since other nations either peg their currency to ours or ensure that their currencies will be under-valued so that they can continue to export more than they import.

      The best thing for us in my view is that we get their exports, but also keep full employment by shifting people over to rebuilding our own country rather than manufacturing the consumer goods other nations are sending to us. But we've been too stupid to do that, so now being the reserve currency is largely reflected in higher unemployment than we would otherwise have.

  •  The answer to your question is that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerald 1969, Roby NJ, Russgirl, psyched

    our Congress critters are more desirous of exerting power and influence behind the scene than in providing stewardship over our nation's assets and resources.  By handing responsibility for the currency over to the Federal Reserve, the Congress can exercise power by threatening to impose unreasonable restrictions unless the people heed their interest to remain in their seats.  Longevity in office depends on being able to threaten enemies and "reward" friends, the latter being the people with access to the levers of public persuasion, and the former being the people who, ever since the adoption of universal suffrage, have the power to actually govern.
    The Congress is corrupt, not because the members do favors for special interests, but because the members presume to rule, rather than serve.  They keep issuing edicts to distract the populace from the fact that they are not doing the work they signed on to do and the tasks they are obligated by the Constitution to carry out.

    The nation, btw, is an artificial construct, a sort of secular deity in whose name the people are to be sacrificed.  It's not the nation that's to be sovereign; it's the people.  People and nation are not one and the same thing.  People are natural persons; the nation is an artificial creation, a man-made fiction or figment of the imagination.  You'll recall that it was in the name of the German nation that millions of people were killed off.

    http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

    by hannah on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:00:00 AM PDT

    •  so it is more the enemy from (0+ / 0-)

      within and not all those foreign nations and institutions
      thanks for your allways informative answers.
       oh and i our case (germany) it was for ONE person, not even for the nation. with hitler in power the army started to swear to protect and obey him not the country or parliament or anything

      •  Not sure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roby NJ, psyched

        I'd put it that way. I wanted to raise the patriotism and sovereignty issues because they mean a lot to certain people. But I'm not claiming that "enemies" are only within or without. I am claiming that some people in various internal and external locations place their own interests above the national interest of the US and want to limit our economic sovereignty. For those among them who are Americans, I do think there is a patriotism issue that needs to be raised by the left.

      •  The "advantage" of a flesh and blood (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roby NJ

        tyrant is that his head is relatively easy to off.  The rule of law which designated some humans as property to be disposed of at will persisted for almost a hundred years and then, albeit negated in a bloody war (whose 150 anniversary is being "celebrated" now), survived in various permutations down to the present day -- e.g. the draft = involuntary servitude; "stop loss" = involuntary servitude; DADT = deprivation of speech; senseless incarceration; prison labor perpetrated under cover of law.

        http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

        by hannah on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:29:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roby NJ, hannah, psyched

      But thanks for spelling out the answer for me. On sovereignty, I'm afraid I'm not a methodological individualist, and so believe that national sovereignty which is a legal construct is a meaningful construct. Apart from that, however, I agree that in our country sovereignty is supposed to reside with the people. That's one of the reasons why I raised the issue of patriotism. The globalizing elites are both selling out the people and as part of this process are trying to limit the economic sovereignty of the nation in order to prevent us collectively from acting in the interests of most of the people.

      And yes, I'm very familiar with the excesses of nationalism and totalitarianism based on it. That doesn't change the fact that many Americans want to fiercely defend our independence, and they should know that fiscal conservatism in its current manifestations is actually about constraining our economic sovereignty.

  •  a little side question (0+ / 0-)

    when a sovereign country just prints its money
    with out backing that printed money with some value (gold or sold debt)
    what would these peaces of paper be worth , not in dc but in the real world where you buy real goods

  •  This is our economic exceptionalism (4+ / 0-)

    It drives me crazy to hear right wingers whine about how weak the United States is in the global economy, how "broke" we are; yet turn around and crow about our American exceptionalism and complain that Democrats don't believe in it.

    Excellent diary. We can see how the whole meme about government finances being like a family's checkbook is a projection of conservative governing modality, not actual reality for our economic system.

    Thanks LGID!

    Our cause: a More Perfect Union

    by Roby NJ on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 07:19:31 AM PDT

  •  A state can't "lose" its sovereignty, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerald 1969, trumpeter

    no more than a bachelor can lose his unmarried-male-ness.  You're making the same nonsensical argument that GOPers use when they oppose international law. ("but if we sign treaties, we'll lose our sovereignty," as if sovereignty is some finite quantum that can be lost rather than an inherent quality of states)

    •  Discussion is over accepting LIMITS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Letsgetitdone, psyched

      to our fiscal sovereignty that we don't need to, in the misguided notion that we have a checkbook economy and could go "broke". We can't.

      Instead, act in accordance with our sovereignty, and spend as necessary to fix infrastructure and stimulate economy to full employment. That will result in more robust economy and ultimately reduce debt.

      Our cause: a More Perfect Union

      by Roby NJ on Wed Apr 13, 2011 at 09:01:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roby NJ, psyched

      that European nations haven't given up their economic sovereignty by joining the Eurozone? Not permanently, or ultimately, sure; since they can always resign. But as long they are members, they've lost part of their economic sovereignty to the European Currency Board. They still have the power of taxation; but no longer have the authority to spend/create new fiat currency. Now does it matter what people in the individual countries vote for. Until they withdraw from the Eurozone, their will is subordinate to that of the unelected ECB.

      Moreover, I am making the same argument the GOPers make when they oppose treaties supporting international law. But I don't think they're making the legalistic argument that signing treaties means that we are giving up sovereignty in some legal sense. What they're saying, and what I'm saying too is that treaties that bind us to certain courses of action are treaties that limit our freedom of action in the future and so limit our sovereignty.

      Finally, the idea that sovereignty is some legal absolute that doesn't admit of degrees may be one way to formulate the idea. But we can certainly talk about constraints on sovereignty and degrees of sovereignty if we want to. You are not in a position to legislate our use of language. The reality is that when we pass laws that limit possible spending options beyond the limitations actually specified in the Constitution, we are self-limiting our economic sovereignty.

  •  Thanks again for your thoughts. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maddogg, Roby NJ, Letsgetitdone, psyched

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site