First, incorporate the Federal
Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury wherein all new money would be created by
government -- no longer as
interest-bearing debt. This new money
would then be spent (by Congress and the Treasury Department) into circulation
to promote the general welfare. The
monetary system would be monitored and regulated so that this would be neither
inflationary nor deflationary. At
the first sign of too much inflation, spend less; at the first sign of
deflation (or too little inflation),
spend more. Read how Kent Welton
explains this in his recent article. And
then visit this website for much
more information.
Second, halt the banksters'
privilege to create money. Do this with
legislation that would end the fractional reserve system -- but do it in a
gentle and elegant way: all past monetized private credit would
be converted into U.S. government-issued money.
Banks would then act as intermediaries, accepting savings deposits and
loaning them out to borrowers. (Banks
would then be doing what most people think
they do now.)
This legislation would nationalize the money
system, but not necessarily the
banking system. Banking, says Dennis
Kucinich, is not a proper function of government -- Kent Welton disagrees. Be that as it may, both men agree that providing the nation's money supply is a government prerogative! And these two were of course not the
first! Just to name a few of their
highly esteemed predecessors: James
Jackson, Congressman from Georgia in 1790, President Andrew Jackson (who used
federally-issued, debt-free money to pay off the entire
national debt in 1835), PresidentAbraham Lincoln, highly esteemed Congressman
Wright Patman in 1941, and President John F. Kennedy.
Third, spend new money into
circulation on 21st century eco-friendly infrastructure and energy sources,
including the education and healthcare needed for a growing and improving
society, starting with the $2.2 trillion that the Civil Engineers estimate is
needed over the next 5 years, for infrastructure repair; creating good jobs across
our nation, re-invigorating local economies and re-funding local governments at
all levels.
The false specter of inflation
is always raised against suggestions that our government fulfill its
responsibility to furnish the nation's money supply. But that is a knee-jerk reaction -- the
result of decades, even centuries of propaganda against government. When one actually examines the monetary record
worldwide, as well as in the U.S., it becomes clear that government has a far superior record in issuing and controlling money
than the private issuers (banksters) have had. Inflation is avoided whenever real material
wealth has been created in tandem
with issuing more currency. Research and
development of superior, pollution-free technologies can be funded in this way,
as well as all manner of infrastructure.
Right from the Constitutional Convention,
delegates ignored society's monetary power and the excellent record of
government-issued money in building colonial infrastructure and giving us a
nation. They left the money power up for
grabs, and profited handsomely from essentially selling it to banksters. (Properly estimating and evaluating the
potential of federally-issued, debt-free currency would have meant placing it
in a fourth, monetary branch of government, right from the get-go. )
Our Great Task then is to complete that part of government left
inadequately defined by the founders,
i.e. to more precisely define the money power that we could have achieved
in our society (and might still achieve), and then bring it securely within the
proven system of checks and balances our founders often put in place in the creation
and formation of our government .
History shows that the money power will act like a fourth
branch of government whether we recognize it as such or not. And it's not safe (or financially sane) to
leave so much power and privilege in private hands! So, we must not shrink from our responsibility to begin implementing
the long-known solutions to this problem.
We start by placing the "money power" within our government where it
obviously belongs. (Or would you prefer
to let Goldman-Sachs continue to exert ever more influence and control
over our government and the world economy?
Would you prefer to let companies like "Enron" continue to exert way
more influence over the economy than should be allowed? And yes, Enron agents were on the Dallas Fed Board! )
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
