But the bonds are assets that banks, insurance companies, retirement plans, and others buy as safe places to put their savings. A large part of Americans' financial wealth is invested in federal bonds.
Those who want to cripple Uncle Sam say that he is just like a state or everyone else that must get dollars before spending them. But in reality, he is the mirror image of everyone else. He must create new dollars by spending them into the economy before any one else can get them to use. Leading modern economists explain this in more detail. (Note; this explanation ignores the role of banks.)
When Democrats learn how new dollars are created, they will see why Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid don't have financial problems. They will see that dollars can be created to reduce global warming and prepare for its consequences; to improve health, educate the young and provide for the aging; to build new industries with jobs that cannot be exported; and do many other things that are needed to improve the lives of all Americans and prepare for the future. But until Democrats learn this, they can make only marginal changes and will fall short of their potential.
For decades, conservatives have promoted ideologies based on the myths that dollars are scarce and deficits are bad. Democrats running for office can't fight this campaign on their own. The Party must develop a clear, authoritative explanation that candidates can to point to with confidence, of how the power to create dollars can be used safely and properly. It must show why conservative claims are false and why fiscal responsibility is impossible without treating both the economy and the federal budget as interrelated parts of the single, national system. It must show why fears of runaway inflation, bankruptcy, and burdens on future generations are nonsense.
Desperate people try things they normally wouldn't consider. Question: Are Democrats desperate enough yet to learn how those who oppose government promote false economic ideologies in order to increase their power and wealth?
2. Limiting Corporations. The legal status that corporations now enjoy make Lincoln's vision impossible. Some corporations have become super persons that extort concessions from states and national governments. Their lawyers run roughshod over the rights of ordinary people. Their power to control markets trashes the Republican mantra of free markets. Their dedication to increasing shareholder wealth has turned them into invasive parasites. And their insiders build fortunes using corporate stocks in ways that no one else can do. Trump's use of corporations and lawyers to build his fortune while shielding himself from those he cheated shows how corporate abuses can compound.
Corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. Democrats should make reducing their power a major goal. They can start by attacking the 1886 court ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co. in which the conservative but activist judge said:
"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. "
This opinion gave corporations rights that the Amendment was written to give to former slaves after the Civil War. It is the basis for much corporate law including the Citizens United decision. None of this was intended or even foreseen by the writers of the Constitution or the Amendment. Courts are now being packed with judges who preach Constitutional originalism. They should be made to practice what they preach by applying it to corporations.
Democrats should shrink the biggest banks and revitalize a strong anti-trust program to reduce market concentrations. They should make major corporate officers and stockholders personally and criminally liable for fraud or other crimes that they allow their corporations to commit. Fines should be related to the size and income of violators to stop their treating the fines as routine business expenses.
3. Fighting Climate Change with a New Economic Growth Cycle. Damage is increasing from higher temperatures, rising sea levels, storms, floods, land subsidence, droughts and wildfires. Water supplies are shrinking. Fuel, electrical, transportation, communication, and water systems need upgrading or replacing. Democrats should treat these as opportunities to create millions of jobs with adequate pay and benefits that can't be exported.
The 20th Century economy enjoyed a growth cycle that was largely driven by the petroleum, coal, electric power, steel, aluminum, construction, automotive, aircraft, electronics, and real estate industries. As one grew, it created demands for the others in a self-reinforcing cycle that ran for decades. Growth cycles let individuals, companies, and investors see what is happening and find their niches. Each industry was helped by the government, and some still get help.
A new growth cycle is needed that will be driven by sustainable, domestic industries to meet today's and tomorrow's needs. The government must use its ability to create dollars to help these industries develop the cycle as it has done since the country began.
4. Repairing Conservatives' Damage. Trump and Republicans are dismantling a system of social, business, and environmental polices that took years to develop. But they may be right that some regulations are too detailed and don't work as intended.
Democrats should build a new system based more on intent and results than on technical regulations. Laws should say what is intended to happen and give those regulated more latitude in how they comply. The laws should direct courts to ignore defense arguments based on details and concentrate on whether the intent was achieved.
For example, a major drug company that knew its product was a primary source for opioid addicts was recently let go with a minimal fine because it argued that it had no duty to report what it knew. New product liability laws should reverse that. They should state the intent that companies are to be responsible for any avoidable harm they cause, and the laws should instruct courts to judge companies on what they did after they learned of possible harm. The penalties should be related to company size. Rules on who has standing to appear in court should be widened to include parties that represent those who may be affected like the general public, the environment, and future generations to stop companies from shifting costs to others.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
