When I first started to blog on I added on my side bar books that talked about how right-wing conservatives were setting up within Academia from coast to coast, a Scheme that even spread as far as Russia late in the twentieth century.


The East Coast Scheme was funded by two conservative right-wing academics’ grants:  James M. Buchanan, Nobel Prize winner, and Gordon Tullock at George Mason University.

All during the 20th century these men sought funds to spread their plans to to weaken our Supreme Court. They were Libertarians who wanted to create a smaller government in the United States.

These Libertarian Academics provided federal judges with workshops in Florida every summer – with all expenses paid to lecture them in libertarian views of smaller government, good food, and access to golf courses.

The West Coast Scheme of our century is being now being funded by billionaires. (The Koch family members and other oil barons) The West Coast is now passing  piles of dark money to put federal judges aiming ultimately to get favors done for the male members at the Supreme Court.

Back in the late 20th century many right-wing politicized groups were forming, like those in the Tea Party. As a back-of-the book indexer, I created a ten volume book index set for for Tullock and Buchanan. These Tea Party books often had identified the word “liberty” in its titles and pages.

Senator White House calls them ‘Front Groups’

The Senator’s book, The Scheme is far more comprehensive than my earlier blogs. So today I’m going to talk about a few of the pages from Senator Whitehouse’ book because they are is as shocking as the Alioto upside-down American flag.


Starting on Page 124, here is how Senator Whitehouse’ Book is comparable to how Donald Trump’s Hush money trial is similar to how the Supreme Court operates.

The Donald Trump Hush money trial was about hiding the truth about a former President so rich and powerful   that he conspired to fool the public that his comtemt of women was not revealed to the public.

The male Justices at SCOTUS also are so powerful they too have taken millions of dollars from dark money billionaires who have an axe to grind.

Justices, Thomas,  Alioto, and Gorusch are not taking cases from the American people –  they are making up cases, inviting their ‘Front Groups’ in to find someone who will win their cases for them or lose in court.

These justices do not rely on precedent or real facts of their made-up cases. Justice Thomas is clearly there to kill precedents. And these days, they only talk in turns about hypotheticals and ridiculous upside-down ideas. These justices are so keen to bury precedents and real facts. And then to rake in lots of dark money .

For years  they have relied on  5 to 4 court rulings to get their pet peeves accepted by the phony results in their fake cases.

And just like Donald Trump they take all the money these male justices can while the female justices protest against their lost cases and cry.


On page 127 there is an example of a union-busting case involving  Justice Gorsuch who was appointed in 2017.

The  5 to 4 court  results reopened  and the Front Groups’ rushed in on the question of unions “fair share dues”. The male Justices created a fast lane to the Supreme majority that they were so eager to throw out the union’s law case. As it turned out even with all the rush they were too late.

Justice Scalia died before the case was decided, depriving the union-busting 5-4 door reopened.

“The party in that second case as with an amicus plaintiff, Mark Janus, a home health aide, was in the Friedrichs case.  Justices asked Janus to lose the case. Justice Gorsuch rushed back to the friendly Supreme Court–with no record, no witnesses, no evidence of the likely consequences of the ruling. Gorsuch voted as predicted, and out went a precedent that unions, cities, and states that had been forty years old.”

Note: I have worked in several factories with unions during my life. At the first factory a woman from Europe felt that she was a faster worker than the rest of us when the union was formed. She said she would not pay her share of dues that the rest of us owed. The union lost most of their battles and management took away their pay for overtime. This happened just as I left to drive away to college in the Sixties.

SOURCES : See also Supreme: Court can’t collect ‘fair share’ fees

[Think that union happened decades long ago?  No! It was in 2018.] And as I write this Justice Alito is perhaps now now airing out his pet peeves on some other fake case.]

WORD OF THE DAY — MONOPOLY (the Parker Brothers’ game)

Did you know that Economists have invented games to predict what an economy will do? Do you think game-playing can work to solve our money problems?

Here’s a story about Monopoly, America’s favorite game. I’ll bet you haven’t heard the stories about how it came to exist at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century.

The first story I heard about that the game was invented by a man.  Wrong! Nope, not true. It was a woman!

The second story I heard was that man was cheated out of his inheritance by the Parker Brothers, and he died broke.

Wrong again!  In my opinion it was clearly the woman who got cheated out of her inheritance by the Parker Brothers.

The old saying “Behind every man who is successful there was a woman” is true for oodles of inventions created in the 1800s and 1900s centuries.

There were draconian limitations put on creative women inventors and business owners, slapped on them during the 19th and 20th centuries in America. Not to mention their inability to vote or own a business.

Women (such as Catherine Greene and her African-American slaves) needed a man such as “Eli Whitney” to get their invention of the cotton gin obtain a patent from the government for Catherine.

Many creative American women have used their husbands or fathers to back up their genius. For example Georgia Okeefe, famous American painter married to Alfred Stiegliz, famous photographer.

The real story is this: The game Monopoly was invented by Elizabeth Magie in 1903 and patented in 1905.

When she got her patent she was less than one percentage of women to file patents that year. Her helper man was Henry George, a Political Economist and Journalist with whom she conversed about how the the land tax should be collected and distributed.

Elizabeth had first named her game, ‘The Landlord’s Game.” This game eventually evolved into Monopoly.

For decades no one knew that Elizabeth made two sets of rules for Monopoly.

One was the competitive one where people succeed by playing until one person is richer than all the rest. The second one she named ‘Prosperity’ was one where players would share what they gained.

According to Economist, Kate Raworth, author of Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think like a 21st Century Economist, the purpose of Elizabeth Magie’s two sets of game rules was to compare monopolist rules now in play today with a second way to win at Monopoly.

The results of Parker Brothers Monopoly today are bankruptcy and greater income inequality.

Those results of Monopoly are what Kate Raworth is writing in her book about the failures of 19th and 20th century award-winning economists who have mis-used both algebra and calculus to get results for economic principles that do not  don’t materialize over the long run. In particular Ecoonomists have missed the boat about achieving income inequality.

Magie’s second set of rules were that the players would share results by cooperating with each other.  This monopoly game didn’t merely rely on luck of the dice.

Magie’s second set of rules posited that the player starting with the least amount of money—and first doubled it was called the winner.

Clarence Darrow, the legendary twentieth century lawyer, sold the idea to the Parker Brothers. Elizabeth, an experienced game board maker, merely asked the brothers to pay her for two other games plus Monopoly —$500 dollars and no royalties.

Even more unfotunately for us, The Parker Brothers deleted the second set of rules when they sold her game. Thus, Elizabeth Magie’s name was buried until 1973 when an economist, Ralph Anspach researched his game of “Anti-Monopoly” before taking it to the Supreme Court.

Why is this important?  I write this as a warning to creative people to be careful what you do with your inventions or with your creative work, especially if you are a woman.

Today on International Womens’ Day 2023, I ask you, can we test for ourselves now to find out what will happen if we use the second rules that Elizabeth set for Monopoly? Will theses games predict for our economic futures?

Can economists start creating economic games as sharp as Elizabeth’s games showing there can be at least two different ways for winning Monopoly, a game that oozes with competition and income inequality.

Monopoly isn’t just a game! Henry George’s concerns about land (property) taxes have been discussed by Economists for centuries. As Paul Samuelson said, scarcity creates value, and big as this earth is, land is still scarce. Today water is the scarce issue of concern to many Economists.

Yesterday the Federal Reserve used only two variables from British Economist, early 20th century John Maynard Keynes antique linear algebraic equations full of variables to slap higher interest rates in Americans.

Fed head Jerome Powell said he would would get rid of millions of jobs for Americans in order to tame inflation.

This is ridiculous! The Fed is tying its own hands. And it is certainly going to hurt American women who have fought for centuries to get “good paying jobs”.

Along with the criminalized weaponized abortion laws—American women will go back to  “Keep them barefoot, pregnant and at home.

And like Texas governors’ Greg Abbots’ empty promises to catch rapists, it demands push back. Who is really is running the economy of the United States in this century?

Next:  I’ll be covering several women Economists who are greatly influenceing the future of the way the study of Economics is viewed in this century.



The Fed creates its own money. It won’t go bankrupt. But every year the Fed sends all the income it made to the Treasury Department.

The Fed made around $5.2 trillion from (REPOs (overnight loans to banks, credit unions, money makers, etc.) in 2022. At the end of 2022, the Fed had a net income of $58.4 billion.

The Fed’s problem is that interest rates on the REPOs (bank overnight loans) that the Fed charges now have begun to exceed the Fed’s interest rates on those securities (stocks & bonds, etc.) that it bought way back when Fed REPO interest rates were much lower than today.

Also lagging, because the Fed is using (QT) “Quantitative tightening” i.e. selling off its assets for income which it has to pay to the Treasury each year, this way of QT selling off of securities can take a long time to amass the income the Fed needs for paying off our Treasury Department spending on past U.S. debts.

At the end of year 2022 the Fed sent the Treasury Department $76 billion. However, interest expenses of the Fed exploded a factor of 19 to $102.4 billion in 2022, up from $5.7 billion in 2021.

So, the issue is that right now in 2023 the the Fed is losing income and running into the red, and the Treasury is not allowed to print money.

Once the debt limit is exceeded, our government will lose all trust in faith in it. And there will be little consensus possible to discuss future plans for spending. That’s just a waste of time. Ask anyone who has wound up dealing with a high interest rate money lender!

The Fed maybe could make a RRP promise ( reverse repurchase agreement) with (banks and money market-makers) offering to buy back its securities at a higher price in the future, but this seems to me to be “going from the pot into the fire or as they say “Kicks the can down the road”. And dangerous! As buybacks have just put the store, Bed, Bath and Beyond out of business.

I’m really sorry to say this, but the image I have in my head today is the serpent swallowing and eating its tail and insides. I sure hope I’m wrong!

And I hope everyone of you has been saving during our Covid era for a better economy, because I still believe that could be the case of what our bipartisan Congress has done for us in the past two years.

Source: Wolf Street Despite Losses since September, the Fed Still Made a Profit for the Whole Year 2022, Remitted $76 billion to US Treasury Dept.