Bonds do not finance government.

Positing a hypothesis that the sale of bonds by a sovereign state, which has a monopoly on the creation of its own currency, does not serve to finance any government functions. It is assumed that all bonds are sold and redeemed only in the sovereign currency, a necessary condition if the sovereign is to retain the monopoly control of its money supply.

A moment's reflection might make it clear that for a bond to be purchased, it was necessary for the sovereign to have previously issued the money. The sale of the bond then becomes an exchange of one form of liability for another. This exchange does not result in any increase in the money holdings of the sovereign state. In a fiat currency system the state cannot accumulate wealth outside of capital goods it may acquire. Rather like a wizard that can control the weather who doesn't have storms stored away nor is there a place to put them when they are no longer desired, the state neither has nor doesn't have money.

The sovereign would easily issue the necessary currency for its own expenses. When an appropriation is authorized, there is no " bank account" whose balance must be checked. There is a simple entry made on the sovereign's spreadsheet that places the necessary funds in the reserve account of the appropriate bank.

There is no burden placed on the state by the redemption of bonds. Such redemption's, as noted above, are only paid in the sovereign's currency and there is an unlimited supply of that.

Bonds do serve the state as a means of controlling interest rates, if it desires, but the intent to raise operating funds loses its meaning when a country leaves a commodity base currency, such as the Gold Standard.

In the United States there is an artificial constraint placed on the government's operation, the Debt limit. This has served no useful purpose except to allow for political theater and posturing. I suggest that it is a useless appendage and probably unconstitutional.

Occupy Wall Street's "BAT SIGNAL"

 I'm spreading the Bat Signal. 
Polls show overwhelming support (70%) of the ideas behind the OWS movement.  Inequality in wealth distribution, inequality in justice, inequality in voting rights, and inequality of women's rights.  Just what part of "Equal Rights for All", didn't they understand?
The people are waking up, and are showing their courage, dedication, and ongoing support.

Cut fuel consumption in the passenger car fleet? Simple. Tax on all cars, regardless of age, as follows: Tax = $100 X (Weight/3000#) ^ 2.

A 3,000* car pays $100, 6,000# car pays $400, and a 9,000 # car pays $900.


Need a harder press on the brake?

Tax on all cars, regardless of age, as follows: Tax = ($100 X (Weight/3000#) ^ 2.5).

Now a 3,000 # car pays the same $100. But! the 6,000# car pays just under $600; the 9,000# vehicle pays just under $1,600.

Why go after the weight? Because the weight is a major factor in fuel consumption and downsizing the fleet may have less of an impact on lower income households.