We are in agreement concerning interest paid on Treasury bonds. Bonds in general offer little benefit beyond welfare for the already wealthy. If you understood Dr. Kelton's book you know that bonds are not a funding mechanism for federal spending, and never really were.

Purchasing them requires possession of the government's unit of account, so they are simply an asset swap that draws down excess reserves in the banking system. The monopoly issuer of a sovereign fiat currency never needs its own currency back to spend, so it is more accurate to state that deficit spending "funds" bonds than the reverse.

Interest charged to banks by the fed on reserve deficiency is supposed to give banks some skin in the game when deciding credit worthiness of borrowers, but that was disproved in '08-'09 by the bailout. My objection to your article stems from the way you, and your sources, position public "debt" as an incumbrance on future productivity.

It is, in fact, payment for past productivity and commerce with our government and the only source of monetary assets in the private sector that can net retire private debt or be net saved.