Debt Ceiling 2013

Google

 

Debt Ceiling 2013:

The so called "debt ceiling" is a statutory limit on how much the government can borrow to meet it's debt obligations.  President Obama has faced 3 years of down-to-the-wire standoffs that have nearly ended in default or shutdowns a half dozen times.  The current debt limit is $16.7 trillion.   Economists warn that the failure to raise the debt ceiling by the Treasury's deadline of October 17 would cause the world economy's faith in the safety of U.S.Treasury debt to be shaken for years.  Interest rates could shoot up, and stock prices worldwide would likely plummet. 

 

Republican leaders  are trying to round up votes from a reluctant rank and file to agree to raise the debt limit by mid October to advert a default if the Democrats accept a list of Republican priorities.  While no negotiations are actually going on at this time, here is what Republicans are talking about.  They would rather suspend  the enforcement of the debt limit until December 2014 rather than raise it.  They want to delay Obamacare for a year.  Then there is tax reform, energy provisions, regulatory reforms, mandatory spending reforms, and lastly health spending reforms.  In other words the whole Republican agenda.  No one is taking it seriously.   Rep. Dana Rohrbacher of California states, "People have to recognize there's never any compromise until the stakes are high.  In our society, that's the nature of democratic government.

 

The debt ceiling law,  passed in 1917,  is an accountability mechanism from the days when Congress didn't much involve itself in federal budgeting.  Today Congress exerts full control over the federal budget.   The debt ceiling is not a tool for controlling spending or deficit.  It is even less a tool to promote other agendas.  The U.S. is just about the only country that has a debt ceiling.  Most experts agree that the statute has outlived its usefulness.   We would do well to eliminate the debt ceiling altogether.

 

 

 

Syrian Chemical Weapons Revisted

Syrian Chemicals Weapons Revisited.

On it goes with the Syrian chemical weapons crisis.  President Obama has spoken to the nation to try to gain support for a strategic strike to  degrade the Syrian capacity to carry out chemical attacks in the future.   He promises the strike would be solely for that purpose and would not involve any boots on the ground.  A majority of the Congress and the American people  do not support the strike.  A vote in the Congress would be required to authorize the action.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that military action against the Syrian government without U.N. Security Council approval "is unacceptable under the U.N. charter and would constitute an act of aggression."

After months of blocking U.N. action against Syria, Russia reversed itself by proposing that Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons be put under international control.  Syria has agreed to a Russian plan to give up its weapons.  Both the U.S. and Russia are committed to a negotiated solution.  Syrian President Bashar al-Assad demands that the U.S. call off any potential strike on Syrian government  forces before he will give up chemical weapons.  President Obama has asked Congress to delay voting on authorization of a military strike.  U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry states that the threat of  a U.S. military strike remains on the table if Syria does not hand over its stockpile.

Secretary Kerry and his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov  announced  that while negotiating a solution of the chemical weapons crisis they would like to restart talks on ending the Syrian Civil War.  Any agreements must be comprehensive, verifiable, credible, and able to be implemented in a timely fashion.   There ought to be consequences if it does not take place. 

So it would seem President Obama has backed off, at least for now.  Diplomacy has been given another chance.  Nations are coming together to negotiate a solution.  So, while there is still tension and a lot at stake, we have the potential to diffuse the situation and resume work on   ending the Syrian Civil War.   That would be the ideal ultimate outcome. 

Chemical Weapons in Syria

Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria:

On August 21st a massive chemical weapons attacked was conducted on rebel forces near Eastern Damascus.  The international group "Doctors Without Borders" said it tallied 355 people killed and more than 3,000 people displaying symptoms of a nerve gas.  The U.S. now puts the death toll at 1,429 people killed, many of whom were women and children.

Syria is currently engaged in a civil war.  The conflict has claimed more than 100,000 lives over the past two and a half years.  Also in this time 4.25 million people have been displaced within the country and 1.8 million have fled to neighboring countries according to U.N. figures.  Chemical weapons have been used before but on a smaller scale.  This most recent event was massive.  The Syrian regime has denied a role in the attacks, suggesting that anti-government rebels carried them out to frame Syrian President Assad.  U.N. Chief Ban Ki-moon pleaded for more time to allow a team  in Syria to establish the facts and give diplomacy another chance. 

The U.N. Security Council's five permanent members have met but failed to reach agreement to authorize military force against Syria per  Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons.  Russia and China have blocked past attempts to sanction Assad's regime.  Russia found  proof that Assad used the weapons "unconvincing".

British P.M. David Cameron was behind the U.N. resolution for action,  but Members of Parliament voted against taking part in a military action.  The use of chemical weapons by Assad crosses President Obama's "red line" and so the administration believes the U. S. must prove its credibility on the international stage by responding.   With no U.N. resolution and Great Britain out of the picture the U.S. will have to go it alone if it decides to act.  President Obama assures that the purpose  of any military response would be "to hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons , (to) deter this kind of behavior, and to degrade their capacity to carry it out."

So, the question is does humanitarianism compel  us to defend the rebels and their supports?  Is that our place?  What will the consequences be for the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. What effect will it have on the area at large?  Is their a diplomatic solution? What do you think?