The Shutdown, the Aftermath, and What Should be Done

We all have experienced the government shutdown, lasting for almost two weeks, due to a disagreement in whether to raise the debt ceiling.  Many Republicans, especially John Bohner and Ted Cruz, wanted to abolish ObamaCare before proceeding any further, going as far as to hold it hostage as the government shut down, and with a deadline looming on defaulting on the debt, causing a possible worldwide economic disaster should this occur.

Bohner, Cruz, the Tea Party, and the extremists on the right were willing to take this chance make President Obama blink and give in, but he refused.  After passing a bill to abolish ObamaCare 40 times, and getting vetoed 40 times, this was their last resort.

Approaching the debt ceiling, and proposing to raise it, the Republicans took the opportunity, in desperation, to hold the economy hostage until ObamaCare was abolished or changed.  It failed.

The shutdown is over, and we have lost $24 billion in goods and services, and nobody truly got what they wanted, especially the Republicans.  They gave in and were humiliated, and they deserved to be.  

Many have said that ObamaCare is draining the budget, but that program hasn’t even been implemented yet.  It has passed into law, and Congress has to realize that one, the 2012 election is over, and two, ObamaCare is now the law of the land.  Accept it!  

Give it a chance to see if it will work.  It is not free, anyone who wants it has to pay for it.  ObamaCare is not a handout, it is not socialize medicine, it is not a welfare program, it is an insurance policy, an affordable way for people to pay their medical bills without have to drain their life savings, or, in an emergency, sell their homes.  

Now there is the problem of computer foul ups for people trying to register, caused by computer programmers, and if that isn’t enough, many insurance companies are now canceling the policies of many of their beneficiaries, leaving them with no other choice but to register for the government sponsored program.

As far as ObamaCare is concerned, fix the computer glitch, let the program start up, and if there are any faults in it, and there will be, correct them.  Most of all, try and make the program self-supporting, like investing the money to multiply itself;  i.e. stocks, bonds, and real estate.

The problem of the budget hasn’t been solved, just postponed for another three months, until we hit the debt ceiling again.

We can’t go on like this, living off of borrowed money.

What should be done?

We have hit the debt ceiling many times, and have been forced to raise it, many time, and we will continue to do so, again and again.  As of right now, our national debt is officially $17 trillion, and climbing.  If we default, like we almost did now, the U.S. will lose it prominence in the world, and other countries will look elsewhere for guidance, and with the position we are in now, we cannot afford to lose this.  If our debt keeps increasing, and nothing is done, we will default, our economy will collapse, and we will lose our position in the world.  We are headed in that direction.  There will be a day of reckoning for us.

Something has to change.  A lot of things has to change, for we cannot remain in the position we are in, no matter what happens.

We cannot go on borrowing money into infinity.  Somewhere, this has to stop, and we must start repaying all our debts.  The deficit needs to be eliminated, and we need to have a budget surplus, like we did late in the Clinton Administration.  Then we need to start paying our debt, first to other countries whom we have borrow money, then to the Federal Reserve.  It won’t be easy but it can be done if we all set our energies to it.  I say “we all” and we are all in this together, whether we want to be or not.  No one is exempt.

I have a lot of proposals here to increase revenue, thereby lowering, and hopefully eliminating the deficit altogether.  Many of these proposals are radical, and will invite big controversy, some may even anger some groups of people, but one has to remember, we are in a big economic mess, and doing nothing is not an option.  We need to improve our economy and bring more money into this country, and the government, if we are to prevent not only a repeat of what happened, but a huge economic disaster further on down the road.

All this starts with our federal budget.  We need to wipe that slate clean and start from scratch.  Our money cannot be wasted, nor can it go to senseless, useless, and repetitive programs, and most of all, non-federal programs.  Our budget needs to go to federal matters only!  Period.  If a town, city, or state wants money for their own projects, they need to raise it themselves, in the form of state and local taxes, or donations from their own local populace. 

In rebuilding the budget, what really has to be focused on is what the U.S. desperately needs if we are to survive in the future:  education, science, engineering and technology, rebuilding our infrastructure, new research in new technologies, rebuilding our cities, and attracting new industries.  We need to invest in future technologies that we will need further on down the road  i.e.  new forms of energy, space technology, ways to deal with climate change, and new forms of medical technology, to name a few, in order to make this country competitive with other countries now investing in these very technologies.  The big problem here is that we are cutting these very assets we need from our present budget in leaps and bounds, not knowing, or caring, about the consequences of these very actions.  We need to sit down and point out this mistake and discuss what can be done. 

In our budget, billions of dollars are wasted on things we don’t need, even in the military.  All forms of waste needs to be eliminated.  One problem is that the government funds projects they have no business funding.  Some outrageous examples are:  an indoor rainforest in Iowa, a teapot museum, and a project polishing a statue of Vulcan in Alabama (yes, these are real).  There are grants the the government gives that focus on the ridiculous, such as the above mentioned examples.  I have also noticed that there have been advertisements, even on television, for “Free money from the government” for doing almost anything you want.  Is it any wonder why we are so deep in debt?

The military wastes money like crazy.  More money is spent of the U.S. military then in the next 13 countries combined.  Here, Congress is at fault.  They have forced the military to spend money they neither need nor want.  Weapons in excess, such as tanks, continue to be built, along with weapons that are never used.  In both these situations, the military does not want this.  They do not want an excess of weapons like tanks, they do not want useless weapons, and they do not want to spend money Congress forces on them and orders them to spend, strange as this may sound.  This may sound radical here, but could we cut the military budget in half and let the military decide for itself what money should go where.  

Cut back on foreign bases that are no longer needed, close domestic bases, if some countries need our protection, let them pay for it and apply that money to the military.  We shouldn’t be wasting our money while many of these countries we protect get a free ride.  (I am aware that we need to rearrange our military priorities, especially in the Pacific, but I’m sticking to my convictions, here.)

I have only talked about getting our budget back in line by investing in what can literally save the life of this country, and by eliminating waste.  This will not be easy, but it has to be done, or at least attempted.  The second step, which has to be done simultaneously, is to increase our budget to be able to afford all this, eliminate the deficit, and finally pay our debt.

The first step in increasing our budget will be controversial.  Some say we should raise taxes;  others say cut spending.  I say we need to do both.  California had a serious debt problem recently, and they chose to do both, and it worked.  They got out of debt and produced a surplus.

We need to raise taxes on demerit goods, such as liquor, cigarettes, junk food (apply this all to health care) and gasoline, applying the proceeds to rebuilding our infrastructure.  

Obviously, we need to raise taxes on those with the highest income, but it doesn’t have to be that much, and it can be in a way that the taxed will never miss the money.

There is a big problem in entitlements and pensions.  There are also many person receiving these who do not need them.  I propose here that we send out a letter and form stating that if they have a good income or savings account, and they are receiving government entitlements, but do not need them, to voluntarily give up their pensions, be it Social Security, Medicare, or otherwise, for the sake of fixing the economy.  Many of these people might be willing to do so, saving the government even more money.

Both parties in Congress have to cross the aisles and work with each other, respecting the other persons views.  

We need a third party, a common sense party, that can see the reality of the economic situation we are in, and knows that we have to sacrifice something.  Fixing this problem will not be painless, even though most of us want it to be this way.

II believe we should invoke term limits on U.S. Senators and Congressmen;  two terms for senators (12 years total) and three terms for representatives (six years).  In the latter case I feel we should extend their term from two to four years, and have them serve a maximum to two terms, eight years total.  If one were to serve in both houses, the total would be 20 years, and that is plenty of time to make one’s mark.

The reason why I am bringing this up is that many career politicians outlast their usefulness, and just fill space, with nothing new to contribute.  They also want to stay there because of the perks, and there are many to these.  Working only 140 days a year, with a huge salary, plus perks (free meals, free haircuts, six, yes six paid vacations per years to name a few), is a waste of good taxpayer money, and is one more reason why our debt is so high.   Of course, many of these “professional” politicians are responsible for this shutdown, which is another good reason for term limits. 

Originally, the congress was meant to attract ordinary people from all walks of life; farmers, teachers, laborers, etc., to come in, point out present issues, help to fix them, pass new laws if necessary, and leave, return to their old professions, and live under the laws they passed.  New, fresh blood will then come and focus their issues of the day, and so on.  This would be a continuous rotation of office, and we, as a whole, would keep on changing with the times.

With the advent of professional politicians, and them running for office constantly until death or retirement, we have become stagnant, and the officeholders change their position from serving the U.S. as a whole to serving their party, i.e. themselves.  This has to change back to where it was originally.

In the redrawing of congressional districts, we need to ban gerrymandering.  Districts are drawn in a very awkward manner to accommodate the political party that is presently in charge, and this has to change.

We need campaign finance reform.

Now that that’s off my chest, we need to focus on the budget, our deficit, our debt, and deal with it in a way so that what just happened will never happen again.

We need to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.  Many companies have been outsource to other countries, especially to Latin America and Asia, for cheap labor.  Many of these companies are returning because of the rise in labor and taxes, but we need to provide bigger incentives for more of them to return.   More companies in the U.S. means more jobs, less unemployment, and more tax revenue.

We also need to allow for new startups, and new technologies.

In addition, we need to reform immigration laws allowing more immigrants to come in the U.S.  Foreign college students who study here should be given the opportunity to work here and eventually, if they wish, be allowed to live here permanently.  This will help our industries a great deal with new minds and laborers contributing to our economy.

  

America is not broke.  We are (still) the richest economy in the world, and we, as a country, have plenty of money, enough to produce more wealth, get us out of debt, and once again, become a creditor nation.  To achieve this will take hard work, and it will be painful.  There is no way we can achieve this painlessly, no way.

The problem with the money in many private industries is that is sits on its ass.  We do not invest enough of it to keep it going.  You may have a trillion dollars, but if it just sits in a vault, doing nothing, it’s no good, except for acquiring interest, and that interest in very small, less than one percent.  With an amount like a trillion, you may be lucky to get two percent interest.  I remember back in 1970, when I had a savings account with five percent interest, but those days are gone.  Banking has changed, and not for the better.

To increase our wealth, we must invest the money we have.

I do not like to sneer at “the rich” or “the corporations,” for both do have a right to exist, as long as they do not influence the government into getting what they want.

Aside this, they do provide employment for masses of people.  If enough people were employed, there would be more tax revenue for the government, so they would not run out of money, creating situations like these.  We also must not waste it.

People sneer at corporations not paying their fair share, or even paying no taxes, but one little know fact is that corporations in the U.S. have the highest tax rate in the world, about 35%.  Many other countries, especially in Europe, have rates of only 20%, and that is why many of them leave here, to pay lower taxes.  

This next proposal will outrage some people, but here it is.  What we have to do is level the playing field, lower our corporate tax rate down to 20% as well, so that the corporations abroad will come back to the U.S. After the return, provide incentives for employing more Americans;  i.e. for every one million (a round figure, could be more) Americans employed, lower the rate by one percentage point, down to a floor of 15%.  More income can come from both the company, and the worker.  Many may not like this, but if this can lower unemployment and generate more tax revenue, then it has to be done.

Encourage philanthropy.  Many wealthy individual, from all professions, be it a computer company or a movie star, should be encourage to help rebuild society in a big way, even starting projects normally in the domain of the government.  If a wealthy person lives in a town or city that needs a new bridge, perhaps that person can be encouraged to pay for it, saving the government taxpayer dollars that can be used elsewhere.  It could be a bridge, a road, a hospital, a library, rebuilding or establishing a school, a youth center, and some other creative and useful project.  Obviously, the person donating the money has the privilege of naming it, either after himself, or some other name.

As stated, we need to have a campaign to not only reduce and eliminate the deficit, but the debt as well.   We owe very little of our debt to foreign countries.  Most of the debt we owe, we owe to the Federal Reserve, meaning we owe it to ourselves.  But let's focus on repaying our debt to other countries first.

We owe the most to China, about $1.6 trillion.  Why not pay it off using a barter system?  As an example, China, at present, needs coal, lots of it.  Make a deal with China to pay off their debt with shiploads of our coal, with us mining it and sending it over to China.  We would mine it, get paid, and the money would remain in the U.S.  (I am very much aware of the pollution it causes, and climate change, but China is working on cleaner coal technology, and we need to pay our debt somehow.)  Export other minerals and/or products if needs be.

This system can be adapted to other countries in which we owe money.  Another way is to point out what countries we owe money to that we have aided in the past, helping to build them up by sending them money.  If we were to converse with them to deduct the amount we have aided them from what we owe them now, our debts to them can decrease, possibly even cancel.  We have even sent foreign aid to China in the past, so they also should be included.

With these two proposals, we can pay off our debts as soon as possible.  We will then have the Federal Reserve in which to contend.

Our shutdown was a wake-up call for these country.  We needed to increase the debt ceiling, but that, too, is a bad sign, indicating that we needed to borrow more money to keep us going.  We need to stop.  Our annual budget needs to last the entire year, without the need to borrow another red cent.  We need to produce a budget surplus to pay our debts.  We need to invest in the things that we insure our survival, like education, science and technology, our infrastructure, our problems, and most of all, our people.  This can be done, but Congress needs to stop being at each other’s throats and cooperate, listen to each other, and listen to the American people.

The U.S. and Syria, Part Two: The U.S. Was Not Defeated

  

     As of this writing, the U.N. has confirmed that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria used chemical weapons, Sarin gas, on his own people.

     During this crisis, Secretary of State John Kerry made an offhand remark about Syria giving up its chemical weapons, and here, Vladimir Putin of Russia jumped in to take advantage of this situation, stating that he and Russia will help make it possible.  With that, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia and John Kerry got together and within days, reached an agreement that Syria gives a full account of their weapons for the U.N. to remove and destroy them.  The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China) have also drafted a resolution to make sure Syria keeps its part of the bargain.

     There is still a few rough spots in the agreement that still need to be settled.  Russia objects that if Syria fails to comply, the U.S. and France will reserve the right to take military action.  Russia and China would veto any resolution to do so, but that option is still on the table, and there are still U.S. Navy warships awaiting orders to fire missiles at Syria should it become necessary.

      Because of this resolution, many U.S. officials, especially those leaning towards the Right, feel that Obama is weak, and allowed himself to be taken in by Putin, handing him, and Russia, prestige, while the U.S. appears to have back down on this crisis.  The Wall Street Journal labels Obama as weak and feels that the U.S. has been defeated by letting Syria off easy and allowing Assad to remain in power.

     I beg to differ.

     I think Obama did the right thing, and should Syria follow through with its end of the deal, it will show the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.  Assad may have gotten off easy, for now, and may keep in position in power, but that’s beside the point.

     As stated, the U.S., still has warships out in the Mediterranean, with missiles still pointed at Syria, and should Assad renege on his part of the bargain, they will be fired at Syria.  Nobody is telling us to get our warships out of there.

     Russia, now that it has prestige once again, has to make sure that Syria keeps their part of the bargain.  I am aware the Russia does supply some rogue nations with weapons, and I am also aware that what they do, they do to their advantage, sometimes to the detriment to the rest of the world, and they don’t always keep their part of any bargain, but should Assad use chemical weapons again, the Russians will lose whatever international respect they may have recently gained.  

     Assad, now that he has agreed to give up his chemical weapons, has to keep his part of the bargain.  I know of the rebukes.  “The U.S. is letting Assad stay in power and he’s going unpunished.”  Well, maybe, but since the U.N. has now confirmed that chemical weapons were used, Assad, if he did use them, can no longer do so.  If he does, all bets are off, and he will be attacked, and he, Russia, and the world know this.  In addition, even if Assad does remain in power, he will still have to deal with the uprising by his own people, and that is not about to end anytime soon.

     So where is the humiliation for the U.S.?  I don’t see any humiliation, embarrassment, or defeat.  On the contrary, we won without firing a shot.  Should Syria live up to it’s part of the bargain, we will show the world that the use of chemical weapons are not tolerated, even if Assad remains in power, and even if Assad did use them once.  He cannot use them again.

     If the U.S. were to get involved in Syria, we would be bogged down in a war with no exit strategy.  Not only would American lives be lost, it would destroy our economy, not to mention the respect from the world we still maintain.  It would have been a disaster, and that is where our defeat would have lied.  Also, in many cases, the rebels are no better than their oppressors, themselves resorting to ruthless tactics and killing innocent people.  If there is a right side, we would not have found it.  Many, perhaps most, of the rebels themselves would fight against us, not with us.  We, the U.S., always end up taking the wrong side in wars, even when our intentions are good.  There would have been more atrocities on our part, and we would be hated by the world more, not less.  Once again, we would be stuck in a mire.

     It never pays to get involved in any war in the Middle East.  We no longer need their oil, and these countries, including Syria, don’t want us in there anyway.  The Syrians themselves have stated this.  Also, don’t forget Iraq and Afghanistan.

     No, we were not defeated or humiliated.  On the contrary, if the deal goes through, we will have won.   Russia has to watch itself and Syria has to give up their chemical weapons, which is what we wanted, and with our ships still in the Mediterranean, should something go wrong.  We, the U.S., and the U.N., will be watch to see if Russia and Syria keep their part of the bargain. 

     We got the best part of the deal.

The U.S. and Syria, as of September 2, 2013

          President Barack Obama is in what will probably be the toughest situation of his presidency, and how he reacts will either make or break his place in history.  He may end up making an unpopular decision that history will regard as a wise decision, or vice versa.

     From the title, I am of course discussing the situation in Syria.  As of this moment, President Obama is pondering on bombing Syria as punishment for using poison gas on its own people.  President Assad, whom many of the Syrians have been rebelling against for the past two years, has been tyrannical, and is fighting these rebels to preserve his place in power.  The rebels were winning at first, but Assad has struck back, using his military to strike back at the rebels, reclaiming much of the territory that the rebels captured.

     There are those around the globe who support these rebels, hoping that they would succeed in this endeavor.  Some of them hoping that the U.S. will come in, aid these rebels, and drive out Assad, just like they did Saddam Hussain in Iraq, with mixed results.

      Obama has tried very hard to stay out of this mess, and for good reason.  First, the American people are weary from being in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 (2003 through 2011 in Iraq), costing taxpayers money, not to mention human lives, and would now very much like to concentrate on fixing their own economy.  Obama, during his first presidential campaign, has vowed to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not to get us into any more wars.

     Obama is now in a different situation.  When one becomes president, he or she finds that being in office is not so easy as running for it, and it is not so easy to keep one’s promises to change things.  He has a lot of outside forces to deal with, starting with Congress, and it gets even tougher when that particular Congress is determined to see you fail, at all costs, and that is the situation that Obama is in today.

     Obama tolerated the Syrian civil war, and he tried, with success, to stay out of it.  He did warn Assad that if he used chemical weapons, the U.S. will be forced to take military action.  That is the red line the Obama drew.

     The Red Line has been crossed.  Masses of people were killed, and there is a suspicion that chemical weapons, mainly Sarin gas, was used.  Assad denies it, and it has been said that the rebels themselves did it, and others say that there is no proof the these weapons were used.  The U.N. was in, examined the bodies, and as of this moment, they just left the country.

     As stated, many say that there is no proof that chemical weapons were used.  Syria, however does have them, and the manufacturing and storage facilities for them.  If they were not used, how did all these people die?  What was used to kill them?  How do you explain this mass killing, with all bodies not having a mark on them, if Sarin gas wasn’t used?  If they were used, should we go in?  Perhaps the Air Force should go in and destroy these plants and storage facilities.

     It was during the first World War that poison gas was used on both sides, and the outcome was so horrible, that at the Geneva Convention, held in 1925, all sides agreed that chemical weapons will not be used in any future war.

     Well, should it be found that Assad did use them, and evidence points out that they did;  so what do we do?  Should we bomb Syria as a message to Assad not to use them again?  Should Obama decide to do so, he, and the U.S., will be condemned for being war mongers and bullies.

     What if Obama decides NOT to go into Syria?  Will he be condemned by the rest of the world for looking the other way and doing nothing while masses of innocent people are being killed?  Will he be compared to those who stood by during the Hitler regime while six million people went to the gas chambers?  There is a Syrian family that lives in my vicinity that thinks just that of Obama, and wants the U.S. military to go in and bomb Syria for reasons I have already stated.  There is also the danger that other dictators that possess chemical weapons will use them with impunity, both on their own people and on other countries, and this act of inaction will be what triggers it off;  i.e. chemical weapons will become conventional weapons.

      Suppose Obama does decide to go in and bomb Syria.  Will the world condemn the U.S. for being war mongers and bullies, bombing innocent people?  Will we lose what’s left of our credibility, especially after invading Iraq?  If Assad killed 100,000 Syrians by conventional means, why should we go in when these weapons only killed about 1400 Syrians, with 400 of them being children?  Does that make sense?

     Either way, Obama will be condemned.  He is in a very tough situation.  What can be accredited to him now is deciding to obtain the approval of Congress before venturing out there.  Whatever is decided, Obama will be judged by the world in a very harsh manner.  It will be up to history to come up with the final verdict.

     My own opinion on all this is:  One, there is no way we can fix the situation in Syria and make peace there, no matter what we do.  Only the Syrian people can do that.  If we go in, it will be worse for everybody, especially us.  Two, wars cost money, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot afford to get involved in anyone else’s problems, problems that do not concern us.  Three, the Syrian people themselves have stated that, in spite of what is happening, they do not want us coming in there at all.  They want to solve their own problems, and keep the rest of the world at bay.  Four, that situation is so complex, we don’t know whose side to be on;  we just may end up choosing the wrong side, something that we are very good at doing.  Last, if we are going to attack Syria, destroy the chemical weapons plants and storage facilities, and then get out.  That, at least, will discourage other dictators from using theirs.

     It is my own conclusion that we stay out, completely.  Since we are becoming more energy independent, we should try and stay out of all the Middle East and its affairs, and let them settle it themselves, if they have the ability to do so.  They don’t want us in there anyway, and no one else can do it for them, especially the U.S.