Just as the fiscal cliff was narrowly averted at the beginning of the New Year, another big hurdle stood before the U.S. Congress: The Debt Ceiling. No, ladies and gentlemen of the United States viewing audience, this was not a re-run on one of the hundreds of 24-hour news-cycle television stations from the summer of 2011. It happened all over again, thanks to the “kick the can down the road” philosophy that the Republican GOP has forced upon President Obama on a myriad of issues, which predominantly deal with the Budget Control Act of 2011, which is where this entire puzzling, riddle-laden, conundrum of a problem between the White House and the GOP began in the first place.

Many in political-pundit land, on both talk radio and television programs alike, fail to explain, in layman’s terms, how this all started, and what it means to you, John and Joan Q. Public, so first some background: The Budget Control Act of 2011 was enacted and signed into law by President Obama on August 2, 2011, after months of arguing with the GOP over the raising of the debt ceiling, vs. the placing, planting and positioning of substantial cuts in Federal spending. The bulk of these has been, and continues to be, cuts in Federal programs regarding health care and seniors, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to compensate for the increase in the debt ceiling. At that time, the debt ceiling then held our national debt to an absolute monetary limit of 14.3 trillion (over 11 trillion of that debt was incurred by the previous George W. Bush administration).

Although the debt ceiling was raised by 2.4 trillion in the eleventh hour in the summer of 2011 by the Act, S&P (Standard & Poor’s, the United States-based financial services company, “the world’s leading index provider and the foremost source of independent credit ratings,”) downgraded the United States credit rating for the first time in our nation’s history, from the customary AAA rating to a AA rating, over the uncertainty in the market created from the badmouthing, back-stabbing and bickering that occurred with the White House and the GOP ruled House of Representatives, for the aforementioned reasons. So, if the back-and-forth arguing and subsequent passing of the fiscal cliff actually derived from the passing of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which actually dealt with the debt ceiling being raised in the first place, one must first understand the following question: Where did this idea of a debt-ceiling come from?

According to the website Investopedia, the debt ceiling was ratified by Congress with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 “during World War I to hold the President fiscally responsible.” Through the natural course of time, “the debt ceiling has been raised whenever the U.S. comes close to hitting the limit. By hitting the limit and missing a payment to bondholders, the U.S. would be in default, lowering its credit rating and increasing the cost of its debt.” Many political professionals and pundits alike disagree with the validity of the debt ceiling, citing that a clause in the 14^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States should not be questioned.” Pundits then said that the President should invoke this part of the amendment, and supersede Congress so that our debts continue to be paid. The White House has never liked this idea, because it makes the President look too dictatorial, which falls right into the hands of the far-right-wing crazies of the GOP, who like to go around purporting that Barack Obama is the next Adolf Hitler.

More recently, the discussion shifted to the Secretary of the Treasury minting a new trillion dollar coin, which, according to proponent Paul Krugman of The New York Times, “would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve which would credit the sum to the government’s account. And the government could then write checks against that account, continuing normal operations without issuing new debt…so that in reality the U.S. government (which includes the Fed) would continue to engage in normal borrowing. Basically, this would just be an accounting trick, but that’s a good thing…using an accounting trick to negate it [the debt-ceiling] is entirely appropriate.”

The White House quickly nixed the idea of the accounting shell game, and cooler heads (like Obama’s) prevailed, stating that the minting of such a coin not only sounds like an absolutely insane idea to the average American, it would let the GOP off the hook and fail to hold them accountable if the minting of the coin failed in any way, shape or form to keep the United States credit in good standing. As Tyler Cowen of The Money Illusion so eloquently put it:

“And let’s say that — somehow — the whole thing miraculously worked out well from start to finish.  The testier Republicans would in fact get exactly what they want. They would receive isolation from any negative consequences from brinksmanship, and a new narrative about how President Obama is a fascist incarnate.”

Some members of the GOP had originally thought that not allowing the debt-ceiling to be raised would be merely result in a partial government shutdown, (and some of these GOP members subsequently said so on news media talk shows) which is, of course, erroneous: threatening to default on already incurred U.S. debt, could result in yet another downgrade in the full faith and credit of the United States. Fortunately for all of us, cooler heads (not unlike Obama’s) recently prevailed, yet again, and the stubborn-as-a-mule GOP House passed a bill that would allow the debt-ceiling to be raised, yet again – for now. However, the sequester that was set-up by Obama and Boehner some time ago will still kick in as early as this spring; which means we could do this yet, yet again. What’s next for Speaker Boehner and rest of the unreliable House GOP? Stay tuned.

Trey Ellison – NEWSslinger Contributor

Take Your Shot at the NEWS!!

Let Us Know What You Think!   Give Us Your Comments!

“If these women see their monthly checks slashed, where do they turn when they can’t afford food at the end of the month?” – Bryce Covert “In Fiscal Cliff Deal, Don’t Chain Grandma to Smaller Social Security Check”

             As Bryce Covert points out in “The Nation”, there is a lot of pain for many people if we go over the fiscal cliff. That makes the perils of going over the cliff relevant and important for everyone involved, but to presume that our options are a) going over the fiscal cliff and hurting Grandma or b) accepting the President’s plan and everything is peaches and rainbows, is to ignore the deeper issues facing a nation which spends and leverages itself past a certain point.

            To frame the liberal/conservative split on the proper path moving forward on the fiscal cliff as “Oh, those scheming liberals want to pay off their constituents with goodies so that they keep voting liberal” or “Oh, those selfish, rich, conservatives want to keep their beautiful money and beat up grandma” is as irresponsible as framing the split as “We want to help the poor who rely on our services” and “We want to do what’s best for strong economic recovery.” The truth on what path is best for the country means recognizing that going over the fiscal cliff or taking the compromise comes with benefits and costs. The problem is getting everyone to recognize that simple fact.

            If conservatives take the President’s deal, then we will not hurt grandma right now the way that Ms. Covert describes, but that comes with the cost that the pain down the road from fiscal insolvency is also going to hurt grandma (and everyone else) much worse than the hurt will be if we don’t reach a deal. While the U.S. may not face the meltdown that Greece did at 170% of Gov’t debt to GDP in 2011 that led to crises they face there, we should not assume that the U.S. is so “special” that no ratio of debt-to-GDP would cause a similar crisis. And, with the numbers involved at such a debt-crisis, we should also not assume that any international body would have the financial or political means to relieve such obligations.

            As a conservative, I concede that going over the fiscal cliff will hurt. It will hurt grandma, it will hurt families, and it will hurt my family, but this is a problem that needs to be solved with our heads guided by our hearts (not the other way around). The President’s plan does not avert us from fiscal insolvency and failing to address the spending in excess of revenue on the part of the Federal government will come with a greater pain price tag. We are not looking out for grandma, women, or anyone else if we go over the cliff such compassion may drive us towards.

 Benjamin Truitt – NEWSslinger Contributor

Take Your Shot at the NEWS!! 

Let Us Know What You Think!   Give Us Your Comments!

We thought we’d seen the monster in Newtown, CT, and then the NRA spoke: the solution to gun violence is more guns.  I guess the solution to smoking- related cancer is more cigarettes, and nuclear deterrence works so well in the post-9/11world.

            I guess I’m an optimist.  I expected such a tragedy, with mostly innocent children as victims, and so many victims, would humble even the NRA, and they might concede that assault rifles don’t belong in general circulation.  People can still buy plenty of handguns, for self-defense and hunting.  The only way to really stop a deer is to unload thirty rounds into it.

            An armed guard in every school might help, if it’s even possible.  A killer could still case the school, find the guard, and then enter from the opposite side, or take out the guard first, or find an unguarded target.  I don’t want to explain to my child that her school has a cop because a woman in CT taught her mentally ill son how to fire guns and then she lost control of him. He had a father. Money obviously doesn’t solve every problem.

            Banning the sale of assault rifles might help.  A killer will do less damage, but are we ready to draw a line and decide what an acceptable level of casualties is?

            I’m not a fan of guns, but I am a fan of rights. Smarter people than I can argue the founding fathers’ intent of the Second Amendment, and the victims of Newtown had the absolute right to life, but I’ve never seen a law that stopped a problem before it happened.

            We won’t find a quick, simple solution to a complicated problem.

            I may be as popular as the NRA for the following, but we’ve seen time and again that there are warning signs, that are ignored, before a mass shooting.  Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, now Newtown, the killers were disturbed, people knew.

            Not to paint them like victims themselves, but the shooters fell through the cracks of a flawed network of systems no one’s really working to fix.

            A focus on mental health and gun law reform might help, treating the problem versus the NRA’s “solution” of treating the symptom and blaming video games.  I enjoy first person shooters, specifically because I don’t want to shoot real people.

            Maybe the comprehensive and common sense approach I wish for is as difficult as posting a guard in every school.

            Why did the Newtown shooter’s mom take him to firing ranges, knowing he had mental health issues?  Why was she preparing for an apocalypse?  Maybe red flags should have risen for her even before him.  In most of these tragedies a recipe was mixing well before the tragic day, which could have been stopped if any one of a number of people involved had done more or taken something more seriously.

            The Aurora shooter’s therapist received his disturbing journal days before the shooting.

            The Virginia Tech shooter’s roommates described him as “off”.  His parents had lost touch with him.

            I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but it does take a village to keep the village safe. Likewise, the village can fall asleep at the wheel.  A sick individual only needs one crack to fall through, but have a heart, NRA!  More guns will solve the problem like more cigarettes will cure cancer.       

-Ed Kowalski – NEWSslinger Contributor

Take Your Shot at the NEWS!! 

Let Us Know What You Think!   Give Us Your Comments!

The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut was a tragedy. With 28 in total dead, that day not only left Americans seeking answers about why anyone would do such a deed, but it also left Americans questioning how we as a nation can prevent a reoccurrence of such an act.

There is no question that something needs to happen to prevent future shootings, but the biggest question is how? How can we as Americans stop this carnage?  Well in my opinion, before we as a country go overboard and diminish much of our 2^nd amendment right to bear arms, there are some rather simple actions to be taken that could hinder many travesties, such as the Sandy Hook shooting, from happening.

First and foremost, our government needs make people more accountable for their weapons. If we were to look into a lot of past shootings, it is true that a lot of shooters weapons were actually stolen. It needs to be enforced that people report their stolen weapons.  Also, it is true that when it comes to young shooters, they often take weapons from family members. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooter, he stole his weapons from his mother.  Therefore, she is also accountable for this shooting. If those weapons would have been put in a place where her children did not have access to them, he would have never gotten a hold of those guns. 

Another action that can be taken is the creation of a mental health database. Before anyone buys a gun, there should be some record put into place that documents whether the person purchasing the gun has a history of mental health problems. If so, they should be denied  that purchase. Doing so would have stopped a lot of past shootings, because many of the shooters were shown to have some form of a mental health illness.

The Sandy Hook shooting put our country in mourning. It should have never happened, but before Americans start diminishing the rights that our founding fathers gave us, we should first look at our options. 

The tiniest actions could make a world of difference.

- Jessi Marlow Newsslinger Contributor

Take Your Shot at the NEWS!!  

Let Us Know What You Think!   Give Us Your Comments!

Well, Obama won the presidential election, to the dismay of Republicans and rich people, and the satisfaction of Democrats and senior citizens.

The race was tough, neck and neck for so long, but he did it.

Now comes the easy part, restoring the nation’s AAA credit, retaining national health care, averting the fiscal cliff and reducing unemployment

Obama’s stand in the campaign was essentially, stay the course, we’re gradually, consistently, if slowly, restoring the economy and bringing democracy to the world (the same slogan the Bushes used).

Romney’s slogan was basically, change the change that didn’t work in the last four years

Change, the same slogan Obama used in his first campaign.  I feel like I was watching another installment of the Dark Knight movies:  “You live long enough, and you become the bad guy”  You live long enough in politics and your opponent steals your slogan.

When the polls indicated a virtual tie I realized, Romney could win this.  If only he’d cozied up to independents and women a little more.

Once I realized Romney could actually win, I had a sort of panic attack, a political panic attack.

Not because of all of Obama’s progress fixing the nation and raising the US’s stature in the world.

I realized I’ve just gotten very used to and comfortable with seeing him.

Bush was awkward most of the time, at best, the way he’d tell a bold-faced lie with a straight face, and that irritating mannerism of saying something stupid and then snickering like we were the idiots who didn’t understand him.

Obama is easy to watch.  He’s non-threatening, even when he’s angry, even when he’s threatening to tax the rich or bomb an enemy.  Wait, he never threatens to bomb an enemy.  He’s taken out one so far, granted, a big one, otherwise, he walks softly but let go of the big stick.

I know Obama has swagger, and I know he’s hip enough to have fund raisers with “cool” celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker.

I still see him like that relative you have who’s at every family get together, who sits in the corner in the easy chair just watching everyone, occasionally joining a conversation, but never to say anything mean or alarming.  His presence makes you feel okay, like everything’s all right and normal, even though he doesn’t really enhance the party much, but he doesn’t make it worse, either.  You feel better just seeing him there.

Like the relative in the easy chair Obama knows just what to say to make you feel like things could be okay, if they’re not just yet.  They will be.  In the meantime, try to enjoy yourself as is.

Barrack holds his press conferences and makes his speeches and like the mellow relative in the corner, you feel at ease just seeing him at the party, even if he makes no difference whatsoever.

Ed Kowalski – NEWSslinger Contributor