THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE.

The debt ceiling talks have become critical, not just for the Obama government, but for the nation as a whole.

There are those in Congress, who are of the opinion that if the deadline of August 2nd, 2011 is allowed to go by without an agreement on raising the debt ceiling, government will continue to function normally. Most of them happen to be Republicans.

However, others maintain that if a compromise fails before that date, the government will be in serious trouble. The deficit gap will widen as the days go by, amounting in millions of dollars being added to it each single day.

"if Congress fails to pass a budget amendment in time for that early August deadline?", the result will be financially foreboding, says former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker on ABC's Top Line.

"The answer: a $4 billion-a-day gap in revenues coming in and expenditures going out, according to former U.S. Comptroller General, David Walker."; the program confirms him adding, among other things.

President Barack Obama has been doing a whole lot of hard work recently in holding meetings in the White House between himself and Congressional Republican leaders, who are in opposition to raising of the debt ceiling. For him, a common ground must be found to resolve the differences on both sides, in regard to closing the huge deficit gap that is being debated right now, so that the issue of raising the debt ceiling can be settled to avert a pending disaster.

Yet, according to reports, Congress has become totally dysfunctional, and its members are choosing to play politics, instead of honing in on a problem that will cause havoc to world financial markets, and so make the stock market at home to go haywire and interest rates to rise.

The United States Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner and many leading economists are warning lawmakers that it is a bad idea "to flirt with the deadline,"; and that they cannot afford to take a risk in making a political tug-of-war out of such an important issue. Besides, there is no precedence in American history, of the debt ceiling not being raised; for it is only done as a precaution or as a necessity to benefit the nation in an emergency situation.

Well, there are other meetings in the offing; one is set for this Sunday, July 10th, 2011 in the White House. Therefore, in the interest of all concerned, both opposing parties must seize the opportunity to reach an agreement, before it becomes too late for an "Armageddon-like" consequence to come to light, as it is being predicted.

The whole country wishes all its leaders well.

THE OBAMA GOVERNMENT CUTS.

Budget cuts to help the deficit reduction discussions going on in Washington D.C. must not be done in a manner that will put the burden on just one section of society, or in such a way that only one faction must be made to bear the brunt of the United States' current financial problems.

Lawmakers, however incessantly they want and need to shave off costs to bring government spending under control, are liable to ensure that fairness is the driving influence behind their actions.

If seniors are picked on, through Medicare and Social Security, to carry a bigger load to achieve a balanced budget, then their efforts to enable the country to maintain a strong economy in the past, and throughout their working years, will be in vain.

At the present moment, that is what the cuts are aiming to do, and that is to reduce Medicare and Social Security spending in order to accomplish the objective of Congressional Republicans, who are always protecting the more secure citizens, by saying that raising taxes on them is likely to make the economy worse.

They argue that if taxes are raised on the more affluent people, and particularly the rich, unemployment will rise even higher, because they are the ones helping the economy to get better by their investments in industries and businesses.

The Obama administration is making it abundantly clear that there are some excesses through tax loopholes that the rich are taking advantage of, and they (tax loopholes) must be closed, if there is going to be any type of fairness in solving the country's financial woes.

Both sides have identified where the cuts are supposed to come from, as well as where there is a need to raise taxes to help the revenue to increase.

Now, it must be realized that spending by the government is in itself not a bad thing, because it allows the government to pay our military and security forces who are working day and night to protect the nation's interests at home and abroad.

Two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must be paid for; and the expenditure of maintaining embassies and consulates all around the globe must be handled efficiently.

It is not that President Barack Obama is giving money away to African Americans, as many of the so called Tea Party people think or assume. No such thing has ever happened; or will it ever happen.

All the monies in any government's expenditure are spent reasonably; it is done with so much rational as the Republican opposition members fully know. Yet, they have a fixation that many Americans are born stupid, and they will embrace anything you tell them. Ask these members where the spending is going, and they will never give a direct or true answer; but because of the negative thoughts they have about the Obama administration, they will find many excuses to justify their behavior.

They are always ready to find fault of some kind; and give the impression that the president is "a big spender".

Again, many Americans are saying that, if the cuts are going to be on the backs of seniors alone, then there will not be fairness on the part of those who are insisting that no responsibility must be extended to the rich and well to do, to contribute their fair share to stabilizing the slow economy that we are all seeing today.

The correction of the economy, and the responsibility of paying off the huge debt the country is laboring under, must be borne on all shoulders; and that must include the middle class, the working class and all citizens of the United States alike.

CAYLEE ANTHONY.

The verdict of the Casey Anthony's trial for killing her daughter Caylee, leaves much to be desired. It has caused a tumultuous public backlash, and has brought back memories of the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

However, in Casey Anthony's case, there was no "murder" or any proof of it. There was a host of evidence that overwhelmed the court and caused the judge, Belvin Perry, to interrupt at certain unscheduled interludes, to bring some semblance of decorum to the proceedings. That was his job, and he handled it perfectly well.

He, Judge Belvin Perry, called the attorneys in the case to the bench, at least three or four times, to admonish them; and though, that scenario was not unusual, they gave the people in the courtroom, and particularly the Jurors, a sinister impression for them to speculate if a "game" of superiority was going on between the defense team and the prosecution.

For example, Casey's lawyer, Jose Baez, thought he was being ridiculed enough to make him call the court's attention to the behavior of one of the prosecution lawyers. That made the judge to interject the proceedings with the words "Gentlemen, gentlemen.....," and asked the attorneys to approach the bench, for a much needed consultation, from time to time, to make the case (to) run smoothly.

Meanwhile, the media were feeding on the drama taking place, thinking that the more evidence being heaped on Casey Anthony made her look like a killer; which was, to their dismay later on, a foolish assumption.

While the media foray was going on, lawyer Jose Baez was waiting his turn to refute all those charges that were being brought to bear on his client.

He was able to indicate that Caylee Anthony's death was not a killing or murder, but a pure accident that could occur to any child who happened to be playing around a swimming pool without anyone paying a much closer attention to him or her. There was no adult supervision; and in this particular case, a parental one.

Therefore, when the media frenzy pointed to Caylee's mother as a criminal, and deliberately making her child to die, the majority of the jurors were having different thoughts. She (Casey) was still a suspect and not a murderer yet, "until proven guilty." They (jurors) were not confused, for they had noticed that Casey Anthony was being victimized by the prosecution, through sheer lack of evidence, most of which was circumstantial.

"What is the cause of death?" "Where is the reason to compel a loving mother to act that way?" "Was she capable of such a fiendish act?" Those were some of the questions that members of the jury were asking themselves.

The prosecution had lavished itself with the idea that public opinion was on its side; and that Casey Anthony would be convicted of the "crime" that they, the prosecutors, had said all along that she had committed. That was jumping to the wrong conclusion, if there ever was one.

So, when the verdict came out it (prosecution) was shocked. It was not what its lawyers expected. A person was "innocent until proven guilty" was the farthest thing from their minds. They had forgotten that in the United States legal system, the accused was always innocent until there was ample proof to pass a guilty verdict on him or her, and not the other way around (as the French did.).

Nevertheless, as Jose Baez said after the verdict, "there are no winners in this case,"; except that a young child, Caylee Anthony, has lost her life, and for what, that was anybody's guess. That should leave a sour taste in the mouths of all concerned; and that should include the general public, of course.

MS. CASEY ANTHONY.

I had written a good article yesterday, but somehow I lost it, owing to a computer glitch or something.

I could not describe how I felt the whole day long for not being able to publish a blog. I was miserable.

Yet, that was yesterday; and I have to put that behind me.

With the verdict in the Casey Anthony's trial, many people were miffed with how the jury arrived at its decision; but the fact remained that murder must be committed with a large amount of evidence presented to offset any kind of doubt that would pinpoint the accused to be found guilty.

Whatever interfered with the guilt of a person, on one hand, and giving that same person or the accused the benefit of the doubt, on the other, should not be permissible. The correct evidence presented to a judge, should convict a person, and not illusions framed as charges.

Harping on the doubt by the defense lawyer created a vacuum in the minds of the jury; and from then on, any chance to get his client to go free was what he hammered on. He was not going to think of a guilty plea for which he would have to apologize to the judge and the jury on behalf of his client, Casey Anthony. He (lawyer) realized that was not the way to go, right from the start.

He threw all the forensic evidence in the face of the prosecutors, saying that none of it was cause for her to be incarcerated. All the evidence that remained after that was one that supported the accidental drowning of the little girl, Caylee. Everybody around her panicked, and they were biding their time to find a way out of a very bad situation.

If there must be a conviction, there must be an enormous amount of evidence to be presented by the prosecution to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the victim was made to suffer death through malice; but there was no evidence of that. Therefore, to convict a mother for killing her own child became impossible.

Throughout the proceedings of the trial, Casey Anthony was shown to be a loving mother in almost all the videos the court allowed the media to put out for viewers to analyse the case.

They were angry with the little girl, Caylee Anthony, dying at the hands of her mother and under circumstances that should not have permitted that to happen. In other words, people were cross about a loving mother killing her own child; and that was something they found it hard to imagine.

The evidence that she killed her to have a "free life" was not convincing enough; and the fact of the matter was that the grandparents were also present in the household to stop her from doing any harm to the child, to the point of reporting her to the authorities for child abuse. None of that happened.

The rest of the evidence produced was circumstantial, and it could not be used to pronounce a guilty verdict on a mother, who has lost a child through an accidental death. Besides, the counts on which the jury found her guilty were all misdemeanors. She just made up stories to law enforcement officers to cover herself.

Judge Belvin Perry did an extremely good job, in the light of a family case that has attracted so much attention. He could have had some closed sessions to interrupt normal court proceedings; however, that could have made the case increasingly difficult for the public to analyze it. The case was heard in its entirety by the public; with every bit of the evidence showing what took place.

He was convinced that all of it (evidence) must become available to all interested parties, be they the media or members of the general public. He even got the parents of Casey Anthony to come out with everything they had about their daughter to prove that she was negligent, with respect to Ms. Anthony taking good care of their grand daughter, but in the end, they failed to do so.

Well done, judge.

MR. HERMAN CAIN.

Only a few days ago, Businessman Herman Cain, the Republican Party candidate for president, was asking why so many White House economic experts were resigning their posts.

He attributed that to the Obama government not listening to good advise; hence, the country's economy was in shambles.

Many people, however, know that these experts or specialists come and go; they are in and out of every administration for various reasons, and so, the present scene in the WH is nothing new. They are replaced soon after, or even before they leave, in some cases.

Yet, Mr. Cain was trying to squeeze some political advantage out of the situation, to make the administration look bad. So, the question should be, did he succeed or not? The answer could be anyone's guess.

Now, within the time frame that he was monitoring the affairs taking place in the Obama administration, he was being confronted with similar resignations from his own campaign. It came out a day or so ago that his staffers were leaving him left, right and center. He must have felt giddy about it all.

First, it was Matt Murphy, the New Hampshire State director and Jim Zeiler, the regional director, who flee from Cain's camp; then came Tina Goff, the Iowa organizational director, who quit for lack of interest in the Iowa Straw polls, which also made another official, Kevin Hart, the Straw Poll coordinator, to hang up his hat.

The same type of problems have been plaguing Fmr. Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose top campaign officials resigned en masse a few weeks ago.

There have been so many goings on in the Republican field of presidential candidates; and one could not put a finger on a single incident that would make interesting reading than Mr. Cain calling on President Obama to pay attention to the advise of his financial experts.

Could that be true, or was it that they (experts) have been forced to resign due to their own ineptitude? Or that their reports could have caused the administration to find itself in dire straits? Who could tell?

As for Mr. Cain, one could assume that he was a good listener; and that he took his campaign staff members seriously and put their advise to practical use. If so, why were they quitting? Who could tell; who could tell?

It would be wise for Mr. Cain to stop fantasizing that all was well in his campaign; because it was not.

Also, he should realize that government was about weighing advise and making decisions, and not jumping to conclusions on the smallest of advise, whether it was good or bad.

He could rev up mainstream conservatives, but not mainstream America.

OBAMA'S LEADERSHIP.

Talking about leadership, there is a young man who has demonstrated it in more ways than one; and that person is President Barack Obama. Despite all the criticisms being heaped on him by media pundits of all kinds, he has managed to exemplify himself as a powerful proponent of fairness.

His news conference last Thursday depicted him as not just a strong leader, but also as a knowledgeable one at that.

In those exchanges, he answered all questions in detail, and with the precision of a well versed politician, who was not interested in pleasing his audience with rhetoric, but to bring it (audience) along to see at close hand what was at stake, in terms of the seriousness of the country's problems.

He was driving directly at getting the country to survive the enormous fiscal problems it was facing; yet, there were stumbling blocks that needed to be surmounted. They have been placed in his way to impede any progress he made; but he was not daunted.

On foreign policy, the Libyan crisis has not been characterized as "war"; not by America's European allies or the United Nations. He has gone in to stop a massive bloodshed.

What Congress should do to help resolve the problems confronting the country was not to be ideologically indifferent, nonchalant or closed minded; but it must be flexible, and be able to absorb what was being disseminated around the world, in terms of what was required to bring people of diverse backgrounds together to solve problems. It must also learn to be more cooperative.

He had repeated his ideas markedly using several instances, some of which were just metaphorical.

In addition to that, it (Congress) must refrain from dragging its feet on every issue that the institution has the responsibility to undertake to fulfill its obligations as representing the people. "Let's be realistic in all our deliberations," he seemed to reiterate.

Instead, it has chosen to oppose every statute the Obama administration has tried to implement, such as a universal or comprehensive Healthcare; and the government's insistence on rich citizens paying their fair share of taxes to bolster the dwindling revenue sources caused by two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congressional Republicans will not include tax hikes on the rich in the talks to raise the debt ceiling, to enable the government to meet its International and other fiscal bill payments; at least not in time to avoid a default; and also in order not to make the fighting off the enormous deficit, which was forcing a fragile economy to teeter on the brink of a situation resembling that of the Great Depression, any easier.

The Obama government is emphasizing that if there is going to be any budget cuts, they must be accompanied by raising taxes as well. Cuts and taxes must be effective enough to include every person in the country. Sacrifices must be made by all; and therefore, the tax loopholes that Corporations and the rich are taking advantage of must be closed, to balance the onslaught on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other such programs, which will be downgraded in some cases as a result of the cuts.

The budget gap is the most salient factor energizing unemployment levels to remain high; and the cost of living is rising from double digit inflation, due to the upheavals in the overall global economy. Americans are complaining of high gas and food prices; and such unwelcome circumstances affecting their lives are clearly unacceptable, and they must be dealt with, without delay.

All in all, President Obama has been on the forefront in the fight to get the economy to revert to where it has to be, for unemployment to slide farther down to at least 8.2%.

However, has he tackled or grappled with the economic problems, with the determination he needs to overcome them? Has he shown any leadership in his handling of the nation's economic affairs? "No, not at all,"; his assailants are insisting.

In fact, this is what his enemies are saying about his leadership, after his news conference last Thursday, during which he has vehemently chided the opposition for its reactionary behavior,

“He compares us to schoolchildren and then complains about his own workload. He tells us to stay and do the job and then leaves for Philadelphia to raise money. He jeopardizes a deal on his own debt ceiling increase over tax increases during a recession and then says we’re not acting in the best interest of the country,” one senior House GOP aide told Power Play. “This is the opposite of leadership.” (Fox News. July 1, 2011).

Many Americans, however, are of the opinion that he has, and continues to show true leadership in all his responsibilities as president of the United States. Although, still very young, he is "true grit". There is no question about that.

Yet, there is very little or nothing he can do to pacify his detractors.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS

Coming out of all the altercations over the debt ceiling in Washington D.C., there is some good news of the Senate voting to confirm Gen. David Petraeus to be the nation's next CIA director.

Gen. Petraeus has come into prominence during the Iraq War in 2007, when President George W. Bush chose him to direct the surge of troops there. His military expertise was needed to usher in a more effective strategy to lessen hostilities, and to reduce the high volume of American casualties.

The move was to bolster the number of U.S. troops, which would put the Iraqi insurgents in check and on the defensive; and it would also enable troop replacements at the war front for those who have been there for any unreasonable amount of time to get the rest they deserved or to come home.

Baghdad has remained a hot bed of military activities, and the number of casualties on the U.S. side went up from day to day. The insurgents were using roadside bombs or IEDs and other terrorist methods to hit American convoys and to decimate road blocks; and they seemed to be succeeding in demoralising the U.S. war effort.

In fact, the insurgency had gained a slight upper hand at a certain point; hence, "the surge" of troop increase to deal with the issue. Having an adequate number of troops on hand, Gen. Patraeus was able to turn the situation around with enormous precision.

Almost at the same time, a similar occurrence was developing in Afghanistan; and after the Gen. Stanley McChrystal's entanglements, with respect to an article in Rolling Stone that caused him (Gen. McChrystal) to resign, Gen. Patraeus was called in by President Barack Obama to handle it.

"The year 2010 is shaping up to be the worst year, by far, for the number of wounded American troops in Afghanistan." (Unknown source).

There too he displayed a crescendo of military tactics to avert farther tragedy for the troops; and also, his excellence in warfare maneuverings baffled the Taliban, the warmongering group.

His war medals are too numerous to count. He has done his job extremely well in every respect, to curtail American casualties and to put plans in place that would help to bring the war in Afghanistan under control.

"As I've said before, Gen. Petraeus has already established himself as one of the great battle captains in American military history," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at the Pentagon today. (Fox News).

He is a great soldier and a warrior; and his new appointment as head of the CIA has not come at the most appropriate time, when there is so much confusion in Washington D.C. It is therefore graciously welcome by all Americans.

We wish him well.