Political Writing - U.S. Shutdown impacts the Global Economy and Syrian Conflict

Approximately seven days have passed since the United States Congress has enacted a government shutdown. All pressing matters pertaining to American and international operations have been pushed aside until Democratic Senate and Republican House members can reach an agreement about spending priorities for 2014. Fox News reports that the slimdown that kicked in October 1 has also resulted in Congress delaying work on other, pressing matters because members have had to slash their staff, which organizes hearings and helps draft legislation.

Each side blames the other for their unwillingness to negotiate these matters while citizens are penalized by issues revolving the shutdown. Some American workers are on furlough, not receiving paychecks timely, and wondering about the long-term effects that the shutdown will have on domestic soil as well as international affairs.

The United States is one of the world’s primary economic powers, and CNN states that when similar issues emerged in 2011, UK Business Secretary Vince Cable lamented that a bunch of "right-wing nutters" was holding the American government and the world economy to ransom by refusing to agree the usually routine increase in America's legal debt limit. World leaders might avoid the blunt description used by Cable but their thoughts are probably very similar. The U.S. is, once again, having another political gunfight over public funding and debt issues.

In addition to the impact on the global economy, Homeland Security remains to be questioned. So how does the shutdown impact potential threats and acts of war? Our financial security? Our chemical inspection facilities?

Facts:

• Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees including many charged with protecting us from terrorist threats, defending our borders, inspecting our food, and keeping our skies safe will work without pay until the shutdown ends.

• During a federal funding hiatus, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must be able to cease its government operations in an orderly fashion. Certain functions and activities that will be permitted to continue are “exempt” from work restrictions specified in the Anti-Deficiency Act.  The Department has developed the procedures outlined in this contingency plan that all DHS components must adhere to in the case of a funding hiatus.

• Work to protect consumers, ranging from child product safety to financial security to the safety of hazardous waste facilities, will cease. The EPA will halt non-essential inspections of chemical facilities and drinking water systems.

ABC News says: The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, is maintaining most of its security functions, such as border patrol, cybersecurity, Travel Security Agency travel screenings, TSA air marshals, Coast Guard maritime security, and port security, according to its shutdown plan–pretty much everything you’d think to worry about, in terms of security-related federal employees. Agencies have exempted from furlough employees whose jobs relate to the safety of life and property. The White House did not publish shutdown plans for CIA and NSA. But Treasury’s offices responsible for combating terrorist finances and financial crimes have been scaled back by the shutdown, too, the official said.

These statements essentially mean that Americans are left wide open for any type of attack – financial, terrorists, and other forms of assaults – due to our limited human resources because of the government shutdown. The Syrian conflict has been circulating reporting platforms in both traditional and new media arenas, particularly over the previous few months. With the government shutdown and the threat of chemical warfare from Syria, it is no wonder why Americans are on edge about the recent turn of events.

Additional reading and articles of interest

Reuters: U.S. Shutdown hurts enforcement of Iran, Syria sanctions

ABC News: Shutdown hinders Iran, Syria Sanctions Enforcement, Treasury Official Says

Political Writing - U.S. Government Shutdown and Its Impact on Americans

This week’s blog will deviate from topics surrounding the United States prospective role in the Syrian conflict to address breaking news affecting Americans in every community.

President Obama announced a possible GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN September 30, 2013 for the first time in 17 years, due to disagreement among Congress concerning America’s deficit. According to Fox News, each year, Congress is supposed to come to an agreement on a dozen appropriation bills to fund federal agencies and set spending priorities and limits. The current Congress hasn't been able and has resorted to stopgap budgets to keep the government going. The last stopgap was passed on March and ended yesterday at 11:59 p.m.

A government shut down will impact and disrupt international and American operations. The President states that Congress wants him to agree to a long list of demands including cutting taxes for the extremely wealthy and gutting the health care law. The issue at hand would be detrimental to the United States’ economic stability. Please see President Obama’s speech below regarding the crisis.

The shutdown will not only affect governmental progress, it will also cause distress to U.S. citizens – from the average person to small-business owners to government employees to veterans to NASA personnel and beyond. The President believes the threat of a shutdown is essentially about the new health care bill, as emphasized in the following news press.

CNN states that Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree on a spending plan for the fiscal year that started Tuesday as they wrangled over Obamacare, leaving federal coffers short, which is what caused the shutdown. CNN also believes the health care law isn't directly tied to funding the government, but it's being used as a bargaining chip. A group of Republicans, led by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, believe the president's signature domestic policy achievement is so bad for the country that it is worth disrupting government funding to undercut it.

Fox News reports, a prior Republican effort to include a provision defunding Obamacare in the budget bill failed. House Republicans then voted, early Sunday, to add amendments delaying the health care law by one year and repealing an unpopular medical device tax.

“Senate Democrats have made it perfectly clear that they’d rarther shut down the federal government than accept even the most reasonable changes to Obamacare,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell countered.

It appears that Obamacare has stimulated the shutdown and Congress members' disposition over spending priorities and limits. Nevertheless The Washington Post cites, “The Affordable Care Act is moving forward. That funding is already in place. You can’t shut it down,” Obama warned Republicans as the final hours before the shutdown deadline ticked away. According to President Obama, Americans will be able to apply for health benefits under the Obamacare program. Citizens seeking such benefits will not be affected even during the government shutdown. Yet, the latest findings across the nation contradicts this information.

Facts

N.J. News headline: Obamacare exchanges: not working as planned

Twitchy US Politics headline: Surprise! Obamacare health insurance exchanges website don’t work; HealthCare.gov a total mess

Yahoo! News headline:  HealthCare.Gov experiences delays on first day

NBC News headline: Obamacare is here and so are the glitches

I concluded with this information because the American public must be in the know. We depend on our government's credibility and expect them to follow through with what has been relayed to us. Those who have supported this plan, looked forward to its impact, and attempted to secure health coverage through Obamacare have fallen victim to government propaganda once again. Now we Americans must all play the game of "wait and see."

Additional reading and related articles:

Fox News – Congress misses deadline, sending government into partial shutdown

Fox News – Here Comes Obamacare & A Government Shutdown

CNN – Government shutdown: What’s closed, what’s open?

CNN – Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame 

USA Today – 66 questions and answers about the government shutdown

Political Writing - Must the U.S. Congress Approve International Attacks?

According to CNN and Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to allow U.N. teams to access chemical weapons sites. The civilian attack near Damascus on August 21 prompted the urgency for the investigation, and since then, tensions have increased across the U.S. concerning our prospective role in the conflict. President Obama has sought authorization from Congress to initiate international military action in the name of foreign policy.

As I follow media reports regarding the Syrian conflict and U.S. intervention, I continuously read posts from commenters asking: “Does the President need to gain Congress approval to launch an international attack?” In response, the public is divided. Some American citizens believe that President Obama must have Congress approval, while other disagree but feel that Congress approval will be helpful.

The media has perpetuated the idea that President Obama does not have the authority, nor the backing by government officials, to involve U.S. troops in conflicts abroad. For example, headliners across reporting agencies include CBC News: Syria attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns; MSNBC: UN suggests American attack on Syria would be illegal; and Aljazeera: Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and dangerous contradict other headliners such as RT: Obama asserts right to strike Syria without congressional approval; New American: Ex-Defense Chiefs Say Obama Can Strike Syria Without OK from Congress; and Fox News: Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval.

Such reporting platforms have misled the public by demonstrating varying understandings of U.S. regulations pertaining to international threat and potential war. The purpose of this week's blog is to clarify facts from misconceptions of foreign affairs and the President's authority to call for U.S. intervention in Syria. Although the President needs Congress approval to declare war, history has also shown that the government can misuse the term “war” to fulfill an agenda.

Below is a video excerpt of Former President Bill Clinton's retort on the matter.

Facts:

Clinton, himself, initiated a strike December 1998 along with Great Britain, against Saddam Hussein in response to chemical weapons stockpiles. He did not go to Congress for authorization or approval to commence Operation Desert Fox. Clinton further elaborates in the video that there has been an international pact (Geneva Protocol) against chemical weapons dating back from World War I, nearly a hundred years ago. Therefore, President Obama is not required to gain Congress approval, although their authorization for intervention would serve as support for the President.

Geneva Protocol Brief Overview:

• Prohibits the use of chemical weapons in warfare
• Prohibits the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons
• Provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction under universally applied international control
• Ensures a credible, transparent regime to verify the destruction of chemical weapons; to prevent their re-emergence in any member State; to provide protection and assistance against chemical weapons; to encourage international cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry
• Calls for cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and is regulated by the relationship agreement between both organizations adopted by the General Assembly in September 2001

Related Readings

CNN

CBS News

Fox News Insider

Articles of Interest

CNN – The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.