Raise the Federal Debt Limit?

Open e-mail to Representative Neugebauer:

Randy,

Your question of the week was, "If the government does not raise the debt ceiling and defaults on its loans and other payments, do you believe you and your family will be affected?"

Not a good question. Everything that government does affects every resident of the United States and probably most residents of the world in some way or another. If the government does not raise the debt ceiling, it will affect us. If the government does raise the debt ceiling, it will affect us.

Either way, it is not necessary that we default on loans and other payments. We may delay, but if we get our house in order, we will be able to pay interest and principal on government bonds, plus interest for the late payment. Similarly, we should be able to pay in time any delayed salaries or other bills, also with the late payment interest.

Rather than an obvious "yes" or "no", the correct answer to raising the debt limit is that we will likely do more damage to the country if we raise it. Therefore, be sure to vote against it.

Federal Spending Cuts

E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

I have been previously too nonspecific in my suggestion of eliminating our federal overspending through radical spending cuts.

In the following, I apologize for not having the figures of how much the overspending can be reduced, but I'm sure that these figures are available to you. Consider the following:

Eliminate the Department of Energy. It has done nothing since its inception except to inhibit production of indigenous sources of energy, particularly oil.

Eliminate the Department of Education. It is a super drain of funds to public schools, which then obligates schools to abide by the socialistic teachings of the Administration.

Eliminate half of the Department of Interior. The section that must be eliminated is that related to restrictions on indigent energy production.

Eliminate half of the EPA. Start with the section which has been using climate change to support Pres. Obama's program on Cap & Trade for CO2.

Eliminate most of the National Science Foundation (NSF). It dumps large amounts of money on university research projects of insignificant value and support of destructive political agendas.

Eliminate any research aspects of the Department of Health and Human Services. This function can be performed readily by private enterprise, particularly pharmaceutical companies.

Eliminate half of the Department of Homeland Security. It is a boondoggle operation, rampant with inefficiency and obvious inability to control our borders. Allow border states to do their own border control.

Some sections of the Department of Commerce can be eliminated, part
icularly those that are promoting commerce internationally. Private enterprise has this responsibility.

Reduce the Department of Labor. It is infested with union protected devices, which restrict general employment.

Reduce the Department of State. It is primarily engaged in nation building, for which we have no responsibility. The other section to be eliminated involves foreign aid and political grants.

The reduction in spending from the above is twofold. It decreases the cost of department operation, such as salaries, pensions, travel expenses, and building construction/maintenance, as well as reducing the funds which these organizations dole out to others.

Federal Government Spending

This is an exchange of correspondence with Rep. Neugebauer on federal government spending.

Dear Randy,
I previously wrote you requesting that you strongly oppose raising the federal debt limit. You replied with the form letter message below.

Congratulations! I clearly deduce from your message that your heart and your mind are in the best interests of our country. My only concern is how strong are your beliefs and how strongly you will fight against the Administration, which is obviously using debt and fear to radically change our economic viability as a means to change our culture.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:50 AM
To: 'Arthur Sucsy'
Subject: RE: No Reason to Raise Federal Debt Limit

Thank you for contacting me about government spending. I always appreciate your suggestions and feedback about this critical issue that affects every American. I share your concerns about the future of our country if Washington fails to make significant spending cuts. I also agree that many government programs have had negative effects on our country and have started to threaten the values that have always made America great.

At a time in our history when we are running trillion dollar deficits annually, President Obama and his administration do not seem to notice or care about the serious debt situation facing our nation. I want you to know I am aware of this problem, as are most of my Republican colleagues.

For too long, Washington forgot who it was serving and ignored the voices of the people. Not only did we spend money we didn't have, but your hard-earned tax dollars were spent without regard to the consequences that the fiscal irresponsibility would have for our nation. Washington paid little attention to the huge burdens that reckless spending would create for future generations. At this rate, our nation will go bankrupt if we do not dramatically cut back on government spending and put an end to budget tricks, accounting gimmicks and empty promises.

I strongly believe that to get our fiscal house in order, we must begin to take immediate, common sense steps before it is too late. As a business owner, I know firsthand that a business cannot be sustainable if it constantly spends more than it brings in-neither can a government. At the start of the 112th Congress in January 2011, Speaker Boehner reduced Congressional spending for each Member and Committee by 5% per year. In my office, this was a cut of $70,000. While that savings is not large independently, it is a start and it also sends a message that everyone can find ways to trim their budgets. During consideration of H.R. 1, the appropriations bill to fund the government for the remainder of 2011 Fiscal Year, I supported nearly every non-defense spending cut proposed, and was rated by independent groups as one of the most conservative voters on amendments for that bill. I also voted to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood and many of the ill-advised initiatives of the EPA. At a time when we are asking American families to tighten their belts, government must take every opportunity to do the same. We cannot ask the American people to accept difficult choices and cuts to programs, if we, as government leaders, are not willing to do the same ourselves.

As you know, in recent years, government spending has skyrocketed out of control. Our annual deficits have accelerated from billions of dollars each year, to trillions of dollars each year, with no end in sight. As the economy has faltered, the government and the Obama Administration have made the decision to bailout or take over many struggling industries, ranging from health care, to car companies, to banks. I want you to know that I have opposed all of these bills and policies which have increased our spending and bailed out those who have made bad decisions. I voted against the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) also commonly referred to as the "Wall Street Bailout." I voted against the failed $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also known as the "Stimulus Bill." I voted against the health care bill, "ObamaCare," that raised taxes and will significantly increase the cost of health care. And finally, I voted against the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that raises the cost of capital for everyone, limits the financial products available to consumers, fails to prevent future bailouts, and does nothing to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I have voted against these failed initiatives and I commit to you that I will continue to hold strong against these liberal bills and agendas.

Additionally, I have personally introduced legislation that will force Congress and President Obama to fix our country's spending problem. The proposed legislation would amend the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate in order to increase taxes or the debt limit. That would ensure that Washington focus on cutting spending which is the real problem that has led to our $14+ trillion debt. I have also joined many of my colleagues in supporting a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We must take the necessary action to get this country on a sustainable fiscal path so that our children and grandchildren get a chance to have the same opportunities enjoyed by current generations of Americans. I realize these cuts will have an effect on some programs people have come to rely on, and undoubtedly we will see cuts to well-intentioned programs we simply can't afford. However, it is imperative we make these difficult decisions on behalf of future generations of Americans.

Please be assured that as I represent you in Congress, I will continue to fight for a stronger America which includes reducing spending and ensuring that existing resources are being properly utilized. Thank you again for contacting me. I value your input and I hope that you will always contact me with your concerns.

Government Spending Cuts

I e-mailed Rep. Neugebauer suggesting that the Federal debt limit should not be raised. Our problem is government overspending. He replied with a form letter concerning details of the Cut/Cap/Balance bill passed by the House. My latest e-mail covers the futility of that bill

Randy,
I am opposed to your Cut/Cap/Balance bill for the following reasons:

The bill requires a spending cut of $111 billion per year. The government is now overspending by $4 billion per day. That's $1.46 trillion per year. $111 Billion per year is 7.6% of what is needed to create balance. Is this a joke or have I missed something?

The "Cap" portion requires a reduction from 25% to 19.7%, and that only after seven years. This is an absolute reduction of 5.3%. US GDP is $14.7 trillion. 5.3% Of that means a spending cut of $779 billion per year. Since we are overspending by $1.46 trillion per year, we will still be overspending after seven years at the rate of $681 billion per year or almost $2 billion per day. Is this another joke?

The Balanced Budget Amendment sounds good. If I take it at its apparent meaning, it would mean that we would be overspending zero dollars per day. My only hesitation is the meaning of "budget". That term has come to mean a hoped-for situation, which can be easily ignored depending upon apparent circumstances.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 8:51 AM
To: 'Arthur Sucsy'
Subject: RE: No Reason to Raise Federal Debt Limit

Thank you for contacting me regarding the debt ceiling. I share your concerns about the future of our country if Washington fails to make significant spending cuts. We have a government that spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much. As your Representative, my top priority in Congress is to rein in spending and clean up this mess before it is too late.

As you know, Washington continues to grapple with the need to raise the debt limit, which currently stands at $14.29 trillion. Earlier this year, the Treasury Department sent a letter to Congress indicating that August 2nd would be the last day the U.S. government would be able to pay all of its bills without an increase in the debt limit. Washington has maxed out its credit card and it is time for serious and significant change.

To shift the direction our country is headed, my colleagues and I have created a responsible plan that would require fundamental change before any increase in the debt ceiling could occur. This legislation, called Cut, Cap and Balance, would put our country back on a sustainable fiscal path and bring Washington back to reality. The House of Representatives passed Cut, Cap and Balance on July 19th by a vote of 234 to 190.

Here are some of the details of this bill:

CUT- The bill requires $111 billion in spending cuts in the 2012 fiscal year. These cuts would happen now, not years in the future. Now. Additionally, while ensuring that wasteful spending gets weeded out, this legislation makes absolutely no changes or cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veterans, or national defense spending.

CAP- This legislation also caps government spending as a percent of GDP, eventually lowering it to 19.7% in 2018 compared to approximately 25% today. Most importantly, breaking the caps set in place triggers automatic spending cuts. By using spending caps, we would lock in $5.8 trillion in budget savings over the next ten years.

BALANCE- Finally, this legislation grants President Obama's request for an increase in the debt limit, but only after Congress has cut up the credit cards by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. It would require the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution before allowing any increase in the nation's debt limit. Basically, the debt limit will only be increased for the short term if a Balanced Budget Amendment gets our fiscal house in order for the long term.

For too long, Congress spent your hard-earned tax dollars without thinking about the consequences. With this legislation, Washington would finally have to do what families and businesses do every day - balance the budget.

Please be assured that I will continue to fight for a stronger America which includes reducing spending and balancing the budget.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. As your Congressman, I value your input and I hope that you will always contact me with your concerns. Hearing your views helps me be sure that I represent you and your family even better while I have the honor of representing you in Congress.

Vote against raising the federal debt limit

Copy of a message sent to Rep. Neugebauer:

Saw Obama and Boehner this evening. Obama asked that we the people contact our House Representatives concerning the federal debt limit. I am doing so.

Please vote against raising the federal debt limit. Support Boehner.

No Reason to Raise Federal Debt Limit

Yahoo Finance says, "5 Consequences if America Doesn’t Raise the Debt Ceiling David Walker, former Comptroller General of the U.S. and [former] head of the Government Accountability Office, says it's imperative both sides of the aisle find a compromise that also sets conditions to lower long-term debt and get back on track. If not, the rest of us will pay.

1. $4 billion-plus a day will come out of the economy.
2. Government and civilian military workers will be laid off temporarily. That will result in penalties for late payment, to be paid by taxpayers.
3. Social security payments will be delayed.
4. No one knows how bad the reaction will be, but Walker is confident it will be negative for the stock and bond markets and the economy.
5. Interest rates will rise. For every 1% rise in interest rates, taxpayers will be on the hook for an additional $150 billion in debt payments.

David Walker has given the above five reasons for raising the federal debt limit. Let's look at each one of these in detail:

1. The government is spending $4 billion per day more than it is taking in. Irrelevant! The $4 billion per day excess spending is being obtained by borrowing. Does it make sense that raising the debt limit has any effect on the $4 billion per day spending? If we are overspending by $4 billion per day, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with it. The only way to obtain balance is to either increase revenue by confiscating $4 billion per day from the public through taxes, or reducing spending by $4 billion per day.

2. Government and civilian military workers will be laid off temporarily, which will result in penalties for late payment. Untrue! If there is late payment of salaries, government only has to pay interest on the delay. This would be no different than paying interest on any bonds sold under increasing the debt limit. In addition, the obvious answer is to not lay off government and civilian military workers temporarily. Lay them off permanently.

3. Social Security payments will be delayed. Not necessarily! They will be delayed only if Pres. Obama and the Sec. of the Treasury decide to delay them. The fact is that there is sufficient revenue to pay Social Security and there is obligation to do so from the Social Security Trust Fund. The Treasury could always find someplace else to delay payments. Pres. Obama has only put out this delay threat as motivation for support of seniors to extend the federal debt limit and give him a deeper pockets for more spending.

4. Walker asserts that not raising the debt limit will have a negative effect on the stock and bond markets, unemployment, and the economy in general. He gives no reason for that conclusion. Alternatively, I can also assert that not raising the debt limit will have a favorable effect on those factors. Is his guess better than mine?

5. If the debt limit is not raised, interest rates will rise. This is a red herring! Walker is likely talking about interest rates on government bond issues. The interest rate on a bond is always related to the bond rating. The rating is a measure of the probability of the bond issuer to pay the stated interest and eventually the principal, when the bond becomes due. The weaker the rating, the higher the interest necessary for the buyer to justify taking increased risk of default on interest and principal.

Moody rates federal government bonds, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, etc. The highest rating is AAA, which also pays the lowest interest. The AAA rating is based on the credit worthiness of the organization. In other words, does the organization have a proper balance of revenues and expenditures. If expenditures exceed revenues, it is apparent that the organization will eventually default on its loans (bonds) and the rating must be decreased with an attendant increase in interest rates.

On that point of an increase in interest rates, Walker is correct. We can expect to see a decrease in US government bond ratings and an attendant increase in interest. However, the key point is that whether there is an increase in the government debt limit or no increase, the fact of credit worthiness remains unchanged. If we continue to spend $4 billion per day more than we take in, Moody will say we will eventually go bust and default on our bonds. Increasing the debt limit will only increase the amount of the default we will later face.


I'm a little surprised that David Walker, who was supposed to be cognizant of financial matters, has come up with these silly reasons to extend the federal limit. If he were presently working for Pres. Obama and Timothy Geithner, I could understand a partial excuse. As it is, I am completely non-plussed.

Major Projects for Unemployment and the Economy

There are a number of reasons why the US economy is faltering. Among these is unemployment. The more people employed, the greater is the amount of money available for transfer in society. This contributes to Gross National Product, The higher the GNP/person in a society, the better is a person's standard of living.

We mostly lack jobs in this country, not only because many jobs have been shipped overseas for lower labor costs, but also because of continually improved efficiency in supplying manufactured goods and services in the US. The only significant opportunity remaining for considerable employment and an improved economy is a major national project.

Man has traditionally attempted to ameliorate the extremes of nature for his own accommodation. We heat our homes with fuel in the winter and cool them with air conditioning in the summer, We preserve food through canning and freezing during harvest, so that it will be available at a future time. We build roads for ease of transportation. We build dams and reservoirs for power generation and to control flooding.

The last of these major endeavors was construction of the Interstate Highway System. Before that, it was flood control and power generation with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). It is now past time for another big one.

We have recently had heavy floods in the midsection of the country, with resultant considerable damage to private and public property. It is obvious that in spite of previous efforts, our job of flood control is not finished.

In the Southwest, we have had extreme drought bordering on the great Dust Bowl calamity in the 30's.

The commonality of those two conditions is WATER. Water on land comes from rain and snow. Some locations receive too much at one time . Others not enough. Some locations are routinely blessed with periodic precipitation (the NW). Others are routinely arid and borderline deserts the (SW). We do not now have the technology of controlling where precipitation will fall, nor is it apparent that this a possibility for the near future. However, we do have the opportunity to control the final destination of water once it has fallen. In the extreme aspect, that can be considered flood control. In the more moderate aspect, it can be called irrigation.

The Mississippi has more than enough water for local communities, and in times of heavy rainfall or the melting of snow in the northern mountains, flooding occurs with subsequent damage. Here is an opportunity for a project of major proportions. Build dams, reservoirs and lock s to control the Mississippi by equalizing its output to the sea. If there is excess water in total, can we direct some of it to the SW? In so doing, can we construct aqueducts large enough to be used as canals for barge traffic?

What about the possibility of irrigating the SW with deionized sea water? Construct membrane deionization plants in mountains away from high population densities. Use nuclear plants to generate electricity to pump the sea water to the higher elevation and supply pressure for the membrane deionization. The irrigation water could then flow by gravity into the High Plains through canals, dams and locks. Again, we would have the possibility of barge traffic in the canals.

Big project? You bet! Could it be accomplished? You bet! We have the technology in the form of workable nuclear plants and membrane desalination, heavy earth-moving equipment, and plenty of manpower (remember unemployment).

The remaining big question is, "Is it economically feasible?" You bet. It would be primarily land recovery for use to produce agricultural crops. The Europeans can't do it. They have high population densities and little available land. Food in Europe is already expensive compared to the US. We can sell them the food and related raw materials for manufacturing (think cotton). They can do the manufacturing and supply us with finished goods. The same goes for many Asian countries.

How do we start? We get the Wall Street bunch to form a conglomerate. Let's call it "World Food Supply". The conglomerate then arranges a huge bond issue at, say 7% interest, with the first interest payment due in 7 years. From the bond revenue, the conglomerate starts the engineering design to fix the origin of the water source and subsequent related design problems, purchase land, let out contracts for earth moving involving canals, dams, locks, etc.. We want to keep government out of this, because it would be a tremendous project with a long term of completion. Say, 7 years. The presence of government would likely kill it, because of governments' propensity for argumentation and stretching things out time-wise.

Why would people buy the bonds? For the interest. What about an IPO (stock issue)? Sure! Why would anyone buy the stock? For dividends and increase in value as the conglomerate makes profits. How will the conglomerate make profits? Through sale of water to growers in the irrigated region and from toll revenues in canal barge traffic.

Who wants to start it?

Deceptive Hospital Advertising

I saw an advertisement on TV this morning. There was a small group of people apparently addressing Congress.

It was said that Congress was trying to eliminate $100 billion from the budgets of Medicare and Medicaid involving hospitals. The advertisement finished by their asking a direct question to Congress, "What were you thinking?"

I consider this deceptive advertising, because the scenario implied that $100 billion was going to be cut from hospitals, which would effectively have to be closed. That's a ridiculous implication!

Autocratic socialists (read Liberal Democrats) routinely exaggerate a situation to engage fear or unjustifiable support. If there was any talk about $100 billion cut in the health area, it was likely over a ten-year period. Discussion of ten-year cuts don't make sense. We have a problem now! Today!

I don't know how much of any cut in health expenses would involve hospitals, but I personally believe it would be justified. Most people consider hospitals as some kind of public trough, when in fact, hospitals are big business. They exist and expand primarily on the largess of the taxpayers, through government grants. Anyone who has been in the hospital and has received a bill, has likely seen the detail of exorbitant charges, much of which is being absorbed by government through some kind of "special contract".

The fact also is that there are too many hospitals and they are too big. Many of them have unoccupied beds, and presumably unoccupied employees. For example here in Lubbock, with a County population of about 260,000, we have three major hospitals and more than a handful of smaller operating clinics.

Why would Lubbock need three major hospitals? The answer is, "We don't". The only reason we have them is because the public is continually sold a bill of goods by the hospitals and by the federal government, through such advertising as mentioned above. But perhaps of greater significance is the continuing decline of individual responsibility on all matters of lifestyle. Government is now responsible for your education, the safety of your food, providing roads for your travel, providing medical care when you're sick, etc.. With that sort of philosophy now well-ingrained, why shouldn't Lubbock have three major hospitals with a possibility that I, with a dependent philosophy, might say, "Help me go to one of them?

Obama and Geithner Misleading the Public on Credit Default

Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Your question of the week was, "The debate between the White House and Congressional leadership over the debt ceiling limit continues. Should raising taxes, as the President has asked, be part of the solution to reach an agreement and not let our government default on its credit?".

Once again, your readers were very astute in being able to properly interpret this poorly worded question. 83% said "no".

Under normal conditions it's not possible to default on credit. The first stage is usually default on paying the interest on a loan. Subsequently, the default may be extended into bankruptcy. Private insurance is available for "credit default" on government loans, presumably bonds. The insurance company pays off only if the government goes bankrupt.

In spite of the highly emotional rhetoric of Pres. Obama and Sec. Geithner, I can't find any data which would indicate that not extending the federal debt limit would cause the government to go bankrupt. In fact, the implication from other knowledgeable people is that we can expect to continue paying interest. If the various obligation holders decided to call their loans, the government could go bankrupt, but that is very unlikely to happen. This would be similar to a mortgage company calling for immediate payment of the outstanding principal on a mortgage loan. It just doesn't happen.

The net result is that Pres. Obama and Sec. Geithner have no clue on basic finances, or they are out and out lying, in their claim of government bankruptcy if the debt limit is not raised.

Question of the DOD Budget

Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Your question of the week is, "Do you think Defense cuts that do not affect troop readiness should be on the table?.

This is a poorly worded question from two points of view.

In the first place, I don't believe you're really talking about defense cuts. I think you probably mean reducing the budget for the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is essentially military in two forms; aggression, such as wars in Afghanistan and Libya, and actual defense of the United States, if you mean actions against terrorists in the US and externally, that might be considered defense.

The second item is rather nebulous. What do you mean by troop readiness? Ready to repel a foreign invasion, or ready to jump off to engage in another ridiculous foreign war?

The way you worded the question, there is no "yes" or "no" answer. The proper action to a properly worded question would be to cut military expenditures for anything relating to foreign wars of aggression, including ground troops, To not reduce expenditures on anything concerning actual defense of the US. This would include maintaining highest technology in Star Wars programs and the ability to conduct surgical strikes on terrorist establishments in foreign countries.

Fortunately, 63% of responders were astute enough to be able to properly interpret the reality of the poorly worded question.

Oil Company Taxes

There has been considerable discussion concerning tax breaks for oil companies.

While I am absolutely opposed to raising income taxes, as a percentage of income and other various miscellaneous taxes such as Cap and Trade. and sales taxes, I am convinced that people and corporations should be paying reasonable amounts, without benefit of subsidies, loopholes, dishonesty, and generally devious practices.

The discussion of oil company taxes generally involves a 10-year period. I prefer to look at an annual basis, because our national financial difficulties are now, not 10 years into the future.

Let's look at how oil companies calculate certain aspects of their income tax bill to the IRS.

Domestic Production - After normal calculations of profit, 6% of the profit is subtracted as a deduction for domestic production. Oil production is a worldwide enterprise, and it makes little difference to the American public where that oil comes from, providing it is cheap and consistent in supply. No other industry that I know of, including textiles and various other manufacturing enterprises, have a domestic subsidy production. There is no reason for oil to be an exception. Eliminate the subsidy, which is estimated at $1.2 billion per year.

Foreign Taxes - Individuals and corporations generally are allowed to exclude their payments of foreign taxes when calculating US income tax. This seems reasonable, because individuals and companies should not be penalized for doing business overseas. Oil companies pay about $0.5 billion per year in foreign taxes and this allowance on US income taxes should be continued. There is some complaint that oil companies have in some cases disguised royalty payments as foreign taxes, but to me, it makes no difference. A royalty payment or foreign tax payment to a foreign country is one and the same. It is a cost of doing business.

Drilling Research and Development - Oil companies spend $0.2 billion per year on certain drilling development expenses, which some claim should not be allowed as a deduction in calculating income taxes. However, this is research intended to keep the company competitive by developing new products and techniques. Without such research and development, it is unlikely that BP would have discovered the oil gusher in deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. R&D expense must be continued as a deduction in calculating corporate income tax.

Depletion Allowance - The theory of the oil depletion allowance is that at the time of its inception, there was a finite amount of oil to be discovered in the US and the world. When that supply was exhausted, the oil companies would be out of business. The depletion allowance was an attempt to allow the oil companies to retain a sufficient amount of cash that they could then operate in other areas of energy supply once oil was no longer available. This has basically been found to be a weak or almost false assumption. The fact is that the more oil removed from the "finite" supply, the more seems to be available through new exploration and drilling techniques. The depletion allowance to US oil companies amounts to about $1 billion per year. This deduction in calculating income tax should be eliminated.

Is Iran a Dependable Oil Supplier?

EIN News says, "Iran Says Could Halt Oil Supplies to India in August Iran has threatened to halt oil supplies to India in August as it presses New Delhi to solve a payments dispute that has cast a shadow since December over the two countries' $12 billion annual crude trade. (reuters.com)".

I'm not a big supporter of Iran and from personal experience I have generally found them to be dishonest. However, I am a believer in the rights of private property. If there was a deal whereby India was to buy oil and actually received it and then subsequently welched on payment, Iran has every right to withhold further shipments.

But there may be more than meets the eye. On April 13 (two a half months ago), Iran said that presumably the same dispute had been resolved (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174553.html). In that description a matter of bank payments and calculations was the subject of controversy. Since the Iranians can be pretty tricky on these matters, it is a matter of conjecture as to whether the Iranians or the Indians are in the right.

The best resolution might be for the Indians to pay what they think is appropriate according to their calculations and find a new supplier for future shipments. It is likely that if they continue to do business with the Iranians, they will continue to have these problems.