A Complete Footnote

Viet Nam combat veterans brought up Jane Fonda during discussion. Many, after forty years, still held strong feelings of contempt for her while there was expression of the need to "let go" and put her and the war behind us. Jane Fonda should never become irrelevant in our memories or in the history of the war and the American culture that has come to define "that time." By her choice of actions back then she established herself in a role that must continue to define her. Her chosen images back then created strong feelings among the grunts who had fought and were fighting in Viet Nam. Don't dare to suggest that she has cleansed herself through the passage of time or a carefully worded "my bad." To "let go" is to pardon the unpardonable. Each veteran has the ability and right to forgive. But, her niche in this history must remain for future generations to judge as well. If, whenever and however small the footnote may be written, it should include the strength of the disdain of American veterans. Possibly, future conduct will be forestalled by an appreciation for the seriousness of its affect.

U.S. Sovereign Credit Downgrade

Standard & Poors (S&P) has downgraded the US "long term sovereign credit rating" to AA+; t,he first downgrade in United States history. Now, one may challenge the capacity of S&P to render any valid judgment given their part in the last economic debacle or challenge on the numbers. As I expressed earlier, the perception and reality of the rhetoric from the Republican Right, which created the unnecessary fight over the debt ceiling, built a debt "situation" into political stagnation and economic chaos. Banks, businesses (small and large), pensioners, foreign markets, citizens (red and blue) and our own ratings agencies became the Henny Pennys, and Goosey Loosies, taking in the T-bag carrying Chicken Little rants that the "sky was falling" on the United States. Again, we, the mere farm animals, had better wake up before Foxey Loxey (A Bachman, Perry, Palin, Cain, or ....) takes control.

S&P says "too little, too late" in the budget agreement numbers but the broader fundamental issue as stated by S&P is that:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.


Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

I say again that the Republican Party, as presently constituted and directed, is a greater threat to our democracy and constitutional structure than the Communist Party of the United States" ever attained.

Democrats: Wrong Again.

The "balance" within the Debt Ceiling agreement calls for matching reductions in military spending and entitlements programs to "kick-in" automatically if the bipartisan congressional panel fails to agree to alternative cuts totaling $1.2 trillion. Each, defense and entitlements, would then face $600 billion reductions over 10 years.

Unchallenged news reports place the Democrat leadership as the initiators of military spending as a counter-weight to Republican ideological and fiscal imperatives within the panel agenda. After all, it is suggested, Democrats hold that military spending is a "Republican" political paradigm. Democrat logic then sees a Republican acquiescence to Democrat initiatives to protect military spending in the congressional panel discussions. To be sure, elements of the Democrat base are against military spending, some at any level, and against the two ongoing wars while Republicans are generally seen as bulls in military spending.

Assume for the moment (for it would have no validity beyond this single moment) that the panel talks are productive and agreements are reached in rational compromise. Now, coming back to reality, let's assume that the Republicans refuse any discussion of revenue increase and the Democrats hold firm (this time) to their demand for a balanced reduction/revenue outcome. In either of these events the Democrats are going to have to face a strong political argument from the Republicans stemming from their own (Democrat) construct of this military/entitlements balance.

Cuts to the military are always styled as cuts to the "defense" budget. We are presently engaged in two wars. Anonymous "senior Pentagon officials" already warn of dire consequence if the "kick-in" occurs. Republicans may reasonably and with some validity argue in the coming months that the Democrats are willing to put the entrenched, "undeserved" entitlements of a few before the defense of this country while jeopardizing the lives of men and women in the front lines. Whatever the inflation to the Democrat base, this creature of compromise will definitely NOT play well with Independent voters. The Independents (as I) will not accept an outcome, real or gambled, detrimental to our Armed Forces, that is, to our defense.

The Democrats placement of "Defense" as the counter-weight was, at the least, short sighted while, more correctly, plain dumb. They could simply have stood on equity and principle. Leadership, in a country already demanding a balanced outcome, would have been a powerful counter-weight. Watch as it plays out.

Stupidity Agenda: FAA

Having observed the FAA failing to balance the dual and contradictory missions (promoting success of US air carriers/insuring public safety) Congress has imposed, I find it incredible that this is the field chosen for the next confrontation. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/03faa.html?pagewanted=1&hp “We are going to lose $1 billion in the aviation trust fund if we leave this Congress for the month of August and we don’t extend the F.A.A.”

Other news reports refer to stoppage of ongoing airport construction (jobs!) and "you betcha" if there is less inspection there will be safety problems in an industry rampant with economic shortcuts. One Department of Transportation (oversight of FAA) executive said to me a few years ago during a discussion of a national problem of defective aircraft replacement parts on commercial aircraft: "I never fly if I can avoid it." This may be the real explanation for tax breaks for corporate/executive jets!

If you have flown during this imposed break you may be entitled to a return of the amount paid for the federal tax. Could this be the Democrat's way of extending another stimulus giveaway? Or, is it a Republican ideological, gangster tactic? I know but am not saying.