For those who have missed the underlying theme of the Republican Party it is shifting the risks of life from their upper class & corporate base to wage earners and small businesses.

That’s what “tort reform” is all about, limiting the risks for corporations and insurance companies. The gutting of EPA and other regulatory agencies reduces the risks for polluters. The tax and Social Security reforms are shifting the costs and risks down to wage earners.

Social Security is good to go for the next 50 years. The only change necessary is to lift the cap on contributions and it is good forever. Social Security is an insurance program, the bare minimum pension.

The people who are now calling for reform screamed bloody murder when Bill Clinton suggested moving some of the Social Security trust fund from T-Bills into the stock market. This was at a time you could make money in the stock market. Now they want to do it when you can make more money in a pass-book savings account than the stock market. You are not going to “save” Social Security by de-funding it; you are just going to drive up the deficit.

I would also wonder about the status of this “personal Social Security fund” in the event of bankruptcy or divorce; is it off-limits, or can it be claimed by a credit card company or hospital?

I’ve been trying to discern the pattern in Rumsfeld’s vision for the military, and I’ve been able to pull a few threads out of the knot based on weapons systems and organizational changes he’s moving towards.

Rumsfeld is creating a military force for peacekeeping missions, brigade-sized operational units of a few thousand with light armor capable of being deployed rapidly.

He is building on the basis of the Stryker brigades currently training in the Army.

He is downplaying heavy armor and artillery, and is attempting to replace them with aircraft.

He wants to replace all of the military support personnel with civilians and contractors.

He is stressing reliance on equipment: unmanned drones, robots, satellites, etc.

It’s an interesting concept that eliminates a lot of overhead, like pensions and benefits after 20 years of service for non-combat specialties. He wants to eliminate base schools and commissaries. It reflects his experience in the business world: cut costs by reducing employee benefits, the Wal-Mart model.

This is a vision for the military in a post-Cold War world with little prospect of a major land war.

There are a couple of things wrong with this concept and his continuing pursuit of it: George W. Bush and the Iraq War. He needs the resources that he has been dismantling, and civilians can’t supply support services in a live fire area. “Just-in time” inventory control doesn’t work when your trucks and warehouses are subject to being blown up.

He planned for a quick war and a cut back to a peacekeeping operation, and that didn’t happen. What happened is exactly what his military staff told him would happen, but he ignored them because if they were so smart they wouldn’t be wearing uniforms and receiving such piddling salaries.

He had to be forced to order the body armor, the ammunition, the armored Humvees, the upgrade kits for the Humvees and trucks, because his plan said the war would be over shortly and they didn’t fit in his vision for the new “corporate” military.

He didn’t plan for the occupation, the wounded, the equipment loss, or the manpower requirements and now he’s throwing patches on problems.

If they start recalling the people discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, you’ll know the draft is coming.

Consider this intriguing situation: Congress has been giving the Department of Defense hundreds of billions of dollars, but Rumsfeld isn’t spending it on the military. The Defense Department initially blocked the Intelligence Reform Bill which transfers some budget control from the Department of Defense to a new Director of Intelligence. Exactly how big is Rumsfeld’s “slush fund”, and what is he planning to do with it?

I pulled these from a scan of the other former British colonies spread about the world:

John Shovelan of Australian Broadcasting has an interesting take on those going to court over the US military’s use of “Stop-Loss” orders. He wonders: if soldiers with contractual terms of service must remain beyond those terms for the length of a declared national emergency, why can cabinet secretaries resign for “personal reasons”?

I would wonder about General Tommy Franks being able to retire, but a 70-year-old military doctor being recalled. It would seem that the commander of the effort wasn’t as important as doctors or truck drivers or infantry soldiers.

TV New Zealand reports that their parliament has approved a civil unions bill that recognizes both de facto and same sex relationships. Americans generally refer to de facto relationships as “common law marriages”. Such couples will have the same rights and obligations as married couples. Supporters say the bill is a human rights issue since it applies equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples without discrimination. Marriage is reserved only for heterosexual couples.

Canadian Broadcasting is reporting the personally shocking news of a proposed merger between Molson and Coors! A real brewer aligning with that right-wing Rocky Mountain purveyor of watery equine urine…the inhumanity!