OT - Democratic Deficit Hawking

[QuikSand]

I know I tread on thin ice to raise a partisan political topic here - but let me try to be clear: I'm not attempting to talk about whether Democrats or Republicans have the better policies -- I'm principally interested in what the Democrats ought to be doing with their party.


Recently, we've been hearing Senator Kerry speak about the incumbent president. One of the issues that has gotten the most traction (I assume, due to its increased presence in stump speeches) is the notion that the federal budget has gone from "record surpluses to record deficits" in the last few years under GWB. (I quote because I don't know if this is technically true, but I have heard that exact phrase used)

Despite my own misgivings about how much of this is really under the control of the President (as opposed to the business cycle governing the economy as a whole), I think this is a pretty effective political argument. It has the ring of "this guy doesn't know what he's doing" in simple, populist terms. And because of that, it seems to me that this -- on its surface -- makes a lot of sense for Democrats to be arguing as a main point of political debate. Not exactly "It's the economy, stupid" but something closer to "It's the bottom line, stupid." It opens up lots of potentially useful political arguments, too -- talking about "making our children pay for it" and about "compromising Social Security" and other things all logically flow from current scary budget deficits. I think it's good politics, generally speaking.

So, what's the issue? Well - these are Democrats, after all. If they tread too aggressively into supporting balanced budgets and responsible budgeting, they might find that a consequence of that is that government programs that they traditionally support (as do their political supporters) are the things that end up losing out when budget times get tight (like now). If you're a Democrat, do you want to embrace a hawkish stance on budget deficits if that means that you lose funding for your local libraries, for your roads and bridges, or for whatever else it is that makes you tick? It's pretty tough for any politician to make that decision -- but probably more so for Democrats, who on the whole are more supportive of government spending.


Personally, I think that the Democratic party needs a message issue. I think that they are at risk of becoming too alienated from "mainstream" voters to ever get those votes back. The notion that rust belt states like Michigan and Ohio -- until not too long ago absolute bastions of union-driven Democratic strength -- are now states very much "in play" for the GOP is a reflection of how pervasive and long-lasting the "Reagan Democrats" swing has become. All these lunchpail guys out there who used to vote with their pocketbooks for the Democrats now see the GOP as more in tune with their values, and that there aren't real differences in other policies except for taxes, which nobody likes to support.

The Democrats need to be for something. They have tried to be the party of Social Security, with some modest effect. They have tried to be the party of health care, with little. But at the same time you have Democratic officials saying things like "the era of big government is over" and "the end of welfare as we know it" -- and rocketing up in popularity.

I think the best game plan right now for the Democratic party is to basically look to the Concord Coalition or others who ae battling against irresponsible deficits, and to see what ideas they can appropriate for their own use. In a sense, this is a concession that the other side has generally
"won" on issues of the size and nature of government -- and that will be painful for many traditional Democrats. But in practical terms, the party needs something -- and in the coming election, I think they need to give voters something to vote for, rather than just an option who is now GWB (which admittedly probably gets you 40-45% right out of the box).

For the Democratic party to regain its national relevance, it needs to present a coherent message that Americans can understand and embrace. Right now, for a variety of reasons, they have the opportunity to make that message "we are the party of responsible government budgeting." With a little bit of care, they could probably spin this into things that would make the GOP a little hinky, too -- what about a rule saying that if the money isn't there, not only won't we build the new library, but we won't build the new weapons, either.

It might be possible for the party to continue forward with national relevance by simply being the purported best option for the urban minorities, for the working poor, and for true liberals. But that leaves an awful lot to chance with regards to the many traditional Democrats who aren't in any of those camps. I think the party would be better served with a more general message... even if it's adopted at the risk of thinning support within those "lock" communities.


More than I had planned to write. Hope it makes some sense.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The Democrats need to be for something. [...] But in practical terms, the party needs something -- and in the coming election, I think they need to give voters something to vote for, rather than just an option who is now GWB (which admittedly probably gets you 40-45% right out of the box).

Well said, QS. I think these two sentences are the key here and represent exactly my thinking on the political tactics of the Democrats thus far. I think in today's political climate, it's far too easy (for either side) to get caught up in a campaign exclusively concentrated upon the negatives of the other. In my mind, this will rarely result in victory. There may be enough general dislike for Bush and his policies this political term, but I don't think it will be enough. As you've said, I think the Democrats need to be for something rather than simply against Bush.

Nice post.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Right now, for a variety of reasons, they have the opportunity to make that message "we are the party of responsible government budgeting."

That message soon becomes "we want to raise your taxes". Is it true? No. But it scares more people away than "responsible budgeting" attracts. It is very difficult to be for responsible budgeting and NOT be for eliminating some of the tax cuts. And with that, it becomes your standard class warfare campaign, which people tune out, which is what W wants.

I agree that the Dems need to be FOR something, but I'm not sold on that being it in this campaign.

[albionmoonlight]

Nice post.

One of the problems that the Democrats face is the diversity of people under its umbrella. You have some who are Democrats because they believe that it is the best party to represent the urban minority poor. You have some who are Democrats because they believe in a large federal government that supports lots of services. You have some who are Democrats who are fiscally conservative, but who are "socially" liberal on issues like the police state, free speech, etc.. You have some for whom feminism/legal abortion is the end all issue. You have some who are hard core environmentalists. You have some who are Nader supporters, etc.

I am not saying that Republicans lack the same kind of diversity, but--from my perspective--it seems that the Republican party is a lot more united right now.

Any reforms in the Democratic party will have account for this diversity. I think that I agree with you that it may be worth losing a little of it to present a message that appeals to a broader cross section of the population. Interesting thoughts.

[Bonegavel]

My opinion is that some of the Dems leadership is purposely "throwing" this election to setup Hillary for 2008.

My main reason for this thought is the fact that the crop of candidates we've seen from them appear very weak. Clinton at least had charisma. Kerry only has miasma.

I think if they were serious about 2004, they would have gone with Bigger Guns. Seems that they are taking a pass this election cycle.

[Fritz]

What I heard yesterday in a Kerry Speech was that the current administration was about "tax cuts, tax cuts, and tax cuts. Now they want to make tax cuts permanent."

The tone was to turn the phrase "tax cut" into a negative like "card carrying member of the ACLU."


This does nto address what the dems should "do." I think both parties ought to clearly state what they stand for and what they want to accomplish, and then try to sell that package to the American voter. But it seems to be better play if you find out what people want and promise them that.

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

That message soon becomes "we want to raise your taxes". Is it true? No. But it scares more people away than "responsible budgeting" attracts. It is very difficult to be for responsible budgeting and NOT be for eliminating some of the tax cuts. And with that, it becomes your standard class warfare campaign, which people tune out, which is what W wants.

I agree that the Dems need to be FOR something, but I'm not sold on that being it in this campaign.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You don't have the worst idea I've ever heard, but I see some difficulty in executing it successfully.

1) "Right now, for a variety of reasons, they have the opportunity to make that message "we are the party of responsible government budgeting." "

I'm tempted to ask whether enough people are gullible enough to believe that to make the message effective, but rarely does anyone lose an election overestimating the stupidity of the electorate. That said, however, it seems like this approach would be easy to counter with example after example of Dem-inspired wasteful spending. It's not always a winning play to try an angle that's easily refuted (Note: I don't mean that as a partisan jab, being able to cite specific examples that refute a particular campaign point is a knife that can certainly cut both ways)

2) "I think the party would be better served with a more general message... even if it's adopted at the risk of thinning support within those "lock" communities." Here's the real reason I don't think you'll see your proposal get a serious push by the Dems: they aren't willing to risk the support of their remaining core to take a gamble on recapturing the lost "Reagan Democrats". Just as understand your position that it's a risk worth taking, I can also understand their unwillingness to do so.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You don't have the worst idea I've ever heard, but I see some difficulty in executing it successfully.

1) [i]"Right now, for a variety of reasons, they have the opportunity to make that message "we are the party of responsible government budgeting." "

I think people have become jaded by this point. You could try and use that message, but I don't think the majority of voters believe that either party is capable of that. So you have to focus on something else.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

1) "Right now, for a variety of reasons, they have the opportunity to make that message "we are the party of responsible government budgeting."

I'm tempted to ask whether enough people are gullible enough to believe that to make the message effective, but rarely does anyone lose an election overestimating the stupidity of the electorate.

I definitely think this message can carry some weight. All that needs to be done is point out the surplus under Clinton and the deficits under Bush. I think many people will stop right there and say "clinton good, bush bad, kerry good"

I agree with Butter and others though, this is a very perilous message to tie yourself to as a candidate, because the natural extension of that message is "I [Kerry] will do what I can to lower the deficit by repealing tax cuts"

It doesn't matter whether that is a good economic strategy or not, hanging your hat on raising taxes to fix a problem is dangerous.

[Desnudo]

Very true. It's interesting, on the one hand the American public (or maybe it's mostly the media) complains that they aren't getting jack from the tax cuts. But at the same time, if you mention repealing them, it's hanging time.

[judicial clerk]

Enjoyable post. I think another issue that the Dems could be "for" is responsible foreign policy. As a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, moderate (i.e. swing voter) I am most likely to vote for Kerry because Bush invaded Iraq, and caused the deaths of thousands of people, because of information that was incorrect. I don't care if he was lying or if he had bad information, this was a huge mistake and it makes me think that Bush is not careful in his foreign policy decisions.

Also, I don't think the Dems are in danger of becoming irrelevant on the national level. Remember that Gore actually received more votes than Bush and Gore would have won the election had it not been for Nader. Also, Gore was trying to follow 8 years of Bill Clinton.

[Ryche]

The door in the middle is pretty wide open right now. An organized candidate or party that is strong on defense and a deficit hawk could make some major headway in national politics. But the deficit hawk part would have to place a very strong emphasis on reducing spending.

Such a 3rd party wouldn't need to run a presidential candidate now, just get a name out there to voice this position. Then, come 2008, they could be in a ripe position to pluck that middle ground between Hillary Clinton or John Kerry and whoever is the Republican nominee.

[Buzzbee]

My $0.02

It could be a viable plank in the platform, but as mentioned, a dangerous one. Short term it could be handled rather easily, but the long term implications could be hazardous.

Think about it. Where is one area that the Dems would likely cut? Military spending. How to acheive that? Bring the boys back home. By doing so you COULD kill two birds with one stone. Our presence in Iraq is becoming increasingly unpopular among the voters IMO. So, not only are you able to reduce spending, but you will also get a boost in popularity.

Couple this with the possibility of repealing the Bush tax cuts and the Dems are sitting pretty. The decrease in military spending would help offset deficits, and the repeal of the tax cuts would allow continued funding of the Democratic pork barrell programs.

So, to use this as a plank for this election could reap benefits. And as is usually the case, what is a hot button for one election has usually been forgotten by the next election.

Of course I'm no political analyst, so I could be way off base.

[Ryche]

Bringing the troops home at this point would be a disaster unfortunately. Iraq would fall into a total civil war (you ain't seen nothing yet compared to how bad it would be) with a worse state than Saddam's the likely result. And, the terrorists win, giving them more incentive to attack the US and our allies.

Whether or not going into Iraq was a good idea in the first place, leaving Iraq looks like a bad idea unfortunately.

[CraigSca]

I think any cut in military spending would be a hot button unto itself. We're just 2+ years removed from a massive terrorist attack. Even under Clinton our military was enormously taxed by the multiple small-scale operations world-wide. I think any cut in the military at this point, especially in a campaign, would be a death sentence.

-Craig

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Whether or not going into Iraq was a good idea in the first place, leaving Iraq looks like a bad idea unfortunately.

I agree, and one wonders how long our presence will be expected there to keep the peace. I would say more, but I don't want to turn this fine thread into a snippy Iraq discussion.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Bringing the troops home at this point would be a disaster unfortunately. Iraq would fall into a total civil war (you ain't seen nothing yet compared to how bad it would be) with a worse state than Saddam's the likely result. And, the terrorists win, giving them more incentive to attack the US and our allies.

Whether or not going into Iraq was a good idea in the first place, leaving Iraq looks like a bad idea unfortunately.

Moreover no Democrat can cut military spending in the current political environment. They have worked so hard and spent so much effort to establish credibility as being tough on foreign policy that they can't afford to squander this effort. And any effort to reduce military spending would be like painting a big red bullseye on their back for conservative critics. You're more likely to see George Bush reduce military spending than Kerry. Although, I agree that reduced military spending will be a key to balancing the budget. US military spending has reached bizarre levels, particularly when the special spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan are calculated in.

Kerry, unfortunately, has no credibility on the budget. His numbers don't even come close to adding up. He proposes hugely expensive social programs (primarily his health care and college tuition programs), and his only planned tax increases (repealing the Bush cut on high income earners) is offset by his plan for a middle class tax cut. His claims of reducing the deficit by half (which is kind of a lame goal in the first place) are as ridiculous as Bush's claims to the same. He and Bush are both walking budget disasters.

The only Democrat in the Presidential race who had deficit reduction numbers that even came close to adding up were Howard Dean's. He had much more modest social programs and more aggressive tax policies. He might have actually had a chance of balancing the budget.

[BishopMVP]

Kerry has taken this advice now, to an extent. He's still proposing his big social programs, but is saying they might need to be delayed until later because fiscal responsibility is key (Link - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116464,00.html Yes, I know it's FoxNews.)

Behind a banner reading, "Fiscal Responsibility = A Stronger America," Kerry attacked Bush on budgetary questions.
"In the last three years, the federal budget has gone from record surpluses to record deficits, which if left unchecked could become a fiscal cancer. George Bush now finally promises to reduce the deficit, the same promise of fiscal responsibility he's made and broken every year," Kerry said.

"The record is clear; a budget-deficit reduction promise from George W. Bush is not exactly a gilt-edged bond."

Kerry said that, if he is elected president, he will not let government programs outside of security and education grow beyond the rate of inflation, even if it means cutting money from some of his own campaign promises and existing government programs.

"When I say a cap on spending, I mean it," Kerry said. "We will have to make real choices — and that includes priorities of my own."

Kerry said he would freeze the federal travel budget, reduce oil royalty exemptions for drilling on federal lands, cut 100,000 federal government contractors and cut electricity used by the federal government by 20 percent.

He said the growing deficit will compel him to "slow down" some of his campaign promises, or phase them in over a longer period. He cited proposals for early childhood education and a program that would provide tuition to students attending state colleges in exchange for two years of national service, although he didn't say how much they would be scaled back.

As for Quiksand's bigger question, I think it is mostly because while the Joe Biden/Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party would be much more appealing to the middle and have a better chance of winning a national election, the far left-wing controls the primaries, because moderates don't vote in primaries. It is kind of funny to see Democrats get all excited over possibly having John McCain as their VP candidate when they summarily rejected Lieberman a couple months ago.

[Sharpieman]

First of all, BishopMVP, I think that the Dem's as a whole didn't vote for Lieberman, not because he's a total moderate (although that is a big issue) but because he's not electable enough. Second, I thought that was a thoughtful post. Speeking as a true liberal, I don't like Kerry's main message right now. He talks a lot about outsourcing, but I don't think its the issue that he should be mainstreaming. And his solution to outsourcing is suspect. Although giving incentives to companies would be helpful. I believe that a move towards universal healthcare would be much more effective. That way, workers in the states would be more competitive. Thats not the only solution, but one that would help. I'm happy with his message about the national deficit, because its a concern for Dem's and Rep's and even Libertarians too. I think that message should be the mainstream point that he broadcasts to the US. But more of a problem than policy is the money issue in this campaign. Bush has collected upwards to $150 million while Kerry has just $50 million. Bush hopes to collect $200 million and he would also get another $75 million dollars from the feds. That could be the decisive factor in this campaign.

[Buccaneer]

To me, it is only something as simple as saying the opposite of the other guy. To say that they are for 'fiscal responsibility' is so absurd that we must be a nation of ignorant morons for anyone to believe it (in look at every single act of legislation in Congress and the voting records of the Democrats - and many Republicans these days unfortunately). But what the message is that when one says we are (insert latest soundbite), the only thing they hear is "we are not Bush", the message becomes irrelevant. Same modus operandi in 1996 and 2000.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

First of all, BishopMVP, I think that the Dem's as a whole didn't vote for Lieberman, not because he's a total moderate (although that is a big issue) but because he's not electable enough.

Rate the following candidates in order of electability against George Bush in 2004: Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Howard Dean. The base is already fired up (just look at the number of Nader voters who are pissed off at him for entering this race) and at this point the Dems could have nominated Al Sharpton and he would have won 40% of the electorate that is voting on Anybody But Bush. The question is who could attract more independents and swing voters, especially in battleground states. Lieberman would have certainly won it based on positions. If you're arguing he didn't have the rhetorical flair or ability of the other candidates, while that may be true of Dean, it isn't of Kerry or Bush.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

To say that they are for 'fiscal responsibility' is so absurd that we must be a nation of ignorant morons for anyone to believe it (in look at every single act of legislation in Congress and the voting records of the Democrats - and many Republicans these days unfortunately).

The idea that the Democrats are the fiscally responsible party is not absurd. The fiscal policies of Reagan-Bush II are quite unusual in their degree of irresponsibility with deficits. Clinton stated deficit reduction as a high priority, and each year of the Clinton administration government revenues increased compared to GDP, while government spending fell relative to GDP. That's a big difference from recent Republican presidents. And then we have the famous quote of Dick Cheney saying that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." It's not a hard argument to make the Democrats are more fiscally responsible. Unfortunately I just don't think John Kerry is a good example of a fiscally responsible Democrat.

[Buccaneer]

and each year of the Clinton administration government revenues increased compared to GDP, while government spending fell relative to GDP

And that had to do with Clinton, how? The growth in GDP owed itself to the perceived boom in tech and telecomm industries and the consumer confidence that it inspired in real estate and in goods. Much like the initial tech boom in the 1980s. If you would have told me that Clinton submitted a budget (and that Congress passed) that had real reductions in spendings, then I would believe you. What he did was to reduce military and intelligence spendings at the expense of more govt wastes and we are paying for that now (when we should have had more/better intelligence and a more prepared military instead of this sudden re-buildup). No, he was no more responsible than any other president who falls to power of Congress and their wasteful ways. Read the latest copy of the book, "Pig Report".

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And that had to do with Clinton, how? The growth in GDP owed itself to the perceived boom in tech and telecomm industries and the consumer confidence that it inspired in real estate and in goods. Much like the initial tech boom in the 1980s. If you would have told me that Clinton submitted a budget (and that Congress passed) that had real reductions in spendings, then I would believe you. What he did was to reduce military and intelligence spendings at the expense of more govt wastes and we are paying for that now (when we should have had more/better intelligence and a more prepared military instead of this sudden re-buildup). No, he was no more responsible than any other president who falls to power of Congress and their wasteful ways. Read the latest copy of the book, "Pig Report".

To be fair, it seems Clinton did have some sort of thinking along the lines of fiscal responsibility, likely due either to Perot's bringing up the issue or the Republicans controlling Congress much of his time. The economic boom was the biggest factor in his surpluses, but wasn't the only one.

[kcchief19]

Thoughtful analysis, QS. It's refreshing to see someone here interested in initiating a civil discussion and observation without falling back on tired political rhetoric.

I must admit that I find the alleged "polarization" of this country fascinating. In the modern political era, this country has been carved into three relatively equal categories -- solid Democrats, solid Republicans and "independents." I put that in quote marks because few of these voters are truly independent -- some belong to a third-party and many are Democratic/Republican leaners. What has happened is that one-third in the middle is simply more torn than ever -- it is not a case that their are more Republicans today than there were 10, 20 or 30 years ago as a percentage of voters.

However, I think two things have changed: (1) the demographics of today's voters; and (2) the effectiveness of local campaigning by the national parties.

The last three presidential elections have, I believe, underscored how demographics are a disadvantage to the Democratic party. The party is becoming increasingly urbanized, which means that the Democratic party's strength is isolated to large metro areas while the Republican party is more spread out. I think this trend has contributed mightily to the ability of the Republican party to excercise control of the House and Senate. While the Democrats have just as many voters nationwide as the Republicans do, the Democrats strength is isolated in locations such as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and California. I think that given today's electoral demographics, it will be virtually impossible for the Democrats to take control of the Senate because there are too many states without heavily Democratic urban centers that are dominated by the Republican party.

There have been other changes as well. For example, QS mentioned the dropoff of the Democrats union base. I don't think that has as much to do with those voters voting Republican as it does that there simply is not as much base as their once was. Union membership has been declining -- and while I know there will be plenty who say that union membership is declining because they are "commie pinkos," it has more to do with the fact that the in terms of history, wage and benefits are good due to an economy that hasn't had a series downturn in more than 20 years. If unemployment hit double-digits and companies began cutting wages and benefits, union membership would soar. However, those voters are increasingly isolated and have been offset by growth in other demographics. It's not that Ohio has fewer Democrats, but that Ohio has fewer blue-collar workers and has seen growth in white-collar industries that tend to be more Republican.

It would reason that the House would be more likely to go Democratic given electoral demographics. Yet I think the Republican party has done an exception job at making local elections such as House and gubernatorial races local campaigns versus national campaigns. In essence, I think the Republican party has been better at making local elections more about local issues whereas the Democrats have been trying to win local elections on national issues. I use an example of my Congressional district which leans Democratic but has gone Republican twice in a row to a candidate who portrays himself as a local "family farmer" while the Democrats have run candidates who portrayed themselves as "Clinton Democrats."

Sorry for the detour. That's just my .02 cents on how the Democrats have made themselves appear to be a minority party when in fact they should be on equal terms with the Republican party.

As to whether the Democrats need a "message," I would say it couldn't hurt but it's not necessary. I don't believe that Reagan's message in 1980 was much more than "I'm not Jimmy Carter." I also must admit that I'm racking my brain to try and identify what Bush's message was in 2000. Did he have a message other than "compassionate conservative" and "I'm a uniter, not a divider?"

I think Kerry can win with the alternative to Bush strategy, but that will not translate into any coattails that will extend down the ticket. I'm also not convinced that "it's the bottom line, stupid," will work down the ticket either, not because voters won't believe it but rather because by and large it's too complicated an issue and message for most people to understand.

I think the Democrats would be more successful downticket by identifying their own "wedge" issues that they can use against the Republicans. Perhaps Iraq is such an issue -- I don't know. I do agree that what they're doing now isn't working, but I don't think it is an irreversible trend.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I must admit that I find the alleged "polarization" of this country fascinating.

Here is an article with some more information on that topic (http://slate.msn.com/id/2098387/) It talks about how there are more and more "landslide" counties, where one party wins more than 60% of the vote.

[Buccaneer]

Good observations, Matt. Wedge issues have worked in the past but it has to be believable (whether it becomes a reality or not is irrelevant - it's about getting elected and staying elected). I just don't think 'fiscal responsible' is a credible at all for the Dems, neither is the economy because you and I agreed that the President has little to do with it except to inspire consumer confidence. But there is one issue I believe will work. It's not Iraq because that is an unknown wild card. It has to do with something that I believe will cause the Libertarian candidate to draw the highest percentage of votes it had ever received in a presidential election.

[Ryche]

An observation about the political demographics of the country from a redistricting perspective. It could be quite a long time before the Democrats take back the House. While the country is pretty evenly divided politically, the urban centers skew 70-80% Democrat while suburban and rural ends up about 60% Republican. (I'm using Minnesota as an example, but I'm guessing the rest of the country is similar) The difference in percentages produces a fairly large advantage for the Republicans. The same is probably true at the state legislature level.

As far as the defecit, I think split control of Congress and the Presidency may be the most effective way to control it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Good observations, Matt. Wedge issues have worked in the past but it has to be believable (whether it becomes a reality or not is irrelevant - it's about getting elected and staying elected). I just don't think 'fiscal responsible' is a credible at all for the Dems, neither is the economy because you and I agreed that the President has little to do with it except to inspire consumer confidence. But there is one issue I believe will work. It's not Iraq because that is an unknown wild card. It has to do with something that I believe will cause the Libertarian candidate to draw the highest percentage of votes it had ever received in a presidential election.

For those of us reading at 4 in the morning and not really awake but certain to forget about this thread without a reminder, want to pass along what this issue is?

SI