Why Trump Is the Right Man for the Job

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

I read an interesting article the other day about “Why the #NeverTrump Will Never Work.”

The author states: “But here’s the problem for Bush and Romney and the whole #NeverTrump thing generally: You don’t win campaigns solely by running against somebody else. You have to give voters something — or someone — that they can be for….Instead of shoring up a candidate they could enthusiastically be for, they continued to define themselves by the campaigns they were against, offering support only when it was already clear which way the voters were going….Trump has gotten to where he is by savaging the Republican establishment as expedient and craven — politicians willing to sacrifice any principle to preserve their own power. It’s amazing that Republican leaders seem so hell-bent on proving him right.” https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-nevertrump-will-never-work-1392133276262454.html

 

In addition to the above article’s conclusion, the larger outcome is giving the White House to the Democrats – because you cannot resolve the intraparty fighting. If Trump isn’t the nominee and if he enters the convention with a plurality of delegates and leaves without the nomination, then my guess is that Trump either becomes a third party candidate or spends an exorbitant amount of time and money urging his supporters to never vote Republican again. Any of the outcomes are bad for the Republican Party – to the point a permanent schism could result which would take probably a decade to resolve.

 

Nate Silver, an articulate and accurate psephologist, predicts that the race will be very close for Trump to secure the necessary 1,237 delegates in the first round of voting. His actual prediction is 1,208; but he may be able to go over the top by securing the vote of the unbound and currently uncommitted delegates. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-donald-trump-clinch-the-republican-nomination-before-the-convention/

 

Another great psephologist, Larry Sabato, thinks that Trump will (barely) reach the magic number of 1,237 (at 1,239): “If Trump finishes, say, less than 100 delegates short, but he is still comfortably leading national polls of Republicans and wins statewide victories in places like California and New Jersey on the final day of voting (June 7), it’s hard to see how, practically, he wouldn’t be the nominee. Trump would have far more delegates than his rivals, and he would also be heading into the pre-convention period with major statewide victories. Only if Trump finishes 100 or more delegates short does the contested convention become a more prominent possibility. As we’ve previously stressed, there are a small number of unpledged delegates as well as delegates from other candidates that Trump may or may not able to win over in the interim from June 7 through the opening of the convention on July 18.” http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

 

“A new poll indicated 63 percent of Republicans think front-runner Donald Trump should get the party’s nomination if he wins the delegate race but falls short of the majority needed to clinch it outright….More than six in 10 voters opted for the plurality candidate over a brokered convention….” http://www.gopusa.com/?p=7690?omhide=true

 

Besides the electorate’s complete disgust with the establishment, there is a sense of restlessness in the air; it’s like the people know that there’s something different going on – but they can’t quite put their finger on it or articulate it: it’s Zeitgeist! There is a need to fill a vacuum that shouldn’t be there. So, with this discussion as a backdrop, let’s discuss why Trump is the right man for the job this election cycle.

 

To understand this I need to present some financial musings. I believe that the number one problem facing America today is the national debt. Currently at approximately $19 trillion (still rising and will be perhaps $23 trillion by 2021), the US government has unfunded liabilities in excess of $123 trillion ($210 trillion by some estimates and still rising). The national debt per person is over $59,000; the unfunded liabilities per person are over $381,000. http://usadebtclock.com/

 

“What's the word for our fiscal situation? Stunning? Shocking? Desperate? In recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Boston University Economics Professor Laurence Kotlikoff, in effect, told the Committee that all of these terms are pathetically inadequate to describe our true fiscal situation. In compelling testimony, Kotlikoff argues that the federal fiscal situation is much worse than the CBO estimates let on. The reason is that CBO's debt estimates do not take into account the full financial obligations the government is committed to honor, especially for future payments of Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt. He asserts that the federal government should help the public understand the nation's true fiscal situation by using what economists call "the infinite-horizon fiscal gap," defined as the value of all projected future expenditures minus the value of all projected future receipts using a reasonable discount rate.

 

“What difference does the fiscal gap approach make in our understanding of the true federal debt? CBO tells us that the national debt was a little less than $13 trillion in 2014. But the fiscal gap in that year as calculated by Kotlikoff was $210 trillion, more than 16 times larger than the debt estimated by CBO and already judged, by CBO and many others, to be unsustainable. If a $13 billion gap is unsustainable, what term should we apply to a $210 trillion gap? Kotlikoff also calculates that the fiscal gap is equal to about 58 percent of the combined value of all future revenue. Thus, we would need to reduce spending or increase taxes by enough to fill that 58 percent gap if we wanted to put the federal budget on a path to solvency that balances the interests of those now receiving benefits and those who hope to receive benefits in the future.”

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/04/08-federal-debt-worse-than-you-think-haskins

 

Consider this horrifying point: mandatory versus discriminatory spending. “Sometime between 2030 and 2040 mandatory spending will exceed government revenues.” https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States#/media/File:GAO_Slide.png. Another startling statistic is that the total debt as a percentage of GDP is 105%.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

 

Baby boomers are now retiring in large numbers. That means they will be exiting the workforce; so what? Instead of paying money to the government, they will be receiving money from the government. Instead of spending money, they will probably be saving money. The official unemployment rate is about 5%; the actual number of unemployed people (including long-term, discouraged workers) is about 23%.  http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

I believe that we are at a nexus in history. This election will probably be one of the most important for at least the next two decades. The most obvious reason is because of the number of Supreme Court appointees; they will influence the judicial process and outcome for at least the next 2 to 3 decades. Another major issue is terrorism and why Americans do not feel safe. Political correctness – need I say more about how it is destroying our society and productivity? Immigration and its impact on not only the workforce but our economic status – pathetic. These and all of the other issues can be handled by Mr. Trump by the appointment of many of his learned associates. The reason Mr. Trump is the right man for the job is because the greatest task at hand is the financial survival of the USA. He possesses the mind – and has demonstrated time and time again – that he understands world markets, productivity, financing, leveraging – all things financial. I don’t understand how a socialist or progressive is even contending in this election – except the electorate doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as Mr. Sanders’ money tree or an inexhaustible supply of billionaires standing in line to pay taxes. Please: Excuse Mr. Trump’s foibles and support somebody who has the leadership skills and ability to bring America back to greatness!

____________________________________

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

THE NUMBER GAMES

                       

 Published in http://hnn.us/article/154391

Quality guru Dr. W. Edwards Demming always asserted, “You can't manage what you can't measure.” America is suffering from this ailment as facts and numbers become increasingly politicized. Everyone cherry picks statistics to build their case. They ignore or assail numbers that challenge their case. We are at a point where rational political discourse has evaporated along with objective facts and figures. Few are willing to stipulate to anything. Our ability to achieve reasonable middle ground fades by the day.

There are three areas where this numbers’ crisis is harming our nation and the Republican Party in particular.

THE REAL ECONOMY

Every pundit pounces on economic indicators. America’s economy has something for everybody. The stock market is at a record high and the economic recovery continues, although at a tepid pace. However, outside of the “top 1%” of income earners things are far from rosy.

The most accurate figures are being generated by Gallup. They show the unemployment rate at 7.4%. However, under-employment – people who are taking lower paying jobs to make ends meet - remains stuck at around 17% for the last three years. Wage earners, as a percentage of the U.S. population, are stuck at around 43% during this same period. The “Labor Participation Rate”, those employable in core earning years (ages 25-64), continues to lag at record lows (82%).

Congress reconvenes to face the future of unemployment benefits. Many families are at risk because unemployment insurance benefits ended on December 28, 2013. What no one is discussing is the fact that there are many Americans who have not been able to qualify for unemployment benefits. Unemployment insurance is partially funded by deductions when a person is employed. When a person is laid-off they qualify for benefits if they paid into unemployment insurance at least two quarters during the previous eighteen months (known as the base period). This only occurs if the person was employed as a W2 worker. Consulting work (1099) does not count because these are fees not wages. Therefore, an unemployed person who has worked as an independent contractor is not eligible for benefits.

Currently, 34.4 million Americans work as contractors or part-time without benefits. When they get laid-off, and cannot find follow-on opportunities, they become a large element without unemployment benefits. Media stories, and Congressional angst, are rare regarding Americans barely hanging on – not poor enough for welfare, but not being able to make ends meet. This is the real hole in our safety net.


FISCAL FLIM FLAMS

Once again the clock is ticking toward raising the debt ceiling. Congress is also sparring over how to fund unemployment benefits through spending offsets. The liberal chorus for taxation to ease the pain of the Sequester can also be heard on a daily basis.

These false deadlines and balance sheet fictions are designed to avoid real facts and serious decisions. There is over $680 billion lying around unused and unobligated in countless accounts throughout the Federal Government. Obama is the only recent president who has not conducted a “budget sweep” to retrieve these funds. A memo from either the U.S. Treasury or OMB would sweep this money back into a general fund to stave-off the national debt ceiling for a full year. Alternatively, an across the board hiring freeze of federal employees would save $350 billion a year. This would solve the debt problem for nearly six months. Still another option is to save $650 billion by annually implementing the 9,000 Inspector General and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports.

Congress and the White House won’t admit there are real opportunities to balance the Federal budget. They are adrift in a sea of sham.


PURITY PURGES

In a world where “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson has replaced “Firing Line’s” William F. Buckley as the intellectual symbol of conservatism, numbers still matter.

The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is an amalgam of interests gathered around a set of philosophical concepts. In order to win elections, and therefore to govern, political parties must expand beyond their comfort zone to attract candidates and voters who don’t always adhere to these core concepts. Expand too far and party labels are meaningless. Restrict too much and the party is sent into the political wilderness.

A key test for striking the right balance comes when a Party disciplines one of their elected officials for being too wayward. At some point being useful for “organizational purposes” is undermined by a pattern of votes that threaten Party integrity. In 1970, Republicans ended the political career of Senator Charles Goodell (R-NY) because he was voting less than 50% of the time with his Party and taking the lead in sponsoring ultra-liberal legislation. As Goodell had been appointed to fill the vacancy left by the death of Robert Kennedy in 1968, his bid for a full term was the ideal opportunity to make an example. James Buckley, brother of William F. Buckley, ran on the Conservative Party ticket against Goodell. Goodell was made a “poster child” for disloyalty. Buckley crushed Goodell by nearly 2-1.

It is one thing to purge disloyalty at the 50% or less threshold. It is quite another to launch primary challenges at the 100% or less threshold. That is what is happening across the Republican Party as it enters the 2014 election cycle. For example, the Texas Tea Party has declared Rep. Pete Sessions (TX-32) an “under performer” for his American Conservative Union rating of 97%, and is fielding candidates against him.

Incumbent re-election rates are always over 85% and are many times over 90%. Open seats are another matter as are divisive primaries. In these circumstances the incumbent party retention rate, depending on state, can plummet to 50%. Thanks to multiple cycles of gerrymandering, individual Congressional districts have skewed more partisan. However, Republicans make up a third or less of registered voters in most states. In order to win Senate seats, Governorships, and other statewide races, Republicans need to appeal to Independents and open-minded Democrats. As Ronald Reagan once said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

Tea Party purity purges play well on conservative talk radio, but the only way to govern is to control the government.

Why Not Crowd Source Federal Budget Policy?

Published in The Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed-why-not-crowd-source-federal-budget-policy/article/2526579

European and American politicians are in a quandary -- how can they cut spending while avoiding public outrage?

Austerity riots and strikes have become commonplace throughout Europe. In America, the arbitrarily heavy-handed spending cuts, known as the sequester, have reduced voter support for Congress to record lows.

Maybe it is time for governments to copy the private sector. For years, corporations have asked their customers what they want. Business websites and social media are filled with requests for customers to develop new flavors, new products and their own ads.

This digital customer empowerment is called "crowd-sourcing." Imagine if governments asked their voters what programs to cut and by how much?

Direct voter input into spending has existed since the voluntary check-off for funding America's presidential elections was added to income tax returns in the 1970s. What if this check-off procedure expanded into all discretionary spending?

In America, April 15 is Tax Day. Imagine if Tax Day also became Budget Day? The Internal Revenue Service would provide everyone with a budget form that listed all discretionary federal programs.

Each taxpayer would be given a hypothetical $100,000 to allocate for these programs. A pro-forma budget showing how the $100,000 was allocated for the prior fiscal year would provide both a template for taxpayer input and a major learning experience. Imagine if every taxpayer saw how the federal government really spent their money?

The budget forms would be submitted with their tax returns. In essence, there would be a nationwide vote on spending every April 15. Every taxpayer's choices would be totaled, and the percentages of the choices for each program would be applied to the actual federal budget moving through the Congress.

These spending priorities could be immediately binding or be advisory for the first few years. Either way, the Budget Day results would be a major news event. Even advisory choices would be revolutionary if the people's "crowd-sourced" decisions contradict the allocations proposed by Washington's power elite.

As the kinks are worked out, and people became savvier about how to allocate their $100,000, even the advisory referendum could evolve into mandating the spending priorities.

For example, require a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to provide more or less funds than were allocated by the Budget Day results. National disaster assistance and declared wars could be exempted.

The April 15 Budget Day spending vote would become as important as Election Day. Tax preparation companies would develop "neutral" forms for people wanting to keep the same mix of spending each year.

Liberal and conservative interest groups would develop their own budgets for people to use. These would have the same impact as sample ballots. Taxpayers would be free to use them or do their own versions.

A similar process could be launched in European countries. A "budget day" would be created, and voter check-offs would be submitted.

Taxpayer budget choices will have immediate and fundamental impacts. In America, instead of spending their time swaying politicians, the special interests and federal agencies would have to persuade the 132 million people who file tax returns. Similar ripple effects would be felt in Europe as each nation implemented its own "crowd-sourced" budget processes.

Budget Day would open the door to building budgets that have widespread support -- because they would be democratically created. This process would also educate the electorate on the kinds of trade-offs and limitations being faced by politicians, opening eyes and minds to a common understanding and commitment to fiscal sanity.

Scot Faulkner is a former chief administrative officer for the U.S. House of Representatives. His blog is citizenoversight.blogspot.com.

Wasted Days and Wasted Nights

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

How did you spend the last 806 days?

If you were a Congressional Republican prior to your Williamsburg retreat, you were doing nothing. Nothing productive, at any rate. You spent this time ceding the political landscape to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Your are waiting for an Inaugural Address to respond to, while allowing tone-deaf and clueless pollsters and lobbyists to speak for the Party.

Since decisively winning the November 2, 2010 elections, Republicans in Congress, and their acolytes in the conservative media, have made sure to miss 806 days of opportunity to define themselves and communicate a compelling alternative platform. This is not a choice; it is a reflection of political reality: They have no platform. Because they have no coherent idea of who they are. The American people sense this. Increasingly, moderates and centrists are abandoning them because of it.

The recent Pew Survey shows Americans disapprove of Republican Congressional leadership by 66% while only 19% approved. That is a staggering 47 point negative. Gallup’s survey is equally bad with 25% approving and 67% disapproving for a 42 point negative gap.

These dreadful scores are only part of the problem. During the last 806 days President Obama and Congressional Democrats have framed the Fiscal Cliff/Debt Ceiling/Budget battle in ways highly favorable to their cause while painting Republicans into a microscopic corner. This is smart rhetorical strategy, to be sure.

Politics often comes down to defining the terms of the battle, something both parties have excelled at during different moments in history. The Democrats are the current masters of rhetoric. Democrats, even radicals, are now called “Progressives”. Government spending is now called “investment,” thanks to a spin factory gem from Bill Clinton. Spending cuts of any magnitude are dismissed as damaging to America’s economic recovery. There is also the unchallenged assertion that there have already been more than enough budget cuts, but no where near enough tax increases.

Our current Republicans tilt at windmills and straw men, assailing the “Main Stream Media” (which excludes, of course, the most popular cable network, Fox News) for their rout in the budget battle. They continue to embrace the parallel universe of Fox and conservative Talk Radio asserting that these “news” outlets are being drowned out by the “mainstream.” Never has Orwellian double-talk been more obvious -- or harmful to political discourse.

During the last 806 days, Republicans have been annoyingly vague about government waste and the need to cut spending. They trumpet their ideology, but ideology is not governance -- and Americans continue to see the President as more competent in that task. The problem is that the GOP never issued a meaningful indictment or offered a prosecution brief. Just saying there is waste does not make it so. Endlessly repeated talking points about “limited government” do not inspire, do not confer confidence, and do not offer hope to a still struggling nation.

While Republicans remain unfocused, the Democrats have created a multimedia echo chamber that has established memes relating to fairness and collective action. Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing but confrontational bluster. Their weak, ineffective, and mostly nonexistent defense has left them marginalized and demonized. The entire body politic suffers as a result; Democracy only functions when robust factions confront each other in rational discourse. The authors here have differing political views on important matters, but are of one mind on this central point.

Republicans could have made a difference. Starting on November 3, 2010, they could have been building their case.   Every time a Republican was in front of a camera or microphone they could have issued compelling examples about non-performing government contractors getting billions in bonuses, about hundreds of billions more sitting unused in countless agency accounts, or cited any one of the thousands of reports documenting waste published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 73 Inspector General offices.  This would have put forward a viable vision of governance that differs from the status quo. This is complicated, of course, because the status quo is not just the last four years, but also the eight under Republicans who grew government and spent America into oblivion.

Perhaps this is what the psychologists call cognitive dissonance -- Republicans are now mostly unwilling to hold hearings on government spending or mismanagement, because many of them blindly supported Bush-era spending boondoggles both foreign and domestic. Bereft of principle, and caught in hypocrisy of their own making, Republicans have little to stand on. The GOP did not even hold hearings on Senator Tom Coburn’s annual Waste Report, a longtime staple of reasonable oversight. Only CSPAN’s BookTV gave Coburn a proper forum to discuss his exhaustive and highly credible research on government waste.

Reestablishing Republican relevance must include atoning for embracing wasteful spending during the Bush era. In one amazing example of “Bush party line”, Republicans on the House Oversight panel minimized $6 billion in hundred dollar bills vanishing from the Bagdad Airport while Democrats raised concerns about the money being stolen and possibly funding terrorism. Republicans lose credibility when they are more concerned about who is doing damaging things instead of the damaging thing itself. Waste is waste; corruption is corruption; no matter who is doing it. To say anything different is abandoning your moral core.

Republicans met in Williamsburg to develop a strategy for the coming budget battles, and unfortunately it looks like more showmanship instead of statesmanship. They should have spent this time finding their minds and souls.

...Pants on Fire

Elvis and reality have left the building.

The hyper-partisan rants over the fiscal cliff were just the warm-up act for the triple play looming on the horizon. The triple issues of reining-in the debt limit, resolving the sequester, and extending the FY2013 Continuing Resolution seem to require triple the hyperbole.

Obama and Congressional Democrats are filling the air waves with victorious declarations about already reducing the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion. There are many creative tunes being played for this Conga Line.

The first is the timetable. Those who trumpet the $2.4 trillion only whisper “over the next ten years”. The trillion dollar number sounds large until you compare it to total federal spending of $44 trillion over the next ten years. That is a “whopping” 5.4% reduction in total spending. This assumes that the current decisions somehow bind four future Congresses and the next President.

Let’s look at the spending “cuts”. Obama and his supporters cite the Budget Control Act of 2010, which reinstates some of the spending targets from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. This is supposedly reducing various discretionary expenditures by $850 billion over the next ten years. Unfortunately, for the past 28 years, the spending targets of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings has been systematically ignored while the federal budget has tripled in size.

Obama supporters also assert that Congressional inaction and gridlock have resulted in Continuing Resolutions that leveled-off spending for a ten-year savings of $585 billion or $58.5 billion a year. This is creative bookkeeping at its best. Just one appropriation bill pushing for more than an inflationary increase in spending would erase these bogus budget savings.

Let’s take a moment to discuss inflation. Buried deep in the analytical tables of the Federal Budget is something called the “Current Services Analysis”. This is where zero-based budgets of the past went to die. “Current Services” is what budgeting should be, but never is. It is how much it would cost for the Federal Government to do exactly next year what it did the pervious year factoring in inflation escalators built into contracts and projects. This tracks to every person, project, program, office, vehicle, and building. The dirty little secret of Washington is that no one uses these numbers. The annual baseline offered by the Administration is well above “Current Services”. Both parties, while in the White House, play this game. Congress and interest groups then wail about budgets being cut when the Administration’s budget request is reduced even though these cuts never fully reduce the increase above “Current Services”. Thus spending ratchets higher no matter who is in charge.

This brings us to “Sequestration”. This $1.2 trillion over the next ten years poison pill of spending cuts was never designed to be real. Back in the summer of 2011, when raising the debt ceiling became a policy act instead of an administrative one, Congress and the Administration agreed to a “doomsday option” – the Sequester. The Sequester was designed to be so horrific that no one would ever want it to occur – thus forcing a real budget solution. Since everyone decided to avoid a real solution the Sequester looms large on the near horizon. Congress can always reverse itself and eliminate the Sequester with a “we were just kidding” floor vote. So trumpeting the Sequester as part of the $2.4 trillion over the next ten years reduction is also bending reality.

The other part of the victory dance is taking more money from Americans and giving it to the federal government. Believing that the federal government’s major problem is lack of our money is foundational to the Administration and Congressional Democrats. The recent tax increase generates $630 billion over the next ten years. In the past, any increase in federal receipts removed pressure to cut spending while increasing the urge to spend more.

The final assertion is that ripple effects of all these “savings” will reduce interest paid on the national debt $300 billion over the next ten years have as much to do with international money markets as they do on the total balance owed.

America braces for the next act in this most irresponsible fiscal fantasy.

FISCAL FOLLIES

Washington policy officials and pundits take note – you have all flunked Governing 101, Management 101, Civil Discourse 101, Budgeting 101, Accountability 101, and Reality 101. Republicans also failed Communications 101 & Politics 101. Democrats passed these courses with honors in creative fiction writing.

No one is telling the truth about anything relating to the Fiscal Cliff. Americans will begin suffering from Washington’s mass delusion and hysteria by mid January 2012. Wage earners will see a reduction in take home pay with their first pay checks. Some government contractors will get termination notices around the same time because of the consciously severe cuts under the Sequester.

The damage from going over the Fiscal Cliff will remain limited because of the possibility of retroactive fixes being dated back to January 1, 2013. However, this expectation unravels at the end of February if there is no budget deal. Even a superficial, “kick the can down the road again” deal would avoid this expectation cliff. This gives everyone two months to do something before the bottom really falls out.

How did America get in this mess?

Blame the Republicans – starting in 1995, the Republicans in Congress could have held wall-to-wall hearings exposing trillions of dollars in ongoing waste, fraud, and abuse. Mountains of Inspector General Reports, Government Accountability Office Reports, and watch dog organization reports would have been easy pickings for years. By exposing the mind-boggling array of how Americans’ money is squandered would have built a mandate for real change. Republicans never pursued this course. In fact, they remained tongue-tied on how to cut spending through the 2012 elections. When they did offer ideas, they went for ideological cuts, like Public Broadcasting.

Republicans also made every effort to box themselves into a stereotype of defending the rich and abandoning the poor. They never explained that every penny wasted hurts everyone. These pennies include nearly $1 trillion a year in outrageous tax loopholes for corporations, the wealthy, and even foreign gamblers.

Blame the Democrats – the Democrats have refused to focus on spending because the moment they acknowledge that spending can be cut they lose their argument that the federal government needs more of our money. They made budget cutting a partisan issue. This is truly sad for America. Way back in the 1970s, Senator Proxmire (D-WI) issued “Gold Fleece Awards” exposing government waste. Liberal journalists like Jack Anderson railed against waste where ever it was found. Even the National Enquirer had fun with “goofy grants”. Waste was waste and the public embraced aggressive oversight across the political spectrum. This all ended during the Administration of George HW Bush when Democrats realized extorting more taxes required silence on how the money was really being spent.

Blame the media – reporters and commentators love a crisis. They embrace false deadlines and refuse to discuss that these deadlines are based upon fiction, because their countdown clocks and their breathlessly chasing after every rumor attracts viewers and readers. There is no incentive for telling the truth - that everything could be avoided within seconds if everyone sobered up and grew-up.

America is confronted with a parade of “naked emperors” who trumpet that what they are doing is real, and that we are fools if we do not comprehend how hard it is to get off the treadmill of more debt, more taxes, and more spending. Who will be the first voice in the crowd to begin laughing at them and demanding honesty?

FUBAR

[Overly complex ways to do simple things - by Rube Goldberg]

In the summer of 2011, Republicans and Democrats finally realized that the structural flaws in America’s fiscal management had to be addressed sooner rather than later. They created a fictional “fiscal cliff” that would deliver horrendously real consequences if all sides of the issue did not rise to the challenge. Instead of ushering in serious bi-partisan analysis and action, it accelerated and amplified the partisanship, exposing the fundamental dysfunctions of both political parties and of the Legislative and Executive Branches.

Just hours before the debacle of “Plan B” in the House, ABC-Australia reported on the realities and fantasies of the fiscal cliff. What follows is the transcript of their report.  The audio file can be heard at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-21/republicans-try-to-pass-plan-b-on-fiscal-cliff/4440368

EMILY BOURKE: To the United States now, where there's been furious last minute political wrangling over the so-called fiscal cliff and the mix of tax hikes and spending cuts.

As the clock ticks down towards the year-end deadline, Republicans have crafted a back-up plan in case a broader agreement can't be reached with the White House.

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives has passed a bill to cut domestic spending but after an abrupt recess, the Republicans decided to postpone a vote on tax breaks, having failed to get the numbers.

But it appears the Republican effort will be futile with Democrats in the Senate and the president vowing to block a Republican plan either way.

From Washington, Kim Landers reports.

KIM LANDERS: A few days ago a deal seemed possible.

President Barack Obama and House Republican speaker John Boehner continued to talk about how to avoid steep tax increases and spending cuts - the so-called fiscal cliff which is designed to reduce the federal deficit.

But now the two sides are further apart than ever before, openly trading political blows in the media all day.

JOHN BOEHNER: President Obama and Senate Democrats haven't done much of anything. Their plan B is just slow-walk us over the fiscal cliff and for weeks the White House said that if I moved on rates, that they would make substantial concessions on spending cuts and entitlement reforms. I did my part, they've done nothing.

KIM LANDERS: Jay Carney is the White House spokesman.

JAY CARNEY: But what we know about this exercise and we have seen this movie before is that when there was the opportunity for a compromise on something big and significant, the Republican leadership walked away and pursued something that was irrelevant to the rest of America.

KIM LANDERS: Late today, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to cut domestic spending.

But even before the votes were taken, the Democrat-dominated Senate was signalling that the measures would fail in the Upper House.

Dick Durbin is a Democratic senator from Illinois.

DICK DURBIN: Remember the closing scene in Thelma and Louise? Rather than face the reality of what lies ahead, they hit the gas. That's what we're hearing from speaker Boehner now, hit the gas and go over the cliff.

KIM LANDERS: Scot Faulkner is the former chief administrator of the US House of Representatives. He's highly doubtful that a deal can be struck before the end of the year.

SCOT FAULKNER: Both sides have dug themselves so deep into their trenches that you are not going to see a deal until after the first of the year and a new Congress comes in and the problem is that both sides really don't think the fiscal cliff is going to happen no matter how much they posture to the public and they both think the other side is going to give more ground and nobody is going to give more ground.

KIM LANDERS: Many government agencies are already preparing their employees for the impact of the looming budget cuts.

The US defence secretary Leon Panetta says uniformed military personnel will be exempt. But he's told civilian Pentagon employees that while no workers will face immediate unpaid leave after January the 1st, furloughs might ultimately be necessary.

Scot Faulkner explains why neither Republicans nor Democrats want to give ground.

SCOT FAULKNER: They're still thinking in terms of campaign mode, no-one is thinking in terms of governing.

KIM LANDERS: And can you suggest a reason why?

SCOT FAULKNER: They've not thought in terms of governing for over 12 years. You have, everybody is playing to their partisan audiences and in America you have very strong partisan newspapers, very strong partisan radio stations and cable television news stations and as long as their particular audience is cheering them on, no one is going to give ground and no one is going to shift from campaign mode into a governing mode.

KIM LANDERS: The impact of going over the so-called fiscal cliff has already been outlined.

According to the projections from the Congressional Budget Office, gross domestic product will drop by 0.5 per cent next year.

That contraction in the economy will cause unemployment to rise to 9.1 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2013.

But the agency estimates that after next year, economic growth will pick up and the labour market will strengthen with unemployment shrinking to 5.5 per cent by 2018.

SCOT FAULKNER: What will happen is that the first time that thing hits, one of those indicators hit recession, the recession zone, you will then have a scramble for everyone to first blame everyone else and then say okay, what can we do about this and so I think it's going to take an economic shock to finally get the political system working, even if it is only superficially.

KIM LANDERS: Scot Faulkner believes there is still time to strike a deal before the end of the year but even if that happens, he thinks it'll be a bandaid solution.

SCOT FAULKNER: At this point if they try to do anything, it's going to be either kick the can down the road hoping something else will happen or it will be very superficial. I mean they'll announce it as the coming of the new age but it'll be very superficial and not solve any of the fundamental issues facing America.

KIM LANDERS: The president is due to head to Hawaii for his Christmas holiday soon. It's unclear if the stalemate over the fiscal cliff is going to play havoc with those plans.

This is Kim Landers in Washington for The World Today.