Breaking the “Fiscal Cliff” Gridlock without Compromising the Principles of Either Side

The "fiscal cliff" crisis is here. Wouldn't it be great if the White House and Congress could solve this crisis together, without having to compromise the principles of either side? Sound impossible? Not really; engineers achieve such magic all the time. Here's how.

Right in spirit and theory, wrong in the real world.

You say "you can easily measure a trend in 3 months" ... of course you can, You can measure barometric pressure from one point every .000003 seconds. That doesn't make the measurement meaningful, especially when the scientist needs grants and the current available money says to err on the side of catastrophic climate change.

"it challenges the Admin. to achieve easily measured results,"

No, it gives them an opportunity to distort results.

"The competition would be great,"

No, it wouldn't exist. Please check that your verb is conditional, then you will understand. The goal of this presidency is precisely to eliminate competition, so that nothing can be measured. You're condition properly applies to 'measured' and not future time.

"and Americans love competition."

Evidently 50% do not. Or you could argue, 50% are not Americans. Either way, your solution won't work.

"At the very least, simply submitting such a proposal would have a salutary effect on the debate."

It's not a debate, you can salute or not. As I said, if you want to call it a debate, you are debating the kidnapper of your daughter over the color of his tie. He's using your ideas to distract the audience. He's not interested in winning on ideas. The better you're debate, the more he wins.

Do not confuse university student-hood for education. That's what marxists do, and I can tell you're not one. Be patient, your spirit is right, bu there are things you have to learn that will only come with time, not pell grants. Who is more and more funding your curriculum, and hence authoring it? Think about it.

You're living in reverse Treaudopia. Check out Mark Steyn. :-) Keep reading, but more importantly, keep observing.

Respectfully, you are way off base in assuming that you know me. I am older and experienced, not some student. I have been running my own engineering business successfully for decades. I also have a broad and deep understanding of economics and politics.
I have proposed a radical idea (competition over a short time frame, when government is divided like it is now) that does not fit within the generally accepted framework of politics. I think that may be why it is hard for some to grasp.
You are correct in that there may be an attempt to cheat. That is why the originating legislation must be carefully constructed (engineers could help!) to ensure proper metrics.
With regard to eliminating competition, again it seems you did not read the entire post. If the Administration performs poorly, they lose their turn at bat, and the House gets to try its ideas.
May the best side win!

Etpa said: "I also have a broad and deep understanding of economics and politics."

Could you provide an example of what the feedback would look like over three months?

Let's consider unemployment statistics. I truly believe that the positive results achieved over the last three months were probably due to manipulation by the Obama administration. We'll know that in a few months if we see an unexplainable downturn.

The administration has been pumping cash into the economy for years now and yet we see very little inflation; especially if we eliminate a few key items from the calculations. Does that mean we will never face inflation due to the money printing that has been going on? I don't think so. I think the slightest uptick in world economic activity will reveal just how many dollars have been created and we will see prices of some items skyrocket.

What economic process has a time constant so low and a correlation with government activity that is so high that one would be able to measure the effect of a government activity so quickly and with sufficient accuracy?

Okay, now I agree with the general thrust of your concerns. Yes, the metrics would have to be carefully defined, to ensure no cheating.
However it’s important not to get bogged down in quantitative figures; this would increase the opportunity for cheating, plus would become confusing and boring to the electorate. A simple trend point should suffice; i.e. at the end of three months there has either been an improvement in unemployment and total debt or not. (Other economic markers could be used; this is where there would probably be strong debate during the development of the initial legislation. Such a debate imo would be a very good side effect).
Even if delays or other extraneous factors push the results in the wrong direction, this would result in the faulty measures being extended only for another three months. Eventually, (in much less than four years), the truth will become obvious. During that time the American people will be watching and learning.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.