US president-elect Donald J Trump announces the following based on "Project 2025: presidential transition project" hard right political playbook

On 8 November 2024 US president-elect and convicted fraudster, 78 year-old Donald John Trump made the following announcement ushering in an authoritarian state, headed by a president intent on revenge against those he perceives as his enemies and retribution for a long list of delusional grievances.

 

Donald Trump has just released his plan to "demolish the deep state."

Unglued Project 2025 stuff.

Buckle up, folks. pic.twitter.com/AniimjUcbG

— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) November 8, 2024

 The Heritage Foundation and the Project 2025 Advisory Board - along with Donald Trump himself - have repeatedly denied any association with each other. Unfortunately these denials have proved to be untruths.

Project 2025 922-page 180-Day Playbook at

https://www.project2025.org/playbook/ 

and

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf   

Australia's initial reaction to Trump's election win is a mixture of caution and dread....

Financial Review, 7 November 2024:

President-elect Donald Trump will likely be a unilateralist in his dealings with Australia and the rest of the world, neither a pre-World War Two isolationist nor the post-war global policeman.

Trump’s highly transactional view of life means he will take America in and out of world affairs as and when it suits his mercurial personality. He will approach each international relationship through the prism of what is in it for him. For Trump, the geopolitical is personal.....

The immediate risk for Australia is Trump’s flagship policy of tariffs on imports, which threaten a 60 per cent charge on Chinese goods and up to 20 per cent on all others. Robert Lighthizer, his hawkish former trade representative who is tipped to return to the new administration, doesn’t believe that free trade works. He argues that America did not lose its microchip industry because of a lack of comparative advantage, but because of the subsidies and industry policies of other countries. He also thinks it has been China’s choice not to open more of its domestic market to better balance its trade with the US.

Australia is a small open economy highly exposed to the ripple effects of an all-out US-China trade war. ANU economist Warwick McKibbin says that because China takes a massive 47 per cent of Australia’s goods exports, the collateral damage to Australia from a Sino-US tariff fight could mean a hit on the economy of 0.3 per cent of GDP a year by 2035. In America, the proposed tariffs would rekindle inflation, forcing up interest rates and the cost of funding immense US debts. That will keep upward pressure on global interest rates too, making it harder for the Reserve Bank to cut rates here. On the other hand, China may have kept fiscal stimulus plans in reserve for a Trump trade clash, from which Australia would gain.

Australia will watch closely how Trump treats wider US alliances in the Pacific.

The mutual harm of a trade war might pave the way to negotiating instead. Trump might be content to use the threat of tariffs to push for concessions from trade partners. And if tariffs were to be implemented, the heavy cost to US consumers and the damage to US exporters hit by retaliatory tariffs could see Congress itself water them down to more selective targeting. Australia could blunt some of the impact of any tariff changes by successfully negotiating reductions as it did for steel and aluminium exports during the first Trump administration.

Australia will watch closely how Trump treats wider US alliances in the Pacific, the so-called “lattice work” of partnerships built up by the Biden administration connecting Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India, and Australia.

Trump has a much more insular vision of American power, viewing long-term commitments to international alliances as liabilities the US could do without. Yet if he leaves a strategic vacuum by quitting the region then China, Russia and others would move fast to fill it. And it would not be long before even a more self-contained Trump America began feeling the pressure of an expanding China. Trump would find that turning his back on allies was a more costly transaction than he thought.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 November 2024:

Donald Trump’s policy agenda could precipitate a global financial crisis and fuel inflation, one of the world’s leading analysts has warned, with fears Australians will suffer higher interest rates and a $36 billion hit to the domestic economy.

As the Reserve Bank conceded the incoming US president’s debt-fuelled policies would put upward pressure on global interest rates, former bank board member Warwick McKibbin likened the impact of Trump’s plans on Australia to being in the middle of a line of fireworks as they exploded on New Year’s Eve.

Trump’s plans also pose enormous political problems for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Liberal leader Peter Dutton in the lead-up to next year’s election, with analysis suggesting even winning some concessions from the Trump administration would not prevent ongoing turmoil for Australia.

Interest rates globally have climbed since Trump’s victory over US Vice President Kamala Harris, fuelled by expectations his plans for tax cuts, tariffs and the deportation of millions of undocumented workers will increase the size of American government debt.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent US organisation, estimates the Trump agenda would increase debt by $US7.8 trillion ($12 trillion) by 2035, taking it to an unprecedented 143 per cent of GDP.

Following Wednesday’s election results, the Australian dollar – among many currencies – lost value against the US dollar as investors bet a further lift in American government debt would require higher interest rates.

More speculative investments such as cryptocurrencies also enjoyed a surge in support. The price of bitcoin lifted from $104,500 early on Wednesday to a record high of $116,000 in the 21 hours after Trump’s re-election became clear.

Giving evidence to a Senate hearing in Canberra, Reserve Bank assistant governor Christopher Kent said Trump’s policies such as tax cuts would probably mean higher US long-term interest rates and inflation, which would flow through to the global economy.

“Because the US is such an important source of funding, and the demand by the government for borrowing is substantial, that’ll have upward effects on global interest rates,” he said.

Kent said Trump’s protectionist tariff policies would slow growth around the world.....

McKibbin said Trump’s tariff plan, which includes imposts of 10 to 20 per cent on Australian goods and 60 per cent on those from China, would directly hit the local economy while undermining global trade.

But the broader elements of Trump’s agenda, especially possible interference in the setting of American interest rates, could deliver the world another financial crisis.

“It’s like standing on Sydney Harbour Bridge when they set off the fireworks – you don’t want to be on it. There are fuses everywhere and they are just going to ignite,” McKibbin said.

Nationwide News, 7 October 2024:

The Reserve Bank claims there could be an “adverse effect” on Australia if incoming US President Donald Trump were to impose tariffs of up to 60 per cent on China.

During senate estimates on Wednesday, RBA assistant governor Christopher Kent said it was a “big concern“ whether Mr Trump follows through on the levies of Chinese-made goods, but added the full-effect was still unclear.

The levies would be higher than the 7.5 to 25 per cent implemented during his first time.

They are considered part of a broader suite of measures to boost the US economy, which also includes broad tariff increases on all imports of up to 10 per cent, cutting taxes, slashing immigration, and deregulation.

“The big concern is large tariffs on China, which may have an adverse effect on us,” he said.

“So is it right to characterise the RBA position as of this morning as unclear in terms of what the United States election outcome means for inflation outlooks.”

Speaking more broadly, he said Mr Trump’s promised tariffs would likely ”push up” the US dollar and create less demand by the US for goods produced in other markets.

“But it means less demand by the US for global goods, so that’s sort of a negative for growth elsewhere,” he said.....

UPDATE

Trump with the bit between his teeth on 15 December 2022.....

DEVELOPING: 🚨 President-Elect Donald Trump Outlines Plan to “Shatter” Censorship Regime, Restore Free Speech 🚨

President-Elect Donald Trump has released a comprehensive strategy to dismantle what he calls the "left-wing censorship regime," promising swift action on his first… pic.twitter.com/fjwJViKabz

— MiddleMaga.com (@StucknDaMid) November 8, 2024

From Sept 2013 to March 2022 the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Coalition Government's Political Appointments to Federal Government Agencies were as High as 1 in 3

 

“Make no mistake, a returned Morrison Government will take victory as an endorsement of every corrupt and corrupting thing they have done, and they will double down.” [Writer, academic, author Tim Dunlop, “Death of a Salesman?” , 19 May 2022]

The Australia Institute, media release, 16 May 2022:

A new report from the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program represents the largest and most comprehensive domestic study of the practice of cronyism in relation to appointments to a government agency ever conducted in Australia.

This detailed deep dive report has investigated every single appointment made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) since 1996 – almost 1,000 appointments in total, and reveals that the proportion of political appointments to the AAT has skyrocketed from ~5-6% under the Howard, Rudd and Gillard Governments, to almost one in three appointments (32%) across the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Governments, and two in every five appointments (40%) under the current government alone.

Key Findings:

• The research analyses every single appointment (974 appointments in total) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and its precursors between 1996 and 2022.

• The share of political appointments to the AAT has skyrocketed from 6% under the Howard Government and 5% under the Rudd/Gillard Government to 32% under the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison term of government.

• Under John Howard political appointments were 6 in 100, current Government 2 in 5.

• Under the current Government, the share of political appointments has surged from 23% in 2013–2016 to 40% in 2019–2022.

• AAT Senior Members who are political appointments are much more likely to have no legal qualifications than Senior Members who are non-political appointments (26% vs 1%).

• Political appointees were more likely to be appointed on a full-time basis (47% of political appointees) than non-political appointees (22%).

• Most political appointees had served the party or parties that appointed them.

• 10% of political appointees had education levels below the level of a bachelor’s degree, compared with 2% of non-political appointees.

• Since 2016, the current Coalition Government has appointed seven Senior Members without legal qualifications, and all were political appointments.

• Of the 61 Senior Members appointed by the Coalition Government since 2013, 22 were political appointees.

• The report makes 10 recommendations for improving the AAT selection process.

“Across almost 1,000 appointments to the AAT since 1996, a worrying pattern emerges: appointments have become increasingly political under the current government,” said Ben Oquist, executive director of the Australia Institute.

“When John Howard was Prime Minister, only 6% of appointments to the AAT were political, but in the most recent term of the current Government 40% of appointments were political.

“These political appointments are much more likely to have no legal qualifications than non-political appointments, even though AAT decisions must consider facts, laws, and policy.

“The AAT is responsible for reviewing life-changing decisions by the federal government including deportations, migration visas, NDIS payments, welfare payments, workers’ compensation, and veterans’ entitlements.

“Members of the public should be able to trust that their case will be heard by a tribunal member who is qualified and not appointed for political reasons.

“A complete overhaul is needed to ensure that the AAT selection process is open and transparent, and not subject to political manipulation. This is now not only important for the AAT but is essential to fix integrity, accountability in government and protect democracy itself.”

Lead author of the report, Deb Wilkinson is an expert in the study of cronyism and is completing her doctorate at the Australian National University.

RELATED RESEARCH

Cronyism in appointments to the AAT

FULL REPORT

Besides political appointments, there are other ways of perverting the function of government agencies and influencing decisions/outcomes.

This was Morrison & Co's response to the Australian National Audit Office fulfilling its legislated brief.

ABC News, 19 February 2021:

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) runs the rule over the operations of government department and agencies, checking whether taxpayer funds are being used appropriately.

The profile of the agency has risen considerably in the last year after it uncovered the so-called "sports rorts" saga in early 2020 — revealing the Coalition disproportionately awarded community grants to sports clubs in marginal Liberal and National seats ahead of the 2019 election.

The ANAO also uncovered flaws with the purchase of a plot of land at the site of the new Western Sydney airport, called the "Leppington Triangle".

The Commonwealth paid close to $30 million for a 12-hectare parcel worth just $3 million, with Auditor-General Grant Hehir ultimately referring the land deal to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.….

The October 2020 budget showed a cut of $14 million to the ANAO's yearly funding, something the Auditor-General described as "uncomfortable".

Appearing before a parliamentary committee on Friday, Mr Hehir said his team would have to cut the number of major performance audits it undertook each year to deal with those constraints.

"Historically, for the last two decades, the ANAO has provided the Parliament with an average of 47 performance audit reports per year," he said in his opening statement…...

Two enormous authoritarian egos battle for control of Australia's fate

 

NSW Premier Dominic Francis Perrottet (left) and Australian Prime Minister Scott John Morrison (right). IMAGE: Crikey, 6 October 2021

It has been painfully obvious since he first gained a federal government ministry that the Liberal prime minister of almost 200 social media 'nicknames', Scott John Morrison, is firm in his belief that his own political and personal decisions have the blessing of his god.

It is also becoming apparent that, in his turn, the current Liberal premier of NSW, Dominic Francis Perrottet, is unshakeably convinced his way is always the right way for the state and for the country.

The belief of both these proudly Christian, rigidly authoritarian, xenophobic, chauvinistic men in the rightness of their 'leadership', means they wield power with little thought to the public good or the safety of their citizens.

No matter how parlous their respective budgetary bottom lines are or how close economic neoliberalism is to their hearts, in the midst of a global pandemic is not the time for ego-driven 'one-upmanship' by the 'Prime Minister of NSW'  and the 'Premier of Australia'. 

Communities and families right across the country will suffer if these two politicians won't cease pawing the ground, tossing heads, snorting and bellowing, in a foolish attempt to establish dominance & territory.

Financial Review, 15 October 2021:

A couple of weeks ago, without consulting the states, the Prime Minister announced he would be re-opening the international borders in states where the vaccination rate had hit 80 per cent.

“It’s time to give Australians their lives back,” Scott Morrison said, in what appeared for all intents and purposes to be a move designed to ensure he was the bloke getting the credit for opening things up, whatever states and territories might be doing, not to mention giving the whole opening up thing a good nudge along the way.

The fact he hadn’t mentioned it to the states – despite the significant ramifications it has for them as the ones responsible for trying to manage the spread of COVID-19 and the quarantine system (offloaded by the federal government) – meant the Prime Minister could hardly complain on Friday when the new NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet returned the favour by announcing his government would be removing both quarantine requirements and caps on overseas arrivals from November 1.

Perrottet didn’t mention it to any of the other states either of course, leaving the country in an apparently ludicrous shambles of restrictions: as many people have pointed out, of being able to travel from Sydney to Paris, but not Brisbane, Perth, Tasmania, the Northern Territory or even Canberra.

The last vestiges of the “national plan” – if there were any after Morrison’s move on international borders – have thus been smashed: that is, the stated idea that no one would open up until everyone had reached 80 per cent, regardless of individual states’ vaccination figures.

There’s so much to contemplate in this development: the humiliation – if the federal government was apt to feel such a thing – of a state government appearing to unilaterally end quarantine arrangements (the responsibility of the federal government) and overseas arrivals caps for starters

It looked for all the world as if the state government was running the joint. Perrottet the premier of Australia. Just as Scott Morrison has been dubbed the prime minister for NSW.

Before Perrottet’s announcement, we had heard nothing this week from the PM since Monday – when he emerged out of The Lodge to once again try to share in the joy of (and credit for) the end of lockdown in NSW……

Read the complete article by Laura Tingle here.

Echoes of Northern New South Wales' past and a timely reminder of its present potential to resist bad government policy

The Echo, on 7 October 2021, reminding the Northern Rivers region from Clarence Valley right up to Tweed on the New South Wales-Queensland border that our combined voices followed up with action are powerful:

Ian Cohen surfing the nose of
a nuclear armed warship
Photo: Robert Pearce

Following the Nuclear Disarmament Party’s close loss with front man Peter Garrett in 1984, nuclear issues were at the forefront of people’s minds. We extended our influence far beyond our Shire. The pending arrival of nuclear armed warships sent the local region into overdrive. Benny Zable from Nimbin rolled out his ‘radioactive’ barrels for street theatre. Dean Jefferys based in Brunswick Heads came with his ultralight, Hoss (Ian Hoskens) of Main Arm with his megaphone voice and me with my surfboard. 

September 1986 heralded the arrival of the largest assembly of international ships in Sydney Harbour’s history. Many were nuclear armed. 

Our north coast contingent was vital to the success of the protest actions. Driven by a reckless, but heartfelt, desire to impact on the nuclear arms race and send a direct message to US President Ronald Reagan and USSR’s Yuri Andropov. 

The mad concept of surfing the nose of a nuclear armed warship was mine, but Sydney Morning Herald photographer, Robert Pearce, from a media barge directly in front of myself and the warship, captured the image of a vulnerable surfer hanging onto the nose of a nuclear armed destroyer that went global.

Dean backed it up with a paint bomb delivered from his ultralight. It missed, (fortunately it was water based paint). He was more accurate several days later delivering a bouquet of flowers from the air into a missile silo as the HMS Illustrious departed. Dean landed himself in jail.

Channon local, Ian Gaillard, worked with the anti-nuclear vessel Pacific Peacemaker and crewed it on the long haul through the Pacific to confront the launch of the world’s largest nuclear submarine in Seattle. They travelled through the Pacific garnering local support along the way.

During the 1980s Jim Mitsos had moved to Byron and bought up most of what is now Suffolk Park. A Communist developer, creating real affordable housing he was also a tireless anti-nuclear campaigner promoting the concept of Nuclear Free Zone signs in Byron that spread to councils throughout NSW. He laid the groundwork of awareness for follow up actions. Perhaps we need those signs again?

Ian Cohen surfing the nose of a nuclear armed
warship. Photos Robert Pearce

In 1995 I was the first Green elected to NSW Parliament. With the efficient support of Byron’s future mayor, Jan Barham, I spent the first break organising an international contingent of politicians to be part of a flotilla of ships to descend on Papeete (Tahiti) and support islanders in their opposition to upcoming nuclear tests at Moruroa. We learnt much about the global phenomenon ‘Ships of Shame’ where seafarers are abused and exploited, the impossibility of chartering a flotilla, and decided to fly 30 Australian politicians over to Papeete.

Meetings under the palms with President Oscar Temaru, inspired, along with marches and forums in Papeete, the contingent of politicians including Richard Jones MLC, another Byron Shire local, who met with the French Ambassador to deliver thousands of petitions.

Greenpeace had other ideas for a small crew. A private boat was organised to transport an international selection of politicians to Moruroa 1,150km away. In my last interview before our departure I was informed that the French had announced a $150,000 fine and 12 months in jail for anyone entering the exclusion zone.

Halfway there an international news broadcast announced the French had detonated the first bomb in the series on Moruroa. The little boat continued on course, without deviation, as we sailed into the eye of the global nuclear storm. That was the last French nuclear test in the Pacific.

Times change, but some things regarding the nuclear industry and international political posturing remain the same.

Our PM, Scott Morrison, struts the world stage, vilifies China (some of it deserved), but in the process is locking in Australia’s subservience to US foreign policy while guaranteeing increased US troop access and US spy stations on Australian territory for the future. Add to this the crippling cost of procurement of nuclear powered subs and the possible return of Donald Trump to ‘guide’ our nation into the future.

This sabre rattling at an external enemy will allow Morrison some catch up in the polls while the ALP is wedged. The huge crime here is to make a decision without debate in the Federal Parliament. An external enemy worked for Thatcher (Falklands War). In Australia we had weapons of mass destruction touted in Iraq while George W Bush labelled Howard a ‘Man of Steel’ for sending our young soldiers to war.

Whilst recognising the repressive political leadership in Bejing, there is a better road to peace through diplomacy, and when necessary, trade sanctions.

In the depth of the Cold War nuclear capable warships, either conventional or nuclear powered, did not cruise the world’s oceans unarmed and race back to San Diego or Hawaii in an emergency to load. In the 1980s their mantra was; ‘We neither confirm or deny these ships have nuclear weapons on board’. Today, nuclear weapons have been removed from surface ships. They are still on nuclear submarines. Just what arsenal will Australia obediently accept when it hires or purchases US submarines?

In 1975 there were 6,191 US nuclear weapons afloat. Arms control agreements have reduced the number of weapons deployed at sea to 1,000 in 2015.

Morrison’s recent ‘All the way with USA’ is cementing increased US control over future Australian Foreign Policy. We do not benefit from this association. In fact, we as a nation are making ourselves a target.

As for their vulnerability in port, we need to look no further than 9/11 in New York, the US heartland.

Every journalist,political commentator, blogger & tweeter who has ever been critical of government - be afraid, be very afraid

The Mercury, 29 July 2019: 

Last week the rise of authoritarian government was confirmed with the Morrison Government, aided by the as usual spineless Labor Party, passing legislation which would allow the Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton to block any Australian from returning to this country for up to two years on the grounds they are associated with terrorism, even in the most tangential way. And as Crikey, a news site, revealed last week, the Morrison Government revealed its complete contempt for the rule of law and independent scrutiny of the power Mr Dutton now has vested in him. 

While the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act, to give the law its formal name, is designed to stop Australians who have fought in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere for organisations deemed to be terrorist, from returning to this country, one section in the Act appears so broadly drafted it could be used to prevent whistleblowers, journalists and others who reveal the secrets of the US, Australia and other allies in the so-called war on terror from re-entering Australia. 

Section 10 of the Act gives Mr Dutton the power to prevent a person, aged 14 or over, from coming back to Australia for up to two years at a time on a number of grounds. 

One of those grounds is that “the person has been assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to be directly or indirectly a risk to security … for reasons related to politically motivated violence.” This provision is extraordinarily broad. How might ASIO think that a person is “directly or indirectly a risk to security” because of some link to terrorism, which is what politically motivated violence means. 

Does it include a whistleblower who reveals US and Australian misconduct in the context of the ongoing military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq? 

Or what about a journalist and publisher who lets the world see cables, emails and other forms of communication to and from Australian security and defence agencies and which relate to terrorist activity? 

The answer is yes, it could apply in both cases. When whistleblowers, media organisations and journalists have published material such as in the case of WikiLeaks, the Iraq War Logs, or the trove of materials that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden smuggled out in 2013 such exercises have been labelled as irresponsible and assisting terrorism…... 

If ASIO answers yes, and of course its reasons for the assessment cannot be challenged because they are secret, then the loose wording of section 10 suggests that Mr Dutton would be prepared to issue an order preventing those individuals from entering Australia for up to two years. 

To give a minister such enormous power to interfere with the right to freedom of speech and free movement is indicative of a mindset that cares nothing for the rule of law or democracy. 

Even the parliamentary committee which looks at security legislation, and which is chaired by a Liberal MP Andrew Hastie and includes Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz, was ignored by the Morrison Government in this case. 

The committee in question, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, is a highly regarded bipartisan committee that routinely looks at security legislation and whose recommendations are adopted by government because of its expertise. 

Bernard Keane writing in Crikey last Thursday revealed that the committee had recommended that an independent person be given the role of considering banning returning citizens. 

But Mr Dutton justified ignoring the committee’s recommendation in what can only be described as an exercise in gross manipulation of the facts….. 

The Morrison Government would only accept the bipartisan committee’s recommendation if “it was in the national interest” to do so. 

In other words, Mr Dutton and the Morrison Government generally do not believe in a fundamental premise of the rule of law. It is anathema to democracy for ministers to have unbridled power when it comes to dealing with people’s lives. 

Another bad week for Australian democracy. [my yellow highlighting]