Many of us have compared our politicians to stubborn children. That’s just it! Why don’t we look at these negotiations as a bunch of 3rd graders at the cafeteria table trading their lunches? The Republican 3rd graders want to trim down but Democrats want everyone in the class to bring more food from home to share. Here are two trade scenarios that I believe would appease both sides just before lunch time is over.

Trade Scenario 1:

Republicans get:
Spending cuts worth $2.4 trillion
Corporate tax reduction

Democrats get:
Debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion
Marginal tax rate increases

So here’s the deal, lets lower the corporate tax rate with modest increases to the tax base to offset revenue loss. This would increase economic activity for businesses and promote prosperity. Republicans have been complaining about our corporate tax rates,highest in the world, for a long time and many Democrats including Obama agree. This works for both sides. Republicans can say overall taxes weren’t raised and jobs will be added because corporations will be relieved. Democrats can say they also support job growth but will show their base that they did get those rich fat cats and jet owners to share in sacrifice.

Trade Scenario 2:

Republicans get:
Spending cuts worth $1.2 trillion
Balanced Budget Amendment

Democrats get:
Debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion
Tax loopholes closed

This one is very simple. Democrats get some tax loopholes and get a 2 to 1 dollar debt increase to spending cut ratio. That would make liberals giddy because entitlements would not be touched. The Republicans aren’t crying foul though. They get a new amendment (which most of Americans want) that would otherwise be impossible to get plus NO NEW TAXES!

My 3rd grade self would be proud…

Comments

  • Johnathan Quiggles

    This is a great metaphor for the stupid partisan bickering dragging down this country. You are great Daniel! Keep up the good work

  • Daniel Bassali
  • Alaina

    Actually, I don’t think we are losing… if we pass the bill in the House, the Dems will vote it down in the Senate making them look bad. Even if the Senate passes it, Obama has vowed to veto it, which would make him look bad.

    Either way, the Republicans will have put up a plan and the Dems will be forced to reject it and provide an alternative (which they haven’t) or go along with it (which I doubt they will).

    • Brian H

      The GOP will simply be accused of having wasted their time to pursue a political agenda that the Dems have already told them they would reject. They will portray the GOPers as being ideologues who are hell-bent on pushing their own agenda at the expense of the American people.

      Not going to end good for the GOP.

    • Daniel Bassali

      I would agree with Alaina. The Republicans are putting up a plan that pleases both the mainstream GOP and the Tea Party (who are so hard to please). It will not pass the Senate but I believe it does set the tone and show Democrats what the Republicans expect for a deal to be made. It also puts the pressure on the Democrats now to come up with a solution since they rejected the other one. I certainly like this a whole lot more than the plan going through the Senate now.

  • Brian H

    The Republicans, if not careful, are going to allow the Tea-Party to drive them off the cliff on this issue. What the GOP has to do to fix this problem is to win elections, not position themselves to take the blame for economic collapse or a govt. shut-down.

    This is not going well for the GOP.

    Gregg Maddox was one of the greatest pitchers in the history of baseball because he was so smart he knew how he would approach a batter in each at bat in each game. He would set up his opponents throughout the year. He understood that the game was nine innings, not one.

    • Troy La Mana

      The Tea Party is going to drive the Establishment Republicans off the cliff because they no longer care about the citizens.

      • Brian H

        The establishment Republicans, or any Republicans, can’t implement policies because they have lost elections that have sacrificed our government into the hands of Democrats. They are forced to deal, and make “deals”, with the Democrat controlled Senate and Executive branch.

        My frustration with the so called “Tea Party” increases with every day and every election, as their political naivete and willingness to lose elections, and lose needed political offices seems to be a badge of courage with these people.

        • dw

          Brian, if the GOP wants to get any of the Tea Party to vote for their candidates, the GOP needs to get a backbone and stop acting like Democrat Lite.

          Cain, Bachmann and Ron Paul are exactly what the GOP needs right now. Serious candidates who don’t buy into the party fluff, and have the guts to speak their minds and have their own opinions.

          What frustrates me more are people who insist on voting for the GOP just to get the GOP in power. Whatever happened to voting for the person who best represented you? This is a republic, after all…

          • Brian H

            If Cain, Bachmann, and Paul are “exactly what the GOP needs right now” than we can expect the GOP to continue to become a political party that is marginalized and further removed from making policy decisions for our country.

            The above mentioned candidates are literal embarrassments to the Republican Party. Republicans having to constantly defend, make excuses, and shield themselves from the rhetoric of the above mentioned three is becoming a national pastime. Conservative intellectuals like William Kristol, Buckley, Will, Krauthammer, and Reagan have been replaced by bumbling bomb throwers whose constant need for attention is more important than their desire to engage in policy outcomes that actually have a chance of surviving the current political realities in Washington.

            • Stephen Meehan

              Brian, I couldn’t agree more. Sure, as a moderate liberal … I like the idea of winning a lot more elections. However, as an American, I’m interested in what’s best for our country, and I think incendiaries like many of the “Tea Party Candidates” taking leadership in the GOP is bad for that.

              • Brian H

                No offense to you, Stephen, but, it is a sad day when I agree more with a self described “moderate liberal” than with a huge caucus of my own party. I agree with the outcomes desired by the Tea-Party but I differ on the road to achieve those outcomes. They think they are in a position to dictate outcomes before achieving the needed offices to enact the outcomes. They think electing bomb-throwing candidates who will undoubtedly lose a general election is beneficial to their cause, or, they lack the understanding to not recognize that the Bachmanns, Cains, and Pauls of the political world WONT WIN!

              • Alaina

                What’s the point in my voting for someone if they aren’t going to subscribe to my ideals? What’s the difference between voting for a Republican with a moderate record and a Democrat with a moderate record? None that I can tell.

                I’m not a Tea Party person. I don’t have any issues with the purpose of the Tea Party as a political movement. I think it’s been great in many ways, but I am not a Tea Party person.

                I like Cain, not because he is supported by the Tea Party, but because (at this point), I believe he has the best plan to get this country back on track. I do not care one tiny ounce that he hasn’t had political experience. I know you say that running a company and running a government are different skills, but I completely disagree. Of course they aren’t 100% the same, but they’re vary close.

                Yes, the challenge is getting elected and that is a very different skill set. I am absolutely not going to vote for someone in the primaries based on their campaign ability. I am going to vote for the person who I think would do the best job and hope that everyone else going to the voting booth would do the same in the primaries. Otherwise, we’re just going to be stuck in the cycle that got us here in the first place, which included 6 years of Republicans controlling the WH, House and Senate…

  • Liz

    A balanced budget amendment is meaningless when you have an administration anxious to tax us to death anytime they want to spend. Which is all the time.

    I want CUTS, CUTS, CUTS unadulterated by anything else/

    • Alaina

      That’s why they should limit spending as a percentage of GDP… then they are forced to cut rather than have the option of raising taxes.

  • Troy La Mana

    How about we just cut spending across the board like Cain wants and no debt ceiling change?

    • Daniel Bassali

      Troy, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Cain. These suggested spending cuts are over the next ten years. To immediately cut spending would send a shock through our financial markets and is unfair for the entitlement beneficiaries who planned their retirements around the guarantee that the American government gave them.

      Also, this plan would most likely end up in default only further worsening the situation. The debt ceiling needs to be raised because our debts are already higher than 15 trillion so no matter how much we cut, it will not be enough.

      I admire Cain’s pure policy but I do not think that idea is practical, much like many of Cains’ ideas.

      • Alaina

        Not necessarily. Our government pays for a heck of a lot more than just Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and military benefits. We pay for thousands of progams. Those don’t need to be touched… for the time being…

        Cain suggested we go through each program and see what we can cut. Why don’t we do that? That’s what any individual or business would do if they were looking to cut spending. So why shouldn’t our government? I have no doubt that we could find that money and more.

        • Daniel Bassali

          I am not arguing with that. I am saying that to really tackle the problem we need to address the about 80% of our spending that is spent on entitlements and defense. We will not be able to cut enough immediately to avoid default without a debt limit increase; I thoroughly believe that.

          • Alaina

            Agreed. Even if we made a decision today on entitlements, it would be near impossible (and reckless) to implement it in the next two weeks… it’s got to be a multi-year effort.

            That said, there’s a lot of wasteful spending that could be cut to get us where we need to be by August 2nd.

    • Brian H

      Again. That is a beautiful scenario, however, “we” lack the political power in the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch of government to bring it about.

      So. Plan B. Anyone know the Texas Lotto numbers for this week?

      If “we” only picked the right numbers our problems would be solved.

      Back to reality, now.

  • Stephen Meehan

    Calling the “Debt ceiling increase by $2.4 trillion” a Democrat get is a joke. This is just something taht needs to be done in order to pay for things we’ve already purchased, it’s not something the Democrats are pining for as part of their policy position.
    The taxes and spending cuts are about changes moving forward. A balanced budget ammendment is impossible, and not really desirable. So how about Republicans get $2.4 trillion dollar cuts and corporate tax reduction. Democrats get loopholes closed and tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.

    • Daniel Bassali

      Stephen, what you suggested is exactly what my first trade scenario contained.

      Now I understand that the debt ceiling is not neccessarily for Democrats but the fact is that the Republican party is much more comfortable with no deal than the Democrats. Also, it is the Democrats who are asking for this raise after they increased the national deficit by trillions over the past few years. Lastly, the number 2.4 trillion was conjured up by Obama. For all those reasons I include this on the “Democrats get” side.

      Even if you were to take this phrase out, both sides recognize we need significant spending cuts. You have to admit both of these deals would be fair and that both parties could go back to their bases with something. That is all I am trying to say. I never once said these deals would happen, be easy or even be possible. However, i would like to know why you think a Balenced Budget Ammendment is impossible if the conditions are right and both sides agree to it.

    • Alaina

      Why isn’t a balanced budget ammendment desirable? I’m with you that I don’t agree with the proposal on the table that revenue has to = expenses because Congress can keep increasing spending and increase taxes right along with it. However, I really like the idea of limiting the budget to a certain percentage of the GDP. What’s wrong with that?

      When you (and others) tax increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, do you realize that includes many small businesses? Is that not counter-intuitive to creating jobs?

      • Stephen Meehan

        The reason I don’t want a balanced budget ammendment is that during the most difficult times (recessions, high unemployment) saftey net spending will necessarily increase, e.g. we spend more on medicaid, welfare and unemployment because more people are poor and unemployed.
        A balanced budget ammendment would force the government to make cuts at exactly the time it shouldn’t make cuts — so the poor are most likely to be harmed.
        I don’t like your % of GDP idea even more, because if GDP is declining (or growing very slowly), not only will spending need to increase, but the spending cap will be racheting down — again, at the worst possible time.

        • Alaina

          It would force the government to makes cuts, but it’s up to them what they cut. We can all look at our budgets and find areas of wasteful spending. A balanced budget ammendment (more so the % of GDP) will force Congress to take a hard look at the budget to identify the waste. If you look at it on a program by program basis, you don’t have to cut the most important programs. Plus, it will force a lot of programs to become more efficient.

          • Brian H

            Alaina. That may be true. However, there will be no balanced budget amendment until, or unless, the Republicans can EVER reclaim the House, Senate, and Presidency. If a BBA is what you truly desire than please join me in electing serious minded candidates and making serious minded compromises that are actually achievable.