Most of the problem in Washington's ongoing gridlock is that both Democrats and Republicans are too hell bent on putting solutions before the problem. Republicans are too fixed on avoiding any tax increases, and Democrats are too fixed on protecting entitlements. Yet, lowering taxes is not the only way that government can make America more attractive and profitable for businesses, and, entitlements are not the only way that Americans have the sort of services that entitlements claim to offer. With the entire world seemingly lining up to participate in either the left wing juggernaught, or the right wing one, we feel that it might be useful to take a step back and examine some possible deals that will lead to balanced budget and a better economy.
Essentially, the parties would agree to gut Obamacare, put a cap on Medicare, let everyone enroll in it, drop all private carrier coverage mandates, and limit malpractice awards against doctors. This baseline Medicare would cover all of the things that presently drain the coffers of private insurers - specifically, chronic or long term illnesses, checkups, exams, and all of those things keep insurance from being the catastrophic event financial tool that it was originally designed to be. The government would obviously ration health care in this regime, but, people who have money could still buy better insurance above the baseline. This offers some advantages to both parties. First, progressives get the single payer health care they really want, although they do have to have caps, like every other European country does. Similarly, conservatives get caps on the never ending expansion of entitlements, and, as a consequence, a stable tax rate as a percentage of GDP. A nice bonus is a more elastic labor market. Corporations could exit the health business of their employees and focus more exclusively on value. Finally, insurers would wind up making more money, because they could focus on the risk business, and leave the messy stuff to the Feds.
Rush Limbaugh has said, many times, that the surest way to limit a behavior is to tax it. On this point, many economists agree with him. Lawsuits and damage awards are an ongoing agony for businesses both large and small. Repubicans could offer a tax increase on lawsuits, as a revenue enhancer, or Democrats might offer a system of caps on various sorts of damage awards to offset the price of a tax increase with the very real bone of lowered risk for entrepreneurs.
Democrats want anyone to come to America, and honestly, Republicans say they are against immigration, but their businesses seem to have no problem hiring them. Fine, throw the Tea Partiers a bone and tax workers without proper paperwork. This would simultaneously discourage the hire of these guests while bringing revenues to the federal coffers.
Billions of barrels of oil sit locked inside lands that the Democrats have fought tooth and nail to avoid extraction from for years. They may not like the idea of Exxon drilling for oil in Alaska or on the coasts, but what about a Federal Oil Company? If Democrats think a timed release of a few million barrels of oil might bring stability to the markets, what about giving the Feds a real tool to bring stability to energy markets, and that is its own supply. Instead of dumping a few days production, it might hoard and dump months, and that effect, or the effect of that on the market, could do a lot to curb the kind of speculation that most people feel is rampant. Republicans would at least, with their oil interests, get plenty of subcontracting work, and at least a means of getting the government some money without having to resort to taxes. With the gov't acting to bring some price stability to American energy markets, businesses would gain a better handle on risk and this would encourage investment overall, and boost the economy.
Democrats are looking for public works projects. Business owners, and the GOP that represents them, on the other hand, are looking for price stability, and quantifiable risk. Why not construct a large number of solar, geothermal, and nuclear power plants, and offer long term supply contracts from them to manufacturers looking to locate in the USA? Democrats get public works programs, building all of these plants, and the private sector gets a locked in price around which the can understand their risks and thus be encouraged to invest. By carefully siting these plants, government could help bolster states and cities hard hit by manufacturing and IT industry job losses.
Republicans don't care for most government spending, but they are human, and they want jobs in their states too. Despite the budget crunch, the Texas, Alabama, and Florida delegations had no problem protesting President Obama's cancellation of NASA's Constellation program. Democrats looking for votes on a budget deal might be able to bribe a few senators with loads of booster contracts, capsule contracts, and more. According to noted space expert Robert Zubrin, building a mission to Mars might take only a few additional billion dollars per year of NASA funding. Sure, it will cost more than they say, won't quite be as cool as equally envisioned, but, nothing would tell the world that team USA still has got some game left, when Americans are walking on Mars, whistling.. "oh, I don't see any Chinese spaceships here!"