It seems that the pages of Daily Kos have been full of declarations of non-negotiable matters when it comes to resolving the "fiscal cliff" impasse. Meanwhile, over in red-land, they're doing exactly the same thing. The result is a deadlock. If we are to resolve this impasse, it might be a good idea to at least consider the elements of a deal we could find acceptable.
I agree that there are lots of hard lines to draw, things that we don't want to compromise on. But are we willing to compromise on anything? If so, are we willing to trade off?
I realize that Mr. Obama and the left have the upper hand here. Politically, the Republicans are paper tigers, demanding more than their political weight justifies. Mr. Obama can certainly wait them out, let the Bush tax cuts expire, and then push through a bill restoring those tax cuts for the middle class. So there's no need to give away the store. Still, we need to give something if we are to respect the democratic process that elected those Republicans.
We all agree that the budget must not be balanced on the backs of the poor. The Food Stamp program is definitely off the table, as is Medicaid. I'd like to propose some possible points on which we could yield without screwing the indigent.
1. First, can we agree to a straight one-for-one deal: every dollar of tax increases is matched with a dollar of spending cuts. That's about as even-handed as can be.
2. The biggest future budgetary problem is the explosive growth in anticipated Medicare costs. If we are ever to get the budget under control, we've got to restrain that growth. But with an aging population, that's going to be difficult. There's no question that some cuts must be made; if we don't make cuts, we will surely suffer a fiscal collapse at some point in the future. But how much of a spending cut are we willing to accept in Medicare?
3. Here's a hot one: How about phasing out the home mortgage deduction? After all, it works to the benefit of the middle class and to the detriment of the poor, who tend to rent rather than own.
4. Another explosive one: how about a carbon tax? It attacks climate change while raising revenue. I don't think that a carbon tax is net regressive, because the taxes on large coal-burning operations will be paying a hefty chunk of the tax.
5. What about this deal: every dollar of reduction in military spending is matched by a dollar cut from entitlements. This splits the political pain down the middle.
I must confess to some impatience will all the lines being drawn in the sand. That line-drawing doesn't solve problems. I have no illusions that the Republicans will negotiate in good faith; we've seen too much bad faith from them to fall for those tricks anymore. But if we want to crush them in 2014, we need to make some substantive offers that independents in the center will regard as fair-minded.