Other Concessions Democrats Could Make To Actually Get a Grand Bargain Compromise

1. Pass a law that states that ObamaCare is on hold and cannot be implemented unless passed again by Congress by March 2013.

Bear in mind that ObamaCare is unpopular; the public wants it repealed. Also bear in mind that it never actually even had true support from either the House or Senate. The House Democrats only voted for it after being whipped, being told it was this or nothing, and perhaps Obama's presidency would fail. (If only they knew...)

And it could not be fixed in the Senate except by resort to a bullshit reconciliation maneuver.

Plus, it costs a great deal of money.

Plus, not that this matters, but it's unconstitutional in the first place. The re-vote could include a change to the wording on the mandate, making it explicitly a tax, which should shore it up, at least as regards the Constitution.

So Obama could get a fresh stimulus if he agreed to a 18 month suspension, subject to re-vote, on a dreadful bill the public hates.

But of course he won't compromise on that.

2. An immediate moratorium on all EPA regulations, and all other regulations, frankly -- again, until say March of 2013. On this one, bear in mind Obama doesn't actually have legislative power to do any of this crap; instead, he's stretching or shredding the Constitution to claim he can do these things via executive directive, empowering unelected bureaucrats to pass laws that the Congress refuses to.

If the liberals want a stimulus (and honestly, I think a tax-cut stimulus would be useful), then they can begin pondering what they can actually give up.

The public doesn't support ObamaCare or the EPA's economy-wrecking unconstitutional overreach. There is no actual popular support for either.

So the Democrats could agree to a law that actually reflected public will -- and, in exchange, some money would be freed up, and some Republicans would be more willing to contemplate some deficit spending in order to boost the economy.

But they won't consider these things. While the media bleats "compromise," I have not heard any Democrat signal he'd be willing to give up anything of note to secure such compromise.

They demand Republicans give up on their highest-priority agenda items, while offering nothing at all in return.

Democrats could agree to the things I mention -- but won't.

Obama is again "taking his case to the people" -- that worked out so well last time. And he says he's no longer going to try to make deals with the Republicans, but instead simply campaign for 2012 in the hopes of securing a mandate.

Um, he's been campaigning for 2012 for six months anyway. I'm not sure he ever actually wasn't campaigning for 2012.

However, if this is his plan, why not offer up the moratoriums and re-votes I suggest, to take place in March (or whatever) 2013? Put it all on the line. If you want a mandate, go out and tell the public that you need a mandate to keep ObamaCare and the ban on domestic drilling and all the rest of it.

And in the meantime, use that offer of a moratorium to secure Republican votes for a stimulus package (which, I repeat, must be almost entirely tax-cut based).

Everyone wins. Obama puts it all on 2012, as is his campaign strategy anyway. The public gets what it wants on ObamaCare -- a re-vote, which will probably result in defeat.

Krugman gets his stimulus, though not in the spendy form he prefers, but tax cuts are stimulative too, in case he didn't notice.

Obama gets a jolt to the economy, which is the only thing that can save him.

The Republicans get policy concessions.

The economy might even improve, so that more people get jobs.

Everyone wins.

But of course the supposed Party of Compromise won't even consider these things.

posted by Ace at 02:43 PM

| Access Comments