Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits extensions: A compromise

I'm a simple man with a simple dream. The dream that sees a full restoration of our American greatness on the world stage. To be the envy of the world. To inspire other great nations to be that shining city on a hill that lights the way to hope, freedom, and prosperity. It is due in part to this dream I've decided to dedicate my blog in coming up with solutions to the problems we Americans face. I don't know how they may stack up to those who hold the power in Washington, but it seems that the time has come for the people of this Country to take a more active role in shaping our great nation. Today's blog is about one thing: Compromise. It's about how compromise is a lost art in today's political environment. If we as a free society intend to survive and thrive as a world power we need to remember the art of the compromise.

I have two compromises in which I think both Republicans and Democrats could get on board with. The first deals with the extension of the Bush era Tax Cuts:

1) Tax Cuts Extension- My compromise would involve giving the top 2% the option of either having their taxes go back to the 39.6 % level they were under Clinton, or they could take 2.3% of their wealth(half of the 4.6% increase they could choose) and invest it in the free market system. I believe this would be a beneficial solution because it would give those rich people who think they aren't taxed enough the option of paying more. While it would also give those who think the opposite,including that the govt would waste the added revenue, the incentive of investing in the free market (which could potentially make them more money if they invest properly). If they choose to invest I believe this could help restore some confidence in our overall bleak economy. And if we incentivize them keeping their investment long-term, by lowering how much of it is taxed by how ever long it's kept in the free market, I believe we can get businesses to start hiring again. So you'd have more revenue coming in from those who think they're not taxed enough and you'd have a restoring of confidence in the free market from those who choose to invest instead. I think that would be a win win situation.

And the second deals with the jobless benefits that are to expire:

2) Today nearly 2 million Americans are about to lose their unemployment benefits. Washington doesn't seem to know what to do about it. On one side you have people like Nancy Pelosi who say they should be extended no matter the cost. Some would say that is an honorable position, how could anyone be opposed to that. Well then there is the Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats who say the extension needs to be paid for. I'd say that to is an honorable position when consider the dire shape we're in fiscally today. Here is my compromise. As a conservative it pains me to say this but for the time being it might be necessary to develop a new kind of entitlement, like unemployment checks. I call it underemployment checks. First let me just say this, one reason why people are still on unemployment is because the jobs available pay less than what unemployment does. Financially it doesn't make sense for a person, especially a person with a family,to take the job and lose money in the process. With rising prices and bills, ie grocery and utilities, it would be foolish. So the underemployment checks would come into existence for the purpose of making up the difference. For example,Let's say you make $400 a week on unemployment and you get a job offer for $300 a week. Well the underemployment check would cover the $100 difference. By doing this we'd be incentivizing people to take jobs they'd ordinarily wouldn't take. You know the sorta like the jobs we need illegals to work. Also it would reduce the unemployment rate and thus we'd save money. In the scenario I gave you above, we'd only be paying out $100 to that person instead of $400. I'd say that was progress. Of course there are those out there you aren't staying on unemployment for fiscal reasons. Instead they're lazy. Well how do we sort them out. Simple. The moment you approve these underemployment checks, in which the govt will make up the difference, you make a deadline for 1 year for which a person on unemployment can take the govt on this offer. After the year is over anyone who has been on unemployment for more than two years will no longer be eligible for this offer and will simultaneously be kicked off unemployment. Meaning if or when they do get a job the govt won't make up their difference like they will for those who got a job during that 1 year offer period. And the way this would work in the future would be that if you're fired you'll have 1 year to get a job and be able to have the govt make up the difference, if your unemployment goes past a year you'll have one more year to get a job before you lose unemployment entirely. I think this would be the fairest thing to do given our current economic situation.

What do you all think? Are either of these two compromises something Washington might want to consider? Or just simple ideas from a simple man? I'd like your input.

Until Next Time,
Chesswiz77 is out.