As part of the “Fiscal Cliff” negotiations,

The White House has said it wants tax rates on household income above $250,000 to rise, with the other rates holding pat. A full return to Clinton-era rates would have households paying a 36% rate on income earned between $250,000 and $388,000, compared with 33% today, and 39.6% rate on income above that level, up from 35%.

Now, much as I don’t want to see tax rates go up, let me put forward an idea (note this is in the Random Thoughts category) where Republicans could go bold on the issue, say they are willing to compromise with the president on hiking taxes on the “wealthy.”

They could first offer to compromise on the higher rate, say raising the highest rates to a rate half-way between the current rate and the president’s proposal.  But, given how Republicans would have to break with their base to do this, Speaker Boehner could ask for a significant concession from the White House in return, say, ending of federal funding for all public broadcasting, that is, requiring National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

It would be a bold move and put Democrats on the defensive.  Republicans would have be prepared to fight back quickly, wondering why, at a time of trillion-dollar deficits, we are subsidizing television and radio.  And remind Americans that many such stations survive in the private sector.

And to show that Republicans don’t want to destroy public broadcasting, Boehner, in announcing his plan, could pledge that as a private citizen, he will donate a few extra bucks to WCET, the Cincinnati PBS affiliate.

Just a thought.  And one which put the Democrats on defense.
—-
*federal funding of.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  V the K  offers an intriguing suggestion:  ”Make the tax increases expire unless the White House implements spending cuts.”

A Republican becomes the first first openly gay state representative in the KeyStone State:

State Rep. Mike Fleck (R-Huntingdon) publicly acknowledged Saturday that he is gay, making him the first openly gay lawmaker in Pa. and the only* currently sitting openly gay Republican state legislator in the entire country.

. . . .

“Coming out is hard enough, but doing it in the public eye is definitely something I never anticipated,” he said. “I’m still the exact same person and I’m still a Republican and, most importantly, I’m still a person of faith trying to live life as a servant of God and the public. The only difference now is that I will also be doing so as honestly as I know how.”

He said his party affiliation remains strong.

“The Republican party is all about the government needing to stay out of people’s lives,” Fleck said. “I’m not a one-issue person and it’s not a one-issue party.”

Well said, Representative Fleck. Wish more people understood this about gay Republicans. Our political calculus doesn’t revolve around our sexuality nor does the agenda of our party.

Folks at the Advocate would be wise to learn from this gay elected official — and to watch how his party receives him.

Or maybe it’s just (the appearance of) government by photo-op.

Athena explains:

The president’s inviting Mitt Romney for lunch is a small thing but a brilliant move. It makes Mr. Obama look big, gracious. It implies the weakened, battered former GOP nominee is the leader of the Republican Party—and if the other party has to have a leader, the weakened, battered one is the one you want.

Mr. Romney is not the leader of the party; he left no footprints in the sand. . . . .

To the extent the GOP has an elected face, it is that of Speaker John Boehner. And he is precisely the man with whom Mr. Obama should be having friendly lunches. In fact, the meal with Mitt just may be a clever attempt to obscure the fact that the president isn’t really meeting with those with whom he’s supposed to be thrashing out the fiscal cliff.

It’s Peggy.  Read the whole thing.

Obama Accuses House GOP of Holding Middle Class Tax Cuts ‘Hostage’

Instead of taunting his partisan adversaries from a campaign-style trip to Pennsylvania, the Democrat should instead sit down with them and try to hash out their differences without attempting to score political points.

In the weekly Republican remarks, U.S. Sen Orrin Hatch of Utah reminded Americans that Obama did campaign on the type of plan his team proposed to Congress earlier this week:

The President has said he wants a so-called balanced approach to solve this crisis.

But what he proposed this week was a classic bait and switch on the American people—a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese.

Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign. These ideas are so radical that they have already been rejected on a bipartisan basis by Congress.

UPDATE:  Commenting on Hatch’s remarks, Ed Morrissey disagrees with the Democrats’ defense of the president’s big-spending plan:  ”The problem with negotiating under those circumstances is that it’s clear Obama isn’t negotiating in good faith.  In fact, he’s not negotiating at all — he’s campaigning.“