Like Leonhardt, Lowrey concedes that the do-nothing approach is not ideal. “For one, health care spending would comprise an enormous portion of overall spending,” she writes. “Right now, the United States spends about $1 in every $6 on health care. In a decade or two, based on the do-nothing plan, it would spend $1 in every $5, then $1 in every $4, and not get better health outcomes, either. Those dollars would be better spent in other industries or on other priorities. Moreover, under the do-nothing plan, the government would tax a much bigger share of GDP than it currently does, and the tax burden on the middle-class would be uncomfortably high.” That’s probably going to be a problem.
But the benefits of the non-plan do include not having to sell Alaska, end Social Security, or ship the poor to Canada.
A nice rhetorical trope, but I’m not sure we’ll hear it from this afternoon’s rhetorician.
That's great advice. Sounds like California took it a few years ago. How's it working out for them?
Idiots.
#1 Posted by Steve, CJR on Mon 18 Apr 2011 at 02:03 AM
I for one would welcome the selling off of Alaska, which consumes far more of my tax dollars than it pays in, along with other tax piggies like Mississippi and New Mexico. Selling off Alaska would do a lot to cure the deficit problem, right there.
Which leads to the next question: Mississippi has the very worst schools in America, Alaska's school are far below average, yet they suck up all these tax dollars that the rest of us contribute (California only gets back 75 cents for every dollar of federal taxes they pay.) What the hell are these tax piggies DOING with all those tax dollars?
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 18 Apr 2011 at 11:42 AM