Greg Mankiw attempts to invoke Ronald Reagan’s name to counter the implicit Tax hike coming from a universal health care plan; the Reality being no one can establish a huge program without higher taxation somewhere. There remains some doubt to the great conservative ideation that higher marginal tax rates cause Taxpayers to work less. There is even further suggestion that any inhibition of effort by the higher taxation would induce more labor assets to enter into replacement effort, because of the economic advantage presented; Labor always filling unwedded opportunity. There stands even some indication that Business organizations utilize the unpaid added Wages to finance Training Costs, with consequent easier replacement of labor. I do not doubt Greg’s numbers, but I also have great doubts of the real economic losses entailed from such higher taxation. Greg also has a bias against forced extension of health insurance, though there is even greater doubt that Insurance companies could inflict the higher premiums in the face of individual ability to delay purchase of health insurance. Greg does encapsulate the entirety of the Insurance company argument for leaving the decayed health insurance coverage as it is, though this will force a huge debt upon States, as they must fulfil Medicaid requirements.
You can find efforts to curtail the Deficit, which are basically stymied by partisan politics. The idea of a Commission is futile, especially if one has to gain final acceptance of Congress to achieve implementation of any program. I have a more radical solution: a simple Constitutional amendment insisting that every Tax and Tax benefit must be repassed every 5 years or Sunset. Congress would have to radically reform their processes, and the effectiveness of the Tax alignment must be continually examined. Tax rates would assume the necessary proportion with much less Tax advantage for privileged interests. The long-term privileges of Special Interests must be focused on maintaining a beneficial Tax rate, and would not think to invest in devious designs in other arenas than Taxation. A similar amendment which would limit Government funding to an equal Time frame would insist that all Government expenditures would be adequately supervised. A combined Constitutional amendment including both elements, plus a Statement that previous receipt of federal support does not guarantee future federal support (that federal programs cannot be considered as a Property right), would bring honest evaluation of Government needs.
Here is one of my own personal flipfops, as I do not like to witness greater Congressional power over the Fed and central banking, though I would really like to see much of the Fed bureaucracy replaced. I, like the Congress, feel that the Fed is mal-directed; I simply do not believe that any attempt to politicize the process of Fed selection would be in any way beneficial. The decision becomes: Which is worse? I cannot really tell the Reader, as I dislike either choice, and would advise keeping the Devil which We know; though God knows Why! I differ from Economists in believing that the current Overnight rate should be around 7% currently, which would gratify member banks and loosen Credit; Congress would be outraged, though, as they would have to come up with a program to balance the Budget. Business has already shaken out, and the higher Cost of Credit would not affect GDP that greatly, though all Retail prices would naturally rise; it is a fact that the national debt is driving Us all into bankruptcy, and the higher Overnight rates would force the correct budget measures. The Reader will never see it, but it is the correct Choice. lgl