Further Signs of Decay at 'The Washington Post'

[babylonsister]

Further Signs of Decay at 'The Washington Post'


Ben Nelson isn't the only one attacking the House Democratic plan to pay for expanded health insurance in part by taxing the rich. The Washington Post today editorializes, "there is no case to be made for the House Democratic majority's proposal to fund health-care legislation through an ad hoc income tax surcharge for top-earning households."

No case? Wow. I think the case is straightforward--we need revenue to fund a dire social need, this revenue would come from those most able to bear a higher burden, would probably entail minimal economic harm, and also happens to be political popular. The Post's argument against boils down to its assertion that we shouldn't be "tapping a revenue source that would surely need to be tapped if and when Congress and the Obama administration get serious about the long-term federal deficit."

So the Post is arguing that the House is depriving itself of the (politically easiest?) source of revenue for future deficit reduction. If this argument is true, I don't see how it comes anywhere close to backing up the thesis that there's "no case" for taxing the rich to pay for health care. Nor do I even think it's true. You could, as the Post prefers, pay for health reform now with a middle-class tax hike, and pay for deficit reduction later with a tax hike on the rich. But it seems just as easy, if not easier, to do it the other way around. After all, very few Republicans support meaningful health care reform, so if you're not going to get their votes, you might as well pay for it the way you want. (Republicans in the House are going to oppose health care reform regardless of how it's paid for.)

more...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/07/15/further-signs-of-decay.aspx