universal healthcare

[Jester]

The House passed a spending bill, one among others, but not a commensurate revenue generating bill that pays for it. What matters is scope and scale here.

Yes, it does. Specifically, this bill, gigantic though it may be to mere mortals, is small change compared with existing health care obligations, with the defense budget (both ongoing and exceptional for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars), social security, or any one of the other extremely expensive things the government is involved in.

So, while this bill increases the scope of health care quite substantially, it is only a moderate increase in scale.

THis is sorta like GW Bush and his majority funding a war on a credit card: unfunded mandate, to be paid for by some nebulous future revenue.

Well, not entirely. The bill does contain some measures for increasing revenue, such as the excise tax on "cadillac" health care plans. I sincerely doubt that is a wise way to generate revenue, but it's in there.

Plus, on the cost of going to war "on a credit card" (twice!), this bill could have been funded from here until your grandchildren's grandchildren have grandchildren. Scale and scope, as you say.

On top of the largess of Bush's not paying for that war, but deferring that payment to a future revenue stream, we have now added something else, a certain special something that becomes an entitlement, also unfunded in the out years.

Jester, that last sentence I ask you to pay particular attention to, as you proclaim to be a student of economics.

Duly noted. I hope I have been consistent: I believe in higher taxes to fund the programs I advocate. If those taxes are not forthcoming, and no other cuts can be made to make up the shortfall, then there's only one answer left, which is the answer to your next question...

What Freakin' Free Lunch are these people counting on?

Inflation. If they don't have the wisdom to keep growing health care costs down, nor the testicles to raise taxes to balance the budget, then inflation is the last remaining option.

(Afterthought: Economic growth, as well, of course. Today's economy is small compared with tomorrow's, in all likelihood, and revenue should increase accordingly. But, that's not a "free" lunch in any sense, and the economy is unlikely to grow so large that these costs become trivial.)

My grandkids are broke, and not even born yet.

Probably a touch dramatic, no? The US is not in a pretty situation, but it is still an enviably rich country. Moderate cuts combined with moderate tax increases could set the fiscal balance straight again, without moving the US tax rate outside of the normal OECD range.

However, in defence of Mr. Obama, and against Mr. Bush, if Bush had pursued a policy of fiscal responsibility during the good times, he would have left the country in much better shape. If Obama started cutting programs and raising taxes today, with unemployment barely below 10%, he'd trigger another economic crisis. The correct time to attack these problems has passed, and will come again soon, but it's not right now.

-Jester