The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is arguing that repealing the tax cuts would be good for the economy.

Bush & Co. like to claim that the tax cuts are magic, and that failing to extend them will be a disaster for the economy. They're wrong, and it's great that CBPP is pointing this out.

But this new paper seems to suggest that the repealed tax cuts should be devoted entirely to deficit reduction because reducing the long-term budget imbalance would be good for "the economy." But what if we repealed the tax cuts not only to reduce the long-term imbalance, but to pay for new programs that counteracted the trend toward greater inequality?

I mean, who would a more sound "economy" be good for? Growth these days doesn't seem to be too evenly distributed, as CBPP has documented so well. Any marginal increase in economic growth due to the repealed tax cuts would probably go to the same people that have done well the last 30 years- the top 10 percent of earners, particularly the top 1 percent.

One final thought- the subtext here is that increased revenues are somehow the solution to the long-term budget imbalance. More revenues may be necessary- but what matters more is what they're paying for. The cause of the long-term budget problem is our overpriced and inhumane health care system. What we need to pay for is a fundamental restructuring of the health care system that addresses long-term costs.

Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe has a good post on health care costs.

His most topical point is that the Bush health care tax package, which is ostensibly intended to reduce health care costs through financial incentives for health care consumers, is hopelessly misguided and beyond repair. Most health care spending occurs among a small minority of spenders who receive very expensive, intensive care that they likely see as not being optional. Incentives one way or the other probably won't make much of a difference.

And people getting expensive treatment probably don't have time to shop around for the best deal. We're most likely dealing with sick, frightened people who don't have much time to spare. And would they recognize a deal when they saw one? Probably only a highly trained physician would- what non physicians know enough about health care to make that call? So giving health care consumers the incentive to shop around will probably not increase competition among health care providers. No savings there, either.

Increasing deductibles would most likely not impact the cost of the treatment that very sick people get. Informed, streamlined management of the health care delivery system that puts the patient before profits might, though. After all, it's worked in every other industrialized country- all of which don't really have long-term health care spending problems like we do.