The Debt Ceiling is a pretty complicated problem.  Yeah, yeah – it probably doesn’t seem that complicated to you.  Most everyone thinks the debt ceiling is a simple problem with a simple solution.

Democrats think the solution is to raise the debt ceiling now and worry about the deficit later.  They will, by and large, acknowledge that the debt is a problem in the long term, but they will insist that, in the short term, the most important thing to do is to raise the debt ceiling and continue deficit spending to stimulate the weak economy.

Establishment Republicans think the solution is to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default and to simultaneously cut spending significantly.  They will, by and large, acknowledge that reducing government spending may have some negative impacts on economic growth, but will insist that the most important thing to do is get the deficit and by extension the debt under control.

The Tea Party think the solution is to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, claiming that such a scenario would still permit the US to pay entitlements but would force by necessity major cuts in discretionary spending.

The problem is not so much that there are three competing positions, but that each group thinks the other two are acting in bad faith.

To the Democrats, the Establishment Republicans are trying to increase their election opportunities by slowing economic growth until 2012 and are either wagging or being wagged by the extreme Tea Party wing that’s hell-bent on cutting off its nose to spite the financial health of the union.  And of course, it’s all because they hate Obama.  And they’re probably all racist too.

To the Establishment Republicans, the Democrats are trying to continue the same reckless spending in order to keep its constituent special interest groups happy, and are more concerned about re-election in 2012 than the long-term fiscal well-being of the country.  Obama’s just trying to get re-elected, is over his head when it comes to economic policy, and the entire lot of them just think the Republicans are a bunch of racist hicks.  Meanwhile, the Tea Party is overplaying its hand, trying to co-opt the entire party at the expense of actually getting helpful policy concessions.  Oh, and they actually are the racist hicks that the Democrats accuse the Establishment Republicans of being.

And of course, to the Tea Party, the Democrats and the Republicans are merely two sides of the same big-government coin, more interested in continuing spending and perpetuating their hold on power rather than actually rooting out the problem.  Both sides revere the same economists who failed to warn us about the subprime mortgage market, neither side respects the will of the people, and they’re all a bunch of Beltway-ingrained fat cats that think that the other 90% of the country is a bunch of racist hicks.

I think it would be helpful for the political process and the fiscal health of the nation if we all assumed that everyone was arguing and negotiating in good faith, rather than in bad.

As members of Congress discuss a tax on cosmetic surgery to pay for the healthcare bill, the blawgosphere covers the pressing question raised by Glenn Reynolds – whether this taxation of medical procedures could be extended to abortion.

Paul Caron suggests that a tax on abortion specifically (although not generally) would be seen as infringing on the constitutional rights of women:

In Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a Minnesota use tax on the cost of paper and ink products violated a newspaper’s First Amendment rights. Although the precise contours of this doctrine are much debated, a tax singling out the exercise of the constitutional right of abortion would likely face special scrutiny. But a general tax on elective cosmetic surgery that also reached elective abortions may be permissible under the Minneapolis Star doctrine.

Jonathan Adler agrees, citing Casey specifically, but suggests that there might be quite a few SCOTUS Justices who disagree with its standards:

Of course, this assumes that Casey would govern the case, but I think that is a fair assumption. While at least two, and perhaps as many as four, justices believe the “undue burden” test is too restrictive on states, Justice Kennedy was part of the Casey decision that established this test and has shown no indication he is willing to abandon it.

To the pro-life movement, a tax on abortion would be the ultimate “Sin Tax”, but this entire debate seems to me to only illuminate the problems with Roe v Wade. The decision in Roe was based on a constitutional right to privacy – and this suggests that abortion can no more be taxed than gay sex (ie: Lawrence v Texas). On the other hand, there’s no inherent reason why an abortion – a trivial medical procedure in the parlance of Pro-Choicers – is any more constitutionally guaranteed than a botox-injection, tummy-tuck, or tonsilectomy.

When Ross Douthat spoke at Yale last year, I asked him a pointed question on abortion, to which he responded that the problem with abortion in America is the Roe decision, because it puts abortion on a constitutionally-protected pedestal so that nothing can touch it.  Policies to limit abortions (say, to the first trimester, as is the law in some European countries) or discourage abortion (through taxation, counseling, or incentives) are perfectly legal in every other developed country in the world; only in the United States is abortion afforded special status as a fundamental right, and it is for that reason it is nearly impossible to implement policies to bring down abortion rates in America.

EDIT: Eugene Volokh extends this discussion to gun rights.