Tax rates vs raising Medicare eligibility

[GenuineRisk]

From Krugman's blog:

Just a thought: if you follow the pundit discussion of matters fiscal, you get the definite impression that some kinds of deficit reduction are considered “serious”, while others are not. In particular, the Obama administration’s call for higher revenue through increased taxes on high incomes — which actually goes considerably beyond just letting the Bush tax cuts for the top end expire — gets treated with an unmistakable sneer in much political discussion, as if it were a trivial thing, more about staking out a populist position than it is about getting real on red ink.
_
On the other hand, the idea of raising the age of Medicare eligibility gets very respectful treatment — now that’s serious.
_
So I thought I’d look at the dollars and cents — and even I am somewhat shocked. Those tax hikes would raise $1.6 trillion over the next decade; according to the CBO, raising the Medicare age would save $113 billion in federal funds over the next decade.
_
So, the non-serious proposal would reduce the deficit 14 times as much as the serious proposal.
_
I guess we have to understand the definition of serious: a proposal is only serious if it punishes the poor and the middle class.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...icit-proposal/

I guess it makes sense that the TV pundits would have motivation for criticizing raising top rates on income, as they are some of the people likely to be affected by it, as opposed to the much larger number of the population who would be affected by an increase in Medicare's eligibility age, but who don't have well-paying gigs to talk on the teevee.