YUVAL LEVIN: The House bill to end the "doc fix" is misguided. "It draws precisely the wrong lesson... concluding in essence that, because the Medicare bureaucracy could not manage a crude price-control mechanism without rewarding volume over quality in counterproductive ways, that same bureaucracy should now be assigned to define quality, measure it, and reward it. The bill text brims with confidence in the capacity of central planning and public-interested management... The core insight underlying the conservative approach to Medicare reform in recent years points in precisely the opposite direction from this proposed payment system." National Review.

EZRA KLEIN: No, it isn't, and relying on the market to price medical care will never work. "Americans pay vastly higher prices than residents of any other country, they know almost nothing about the prices they pay, and the cost of particular treatments vary wildly for no discernible reason depending on who's paying and where the service is being delivered. American health-care pricing is an insane mess... What's important to understand about Levin's post is that it really isn't an argument for fixing Medicare pricing. It's an argument for not fixing Medicare pricing — because the more problems Medicare has, the more politically vulnerable it will become. ... There is a deep tension in conservatism right now between those who want to use Republican control of Congress to heighten the contradictions in America's social programs, hoping the resulting mess will create opportunities for conservative reform, and those who want to try to improve those programs." Vox.

O'BRIEN: Inequality isn't just the price of progress. "It isn't like inequality has been rising the past 30 years because of heroic entrepreneurs. It's been rising because of bankers and CEOs—that is, the financialization of the economy. It isn't easy to tell a story about why Wall Streeters making dynastic amounts of money building, peddling, and then betting against exotic bonds is good for everyone else. Or why CEOs giving themselves pay packages that reward themselves whether or not they succeed is an essential feature of capitalism that, though it may grate in the short-term, is worth it in the longer one. This is the inequality that people intuitively understand isn't about creating value, but extracting rents." The Washington Post.

LUCE: American government lacks American ingenuity. "If you believe history is yet to come, the United States is still the place to be. Only in America can you find people trying to make cars fly, abolish human mortality and nurture robots with feelings. Yet America’s politics is remarkable for its resistance to new ideas. The gap between Washington’s dearth of creativity and the ferment beyond is widening. ... If you want a job in a future US administration, you risk running a gauntlet from which you may never recover. The route to success is paved with caution. One stray remark, or risqué policy idea, can kill your prospects." The Financial Times.

HUNT: Tea party lawmakers are preparing to take a stand on the debt ceiling. "The idea that the right has been subdued is a mirage. ... Conversations with conservative congressional Republicans suggest they believe the first quarter of this session has been a big disappointment, a failure to begin to keep campaign commitments. Looking ahead, they vow a tougher line, already eyeing a fight over the debt ceiling this autumn, when conservatives argue they'll have more leverage. ... This worries senior Republicans close to the speaker. One committee chairman, echoing a view held by others, says the right-wing Republicans really want to shut down the government sometime this year, as a matter principle, even if it costs the party politically." Bloomberg View.

NYHAN: A divisive primary won't damage Republicans, and a quiet one wouldn't help Hillary Rodham Clinton. "In reality, winning a nomination fight elevates the stature of the victor, who quickly brings partisans into the fold (especially during conventions), offsetting any damage to party loyalty or unity that the primary might seem to have incurred. By the time of the general election, the state of the economy plays a dominant role in determining who wins and loses, not whether one party’s candidates were mean to one another at a time when relatively few people were paying attention. Moreover, while the winning candidate may have to spend more money or campaign harder to win in a divisive primary, he or she can also benefit from the organizational efforts required to win a tough primary fight." The New York Times.

SPROSS: Housing prices show the harms of an unequal economy. "Here's a striking figure: from 2012 to 2014, housing prices rose 13 times faster than wages. ... One of the responses you often hear to concerns about inequality is that the purely relative gap between the bottom and the top doesn't matter. The only thing that counts is the material well-being of the bottom in an absolute sense. In other words, it doesn't matter that the 'haves' own an increasingly large share of, well, everything because the 'have-nots' can afford refrigerators and modern plumbing. But what we're seeing in housing is that, when you have a pool of relatively rich buyers, and a pool of relatively poorer buyers, with a big gap in between and relatively few to fill it, then prices will chase the rich buyers. That will drive the costs up for everyone. So the relative gap itself affects the absolute material well-being of the bottom." The Week.

A new critique of Thomas Piketty based on housing prices still supports his basic argument. "The growing share of national income deriving from capital income has not been distributed equally across all sectors. The return on non-housing wealth, in fact, has been remarkably stable since 1970 (see chart). Instead, surging house prices are almost entirely responsible for growing returns on capital. ... Mr Piketty used the historical evidence in his book to argue that a global tax of up to 2% a year on individual wealth should be introduced in order to prevent capital concentrating in the hands of the few. But if housing wealth is the biggest source of rising wealth then a more focused approach is called for. Policy-makers should deal with the planning regulations and NIMBYism that inhibit housebuilding and which allow homeowners to capture super-normal returns on their investments. ... But a story in which a privileged elite uses its political power (albeit through the planning system) to create economic rents for the few fits Mr Piketty's argument to a tee." The Economist.

Quote of the day: "The presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families. It is an awesome and sacred trust to be earned and exercised on behalf of the American people." -- Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. John Wagner in The Washington Post.

What happened to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's plan for wind power? "Why the project stalled — and why New Jersey will almost certainly miss its goal of 1,100 megawatts of wind-generated electricity before 2021 — is the subject of intense debate here. Some blame the governor, whose enthusiasm for wind energy appeared to flag around the time he began exploring a run for the Republican presidential nomination. Political opponents say the turning point was a series of meetings in 2011 and 2012 with key Republican donors, including billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, oil-industry magnates who have bankrolled campaigns against renewable energy." Joby Warrick in The Washington Post.

The merely rich are being ignored in the invisible primary. "It’s the lament of the rich who are not quite rich enough for 2016. Bundlers who used to carry platinum status have been downgraded, forced to temporarily watch the money race from the sidelines. They’ve been eclipsed by the uber-wealthy, who can dash off a seven-figure check to a super PAC without blinking. Who needs a bundler when you have a billionaire? Many fundraisers, once treated like royalty because of their extensive donor networks, are left pining for their lost prestige. Can they still have impact in a world where Jeb Bush asks big donors to please not give more than $1 million to his super PAC right now? Will they ever be in the inner circle again?" Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger in The Washington Post.

In New Orleans, public schools responded to competition with more aggressive marketing, according to a new study. "The school-choice movement is built on the philosophy that competition forces schools to improve. ... Of the 30 schools examined in the study, leaders at just 10 — or one-third of the total — said they competed for students by trying to improve their academic programs or operations. Leaders at far more schools — 25 — said they competed by marketing their existing programs, including with signs, billboards, t-shirts, home visits and incentives for parents to refer potential students." Emma Brown in The Washington Post.