There's a reason why nobody ever mistook Tucker Carlson for a “policy wonk,” even when he was still wearing the bow tie. Here he is making a fool of himself during a Washingtonpost.com online discussion:

Harrisburg, Pa.: I wish to please ask a question to Mr. Carlson (and Ms. Cox is free to also respond.). I saw you on MSNBC and I agree that a national health care system will increase government spending. Yet, how much would it increase costs to consumers? Are there national health insurance plans that could reduce costs to consumers, especially if, to be candid, government inefficiency can be found to be less costly that current health care administrative costs?

Tucker Carlson: With all respect, you've answered your own question: Increased government spending amouunts to an increased cost to consumers, since in the end consumers are the only source of government revenue.

Carlson doesn't seem to understand that “increased government spending” does not amount to “increased cost to consumers” if it replaces a larger amount of money that the consumers were already spending.

This really isn't all that complicated. Maybe the Post should consider replacing Carlson with someone who has some idea what he is talking about?