The world standard for measuring educational achievement is the OECD’s PISA scores which reveal that Sweden does worse than world leaders like Finland, the Netherlands, and South Korea but better than the United States:

Nordic countries are often said to be highly homogeneous, which is true of Finland, but Sweden has more immigrants than the United States though of course much less poverty and inequality.

The most noteworthy aspect of Swedish education is a fairly robust school choice system. This is often described in the Anglophone press as involving “vouchers” in that any Swedish parent is entitled to take his or her children out of the state-run schools and put into another school, with the new school assigned the same level of per-pupil funding as a municipal school would have gotten. But these schools are more like what we call “charter schools”—they can’t have exclusive admissions policies and they can’t charge tuition above the value of the per pupil allotment.

The big difference is that many Swedish charters are run by for-profit firms. We’ve had some experiments with that in the U.S. and it hasn’t worked very well. Nobody’s really found a great way of making consistent profits running K-12 schools in America.

It’s not really clear to me, however, if Swedish schools are actually performing at a higher level than ours. If our child poverty level were where Sweden’s is, our kids’ test scores would be way higher. By contrast, in the Netherlands the child poverty rate is much higher than in Sweden—though of course much lower than in the United States—and the test scores are substantially better.

Writing for CAP, Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden say that achieved a balanced budget by 2014 solely through higher taxes “is not a likely or necessarily desirable policy.” Still, as they say it’s certainly a feasible policy:

Much is said about the economic effect of tax increases, but it is worth noting that there is little risk of the United States becoming economically disadvantaged relative to other advanced economic nations by raising its aggregate tax levels. We have the fifth lowest taxes as a share of GDP among economically developed nations (counting all federal, state, and local taxes). If we raised taxes in aggregate to a level that would safely balance the budget, the United States would still be in the bottom 10 out of 30.

Obviously that’s not a politically kosher solution. But on the merits I think the case for doing this almost entirely through tax side measures is pretty strong. Higher taxes on the scale under consideration would simply leave the United States with the kind of tax levels found in Australia and Canada, exactly the kind of countries you would expect to be similar to America.

The larger issue is that no matter what happens in 2014 as long as the US is committed to providing health care to senior citizens and the cost of health care grows faster than GDP, over the long run taxes as a percent of GDP will need to consistently rise. And as far as I can tell Republicans aren’t prepared to break that commitment to providing health care to senior citizens and Democrats aren’t prepared to back continually higher taxes. Across some margin of time you can fudge this by messing with defense and domestic discretionary spending but ultimately the choice will have to be made.