"A tax that places significantly different burdens on taxpayers in similar economic circumstances is not fair. For example, if two similar families have the same income, they should ordinarily pay roughly the same amount of income tax, regardless of the sources or uses of that income."

- Tax Reform report of the Treasury Department to President Ronald Reagan, November 1984

As Washington grapples with the budget, it might be worth asking a simple question: What would Ronald Reagan do?

He was the last president to preside over a significant tax reform, one that did exactly what both candidates in this year's presidential election said they want to do: lower tax rates and close loopholes.

And a critical part of that reform was to end the historical system of taxing capital gains at lower rates than ordinary income.

In the name of fairness, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 raised the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent from 20 percent at the same time it reduced the maximum rate on ordinary income to 28 percent from 50 percent.

Doing that again in a tax reform act of 2013 would do more than raise revenue and increase fairness. It would bring an abrupt end to the "carried interest" tax dodge, in which managers in the private equity business are able to define their compensation as capital gains and thus pay far lower income tax rates than do ordinary people with far less income.

Ideally, there will be two tax reform efforts in the next 18 months.

And:

Much of the credit for the 1986 bill went to Senator Bill Bradley, the New Jersey Democrat who had pushed for lower rates and fewer deductions. He had three fundamental principles - ones that should inform any serious effort at tax reform. The first was that markets allocate capital better than politicians do, so we risk distortions with tax provisions aimed at encouraging investment in one part or another of the economy. The second was that equal incomes should pay equal taxes, and the third was that those who make more should pay more.

The 1986 law was devised to be revenue-neutral. Any new reform bill will have to raise revenue, which Mr. Bradley said in an interview this week would make the task harder than it was in 1986. He said one approach might be to reduce but not eliminate the value of some deductions for those in the highest tax brackets.

The important issue now is not such details but the development by the administration of a comprehensive plan that can be the basis for legislation, as the Reagan administration did in 1985 and then revised in 1986 after receiving a lot of reaction. That will require a Treasury secretary committed to providing the resources to produce such a report.

That should be a priority for President Obama in picking a new Treasury secretary. Mr. Bradley deserves consideration.

David Fuller's view A tax system that is widely regarded as fair by both Democrats and Republicans will be required if progress on deficit reduction is to occur, while also improving GDP growth which will be the biggest challenge.

One of the wisest decisions that President Obama could make, in my opinion, would be to consult closely with former Senator Bill Bradley.