New Quick-and-Edster

The post below comes from Chad Aldeman, who's spending the summer at Education Sector in our higher ed department. Chad is a University of Iowa alum, currently working on a graduate degree in public policy at William and Mary. Welcome!

Valuing Education

My colleague Abdul Kargbo just published a terrific article comparing his educational experiences as a child in Sierra Leone to his later high school and college experiences in the U.S. His analysis makes some provocative points for both educators and the broader community of folks interested in using education, social and economic reforms to enhance equity and social justice.

Taxing Priorities

An event Wednesday at the joint Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center highlighted how unnecessarily complex and ineffective the federal student aid programs are, and offered simple solutions for progress.

It has been well-documented that the U.S. is beginning to fall behind in accessibility of college and completion of degrees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that we have been overtaken in the percentage of young people pursuing post-secondary degrees. By failing to target financial aid dollars to the students who need it most, our tax policy has been enabling this decline.

To fully understand how our system of tax credits and educational grants functions (or doesn’t, depending on your view), see Wednesday’s report. The duplicity, mutual exclusivity, and poor targeting of the Hope credit, the Lifetime Learning Credit, and the tuition and fees deduction leave families confused. Never mind the current scandals in the student loan industry. A 2005 GAO report found “suboptimal use of the postsecondary tax preferences” by students and families arose, at least in part, from their complexity.

Beyond complexity, there are serious fundamental problems with the system we have in place. Most glaringly, there is no linkage between tax credits and grants administered by the Department of Education. The tax credits are administered by the IRS; a student must fill out the laborious Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to be eligible for Pell grants. Additionally, the tax credits are non-refundable, meaning those families with income below the threshold for paying net federal income taxes receive nothing, and the tax structure penalizes students who must work to pay for school.

These issues need to be ameliorated to regain our status as an international leader in higher education. We must target our financial aid programs better to the students who need them most. We need to stop penalizing working students. The students who must work their way through college are the same ones who we need to graduate. We should fix the issue of refundability. Tax credits with this restriction end up going to middle- and upper-class families, which is fine, but it doesn’t address the issue of affordability.

We should also make the FAFSA simpler. Susan Dynarski, a professor at Harvard University, showed an enlightening chart at the event comparing the FAFSA with the 1040, the 1040A, and the 1040EZ. The FAFSA had more questions and more pages and asked for more financial information than all of them (see a full explanation here). Legally, students cannot fill out the FAFSA until after January 1 of their senior year in high school, and they likely will not know their aid package until March or April. Imagine a situation where the aid was predictable based on income. Students and families could have a reasonable estimate of their financial aid before looking at colleges or applying. Better yet, imagine a system like that of the Social Security Administration, where the family of every child would receive a letter in the mail every year after birth letting them know how much financial aid they could expect. These steps would allow for greater transparency in the financial aid system, and target more directly the portion of the population least likely to attend college.

You're Fired (Not!)

This post by AFTie Ed last week was laugh-out-loud funny but also made a point well worth remembering:

Wait, you mean you can’t just snap your hand and get rid of non union employees you don’t like? Wow!

There are lots of reasons lousy and downright horrid people often don't get fired, and most of those reasons would remain even if there were no tenure or unions in public education.

Preschool in the Primaries: Score one for Senator Clinton

Campaigning in Florida today, Senator/Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton put forward an ambitious policy proposal to move the U.S. towards universal preschool education. This is the first major education proposal rolled out by the Clinton campaign, and it's a good one. The plan would provide states with matching grants (starting at $5 billion federal investment and scaling up to $10 billion) to expand publicly-funded preschool programs, with a priority on low-income and English language learners, and requires state preschool programs to meet high quality standards as a condition of funding.

This strategy (which might look familiar) capitalizes on the incredible state-level momentum around preschool and early childhood education, while also creating a much needed incentive for laggard states to get in gear and addressing the two major shortcomings of state preschool programs right now: they serve too few children and are often too low in quality to have significant impacts on those they do serve.

So far, we haven't seen a lot on education from the candidates, in part because it's less a key priority for voters this year than Iraq, national security, or the economy, but also because it's pretty early and candidates are just beginning to put meat on formal policy proposals. I hope other campaigns will follow Clinton's lead in proposing bold action on early childhood: It's right on the merits and also plays well politically. And even though significant preschool programs are expensive, they're a steal next to some of the health and security expenditures on the table.
For example, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who officially joined the race today, has a strong record of leadership on early childhood in New Mexico, where he created the state's first statewide preschool program, and should translate that same advocacy for early learning into his presidential campaign.

Stay tuned her for more coverage and comment as the campaigns start putting more ink on the page on their education platforms.

Selling EdFund

Via New America Foundation, Schwarzenegger is considering selling California’s state guarantee agency, EdFund, to a private, potentially for-profit, loan company. In the federal loan program, guarantee agencies not only insure student loans, they also provide oversight by ensuring that lenders perform the required due diligence to collect loans and prevent defaults.

The Institute for College Access and Success put out a brief on the potential sale of EdFund back in 2005—a must read if you’re interested in this issue. In it, they describe why EdFund’s sale could be detrimental to California’s taxpayers.

I describe (shameless plug) in my recent report on the student loan industry how close ties between private, for-profit loan companies and guarantee agencies create a serious conflict of interest in the oversight of the federal loan program. With recent headlines on abuses within the industry, the Department of Education needs to keep a close eye on this exact kind of transaction.

Blame Foucault

Almost a month ago, I noted a bizzare post at the National Review Online's higher education blog laying blame for the Virginia Tech killings at the feet of the postmodern English department. Apparently, Foucault made him do it, because if you question conventional ways of thinking about truth and morality, people will naturally be driven to murderous rampages, which, as we all know, is why the Modern Language Association shut its doors 30 years ago. It simply couldn't manage the attrition.

My only mistake was in assuming this was just an example of ill-conceived, one-time riffing off the top of the new cycle. Apparently not. The discussion is still going strong over there, with this post approvingly quoting a recent column from--seriously, you can't make this up--Phyllis Schlafly, where she notes that while she has no idea what Cho actually studied, he "could have" read selections from various--horrors!--feminist courses.

Or, notes Schlafly, he could have taken a senior seminar titled "The Self-Justifying Criminal in Literature." Right! By all means, let's purge Macbeth from our institutions of higher learning, because if we keep teaching Shakespeare to these kids...oh, wait a minute....(John Miller gets this right).

Historic(al) NAEP Results

New NAEP history & civics results were released yesterday. To the seeming surprise of many, history scores were up across the board, while civics scores are up in grade 4 and flat elsewhere.

I'm guessing a lot of pre-written newspaper articles and blog posts beginning with some basic historical fact that most students don't know, followed by a general bemoaning of our collective ignorance of our shared past, heritage, etc., etc., are sitting in various electronic and physical dustbins this morning.

The New York Times still went with the overly-pessimistic "Students Gain Only Marginally on Test of U.S. History." That's real glass-is-half-emptyism, no?

The top-line policy context is, as always, NCLB. Along with the recent upswing in 4th grade NAEP science scores, these results seem to, if not puncture, at least fail to support the widely held notion that NCLB's focus on reading and math is creating collateral damage in other subjects, as teachers make time for the basics by cannibalizing subjects like history and science.

The consensus unverified speculative opinion is that because NCLB is helping more students with reading, they're learning more in other subjects, because it's awfully hard to learn if you can't read. Which makes perfect sense, that's why NCLB was designed to focus on core subjects in the first place. What's interesting is the begrudging, backhanded way this gets discussed. For example:

Peggy Altoff, president of the National Council for the Social Studies, suggested that the intensified reading instruction in primary grades might disguise a failure to teach much history and civics in fourth grade. Social studies test scores might be climbing, she said, because fourth-graders are more likely to understand simple questions that do not require much knowledge of history, such as interpreting pictures.

Or:

“It’s heartwarming that the test organizers have found positive things to say, but this report is not anything to break out the Champagne over,” said Theodore K. Rabb, a professor of history at Princeton who advocates devoting more classroom time to the subject.

Look, if it turns out that history and science instruction in this country have been fatally hamstrung by a more generalized lack of reading skills, then shouldn't advocates for those fields be first the barricades to support NCLB-like reforms, given the initially paradoxical yet increasingly plausible idea that increasing basic skill instruction at the expense of history and science may actually lead to more learning in those subjects? Or is this just all about using the public policy arena to jockey with the other disciplines for status?

Spring Awakening...

...a Broadway musical based on a 19th century German morality play set to rock music by Duncan Shiek, received 11 nominations for the 2007 Tony awards. Admittedly tenuous edu-connection: the main characters are high schools students and some of the scenes take place in school. I saw it last month and liked it a lot, although its R-Ratedness came as kind of a shock. Also, I almost bumped into Mandy Moore walking out of the show; she's taller than you'd think given that most Hollywood actresses / singers are practically munchkin-sized.

Back to education policy now.

Admissions Impossible Continued

From the New York Times, in an article titled "Ivy League Crunch Brings New Cachet to Next Tier," about the idea that ever-more-selective elite universities are driving students to apply to less-elite universities, which are as a result becoming more elite:

The logjam is the result of supply and demand. The number of students graduating from high school has been increasing, and the preoccupation with the top universities, once primarily a Northeastern phenomenon, has become a more national obsession. High-achieving students are also applying to more colleges than they used to, primarily because of uncertainty over where they will be admitted. Supply, however, has remained constant. Most of the sought-after universities have not expanded their freshman classes.

While the spread of the "Northeastern obsession" is probably an accurate characterization of the last 20 or 30 years of college admissions, I don't think things have changed much in recent years. Moreover, the idea that supply is constant simply isn't true. Per the U.S. Department of Education, here's the percent change in enrollments at Ivy League campuses (in descending order of U.S. News ranking) from 2003 to 2006:

Princeton: +6.1%
Harvard: + 3.0%
Yale: +1.6%
Penn: -1.6%
Columbia: +1.0%
Dartmouth: +0.4%
Cornell: +1.7%
Brown: +5.4%

Seven out eight have increased the number of enrollments, at rates comparable to the overall national increase in the number of high school graduates. As the Times itself reported($) just a couple of weeks ago, Yale is considering a signficant expansion.

The Education Tax Credit Endgame

Andrew Coulson tries again to convince us that education tax credit's aren't the same thing as public funding, and fails because he ignores my key points: Education Tax Credits have the same impact on individual and government budgets as would government expenditures for the same purpose, and unlike broad tax cuts, the linkage of tax credits to specific behaviors has a distorting impact on individual incentives. But at this point I'd imagine we're talking past each other, because we have fundamentally different perspectives on taxation.

There's a broader point worth making here, and it involves the seeming contradiction between Cato-types' recent preference for education tax credits and their more general stance on tax issues. Libertarians have traditionally argued that tax systems should be both simple (count the number of posts on their blog extolling the flat tax) and behavior-neutral, to avoid ingintroducing incentives that distort behavior and markets. Education Tax Credits violate both of those principles.

But what's particularly interesting is how education tax credits interact with the much more important libertarian contention that tax rates and tax revenues should be low. As tax rates are lowered, the value of non-refundable tax credits (and thus the amount of support education tax credits would generate for scholarships, or the amount of tuition they offset for parents) declines. Were both Coulson and his colleagues in Cato's tax policy shop to succeed, the ultimate result would be to virtually eliminate any public role in encouraging support for education. This is an important point: The ultimate aim of Coulson's views is not simply to destroy "public education" but to eliminate any social commitment to supporting children's education, leaving responsibility to fund children's schooling entirely in the hands of their parents and, for children with the bad judgement to be born to poor parents, the vagaries of individual charity.

Obviously, this is a view that is very far out of the mainstream not just of American culture but also of the school choice movement (of which I consider myself a part). So it's no wonder Cato's education policy team would prefer to talk about the benefits of choice for poor parents and for reducing social conflict. (To his credit, Coulson has written that he believes parent responsibility to pay for education is a core principle of his ideal education system.) But it's entirely disingenuous of them to present tax credits as a "third way" on school choice--they're actually a much more radical alternative, leading ultimately to an utter abdication of any social or communal responsibility or committment to children.

"and they look at us like we are demented..."

So says my former employer Kati Haycock in today's NYTimes article about a recent study from ACT documenting the lack of rigor in high school curricula. Kati's talking about her suggestion that some analysis might be in order. I've got nothing to add, other than to say that (A) there's every reason to believe things are as bad as the report says they are (look at remediation rates and learning outcomes in college), and (B) "and they look at us like we are demented" cries out to be the name of an emo band of some kind.

Aim First, Then Fire

John Edwards’ recently announced college plan gets it right on one of the big college affordability issues: the need for a simpler, straightforward financial aid application, and more support to students and their families when they are applying to college and figuring out how to afford it. Unfortunately, his tuition plan—which promises to pay the first year of college for 2 million students—doesn’t quite hit the mark.

Yes, a more generous and simplified grant program targeted to low-income students is needed in our federal financial aid system (although it isn’t clear if Edwards’ plan is targeted to low-income students). Experience shows that when students know that they can afford college, they are more likely to see college as an attainable goal, and therefore more likely to apply and enroll. Edwards’ plan, while it gives students that assurance their first year, does not give them any help in the years after that. Rather than offer this grant program for only one year to “any student who is willing to work hard and stay out of trouble,” I’d like to see the program targeted to students who need it most and offer them grant aid for their entire undergraduate careers.

It also contains vague, merit-based language – they have to take a ‘college prep’ curriculum and ‘stay out of trouble’. Experience with other grant programs with a merit component, like Georgia’s HOPE scholarship program, shows that the students who end up losing the money because of these criteria are generally the neediest students. They don’t always have the strong support systems needed to make sure they take all the required college prep classes and, be honest, would you have wanted your college financial aid dependent on ‘staying out of trouble’?

I worry that this program would end up leaving out the students who need the most help, and inadvertently shift grant aid to students who tend to receive more in other forms of financial aid, like tax credits, loans, and merit-based institutional aid.

Incomparable

Since there's obviously not much else going on in the world, the Post published its third front-page story today on the DC school reform plan plagiariasm "scandal," wherein Mayor Fenty produced a school reform plan partially copied from the school district in Charlotte, NC. Read about days one and two here and here. After the obligatory intro, the article begins--and for all intents and purposes, ends--here:

Although there is plenty to admire about Charlotte's schools, there is also a growing chorus of critics who question whether Charlotte's successes reach beyond an academic elite.

Charlotte's students overall perform well in elementary school, for instance, but those gains largely disappear by high school, where many arrive needing remedial work. In the latest round of statewide tests, the yawning achievement gap between black and white students widened.

It is also unclear how much Charlotte's experience applies to the District. Charlotte's sprawling system of 129,000 students has more than twice as many pupils as the District and includes suburban and rural schools. The District's enrollment has declined for more than a decade; Charlotte is growing by 5,000 students a year. In national tests, Charlotte's fourth- and eighth-graders topped the list for urban schools in reading and math, while the District brought up the rear.

These differences raise questions in Washington about whether Charlotte's performance is broad enough or relevant enough for the Fenty administration to follow.

Let me get this straight.

An alleged "growing chorus of critics," who are named nowhere in this article, are concerned that the Fenty administration, in trying to reform a school district that is bleeding enrollment and has rock-bottom test scores, has erred in copying parts of the school reform plan of another district with growing enrollment and much higher test scores. Their concerns are based on the fact that the two districts are in some ways dissimilar. How are they dissimilar? The other district has growing enrollment and much higher test scores!

Alternatively, copying is a bad idea because Charlotte, like DC, hasn't solved some of public education's most vexing problems, like reforming high schools and closing the achievement gap.

In other words, to the extent that Charlotte is like the District, copying was wrong. To the extent that Charlotte is different from the District, copying was wrong. This is what happens when you start with a "scandal" and then fill in the blanks afterwards.

Meanwhile, the Post still hasn't asked or answered the only questions that matter: Are the reforms copied from Charlotte any good? Are they likely to help District students learn?

Coming soon to the front page, no doubt.

New Voices for the Summer

Please welcome Michael Dobson, whose first Quick and Ed post appears below. Dobson, who just completed his first year of law school at George Washington University, will be interning with Education Sector this summer, researching legal issues around public school choice. As the D.C. weather continues to get hotter and muggier, look out for most posts from him and other summer ES interns.

The Greatest Good

As a first-day intern at Education Sector with minimal background experience in the field of education policy, yesterday’s Center for American Progress/Century Foundation forum on “The Future of School Integration” offered me an interesting glimpse into the current state of debate about school integration. Most of the panelists, including John Brittain (a veteran civil rights attorney), Susan Eaton (research director at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School whose recently published book served as the fulcrum for the panel discussion), Richard Kahlenberg (author and Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation), and Cynthia Brown (Director of Education Policy at the Center for American Progress), agreed that, while racial integration remains a important goal, the current legal climate requires a shift of focus and tactics away from race to emphasize the need for socioeconomic integration.

The dissenter from this consensus was Rick Hess, a resident scholar and director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, who, in his accustomed role as devil’s advocate, argued that parents in middle-class schools will resist socio-economic integration efforts—not because they’re heartless racists or elitists, but simply because efforts to bring more low-income children into their schools conflict with what middle-class parents view as their interests in a zero-sum game.

The concerns Hess suggested these parents might have—that problems typically associated with majority low-income schools (disruptive behavior in the classroom, violence, negative peer influence, etc.) will simply travel with the kids, or that the presence of children whose previous, underperforming schools have not prepared them to perform at grade level will damage instruction for other children—are valid. And, for the most part, the other panelists failed to address what I conider the strongest argument against the concerns voiced by Mr. Hess: the utilitarian benefit of socioeconomic integration.

Studies suggest that children from low-income families perform better in majority middle-class schools than their counterparts in majority low-income schools, with no noticeable detriment to the middle-class students they are placed among. If socioeconomic integration produces the same results at scale, then the ultimate result of more socioeconomic integration programs would be a better educated workforce, a more robust economy, less intergenerational poverty, and an overall stronger America. Obviously, there’s no guarantee of such results, but the potential returns for the nation as a whole seem to outweigh the narrow concerns of self-interested parents— particularly since studies also suggest little negative impact to middle-class children from socioeconomic integration.

Regardless of appeals to utilitarian principles, however, many middle-class parents will still mount political opposition to socioeconomic integration plans for the reasons Hess mentioned. So what’s the solution? Well, as Mr. Hess himself pointed out, the first step is to not demonize those parents for feeling the way they do. Their concerns, from their perspective, are valid, and an approach dismissive of those concerns will only lead to acrimony. Their fears must be allayed, and as another panelist, Mr. Khalenberg, pointed out, the only way to do that is with assurances that a strict disciplinary scheme will be sewn into any integration strategy. Parents being asked to accept a socioeconomic integration plan have to know that their children’s education will not be undermined by repeat student offenders gifted with an unlimited number of chances.

Those parents also have to know that children coming from underperforming schools and dysfunctional homes will not simply be dropped into middle-class schools and left to their own devices. A support structure of counselors and engaged teachers and administrators should also be in place within schools to lend guidance and encouragement, which would not only benefit the children coming from low-income schools, but their middle-income classmates as well. Children from middle-income families would also reap the benefits of the greater influx of tax dollars coming into their schools behind their new classmates, money that could be used to refurbish facilities like gyms and libraries.

All of this takes a certain degree of political will to invest the necessary resources and engage in the oversight needed to make sure the job is done right. Undoubtedly many parents would still have doubts, and some might even still oppose the plans, but many would probably see the effort being expended and appreciate it enough to at least give it a chance.

Flying Blind

Richard Vedder makes a good point about the information deficit in higher education. He thinks the president of Ohio University--where he teaches--should be fired. But in making his case, he's got a problem:

Yet the President has his supporters. And, frankly, some of the critical information that would be useful in evaluating the state of the university under his leadership is simply unavailable. Do students graduate knowing more than when they entered? Are graduates of the university leading fulfilling lives five years after attending the school? Do new graduates feel their education was a good investment? And has the answers regarding any of these questions changed materially over the years the current president has run the institution? Honestly, I don't know the answers to these questions. Nor do the Trustees who hire the leaders of our institutions --they operate with far less information than is desirable. That is another reason why the Spellings Commission calls for more assessment and transparency in university operations is important.

Most people in higher education seem to have deep misgivings about the Spellings Commission and its call for more assessment, transparency, and accountability for the nation's colleges and universities. These are not illegitimate concerns; accountability done badly is worse than none at all.

But these conversations hardly ever fully account for the true costs of the information deficit Vedder describes. Without solid information, we're left with opinions, personal relationships, institutional power, and ideology. This is true not just of evaluating presidents but a whole host of other decisions in higher education, everything from where students choose to enroll to how professors are hired and trained to how universities are organized and funded. Each of these processes would benefit from more information about institutional quality, but none of them have it, and they're worse as a result.

DC Plagiarism "Scandal" Part III : The Conclusion (I Hope)

On the third day, the Post proved that the editorial / news firewall is alive and well, running a lead editorial condemning recently-elected Maryland Senator Ben Cardin for putting a "hold" on the "all-important restructuring of the District's public schools" because of an unrelated dispute with the District. They concluded:

The House, recognizing the true state of emergency at the District's schools, quickly approved the bill transferring authority to the mayor. But until the law is enacted, the schools are in a kind of limbo. Mr. Fenty is constrained in what he can do. Each day of delay forestalls the start of any improvement. Mr. Cardin says he doesn't intend to imperil congressional approval of the schools takeover. Actions, though, speak louder than words.

So true! The only way Senator Cardin could have done more damage to the school takeover plan yesterday is if he'd run a headline in a major American newspaper criticizing the mayor and the plan for an essentially bogus reason, something like, let's see, "Fenty Regrets Copied Proposal: School Takeover May Be In Doubt."

Unfortunately, this will all fit neatly into the pre-written Fenty meta-narrative. Plagiarism is generally a youthful offense, after all, the refuge of striving students in over their heads. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that in another month or so, as the "first six months of the Fenty administration" retrospectives start to roll in, you'll read something like this:

"After a landslide victory where he won every precinct in the city, Mayor Fenty remains popular with District residents, who praise his energy and can-do spirit. But observers are increasingly questioning whether the youthful mayor, in his rush to implement a broad-reaching agenda, has overextended himself. In May, the mayor was embarrassed by revelations that many parts of his much-touted school reform plan were copied wholesale from a similar plan in Charlotte, North Carolina. Said one long-time District activist, who asked to remain anonymous, 'This scandal is a sign of things to come.'"

This is complete nonsense, but that won't stop it from becoming conventional wisdom. That's why politicians pay consultants huge amounts of money to build the frame of reference through which they're seen--one it's established, there's not a lot you can do to change it, and it affects the way people see not just the politicians themselves, but everything around them.

Excellent Questions About Preschool

Richard Colvin asks some good questions in response to recent reports about poor quality in Boston's preschool program.

The first is about bachelor's degree requirements and the relative value of bachelor's degrees compared to specific training and experience in early education. It's really tempting to think that if we just required all preschool teachers to have bachelor's degrees (or bachelor's degrees with early childhood certification), we could ensure high quality. But two of the biggest and best studies of state preschool implementation, the SWEEP and Multi-state studies, didn't find bachelor's degrees were a reliable predictor of, teacher behaviors known to support students' early learning, and children's outcomes. This shouldn't be shocking when we consider that virtually all K-12 teachers have a bachelor's degree and no one believes that this makes all K-12 teachers highly-effective. As in K-12, teacher quality is probably the most important program factor for determining preschool quality and impacts, and it's clear that many public and private preschool programs do not have sufficiently high-quality teachers right now. But the bachelor's degree, and even certification, is just too blunt an instrument.

Second, Richard asks if states are jeopardizing quality by expanding their preschool programs too fast. This is a reasonable concern, and I think it's worth a broader discussion. Some of the problems with Head Start quality have their roots in the effort to expand the program very rapidly in its early years to build political support (which the program was successful in gaining). It would be a shame for states to replicate that error in their preschool programs.

Reality Rears Its Ugly Head

Cato's Andrew Coulson, in the process of arguing that I'm wrong to assert that tax credits are a form of public funding, makes the critical mistake of conflating legal opinions on education tax credit programs with the realities of tax credits' practical impacts. I know libertarians sometimes have difficulties with "reality," so I'll explain: Yes, tax credits are appealing to many people because courts have ruled that giving parents or corporations a tax credit for money spent to send a child to a religious school can't be construed as public support for religion. But the critical distinction there is really more about accounting than reality. In terms of practical impact, giving individuals a tax credit for a specific behavior or expenditure is virtually indistinguishable from writing them a check to pay them for the same activity. It has the same impact on both government and individual budgets, and, as libertarians well know, tax credits for specific behaviors can have the same distorting impact on individual incentives. And it's impacts, more than accounting or legal details, that are critical to the public policy question here. If Coulson feels so strongly that I'm wrong about this, he should first trot down to his own organization's fiscal policy shop and explain to them why they're wrong to criticize ethanol tax credits as....a government subsidy.

Btw, I don't know if the Cato education men have a crush on me or think I'm a fool: This is the third time this week they've gone after something I've written. While I'm flattered by the attention, I'm sorry, guys, that I can't actually respond to everything you write about me. There are three of you but only one of me, and I've got actually, you know, work, to do.