tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post3741289029268753281..comments2023-10-01T09:22:37.695-07:00Comments on Economists for Obama: Obama's Tuition Tax Credit, Part IIDon Pedrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-24259823999206170232008-06-22T09:41:00.000-07:002008-06-22T09:41:00.000-07:00Thanks for the link to the Bridget Terry Long pape...Thanks for the link to the Bridget Terry Long paper. It should be required reading for anyone trying to devise federal programs in postsecondary education. <BR/><BR/>Her paper stands out because there are so few studies that look into federal programs for postsecondary education, on either the spending or tax expenditure side of the budget. Of the handful of such papers, hardly any find much to praise. The concensus: evidence of effectiveness commensurate with the size of the investment is sorely lacking.<BR/><BR/>One might quibble with the paper about what the Hope Scholarships were intended to achieve. Yes, there was a lot of overly-ambitious rhetoric in the 1996 presidential campaign, but when the legislation passed in 1997, the Clinton Administration realized that the real value might be as a targeted-tax cut alternative to a general tax cut, leading to a balanced federal budget and subsequently lower interest costs for student borrowers. Lesser competition in the federal budget from interest on the debt likewise led to greater spending on other postsecondary programs (although how much that helped students is also debatable). <BR/><BR/>None of which is to say that these programs couldn't work, if better designed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com