Submitted by Andrew Gold, Feb 15, 2008 12:35

it is an insufficient argument to total the costs of governiment (or private) spending as though that is sufficient argument against the the object of expenditure. It is incumbent upon economists to also list the benefits as difficult as that may be before an economic argument can be made. The last time I looked, early childhood education, to mention one item derided in the article, shows substantial social payoff higher than it's cost. Head Start has a mixed but arguable record. It's a handy device by Republicans to always stress the costs and ignore benefits while the Democrats do the reverse. Economists are supposed to do better.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.