Yes, by all means, choose the teachers

No,no, no The other Eric, you're all wrong.

Educational accounts, beginning at 14 years old, $Y,000 per student based on racial preferences, minus .05 percent of household income. No added money. (Restrictions on attending out-of-state schools to prevent a monopoly.)

There are an infinite variety of plans that we could fabricate to deal with this. Why not just get rid of all the plans and let people choose for themselves?

why invest in students if they can't vote?

Education is an infrastructure. If the state must fund it, why not fund the consumption of it...

Educational accounts, beginning at 16 years old, $x,000 per student based on class rank, minus .005 percent of parental income. Added money for military and other service. (NO restrictions or differentials on attending out-of-state schools. Let each state compete.)

Does this mean you wouldn't mind taxes that are spent on education if they subsidized consumers instead of producers? What about other industries? Subsidized health care for instance? In any case, these are both more worthy than agriculture subsidies in my opinion.

If Obama's history with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge is any guide, they'll choose the Educationists, not teachers.

He better be careful about how much the government redistributes to teachers. He could end up creating a huge amount of dead-weight loss. The teachers could receive windfall profits, which would obviously have to be taxed. And based on Coase's theorem we have just created DWL.