Ah, the predictable New York Times. Economics writer Eduardo Porter recently penned a column lamenting that too few young Americans are getting their college degrees, which he naturally assumes is a serious problem. His solution to this imaginary problem is just what you’d expect — higher taxes on the rich! That will provide the money needed for kids from poor families to go to college. If that sounds like the usual brand of statist problem solving, i.e., coercion that will prove to be counterproductive, you’ll like today’s Pope Center piece by Professor Michael Stroup of Stephen F. Austin University.

Stroup tears big holes in Porter’s argument, including his weak assumption that the reason why these young people don’t get their college degrees is just a shortage of funds. There are lots of low-cost options for postsecondary education, but Porter overlooks entirely the well-known deficiencies in K-12 which leaves many students unprepared for anything like real college work, Stroup notes.

Furthermore, what effect would a check from the federal government have on the families Porter means to help? If we know anything about welfare programs it’s that ladling out cash only enables recipients to afford more of what they want, which probably does not include better education. (Bear in mind that the education establishment is dead set against people opting out of public schools, which is how some of those families might choose to spend their windfall.)

And of course Porter pays no attention to the opportunity costs of taking more away from “the rich.” There would be less capital to invest, less money to donate to charitable organizations. Couldn’t the NYT find an economics writer who understands trade-offs and opportunity costs? Guess not.