Why do politicians always promise to focus on policies that promote education and other items “for the children”?

You’ll get a clue to the answer in this post, courtesy of the N&O‘s “Under the Dome” blog:

More than two-thirds of North Carolinians oppose the transfer tax.

But nearly 50 percent would support the tax if its proceeds went entirely to schools, according to a recent survey.

When asked if they would support a transfer tax for local government, 67 percent of respondents said they would oppose or strongly oppose the idea.

But when they were asked if they would support the tax if all of the revenue went to education, only 43 percent were opposed or strongly opposed, and almost 50 percent were in favor of it.

I suspect you could attach similar numbers to almost any proposed tax or fee. Education is usually taxpayers’ top priority. People are more likely to accept sacrifice for their kids’ future.

Here’s the problem: A new tax never pays for the top priority. A new tax always pays for the lowest-priority item that would have been cut from the budget had the new revenue not been available.

This is true even when the astute politician makes the case that government needs the extra revenue for education. The next time a politician makes that argument to you, you might ask, “Why can’t we just shift some money toward education from other programs that aren’t as important?” 

What about a tax “dedicated” to education? It’s a nice idea. Perhaps safeguards can ensure (better than the safeguards in place when Gov. Easley raided trust funds during the budget woes of his first term) that the money raised will never pay for any items other than education programs.

But the fact remains that adding a “dedicated” tax simply preserves lower-priority items that will continue to get money from the General Fund.