Let me make another observation on the same question. The issue isn't just one for governments; the issue is one for all of society. It's for think tanks, it's for universities, it's for advocates of fields, it's for political parties.
When a political party does an analysis, if they do an analysis, and indicates that what they'd like to see happen is interest deductibility on mortgages, which happened in 1979, or more recently that we should now have a deductibility program with respect to child care, which is really a tax cut, the question one raises is how much analysis went into that statement, which then becomes the party platform of the individual party.
It's very difficult for a public service. Their job is to speak truth to power and to argue that there will be a better way. But when these issues become flagged as the campaign commitment of the political party, it becomes very difficult to argue that there are other ways of doing it that may be better. Public servants will do that, and I've seen it done, but in the end most political parties—not so much years ago, but particularly today—want to live up to their campaign commitments.
What I'm arguing for is not just analysis within government; it's also that analysis within political parties, and among others who shape the party platforms of candidates and things of that nature, become extremely important, so that we can elevate the level of the policy debate. As Dr. Young has said, we can then be examining whether or not direct expenditures in a number of these areas might be much better than what we call backdoor spending, which has upside-down subsidy impacts, and which doesn't reach people, and which has differential implications because of the way it's run through the taxes. These debates and this analysis need to take place not just within government but within political parties and other influencers of public policy and directions.