(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Over at RedefinED I make the case that David Osborne’s fears of universal education savings accounts have in fact already come to pass with universal public schooling. Osborne opposes universal ESAs because he fears that wealthy families would top-off, well, guess what has been going on since the early 1970s:
The age of multi-vendor education dawned for upper income families decades ago. John Stuart Mill made a respectable case that government should restrict education activity to providing subsidies for the poor, but the justice and political viability of such a system seems deeply suspect given that no one has ever been told they can’t attend a education institution because their parents paid too many taxes. The best solution imo is to provide broad access with a significantly higher level of subsidy, but consider this your invitation to read the piece and reveal the flaws in thinking in the below comments section.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
Social Security is an absolute scandal. People shamelessly “top up” by saving their own money for retirement. Instead we should force everyone to live in government-owned retirement homes, mandatory starting at age 65.
You know, now that you mention it, wealthier people also top up Medicare with supplemental insurance. Perhaps Osborne is an anarchist sleeper agent laying out a path to eliminate any and all govt. programs that can be topped up, which would be most of them…
Alas, he’d replace them all with mandatory government monopoly services!