I agree, but the problem is, there are consequences when you don't subsidize.
Then, the costs don't go up, but access is limited. When you subsidize, costs go up for everyone, but access goes up. That access has long-term benefits.
A couple of years ago, Schroder was asked how Germany could use taxpayer money to subsidize women who had children. Basically, how he could use taxpayer money to incentivize more having kids. He responded that the country was in a population crisis. Population was going down, the labor force was going down. Since the country was against immigration, especially immigration from places like the ME, China, or India where there are people who are highly skilled, he argued that the policy was needed to maintain the labor force. Everyone benefits from not having too few workers.
My opinion on education, is that the government should subsidize and give student loans, at the taxpayers expense. But only when there is a proven long-term benefit. This country lacks engineers and scientists. We should have policies in place that encourage and subsidize people that go into those fields. The country unquestionably needs these people. It isn't charity, it is mutualism. We don't need more music majors or psychology majors.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a