From a societal perspective, it makes FAR more sense to me to be a little mercenary about where those tax $$ are going, and for which purposes. While it may not be a popular (or at least... PC ) statement, if I have just $10 to spend, and I'm presented with two students, one of whom is working four grades BELOW cohort and cannot seem to learn to read.... and the other of whom is working four grades ABOVE cohort and is ready for advanced mathematics/etc... my impulse is to give that funding where it is an investment for society, not just a momentary way of making myself feel awesome and charitable.
Both situations are social investment opportunities that can pay big dividends down the road. In the first situation, spending on that child to bring them up to a functional level means that child is likelier to grow up to be a functional adult, and self-sufficiency and contributing to society is always less costly than institutionalization.
I can make an argument that the "greatest generation" was also the overwhelmingly most invested-in generation (military experience, GI Bill, government-sponsored research, interstate system, Apollo program, etc.), which played a major role in making them so great.
So the better question is, why can't we come up with $20, and invest in both children?
