A Healthy Trend

Yahoo! Finance is reporting the largest annual federal budget deficit in history. In FY2008, the U.S. government will post a shocking $396 billion budget deficit.

Do we see an end to such budget shortfalls in the future? The U.S. government can’t issue new debt forever. Unless, of course, you think this is a healthy trend:

At some point, these bills will be due, and Americans will be forced to make some very important decisions. We either have to: a) increase taxes to record levels; b) significantly decrease governmental spending; c) devalue the dollar and crowd out private investment with higher interest rates; or, d) pretend the problem doesn’t exist, hide under the covers, and wait for somebody else to fix it. I personally prefer option b. Most politicians seem to like options c and d.

Of course it’s not just a federal problem, but a state problem as well. The Missouri General Assembly will face a $500 million budget shortfall next year as tax receipts continue to decline. This morning's Post-Dispatch provides a good assessment of where those shortfalls are going to hit hardest:

That $500 million will have to come from the general revenue budget, which makes up only about a third of the overall $22.5 billion state budget. (The rest largely is funded by federal funds passed through to the state and by tax funds limited to specific applications such as highways and conservation.)

So most of the $500 million in cuts would have to come from just four programs: elementary and secondary education, higher education, corrections and human services (Medicaid and mental health).

Well, that’s great, because those just happen to be four areas in which the Show-Me Institute has researched ways in which the state could easily save money.

Personally, I think former Missouri governor Bob Holden says it best in the Post-Dispatch editorial when he summarizes the current fiscal situation.

There's a solution here, but it's going to take a level of courage and bipartisanship that hasn't been seen in Missouri in recent decades. "It's going to take political leadership," Mr. Holden said. "Instead of demagoguing the problem, they're going to have to try to solve it."

Gonna Have to Side With the Sewer District on This

The Metropolitan Sewer District, which provides stormwater and sewer services to Saint Louis city and County, has changed its billing practices. The Post-Dispatch has the story on it here. MSD's own explanation is here. I like the change a lot, and not just because my bill is basically staying the same. I like it because it is good policy, whenever possible, to direct fees or taxes to the people who use — or, in this case, cause — the system, event, or service being provided. Now, obviously, you can't do this for all things government provides. People who live in dangerous neighborhoods should not pay more for police protection than others. But for many policy areas, such as tolls on highways, it is good policy to make the user pay.

MSD's new billing plan is for stormwater, not wastewater services. They are now taking into consideration how much of your property is able to absorb rainwater without sending it into the sewer system. So if you have a lot of land that is paved over, you are sending more water to the system than someone whose land is all grass and trees — so it seems very fair to me that you should pay more. To be sure, it's the same rate, just a higher fee based on less permeable land.

The main dispute involves people who use a septic system for wastewater, who in the past did not pay anything for stormwater service either, even though they used the stormwater system. Actually, they would have received a charge for stormwater service, but because the charge was less than postage, MSD never actually billed anyone. The spokesperson for MSD could teach other PR people a thing or three about succinctness and clarity. From the article:

Lance LeComb, a spokesman for the district, said everyone should be billed because nearly all storm water eventually reaches the district's storm water system, which includes creeks.

"Everyone benefits from it," LeComb said. "They have to pay for it."

As we often say around here, good tax policy involves basing taxes or fees widely, and then keeping them as low as possible — along with making the actual users of services pay fees directly, when that is possible. This new billing system does all of this. People on septic no longer get a free ride for stormwater service, and people who send more stormwater into the system pay more for the system. It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

People Respond to Pricing

Incentives and prices matter. As prices change, habits and activities change. Here are two articles relating to how people are making changes because of the high cost of gasoline. The New York Times has a story about the increased use of mass transit in cities throughout America. MSNBC has an article about the booming business at bike shops across the country. The Post-Dispatch has a story about bicycling in Saint Louis. As very few people expect the price of gasoline to come down, these changes may well be long-term. In my opinion, these changes are neither good nor bad, they just are. This is the way it is (and likely will be for the future), and free, educated people will make adjustments.

Now, how does this relate to public policy, you might ask? Well, clearly in lots of ways. Let's just take mass transit. Randal O'Toole wrote a study for the Show-Me Institute arguing against light rail for Kansas City. While most people who read it focused on the argument not to do something, the study also discussed what he thought Kansas City should do. Randal recommended that Kansas City expand its bus–rapid transit system and embrace competitive contracting for its buses. BRT, when done right, makes buses operate more like light rail at a fraction of the cost, and competitive contracting allows the power of private enterprise into the provision of transit. There is always an important role for mass transit in our cities. High gas prices make that role even more important. As for St. Louis, the potential of competitive contracting should also be embraced for the bus system.

As an aside, I love the picture accompanying the Post article. Nothing says "Share the road with bicyclists" like a biker clearly riding in the middle of the road and blocking two lanes of traffic from passing. With that in mind, this is Bike-to-Work Week and Friday is National Bike-to-Work Day. I have a meeting off-site on Friday, so I am gonna bike in on Thursday. Or maybe I'll just walk. You worry about the price of gas a lot less when you live one mile from work.

More on the Missouri Health Transformation Act

I wrote about the Missouri Health Transformation Act (MHTA) when it passed the Senate last week, so I thought I would revisit the bill now that it has reached a stalemate in the House.

The primary point of contention in the bill (and the reason it has grown to the behemoth size I lambasted before) is how to insure low-income uninsured Missourians. The House wants to control costs. The Senate doesn’t.

Essentially, House leaders believe that low-income Missourians should receive “vouchers” to shop for coverage that meet their needs, rather than receive generic broad coverage by the state. I whole-heartedly agree. If consumers shop around for the best deal, prices will be lower for everyone. This is the real problem with the existing health insurance model. Do you have any idea how much a doctor visit costs? How much does it cost to get your teeth cleaned or to get your appendix out? Honestly, I couldn’t even ballpark these things. All anyone focuses on is their insurance deductible. So if it costs you $100 out of pocket to get your appendix out, do you even care what the true cost is?

The lack of medical price transparency has two negative effects. One, we overuse our insurance because we have no idea what the true costs are and the costs don’t accrue to us individually. And two, medical providers have no incentive to keep costs down if costs can’t be compared. Would you have any idea whether or not your doctor charges a “fair” price? Prices of various procedures could vary widely from doctor to doctor, but we would have no idea because our copay would be the same regardless.

The House wants to cover the uninsured in a way that keeps costs lower. It wants insurance providers to encourage competition and to publicly disclose medical costs. But, as the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch covers in an article in this morning’s paper, hospitals, doctors, and other groups are balking at the request.

I’d probably be upset too if I knew that doing so would reveal that I’m charging three times as much as the next doctor to perform the same procedure.

What Is Your Definition of "Speedy"?

The Post-Dispatch ran a front-page story last Friday revealing the glacial pace of "justice" in the city of Saint Louis. Because of a variety of reasons, nearly 400 citizens have sat imprisoned in the city jail for more than a year without ever having their cases brought to trial. Eighty of those prisoners have been incarcerated for more than two years while waiting for trial.

Both the state and federal constitutions recognize in unambiguous terms that individuals accused of crimes are entitled to a speedy trial. The right to a speedy trial reflects the American notions that one must be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the government must provide due process of law in order to deprive someone of their liberty. Those responsible for these provisions recognized that the government must not be permitted to imprison presumptively innocent people any longer than necessary to afford a fair trial. Yet here in Saint Louis, this precise evil is taking place.

Part of the problem is that the public defender's office has a limited number of attorneys to manage the host of Saint Louis defendants who cannot afford to hire their own lawyers. According to one representative from the public defender's office, as many as 150 extra attorneys (statewide) would be necessary to meet national caseload standards, yet legislators are hesitant to authorize any additional funds for attorney hires.

I'm certainly no advocate for increasing the size of government or the amount it spends, but let's consider the financial repercussions of this understaffing. The city estimates that holding a prisoner in the city jail costs about $50 per person per day. The United States Supreme Court's current position is that eight months (240 days) should be adequate time for a serious felony case to go to trial, assuming the defendant does not voluntarily initiate delays. Illinois is even stricter on the government, requiring prisoners to be released if they are not brought to trial within four months (120 days).

For an accused person to be held in jail for eight months (as opposed to posting bail), taxpayers can expect to spend roughly $12,000 per defendant, not including the cost of legal expenses. The incarceration bill for the 400 accused who have spent more than a year waiting for trial comes to at least $7.3 million — $2.5 million more than would have been necessary if they were brought to trial within the time period deemed to be reasonable by the Supreme Court, and $4.9 million more than would have been necessary under Illinois' guidelines.

The judges responsible for overseeing St. Louis's criminal docket have instituted new procedures that they believe will provide some improvement to the system, but they have also asked the Board of Aldermen to consider an additional $520,000 to bring in additional defense attorneys to help alleviate the logjam. It is true that many of these trials, once held, will likely result in convictions. In those cases, taxpayers will still bear the financial burden of incarcerating felons, although the burden will be shared by the rest of the state — whereas the city jail is financed primarily by local taxpayers. If the new public defenders resulted in just 84 of these accused citizens ending their incarcerations (either through acquittal or plea bargaining) within the Supreme Court's eight-month guideline, the attorneys would, essentially, have paid for themselves. While I cannot speak to whether the full $520,000 would be necessary to secure the constitutional rights of those being held without trial, hiring more public defenders is an idea worthy of the city's consideration.

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Bureaucrat Scorned

A new bill would create a 24-member panel to study autism in the state and recommend policy actions (KMOX coverage here).

This baffles me. The fiscal note (an estimate of the fiscal cost to the state) for this legislation is nearly identical to the anticipated costs of the Special Needs Tax Credit. But, in true bureaucratic fashion, lawmakers would rather spend money on “analyzing” the problem (maybe they’ll issue a report!) instead of actually helping those affected.

Sarah Brodsky wrote a great op-ed about this topic. Why not let parents decide what’s best for their autistic children? Considering the idiosyncrasy of the disorder (it affects individuals in vastly different ways), any general approach to addressing it will prove difficult anyway. It’s better to let parents deal with their children’s condition on an individual level.

If we’re going to spend taxpayer money on autism, shouldn’t the money actually go to those that are affected?

Athletes And Entertainers Get Special Love, And Special Tax

Combest links to an article by Shawn Clubb in today's Suburban Journals of St. Louis that discusses the athletes and entertainers tax, and its use to fund various special causes in Missouri. (Please note that I said special causes, not bad causes.) Why is this article important? Well, for many reasons — not least of which is that I am quoted in it — as well as its citation of an op-ed written by our former editor, Tim Lee. Joe Edwards of Blueberry Hill is also quoted in it, so I am pleased to be in good company. Please take a moment to check it out. And it really is a stupid tax...

Georgia on My Mind

Yesterday, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a comprehensive health care reform bill similar to Missouri's landmark HB 818 legislation, which passed last year. We’ve praised HB 818 on this blog over and over (and elsewhere), but it seems Georgia has one-upped even that innovative piece of legislation (extensive coverage can be found here).

The most significant improvement in Georgia’s health insurance reform bill is a provision that allows insurers to provide incentives for healthy behavior. For example, health insurance companies will be able to reward individuals for things like quitting smoking or losing weight. This provision will go a long way toward reducing long-term costs.

In addition, the law mimics HB 818 in making the premiums paid on Health Savings Account–eligible insurance plans 100 percent deductible against personal state income taxes. To encourage employers to participate (particularly small businesses), the bill also allows a $250 tax credit per employee for employers that offer HSAs.

The bill also improves upon earlier legislation in that it allows health insurance to be sold across state lines, rather than through the monopolistic cartels that currently exist. So Georgians now have the opportunity to purchase HSA plans provided by Missouri companies. The increase in competition will help improve quality while lowering premium costs.

It’s really refreshing to see positive health care legislation being passed around the country. Makes me less of a cynic.

Interesting Ideas About Downtown Parking in KC

The Kansas City Post has a very interesting piece (link via Prime Buzz in the Star) about parking in downtown Kansas City. I don't agree with everything in it, but I recommend the piece highly. The economic analysis strikes me as very good, but I can give him one very vibrant area that benefits heavily from having a large amount of free parking: The Loop in University City. The Post piece is based on the situation in KC, but its arguments apply to any downtown area in the state. It's thought provoking, which is one of the highest compliments in blog world.

Mother Government Is Our Provider and Our Caregiver

An op-ed by Amy Blouin of the Missouri Budget Project has been making the rounds. Combest linked to it in the St. Joseph News-Press a few weeks ago, and the St. Louis Business Journal ran it last Friday, although we can't link to their version. Her op-ed deserves a careful review.

It begins with her driving her children somewhere and them complaining about taxes from the back seat. Really? Is this believable? Young children riding in the back of a car complaining about sales taxes, giving their mom an opportunity to explain the importance of taxation? I don't buy it, and so I'm calling b/s on the opening premise of the article. (As my infant grows, if he ever out-of-the-blue says to me, "Dad, I look forward to one day receiving a license from the government to work in whatever occupation I choose," thus giving me an opportunity to tell him about the harm occupational licensure does, then I shall retract my call of b/s and offer a full apology.)

She then lists the many important things taxes do:

Taxes pay for the fireman who one day might carry your spouse to safety; the public school teacher who spent extra time teaching your child algebra; the road that transports your business’ products to customers [...]

All of these are, of course, completely true. The fun is in what she leaves out. Taxes also pay for the unnecessary city employee who does nothing all day, but is some committeeperson's brother so they keep him on the payroll. Taxes pay for subsidized giveaways to developers and professional sports teams that don't need or deserve them. Taxes pay for the transfer programs that are one day going to bankrupt this country. Taxes paid for the welfare state and Great Society that cured poverty created a cycle of dependency and didn't reduce poverty rates, despite spending enormous amounts of money.

She then considers the low-tax nature of Missouri:

Missouri is already one of the lowest tax states in the nation, ranking 40-something in nearly every category. As a result, our services have slipped dramatically.

She gives no evidence of which services have slipped, but I have to be fair here — op-ed word limits are tight. There are two assumptions that underlie everything she writes. First, that it is the proper role of government to solve every problem and provide every service (health care, poverty, retirement money, cheap higher education, etc.), and second — and just as important — that the government does a good job in providing these services.

She then gets specific as to the low-tax nature of Missouri, but not as to why this is a problem:

Missouri now ranks 46th lowest for state and local spending per capita; 44th lowest for K-12 education spending; 46th lowest for higher education spending, causing tuition at public universities to skyrocket; and we have one of the lowest eligibility levels for health care for working parents in the nation, resulting in a 15 percent increase in the number of uninsured in the last year alone.

I personally think it is a good thing that we have a strict eligibility level for state-provided health care. That makes it more clear to me that the people who need it the most are the ones receiving it. Just because someone out there may have a need, it does not follow that the government must provide that need. I also fail to see why tuition at our universities can't rise in order to pay for the eduction of the people who will benefit from it. It is still far lower than the costs at most private universities. As for the rise in the uninsured (at least she gives factual evidence here), there are innovative ways for that to be addressed that don't involve government benevolence and control.

I could go on, but blog posts — like op-eds — have size limits or people would just stop reading, which most of you likely already have. She sums up her point with this:

What Missouri leaders should instead focus efforts on is not how to reduce taxes, but how to create a tax structure that is both equitable and adequate to meet our needs.

Creat a tax structure that is both equitable and adequate? I couldn't agree more.

Some Positive (and Not-So-Positive) News for Missouri Homeowners

Forbes Magazine has ranked Kansas City fifth in its “Best Cities for Home Sellers” list.

This is good news for Kansas Citians, who have been largely spared from the harshest wrath of the current housing “correction.” Saint Louis residents haven’t fared nearly as well, with the latest housing price index indicating year-over-year price declines of 5.2 percent. In fact, Forbes lists Saint Louis as number 4 in its “Riskiest Real Estate Markets” list.

Leading Kansas City on Forbes’ list were San Jose, Calif., San Francisco, Calif., Salt Lake City, Utah, and Austin, Texas.

The Missouri Health Transformation Act: Everything AND the Kitchen Sink

The Missouri Health Transformation Act of 2008 (SB1283), which would implement several state health care reforms, has passed the Missouri Senate and is now headed toward House approval.

This bill is a perfect example of bureaucracy at its finest. Considering the amount of administrative minutiae in this bill, I’d be surprised if anyone in the Senate other than the bill’s sponsor actually read it.

So what exactly will be “transformed” under the new bill? I’ve spent the better part of the past hour trying to figure that out. Apparently, one “transformation” would be the creation of a new Department of Redundancy Department, which would consist of the existing members of the current state health care agencies. Apparently, this new body is supposed to “coordinate health policy collaboration” across the state by issuing “official state recognition” to employers that promote “healthy workplaces.” The new cabinet also hopes to express its approval of “telehealth” — health advice provided over the phone.

But if that’s not enough, the bill would contain a litany of additional health care “fixes,” such as providing tax credits to private homeowners who modify their homes to be “accessible” (no description of what that means), providing a $400,000 grant to create a “website,” and a $350,000 grant “to be used for the establishment of a study to assess the feasibility of [health] pilot projects in the greater St. Charles area.”

I just don’t understand who this bill is supposed to appeal to. The provisions it would implement are mostly superficial or redundant. The one bright spot is the creation of a state income tax deduction equal to the premium paid by taxpayers for high deductible health care plans purchased through a health savings account. But that benefit seems superfluous when the bill simultaneously expands the Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan coverage to include benefits such as marriage counseling at the taxpayers' expense. Considering the degree to which MCHCP is currently underfunded (stay tuned for the future release of our study about Missouri public pensions), this seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

The only thing this bill might “transform” is creating a greater conviction that an expanded role for government management of health care would be a huge mistake.

St. Louis County's New Tax Commission Is Welcome Gift to Bloggers

It looks like I am not going to have any trouble finding things to blog about as long as this new commission is in operation. St. Louis County has put together an ad-hoc committee to look at potential new revenue enhancements — or "taxes," in regular speak. The Post-Dispatch has the story here. This is not automatically a bad thing. "But Dave, you stupid commie pinko, new taxes are always a bad thing!" you might say to me, and indeed new taxes are usually a bad thing. But there are several reasons why I have faith in this commission and am not reflexively opposed to its very existence. Those reasons are:

• First and foremost, Skip Mange is in charge of it. Skip is truly one of my favorite people. He was a great county councilman and a dedicated public servant. His engineering background will come out here. He is going to have to see a genuine need, hard facts, and a legitimate purpose before he supports any new taxes. (That is just my belief; he didn't tell me that.) Skip certainly struck a note of temperance with his quote in the article:

Skip Mange, a Republican and former County Council member, is chairman of the commission. He said that supporters of the tax proposals "need to know which are not viable. They should not anticipate that all of them are politically available."

• The fact is that St. Louis County does have a great deal of room under its bonding authority at present. My initial opinion here is that if something has to be done (and the Family Court Building really does suck), then issuing bonds and extending — but not increasing — the property tax to pay off the bonds is the best way to do it.
• Finally, and very importantly, thanks to the Hancock Amendment no tax increase of any size will go forward without a vote of the people of St. Louis County. As the article states, several of these proposals have already been voted down. I am confident that the voters will make a good decision again regarding whatever this commission decides to support, if anything.

Should College Be Free?

Jay Nixon wants college to be free. Here he explains why:

"I firmly believe a college education is key to achieving a dream," he said. "Tuition at state colleges is skyrocketing and middle-class families are getting squeezed by outrageous tuition fees."

And here are a few reasons to oppose the plan:

1. College is expensive, but most of the eventual gains go to the student, in the form of higher wages and greater appreciation of the finer things in life, like philosophy. (At least, according to my philosophy professors.) So it makes sense for the student to bear the cost. We should give people opportunities to borrow for college and help out low-income students who couldn't attend otherwise. But there's no need to do away with tuition for all middle-income students.

2. College is essential to achieve many dreams. However, there are other "keys" to dreams, like winning the Nobel prize, owning an expensive car, or finding the perfect spouse. The state of Missouri can't subsidize everybody's dreams.

3. Last but not least: When you subsidize an industry, it loses the incentive to improve and innovate.

A Fantastic Example

The Post-Dispatch has a story today that I really hope garners a lot of attention. A private organization, the Today and Tomorrow Educational Foundation, has collected $12 million to help hundreds of economically disadvantaged students get a better education. The Foundation will award scholarships to roughly 600 children in St. Louis families whose household income qualifies them for the federal free- and reduced-price meals program, allowing them to choose from among 34 private schools for their educational needs.

This kind of charitable effort represents the best in our society. The children who will benefit are currently being failed not only by a school system that lost its accreditation, but by the surrounding public school districts who are refusing to admit students from the city (at the request of St. Louis Public Schools). Where bureaucracy and petty politics are exacerbating the plight of these children, the generosity of private individuals is making an effort to fill the gap and meet at least a small part of the need that exists in this city.

It is also important to note that this sort of private charity is precisely what would be fostered by a tuition tax credit scholarship program. Under such a program, the state would recognize and promote the pro-social behavior represented by such charitable donations, offering limited tax relief for those who contribute to the educational welfare of children in their communities. The availability of such a credit would be especially beneficial, because it would make more people liable to donate to similar foundations and it would allow them to give more than they would otherwise be able to give. As we have remarked before, a tuition tax credit scholarship would be an excellent way for the state to encourage private citizens to invest in the success of their communities' children.

Totally Awesome Post About Stupid Public Policy Decisions

Over at The Atlantic, James Fallows has the winner in a great contest about stupid public policy decisions. I encourage you to read the whole list, but please save special attention for our dear winner and Missouri favorite, ethanol.

True Step Forward for Free Markets in Missouri

Regular readers may readily recall my writings about utilities. So it is with some surprise that I was not more aware of efforts in the general assembly to deregulate telecom prices in rural Missouri. Then again, I am pleased to report that my job is NOT to sit over the computer and memorize every single bill that gets introduced. So with that happy shrug, let's get to the point.

The Springfield News-Leader (link via Combest) has the story of a bill passed yesterday that will substantially reduce the regulation requirements for rural telecom companies. I must say that I find parts of this bill to be quaint. The telephone industry seems to be the MOST competitive industry out there. Have you ever noticed that they have these companies that sell these portable and wireless phones that occasionally advertise on TV? Do you remember when Sprint and MCI literally sent checks to people in order to get them to switch their long-distance providers back in the '90s? Come to think of it, do you remember long-distance charges? Anyway, I think for most people the assumption is that there is plenty of competition in the telecom industry. But apparently there isn't in some rural parts of Missouri. Isn't that just adorable?

So when thinking of ways to increase competition, our legislators actually have decided, and I assume the governor will agree, to reduce regulations and price controls. This is exciting and admirable. The concern a few have is that rates will not rise in areas that don't yet have competition, but if the history of capitalism proves anything, you can be assured that higher rates, and the potential for more profit, along with less regulation, will bring more competition into those areas and ultimately improve access to new services. And by "new," I mean the Internet. I shall gladly point out that this bill passed with substantial majorities and bipartisan support in both houses. All of our legislators deserve to be commended. The Kansas City Star has a story on it here. As one representative I know has an excellent understanding of free markets says:

“This bill is about access for rural Missouri,” said Rep. Charlie Schlottach, an Owensville Republican.

Indeed, it is.

A Contrarian's View

A summer gas tax “holiday” seems to be all the rage these days. Last week, the Missouri house approved a bill to rebate the $0.17/gallon Missouri gas tax consumer will pay throughout the summer. On the presidential campaign trail, both Senators Clinton and McCain have voiced their approval of a federal moratorium on summer gas taxes despite, as David pointed out yesterday, overwhelming opposition from economists of all stripes. In fact, more than 200 economists recently signed a petition against the gas tax break — including four Nobel laureates.

Politicians like scapegoats, and big oil companies are an easy target when oil futures trade at more than $120/barrel. But has the run-up in gas prices really made “Joe American” worse off? (Hat tip to Tim Iacono for this idea.)

During the past year, retail gasoline has increased from $2.80/gallon to approximately $3.60. An average American consumes approximately 500 gallons of gasoline per year. So let’s be conservative and assume that the entire purchase was at the higher price, resulting in a $400 higher gasoline bill this year (500 gallons * $0.80 = $400).

But the typical American is also heavily invested in energy stocks through mutual funds in their 401k accounts. A middle-class American family (in their 30s with household income between $40k–$80k) has about $90,000 in retirement accounts. On average, about 70 percent of these accounts are invested in broad U.S. equity indices, of which energy stocks compose about 13 percent. Energy stocks are up about 17 percent during the past year. So the increase in the average American's wealth from high energy prices is about $1,392 ($90k * 0.7 * 0.13 * 0.17 = $1,392). That means that a typical American family is nearly $1,000 wealthier from the run-up in energy prices during the past year (in a very simplistic sense).

Of course, this ignores the several-trillion-dollar loss in home equity values most Americans have suffered lately, so it’s a small consolation. But it’s an interesting way of looking at the world.

A Victory for Alternative Teacher Certification

Great news: Alternative teacher certification in Missouri just got better. The new alternative route, which combines hands-on experience, mentoring, and education training, will help public schools that are trying to fill math and science positions.

Gov. Blunt explains why we need the new law:

“Under the old system, Bill Gates couldn’t teach a class in computer software in a Missouri high school,” Blunt said. “This bill allows experienced professionals to become certified teachers.”

People always ask, "But aren't the things they teach in ed school important? What if Bill Gates is a genius but a bad teacher?" And that's a good question. Teaching technique is important. And it's certainly true that professionals can be knowledgable about their fields but unable to communicate with students. On the other hand, some people are great educators despite a lack of formal education training. Many college professors, for example, teach well but have never taken pedagogy courses.

By giving teaching candidates classroom experience up front, the alternative certification process may actually do a better job than traditional certification at weeding out smart people who shouldn't teach. It will quickly become apparent to the candidates and their assigned mentors if teaching isn't the right job for them. Besides, certifying people to teach doesn't force districts to hire them. Districts won't become less selective about hiring people — in fact, they'll get to be choosier because they'll have more candidates to consider.

Well, I Guess Hillary Would Not Be a Fan of the Show-Me Institute

Apparently, Senator Clinton has no intention of listening to anything that an economist might say (via Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish):

George Stephanopoulos began his televised interview with Senator Hillary Clinton by asking if she could name a single economist who supports her plan for a gas tax suspension.

She did not. "I'm not going to put in my lot with economists," she said on ABC's "This Week" program. A few moments later, she added, "Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans."

So I guess there is no point to asking her about a phase-out of the city earnings tax. Considering that a few months back she listed management of the economy (a terrifying thought that anyone thinks they can or should do that) as her primary interest as president, you'd think she'd at least fake a little respect for all the economists out there.