Last week, I noted with some pleasure Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price Jr.’s call for a less punitive approach to nonviolent offenders in our legal system. In an editorial today, the Post-Dispatch praises Price and offers some concrete recommendations for reform:

• Drug courts need more funding. This is the low-hanging fruit in criminal justice reform — the chance to save serious money by ending the cycle of crime and keeping nonviolent, drug-related offenders out of prison. A lack of funding means state leaders aren’t serious.

• Leaders in rural counties must start to deal with nonviolent offenders in their own communities. If their prosecutors and judges insist on sending everyone to prison, then local taxpayers should be forced to pick up the tab.

• And, Gov. Jay Nixon should convene a panel of top law enforcement, legislative and judicial officials. Their task over the next 120 days should be to develop a plan for closing five of Missouri’s 21 adult correctional institutions over the next five years — one a year for five years — using part of the savings to support alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.

I agree that all of these would be positive developments, but I will note that we could save even more money if the state did not attempt to force people to abstain from certain vices.  Oh, well — baby steps, I suppose.

Last year, the American Journal of Medicine included a disturbing story about bankruptcy in America. In that study of five states (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas), it was found that medical expenses had become a causal factor in almost 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies. That investigation revealed that these financial catastrophes had been occurring for some years, but the proportion related to health care appeared to have grown over the same period of time as many of our other health care concerns. In fact, a logistic regression analysis of the data revealed that the odds "that bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001." That report became more disconcerting when it described the average person impoverished by medical debt. The typical individual was a 41-year-old with a job and some college education, who was working to support a family with young children. In addition, that research indicated that the strongest predictor of a working person developing a catastrophic combination of severe illness and bankruptcy was the loss of health insurance during the preceding two years. As we all know, situations like that are not uncommon in the current economic climate, because many existing jobs have had their benefits reduced.

Well, that’s sad, but my interest was in whether that had any special meaning for the people of Missouri. When I examined the issue, I found that it is difficult to perform a similar data analysis within this state. Nevertheless, for those interested in this subject, there are other links that can be used to learn about the local situation. At the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, people have been concerned about local bankruptcy problems for many years. Interestingly, as far back as in 1998, research performed at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that the medical expenses of the health care uninsured were a leading cause of bankruptcy in this region. More recently, such bankruptcy problems were re-examined and a relationship to medical expenses was found to continue to exist. Then, another study discovered an additional relevant factor: The average national personal bankruptcy filing rate in the United States in 2004 was 380 out of every 100,000 people. If one examines each individual state, Missouri wins again. In Missouri, in the year 2004, there were 700 personal bankruptcies for every 100,000 people. That was found to be the highest rate of personal bankruptcy in the United States that year.

So, what does this mean to you? Some may recall my October 2009 post. There, I showed that Missouri spends a larger portion of the state GDP per person for health care than most other states. Compared to the U.S. average, that is about $500 more per person in this state. At the same time, average life expectancy in Missouri is two years less than the U.S. average. That means we are spending more and getting less. Now, the personal bankruptcy data implies that some of those who are surviving this health care dilemma are being driven into poverty. As the original report showed, these are hardworking, educated people trying to support their families.

Previous reports from the Show-Me Institute revealed that certain types of insurance programs, like Health Savings Accounts, can be used to prevent such health care–related financial catastrophes. Because this has become a greater problem now than it was when those reports were written, one would expect the insurance market to respond to this need. Some of the brightest people work in the insurance industry, and they need to create a product that addresses this issue. An additional problem is that most of the people that need this type of insurance are not aware of their danger, so some public education is needed. Now that there is a bit of a breather in the rush to health care reform, perhaps there is time to look at this situation, and the other free-market ways that can be developed to help the people of Missouri.

My Two Census declares the Census Bureau’s marketing campaign a flop, based on data from its YouTube channel:

The Portrait of America video has just over 6,500 hits…which would sound pretty pathetic for a 10 month campaign if only it wasn’t revealed that the other six videos posted 10 months ago each received between 347 and 1,305 hits. In the series of videos posted 6 months ago, the most widely-watched video, about the address-canvassing operations, has been viewed a measly 1,083 times. (This means that only a tiny fraction of the workers involved in this process even watched the video…)

For comparison, 1,700,000 people watched Google’s Super Bowl ad on YouTube. And “How Many Times Must Our Health Care Fail,” the song I linked to in this post, has been viewed 3,700 times.

My Two Census’ numbers don’t reflect the Census Bureau’s full impact on YouTube, because they don’t take into account the separate channel that the Bureau created for its Super Bowl ad. The ad features an imaginary film director named Payton Schlewitt, and it can be found — along with other clips of Schlewitt’s antics — on the Payton Schlewitt channel. There, the numbers are better. The ad itself drew 117,300 hits within five days. Another video of Schlewitt and his cohorts, which highlights the fact that animals are not counted in the Census, is up to 1,400 hits, also after only a few days.

So, the numbers aren’t as bad as they would appear from the Census Bureau’s channel alone. Still, My Two Census has a point. Payton Schlewitt’s viewership pales next to Google’s. And, of the people who watched the Census ad, many reacted unfavorably. Viewers rated it a mediocre two-and-a-half stars, and several comments complain that taxes had to pay for it.

The USDA announces that the secretary of agriculture has appointed new members to the National Mango Board. I didn’t know we had a National Mango Board, although until today, I didn’t know about the popcorn, avocado, or watermelon boards, either. (There’s no board for raspberries yet, but the USDA is working on it.)

Why is the USDA involved in promoting individual fruits? Can’t the blueberry growers and the mushroom growers manage their own public relations?

These organizations belong in the private sector. The USDA should follow the precedent set by the state of Missouri and get rid of extraneous boards.

While we’re on the subject of produce, the National Watermelon Promotion Board links to this picture of a bus stop shaped like a watermelon. Check it out.

Yesterday, the Post-Dispatch ran a front-page article about efforts to ban texting while driving, and compared them to the crackdown on drunk driving 30 years ago. There are a number of studies showing that texting while driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving, and I do believe the government has a responsibility to create and enforce reasonable safety rules for its roads — so, if laws banning texting while driving substantially reduced accidents, I would support them.

Unfortunately, there is no such evidence. A newly released study by the auto insurance industry found no decrease in auto crashes in states that enacted laws banning texting or talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving. The researchers find this result puzzling, but it could simply be that the law is unenforceable. This is not to say that texting while driving is a good idea, but the government of Missouri (or at the federal level, for that matter) should not be in the business of passing unenforceable, ineffectual laws.

As it stands, if a police officer observes a vehicle moving dangerously, the driver can be ticketed for careless and imprudent driving regardless of the reason behind such reckless behavior. Accordingly, we may not need a law against texting while driving to cut down on the dangers associated with it.

The Jennings School District bought more than 2,500 hand-held computers back in 2006. Now, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, the district is getting rid of them. They were purchased with high hopes:

Students could use them to graph math equations, take notes, draw charts, and even, coupled with external probes, measure temperature and pH.

The north St. Louis County school district, now with about 3,100 students, bought one machine for each third- through 12th-grader.

Jennings made two mistakes when it bought all those devices. First, it didn’t have a specific purpose for the technology. The things students could have done with the computers, like taking notes and studying equations, were tasks they could do already with pencils or calculators. Teachers aren’t going to adopt new technology when the old technology does the job just as well. It’s no wonder most teachers said they didn’t use the computers and don’t intend to use them.

Second, the district bought the computers for too many students. It would have made more sense to introduce the devices to one grade, and wait for results before giving them to other grades.

Districts can easily get carried away by dreams of quick technological fixes, so I don’t blame Jennings for being so ambitious. What’s puzzling is that Jennings doesn’t seem to have learned from what happened. The district plans to get rid of the devices by giving them away to graduating students over the course of several years, even though the devices are almost obsolete and will probably be worthless in a year or two. It’s like Jennings can’t give up on its expectation that students will use the computers — if not in school, then after they graduate.

Jennings should sell the computers once and for all. And remember the moral of the story: More gadgets aren’t always better.

In the comments section to this article about Parents as Teachers, some Columbia Daily Tribune readers are brainstorming ways to limit eligibility to the program, to make the most of its remaining funding.

I agree that the program provides too many services for free to too many people, but not all suggestions for limiting it struck me as good ideas. One plan in particular that I think would be unsuccessful is restricting the program to children who are lagging behind in their development.

An argument for Parents as Teachers that I find persuasive (although not sufficient justification for free services to the wealthy) is that helping at-risk children when they’re young can prevent problems and save tax dollars later on. Parents as Teachers couldn’t do that if only children with below-average development were let in. That’s because the younger children are, the easier it is for their development to be considered satisfactory; not much is expected from a newborn baby. But when children are a few years old, they need to have passed several milestones to still be on track. The effect of screening by development would be to keep out most babies and bring children into the program years later, after their developmental problems have surfaced. Programs like Parents as Teachers shouldn’t look for children who are already behind, but for children who are fine now and likely to fall behind later.

Furthermore, “normal” means different things to different people, and there is some subjectivity involved in diagnosing developmental delays. In this radio interview, a representative from Parents as Teachers talks about the possibility that doctors and Parents as Teachers educators might disagree about whether a child has a developmental problem. (I can readily believe that such differences might arise, because Parents as Teachers educators don’t need to have any medical background and their training consists of short seminars and distance learning.) Who would have the final say in determining whether a child is eligible? And there’s still the question of which mothers should get home visits before their babies are born.

Although I hope Parents as Teachers will end its free home visits to families that don’t need help, it shouldn’t use developmental screenings to determine which people to serve.

My recent post about how government agencies in Missouri spent $2,047,457.28 on Credit Card Fees and $17,940.49 on Late Payment Penalty Charges during 2009 has generated some interest! The KC Prime Buzz blog and the Political Fix blog both linked to it.

The Political Fix blog initially titled its article “Missouri state agencies fact check blogger,” later changing it to “Credit check: State agencies dispute Show-Me Institute figures.” Both titles misrepresent the truth. The numbers that I reported were produced by Missouri government agencies, not by the Show-Me Institute or myself. The data in the “Show Me: The Spending” web tool comes directly from the Missouri Accountability Portal, which information reported and distributed by the state of Missouri.

I spoke with Lorna Domke, outreach and education chief for the Missouri Department of Conservation, who checked with her accounting office and discovered that funds had been misallocated. In an email, she provided the following clarification to me:

Our contracting services for our Permits sales system (”POS system”) should have been through an object code #2496, “other business services.” That category should have had $1.789 million put in it instead of in the object code #2487, “credit card fees.”

Her numbers check out. I isolated these numbers in the Show-Me: The Spending web tool, and then I exported the relevant data to Excel to combine into the following graph. In 2009, the department’s expenditures on credit card fees increased by about $1.7 million and its expenditures on “other business services” decreased by the same amount.

According to her email, the correct FY09 credit card fees total should have been $31,616 and the correct FY08 credit card fees should have been $32,439.

I also asked Ms. Damke if she could define this category for me, because some of our blog readers raised questions about which types of fees it might contain. In the email, she provided the following clarification:

“Expenditures for the fees incurred when accepting payment by credit card.”

Credit card companies will charge the vendor (our Nature Shops in our case ) a fee of a few% of purchase plus 20 or 30 cents per transaction for each purchase, depending on the agreement. So our credit card fees are only for paying the credit card company for being able to accept credit cards for payments. They do not include any interest, late fees, etc.<just the regular fees for accepting credit cards.

At the Show-Me Institute, we’re glad to see that the Department of Conservation admitted that it made a mistake in coding its expenditures. It would be nice if they could get it right the first time. It would also be nice if other departments would also check their numbers. As reported on the Political Fix blog:

Department of Public Safety officials said the figure is misleading, and does not represent late payments from the department.

The Department of Public Safety should check with its own accounting office, because that’s the origin of the numbers that I reported.

When you keep repeating an error that others have corrected for you and explained to you multiple times why it is incorrect, it ceases to be merely an error — you border on becoming willfully obtuse. Such is the case with the Missouri Budget Project’s continuing claim in its talks and writings about the Missouri “Fair Tax” bill that the legislation would require an 11-percent state sales tax in order for the state to maintain its revenue stream after eliminating the state income tax. As Show-Me Institute executive vice president and University of Missouri–Columbia economics professor Joseph Haslag demonstrated in a recent case study that he wrote with Show-Me Institute intern Abhi Sivasailam, that revenue-neutral rate would be about 5.8 percent.

There are certainly legitimate arguments one might make against the Fair Tax proposal — simply stating, perhaps, a belief in in the fairness of progressive income taxation, wherein one’s tax burden automatically increases with income. I would disagree with that argument, but it is a perfectly legitimate argument to make because it doesn’t employ a demonstrably false set of facts. Repeating a figure based on an faulty set of assumptions about a proposal in order to score political points through fear, however, is not a legitimate form of argument.

The Missouri Budget Project again used its 11-percent sales tax figure in a Saint Louis Beacon op-ed today. Only a few days ago, I witnessed two economists tell the author of the MBP piece that her number was incorrect. They corrected her politely and professionally, and explained why it is wrong. Months ago, the MPB also received a copy of the Show-Me Institute’s case study, which went into great detail on the question and explained again why their 11-percent estimate is far too high. Unfortunately, they’ve continued to repeat their unreliable figure at every opportunity.

If you want to argue against Fair Tax legislation, that is fine with me. And, yes, it is likely that different people will come up with somewhat different estimates for how high the revenue-neutral replacement level of the sales tax would need to be. But if your estimate differs so dramatically from everybody else who has studied the issue that it appears to be just plain wrong, you should cease using it once that has been brought to your attention — or attempt to demonstrate where your opponents’ reasoning is faulty, in a detailed, systematic way. And if you don’t, people should stop taking you seriously.

The L.A. Times reports on the disagreement that is holding up a proposed Hebrew-language charter school in California. The school promises to teach languages (Hebrew and a few others), not religion, but some people still think it would violate separation of church and state. Here’s a quote by an opponent of the proposed charter from a previous article:

“By requiring the students study Hebrew, I think you’re effectively limiting (who would apply),” said Dennis King, a former Hart school board member of 20 years. “So it’s sort of an ethnic school. It’s a school that appeals to a particular culture. . . . I suspect 95% of the kids will be Jewish.”

I hope this way of thinking doesn’t become prevalent in Missouri, because I’m happy about the growth of language-immersion charters here and I’m afraid the argument could be used against them as well. The St. Louis Language Immersion Schools have suggested the possibility of opening new schools in the future. Would they be barred from opening a Japanese school because many students would be Buddhists, or an Arabic school because many Muslims would apply?

As long as the school does not promote religion, there’s nothing wrong with teaching a language that’s associated with a religious group. Public schools do it all the time; Ladue teaches Hebrew, and Bunche teaches Arabic. If public schools can teach these languages for an hour or two a day, charters should be able to focus on the same languages and teach them in more depth.

I’m not convinced by some economists’ assertions that offering merit pay and bonuses doesn’t make employees more productive. One of the economists professing that opinion is Dan Ariely, who describes his research in Wired. Here are some of the tasks he asked his subjects to perform:

We asked them, for example, to assemble puzzles and to play memory games while throwing tennis balls at a target.

When the subjects were offered big rewards, they did poorly on the puzzles.

I have no doubt that Ariely and his collaborators ran their experiments under rigorous laboratory conditions, but it’s a stretch to conclude from them that merit pay is bad. What goes on in the laboratory is far removed from day-to-day classroom activities. Good teaching depends more on verbal and interpersonal skills than on hand-eye coordination. And a controlled experiment with tennis balls is of necessity finished within minutes, whereas teaching takes place over the course of many months. The long work of establishing a rapport with students and building knowledge isn’t comparable to putting a little puzzle together.

To learn the true effects of bonuses and incentives, it’s better to look at studies that examine how real teachers in schools respond to merit pay.

Trend of Spending on Recognition Awards by Government Agency (in 1,000s)

The yellow line represents the Department of Transportation, which has historically spent far more on recognition awards than the other government agencies. The orange line represents the Department of Conservation, which replaced MoDOT for the top spot in 2009. Between 2000 and 2009, Missouri’s government agencies spent a combined total of $3,866,129.40 on recognition rewards.

The largest expenditure to a single vendor for recognition awards occurred in the Department of Public Safety in 2008, which explains the big spike in the dark blue line during that year. Adjusted for inflation, this department spent $110,270 with On Time Marketing Corp. The second largest expenditure occurred in the Department of Transportation in 2001 — it spent $107,627 with Kay-Cee Enterprises, Inc.

According to the Department of Transportation’s “Personnel Policy Manual,” each employee is eligible to receive as much as $2,000 in recognition awards per calendar year. The policy document also states that employees may receive additional recognition awards from non-MoDOT sources, so it is possible for a person to be awarded even more than this.

• Aren’t there better uses for taxpayer money than roll-up blankets, windshield screens, and shirt/cap combos for bureaucrats?
• If the highest-performing MoDOT employees receive paid time off as a recognition award, doesn’t it follow that the lowest-performing employees remain at work?
• Isn’t Missouri looking for items to cut out of its budget? Wouldn’t it be more responsible to cut recognition awards before it cuts funding for education or for emergency communication?

I discovered this information via the Show-Me Institute’s new web tool, “Show-Me: The Spending.” Yesterday, Charis Fischer used this web tool to discover that travel expenditures for the governor’s office skyrocketed between 2008 and 2009, and I discovered that government agencies in Missouri spent more than $2 million on credit card fees in 2009 alone. I invite our blog readers to play with the tool and see whether they can uncover additional examples of wasteful spending by Missouri’s government agencies.

Diner’s Journal writes that the proposed increase in federal spending on school lunches disappointed many advocates, who had hoped for a steeper rise in funding. By itself, the increase won’t allow schools to change their menus drastically:

Quick calculations show that at best, the president’s plan might offer less than 20 cents more per school lunch.

Schools can still improve the meals they serve, but they’ll have to find other ways to pay for better food. Schools might raise money specifically for their cafeterias, or they could divert resources from things they’ve been paying for that are less important than lunch. Some schools have already succeeded; this charter school, for one, spends a few dollars more on each student’s lunch than the typical public school. The Maplewood–Richmond Heights School District is another example of a school that changed its lunch offerings without federal help. The district was able to add fresh produce to its meals using a grant from a nonprofit organization.

Not every district needs to transform its cafeteria food. In some districts, the lunches aren’t great, but students live in households that can afford to send bag lunches if they choose. Other districts may decide that something else is holding back student achievement and that all resources should be focused on solving that problem before any additional money is diverted to making lunches tastier.

Districts that do want to spend more on food should accept the fact that they won’t receive unlimited appropriations from the federal government. They need to be frugal, and to buy the food they want at the cheapest price. They need to look for foods that are both nutritious and inexpensive. They can’t afford to squander money on pricey fads like “local” or “sustainable” food.

The Missouri Record ran a column yesterday about “voter vouchers,” written by political science professor David Webber. He explains the program thusly:

Once a year, registered voters in Missouri should receive a voucher of between $25 and $50, which will allow them to contribute public funds to any candidate for a local or state elected office who has filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission. Vouchers should be redeemable in $10 denominations, allowing voters to spread their support among several candidates.

He writes in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance and corporations (an entirely different discussion, though one I believe was well-argued by Ilya Somin on the Volokh Conspiracy blog). Webber laudably hopes to increase citizen involvement, but voter vouchers wouldn’t accomplish that; in fact, they would likely cause more problems than they could potentially solve. After a discussion about voter vouchers with David Stokes and Audrey Spalding, we have come up with a number of arguments against them. I welcome any perspective, for or against, in the comment section.

1) Why would voter vouchers reduce apathy?

The main argument Webber uses in favor of voter vouchers is that they could combat voter apathy. I find it difficult to believe this would be the case. After all, the voucher would not be radically different from an ordinary vote, especially if each person is given an equal amount at no more of a (visible) cost to them than a vote would require. If a person cannot invest the time to research which candidate best aligns with his views and then head to the polls, why would giving him the potential “vote” of voucher money change his priorities? When somebody invests their own $50, there is far more incentive to research the candidates than when that same person is given $50 of “free” money.

2) Voter vouchers could potentially create a black market.

Voter vouchers would have a worth to some (campaign staff) that would likely exceed its worth to others (apathetic voters). This creates the potential for a black market to evolve, in which campaign staff trade, say, $30 in cash for the $50 vouchers. This would not increase voter involvement, but instead would intensify the very problems Webber was concerned with trying to solve. This could well foster a public-funded subsidy for campaigns that exists entirely independent of voter preferences, increasing ads and “media blitzes” by increasing funding to campaigns.

2) Votes are private; vouchers (and donations) are public.

Actual campaign donations (of a certain amount) are explicitly attached to the donor’s name. This is good for transparency, but a potential liability for those who might be publicly “expected” to allocate their money to a certain candidate or ballot issue, but privately wish to support a different candidate or issue. A vote cast is relatively private, but voter vouchers would not be. Even if the voucher donations were not made public in the same way that ordinary campaign donations are, such funding could be tracked in other ways that could increase an individual’s personal liability.

4) Public financing disproportionately helps incumbents.

Webber’s column in the Record pointed to Arizona and Maine as leaders in establishing public financing programs. But public financing does not decrease the influence of monied interests. In fact, a cap on expenditures aids the incumbent, who is already well-known and has “free” advertising in the form of thinly disguised constituent communication and favorable newspaper articles. Although voter vouchers would not necessarily lead to a prohibition of private donations, that would be the logical next step. On its own, this is not an argument against voter vouchers, but (in conjunction with the other arguments) it is an important consideration when considering any form of public financing.

5) Voter vouchers are funded by tax money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Webber estimates that it would cost, at maximum, $200 million to provide voter vouchers for the 4 million registered voters in Missouri. (This, of course, assumes that more people wouldn’t register to vote simply in order to benefit from a black market in voucher sales.) However you swing it, $200 million is a lot of money. It could be spent on any number of things (roads, schools, tax refunds) that would provide better public benefits than electoral campaigns would.

Voter apathy may or may not be a pressing problem, depending on one’s personal political philosophy, but voter vouchers are an unrealistic remedy. Even those who share a goal to increase citizen involvement should be wary of solutions that involve redistributing taxpayer money to candidates seeking public office. The repercussions of a voter voucher are too serious to ignore.

[NOTE: After an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Political Fix blog covered this entry, and after speaking to an official from the government department in question, Christine Harbin wrote a follow-up entry that contains updated information. — Editor]

As if enough taxpayer money weren’t already going toward banks!

The expenditure for all of Missouri’s government agencies combined increased from $381,553.98 in 2008 to $2,047,457.28 in 2009, which represents an increase of 436.61 percent.

The breakdown between agencies is particularly puzzling. In 2009, the Department of Conservation in Missouri paid $1,818,208 in credit card fees. This represents an increase of 1,141.25 percent from 2008’s expenditure. It dwarfs the amount of credit card fees that the secretary of the state’s office and the Department of Natural Resources paid, which was $183,894 and $30,854, respectively. The amount paid in credit card fees by the other agencies combined was $14,501, which is nevertheless $14,501 too much.

Total of Spending on Credit Card Fees by Agency (in 1,000s)

When I look at the trend of this information over time, I am speechless. What is going on here?

Trend of Spending on Credit Card Fees by Agency (in 1,000s)

I discovered a similarly disturbing trend when I looked at the amount of Late Payment Penalty Charges by government agency. The public safety department spent $17,494.22 in 2009, which represents an increase of 43,168 percent over the previous year! The total for all Missouri government agencies in this category increased from $327,432.60 to $17,940,490 during this period, which is an increase of 5,379 percent.

Total Spending on Late Payment Penalty Charges by Agency (in 1,000s)

In my opinion, this is the quintessential example of government waste and fiscal irresponsibility. The amount of money that the government spends on things like credit card fees and late payment penalty charges should be zero. This figure doesn’t include the amount of products and services that these government agencies purchased. It also doesn’t include the amount of interest that they were charged. This number consists solely of the extra fees that were incurred on government credit cards. Can any of our blog readers explain the dramatic increase in either of these numbers? I’m really interested to know.

I discovered this information while playing with the Show-Me Institute’s recently-launched web tool, “Show-Me: The Spending.” I encourage our blog readers to play with the site and see what else they can uncover related to Missouri’s government spending.

Although it changes nothing immediately, it is good to hear Missouri’s highest-ranking judge point out the inefficiency and waste of imprisoning nonviolent criminals:

During his annual State of the Judiciary address, Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price, Jr. urged lawmakers to take a closer look at the incarceration of nonviolent offenders and the expansion of the state’s drug court system.

In a speech today before the house and Senate, Price said Missouri’s “broken strategy of cramming inmates into prisons” isn’t working and costs the state millions of dollars each year.

He said the state should focus on rehabilitating nonviolent offenders, instead of sending them to jail. Jailing nonviolent offenders, Price said, frequently leads to higher recidivism rates. 41.6 percent of nonviolent offenders who are jailed, then released, return to jail within two years, he said.

Price praised the state’s drug court system, but said it needs at least $2 million more funding per year to operate at full capacity.

According to the Show-Me Institute’s new spending tool, “Show-Me: The Books,” Missouri spends more than $2.7 billion a year on the Department of Corrections. Much of that spending keeps violent criminals off the street and is justified, but much of it goes to lock up petty criminals and drug offenders. Of course, I would go much further than Judge Price by eliminating prosecution of all victimless crimes (e.g., drug possession, prostitution) completely, but given how rare it is to hear someone in power even approximate my position, I will gladly take it.

Using the Show-Me Institute’s “Show-Me: The Spending” online tool, I discovered some curious trends in the Missouri state budget. One that caught my eye was the budget for the office of the governor, which increased from $165,000 in 2008 to $1,132,000 in 2009:

One category of spending that showed a huge increase was “professional services,” which jumped from $8,000 to $428,000. The main component of this increase is “attorney services,” which cost the office of the governor $401,281. I did a quick Google News search to see if there was any media coverage explaining this increase, but no luck. Attorney services are probably necessary in some capacity, so the question is: What specifically is responsible for this steep escalation in spending?

Another large portion of this budget increase is funding for travel, which grew from $53,000 to $281,000, the largest amount spent on travel since 2000:

According to an article in the Columbia Missourian from last June, state flight records show that Gov. Jay Nixon flew on about 50 days during his first four and half months in office. As the article notes, this adds up to about one flight every three days. I have to wonder whether this amount of travel is really necessary. What’s more, the article in the Columbia Missourian also notes that Nixon has frequently charged the cost of his airplane travel to other government agencies. The governor’s explanation, when asked about this back in June, is that during these particular trips, he spent time highlighting the issues that are handled by those various other departments. Maybe this is justified in certain circumstances, but on one particular occasion, 11 different state offices, including the Departments of Agriculture and Revenue, split a $1,295 bill so that the governor and the first lady could fly to the Missouri-Kansas basketball game on March 1 (their host was Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius). Even if this is deemed to be a necessary expense, which seems unlikely given the current economic climate, why wouldn’t it fall under the governor’s office travel budget?

The almost sevenfold increase in the total budget for the governor’s office is inconsistent with his claims of fiscal responsibility in the State of the State address. And the current governor isn’t the only one who has overseen questionable budget increases; there was a dramatic spike in the 2006 travel budget of former Gov. Matt Blunt, as well. The lesson here is that Missourians should keep a watchful eye on government finances, and that it is important for all Missouri officials to examine their budgets carefully in order to eliminate unnecessary expenses.

For too long, legislators have been avoiding the 800-pound gorilla in the back seat. In the interest of safety, legislators throughout Missouri and across the nation have mandated seat belt use, outlawed alcohol use while driving (obviously, we all agree with that one), banned talking on cell phones, and required children to sit in car seats or booster seats until they are 19 years old (OK, not quite that old). Now, they are banning texting.

All of these laws merely skirt around the edges of the real problem, which is that far too many people are rocking out to music or yelling back at the talk show host while they are driving. This carnage must stop. In the name of safety, and to fully protect the children — whom, as you may have heard — are the future, our leaders must finally take the necessary step to protect us from ourselves by banning the outrageous practice of listening to the radio while driving. It is only right.

(Thanks to Missouri safe-driver-of-the-year John Combest for the links.)

There is already much gnashing of teeth among Missouri’s political class over President Barack Obama’s decision to exclude the Boeing C-17 cargo plane from the federal budget. Sen. Kit Bond is lobbying to keep the program alive, despite the fact that the Pentagon has repeatedly told the federal government that it already has more than enough C-17s. To members of Congress, there is no such thing as pork if it goes to their constituents.

There are about 900 jobs in the Saint Louis area involved in manufacturing the aircraft, and if its production is ultimately discontinued, they will no doubt be at least temporarily worse off.  However, if we want to have lower taxes in the future, we must cut spending and pork projects like the C-17 — even though they are a small part of the total budget — are one of the easier places to start. If such wasteful programs are eliminated, the money spent on them can be returned to the people of Missouri, who can spend it on far more beneficial things than a redundant, military-industrial complex boondoggle.

Here’s something to celebrate in the Missouri budget: The governor cut $24 million that would have subsidized broadband Internet in rural areas.

As state officials have noticed, living in a rural community is different from living in an urban environment. You don’t have all the traffic, noise, and light pollution you’d find in a big city. The flip side is that you don’t have your choice of restaurants just around the corner, or the same opportunities to access the Internet.

The state shouldn’t try to smooth out those differences and give rural residents the benefits of city life. It would be silly to open a state-funded Starbucks on every gravel road so that rural areas would have better access to coffee. Broadband subsidies are an equally bad idea.

I attended the Show-Me Institute’s forum on Missouri’s tax system in Columbia yesterday, which featured a spirited debate about the most efficient and equitable method of taxing Missourians. Show-Me Institute scholar Ed Robb defended a “Fair Tax,” and argued that by replacing the state income and corporate taxes with a somewhat higher and broader sales tax (with an exemption for the poor), Missouri could significantly boost its economic growth, making us all better off. However, Amy Blouin of the Missouri Budget Project countered that the sales tax would have to be much higher than Robb estimates in order to offset all the revenue the state would lose by eliminating other taxes. Finally, Mizzou economics professor Jeff Milyo made the case that the type of taxation is not nearly as important for economic growth as the level of taxation (lower taxes result in higher growth), but a sales tax might be marginally preferable over an income tax because it is lower and broader.

I am by no means an expert on this issue, but one of Blouin’s arguments against the sales tax struck me as odd. Blouin contended that if we replaced all other taxes with one simple sales tax right now, it could tie Missouri’s government to recession levels of revenue, which are much lower than normal. The first problem with that is a tax on consumption should not be any more sensitive to economic fluctuations than a tax on income — both rise and fall with the business cycle. In fact, the Show-Me Institute’s executive vice president Joseph Haslag, who is also an economics professor at the University of Missouri–Columbia, has argued that sales taxes tend to be less volatile than income taxes.

More importantly, however, even if the Fair Tax were to lock Missouri’s government into a relatively low level of taxation, what’s wrong with that? According to this chart I generated using our new “Show-Me: The Spending” tool, government spending in constant 2009 dollars has grown from $14 billion in 2000 to $19.1 billion last year — an increase of more than 35 percent.

Even as revenues fell in 2009, spending still increased at a rate of 9 percent during 2008. Maybe if revenues were to remain low, politicians and bureaucrats would learn more quickly that they cannot spend tax dollars with no thought for the long-term consequences.

State Rep. Ellen Brandom of Sikeston has proposed for the third time in as many years that welfare recipients be tested for illegal drug use, and the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch thinks this is such a good idea that it should be extended even further:

There’s a logic to this, of course. Many employers conduct drug screenings as a routine matter. And Ms. Brandom has noted that taxpayers object to subsidizing drug use. No doubt they do.

But if Ms. Brandom is intent on protecting taxpayers, why just go after poor folks? And why screen only for drugs?

Lawmakers, like TANF recipients, also feed at the public trough, and plenty look as though they don’t lead the healthiest lifestyles. Given their grueling schedules and the rich food that lobbyists feed them, it’s no wonder.

This can drive up the cost of public employee health insurance. So why not, as a matter of routine, assess senators’ and state representatives’ body mass index and screen them for blood cholesterol levels?

Those found not to be taking care of themselves shouldn’t be automatically punished. But they shouldn’t be a burden on taxpayers either. Those found to have LDL (“bad”) cholesterol of, say, 200 or more, should be given a second chance before the public subsidy for their health insurance is suspended. Maybe free oatmeal, too.

What’s more, barely a year goes by without a lawmaker being involved in an alcohol-related driving offense. If welfare recipients can be cut off from public benefits for substance abuse, what about top state officials?

Read the whole thing here.  What a world it would be if politicians were actually constrained by the rules they force on the rest of us.

Last night, the Columbia City Council passed its urban chicken measure by a 4-3 vote. The meeting was well-attended, and spirited public comments preceded the decision. If you missed it, you might want to watch the archived video here.

Opponents of the proposal brought up two arguments against urban chickens: First, that chickens would be dirty, noisy, and wild; and second, that chickens would lower property values. Urban chicken supporters answered both objections very well.

Opponents told horror stories about disgusting chickens, but they failed to show that chickens are any worse than the birds that already live in Columbia. If chickens harbor pestilence and filth, then so do all the sparrows and pigeons that fly around unmolested. Chicken supporters pointed out that other pets like dogs can carry disease or leave waste, and Columbia has no trouble regulating dog ownership so that most people are satisfied. No one is asking the city to ban all dogs for sanitation reasons; chickens should be equally tolerable.

The Columbia ordinance prohibits roosters, which should go a long way toward preventing noise disturbances. One Realtor who spoke predicted that wild roosters will find a way into the coops despite the owners’ best intentions. I find it hard to believe a rooster could break into a coop that, by law, is made of sturdy fencing with a wire net on top — unless the rooster had access to power tools.

Then there’s the possibility that escaped chickens will flock in the streets. Again, the opponents haven’t shown that chickens are more likely than other animals to cause problems; owners of any kind of pets can be irresponsible. As one councilman said, chickens aren’t the nuisance — people are. Those people are the exception, and Columbia can deal with them on an individual basis. Urban chicken supporters have lots of ideas for reducing the number of wild chickens: A private organization has offered to teach people how to care for chickens, and it’s volunteered to help place abandoned birds in new homes. One graduate student pointed out that unwanted chickens can be sold on Craigslist.

It’s clear that chickens are no more of a nuisance than dogs or cats. However, some Columbia residents — namely, Realtors — say that chickens are uniquely harmful because people think of them as farm animals. They claim that the chicken ordinance will lower property values, and that chickens next door to homes on the market could quash sales. These Realtors overlook the fact that the ordinance doesn’t override neighborhood associations’ covenants or landlords’ policies, which can exclude chickens. Chickens are not about to move into a community of mansions and destroy the value of the surrounding estates. And, as several commenters indicated, some people would actually prefer to buy a house in a city that allows chickens.

The only time chicken enthusiasts lost me was when they appealed to “sustainability” and “food security.” I can’t imagine how building a chicken coop could be fun, either. But whether I agree with the chicken owners’ ideology is not the point. People should be free to pursue their ideals and passions so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. Chicken raising meets that criterion.

Although both Saint Louis City and County have recently passed a smoking ban (albeit a relatively mild one in the city), this has not placated anti-smoking crusaders in Missouri. Instead they are emboldened, now proposing a statewide ban on smoking in almost all public places. From the Saint Louis Beacon:

State Rep. Walt Bivins, R-Oakville, is leading a bipartisan cadre of at least 20 legislators who’d like to see smoking banned from most public places by next year.

In an announcement this week, Bivins and co-sponsor Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, say their aim is to create “uniform statewide smoke-free standards in bars and restaurants.”

But the bill, HB 1766, is generating lots of attention because it goes much further.

The measure also would outlaw smoking at public “aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums,” as well as sports arenas, convention halls, bingo facilities and “At least eighty percent of hotel and motel rooms that are rented to guests;”

The few exemptions include private residents not used for day-care facilities, tobacco stores, those 20 percent of hotel/motel rooms and “outdoor areas of places of employment.”

Public smoking is already banned in some form in 23 localities in Missouri, including Saint Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, and Springfield. Furthermore, even in places with no smoking ban, many businesses either forbid smoking completely or offer patrons a nonsmoking option. So, what is the necessity of this bill?

The irony, of course, is that if smoking were so widespread that no nonsmoking options existed for drinkers and diners, a smoking ban could never get a hearing in the first place. It is only when there are already many nonsmoking businesses, and smokers are a small group, that the majority can impose its will upon them so thoroughly.

I am a smoker, but I have been trying to quit lately. However, if this bill passes, I think I might have to start smoking two packs of Pall Malls a day … out of spite.

Thanks to the Columbia Missourian today for publishing my op-ed about dental therapists and professional licensing laws in Missouri. It’s an issue we have debated here on the blog before.

Here are a couple videos people recorded as part of the Census Bureau’s Portrait of America road tour. As in the Springfield News-Leader article I wrote about a few weeks ago, the focus is on people needing help and the Census’ power to bring federal money.

I am delighted to discover that my favorite source for celebrity news, Perez Hilton, is also a source for state public policy. Yesterday on his blog, he reported that Michael Moore had been approved to receive a taxpayer subsidy for his 2009 film about the financial crises, Capitalism: A Love Story, through Michigan’s production incentives program.

Hilton asks, “Greedy Or A Coincidence?”

I respond “hypocritical,” largely for the following two reasons:

(1) Moore is doing the exactly what he is condemning in his film: accepting taxpayer money.

In the film, he assails Wall Street executives for their greed and for accepting bailout cash, but apparently he is not opposed to accepting tax credits himself. From a Fox News article on the subject:

Any amount of taxpayer subsidy is a potential black eye for Moore, who argued emphatically in “Capitalism: A Love Story” that Wall Street banks and other big companies didn’t deserve the bailout money they received from the federal government as the economy was tanking.

(2) Moore was vehemently opposed to film production incentives such as tax credits before he was a recipient.

At a conference in July 2008, Moore said what I’ve been saying all along on this blog:

“These are large multinational corporations — Viacom, GE, Rupert Murdoch — that own these studios,” said Moore at the Traverse City event. “Why do they need our money, from Michigan, from our taxpayers, when we’re already broke here? I mean, they play one state against another, and so they get all this free cash when they’re making billions already in profits. What’s the thinking behind that?”

Tonight, the Columbia City Council will vote on an urban chicken proposal. If it passes, Columbia residents will be free to keep up to six hens on each property.

The text of the proposed ordinance anticipates concerns about sanitation and possible nuisances, and it includes regulations to prevent problems. I hope that those clauses satisfy the critics. Cities like Columbia should not allow anyone to pack unsanitary numbers of poultry into city plots, but residents who raise a few hens in their backyards without harming their neighbors should be left alone.

If you’d like to learn more about urban chickens in Columbia, supporters have created a blog and a series of YouTube videos.

Many critics of the “Fair Tax” argue that it would hurt people who have lower incomes. This is not completely true. For many reasons, the Fair Tax proposal would have many positive consequences for low-income individuals and families.

First, low-income individuals and families would see an automatic increase in their take-home income that is equal to the amount that they currently pay in income tax. They would be able to take home 100 percent of their earnings, because there would be no income tax withheld if the Fair Tax were implemented. This would be a tremendous benefit for those who live from paycheck to paycheck. In their recent policy study for the Show-Me Institute, “Previous Estimates Overstate ‘Fair Tax’ Rates, Harms,” Prof. Joseph Haslag and Abhi Sivasailam note the following:

In Missouri, the personal income tax rate is 6 percent; if this tax were repealed, consumers would be richer by that same amount.

In addition to having more money in their bank accounts, low-income individuals and families would also benefit from a personal exemption that would help them pay for the increase in sales tax. Like most Fair Tax proposals, the Missouri bill includes a “prebate” check system that is based on federal poverty guidelines and the number of people in each family.

Plus, eliminating corporate income taxes would place downward pressure on consumer prices and increase individual income even further. This is because businesses pay for corporate income taxes by passing them onto their consumers, employees, and shareholders. They do this by increasing the price that they charge for their products and services, reducing the amount that they pay their employees, and/or by eliminating or reducing dividends to shareholders.

States that have zero income taxes experience higher rates of growth as a consequence. For example, as Jenifer Zeigler Roland and Dave Roland recently demonstrated, the absence of an income tax caused Tennessee to outgrow Missouri. And, as the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. The status quo hurts low-income individuals and families because income taxes discourage economic progress and because this population is disproportionately impacted by periods of slow economic growth. Low-income individuals and families are more likely to lose their jobs, possess fewer resources to endure periods of financial hardship, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a healthy economy provides.

As another benefit of the Fair Tax, low-income individuals and families would benefit from increased employment opportunities. Eliminating the income tax would attract new businesses to Missouri, and they in turn would increase employment opportunities and broaden the tax base. Missouri needs all the help that it can get right now — the state’s unemployment rate was 9.5 percent in December.

Something that critics of the Fair Tax don’t address is that it eliminates loopholes and income tax exemptions in the existing income tax system that favor some businesses and individuals over others. High income individuals and corporations would no longer be able to use such loopholes to their advantage. As a consequence, the proposal would eliminate the mechanisms that are built into current tax law that send income tax revenues toward earmarks and special interests.

There’s an interesting editorial in the Kansas City Star written by somebody who was revolted by a front page photo of pigs in a modern factory farm. Instead of rallying her readers to implore government action on the matter, the author encouraged them to “vote with your wallet each time you eat.” She specifically mentioned the Kansas City Food Circle as a resource for finding “responsible” food; the group describes itself as “an all-volunteer, grassroots organization created to promote the development of a permanently sustainable local food system.”

The power of consumers to influence producers with their money is something we’ve discussed before on Show-Me Daily. It is not a pipe dream, either, considering that companies like McDonald’s are listening.  Entire businesses (like Whole Foods) have sprung up around the environmentally-conscious consumer.

Last semester, as a final project for my research methods class, my group conducted a survey about people’s meat-buying habits and their knowledge of farm conditions. Although I can’t mention specific results — we conducted the project for educational purposes only — we generally observed that most people claimed price to be the biggest factor when they bought meat. After we showed them pictures and information about industrial farms, a significant percentage said that knowledge of farming practices and conditions would affect their future purchasing decisions.

If these sort of things are important to you, voting with your wallet — and encouraging your friends to do the same — is the best way for the market to select for companies that most closely align with societal norms. One common misperception about free markets is that profit is the only important factor, and that the only way for a company to survive is for it to offer the lowest prices — and cut quality accordingly. But that’s merely a straw man: Product quality and any number of social considerations, including “eco-consciousness,” can have value for consumers.

Price is a limiting factor for some people, and they may not be willing or able to pay a higher price in order to make purchases that satisfy whatever environmental concerns they may have — and that should be their prerogative. Many people say they want environmental concessions, but they may not be willing to pay the difference in price that those concessions would require. Government regulations can therefore harm some number people by increasing compliance costs and therefore raising the price of food. By using the market as a tool to affect change instead, people can make their own cost/environmental-consciousness trade-offs. Voting with money allows companies with successful business plans — for some, that will mean alternative production methods or types of food — to succeed. It is the most democratic of processes, because each person is able to decide where they wish to draw the line.