MoDot wants to make Amtrak more popular:

Weiler says Missouri has about 175,000 Amtrak riders annually. He speculates that could increase to 250,000 if on-time performance and reliability could be improved.

Amtrak’s problems are the inevitable result of the subsidies it receives and its monopoly position. It doesn’t need to attract new passengers, because when it isn’t profitable the state or federal government will bail it out. If the state wants a thriving rail service, it should tell Amtrak to sink or swim. 

Still, it could be that trains wouldn’t be used much more even if there were competition. Trains were an important form of transportation in the days before the airplane and when most people didn’t have cars. Fortunately, we don’t have government programs to keep alive other forms of transportation from that era. If we did, MoDot would be worrying about dwindling passenger numbers on Amhorseandbuggy.

Here’s a funny excerpt from the legislative report of the Missouri Medical Association, the cartel professional association that believes expectant mothers shouldn’t have the option of utilizing the services of a midwife:

At press time this afternoon, there isn’t much to report from the lay midwifery front. Senate Bill 303, which would legalize the practice, did not come up this week for the final Senate vote it needs before it can advance to the House.

However, late this afternoon, while the Senate was hotly debating a pivotal piece of legislation to name the crawfish as the official state invertebrate, Senator John Loudon, the author of the midwifery bill, offered this substitute version: “The Missouri Medical Society shall be known as the official invertebrate of the state of Missouri due to their unwillingness to compete with a bunch of midwives.” (We couldn’t make this up.)

Regrettably, Senator Loudon withdrew the amendment before the Senate could approve it. Even though he didn’t quite have our name right, we were this close to forever being a question on grade school civics tests in classrooms across the state. Rats!

Of course, we at the Show-Me Institute would never stoop to this kind of name-calling, but I have to admit that it made me chuckle.

O’Fallon, MO is considering expanding its city council in response to rapid population growth.  If the 75,000 estimated population is correct, I believe that would make O’Fallon that largest municipality outside of the City of St. Louis itself in the greater St. Louis area.  Someone should feel free to correct me if I am wrong, my guess is that an Illinois-side city may be larger but no Missouri muni’s.  Anyway, this got me thinking about the best set-up for a local government.  There are, not surprisingly, many different options in our area.  Kirkwood and Webster Groves have at-large councils that do not have individual wards.  Every councilmember, (6 in both) represents the entire city.  The plus of this is that each officials gets to consider the good of the whole city when making decisions.  The converse of that, and the reason I don’t like at-large seats, is that each official gets to ignore those minor, pesky issues that nobody wants to deal with.  Who has to return the phone calls of the neighborhood crank if nobody represents that person specifically?  And sometimes, those neighborhood cranks are right about something. 

O’Fallon is considering many options, mostly involving expanding the number of wards.  Perhaps they would be like Wildwood, which for some insane reason chose to have 8 wards with 2 councilmembers each.  Florissant gets a little better, with nine wards but with just one rep. per ward.  University City, where I proudly live, has only three wards but with 2 reps per ward.  That system, 3 or 4 wards with 2 reps per ward is used by a number of cities in St. Louis County.  The City of St. Louis is, of course, the champion of too many elected officials, with 28 alderman for 28 (now very small) wards and 11 other citywide elected officials. 

Whatever O’Fallon chooses to do will be effected by its city class, as Charter cities have more authority to form the own style of government than other classes.  In my opinion, cities should have fewer elected officials in general but pay them better to justify the work they put in.  I should be clear that I do not mean ‘pay them better’ in a dramatic sense, just higher stipends to encourage more residents to consider getting active.  In my opinion, cities in the general range of 25 to 75 thousand people should have a full-time city manager, a mayor elected citywide and paid a part-time salary of around $10,000 and 4 wards with one councilmember each making around $5,000 a year.  One councilmember would be elected chair each year from within the body - I am looking at you, City of St. Louis and your silly President of the Board of Alderman position.  The mayor would vote as a regular member of the Council,, not just sign or veto bills like governors or mayors of large cities.  The most important thing O’Fallon could do is upgrade from a City Administrator to a City Manager, which sounds redundant but the latter actually have more power and authority than the former.   

A regular reader e-mailed me with his thoughts on the recent decision against Centene and Clayton in the ongoing battle over eminent domain, the planned Centene development and whether or not a prime corner in one of St. Louis County’s wealthiest cities is ‘blighted.’  He asked if the fact that the decision is not being ‘published’ means that Clayton residents now have a protection against eminent domain that residents in the rest of Missouri don’t?  As the Post article today explains, if the opinion against Centene was published it would be binding on similar cases in Eastern Missouri, but as it is not being published it is therefore not binding.  Sorry for the double negative, but I think that was the proper way to put it.  Anyway, I am not a lawyer, unlike my wife, dad, step-dad, step-mom, one out of three brothers, brother-in-law, former boss, and most of my friends, so I can’t give any definitive answers here.  However, I think this is an example of common-sense kicking its way into the legal system, as the appellate judges seemed well aware that the State Supreme Court would be making its own decision no matter how they ruled, so why bother with some of the formalities?  As the Supreme Court is expected to rule in a short period of time, as far as these things go, and there are no similar cases being decided in the near future, why kill more trees than you have to and publish the opinion? 

My correspondent further wrote that in his opinion, "Social liability is purposely created by local city councils."  I don’t know if he meant that as a general statement or specific to Clayton and Centene, but as a general statement about how governments get what they want I agree with him completely.   

Students in the Riverview Gardens district may be able to transfer to other districts next fall:

192 teachers have received layoff notices and another 100 employees are expected to get notices. State educators are expected to vote on Riverview Gardens at the next meeting in May. The district currently has provisional accreditation[...]

If the district loses accreditation, Riverview Gardens officials will have two years to try and gain it back.

Unlike St. Louis, the elected school board would remain in place and would not be replaced by a transitional school board.

But as early as next fall, students could be allowed to transfer to more successful schools in nearby school districts.

Here’s the surprising part of the story:

District leaders Rhonda Key and Natalie Thomas say they welcome the intervention and see it as an opportunity to improve.

Threatening a district with state control sends administrators scrambling to improve graduation rates and test scores. Imagine what an incentive for improvement the district would have if parents could choose to send their kids to different schools.

At the risk of sound horribly self-serving, Tim is right. The Show-Me Institute intern is no ordinary intern. Though I did spend some time chained to the copier/fax machine, it was not time spent in vain. Not only did I get credit hours and valuable experience in the realm of state government and public policy, I also gained first hand exposure to an underreported political philosophy of which I had no previous knowledge, but is nonetheless gaining in popularity and relevance in today’s increasingly polarized and, well, silly political climate.

Seriously, these guys do great work, are really nice people, and are spearheading a movement with great promise for affecting positive change. Whether you’re a naive young grad student like myself, looking to change the world for the better, or a grizzled cynical veteran of the politics game simply looking for a breath of fresh political air, you’d be a fool to pass up this opportunity. Anyone with specific questions requiring a more candid answer should feel free to contact me here anytime.

We’ve just released the application for our fall internship program. If you’re a college student, I hope you’ll apply. If you’re not a college student, I hope you’ll pass the application on to someone who is.

In a lot of organizations, the interns are treated like slave labor. They’re chained to a photocopier, and they get little or no contact with the real decision-makers in the organization. The Show-Me Institute is different. Our interns spend the vast majority of their time doing research and writing. Our current intern, Steve Bernstetter, had no less than three op-eds in the Saint Louis Business Journal this semester, as well as the opportunity to do an in-depth research project. Because there are fewer than a dozen people in the office, our interns get the opportunity to work closely with almost everyone on staff. That means you get an in-depth understanding of how a think tank works, including editing and publishing, event planning, and travel around the state.

More information and the application form is available in PDF form here. Please help us spread the word!

A Chesterfield resident is unhappy about a proposal to allow students to attend public schools outside of their district. This is the most candid letter to the editor about education policy I have ever read:

This may be logical for students in failing districts[.]

She goes on to complain that the bill wouldn’t just affect failing districts, it would actually send the kids from failing districts to other, not-failing districts. Then the Chesterfield residents wouldn’t be able to set class sizes as small as they’d like.

First of all, if you want to allow students to transfer out of failing districts, they have to transfer into other schools. I don’t know how you could write legislation to do that without affecting districts that aren’t failing–unless you allowed students to use vouchers to go to private schools instead. I doubt that’s what the letter writer had in mind, though.

But what struck me most about this letter is the lack of compassion for students in failing schools. She writes:

This bill threatens to overcrowd those successful districts that might host such students, perhaps setting them up for failure.

As though all the SLPS students aren’t "set up for failure" where they are now.

I encountered this attitude all the time when I attended a Chesterfield public school. They don’t want any outsiders to threaten their small classes, segregated schools, and resulting inflated property values.
This proposal certainly would be "logical" for students in failing districts. It would also be a step towards righting the injustice of public education in the city.

Huge news in Clayton yesterday as an Appeals Court rejected Clayton’s, and Centene Corporation’s, bid to acquire three properties on Forsyth by eminent domain for Centene’s large and controversial expansion and retail project.  I am less radical on the issue of eminent domain than others here at SMI, so you can look forward to posts with additional analysis and more gloating from others, but there is no doubt that the area in question is absolutely NOT blighted by any normal understanding of the word. 

The appellate court concluded, however,  that a study by a planning firm, PGAV, suggesting the area was blighted was insufficient evidence for city aldermen to make the blighting determination.

I know this area very well, and the buildings in question are very nice, productive properties.  To reach this determination the three judges really just had to go for a walk along Forsyth.  The buildings in question are just not as productive as some would like them to be.  That, however, does not forfeit their rights as property owners.  I truly hope that a negotiated compromise, in a traditional business (i.e. pay for for the land), not legal, manner is reached and this project goes forward, as it will be great for Clayton. 

In fairness to Clayton, they are not doing anything that has not already been done numerous times by neighboring cities like Richmond Heights, Brentwood and Maplewood.  Clayton is just doing it (or trying to do it) after the Kelo decision when people are much more aware of the abuses of eminent domain.  Clayton is also oppoosed by people much more powerful, and wealthier, than people who have lost the eminent domain battles in other parts of St. Louis County.  You may have caught that one of the property owners fighting the development is a ‘Danforth.’  I am guessing that most people don’t remember the names of the people in Evans Place, hell, I can’t even Google Evans Place and it wasn’t torn down until the 90’s.

What I just wrote is not a defense of the project as much as looking at both sides, which is always positive even when one side is pretty clearly in the right.  It is a good thing that judges, and hopefully politicians, start to define ‘blight’ much more stringently.  Clayton is not blighted, but I still hope the project moves forward without the use of eminent domain.   

Kansas City-area officials are considering building a new jail to serve to prison needs of the area, not just one individual city.  This is an excellent idea that would serve KC well.  Jails are one area where regionalism, cooperation and privatizsation have been used succesfully in the St. Louia-area.  The Buzz Westfall Justice Center was built by St. Louis County, after a succesfull bond vote, in the mid-1990’s.  While it is owned and operated by St. Louis County, the 91 municipalities in the County use it to house their prisoners, too.  Space has also been rented out to other entities - the City housed inmates there during the recent construction the City’s own, new jail a few years ago.  While the jail itself is operated by the County, parts of its work have been privatized after competitive bidding, primarily the pharmacy department used to serve the (legal) drug needs of the prisoners.

The City of St. Louis has long used its City Workhouse to house prisoners from other cities and counties.  This medium security facility has for a long time served the public safety needs of the City, other municipalities and counties, and made money for the City of St. Louis at the same time.  If Kansas City goes ahead with a regional jail, am I sure they will find it to be a great decision for the KC area.  It will both improve public safety and save money in the long run.  Not much to complain about there…   

Regular visitors to our website might notice that it looks a little different today. That’s because we’ve upgraded to a new and better content management system that will allow us to put more content on our site more easily, and with better organization. If you notice any problems with the site, please shoot and email to info@showmeinstitute.org and let us know about them!

We’ve also belated posted the Winter issue of Show-Me Quarterly, which went out to our sponsors last month. Click here to read about our recent studies on the income and earnings taxes, our various events on education policy, and a profile of the late, great, Milton Friedman.

It is every elected officials’ favorite question: What to do with a budget surplus?  The Post-Dispatch has a good article on the choices facing Missouri legislators now, and what officials from other states in the fortunate situation of a surplus have chosen to do.  A budget surplus is truly an economic gift that keeps on giving, as a tax cut done because of the surplus expands the economy beyond what the pre-cut economy produced.  A tax cut in response to a surplus, combined with budget discipline in general, can lead to a revolving cycle of healthy economic growth leading to budget surplusses allowing for tax cuts leading to even greater economic growth and continued surplusses.  That is in the theoretical world - in the real world elected officials too often use the surplusses to fund new government programs which must be funded in future years no matter what the economic situation or future needs, resulting in more government programs continuing to hover over and around the economy. 

I like Utah’s answer to the surplus - cut a little bit off every tax rate.

  "Utah reduced its income tax, sales tax and business taxes."

Hawaii is condidering new programs for the state’s homeless - as if the homeless in Hawaii don’t already have it better than the rest of us.  It’s Hawaii, for Christsakes!  Virginia has paid for one-time transportation projects with its surplus, with some help from public-private partnerships.  Missouri could certainly learn from that example.

Oregon and Nebraska are socking money away in rainy day and reserve funds.

Booo!  Where is the fun in that?  Do things really change so much in Nebraska that they need money in a rainy day fund?  In case of emergency, it’s not like that have to get legislation through both houses of the legislature like every other state. 

Missouri’s plans are fine - cutting taxes is good, but I would prefer a small, general cut for everyone to the large, targeted cut for senior citizens that looks likely.  The franchise tax refuction is an excellent idea and will benefit Missouri’s economy.  Maybe with a franchise tax cut we can finally get some outrageously overpriced coffeehouses to open here.  Putting some money ($200 million now counts as ’some money’) away for the future is ok, at small levels rainy day funds make sense - but I think the people of Missouri could do more with that money than the state could or will.            

The state of Missouri may soon require comprehensive eye exams for all students entering kindergarten or first grade:

Parents without insurance will be responsible for the $100 to $165 vision exam.

Children on Medicaid will be covered by the state, and families that can’t afford it can apply for help from civic groups like the Lion’s Club or tap into $99,000 that will be available annually from the Blindness Education, Screening and Treatment Program Fund, Sen. Delbert Scott said.

But school nurses estimate one year’s worth of exams for the 70,000 Missouri children entering kindergarten in the fall will cost the state and private donors $2.4 million to $7 million. (Medicaid reimburses doctors about $43 for a comprehensive eye exam.)

The article includes some horror stories of children who were diagnosed as learning disabled because of vision problems that school nurses couldn’t detect during standard in-school exams.

Overidentification of learning disabilities is a problem. However, as the school nurses quoted in the article point out, requiring full eye exams for everyone is a costly solution. It would be much cheaper to require full eye exams only for students who are suspected to have learning disabilities. An even better idea would be to publicize the information about private donors who help parents pay for exams, without mandating these comprehensive exams for anyone. Parents can decide which level of exam their kids need.

I have to disagree a bit with Steve’s assertion that doling out state money will “drive Missouri’s budding biotech industry.” I don’t know if Missouri’s biotech industry is budding, or if it will thrive in the future. But I rather doubt that a few million dollars of state largesse is going to make the difference. If biotech is economically viable in the Saint Louis area, no subsidies are necessary. And if it’s not economically viable, subsidies aren’t likely to make it so.

No doubt spending more on life sciences will lead to some beneficial science being done, and it may very well lead to important breakthroughs. But by itself, spending more money on biotech research isn’t likely to make the broader Saint Louis area a biotech hub. Carnegie Mellon is one of the best computer science schools in the country, but Pittsburgh isn’t known as a hotbed for tech startups. Nor are subsidies from the state of Pennsylvania likely to make it a hot technology area.

If government wants to make Saint Louis the home of the biotech industry, the best way to do that is to make it hospitable to industry in general: cut taxes and red tape, provide good infrastructure, and then get out of the way. That might spur the growth of the biotech industry here in Saint Louis. But it might also spur the growth of all sorts of other industries as well. After all, the whole reason we have a market economy rather than running our economy using Soviet five-year plans is that government officials don’t know what’s needed and where the economy is headed. If they can’t run the economy as a whole, why should we expect they’d be any better at picking what Saint Louis’s next hot industry is going to be?

The reason, I suspect, is that when you cut taxes and thereby spur the creation of a lot of small businesses, you don’t necessarily get to attend a big ribbon-cutting ceremony and take credit for it on the evening news. So even if tax cuts and deregulation are better for the state’s economy than “targeted” economic programs, they’re not as good for the career of the politician in question. So instead, politicians focus on high-profile projects that make good photo-ops, regardless of whether they’re good policy or not.

Looks like Gov. Blunt and friends will get their MOHELA money after all. At this juncture, pointing out just how ridiculous this bill is has become something akin to beating a dead horse. Except this horse won’t die, and instead just keeps mutating into something, well, less horse-like and more closely resembling the gross piece of political waste it truly is. So let the beating continue.

For a good synopsis of how it all went down, go here. Basically, those politicians who opposed the bill, on whatever grounds, had their projects stripped and the funds redistributed to more politically friendly districts. No political soup for you, conscientious objectors! However, the most egregious example of wasted political capital lies in the still unfavorable appraisal of pro-life groups who so effectively derailed the original plan to drive Missouri’s budding biotech industry. Blunt and Co. claim the bill’s passage as a success, but as the Springfield News-Leader so accurately surmises:

What the state’s universities still need is a commitment from lawmakers that funding levels — including for much needed construction projects — will match the important role our institutions of higher education play in being a driving economic engine in Missouri. What our colleges and universities need is a commitment that Democrats and Republicans from all corners of the state recognize their incredible value. The passage of SB 389 didn’t accomplish that goal. Victory is still out of reach.

Indeed. Missouri has so much potential to be a future leader inthe life sciences, its almost unfathomable that the state’s leaders could be so ineffective as catalysts in realizing that potential. As a recent editorial in the STL P-D proclaimed:

It’s difficult to think of another state in a better position to lead research into bio-energy and agricultural defense. We have some of the nation’s leading research institutions — the Danforth Center, Washington University, St. Louis University and the University of Missouri-Columbia. We have agricultural powerhouses like Monsanto and energy companies like Peabody Coal. And, of course, we sit astride the most productive farmland the world has ever known.

It’s not too late for legislators to set aside money that only could be used if the federal research grants are awarded to Missouri companies and universities.

The question is whether they want to invest in the future, or run from it.

At this stage of the game, "run from it" seems to be the preferred strategy. But where exactly are we running to? Straight into the arms of whatever is most politically expedient, apparently. That means pet projects for the legislators willing to play "follow the leader" with Gov. Blunt, elmination of the most universally beneficial provisions at the behest of special interests, and the perpetual disappointment of those sincerely trying to help Missouri before they help themselves.

The New York Times publishes a not-entirely fair article about what a bad place St. Louis has become to live in:

In the past few months, the public schools were stripped of accreditation and taken over by the state; the city was designated the most dangerous in the country in a national crime survey; and 15 police officers and supervisors were disciplined for giving World Series tickets seized from scalpers to friends and family.

It goes on to discuss the storms and power outages we’ve experienced in the past year, and it quotes a city planner and some professors.

I complained as much as anyone (okay, maybe a lot more) when my neighborhood repeatedly lost power. But we don’t have it so bad as places like New Orleans. And Saint Louis’ remaining problems seem to be man-made. What struck me about this article was how little attention it paid to possible solutions.

Changing the tax structure in Saint Louis could do a lot to reverse the trend of flight to the suburbs. School choice and other reforms have the potential to improve the city schools and turn Saint Louis into an attractive place to raise a family. Reforms focused on the economy and education would probably go a long way in reducing crime, too. Unfortunately I don’t have a specific policy proposal to prevent unethical use of confiscated tickets.

In addition, the article left out many positive things about Saint Louis, like Ted Drewes, the zoo and the Gateway Orchestra’s free classical music concerts. There’s more to life here than urban crises.

There’s been new action on the midwife bill:

On Tuesday, the Senate relented, thanks to a hasty vote that caught opponents off guard.

Last week, those same opponents all but killed the midwife bill, tying up the Senate floor for hours to prevent a vote.

This time around, opponents weren’t even in the Senate chamber when Sen. John Loudon, R-Chesterfield, rushed in to bring the bill to a vote. With no debate, the bill was approved by a voice vote[...]

Sen. Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, said he will once again tie up the Senate floor if the midwife bill comes up for a final vote.

On the subject of occupational licensure, there are many professions besides midwifery that could use less restrictive licenses. Does anybody really think the licensing requirements for "nail technicians" (i.e. manicurists) have a major effect on public health and safety? Here you can find licensed geologists, speech pathologists, martial arts judges, interior designers, and marital therapists. I can’t imagine what you have to do to pass those exams.

There’s recently been a sort of backlash in the local media regarding the state and federal govt’s efforts to  subsidize the ethanol industry and build expensive plants all over the midwest and elsewhere. An article from the STL Post-Dispatch summarizes the general concerns fairly well, and an article in the Southeast Missourian gives a taste of the unease in a city near such a plant. However, the best synopsis of the real issues confronting the current ethanol push can be found over at the Kansas City Star, which makes several good points about the economic difficulties surrounding it. According to the Star:

More water, pesticides and land are being used to grow corn for ethanol, raising environmental concerns. It takes a lot of energy to make ethanol, which, when blended with gasoline, gets fewer miles per gallon than gasoline alone.

The federal government continues to hand out an extravagant 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy for domestic ethanol while slapping a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, such as that made from sugar cane in Brazil.

The first paragraph presents an efficiency problem: corn-based ethanol is simply not cost-effective. While ethanol does burn cleaner than conventional gasoline, there are other hidden externalities, such as the water issues discussed in this STL P-D article and the rising costs of feed for animal stock, which in turn drives up the price for associated goods like meat and dairy products. The second paragraph demonstrates how the gov’t, eyes aglow with the political possibilities inherent in helping agribusiness, only serves to exacerbate this inefficiency. If politicians were really concerned about cheap, independant, clean energy, we’d eliminate both the subsidies for the domestic stuff and the tariffs on the imported stuff.

The Brazilians are old pros at the ethanol game, and it’s likely we could benefit from their expertise. Furthermore, let’s not forget basic economics and the gains from trade. If the Brazilians make cheaper ethanol that we can, and we can in turn provide some good or service better than they, then it’s in both our best interests to trade. The KC Star sums up this notion nicely:

Congress should eliminate the tariff on imported ethanol, and reduce or eliminate the federal subsidy for domestic ethanol. Both moves would be positive blows for free markets, making it easier to evaluate the true costs of corn-based ethanol.

It seems a little foolish to be dumping millions of tax-payer dollars into a largely unproven technology. Rather, we should wait for the unfettered decisions of a free market to determine the best alternative to imported gasoline, and then, maybe, look to gov’t to facilitate the transition. As stated in the STL Post-Dispatch:

As the United States — like many other countries of the world — hastens to find ways to curb its dependence on oil, we must make sure we don’t trade one set of environmental, political and economic problems for another.

I couldn’t agree more.

It’s here.  No matter if you like it or not, the new I-64 reconstructino project is here.  I, for one, prefer two and a half years of traffic hell to six or seven years of half-hell, but I work in Clayton and live in U. City so those of you about to be seriously affected by this can feel free to ignore me.  The simple closure of this one lane (the westbound ramp from Hanley southbound) should nonetheless have an enormous inpact on traffic.  With all the westbound traffic leaving Clayton at 5 PM going over to Brentwood and the Forest Park Parkway, those streets will be very crowded at evening rush hour.  I think its time for the bar owners of Clayton to launch a renewed push for the after-work crowd.   

Dr. Kent King, Executive Director of the Missouri State Teachers Association, brings up the subject of performance pay and criticizes the single-salary schedule:

"We’re treated not as a profession but as assembly-line workers, with a pay system that fosters low wages. We have no real input on our own unique qualifications and success and find ourselves on a dead-end street with nowhere to go."

Kim Wencewicz at the MSTA blog invites readers to learn more about performance pay and debate the issue. Their blog includes many interesting posts about teaching and provides generally balanced coverage of events like the recent state takeover of the St. Louis Public Schools. Check it out.

There’s an interesting op-ed regarding vouchers over at the Columbia Daily Tribune this morning. The author argues that one possible solution for improving education for those stuck in the unaccredited SLPS would be to let those students exit the district through some sort of voucher program. According to the Tribune:

Vouchers provide more choice for K-12 parents and students. Privately funded schools at all levels educate many of our citizens who otherwise would have to be taught at public expense. To provide partial public subsidies for students otherwise trapped in poor public schools is a cost-effective way to enhance options for many who otherwise could not choose.

There are two key notions in this qoute that should be addresses, the first being cost-effectiveness.  County schools, and even some private schools, generally spend less per pupil than the city district. According to DESE, Saint Louis Public Schools have a current average expenditure of $11, 402 per pupil. As a comparison, my district, Mehlville R-IX, spent an average of $7,144 per pupil in 2006, while the state of Missouri, on average, spent about $8,221 per pupil in 2006 (DESE-MO, 2007). As a rough estimate, if the city is required to pay tuition, plus transportation costs–say an extra $1000 per pupil, per year– they would still save money by essentially contracting out to the county district. Whatever money is left over after this transaction would presumably be sunk back into the city, thereby increasing the per-pupil funds available to the district.

The second issue for consideration is one of equity; more affluent families already have school choice in the form of private schools, or simply moving to a better public district. In either case, an option exists for one class of citizens that does not exist for another, that other class having the most to gain from such choices, and the least to lose from whatever damage such choice might cause to their already failing local district. As the Tribune asserts:

Vouchers won’t be a panacea, but having that option in failing school districts represents progress, and it won’t destroy public education. How could anyone be against providing alternatives in a district like St. Louis?

Indeed. The time for change is now. Saint Louis has the opportunity to try something new and relatively groundbreaking, rather than constantly being a half-hearted follower of national trends. Hopefully the entrenched political interests will see it the same way, and do whats best for the students rather than themselves. But I won’t be holding my breath.

State Rep. Talibdin El-Amin, sponsor of legislation restricting the sale of baking soda, writes in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that "the primary intent of [the] bill is to create a dialogue on drugs."

I consider crack cocaine the urban core’s silent killer because we don’t hear anything relative to the abatement of this drug or dialogue as to its far-reaching and devastating impact on the moral, social and economic fabric of our neighborhoods and families.

HB 1189 may seem extreme, but the extreme conditions in our community require action. We are failing in the development of the community’s social and moral structure and failing to stop the scourge of drugs, poverty and violence.

This bill may not be the answer. But doing nothing definitely isn’t the answer.

If this bill isn’t the answer, why try to get it passed into law? There are much better ways to create dialogue than regulating businesses and restricting freedom. Like, start a blog.

Gov. Blunt has announced he wants to spend more money to help autistic children:

In a visit Thursday to a non-profit group that provides services to autistic children — Giant Steps of St. Louis — Blunt stumped his plan to boost spending by $3.9 million. The proposal, now pending in the Legislature, would eliminate waiting lists that now can last as long as two years, Blunt said.

It’s a great idea to give more attention to autism, especially since most school districts don’t have the resources needed to educate children with the disorder. One way to direct help to autistic children more quickly would be to start a program like Ohio’s Autism Scholarship Program. Ohio allows parents of autistic children to choose between special education programs at public schools and private schools.

Although some people imagine that educating disabled children is too difficult for private schools, a growing number of them are able to rise to the challenge. Here’s an excellent essay at Edspresso about school choice for special-needs children.

MSN and Zogby have released a new poll on how Americans feel about taxes.  Time for a fisking.  According to the article:

"Most Americans say they’re paying their fair share in taxes."

Good, we are at war and this is not the time to say you are paying too much in taxes unless you are now or have recently been spending some time in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

"But, according to a recent MSN-Zogby poll, that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it."

Our troops probably don’t care if you are happy about it. 

"People with $75,000 to $100,000 in annual income were most likely (45%) to say they pay too much in taxes, followed by those making more than $100,000 (43%)."

This makes sense to me.  The general income area of 75 to 100 K is where higher rates start to kick in ($77,100 for an individual) and deductions, such as IRA contributions and student loan payments, start to fade out.  A person in this area could easily be caught in the middle between higher rates and fewer deductions.  This area is also sort of a partisan battleground, with Democrats seeing $75 - 100 as high income and Republicans seeing it as middle-class level.  As people in it will almost always see themselves as middle class, there could certainly be some resentment toward being included with higher incomes in verious brackets.

"Just 3% said they pay too little."

About 3% of Americans probably consider themselves socialists of varying degrees.  I assume these are the same 3%. 

Continue reading "MSN Poll On Taxes" »

State Sen. Loudon’s bill to get rid of some restrictions on midwives is being stopped by a filibuster:

A bill sponsored by Sen. John Loudon, R-Chesterfield, would allow anybody to perform home births as long as they’re accredited through the North American Registry of Midwives, a private agency out of Georgia.

But after a filibuster by Sen. Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, and Sen. Yvonne Wilson, D-Kansas City, neared a fourth hour, Loudon withdrew the bill from debate.

The current requirements placed on midwives keep people out of the business, which allows the remaining midwives to charge more for their services.

It’s funny that another kind of occupational licensure has helped make midwives so popular. Milton Friedman explains in Capitalism and Freedom that licensing medical doctors drives up the cost of traditional health care. That encourages people to turn to midwives, chiropractors, alternative healers, and others who don’t have traditional medical licenses.

If people think hiring a midwife is too risky, the best course of action is not to impose lots of licensing requirements on midwives. Instead, we should try to lighten the regulations on traditional doctors so they’ll be a more affordable option for patients.

Missouri legislators want to expand the state’s high risk health insurance pool:

The bill makes it easier to get into the high-risk pool. It also sets the maximum price for a high-risk policy at 135 percent of the market price for a similar policy for a healthy person, down from 170 percent now.

Losses on the high-risk pool are ultimately picked up by taxpayers.

There are two problems people with chronic conditions face:

1. Routine medical procedures for them are expensive.

2. Catastrophic insurance, to cover unexpected problems, is also expensive.

Subsidized insurance might be appropriate to address the second problem; the first problem should be solved in other ways. If people don’t have enough resources to pay for ongoing medical care, that could be covered by Medicaid. Health savings accounts could allow those with greater means to save and prepare for medical expenses they know they’ll face. Unfortunately, some patients will always be dependent on taxpayers for their medical care, but that shouldn’t be the default.

Currently making its way through the house is an "intellectual diversity" bill intended to:

require all public institutions of higher education to report how they are safeguarding the free exchange of ideas on campus

Or so says an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune. The article concerns a report from MSU regarding the school’s Social Work program. Accordign to the Tribune:

The future of the School of Social Work at Missouri State University is in doubt after an external review of the program found a “dysfunctional and hostile” environment where faculty colleagues are disrespectful to one another and students fear voicing their opinions.

MO legislators contend that this kind of disfunction within one of the state’s largest universities will be prevented by an "intellectual diversity" law, because such a measure would force faculty and staff to accept and express any and all ideas while not advocating any one idea specifically. This sounds all sweet and nice, and in the interest of promoting "diversity," but the fact of the matter is this: while its your right to believe whatever you wish, in the world of academia, some ideas carry more weight than others. Honest professors advocating the best ideas on their academic merits is largely how the enterprise of human knowledge moves forward; not by giving equal voice to unequal theories in the interest of protecting someone else’s sacred cows. With that in mind, students and professors alike should be free to challenge the bases and conclusions of those theories, and to advance their own theories and beliefs for the rigors of serious academic discourse to validate.

Further demonstrating the frivolity of this bill is an article in the Springfield News-Leader showing the effectiveness of the University in policing its own. This is proof positive that our best and brightest, working honestly and openly in the marketplace of ideas, is the best garauntee against intellectual dishonesty and close-minded demagoguery. No legislation is needed to augment the marketplace of ideas.

Word on the street is that St. Louis County Government is currently getting deluged by phone calls regarding the on-average 22% increases in assessments this year.  The Post-Dispatch had a good article on it the other day, and I heard part of (Revenue Director) Gene Leung’s appearance on Charlie Brennan’s show this morning. 

I will never forget being on the receiving end of these calls back in 2001, when in response to the reopening of the appeal period after the drive-by assessments scandal, the Council alone received several thousand phone calls in a week.  2005 was also a busy year for helping people with appeals while I was working for Councilman Kurt Odenwald.  I think that the only upside to the drive-by assessment scandal was it made many more people aware of the importance of the reassessment notices you get in March / April of odd-numbered years, which, for legitimate reasons, do not include the tax amount owed.  Too often people used to ignore the reassessment notices and then wonder what the hell happened when they got their tax bill in November.  I believe that now many more people in St. Louis County carefully review their reassessment notices and plan accordingly, whether by appealing, budgeting, lobbying local officials to roll-back the rates properly, or applying for property tax assistance programs. 

Property taxes, in general, are not a bad tax.  I certainly prefer them to income taxes as a way to fund the necessary doings of government.  Every year legislation is introduced in Jefferson City to cap the rates of assessment increase, and every year that legislation fails.  I would like to do away with the entire reassessment system by requiring certificates of value to be filed with every property purchase statewide, not just in St. Louis and Kansas City, and then tying assessment increases to the CPI (or even better, a Missouri-specific real estate value index) until the property is sold again.  Wham, I just eliminated the entire reassessment process and significant increases in one fell swoop!  Isn’t blogging amazing?

Today’s Post-Dispatch has a valuable AP story on recent Kansas City-area participants in the ABC television show, "Extreme Makeover," and their recent tax complications.  The story closely resembles the issues audience members of Oprah Winfrey had when she gave them all cars.  At the time, I recall thinking what a bunch of ingrates the Oprah audience members were when they complained about the, surprise, gift tax bills on the cars.  So what if they owed $6,000 in taxes, they still were given a $30,000 car which they were and are free to sell at any time.  But I digress.

The Kansas City story is different, if only because the family in question was genuinely in need of help, as opposed to being a TV audience member, and they appear to truly need the home.  I have to imagine the producers have some rule against selling the house right away, lest the whole point of the show be lost and replaced by just handing people a check, which nobody would dispute is taxable.  ABC is trying to claim that the dramatically improved home is not taxable (as income) as if falls under perhaps the only example of a free lunch in US tax policy - the rule that home rental is not taxable income if you rent the home for two weeks or less.  The IRS is having no of this, stating that the improvements are a gift and taxable as such. 

The family has, in my opinion, received a second gift from the Jackson County assessor, which valued the new, improved home at $200,000.  As the improved home is 4,500 sq. ft. with new fixtures in the Kansas City-area, the 200 K number seems impossibly low.  The solution to the issues is clearly tucked away in the article.  As the family owns the home outright, they should merely take out a large home equity loan to pay off all other monies due, and then treat the home equity loan like a mortage…a very small mortage for the house they live in.  I wish them the best.  I will certainly try to watch the show on May 13.  In the past I have only watched the final five minutes of the show, as my wife and I turn on ABC in preparation for the greatest TV show since Jason Batemen defined high school for a (very brief) generation.   

Over at PubDef, you can find a fairly comprehensive list of exactly what’s going on now with the SLPS and the impending state takeover. Much of the debate now swirling about in the blogosphere centers around the possibility of students in the city transfering out of the district and into an accepting district of their choice. The controversy, so far as I can parse it, centers not so much around the potential of the kids stuck in the underperforming schools to leave, but rather the potential for city students, not enrolled in the city district, to use city funds to attend a county district.

The issue here, like in so many of our debates about education, is one of choice. Those living in the city, but paying to attend a private or parochial school, or educating their children at home, or who have, like so many have done already, simply moved out of the city, already have the luxury of school choice. It is an unfortunate reality that school choice is, as of now, directly related to the income of the parents.  While I’m all about expanding choice to those who don’t have it, expanding choice for those who already have it seems a little egregious, and more the product of greed or selfishness than any particular concern for those unfortunate souls stuck in the failed district.

Those who can afford to opt out of the city schools don’t need any more help from the city or state. If they are so concerned about their tax money going to fund somebody else’s kid’s education, then they should excercise their school choice privelege and move to a county with a public school they approve of. Meanwhile, those without such luxury should be given the opportunity to leave the district, via state or city funding. Choice works, and we should strive to provide it for those who can’t afford it independantly.