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" »