I respectfully, yet strongly, disagree with my colleague Dave Roland’s post yesterday on changes to the initiative petition/constitutional amendment rules in Missouri. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. We elect people to make laws and decisions. If they are not doing a good job, then we should elect different people. These petition-gathering amendment drives have led to some terrible legislation, in my opinion, such as the recent minimum-wage increase. They have also led to some excellent legislation, such as the Hancock Amendment. However, as more people and organizations become willing to pay people to gather signatures for pet causes, I believe it is reasonable to increase the amount of signatures required.

I disagree with some of the suggested changes, particularly the requirement that petition gatherers must be residents of Missouri. That is just silly. I support the increase in signatures required and the restriction on paying people by the signature, which is just an open invitation to fraud.

The Kansas City Star’s Prime Buzz blog yesterday had a couple of posts criticizing our recent light rail study’s use of crime statistics. While the statistics used by Randal O’Toole, the study’s author, are correct — as O’Toole points out at the end of the second part of the blog entry, the correct comparison is between types of transit — it’s misleading to suggest that O’Toole’s study has "characterized crime as one of the major reasons why Kansas City should not pursue light rail."

Crime on light rail systems is touched on only briefly in the full Show-Me Institute light rail study. Out of approximately 150 paragraphs of text (not including endnotes, pull quotes, etc.), I count seven that mention crime at all — one paragraph in the executive summary, five paragraphs on page 5, and one paragraph on page 23. In fact, the one mention of crime in the executive summary comes toward the end of a litany of reasons why light rail isn’t a worthwhile investment. In that list, O’Toole mentions crime 9th out of a list of 11 reasons — and even then, only after first mentioning safety statistics. Clearly, while light rail’s crime level in relation to buses is worth mentioning, it’s not one of the study’s primary arguments.

It’s true, I focused on the crime statistics myself during my response to the original Star piece covering the Show-Me Institute study, but that’s because O’Toole’s brief mention of light rail crime was the only aspect of the study that Mr. Spivak actually critiqued. If Mr. Spivak had criticized any of O’Toole’s economic or efficiency arguments, I would have responded to those instead.

Make no mistake, the study’s points about the high costs and low efficiency of light rail in relation to other forms of transit are O’Toole’s primary arguments — points which remain unchallenged by the Star. The only real "ado" about light rail crime was spurred by the selective coverage of Mr. Spivak’s original article.

Apart from O’Toole’s brief mentions of crime in the study, these are his primary arguments:

• Light rail is expensive, typically experiencing high cost overruns;
• Light rail has a much lower ridership capacity than freeway lanes;
• Light rail costs much more to operate than buses;
• Light rail requires years of advance planning, with no guarantee that transit needs or preferences will remain static during that time;
• Few regions have actually seen increases in per-capita ridership after constructing light-rail lines;
• Most regions see the share of riders using transit for travel actually decline after constructing light-rail lines;
• Light-rail lines that operate in city streets significantly increase traffic congestion;
• Light rail is particularly ineffective in municipalities without high concentrations of downtown jobs — like Kansas City;
• Light rail is usually less energy efficient per passenger mile than passenger cars;
• Light rail does not stimulate urban development without huge additional government subsidies.

The crime statistics O’Toole used are correct, but still only a small part of this analysis.

Some Missouri legislators apparently think that the citizens of this state have too much say in the laws that govern us.

One of the best features of Missouri’s political scheme is that if enough citizens see that the General Assembly is failing to pass certain desirable laws, they can follow established procedures that allow the voters to act where the Legislature will not. The initiative process ensures that regular citizens have a direct way to enact legislation that, for whatever reason, our elected officials would prefer to avoid.

Five bills were filed recently in Jefferson City that would make it more difficult for Missouri citizens to place initiatives on the ballot for a direct vote of the people. Some of those bills are not so bad — such as proposals that would impose harsher penalties on those who commit fraud in collecting signatures, or prohibit those convicted of forgery offenses from collecting signatures. But others are plainly attempts to prevent Missourians from having a direct say in passing laws that they might find favorable. For example, one bill would nearly double the number of signatures required to place an initiative petition on the ballot. A couple of others would require those gathering signatures to be residents of Missouri — because, apparently, we can’t trust Kansans or
Illinoisans to hold the clipboards on which Missourians express their
support for a proposed initiative — and would prohibit petitioners who have hired help in collecting the necessary signatures to compensate their workers based on how well they do their job.

The only purpose for these changes is to make it more difficult for regular citizens to ensure that our interests are being protected by legislation approved by a majority of Missouri voters. The initiative process is especially important when, as is the case with this state’s horrendous eminent domain laws, the legislators have a better ear for the ringing of cash registers than for the voice of the people.

There’s a discussion of KIPP’s drawbacks and merits in the comments section of the Talk of the Day blog. One of the comments links to a San Francisco education blog, which criticizes KIPP on three points:

1. Attrition, especially among male students. In other words, some students try KIPP and then find it’s not for them. KIPP requires long hours in school and a tremendous commitment, so it’s not surprising that some students choose not to stay. In general, boys have fallen behind girls academically and are dropping out at higher rates. So, KIPP isn’t immune to that problem. But the fact that KIPP isn’t for everyone doesn’t mean that no one should be able to choose KIPP. 

2. Discipline. When KIPP students act out, they have to sit on a special bench away from their group and then write a letter of apology. (At least, that’s the policy at the particular KIPP school the blogger is writing about.) That might seem harsh, but KIPP schools accept kids who have failed in inner-city schools and may have behavior problems. Ideally, kids will behave and won’t need discipline. But if they’re disruptive, separating them temporarily could be a reasonable way to teach them which actions won’t be tolerated while maintaining an orderly learning environment for their classmates. Most importantly, KIPP schools are up-front about classroom procedures and make both students and parents sign contracts that they will abide by the rules. Families that want a softer discipline system don’t need to send their kids to KIPP.

3. Lack of mindless adherence to arbitrary grade levels. OK, that’s not exactly what the blogger says, but that’s the gist of it. KIPP schools assign students to grade levels based on academic achievement, so a student who enters KIPP in seventh grade could be assigned to a sixth-grade class. In other words, kids study in groups of students with similar abilities, and aren’t forced to struggle in classrooms where everyone else’s achievement level is a grade or more ahead. I don’t see the problem. If grade level is important to parents, they won’t choose KIPP. 

No one is suggesting that all students should attend KIPP, or that KIPP’s unique educational approach is right for everyone. But SLPS isn’t right for everyone either. St. Louis students should be able to choose.

Normally, if you had a sentence that contained the words, "Bridges," "score," "(MS)NBC"and "high(ly)," one would assume you were talking about Todd, not MoDOT. Luckily for us, though, we are indeed talking about MoDOT and Missouri bridges — to answer Arnold’s presumptive question before it is even asked.

MSNBC has today released a report documenting that thousands of bridges around the country have not received their two-year inspections, as required by federal law. The report is alarming, which was probably the point. But from our perspective, I would like to point out just how well Missouri scored, with only 19 out of 23,694 bridges that have missed their two-year inspection points. This ranks Missouri at 41st among the states. The states that rank above us, which have from 0 to 4 bridges beyond that schedule, all have far fewer bridges.

MoDOT deserves a great deal of credit for sticking to this important inspection schedule. County road departments deserve credit, too, as many of these bridges are locally maintained. This, along with the early success of the New I-64 project, is making my op-ed of last year look rather insightful!

This issue of Forbes examines education reform, and KIPP charter schools make a prominent appearance with an essay by Mike Feinberg:

In 1994, Dave Levin and I started KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) with 50 students in Houston after completing our two-year commitment to Teach for America. Our first year in Houston, two-thirds of students came to KIPP with a "bilingual" label. By the end of the first year, two-thirds were "gifted and talented."

Feinberg explains that KIPP schools, rather than skimming the cream from diverse traditional public schools, cater specifically to students who have fallen behind:

We are not achieving results by "cherry-picking" students. All schools are open-enrollment public schools. There is no admissions test. The average student enters KIPP two years below grade level in fifth grade, and leaves KIPP in eighth grade achieving at a ninth-grade level. Over 80% of KIPP students nationwide are low income, and 95% are African-American or Hispanic/Latino.

Feinberg also writes about KIPP’s projected expansion in Houston, where it hopes to capture 10% of the public school market and thereby pressure the traditional public schools to shape up.

I doubt KIPP will cause any improvement in the stagnant St. Louis public schools, which have proved themselves resistant to change from all quarters. But KIPP will provide some students who are currently trapped in SLPS with an attractive alternative. And it may pave the way for other charters and more choices for students.

By the way, I should mention that Kansas City already has a KIPP charter school, the KIPP Endeavor Academy. Here you can learn more about the school and see cute pictures of students and teachers working hard.

Since the Regional Economist is one of my favorite publications, I wanted to add my own two cents on Eric Dixon’s recent digression on Michael Pakko’s article on smoking bans.

Mr. Dixon focuses on the vague benefits of smoker vs. non-smoker “utility,” a value that Dr. Pakko’s article avoids entirely. Instead, Dr. Pakko focuses on the tangible negative costs of smoking bans, providing a counter-argument to recent papers.

So while I agree with Mr. Dixon’s opposition to smoking bans, I disagree with his focus on aggregate utility as a value judgment. As he argues:

“Markets, though still far from perfect, ultimately do a better job of maximizing aggregate utility because each individual market participant is able to estimate his or her own utility in a way that no legislator can, and then act accordingly”

That statement is misleading. I don’t oppose smoking bans (and support the market) because I believe that non-smokers derive less “happiness” from them than smokers do without them. I oppose smoking bans because they are a direct infringement upon personal liberty.

Maximizing aggregate utility is not necessarily a good thing. Abusing certain minority groups might “maximize aggregate utility” if the benefits to the aggregate abusers outweigh the negatives of the abused. That’s why utilitarianism is a dangerous value judgment, especially for governments.

The government’s objective should be to maximize personal freedom to the extent that those freedoms don’t infringe upon the rights of others. And before you say, “But what about the non-smokers? Aren’t their rights being violated?” remember that the non-smokers are in smoking environments voluntarily. Going to a bar is a choice. Attending jury duty is compulsory. I have no problem with a smoking ban in a courtroom.

It’s official: Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools are coming to St. Louis:

The announcement today from the San Francisco-based Knowledge is Power Program makes Washington University the sponsor a cluster of five tuition-free, hard-work public schools, aimed at serving roughly 1,500 St. Louis students over the next 10 years. The first, a middle school, would open in the fall of 2009.

This is great news for children in the city, although they’ll have to wait until 2009 to attend. Here’s a map of KIPP schools already operating. These schools share a rigorous academic program and have been very successful. Now some students in St. Louis will have the opportunity to benefit from KIPP.

One of our scholars, Michael Pakko, has a piece looking at the economic effects of smoking bans in this month’s issue of The Regional Economist, a quarterly journal published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. He’s written a few other pieces about smoking bans during the past few years, and this new article (which has been spotlighted by the Kansas City Star, the Post-Dispatch, and KWMU) brings a considerable amount of fresh research to the table, much of which "suggests that at least some businesses do suffer costs." Pakko concludes that, "When they consider passing smoking bans, policymakers should study evidence both from public health professionals and from economists."

Pakko’s conclusion supports a crucial insight about smoking bans — they’re not just a matter of public health. Any general health benefits that may be gained from blanket anti-smoking laws have to be weighed against other measures of human welfare and happiness.

I’ve never smoked, but during the course of my life there have been many occasions that I’ve decided it’s worth the small health risks of some amount of exposure to secondhand smoke in order to, say, see live music (or, when I was much younger, earn money by working at fast food restaurants). In every one of those instances, I would have preferred a non-smoking environment, and I’m sure some other people shared my preference. But all the smokers, had they been forced by a blanket law to cease puffing away, would have enjoyed themselves less, to varying degrees.

Economists have a broadly-defined word for happiness, or satisfaction: utility. Although a mandated non-smoking environment increases my own utility, it simultaneously decreases utility for those who are barred from smoking. I can probably estimate my own utility in general terms, by using thought experiments: For instance, I would put up with a smoke-heavy environment to see King Crimson, but the smoke would probably edge out my desire to see Ben Harper, a performer I enjoy to a significantly lesser extent; so if I consider the amounts I’d be willing to pay for tickets to see each band under ordinary non-smoking conditions, I can roughly calculate the amount of utility I’d lose if a smoky environment made me miss out on music I’d otherwise enjoy.

But I can’t calculate the aggregate utility that all the smokers at an event would lose if a law prevented them from smoking, because they would each have a different marginal utility for the value of smoking at a given concert. Absent the actual observation of each smoker’s preferences over time, there’s no way to measure that aggregate utility — and, so, no way to measure the amount of happiness or satisfaction they lose after a smoking ban is passed, or weigh it against the increased happiness of non-smokers.

This is one reason economists tend to be suspicious of regulation — because centralized authorities have no mechanism to measure the aggregate utility of the people their laws will impact. The economic effect of a regulation on specific businesses is an important subsidiary measurement, but it’s only the tip of the full utility iceberg. Markets, though still far from perfect, ultimately do a better job of maximizing aggregate utility because each individual market participant is able to estimate his or her own utility in a way that no legislator can, and then act accordingly — either buying a product, attending a concert, patronizing a bar, or not.

If a large enough number of other people enjoy smoking, and accept its long-term health risks, I have no place denying them the opportunity to do so. If a privately-owned "public" establishment decides it wants to cater to smokers, I can choose to patronize a different business — or put up with the smoke, if the other aspects of a given opportunity set outweigh my loss of utility from the smoke itself.

At the very least, if the public-health mavens are resolute in their insistence that a regulatory solution is necessary, there are options other than blanket prohibition that at least acknowledge the existence of varying individual preferences, such as proposals to provide incentives for businesses to go smoke-free, or allowing some establishments to opt out of a ban, if they and their customer base want it badly enough. Markets don’t provide results that are good for all people, all the time, but at least markets aim to please large segments of the population, most of the time, by catering to decentralized, individual needs and wants.

Last year we released a case study on the privatization of the county’s pharmacy services. With the release of the 2008 county budget at the end of last year, we have been able to update and correct come of the information it contains. Here is the original study. Here is a statement explaining the updates and corrections in detail. Finally, here are some things to keep in mind about the update and corrections:

• Nobody called us on this. Our own follow-up research led to the corrections, and we are making these changes in the interest of accuracy.
• The error in the 2007 data was not our fault. We used a number provided to us by Saint Louis County. I am certain that nobody intentionally gave us a lower-than-accurate number. It was just an error. These things happen; you correct them and move on.
• Most importantly, the essential point of the case study, and its conclusions, remain exactly the same: that privatization has been great for county government, patients, and taxpayers. The only change is that the new numbers show lower savings — but there are still savings. If you adjust for inflation, the new numbers still show substantial cost savings. The improvements to patient services brought about by privatization remain a primary argument for the benefits of privatization, and are not changed by these new numbers.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a very thoughtful editorial this morning (link via Combest) about the Bellefontaine Habilitation Center in north Saint Louis County. The problems there are heartbreaking and long documented. There have been cases of abuse, neglect, and patient death both at the center and among patients who have been moved to private facilities for care. Each case is awful. The Post states, "As it turns out, privatization is no magic bullet."

Indeed, privatization is not necessarily the best choice for circumstances such as this, which deal with the absolute neediest members of our society. If I may digress a bit, one of larger problems I have with the welfare state is how quickly and easily the definition of "needy" gets expanded to include a very large number of people. You expand Medicare to serve anyone who wants it, and then when the governor merely tightens the eligibility requirements, to try to focus more resources on those who truly deserve it, he gets ripped for destroying families — regardless of whether that actually happened. So, yes, I clearly favor substantial reductions in the welfare state at the state and federal levels.

But that is not really an issue here, because everyone can agree that the patients at Bellefontaine clearly deserve state care if their own families are unable to provide it. And I don’t mean financially unable — the level and difficulty of care required for many of these patients is beyond what most families can perform. The state has a role in providing for these citizens, and the question is whether the state or the private sector should actually perform the job.

As for these patients who require lower levels of care, I don’t see anything wrong with allowing qualified private facilities, with appropriate state oversight, to provide that care. And I certainly see nothing wrong with firing 125 employees who are no longer needed because the patients have been moved. However, for the remaining 160 or so patients who need the greatest level of attention, the state should continue to provide the highest level of care possible. Only after private facilities have proven they can handle the most demanding patients, which may never happen, should the state consider moving them out of Bellefontaine. Until then, resources must be directed to provide for those patients.

Now, I look foward to discussing the SCHIP program and wondering why the hell families at 300 percent of the poverty level deserve to have the taxpayers pay for their kids’ health care, so I can return to being a tightwad.

Missouri Sen. Scott Rupp, for his recently introduced bill that seeks to end cyberbullying in the wake of the tragic "MySpace suicide" of Megan Meier, the Dardenne Prairie girl who hanged herself after being the target of hateful messages on the popular social networking website.

First, the details of this case are harrowing, and should provide an excellent cautionary tale to parents in the age of Web 2.0. Now, more than ever, it is essential that attention be paid to what children do and have access to online (the Washington Post has an excellent discussion about this topic).

The problem I have with Sen. Rupp’s bill, though, is that it sets a dangerous precedent for online regulation. The Internet is an entity that has grown and changed lives largely because of anonymity. This anonymity brings freedom in cyberspace, allows a shield of privacy to protect users from having their lives put on display for the entire world, and protects online residents from the actions of others. After all, a law that punishes a "cyberbully" could be applied to the wrong user of a guilty account, because it’s difficult — if not impossible, in many cases — to prove whether a given users was the one at the keyboard, or whether it was a bystander unaware of the harm being done.

Sen. Rupp’s bill has the good intention of attempting to right a new and unfamiliar wrong, but I cannot agree with his remedy. The Internet may be the greatest common good that the modern economy has ever seen, and any attempt to manage it with a political agenda will bring far more harm than benefit.