The controversial plan to institute contractor licensing has slowed down in Saint Joseph. There is a very solid article about the dispute here in the News-Press. Unfortunately, while the vote has been delayed as a result of various controversies, it seems unlikely that the proposal will be defeated wholesale. To that end, it’s a good time to remind people of the op-ed I wrote about this exact subject in August, which the News-Press was kind enough to run.

Occupational licensing harms our economy, and does not protect consumers. I hope the Saint Joseph City Council realizes that.

I learned something about our beloved state in a golf trip to Ireland, from which I just returned. On two occasions there, when somebody heard we were from Missouri, they gave an instant response of, “Oh, yeah, Josey Wales.” Apparently, the most famous thing about Missouri in Ireland — and, perhaps, the only famous thing — is the Clint Eastwood classic The Outlaw Josey Wales. If this had just happened once, I would have assumed we were just taking to an Eastwood fanatic. But it happened twice! Once from a caddy, and once from some guy in a bar, who lived off the coast of Ireland on an island so small that the other Irish made fun of it.

So, it would appear to me that the State Division of Tourism, instead of airing its “Come to Missouri” ads in Illinois and Kentucky, where they already know all about us, should be airing ads during Gaelic Football matches in Dublin, telling people to come walk where the real-life inspiration for Josey Wales walked, or something like that. Along the way, they could stop at McGurk’s and visit Lucky.

Under the Missouri Constitution, no government agency can prohibit or punish people’s efforts to cooperate with each other as they strive to attain the best deals they can get in exchange for their labor. Last year, in Independence NEA v. Independence School District, the state’s Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether this right to bargain collectively applies to public employees as well as private ones.

The case came before the Court because the Independence School District decided to unilaterally modify the contract it had reached in collaboration with teachers’ union representatives. The district reasoned that, because teachers were specifically excluded from statutes providing a framework for collective bargaining with public-sector employees, the agreement with the teachers’ unions was not binding — because it had been reached through a sort of collective bargaining process. The Supreme Court disagreed. Even though previous decisions by the Court had limited the scope of the Constitution’s collective bargaining guarantees, the Court overturned those cases and held instead that all employees, including those in the public sector, are protected by the Constitution.

This win for the teachers’ unions has led to quite a conundrum across the state, which is discussed by a story in today’s Springfield News-Leader. In the decision’s aftermath, union officials called for legislators to pass a statute that would govern the collective bargaining process for teachers. Interestingly, however, the Missouri NEA and the MTSA (each of which represent a substantial percentage of teachers in many districts throughout the state) have very different ideas about what would make the best framework. The MNEA, which is the larger organization, wants a winner-takes-all solution in which a majority vote would decide on one union to handle representation for all of a district’s teachers. The MTSA, on the other hand, wants to establish negotiating committees that would allow for proportional representation from both unions. This sort of framework would assure MTSA teachers that their representatives had a seat at the negotiating table, even if a majority of teachers in the district were represented by the MNEA. In short, the teachers’ unions got what they asked for, and now they are each lobbying the state to mediate the resulting conflict.

This situation echoes the broader problem in our union-driven education system: The unions’ proposals call for the legislature to create a one-size-fits-all approach that will bind all of the state’s school districts and teachers. While a state-mandated approach undoubtedly serves the interests of the unions themselves, the idea is really pretty silly. Let the teachers sort out for themselves how to handle bargaining!

Imagine a hypothetical school district that employs 100 teachers, of whom 80 belong to the MNEA, 15 belong to MTSA, and five would prefer to negotiate their own contracts. Why couldn’t the district reach one agreement that would cover MNEA teachers, another that would cover MTSA teachers, and separate contracts to cover the five independents? Under this model, teachers would have a choice about which deal served them best — a union negotiation or an independent contract. If members of one union became disillusioned with their representation, they would have the option of switching to the other union or going independent, a model that would empower individual teachers. I think that’s a very good thing!

The unions, of course, would be appalled by this suggestion. A union wields power by presenting a united front on behalf of all the members of a profession, thus assuring that when potential employers don’t meet the union’s demands, no work will be done. Unions can only maintain this power by ensuring that workers will not seek independent employment agreements that deviate from the union’s demands. Under ideal circumstances, unions should secure cooperation from workers only through persuasion — convincing them that remaining in step with union goals is in their best interest. Unfortunately, however, unions sometimes turn to coercive threats when persuasion proves unsuccessful.

Tying back to the news story, one way to avoid this sort of risky intimidation — while achieving similar results — is for the unions to seek legislation that uses the power of the state to entrench their status and curtail dissent. It should be obvious, however, that it is not appropriate for the unions to use the legislature to accomplish what their reasoning cannot. Teachers (and school districts!) should be free to approach the bargaining table on their own terms, not on terms dictated to them by the unions or the legislature.

Washington, Mo., residents — yours truly included — are going to have to keep dealing with the obnoxious red light cameras scattered throughout town. The Washington Missourian tells how one attorney tried to declare that the city’s red light camera laws were not harmonious with state red light laws. Missouri law prohibits vehicles from “entering” an intersection while the light is a steady red. The Washington ordinance issues fines if a vehicle is “present in an intersection” when the light is red. Uh oh. No wonder people keep slamming on their breaks at the intersections of highways 47 & 100 and highways 100 & A. I know I have run many a yellow light in my Danger Ranger. Now I’m more likely to slam on my breaks when I go back home to Washington. Watch out if you are driving behind me.

One eyebrow-raising tidbit from the article was the motion that a city counselor used to try (successfully) to get the judge to dismiss the case. The counselor claimed that because the plaintiff had not been charged with violating the ordinance, he had no standing to sue. The judge agreed, and forced the plaintiff to pay court costs. If I were him, the first thing I would do after leaving court is drive my car right through a red light camera intersection and wave to the camera.

There are also many other red light camera blog posts here at Show-Me Daily, available for your perusal.

… don’t fix it! There are a few policy areas in which Missouri is doing such a fantastic job that no changes are needed. If I had to make a list of them, I’d put homeschooling regulations at the top. Homeschooling families have complete freedom to choose curricula, teaching methods, and whether or not to administer standardized tests. They are required to keep a log of instructional hours, but the state doesn’t look at it unless there’s a complaint.

I was briefly homeschooled during high school, and at the time I whined about keeping that annoying log. Only after I researched the homeschooling policies of other states did I realize how lucky I was. In some states, homeschoolers have to justify every textbook purchase to their local school districts, or deal with routine harassment from government officials. Missouri’s homeschooling environment is much more free and open to different educational philosophies.

This article in the Columbia Missourian sums up the current state of affairs. It includes some quotes from people who’d like more regulation — and several from those who’d like things to stay the way they are. This is from Bert Schulte, the deputy commissioner of education:

“I think they would be resistant to government intervention or some kind of quality assurance. It’s one of those liberties that is available in Missouri that those who take advantage of it really want to preserve the autonomy of that liberty.”

The Missouri Board of Pharmacy is alarmed that Justus Drugstore: A Restaurant doesn’t employ a licensed pharmacist. In case you’re wondering, the unusual name refers to a drugstore that once existed where the restaurant now stands. The restaurant doesn’t employee a pharmacist because you don’t need one to prepare food, but the Board of Pharmacy says that if you’ve got “drugstore” in your name, you’d better have a pharmacist on site.

Here’s the reasoning behind that:

Several speakers representing pharmacist trade groups said the law was necessary to prevent unlicensed people and potentially illegal Internet drug retailers from fooling customers into thinking they were regulated businesses.

I would expect people to realize the restaurant isn’t a regulated drug retailer when they see the menus, plates, and napkins. Or when they see the word “restaurant” in the name.

Here’s what the restaurant has to say:

We believe real food raised with painstaking care by local small farm producers, prepared lovingly by skilled artisans served in an ambient beautiful space is an experience everyone should enjoy. If we can’t make it from scratch, we won’t serve it.

Doesn’t sound like a pharmacy to me.

Continuing my ongoing epic of examining the Renewable Energy Initiative, I stumbled upon an interesting section of the Missouri Clean Energy website. Apparently, if you give 10 of your friends’ and family’s email addresses to Missourians for Cleaner, Cheaper Energy, so they can spread the word, they send you a sweet free Missouri Clean Energy T-shirt. Now, I am currently in the process of getting to the bottom of whether this issue is worth my vote, but I’ll be danged if this awesome T-shirt doesn’t help the MCCE’s cause just a little. And I would just like to apologize to those 10 family and friends whose email addresses I gave out. Some of them comment on this blog frequently, so I’m sure I’ll be hearing about it from them.

While I should have posted something about this sooner, I’ll offer a brief account of Tuesday evening’s visit from Steve Levitt, the author of Freakonomics and one of the authors of the New York Times‘ popular Freakonomics blog. The event was jointly hosted by the Show-Me Institute and St. Louis University at SLU’s John Cook School of Business. An overflow crowd of more than 500 people came out to hear this bestselling author and University of Chicago professor offer his thoughts on how economic research can lead to wiser, more effective public policies. Professor Levitt was funny and insightful, recounting several stories from his first book and giving guests a whiff of his upcoming title, which he says will be called Superfreakonomics, in honor of Rick James. The lecture was part of a continuing series hosted by the Show-Me Institute, in which we strive to bring some of the top names in economics and public policy to help Missourians develop a deeper understanding of how these issues affect our lives.

For the past few weeks I have been researching and writing extensively about the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative. The issue will be on the November ballot and, if passed, will require Missouri’s four largest energy suppliers — Ameren, Empire, Aquila, and Kansas City Power & Light — to provide 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2015. So far, there has been little opposition to the bill, and even the power companies seem to be on board.

Now, being away at college and working in the Clayton office of the Show-Me Institute every day, it’s not surprising that I can forget my roots. So, when checking John Combest today, I was surprised to see my li’l old hometown, Washington, Mo., smack on top of today’s news. Washington’s newpaper, The Washington Missourian, has gone green and officially supports Proposition C — the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative.

Though the article is, not surprisingly, lenient toward the proposition (it claims there is no downside, even though rates will initially rise by a small percentage), it is good to know that even the people in my small hometown are taking time to find the best solution to the energy situation. Honestly, I guess the move toward renewable energy is not too surprising, considering just how many people in WashMo can see the Labadie coal plant from their backyards.

Traditional public schools and charter schools are sometimes presented as a stark dichotomy: broad education vs. specialized programs, neighborhood communities vs. citywide enrollment. Those generalizations are sometimes correct, but not all charters fit the mold.

For example, there’s City Garden Montessori, which was featured in the South Side Journal:

Any parent can stop by during the course of the day and they often do as most live nearby, said Michelle Marshall, the school’s family support coordinator.

The school has a preference for neighborhood students written into its charter. It seeks children living between Interstate 64 and Magnolia Avenue and Grand and Kingshighway boulevards in the Botanical Heights, Forest Park Southeast, Shaw, Southwest Garden and Tiffany neighborhoods.

Here’s a charter that wants to draw children from the surrounding area, like most public schools do, but that is innovative in other ways. City Garden offers a Montessori curriculum in both its preschool (which was established several years ago) and its new elementary school. I’m impressed, because many schools drop the Montessori focus by first or second grade, when it’s harder to put into practice.

The Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journals are doing a great job of profiling the area’s charter schools and illustrating what’s unique about each one. Stay tuned as new charters open!

Combest today has a number of links to articles about proposed changes to the Missouri Plan of judicial selection. In the very near future, I will blog in-depth about Congressman Hulshof’s proposals. In the meantime though, please check out the ideas for yourself. They’re covered well by this AP article in the Columbia Missourian (the other articles are also very good). Then please consider the ideas put forth in this Show-Me Institute study, released earlier this year, and my own op-ed about this issue, from last year.

My first response is that I think many of the proposals are worthy of serious consideration. They do not scrap the Missouri Plan and return to the use of elections for these positions, nor do they give too much power to any one entity. But more to come on this topic next week.

There is nothing more enjoyable when researching issues than coming across an article you think you are going to hate, and then discovering you’re completely wrong. I really don’t know why I assumed I’d dislike this column by Mary Jo Feldstein in the Post-Dispatch. Perhaps the opening line led me to make the wrong assumptions about it. But, anyway, it is an excellent article, and sort of a counter to the terrible piece by Bob Herbert that I blogged about the other day.

This is not to say that Feldstein’s column is in full agreement with the health savings account approach favored here at the Show-Me Institute. In fact, she raises some very interesting questions about them:

Research shows patients in these plans, particularly those with low incomes, sometimes avoid cost-effective preventive tests and prescription therapies because of their cost.

There is simply no magic potion to take our health care system and make it perfect. Last night we cosponsored the Steven Levitt (coauthor of Freakonomics) lecture along with St. Louis University, where the event was held. Levitt, in response to a question from a lottery-winning audience member who regularly runs for office, talked about health care. He believes that market pricing has to be put back into the system, and consumers and insurers are going to have to make tough choices about what people can and can not afford.

As Feldstein writes:

Patients should have a financial stake in their health and health care. But plans should encourage, not discourage, the wise use of limited resources.

I see her point perfectly. It is one thing for parents not to take their teenager, who only has a simple cold, to the doctor. That choice allows for more important uses of limited resources. To go further, it is unfortunate — but probably necessary — that dying elderly people do not receive every single expensive treatment possible. Remember when Mickey Mantle got a liver transplant and died soon anyway, after potentially taking away a precious resource (a functioning liver) that someone else may have used to live much longer? (Note: there is no proven evidence that someone other than Mantle died because of that transplant, but the decision to give the liver to him was still very controversial.)

It is another issue entirely for people with treatable conditions not to take their medicine because they are responsible for the first $2,000 of their costs before insurance kicks in, and they can’t afford it. I am not saying HSAs don’t work because of this issue, just that it is a reasonable possibility to consider. The great thing about Feldstein’s column is that it is a well-researched piece about a complicated issue, as opposed to Herbert’s uninformed broadside.

Missouri’s minimum wage is set to go up again in January. Here’s a thorough article in the Springfield Business Journal covering both sides of the issue very well.

The increase itself is not large as far as wages go, but I’m sorry it has to happen right now, when the economy’s not doing so well. This is a problem with tying the minimum wage to inflation — you don’t get to time the increases so as to soften the blow.

A book review in today’s Wall Street Journal discusses a few of the hoaxes and scams aimed at the parents of autistic children. One is “facilitated communication,” whereby an assistant supports the arms, wrists, or even hands of a nonverbal autistic student and helps him or her point to letters on a keyboard. This method was discredited after studies found the messages to be controlled by the facilitators, not the students. (A summary of relevant research can be found on the American Academy of Pediatrics website here.)

Back to the review:

The method was easily debunked with a simple experiment: Don’t allow the facilitator to see what the child is seeing and suddenly the child’s communication skills evaporate. But facilitated communication flourished for years.

In fact, it still flourishes — in the Special School District of St. Louis County. Facilitated communication is listed on the SSD website as a term “used in special education and at SSD.” I wondered whether that meant that the district actually practices facilitated communication, so I called the district. I pointed out the term on the website, gave the same description of it as in the paragraph above, and asked whether SSD uses this method. The answer? Yes, they do, in cases where a child’s Individualized Instruction Plan prescribes it.

Facilitated communication is not just another multiplication algorithm or literacy curriculum. The Association for Science in Autism Treatment calls facilitated communication “an inappropriate intervention.”

And the following statement comes from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that FC is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation.

This is from the Association of Behavioral Analysis:

Thus the use of FC directly threatens the human and civil rights of the person whose communication is purportedly “facilitated,” and may also jeopardize the rights of others. [...] its use is unwarranted and unethical.

Opponents of tuition tax credits for autistic students have claimed that these students can receive a satisfactory education based on the latest scientific findings in the public schools. Sadly, I don’t think that’s the case.

I agree with every single word in this editorial by the Kansas City Star, down to and including the conjunctions. Nice linkage, John.

In case anybody thinks that charter schools and parental choice programs don’t encourage urban districts to improve, here’s an article about Cleveland’s public school system. The Cleveland public schools are facing a significant amount of competition. This is their response:

He is pinning the district’s hopes for revival on niche offerings, like single-gender schools and two new high schools specializing in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Where have we heard about those niche offerings before? They sound a lot like specialized charter schools and private schools. Cleveland’s public schools could have given parents these options earlier, but they had no incentive to change until they began losing students to single-gender schools and science academies.

Maybe the expanding charters in St. Louis will trigger similar progress.

The Columbia Tribune is fun to read when the math wars flare up. Sometimes, the intensity of the debate seems to be out of proportion to what’s at stake. Take a look at this exchange from a recent school board meeting:

Math teacher Teresa Barry challenged the notion that all students should be learning only one method of calculation, and to prove her point, she asked board members to multiply 12 by 16. When member Tom Rose said he got the solution by first multiplying 16 by 10 in his head, Barry was quick to mockingly chastise him for not using the traditional algorithm.

Sorry to bring out the snarkiness for which this blog is known, but if by “traditional” they mean long multiplication, then that is the traditional algorithm. (You might write it out by first multiplying 16 by 2, but the order doesn’t matter.) At any rate, even if a board member used some obscure ancient Chinese algorithm, is that really worth calling a meeting about?

I’ve concluded that the math wars are less about specific algorithms — the competing methods are, in some cases, algorithmically equivalent — than about philosophies of education. Even if all parents agreed on how to write out a multiplication problem, there would still be passionate debates about explicit instruction vs. exploration, how much practice kids need, what topics should be taught at each grade level, etc.

It just goes to show that one standard form of education can’t satisfy everyone. Why not offer a few different math courses, based on different approaches, and let parents choose which ones they want for their kids? That system works well enough for other subjects. Some students study Spanish, others study French, and nobody argues at board meetings about which language is better.

Several elements came together allowing me to write this blog post. The first was an ongoing series of articles from the Post-Dispatch and other outlets detailing the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative, scheduled for the upcoming November ballot. The second element was the electric bill I received from Ameren yesterday. And, finally, a few days ago I watched Back to the Future again — so Doc Brown has been on my mind a lot lately.

According to the Post article, the initiative’s sponsors released a study finding that, over time, as the percentage of power Missouri gained from renewable energy grew, the more money we would eventually save:

over a period of 20 years, an average utility bill of $80 a month would see a peak increase of 53 cents a month during the first four years the standard was in place. Over the course of 20 years, that home-owner would see a peak savings of $1.65.

This depends, of course, on all other factors remaining stable — such as amount of energy used, and the overall price rate. The Missouri Clean Energy Initiative has issued a brochure containing some useful facts.

Cheap energy sounds great, but 20 years is a long way away. I want to know what my options are now, and how much they would cost me. And what better tool to use in my research than Dr. Emmett Brown’s time machine?

As we all know, the DeLorean time machine’s flux capacitor requires 1.21 gigawatts of power to function. This is the same as saying 1,210,000 kilowatts of power. Now, while the average home in St. Louis city only uses between 1,000 and 4,000 kWh (kilowatts per hour), I feel as though the DeLorean time machine is an example we all know, love, and respect.

Now, if Doc Brown were to fire up the DeLorean today (in late September), he would be charged a rate of 7.92 cents per kWh. When you do all the crazy math (which I have), you find out it would cost Doc $95,839.50 to use the DeLorean one time during the summer months. Great Scott! When you add in the 12-percent proposed rate increase, his total reaches $107,340.24. Maybe stealing a sports almanac from the future isn’t such a bad idea anymore.

If Doc was to be patient, and use the DeLorean during the winter (October–May), he would be charged a rate of 5.62 cents for the first 750 kWh, and then 3.78 cents for each additional kWh. This comes to $45,759.05 — or $51,250.14 after the rate increase.

One would think a person as smart as Doc Brown would consider alternate, renewable energy options. Luckily for him, Ameren offers Pure Power options. As a resident, Doc would have the option of paying an additional 1.5 cent per kWh, or he could buy blocks of 1,000 kWh for $15 apiece. If Doc chose the “100% P.U.R.E.” energy block option, he would have to buy 1,210 blocks, paying only $18,150. This would cost much less, and he would have the satisfaction of knowing he’d gone green while time traveling.

We have written extensively on this blog about the unconstitutional scam that is the red-light camera industry. Those cameras are just horrible. Ed Martin adds to the discussion with a great first-person account of getting a ticket from a camera. My addition to Ed’s comments: The suburbs that do this are just as bad as the city of Saint Louis. I highly recommend Ed’s post, and thanks go to Combest for the link.

P.S. — I know I used the word ”extensively” and then posted just one link. Trust me, I’ve written about it many more times, I just didn’t feel the need to find every one of the posts. Ed’s article is the main point here, anyway.

If Bob Herbert of the New York Times had read the Show-Me Institute’s primer on health savings accounts, perhaps he would not have written such a pathetic piece about health care, carried in today’s Post-Dispatch. Some of the problems Herbert decries — such as employees losing their health care, and young, healthy people choosing to go without — are already happening now. Increasing the options available for private insurance is an answer to those problems, not a way to make our health care system worse. As for the tax implications, we absolutely should level the playing field between the tax code’s treatment of employer-based plans and individual plans. Why should health care provided by a company be tax exempt as pretax income and individual insurance be classified as after-tax? Reducing the cost of individual plans via a tax credit will encourage insurance plan purchases by more healthy, young people — not fewer.

I guess in the end, though, it comes down to a difference of outlook:

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — would find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace.

Herbert, and others like him, think that average people are too stupid to take care of themselves. Needless to day, I disagree.

This morning, the St. Charles County Council considered a plan to fund county employee pay raises through an increase in property tax rates. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the plan was withdrawn because the council lacked the requisite number of votes to overturn an objection by the county executive. Proponents said the tax boost was quite minuscule, and was needed to keep sheriff’s deputies and other workers from leaving for other jobs. Opponents say the county should hold the line on taxes during a time of economic distress.

While I am not a fan of increasing taxes, I do understand the logic and legitimacy of the few supporters of the tax increase. If you want good employees, you have to pay for good employees. But I do not recommend placing all of this responsibility solely on the taxpayers. While tax increases aren’t always necessarily a bad thing, I would prefer to see government officials figure out how to solve this issue by other means (e.g., perhaps outsourcing some county offices to the private sector).

It wasn’t too long ago that the “Clean Energy Initiative” was almost dropped from the November election ballot. You may remember this initiative as the law that would require 2 percent of Missouri’s electricity be derived from renewable energy by 2011, with 15 percent being required by 2021 (with at least 2 percent being solar). To top it off, electricity rates can only increase 1 percent each year, somehow. I assume magic and/or sorcery will be involved.

Members of Missourians for Cleaner and Cheaper Energy were ready to do battle with the utility companies until November, but there’s just one problem: The utility companies have yet to oppose the measure. This is an unexpected turn of events. Imagine the MCCE’s shock after finally making it onto the ballot, then finding no opposition. It would be like Clubber Lang not showing up for the end of Rocky III.

According to the Kansas City Star (link via John Combest), the initiative looks as though it will pass without any problems now. If the measure achieves what it promises, Missouri should be in great shape. But I am suspicious that energy prices will rise beyond the 1-percent promissory increase. They may call it something else in the ballot language, but either way, I will have to pay more. I’m sure a bit of the proposed 12-percent rate hike will go toward renewable energy standards.

So, when considering the little energy initiative that could, find out how the law will affect you and whether the advancements it promises are worth the price.

Disappointment because the innovative plan to finance our bridge repair program has been replaced. There is nobody to blame here — it is just a bad time to go for large amounts of private capital. The decision to go with bonding is an unfortunate necessity. (The above link, and other articles on the subject, at Combest.)

Bemusement because silly cases also make bad laws, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes. Is it really necessary to have Kansas City practically come to a constitutional crisis over the issue of a wife volunteering in the office? I understand the complaints against her, but this entire situation is just crazy. I am generally in favor of anything that paralyzes local and state government. Gridlock is good! But this is insane. …

Sadness because one of my best friends had a brain aneurysm yesterday, and will be taken off life support today. I commend his wonderful family for its decision to save other lives by donating Sherman’s organs. I will miss you forever, Sherman.

The Show-Me Institute recently unveiled a new online resource: Policy Pulse, an interactive tool that gives users greater flexibility and control in researching the policy areas and legislation that interest them. While the new Missouri Accountability Portal is an outstanding resource for government transparency, we wanted to complement its functionality by creating an easy-to-use search and tracking system that integrates the ability to keep tabs on legislative action with the latest highlights in relevant news and commentary.

So, be sure to check it out and spread the word!

After my post yesterday about Metro’s proposed Daniel Boone Corridor expansion, I was looking around the usual websites that a Show-Me Institute intern might search and found this interesting tidbit from the Kansas City Star.

Kansas City’s light-rail plans are making some folks on the west side of the state nervous, as well. Who can blame them?

The article should raise a few eyebrows, mostly by showing how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent with such little hesitation.

People respond to prices, incentives, and mandates. We all know that, although many people wish it were not so. Today’s Joplin Globe has an enlightening article on how one such business has responded in a very rational way to incentives, and left Missouri for Kansas. Thanks to Combest for the link, and my point here is not to call for further tort reform. Missouri passed some great, much-needed changes in 2005, and they need time to work themselves out. Just as doctors on the west side of the state may favor Kansas over Missouri, doctors on the east side favor Missouri over Illinois. I understand that on the south side doctors perfer to practice in the middle of Table Rock Lake so they can be in either Missouri or Arkansas depending on the precise situation.

According to the National Association of Childcare Resource and Referral Agencies, full-time, year-round child care for young children now costs more than public university tuition in 44 states. The state of Missouri is actually quite lucky, thought, because it is one of the six states where the average tuition of its four-year state colleges is slightly higher than the average cost for full-time infant child care. In Missouri, child-care enrollment costs represent about 10 percent of the $66,580 median household income for a married, two-parent household with children under 18. This could all change very soon, however.

Yesterday in Columbia, a group met to consider restructuring and reshaping regulations that deal with everything from class enrollment size to professional development, hygiene, and safety in child care centers:

This is the second time in three years the state has attempted to revise the rules that some consider outdated and lax. [...]

In 2005, the Missouri Department of the Health and Senior Services, which oversees child care regulation in the state, attempted unsuccessfully to internally revise the rules for every type of provider at once. It failed to gain support from providers, who argued the changes would prove a financial hardship.

In 2008, I see the very same issues at play — and it’s even worse now, given the state of the economy. Adding such frivolous legislation would only increase the already-substantial costs of child care.

I’m an impatient guy. I hate waiting around for small problems to get solved so I can move on with my life. Some people might call me bullheaded. I won’t argue with them. But I don’t even come close when compared to the Metro transit agency.

Yesterday, September 16, I had the good fortune to attend the Metro public hearing in Clayton and watch Dave Stokes give his opinions about Metro’s future financial options. At the hearing, I was given a handy packet explaining the state Metro is in today. There were three main theses in the packet. The first, as one would expect, was explaining all the good Metro has done for the community, such as employing more than 2,200 people and reducing traffic, pollution, and oil dependence. Great — I would expect that from public transportation of any kind. You don’t need to tell me twice how convenient the MetroLink is, especially for public events like Cards games.

The second section gave a great color-coded map of all the expansions Metro is currently planning. MetroLink would run all over the city and county, all the way from Chesterfield Bottoms Valley, to I-55 & I-270. Also, it gave a detailed plan of the next planned expansion, the Daniel Boone Corridor, which will run from Clayton to I-270 at Westport. This new line could be open in as soon as 10 years. Ironically, the offices of the Clayton branch of the Show-Me Institute overlook the area that would be dedicated for the MetroLink expansion. There is also a highlighted section explaining bus–rapid transit (BRT). According to Metro, “BRT is an innovative, high capacity, lower cost public transit solution that can significantly improve urban mobility.” These buses would have designated lanes and traffic signals, and would be allowed to travel at great speeds. And not only that, the BRTs look strikingly like a vehicle found in Star Wars.*

Now, if I were to stop the blog post here, you would think Metro is in great shape. They are helping the community and have ambitious expansion plans. The only problem is the third thesis included the packet, the section that details the potential service reductions Metro is planning for both MetroBus and MetroLink. If MetroLink does not gain additional local funds, it will not be eligible for additional state and federal funds, which would mean not only an end to expansion, but also a reduction in service in order to lower costs. MetroLink would be reduced by 42 percent. There would be no service after 8 p.m. and no extra trains for events like Cardinals games. Also, trains would run every 20 minutes rather than every 15. Overall convenience would fall even more. Why take a train into the city that won’t be operating by the time you need to leave? I can’t remember the last time I left a Cards game before 8 p.m. In all, 57 percent of service would be reduced, including nearly half of all bus routes.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an article this morning detailing the woes of Metro’s newly released audit. Apparently, a great deal of Metro’s financial trouble dates back to the creation of the Shrewsbury line, which opened in 2006. This line has plagued Metro with problems, including a disastrous lawsuit that cost the agency $27 million, including legal fees. In total, the Shrewsbury line cost Metro $676 million.

With all the costs and problems associated with the Shrewsbury construction, Metro should be very cautious with any expansion. How many more fiascos can it survive before having to cut service drastically? This city has become very dependent on Metro, and cannot afford to have public transportation disappear.

Now, one would think that such a sizable debt, combined with the risk of having to reduce service, would cause Metro to focus on shrinking its defecit. Expansion should be the last thing on the minds of its officials right now. While these new lines and BRTs would be great, they simply aren’t attainable right now. As Dave stated in his testimony, fare hikes may be necessary to increase Metro’s revenue, but should not be the only factor. Alternate solutions need to be found to fill Metro’s debt, and increasing this debt by adding new lines should not even be up for debate.

For more thoughts about public transportation, be sure to take a look at the Show-Me Institute’s policy study with the Reason Foundation, “Missouri’s Changing Transportation Paradigm.”

* If I’m not mistaken, I am the first person on the blog to link to Wookiepedia. I take great pride in this fact.

Regulations come in three categories. First, you have common-sense regulations to protect public health and safety — the kind everyone agrees we need. Then, you have pointless regulations about the fat content of restaurant food, or who can call themselves an interior decorator. And, finally, there are those well-intentioned regulations that try to do the impossible. Like making skydiving safe. The current skydiving regulations have been deemed insufficient, perhaps because they don’t outlaw gravity.

Nicely correlating with our presentation of an upcoming appearance by Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, is an interesting post on his blog of the same name. (Note: Registration is full and closed for Tuesday’s talk, so don’t even think about it.) The “Freakonomics” post discusses a recent survey of economists by Scott Adams on how they feel about the upcoming presidential election. (Note #2: What is the proper way to differently style and cite a book and a blog of the same name? I honestly have no idea.) The survey itself is very interesting and worthwhile to peruse, but my intention here is to point out one small but important error in the demographics part.

The survey and the related discussion both point out the easy fact that economists who list themselves as registered Republican or registered Democrat obviously favor the candidate of their party affiliation. But the discussion then goes to note that economists who are registered independent also favor Obama, by a fairly substantial margin. The problem with the party affiliation question is that it does not account for states that do not require, or even allow, voters to register by party. I often hear people in Missouri say while talking politics that they are “registered this-or-that’s.” I always want to say, and sometimes do say, “No, you’re not, we don’t register by party here.” A more accurate way to phrase the question is, “Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, Indepedent, third-party supporter, or non-voter?”

How the hell can this affect the results? Well … if someone, for a poll or survey, asks me whether I am a registered member of a party, it is perfectly legitimate for me to say no. If they instead ask me whether I consider myself a member of a certain party, I would say yes, and any other answer would be lying. We can be sure that some of the responders to this question are from states like Missouri that do not register by party. As such, people from those states with strong political leanings may have very reasonably chosen “registered independent” as the best of the available options, even though they are not truly independents. With a polling universe heavy on people from acadamia, it is likely that many of those not-really-independents favored the obvious candidate.

The results of the poll are not my point. And the overall survey is very interesting. But doing the demographics in a way that assumes all people register by party, or else officially register as an independent, is erroneous.