“There was a time when a good reputation and a handshake sealed business deals.” These are the words of Robert Sanders, owner of Sanders Hauling. For more than four decades, he has serviced many citizens in Town and Country. Despite this, an editorial in today’s Post-Dispatch really made me ponder the future of small hauling businesses in the area. At an Oct. 16 meeting, the task force chairman revised a previous proposal, deciding to go with a single citywide bid. According to the article, “The winner would offer smaller haulers sub-contracting roles, allowing them to still do rear-yard pick-up but under the big hauler’s contract.”

We have discussed this issue as much as any other on this blog, and seen varied perspectives from our staff. I totally agree with the previous posts of Justin Hauke and Michael Pakko; district trash plans demonstrates a “collective mindset that has been imposed on constituents with a certain degree of arrogance.” This is evident in the way Town and Country passed this proposal. Passing a recommendation 2-1 while someone is spending an anniversary with a loved one sounds like upscale student council drama. I think this proposal presents a threat to individual freedom of choice for the citizens of Town and Country. I mean, it’s typical of small businesses in Missouri. People have a strong proclivity for small companies because they are personable, loyal, and — most importantly — DEPENDABLE. Although I understand the rationale behind the a government’s decision to monopolize trash and hauling (e.g., creating less wear and tear on streets), I think we should leave the choice up to the people.

The greatest thing about this editorial is the comment by John Hoffmann, a Town and Country Alderman that vehemently opposed the new proposal. From the article:

“Let the free enterprise system take its toll,” he said. That way, he added, “little guys” like Sanders will have a “fair and even” chance.

Hmm … “Let the free enterprise system take its toll?” That sounds so familiar.

Show-Me Institute contributors and scholars have recently submitted a number of opinion pieces about the proposed Metro tax increase in Saint Louis County. This augments the writing we released previously about light rail in Kansas City. With both issues on the ballot Tuesday, if you live (or shop) in either place, please take some time to review the articles. For St. Louis, we have pieces arguing the measure is a good idea and a bad idea, another in which an intern looks at both sides, and one from an economist’s perspective. For Kansas City, we have some great detailed work by Randal O’Toole.

We were honored to have Wendell Cox agree to write a piece for us. His work is an inspiration to many people involved in think tanks around the world.

I am no stranger to livestock. Out in WashMo, I lived across the street from Regal Dairy Farm. My dad always claimed it was the second-largest dairy farm in Missouri, but I have yet to find a way to verify this. My grandpa Othmar (pronounced Ought-Mur) lived about a mile down the road on his farm, where he would raise cows to slaughter. Today, I’m dating a young Washingtonian woman whose father happens to own Williams Brothers Meat Market (the perks there are endless). Beef holds a special place in my heart … and stomach. So, when I read this story from the Kansas City Star, I just couldn’t help but comment.

Commercial farms, in a lot of ways, are like Walmart (yeah, they got rid of the dash). A lot of people have a problem with Walmart, whether it be the low wages or the way they treat their employees, many people opt out and choose to shop at other, smaller, local places — like, say Schnucks. But, on the other hand, there is also that large portion of people who choose to shop at Walmart regardless of what they hear. The externality costs, to them, are outweighed by Walmart’s low prices.

Now, large commercial farms, like those described in the article, are a lot like Walmart. They are good at what they do, raising healthy animals to slaughter. And lots of them, too. Just like some people have a problem with the way Walmart treats its employees, many have a problem with how these farms treat the animals they raise. Yet, for many people, these costs are still offset by the cheaper price of meat. Going to Sam’s Club and buying your own weight in ground beef at a low price sounds very appealing to many people.

Now, I’m not saying these commercial farms are wrong or evil, or what-have-you. Heck, I’m an econ major. I’m always the unpopular guy in the argument, defending Walmart and outsourcing. Economics, after all, is the study of choices. People always have a choice. If you don’t agree with commercial farms, there are always smaller options, such as Williams Brothers. While the prices sometimes don’t match Wally-World, you know the cow or hog you are eating was raised locally and as humanely as possible.

It’s all about choices. You have to weigh the costs and benefits and decide which is best for you.

I think the difference between commercial farms and Walmart is fairly obvious: people vs. animals. Walmart employees have people to speak out for them, whether they be unions or lawyers, these people have a voice. With the animals being raised at these farms, it almost seems like people are waiting for some sort of Lorax-type character to appear and speak for the animals. On the other hand, I’m sure the commercial farm industry would love to find an animal like the Dish of the Day from Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe — a cow that not only wants to be eaten, but is vocal about which parts of his body taste the best, and which sauces go well with them.

Now, hopefully, I have plugged Williams Brothers enough so that I can score some free pulled pork sandwiches next time I stop by.

One of the top stories in the Post-Dispatch today reports that registered sex offenders will be closely monitored by increased police presence on Halloween.

There are some problems with sex offender registration as a whole, so it may not be worth the increased police presence. Some states require handgun owners to register with the state; would we want increased police presence outside the homes of registered gun-owners?

If parents worry (they will, and should, worry) for their children’s safety on this most-spooky holiday, perhaps their concern should center around more obvious dangers. The kind you can literally see coming.

When I was an elementary student at Kennard Classical Junior Academy, I remember being absolutely furious about having my gym class canceled. I had stretched, my shoes were tied tight, and I was ready for a classic game of kickball — but three guys named Clinton, Bush, and Perot spoiled my day. Our gymnasium was taken over by grown-ups who used our facility as a polling place in the 1996 presidential election. This year, things will be a little different for the lucky kids of St. Charles and St. Louis County.

An article in the Post-Dispatch had me floored when I read that more than half of the St. Louis County school districts were canceling classes at the request of the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners. In a report released last Monday, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan announced that 76 percent of Missouri’s registered voters are predicted to vote in the November 4 election. If this holds true, more than 3.2 million votes will be cast, which may create complications. From the article:

Because this election is expected to have a huge voter turnout, election organizers and schools are concerned about building security and parking. They also want to make sure schools can set up voting booths in their largest areas available, typically in cafeterias, gymnasiums, hallways and classrooms.

I understand the logic in closing some of the schools down, but what about those parents that work full time? Forcing them to look for a babysitter or take time off from work could put them in very inconvenient positions. School that considered closing, but chose to remain open, have called on parent volunteers to help patrol halls and asked teachers to carpool. Other districts, like Parkway, chose to keeps schools open just so the students could “observe the legislative process, to see it in action,” in the words of one official.

I think that parents’ biggest fear is that: (1) Obama and McCain volunteers will get involved in a royal rumble in the school cafeteria; or, (2) a serial killer or child molester will happen to find his way into a random hallway of the school. While I am not much of a fan of disenfranchising felons from the voter booth, Missouri law prevents felons who are still on parole or probation from voting or entering the premises. As far as an Obama McCain brawl, I think that would provide entertainment for all ages.

Hmm … if the students could get a day off, I wonder whether there is any hope for interns?

A reader sent us a video promoting transit funding in general (and the MetroLink tax by extension), and, as promised, we are pleased to share it with you. Here it is. It is very funny, and nobody doubts that sitting in traffic is just about the least productive thing you can do with your time.

On the cover of today’s Post-Dispatch, there’s a photo (unfortunately not online) taken at Hazelwood MIddle School. It depicts a handmade sign that reads “Voting Place,” and includes the names “Obama” and “McCain.”

Doesn’t that violate regulations prohibiting campaign signs at polling places? Or is that sign up just for the kids’ voting, to be taken down when the adult voters arrive next week?

I’m hoping that it’s just for the kids — but, even so, this might be a good opportunity to teach them that we don’t promote particular candidates at the polls.

I don’t know if you guys knew this, but I’ve done a bit of work regarding the upcoming Proposition C. Cough. Cough.

Well, as you might already know, Prop C — also known as the Missouri Renewable Energy Initiative — would require Ameren, Empire, and KC Power & Light to produce 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2021, with a 1-percent rate increase cap.

Surprisingly, there has been little to no opposition to this measure. Even KCP&L has endorsed it, while Empire and Ameren have remained surprisingly neutral. Well, the Springfield Business Journal has posted a great article this week detailing the support and limited opposition to the law. Spoiler alert: A certain Show-Me Institute intern is interviewed near the end of the article. This article is as cool as the Fonz, Bart Simpson, Steve Holt, Chester Cheetah, and Batman rolled into one.

There is a fine article over at the Kansas City Post about something that has long bothered me greatly — governments hiring lobbyists to lobby other governments for more money. I don’t need to add anything more, because the article itself says it all perfectly, but the practice needs to stop.

Missouri ranks in 22nd place. Not bad. Not great. A bit below average, sure, but with room for improvement.

In a study by the Chicago-based Better Government Association, Missouri’s state government placed 22nd overall in the Integrity Index. The judging included five categories:

• open record laws
• whistleblower laws
• campaign finance laws
• open meetings laws
• conflict of interest laws

A high point of the study is the fact that Missouri ranked 4th for whistleblower protection laws. Overall, Missouri was handed a 53 percent score. Not a grade that will make it on the refrigerator, especially compared to Lisa’s A+++. Our low point, unsurprisingly involves campaign finance laws, where we ranked 42nd. Wow. Not surprising, especially considering some of Missouri’s stories.

Here’s a little more info on Missouri’s campaign finance laws. And, in case you were wondering, New Jersey placed first overall and Arizona placed first for campaign finance laws.

The city of St. Louis is continuing its war against citizens’ right to express themselves. Having already told Jim Roos that he’s not permitted to use the side of his building to call for an end to eminent domain abuse, the city’s meddling bureaucrats have shown themselves to be equal-opportunity censors by citing a local business owner for his signs supporting Senator Obama. Roos, aided by the Institute for Justice, is currently pursuing a lawsuit in federal court to vindicate his constitutional right to share his message. I can only hope that the gentleman who commissioned the Obama sign will do the same.

There was a time when this sort of paternalism would never have been tolerated. Consider this passage from a 1902 Missouri Supreme Court case interpreting the state Constitution (emphasis in original LexisNexis case citation):

[T]he right of free speech, free writing or free publication, were not created by the Constitution which recognizes those rights as now existing, and only seeks their protection and perpetuation. That instrument simply forbids any law to be passed impairing the freedom of speech, and then gives a general and perpetual guaranty against any interference from any quarter whatever, with the freedom of every person “to say, write or publish whatever he will on any subject.” Language could not be broader, nor prohibition nor protection more amply comprehensive.

Wherever within our borders speech is uttered, writing done, or publication made, there stands the constitutional guaranty giving staunch assurance that each and every one of them shall be free. The Legislature can not pass a law which even impairs the freedom of speech; and as there are no exceptions contained in the rest of the quoted section, the language there used stands as an affirmative prescription against any exception being thereto made, as effectually as if  words of negation or prohibition had expressly and in terms, been employed.

Alas, with its sign ordinance, the city is saying to its residents that the government’s desire to control which signs go where is more important than the right of individuals to express their views with each other. It is a shame. If the state and federal constitutions mean anything, they mean that free people should not have to seek the government’s permission before sharing their ideas about issues of public concern.

If you like studying government, covering politics, and writing about it all on a blog, then yesterday’s Post-Dispatch had a dream article about the dispute over the county seat in Gasconade County. Many Missourians are familiar with the historic county courthouse in Hermann, that county’s current seat government, from their trips to the many wineries in the area. At least, you remember it on your journey to the wineries. But some people in Owensville — and the article makes it seem like a very small number of people are behind this — want to move the county seat to their community, farther south. The Hermann Advertiser-Courier has an additional article about the issue, touching on why members of a committee looking at courthouse reconstruction were not told of an existing agreement between the county commission and the state.

But lets get down to brass tacks. From the Post-Dispatch piece, how often does this happen?

If voters approve the move, it would mark the first time a county seat has been relocated in Missouri since 1930 when construction of the Lake of the Ozarks inundated Linn Creek in Camden County. Prior to that, a county seat hasn’t moved since before the turn of the century. Hermann has been the Gasconade County seat since 1842.

Supporters say they want the move in order to save taxpayer money by moving county facilities into a recently closed school, rather than spending millions on renovating the historic courthouse. People in Hermann see a different motive:

Many opponents of the move blame Lairmore, one of three county commissioners, two of whom are from Owensville. Critics accuse him and a handful of other Owensville residents of orchestrating the move.

[...] Many blame the commissioners for allowing the building to fall into disrepair so it can be condemned.

Some speculated that the proposed move was part of a push to get Highway 50 moved closer to Owensville. Still others believe politicians and power brokers some how stand to make money.

It certainly is interesting. It would be funny to see people claim that Clayton is too far east in St. Louis County, and try to move the county seat to Town and Country. I guess Gasconade could try to imitate Jackson County and have a split county seat, with facilities in both Hermann and Owensville. But, in the end, I must conclude that this is one of the most insane proposals I have heard of recently. Hermann, Mo., is the face of the county. That courthouse along the Missouri River is the face of Hermann. The people of the entire county should pay to renovate it, and the seat should stay where it is.

As you may know, one of our areas of interest here at the Show-Me Institute is occupational licensing, as in: How do we get less of it? We will be publishing some great work about this very shortly. I know that it is great, because it’s mine. That aside, here is the first Show-Me Daily free-market question for our readers, staff, former interns, etc.

What is the common occupation with the absolute least amount of government involvement?

The second part: What is the most prominent occupation with the least amount of government involvement?

There are plenty of occupations that don’t involve getting a license as a precondition to work, as doctors and lawyers must do. But many of them, such as farmers or bankers, clearly involve a great deal of government contact. What is the common (legal) occupation where you deal, in any way, shape, or form with the government the least? And, along the lines of doctors, what is the most prominent occupation that does not in any way involve a government license? My answer to the second might be clergymen. I don’t have an answer yet to the first.

Fire away in the comments section. …

The much-discussed Riverfront Times article about MetroLink from a few months ago is being discussed at the Freakonomics blog. If you are visiting our site, then I am pretty sure you’d also be familiar with their site, book, and phenomenon — so I don’t need to expand. But be sure to check out the discussion, especially in light of the upcoming votes on light rail in St. Louis and Kansas City.

As an addendum, a video is being passed around about Kansas City’s light-rail proposal. In the interest of fairness, if anyone sends us something similar, but in favor of the proposal. we’ll link to that, too.

Loyal readers might remember this post from a few weeks back, when I was knee-deep in renewable energy research. To sum it up, I had to put 10 of my closest family and friends on the chopping block, giving their emails to the Missouri Clean Energy proponents in order to get a free T-shirt.

Well, today my efforts finally paid off when I got an email saying that SLU’s post office had a package with my name on it. I instantly ran out the door to the school post office, thinking my Neil Diamond Halloween costume had arrived, but was surprised to see the return address belonged to the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.

To be honest, I had written off the idea of this T-shirt coming weeks ago. I figured it was just a ploy to get email addresses out of me, and that the chances of me getting a T-shirt were practically nonexistent. Plus, I also imagined they read my op-ed and decided I don’t deserve a T-shirt.

But the environmentalists surprised me and were true to their word, and now I have a pretty neat, green (surprise surprise), Missouri Renewable Energy T-shirt. I shall wear it proudly and know that somewhere out there, 10 of my closest friends and family members are receiving rather annoying daily email updates about Proposition C. Totally worth it.

I’ll leave the legal analysis to others here at the Show-Me Institute, but I wanted to highlight this regrettable ruling in Clayton that will allow suburban school districts to continue to refuse to educate young people from the unaccredited city of St. Louis school district. (This will be, in my opinion, the ultimate result — not necessarily the immediate result.)

According to a Post-Dispatch article the city of Joplin will no longer allow teachers in its public schools to show any visible tattoos.

Now, at first blush, this seems like an infringement on liberty, and perhaps it is. But it may also be a way for a local government to provide something people want, without the drawback of forcing all to comply. Let me explain.

In 1956, an economist named Charles Tiebout (pronunciation: I’m told his last name rhymes with see-through) put forth the idea that if (a) information is sufficiently available, (b) moving is relatively inexpensive, and (c) there are sufficiently many communities to chose from (there were a few other assumptions that aren’t important here), then communities would be able to most closely match the preferences of their constituents. Joplin has provided an alternative for people who prefer to send their children only to schools where the teachers have no obvious ink. If it were a statewide mandate, I would oppose it on the grounds that it is difficult to aggregate the preferences of an entire state. Because it is local, however, I celebrate the experiment.

For other Show-Me Institute–related references to Tiebout, go ahead and check out our first policy study, published way back in March ‘06.

How’s this for a frightening law? Belleville is limiting trick-or-treating to kids in eighth grade and younger.

Happily for the Belleville teenagers, this doesn’t sound enforceable. Many eighth graders look as big and scary as college freshman. It’s hard to tell the difference between a 13-year-old and a 15-year-old when they’re in costume. Besides, the new ordinance makes an exception for teens who accompany younger siblings, so all a ninth grader has to do is team up with some eighth-grade friends and pretend to be a chaperone.

Still, the last thing any city needs is a bunch of redundant, unenforceable laws. Perhaps they’ll rethink the concept when they figure out that eighth graders don’t carry photo IDs.

Jefferson County voters will soon decide whether to adopt a charter for their county. Doing so would make substantial changes in the way Jefferson County’s government would operate. Here is the home page of the charter reform movement. Here is the testimony I gave to their commission, and here are my thoughts about their final charter proposal.

I think that adoption of the charter proposal would benefit the people of Jefferson County. While there are a few parts of it I don’t like, which I discuss in detail in my “Thoughts” piece, on the whole the document is drafted well, and will give the people of Jefferson County the checks and balances that a large county needs. If I lived within JeffCo, I would almost certainly vote for it. (I say “almost” because it is a hypothetical question, and I have to be careful about electioneering.)

One of the best parts of the proposed charter is the way in which it is sure to allow for increasing governmental cooperation by the other entities in the county. That will really benefit the citizens and taxpayers in the long run. There are many other good parts to it, and the members of the commission deserve a great deal of thanks for their time and effort.

From the charter:

3.4.2.22. Cooperate or join by contract or otherwise with any Municipality or Special District or agency thereof, or with the United States of America or any agency thereof, for the planning, development, construction, acquisition or operation of any public improvement or facility, or for a common service; and accept, in the name of the County, gifts, devises, bequests, and grants-in-aid from any Municipality or Special District or agency thereof, or from the United States of America or any agency thereof.

3.4.2.23. Provide the terms upon which the County will perform any services and functions of any Municipality or Special District in the County by agreement of the Municipality or Special District.

On a related note, I thought Franklin County would have the same issue and question on its ballot, but apparently that will be on the April 2009 ballot instead, so I will hold off until then with any comments.

There’s a nice short article on KOMU Channel 8’s website advocating increased public funding for health care in Missouri. Now, I am not a monster. I do think it would be better if more people had better health care — but I am not willing to ignore the costs. Therefore, I disagree with the efficacy of the method supported in this piece. Sure, if we increase taxes or divert funds from current projects, we can spend more on health care. But there is little reason to believe this would bring about a preferable outcome.

My complaint is twofold. Firstly, it is difficult to be sure that public funds would be spent in the areas of greatest need. There is instead reason to believe that leaving money in the hands of the taxpayers will allow them to spend it on whatever medical treatment has the highest benefit/cost ratio for their particular time and place. Second, let’s not forget that public spending in particular areas tends to crowd out comparable private industry in those areas, even when that private area is charitable in nature. From the article:

Brown gets free therapy at the University of Missouri’s School of Health Professions from a program that runs on donations. Brown and his [fiancée] realize without it he would have no therapy at all.

Now, the government may have established incentives, such as tax breaks, to encourage this kind of behavior from the SHP — but this is plainly a privately funded project. Rather than encourage the government to tax/spend more on something that most people would agree benefits those in need, instead perhaps it would be worthwhile to encourage increased private donations to such programs, demanding no funds from already cash-starved public coffers. And, more importantly, let us celebrate the decency of the SHP and its donors for providing such a wonderful service to those in need.
For related reading from the Show-Me Institute, see Calvin Harris’ recent op-ed.

To follow up on yesterday’s post, we have some studies and articles out looking at a couple more ballot issues. One of our current interns, the original Wizard of Washington (Mo.), Jacob Voss, has a well-thought-out piece about the renewable energy mandate on the ballot. This has also been the subject of some great discussion on Show-Me Daily, and MOPNS is hosting it on their site, as well. (And thank you for that, Scooter!) Whatever the pluses and minuses of the issue, mandates are very rarely a good thing in economics. Perhaps this is one of the exceptions? But I doubt it. …

The last major ballot issue about which we have something to say is the question of whether to adopt the Missouri Plan for judicial selection in Greene County. We released a major study about the statewide impact of such plans earlier this year. It concluded that states using judicial selection panels, in one form or another, rather than elections, have a high correlation with good overall environments for business. Yours truly framed that argument in relation to Greene County (that’s the Springfield area, in case you didn’t know) in an article where I argue that the Missouri Plan could benefit the area’s residents.

So, voters both statewide and in our big cities, please review our work before you go into the ballot box to make your own well-researched decisions. Especially because an informed vote has absolutely no marginal utility whatsoever over an uninformed vote — which is depressing, but I’ll leave that particular issue to our editor. …

The Post-Dispatch reports today that the city of Valley Park has passed an ordinance that would forbid the use of eminent domain “for economic purposes or private gain.”

While I have not yet read the ordinance at issue, I fear that it says the city may not take property solely for these reasons, as that is almost always the way these things are phrased. If that is, in fact, the case, then Valley Park’s ordinance does absolutely nothing. The Missouri Constitution already forbids the use of eminent domain for these purposes. Cities across the state can simply avoid this prohibition by labeling properties “blighted” (which appears to be specifically permitted under Valley Park’s new ordinance) and claiming that any private profit that might follow the use of eminent domain to clear “blighted” areas is unintentional — and permissible.

Local residents and elected officials who hope to avoid these uses of eminent domain authority are frequently lulled into a false sense of security by ordinances such as these, only to be rudely awakened a couple of years later when the next developer’s plan threatens their homes, businesses, or houses of worship. The key is to draft ordinances with clear, carefully honed standards for determining what properties (if any) can be considered “blighted,” and to what use these properties may be put in the event they must be condemned. I strongly encourage anyone whose city or county is considering an eminent domain ordinance to contact us here at the Show-Me Institute. We will happily help educate elected officials and interested residents about the likely legal effect of changes to their eminent domain laws.

With an election approaching, so I’ve heard, you might be interested in some of the ballot issues that always seem to just appear toward the end. We’re releasing a series of articles coming about these questions, and if you mostly just come to the blog without visiting our main website, you may have missed them.

One of our interns, Calvin Harris, (no, not that Calvin Harris) discussed his thoughts about a proposal before the voters in Saint Louis County to raise the sales tax for youth services, aka Proposition 1. It is a great piece with some creative thinking, and I hope you enjoy it. The passage of Prop. 1 would mean, as a father, I could count on other taxpayers in Saint Louis to pay to care for my son. It was just so stupid of me to think that it was my own responsibility to take care of my child. How reactionary!

And, of course, over in Kansas City, you are voting on light rail. I strongly encourage everyone to read the study Randal O’Toole wrote for the Show-Me Institute about transit in Kansas City, before you make up your minds. It is well worth your time.

While we are on the subject of light rail, former intern and current global traveler Patrick Eckelkamp released an op-ed about the pluses and minuses of the transit tax increase in Saint Louis County. This is a big decision for voters in Missouri’s largest county, and Patrick did a great job of discussing the issue.

More pieces yet to come. …

It’s always the little four-legged guys who get stepped on in these turbulent economic times. The Kansas City Star reports that the number of pets being abandoned at shelters because of foreclosures has risen drastically in recent months. The costs of food and vet visits were simply too much for families, and they opted to get rid of their beloved animals rather than budget around them.

Now, before dropping off Santa’s Little Helper at the “farm,” consider whether there are ways to avoid this. Taking the Bob Barker approach to this problem, perhaps many families should not have pets to begin with. Having a pet is like having a child; it is a long term affair, and should be planned as such ahead of time. Regardless of what they are doing in Nebraska, pets — much like children — are a heavy financial burden, and should be treated as such.

There are, of course, instances where a family falls on hard times unexpectedly, and a pet is already in its possession. Surely, there is some sort of middle ground in which that pet could stay with the family. It seems quite drastic to progress straight from giving up your house to giving up your dog. There’s no intermediate expense that could be sacrificed instead?

I guess I’m trying to say that abandoning a pet because of economic fears is a drastic, and probably avoidable, situation. Tears can be avoided through patience and smarter financial planning.

Did you know AmerenUE isn’t allowed to raise its rates to finance future construction projects? More specifically, if a customer is not gaining utility from a project that is currently in the works, Ameren is not allowed to raise that customer’s rates to pay for the construction work in progress (CWIP). Seems like a fair law to me. I don’t want to have to pay for something I’m not using, and, more importantly, something I don’t necessarily want. And, yet, that is what Ameren is trying to do in Callaway County.

Callaway County is the home to one Ameren nuclear plant, and could possibly be the home of a second. If Ameren gets its way, the current law that prohibiting it from charging for CWIPs would be repealed, and current customers would have to finance the second Callaway County nuclear plant. Already, Ameren is trying to pass the $46 million filing fee price tag onto customers. That’s right: $46 million. For a filing fee.

Now, this isn’t the first time these shenanigans have popped up. Ameren tried to get rid of this law back in ‘82, but was unsuccessful. Isn’t this the type of law that keeps Ameren a nice, friendly monopoly rather than the scary, bags-o-money, monocle-wearing Mr. Monopoly?

Ameren claims that unless it is allowed to charge customers for construction as it goes, it will not be able to afford the plant and meet the demand for electricity.

What really bugs me is this: If Ameren is claiming it will have to charge us for plants not even in operation, how is it going to finance 15-percent renewable energy by 2021 if Proposition C passes? Perhaps in this current volatile economy, a multibillion dollar nuclear plant — or, for that matter, a massive renewable energy standard — isn’t in the state’s best interest.

A benefit concert will be held this Saturday in south Saint Louis city, for people opposed to the use of red-light cameras. As our regular readers know, there are few things that incense me, and some others here at the Show-Me Institute, more than red-light cameras. They are a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Even if they did achieve their ostensible goal — greater safety and a reduction in accidents — they would still be violating our rights. The fact that they do not increase safety, but merely raise revenue for local governments (their true purpose), is all the more reason to oppose them.

This concert will benefit efforts to eliminate red light cameras. The newly created effort is bipartisan, informational, and interested in enabling liberty, and as such I can safely link to it from this blog. My family and I will be attending. If you have never been to the Royale, it is a great place, owned and operated by the man who got me into competitive boxing. (One fight, lost on decision. My opponent won fair and square, but he was bleeding more than I was. And, yes, he also has a great restaurant that you should visit.)

Both a Democrat, state Rep. T.D. El-Amin, and a Republican, state Rep. Jim Lembke, will be addressing the gathering. It is organized by Ed Martin and Jesse Irwin. These are two elected officials and two citizens who care deeply about individual liberties. Please consider supporting the cause. Now I shall return to long-winded blog posts about zoning. …

There was an awesome article about health savings accounts in yesterday’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This article outlined a very similar approach to the health care alternatives we study at the Show-Me Institute. A study conducted by our very own Beverly Gossage emphasized the growing popularity in health savings accounts:

When given free choice of an individual plan, many employees choose health savings accounts and the qualified health plans that accompany them, because the premiums are usually 35 percent to 40 percent lower than traditional plans. Employers and employees may both contribute to the health savings account, providing more tax advantages for both parties. These funds grow with interest, and employees may use them to pay health care expenses for the entire family — even save it for retirement, if not used.

The article in the Post-Dispatch puts it best when it states, “health savings accounts aren’t a use-it-lose-it proposition.”

The insantiy of Missouri’s tax incentive system is slowly becoming more apparent, though I have no confidence that, in this case, realization will lead to corrections. According to an article in Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly, the city of Saint Louis recently raised the issue of tax incentives at a board meeting of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments. (Unfortunately, we can’t link to the article, because it is subsciption-based — so you’ll have to trust us on the language.) From the article:

Slay spoke about the decision and questioned whether tax breaks and credits should be given for projects that end up attracting jobs from another Missouri city in the same region at a July 30 meeting of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments board.

The exact cause of the discussion was the move by the Armstrong Teasdale law firm from downtown to Clayton, to a development project being built with enormous subsidies by the state, county, and Clayton. But the issue is much bigger than one corporate relocation, as troubling as the move is for the downtown area. Examples in which tax money is used to help companies move from one Missouri city to another are numerous. Clayton, itself, was victimized by this game a few years ago when tax incentives helped Smutfit-Stone move its headquarters to Creve Coeur. And it seems peculiar for the city of Saint Louis to be complaining about tax incentives offered by Clayton when Saint Louis recently came very close to luring Centene to move downtown, thereby leaving Clayton, by offering significant tax incentives.

The solution is to stop handing out tax incentives entirely — no exceptions. “But, David, that would put Missouri at a disadvantage when competing with other states,” say the economic development officials. Perhaps, but if we created an overall business environment better than other states, then we would offset that. We could lower the state corporate income tax, eliminate the payroll tax in Saint Louis city, reduce occupational licensing even further, and more. We already passed tort reform, and that has been a great success. The key is to stop allowing tax dollars to be used when a government decides it wants a certain business in a certain place, rather than allowing markets to make those decisions. We have written extensively about this here at the Show-Me Institute.

Not every local government plays this game, but most do. If the city of Saint Louis really wanted to, they could follow the lead of Saint Charles County and refuse to use TIFs and other tax abatements. It is indeed insane that Sunset Hills gives tax incentives for businesses to leave Crestwood, but it happens all the time — and the city of Saint Louis has done it, too. You need to be against it when it favors you, as well as when it hurts you.

Here’s a quick question: Does St. Louis city honor St. Louis County licenses?

Under Missouri law, each county must impose its own business or occupational licenses. In other words, business licenses issued by one political subdivision are not recognized within another political subdivision. According to the the City of St. Louis License Collector Office FAQ, the only license issued in one county that is recognized by the other 113 counties in Missouri is an auctioneer’s license. The only reciprocal agreement between St. Louis city and St. Louis County involves taxicab and tow truck licensing.

This is not my idea of a free market. Let’s play fair, you guys. Wow, maybe we should use tax dollars to build a big fence between St. Louis city and the rest of St. Louis County.

The Show-Me Institute today announced its spring internship program. For those interested in applying, the internship will run from early January through late April or mid-May, and will be based at the Show-Me Institute’s Clayton office near Saint Louis. Applications are due on November 14.

Our spring 2007 intern, Steve Bernstetter, wrote a great blog entry about what it’s like to be an intern here. I’d also like to quote a few paragraphs from a farewell letter written by one of our summer 2008 interns, Dan Grana:

I began the summer by attacking an ineffectual bill that will impose nominal regulatory burdens on textbook producers starting this school year. Although the issue is relatively minor and the legislative action I criticized succeeded, I found immense satisfaction in combating the absurd economics used by students, like me, to justify a mistake. Scholars of regulation repeatedly note that massive damages come in incremental steps. The Show-Me Institute takes this truism to heart, and I appreciate its support of my opinions regarding one particular issue that is especially relevant to me.

I will end the summer by researching different formulations of state education budgets and the taxes that they come from. I understand that this information will be used in an exciting paper [...] on Missouri’s educational funding. This project has familiarized me with research methods and policy issues I would not have otherwise encountered. I am certain that this knowledge will prove valuable in my remaining years of economics education, where I will increasingly be asked to raise original ideas in assignments, and beyond. I can only hope that I’ve been as helpful to this project as it has been to me.

During the time between these two endeavors, I’ve found satisfaction in blogging about diverse issues and helping around the office. For what it’s worth, even the most stereotypically inglorious intern duties have provided a newfound understanding of the practical necessities behind a successful office’s operation.

Perhaps more than anything, I’ve benefited from the Show-Me Institute’s exceptional staff. In addition to being extremely friendly, the members of this organization have been great educators. By talking with them about a variety of topics, I’ve gained an understanding of different political philosophies that draw on the same respect for economic freedom.

If you’re a college student who would like to have a similar experience conducting real research and making a difference in the world of Missouri public policy, apply today! If you know a college student who might fit that description, be sure to spread the word.