An article in the Columbia Tribune informed everyone that aid would be available to residents who were victims of the September storms. According to the article, the assistance will be available to the insured, the uninsured, and citizens that lived in the federally designated flood plains.

With this news, I would just like to revisit an summer op-ed written by Matt Simpson, which discussed the incentives of flood relief. Does subsidizing and funding reconstruction efforts REALLY ease the pain caused by floods?

So, gas prices have sure gotten low lately. I’m showing my age here, because they are the lowest I’ve seen them since I started driving. And the best part about gas being so cheap is the fact that it is no longer required to include an ethanol blend.

According to Missouri’s ethanol mandate, if gasoline prices drop below those of ethanol prices, then retailers are no longer required to sell the ethanol blend. The Kansas City Star covers the story here. Well, this is good news for Missourians. No longer will our engines be clogged with this substance that drives up the costs of gasoline and food and makes our cars less efficient.

Be sure to read the Show-Me Institute’s study of ethanol. Hopefully, gas prices will stay low — not only for the sake of my wallet, but also for the sake of Missouri residents who are no longer forced to purchase ethanol.

Helmet laws are a popular mechanism by which state and local governments like to insert themselves into the lives of their citizenry, and the recent news out of Saint Louis County is no exception.

Naturally, I oppose this on ideological grounds, but I am willing to consider the case for the sake of argument. A plethora of good links can be found at Wikipedia’s section on the Bicycle Helmet Debate. The conclusion? There is no consensus, but there is also a dearth of reliable data on the efficacy of helmet-wearing. A rather pithy link points out:

• Children are 2.6 times more likely to suffer head injury through jumping and falling than by cycling. [5]
• Helmets for motorists are much more effective than those for cyclists and more beneficial than seat belts, interior padding or air bags. Their potential for reducing injury is 17 times greater than that of cycle helmets. [7] [3]

At this point, I am not prepared to say unequivocally that helmets do not improve safety significantly. I think we can all agree that car accidents are a much greater risk to us all, and therefore a helmets-while-driving law would entail much more improved safety, and much more voter outrage.

This proposal is a classic case of legislators lashing out at an “easy fix” that isn’t really that easy (but is unlikely to be unpopular) to a problem that doesn’t really exist. Cost/benefit analysis is out the window, because we must protect our children.

The St. Louis Business Journal has an online story about the study of Missouri’s public pensions that the Show-Me Institute released last week. (You can also find the article via the Kansas City Business Journal’s site.)

The study was written by Richard C. Dreyfus of Pennsylvania, who has alerted us to the dangers of underfunding public pensions, and of failing to alter their provisions in a way that would move them toward an increased level of defined contributions over time. And I just know that as soon as you read the word “danger,” you thought there was going to be a Jaws reference. …

I grew up around St. Louis, so there are a few things that I not only know by heart, but are pretty much instinct at this point. I know that if I mention Buckley, I get $200 off the price of my car. I know that Dave Sinclair is thankful and wants me to know his address. But, most of all, I know that if I have a personal injury lawsuit, I call Brown & Crouppen at 421-HELP.

Brown & Crouppen was started by two gents named Ron Brown (not to be confused with Don Brown at the entrance to The Hill) and Terry Crouppen. Now, for years, personal injury lawyers and used car salesmen have had local commercials in St. Louis that play 23 hours a day on all the local channels. Watching so many Brown & Crouppen commericals during Saturday morning cartoons on channel 11 is probably what drove me to choose a career path in law.

But there is a new Missouri law threatening these media gems from reaching our TVs, radios, and mailboxes. What I don’t understand about the new law is the harm, if any, that these ads are causing.

Lawmakers claim these ads influence individuals too much in their decisions when choosing an attorney. But there should not be a law restricting what lawyers can advertise because individuals do not put enough effort into their searches for the proper attorney. When you pick a lawyer from an infomercial, what exactly are you expecting? Atticus Finch? No. You should be expecting exactly what the commerical promises: a lawyer with a firm who specializes in whatever area of law they say, whether it be personal injury or family law.

Part of the proposed law would require any disclaimer to be read at the same pace as the phone number. Why should lawyers alone be forced to expand their disclaimers? Surely, if lawyers have to read their disclaimers slowly, then every other disclaimer should be slowed down as well. Why should Terry Crouppen be barred from advertising his services in the manner he wishes? He’s a Missouri business owner just like Ted Drewes, even if he doesn’t “put a little wiggle in it.”

Everyone at the Show-Me Institute would like to extend their congratulations to John and Monica Combest (formerly Durrwachter) for their wonderful wedding Saturday. I, especially, would like to extend my gratitude for allowing me to participate in the open bar. As our readers know, it would be hard for us to do what we do (as if we even know what that is) without John first doing what he does every morning.

The entire day was beautiful, but I think the music stood out. Monica’s family is very talented musically, and they performed all the music for the ceremony. At the reception, her father sang to her for the traditional dance, and it was extremely moving. And, as the ACC first noted, John still compiled his headlines this weekend!

Because of this, Missourians should be spared the worst of this, compared to the rest of the country.

Well, it’s been coming for months, but KWMU reports that Ameren has officially begun hearings in front of the Public Service Commission to raise rates by 12 percent. Ameren probably won’t hear a decision about this until sometime early next year. Hopefully, by then this whole economic catastrophe will blow over and a utility price hike won’t feel as bad.

Ameren claims the increased funds will go toward employee wages, construction materials, power plant fuels, and capital expenditures. Many people are raising an eyebrow or two because of this proposal’s timing. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Ameren wants to raise rates at the same time it wants to build a new nuclear plant. But, of course, raising customers’ rates in order to fund plant construction is illegal, but I’m sure that Ameren officials know that. Also, it has that new renewable energy mandate to manufacture and pay for. But, hey, that’s supposed to save us all money in the long run. … I just wish those savings would get here sooner.

My fellow intern, Calvin Harris, has just received word that his mother is officially a breast cancer survivor. Since receiving word, he has bolted out of the office to go celebrate with his mom. We wish Calvin and his mom the best of luck and couldn’t be happier about her clean bill of health. This is even better than the day when we got free BBQ at lunch.

An article from the Post-Dispatch tells us that, despite a request from the police chief to repeat last year’s gun buyback, the Board of Police Commissioners failed to approve funding for the program. The matter failed on a 2-2 tie vote, with the mayor — who would’ve voted for it — absent, because of a prior engagement.

Free-market advocates want to reduce violent crime as much as any other group, perhaps more so. If gun buybacks* reduce crime, I’m officially gung-ho: Let’s do it.

Unfortunately, there appears to be no evidence that gun buybacks actually reduce crime in the slightest measurable way. Here are some links. From the first link:

[A]cademic researchers – often divided by passionate differences over gun control – are in rare agreement in their conclusions.

[...] University of Pennsylvania professor Lawrence Sherman, who headed a wide-ranging assessment of crime prevention programs, called gun buy-backs “the program that is best known to be ineffective” in reducing firearms violence.

From the fourth link:

“The typical person who hands in a gun is not a criminal,” [research director at the Independent Institute, Alex] Tabarrok says. “If they want to reduce crime, they ought to put more police on the streets, something we know works.”

Show-Me Daily has covered this before — mostly last year, when this unfortunate idea took hold of our police. I don’t particularly blame them; if it were my job to deal face-to-face with criminals every day, I’d want to do whatever I could to reduce the chance that they’d wave a gun my way. Unfortunately, gun buybacks simply are not a useful way to accomplish this, and they may have the opposite of their intended result.

For a tangentially related post to which the Peltzman Effect also applies, read this (if you haven’t already).

*The word “buyback” in this case is a particularly euphemistic misnomer, in my opinion. It subtly reinforces the idea that the police are the source of all guns/protection, thus undermining the notion that individuals have the right/responsibility to defend themselves. This is in no way aimed at the StL PD, who I’m sure did not invent or popularize this term, I mean only to call attention to the subtle psychological damage this term may be inflicting.

Show-Me Institute scholar and author Rick Dreyfuss will be appearing on the Gary Nolan Show in Columbia this afternoon, from 5 to 6 p.m. Please listen in if you can. Dreyfus will be discussing his study of public pensions in Missouri, which we are releasing publicly tomorrow.

The Post-Dispatch has a story today about the proposal for University City to enforce a stricter curfew in the Loop district. Now, this is something I am qualified to write about, because I know the Loop pretty damned well. I have played darts at Blueberry Hill almost every Wednesday night since 1996, and that is where I first met my wife. But, despite my love of the Loop, and my full recognition of its importance to University City (where we live), I don’t know whether I support an enhanced curfew.

A curfew will only move a problem, not solve it. The Galleria moved its problem (with loitering young people, some committing crimes) to the Loop by instituting a curfew. Now the Loop wants to move the problem somewhere else. If you are a Loop business owner, solving the problem might be ideal — but moving it is fine, too. In the bigger picture, though, simply moving it is not fine.

I am not going to go on about violating anyone’s rights, because I agree with the laws that basically don’t allow a lot of rights until you turn 18. I think people tend to turn to curfews as a solution because there is not much else that can be done about large groups of young people hanging out in places they shouldn’t be. From the article:

The business leaders would like University City to provide more recreation programs for young people and encourage them to be with their families.

Neither of these things is really the responsibility of government — especially the latter. As for providing more recreation opportunities, I guess they could keep the rec center open later, but do we really think most of these kids live in University City, and hence come from families that pay taxes that support the rec center? The kids in question come from all over, and keeping the rec center open quite late — not to mention staffing it with security — would cost U. City taxpayers a lot of money. Perhaps it would be money well spent if it keeps people coming into the Loop and paying sales taxes. Perhaps not. But let’s be honest — hanging out in a hip place like the Loop is part of the fun for the kids, and some rec league isn’t going to replace that.

There is a thin line between kids harmlessly hanging out and aggressive youths making people feel uncomfortable — via panhandling, catcalls, or whatever. But making people feel uncomfortable is not necessarily a crime. It may, however, keep people away, which is what the Loop business owners fear. I can’t fathom having been allowed to hang out in the Loop late at night with my friends when I was 15. I can’t fathom allowing my son to do it when he is 15. But I am not stupid enough to think that all of these kids have Norman Rockwell homes and schools awaiting them when they do finally go home. I don’t know what the answer is. For the Loop, it may be a curfew. For our entire area, it is much more difficult.

I will, however, enthusiastically support a curfew if the police could arrest my friend Jimmy for violating it just once, even though he is now 37.