Aisha Sultan at Parents Talk Back writes about the recent birth of octuplets to a woman who already had six children:

This is the height of selfishness and abdication of parental responsibility.[..] Instead of showering this woman with free diapers and formula, social services should keep a close eye on the health and welfare of a these 14 children.

Of course, I don’t personally know this woman, so I can’t vouch for her responsibility. But going by the information provided in the AP story, it sounds like she had six children and wanted seven. She had a fertility treatment that can result in multiple births (or single births, or none at all if it doesn’t work). Now she has 14 children.

There are other families in the U.S. that have 15, 16, 17, or even 18 children, with or without fertility treatments. Teachers in public schools are in charge of that many children at a time. So I don’t think a relatively low “parent-child ratio” is reason by itself for state surveillance.

This is funny to watch: A state senator explaining her vote in favor of a pay increase for legislators and judges. Although the state senators who voted against the increase may have been motivated more by political pressure and PR considerations, it’s amusing to hear her call for raises so the legislators will “value” themselves. I thought your self-esteem was supposed to be based on your inherent specialness and character, and not on how much money you make.

Thank you, Combest, for linking to this. I can’t believe I’ve been missing out on this excellent blog from the Southeast Missourian. Today, Brad Hollerbach writes about license plate redesign and the waste it entails:

I’ve had the same personalized plates for almost 20 years. This will be the third set of plates I’ve had to get because the bureaucracy in Jeff City thought they needed spruced up.

You know, like adding a squiggle that symbolizes the Mississippi River and changing the color scheme. Real mission-critical stuff.

Is license plate redesign the #1 irresponsible use of state resources? No, but little things add up. We’ve got to point out the waste that nobody cares about to make the case for lower government spending, or at least diverting the money to better uses.

Speaking of little things that matter to me but not to many other people, as soon as I wrote that last post about how getting calls from strangers is a great source of information, some scammer starting calling my cell phone and asking for my relatives to call their 800 number. When I inquired what the call was regarding, I was told they can’t discuss it because of “privacy laws.”

I still think legitimate telemarketers are a good, but maybe we shouldn’t have all these complicated regulations for the fake ones to hide behind.

I want to just take a minute to thank and applaud North Dakota for being on the cutting edge of technology and tax policy. A CNET article talks about how a North Dakota state legislator filed a bill that would specifically exempt digital downloads from taxation. The article touches on a few of the issues that I previously mentioned, like how a state government can’t be a nexus for external taxation, and how this proposed taxation of digital products is a short-sighted and foolhardy expedition. The article also talks about the states (17 of them) that are already taxing digital downloads, and two more that are going to try: Mississippi and New York. Despite failing previously, New York is yet again trying to kill business and growth.

I know this is not a Missouri issue yet, but I would really love to see someone who has a great record of being in touch with the people and populist issues take it up here in Missouri. Any suggestions?

An article in the Post-Dispatch (link via Combest) reports that Jim “70 votes” Lembke (R-1), narrow victor of the race for his state Senate seat, has filed a bill to ban red light cameras (full text of the bill here).

This blog has not exactly been quiet about red-light cameras. Enough has been said about the issue before, but I just wanted to keep our loyal readers up to date with some new movement.

The deadline to apply to be a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow — a program that includes two weeks of seminars at the Institute for Humane Studies in D.C., and eight weeks working as an intern with the Show-Me Institute here in Missouri — is rapidly approaching. Applications are due on Saturday, January 31.

We’re not yet sure whether we’ll be holding our regular summer internship program this year; it all depends on how many summer fellow applicants we accept. So, if you’d like to work with the Show-Me Institute this summer, the summer fellow program is your best bet for now.

If you’re debating whether you should apply, take a look at some of the highlights that Matt Simpson, our Koch Fellow from last summer, had from his time working here:

• Op-ed: Flood Relief Establishes Perverse Incentives
• Missourinet interview: Controversial proposal would deny government aid to flood victims
• Post-Dispatch blog citation: The flip side of flood aid
• Show-Me Daily: 30 blog entries
• Show-Me Quarterly: Front cover photo

Not bad for an eight-week internship here, eh? And that just scratches the surface of all the research that he, and our other interns, helped out with behind the scenes.

So, once again, if you’d like to have the chance to dive into Missouri public policy this summer, be sure to apply to be a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow. After Saturday, it may be too late.

I know it’s me against the world on this issue, but I really think robo-calls are a valuable source of political information. Not that I get my information from them, personally! It’s just that I would hate to see them disappear. What’s next? No mailing brochures to people? No knocking on doors reminding them to vote? No emailing them or campaigning in virtual realms like Second Life? (Notice my new positive attitude towards Second Life.)

It’s like advertising — everyone complains about how annoying it is, without considering that the flow of information would be constrained without it.

This argument for requiring insurance to cover autism treatment just doesn’t make sense (emphasis mine):

Grisamore noted the exponential increase of the incidence of autism—going from one in 10,000 children to one in 150— as proof that his legislation is urgently needed. He also pointed to the growing number of states that that have passed and signed similar legislation as another indicator of the need for Missouri to do the same.

Insurance experts have documented that such insurance coverage would require less than one half of one percent in premium increases.

You can’t have it both ways. Either autism is becoming ubiquitous, or it will be cheap for insurance to cover its treatment. Autism treatment is expensive (hence the demand for an insurance mandate) and passing a law won’t change that reality. There’s no free lunch.

A recent article in the Political Fix (link via Combest) discusses the use of laptops on the Senate floor. Now, I may be speaking out of school on this subject, but I can’t imagine a better idea to allow legislators to have actual debates. Giving legislators ready access to the world of information represented on the Internet only serves to help the Missouri people.

A good Internet-enabled machine is relatively cheap, and gives legislators access to a plethora of information. I’m not talking about visiting Wikipedia to figure out the annual cost for dolphin studies during 2008; I’m talking about being able to figure out how much the Missouri government spends on particular projects, and how those figures compare to other states. Also, wouldn’t it be great if someone could easily pull out an article from the Show-Me Institute, the Cato Institute, or the Institute for Justice, and actually start talking about policy in-depth?

Having worked in the legislature, I am all for the efficiency of government — and there was more than one occasion in which I received a phone call or text message asking me to look up certain facts or find a rebuttal to a policy argument. I was happy to do my job, but by the time I actually found something, printed it out, went to the floor, had an usher get my legislator, wait for him read it, and then watch him wait to be called on by whomever was at the dais that day/hour, the point was moot — by that point, the bill or amendment was no longer up for discussion. So, allowing each legislator a laptop would hopefully solve at least this issue, while allowing them to particiapate in actual debate.

I know that there may be some issues with security and whatnot but I have to downplay those as minimal. Good firewalls, antivirus programs, and a great tech staff already exist, and this would not present any significant additional burden on the system. I have a very hard time understanding why legislators would protest the proposal so much. Someone care to explain it to me?

I am off for vacation until Monday. Here’s hoping the Cardinals win the big game on Sunday:

Rev. Lovejoy: [surveys his congregation, one man and two old ladies] Well, I’m glad some people could resist the lures of the big game.
Man: Oh, my God!  I forgot the game! [rushes out]
— Super Bowl Sunday, “Lisa the Greek”

Hopefully, when I return to work on Monday, all bones intact, we will have no red light cameras, fewer state government employees, Warner will have his second ring, Fitzgerald his first, and the attention of the state of Missouri will turn to my study of state government, to be released next Thursday. I know how excited you all are.

P.S. — I make no claim to being anything more than a fair-weather Cardinals fan, who — like most of St. Louis — has decided to root for them on Sunday because of the presence of Kurt Warner. Although Larry Fitzgerald really is an amazing player.

A good pair of articles (links via Combest) recently discussed the increase (or lack thereof) in pay raises for state officials. While legislators were denying themselves and judges a pay raise, the governor’s office had a mixed result. Some positions saw an increase, while others saw a decrease. Overall, though, there was an increase. A few legislators proposed an amendment to give a raise to judges while excluding themselves, but this was struck down.

I’ve always thought that the pay of elected officials and their staff is a tricky subject. On one hand, you want to ensure that you attract the “best and the brightest,” so that the taxpayers are getting good government. On the other hand, you don’t want to spend more of the taxpayers’ money than necessary in order to have a good working government. I realize that the combination of someone being brilliant and also willing to accept what is normally a substantially lower salary than they might receive elsewhere is a rarity. The people who fit this description are usually driven by a sense of service and duty to the state.

Salaries in the governor’s office are up $21,757, and by rejecting their 4-percent cost-of-living increase, the state legislature “saved” the taxpayers $234,165.80 according to my calculations ($35,915 x .04 x 163). That is a fairly substantial savings, in my book. Additionally, by rejecting pay raises for associate circuit judges, they saved the state $289,500 (193 x $1,500). Overall, there was a “savings” of $501,908.80 ($234,165.80 + $289,500 – $21,757). The cynical part of me understands that the legislature needed to make a political move, because voting for a pay raise — even if it is a cost-of-living increase — can be political suicide, but it is a good move nonetheless.

While I’m on the subject of pay raises for judges, it seems that a modest increase of $1,500 per judge won’t be enough to make an actual difference for either cost of living or recruitment away from the private sector, so the fact that this didn’t pass is a good thing. Additionally, the judges just received a pay raise in July, up to $$109,366. So, a new increase from $109,366 to $110,866 doesn’t seem all that enticing. This decision to let each of the 5,842,713 people in Missouri keep their average of $0.90 (443,367.35 ÷ 5,842,713) is a good thing. Yes, I know that not each one of those people pays taxes, but you get my point).

So, that’s just my $0.02.

I just got done reviewing the governor’s State of the State speech, and I’d like to follow up on Sarah’s post with one of my own. After reading the speech, I think that even though Gov. Nixon and I may differ in the way we reach conclusions about what would be wise in terms of public policy, he seems to have arrived at some very good ideas.

Far too frequently, bureaucratic inertia allows certain government programs, positions, and workers to continue on well beyond the point at which they are more expensive than is justified by the value they provide to citizens. Sentimentality and political concerns make it difficult for elected officials to fire government workers, which is one reason why the government tends to be less efficient than private businesses, which are under constant pressure to discard workers or divisions that are no longer creating enough value to justify the expense. Gov. Nixon has pledged to cut nearly $200 million from the budget by treating the government more like a business. I’m certain that this is an unpopular position among many people with whom the governor associates, but it is one that — assuming he follows through with it — will be very good for the state. And, for all those worried about what will happen to the government workers who will be downsized, remember that if they are as good and effective workers as we hope they are, they should have little trouble finding a job somewhere in the private sector.

Gov. Nixon also announced his intention to review the state’s system of tax credits, suggesting that he will work to eliminate those that are corporate welfare masquerading as the public good. This is an excellent idea. Tax credits can be very useful to encourage private businesses and citizens to invest in Missouri, but they should never be used to give a special advantage to certain businesses, industries, or interest groups. Examples of good tax credit programs are those that lighten the tax burden for people who donate to chartities — such as domestic violence shelters, food pantries, and the Higher Education Scholarship Program. Examples of negative tax credit programs are those that lighten the tax burden only for specially favored businesses and industries, such as last year’s proposed Bombardier tax credit, the Hazelwood Ford Plant tax credit, or the tax credit for grape and wine producers. While we don’t know which tax credit programs Gov. Nixon will eventually target, his stance offers hope that he will work to end corporate welfare tax credits.

There are certainly points in the governor’s address that I disagree with, and you can be assured that I’ll address those points in the future. But, for now, I just want to say that I applaud him for the positive positions that he seems to be taking in regard to improving government transparency and efficiency, and targeting the misuse of tax credit schemes.