We haven’t written much about the stimulus plan on the blog. It is more of a national issue, and it is all just too depressing for words. Dr. Joseph Haslag recorded a great radio commentary about it, though, if you would like to listen. But now some in Missouri are discussing the wisdom of letting the camel’s nose under the tent for the new unemployment insurance rules. I commend Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and the legislative leadership for possibly resisting the unemployment portions of the “stimulus plan.” The St. Joe News-Press has the article here, and thanks to Combest for the link.

This is something I can write about because it is a tax I pay. My wife and I pay unemployment taxes for our child’s caregiver, and five times a year I calculate the tax and mail it in. (Four times for the state, and once for the feds.) This is not withheld from a paycheck, it is entirely employer-paid. I love what the Lt. Gov. said here:

“We are here to say no,” Mr. Kinder said. “This is essentially a federal bribe to change state law permanently, and the bribe lasts two years.”

And, after those two years, employers are going to have to pay higher taxes permanently. They have already increased the state’s unemployment tax wage base for 2009 — and I think that increase is the only increase employers should be forced to pay. As I said, the whole thing is just so depressing, pun intended.

I just quickly want to do my part to spread the word about tomorrow’s protest of the nationalization of our economy. Tomorrow, aka Friday, February 27, at 11:00 a.m. down at the foot of the Arch. The e-mails I have gotten say Wharf Street on the river. I always thought it was Leonor K. Sullivan Blvd., but it is probably just two names for the same street. (Sort of like Delmar and you-know-who in the city.) If you need directions to attend, let me remind you that it is at the riverfront base of the largest monument in the United States, so if you still need directions, you should probably just not come in the first place.

Apparently, some dentists are upset that, god forbid, people are making money on something that involves teeth but does not involve them. So, they have gotten a bill introduced to regulate teeth-whitening procedures. The bill proposes that anyone offering teeth-whitening services, like spas, etc., has to offer it under the supervision of a dentist. The Columbia Daily Tribune has this story. House Bill 766 would basically eliminate those kiosks in malls that offer the service quickly and inexpensively.

I realize that several people have died in these mall procedures, but the market should still determine whether people get to use the service. Oh, wait! That didn’t actually happen. Nobody could possibly be hurt getting their teeth whitened, and this bill is nothing but the worst kind of rent-seeking activity by the dental lobby. It is a great example of what I and others have said in our studies about occupational licensing: Licensing never comes about because the public demands a solution to a need. It ALWAYS comes about because existing practitioners are trying to limit their own competition, and legislators eagerly agree.

I hope the majority of the legislature sees this for what it is — a naked attempt at small-scale, legalized monopoly by the dentists.

Red-light cameras, ahoy! Just another step toward a day when we have to put on our safety helmets to get out of bed in the morning, and only after having signed a notarized affidavit that anything done within that same bed the night before was fully consensual, non-discriminatory, in total compliance with all ADA regulations, properly permitted by local authorities, undertaken only after ensuring all taxes on the location were paid in full, all participants had passed a health screening beforehand, and all legal documents pertaining to the potential results of the activities within same bed on prior evening had been read, signed, and dated, before undertaking the authorized removal of one’s safety helmet and initiation of any activities that perhaps might involve another kind of safety helmet anything at all.

This news from the KC Star is pretty awesome. Officials in Kansas City are talking about privatizing the airport, just as Chicago just did with Midway. This is just in the discussion stage, but Mayor Funkhouser actually proposed it years ago when he was auditor. Chicago was in a better position to do this than many other cities were, because Midway is sort of the area’s backup airport. There, Mayor Daley has led the way on privatization among American mayors, and it would be exciting to have KC follow suit. Expect to hear much more from the Show-Me Institute about this subject, as it moves forward.

I will be appearing on the Vincent David Jericho radio show tomorrow (Thursday) morning at 6:30 a.m., to talk about my recent study about the economics of Missouri government. All the info you need to listen in is right here.

Earlier this month, the Center for American Progress released a study suggesting that credit card companies utilize text messaging in order to administer early warnings to customers who are at risk of incurring penalty fees. From the perspective of the credit card holder, this information could be very helpful in reducing the occurrence of penalty charges.

I disagree with the Center for American Progress, however, regarding their suggestion that this should be written into law. However helpful such a practice might seem from a consumer standpoint, it’s difficult to gauge the costs involved in implementation and therefore determine whether, overall, it would actually be a value-added service in practice. The decision should probably be left to market forces.

Criticizing economic stimulus on a free-market blog is like wearing school colors to the pep rally. Sure it will get you a lot of high-fives, but there’s a risk that people who don’t share your spirit will miss the point. Widespread wealth should be our goal. We want more people to have more of what they want. During recessionary periods, there is often a cry for the government to “do something” in spite of academic economists assuring us that markets clear and GDP growth is not a straight line. Another warning, heard less often, is that a frequent cause of recessions is governments redistributing income, spending taxes on infrastructure, and manipulating trade.

The problem with stimulus is the problem of economic calculation: Where can the money be put to best use? In a free market, people spend money on things they want, and in the next round of production and sale, there is then more of what people want produced (to meet the demand). In a planned economy — or one based on redistribution — it is up to the experts to decide what should be produced, and in what quantity. If the experts don’t feel up to the job, they can always ask the people what they would’ve bought if they’d been allowed to keep their money, but that’s probably less efficient than just taxing less in the first place.

I hate awards shows, but I do enjoy the Oscars. Before children, I used to go to the St. Louis Film Festival Oscar party every year, and, in fact, that was the first date I had with my wife back in 2001. I thought that last night’s show was very good, but that is not the point of this post. As the title might indicate, I am going to take a rip at Daniel Craig for his moronic comment about American suburbia in the 1950s being a prison. As I go, I am going to pretend that Mr. Craig will A) read this and B) care.

I am not an obvious defender of suburbia. During my 20s, I chose to live in downtown St. Louis and in the Central West End. I now live with my family in the way-out suburban community of University City, which is where I lived for most of the time growing up. (If you are not familiar with U. City, it borders St. Louis city and is hardly the typical “suburb.”) But just because the stereotypical suburbs at the heart of Revolutionary Road (one of the only films I actually saw this year) may not be for me, it is clearly beyond stupid to claim they are some kind of a “prison.”

I remember almost exactly what Craig said. He was commenting on how production designers in “Revolutionary Road” made suburbia look “like anything but the prison it was.” He didn’t add, “for some people,” or “for this character,” or “some suburbs.” It was a general condemnation of American suburban life — a life that, another blogger noted, billions of people around the world would kill to lead. I don’t know whether Daniel Craig even knew what he was talking about, or whether he just repeated some writer’s idiotic viewpoint. But if you don’t like the suburbs, then don’t live in the suburbs. Roughly a hundred million Americans live in the ”suburbs,” and they live lives of freedom and opportunity. Just because it didn’t work for one character in a good-but-a-little-over-the-top movie doesn’t mean everyone else thinks it’s a prison.

As Thomas Sowell said, everything is a trade-off. Many people choose the suburbs for all the standard reasons: larger lots, good schools, low crime rates (think Ferris Bueller). Some people choose rural living for its advantages: closer to nature, tight communities, peace and quiet (think John Cougar Mellencamp songs). Others choose urban living for the excitement, culture, convenience, and diversity (think Sex and the City). Maybe if you are rich, you get to have all of these things regardless of where you choose to live. Most of America, though, has to decide what is best for them and accept the trade-offs, while most of the rest of the world is amazed by the standard of living in all three options.

Our buddy Dave over at the Arch City Chronicle has a story up about how Reps. James Morris, Jamilah Nasheed, and Chris Carter will hold a town hall forum to let residents offer their opinions about whether the St. Louis Public Schools should sell their vacant school buildings to charter schools.

The event will be held this Friday, Feb. 27, at 6:30 p.m. in the Isom Community Center, 910 N. Newstead. I encourage all of you to attend and let your opinion be heard.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining why the SLPS wouldn’t want to sell to charter schools. The buildings would be vacant anyway. We’ll see whether residents would rather have dilapidated buildings, or places of learning that raise their community’s overall happiness and property value. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the meeting.

I’m quick to point out misuses of tax dollars and state programs that are going nowhere. But it’s important to notice when state-sponsored programs do something right, too. I was impressed by Susan Weich’s column in the Post-Dispatch about a new daycare program for adults with developmental disabilities. Here’s how the director of Resources for Human Development (which runs the program for the Department of Mental Health) describes its unique style:

“Most other day habilitation services hire staff who have experience working with people with disabilities, but we took a backwards approach,” he said. “We hired artists and musicians and are training them to work with people with disabilities. It’s been a really cool thing.”

The “you don’t have research” education naysayers could learn a lot from Resources for Human Development (RHD). RHD didn’t wait around for a university to do a controlled study on arts and disabled adults. It tried out the idea in a few places — Boston and Rhode Island — and then decided to open a new center in St. Louis when those early results were encouraging. Furthermore, RHD recognized that credentials are just a proxy for knowledge and skills, rather than an end in themselves. Artists can be trained to work with disabled adults, just as mid-career scientists can be trained to teach high school chemistry.

RHD’s flexibility and innovation should serve as an inspiration to other organizations in the public sector.

Last night, KSDK Channel 5 in St. Louis ran a story about the controversy over a program to house veterans with problems like alcohol or drug dependency in a downtown apartment building. The Post-Dispatch has a story about it today. To sum it up in one sentence, downtown residents are concerned about housing veterans with these problems in their neighborhood, and angry that they were not consulted about it beforehand.

I have probably never sided with the government nearly as much as I have on this issue. Please tell me why the hell the residents of the area needed to be consulted before the program moved forward? Obviously, this use was within zoning rules for the area, so that argument is moot. Why should St. Patrick’s Center or City Hall need to ask permission or seek input before they move forward with a worthwhile program that is perfectly legal and completely normal for the area?

I like one particular speaker in the Channel 5 video who expresses concern about housing 45 or so veterans at 12th and Washington, because his grandkids visit him downtown. Where to begin on this insanity? There are two homeless shelters already there (Salvation Army and Larry Rice’s place), and a hotel on 9th St. that houses more sex offenders than any other place in Missouri. I would think they might want the veterans downtown; at least you know they can shoot.

I used to live in downtown St. Louis, from 1998 to 2002. I fully understand the residents’ concerns about the homeless, and I have no problem with efforts to move homeless shelters out of the area. I agree that the loft district will never fully succeed with two homeless shelters operating in its heart. But the veterans in this project are not homeless. They are given apartments and required to hold a job while they are enrolled in the St. Patrick’s Center program to help them overcome their issues. It is a terrific program for people who need and deserve help. I can’t fathom the opposition that is highlighted in these reports.

I think this might be another example of the harm that eminent domain and government-driven “economic development” have done to people’s minds. Some people think they have the right to tell other property owners what to do with their own property, even when it falls perfectly within the zoning codes.