The Governor’s Revealed Preference

June 29, 2010

The Governor’s Revealed Preference

Governor [Jay] Nixon has put forward an agenda to make government more efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of Missouri families. He is committed to [...] placing a college education within reach for middle-class students.

The governor’s budget decisions, however, send the message that his priority is big businesses that have lobbying power — not students, not low-income or middle-class families, and not people who have mental illnesses or disabilities.

Just last week, the governor cut from the state budget hundreds of millions of dollars from programs that benefit these disadvantaged groups, including transportation aid and college scholarships. He says that the state government is strapped for cash and has run out of programs to cut, but then he doles out hundreds of millions in tax credits to big companies like Ford and IBM. As Martha King wrote yesterday, it’s nonsense.

Every day, it seems, there is a new company and/or industry seeking a handout from the Missouri state government, which is eager to oblige. According to the Columbia Daily Tribune (link via John Combest), the proposed beneficiary du jour is data centers:

Rep. Tim Flook, R-Liberty, submitted an amendment Monday afternoon to expand the bill offering incentives to Ford Motor Co. to include new incentives for data centers.

I’ve argued previously that offering state tax credits to data centers is not good policy. To make the situation worse, as part of the proposal, any data centers that locate in state will contribute zero revenue to the state:

Flook’s amendment, which passed out of the committee by a vote of 14-1 with one abstention, would give a sales tax exemption on the utilities for data centers. It also would exempt retail sales of certain tangible personal property and materials from sales tax if they are for facilities used by data storage centers and server farm facilities. A fiscal note outlining the cost to the state has not been attached yet.

By carving out sections of the tax base, the state government shifts the tax burden to those who remain. This leaves those who lack lobbying power to pick up the tab. The businesses that locate in Missouri as a result of this proposal will still consume services from the state government, but they won’t have to pay for them. (The rest of us will.)

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

25 Comments »

I thought the policy of this blog was to not identify people they were criticizing, even if it meant editing quoted material? I refer you to our earlier discussion re: Ron Richards.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 7:49 p.m.
Here it is: http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/04/audit-confirms-what-show-me.html

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 7:56 p.m.
Incorrect. It’s a general tendency, not a universal policy.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 8:16 p.m.
It’s different because Jay Nixon is the governer. If you get elected governor, then I will reference you by name when I criticize your policies. I promise.

Comment by Christine Harbin — June 29, 2010 @ 8:18 p.m.
Please excuse the misspelling. I’m still getting used to typing on my iPad.

Comment by Christine Harbin — June 29, 2010 @ 8:21 p.m.
What’s the distinction between the governor and the Speaker of the House? Is it that your donors give money to Richards but not to Nixon?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:11 p.m.
Our standard practice is to avoid calling out by name individuals of whom we are critical. We have adhered to this policy for years, and we do this to emphasize that it is the policy or idea that we wish to criticize, not the person. It is absolutely not uncommon to substitute a phrase (such as [expletive deleted] or some other modification of words that the author does not find it useful to quote directly) when quoting what someone else has said or written. The very fact that the modified phrase is put in brackets puts the reader on notice that a non-substantial alteration has been made. Given that we have provided a link to the original statement, any reader who wishes may confirm the original statement – and may point out if we have somehow failed to convey the same idea as was contained in the original.
-Roland 2010

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:12 p.m.
I reiterate: It’s a general tendency, not a universal policy.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 11:19 p.m.
Standard practice=general tendency?
Doesn’t compute, Eric. Answer the question directly.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:49 p.m.
I wouldn’t have worded Dave’s response the way he worded it.

I reiterate: It’s a general tendency, not a universal policy.

Stop wasting everybody’s time.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 11:50 p.m.
Are you going to answer my question directly or not?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:57 p.m.
Silence is compliance. This is true for police officers who use your silence as evidence of guilt if you are silent but don’t invoke your Miranda rights. It is also true in debate rounds if you drop an argument.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:59 p.m.
I answered your question directly three times. Don’t you have anything productive to do?

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 11:59 p.m.
Is the distinction between Nixon and Richards that your donors give money to Richards but not to Nixon?

It’s a yes or no question, and I think this is productive…so my answer to your question right now is now.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 12:03 a.m.
*no

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 12:04 a.m.
I have no idea who most of our donors are, let alone who they give money to. So, no. Of course not. We’ve used Nixon’s name in blog entries before, as we have with other politicians regardless of party. It depends on a wide range of editorial heuristics, largely depending on just how critical our position is and how personally it could be construed if we included a name. Although we usually avoid using names in a critical context, we don’t universally avoid using names in a critical context. This has always been the case, and I don’t know how much more clear I can be about that.

Looking back at Chrissy’s original draft for this entry, I count three mentions of the governor’s name that I edited out, including one in the title.

I might have left Richards’ name in the quoted material in Caitlin’s April 29 blog entry if she hadn’t already edited it out and I hadn’t edited her entry from a cell phone at a jazz festival in New Orleans. Her construction was editorially correct, and I had no reason to change it.

This is the least productive comment thread you’ve ever instigated, and that’s being generous.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 30, 2010 @ 12:14 a.m.
Do you have anything more productive to do?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 12:15 a.m.
Eric,
All snark aside, I really do think that the responses of Show-Me authors on the subject earlier were inadequate, and I think that they kind of invented a standard to justify what was just a hasty edit.

It would be much better to cite everyone directly; that way you don’t get called out for being partisan.

I will add that you should absolutely know who your main donors are. If you claim you don’t, I don’t believe you (and no one else will). I will concede that I don’t think your donors influence you to toe any specific ideological line or unduly pressure any specific policy. However, the lack of consistency in your “policy” or “tendency” will invite questions, and I urge you to establish clear, published citation guidelines.

I also think that you’re being a bit unfair to anyone who challenges you or expresses a contrarian viewpoint. Courtesy demands politeness, and while I can’t claim that I’m a paragon of either, I do think that the general attitude of Show-Me authors on these comment threads tend to be unfriendly and bitingly sarcastic to anyone who expresses disagreement. “Shrill” might be an appropriate adjective here. Sarah Brodsky (does she still write for you?) comes to mind here. Are you trying to genuinely educate people or preach to them?

It’s also pretty obvious to anyone who might be following these threads that Show-Me authors routinely post under fake names; often these posts are not civil and rather discourteous. Perhaps you could start publishing IPs along with names? This is standard procedure for the more reputable of the thousands of blogs and bulletin boards that exist on the web.

I am not invested in how your blog works now or in the future, and I really did think that a lot of the work presented here is very worthwhile and very valuable.

Some thoughts for your consideration.

Eapen Thampy

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 1:08 a.m.
I should also add that I moderated a much larger bulletin board for years and that all these insights come from experience.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 1:11 a.m.
On the other hand, Eapen, I really do think that your criticisms of our blog posts and especially our citation style are inadequate, and that you’ve invented problems to justify a hasty rejoinder. Anyone can write a sentence like that, but it’s little more than a landmine for further disagreement. Let’s drop these pointless arguments, please?

There’s no reason for the policy staff to know who our donors are, and so I think most if not all of us are rationally ignorant. Anyone doing development here has a reason to know this stuff, the rest of us don’t. We work to promote market solutions for Missouri citizens, not the agenda of a secret cabal (seems over the top to you and me, I know, but some people seem to believe this).

It is unfortunate that our comments do not always adhere to the highest standards of professional debate. We really do want to change people’s minds about the power of free markets to improve the lot of the general population. We are human, though, and when one person in particular makes repeated borderline/actually personal attacks on one of our staff, it becomes harder to remain objective. In the future, let’s try to all bear in mind that the writings we are criticizing are the ideas of a person, not just an Internet entity. That person has a family and friends, and probably did their research before writing. Let’s all stick to the issues and avoid specious ad-hominems. I think it would also help if each comment thread were, oh, related to the post it is under. I realize the irony of writing this here, but it needs to be said.

Eapen, we appreciate your readership and I personally encourage you to continue to follow us and discuss our work with people who both agree and disagree with you or us politically.

Comment by Josh Smith — June 30, 2010 @ 9:38 a.m.
“I will add that you should absolutely know who your main donors are.”

Whether you think we should know this or not is irrelevant. There is only one person in the office who knows who all the donors are and she does not write on this blog. The rest of us are not privy to that information, and that is fine. Our viewpoints are not compromised because someone donates to the organization; each Show-Me author takes his or her own stance.

My personal policy is to not refer to people I criticize by name. This is not a hard and fast rule for everyone, but a general one. I’m sure you have better things to do with your time than quibble about structure, and I know we have better uses of that time as well.

Attempting to impugn our integrity is not the way to inspire us to have a serious policy-oriented discussion with you. If you had wanted to talk about the issues as they directly related to the post, then I’m sure someone would be more than happy to engage that debate. Forgive some of us though for not being excited about that prospect after the litany of unwarranted abuse you gave one of our authors on your own blog, or after the amount of time you’ve taken up by engaging other authors in off-topic debates on our blog.

Policing our blog is only a small portion of our job. Superfluous hypothetical debates about theory or writing style have a better home than Show-Me Daily.

Thanks for your time, Eapen, and hopefully we all can have a more productive and professional blog relationship in the future.

Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 30, 2010 @ 9:55 a.m.
After posting my last comment, I see that Josh just addressed your concerns already. My apologies!

Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 30, 2010 @ 9:59 a.m.
Josh and Caitlin,
I’m on board with pretty much everything you say, but let’s not say that criticizing someone for bad scholarship is unwarranted criticism. Either you are intellectually honest about how much effort your writers have put forth in the past, or you are not.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 11:22 a.m.
Your blog entries about Sarah were not only filled with invective and ad hominem, they often incorrectly characterized both her tone and some of her actual arguments. In another comment thread, you even attributed a statement to her, using quote marks, that never appeared in any of her posts.

I’ve long wanted to engage in a thorough evisceration of your posts, but as I’ve pointed out before, correcting your errors would be a full-time job in itself.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 30, 2010 @ 1:17 p.m.
Eric,
I spent the time to eviscerate her bad scholarship, if you’re not willing to take the time to point out how I mischaracterize her arguments (and her tone) you’re just engaging in ad homs yourself.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — July 3, 2010 @ 8:24 a.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

I thought the policy of this blog was to not identify people they were criticizing, even if it meant editing quoted material? I refer you to our earlier discussion re: Ron Richards.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 7:49 p.m.

Here it is: http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/04/audit-confirms-what-show-me.html

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 7:56 p.m.

Incorrect. It’s a general tendency, not a universal policy.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 8:16 p.m.

It’s different because Jay Nixon is the governer. If you get elected governor, then I will reference you by name when I criticize your policies. I promise.

Comment by Christine Harbin — June 29, 2010 @ 8:18 p.m.

Please excuse the misspelling. I’m still getting used to typing on my iPad.

Comment by Christine Harbin — June 29, 2010 @ 8:21 p.m.

What’s the distinction between the governor and the Speaker of the House? Is it that your donors give money to Richards but not to Nixon?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:11 p.m.

Our standard practice is to avoid calling out by name individuals of whom we are critical. We have adhered to this policy for years, and we do this to emphasize that it is the policy or idea that we wish to criticize, not the person. It is absolutely not uncommon to substitute a phrase (such as [expletive deleted] or some other modification of words that the author does not find it useful to quote directly) when quoting what someone else has said or written. The very fact that the modified phrase is put in brackets puts the reader on notice that a non-substantial alteration has been made. Given that we have provided a link to the original statement, any reader who wishes may confirm the original statement – and may point out if we have somehow failed to convey the same idea as was contained in the original.
-Roland 2010

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:12 p.m.

I reiterate: It’s a general tendency, not a universal policy.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 11:19 p.m.

Standard practice=general tendency?
Doesn’t compute, Eric. Answer the question directly.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:49 p.m.

I wouldn’t have worded Dave’s response the way he worded it.

Stop wasting everybody’s time.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 11:50 p.m.

Are you going to answer my question directly or not?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:57 p.m.

Silence is compliance. This is true for police officers who use your silence as evidence of guilt if you are silent but don’t invoke your Miranda rights. It is also true in debate rounds if you drop an argument.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 29, 2010 @ 11:59 p.m.

I answered your question directly three times. Don’t you have anything productive to do?

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 29, 2010 @ 11:59 p.m.

Is the distinction between Nixon and Richards that your donors give money to Richards but not to Nixon?

It’s a yes or no question, and I think this is productive…so my answer to your question right now is now.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 12:03 a.m.

*no

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 12:04 a.m.

I have no idea who most of our donors are, let alone who they give money to. So, no. Of course not. We’ve used Nixon’s name in blog entries before, as we have with other politicians regardless of party. It depends on a wide range of editorial heuristics, largely depending on just how critical our position is and how personally it could be construed if we included a name. Although we usually avoid using names in a critical context, we don’t universally avoid using names in a critical context. This has always been the case, and I don’t know how much more clear I can be about that.

Looking back at Chrissy’s original draft for this entry, I count three mentions of the governor’s name that I edited out, including one in the title.

I might have left Richards’ name in the quoted material in Caitlin’s April 29 blog entry if she hadn’t already edited it out and I hadn’t edited her entry from a cell phone at a jazz festival in New Orleans. Her construction was editorially correct, and I had no reason to change it.

This is the least productive comment thread you’ve ever instigated, and that’s being generous.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 30, 2010 @ 12:14 a.m.

Do you have anything more productive to do?

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 12:15 a.m.

Eric,
All snark aside, I really do think that the responses of Show-Me authors on the subject earlier were inadequate, and I think that they kind of invented a standard to justify what was just a hasty edit.

It would be much better to cite everyone directly; that way you don’t get called out for being partisan.

I will add that you should absolutely know who your main donors are. If you claim you don’t, I don’t believe you (and no one else will). I will concede that I don’t think your donors influence you to toe any specific ideological line or unduly pressure any specific policy. However, the lack of consistency in your “policy” or “tendency” will invite questions, and I urge you to establish clear, published citation guidelines.

I also think that you’re being a bit unfair to anyone who challenges you or expresses a contrarian viewpoint. Courtesy demands politeness, and while I can’t claim that I’m a paragon of either, I do think that the general attitude of Show-Me authors on these comment threads tend to be unfriendly and bitingly sarcastic to anyone who expresses disagreement. “Shrill” might be an appropriate adjective here. Sarah Brodsky (does she still write for you?) comes to mind here. Are you trying to genuinely educate people or preach to them?

It’s also pretty obvious to anyone who might be following these threads that Show-Me authors routinely post under fake names; often these posts are not civil and rather discourteous. Perhaps you could start publishing IPs along with names? This is standard procedure for the more reputable of the thousands of blogs and bulletin boards that exist on the web.

I am not invested in how your blog works now or in the future, and I really did think that a lot of the work presented here is very worthwhile and very valuable.

Some thoughts for your consideration.

Eapen Thampy

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 1:08 a.m.

I should also add that I moderated a much larger bulletin board for years and that all these insights come from experience.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 1:11 a.m.

On the other hand, Eapen, I really do think that your criticisms of our blog posts and especially our citation style are inadequate, and that you’ve invented problems to justify a hasty rejoinder. Anyone can write a sentence like that, but it’s little more than a landmine for further disagreement. Let’s drop these pointless arguments, please?

There’s no reason for the policy staff to know who our donors are, and so I think most if not all of us are rationally ignorant. Anyone doing development here has a reason to know this stuff, the rest of us don’t. We work to promote market solutions for Missouri citizens, not the agenda of a secret cabal (seems over the top to you and me, I know, but some people seem to believe this).

It is unfortunate that our comments do not always adhere to the highest standards of professional debate. We really do want to change people’s minds about the power of free markets to improve the lot of the general population. We are human, though, and when one person in particular makes repeated borderline/actually personal attacks on one of our staff, it becomes harder to remain objective. In the future, let’s try to all bear in mind that the writings we are criticizing are the ideas of a person, not just an Internet entity. That person has a family and friends, and probably did their research before writing. Let’s all stick to the issues and avoid specious ad-hominems. I think it would also help if each comment thread were, oh, related to the post it is under. I realize the irony of writing this here, but it needs to be said.

Eapen, we appreciate your readership and I personally encourage you to continue to follow us and discuss our work with people who both agree and disagree with you or us politically.

Comment by Josh Smith — June 30, 2010 @ 9:38 a.m.

“I will add that you should absolutely know who your main donors are.”

Whether you think we should know this or not is irrelevant. There is only one person in the office who knows who all the donors are and she does not write on this blog. The rest of us are not privy to that information, and that is fine. Our viewpoints are not compromised because someone donates to the organization; each Show-Me author takes his or her own stance.

My personal policy is to not refer to people I criticize by name. This is not a hard and fast rule for everyone, but a general one. I’m sure you have better things to do with your time than quibble about structure, and I know we have better uses of that time as well.

Attempting to impugn our integrity is not the way to inspire us to have a serious policy-oriented discussion with you. If you had wanted to talk about the issues as they directly related to the post, then I’m sure someone would be more than happy to engage that debate. Forgive some of us though for not being excited about that prospect after the litany of unwarranted abuse you gave one of our authors on your own blog, or after the amount of time you’ve taken up by engaging other authors in off-topic debates on our blog.

Policing our blog is only a small portion of our job. Superfluous hypothetical debates about theory or writing style have a better home than Show-Me Daily.

Thanks for your time, Eapen, and hopefully we all can have a more productive and professional blog relationship in the future.

Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 30, 2010 @ 9:55 a.m.

After posting my last comment, I see that Josh just addressed your concerns already. My apologies!

Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 30, 2010 @ 9:59 a.m.

Josh and Caitlin,
I’m on board with pretty much everything you say, but let’s not say that criticizing someone for bad scholarship is unwarranted criticism. Either you are intellectually honest about how much effort your writers have put forth in the past, or you are not.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 30, 2010 @ 11:22 a.m.

Your blog entries about Sarah were not only filled with invective and ad hominem, they often incorrectly characterized both her tone and some of her actual arguments. In another comment thread, you even attributed a statement to her, using quote marks, that never appeared in any of her posts.

I’ve long wanted to engage in a thorough evisceration of your posts, but as I’ve pointed out before, correcting your errors would be a full-time job in itself.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 30, 2010 @ 1:17 p.m.

Eric,
I spent the time to eviscerate her bad scholarship, if you’re not willing to take the time to point out how I mischaracterize her arguments (and her tone) you’re just engaging in ad homs yourself.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — July 3, 2010 @ 8:24 a.m.

June 29, 2010