From time to time, it’s a good Idea to step back from deep, introspective analysis of state and local issues and remind ourselves just how ridiculous our elected officials can be.

Today’s example of government immaturity, as detailed by the Post-Dispatch in this article, started over a provision surreptitiously placed into legislation last session that is beginning to raise a number of major concerns.

The bill in question, SB765, allows landowners to skirt county zoning provisions by holding a public vote to establish their land as an independent village. The problem with this, though, is that the vote need only reflect the opinion of those residing inside the areas in question. This means, of course, that a single landowner can vote to make his property a village.

While establishing your own city may seem like a fine exercise in independent politics, it raises taxation issues with the counties themselves and sets a frightening precedent for private taking of land. For these reasons, representatives from districts affected by the rise of these new villages attempted to have the law repealed, claiming that the provision was snuck into a bill prior to a vote before the language could be reviewed.

These reports, though, have been denied, and all attempts to repeal the bill have been stalled.

So, proponents of repeal have threatened to put a hold on passing house bills until the bill is let through.

While I won’t go so far as to call this an endorsement of the Unicam, you would hope that our elected officials would take enough time to correct a provision opposed by county officials across the state.

You’d hope.

I suppose that this is what I get for having free time and watching local news, but last night this report caught my eye. However, my attention was dragged toward the closure of the Ted Foster & Sons funeral home — not because of the story’s touching emotional appeal or the horrendous nature of the actions taken by all those involved, but because of this one last bit:

Authorities say, by law, money collected for pre-arranged funeral plans has to go into a trust. [...] Other homes should gladly accept the business.

A trust, you say? By law? Because of my infatuation with a certain HBO series (with the best ending you’ll ever see on television) I was already vaguely familiar with the concept of pre-need funerals, and was sure that the law cited in the report probably had some form of corruption that would make the lives of Mr. Foster’s customer’s worse.

And guess what? There is!

According to RSMO section 436-021, funds accepted from the sale of a pre-need funeral service must be placed into a trust, which (in the event of the closure of the original establishment of sale) can be transferred elsewhere, as stated in the report.

What wasn’t mentioned, though, was that funeral directors in Missouri, according to section 436-027, can retain up to 20 percent of the initial payment for the ceremony, regardless of circumstances. Thus, for every $5,000 funeral that Mr. Foster sold before he went out of business, he can legally keep $1,000 — no questions asked. This provision was likely included in order to assist funeral homes in maintaining facilities for a rush of business that they cannot  reasonably plan for, but it also allows the proprietors of failed businesses to run away to Mexico with the funds that families set aside to make a terrible time less difficult for their loved ones.

Surprisingly enough, the General Assembly has a pair of bills that have already been proposed this session, attempting to correct this problem. However, as described quite well in this analysis, certain consumer advocates feel that the bills themselves are still not doing enough to protect the final wishes of many funeral home customers.

The pre-need funeral is an aberration in the marketplace, as it is the one product that you know you’ll need, but also (presumably) the one that you can in no way predict the timing of. As such, it differs from insurance and other preventative investments not only because of the associated emotional weight, but also because of its unusual economic certainty. Because pre-need funerals are so unique, they require a unique amount of consumer protection to be provided by the state government itself.

While we advocate free-market solutions here at the Show-Me Institute that shy away from extensive government interference, I don’t think anyone can reasonably claim that a market with a definite and defined end is truly free, and I hope stronger legislation can be put in place to protect consumers of these unique services.

I’ve wanted to blog about this for a while, but the opportunity never really presented itself as well as I would have liked. While this is ordinarily not the kind of problem that would hurt my hypothalamus, the end of my time here at the Show-Me Institute is drawing nigh and I feel like articles such as this one are going to have to be my gateway.

As reported in the above-linked article from the Post-Dispatch, Missouri casinos are yet again attempting to repeal the state’s unique $500-every-two-hours loss limit. However, instead of trying to get the issue repealed through legislative means (as they try to do almost every fall, only leading to the same ineffective result) the casinos, led by Pinnacle Entertainment (operators of the new Lumiere Place development on the St. Louis riverfront and a forthcoming development in south St. Louis) and Ameristar Casinos are collecting signatures outside of their gaming floors in an attempt to put the issue in front of voters on the November ballot through the initiative process. In regard to this story, I have three comments:

1. Loss limits are ridiculous. Missouri is the only state with operating casinos that has one, and it provides a direct incentive for citizens of the state’s two largest metropolitian areas to cross state lines to bet bigger elsewhere (Illinois has a large gambling infrastructure, while Kansas is in the process of wooing casinos from such big players as the Las Vegas Sands and Harrah’s). While there may be limited evidence that a loss limit decreases tourism, is definitely doesn’t help put Missouri on the map as a gaming destination (after all, if the poorest county in the nation can be turned into a tourist destination, I think that big-time gaming might have a little bit of an effect). For a state to allow gambling … but only so much gambling … is a moral conundrum that confuses me to this day, and should be remedied at some point in the future.

2. That being said, offering the petition under the title of the "Schools First Initiative" is not the way that I would suggest going about getting this issue on the ballot. Yes, it is a good thing that tax dollars raised from gambling losses go toward education, but much like everything else on a casino floor, this seems a little too deceptive for my taste. If you want this on the ballot, title it "Repeal the Loss Limit." This would, effectively, be the perfect initiative. If enough support can come from patrons of these casinos to put an issue that they honestly understand in front of the Missouri public, so be it. That’s what the process is for. Granted, with that title, it would probably lose pretty handily, but I’d lay the odds at 7-1 — and you can take the action if you want it.

3. If I ran the casinos, I wouldn’t be treating this as a fight for school funding, but as a fight to protect the privacy of casino patrons. In Missouri, before you enter a gaming floor, you must first sign up for The Card. Usually these cards have fun names like "Privileges Plus," "Star Awards," or "Total Rewards," and I suppose if you sit in front of a slot machine for long enough you’ll get a free trip to the buffet from them, but all they really exist to do is to track your losses. Cards must be presented to enter the casino, to purchase chips, and to make any bet. While privacy has never really been extended very far at casinos (thanks to the Eye in the Sky) lines to sign up for these cards can be massive, and they represent yet another way that your entertainment choices are being restricted.

Will loss limits ever be repealed? Who knows. But gambling in Missouri isn’t going away, and if we’re going to endure all of the problems that casinos bring to a region, we might as well not restrict ourselves from the benefits as well.

Periodically here at the Show-Me Institute, we like to look through the rolls of pending bills in the Missouri General Assembly and offer insightful, balanced commentary about select pieces of legislation. Granted, sometimes these insights turn into week-long rants about milk, ice cream cones, or beer, but more often than not they can lead to thoughts about issues such as this: Senate Bill 786.

SB 786, properly known as the RFID Right to Know Act of 2008, is a bill introduced by Sen. Maida Coleman that seeks to require that every item sold in Missouri containing a Radio Frequency Identification chip be conspicuously labeled as such. This bill has been introduced in various forms twice before, but its failure to pass is in no way indicative of its value as an article of legislation. If nothing else, the time that has passed since the bill’s first introduction in 2006 has made it more relevant.

RFID chips, for the technologically disinclined, are tiny devices that consist of a combination of electronic circuitry and a tiny antenna. RFID chips have long been used as security devices in bookstores and libraries, but the continual march of technology (as well as Moore’s Law) have made the chips smaller and the circuitry better to the point where RFID chips are now being used in tag form in supply chain management, as a replacement for UPC barcodes, and in implantable form in veterinary medicine, as a method to identify stray pets. Use of these implantable chips, in particular, seems to be growing the fastest, as a number of companies have begun to use them for security identification, and some high-end nightclubs are using them to allow VIPs to pay for drinks with a wave of the arm.

While such convenience may seem appealing, the privacy issues that come along with RFID chips are considerable. Most of today’s chips are passive, meaning that they will sit idle, hidden in a pair of jeans or a sweater, until a radio signal activates them and triggers a response. The problem is that their size makes them nearly impossible to find, and their passive nature (which is not destroyed by a bout with the washing machine or dryer) makes them susceptible to being activated again — possibly while you’re walking down the street.

This isn’t to say that RFID chips should be banned. Quite the contrary — they offer an enormous potential for consumers and advertisers alike. However, if they are to be used effectively, bills like SB 786 would provide a valuable service to consumers, letting them know that the devices are embedded in their purchases. Such identification allows customers to choose whether they would like to purchase the item, and gives them the knowledge they need to destroy the chips if they wish (as a corollary, passage of this bill may drastically increase the number of people who regularly microwave their clothing — as such an action is an effective method of disabling RFID tags).

Technology can open up some frightening doors (and, apparently, can be seen by some as the "mark of the beast"), but if we act now to account for it, we can assure that privacy and the other individual liberties of citizens can be assured.

Ordinarily, I’m not one for posting more than once in a single day, but sometimes I just need to highlight egregious claims of stupidity.

As anyone who pays any attention to my ramblings knows, I’m a big proponent of election reform. Despite my fervor for the ideas that come with this, though, even I have to stop from time to time when I see a claim I know is just wrong.

The Suburban Journals has an article today titled "St. Louis County Voter System Tamper Proof," which, for me, is not so much a declaration of security as it is an invitation to try tampering with the system. Although the article goes into extensive detail about the bipartisan procedures that will be followed by election officials (Double-locked doors! Hoorah!) following next week’s local elections, there is little in the text to make me believe that St. Louis’ system (or any other system, for that matter) is fully "tamper-proof."

Allow me to elaborate with an anecdote: Early this February, during Missouri’s presidential primary, I prepared to cast a ballot on one of St. Louis County’s fine touch-screen voting machines. However, because I was in a bit of a hurry, I presumed I knew exactly what I was doing and pushed a button on the machine without listening to the entire set of instructions. This turned on the "Audio Assist" function of the hardware (which was useless, because none of the officials had headphones handy) and inadvertently froze the machine. After waiting for it to reboot, I was allowed to vote, but I left wondering what would’ve happened had I pushed the green button after I had already selected a candidate. Effectively, I could have tampered with the election results — for I am quite the criminal mastermind.

No election system is "tamper-proof." Anyone who says so is either ignorant of their system’s flaws or riding so high on their own hubris that they fail to notice that rushed voters are pushing green buttons and throwing Dewey over Truman. This doesn’t mean that some systems aren’t more effective or secure than others, but no official should ever believe that an election will operate perfectly. After all, democracy isn’t perfect, but … well, that would just be stealing from Churchill.

Some good news on the property rights front (which, I assure you, is not an April Fool’s joke — although if you want to read one of those, try this).

According to an article in the Post-Dispatch, the St. Charles City Council has planned to vote tonight on whether or not to remove the "blighted" designation given to the city’s historic Frenchtown district. Justin blogged about this previously, but tonight, the protest mentioned before could lead to actual change.

The St. Charles City Council hasn’t always made the best decisions when it comes to protecting personal freedoms, but it’s good to know that members of the Council have caught wind of the political zeitgeist and are attempting to protect their citizens’ property rights. Missouri’s "blight" designation is one of the most permissive methods through which eminent domain can be exercised, and the more that individual municipalities crack down on its liberal use, the more effective they will be at protecting property and clearing actual blighted areas. Let’s hope that the vote tonight goes the right way.

Amazon.com, the world’s largest Internet retailer, recently
announced its intention to sell wine through its online marketplace, a venture
that is sure to bring good, cheap wine to the masses and establish the
Seattle-based company as one of the country’s largest wine retailers. This
fact is great news for oenophiles in Missouri,
as the states’ direct-shipment laws allow for any out-of-state retailer or
manufacturer to ship up to two cases of wine per month to any customer without
restriction (and more if a special excise license is procured, which it almost
certainly will be).

However, what if wine just seems a little too “fancy” for
your next adventure across the Lake of the Ozarks Community Bridge to a certain section of Camden County, and you don’t want to deal with the hassle of
visiting your neighborhood gas station/pharmacy/liquor store/grocery store to
pick up a few cans of Missouri’s official beverage? Can’t it just be delivered to your home?

Actually, no. Anheuser-Busch (along with every other brewery
and distillery in the state) cannot ship directly to consumers. The reason
for this happens to be the same reason that people in Kansas and Utah won’t be able to take advantage of Amazon’s most recent business venture: After
prohibition, almost all states in the union moved to what is now known as the
three-tier distribution system, composed of manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers of alcoholic beverages. This system was designed to ease the states
back into alcohol consumption, and to further regulate companies like A-B.
However, its separation has led to the notion that producers cannot sell
directly to consumers. In Kansas,
this means that wine can’t be delivered directly to your home. In Missouri (thanks to the
input of a remarkably powerful wine lobby) it can, but you still have to buy
your beer at the store, because the beer lobby is more concerned with other things. This isn’t a big deal if you want to get a Budweiser,
but if you’re in Kansas City and you want to sample the latest Schlafly Reserve, or you’re stuck in Saint Louis without a
special kind of Boulevard, you’re out of luck.

The only solution to this problem? Eliminate the three-tier
system and allow manufacturers to sell directly to customers. This will keep
prices down for consumers and allow for more freedom for direct-delivery
purchases, for both beer and for wine. I really doubt anyone at A-B would be
sad if they were able to sell direct, both because revenue would skyrocket and
because no midlevel jobs would be lost — distributors of A-B products are all
monopolistic in their sale of the company’s products as is. Meanwhile, all of Missouri’s smaller
breweries would no doubt see an increase in business as their distribution
areas grew. How can this not be a good thing?

I’d like to apologize for the title, first off, as I really don’t like the word "deadbeat" — but the pun was too good to pass up.

The State of Illinois, as reported by this article in the Post-Dispatch, recently enacted a new policy that refuses to grant hunting or fishing licenses to fathers who are behind on child-support payments. As the article plainly explains:

A $14,000 child support check was handed Rachel Miller because the father of her two sons likes to hunt white-tail deer.

Apparently, though, the individuals who have been forced to make that choice aren’t too happy about the fact that the government is getting more involved with their affairs:

[The father] isn’t happy about the turn of events. He says the way the state works now, they’re in control of way too many things.

Child support, like most topics in family law, is a touchy subject. And while I agree that there should be some government impetus toward parental responsibility (if for no other reason than fathers should take care of their children, rather than passing that burden on to the state) I feel like options such as paycheck garnishment often go too far in restricting the freedoms of "deadbeat dads," who are not always as much to blame for an unfortunate family situation as the mother — but who still get stuck with the bill for children they’re often not allowed to see.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

If you want to make a claim against the fishing license, fine. But I think it’s pretty apparent that the State of Illinois is justified in restricting who runs around in the woods and shoots off a firearm or bow. Unless you’re hunting for food for the children who you owe child support to, the state should be able to restrict the activity of recreational hunting as a motivation for fathers to fulfill their lawful financial obligations.

This isn’t an issue of "oh, they can afford a hunting license, so they should be able to afford child support," because that’s a ridiculous comparison. A deer license in Illinois for 2008 costs $15, while child support payments are often in the thousands of dollars per month. This is a carrot and stick issue. Hunters want to hunt, but they need to tend to responsibilities before they can play.

Or, they could just take their children hunting with them … which might have solved the whole problem in the first place. Just a thought.

The Missouri Supreme Court handed down a 6-1 decision yesterday in favor of "development" trumping property rights in the matter of City of Arnold v. Homer Tourkakis. According to the decision (summarized nicely by one of the outlets throughout the state) the city is justified in using the power of eminent domain to seize the office of Dr. Homer Tourkakis, a dentist who was the lone holdout resisting the city’s unjust taking of property, because (according to the opinion summary prepared by the Communications Counsel):

[T]he constitution does not limit the legislature from giving such cities authority to use eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, the state’s tax-increment financing act is constitutional, and the trial court erred in dismissing a non-charter city’s condemnation action against private landowners.

The courts’ decision, authored by Judge Russell, reversed the previous decision by the trial court, which had held in favor of Mr. Tourkakis (also from the summary; link added):

The trial court erred finding that article VI, section 21 limits the entities that may exercise the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes and in dismissing the City’s condemnation action. The City is authorized under several statutes, including the TIF Act, to exercise eminent domain.

It should be noted, though, that the court failed to rule on the controversial nature of Missouri’s "blight" definition, which has allowed municipalities in the past to condemn pristine areas and doom them to economic failure. Also, as reported by the Post-Dispatch, the court left open the issue of whether Arnold’s status as a non-charter city brought any bearing to the issue at hand:

[O]ne of the dentist’s attorneys, Tracy Gilroy, said she believed the Supreme Court had failed to address whether the state’s Tax Increment Financing Act actually sets out a procedure for nonchartered cities like Arnold to use the power of eminent domain.

"We may need to request a rehearing on that matter," Gilroy said.

This particular point was highlighted again by Judge Teitelman in the lone dissent to the majority opinion:

[A]rticle VI, section 21 provides that with respect to non-charter cities, "laws may be enacted" that provide for the exercise of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Article VI, section 21 does not expressly authorize the wholesale delegation of such power to third-class cities. Instead, it provides only that the legislature may enact a law allowing the use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project. In this case, the General Assembly has enacted no law authorizing the City of Arnold to exercise the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes.

Three tragedies result from this ruling. The first, and most direct, is that Homer Tourkakis will almost certainly lose his office, and that any payment he will receive will be a pittance compared to what the property is worth, in terms of both financial and sentimental value (read more about Dr. Tourkakis’ story).

Second, the ruling in favor of the city of Arnold leaves the door open for other municipalities throughout the state to go forward with plans to seize private property for private use through the power of eminent domain. As explained by Show-Me Institute policy analyst Dave Roland, the Missouri Supreme Court had an opportunity to strengthen citizens’ rights:

The Court could side with the city and its commercial developers, meaning that virtually every home, business, and house of worship in the state could be condemned and given away for the profit of a government-chosen owner. Or the Court could turn the tide in favor of individual liberty by deciding that the state Constitution’s protections for private property still have meaning.

But obviously, the court watched that opportunity sail right by.

Finally, I leave you with this story. In a time when the economy is sliding and half-million dollar homes are being abandoned because of defaulted mortgages, what right does the city of Arnold have to call the pristine, entrepreneurial office of Homer Tourkakis — which was doing nothing but an honest service to the community — a blight?

Something to think about.

It’s raining in St. Louis on this St. Patrick’s day, so I wouldn’t be surprised if today’s Ancient Order of Hibernians Parade were less well-attended than usual (which is fine by me, because I managed to combine my celebration with exercise at a previous event this past weekend). However, the controversial outside alcohol ban enacted around the parade (and previously commented upon by Mr. Stokes) gained another dimension this morning after this report was issued by the Post-Dispatch.

According to the Post, parade organizers set up a checkpoint system to prevent parade-goers from bringing in outside alcohol without remembering that there was still one non-bar establishment within the checkpoints from which alcoholic beverages could be purchased:

But the Hibernians forgot about Patrick’s. The store is inside a
city-designated "festival area," only the perimeter of which the
security guards will patrol.

Bob Kraiberg, the city’s excise commissioner, said that the city has
lifted its usual ban on street drinking for the parade and that nothing
is to stop liquor store customers from drinking their purchases
outdoors.

Thus, in a land of $8 beers, thousands of wet, drunken parade goers will have a single refuge where gallons of a certain locally brewed product can still be obtained in the aluminum format St. Louisans love so much:

Patrick Wrzesinski, the store’s owner, said there’s a good chance this
year’s sales could set a record. On Friday, he said, he was stocking
500 cases of beer.

Although I won’t be at the event, I can certainly understand the appeal for all parties of a within-checkpoint liquor store where purchases can immediately be consumed outside on the street. Although the issue of protectionism was already commented upon in the previous post by our resident redhead, it seems that  Mr. Wrzesinski has suddenly been presented with a wonderful practice point in market economics.

When you go to a ballgame at Busch Stadium, you’re not paying $8 for a beer because that’s how much it costs the good people on Pestalozzi Street to make — you’re paying that much because naming a building after your company pretty much gives you a monopoly over the market. If you could get it cheaper, you would — but instead, you fork over the cash. Patrick’s now has the luxury of benefiting from restricted supply and heightened demand, and they are perfectly within their right to do so. After all, if the beer is $8 outside, what’s to stop Patrick’s from doubling its prices to take advantage of the situation? This practice has been defended before in this space, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t again be applied here.

So go forth, lucky lone liquor store, charge $10 for six cans of Bud Light! Everyone will thank you for it … except for every other alcohol retailer within five miles — they’ll still hate your guts.

The controversy over seating Democratic delegates awarded in the Florida and Michigan primaries has escalated to the point where it seems that pundits are throwing out ideas at random, only to have them be shot down a few moments later. I usually try to avoid these discussions because of the vacuum of common sense that usually emerges from them, but one idea recently caught my attention.

According to CNN, both Florida and Michigan have considered mail-in ballots as a method for tabulating votes if their respective primaries are to be redone. This method of vote tabulation — already used in Oregon for all elections and as the primary mechanism for absentee voting in most other states — has a number of benefits that are specifically tailored to the current democratic situation. An all-mail primary would cost considerably less than a traditional one, and as recognized by Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, such an exercise would ease the balloting process for all:

"Every voter gets a ballot in the mail. It’s comprehensive. You get to
vote if you’re in Iraq or in a nursing home," he said on CBS’ "Face the
Nation."

Additionally, a mail-in primary could lead to more attention for the process within Missouri. In February, state Representative Jake Zimmerman introduced House Bill 2088, which would establish an all-mail election system for all elections that take place within the state. Currently, the bill has not been referred to a committee, and as reported by Suburban Journals, there is little confidence of it being given serious consideration. However, as the resident intern in favor of election reform, I’m hoping that any attention given to mail-in balloting by Florida and Michigan leads Missouri lawmakers to reconsider it as an electoral method.

On Sunday, I will get to sleep for one hour less than I otherwise would have, through the wonders that come with the beginning of daylight saving time. Had I been flummoxed by a pitch-dark commute, frozen at a sporting event, or not had enough sun left over to harvest my crops, this event might’ve been a boon for me. However, with the rise of such wonderful technologies as central heating, the incandescent light bulb, and the John Deere 600 Rigid, I think it’s time that we step back and look at whether or not we need to keep pretending it’s an hour earlier than it truly is.

In the state of Indiana, where the economy is primarily based on agricultural pursuits (much like in Missouri), daylight saving time only came into existence in April 2005. Prior to that date, rural counties generally chose to rebuke the practice of changing clocks, while the more urban regions surrounding Chicago, Louisville, and Cincinnati chose to adopt the practice. The reason? Daylight saving isn’t that great for agricultural communities.

Despite the fact that a large majority of the public seems to think that daylight saving time exists "to help farmers," shifting clocks back an hour actually has the opposite effect. Farmers do most of their work in the morning, to avoid as much direct, burning sunlight in the middle of the day as possible. If nothing else, the practice hurts them more than the rest of the population. In actuality, daylight saving time was adopted in order to help cut energy costs by reducing electricity use in the evening hours. But again, with the rise of modern technology, this isn’t the case either.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that, as a result of Indiana’s switch to the system, researchers at the University of California–Santa Barbara were able to determine that an additional $8.6 million was spent on electricity in those Indiana counties which switched over to daylight saving time. The reason? Air conditioning costs. People are home when the sun is still out during the summer, and they crank up the AC to stay cool — whereas before, they would just enjoy the sunset.

The federal government passed a law in 2005 that standardized the start and end times for daylight saving time, but as seen by Indiana’s recent shift, said law is not a mandate for state observance. Missouri, a state that depends on agriculture, is desperately trying (like every other state) to keep energy costs down. Why not end daylight saving time? While I’m not advocating some ridiculous Indiana-like system that would keep St. Louis and Kansas City on daylight time while letting the rural counties ignore it, I think that avoiding the issue entirely is something worth a bit of thought. Sunlight is something our bodies are naturally attuned to. Shouldn’t we listen to it when we make our schedules?

Or maybe I’m just angry about losing that hour of sleep.