The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report last week about state budget shortfalls, “Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery.” (Link via an article on the Wall Street Journal: Real Time Economics blog).

This made me wonder the the following: Are income taxes correlated with a higher mid-year budget gap as a percent of the FY2010 General Fund Budget? Do states that have no income tax have a lower incidence of mid-year budgetary shortfall?

In an attempt to answer this, I took Table 1 from the CPP report, and added the states that do not have a budget shortfall (Alaska, Delaware, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin) and those that have a surplus (Montana and North Dakota). I sorted this table by the percentage of budget gap over the 2010 general fund budget. Next, I added the top marginal tax rates for personal and corporate income for each state. The green cells indicate states that assess zero income tax, and the red cells indicate states that have income tax rates of  9.0 percent or greater.

Projected Mid-Year FY2010 Budget Gaps as a Percentage of FY2010 Fiscal Budget by State

(Modified to Include Income Tax Rates and States With Zero Shortfall)

* Washington is reflected low in the list because the amount shown is for the two-year budget, ending in FY2011.

The states that have no income tax are disproportionately aggregated at the top of the list. This graph indicates that states without an income tax may be better at predicting their revenues in the future. I can think of a few reasons why this is, and I invite our blog readers to suggest additional reasons in the comments.

• Sales taxes are a less volatile source of revenue than income taxes.
• Income taxes are closely tied to the job market, and sales taxes are not. When a person loses her job, she then has zero earned income, and therefore generates zero income tax revenue for the state. During this period of unemployment, however, she continues to make purchases and pay sales taxes (either by using personal financial reserves or unemployment compensation).
• Sales taxes are more effective than income taxes in addressing budget shortfalls more immediately, because they are collected at the point of transaction. Income taxes, in contrast, are collected only once per year. States do not have to wait until residents file their income taxes in order to collect revenue.

Notice that Missouri is ranked 37. This means that 36 other states were able to forecast their budgets better than Missouri. Perhaps if Missouri repealed its income tax in favor of a broad-based sales tax, it could predict its revenues better, and it wouldn’t face such a shortfall in the future.

The state of Missouri has extended unemployment benefits for up to 20 weeks. This is undoubtedly a temporary boon to the people who receive the benefits, but it can only hurt the economy. In particular, it will cause more people to stay unemployed longer. A fundamental rule of economics is that if you subsidize something, you will get more of it, and unemployment is no exception.

You might be tempted to dismiss that idea as little more than armchair theorizing, but there are solid numbers to back it up. For instance, take this blog post from University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan about unemployment in Pittsburgh from 1980–1985:

Unemployment rates got quite high in Pittsburgh in those days, reaching 16 percent at one point, and staying over 10 percent for two and a half years. The chart below shows some of the results. It graphs weeks from unemployment benefit exhaustion against the fraction of unemploy[ed] people either finding a new job or being recalled to a previous job in that week. “Exhaustion” refers to the time when benefits cease being paid to the unemployed person, regardless of whether they have found a job.

Almost no one started working during the 2-3 weeks prior to the exhaustion of their unemployment benefits (weeks “-3″ and “-2″ in the chart). Miraculously, more than one quarter started work a week later (19% started a new job, 10% returned to a previous job). Economists agree that a huge reason for this behavior is that people are more willing to remain unemployed when unemployment itself generates a paycheck. (The job they take may not be great, but the data show that often there is a job to take).

If incentives mattered in Pittsburgh in the early 1980s, why wouldn’t they matter in the United States today? Or why did employment increase almost 1,000,000 last summer?

Not only would this decision cause more unemployment in Missouri, it would also further stretch an already overextended budget. It’s a bad idea all around.

(Casey Mulligan link via Marginal Revolution.)

Writing in the Missouri Record, Mizzou political science professor David Webber highlights some of the hard numbers behind Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price’s call to lessen the criminal sanctions on nonviolent offenders:

Missouri has twice the number of nonviolent offenders in prison [as] it did in 1994. The number of new inmates in 1994 was 4,857; in 2009 it was 7,220. The cost per inmate is now $16,456 per year or about $45.00 per day. The total appropriation to the Department of Corrections in 1994 was $216 million now it is over $670 million—an increase of over 300 percent[.] Worse yet, Missouri’s recidivism rate is 41.4 percent within two years.

Price is also concerned with inconsistencies in sentencing across the state’s judicial circuits. The average sentence for the lowest sentencing circuit is 4.5 years and for the highest circuit is 9 years.

The Chief Justice shares the same opinion that most citizens have about crime—violent, dangerous criminals need to be incarcerated—but he doubts the effectiveness of locking up first-time offending drug and alcohol addicts. Price states boldly: “We also know that simple incarceration, no matter how expensive, does not cure addiction. Treatment with strict judicial oversight does.”

If newspaper editorials are any kind of indication, the idea that we need a cheaper and more humane way of dealing with drug offenders and the like is extremely popular. Hopefully, political inertia will not doom such a worthy cause.

An article in the St. Joe News highlights the accomplishments of federal stimulus dollars in Northwest Missouri:

Missouri’s 6th Congressional District, only two of whose 26 counties gave electoral majorities to President Obama, got more than $314 million last year from the federal economic stimulus program. [...]

In Plattsburg, Mo., a $1 million stimulus grant is paired with a $4.3 million low-interest loan to help build a water treatment plant. “Those two things you can’t be upset about,” said City Manager D.J. Gehrt. “But it’s not as simple as getting $5.3 million and you can go out and start your project.”

The engineering plans were finished and submitted for review 13 months ago. But the reviews stalled while agencies pondered where the funding might flow. Further delays have come from setting up mechanisms to repay the debt incurred from the loan.

If all goes as planned, Mr. Gehrt said, the treatment plant will be completed in the summer of 2011, maybe a quicker timetable because of the stimulus money, but maybe not.

In the long run, he added, “it’s going to save the ratepayers in our service area a good amount of money.”

In St. Joseph, the stimulus program directed more than $31 million to recipients like the school district, Missouri Western State University, the Department of Transportation and Community Action Partnership.

Etc. No doubt some people are benefiting from the stimulus, but because government spending does not face a profit and loss test, there is no good way to determine which projects are worthwhile and which wasteful. The article also ignores all the things taxpayers and bond holders would have done with the money had it not been taxed away or loaned to the government — in other words, it only pays attention to the seen, but not to the unseen, effects of the spending. These recipients of stimulus funds would not have received the money to do what they’ve done, but that money would have been used instead to create something else, if it hadn’t been spent in the stimulus.

Furthermore, although the $314 million that the 6th district received may seem like a lot of money, it amounts to less per capita than the national average. During the last year, $334 billion in stimulus spending has been allocated with $119 billion going toward tax cuts and another $14 billion in individual benefits like additional unemployment insurance payments. That leaves $201 billion in spending projects awarded during the last year. According to Wikipedia, the population of Missouri’s 6th district is 621,690, and the estimated population of the United States is 308,705,000, which means that the district contains just barely more than 0.2 percent of the national population. Given that 0.2 percent of $201 billion is $402 million, the district falls under the national average for stimulus spending by $58 million dollars.

Maybe the 6th district’s underwhelming support for Obama during 2008 is in some way related to the underwhelming amount of stimulus funds it has received.

Last week, Judge William Price, the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, delivered the State of the Judiciary address. He made one thing clear: The judiciary is tasked to protect the people of the state, but they cannot carry out this commitment successfully without sufficient resources. Missouri’s essential government services must be carried out even in the worst of economic times. The Missouri judiciary is doing its part to be fiscally responsible, returning millions of dollars of appropriated funds even though their own budgets are tight. They feel the same economic pressure that other government agencies are experiencing, but they are making an attempt to keep the interest of the public at the forefront.

We have all undoubtedly felt overworked and underpaid, and during a recession, the proportion of the labor force feeling this way has surely increased. As Judge Price pointed out, those who make some of the most important decisions throughout the entire criminal justice system — state prosecutors — are being spread thin. This is a worrying state of affairs if we want prosecutors to make well-considered decisions. People work better when they are happier — it’s as simple as that.

One of the most pressing issues mentioned in Judge Price’s address is the state’s overspending on the incarceration of nonviolent criminals, something that Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne mentioned in an earlier blog post. This is a situation resulting from too many restrictive laws that have resulted in the criminalization of nonviolent offenses, such as transactions involving drugs, alcohol, and even prostitution. Regardless of how one feels about the morality of such activities, it’s hard to justify expending so many resources on their prosecution when the core functions of the judicial system — protecting life, liberty, and property from actual direct, measurable harm — is suffering from a lack of resources.

Too many people are being arrested and tried for crimes that have no complaining victim. As Reason editor Radley Balko has observed, “Because there is almost never a complaining victim in vice crimes, law enforcement officers must go to extraordinary lengths to investigate and prosecute these crimes. This leads to all sorts of other problems, including invasions of privacy, entrapment, and police corruption.” The situation has also led to inconsistency in prosecution throughout Missouri. The toughest counties are prosecuting five times as many offenders as the most lenient counties.

Judge Price has has offered a rather convincing reason to change these policies, and to decrease the rate of prosecution and incarceration of nonviolent criminals — because we can’t pay for it. What’s even more convincing is that we cannot afford to pay for the proper treatment and rehabilitation for these offenders. Price outlines how poorly the system treats people who haven’t directly harmed anybody else, by tearing them from their lives, throwing them in a “concrete box with very expensive guards, feeding them, providing them with expensive medical care, surrounding them with hardened criminals for long periods of time, and separating them from their families who need them and could otherwise help them[.]” What’s worse, while in prison, some of them are being trained by full-fledged violent criminals on how to further divide themselves from mainstream society. These people are also citizens, and deserve to be given a chance to reintegrate into society.

Price provides some sobering numbers:

In 1994, shortly after I came to the Court, the number of nonviolent offenders in Missouri prisons was 7,461. Today it’s 14,204. That’s almost double. In 1994, the number of new commitments for nonviolent offenses was 4,857. Last year, it was 7,220 — again, almost double. At a rate of $16,432 per offender, we currently are spending $233.4 million a year to incarcerate nonviolent offenders … not counting the investment in the 10 prisons it takes to hold these individuals at $100 million per prison. In 1994, appropriations to the Department of Corrections totaled $216,753,472. Today, it’s $670,079,452. The amount has tripled. And the recidivism rate for these individuals, who are returned to prison within just two years, is 41.6 percent.

Price observes that if the state government were run like a business, these wasteful practices would have been done away with years ago. “Business” may not be the most convincing metaphor to use, because one of the classic economic justifications of government action, particularly the justice system, is that public goods are not optimally provided by markets. Some economists, however, have suggested that many aspects of government action that are commonly justified in terms of their status as public goods, including some within the justice system, can’t correctly be considered public goods:

The standard economics approach to delineating the optimal set of the state’s functions is unsatisfactory.² In particular, when economists such as Joseph Stiglitz (1988: 24) indicate that “a primary role of government” is to provide the legal framework “within which all economic transactions occur,” not much is said about the desired content of the laws, and how it might affect the desirability or efficiency of their enforcement. Besides, there is typically no mention of nonstate enforcement mechanisms and their relationship to those of the state. The impression is created that all conflict resolution in economic life is in the unavoidable domain of the state. That impression is in contrast with the empirical evidence (see, e.g., Greif 1997, Gow and Swinnen 2001, and Waldmeir 2001).

This confusion is related to the use that is made of the concept of public goods as being nonrival in consumption and nonexclusive (Samuelson 1954: 387–89). If these goods are to be provided at all, taxes and the related state’s coercion are necessary. However, which goods are truly public? Is the justice system the domain of the state because the relevant services are a public good? Clearly, that cannot be said of all such services. Then, which “justice services” constitute a public good? Is the lighthouse, the favorite textbook example of a public good, a public good? Ronald Coase (1974) has shown that lighthouses in 19th century Britain were operated and financed privately. This finding, however, has not prevented the lighthouse to continue serving as the primary example of a public good in many textbooks (e.g., Stiglitz 1988: 75).

There may be fewer public goods in real life than typically assumed. As a result, the necessary (or desirable) scope of the state’s activity may be narrower, too. Some of the goods declared “public” may in fact be private goods, pushed into the state’s domain by public intervention that has eliminated or undercut the possibility of voluntary private financing of these goods. In other words, some uses of the theoretical concept of public goods may inadvertently constitute ex post justifications for the results of previous expansion of state activity.

Judge Price is not an economist, but by questioning whether the routine prosecution and incarceration of nonviolent offenders for committing consensual crimes actually provides more value than cost for the people of Missouri, this may well be the type of argument he was trying to make, using different terminology. Price is suggesting that it’s time for a more thorough analysis of which interests are truly being served by prosecuting many types of nonviolent offenders, and whether such prosecution actually provides results that could be considered a public good. His address doesn’t contain all the answers, but it’s the starting point for a worthy debate.

In times of fiscal crisis, it sometimes becomes necessary to embark upon a new policy path, and welcome changes that we might otherwise avoid. Whether Judge Price’s recommendations are inspired by a concern for justice or for more practical financial reasons, this would be a positive step for the government to take. The judiciary appears to be willing to do its part in order to withstand the jolts of the recession, but are the other branches of government also up to the task?

Barbara Geisman, an aide to Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay has questioned whether the city needs a drug court and recommended cutting funding for the court by $325,000. Now, I’m all for cutting the budget of pretty much any government agency, but if this just shifts people that would be going to drug court into the more punitive side of our criminal justice system, it will likely wind up costing Missouri taxpayers more in the long run.

Geisman’s view has been challenged by William Ray Price Jr., Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, who last week called for increased drug court funding.

From the Post-Dispatch:

“We know drug courts work. We have more than 8,500 graduates,” said Price, who is seeking $2 million more a year for drug courts. “We know the tremendous savings that result from drug courts in Missouri.”

As for studies about drug courts, Price had this to say in his speech to the state House and Senate:

At one fourth to one fifth the cost of incarceration, more than one half of drug court participants graduate, and recidivism is only in the 10 percent range. The last five meta studies on drug courts, from all across the United States, have shown that drug courts reduce crime from 8 to 26 percent.

As the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch noted, this is the low-hanging fruit in our justice system. I will reiterate that the cheapest of all alternatives here is to not to criminalize the behavior of nonviolent drug offenders at all, but since that is not currently on the table, drug courts are an improvement over prison — even if you think people who consume politically incorrect substances should be forced by the state to change their behavior.

Even in the midst of a huge budgetary crisis, it’s nice to see that Missouri taxpayers will continue to support the finer things in life:

In the budget proposed by Gov. Jay Nixon last month, the Missouri Arts Council, part of the Missouri Department of Economic Development, would not receive a direct appropriation from the state to fund nonprofit arts organizations, including the Allied Arts Council of St. Joseph.

However, Mr. Nixon has recommended that the agency be given the ability to spend $9.7 million in the next fiscal year, the same spending authority it was given during the current fiscal year. The agency is provided federal dollars and money it receives from a trust fund that collects tax revenues from out-of-state professional athletes and entertainers who perform in Missouri.

Supporters of this spending might point out that the money comes from the federal government, but I’m sure that money could be spent on more essential services and help bring Missouri at least somewhat out of its fiscal black hole.

Art is undoubtedly a wonderful thing, but it does not require government funding.  People who enjoy art — myself included — can continue to spend their own money on it. If artists and artistic institutions cannot attract such patronage on their own merits, then people clearly do not value it, and the government should not be funding it.

Regarding David Stokes’ question of a couple weeks ago about which type of area (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural) is most heavily subsidized by the government, it appears that the USDA disbursed a record amount of money to rural Missouri last year — $1.126 billion. The bulk of the funds were used as a direct subsidy for rural residents:

The Rural Development Single Family Housing Program provided $578.2 million to individuals and families to buy homes or rehabilitate existing homes.

Let me just get this straight: They subsidized the purchase of homes where they are already cheapest, and at a time when there is already a glut in the nationwide housing market? What could go wrong?

When you keep repeating an error that others have corrected for you and explained to you multiple times why it is incorrect, it ceases to be merely an error — you border on becoming willfully obtuse. Such is the case with the Missouri Budget Project’s continuing claim in its talks and writings about the Missouri “Fair Tax” bill that the legislation would require an 11-percent state sales tax in order for the state to maintain its revenue stream after eliminating the state income tax. As Show-Me Institute executive vice president and University of Missouri–Columbia economics professor Joseph Haslag demonstrated in a recent case study that he wrote with Show-Me Institute intern Abhi Sivasailam, that revenue-neutral rate would be about 5.8 percent.

There are certainly legitimate arguments one might make against the Fair Tax proposal — simply stating, perhaps, a belief in in the fairness of progressive income taxation, wherein one’s tax burden automatically increases with income. I would disagree with that argument, but it is a perfectly legitimate argument to make because it doesn’t employ a demonstrably false set of facts. Repeating a figure based on a faulty set of assumptions about a proposal in order to score political points through fear, however, is not a legitimate form of argument.

The Missouri Budget Project again used its 11-percent sales tax figure in a Saint Louis Beacon op-ed today. Only a few days ago, I witnessed two economists tell the author of the MBP piece that her number was incorrect. They corrected her politely and professionally, and explained why it is wrong. Months ago, the MPB also received a copy of the Show-Me Institute’s case study, which went into great detail on the question and explained again why their 11-percent estimate is far too high. Unfortunately, they’ve continued to repeat their unreliable figure at every opportunity.

If you want to argue against Fair Tax legislation, that is fine with me. And, yes, it is likely that different people will come up with somewhat different estimates for how high the revenue-neutral replacement level of the sales tax would need to be. But if your estimate differs so dramatically from everybody else who has studied the issue that it appears to be just plain wrong, you should cease using it once that has been brought to your attention — or attempt to demonstrate where your opponents’ reasoning is faulty, in a detailed, systematic way. And if you don’t, people should stop taking you seriously.

Using the Show-Me Institute’s “Show-Me: The Spending” online tool, I discovered some curious trends in the Missouri state budget. One that caught my eye was the budget for the office of the governor, which increased from $165,000 in 2008 to $1,132,000 in 2009:

One category of spending that showed a huge increase was “professional services,” which jumped from $8,000 to $428,000. The main component of this increase is “attorney services,” which cost the office of the governor $401,281. I did a quick Google News search to see if there was any media coverage explaining this increase, but no luck. Attorney services are probably necessary in some capacity, so the question is: What specifically is responsible for this steep escalation in spending?

Another large portion of this budget increase is funding for travel, which grew from $53,000 to $281,000, the largest amount spent on travel since 2000:

According to an article in the Columbia Missourian from last June, state flight records show that Gov. Jay Nixon flew on about 50 days during his first four and half months in office. As the article notes, this adds up to about one flight every three days. I have to wonder whether this amount of travel is really necessary. What’s more, the article in the Columbia Missourian also notes that Nixon has frequently charged the cost of his airplane travel to other government agencies. The governor’s explanation, when asked about this back in June, is that during these particular trips, he spent time highlighting the issues that are handled by those various other departments. Maybe this is justified in certain circumstances, but on one particular occasion, 11 different state offices, including the Departments of Agriculture and Revenue, split a $1,295 bill so that the governor and the first lady could fly to the Missouri-Kansas basketball game on March 1 (their host was Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius). Even if this is deemed to be a necessary expense, which seems unlikely given the current economic climate, why wouldn’t it fall under the governor’s office travel budget?

The almost sevenfold increase in the total budget for the governor’s office is inconsistent with his claims of fiscal responsibility in the State of the State address. And the current governor isn’t the only one who has overseen questionable budget increases; there was a dramatic spike in the 2006 travel budget of former Gov. Matt Blunt, as well. The lesson here is that Missourians should keep a watchful eye on government finances, and that it is important for all Missouri officials to examine their budgets carefully in order to eliminate unnecessary expenses.

There is already much gnashing of teeth among Missouri’s political class over President Barack Obama’s decision to exclude the Boeing C-17 cargo plane from the federal budget. Sen. Kit Bond is lobbying to keep the program alive, despite the fact that the Pentagon has repeatedly told the federal government that it already has more than enough C-17s. To members of Congress, there is no such thing as pork if it goes to their constituents.

There are about 900 jobs in the Saint Louis area involved in manufacturing the aircraft, and if its production is ultimately discontinued, they will no doubt be at least temporarily worse off.  However, if we want to have lower taxes in the future, we must cut spending and pork projects like the C-17 — even though they are a small part of the total budget — are one of the easier places to start. If such wasteful programs are eliminated, the money spent on them can be returned to the people of Missouri, who can spend it on far more beneficial things than a redundant, military-industrial complex boondoggle.

Here’s something to celebrate in the Missouri budget: The governor cut $24 million that would have subsidized broadband Internet in rural areas.

As state officials have noticed, living in a rural community is different from living in an urban environment. You don’t have all the traffic, noise, and light pollution you’d find in a big city. The flip side is that you don’t have your choice of restaurants just around the corner, or the same opportunities to access the Internet.

The state shouldn’t try to smooth out those differences and give rural residents the benefits of city life. It would be silly to open a state-funded Starbucks on every gravel road so that rural areas would have better access to coffee. Broadband subsidies are an equally bad idea.

Today, the Show-Me Institute launched four new online tools that enable Missourians to track state spending, employee pay, tax credits, and stimulus projects. These tools take state-provided datasets and make them understandable and intuitive for just about anyone. You can create your own graphs or quickly compare detailed information among state agencies.

In my opinion, there couldn’t have been a better time for Missourians to have these tools. At 7 p.m. today, Gov. Jay Nixon will deliver his State of the State address. Given the continuing decline in state tax revenues, Nixon could soon announce another round of budget cuts, on top of the hundreds of millions already cut from the state budget this fiscal year.

Sen. Jason Crowell has argued that tax credits should be part of the state budget process, instead of allowing government agencies to dole out credits with little regard for how much the state can afford to give out each year. And, of course, state agencies and local governments across the board have accepted hundreds of millions in federal “budget stabilization” dollars, which lets them stave off cuts, for now.

Our online tools can help you put these issues into perspective.

Although a $200 million round of budget cuts may seem drastic, state expenditures in 2009 were up more than $1.5 billion from 2008 (see the “Spending Overview” tab). As for state tax credits, I was surprised to see that the amount issued each year varies wildly (see the “Overview” tab) — from a high of more than $500 million in 2006 to less than $150 million in 2009. Most startling is the amount of federal money that state agencies and local school districts are leaning on. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has spent nearly $350 million of federal budget stabilization money, and has less than $100 million left (See the “Spending & Revenue by Program” tab).

The data behind these tools will be updated each week, which means you can check back periodically to see what’s new. It’s my hope that these tools are an easy way to keep up with what the state is actually doing, instead of the latest political rhetoric.

The Washington Post recently published an article that describes how states’ unemployment compensation funds are running dry in the recession. When a state has more unemployment claims than it can pay, it borrows the difference from the federal government. In all, 25 states — including Missouri — have already borrowed to make their payments, $24 billion in total.

If unemployment continues to rise in the near future, then Missouri will have to borrow even more money from the federal government in order to extend benefits. According to preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the seasonably adjusted unemployment rate for Missouri in November 2009 is 9.5 percent, which is an increase over recent months.

What can a cash-strapped state like Missouri do? From the article:

State unemployment-compensation funds are separated from general budgets, so when there is a shortfall, only two primary solutions are typically considered — either cut the benefit or raise the payroll tax.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. Although I hesitate to encourage cutting benefits, I think that that raising the payroll tax would be a particularly bad idea. Raising the payroll tax would raise the cost of labor, causing employers to stop hiring and/or further shed employees. When you tax something, you get less of it, after all. The state would have to find a way to support an ever-increasing unemployment population with an ever-decreasing employment base.

I also want to point out that employers pay more in unemployment taxes in Missouri than they do in most other states. Missouri employers already have to pay 3.510 percent of payroll in state unemployment taxes. For those in the construction-related industries, the rate is 3.600 percent. (According to the article, the average tax across states is about 0.6 percent.)

I definitely recommend this piece about property taxes in today’s Springfield News-Leader that Combest linked to today. My favorite line from it:

When did $98,560 household income qualify for welfare in Missouri?

This is the new America. Everyone’s on welfare. I guess we have to get used to it.

This is just a depressing AP article on federal budget expenditures, from beginning to end. This has everything you need to make you sick, unless you love the idea of going deeper into debt while giving up your freedoms little by little.

Thank God the employees of the federal government got their pay raises. I was definitely worrying that millions of government bureaucrats would not get a raise during the recession, while millions of others lose their jobs completely. Who cares that there has not been a cost of living increase? Let’s give them one anyway!

Federal workers would receive pay increases averaging 2 percent, with people in areas with higher living costs receiving slightly higher increases.

Do you love earmarks? Well, it’s got earmarks!

The measure contains 5,224 pet projects for lawmakers totaling $3.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group.

And don’t worry, Missouri got ours, too. I love Kit Bond, and would absolutely vote for him if he was running for reelection, but why can’t Kansas City pay for its own community center?

[...] Christopher Bond of Missouri, pulled down 21 projects worth $32.5 million from the some portion of the bill, including $2.5 million for a community center in Kansas City.

Don’t take that personally, KC — if they had cited a St. Louis project, I would have gone with that instead. Hey, while we are at it, let’s stick it to the children:

It also would phase out a D.C. school voucher program favored by Republicans [...]

And I won’t do anything but quote the article when it comes to Missouri’s other senator’s vote:

The Democrats opposed were Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — who voted “no” only after Lieberman arrived to ensure the bill would advance.

I realize this kind of vote planning happens all the time in politics, but still. … This entire story makes me need a drink.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting on the budget troubles in Florissant, the largest city in St. Louis County. Not surprisingly, the police officers there are objecting to a proposed 3-percent pay cut. Now, I don’t ordinarily sympathize much with government employees, but the ones in uniforms generally deserve a little more compensation than some politically hired clerk. Even more importantly, there is a very reasonable solution, at least for the short term, that is being proposed by one of the councilmembers.

He says they should close the municipal golf course. I agree, but first they should try to sell it.

Podleski ran unsuccessfully against Lowery in April 2007 and continues to be the chief critic of the city budget. After the Monday’s meeting, he suggested the city close its golf course. The budget predicts the golf course would lose nearly $164,000 in the next fiscal year, he noted. When the city is cutting pay, “can it afford a golf course?” he asked.

No, it can’t afford a golf course, but privatization is better than closure. Even if the course only fetches a reduced amount in this economy, at least it then goes back onto the tax rolls as private property. This really is a no-brainer for Florissant. Other think tanks have done a lot of work on the issue of government golf privatization, especially Reason. I can’t think of any item that is less necessary for the government to provide than a golf course. A budget crisis might make the issue more immediate, but even if it were flush with cash, Florissant should privatize its golf course.

If a successful, low-cost, cutting-edge school in Missouri were being shut down midway through the school year, leaving thousands of students without feasible educational alternatives, the state would see an uproar. But recent budget cuts to Missouri’s virtual school program will bring essentially the same result, with little backlash.

The virtual school spent $5.8 million last year to educate 2,500 students. That comes to approximately $2,300 per student. The Salem R-80 district, which spent $5,418.37 per student in 2008, had the lowest per-student cost in Missouri. While some of the program’s online students are taking only supplemental classes, Missouri’s virtual education program is still one of the most cost-effective ”schools” in the state.

The state’s budget cuts will necessitate that the program close at the end of the semester, leaving some students a few credits away from graduation. This cessation of the full program comes after its budget had already been scaled back earlier this year. From the Post-Dispatch:

Because of budget troubles, lawmakers already had scaled back the virtual school this year to a $4.8 million program serving 1,600 kids who enrolled on a first-come, first-serve basis.
About 2,000 were turned away when the free slots filled up.

Missouri’s students should not be denied the unique opportunities that virtual schooling provides. Although budget costs are necessary, the state’s virtual school was a very cost-effective program in comparison to existing public education. It supplemented traditional schools and home schooling for some, and allowed sick children who were unable to function in crowded classrooms to continue their educations.

The virtual school program is like a charter school for rural Missouri, where the charters do not exist. It provides an innovative learning experience, giving kids an alternative to traditional school. In this way, it both competes and meshes with the traditional school experience to give students a better learning experience. (Read these posts by Sarah Brodsky to find out more about the benefits and challenges of online schools.)

Missouri spends $5.4 billion on primary and secondary education; can it not find the few million necessary to educate students in an innovative, cost-effective manner?

Our Policy Pulse site has a good story with some detailed links to the recent budget cuts announced by the governor. I hope and plan to have more thorough work on these proposals released soon, but I don’t want to rush anything — and many of us will be out most of next week at a conference. So, I just want to quickly take the opportunity to commend Gov. Jay Nixon for his willingness to make the hard fiscal decisions that are necessary, including laying off state employees and cutting budgets, rather than trying to raise taxes. He deserves a good deal of credit for that.