Just in time for holiday travel, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended banning the use of cell phones while driving. The news came when the NTSB completed its investigation of a tragic accident that occurred in Missouri in which two people died and another 38 were injured.

This provides the perfect narrative for what some might consider to be very compelling and policy-minded journalism: A tragedy has occurred and a cell phone was involved. Shouldn’t there be a law against that?

Consider this line from the New York Times’ series of articles on the subject: “With virtually every American owning a cellphone, distracted driving has become a threat on the nation’s roads.” Indeed, in September 2009, the newspaper wrote that it was time to crack down, saying that “…texting at the wheel is a national hazard that calls for a firm federal response.”

This weekend, I heard an interview on National Public Radio with Matt Richtel, the author of several Times articles regarding the dangers of cell phone use while driving, discussing whether he considered himself to be an advocate. Richtel provided the standard journalist line, saying that he just thinks it is important to ask tough questions.

Well, here are two more.

1. Traffic fatalities, crashes, accidents, etc. have declined dramatically. If driving is safer than ever, why is there such concern?

The argument I hear again and again (most recently when I sat in on Donnybrook) is that banning cell phones while driving is about safety. However, Missourinet reports that this year, traffic fatalities are headed for a 62-year low. The same trend is seen on the national level. Fatality, injury, and crash rates have all declined substantially since 1990.

If fatalities, crashes, and injuries are down, then I hardly think that we are experiencing a “national hazard” that warrants an outright ban on cell phone use while driving. Of course, there have been accidents where cell phones were clearly the cause. However, with traffic accidents and fatalities down during the same time period that cell phones became popular, cell phone use is clearly not as dangerous as some fear.

And, even if an action comes with a small amount of risk, that does not mean we should pass a law to ban it. In fact, driving with children in the car may be more distracting than those pesky cell phones. Should we ban driving with children? Are we in the midst of a national driving-with-children epidemic?

2. How could this possibly be enforced? And, do we really want to create another vague reason to stop and question citizens?

How on earth could a ban on cell phone use be enforced? Would a police officer be able to pull you over if you look down briefly while driving? How could the officer discern whether you are talking on a hands-free phone or merely singing along to the radio?

The New York Times should know better than to advocate for additional vague ways for police to stop and question individuals. After all, the Times did an excellent study of a “stop, question, and frisk” policing policy. The newspaper found that after a drastic decline in violent crimes in New York City, the number of stops the police made increased dramatically.

Knowing that police officers can sometimes abuse their ability to stop, question, search, and detain individuals, why would anyone advocate for more vague reasons to stop and question people? Driving dangerously is already illegal. What more do cell phone ban advocates need?

Indeed, the last thing I want to see after the passage of federal legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is another vague reason that police can use to stop and search citizens.

The solution is not to ban cell phones.

I do not condone texting while driving. I also am not a fan of eating while driving, or letting your adorable pet distract you while driving. Though it would make an excellent point and is legal, I do not recommend that you hold a banana to your ear and pretend to talk to it while driving.

I was in a nearly fatal car accident when my family first moved to Michigan. The culprit? Ice. Should driving in Michigan be banned from October through April? Obviously not. Instead, I support independent groups working to inform drivers about dangerous winter driving conditions. Similarly, efforts to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving may end up saving lives.

But an outright ban? It is an overreaction to a tragedy.

Right now, if you are a St. Louis Cardinals baseball fan, you are probably in a state of shock, anger, or melancholic resignation. El Hombre has decided to leave Cardinal Nation behind for the riches of the Golden Coast. Yes, Albert will sign with the Angels. The deal reportedly is above the Cardinals’ latest offer (allegedly 10 years and up to $220 million) and from every indication, an unforgettable era in Saint Louis baseball is over.

Just how rich does this make Albert? Well, one local sportscaster estimated today that if Albert bats five times each game next year for the Angels, he will be raking in a cool $30,000 each time he steps into the batter’s box. Not bad, huh?

But if it makes you feel any better, it may not be all win-win for our legendary No. 5. Consider income taxes. Missouri’s top personal income tax rate is 6 percent, which kicks in at $9,000 (he would have also paid an additional 1 percent earnings tax [click on policy study and scroll down to page 46] in Saint Louis). In comparison, California’s top rate is 10.3 percent for incomes above $1 million (of course it might not STAY that way). I am not the only one to notice the possible influence that income tax rates could have had on Albert’s decision (this was regarding the offer from the Miami Marlins).

However, at the margins, how much of a difference would these tax rates have made on Albert’s decision? First, consider that Albert will only have to pay this 10.3 percent top rate for games played in California. He will play a good chunk of his games in states with NO personal income taxes (Washington and Texas). Now, I am not an economist and there are other factors involved here, but just doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the home games, I found that Albert would pay slightly more than $4.6 million more in taxes over the life of his contract in Anaheim than Saint Louis. Considering the supposed $30 million to $40 million difference in value of the contracts, would the tax factor make that much of a difference? It is certainly possible (even though Albert did decide to leave). If the Angels had offered him the same amount as the Cardinals, the tax difference would cost Albert approximately $3.7 million.

Who is to say if the difference would matter, especially for a single individual who has to weigh many factors in his decision to move. However, if you are a business, that tax difference could influence a decision between paying taxes or hiring a couple of new employees. Just some things to ponder while Albert packs his bags.

Occupy Saint Louis is in full effect, and my co-worker Patrick Ishmael and I dropped by last Friday for the group’s afternoon march. I can only claim superficial exposure to the pulse of this particular group at that particular time, because I was in the crowd but not of it, and I didn’t take the time to talk to anyone while I was there. Most of the signs I saw and chants I heard involved “jobs,” though there was also a call-and-response that got a lot of play: Call: “Whose streets?” Response: “Our streets!” I’m not really sure what that one meant.

I have been reading quite a bit about the protests going on in New York City, in the rest of the country (my cousin participated in Occupy Omaha, he’s the one in the suit near the center) and even around the world. The protests and the protesters are not totally united in their goals or their beliefs, but there are certain common threads that bind the movement and represent a shared objective. One of the most common complaints you’ll hear is anything along the lines of “get Wall Street out of Washington.” This is an expression of the idea that business and government should not have such cozy relationships. The word for this concept in popular usage is “corporatism,” and although the protesters may not realize that a free-market think tank represents an ally in their fight, we have published countless studies and commentaries asserting that government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

We oppose tax credits such as the Aerotropolis subsidy package, film tax credits, and other publicly-funded business incentives. Indeed, so strong is our stance against corporate welfare that it’s one of our six main policy areas.

The Occupy protests and the people calling themselves the 99% are fired up and out on the streets for a reason. H.L. Mencken said “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under,” but when left and right are aligned in opposition to pervasive policy that hurts all but a very few well-connected people, and when thousands take to the streets to voice their disillusion, there’s a glimmer of hope for real change to the status quo.

Imagine you wake early one morning with severe sinus congestion and a throbbing headache. You wobble down to the local Walgreens for some medicinal relief, only to be denied your Sudafed by the pharmacist for lack of a doctor’s prescription. What do you do? Lug your bloated, throbbing head to the next county where prescriptions are not required? Or schedule a doctor’s appointment for next week? That is hardly timely relief. What will St. Charles County residents do?

The St. Charles County Council voted on July 25 to require a doctor’s prescription when purchasing cold and allergy medications that contain pseudophedrine. Unfortunately, the ordinance imprudently inserts doctors into meth makers’ raw material supply chains. It is difficult to imagine, much less believe, that this ordinance will effectively diminish meth production in Missouri. With a sufficient profit motive, meth makers will seek out alternative arrangements for the procurement of pseudophedrine, perhaps by recruiting doctors as critical prescription suppliers.

In essence, the ordinance will turn otherwise law-abiding doctors into accessories to crime, unwittingly or not. Some will no doubt embrace the temptation to write fraudulent prescriptions, thereby corrupting the practice of medicine.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. With the resulting increase in the demand for prescriptions, the ordinance further taxes an already over-burdened medical reimbursement insurance system. In an era when concerns for healthcare costs predominate, why should St. Charles County compound the problem by dumping a multitude of cold and allergy sufferers onto the bloated calendars of busy doctors?

And what about consumers? Certainly, the monetary and inconvenience costs of traveling to — and paying for — doctor’s visits and the time exhausted circumventing the ordinance by purchasing medications in non-regulated jurisdictions are substantial. The St. Charles County Council has voted, in effect, to shift meth-related law enforcement costs onto the backs of innocent cold and allergy sufferers.

This cost shift acts much like a tax on the purchase and consumption of cold and allergy medications. As with a tax, the “effective” price for these medications rises for consumers. Similar to a tax, the result is a deadweight loss as consumers ultimately consume less than the optimal amount of medications.

Seriously, is the real purpose of the “prescription mandate” to engineer a local law enforcement database to better monitor the activities of private citizens? If so, shouldn’t someone conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis comparing the expected benefits with the known costs? After all, pharmacists are already required to request and to enter personal information into a database tracking consumers of pseudophedrine-based medications.

And what can be done to alleviate the competitive disadvantages and inherent inequities dogging those pharmacies who happen to be located wholly within a prescription mandate jurisdiction? They will certainly lose business to competitors fortunate enough to be situated in non-mandate counties and municipalities. Although a statewide mandate would address this latter concern, it nevertheless would still give rise to the corruption of medicine and tax-imposed deadweight losses, as discussed above.

The war against meth is not a free task. The costs associated must ultimately be borne by taxpayers. The issue is whether the selected means for conducting that war are wise and efficient, implying that all costs and benefits have been carefully weighed and compared.

Working at the Show-Me Institute, located in the highly walkable Central West End, my colleagues and I often take short walks to lunch. Recently, food trucks have entered the competition for our dining dollars.

Given the large crowds that form around these trucks, they seem to be a hit, but apparently this is not the case for everyone. This week, police have cracked down on food trucks in the area — allegedly in response to a complaint.

A regulation in the city code forbids street vending within the Central West End, but until recently the restriction had not been enforced. Earlier this week, officers and inspectors issued warnings to multiple food trucks asking them to leave the area or face fines for violating vending regulations.

Christine Harbin, a former SMI policy analyst, wrote numerous times on these restrictions on private enterprise. First spotting food trucks in the Central West End back in March, she later followed up on the issue in a video interviewing both food truck owners and their customers. The verdict is still clear: there exists a strong consumer demand for these food trucks. Why should government inhibit healthy competition and growth of consumer choices?

Some people worry about the safety and health concerns associated with food trucks, but like any other restaurant or food provider, they must undergo government health and safety inspections to obtain permits for legally selling their goods.

Another common concern is the potential increase in street congestion. In Dr. Donald Shoup’s book, The High Cost of Free Parking, he explains the best way to manage street traffic is to introduce market determined parking fees.  Parking is not a free good, and should not be treated as one. Busy streets with more traffic and higher demand would have higher parking fees, while quiet less crowded streets with lower demand would cost less. This would force food trucks to internalize the externality of over consuming street parking.  If the trucks wanted prime location they would have to pay extra for it.

These trucks may be “technically illegal” in the area, but clearly there is a demand here that the government is barring. Originally, the downtown area had this same restriction, but now it benefits from many popular street vendors and food trucks. Why should the Central West End or any other area be treated differently?

Consumers would benefit if this restrictive ordinance was repealed throughout St. Louis, allowing their preferences — not the preferences of bureaucrats — to dictate food trucks’ placement and success.

To follow this issue further, watch Christine’s other video on the subject in which food truck owner Jeff Pupillo and a number of customers weigh in on food trucks and the unwanted competition they provide for some local restaurants.

Early in July, amidst a much cooler climate, Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a measure that sought to limit the openness and transparency of public and governmental entities.

Specifically, the vetoed legislation aimed to shelter public entities from disclosing minutes, votes, and records; it also allowed for closed meetings.

Without public access to important information — whether it is school district board minutes or the budget of fire protection districts — injustices may go unnoticed and our public officials may be tempted to act in unethical and elusive ways.

Take, for example, a recent embezzlement scandal in Brentwood. As Chad Carson reported, the city administrator of the suburban municipality was found to have stolen nearly $30,000 of city funds. That money, largely from tax receipts, was thrown away at a riverboat casino. Increased government accountability is the only effective solution Missouri citizens have to prevent such abuses in the future.

It is improbable to assume that the general public will suddenly besiege public entities with information requests — commonly known as Sunshine Law Requests. Therefore, the protection of this right is critical to policy analysts and journalists statewide who, in their endeavor for truth, rely on accountability. After all, your government cannot be accountable without transparency.

We often chastise our elected officials’ performance — ironic, since we elect them. However, when they strive to bolster the sense of public duty, as Gov. Nixon illustrated here, some praise and an attaboy are due.

So now, even as the mercury seems to higher and higher each day, Missourians can feel good about greater openness, transparency, and accountability in government.

Let’s all applaud the Federal appeals court who ruled in favor of Jim Roos that freedom of speech is more important than stupid sign regulations. We have followed this case, and the broader issue of eminent domain abuse, closely at SMI. Needless to say, we think this is an excellent ruling and a victory for liberty in Missouri.

More importantly, could it mean more green in your wallet? As the Riverfront Times notes (emphasis added):

Motorists driving along roadways maintained by the Missouri Department of Transportation could receive fewer red-light camera tickets if preliminary reports from Arnold ring true statewide.

Beginning in February, MoDOT began changing the yellow-light signal times throughout Arnold, where all the city’s red-light cameras happen to be along state-controlled roads. In general, the change to the signals has lengthened the amount of time for yellow lights.

For example, motorists traveling southbound through the intersection of Highway 141 and Astra Way now have 1.6 seconds more yellow time — from 4 seconds to 5.6 seconds. MoDOT has also changed the length of time that all signals at an intersection appear red, generally giving intersections a bit more time to clear all cars before changing lights.

In so doing, Arnold has experienced an unintended consequence — the number of red-light runners has plummeted since MoDOT made the changes.

In January, the city issued 691 red-light camera citations, according to information obtained from a city council member. By March, the number of citations had dropped to 263. Last month, the vendor that operates Arnold’s red-light cameras — American Traffic Solutions — confirms that it issued just 198 citations. That’s a drop of 72 percent from the number of citations issued in January.

The Show-Me Institute has a long history of opposing red light cameras, particularly given the cameras’ questionable effectiveness in preventing accidents yet prodigious aptitude for raising money for cities. Lately, though, Missouri’s red light camera industry has been traversing rocky judicial and legislative roads. Earlier this month, policy analyst David Stokes astutely reviewed one court ruling in Saint Louis that could very well cripple the use of red light camera systems in the city. His analysis:

It will probably take an act of the legislature to declare unequivocally that red light camera programs are invalid as a matter of state law, but the red light camera issue may, for all practical purposes, be resolved by adjusting the signals where the cameras sit. The roads in Missouri may be getting a great deal safer, just by adding a little more time to yellow lights — a simple, nearly costless solution to an important issue of public safety.

Cities must be elated. After all, “safety” was the driving purpose behind their use of these cameras anyway, right?

Right?

During the past few weeks, this sound has become familiar to many Missourians, particularly those who live on or south of Interstate 70. That’s because the Great Southern Brood of cicadas has emerged to reproduce and fulfill its 13-year life cycle. The creative minds at Sparky’s Homemade Ice Cream, a local institution in Columbia, thought they could use this as an opportunity to experiment with a new ingredient:

Yum. Despite many people’s instant aversion to the insects, people have eaten cicadas for decades — but typically grilled, and never before in ice cream, to my knowledge. Nonetheless, the concoction proved a hit — so much so that Sparky’s sold out of it before it even officially debuted. Unfortunately, the health department warned Sparky’s against making more, likely ensuring that this will be the only batch of cicada ice cream ever sold there:

Sparky’s approached the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services and asked about the use of cicadas in the ice cream, Gerry Worley, environmental health manager for the department, said.

“The food code doesn’t directly address cicadas,” Worley said. “We advised against it.”

Despite the fact that people are free to eat cicadas on their own and frequently do so, the city has recommended that food service professionals avoid using this highly demanded ingredient. Everyone loses in this situation. Sparky’s loses business and publicity. Consumers lose an exotic experience. The only winner is a climate of senseless regulation.

Today is my last day at the Show-Me Institute. Beginning next month, I will work at the Center for Fiscal Reform at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Washington, D.C. I am thrilled about my new role, but I will miss working at the Show-Me Institute.

Missouri public policy has its problems. Lawmakers have a terrible habit of trying to pick winners and losers in the market, even though they have such a bad track record of doing so. We’re relying on government to make the choices that individuals should be making for themselves in the private sector. Lawmakers are addicted to targeted tax credits and tax-increment financing (TIF) — even though these programs repeatedly fail to deliver on their promises.

Despite this state’s problems, Missourians have a lot to celebrate in public policy. Many great things are going on here. Missouri has fewer occupational license requirements than other states, which means that Missourians are more free to earn a living. Plus, Missouri has low state taxes on booze, cigarettes, and gasoline. It also has the Hancock Amendment, which limits state spending and requires that voters have the final say on tax hikes. (Wouldn’t it be great if the Hancock Amendment existed at the federal level?)

We’re taking many steps in the right direction toward limiting government and protecting individual liberty. For example, Missourians were among the first to oppose the federal takeover of their health care, and we haven’t given up. As another thing I find promising, the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) is accepting more offers to buy vacant property (thanks largely to the efforts of my colleague Audrey Spalding).

I’m confident that Missouri, and other midwestern states, will be leaders in limiting government and getting the economy back on track. This change will be driven by individuals acting entrepreneurially in the private sector, however — not by the hand of government.

See you later, Show-Me State.

My buddy Mike M. forwarded me this terrific article in The Economist about occupational licensing in the United States. As we have discussed many times before, Missouri has fewer of these types of economic restrictions than any other state. We can be proud of that, and we can be proud that the legislature adjourned without passing — as best I can tell — any major new licensing provisions. I define “major” as taking an entire occupation that was previously unlicensed and requiring it to be licensed. There were definitely examples this session, some good, some both good and bad, of changes to existing licensing rules.

Unfortunately, the larger cities and counties in Missouri have too often decided to fill in the lack of statewide licensing with local licensing rules. Those can be some of the worst rules, because they often favor certain constituencies even more brazenly than statewide licenses would. Nonetheless, Missourians can be proud to have less of these rules dictating our lives in general than in other states. So, think about that as you enjoy the article, and trust that we at the Show-Me Institute will keep fighting this issue.

Now, on to the best part of the story. The legislature passed changes to Missouri’s utterly ridiculous home mover licensing requirements. Now, if you wish to engage in the business of moving people from house to house, you will no longer be subject to some of the most insane licensing requirements in the country. The business will be treated more like other businesses, in which markets and customers make the decision of who will participate, not state government. The moving industry is still subject to regulations by the state, but if you read the bill summaries you will see how the new regulatory system is much less burdensome and crazy than the prior system.

The Show-Me Institute has been one of the leaders in urging Missouri’s attorney general, Chris Koster, to join the lawsuit against the health care reform bill, so we are pleased to note that he finally took action this morning. Better late than never. But regrettably, the amicus brief that Koster filed in the multistate lawsuit only goes halfway.

Although Koster says that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, he also says that it’s severable from the rest of the law. In other words, Koster believes that the federal health care law can remain in place even though the individual insurance mandate can be struck down.

Judge George Vinson went further in his ruling. He ruled that Congress does not have the power to force people to buy something that they don’t want, and therefore the entire law must be declared void.

I understand that many people object to the regulation because of the individual mandate. However, there are additional reasons to oppose this law in Missouri. With or without the individual mandate, the PPACA will raise the cost of health care in Missouri by increasing mandates to cover specific conditions and expanding the eligibility requirements for Medicaid. This component of policy will burden state budgets and threaten state sovereignty. In order to come up with the cash, Missouri will have to raise taxes, cut services, or both.

Koster’s decision to file an amicus brief may be partly due to the Show-Me Intitute’s prodding. Encouraging him to join the lawsuit is a topic that we’ve tracked closely. Show-Me Institute staff have released an open letter, an editorial, an “urgent call for action” via email, and several blog posts on the subject.