Last Friday, I travelled to the 108th Missouri State Fair in Sedalia, for my shift at the Show-Me Institute’s booth, fully prepared to engage in conversation with Missourians about how state and local governments create barriers to the free exchange of goods and services. I expected to field some tricky questions about whether the Show-Me Institute has partisan affiliations — we have none — or about pending, unaffiliated ballot initiatives, but I did not meet a single Missourian who wanted to know about either of these matters. Instead, I got tripped up by a seven-year-old’s query, “What is the smallest town in the state?”

Had the child asked which of Missouri’s 115 counties has the highest rate of tax abatement as a percentage of total real property assessed valuation, I could have provided an answer. Had he inquired about the intricacies of state supplemental tax increment financing, I would have jumped at the chance to describe its function and effects. I certainly would have had something to say about state spending for historic preservation or the myths of downtown “revitalization” in St. Louis. But I did not know the answer to the question, “What is the smallest town in the state?”

I promised my questioner that I would get back to him after consulting the Census, so, without further ado, here is the answer to the trickiest question from Sedalia:

Goss Town, population one, in Monroe County, population 9,311, is the smallest town in the state.

If you have a question for the Show-Me Institute, please feel free to stop by our booth in Sedalia for the remainder of the fair, or place a comment on the blog.

Tonight, the Saint Louis Rams and the Kansas City Chiefs will announce their picks for the first round of the National Football League (NFL) college draft. That will decide which college football players will be forced to negotiate with them, if the players wish to join the NFL employee pool.

You see, unlike most industries, where workers are free to solicit offers from a range of potential employers before choosing the one most to their liking, NFL teams have a collusive agreement: Only one NFL team at a time may negotiate with the best of the rookie class. This relieves teams of the need to bid against each other for these young players, meaning that the players are stripped of most of their bargaining power when negotiating their initial contracts. However, the practice has also resulted in unanticipated negative consequences for teams. Thus, the limitations that the current NFL drafting system imposes on teams and rookie players distorts the laws of supply and demand, resulting in an inefficient allocation of resources.

If you will, join me in a thought experiment. Several teams this year would like to add a promising young quarterback to their roster. Right now, the Rams are in the best position to do so because they hold the first pick in the draft — and they are widely expected to select Sam Bradford, a Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback out of the University of Oklahoma. If another team (such as the Cleveland Browns, Oakland Raiders, or the Buffalo Bills) wants to be sure it has a chance to secure Bradford’s services, their only option is to negotiate a trade in which the Rams would give up the number one draft slot in exchange for players and/or draft choices offered by the other team.

Why would the Browns, Raiders, or Bills make this trade? Because they place a certain value on obtaining Bradford as a player. The problem is, even though Bradford’s particular skills and attributes are the reason he is so highly valued, he will not personally get to realize the return on the value he offers. As I point out below, Bradford’s rookie contract will have roughly the same parameters, regardless of which team selects him. But a team that trades up to get him would, by doing so, demonstrate its willingness to pay not only the size of that rookie contract, but all the additional costs that they would be sinking into the trade. And the recipient of the additional largess would not be the individual creating the value, but rather the Rams, whose only contribution to the transaction was being a particularly awful team last season. This arrangement is clearly not fair to Bradford.

But even if the Rams valued Bradford most highly, it is extremely unlikely that he could maximize the value that should result from demand for his services. As the draft system currently exists, there is an informal pay scale imposed on teams and players that depends on the slot in which a player is drafted, rather than the value that the team believes it will realize as a result of employing the player. The pay scale is determined both by a set, limited amount of “rookie pool money” and the contracts signed by the previous year’s set of rookie players. Very rarely can either teams or players deviate from this pay scale, although it is not uncommon for them to try.

Last year’s draft provides an excellent example. Matthew Stafford, the first player selected in 2009, signed a contract guaranteeing him more than $41 million. The Rams drafted second and ultimately agreed to pay Jason Smith $33 million. Kansas City chose third and guaranteed Tyson Jackson $31 million. These transactions demonstrate how the pay scale usually works. But interesting things then happened with four of the next six players selected. The Seattle Seahawks, picking fourth, chose Aaron Curry, a player many regarded as being the best in the draft and a potential number one pick. The Seahawks ultimately ended up guaranteeing Curry $34 million — more money than either the second or third players selected. In the meantime, the Oakland Raiders used the seventh pick in the draft to select the first wide receiver taken last year, Darrius Heyward-Bey. This was a highly unusual pick for two reasons: First, most experts figured Heyward-Bey to be only the third- or fourth-best receiver available. Second, the Raiders guaranteed him $23.5 million — significantly more money than would normally be expected for the seventh selection in that draft. Heyward-Bey’s contract had a direct effect on contract negotiations for two other rookie players. The Cincinnati Bengals selected Andre Smith with the sixth selection, and, after Heyward-Bey signed, Smith demanded to be paid more money than the player selected after him. Meanwhile, the San Francisco 49ers had used the 10th overall selection to take Michael Crabtree, who was almost unanimously considered to be the best wide receiver in the draft. Despite being selected three spots lower than Heyward-Bey (and, despite Heyward-Bey’s unusually large contract), Crabtree demanded to be paid as though he were the first receiver selected.

Both Andre Smith and Michael Crabtree ended up refusing to report to their teams (the only kind of real leverage afforded to rookie players) in order to get the kinds of deals they wanted; neither was ultimately successful. Smith missed several weeks of training camp before settling for $21 million guaranteed — which, accounting for the fact that he signed a four-year contract rather than the five-year deal more commonly given to high draft picks, is about what would have been expected given the slot in which he was selected. Crabtree, on the other hand, refused to join the team until well into the season, eventually signing for a guaranteed $17 million — slightly less than was given to the player selected ninth, and slightly more than was given to the player selected 11th. In both cases, the negotiations that resulted from the NFL draft and its resulting “slotting” system cost both the players and the teams weeks of distraction and invaluable time with which to prepare for the upcoming season.

A much more efficient system would have the teams bidding against one another. The most-desperate team would likely secure the player most likely to meet their needs because they would be willing to sacrifice more than any other team to sign that player. A slightly less-desperate team would be able to sign the next-best prospect, and so on, until teams were no longer willing to pay the amount a player demanded. Thus, players would realize the full market value resulting from the demand for their services, and teams would be able to maximize their utility by focusing on the players they most wanted to employ, rather than just those who happened to remain on the draft board. Freed from the restrictive confines of the “slotting system,” teams and players should be able to come to mutually agreeable contracts well before training camp begins, eliminating the hassles and lost opportunities that result when teams and players are limited in their freedom to negotiate with other prospective partners.

The law of supply and demand maximizes efficiency in free markets — and the NFL could help to maximize its own efficiency by abandoning its current, anti-competitive labor model in favor of a model more closely resembling a free market.

Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams recently published the third edition of Rich States Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. In chapter 2, they write:

Finally, one attribute for which Missouri is probably most famous is its Gateway Arch in St. Louis. Admittedly, we have a special fondness for this architectural wonder: It’s the world’s largest Laffer Curve!

I hadn’t noticed it before, but it’s true!

Illustration by Christine Harbin. Photo source: Wikipedia.

According to the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Last weekend, I took the basic class required by Missouri law to qualify for a concealed carry endorsement. The experience was really enjoyable and informative, and I encourage others to take the class, even if they do not intend on concealing a weapon. I learned about handgun safety, laws relating to firearms, marksmanship techniques, and many other topics.

The following is a photo of me taking the live fire test with the certified instructor. All I have left to do is visit a series of local government offices, and then I will hopefully have the permit.

The Missouri House of Representatives defeated the bill that would have inducted the Newfoundland breed and Seaman, the dog that accompanied Lewis and Clark, into the list of Missouri’s official state symbols.

Some state representatives objected to an official honor for Seaman because they thought there wasn’t enough evidence that he traveled through this state:

“If we’re going to have an official dead dog for the state of Missouri, we should have some evidence that the dog actually went to Missouri,” said Rep. Vicki Englund, D-St. Louis County.

Others commented that, now that Missouri has plenty of official symbols, “enough is enough.”

I’m happy with the results of the Missouri House’s vote, and I hope that Newfoundland fans will find ways to promote the breed outside of government. It just isn’t practical for the General Assembly to confer honors on everyone’s favorite animals. At some point, enthusiasts have to step back from lobbying the state and take their message directly to their fellow Missourians.

This is from a Columbia Missourian article about a campaign to identify respondents’ sexual orientation on Census forms:

“The census is the basis of over $400 billion in federal funding,” she said. “The LGBT community is not able to effectively lobby to be recipients of any of that money.”

If advocates believe the Census questions are discriminatory or offensive to any group, they should certainly make that case. However, greater ease in lobbying is not a good reason to add to the list of questions. Census participation is required by law, and it would be an inappropriate invasion of respondents’ privacy to compel them to share their sexual orientation or other personal characteristics that some lobbyists would like statistics on. Similarly, while it would help advocates for funding of medical research if everyone had to reveal their medical histories on the Census, the Census does not gather this information.

Advocates can use other means, like petition drives and rallies, to show lawmakers how many people support their causes.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal today, Reed Albergotti writes that eliminating the salary cap on free agents in the NFL hasn’t caused the season to “become the discombobulated cash volcano everyone was hoping for.” Now, I don’t know very much about football, but I do know enough about economics, and I find the author’s conclusion to be economically nonsensical (emphasis mine):

So with apologies to Messrs. Friedman and Hayek, here’s the likely game summary on the free-agent season that was: The free market ended up making the NFL’s players poorer and its owners richer than ever.

Removing a salary cap would not cause salaries to decrease — it would cause them to either increase or remain unchanged. If the salary cap were ineffective (i.e., above the equilibrium price), then removing it would result in no change in salaries. A football team owner is going to hire q* football players and pay them a salary of p* nevertheless. If the salary cap were effective (i.e., below the equilibrium price), then removing it would cause salaries to increase to the equilibrium level.

From what I can tell from the article, the author is incorrectly assuming that the salary cap for football players was effective (i.e., their past salary was below their market value). On the contrary, the salary cap was probably ineffective (i.e., their salary equals their market value), which would explain why nobody is “throw[ing] irresponsibly large sums of scratch at the sport’s top free agents” upon its repeal. This is evidenced by the fact that, while under the cap, many teams hadn’t used up all the funds they had allocated in salaries. According to a recent article in the Post-Dispatch, this group includes the Saint Louis Rams:

The Rams have only about $76 million committed to salaries so far in 2010, and with projections of $30 million or $35 million in cap space when all is said and done.

Those of you who become physically ill when you watch ads connecting Census participation and government funding might want to skip this post. Everyone else, prepare to be amazed by the most blatant ad for the Census I have ever seen.

The video was produced by a University of Michigan student for a university-sponsored contest. It won second place. In the clip, students gather numbers representing how many people live in their houses — one takes a big “4,” another a “5,” and so on. The students bring their numbers to a bureaucrat and pile them on his desk. He, in turn, pulls a humongous dollar sign out of a drawer and hands it to them. Words flash across the screen, informing viewers that they can “earn money and recognition” for their communities by participating in the Census.

You have to see it to believe it:

The Census Bureau has created a map that allows you to track Census mail participation rates, which the bureau defines as the percentage of forms mailed back from households that received them. When I read the map this morning, Missouri’s participation rate was 28 percent, well above the national rate of 16 percent. The map also lists areas with the highest participation rates so far; this morning, two small towns in Iowa were tied at 74 percent.

The map is colorful and easy to use. Still, I can’t help wondering why the Census Bureau displays this information so prominently. The Census isn’t a contest in which we try to beat other states. It doesn’t really matter which cities or counties are “ahead” in mailing back their forms.

Last week, I blogged about some advice a Parents as Teachers participant received from a program representative. She says she was told that she “needed” to read to her unborn child every day, and that it was important to read the exact same book each time. I criticized this advice as lacking a scientific basis; in addition, it’s liable to provoke anxiety or unrealistic expectations in parents.

This incident brings to mind a program that was introduced in Georgia back in 1998. The state distributed free classical music tapes and CDs to the parents of newborns, in hopes that listening to the music would stimulate babies’ cognitive development.

In both cases, public programs inappropriately extrapolated from scientific research to prescribe parenting behaviors. Babies can enjoy music — and psychologists have debated the existence of a “Mozart effect” — but that does not mean all babies need to listen to CDs for healthy development. Likewise, research shows that fetuses can detect sounds and that young brains learn from repetition, but that does not imply that reading one book every day will be beneficial. It’s worth noting that despite the research on repetition, repetitive exposure to Baby Einstein language videos has been shown not to help babies’ linguistic abilities. The manner of repetition makes a difference. It’s not sufficient for Parents as Teachers to point to studies about repetition in general; the program would have to show that this specific repetitive activity has a positive effect.

It’s been brought up in our comments section that Parents as Teachers might endorse other ways of interacting with fetuses. This could be true. Similarly, if pressed, Georgia’s governor might have been forced to admit that country music has as much chance of promoting development as classical music. But what matters is the advice that was actually conveyed by the program. When participants honestly come away from a class under the impression that they need to do one particular thing — and I have no reason to believe the blogger I linked to was trying to misrepresent Parents as Teachers or make it look bad — we should evaluate whether that activity is as important as the program claimed. If Parents as Teachers never intended to promote one activity over others, then the program needs to do a better job of communicating with parents so they don’t form erroneous conclusions.

Here’s an example of an admirable effort to improve public health without spending a dime of government money: On Jan. 1, Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett challenged the citizens of his city to lose 1 million pounds. As part of this initiative, residents can sign up on the mayor’s interactive website, “This City Is Going on a Diet,” which has recipes, exercise tips, and a place for people to track their weight loss, among other helpful tools.

This program caught my eye because the mayor was featured on Fitness magazine’s “Champions of Health & Fitness 2010″ list. As of January, 40,436 residents have lost a collective 519,460 pounds (the mayor himself lost 38 pounds). Restaurants have responded by creating low-cal offerings that they list as “the mayor’s special” on menus (no government mandates required). The best part is that the interactive website was entirely funded by contributors from the private sector. No taxes or bans on unhealthy foods were imposed, and no taxpayer money was spent. As I noted in my last post, the low level of government spending on public health in Missouri doesn’t necessarily have to result in hampering efforts to encourage our citizens to be healthier. Creative, fully voluntary ideas like this one should be encouraged and copied.

That would be a ban on red light cameras, which was recently proposed in the Missouri Senate. Although I am not a fan of most rules, I have no problem with the fair enforcement of effective traffic laws. The problem is that red light cameras are not effective in preventing accidents — quite the opposite — and only serve as revenue streams for the cities that install them.

A 2008 study published in the Florida Public Health Review surveyed the literature on red light cameras and found that they actually increased the number of accidents at red light intersections. Here are some of the study’s key findings:

• Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.

• Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras. Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say.

Langland-Orban said the findings have been known for some time. She cites a 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, reporting that red-light cameras are “a hidden tax levied on motorists.” The report concluded cameras are associated with increased crashes, the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running, and most research concluding cameras are effective was conducted by one researcher from the IIHS. Since then, studies independent of the automobile insurance industry continue to find cameras are associated with large increases in crashes.

In the two years since the study was published, there have been numerous reports of cities shortening the length of yellow lights at intersections, which leads to even more accidents, purely in the name of generating more revenue from tickets. If the evidence showed that red light cameras made the roads safer, I would not complain, but they simply encourage cash-strapped city governments to deliberately make them less safe, so they can rake in some much-needed revenue. That’s an unacceptable set of incentives, and Missouri should put a stop to it.

Full disclosure: I did just get a ticket from the city of Saint Louis for running a red light equipped with a camera. I didn’t actually run the light, but a rolling right turn is apparently also illegal.

The response to the Census Bureau’s YouTube clips has been mixed. Some videos attracted a lot of hits; others were basically ignored.

However, everything the Census Bureau put up on YouTube has been a wild success when compared with the embarrassing event in Jefferson City yesterday. I say “embarrassing” not because I’m scandalized that there were belly dancers there, but because almost no one showed up to watch them. My Two Census picked up the story as an example of ineffective Census promotion.

I actually feel bad for the belly dancers, who had to perform with little clothing on when the temperature was in the low 50s. The poor turnout couldn’t have helped their self-esteem much, either.

I have a better idea for promoting the Census: Promise that if enough people mail back their forms, the Census Bureau will post a clip on YouTube of its director belly dancing.

The Census Bureau has enlisted Dora the Explorer to spread its message that the Census counts babies and children. In a new video, Dora proclaims that counting small children on Census forms “helps us get important things in our town, like day care centers, schools, and more.”

Dora didn’t discover the connection between Census data and federal spending on her own. The Census Bureau is itself emphasizing the link between counting kids and spending:

“The adults among themselves sometimes forget the census is about everyone, and kids should be counted,” said Census Bureau director Robert Groves. “If we fail to count a newborn that is born this month, that newborn misses all the benefits of the census for 10 years.”

If you forget to count your newborn on this year’s form, does that mean your baby won’t get to attend a publicly funded daycare or school for the next decade? Obviously not. So, what “benefits of the Census” are the uncounted babies missing out on?

A judge refused to dismiss the state lawsuit against a family that was caught selling raw milk from its distribution stand in a parking lot. The state claims that it’s illegal for farmers to set up any raw milk pickup locations away from their farms.

In a Springfield News-Leader article, the assistant attorney general explains why selling milk “from a farm,” as state statute requires, should preclude off-site pickup spots:

“A farm is not anywhere defined in Missouri statutes as a vehicle in a parking lot away from the farm premises,” Blome argued.

Of course, no one would define a farm as a vehicle temporarily parked in a lot. But that isn’t a good definition of a food establishment, either — and the state, calling this family’s parked vehicle a food establishment, says it should be subject to the same regulations as a mini-mart or a grocery store.

If you can’t pick up raw milk from a farmer’s vehicle, what can you do with it? You can pick it up yourself at the farm. But suppose you drive your car to a parking lot, meet a friend there, and give him a gallon of the milk. Does your car now become a food establishment? Or maybe you bring your milk home, invite guests over, and serve them milk with dinner. Does your house turn into a restaurant?

This AP story is one of the most enjoyable articles about the Census I’ve ever read. It explores how residents of very small towns respond to inaccuracies in Census tallies.

Many reports about the Census (like the Springfield News-Leader article I wrote about) stress the connection between Census data and funding for government programs. They include quotes anticipating dire things if participation is low and funding falls short. From this point of view, the larger the total the Census Bureau arrives at for your area’s population, the better.

What sets the AP’s article apart is that the people quoted in it are focused on accuracy. Whether the Census records eight or nine residents in a town doesn’t change federal appropriations. The difference matters only to people who want the numbers to be exactly correct, for truth’s sake. One woman is actually quoted complaining that the Census Bureau states there are two residents in her town, when in fact she alone lives there. I haven’t seen any other calls for the Bureau to revise its numbers downward.

Rent seeking has been a major topic around here recently. I don’t need to provide links — if you’re reading this on the main page of the blog, you can just scroll down a bit for some excellent posts. Now we are going to do a little bit more rent seeking as a nation, by charging international visitors without visas (I guess this means residents of Windsor going to Detroit for a Red Wings game) a new $10 fee that will be used to market the United States internationally. Basically, it will be a national version of what just about every city (including St. Louis and [probably] Kansas City) does with hotel taxes: charge an extra fee and use it to promote the local travel industry. I think we can admit that there are plenty of worse examples of rent seeking than this, but it still entails private enterprise using the government and taxation in order to benefit one sector of the economy at someone else’s expense. (It makes it a lot easier to do this if the expense is borne by someone who does not live here.)

Now, I want to get into their numbers:

The association says the U.S. welcomed 2.4 million fewer overseas visitors last year than in 2000. And that, the group says, has cost it an estimated $509 billion in total spending and $32 billion in direct tax receipts.

We can presume that 2.4 million is for one year, and $509 billion is for 10 years. Taking 2.4 million a year for 10 years, and dividing that into the total spending amount, yields an average amount spent per visitor of just more than $21,000. This article states that the average spending per visitor is $4,500. I don’t think I believe the number put out with the bill signing, but the alternative would be to accuse the PR and lobbying group behind this effort of inflating their numbers. And we all know that would never happen. …

Now that Columbia permits residents to own chickens, it’s a good time for the city to look into the next trend in urban agriculture — miniature goats:

The Carbondale, Ill., Planning Commission was debating this month whether to allow residents to keep chickens when Priscilla Pimentel, a member of the city’s Sustainability Commission, added goats to the mix.

“If you can have a 250-pound dog in town, why not a miniature goat that can produce milk?” she says. “It’s just common sense.”

Miniature goats are about as big as medium-sized dogs, and can be led around on leashes. Like chickens, they’re domesticated animals that don’t threaten anyone. People should be allowed to own them in cities.

As the latest egregious example of economic illiteracy to come out of Washington, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) has proposed banning Japanese-made cars. This is a knee-jerk reaction that would be ineffectual at making American drivers safer, and would have many unintended negative consequences.

First, the ban wouldn’t even solve the problem, because all of the Toyotas that were recalled in January for malfunctioning gas pedals weren’t manufactured in Japan. They were manufactured in the United States:

As for banning Japanese-made vehicles: All 2.4 million Toyotas recalled Jan. 21 due to sticky gas pedals, and most of the 5.6 million vehicles recalled because floor mats might jam pedals, were assembled in the USA.

Would this ban have anything to do with the fact that the U.S. government has a large financial stake in GM, a major Toyota competitor?

Banning Toyotas would have many negative consequences. For example, the men and women who work in Toyota dealerships and Toyota manufacturing plants would have to join the ranks of the unemployed. This would have a noticeably negative effect in Missouri, which has a high-enough unemployment rate already — 9.6 percent as of December.

Banning foreign imports like Toyota would hurt consumers because it would limit their choice of cars. When free trade is restricted, a people can only consume what their country is able to produce. In an adapted excerpt from their book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Milton and Rose Friedman elucidated what this means to consumers:

We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.

The ban would also increase consumer prices on all cars by decreasing the total supply. Domestic car producers do not have the capacity to make up for the shortfall in the short run, which would aggravate this effect. In the aforementioned excerpt, Milton and Rose Friedman explained that “‘Protection’ really means exploiting the consumer” because she has to pay more for goods.

The ban would also decrease the quality of vehicles that are available to American consumers, which is the very problem that this policy is intended to alleviate. When a country attempts to protect certain industries, it removes their incentive to innovate in order to compete in the global market. By banning foreign imports such as Toyota, the United States would do the American car industry and American consumers no favors. GM and Ford have difficulty competing with foreign firms like Toyota and Honda in the status quo world economy because they have “benefited” from American protectionist policies on cars for so long. Furthermore, bans on foreign imports become even more disadvantageous in the future if/when the trade restriction is lifted, because domestic car companies would have lower-tech, lower-quality products than their foreign competitors.

Government intervention in international markets hurts business and discourages economic growth. When a country slaps protective measures on its trade policy, it is probable that other nations will retaliate in kind, leading to increased consumer prices. Impeding free trade is very dangerous policy when international economies are so intertwined. We only have to look to the recent past for evidence of this. Last September, Obama placed a 35-percent tariff on tire imports from China. This was effectively a tax on Americans who drive cars, who were predicted to experience a 20- to 30-percent increase in the cost of tires as a result of the policy. China responded the following Sunday in retaliation by placing its own tariffs on imports of American poultry and automobiles.

I have an alternative suggestion: Instead of banning foreign imports, each U.S. senator should complete a refresher course on macroeconomics before assuming office. Based on Sen. Johanns’ proposal, I see no evidence this the former secretary of agriculture ever took one in the first place.

Legislators in New Hampshire are debating whether to declare apple cider the official beverage of their state. As is often the case with proposed state symbols, the bill was submitted at the request of a group of elementary school students. Students at another school have lobbied for milk to receive the honor instead.

New Hampshire state representatives talk about the official beverage proposals as if naming these symbols actually accomplished something:

Rep. Leigh Webb of Franklin saw a problem with both drinks, saying, “Neither is unique to New Hampshire. [...] It will help agriculture, but I’m not sure this is the way to do it.”

This legislator implies that state symbols have the power to shape consumption patterns and improve health:

State Rep. Brian Poznanski, a Democrat from Nashua, reflected on his youth in supporting cider.

“In junior high and high school, I drank sugar and more sugar,” Poznanski said. “There’s a huge obesity problem in this country.”

The students’ teacher has a more realistic perspective on state symbols, and acknowledges that an official beverage probably won’t change people’s actions any more than the official recognition of state animals does:

“My students wanted cider to be a symbolic representation of New Hampshire because of autumn and farm stands,” Nichols said. [...]

“We have a white-tailed deer as our state animal, and I’m not sure what that does for the economy, but it’s symbolic because it’s here. That’s what the children were going for, not to exclude milk by any stretch of the imagination.”

It’s clear from her statement that some people already associate apple cider with the state of New Hampshire. Her students nominated it because they’ve seen apples growing and they’ve seen stands selling cider. Many other New Hampshire residents identify these familiar sights with their state.

People are justified in thinking of apple cider as symbolic of New Hampshire. But it’s a bad idea for New Hampshire to create a new state symbol recognizing it, for the same reasons I’ve opposed the proliferation of official symbols in Missouri. Long lists of state symbols encourage people to ask the government to sign off on their opinions and preferences. They give the impression that for a symbol to count, it needs a state imprimatur.

However, there is a positive aspect of state symbols that I’ve overlooked. When people watch their representatives argue about whether cider or milk should be the state beverage, they may conclude that legislators don’t share their priorities. This could prompt them to realize that if they want to get things done in their state, they’re better off finding solutions in the market. Elected representatives are often apt to shy away from making waves about the things that matter to their constituents and instead talk about less consequential things like official drinks. Maybe the official political fish should be the red herring!

This article describes neuroscience research that seeks to explain an observed correlation between breastfeeding and higher child IQ scores. What caught my eye was the fact that a Parents as Teachers program in North Carolina helps recruit subjects for the study. Here, a Parents as Teachers educator expresses her approval:

“It’s very interesting and has a lot of validity,” said Marcie Petty, an educator with Parents as Teachers whose office is in Cheatham’s lab. “It makes you think about what your children eat and what they’re taking in.”

Encouraging participation in medical studies goes beyond Parents as Teachers’ mission of promoting good parenting practices. It’s entirely possible to be conscious of what your children are eating without signing them up for research.

I see two problems with Parents as Teachers recruiting subjects for studies. First, parents may not understand the difference between enrolling in a study and the other activities that Parents as Teachers promotes. Playing and reading helps their children learn; research helps scientists do their jobs. Parents may feel pressured into joining studies that won’t benefit their children one way or the other. They also might feel guilty if they go against the educator’s recommendation to enroll their children in research.

Second, as you know if you’ve read the comments to my last post on breastfeeding, people disagree about the effects of breast milk. Some researchers think breastfeeding is crucial for children’s health; others dispute its importance. No one study can put this question to rest. If Parents as Teachers educators tell parents that a study is valid and that it’s a good idea to participate in it, that could be viewed as an endorsement of the study’s findings.

I’ve never heard of a Missouri Parents as Teachers program suggesting that children join research studies. And, although Parents as Teachers programs are connected by a national organization, they’re run individually by local people, so the fact that a program in another state did something is no indication that it will happen here. Still, people need to know about what the program does in other places, and to consider whether those aspects should be replicated in Missouri or avoided. Any publicly funded programs that go to people’s homes and endorse specific activities need to be closely scrutinized — and that includes Parents as Teachers.

Wisconsin is debating another proposal involving milk. The Wisconsin raw milk bill I wrote about yesterday would put Wisconsin’s policy ahead of Missouri’s, but on this issue, Missouri already guarantees its citizens greater freedom. The matter I’m referring to is breastfeeding in public.

Breastfeeding in public places is protected by Missouri law. In fact, you can print out your own “license” featuring a quote from the statute, and show it to anyone who challenges your right to breastfeed.

As many residents of Saint Louis are aware, there has been a coyote wandering through Tower Grove Park for more than a week. As someone who lives very close to the park, I demand the city of Saint Louis take swift and drastic action to drive the beast from our midst. The city should establish a Coyote Patrol, similar to the Bear Patrol created after a bear wandered into Springfield in The Simpsons episode “Much Apu about Nothing.” No expense should be spared to protect us from the solitary predator: We need round-the-clock surveillance of the park, and patrols of all nearby wooded areas to ensure that no more coyotes sneak in.

While some might say that the risk of coyote attack is still very low — negligible, even — and that therefore we shouldn’t spend lavish amounts of money guarding against it, I respond that the risk can’t be much lower than some other risks the government pours billions into thwarting. And when Tower Grove Park is once again free of coyotes, we will have the government’s Coyote Patrol to thank — just as Homer knew to credit the Bear Patrol for keeping bears out of Springfield:

An op-ed in the Daily Iowan refutes some arguments against urban chickens, including one I hadn’t heard before:

Bailey was quoted suggesting that urban chickens undermine local economies, saying, “We have a lot of small farmers around here making chickens and eggs available for sale. My fundamental question is: Why aren’t we supporting the regional economy?”

Here is the op-ed’s excellent response:

I would argue that urban chickens would in fact strengthen Iowa’s economy, especially when we consider unique and important businesses such as the McMurry Hatchery in Webster City, known nationally for its collection of rare chicken breeds. Likewise, I highly doubt Bailey would make such an argument when considering whether citizens ought to be allowed to have vegetable gardens.

City residents are also part of the economy, and they shouldn’t have to pass up opportunities to create value for themselves in order to protect people who are already farming. Transactions in which money changes hands aren’t the only economic activity that matters.

In fact, the freedom to raise your own chickens is an important check on the farmers’ power. When customers can build their own chicken coops, farmers aren’t able to overcharge them for eggs or sell lower-quality eggs than what the market demands. If farmers don’t offer acceptable price and quality, customers will walk away and raise chickens themselves.

A school district in Florida found itself on the Drudge Report after it used stimulus funds to buy iPods. The iPods, which the district will give to parents in exchange for completing a survey, cost $350,000.

That’s a small sum compared to the $1.25 million the Jennings School District spent on hand-held computers for students. Most of those computers ended up in storage. Jennings is now selling some of the devices for a fraction of what it paid, and it plans to distribute others to graduating students over the course of a few years.

It would be wiser for Jennings to emulate the Florida district and give away whatever computers it can’t sell, as soon as possible. If the district gives them all out at once, recipients may be able to find some use for them. If it waits to hand them out to graduates in a couple of years, they’ll be completely obsolete. By then, graduates won’t want to do anything with the computers — except maybe to display them with their caps and gowns as mementos.

There’s no need to attach a survey; just get rid of the devices. But if Jennings does give them to survey participants, I can imagine what a common response will be: “Stop wasting money on gadgets that students don’t use!”

Kansas City Prime Buzz links to a post about preregistering teenagers to vote. A bill introduced in the Kansas State Legislature would allow people as young as 14 to preregister.

In Missouri, you can register six months before your 18th birthday. That gives people plenty of time before they’re eligible to vote, so I don’t see a need for Missouri to adopt a new policy. Opening preregistration years early looks like another product of the mindset I discussed in my post about anti-obesity efforts — the notion that everything worth doing should be made easy by law.

The state should not make it unnecessarily difficult to register, or set up hurdles to prevent people from voting. However, asking people to wait until they’re almost old enough to vote before they register is not imposing a hardship on them. We do need laws to facilitate voter registration, but it’s OK if the process calls for a little bit of initiative on the part of voters.

We don’t allow 14-year-olds to sign up early for their driver licenses or concealed-carry permits. They wait until they’re old enough for the licenses and permits to matter to them. It’s reasonable for them to wait a few years before they register to vote, too.

A Parents as Teachers program in Alabama has started a “baby bucks” program to reward parents for what it considers to be appropriate decisions:

Parents of children up to age 36 months are eligible to earn “baby bucks” when they make good parenting choices, such as participation in child-development programs for family events.

Parents can also earn “baby bucks” through other actions, like signing up for WIC assistance or allowing Parents as Teachers into their homes. The “baby bucks” are redeemable for items such as diapers, toys, and clothes, which are donated to the Baby Bucks Boutique.

I spoke with a representative from the Alabama program who confirmed that “baby bucks” is open to all parents with children in the eligible age range. Although Parents as Teachers obviously can’t enroll wealthy families in WIC, parents at all income levels can earn “baby bucks” in various ways.

“Baby bucks” are not given only to families that couldn’t afford baby items on their own — kind of like the entire Parents As Teachers model, which isn’t means-tested. A program that starts out as free for all parents, so that it’s not a welfare program for the few, can turn into a welfare program for everyone.

I don’t know of any Parents as Teachers programs in Missouri that offer material incentives for participation and parenting decisions. But if you’re not enthusiastic about publicly funded programs giving out stuff in exchange for approved parenting behavior, keep in mind that this is a direction that Parents as Teachers can go.

Wherever you are in located in Missouri, there is probably a chapter of Liberty on the Rocks near you!

• Saint Louis: tomorrow at 6 p.m. at the Drunken Fish in the Central West End (1 Maryland Plaza, Saint Louis)
• Kansas City: tomorrow from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Coach’s (414 W. 103rd St., Kansas City)
• Columbia: next Thursday, Feb. 18, at The Heidelberg (410 South 9th St., Columbia)

Liberty on the Rocks is about connecting freedom lovers across the country — to encourage more education, more involvement, and a larger demand for liberty! Stop by for some good drinks and good discussion!

These events are not sponsored by the Show-Me Institute, but perhaps some of our blog readers would be interested in attending.

Also, thanks to the Missouri Record for the link!

My Two Census declares the Census Bureau’s marketing campaign a flop, based on data from its YouTube channel:

The Portrait of America video has just over 6,500 hits…which would sound pretty pathetic for a 10 month campaign if only it wasn’t revealed that the other six videos posted 10 months ago each received between 347 and 1,305 hits. In the series of videos posted 6 months ago, the most widely-watched video, about the address-canvassing operations, has been viewed a measly 1,083 times. (This means that only a tiny fraction of the workers involved in this process even watched the video…)

For comparison, 1,700,000 people watched Google’s Super Bowl ad on YouTube. And “How Many Times Must Our Health Care Fail,” the song I linked to in this post, has been viewed 3,700 times.

My Two Census’ numbers don’t reflect the Census Bureau’s full impact on YouTube, because they don’t take into account the separate channel that the Bureau created for its Super Bowl ad. The ad features an imaginary film director named Payton Schlewitt, and it can be found — along with other clips of Schlewitt’s antics — on the Payton Schlewitt channel. There, the numbers are better. The ad itself drew 117,300 hits within five days. Another video of Schlewitt and his cohorts, which highlights the fact that animals are not counted in the Census, is up to 1,400 hits, also after only a few days.

So, the numbers aren’t as bad as they would appear from the Census Bureau’s channel alone. Still, My Two Census has a point. Payton Schlewitt’s viewership pales next to Google’s. And, of the people who watched the Census ad, many reacted unfavorably. Viewers rated it a mediocre two-and-a-half stars, and several comments complain that taxes had to pay for it.

The USDA announces that the secretary of agriculture has appointed new members to the National Mango Board. I didn’t know we had a National Mango Board, although until today, I didn’t know about the popcorn, avocado, or watermelon boards, either. (There’s no board for raspberries yet, but the USDA is working on it.)

Why is the USDA involved in promoting individual fruits? Can’t the blueberry growers and the mushroom growers manage their own public relations?

These organizations belong in the private sector. The USDA should follow the precedent set by the state of Missouri and get rid of extraneous boards.

While we’re on the subject of produce, the National Watermelon Promotion Board links to this picture of a bus stop shaped like a watermelon. Check it out.