For 30 years, the city of Saint Louis has lagged behind its suburbs in economic growth. The city’s earnings tax drives businesses and residents out of Saint Louis and penalizes workers who remain in the city. Repealing the earnings tax will attract economic development and generate greater revenue for the city.
Governor Blunt is to be commended for his focus on accountability and student instruction. But dictating how schools spend their money is the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on accountability to the state, he should be supporting school choice, which makes schools accountable to their customers: parents.
Some activists are demanding that the government force the cable industry to offer its television channels “a la carte.” That may sound good in theory, but in practice it’s a bad deal for consumers. Customers’ bills aren’t likely to go down very much, but they’ll get a lot fewer channels for their money.
The passage of Referendum C last month in Colorado has editorial boards swooning. Colorado voters had "good reason" to suspend their state’s revenue limit, cheered the St. Louis Post-Dispatch while the New York Times proclaimed that "Colorado Got Its Government Back." In their eyes, the victory of Referendum C proves that Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) was a failure and cripples efforts to enact similar proposals in other states. However, these editorial boards greatly overstate their case. An honest appraisal of the past 13 years shows that TABOR was a success in Colorado and that similar limits have a bright future in Missouri and across the country.
Municipalities currently have the power to regulate cable TV service in their community through the use of franchise agreements. Increasing competition has made that system unnecessary, and, ironically, it has become a major impediment to competition. Missouri should follow the lead of Texas and replace it with a streamlined, state-wide franchise system.
We teach our kids that however much we may hate losing, that doesn't make it ok to lash out at the other team or at officials. Rep. Jeffrey Roorda (D-Barnhart), it seems, never learned that lesson. He blames the Cardinals' loss on bad decisions by the umpires, and he's decided to express his frustration through legislation. He wants to extend the state's athletes and entertainers tax--some call it the "jock tax"--which levies taxes on out-of-state athletes who play away games in Missouri, to include the umpires as well. His proposal isn't just bad sportsmanship, it's bad public policy too.
Here we go again. In a bitter 6-4 vote, before a standing-room-only crowd, the Kansas Board of Education adopted new curriculum standards last week that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Whatever one thinks of the theory of evolution, there's a larger issue at stake. The dispute in Kansas isn't ultimately about the merits of the theory of evolution, or whether all the alternatives are, as opponents argue, based on religious faith. The bigger fight is about who gets to impose their beliefs on whom. It's just the latest symptom of a deeper illness that necessarily afflicts a school system where all the educational decisions are made by government bureaucrats.
Missouri's asset forfeiture laws avoid a conflict of interest by prohibiting law enforcement officials from keeping forfeiture profits. Instead, the money is dedicated to a public education fund. And under Missouri law, seized property cannot be auctioned off until its owner has been convicted of a crime. But some law enforcement officials don't like those sensible safeguards for property rights.
It's true that the McRee Town was in distress. Some buildings had problems so serious that condemnation and demolition was the only option. But the use of eminent domain to seize and demolish entire city blocks was unfair, unnecessary, and wasteful. It destroyed badly needed affordable housing and uprooted dozens of poor people, most of whom were forced to start over in another bad neighborhood. A better renovation plan for McRee Town would have focused on helping those already living and working in the neighborhood by expanding the stock of affordable housing.