This policy study undertakes a broad review of Missouri’s state and local governmental structure, as viewed from the perspective of public choice economics. It applies various economic theories, as well as insights from the broader world of political science, to Missouri’s present system of government and politics. Throughout the study, the term “government” refers to the exact bodies and officials that compose it, rather than to more theoretical ideas regarding the role it should have in our lives. In order to facilitate an analysis of Missouri government, this study first provides a detailed outline of how the state’s many government units are structured, including legislative bodies and elected officials at the state, county, township, and municipal levels. It then compares Missouri’s governments to those of other states, counties, and cities — particularly in Pennsylvania. This study particularly focuses on the theories of public choice economics, a branch that studies the institutional incentives of government and politics. The analysis considers several prevailing public choice theories and gauges their applicability to the specific cases present in Missouri: whether larger legislatures lead to increased spending; whether at-large legislative bodies spend less than districted bodies; and, whether a given jurisdiction can have both too many and too few elected officials. The resulting data is compared to observed spending levels within Missouri governments. This study’s findings include proof of the economies of scale that occur when measuring spending within smaller Missouri counties. They also describe the lack of any hard proof of relative overspending in the city of Saint Louis, despite strong theoretical indications that such proof might be found. The author concludes the study with recommendations for ways to improve the quality and efficiency of government in Missouri.

Related Links

The post Government in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Check out our new Google map of the Saint Louis metropolitan area. It provides our visitors with the ability to interactively look up the academic rankings for their school and school district on a map, and compare those rankings to other schools nearby. Thinking about moving this summer? See how your new school compares with "Show-Me: The Grades." And, while you’re there, be sure to check out how your taxes might change, too.

We plan to expand this map to cover the entire state, so please feel free to send us your thoughts on how we can make it more useful for you.

The post Be Sure to Check This Out appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In our recent ethanol case study, Dave Stokes and I argued that the E-10 savings projections reported in the Missouri Corn Merchandising Council’s study were wrong partly because they failed to address the fuel efficiency decrease of ethanol-blended fuel that had been noted in numerous scientific studies, including one by the Environmental Protection Agency.

So, I’ve been curious to see how much the E-10 mandate has affected my car’s individual performance. After filling up my car this morning, I looked through my fuel log and made a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the difference in fuel efficiency this year.

My car has a 13-gallon tank, but I typically fill up about 12 gallons on average. In 2007, my car averaged 308 miles between fill-ups (25.67 miles/gallon). This year, my car has averaged 281 miles between fill-ups (23.42 miles/gallon). That’s a drop in fuel efficiency of 8.77 percent.

Now, admittedly, this is a little bit of an ad hoc calculation and other variables clearly impacted my car’s gas mileage. But Missouri’s E-10 mandate has obviously played some role.

So, how much has the drop in fuel efficiency cost me? Let’s say I fill up my car twice a month (24 gallons). With $4-per-gallon gas, the 8.77 percent drop in fuel efficiency will cost me nearly $100 this year.

So much for E-10 savings.

The post Nerdiness Is Next to Godliness appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri now becomes the 38th state to legalize the use of a midwife, certified by a private entity.

In the Post-Dispatch’s coverage, the state’s medical lobby provided a statement:

Tom Holloway, who lobbies for the Missouri State Medical Association, said the new law jeopardizes public safety because it allows midwives to "provide unlimited services related to pregnancy: C-sections, drugs, epidural anesthetic, even abortions, without any state regulation or oversight."

This clearly misses the point. The state’s oversight and regulations haven’t changed. Any expectant mother can still choose to use an “approved” nurse/doctor and receive the same care as always. But they don’t have too. And that is the point.

The post Midwifery Legal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well this is pretty vague. But more importantly, it’s really silly.

The incentive for alternative fuel technology already exists, and the first person to develop and market a practical alternative to the standard combustion engine will be rewarded much more than a mere $300 million. McCain argues that this would amount to about one dollar per U.S. citizen, and is "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency." I, personally, would be willing to pay a lot more than $1 for a practical alternative to fossil fuels. But no politician has the right to make that decision for me (or for any other taxpayer). The government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding good and bad business ideas. We already have a pretty good system in place to do just that.

The post Just Plain Old Silly appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’ve written an op-ed about nursing home regulations before. In that article, I argued that nursing home abuses are very much a reality, but that additional regulation will only make long-term care coverage worse. Saint Louis currently enjoys having the second-lowest nursing home costs in the country, averaging $42,877 annually. Nationally, the average annual figure is $65,200, with costs as high as $191,385 in some states. This is a tremendous bill to foot for 10 or 15 years of potential care.

It’s very obvious why nursing homes require an arbitration clause. They are charged with ensuring the safety of residents who often are suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s and may be largely a danger to themselves. The costs of litigating every potential event (whether or not it results from negligence by the nursing home) would be prohibitive, and would force many nursing homes out of business — only driving up the costs of long-term care.

This doesn’t mean that we should exonerate negligent health care workers. Many nursing home contracts are already in violation of existing laws. We should concentrate first on enforcing the laws on the books before driving up costs to the industry with little guarantee of improvement in service.

The post Enforce the Existing Laws First appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Shocking. You know who else stands to benefit? Me, probably you, and just about everyone else.

Who actually owns AB? The Busch family? Its employees? The city of St. Louis?

Let’s take a quick look at AB’s latest financial statements. The largest individual shareholder of Anheuser-Busch (owning about 5 percent of total shares) is Warren Buffet. Well, he’s from Nebraska, so obviously he’s an outsider. But what about institutional investors? Well, a British conglomerate owns about 6 percent. And Mr. August Busch? A whopping 0.2 percent (though I believe he has about 4 percent of the voting power)!

And you know who else owns AB? Me, along with several hundred thousand of my closest friends at Vanguard. And probably Barack Obama, Francis Slay, and Matt Blunt, too.

Saint Louis has no “right” to AB when only one percent of the entire company is owned by AB insiders. And more than that, how do Missouri governmental officials have a right to have any say in a shareholder decision whatsoever?

One comment in the Post-Dispatch article is particularly misguided:

[H]ow ridiculous to say that Barack Obama wants the brewery to remain American while Republicans want it to go. Hello!?! Republican (Ex Chief of Staff to Matt Blunt) Ed Martin is behind the “SaveAB.com” along with SEVERAL other Republican operatives.

I don’t see all of these Democrats in the city doing much to stop the deal.

As well they shouldn’t, because it’s none of their business. This is a decision for the 99 percent of the company owned by outside investors. That’s how a free-market economy works. As voting shareholders, we can each choose to vote however we please. But what we cannot do is ask our government to step in and force a decision on our behalf. There is nothing less American than that.

The post More Lunacy Regarding Anheuser-Busch appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is good news for Missouri’s urban areas, which have made important strides in improving livability over the past several years.

But the article fails to address a third demographic noticeably left out of the equation. What about the 30- and 40-somethings raising young families? Why aren’t they moving into the cities?

We all know why. It’s the schools. And this is still the big elephant in the room regarding why cities remain less desirable than suburbs for many parents.

The article also attributes much of the recent urban growth to "New Urbanism" and the trend toward light-rail commuter trains. While I love commuter trains (particularly in cities where they work), research suggests that they do little to spur urban growth. Most cities (unless they have an extremely dense urban center) would be better off expanding existing bus lines (which we discussed in our review of Kansas City’s light-rail proposal) — but I guess buses aren’t as “sexy” as trains. 

It’s a shame that the Journal fails to understand this.

But at least one thing is true. Economic incentives always correct market imbalances. Think about it. Is it government fiat that is changing Americans’ attitudes toward public transportation and energy policy, or is it the market’s forces at work?

It’s a shame that environmentalists fail to understand this.

The post It’s the Economy, Stupid appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“I was very upfront,” McCaskill said of her discussion with [InBev’s CEO Carlos] Brito. After offering him a Budweiser and sipping one herself, she told him she would “do everything I could to stop this sale from going through … It’s a bad idea. I don’t want you to buy it. The people of Missouri don’t want you to buy it.”

Politicians never seem to understand how capitalism works. The InBev deal is not the government’s decision or the people of Missouri’s decision. It is the decision of the shareholders of Anheuser-Busch. If shareholders reject the InBev deal, AB stock will plummet. But that is the shareholders’ decision, not ours.

More from the article:

Speaking to reporters after, McCaskill blasted the proposal as a “premium profit for hedge fund investors” and said A-B is a strong company that has provided thousands of good middle class American jobs.

Anheuser-Busch displaced thousands of good middle class American jobs last year when it bought out Pennsylvania’s Rolling Rock. And despite a website that looks very familiar to another local website, there was no outcry (or even a tear) from Missouri public officials.

“We do not have a ?For Sale’ sign on our front lawn in America,” she said.

Well, then maybe the government shouldn’t have gotten to the point where the American people owe $9.2 trillion dollars (of which about a third was accumulated under President Clinton, and another third under President Bush). If I owed trillions of dollars in debt, I might have to sell off a few possessions, too.

The Post-Dispatch (surprisingly) ran a pretty good reality check on the AB deal. And yours truly did, too.

The post This Bud’s for Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri is one of only three states that require a 10-percent minimum ethanol blend (E-10) for retail gasoline sold within the state. The Missouri Corn Merchandising Council (MCMC) recently released a study purporting to demonstrate the positive economic benefits of the state’s ethanol mandate for Missouri consumers. The study claimed that Missourians will save more than $285 million through ethanol-induced fuel cost reductions in 2008 and nearly $2 billion in present value during the following decade. The MCMC study ignores important effects of the E-10 mandate, however, most notably the documented decrease in fuel efficiency of E-10 blended fuel and the taxpayer cost of ethanol subsidies. We find that accounting for these costs significantly impacts the MCMC savings projections and would result in a net loss to Missouri consumers of almost $1 billion during the next decade. If one were to consider the additional impact of the E-10 mandate on higher food prices and CO₂ gas emissions, these costs would be even higher.

[NOTE: An earlier draft of this case study incorrectly referred to the Missouri Corn Merchandising Council (MCMC) as the Missouri Corn Merchandising Association (MCMA). The Missouri Corn Growers Association and the Missouri Corn Merchandising Council were both mentioned in the press release that announced the council’s recently commissioned study of ethanol costs, and our error involved inadvertently combining the names of both organizations, which share the same website. We have corrected all instances of this error within the case study, and are confident that the data used therein is accurate.]

Related Links

The post The Economic Impact of the Missouri E-10 Ethanol Mandate appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The institutional criticism stated by these editorials was that school rankings in general are a "crude tool for measuring [school] improvement" and that the Show-Me Institute’s ranking methodology was "overly simplistic."

As the creator of "Show-Me: The Grades," I understand these criticisms, but that doesn’t mean that our rankings are meaningless or uninformative. A cursory glance of the schools and districts appearing at the top and bottom of our lists confirms anecdotal opinions about many of the state’s best-performing and worst-performing public school systems. And the "report card generator" application is a great tool for graphically comparing test scores by school, district, and state averages. The state should have created such an application for parents and teachers to use years ago.

I would also like to reiterate that the rankings used in "Show-Me: The Grades" are computed by using the state’s own data, which is reported somewhat ambiguously in the news coverage. So any criticism of the MAP index score methodology must ultimately be a criticism of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, rather than the Show-Me Institute’s "agenda." There will always be critics of ranking systems, regardless of methodology. For example, had the Show-Me Institute included No Child Left Behind (NCLB) data instead of MAP scores, critics of NCLB would point out that such performance numbers are suspect and easy to distort. In fact, in a congressional review of NCLB, Missouri admitted as much, stating that officials had actually lowered academic standards in order to "game the system" and report significant academic improvement. And may I remind Missourians of the problems inherent in even the most scientific of rankings.

The Show-Me Institute has not taken a particular position on the quality of Missouri’s public school system based on MAP index rankings. But, in the interest of public transparency, we wanted to make this data readily available to the public. We believe we have done this, and that "Show-Me: The Grades" is ultimately a tool to help Missourians make informed choices. Some parents will value standardized test scores more than others. If parents are happy with the educations their children are receiving at a particular public school, then we are happy too.

As I stated in my interview with the Joplin Globe, this is really about giving parents a greater choice in finding schools that meet their children’s needs:

"If a parent finds from this ranking that their school is not meeting their children’s needs, then why force them to remain in substandard schools?" Hauke said. "But if a parent is happy with where their children are going and that the teachers and staff are doing a good job, by all means it’s a good school."

Isn’t that what education should really be about?

The post Show-Me: The Grades appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“Americans don’t want the Statue of Liberty bought by the Saudis or the Washington Monument purchased by the Chinese. Shareholders should resist choosing dollars over American jobs. Selling out to the Belgians is not worth it ? because this is about more than beer: it’s about our jobs and our nation.”

While I certainly appreciate the sentiment and nostalgia surrounding the Anheuser-Busch drama, I cannot agree with the author’s logic. The InBev bid is a perfect example of what capitalism is all about — the migration of capital to the places where it can be used most productively. It is this free flow of capital that has powered the U.S. economy since its inception.

For example, during the past decade Toyota has created 36,632 new American jobs. Is Toyota destroying U.S. culture? No. It has been fundamental in fueling innovation in the automobile industry and ensuring that those 30-some-odd thousand families have a home to live in and food on their plates, and are able to contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy. In fact, there are currently more than 5.1 million Americans (4.4 percent of the entire labor force) employed by non-U.S. companies. If we deny Anheuser-Busch shareholders the right to choose whether to accept InBev’s bid, what are we saying about the long-term prospects of millions of Americans’ jobs?

Moreover, if foreign investment is such an “affront to democracy,” then why is the Missouri legislature paying Bombardier Aerospace (a Canadian airplane manufacturer) millions (of taxpayer money, no less!) to build a factory in Kansas City? If we rely on nationalistic sentiment, shouldn’t we demand that those jobs remain in Toronto? Or shouldn’t we demand that Anheuser-Busch bring back the jobs of the nearly 24,000 people it employs outside of the Saint Louis area? If we were to follow this kind of protectionist sentiment to its logical extreme, we would simply revert back to an economy of sustenance farmers, completely dependent upon our local economies for our entire means of production.

How “American” is that?

The post Ice-Cold Beer in a Red, White, and Blue Label appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What would be the effects?

Well, first of all, gas prices would be higher, not lower. Demand for gasoline is inelastic, at least in the short run. Gas station owners are already squeezing out a mere two cents in profit per gallon of gasoline sold. Therefore, with no real retail markup, the higher wholesale gasoline costs incurred by distributors would have to fall on consumers at the pump in order for the retailers to break even. So we’re worse off here. If you like paying $4.00 per gallon, how about if we add another 20 cents or so to that?

And which investors will pay for the tax — the rich or the broad middle class? Robert Shapiro, President Clinton’s former undersecretary of commerce, argues that ownership of industry shares is "broadly middle-class," with the majority represented by institutional investments in mutual funds, pension funds, and individual retirement accounts that are held on behalf of millions of ordinary Americans. This coincides with my previous post about energy investors and who benefits from oil profits.

And, lastly, the early 1980s experiment with a windfall profits tax suggests that tax revenues would be significantly lower than expected. When Congress passed the windfall profit tax in 1980, the Congressional Budget Office projected that it would raise $393 billion in tax revenues. According to Congressional Research Services, it only raised $80 billion. That would be enough revenue to run the government for about 10 days, based on the 2008 fiscal budget.

Remember, gas prices are about three times as high in Germany and other European countries, where combined excise taxes, fuel taxes, windfall profits taxes, and VAT taxes are passed on by oil companies to the consumers. Oh, and if you factor in the exchange rate, they’re about 4.5 times higher.

So why are we debating this, again?

The post Populist Pontificating appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

His devastated parents petitioned the General Assembly to regulate the state’s water parks to make them safer, in order to help prevent future tragedies like the one that led to their son’s death. On Friday, the governor signed HB 1341 (popularly known as “Ethan’s Law”), which requires private, for-profit water parks to maintain liability insurance of at least $1 million in the event of an injury or the death of a patron. The sponsor of this legislation, during the governor’s prepared remarks, declared that “hopefully [this bill] will prevent other such tragedies around Missouri.”

Will it? Water parks have existed for more than 100 years in Missouri, so why wait until 2008 to pass this legislation if it’s so integral to their patrons’ safety? I certainly sympathize with the Cory family, but the state’s reaction is once again inappropriate. If the water park was negligent, the Cory family is entitled to a huge settlement. But bringing in the government to punish every other water park is not the answer.

Which is the greater incentive to carry liability insurance: a government mandate, or the risk of losing your entire business in a lawsuit in the event that negligence or faulty equipment results in an accident? Legislators forget the law of unintended consequences. Why set the liability level at $1 million? Why not $10 million? Or why not let the individual businesses decide what level of insurance they need? If we set it too high, do we needlessly destroy small businesses and neighborhood pools, and put people out of work?

This type of legislation is well-intentioned, but ultimately irresponsible. It justifies more government intrusion in our lives without doing anything to protect customers or to make them any safer. And now we have two more people (the owners of the Swimmin’ Hole) eligible for welfare.

The post Misguided appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While I’ll leave the details of our case study to the release, suffice it to say that the MCMC study ignores important E-10 cost factors, such as the EPA-documented decrease in fuel efficiency and the cost of taxpayer subsidies. When David Stokes and I recomputed the numbers with these costs in mind, we found that the E-10 mandate will actually cost Missourians nearly $1 billion during the next decade instead of saving them $2 billion.

But today’s agricultural news highlights an even more important point about ethanol usage. Today, corn futures prices surpassed their all-time high in trading on the Chicago Board of Trade. Bloomberg lists the causes for this increase in food prices (emphasis added):

[Agricultural prices] have gained 60 percent in a year, fueled by [demand], market speculation and the push to grow corn for ethanol.

Indeed. It’s not just higher grocery store prices that Missourians can look forward to, though, but a higher tax bill as well. The governor recently released his 2008 fiscal year budget summary, which — despite the governor’s conviction to implement “a balanced budget that does not rely on excessive, job-killing revenues” — contains the following important line item:

$6.4 million increased funding to support an expected seven ethanol plants and $28.5 million to support an estimated nine biodiesel plants. Total funding for Missouri ethanol producers will be $15 million and total funding for Missouri biodiesel producers will be $33.8 million.

Well, right there is an easy $50 million we could save each year in order to sustain the governor’s commitment to a budget that "does not rely on excessive, job-killing revenues.” Oh, and this doesn’t include the $0.51-per-gallon federal ethanol subsidy, either.

Take a look at the personal income figures reported in the governor’s own budget summary, comparing Missouri income growth to that of the United States as a whole during the past three years:

Why is Missouri income growth below the national average? Could it be that excessive taxes and wasteful spending are hurting Missourians more than the government admits? Is the E-10 mandate really going to “save” Missourians money? Or is this just another example of corporate welfare, redistributing wealth from one taxpayer to another?

My bet’s on the latter.

The post Ethanol Mandates: A Total Clusterharvest appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I think this is a great idea, and one that worked very well in the Los Angeles area during the height of gang violence in the early 1990s (when my burgeoning love of rap music was beginning).

Of course, I take issue with the arguments in his other post. There is a difference between protectionism (like occupational licensing laws) and laws that lower information costs and help ensure that a market system can exist (such as, for one specific example, accounting regulations). This doesn’t mean we can’t challenge these regulations or strive to constantly find better solutions to the way in which we organize society. I certainly would support that.

But here’s my objection to the Village Law (and to Dave’s argument in general). A very wealthy and politically connected individual wants to incorporate his own village to get around zoning laws and build a casino. In Dave’s world, his poor and politically naïve neighbors can simply take him court to reclaim the damage to their property from this new development because I’m sure everyone has the resources and time to fight a long, drawn-out legal battle against a team of high-priced lawyers working for the casino development during the next 10 to 15 years.

Sorry Dave, but I don’t see that happening. Not even in libertarian paradise.

The post A Great Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dr. Pakko’s research on smoking bans has played an influential role in the Michigan legislature as the state considers a statewide smoking ban. We applaud his research and the impact it has had in demonstrating how government interference adversely affects economic growth and public welfare.

The Michigan Messenger does a disservice to its readers and to the public debate in general by attempting to defraud the merits of the study by attacking the author’s "affiliations." (The Michigan Messenger argues that Dr. Pakko’s findings are driven by ties to "big tobacco" donors.)

Because Dr. Pakko is (marginally) affiliated with the Show-Me Institute, and because we received a grant from the Cato Institute, which has itself received donations from tobacco companies, the author argues that somehow these six degrees of separation are biasing Dr. Pakko’s results.

First of all, the Show-Me Institute stands behind Dr. Pakko and his research on public smoking bans throughout the state. As a former employee of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, I can personally attest to the quality and objectivity of his research.

But, more importantly, the accusation is completely baseless. Dr. Pakko has never received any funding from the Show-Me Institute for any current or previous research (or any other service). The articles in question were published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis completely independently from the Show-Me Institute. Neither the Federal Reserve nor the Show-Me Institute accept "contract work," and any donation the Show-Me Institute has received that could somehow be connected indirectly to tobacco firms has no bearing on our research topics or their conclusions. In fact, our non-profit charter as a "public charity" explicitly prevents us from engaging in any policy work with a specific donor-driven agenda.

Again, I just want to reiterate that the Show-Me Institute is a "free-market think tank" — not a "libertarian think tank" or a "conservative think tank" — and that we do not support, endorse, or promote any political party or specific public policy agenda or legislation.

But you guys already knew that.

The post Bias in the Media appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A new Walgreens development in Creve Coeur has attempted to exploit a loophole in Creve Coeur building restrictions that stipulate a 25-foot buffer between commercial and residential properties. Because the new Walgreens development lies adjacent to parts of unincorporated West County, the council argues that the rule is irrelevant because the affected properties are outside the Creve Coeur city limits (so they can basically build on their front lawn).

Despite what some staff members might say, there is a difference between responsible zoning regulations and statist rule. Some libertarians would argue that zoning laws are unnecessary, and that any damage done to an individual’s property value by a neighbor’s property use decisions could be recovered in court.

As much of a lawyer’s paradise as that might be, I find it hard to believe that the court system could support (objectively) competing claims about the damage to property from aesthetic changes. In other words, if I build a life-size AT-AT walker on my front lawn (which, believe me, would be awesome), my neighbors might object. But who are they to claim that I’ve “damaged their property value?” It might be worth a whole lot more now to someone like this guy.

And surely there are third-party “owners” who are adversely affected by a lack of zoning protection. What about the bank that services the affected Creve Coeur home mortgages? Don’t they have a real interest in the value of the property? If Walgreens builds right next to a house whose value suddenly plummets and the owners fall into foreclosure, the bank holding the (now worthless) title takes a hit. Can they sue Walgreens? Who’s to decide whether or not it was the Walgreens development that affected the property value?

In fact, I would argue that zoning laws actually help clear the market, enabling people to invest resources in a property with some faith that their home won’t suddenly plummet in value because a neighbor begins to run a strip club out of their basement. I don’t pretend to believe that zoning laws are a “good thing” or even the best way to organize society, but my feeling is that even if a libertarian paradise is ideal, we should take baby steps in order to achieve it. Plummeting into anarchy is not going to make anyone “freer.” And if you don’t like the zoning laws in your area, move to somewhere where they don’t really exist.

So, no, I can’t support the Village Law. I agree with David Stokes.

The post Two Posts With One Stone appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In response to the reader comments that claim that the information in our letter was misleading, that was exactly our point. Just as it is misleading to quote payday lending rates in annualized terms (when most loans are paid off in just 14 days), so too it would be misleading to quote library late fees in annualized terms (when late fees are only $0.10 per day after 30 days).

In short, we believe that individuals — not the government — should dictate the terms at which people voluntarily choose to contract with one another.

The post “There Are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But, apparently, that’s not enough. Amtrak notified MoDOT today that it faces a $400,000 budget shortfall, despite a $600,000 funding increase from last year.

I know nothing about railroad operations (unless you consider reading this to be a definitive guide), but it seems to me that if Amtrak ridership is declining while the profitability of freight transport is increasing, perhaps Amtrak might consider reducing the number of daily departures (currently four, about the same as the number of Southwest Airlines flights) and devoting that track time to freight lines.

Or Missourians can continue to contribute close to $15 million in scarce transportation revenue each year to support the running of empty trains (with snack bars!).

The post Derailed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.