I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that the governor probably has a better understanding of the state budget than the Post-Dispatch editorial board does. To me, it appears that he does an excellent job of explaining the budget and what the numbers actually mean. Particularly, he is right to point out that using 2001 as a base year to explain K–12 education funding is extremely misleading. As most Missourians are aware, former Gov. Bob Holden had just come into office in 2001 — which has nothing to do with current funding for education. Gov. Blunt goes on to explain that since he came in to office, K-12 education funding has actually increased by 17.2 percent.

In this editorial war of words, the Post-Dispatch fired the first shot — but the governor stood his ground and fired right back, explaining the state budget in-depth and providing a level of analysis that the Post-Dispatch was lacking. In my humble opinion, I think Gov. Blunt deserves some credit for what he has been able to do with the the state budget during the past four years. Some people may not agree with me, but, hey — that’s all right. At least people are talking about the budget.

The post Battling the Budget Backlash appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a lifelong resident of Washington, I have taken particular interest in the unspooling of this whole ordeal. Long before anyone even knew about the village law, this issue was hotly debated in Washington. Although I live across town from the property in question, I have spent a considerable amount of time near the proposed development (family-owned property) — at least enough to offer some insight, hopefully.

In a general sense, I am in the camp that landowners should be able to do with their land as they please — with some exceptions. I do believe that there should be some “soft” planning and zoning laws on the books, to ensure that surrounding landowners are not adversely affected by the actions of their neighbor. For this reason, I am opposed to the village law as a way to completely get around the system and do with your land as you wish. However, I do think that — as a happy medium — some planning and zoning laws do need to be toned down a bit, and not represent the be-all-end-all of property usage. To me, it appears that the village law was a potentially dangerous and extreme way to make a compromise between land owners and planning and zoning commissions.

To illustrate my point above, I believe that a perfect example can be found in Mr. Ferguson’s hard-fought battle to develop a subdivision, against the wishes of the planning and zoning commission. The commission cited traffic safety as a major reason for not allowing the proposed development. Whether or not this concern was legitimate doesn’t really matter here — the subdivision request was denied.

Under the soon-to-expire village law, one form of recourse would be to petition to incorporate the land as a village, and build the subdivision anyway. This may seem like a good alternative, but the village law could also produce very bad results. For example, if someone wanted to building a shooting range in their backyard, in the middle of a subdivision, they could declare their property a village, vote on it, accept it, and build a shooting range. Although the neighbors could try to protect their safety by taking the matter to court after the fact, that course of action isn’t particularly comforting if a bunch of gun-wielding four-year olds are running around the neighborhood in the meantime.

Planning and zoning laws exist for a good reason. These laws are in place to ensure that complete chaos does not erupt. Are some of these laws arbitrary and overbearing? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we would be better-served by a free-for-all, where people exercise their Second Amendment rights in the stomping grounds of suburbia.

The post Compromise Is Key appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The validity of these types of tax holidays has long been debated on this blog, with both sides offering convincing arguments. Personally, I don’t mind the tax holidays. I don’t like taxes in any form, and any time I can get rid of them, I am happy. I know some people will take a more complicated viewpoint that the tax holiday is just distorting regular consumer behavior, and I agree, but I just don’t mind it happening this weekend. The net effects, one way or another, will probably be so minuscule that there will be no real impact on the economy.

Of course, I would favor lower taxes year-round, but for now, I will take what I can get. This argument has sparked uproar in the office, and I suspect several related blog posts will follow this one. I realize that this sales tax holiday is really nothing more than a gimmick conjured up by legislatures, and I guess they found a sucker.

The post Tax Holidays: Love ‘Em, Hate ‘Em? You Decide! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The past week was an awesome experience. For those of you who don’t know, my fellow intern Dan Grana and I were Bastiat scholars at Cato University, which is a weeklong seminar organized by the Cato Institute that focuses on enhancing freedom and liberty through lectures and discussions. It is a great experience, and I recommend it to any libertarian — or anyone who is just generally interested in promoting freedom. Although the days were somewhat long (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.), it was completely worth it. The days were filled with incredible speakers, ranging from Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute to Rejoice Ngwenya, who is a leader against Zimbabwe’s corrupt president, Robert Mugabe. Even after the daily lectures were finished, the conversation continued. We spent most nights at the Veranda Grill discussing liberty and other issues with like-minded individuals.

The entire week was a first-class experience. The food and hotel were awesome, and the speakers were even better. Before I arrived in San Diego, I was a little apprehensive about the trip. I was worried that the speakers would not be entertaining, or the days would be too long, but it turned out that my notions were unwarranted. Again, if anyone ever has the opportunity to go to Cato University, I highly recommend it. I’m even thinking about going again next year.

The post Cato U appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today’s Kansas City Star has an editorial (link via Combest) discussing Missouri’s judicial selection process. Luckily for us, some think tank in Missouri has already issued a study about the judicial selection process and its superiority to other forms of judicial selection.

The post You’re the Best … Around appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hulshof called the public private partnership idea (also known as some type of toll road) intriguing. “Imagine a parallel truck lane along Interstate 44 with just truck traffic that’s built with private funds,” Hulshof asked attendees during his hour session with the Chamber.

Here at the Show-Me Institute, we couldn’t be happier. David Stokes, an expert of sorts on public-private partnerships, has been advocating this type of solution for a long time, and recently gave a presentation in Mexico, Mo., discussing alternative ways to fund and fix the state’s roads. His policy study highlights the benefits of this type of partnership, and outlines the ways in which it can alleviate MoDOT’s budget problems. Although Hulshof stopped short of advocating public-private partnerships, it is good to hear that the idea is at least garnering some discussion.

The post Public-Private Partnerships, Please appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the last two summers, Saturday has proved to be the most dangerous day of the week in the area. Every Saturday, an average of eight to nine violent crimes were reported. But this May, Sundays were the most violent day of the week there, with an average of about 11 violent crimes.

Normally, I would be against city ordinances restricting seemingly harmless activities such as cruising, but — assuming that there really are legitimate safety concerns — I have to side with the city. Granted, I’ve never before thought of cruising as a real threat to safety, so I am taking their word for it in this particular case. As much as it pains me to agree with limiting the activities of individuals, as soon as they infringe upon the safety of others, it is no longer their right to continue that specific activity.

Also, by congregating in large masses, these cruisers have made it almost impossible for other city dwellers to enjoy the benefits of Fairgrounds Park:

Antionette Bullay, who lives in the area, said the weekly caravan has grown so large and rowdy that all other activity comes to a standstill. It’s like a Mardi Gras every Sunday.

Considering that the park is public grounds owned by the city, everyone should have equal rights when it comes to utilizing this particular public good. These cruisers are infringing on the rights of others, therefore the city is acting within its realm of responsibility by limiting their ability to cruise. However, having never visited Fairgrounds Park or possessing any statistics on increased crime due to cruising, my position on this issue is based solely on the information contained within the Post-Dispatch article.

The post Lose the Cruise appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Speaking of Ethanol … appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Yesterday, Steelman held a press conference calling for an end to the notoriously bad ethanol mandate. She cited the mandate as one of the reasons that food and gas prices are at all-time highs, and that it must be repealed because of these unintended consequences. As many of you know, the Show-Me Institute recently produced a case study highlighting the negative effects of the mandate and its cost to Missourians. Initially, Steelman supported the mandate, but thanks to our study (at least, I’d like to think so) Steelman is among the growing list of officials who realize that the mandate was a mistake and have lobbied for its repeal.

Although our study does not focus on food prices, this effect is mentioned — along with the additional taxpayer costs that government subsidies bring. I commend Ms. Steelman for recognizing that the ethanol mandate is a bad deal for taxpayers, and I hope that her fellow politicians follow suit.

The failure of this regulation provides further evidence that such mandates are almost never a good deal for taxpayers, and shouldn’t be implemented in the first place. However, that’s a broader topic for a different day.

The post What Has Ears But Can’t Hear? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Those who support the increase cite its relatively low cost, while those who oppose it label it as unfair. Other revenue-generating possibilities are also being discussed, such as a transit ticket price increase and a crackdown on free riders — both of which may be viable options. For the purpose of this post, I will only focus on the proposed tax increase and its expected revenue.

As a disclaimer, I am not a frequent MetroLink rider, only using it when attending various events downtown. I grew up in a rural area where there was no public transportation, so I am not accustomed to using MetroLink as a primary mode of transportation. With that said, my own experience has no bearing on my conclusions about the tax increase.

The proposed increase, assuming that the demand for goods is completely inelastic, would generate around $87 million annually in additional funding for the expansion and operation of Metro. The majority of this funding, around $78 million, will come from St. Louis County because of its larger half-cent increase, and because of its much larger tax base. St. Louis city would generate around $9 million from its one-fourth-cent increase. While it is true that demand is most likely not completely inelastic, these numbers give us a general idea of how much revenue could be generated.

As I said earlier, I’m not a frequent MetroLink rider and I don’t know whether a tax increase is the best way to fund an expansion. Some people are advocating a use tax (taking the form of increased ticket prices), while some of my coworkers have suggested a sales tax specifically for business areas that benefit from mass transit. One point of contention about increasing ticket prices is that those who use mass transit the most have no other means of transportation. They depend on transit for their everyday travel and have no other alternatives. Also, higher ticket prices may decrease the number of riders, negating the need for an expansion in the first place. However, a sales tax increase has its own faults — not everyone who shops in targeted areas uses mass transit, so why should they have to pay for something they don’t use? This is a valid point, worthy of consideration.

Mass transit is a useful tool that can further enhance a city’s development. There is little doubt that public transportation is a key component to boosting growth, but the best means of funding that transportation is open to debate.

The post A Half-Cent for Your Thoughts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

City officials investigated and initially found that Morris and Ray were within their legal rights to build the fence. However, after public outcry following an earlier column, city officials investigated the matter again and this time found several obscure ordinances forbidding the fence. I’d argue that these ordinances tend to trample property rights and hinder personal freedom, and it would be nice if city officials seemed more concerned about these business owners’ property rights rather than appeasing the adjacent owners who find the fence "forbidding."

After his second review, the Springfield code administrator declared the fence a public nuisance. The article summarizes one of his findings this way: "the structure is built or used in violation of the building, plumbing, electrical, fuel gas or zoning ordinances of the city."

I am struggling to understand how a fence on one’s own personal property can be declared a public nuisance. Is it because it doesn’t allow for visitors to nearby businesses to park on Morris’ property anymore? Or is it because nearby business owners don’t want to look at a fence that they think is "forbidding"? It could be mere resistance to a change in the status quo. None of these reasons, though, are viable enough to deem a fence a "public nuisance" when it does nothing but protect property. As landlord, ideally Morris should be able to do whatever he pleases with his property, as long it does not affect the safety or rights of other individuals. But city officials also rattled off several other ordinances (found in the article) that state Mr. Morris is in clear violation of city codes.

I understand that some regulations are needed to prevent total chaos (I tend to side with David Stokes and Justin Hauke on the "Village Law" debate), but something as simple as adding a fence to a piece of property should not be in the control of city officials — really, they should have bigger issues to worry about. Alas, the government never ceases to amaze me. Classifying a fence on private property as a "public nuisance" is something I cannot fathom.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a public nuisance is, "something that
unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, comfort, morals, or
convenience of the community and that is treated as a criminal violation". Clearly, building a fence on your own property does need meet any of the criteria here needed to classify it as a public nuisance. The only term that the city might successfully argue is "comfort." This is an ambiguous and subjective term, though — almost any action can interfere with the comfort of some individual.

Instead, the city’s rationale for its second judgment should have been "making your neighbors mad, because they don’t like your taste."

The post Springfield Decision on the Fence appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although I can understand where they are coming from (securing local jobs, pandering to voters, etc.) this blatant act of government interference is unnecessary and quite ridiculous. This is a possible acquisition between two publicly traded companies, and for government officials to even suggest impeding the process is outlandish. Officials even acknowledge there is nothing they can lawfully do, yet they insist on causing a commotion in hopes that InBev will retract its offer and ride off into the figurative sunset. There is no doubt that Anheuser-Busch has played an influential and charitable role in the development of St. Louis, but after all, it is a private corporation and if it decides selling to InBev is in the best interest of shareholders, no government official should try to obstruct the process. It is not the responsibility of government officials to determine what is best for a private entity, and they are grossly overstepping their boundaries in attempting to influence the outcome of this particular situation.

Personally, I hope the shareholders of Anheuser-Busch reject the offer and the organization remains a pillar of stability in St. Louis and throughout Missouri. After all, InBev Stadium just doesn’t have the same ring. With that said, if stockholders agree to a sale and the government continues to try invoking its (phantom) power to affect the outcome, it will just be another case of the government acting inappropriately and out of its realm of authority.

Ah … the politicking that takes place during an election year.

The post An Attempt at the Least Popular Post of All Time appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Yesterday morning, after a heated struggle in the Senate, a bill that would have implemented a windfall tax on major oil companies was defeated. In typical fashion, oil companies were singled out for their "excess profit" by senators who are simply pandering to their constituents. In this time of economic trouble, it is not surprising that politicians are trying to deflect the spotlight from themselves and their failed policies onto the big oil companies by insinuating that they are doing something wrong by acting in a completely legal, free-market way. In no other profession is there such scrutiny for making a profit ?— in fact, we are generally encouraged to work hard and succeed. Isn’t that part of the American dream?

Also, our economy thrives when profits are up and people are working. However, it appears this is not encouraged when companies become increasingly wealthy. Rather than trying to stifle the profits of oil companies, as though it were some sort of deserved punishment, politicians (from both sides) should be focused on lowering gas prices and promoting energy alternatives. Even if a windfall tax were to be enacted, it likely would be counterproductive, with oil companies only increasing the price for consumers, to make up for the lost profits (Justin’s post is much more thorough on this economics aspect).

It really befuddles me that some members of Congress think that limiting profits for certain corporations is a good thing. If Congress wants a windfall tax for the oil industry, who’s next? My bet is on you, Warren Buffet. Perhaps some some comments by our neighbor to the east, Sen. Richard Durbin, are what really have me interested in this topic:

The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy.

I didn’t realize that it was up to Senator Durbin to determine how much profit is too much. In a free-market economy, market forces will dictate when a consumer is no longer willing to spend. Can you imagine if Sen. Durbin were to say this to an average American family? There would be complete anarchy. If Durbin were to take this approach with the citizens in his state, I have a feeling he wouldn’t be reelected anytime soon. Thankfully, the bill didn’t pass and no one is going to be punished for doing something every American strives for: success.

To link this story back to Missouri (after all, we are Missouri-focused), as Justin pointed out, one of our state’s senators voted in favor of the windfall tax, but at least wasn’t quoted saying such outlandish things.

The post Senators Stumble appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the same city ordinance, it proclaims that individuals are not allowed to raise or keep rabbits, because it is deemed a public nuisance. That’s right, owning a rabbit in the privacy of your own home is somehow infringing on your neighbors. So, who is going tell this guy that his furry little friend is a "public nuisance" at the next town hall meeting? And, probably most importantly, who is going to uninvite  the Easter Bunny to the next family function? Although these ordinances are ridiculous and easy to poke fun at, they are also a perfect example of government over-regulation. It is not the role of the government to rule every aspect of our lives. I think George Will summarized the role of the ideal government best when he said the government should "deliver the mail, defend the shores, and get out of the way":

The post This Law Is for the Birds … or Should I Say Pigs? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Ask and You Shall Receive appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The first editorial focuses on the Florida legislature’s unanimous passage of a health care reform bill during this last session. The bill was aimed at kicking the government out of our health care decisions, rather than trying to further regulate and manipulate the free market. Gov. Charlie Crist signed the bill in an effort to combat the notion that health care coverage has to be an all-or-nothing decision. Before this bill was signed, health care coverage plans were littered with state mandates and regulations that often drove up the price of the plan beyond the reach of average individuals. As the author points out, these erstwhile mandates included such "necessary" procedures as the age-old practice of acupuncture, not to mention chiropractic visits (I searched a long time for a clip from the Simpsons episode where Homer sort of becomes a chiropractor, but had no luck). All kidding aside, this is quite an accomplishment for those free-market advocates who think the government would only worsen the problem (jeez, who could think something like that!).

The second editorial also focuses on a bill that is working its way through the legislature in New Jersey (yeah, I know, New Jersey is ahead of Missouri — uh oh) that will allow residents to cross states borders to buy an affordable health care policy. By opening out-of-state markets, it allows competition to flood the New Jersey market, which can only benefit that state’s consumers. Rather than being held hostage by existing health care companies in the state that are able to coordinate and charge higher premiums, consumers will be able to select from a number of approved health care providers (don’t even get me started on what approved means, but that is a topic for a different day) throughout the United States.

Because New Jersey’s average health care costs are almost double the national average, this bill should be welcomed with open arms. Nevertheless, opponents of the bill say policy buyers will only be able to get "bare bones" coverage. That is simply not true. Even if did happen to be true, it is not like policy holders would switch to a lesser plan than they originally had; this would simply allow those who had nothing before to have something.

Let’s all hope this bill succeeds, and Missouri legislators take notice.

Alright, that is all for now. I have to get home so I can make it home for the two-hour "Lost" finale.

The post For Wall Street Journal, Lightning Strikes Twice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Sen. Bond also called for "Streamlining the oil refinery permitting process, without relaxing any requirements." Hooray! I am OK with taking baby steps to get the the free market, as long as we get there. The U.S. government has put up so many regulations, it has become nearly impossible to build refineries. Hopefully, this "streamlining" can lead to some deregulation, and we can see a substantial drop in gas prices. All in all, I think Sen. Bond summed it up best when criticizing a colleague who actually suggested the oil industry be nationalized (no joke, albeit that is funny):

"I can tell you, you don’t want the government running energy. The free
market may not be perfect, but it doesn’t screw things up like the
government does."

Oh, and of course we can talk about the taxation issue as well, but Justin has already covered that aspect.

The post They Call Him Bond … Kit Bond appeared first on Show-Me Institute.