The Show-Me Institute is now accepting applications for our spring 2014 internship program. All the information you need about the internship is available here. Please submit the required application by Dec. 6. The spring intern positions can be full- or part-time, and the jobs pay $10 per hour. You will note that is above the minimum wage, because we believe in the power of markets, not government mandates. Which basically sums up your entire internship program experience quite nicely.
After Southwest Airline Executive Vice President Ron Ricks criticized Kansas City Airport’s new $1.2 billion terminal plan as overly expensive, many media outlets questioned why the Kansas City Aviation Department had not consulted with Southwest (the airport’s No. 1 airline) before the terminal was designed. On Friday, Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh struck back, claiming that he had spoken to Southwest in May, but that Ricks “may have been out of the loop.” He also stated that the Aviation Department had not discussed financial details because, “the department didn’t, and still doesn’t, know the exact financials because the possible rebuilding is — at the earliest — seven years away.”
The statement that terminal rebuilding is seven years away, at the earliest, is likely to confuse anyone who has read the Aviation Department’s own plan. Put out in April (one month before the meeting with Southwest), and still on the website as current, the plan states that construction is to begin in June of 2016. That’s less than three years away. In fact, the terminal is supposed to open on Feb. 1, 2019, slightly more than five years from today. Whatever number you view, it appears the Aviation Department was looking to rebuild far sooner than seven years from now. So where is the Aviation Department director’s number of seven years coming from? Is the plan on the website outdated? If so, why have they not issued a new document? And because VanLoh is claiming that he didn’t discuss financial details with Southwest because rebuilding is seven years away, does that mean that the plan written in April was outdated by May?
According to the information that the Aviation Department released earlier this year, they have a new terminal design, cost estimates, and a tentative construction schedule. But it seems like every time the Airport Advisory Group meets or the Aviation Department director talks to a newspaper, we hear entirely new cost estimates and timelines. For the good of Kansas City residents, the city should seek independent analysis of the Kansas City Airport and the new terminal plan.
On Nov. 9, the Washington Missourian published a letter to the editor in which I wrote that the Missouri School Boards’ Association (MSBA) uses your tax dollars to fight for keeping your taxes high.
Well, as you might expect, MSBA took issue with my letter. The funny thing is the part of the letter with which they took issue.
Was it my claim that MSBA is gearing up to battle against tax cuts in the next legislative session? No.
Was it my claim that they are hosting a series of anti-tax cut meetings? No.
Was it my claim that they hadn’t invited anyone who is pro-tax cuts to the meetings or that they are not interested in a debate on the issue? No again.
Was it my statement that our tax dollars go to MSBA to fund their efforts to keep our taxes high? Sadly, no.
Carter Ward, executive director of MSBA, took issue with my claim that I would have had to join MSBA if I had been elected to the school board. He wrote, “The decision to join MSBA is made by local boards of education as a whole and is voluntary. No school board in the state is required to belong to MSBA or to spend any money with the association.” Of course, state statute requires every school board member to undergo training that only the MSBA can provide, but never mind that.
He went on to claim that Missouri is a low-tax state and cutting our taxes further would be a “recipe for disaster.”
There you have it, MSBA thinks your taxes are low enough and they will fight to keep it that way.
As first appearing in the Columbia Missourian on November 18, 2013:
Peter and Paul are friends. They went to the same college, majored in education, and graduated the same year. Peter began teaching in the Jefferson City School District and Paul joined the faculty in the Hickman Mills School District. After working for 30 years, both retired. Little did they know that over the course of their careers, the defined benefit pension system had been robbing Peter to pay for Paul’s retirement.
Teachers in Jefferson City (Peter) start at a slightly higher salary than teachers in Hickman Mills (Paul) and they continue to earn a higher salary for 23 years. However, toward the end of their careers, Hickman Mills teachers receive larger pay raises and surpass their Jefferson City counterparts.
Over the course of a 30-year career, a teacher in Jefferson City will earn $29,213 more than a Hickman Mills teacher. Each of these districts is part of the Public School Retirement System of Missouri (PSRS). This system requires 29 percent of a teacher’s salary be contributed to the pension system, 14.5 percent each from the employee and the employer. Assuming a constant 29 percent contribution rate, a Jefferson City teacher will have $8,472 more deposited into the pension system than a Hickman Mills teacher.
Because they deposit more into the retirement system, it would make sense for the Jefferson City teachers to earn more in retirement, but that is not the case. Pensions in the PSRS system are based on a teacher’s three highest consecutive salaries, usually his or her last three years. The spike at the end of their career gives Hickman Mills teachers a higher final average salary, meaning they will earn more in retirement than the Jefferson City teachers.
Despite paying $8,472 more into the pension system, the Jefferson City teacher will receive $55,080 less than the Hickman Mills retiree over the course of a 30-year retirement.
This is a clear problem. Indeed, Missouri’s teacher retirement system is rife with problems. The end result is escalating payments by the state or declining benefits for pensioners. Since 2004, Missouri teachers have seen their contribution rate increase eight times, rising steadily from 21 percent to the current 29 percent. These increases are necessary to combat growing pension liabilities.
The problem with PSRS and many other public employee pension systems in Missouri is that they do not tie an individual’s contributions to his or her pension wealth accrual. That is, what you put into the retirement system is not related to how much you get out of the retirement system. That is why Peter can contribute more, but receive less.
The current pension system is flawed and unfair for teachers in Jefferson City and other districts that are robbed to fund the pensions of teachers in other districts. It is time to stop robbing Peter to pay Paul’s pension. It is time to fix our pension problems.
James V. Shuls, Ph.D., is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.
Earlier this week, the Show-Me Institute unveiled Show-Me Data. Show-Me Data allows users to compare different states’ economic information.
For those of you who are not yet familiar with the site, this video can help you get up to speed. Those of you who have had a chance to explore the site and how it works might be wondering how to share what you have found on Show-Me Data with others. Show-Me Data has several tools to help you do just that.
On Wednesday, the Show-Me Institute introduced Show-Me Data. Hopefully you have started exploring the site.
If you are having difficulty creating charts, please watch this video. If you have been able to create charts, that is fantastic. However, there is more to Show-Me Data than just creating charts from scratch.
Now, take a look at Show-Me Data’s filters and see what they can do to enhance your experience.
Those who follow education policy know that the Common Core State Standards are among the most controversial topics right now. The standards were adopted in 2010 and many states have been implementing them for years. Why all the fuss now? This is the question Rick Hess and Mike McShane, of the American Enterprise Institute, tackle in their recent piece, “What the Obamacare Debacle Tells Us About Common Core.” They write:
Where was all this anger when states were adopting the Common Core? Why is it boiling up now? Well, here’s one important clue: As Gallup reported this fall, 68 percent of Americans had never heard of the Common Core. States have spent two or three years planning to fundamentally alter how schools teach and test reading and math, but parents and teachers are only now encountering big changes that seemingly came out of the blue.
Common Core advocates have tended to dismiss unrest and concern as a function of parents and teachers being uninformed or misinformed. But whose fault is that? Portraying parents and teachers as ignorant, in this case, seems be a matter of blaming the victim. The real culprits are those who chose not to educate or engage the public, or those who did little to shed light on a quiet effort to pursue the “single greatest” educational change in a half-century.
Put plainly, the public had little access to information about the Common Core. A search of Lexis- Nexis’s repository of news articles from across the U.S. shows that 450 newspaper stories mentioned the “Common Core” in 2009, the year it was created.
Fast forward to August of 2013, when more than 3,000 stories were written about Common Core in a single month, “more than the number of stories that ran in 2009 and 2010 combined.”
Now that the public is attuned to the subject of Common Core, we have a chance for an honest debate about the merits of this reform effort. As Hess and McShane write, “Now that the debate has begun, advocates and reporters have a second chance to explain the substance, examine concerns, talk honestly about challenges and costs and ensure that the public has a chance to fully and fairly weigh the case for the Common Core.” Let’s have that debate.
Over the last few months, the Show-Me Institute has stated time and again that the Kansas City Aviation Department’s single terminal plan is more expensive than it needs to be. We have stated that it would increase the costs and reduce Kansas City International Airport’s competitiveness. But now Southwest Airlines, Kansas City Airport’s most important carrier, is saying it. As the Associated Press reported on Thursday, Southwest Executive Vice President Ron Ricks indicated that:
. . . its [Southwest’s] costs would spike under a $1.2 billion proposal for replacing the current three-terminal configuration at Kansas City International Airport with a single terminal . . . the single-terminal proposal would triple its costs . . .
And that:
. . . the $1.2 billion proposal would be a disincentive for airlines to service Kansas City . . . the airline is confident it [Kansas City Airport] could come up with something for the community at a lower cost.
Southwest Airlines handles 40 percent of the commercial flights (almost 2 million passengers in 2012) out of Kansas City, and the Aviation Department cannot take its opinion lightly. We are with Southwest in hoping that planners for Kansas City International Airport can come up with a more cost-effective plan.
Yesterday, the Show-Me Institute proudly launched Show-Me Data. Show-Me Data is an interactive web tool that allows users to compare states in a variety of economic measures.
Have you ever wondered whether gasoline is cheaper on this side of the border or right across the state line? Show-Me Data can help you find out.
Not only can you compare various state tax rates, you can also see whether a state is gaining or losing population. You can also see how a state’s economy is performing relative to other states in the country.
We have included an introductory video on the site to show how you to get started. Please take a look and find the information that interests you the most.
