What Is the Point of This Interactive Map?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

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.

Ignoring Calorie Counts

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Thus begins the AP story about the national calorie count mandate, which will force restaurant chains comprising 20 or more locations to post calorie counts on menus:

A requirement tucked into the massive U.S health care bill will make calorie counts impossible for thousands of restaurants to hide and difficult for consumers to ignore.

I’m following it until I get to the words “difficult for consumers to ignore.” There’s evidence that consumers are pretty good at ignoring the numbers on the menu. For example, this research on New York City’s calorie count mandate found that less than a third of consumers reported taking the newly posted nutritional information into account when they ordered. When the researchers examined caloric data from fast food sales before and after the change in policy, they found no decrease in calories purchased. (The AP story does mention this study a couple of paragraphs from the end.)

Another study that looked at data from Starbucks alone found a small decrease in purchased calories in food, but no change in purchased calories in beverages — the main attraction at Starbucks. People who headed over to Starbucks in search of the high-calorie drinks for which it’s known didn’t suddenly change their minds when they read the calorie counts.

The calorie count mandate won’t make the population healthier, because people are good are ignoring numbers they don’t want to see. You can plaster nutritional data all over a restaurant, but if people aren’t interested, they’ll tune it out.

It’s unfortunate that the federal government imposed this mandate on all states. States like Missouri should be free to weigh the evidence from places that have imposed mandates and come to their own determinations on calorie-posting policy.

Page on Parents as Teachers Website Reinforces Gender Stereotypes

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The Parents as Teachers website includes a list of tips on involving fathers in their children’s lives, and it also gives several reasons why fathers should be involved. Most of them look fine to me, but I take issue with this one:

Dads often have a special interest in analytical skills such as math and problem-solving, which can support a child’s intellectual development and promote school readiness.

The page also states that fathers “are usually more rough-and-tumble in their play with children than moms.”

Mothers can also focus on problem solving and their children’s cognitive growth, and I see no reason to highlight those characteristics as the special domain of men. There are plenty of couples that don’t fit these generalizations; it’s unfair to them to imply that an analytical father paired with a docile mother is the norm, or that this is what men and women are “usually” like.

Now, the wording on this one page should not be a deciding factor in funding Parents as Teachers. I’ve set out my arguments for limiting Parents as Teachers in previous posts, and my reasoning doesn’t depend on what a small section of the program’s website says. However, because Parents as Teachers receives state funds, taxpayers should be aware of what it tells participants. Public programs that give parenting advice can acquaint parents with information, but they can also provide a platform for the promulgation of opinions, biases, and stereotypes.

Governmental Things One Should Be Able to Do Online

Posted on by David Stokes

Over at the Freakonomics blog, they’re discussing a website focused on getting the U.S. Census to be made available online, thereby saving millions of dollars — maybe more. This post won’t devolve into a census discussion, but I will say that I absolutely hate those ads that constantly talk about filling out the form so that your community can get its fair share of funds for all the wonderful things government does. I reject that it is the role of government to do many of those things, and the constant talk of “fair share” makes me physically ill.

But let’s move on. We are talking a lot around here about ways to cut the state’s budget. Although this idea is more closely related to Missouri’s county governments, personal property tax declarations could very easily be done online. As far as I can tell, only Jackson County allows you to do the entire process online. That saves every taxpayer the postage cost of two letters, and it should be emulated by every other county. St. Louis County offers some helpful things online, but I think they should go the full mile here and try to phase out the requirement for physical mailings of property tax declarations for as many people as possible. Cutting costs here might also save the state at least a little money, given that the state reimburses counties for portions of their assessment expenses.

Please let me know if you are aware of other counties that have gone completely online with this process.

Continuing the Fight for Fewer State Reps

Posted on by David Stokes

Today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal has an op-ed about the size of Missouri’s House of Representatives. In short, the House is too big and we could do just fine with fewer elected state reps. It is a very good editorial and sounds many of the same arguments I’ve made in my writings on this subject. I recommend the piece highly — thanks to Combest for catching it. The key argument:

The annual savings on pay and per diem of $39,751 per House member, multiplied by 95, tops $3.75 million per year.

That money adds up. Decreasing the number of people who have a say in how we live our lives would be another benefit of reducing the size of the House.

Public Programs Should Substantiate Claims About Child Development

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

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.

What Can We Do Without?

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

As you may already know, Missouri is running a large budget deficit, despite several rounds of budget cuts recently made by Gov. Jay Nixon. According to the Post-Dispatch, Missouri may have to cut an additional $500 million from its budget.

Some Show-Me Institute staff members are considering a set of suggestions for additional cuts that the state could make without hurting its core programs. Hopefully, we can find line items within the state budget that can be cut without negatively impacting other areas of state spending. But this is a time-sensitive issue, and researchers combing through the state budget might not see an area of spending that others know through experience to be ineffective.

So, if you happen to know offhand of certain programs that could easily be cut, let us know. The comment section is open. Or, if you’d like to take a closer look at state spending, you can use our Show-Me: The Books tool, which lets you create graphs, tables, and charts of state spending, with data that’s updated every week. You can see the most current version of the state budget here.

Spending on Health

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

These two counties in Wisconsin, like Oklahoma City, want their residents to be more healthy and physically fit. Unlike Oklahoma City, they are using public funds to pursue their goals. The money comes in the form of a $2.3 million stimulus grant, and the counties will spend it over the course of two years.

I wonder how the counties will use the grant to change residents’ behavior. They have ample public funding, but many of the behaviors they want to alter fall squarely in the private sector. For example, one of the stated goals is reducing the time people spend watching television. Do the counties plan to purchase a set of TV-B-Gone devices and manually turn off televisions? Presumably not, but how else can they get people to change?

Here are a few more things the counties want to accomplish:

Rauter said further efforts will be directed toward providing nutritional information for school lunches and restaurants, and making healthy choices more affordable in grocery stores. The program will promote community gardens, including implementing a Farm-to-School program, encouraging breast-feeding-friendly work sites and promoting overall good nutrition and physical activity.

Again, I’m curious how the counties will go about this. Changing workers’ attitudes toward breastfeeding is going to be harder than writing a check. And to make healthy groceries more affordable, the counties would have to either start their own grocery stores, or go into private grocery stores and tell them what products to carry and how much to charge.

If Missouri has to choose between the two approaches, I would prefer a campaign like Oklahoma City’s that’s financed by voluntary donations. But my first choice would be no campaign at all.

Problems With Ethanol Subsidies and Mandates

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

The St. Joseph News-Press ran an article this past week about the biodiesel industry’s fight for a tax credit extension. Show-Me Institute research analyst Christine Harbin wrote about the negative consequences of corn ethanol subsidies on our blog recently, and provided good analysis about why such subsidies hurt taxpayers. The St. Joe’s article is filled with quotes from people within the industry that exemplify why the tax credits are counterproductive:

“Any further delays will cause additional harm to the industry,” said Michael Frohlich, director of communications for the National Biodiesel Board. “(The expiration has) really been devastating. What you’ve seen is a complete drop in demand.”

Frolich essentially concedes here that the subsidy drives demand, implying that ethanol cannot, on its own, be a profitable endeavor. But the industry leaders interviewed in the article go on to argue that these subsidies will make the industry competitive in the future:

“(The tax credit) is crucial in order for (the biodiesel industry) to keep running,” said Brooks Hurst, a state director for the Missouri Soybean Association. “As we’re starting out, it’s critical to make us cost competitive with petroleum diesel.”

Soybean oil is a feedstock for the production of biodiesel.

If the tax credit were eliminated altogether, the industry would likely “cease production,” Mr. Hurst added.

“The biodiesel industry is an infant industry,” he said. “We’re trying to build demand.”

The nascent or infant industry argument is one used throughout history to protect emerging industries. It suggests that new industries need to be protected temporarily in order to gain the economies of scale that their competitors already enjoy. This is later expanded by Frolich, however, who says:

“Obviously, the long-term goal is for a multi-year (tax credit) extension.”

Ethanol needs the subsidy in order to be profitable, but subsidy proponents argue for more than just economic viability. Some claim that ethanol is better for the environment than standard gasoline, and suggest that it should be subsidized for that reason alone; however, there is a substantial body of research showing that this is not the case. A 2005 study in BioScience debunked that notion by looking at the effects of ethanol use in both Brazil and the United States, concluding that it did not bring net environmental gains. From the study’s conclusion (emphasis added):

The use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline proved to be neither a sustainable nor an environmentally friendly option, considering ecological footprint values, and both net energy and CO2 offset considerations seemed relatively unimportant compared to the ecological footprint. As revealed by the ecological footprint approach, the direct and indirect environmental impacts of growing, harvesting, and converting biomass to ethanol far exceed any value in developing this alternative resource on a large scale.
[…]
In the US case, the use of ethanol would require enormous areas of corn agriculture, and the accompanying environmental impacts outweigh its benefits. Ethanol cannot alleviate the United States’ dependence on petroleum.

Other studies have replicated these results, such as another piece from 2005, printed in the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. The authors reached a similar conclusion about E10, the ethanol mixture used for Missouri gasoline:

The study indicates that E10 is of debatable air pollution merit (and may in fact increase the production of photochemical smog); offers little advantage in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency or environmental sustainability; and will significantly increase both the risk and severity of soil and groundwater contamination.

A 2004 study published in Natural Resources Research concluded that ethanol creation uses more energy than the ethanol itself provides:

Specifically about 29% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy in a gallon of ethanol. Fossil energy powers corn production and the fermentation/distillation processes. Increasing subsidized ethanol production will take more feed from livestock production, and is estimated to currently cost consumers an additional $1 billion per year. Ethanol production increases environmental degradation. Corn production causes more total soil erosion than any other crop. Also, corn production uses more insecticides, herbicides, and nitrogen fertilizers than any other crop. All these factors degrade the agricultural and natural environment and contribute to water pollution and air pollution.

Missouri is at a disadvantage because the state’s ethanol mandate requires at least 10 percent ethanol in the gasoline sold here. Show-Me Institute policy analysts David Stokes and Justin Hauke published a case study analyzing the effects of the mandate, concluding that it cost the taxpayers much more than it saved — the opposite of the cost-savings argument originally made in favor of the mandate. Requiring ethanol to be used in the state’s gasoline also discourages research toward better and more efficient forms of biofuel by propping up the corn ethanol industry.

The data shows that the ethanol mandate is expensive and does not help the environment. Ethanol may even harm the environment, by discouraging more efficient and environmentally solutions. That being the case, what justification is left to protect the ethanol industry with mandates and subsidies?

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging