Page 682 – Show-Me Institute

Federalism in Action

Posted on March 17, 2010May 5, 2026 by John Payne

Yesterday, the Missouri House approved a constitutional amendment designed to check the federal government’s expansion of powers in the realm of health care:

If approved by the legislature, the proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting Missourians from being compelled to participate in any health care system would go to a vote of the people. HJR 48, 50 & 57 is half-way there. The House voted 109-to-46 in favor and sent it to the Senate.

Setting aside for the moment the specific content of the amendment, it is great to see Missouri and other states attempting to use the nearly forgotten tools of interposition and nullification to stop the federal government from abusing its powers. Of course, these are just tools that can be used for good (such as when Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850s) or ill (such as George Wallace attempting to preserve segregation). However, all else being equal, the more a political system is localized, the less dysfunctional it is likely to be, because the politicians are not as removed from the people. Consequently, anything that takes power away from the federal government and gives it to the states, or from the states to the counties and municipalities, or from the municipalities to the neighborhoods and individuals, should, as a general rule, be applauded.

A Star Is Born!

Posted on March 17, 2010May 5, 2026 by Caitlin Hartsell

Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne, who has been spreading free-market wisdom all over the television and radio as of late, is hitting the airwaves again this afternoon! This time, he will be talking about the Missouri state legislature’s imminent ban of K2, the synthetic marijuana substitute.

Listen to him today at 4:30 p.m. on Columbia’s 93.9 FM, The Eagle. If you aren’t close enough to Columbia to pick it up on your radio, you can listen live on the web!

Saint Louis County Creatively Circumvents Taxpayer Vote

Posted on March 17, 2010May 5, 2026 by Caitlin Hartsell

Saint Louis County is using stimulus funds to get around the results of the Nov. 2008 election, when a $120 million bond project failed after receiving a vote of 50.8 percent, which was short of the necessary 57.15 percent needed to pass. The proposition as it appeared on the ballot read:

PROPOSITION I – Improvements to County Buildings & Facilities
Shall St. Louis County, Missouri, issue general obligation bonds up to the amount of One Hundred Twenty Million Dollars for the purposes of constructing various capital improvements to County buildings and facilities, and making improvements to County safety/security and communication facilities?

Saint Louis County officials don’t have to listen to the ballot box results, because their federal benefactor has come to the rescue. The county is using half of its $40 million of Recovery Zone Economic Development funds to build the new health department building that failed to garner support in 2008. A family court building will also be built, using Built America funds. The federal funds won’t fully finance either of these projects, though, and the rest of the money will have to come from the departments’ operating budgets.

Some may argue that the people only voted down the use of a bond to fund these projects, and did not necessarily disapprove of the projects themselves. This may be true, but using stimulus funds to cover only part of these projects will still create an additional burden to taxpayers. It may be a discount, but these stimulus funds will not provide “free” buildings for Saint Louis County — rather, it’s a way around a failed bond issue.

Here’s the real issue: If local voters are not willing to finance their own projects, why should the federal government subsidize them? The federal government does not have a magical money tree; stimulus funds also come from taxpayers, whether present or future. These are buildings that the Saint Louis County taxpayers decided were not necessary, but officials have found a loophole.

Building a Light-Rail System to Nowhere

Posted on March 17, 2010May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

At the aforementioned forum/debate on Proposition A, which would establish a new half-cent tax to fund MetroLink’s expansion and other Metro services, an important question was raised: What constitutes a plan?

Speaking in favor of the tax increase, Mayor John Nations of Chesterfield said that the details of plans for future expansion are contingent on the availability of funds from the federal and state government. Speaking in opposition of the tax increase, John Burns of Citizens for Better Transit noted that MetroLink’s plans do not stipulate where and when a project would be built, and that a “plan” needs to answer these questions before it can really be considered a plan.

This difference strikes me as an application of the following passage in Economics in One Lesson, “Public Works Mean Taxes,” by Henry Hazlitt:

But a bridge built primarily “to provide employment” is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. “Projects” have to be invented. Instead of thinking only of where bridges must be built the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built.

Public works projects are acceptable when they serve an actual purpose. However, successfully securing funds from the federal or state government does not constitute an actual purpose. This is a concept on which John Burns, Henry Hazlitt, and I appear to agree. If they are to be economically productive, such expenditures must fulfill a need other than ~~diverting~~ creating jobs — or, as Mayor Nations said during the debate, “providing an economic engine for the region.” At the very least, a plan should include basic information such as when and where a public works project will be built. Otherwise, it’s another proverbial “bridge to nowhere.”

Advice From Parents as Teachers

Posted on March 17, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

Here’s another blog post that describes someone’s Parents as Teachers experience. This one was written by a woman who’s expecting her first child in a few weeks. I can’t tell whether she’s in Missouri, so I’m just assuming her experience is comparable and counting on in-state participants to comment about whether it’s something that wouldn’t happen here.

The blogger writes that a Parents as Teachers educator came to speak to her parenting class, and gave the following advice:

We were told that we needed to not only read to the little guy everynight (even before he’s born–which we knew) but right now to read the same story. Repitition will help him learn sounds, rhythm, words and will also help him develop comfort and a bond with us. Then when he’s fussy, reading this story that he’s heard so many times in our voices will make him feel better and remind him of when things were less stressful for him before he was born.

This way of doing things might work for many people, but it’s problematic for Parents as Teachers to present it (with state approval and funding) as the correct way to raise a child, when it’s basically somebody’s opinion. The recommendations I’ve seen suggest that parents begin reading to children at six weeks, three months, six months — not every night when the baby is still in the womb. There’s no medical consensus that you have to do that. (There are other ways to interact with unborn babies, like talking to them or singing a song.) And the idea that it has to be the same book every single time is nonsense. Babies learn from repetition in conversations and daily routines; that doesn’t have to come from one book and one book alone.

The assertion that hearing a story repeated will remind the baby of the womb is a nice theory, not a confirmed research result. Babies fuss for many reasons, and hearing a story won’t always calm them. When a story does soothe them, they may be reacting to the parent’s tone of voice or touch. It’s speculation to say that they remember hearing that exact wording from the womb.

Maybe these ideas aren’t completely scientific, but they can’t hurt, right? Actually, they could be harmful to parent-child relationships if parents feel guilty when they can’t maintain the regimen. Skipping reading for a night or two or switching between a few different stories won’t hurt your baby, but people could reach that conclusion if they’ve sat through this presentation by an official state educator. It’s not surprising that the blogger describes herself as “overwhelmed” by what she heard.

I Applaud These Locavores’ Efforts

Posted on March 16, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

If you believe in the value of local food, this is the way to go. An Affton couple turned their suburban property into a farm, complete with crops, rabbits, chickens, and beehives. They harvest their own vegetables and slaughter their own livestock.

They aren’t asking for subsidies for their enterprise, and they don’t insist on free public land. They aren’t lobbying the state to impose their preferences on anyone else, either. While they would like more people to agree with them, they go about convincing people without coercion. They show their neighbors the benefits of their lifestyle — no local food mandates or preferential policies are involved.

Anyone who lives in an area that allows chickens can try this approach.

Arguments Against Federal and State Assistance for Public Works Projects Like Proposition A

Posted on March 16, 2010May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

Yesterday, I attended a forum/debate on Proposition A, the proposed half-cent tax to fund MetroLink’s expansion and other Metro services. Speaking in favor of the tax increase, Mayor John Nations of Chesterfield indicated that Missouri provides little or no financial assistance for projects like bus and light rail expansion, and he implied that the state should increase this amount. I disagree that Missouri and the federal government should provide financial assistance for Proposition A, for the following three reasons.

First, neither Missouri nor the federal government is presently flush with cash, and the money could instead be spent on other programs, like education, or returned to taxpayers. Missouri’s projected mid-year FY2010 budget gap is $690 million, and officials are seeking ways to reduce this deficit, not expand it.

Second, in general, public works projects should be paid as much as possible by the taxes of those who benefit. This is a more efficient means of taxation, and it encourages funds to be spent more wisely. If I were a taxpayer living in rural Missouri, I would not be enthusiastic about paying for the bus and light rail system in urban Saint Louis, which is something that I would use very rarely, if at all. If I were a taxpayer in a state other than Missouri, similarly, I would be even less enthusiastic about subsidizing public works projects with benefits concentrated in a state in which I may never set foot.

Third, federal funding is not “found money” — it still comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, no differently than money spent by state and local governments. Public works projects that use federal funds should exercise the same kind of fiscal responsibility as those that don’t. Unfortunately, when planners have access to federal funds, they are even more shielded from seeing the true cost of their spending, and this causes them to over-consume.

Thanks, But No, Thanks, NCAA

Posted on March 16, 2010May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

Today’s KC Star is reporting on a hearing in Jefferson City in which sporting event promoters are attempting to get special tax credits to host the events in Missouri. I honestly would have to search around for an idea worse than this. I really love sports, and I have terrific memories of going to the Final Four downtown in 2005. However, if, as the NCAA is apparently claiming, tax dollars must be committed before St. Louis or Kansas City can host more major college events, than we can live without them. From the Star:

St. Louis is hosting the Midwest regional finals in this year’s men’s basketball tournament […] But St. Louis was left off the list when the NCAA awarded sites for the 2012-2016 Final Four. Those tournaments instead went to New Orleans, Atlanta, Dallas, Indianapolis and Houston.

“Among those communities that were named Final Four hosts during that cycle, all of them had a public support component that significantly facilitated the staging of the event,” [Greg Shaheen, who oversees the NCAA’s Division I men’s basketball tournament,] said in an interview with The Associated Press.

God forbid, what a travesty it would be if St. Louis failed to continue to be America’s no. 1 sports city. On another note, isn’t it time we stop calling ourselves that, given that about 10 cities have won that award since we did?

Again from the Star:

Missouri currently is “a first tier sports destination,” said Frank Viverito, president of the St. Louis Sports Commission. But he added: “Without a public component to our efforts, then we will fall significantly behind other states.”

Oh well, tough break. I guess we’ll just have to keep more of our tax dollars in order to provide the services that governments are supposed to provide, rather than giving them away to sports promoters.

The Census Bureau Should Stick to YouTube

Posted on March 16, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

The response to the Census Bureau’s YouTube clips has been mixed. Some videos attracted a lot of hits; others were basically ignored.

However, everything the Census Bureau put up on YouTube has been a wild success when compared with the embarrassing event in Jefferson City yesterday. I say “embarrassing” not because I’m scandalized that there were belly dancers there, but because almost no one showed up to watch them. My Two Census picked up the story as an example of ineffective Census promotion.

I actually feel bad for the belly dancers, who had to perform with little clothing on when the temperature was in the low 50s. The poor turnout couldn’t have helped their self-esteem much, either.

I have a better idea for promoting the Census: Promise that if enough people mail back their forms, the Census Bureau will post a clip on YouTube of its director belly dancing.

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.