Page 695 – Show-Me Institute

The USDA: Sending Money Where People Aren’t

Posted on February 9, 2010May 5, 2026 by John Payne

Regarding David Stokes’ question of a couple weeks ago about which type of area (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural) is most heavily subsidized by the government, it appears that the USDA disbursed a record amount of money to rural Missouri last year — $1.126 billion. The bulk of the funds were used as a direct subsidy for rural residents:

The Rural Development Single Family Housing Program provided $578.2 million to individuals and families to buy homes or rehabilitate existing homes.

Let me just get this straight: They subsidized the purchase of homes where they are already cheapest, and at a time when there is already a glut in the nationwide housing market? What could go wrong?

More Good News

Posted on February 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by John Payne

Last week, I noted with some pleasure Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price Jr.’s call for a less punitive approach to nonviolent offenders in our legal system. In an editorial today, the Post-Dispatch praises Price and offers some concrete recommendations for reform:

• Drug courts need more funding. This is the low-hanging fruit in criminal justice reform — the chance to save serious money by ending the cycle of crime and keeping nonviolent, drug-related offenders out of prison. A lack of funding means state leaders aren’t serious.

• Leaders in rural counties must start to deal with nonviolent offenders in their own communities. If their prosecutors and judges insist on sending everyone to prison, then local taxpayers should be forced to pick up the tab.

• And, Gov. Jay Nixon should convene a panel of top law enforcement, legislative and judicial officials. Their task over the next 120 days should be to develop a plan for closing five of Missouri’s 21 adult correctional institutions over the next five years — one a year for five years — using part of the savings to support alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.

I agree that all of these would be positive developments, but I will note that we could save even more money if the state did not attempt to force people to abstain from certain vices. Oh, well — baby steps, I suppose.

Poverty and Health Care in Missouri

Posted on February 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by Stephen Feman

Last year, the American Journal of Medicine included a disturbing story about bankruptcy in America. In that study of five states (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas), it was found that medical expenses had become a causal factor in almost 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies. That investigation revealed that these financial catastrophes had been occurring for some years, but the proportion related to health care appeared to have grown over the same period of time as many of our other health care concerns. In fact, a logistic regression analysis of the data revealed that the odds "that bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001." That report became more disconcerting when it described the average person impoverished by medical debt. The typical individual was a 41-year-old with a job and some college education, who was working to support a family with young children. In addition, that research indicated that the strongest predictor of a working person developing a catastrophic combination of severe illness and bankruptcy was the loss of health insurance during the preceding two years. As we all know, situations like that are not uncommon in the current economic climate, because many existing jobs have had their benefits reduced.

Well, that’s sad, but my interest was in whether that had any special meaning for the people of Missouri. When I examined the issue, I found that it is difficult to perform a similar data analysis within this state. Nevertheless, for those interested in this subject, there are other links that can be used to learn about the local situation. At the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, people have been concerned about local bankruptcy problems for many years. Interestingly, as far back as in 1998, research performed at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that the medical expenses of the health care uninsured were a leading cause of bankruptcy in this region. More recently, such bankruptcy problems were re-examined and a relationship to medical expenses was found to continue to exist. Then, another study discovered an additional relevant factor: The average national personal bankruptcy filing rate in the United States in 2004 was 380 out of every 100,000 people. If one examines each individual state, Missouri wins again. In Missouri, in the year 2004, there were 700 personal bankruptcies for every 100,000 people. That was found to be the highest rate of personal bankruptcy in the United States that year.

So, what does this mean to you? Some may recall my October 2009 post. There, I showed that Missouri spends a larger portion of the state GDP per person for health care than most other states. Compared to the U.S. average, that is about $500 more per person in this state. At the same time, average life expectancy in Missouri is two years less than the U.S. average. That means we are spending more and getting less. Now, the personal bankruptcy data implies that some of those who are surviving this health care dilemma are being driven into poverty. As the original report showed, these are hardworking, educated people trying to support their families.

Previous reports from the Show-Me Institute revealed that certain types of insurance programs, like Health Savings Accounts, can be used to prevent such health care–related financial catastrophes. Because this has become a greater problem now than it was when those reports were written, one would expect the insurance market to respond to this need. Some of the brightest people work in the insurance industry, and they need to create a product that addresses this issue. An additional problem is that most of the people that need this type of insurance are not aware of their danger, so some public education is needed. Now that there is a bit of a breather in the rush to health care reform, perhaps there is time to look at this situation, and the other free-market ways that can be developed to help the people of Missouri.

The Census Bureau Is Not a YouTube Sensation

Posted on February 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

My Two Census declares the Census Bureau’s marketing campaign a flop, based on data from its YouTube channel:

The Portrait of America video has just over 6,500 hits…which would sound pretty pathetic for a 10 month campaign if only it wasn’t revealed that the other six videos posted 10 months ago each received between 347 and 1,305 hits. In the series of videos posted 6 months ago, the most widely-watched video, about the address-canvassing operations, has been viewed a measly 1,083 times. (This means that only a tiny fraction of the workers involved in this process even watched the video…)

For comparison, 1,700,000 people watched Google’s Super Bowl ad on YouTube. And “How Many Times Must Our Health Care Fail,” the song I linked to in this post, has been viewed 3,700 times.

My Two Census’ numbers don’t reflect the Census Bureau’s full impact on YouTube, because they don’t take into account the separate channel that the Bureau created for its Super Bowl ad. The ad features an imaginary film director named Payton Schlewitt, and it can be found — along with other clips of Schlewitt’s antics — on the Payton Schlewitt channel. There, the numbers are better. The ad itself drew 117,300 hits within five days. Another video of Schlewitt and his cohorts, which highlights the fact that animals are not counted in the Census, is up to 1,400 hits, also after only a few days.

So, the numbers aren’t as bad as they would appear from the Census Bureau’s channel alone. Still, My Two Census has a point. Payton Schlewitt’s viewership pales next to Google’s. And, of the people who watched the Census ad, many reacted unfavorably. Viewers rated it a mediocre two-and-a-half stars, and several comments complain that taxes had to pay for it.

Some Boards That Should Be Independent of the USDA

Posted on February 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

The USDA announces that the secretary of agriculture has appointed new members to the National Mango Board. I didn’t know we had a National Mango Board, although until today, I didn’t know about the popcorn, avocado, or watermelon boards, either. (There’s no board for raspberries yet, but the USDA is working on it.)

Why is the USDA involved in promoting individual fruits? Can’t the blueberry growers and the mushroom growers manage their own public relations?

These organizations belong in the private sector. The USDA should follow the precedent set by the state of Missouri and get rid of extraneous boards.

While we’re on the subject of produce, the National Watermelon Promotion Board links to this picture of a bus stop shaped like a watermelon. Check it out.

So, I Suppose Drunk Texting Is Completely Out of the Question

Posted on February 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by John Payne

Yesterday, the Post-Dispatch ran a front-page article about efforts to ban texting while driving, and compared them to the crackdown on drunk driving 30 years ago. There are a number of studies showing that texting while driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving, and I do believe the government has a responsibility to create and enforce reasonable safety rules for its roads — so, if laws banning texting while driving substantially reduced accidents, I would support them.

Unfortunately, there is no such evidence. A newly released study by the auto insurance industry found no decrease in auto crashes in states that enacted laws banning texting or talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving. The researchers find this result puzzling, but it could simply be that the law is unenforceable. This is not to say that texting while driving is a good idea, but the government of Missouri (or at the federal level, for that matter) should not be in the business of passing unenforceable, ineffectual laws.

As it stands, if a police officer observes a vehicle moving dangerously, the driver can be ticketed for careless and imprudent driving regardless of the reason behind such reckless behavior. Accordingly, we may not need a law against texting while driving to cut down on the dangers associated with it.

Technology in Classrooms: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on February 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

The Jennings School District bought more than 2,500 hand-held computers back in 2006. Now, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports, the district is getting rid of them. They were purchased with high hopes:

Students could use them to graph math equations, take notes, draw charts, and even, coupled with external probes, measure temperature and pH.

The north St. Louis County school district, now with about 3,100 students, bought one machine for each third- through 12th-grader.

Jennings made two mistakes when it bought all those devices. First, it didn’t have a specific purpose for the technology. The things students could have done with the computers, like taking notes and studying equations, were tasks they could do already with pencils or calculators. Teachers aren’t going to adopt new technology when the old technology does the job just as well. It’s no wonder most teachers said they didn’t use the computers and don’t intend to use them.

Second, the district bought the computers for too many students. It would have made more sense to introduce the devices to one grade, and wait for results before giving them to other grades.

Districts can easily get carried away by dreams of quick technological fixes, so I don’t blame Jennings for being so ambitious. What’s puzzling is that Jennings doesn’t seem to have learned from what happened. The district plans to get rid of the devices by giving them away to graduating students over the course of several years, even though the devices are almost obsolete and will probably be worthless in a year or two. It’s like Jennings can’t give up on its expectation that students will use the computers — if not in school, then after they graduate.

Jennings should sell the computers once and for all. And remember the moral of the story: More gadgets aren’t always better.

How Not to Limit Eligibility to Parents as Teachers

Posted on February 7, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

In the comments section to this article about Parents as Teachers, some Columbia Daily Tribune readers are brainstorming ways to limit eligibility to the program, to make the most of its remaining funding.

I agree that the program provides too many services for free to too many people, but not all suggestions for limiting it struck me as good ideas. One plan in particular that I think would be unsuccessful is restricting the program to children who are lagging behind in their development.

An argument for Parents as Teachers that I find persuasive (although not sufficient justification for free services to the wealthy) is that helping at-risk children when they’re young can prevent problems and save tax dollars later on. Parents as Teachers couldn’t do that if only children with below-average development were let in. That’s because the younger children are, the easier it is for their development to be considered satisfactory; not much is expected from a newborn baby. But when children are a few years old, they need to have passed several milestones to still be on track. The effect of screening by development would be to keep out most babies and bring children into the program years later, after their developmental problems have surfaced. Programs like Parents as Teachers shouldn’t look for children who are already behind, but for children who are fine now and likely to fall behind later.

Furthermore, “normal” means different things to different people, and there is some subjectivity involved in diagnosing developmental delays. In this radio interview, a representative from Parents as Teachers talks about the possibility that doctors and Parents as Teachers educators might disagree about whether a child has a developmental problem. (I can readily believe that such differences might arise, because Parents as Teachers educators don’t need to have any medical background and their training consists of short seminars and distance learning.) Who would have the final say in determining whether a child is eligible? And there’s still the question of which mothers should get home visits before their babies are born.

Although I hope Parents as Teachers will end its free home visits to families that don’t need help, it shouldn’t use developmental screenings to determine which people to serve.

Missouri State Agencies Fact-Check Themselves

Posted on February 6, 2010May 5, 2026 by Christine Harbin

My recent post about how government agencies in Missouri spent $2,047,457.28 on Credit Card Fees and $17,940.49 on Late Payment Penalty Charges during 2009 has generated some interest! The KC Prime Buzz blog and the Political Fix blog both linked to it.

The Political Fix blog initially titled its article “Missouri state agencies fact check blogger,” later changing it to “Credit check: State agencies dispute Show-Me Institute figures.” Both titles misrepresent the truth. The numbers that I reported were produced by Missouri government agencies, not by the Show-Me Institute or myself. The data in the “Show Me: The Spending” web tool comes directly from the Missouri Accountability Portal, which contains information reported and distributed by the state of Missouri.

I spoke with Lorna Domke, outreach and education chief for the Missouri Department of Conservation, who checked with her accounting office and discovered that funds had been misallocated. In an email, she provided the following clarification to me:

Our contracting services for our Permits sales system (“POS system”) should have been through an object code #2496, “other business services.” That category should have had $1.789 million put in it instead of in the object code #2487, “credit card fees.”

Her numbers check out. I isolated these numbers in the Show-Me: The Spending web tool, and then I exported the relevant data to Excel to combine into the following graph. In 2009, the department’s expenditures on credit card fees increased by about $1.7 million and its expenditures on “other business services” decreased by the same amount.

According to her email, the correct FY09 credit card fees total should have been $31,616 and the correct FY08 credit card fees should have been $32,439.

I also asked Ms. Damke if she could define this category for me, because some of our blog readers raised questions about which types of fees it might contain. In the email, she provided the following clarification:

“Expenditures for the fees incurred when accepting payment by credit card.”

Credit card companies will charge the vendor (our Nature Shops in our case ) a fee of a few% of purchase plus 20 or 30 cents per transaction for each purchase, depending on the agreement. So our credit card fees are only for paying the credit card company for being able to accept credit cards for payments. They do not include any interest, late fees, etc.<just the regular fees for accepting credit cards.

At the Show-Me Institute, we’re glad to see that the Department of Conservation admitted that it made a mistake in coding its expenditures. It would be nice if they could get it right the first time. It would also be nice if other departments would also check their numbers. As reported on the Political Fix blog:

Department of Public Safety officials said the figure is misleading, and does not represent late payments from the department.

The Department of Public Safety should check with its own accounting office, because that’s the origin of the numbers that I reported.

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.