Page 697 – Show-Me Institute

Missouri Dental Association Promotes Its Agenda

Posted on February 18, 2010May 5, 2026 by Caitlin Hartsell

Two op-eds, attributed to different members of the Missouri Dental Association (MDA), appeared in the Columbia Missourian and the Examiner in response to my op-ed about dental therapists (which appeared in both the Columbia Missourian and the Examiner). Although these responses were textually the same, they have different credited authors: In the Missourian, the op-ed is attributed to Dr. Rob Coyle, DDS, and in the Examiner, the authors are Matt Niewald, DDS, president of the MDA, and Scott Roberson, DDS, trustee of the MDA. One can only wonder why the same piece is attributed to different authors, but a reasonable conclusion may be that the MDA asked its members to submit a pre-written op-ed to these newspapers. The MDA’s purpose is not secret, given that the last line of both pieces reads:

We would encourage others, both inside and outside of the profession, to contact your legislators and ask them to support the MDA agenda. Working together, we are confident we can bring common sense solutions that will improve the oral and overall health of our state.

The MDA suggests other factors, like Medicaid reimbursements, that may be contributing to the problem of providing access to dental care for Missourians. These are valid points, but they do not provide an adequate reason for their offhand dismissal of the value of dental therapists. The MDA implies that dental therapists “would compromise the safety” of patients. I’ve addressed the issue of the quality of dental therapists in the comment section of previous posts, and within the op-ed itself. The studies of dental therapists, from New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and Alaska, have so far shown that they provide quality in patient outcomes that is comparable to that of professional dentists, and studies show that altering licensure rules to allow dental therapists to practice could improve access to care for children in the United States.

This opposition by the dental lobby despite the lack of evidence to support their position, evidenced in op-eds like these from the MDA, or in legislation to prevent teeth-whitening in kiosks, is an attempt to keep market share by using government power rather than by providing a better service at a better price. Artificially protecting a profession from competition — especially high-quality competition — does not help keep patients safer. Arbitrary rules that prevent qualified mid-level professionals from entering the market only hurt the people they are purporting to help: the patients.

The Mismeasure of Stimulus

Posted on February 18, 2010May 5, 2026 by John Payne

An article in the St. Joe News highlights the accomplishments of federal stimulus dollars in Northwest Missouri:

Missouri’s 6th Congressional District, only two of whose 26 counties gave electoral majorities to President Obama, got more than $314 million last year from the federal economic stimulus program. […]

In Plattsburg, Mo., a $1 million stimulus grant is paired with a $4.3 million low-interest loan to help build a water treatment plant. “Those two things you can’t be upset about,” said City Manager D.J. Gehrt. “But it’s not as simple as getting $5.3 million and you can go out and start your project.”

The engineering plans were finished and submitted for review 13 months ago. But the reviews stalled while agencies pondered where the funding might flow. Further delays have come from setting up mechanisms to repay the debt incurred from the loan.

If all goes as planned, Mr. Gehrt said, the treatment plant will be completed in the summer of 2011, maybe a quicker timetable because of the stimulus money, but maybe not.

In the long run, he added, “it’s going to save the ratepayers in our service area a good amount of money.”

In St. Joseph, the stimulus program directed more than $31 million to recipients like the school district, Missouri Western State University, the Department of Transportation and Community Action Partnership.

Etc. No doubt some people are benefiting from the stimulus, but because government spending does not face a profit and loss test, there is no good way to determine which projects are worthwhile and which wasteful. The article also ignores all the things taxpayers and bond holders would have done with the money had it not been taxed away or loaned to the government — in other words, it only pays attention to the seen, but not to the unseen, effects of the spending. These recipients of stimulus funds would not have received the money to do what they’ve done, but that money would have been used instead to create something else, if it hadn’t been spent in the stimulus.

Furthermore, although the $314 million that the 6th district received may seem like a lot of money, it amounts to less per capita than the national average. During the last year, $334 billion in stimulus spending has been allocated with $119 billion going toward tax cuts and another $14 billion in individual benefits like additional unemployment insurance payments. That leaves $201 billion in spending projects awarded during the last year. According to Wikipedia, the population of Missouri’s 6th district is 621,690, and the estimated population of the United States is 308,705,000, which means that the district contains just barely more than 0.2 percent of the national population. Given that 0.2 percent of $201 billion is $402 million, the district falls under the national average for stimulus spending by $58 million dollars.

Maybe the 6th district’s underwhelming support for Obama during 2008 is in some way related to the underwhelming amount of stimulus funds it has received.

The Sales Tax and Catholic Schools

Posted on February 18, 2010May 5, 2026 by Charis Fischer

The Missouri Catholic Conference (MCC) has come out in opposition to the proposal to implement a statewide sales tax that would replace all corporate and individual income taxes. One of their major concerns is the effect that such a change would have on Catholic schools. By taxing Catholic school tuition, they argue, fewer families would be able to afford it, thus decreasing enrollment and forcing those children into public schools. This is a legitimate concern, but the MCC fails to take into account that with the repeal of the income tax, families would have more money to spend on discretionary expenses in the first place. This money could be devoted to educational expenses, thereby increasing the demand for Catholic school education.

In the chart to the right, the y axis represents the price of parochial education, and the x axis represents its quantity (P and Q represent the status quo price and quantity). The line labeled S1 shows one likely effect if the state income tax were replaced with a sales tax: An increased cost for parochial education would lead to a shift in the supply curve, wherein quantity demanded and supply provided would settle at a lower equilibrium. But the line labeled D1 shows another effect of the replacement of the income tax with a sales tax: Because families would have more money to spend that would have previously gone toward paying taxes, the demand curve for parochial education would shift, as well, leading to a higher equilibrium point for both supply and demand. We can’t predict which one of these effects will dominate, but the point is that replacing the income tax with a sales tax would not necessarily lead to a reduction in the amount of parochial school enrollment demanded by education consumers.

Another concern raised by the MCC is that because poor families already do not pay income tax, they would only be harmed by the implementation of a sales tax and would not benefit from greater income levels. However, as this blog post by Abhi Sivasailam notes, lower corporate and personal income taxes help fuel growth by attracting people and investment funds to the state. This results in higher employment levels and higher incomes, which benefit everyone. Furthermore, the bill as proposed in the Missouri Senate also includes a sales tax rebate for low-income families that may otherwise struggle to pay the sales tax.

The concerns brought forth by the Missouri Catholic Conference are not unfounded, but as my colleague Abhi Sivasailam reminds us, tax changes do not happen in a vacuum. The switch to a sales tax has the potential to greatly benefit Catholic schools in Missouri.

Something Must Be Done!

Posted on February 18, 2010May 5, 2026 by John Payne

As many residents of Saint Louis are aware, there has been a coyote wandering through Tower Grove Park for more than a week. As someone who lives very close to the park, I demand the city of Saint Louis take swift and drastic action to drive the beast from our midst. The city should establish a Coyote Patrol, similar to the Bear Patrol created after a bear wandered into Springfield in The Simpsons episode “Much Apu about Nothing.” No expense should be spared to protect us from the solitary predator: We need round-the-clock surveillance of the park, and patrols of all nearby wooded areas to ensure that no more coyotes sneak in.

While some might say that the risk of coyote attack is still very low — negligible, even — and that therefore we shouldn’t spend lavish amounts of money guarding against it, I respond that the risk can’t be much lower than some other risks the government pours billions into thwarting. And when Tower Grove Park is once again free of coyotes, we will have the government’s Coyote Patrol to thank — just as Homer knew to credit the Bear Patrol for keeping bears out of Springfield:

Schools Tell Kids That Local Hamburgers Are Best

Posted on February 18, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

The Christian Science Monitor describes a Farm to School program in Vermont that encourages local meat consumption. This student has gotten the message (emphasis mine):

“I think it’s really good because we get healthier here than at my old school, and we get more fruits and vegetables and local meat,” says fourth grader Morgan Jones.

The district bought meat from a local farmer, spending an additional $1 per pound above the price it would normally pay.

As Farm to School expands to include products like meat or cheese, it gets harder for supporters to justify the program as anything but protectionism. The appeal of local fruits and vegetables is easier to relate to. Anyone’s who’s eaten delicious fruit right off the tree can sympathize with activists’ support for local produce. (At least, we can sympathize in the early fall and late spring. Activists still have to explain how local produce is superior during the rest of the school year, when very few fruits or vegetables are harvested. Many will say to preserve the local food in the fall — but is locally preserved food really better than food that was preserved somewhere else, or shipped in fresh?)

Meat, on the other hand, has no local advantage at any time of year. There’s no such thing as a hamburger picked fresh off the cow. Meat has to be preserved and prepared no matter where it comes from. Its quality depends on factors like the health of the animals and how safely the meat was handled.

It would be great if Missouri districts could resist this Farm to School trend and refrain from insisting on local meat. Districts should shop around for the safest meat at the best price — and not settle for whatever meat happens to be raised nearby.

I Guess This Is One Way to Deal With Teacher Union Issues

Posted on February 18, 2010May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

This is probably a little more radical than most of us would hope for, but still quite interesting. The news of a school district in Rhode Island firing every teacher comes to us via a former intern, and (personally speaking) one of my favorite Democrats, Calvin H.

Needless to say, I think the changes we need in Missouri require less dramatic action than this, but if this is what they had to do in Rhode Island, I hope it works out. Improving the school, not protecting jobs, is the ultimate goal of sensible education policy — and, if you read the article carefully, it sounds like up to half of the staff will likely be hired back anyway.

WashU Economist Testifies NorthSide Forecasts “Made Out of Thin Air”

Posted on February 17, 2010May 5, 2026 by Audrey Spalding

The first round of arguments against a projected $8.1 billion development of the city of Saint Louis’ north side was made in court yesterday.

The bulk of the trial, which will continue on Feb. 25, was devoted to testimony by Washington University economist Michele Boldrin, who clearly doesn’t think much of the projections and forecasts developer Paul McKee used to persuade city officials that his development was viable and worthy of more than $390 million in tax increment financing (TIF).

“I find these numbers completely unbelievable,” Boldrin said. “Pie in the sky” was another frequent characterization.

And, later, “This is something that if an MBA student came up with this as a term paper, I’d throw him out of the office.”

Boldrin’s main argument, repeated many times, was that no justification was given for any of the especially rosy growth and employment estimates. For example, the development company, NorthSide Regeneration LLC, estimates:

That property value growth rates will be as high as 20 percent in 2010, and 15 percent in a number of following years.

That more than 20,000 new, permanent jobs will be created as a result of this development.

That there will be buyers for 6,000 new homes, valued at an average of more than $450,000.

Dave Roland, a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, testified briefly that the north side area, which you can explore here, is not as blighted as NorthSide asserts. He, and Terry Artis, the owner and founder of the River City Examiner, took video of some of the areas NorthSide had noted as being especially blighted. The video, which is a publicly available court record, is linked below.

Dave Roland – A Look at Purported Cases of North Side “Blight” in St. Louis from Audrey Spalding on Vimeo.

One District’s Competition Is Another District’s Poaching

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

A member of a school board in Madison, Wis., has noticed that it pays for districts to set up online schools. The board member deplores the fact that these schools enroll students from outside districts (an act he refers to as “poaching”):

The legislature has created a system that sets up very strong incentives for a school district to contract with some corporate on-line operation, open up a virtual charter school, and set about trying to poach other districts’ students.

He then compares the ACT scores of his district’s students with the scores of an online school’s students. Fewer of the online school’s students took the ACT, and the average score of those who did was about one point lower than the district’s average.

The board member’s use of the word “poach” brings to mind hunters entering a forest illegally and shooting deer. That can’t be what he means, so lets look at the second definition. According to Dictionary.com, “poaching” can also mean “any encroachment on another’s property, rights, ideas, or the like.” Unless the board member has his own definition of the word, it seems that he views students as his district’s property and thinks other schools need permission to educate them anywhere else.

I’m sure the students who attend online schools don’t see themselves as being poached. They know they don’t belong to any school district. Taking online courses is their decision. And while the board member won’t acknowledge that online schools give students a choice, if it weren’t true, there would be no point in comparing test scores as he does in his essay. Telling people that your district has better scores than a competitor makes sense only if students can act on that knowledge and choose for themselves.

The complaints about poaching make the district look defensive and vulnerable. Districts that are doing well don’t panic when someone else offers online education. St. Louis County districts aren’t accusing SLPS of foul play because it enrolls a few of their students in its Virtual School. It would be silly for the districts to get upset when the vast majority of families prefer their brick-and-mortar schools to the SLPS Virtual School.

The board member’s emotional response may indicate that his district is threatened by the online option. Instead of pointing fingers, the Madison Metropolitan School District should consider opening an online school of its own.

Two Subsidies Don’t Make a Free Market

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

The billions of dollars that the federal government doles out in agricultural subsidies each year — most of which go to a few large corporations, influential politicians, and wealthy landowners — do a lot of damage to the economy. The subsidies insulate businesses from the market forces that would, if left unfettered, force them to innovate and improve. They encourage overproduction and irresponsible farming practices: As farmers try to increase their yields in reaction to artificially high crop prices, they expand their farms into less-fertile land that must be blasted with chemicals if it’s to grow anything at all. And the subsidies make it harder for small farmers to enter the market and compete against the corporations that are propped up by price supports and shielded from risk.

Agricultural subsidies are harmful, no doubt about it. But is there a way to mitigate them? Activists say yes. They contend that new laws would counter the subsidies’ damage. To open the agricultural sector to competition, activists suggest — among other ideas — enacting preferential food policies that require school districts to purchase a set percentage of their cafeteria food from local sources. This, it is argued, would take power away from the corporations and undo some of the subsidies’ bad effects.

As much as I oppose subsidizing corporate agriculture, I can’t support the local food mandates. Ordering schools to buy local food is a poor antidote to corporate subsidies, for these reasons:

There’s nothing to stop corporations from farming near school districts and touting their produce as “local.” Remember, a farm doesn’t have to be small or unsubsidized to count as local; it only has to be nearby. Just as agricultural corporations have stepped up to claim a large share of direct payments and other kinds of farm aid, they’ll also be eager to sell local food — at a premium, because districts won’t have the option to walk away from the sale and buy from businesses located farther away instead.

Preferential treatment for local farmers could cause as much environmental damage as traditional subsidies. It would lure farmers to grow food near school districts, whether or not the land is suitable for crops. A district’s closest farmer might not always be the most responsible with pesticides and fertilizers. Even if you look around and see that your local farmers are environmentally conscious today, the situation might change when new businesses move in to be near a school district and have a guaranteed customer.

Local food mandates place an unfair burden on school districts. District administrators didn’t engineer the mess in the agricultural sector, and fixing it shouldn’t be their job, either. They should be free to focus on their main goal — educating children. Let’s not take money that could go toward teachers’ salaries or building repairs and instead use it to pay a higher price for local food, when healthy food is available at a lesser expense from somewhere else.

Local food mandates, by guaranteeing customers for some farmers through public school policy, are themselves a form of subsidy. Neither the market nor the environment will be well served by adding yet another subsidy to the already over-subsidized farming sector. The real solution is to end government aid for agriculture. When farmers are free to compete on their own merits rather than on their political influence, we may see the market change in favor of farmers who were previously overlooked — including, possibly, farmers near your home or school.

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.