Missouri intends to give only half of its Race to the Top grant, should it receive one, to districts. The rest would pay for expanding high-speed Internet access.
When a state plans to spend a large portion of Race to the Top grant money outside of schools, that’s a sign that the Department of Education is offering too much money.
Jefferson City has grudgingly lifted its ban on tattoo parlors. They are now legal, but subject to several regulations: The shops can’t open before 9 a.m., and must close by 8 p.m. They can’t display any neon lights. And they can’t stand out:
The Jefferson City News-Tribune reports that another stipulation requires the businesses to aesthetically blend in with their surroundings.
That last requirement is the least reasonable. No store can look just like the establishments surrounding it while simultaneously advertising itself to customers. And the burden of this regulation will only increase over time, for if neighboring businesses come and go, a tattoo shop will have to continually redesign itself to blend in with the changing scene.
I can’t imagine what tattoo shops will look like under this ordinance. Will a tattoo parlor next to an office building have to masquerade as corporate headquarters?
The new policy doesn’t satisfy all tattoo shop critics; some would prefer that tattoo shops stayed out of Jefferson City. One council member explains why he opposed ending the ban:
“Many times these things are done randomly without much forethought and individuals do regret this,” said Pope.
I would expect people who share this opinion to call for waiting periods before anyone can get a tattoo, rather than bans. Completely banning tattoo parlors prevents people who do exercise foresight from getting tattoos — and why should they be punished for someone else’s lack of judgment? This council member should at least be happy with the new policy’s regulation of operating hours, because whoever decides to get a tattoo after 8 p.m. will have all night to reconsider.
Today, the Show-Me Institute launched four new online tools that enable Missourians to track state spending, employee pay, tax credits, and stimulus projects. These tools take state-provided datasets and make them understandable and intuitive for just about anyone. You can create your own graphs or quickly compare detailed information among state agencies.
In my opinion, there couldn’t have been a better time for Missourians to have these tools. At 7 p.m. today, Gov. Jay Nixon will deliver his State of the State address. Given the continuing decline in state tax revenues, Nixon could soon announce another round of budget cuts, on top of the hundreds of millions already cut from the state budget this fiscal year.
Sen. Jason Crowell has argued that tax credits should be part of the state budget process, instead of allowing government agencies to dole out credits with little regard for how much the state can afford to give out each year. And, of course, state agencies and local governments across the board have accepted hundreds of millions in federal “budget stabilization” dollars, which lets them stave off cuts, for now.
Our online tools can help you put these issues into perspective.
Although a $200 million round of budget cuts may seem drastic, state expenditures in 2009 were up more than $1.5 billion from 2008 (see the “Spending Overview” tab). As for state tax credits, I was surprised to see that the amount issued each year varies wildly (see the “Overview” tab) — from a high of more than $500 million in 2006 to less than $150 million in 2009. Most startling is the amount of federal money that state agencies and local school districts are leaning on. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has spent nearly $350 million of federal budget stabilization money, and has less than $100 million left (See the “Spending & Revenue by Program” tab).
The data behind these tools will be updated each week, which means you can check back periodically to see what’s new. It’s my hope that these tools are an easy way to keep up with what the state is actually doing, instead of the latest political rhetoric.
The St. Louis Business-Journal has a story about what one government program has recently done. The Business-Journal article is just a news story about the St. Louis development loan program, but it gives a perfect example of a government program that has absolutely no reason to exist and should be eliminated tomorrow. It is nice to be able to get specific once in awhile, rather than just expressing general “cut government” statements, so here I go.
The revolving loan fund of the St. Louis Local Development Corporation serves no need that the private sector cannot meet. It serves no legitimate public purpose, and should be abolished. It should be a market decision whether two restaurateurs can get backing to open more restaurants in St. Louis. Tax dollars have no business being involved in these projects. I am fully aware that this is a loan program, not a gift program, but I don’t care. Even if they get every penny back with interest, the loans serve no legitimate public purpose, the government has no business being involved in things like this, and it still takes tax dollars above and beyond the loan amounts themselves to employ the people who work for the STLDC. The program deserves to be abolished.
All right, so the title of this post is a bit misleading — I just wanted to get as many acronyms and abbreviations in there as possible. Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders announced today that Jackson Co. will file suit against the make-up of the TIF Commission in Kansas City. Prime Buzz has the early scoop here.
This is a big issue, and you will see a lot more from the Show-Me Institute about it as it goes forward. Basically, I completely agree with the county on the larger issue of the KC TIF commission’s fairness. (Debating the details will have to wait a day or so until I have time to read everything carefully.) TIF commissions at the municipal level are a rigged game. The city gets to appoint so many members that the whole commission is clearly stacked. In St. Louis County, they are currently working with a modified TIF commission that gives the county more influence and the various cities less. It has not faced a real test yet, but I support the increased county role. I would support it for Jackson County, too, and I wish Co. Exec. Sanders and the county luck in this dispute.
I wrote about this issue in some detail nearly two years ago, in an op-ed arguing that all TIF decisions be made at the county level, and another piece commending St. Charles County for its resistance to the use of TIF. It looks like both of these pieces are very applicable to Kansas City and Jackson County right now. Nifty stuff.
It would be nice if every person had health insurance that covered every possible medical expense. Unfortunately, that sort of insurance would cost an astronomical amount of money. That is a simple fact in a world with scarce resources. However, that fact does not deter politicians from trying to force everyone into insurance plans that cover an ever-wider array of treatments and thus cost ever-greater amounts of money. The most recent effort for expanded coverage focuses on treatments for autism. From the Political Fix:
About one in 100 children are diagnosed with some form of autism, studies have shown.
The bills’ sponsors, Sen. Scott Rupp, R-Wentzville, and Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst, R-St. Louis County, want to make sure families can get coverage for expensive therapy known as Applied Behavioral Analysis, which often involves 20 to 40 hours a week of one-on-one sessions with therapists.
As filed, the bills would require insurance policies to cover $72,000 a year in treatment for children and adults up to age 21.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying insurance to cover treatments for autism, but not everyone needs or wants this insurance, so they should not have to pay for it. For example, as I read the article, a family of four would be forced to continue paying for this insurance even if neither of their children showed any signs of autism. Not everyone requires the same kind of medical coverage, but by mandating that everyone buy similar high-end insurance policies, the only thing we ensure is higher prices for everyone.
The forms that the Census Bureau sends out aren’t directed at children, and when Census workers go door-to-door collecting information about households that didn’t respond, they can’t accept answers from anyone under 15 years old. So this cute jingle telling people to raise their hands and say “Here we are” appears to target the wrong audience.
There are a few other Census promotions that I just don’t get. One is this public service announcement that urges viewers to “make your voice heard.” The Census asks people very specific and limited questions, as it should. It doesn’t ask for your opinion or for a personal statement. People who fill out every line of the Census form won’t be making their voices heard — they’ll just be reporting basic details about their households to the government.
And then there’s a clip from a legislator from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota that’s both inspiring and scary. I say “inspiring” because it starts off with a message of being true to yourself and overcoming whatever obstacles you face. (The legislator then loses me by saying that the way to overcome those obstacles is to participate in the Census.) The scary part is the end of the segment, when the legislator ominously warns that federal funding for health care will be insufficient if some tribal members don’t fill out their forms.
I hope Show-Me Daily readers will mail back their Census forms, in accordance with the Constitution. But I’m not expecting thunderbolts from heaven if a few of you don’t participate. And, to the people who want to express themselves: Blogs are a better medium than government paperwork.
Here’s some good news for consumers: Schnucks is dispensing free prenatal vitamins to women with prescriptions. The offer builds on Schnucks’ free antibiotics program, which brought positive publicity and new customers to Schnucks pharmacies.
This is an example of market forces lowering health care costs. Schnucks wants to draw people to its stores, and to do that it has to stand out from its competitors. Other pharmacies will probably follow suit — if not with the same promotions as Schnucks, then with discounts on other medical services or products.
In the policy debate over the cost of care in hospitals, much of the discussion deals with putting medicine under regulatory control. Instead, we should be asking: How can we make hospitals operate more like Schnucks?
Yesterday on the Tax Foundation’s Tax Policy Blog, Joseph Henchman discusses Michigan’s filmmaker tax credit program. He asks many of the same questions that I have raised on this blog, e.g.: Why is the state targeting the film industry and not others? Why should the state compete with other states through subsidy when it could still consume the product regardless?
He references a study that The Tax Foundation released last Thursday, “Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy,” which concluded that production incentives such as targeted tax credits do not incite economic growth.
Henchman cautions:
With Michigan so determined to pour its tax dollars into filmmakers’ pockets as the state falls apart, other states should be wary of taking them on.
I hope that Jeff City is listening!
Supporters for film productive incentives argue that they encourage employment, but I see little evidence that this is happening in Michigan. Far and away, Michigan continues to have the highest unemployment rate in the nation: 14.7 percent. (Rhode Island is the runner up, with “only” 12.7 pecent). I also want to note that, despite the fact that Michigan’s unemployment rate decreased from 15.1 percent in October, its labor force shrunk by 4,346 people during that period. This can probably be attributed partly to people giving up their job hunts or moving out of state to find work.
