Innovations for Healthy Kids Game Challenge

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The USDA, always eager to tell kids what they should eat, wants to spread its message through a more effective medium than “Know Your Farmer” trading cards. The department is soliciting feedback for a contest to reward creators of online games that teach kids about nutrition.The games must be based on USDA data.

MyPyramid Blast Off Game is the only game I’ve found on the MyPyramid.gov website. It’s cute and colorful, albeit inflexible. Players are supposed to select a day’s menu from a list of foods. The game doesn’t take into account differences in nutritional needs, so every player is scored as an average American. A kid who is lactose intolerant has to choose dairy servings anyway, and a kid with Celiac disease has to add whole grains to the rocket ship’s “diet.” Players see a message that their rocket ship didn’t complete its mission if they go over the recommended calorie limit, even if they go just a few calories past the target with an extra serving of vegetables.

The contest will probably inspire new games that improve on MyPyramid Blast Off. Developers could start from the same premise but add complexity, allowing nutritional targets to vary. There would be no need to solicit personal health information from kids — players could be asked the design menus for hypothetical people. Changing targets would also make the game more fun to play repeatedly. In the current game, once players create menus for themselves, there’s nothing more to do.

I’m less confident that an online game can change a generation’s eating habits. Is it worthwhile for the government to sponsor a nutrition contest that may not have a large effect on public health? As usual, the USDA has lofty aspirations, and I’m left wondering whether we’re all really better off because of its actions.

Hoop House Dreams

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A video from the USDA shows the erection of hoop houses — also referred to less imaginatively as “high tunnels” — at the White House Garden. The USDA, through its “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” campaign, is launching a pilot study that will subsidize farmers’ hoop house purchases in the interest of increasing the availability of local produce. From the press release:

The 3-year, 38-state study will verify if high tunnels are effective in reducing pesticide use, keeping vital nutrients in the soil, extending the growing season, increasing yields, and providing other benefits to growers.

Missouri is among the states that will participate.

Farmers have sheltered plants in temporary greenhouse structures like these for decades. The practice wouldn’t have continued for so long if it weren’t advantageous, so I’m sure the study will find that hoop houses provide some benefits.

What is less certain is whether the USDA’s high expectations will be borne out. The press release states that the study will look into pushing back the end of the growing season. That seems like a reasonable — even cautious — goal, knowing that farmers already use hoop houses for that purpose. But, in the video, officials blithely assert that you can grow food year-round in a hoop house, in “pretty much any climate.”

Are hoop houses tools that can help some farmers grow crops a little longer? Or are they miracle implements that make plants grow anywhere, anytime? I suspect that if the latter were true, most farmers would buy hoop houses without the inducement of a subsidy. After all, hoop houses sell for anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars — not a big up-front expense. That would be a small price to pay for the ability to grow crops during several additional months of the year, no matter the weather.

Enhanced Enterprise Zone in Webster County

Posted on by Christine Harbin

According to an article in The Springfield News-Leader, Webster County in Missouri is seeking designation as an Enhanced Enterprise Zone so that it can attract industry and create jobs. The article communicates that Webster County is economically depressed and that the EEZ designation will benefit the area with new businesses and jobs, but it divulges few details about how the program is constructed. The following are the few that it includes:

The discretionary program offers state tax credits, accompanied by local real property tax abatement, for businesses that meet criteria such as adding jobs. […]

Ipock said state tax credits will only be allowed for qualified businesses and are geared toward industrial development.

Businesses that are ineligible to receive the tax credits include gambling establishments, adult businesses, retail trade, educational services, religious organizations, public administrators, food and drink establishments.

I disagree that the program’s benefits should be for “qualified” businesses. This is the same as the fundamental argument against targeted tax credits, like those to filmmakers. The government should not have the authority to pick and choose which businesses can operate in its borders. These programs create inequality because they force businesses that aren’t “qualified” to compete at a comparative disadvantage. This consequently encourages corruption, because it gives businesses an incentive to solicit the government for special treatment.

Instead, Webster County should focus on creating a favorable tax environment that would benefit all businesses equally, such as reducing commercial property tax surcharges and repealing mandates. If the city of Saint Louis were toying with such an idea, I would recommend that it repeal the earnings tax instead.

I also disagree that the focus of the program should be on job creation. Public works projects, such as Enhanced Enterprise Zones, encourage nonproductive work (e.g., “work for works’ sake”). I think that Milton and Rose Friedman would agree; in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, they write:

If all we want are jobs, we can create any number—for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks.

Furthermore, although the program may be successful at attracting the targeted industries, any activity that it generates will be discounted by the amount of the economic incentives that it takes to attract it. As Henry Hazlitt explains in Economics in One Lesson, spending in the private sector destroys jobs in the private sector. This is because public spending is financed by money that is taken from taxpayers, who can’t spend this money on products and services in the private sector that would generate productive economic activity.

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.

Quick Fixes Won’t Raise Test Scores

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Charles Murray can’t be pleased with the New York City Department of Education’s plan to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on online SAT prep for public school students. Murray doesn’t believe policy can cause a significant rise in test scores, so he must view this expenditure — or any other program with a similar goal — as a waste of resources.

While I’m generally more optimistic that scores can rise, in this case I agree that student achievement is unlikely to change. A test prep course could help if students are simply unfamiliar with the test, or if they just need a little extra practice with the kind of questions that appear on it. But if low scores reflect a deeper problem, as I suspect they do for many New York students, last-minute test prep won’t make a difference.

The best course of action would be to improve schooling for younger students, years before they take college admissions exams. Then, by the time they get to high school, they won’t struggle with the math and vocabulary found in the SAT.

New York shouldn’t give up on current high school students, but it needs to help them build a stronger foundation of knowledge than what they’ll get from a course on test-taking strategies. The department could stick with the online education model, and instead of explicitly offering free test prep, it could open English or math courses similar to the St. Louis Public Schools’ virtual school. Course materials needn’t teach to the test, although students whose skills improved would do better on test day as a consequence. To preserve the college admissions focus, the department could use a practice SAT to place students into different course levels.

New York shouldn’t limit its use of online education to preparing students for one test. We want students to be prepared for the next high school course they take, and for whatever courses they take beyond high school, too.

It’s As If the Housing Bubble Never Happened!

Posted on by Christine Harbin

Today, the Suburban Journals reminds us that, earlier this month, the Missouri Housing Development Commission approved an initiative that will offer property tax relief to Missouri home buyers. From the article:

Under the new program, eligible Missouri families who enter into a contract to buy a new or existing Missouri home after Jan. 1 would have their property tax for the year paid, up to $1,250. In addition, to support the creation of “green jobs” in Missouri, families would be eligible for an additional $500 in tax relief if they buy an energy-efficient home or items to make the home more energy-efficient, such as Energy Star appliances.

Home ownership — just like any other investment — involves significant risks and costs. I’m worried that Missouri could help provoke another housing crisis by encouraging home ownership amongst those who wouldn’t otherwise select it.

In an op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader, to which David Stokes previously linked, Paul Hamby presents an alternative means than government subsidies to increasing home ownership:

If the goal is to get more Missourians into housing, there is a simple proven formula for that: Good paying jobs for Missourians. A business climate to create more jobs is where the governor should be focusing. That means less government regulation, fewer taxes on small businesses and families and fewer federal mandates. When government starts meddling, fairness goes out the window.

Amateur Radio Licenses and Red Balloons

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The FCC issues three classes of licenses to amateur radio operators. The Extra class — the third, and hardest class of license to earn — is a great example of a license with no public safety justification. It’s purely an exercise of government power.

Here’s how the Extra class works: If you pass a test on electronics and radio regulations that covers more advanced material than the test for the Technician and General classes, you get to communicate over portions of the radio spectrum that are off-limits to people who hold only Technician and General licenses. Nothing about those parts of the spectrum makes them need special regulation; they’ve simply been set aside as the province of elite radio amateurs.

Some amateur radio enthusiasts defend the system, saying that the Extra class encourages operators to gain expertise, and that everyone in society benefits from the resulting propagation of knowledge. This argument is similar to the rationale for the DARPA Network Challenge, which was supposed to contribute to our understanding of communications and problem-solving.

I don’t buy the argument in either case. When the government offers an incentive for learning, the people who already have the information or would have learned it anyway step up to claim the prize. This was clearly the result of the DARPA Network Challenge. The federal government offered a $40,000 prize to whoever could find 10 red balloons released around the country, and scholars at M.I.T. — who were already deeply interested in networks — organized a network, found the balloons, and won the contest. We spent $40,000 of taxpayer money (plus however much it cost to administer the contest) to discover that people at M.I.T. are smart.

So it is with the amateur radio licenses. The most motivated operators brush up on their trigonometry and take the test, while others settle for the General class and its fewer privileges. People who weren’t interested in electronics don’t suddenly become scientists when they hear about the Extra class. And even if some operators do learn facts that they wouldn’t have were it not for the exam, there are less coercive ways to achieve that goal. For instance, public libraries or community colleges could offer free classes about radio communications.

The state of Missouri doesn’t grant amateur radio licenses. But Missouri licenses many other activities, and should beware to avoid the FCC’s manner of regulating. Two pieces of advice: First, don’t issue licenses that have no bearing on the general welfare. Second, once you’ve established a licensing requirement, don’t create a license class for people who have learned more or otherwise gone the extra mile. It’s not the state’s job to give them a pat on the back, or to reward accomplishments with special privileges.

Senate Passes Health Care Reform Bill on Christmas Eve

Posted on by Alyssa Curran

The Senate has finally passed a health care reform bill, after months of heated debate. The $871 billion plan, according to a CNN article by Alan Silverleib, must now be merged with a $1 trillion House bill passed in November, which should provide the president with a bill to sign before his 2010 State of the Union address.

The two bills share some commonalities. From the article:

Among other things, the House and Senate have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They also have agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan and the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history. However, both bills allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for older customers.

Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty level, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four. The Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.

One of the issues disagreed upon most strenuously by the two bodies of Congress is how to pay for the plan:

The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions.

Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.

The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. But instead of an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, it would impose a 40 percent tax on insurance companies that provide what are called “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

The article points out that the president predicts the final bill will include a little of both proposals.

Another major divide is that the House bill includes a public option, but the Senate bill does not — instead, it includes nonprofit private co-ops overseen by the government.

Both bills would penalize those who do not purchase coverage.

The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual’s income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income, whichever is greater. Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

Businesses would also see an even greater penalty under both plans.

As for now, we can only sit back and wait as the House and Senate fight it out for a final bill of reform, and see whether it meets with any other roadblocks.

Missouri Had Negligible Net Migration During 2008-09

Posted on by Christine Harbin

This week, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post both published articles that analyze recent Census data on net domestic migration patterns. Both articles suppose that fewer Americans are relocating to southern and western states because of the recession and housing crisis. From the Washington Post article:

As the latest data suggest, hard times have led many people to abandon once-booming locales, and increasing numbers of others to stay put, when they cannot sell their houses or land new jobs.

Domestic migration data is interesting because it demonstrates how people “vote with their feet.” People typically move to states that have competitive environments that are more favorable, and away from states that do not.

Neither article includes statistics about Missouri specifically, so I downloaded the 2008 state population estimates and the 2008–09 “components of population change” data from the Census Bureau to find out. I computed the rate of domestic migration by dividing the net domestic migration by the population, and also the rate of total migration by dividing the total migration by the population. (Note: The articles use total population change, which is a different figure.)

Screen shot 2009-12-24 at 10.11.59 AM

For Missouri, the rate of domestic migration was 0.00 percent. How anticlimactic. This means that the number of people who moved from Missouri to other states during 2008–09 was equal to the the number of people who did the opposite. However, when we account for international migration, the rate of total migration is 0.10 percent. Compared to other states, Missouri has the 17th-lowest rate of total migration.

Data recently released by United Van Lines confirms the statement that the percentage of moves into and out of Missouri are about equal. Missouri was listed as seventh on the list of the most balanced states — its percentage of inbound shipments is 54.0, and its percentage of outbound shipments is 46.

If it weren’t for the fact that the number of births (80,865) exceeded the number of deaths (55,449) during this period, Missouri wouldn’t have grown at all.

Maintaining a constant population size has a benefit, though — Missouri won’t lose congressional seats.

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