Have a Merry Census

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This article in the Southeast Missourian features quotes from Missouri officials about why people should participate in the Census. No one mentions the reason I find most compelling: The Constitution requires us to take a census every ten years. Still, all of the quotes are more germane than the talk about “portraits” and “stories” that we’ve heard from the Census Bureau lately. At least the article discusses how government will use the information that’s collected.

When you look at all the media coverage of the Census marketing campaign, it’s easy to forget that most people won’t receive their forms until the middle of March. With each new Census, there’s more advertising and it starts earlier — kind of like how stores try to stretch the holiday shopping season by bringing out the Christmas decorations earlier and earlier in the fall.

I hope it’s another 10 years before we encounter a vast campaign promoting the 2020 Census.

Bill Would Broaden Definition of “Service Dog”

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

H.B. 1293 would include dogs that perform therapeutic services under the legal definition of “service dog.” The current definition lists specific jobs that dogs can do — acting as a guide dog, a mobility dog, or a couple of others — and the change would grant dogs that perform other therapeutic services the same legal protection. Dogs that volunteers bring with them when they visit patients would still be excluded by the new definition.

This change would improve the law. Dogs are used to treat an increasing number of medical conditions, and confusion over which animals are really service dogs can lead to disputes. This was apparent this past year in Illinois, where an appeals court decided that a boy with autism may bring his dog to school. The school district had argued that the dog was just a pet and not a service dog.

We can’t expect legislators to keep up with every medical advance and to update the definition of “service dog” each time a dog is used in the treatment of another condition. It would be better to have a more general definition, like the one proposed in Missouri’s H.B. 1293.

Targeted Tax Credits Rear Their Ugly Head in the Missouri Legislature Again

Posted on by Christine Harbin

As Steve Walsh explains in an article on Missourinet, this time the industry targeted for tax credits is data centers.

From the article, we can see that support for this policy comes from those who would benefit most (i.e., rent-seeking behavior):

The push for the legislation comes from what is known as the Missouri Coalition for Data Centers, which is made up of businesses and local economic development agencies.

For reasons I’ve explained before on this very blog, targeted tax credits aren’t good policy. I’m beginning to feel like a broken record here!

Missouri should stop using targeted tax credits as an economic development policy, and instead let the free market decide which economic activities take place inside state borders. Officials should focus on creating tax policies that don’t favor one kind of business over another, such as reducing commercial property tax surcharges or corporate income taxes.

If other states decide to spend tax money to attract specific industries, be it filmmakers or data management centers, then Missouri shouldn’t feel the need to imitate them. To paraphrase Josh Smith’s comments on my recent post about tax credits to filmmakers, this is particularly true when Missourians: (1) are still able to get the benefits of the product by paying to receive the data management service; and, (2) don’t have to spend their tax money to entice the data management companies to locate here, resulting in a few obvious benefits.

Link via John Combest.

Columbia School Reluctant to Open More Single-Sex Classes

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Field Elementary in Columbia offers optional single-sex classes, as does Carmen Trails Elementary in St. Louis county. But, unlike Carmen Trails, which added a grade to the program this year in response to parents’ demand, Field has no intention of expanding without proof that single-sex classes raise test scores.

Field will never get the proof it wants. To show that single-sex schooling improves student achievement, you would have to randomly assign some students to single-sex classes and others to coed classes. Otherwise, you can’t tell whether the students in the single-sex track are comparable to their peers in the coed track. Perhaps students who struggle are more likely to look for a change and to opt in to the single-sex classes. Or, it could be that the most involved parents seek out single-sex education, and that parental involvement gave those students an advantage. It’s impossible to sort out these factors as long as the program remains voluntary.

Will Missouri Districts Compete for Students?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Choice between school districts is up for consideration this legislative session.

Choice is a foreign concept for school districts, but it’s seen as normal in other parts of the public sector. For example, nobody has to go to a branch of the public library that’s assigned to them, nor do they have to buy stamps at the branch of the post office in their municipality.

I hope legislators will keep inter-district choice proposals simple and won’t create a lot of rules and exceptions. I’m thinking of Philadelphia, which has allowed inter-district choice for five years. There, only one district in each county can accept transferring students. Limits like that defeat the purpose of a choice program, which should aim to give everyone more options.

Census Bureau Spotlights Locavores and a Free-Market Redneck

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Yesterday, I wrote about the Census Bureau’s “Portrait of America” campaign, which is collecting videos from people as part of its road tour. Today, I returned to the 2010 Census website to watch some of the videos that are already up. (Click on “See Their Stories” if you’d like to follow along.)

These videos are more professional than anything people will produce at the “Portrait of America” kiosks. They show edited interviews with rural, small-town, and urban residents. Each segment tries to convince viewers that the Census is important.

I started with “Broadway” and watched Breanne and Dave talk about their urban garden. The video briefly mentions that the Census helps determine the allocation of grant money, including the funding their garden received. But, mostly, Breanne and Dave list the fruits and vegetables they’re growing. We also get to see a close-up of their coop, and to read this message:

So you can have a say in how your neighborhood grows.

This implies that how people garden in your neighborhood is something we all have to decide collectively — and that if you don’t fill out your Census form, you won’t get to choose between strawberries and tomatoes.

Next, I turned to “Pine Road.” (Who came up with these hokey names? Well, I guess I should just be glad they didn’t call it “Highway Census.”) You can’t miss the farmer’s market. I searched the scene in vain for a raw milk distributor — maybe they’re hiding the milk in one of those coolers in fear of a sting operation.

I listened to Chris’ story — and was amused by the Census Bureau’s stereotypical depiction of free-market supporters. Chris is a taxidermist. He doesn’t have a license to do this, because his state, Texas, doesn’t license taxidermists. That seems unremarkable. Why should you have to get a license to stuff dead wildlife? Who would the license protect? The animals? They’re already dead!

Chris doesn’t think we need any more laws and regulations about taxidermy. Because of this, the website informs us in the written preview of the video, Chris is reluctant to share any information with the government. In other words, this implies, if you don’t want your state to impose a bunch of extraneous license requirements on you, you must be a paranoid Texan who doesn’t want to fill out a form about how many people live in your household. And you probably have a whole herd of dead deer behind you, too.

Then, something amazing happens. The interviewer hands Chris a Census form. Chris has never seen one of these before and doesn’t know what’s on it. (I wonder where he was when we did this 10 years ago. Maybe he was too busy hunting.) In addition to being a skilled taxidermist, Chris is also an expert speed reader. He glances at the sheet for one second, expresses astonishment that it’s only a page long, and is converted. The Census doesn’t ask any questions about income, so Chris is willing to fill it out. The interviewer doesn’t bother to inform him that we tell the government about our income on a different form, one we’re supposed to fill out more often than once a decade.

Breanne, Dave, and Chris are all entitled to their opinions. What I don’t like is that the Census Bureau is using tax dollars to produce videos about them, giving the impression that personal gardens are good uses of federal funding or that Chris’ views are representative of free-marketers. The Census Bureau should stick to its job of administering the Census. If these other people want to share their lives, they can do that on YouTube.

One last thing, in case you’re wondering: If you want to be a taxidermist in Missouri, you’ll need to buy a $30 permit.

O Ye of Little Faith in Transit-Oriented Development

Posted on by David Stokes

There is a decent article in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch about proposals for transit-oriented development in St. Louis. I say “decent” because it has a lot of good information, but it also misses out on a few key points and never attempts to question government involvement in all of these projects. Read the article carefully, and then tell me if you can find one proposal discussed at all that does not involve significant government subsidies. Is transit-oriented development really profitable if every project depends on things like this?

That changed last fall, when the federal government made $1.5 billion in transportation funding available as part of its economic stimulus package. Metro and McCormack Baron partnered to apply for $19 million, a good chunk of the $43.2 million it would take to build the development project.

How can someone really say the following when every TOD project around MetroLink has been subsidized?

“There’s a market out there for this,” he said. “I don’t think we’ve quite recognized it yet.”

Look, I’d love to be wrong about this, and will gladly correct myself if someone can give me an example of a TOD project that succeeded on its own merits. Furthermore, I am fully aware that developments of all types in Missouri have been taxpayer subsidized, as I, along with others here at the Show-Me Institute, have also argued against. But I won’t buy into any dreams of St. Louis becoming a mass transit mecca until I see one TOD that succeeds without the crutch of the taxpayer subsidy. I expect to wait a long time.

George Bailey Wanted to Be an Urban Planner

Posted on by David Stokes

I, like billions of other people, watched It’s a Wonderful Life over the holiday season. Unlike many prior watchings, though, this time I sat down and watched the entire movie from beginning to end. I bet a lot of people have seen it mostly like I had, parts picked up here and there until you know the whole thing by heart. However, this time I picked up on a line which either I had not caught before or didn’t really care about before. When George Bailey is discussing his dreams with his father early in the film (scroll down to the third-quote from the bottom for most of the scene, but not this one line), he lists for his dad all the dreams he had, including a desire to “plan modern cities.”

Obviously, things got in the way — so that dream, like so many of George’s, never came true. But, thankfully, it all worked out in the end and Clarence got his wings. I have news for George Bailey: Pottersville was a planned city. Bedford Falls was not. Which one would you rather live in? (I know, I admit I’d rather hang out in Pottersville, too, but I want to live in Bedford Falls.)

Friends and Farmers

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I enjoyed this column by Don Curlee about the USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative. He asks an excellent question:

Will life be sweeter if we are personally acquainted with the guy who made our bathtub?

Most people have no desire for better knowledge of the workers who did their plumbing or built their garages. (Or who put together their carports, as the case may be.) Those workers contribute to our economy just like farmers do. So why does the USDA single out farmers for us to associate with?

Curlee wisely observes that even if you want to know your farmer, your farmer might not want to know you. Farmers, after all, are busy people with lives of their own. I agree. It’s patronizing of the USDA to assume that farmers want closer acquaintanceship with all the final consumers of their produce, as if farmers had infinite free time or lacked friends.

After reading the many sensible things Curlee says, I’m confused by this statement toward the end of the column:

Somebody at the USDA deserves credit for encouraging a closer relationship between food producers and food consumers.

People should feel free to cultivate relationships based on shared interests, ideas, and personalities — but you shouldn’t have to hang out with someone just because chance juxtaposed the two of you on the food supply chain.

It’s wrong for a federal agency to endorse farmers as uniquely worthy of friendship. For the same reasons, I’m opposed when Missouri schools present this ideology to children as an unchallenged truth.

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