Page 711 – Show-Me Institute

State Recommends Stricter Licensing of Bail Bondsmen

Posted on January 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

Nobody covers the bail bond industry like we do here at the Show-Me Institute. Combest has linked to an AP story in the Springfield News-Leader that details how a state agency is recommending that Missouri tighten its requirements to become a bail bondsmen. Now, I loathe most occupational licensing, but these recommendations (as reported by the article) don’t seem that bad.

I understand the reasoning behind not letting convicted felons serve as bail bondsmen, and that strikes me as a reasonable change. I say this as someone who is very sympathetic to the plight of former convicts getting jobs after serving their time, and I think we have gone too far in limiting the ability of felons to work after their sentences are complete. However, jobs that deal with the court system, like bail bondsmen, seem a reasonable restriction in my opinion.

The other changes, according to the article, are:

The report also recommends larger fines for violations and requiring that applicants have high school diplomas.

Restricting entry requirements through rules or costs are the biggest economic problem with occupational licensing. Fines levied by regulatory agencies to punish misconduct by those who have done something wrong — after they’ve been licensed — are less of an issue, so I don’t greatly object if such fines are raised for current practitioners.

However, the last rule proposal is just stupid. I realize that getting a high school diploma or GED is very simple and has a low cost, but the main question should be whether performing the job competently requires a high school diploma. I fail to see why the job of bail bondsmen should require a high school diploma. The customers who need you don’t care whether you have a diploma on the wall. They care that you have the money to put up, and they need to know that you are going to find them and harm them (I don’t necessarily mean physical harm; returning them to jail is “harming” them) if they skip out on you and the court. The diploma requirement and the requisite job skills just don’t connect.

This is not in any way an attack on the intelligence of bail bondsman. I don’t think being a policy analyst at a think tank should require any type of diploma if you can do the job without it. (But, yes, the author does have a high school and college diploma, just like I am certain that most bail bondsmen have diplomas.)

Job Advice

Posted on January 8, 2010May 5, 2026 by Dave Roland

After being quoted in yesterday’s Post-Dispatch article about a $3.2 million federal grant to help train workers laid off from the Fenton Chrysler plant to work on hybrid and electric vehicles, someone asked me what I would do to help those workers.

I would give them the same advice I would give any person that doesn’t currently have a job:

Research the job market. Find out which jobs and careers seem to have stability and the prospects of remaining in demand in the future.

Identify a career that seems to suit your skills and personality.

If you have not yet developed some of the skills needed for your chosen career, invest in that sort of development. If you don’t have the money to do so already on hand, persuade someone (such as a relative or a bank) to loan you the money. Be sure that the job you are hoping to get will allow you to repay those loans.

Once you have all the necessary skills, go to where the jobs are — even if that would require you to move.

If, having developed these skills, you are still unable to find a job working for someone else, consider starting your own business in which you can do this job.

If you can’t find a job working for someone else and you cannot successfully operate your own business, you must accept that you chose unwisely and go back to step one.

If all of your best efforts fail and you find yourself to be simply unemployable, then you should rely on your friends, relatives, religious community, or charity — people who assist you because they want to, not because the government is forcing them to.

I completely sympathize with anyone trying to find a job or a career, because I’ve been there. I know how hard it can be. But, at heart, the search for employment must be an issue of personal responsibility. No one is entitled to have any particular job or career. We all have to figure out how to keep providing goods and/or services that generate enough value to entice others to pay for them.

If/when the job or career we pursue ceases to generate sufficient value either for our employer or our customers and clients, we have to look elsewhere — and, unless a worker has made certain contractual arrangements with their employer beforehand, no one owes them any extraordinary help in finding a new job or career. But people struggling like this should also keep in mind that opportunity can arise from unusual circumstances, as is demonstrated by this column by Steve Giegerich, who also happened to write yesterday’s article.

The Kindergarten Gatekeepers

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

One criticism I’ve received of my kindergarten readiness posts is that I’m talking about the readiness tests as if they were obstacles children had to get over, or tests to be crammed for, when in fact they’re just snapshots of a child’s ability.

Maybe some districts do use the tests that way, but many others use them as barriers to exclude “failures” from kindergarten. They also instruct parents to prepare their children for the specific tasks on the exams, either at home or through programs like this one:

“It came to our attention that there were children who didn’t pass the [Ohio Department of Education’s] Kindergarten Readiness Test” and therefore couldn’t get into kindergarten […]

[T]he new program for four-and-a-half- and five-year-olds will offer individual instruction, at the child’s ability level, geared toward helping the child pass the readiness test, she said.

The Fulton Public Schools (the district whose readiness tests first prompted me to write about the issue) made it clear that coaching children for the exams is the parents’ duty:

“That green sheet is like your homework to work on between now and April.”

The district is not telling parents to work on their children’s overall development, only on preparing them for the kinds of questions they’ll encounter on the exam.

When districts treat readiness tests as barrier to kindergarten entrance, the arbitrary tasks on the exams become prerequisites for future learning. So while some children could learn to read and write even though they still wear velcro shoes, they all have to be taught to tie laces before they’re admitted to kindergarten.

To Market, To Market

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

I hadn’t noticed a proposal to exempt produce sold at farmers’ markets from sales taxes until I read this column in the Columbia Missourian (link via Combest). The bill in question is S.B. 658.

I’m opposed to exemptions from taxes, be they targeted tax credits or sales tax holidays, because they give the affected businesses an advantage over others. The advantage is the most unfair when the exemption is very narrow.

S.B. 658 certainly qualifies as narrow. The sales tax break would go to goods sold at farmers markets, so an apple sold in a grocery store would be subject to the tax, while the same product sold in a farmers’ market would be exempt. And it wouldn’t even apply to all farmers who sell at markets — the market would have to be a nonprofit or a cooperative.

It gets worse. The bill lists all kinds of products that would be affected, naming them in detail (“flowers,” “maple sugar,” “mushrooms,” etc.). If this bill becomes law, I predict we’ll have to revise it again and again as farmers lobby for additions to the list.

Explaining Teach for America Graduates’ Lack of Activism

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

A study has found Teach for America graduates to be less politically active than people who were accepted into the program but didn’t complete it. Several newspapers and blogs are reporting the finding as a poor reflection on Teach for America. This is from a New York Times article titled “Gauging the Dedication of Teacher Corps Grads”:

In areas like voting, charitable giving and civic engagement, graduates of the program lag behind those who were accepted but declined and those who dropped out before completing their two years, according to Doug McAdam, a sociologist at Stanford University, who conducted the study with a colleague, Cynthia Brandt.

The reasons for the lower rates of civic involvement, Professor McAdam said, include not only exhaustion and burnout, but also disillusionment with Teach for America’s approach to the issue of educational inequity, among other factors.

The study isn’t online yet, but when it is, I’d like to read how McAdam concluded that burnout and disillusionment account for the graduates’ lower rates of political activity. Were those reasons self-reported by the graduates? Or are they the researchers’ conjecture?

I can think of a few other reasons that graduates might be less likely to vote or participate in campaigns. Perhaps the people who completed the program were the most dedicated to their teaching jobs, and now that they’ve graduated, they’re equally dedicated to the jobs they currently hold. Maybe they’re so busy working that they don’t have time to dabble in the political process.

Another possibility is that their teaching experience convinced graduates that the political process is not the best way to achieve their goals. Maybe graduates remain as idealistic as when they started, but they now want to pursue their ideals through means other than politics.

As for the lower rate of charitable giving, a licensing effect could be at work. Alyssa Curran explained what a licensing effect is in her post about a study that found a connection between purchase of “green” products and a decline in altruism. Researchers don’t think subjects in that study became disillusioned with the products; rather, subjects acted as though choosing a socially-valued product gave them a license to be less generous later on. Similarly, Teach for America graduates may feel that because their service was worthwhile and important, they have already done their part for society and are free to be less charitable later.

Whatever the true reasons are, it’s odd to evaluate Teach for America based on graduates’ behavior. What matters is whether participants in the program are effective teachers. It would make more sense to research students’ test scores after they’ve been taught by a Teach for America participant than to analyze their former teachers’ levels of civic engagement.

I hope residents of St. Louis and Kansas City don’t look unfavorably on Teach for America participants in their cities because of research findings that are beside the point.

In Support of State Symbols

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

Legislation has been filed in Wisconsin, my home state, that would make cheese the state’s official snack.

I am sympathetic to Sarah Brodsky’s argument that the role of the state should not include handing out endorsements, and that individuals shouldn’t look to the state for approval. However, I am OK with legislation about state symbols. I feel that the more time the state spends making non-financial endorsements such as for a “state bird” or “state animal,” the less time it spends passing legislation that increases bureaucracy or infringes upon our personal liberties.

Is There Such a Thing as a “Utility Player” in Government Service?

Posted on January 6, 2010May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

I don’t know the answer, but there certainly could be. For those of you — including our intrepid editor — who have no idea what I mean by “utility player,” that is the player on a baseball team who serves as the backup for a number of positions, especially infield. They can be used in many different ways, and that is why they are valuable. (Cardinals fans will always remember Jose Oquendo in that role.) Could there be such a thing for local governments, and would it be a good thing?

I ask because of this article in today’s Kansas City Star about snow-removal efforts in Kansas City. The short answer for why snow removal is taking a long time in Kansas City is simply that there are too many roads and too little staff:

For example, Kansas City plows more than 4,200 lane-miles of main arterials and residential roads, compared with 1,800 lane-miles in Overland Park. During the last round of storms, Overland Park had 125 people involved in snow operations, compared with about 200 to 250 in Kansas City.

Staffing cuts and shortages haven’t helped. Since 1998, Kansas City’s street maintenance staff has dropped from 174 to about 110.

For the record, the reasons they give are entirely acceptable to me, and I have no reason to believe they are not all doing the best they can. Anyone who loves political history like I do knows how much local officials can be judged by these things, though. Just ask Jane Byrne.

This leads me to an open question about local government staffing. Cities and counties in Missouri could have at least a few workers who are trained in multiple fields, and can move from department to department as the needs change. Here is a possible schedule:

December–February of each year: Streets/highways, primarily as snow plow and salt truck drivers.

February–August of odd-numbered years: Assessment divisions, though not as primary assessors. (This has been done by St. Louis County in the past, although mostly just to get lots of people to physically eyeball properties that computers determined rose in value by more than 15 percent.)

Memorial Day to Labor Day every year: Parks Department, while the pools are open and the parks and golf courses are busy.

November–December every year: Revenue Department, collecting checks as everyone pays their property taxes.

Other potential opportunities include working for the Revenue Department on the delinquent tax sale day, the Police Department for parades, protests, etc., and the Health Department for emergency preparedness procedures.

I predict everyone will hate this idea. Libertarians and unions would finally agree on something. I don’t actually support it, because it would be turned into an excuse just to hire more government employees in total, but it would not be a bad thing if we could have a small number of government employees able to assist in multiple fields as seasons and needs change.

Tax Dollars and the Census

Posted on January 6, 2010May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

A Springfield News-Leader article about the Census doesn’t mention the Constitution. Nor does it characterize the Census as a medium for your life story, as the Census Bureau would like you to believe. Instead, it makes participating in the Census sound like a great opportunity to express your dependence on government.

As David Stokes pointed out in the comments to my previous post, local governments want as many people as possible to mail back their Census forms, because Census data determine the allocation of federal funds. A manager in the Springfield Census office puts it bluntly:

“We have to show that there is a need and that there are people here in the community,” she said.

Here’s another quote from her, this time referring to those who don’t participate in the Census as if they were no better than recalcitrant drug addicts:

“We’re trying to be very genuine about how we help the community, and we can’t help them unless they help themselves by cooperating.”

To this manager, civic duty and the Constitution’s directives take second place (if they factor in at all) to grubbing for cash — an effort that will succeed only if you prove that a lot of people in your area need the money. I don’t think this is going to resonate with people. I expect that more people will be enthused about submitting their autobiographies than about begging for handouts.

The “let the government help you” theme reminds me of something from a campaign in 2000. As part of his bid for lieutenant governor, Wendell Bailey ran an ad on the radio that went like this: First, the announcer said, “Seniors have problems.” Then you heard the distraught voice of a senior crying, “We need help!” The announcer came back on with the slogan, “Wendell will work.” Bailey ended up losing the election, and I don’t think the tone of his radio advertising made the campaign any easier for him. People just don’t rally around the idea that they’re helpless.

I’d prefer that officials stress the constitutional source for the Census, but if they’re not going to do that, they might do better to focus on the stories rather than the tax dollars.

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.