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.

Missouri’s Unemployment Compensation Problem

Posted on by Christine Harbin

The Washington Post recently published an article that describes how states’ unemployment compensation funds are running dry in the recession. When a state has more unemployment claims than it can pay, it borrows the difference from the federal government. In all, 25 states — including Missouri — have already borrowed to make their payments, $24 billion in total.

If unemployment continues to rise in the near future, then Missouri will have to borrow even more money from the federal government in order to extend benefits. According to preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the seasonably adjusted unemployment rate for Missouri in November 2009 is 9.5 percent, which is an increase over recent months.

What can a cash-strapped state like Missouri do? From the article:

State unemployment-compensation funds are separated from general budgets, so when there is a shortfall, only two primary solutions are typically considered — either cut the benefit or raise the payroll tax.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. Although I hesitate to encourage cutting benefits, I think that that raising the payroll tax would be a particularly bad idea. Raising the payroll tax would raise the cost of labor, causing employers to stop hiring and/or further shed employees. When you tax something, you get less of it, after all. The state would have to find a way to support an ever-increasing unemployment population with an ever-decreasing employment base.

I also want to point out that employers pay more in unemployment taxes in Missouri than they do in most other states. Missouri employers already have to pay 3.510 percent of payroll in state unemployment taxes. For those in the construction-related industries, the rate is 3.600 percent. (According to the article, the average tax across states is about 0.6 percent.)

Individual Health Insurance Mandate Would Violate Constitutional Liberties

Posted on by Dave Roland

 

Among the elements of the health bill currently being considered by Congress is a requirement that every adult would have to obtain health insurance coverage or face large fines. Legal scholars have been debating whether the U.S. Supreme Court would find such a requirement to be constitutional.

Why are so many Americans uninsured in the first place? It is true that, for many of us, insurance is just unaffordable. But many more voluntarily choose to forgo health insurance. Some follow religions that prohibit the use of modern medicine. Others prefer nontraditional treatments. Still others are confident enough in their propensity for health that they are willing to risk the costs of illness or injury in order to direct their money to concerns they believe to be more pressing. And there are some who, recognizing that most people pay insurance companies far more than they are ever likely to need for their own treatment costs, prefer to self-insure by creating their own health fund.

So, does the U.S. Constitution protect these citizens who might object to the health insurance mandate? Possibly. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the Constitution protects citizens’ rights to associate with others of their choosing, to enter into contracts, to make their own decisions regarding whether or not to receive health care, and, of course, their right to privacy. The court has also recognized that a constitutional right to do something implies a complementary right not to be forced to do that same thing — the freedom of speech, for example, means that the government may not compel you to speak.

For America’s voluntarily uninsured, a congressional directive to purchase health insurance would mean not only sacrificing a huge amount of money, but also potentially their convictions, personal autonomy, and privacy — all for services they do not want, and in some cases may be prohibited from using. This sort of mandate would clearly violate some, if not all, of the constitutional rights listed above, although the Supreme Court might decide that congressional interest in passing the mandate justifies the infringement of those rights.

Certain lawmakers are trying to give Missourians an additional layer of protection. Recognizing that state constitutions are permitted to afford liberties beyond those secured under the U.S. Constitution, half of the state Senate has already agreed to cosponsor Senate Joint Resolution 25, which would amend the Missouri Constitution to specify that citizens have a right to decide for themselves whether they will participate in any health care system.

Under this amendment, government officials would also be denied the authority to prevent citizens from offering or accepting direct payment for health care services, and they would not be permitted to substantially limit the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems. While it is not certain that the Supreme Court would allow state constitutional protections to override a federal statute, this effort could be a useful step toward securing those individual freedoms that ought to be the American birthright.

Dave Roland is a constitutional law expert and a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

 

Of Sin Taxes, Substitute Goods, and Libertarian Paternalism

Posted on by Christine Harbin

In a Reason article, “Have a Coke and a Tax: The economic case against soda taxes,” Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University explains that selective sin taxes are ineffectual because consumers tend to substitute one bad habit with another. De Rugy explains that soda taxes will be unsuccessful at slimming American waistlines because consumers are likely to switch to beverages that are higher in calories.

The trouble is that sin taxers don’t appreciate human creativity: Consumers have a knack for replacing one sin with another. When the price of a “sinful” good increases, people often substitute an equally “bad” good in its place.

As I have blogged about previously, selective taxes on sinful goods are an application of libertarian paternalism. I’m skeptical of plans to implement “nudges” à la Sunstein and Thaler for two main reasons.

First, they assume that the government/”choice architect” actually knows what the “right” choice is for other individuals. The answer to the question “What is healthy?” is a subjective one; it depends on who you ask and when. It also depends on who holds political office and which business interests have his ear.

Second, the government/”choice architect” could restrict free choice by artificially raising the cost of “bad” choices too much. I agree with David Friedman’s deducement that nudges can all-too-easily turn into compulsions. When the government has the authority to micromanage the eating habits and desired weights of its citizens, the individual isn’t free to choose how to eat as she desires.

Instead of nudging people into eating habits that are considered to be healthy at the time, choice architects should focus their efforts on improving the quality and availability of information to consumers, who can decide for themselves.

If America were serious about reducing the caloric intake of its citizens, then officials would eliminate the subsidies that it pays to corn producers rather than instituting sin taxes, because that would be more efficacious. Then food products that are made from corn would be relatively more expensive, and the quantity demanded would decrease. It’s a different means to the same end.

American should also stop pretending that such selective taxes (such as those on fatty food, cosmetic surgery, or indoor tanning) are actually implemented in order to improve public health — their real purpose is to raise enough tax revenue to support the government’s spending habit.

An Alternative to Kindergarten Readiness Tests

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Samuel Meisels, the president of the Erikson Institute in Chicago, was quoted in this article about kindergarten readiness tests:

Meisels said readiness surveys are not accurate indicators of childhood success. He advocates for teachers to observe children over time, rather than a one-time evaluation.

Districts might be inclined to use a flawed assessment rather than none at all, but Meisels explains the damage a readiness test can cause:

“It changes people’s perceptions. It can change a teacher’s perception of likely success in school. It can create parental anxiety. Worst of all, it can make a small student feel stigmatized and less capable,” Meisels said. “If any one of those consequences occur, based on a poorly designed test, it’s inexcusable to me.”

Meisels’ suggestion to observe students over time is a good one, and districts like Fulton could adopt it in place of the readiness tests they use now. The districts could accept all five-year-olds and observe them in their kindergarten class for a week or two. Then, if it’s determined that some children aren’t ready to continue with kindergarten academics, the district could place them in a separate class, have them repeat a year, or make other arrangements.

This system would give children a better chance to prove themselves ready than a short assessment provides. Kindergartners can easily fail a short readiness test because they’re nervous or distracted at the time; observing them in a classroom over several days gives a better picture of how they interact with their environment. And the only downside is that a few children with below-average hand-eye coordination or counting skills would attend kindergarten with the others for a week. (Serious developmental disabilities are not diagnosed with kindergarten readiness tests, but through more involved — and medically meaningful — assessments. So, abolishing readiness screening for all need not interfere with special education services.)

Districts shouldn’t settle for faulty readiness tests when there are better alternatives.

If We All Went Swimming in the Mississippi …

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

… would state math standards improve?

Lest you think that’s an odd question, let me assure you that it was inspired by national standards — specifically, by this sample problem from a Common Core State Standards Initiative publication:

If everyone in the world went swimming in Lake Michigan, what would happen to the water level? Would Chicago be flooded?

Ze’ev Wurman, who helped write California’s state math standards, criticizes that problem in an op-ed today. Wurman comments that the problem tests students’ knowledge of facts such as “Lake Michigan’s surface area” and “whether the water will spill over to Lake Huron before flooding Chicago” (as well as testing students’ credulity, I might add), but that only low-level math is required to solve it. Wurman writes that most of the other sample problems suffer from similar deficiencies, and that someone who mastered the standards but didn’t go beyond them would be placed in remedial math in California’s public colleges.

California doesn’t stand to gain much from national standards, because its state standards are widely acknowledged to be excellent. Other states that signed on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative, including Missouri, might be able to improve their standards slightly by adopting the recommendations. But why should any state agree to the Common Core Standards when there are better standards out there — namely, California’s?

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