How Is Service of Process Fees Like the School Funding Formula?

Posted on by David Stokes

They are alike because the smaller counties in Missouri choose not to tax themselves to pay enough for their sheriff deputies, so the state then taxes all counties, including the larger counties that already pay their deputies a decent salary, in order to make up the disparity.

As a former St. Louis County deputy sheriff, I am uniquely qualified to comment on this story. The Political Fix has a post here about the decision in a lawsuit brought by St. Charles and St. Louis counties. Now, my own post is not a comment on the decision in the lawsuit. I have no idea whether the specific legal claims have merit. I just know that this is one more example in which the taxpayers in our larger counties have to pay higher taxes (or, in this case, a higher fee) for something because the smaller counties refuse to tax themselves enough.

I have absolutely no problem with smaller counties choosing to tax themselves less, but I do have a problem with taxing the larger counties more in order to pay employees in smaller counties more. I do not know whether this could be considered “socialism” or not, as County Executive Steve Ehlmann said, but I do know that it is terrible public policy, and blatantly biased as well.  Both county executives Ehlmann and Charlie Dooley deserve credit for fighting this new law.

Surveying Economists

Posted on by Abhi Sivasailam

The results of a new survey of members of the American Economic Association suggest that the Show-Me Institute is in good company.

The survey finds economists in consensus on several key policy issues:

  • 51.6 percent agree: “The U.S. should place more stringent caps on medical malpractice awards.”

  • 63.7 percent agree: “Barriers to entering the medical profession should be reduced.”

  • 78.3 percent agree: “Government subsidies on ethanol in the U.S. should be” reduced at least somewhat.

  • 42.4 percent agree: “State governments in the U.S. should eliminate mandates about what health insurance must cover.”

  • 62 percent disagree: “Employers in the U.S. should be required to provide health insurance to their full-time employees.”

Other interesting results:

  • 83.3 percent agree: “The U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.”

  • 70.3 percent agree: “The U.S. should allow payments to organ donors and their families.”

Opt-in or Opt-out?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Jonathon Braden at the Homeroom blog reports on the lingering controversy about the president’s address to students. This is from his description of a recent Columbia Board of Education meeting (emphasis mine):

Pat Fowler said she was frustrated not every student in the school district watched President Barack Obama’s address to students last Tuesday. She asked the board to pass a policy that lets parents opt out of watching a presidential address instead of opting in to view the president speak.

That’s a troubling phenomenon in uniform public schools — people fighting for the schools to impose their preferred policies on everyone else, rather than just for their own children to be able to study what parents want them to to study.

Single-Sex Charters Expand in New York; Will Missouri Be Next?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Single-sex classrooms have caught on in public districts and charter schools in Missouri, so I would expect single-sex charters to appeal here too. It’s true that Missouri’s charter school law forbids discrimination by sex in admissions, but Illinois has a similar law that hasn’t prevented single-sex charters from opening. (No boys have applied to the girls’ schools in Illinois, and vice versa.)

The most recent news about single-sex charters is from New York City: PublicPrep, which operates two all-girls charters, will open two more for girls and one for boys during the next two years. This radio news program interviews some parents as well as a principal. According to the report, 700 families applied for just 132 openings in the Bronx GirlsPrep school.

I’m impressed that the Lower East Side GirlsPrep school teaches Spanish to third graders, even though PublicPrep has no foreign language focus. This is an example of a charter going above and beyond what it would need to provide in order to fulfill its mission — namely, a single-sex learning environment. Charter schools are not slaves to test prep, nor do their themes constrain them from offering a range of subjects.

SMI Releases New Study of Eminent Domain

Posted on by Dave Roland

On Tuesday, Sept. 15, the Show-Me Institute released a new study: “Gradual and Silent Erosions: How the Missouri Supreme Court Expanded the Power of Eminent Domain.” It discusses last year’s Missouri Supreme Court decision in City of Arnold v. Tourkakis, and was written by Timothy Sandefur, a senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation and a nationally recognized expert in constitutional protection of property rights who represented Homer and Julie Tourkakis in their fight to save their dentist’s office from being taken from them by Arnold, Mo., on behalf of a private developer.

Sandefur points out several areas in which the Tourkakis court’s analysis veered away from earlier holdings about how laws should be interpreted and applied, before concluding that the court’s refusal to protect Dr. Tourkakis’ office from the wrecking ball represents only the latest in a series of steps that Missouri courts have taken away from the powerful protections for property ownership that are enshrined in the state’s Constitution.

Are Specialized Charter Schools a Problem?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Juliann Talkington at the Panama City Renaissance School Blog writes about specialized schools and their drawbacks:

At 13, 14 and 15, children are still developing and changing. As a result, this is a bad time to ask a young person to make a decision that will impact the rest of his/her life.

Talkington refers to magnet schools throughout the piece, but the same charge could be leveled at charter schools, which in many cases are more specialized than magnets with comparable themes. (For instance, St. Louis is home to both internationally themed magnet schools and language-immersion charter schools. The charters offer all-day immersion; the magnets don’t.)

I see a big difference between state school systems that divide students into tracks at an early age — a practice I agree is wrong — and specialized schools that students attend voluntarily, which can be beneficial.

First, some people do know what they’re going to do in their lives from an early age, and they should be able to pursue their interests.

Second, specialized schools in the United States, with the exception of schools that are purely vocational, do give students the option of changing course. After going through a specialized high school, students can take college entrance exams and go to college, where they can study something different from what they focused on during the preceding years.

This is possible because specialized schools usually teach a variety of subjects. For example, math and science schools do not eliminate English and history from the curriculum; rather, they offer fewer electives in those subjects, and less time is devoted to them during the school day. And schools that teach exclusively in a foreign language when students are young introduce English classes in higher grades.

Specialized charters and magnets don’t lock children into career paths. They just give them a chance to explore a subject in more depth.

Constitution Day and Eminent Domain Lessons

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

Today, colleges around the country are hosting speakers and events to celebrate Constitution Day. Yesterday, the Show-Me Institute hosted Jeff Benedict to talk about an abuse of constitutional rights and eminent domain in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case.

While Susette Kelo’s case is well-known nationally, a new Show-Me Institute policy study also brings to light eminent domain abuses in Missouri. “Gradual and Silent Encroachments: How the Missouri Supreme Court Expanded the Power of Eminent Domain,” by Timothy Sandefur, a senior staff attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, tackles recent cases that have set back the constitutional rights of Missourians. Though this state once had one of the strongest constitutional provisions to protect home and business owners against eminent domain, new precedents by the Supreme Court have eroded that protection.

As Policy Pulse and Show-Me Daily continue to report, eminent domain is still a very pertinent issue in Missouri.

Constitution Day serves as a great reminder that some of the founding ideals of the country, like the respect of one’s own private property, still need to be protected.

PAYGO Would Only Provide Appearance of Fiscal Responsibility

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

Sen. Claire McCaskill is cosponsoring a bill, “PAYGO,” that would limit congressional spending to the amount of yearly revenue brought in. Any new program or tax cut would need to be matched by a revenue source or spending cut at some point that year.

The Columbia Tribune paints this legislation as a much-needed check on out-of-control spending and tax cuts. In theory, it sounds like a great idea, but it is actually a red herring. The Wall Street Journal published an article back in June calling the PAYGO supporters’ bluff. Passing PAYGO would give Congress the appearance of fiscal responsibility without backing it up; the rules would apply neither to discretionary spending nor to existing programs, like bloated Medicare.

PAYGO does ensure, however, that future tax cuts will be nearly impossible to pass. When the Bush tax cuts sunset in 2010, PAYGO would virtually guarantee that government, already overly large as it is, will not get any smaller. Government spending needs to be limited, but in order for such measures to be efficacious there also needs to be spending cuts across the board. Balancing the budget is a noble goal, but the PAYGO proposal won’t satisfy Missourians who want actual fiscal discretion.

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