Page 750 – Show-Me Institute

Milk

Posted on July 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

This is going to be a very brief post. In doing some research, I have realized that milk inspection is a good example of government cooperation in Missouri. (I say “realize” instead of “learn,” because I was aware of this program when I worked for St. Louis County.) Anyway, the Missouri Dept. of Agriculture handles milk inspections for most of the state, but it contracts with the Springfield / Greene Co. Health Dept. to do the work in Southwest Missouri, and with the St. Louis Co. Health Dept. to do the work in parts of eastern Missouri. This is nothing groundbreaking — just a small example that I wanted to bring to your attention of how shared provision of government services can (presumably) save tax dollars.

And, yes, you should be allowed to sell raw milk in Missouri, provided it is clearly marked as such.

Homegrown Markets

Posted on July 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

Some bureaucrats wouldn’t recognize a free market if it bit them on the nose. If you think I’m exaggerating, look at this (thanks Combest):

The Missouri Department of Agriculture is asking for grant applications from organizations or groups of individuals who have ideas for making the state’s specialty crop industry more competitive.

Okay, so the free market didn’t literally bite anyone on the nose, but I’m entitled to bloggers’ license.

The Department of Agriculture is looking for competition in the wrong place. The market for food is not completely competitive, because of numerous subsidies and regulations. If the department wanted to rectify this situation, it would need to get out of the way and let the market work, not hand out more money. When the government gives out grants, it picks winners and losers, which is what consumers do in a free market.

Like “sustainability,” “competition” is invoked as justification for favoring some producers over others. The grants won’t increase competition within the industry, but they will give some producers an advantage when they compete with others.

Charter School Exits and Entrances

Posted on July 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

This is from today’s Post-Dispatch article about the imminent closing of two charter schools:

All agree that bad charter schools should shut down. But some local and state education leaders don’t understand why the universities have dallied for so long, and why they’re even giving these two another year.

One great thing about charter schools is that you can get rid of them. Sure, sponsors may relent and give schools another year to try to shape up. Legal quarrels may drag on for a few semesters. But if there’s no improvement, charters cease to operate.

The situation for traditional public schools is entirely different. They never go away. Consequently, they have less reason to try to do better. Not that every school needs the threat of termination in order to succeed. Most charters don’t come close to exiting because of poor quality (although some struggle to stay open in an adverse political climate). But the example of a few schools that lost sponsors is enough to keep all charters on their toes.

Charter schools face another incentive to maintain quality: Students can leave. Traditional public school students can sometimes leave, but only if they get into a charter or a magnet, or can afford a private school, or find another place to go. Every charter school student could return to the traditional district tomorrow if they wanted to, without applying or being put to any trouble. Some students in bad charters don’t avail themselves of the opportunity, but it exists nonetheless. It could be more important if there were more charters. Two or three abysmal charters can hold on to indifferent students for a little while, but if there were more than that, you’d see people returning to the district.

Sacred Bus Stops

Posted on July 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

Katy Steinmetz’s latest column is, as you would expect, thought-provoking. The topic: corporations buying naming rights to New York subway stops. I don’t quite understand all the indignation. Buses already have ads on them, and this seems like an extension of the same idea.

Steinmetz says it’s a slippery slope:

[T]he sale of this subway station seems to be a harbinger of more distressing and confusing sales to come. Another commenter satirically encapsulated this worry in “Modern Subway Directions”: “Get on at McDonalds and go five stops to Starbucks. Transfer to the Walmart and continue on to Staples.” And if subway stops are for sale, why not streets? If streets are for sale, why not whole towns? Will Missourian legislators be someday casting votes in Microsoft City?

Let’s not get so attached to the names of our streets and bus stops. Even without corporate sponsors, these names can change. In cases where a street retains its name for decades, people usually forget the original significance anyway. The only problem I can imagine with saying, “Get off at Staples,” is that passengers could be confused whether they should look for a Staples store or a stop named Staples. The ambiguity would diminish as people get used to the new names. Some people were confused when St. Louis Bread Company became Panera, too, but they survived.

Things get murkier when the advertisers aren’t harmless office supply stores. What if, instead of cleaning up trash on a highway, the National Socialist Movement decided to sponsor a bus stop instead? While most drivers overlook the “Adopt-a-Highway” signs, bus stops get more attention. Would we have to rename the neighboring stops to get back at the neo-Nazis?

Such issues regarding advertising in public spaces will need to be sorted out — if only because we can’t name everything after a dead president or a British province.

Single-Sex Online Schools

Posted on July 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

Four private schools for girls are teaming up to offer their students online courses. In a year, the online school will expand enrollment to include students elsewhere who want to purchase online courses, much like the typical virtual school. There is one unusual feature of this project: The online school will be for girls only, as are the brick-and-mortar schools that launched it.

I wonder whether any state online schools will try the same approach. A few traditional public schools, and several charter schools, are experimenting with single-sex classrooms. Virtual schools could be next to separate students by sex and see whether it makes a difference.

I’m skeptical that single-sex online education will prove advantageous, although it may fill a niche in the market. Key advantages of a single-sex learning environment, including fewer distractions and a sense of camaraderie among students, are less relevant when students aren’t actually in the same room.

Some believe that boys and girls need different curricula to reflect innate differences in learning styles. But, no matter how carefully instruction is tailored to girls, there will always be exceptions — girls who would prefer the boys’ curriculum, or boys who would excel in the girls’ program.

While I don’t think public virtual schools should label courses “girls only” or “boys only,” the popularity of single-sex education does suggest that there’s demand for a variety of educational choices. Online schools might consider opening different sections of each course, with different methods of instruction for each. If one method does suit girls better than boys, there will be greater female representation in that section.

Update on Airports in Southwest Missouri

Posted on July 7, 2009May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

The Springfield Business-Journal has a great update on the airport market in Southwest Missouri, after a recent expansion in Springfield and the opening of a new private airport in Branson. It seems that competition is benefiting the people of the region:

[Branson Airport Executive Director Jeff] Bourk, citing $99 flights from Branson Airport to Boston, agrees that the competition is likely helping to keep fares down.

“When you’re traveling, we want you to consider all your options and use what works best for you,” he said. “But with the fares that we’re seeing, there will be more and more people using both airports.”

“Fair Tax” for Missouri

Posted on July 7, 2009May 5, 2026 by Caitlin Hartsell

An article in yesterday’s Fulton Sun discusses the “Fair Tax” in Missouri (link via Combest), an issue we’ve covered here before. In short, a bill passed the state House during this past legislative session that would have eliminated Missouri’s income tax, replacing it with a higher sales tax, although the Senate did not consider it before the session ended. Specifically, the bill would have changed hiked the state’s sales tax from 4.225 to 5.11 percent, while eliminating the 6-percent income tax. Dubbed the “Fair Tax,” because it taxes at a flat level, the proposed tax change alone is regressive; however, to make up for this, the bill also would have provided rebates to low-income households.

The “Fair Tax” bill would also have eliminated the 6.25-percent tax on corporate income, a significant enticement for businesses to move their headquarters to Missouri. With the incentives the bill would create for businesses to relocate here, and for Missourians to marginally increase the number of hours they’re willing to work, its proponents expect the bill would positively impact Missouri’s economy. They plan to try again to pass it during the next legislative session.

Though the “Fair Tax” would be even more effective if passed at the national level, because there would be fewer loopholes to circumvent the tax, it would still be a boon for Missouri if passed only statewide — and the benefits it would provide to the economy would create an example for other states to follow.

Can I Open a Day Care Center in a Tattoo Parlor?

Posted on July 7, 2009May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

The Post-Dispatch has had some fine articles recently about occupations involving state licensing. Both articles apply statewide, not just in St. Louis. Yesterday, there was a story about the growth in tattoo parlors around St. Louis and the entire state, and today there is a story on the Nixon administration’s plan to increase regulations on child care centers in Missouri. (Latter link via Combest.)

I basically don’t support licensing of either type of establishment. I’ll accept tattoo parlor licensing if the requirements are more focused on health issues, as they are for restaurants, and less on training requirements and education, as they are for accountants. From what I read of Missouri’s tattoo regulations, they appear to lean in the right direction. There are some educational or apprenticeship requirements, but the 300 hours required are far less than those required for many other occupations (1,500 for a cosmetologist), so that won’t increase costs by substantially limiting the number of people who can become tattoo artists.

Indeed, the article details the significant growth in tattoo parlors in Missouri during the past five years, from 217 shops to 325, in response to the surge in popularity of tattoos — which I personally cannot comprehend, but that is way beside the point. So, obviously, existing licensing requirements are not strict enough to harm the industry’s primary economic incentives.

The silliest part of laws regarding tattoo parlors are the distinctions between tattooing, piercing, and branding — as if the state has any need to distinguish between those things. Most of all, though, getting a tattoo is an entirely voluntary and unnecessary act, so I see no reason for the state to get involved in it at all. People should be responsible for their own choices and decisions.

My opinions on child care licensing are more controversial, so at least I can say I have two young kids and I obviously understand the importance of child safety. However, these proposed regulations would only apply to certain day care centers — they would not apply to church day cares, or in-home day cares serving fewer than a certain number of children.

The increased regulations would increase costs for the newly regulated establishments, as everyone admits. Those increased costs, most obviously in the form of higher staffing requirements, would in turn cause some people to choose less-expensive, unregulated options. So, even if you believe that increased licensing would increase child safety — a belief that is unproven (and I am open to being proven wrong here) — the changes would have the unintended consequence of driving some marginal number of people toward other alternatives. So, regulate them, too, you say? Sure, what the hell, let’s just regulate everyone for everything. My wife should have to get a license just to be a mom! (There are probably some people who think the government should license the right to have kids.)

For a refreshing antidote to the regulation and licensing mania in America, check out this post from the Freakonomics blog. For more information on this subject, please check out the substantial amount of work we have done regarding this issue here at the Show-Me Institute.

Energy Monopoly: Less Is Not More

Posted on July 7, 2009May 5, 2026 by Caitlin Hartsell

Show-Me Policy Pulse cited an AP article that appeared in the Kansas City Star on Sunday about the “energy efficiency” charge that would be added to energy bills beginning in August if the governor signs pending legislation authorizing the charge. The new fee was designed to fund energy-conservation initiatives by utilities like AmerenUE:

For example, the commission last week approved a program in which St. Louis-based AmerenUE can offer credits to businesses that voluntarily shut down or scale back their electricity use during peak demand. AmerenUE will be able to recoup the cost for the program that starts Thursday by increasing the rates it charges business customers.

Instead of providing more efficient or environmentally friendly energy, this program would cost most consumers more money in order for utilities to provide less energy. It’s a short-term solution to a long-term problem: As Missouri’s population grows, and our economy produces more, we will need more energy — or a more efficient way of getting energy. If the state insists on instituting some sort of environmental energy cap or tax, it would make more sense for the program to focus on increasing efficiency in energy production and fostering alternative energy sources.

The program currently under consideration would add 3 percent to energy bills in order to fund what amounts to education efforts, and utilities would remotely control some aspects of participating customers’ energy usage, such as air conditioning. From the article:

One of the company’s more popular energy-saving initiatives has provided free programmable thermostats to about 34,000 residential customers in Missouri and Kansas. [Kansas City Power & Light] can remotely control the devices to reduce the frequency at which air conditioners run during peak demand times. The power company overrode customers’ air conditioners four times last year and twice so far this summer, [KCP&L’s senior director of public affairs] said.

A better solution would involve a way for companies to choose to buy green or more efficient energy from a competing company. Deregulating the energy monopoly would force utilities to become more efficient themselves, or give way to more efficient competitors. This competitive process should be encouraged here, rather than just paying existing utilities more to produce less.

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.