Homeschooling in Missouri and Tennessee

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I found these letters to the editor about homeschooling in Tennessee through the Panama City Renaissance School blog. As I wrote in this post, Missouri’s homeschooling laws are even more free than Tennessee’s. You don’t often see debates about the subject in the newspapers here, because homeschooling is generally accepted and this freedom is so well-established.

When it appeared that an education bill might inadvertently restrict homeschooling in Missouri, there was immediate protest, and legislators clarified the bill’s language before homeschooling families were able to hold all the rallies they had planned.

Tennesseans would be wise to amend their homeschooling laws to resemble Missouri’s. It’s good to see that some of them are advocating a change in policy. I do have one disagreement with the pro-homeschooling letter, though: I don’t think lobbying to be included in public school classes and activities should be a top priority, especially since homeschoolers there are still fighting for the freedom to choose a curriculum without district interference. If homeschoolers want to participate in public school classes, they can enroll as full-time students. If they want a curriculum that their district doesn’t approve of, they have no recourse.

Q&A on the English-Language Amendment

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A political science student contacted me this past week with some questions about the English-Language Amendment to the Missouri Constitution. This amendment was approved by voters in 2008. Here are some of the questions with my answers, including my thoughts on why the amendment was a bad idea and why it passed anyway:

How would you respond to the argument that the existence of multiple spoken languages hinders business?

First, I’d like to point out that this amendment did not affect languages spoken in private businesses — and I’m glad it didn’t. It’s not the government’s place to tell businesses and their customers what languages to speak. Second, while multiple languages can potentially hamper business if large groups of market participants can’t communicate with each other, that’s not the case in Missouri today. The vast majority of Missourians speak English. And, historically, immigrants to the United States have been quick to learn English. It’s unusual to find second- or third-generation immigrants who speak their ancestors’ language as well as they speak English. Furthermore, gaining familiarity with other languages and cultures can actually give businesspeople an advantage in the global economy.

Is English-only legislation proposing a solution to a nonexistent problem? What would’ve happened if the initiative didn’t pass?

I do think the problem is nonexistent. The amendment declared an official language for official business in Missouri — such as legislative debates and government meetings. Such official matters were conducted in English before voters approved the amendment. Public officials would have continued to speak English in their official duties, even without an amendment to the Missouri Constitution.

How do you explain the overwhelming victory in favor of the Missouri initiative?

Not everyone shares my views on the role of government. When people see a ballot initiative that says public officials should speak English, it may seem like a great idea. After all, officials do speak English! It doesn’t tell them to do anything they wouldn’t otherwise do. Unless people have strong beliefs about the role of government and what kinds of problems the Constitution should address, they might not have any reason to oppose an English-language amendment. It’s kind of like asking voters to approve an amendment saying, “The sky should be blue.” There’s no reason to disagree, unless you don’t think amendments like that belong in the state’s Constitution.

Does the existence of state/local legislation indicate that not enough is being done about this issue on the federal level?

No. This issue is rightly left to the states.

As always, I’m happy to take blogging requests and questions. Just email me at [email protected].

Do Tax Credits Pay for Themselves?

Posted on by Clovis Ouangraoua

Interesting article on tax credits for movie producers in the St. Louis Business Journal. It describes how tax credits for filmmaking are not in the long run very beneficial to the cities offering them. It portrays the recent stay of George Clooney for his movie Up in the Air, scheduled for release some time next fall, and points out that although Hollywood producers often get deals from cities, the short term economic activity that such productions generate may not be worth the cost.

The online copy of this article is truncated and only available to paying subscribers. But, for those of you who received a print copy this morning, I encourage you to browse through it. It’s on page 45.

Also, be sure to read the Show-Me Institute’s three previous commentaries about why using tax credits to promote economic growth is a recipe for economic stagnation.

Can You Spot the Oxymoron …

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

… in this Political Fix post?

It’s “stimulus oversight.” The idea of a stimulus is to spend money all over the place, and quickly. If the spending were narrowly targeted, politicians wouldn’t be able to claim that it had effects all across the economy. And if it were slow and deliberate, the theory goes, it would be too late to turn around a recession — or to placate constituents.

“Oversight” and “stimulus” just don’t go together.

Another Reason to Dislike the Stimulus Plan, As If You Needed It

Posted on by David Stokes

When you send politicians blank checks of money that they are just supposed to spend for the sake of spending it, you inevitably bring out one of the least attractive parts of democracy — legislators fighting to ensure that their constituents get theirs, too!

Today’s Kansas City Star details how Kansas City officials are angry that St. Louis got a lot of pork — aka, stimulus money — and Kansas City received none. This is a perfect real-world example of what public choice economists have long discussed: the logrolling and vote-swapping in a legislature divided by districts leads to ever-increasing spending, as every (or almost every) legislator tries to make certain that their constituents get as large a share of the pie as possible. When the pie gets divided up, if not everyone is satisfied, you just make a bigger pie. Now, Missouri has rules such as the balanced budget amendment and the Hancock amendment that make doing this less common than an assembly such as the U.S. Congress, but it is still unseemly.

This post should be taken simply as a comment on how our democracy works: good, bad, and ugly. It is not a criticism of Kansas City legislators, who are just being open about their displeasure with how the stimulus spending worked out. If it were the other way around, I am quite certain that St. Louis officials would be saying the same thing.

Chance for Students to Win Cash Prizes in News Coverage Contest Ends Soon!

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Show-Me Institute’s Policy Pulse news coverage contest is nearing an end, but there’s still time for interested students to submit entries — one of which could win a total of $1,250 in prize money. The last day to submit new stories is Wednesday, May 20.

The contest is sponsored in conjunction with the Missouri Broadcasters Association and the Missouri Press Association, in order to encourage young citizens and aspiring journalists to participate in Missouri’s political process by investigating policy areas of their choice and creating original news stories. The purpose of this competition is to develop a more informed citizenry, while training aspiring journalists to utilize new media to research, create, and communicate stories about today’s most interesting policy issues.

Students attending high schools and colleges throughout Missouri may submit original news stories covering any policy of their choosing. Acceptable forms of media include audio or video clips lasting no more than five minutes, or written articles of up to 1,000 words. Cash prizes in the amount of $500 will be awarded each month to the best entry written by one high school student and one college student. The college division winner for March has already been selected, and the winning article — which has, so far, won a $500 prize — can now be viewed on the Policy Pulse website.

Judges are still deliberating over the college division winner for April, and an announcement is expected soon. There were no high school division entries for either March or April, so no prizes could be awarded in that category. Again, students have until the end of the day on Wednesday, May 20, to submit entries for consideration in May’s contest.

At the end of May, an additional $750 grand prize will be awarded to the best overall submission from the three previous months, for each of the two school categories, along with a $500 prize awarded to the teacher or professor designated by these grand prize winners, to be presented at the Missouri Broadcasters Association award ceremony on June 6. Any submission that is of exceptional quality will also be posted on the Show-Me Institute’s comprehensive legislative tracking tool, Policy Pulse, online at ShowMePolicyPulse.org.

Contest rules may be viewed online. Also, be sure to check out this contest PSA:

Better Late Than Never

Posted on by Dave Roland

On March 10, I had the pleasure of engaging in a conversation about education on Steve Spellman’s News at Five radio show on Columbia’s KOPN 89.5. In addition to Steve, I was joined by Sarah Read, the president of Columbia Parents for Public Schools. Our host impressed upon us that he wanted to have a civil conversation (not a debate) about the purpose, history, and outlook of public education, and I believe that Sarah and I rose to the occasion. The station’s website just made the recording of our conversation available online, so here’s a link for anyone interested in hearing how it went!

Beware the Licenses

Posted on by Josh Smith

In the very readable Capitalism and Freedom, Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman wrote about the economic consequences of labor unions, minimum wage laws, and occupational licensing. Anyone with even minor economics training (or perhaps even just a moment’s reflection) can tell you some of the basic costs and benefits of each. Simply put, they all involve concentrated, visible benefits and dispersed or difficult-to-detect costs. 

We’ve definitely talked about licensing here at the Show-Me Institute before; of the three topics listed above, it’s certainly the one we’ve dealt with most (perhaps because David Stokes has such a special place in his ire for the rent-seeking usually implied by occupational licensing). There may be a problem with the way labor economists percieve these three topics, however.

According to a recent post on Overcoming Bias, the preeminent textbooks deal with these topics out of all proportion from reality. According to the post:

In the U.S. now, less than 3% of workers earn the minimum wage, about 12% are in unions, and about 29% are required to hold a state-issued license to do their work.

In the popular textbooks however, slightly less space is devoted to minimum wage than labor unions, and licensing is covered scarcely at all.

Perhaps our fight against occupational licensing would be an easier one if labor economists spent more time covering the topic during their formative years. Or, perhaps more people should tell their friends about the simple arguments against most occupational licensing: barriers to entry increase price, often with no meaningful effect on quality — and quality is often best determined by success or failure in a competitive marketplace.

Taxes and Tickets

Posted on by Ryan Davisson

This Missourinet article (link via Combest) about a bill in the Missouri House, H.B. 683, tackles some valid issues within the transportation sector.

The bill attempts to streamline the process of paying sales taxes on a newly purchased car. Although no one enjoys paying taxes in the first place, the time, effort, and inconvenience involved in paying the tax at a separate time and in a separate location adds insult to injury. Some of these annoyances would be minimized if a system were in place that allowed consumers to pay the tax directly at the point of purchase.

Another provision would expand an existing law that limits the amount of speeding tickets that can be issued in order to supplement budgets in small towns. The existing law is entitled “Mack’s Creek Law,” named after the small town in Missouri that had, before the creation of the bill, used speeding ticket revenue for a large percentage of its municipal budget.

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