Another Reduction in Government Lobbying

Posted on by David Stokes

One issue we have talked about here before is the pervasive and unfortunate practice of governments hiring lobbyists to lobby other governments, usually for more aid or more authority to raise taxes. As if to celebrate Josh’s and my visit to the St. Louis city Board of Aldermen this morning (for the simple purpose of attending a meeting of that body, which we had never done before), the Post-Dispatch is reporting that the board cut money for the police department that would have been used to hire a lobbyist.

I commend the board for this. The police commissioners have other St. Louis–elected officials, not to mention their own standing as police officials, to engage legislators in Jefferson City. They don’t need to spend taxpayer dollars doing that. (And I say this even though I agree with the police board regarding the local control issue, which the Post article suggests was the rationale for hiring a lobbyist in the first place.)

Local officials who need assistance at the state or federal levels have their own respective elected officials and their staffs to help them. I have nothing against private organizations or individuals hiring lobbyists, but governments should not spend tax money in efforts to get still more tax money.

The Heart of Government

Posted on by Josh Smith

David Stokes and I just attended the weekly Board of Aldermen meeting for St. Louis city. It was actually quite enjoyable. For one thing, David’s extensive personal experience with local government made him a great resource and a wealth of information. He had a fast answer to every question I asked, and volunteered a great deal of information about the aldermen, as well as explaining some of the processes involved in moving a bill through the board’s approval process.

The board considered a number of bills today, and we heard the reading of a number of bills which would declare properties around town “blighted.” A couple of bills designated federal grant money for Lambert Airport, and a few dealt with approving financing for the Kiel Opera House.

At one point, when the proceedings had moved along rapidly for quite some time, Alderman Joe Vaccaro of the 23rd ward stood to move for approval of a rezoning bill he’d sponsored. For the first time in the meeting, roll was called for votes, and nearly every member in turn voted “no.” Every previous bill had passed without hesitation, and Stokes and I really wondered what was up. As soon as the votes were tallied, a revote was called and this time it passed unanimously. Suddenly, David understood and explained to me: This is a relatively new alderman, and they were playing a prank on him. We both found it pretty funny.

Much less funny was Resolution #50, calling on the Post-Dispatch to “reject the predatory practice of job outsourcing and keep St. Louis area jobs in St. Louis.” There was some discussion of the matter. Alderman Stephen Conway of the 8th ward in particular took the opportunity to admonish the hypocrisy of those who shout down outsourcing while driving foreign-made cars, and a third alderman who spoke on the matter agreed with these anti-outsourcing views.

During this discussion, the viewpoint I hold was completely unrepresented, although it is also largely the stance held by the economic profession as a whole. Outsourcing is only bad in the short term for the specific people laid off. But it also means that customers continue to get the things they were getting before (often for cheaper prices), and a mobile labor force allows both new and existing businesses to find potential employees more easily.

If you read only one critique of protectionism, let it be this.

There was also some heated discussion about a resolution “to convene hearings of the Public Safety Committee for the purpose of reviewing the conditions of the City jails in relation to the report of the ACLU-EM […]” At least one member of the Board of Aldermen has a personal distaste for the ACLU, and it showed — but ultimately the resolution passed.

Much of the time I spent there, I was struck with how civil and efficient the whole process appeared, and reminded of a blog post by Clovis Ouangraoua discussing how remarkable a peaceful government is. For any St. Louisan interested in seeing the process of local government in action, I honestly recommend visiting your Board of Aldermen for a meeting. The biggest praise I can give is that the whole affair was very efficient in terms of time, an attribute I chalk up largely to the guidance of Board President Lewis Reed, who wasted no time while officiating the proceedings.

Development Without Eminent Domain

Posted on by Dave Roland

The Post-Dispatch ran an article today discussing the construction of Centene’s new headquarters building here in Clayton. As the article points out, there was a time when Centene claimed that it could not pursue this project unless the city used eminent domain to get rid of a neighbor who demanded more money for their property than Centene wanted to pay. The case went all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court, which created what many developers and city officials consider to be a nightmare scenario by ruling that eminent domain could not be used to force the reluctant neighbor to give up their property.

So what happened? Did the project collapse? Has Centene been forced to go elsewhere? Absolutely not! When the courts rejected the use of eminent domain, Centene simply ponied up the selling price (via a third party, because the owner took a principled stand against giving the property directly to Centene) that the neighbor had been asking for all along. This is a perfect example of how development can be done without sacrificing anyone’s constitutional liberties. Sure, Centene had to pay more for the property than they would have preferred — but if their development turns out to be as valuable as they expect, the additional money spent will still be well worth it.

Stop Leaving Most Children Behind

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Two and a half years ago, while I worked for the Cascade Policy Institute, I was lucky enough to be exposed to the wisdom of Dr. Howard Fuller, director of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University and cofounder of the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO). And, back in October 2006, I posted to YouTube a video of a speech that Dr. Fuller presented in Portland, Ore., at an event cosponsored by the Cascade Policy Institute and BAEO.

Dr. Fuller delivers a powerful message about the necessity of providing real educational choice for all children and parents, and it applies to St. Louis and Kansas City just as much — if not more — than it does to Portland. Please take a few minutes to watch it:

The Value of Networking

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

An article I wrote for the latest issue of Atlas Highlights, published by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, is now online. The article spotlights some of our work here at the Show-Me Institute, and outlines the importance of working together with the broader think tank community, to share ideas, resources, and strategies in order to achieve a more lasting impact. We’re particularly thankful for all the valuable support that we’ve received from Atlas during these past few years.

I’m pleased to note that the article directly preceding mine in this issue of the magazine is by the venerable Tom Palmer, who I got to know 12 years ago when I was an intern at the Cato Institute. It’s a brief chronicle of some of his recent journeys abroad, spreading the ideas of liberty and free markets to bright young students and other activists throughout formerly communist regions of Central Asia.

As I pointed out in my own piece, Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman once wrote that “Stimulating independent thought, and examining alternatives to the present crippling governmental system badly needs doing, and is being done by all too few individuals and institutions.” Here at the Show-Me Institute, we’re focusing our efforts on Missouri — studying and proposing public policy solutions that work. It’s always nice to be reminded that people like Tom Palmer are spreading similar ideas throughout the world.

Remedial Courses

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Just two days after the New York Times published an article about teenagers sending tens of thousands of text messages a month, it reports on remedial college courses. It’s interesting that a lack of communication is cited as a cause of the problem:

More than a million college freshmen across the nation must take remedial courses each year, and many drop out before getting a degree. Poorly run public schools are a part of the problem, but so is a disconnect between high schools and colleges.

The experts quoted echo this sentiment, complaining that high schools and colleges don’t talk to each other and that they should adjust expectations so that fewer students need remedial help.

Given that teens are able to maintain constant contact with their peers using cell phones, it doesn’t make sense to say that adults in the education industry just can’t share enough information with each other. Communication tools are ubiquitous. The information is available. High schools and colleges have the information they need about student achievement and course expectations; the gap exists because high schools don’t act on that knowledge.

The goal of education is learning. Avoiding remedial work is not a goal in and of itself. So, colleges shouldn’t have to cut out the remedial courses or dumb down their general course offerings to “align” themselves with poorly performing high schools.

High schools should improve. But high schools are held to arbitrary, low state standards — when they’re held to any standard, that is (it takes years to strip a district of accreditation). Parents and students can’t hold them accountable, and they don’t suffer consequences when they fall short. It’s not surprising that there’s a gap between monopolistic high schools and competitive colleges.

Concealed Carry Around the Arch

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The St. Louis Beacon reports that concealed carry will be legal on the Arch grounds this coming February.

This policy change is not generating the kind of outrage that the MU concealed carry proposal did. The article quotes the deputy superintendent, who says the policy won’t have much practical effect, because people could be carrying conealed weapons all over the grounds now and no one would know. (That’s true of any public place.) At the few points where visitors are screened for weapons, park officials don’t necessarily confiscate guns even under the current law — to the dismay, I’m sure, of some MU students.

The change looks like wise policy to me. I’m not sure what it has to do with credit cards, though.

Histrionics

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A journalist is convicted of espionage by a foreign nation after a short, secret trial. She starts a hunger strike in protest. Her civil rights have been violated. Freedom of the press is at stake.

Contrast her plight with the following situation: A large, bureaucratic school district is forced to lay off some teachers for financial reasons. The teachers … start a hunger strike. Am I missing something, here? I don’t see any breach of justice to warrant that degree of protest.

Teachers in Los Angeles have come face to face with one of the major drawbacks of the near-monopoly of public education. When the monolithic employer lays people off, there are few other entities to take up the slack and hire people. Proponents of a diverse education market usually emphasize the benefits for students, but the fact of the matter is, teachers are also better off when schools compete.

Schools in a competitive market fight hard to hold on to their best teachers, because otherwise those teachers would be snapped up by other schools, giving them an advantage in the race to attract students. And, when some schools do have to downsize, they’ll be balanced by more successful schools that are expanding, or by new schools that are opening.

Los Angeles teachers should give up their overwrought protests and call for market diversity instead.

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