“Reptiles of Concern”

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The federal government strictly regulates immigration, when the animals entering the country are humans. Australian saltwater crocodiles are a different story. This article describes the debate over a bill to regulate the importation of nonnative animals:

Bordallo’s bill would establish a method to assess all nonnative animals in the United States, excluding the common ones like dogs, cats, goats and horses.

Each would be approved or blacklisted, based on the danger it poses the economy, environment or other animals.

Although matters such as regulating chickens are best left to states and local governments, bringing dangerous wildlife into the country ought to be restricted at the national level. This effort should focus on prohibiting those animals that are a danger, not on determining the environmental impact of every hedgehog. I’ll be happy if the federal government keeps out crocodiles and lets states do the rest.

Zoning in Jefferson County

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I hadn’t heard much about the proposed Hindu education center in Franklin County since I blogged about it last year, but I was reminded of it today when I read this article in the Post-Dispatch. It’s disappointing that the zoning issues still haven’t been worked out.

This news story shows how zoning laws don’t live up to their promise of increasing land use efficiency. Instead of generally promoting the level of productivity or weighing the costs and benefits of new development, zoning stacks the cards in favor of a few property owners who got there first. Any development that doesn’t look exactly like the original properties gets tied up by regulation, even if the potential gains from the new development are much larger than the potential damage to its neighbors’ property values. Property owners shouldn’t have to give up their land for the “greater good” as in eminent domain cases, but they also shouldn’t be able to veto any neighboring development that might have a mild effect on real estate values.

Furthermore, while it would be nice if zoning decisions were based on purely objective calculations, in real life they can be motivated by ignorance and bigotry. Here’s an example from the article:

Opposition may have been stirred up by rumors, the most damaging of which is that the development would somehow include a training camp for Muslim terrorists.

If it were going to include a terrorist camp, then I’d be all for zoning it out. What’s actually proposed, however, is a lot less exciting — a spiritual retreat and education center. I hope the zoning dispute is resolved soon so that this peaceful, terrorist-free development can proceed.

Another Great Feature of Missouri’s Homeschooling Law

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Missouri allows parents to teach their homeschooled children driver’s ed, unlike many other states that require homeschoolers to attend a class.

Missouri’s policy is rooted in common sense. Homeschoolers take the same driving exams as anyone else; if their parents fail to provide sufficient instruction, the kids will fail the exams. That should ensure that drivers are prepared. There’s no need to force homeschoolers into a driver’s ed classroom.

Very Exciting Conference Coming Up in St. Louis

Posted on by David Stokes

The American Issues Project is hosting a very interesting conference on policy and political issues in St. Louis. It takes place on June 3 and 4. All the information you need regarding this conference is available online. If these types of events are of interest to you, I encourage you to consider attending and participating. I am especially interested in hearing the term limits debate between Sen. Anita Yeckel and Paul Jacob, an esteemed mentor to our own editor, Eric.

How to Compete With Charters

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The St. Louis Public Schools are faced with a problem: how to compete with the new KIPP Inspire Academy. The superintendent’s strategy is to spend $1 million on marketing, in hopes that new logos and brochures will bring students back to the district.

I think he’ll learn that the only way to compete with KIPP is to beat it at its own game. Parents are impressed by KIPP education, not by promotional materials. The pictures in the article show the KIPP principal advertising the school by just walking around with a signup sheet and talking to people — hardly cutting-edge marketing. (I know, KIPP puts out advertisements, too, but its work canvassing neighborhoods is what really gets parents involved.)

The fact that advertisements alone won’t work doesn’t mean the district’s hands are tied. There’s nothing to prevent SLPS from starting its own KIPP-style school, accepting fourth graders. It could offer long hours, accelerated academics, and Spanish classes— like this KIPP elementary school in Houston. If families like it, they can stay on for fifth grade — no need to switch to the “real” KIPP middle school.

SLPS actually has an advantage over brand-name charters — it accepts students at all grade levels. The charter school startups are limiting enrollment to a few grades: KIPP is only taking fifth graders, and the language immersion schools are accepting kindergartners and first graders. SLPS just has to open comparably themed choice schools for a wider range of student ages, and the charters will be left scrambling to catch up.

I know SLPS can do it — I was so impressed by its Career Academy that I unquestioningly believed a report that it was a charter. District schools that look and act like charters won’t have trouble competing, because no one will be able to tell the difference.

Taxing and Spending

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

It’s exasperating when Missouri politicians talk about taxing casinos to “pay for education.” They imply that there’s some kind of inherent link between casinos and schools, and that money from gambling revenue naturally flows to a classroom. In fact, gambling is just one of many activities that the state taxes, and schooling is one thing it pays for. There’s no connection between the two, until public officials create an arbitrary link to shore up support for a tax proposal. This tactic misleads voters by giving the impression that you have to support a certain tax in order to get a certain benefit. You never hear that the state should spend less on anything so they can free up resources for education, even though a reduction in some other part of the budget could fund public schools just as well as a new tax could.

How the government raises taxes and how it spends money are two separate questions, and they should be treated as such.

This phenomenon is not unique to Missouri politics. It appears in other states, and at the national level, as you can learn from John LaPlante’s State House Call post today. Follow his link to hear Marta Mossberg talk about soft drink taxes, which advocates claim will pay for state health care expenses and discourage unhealthy habits at the same time. (Mossberg says the tax can’t do both; either it raises a lot of revenue, or it curbs soft drink consumption. The government won’t bring in a lot of money if nobody’s buying the drinks.)

I find it interesting that politicians are setting up the issue the way casino taxes are framed in debates here: This one tax will pay for something good, and no other tax or spending cut could achieve the same results.

Speaking of soda taxes, here’s an unintentionally funny YouTube video of New York’s health commissioner explaining — complete with props — why he wants a soft drink tax. I understand the glasses of milk and the soda cans, but what is that thing he uses to represent fat? It looks like a headless teddy bear. Maybe someone could enlighten me in the comments?

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].

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