An Interesting Variation on “Buy Local”

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Locavores buy food that was grown within a predetermined distance from where they live. Protectionists buy products that were manufactured in their home country. Now, one couple has taken the idea a step further — they’re patronizing only those stores that are owned by people of their race:

“We kind of enjoy the sacrifice because we get to make the point … but I am going without stuff and I am frustrated on a daily basis,” Maggie Anderson said. “It’s like, my people have been here 400 years and we don’t even have a Walgreens to show for it.”

As a campaign, I’m not opposed to this strategy. It could be a good way to get the public focused on economic opportunities for people in minority groups. The Andersons are not telling everyone else to change their spending habits or trying to get any preferences written into law. They’re just using their own experiences to spread their message.

The Andersons’ experiment does, however, underscore some drawbacks of protectionist policies. The Andersons are patronizing minority-owned businesses at a significant cost to themselves. Whatever the businesses gain financially from the experiment is more than outweighed by the material losses to the Andersons when they have give to up items they couldn’t find. The Andersons think it’s worth it for the sake of making a statement they care about, but people who have comparable experiences forced on them by protectionist policies would be less happy to sacrifice.

In addition, as I think the Andersons would agree, their campaign doesn’t solve any of the problems that prevent minorities from successfully starting and maintaining businesses. They’re successfully publicizing the issue, but their purchases alone aren’t going to open the floodgates to a new generation of minority entrepreneurs. Similarly, protectionist policies may call attention to supply problems in local areas, but they don’t correct the root causes of those problems.

No Personalized Laws

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

At times, the state singles out somebody or something for special recognition, as in a resolution declaring crayfish the official state invertebrate. I’ve criticized state symbol resolutions in the past, because they waste time and distract from substantive policy issues. However, I must concede that once a resolution like that has passed, it doesn’t do any more damage. Crayfish don’t acquire any advantage over other invertebrates as a result of their official favor.

Regulations or exemptions that apply to just one business have longer-lasting effects. Legislators waste their time considering a particular case when they should be writing laws that apply more broadly. Then, after the bill passes, the harm is just beginning. That particular business is free to do something that competing businesses can’t. The favored business gets ahead, even if the competition served consumers equally well. The competition didn’t have a fair chance.

An example in the news today is this law allowing certain bars to sell half-gallon containers of beer. I should say, rather, one certain bar. The language of the law makes a pretense of impartiality, defining which bars are affected based on the number of beers they sell and so forth, but when you look at the specifics, it turns out that only one bar falls into that category. The law might as well have that bar’s name on it.

Laws should be broad enough that competing businesses are subject to the same rules. No one would suggest that the law should permit fire stations or elementary schools to sell half-gallon containers of beer; that would be silly, because they don’t sell beer in the first place. But such a law should apply to all businesses engaged in the same activity, leaving out the particulars of what proportion of food they sell or how many beers are on tap. Those details limit the law too narrowly.

Monograms belong on bath towels — not on legislation.

Summary of Show-Me Institute Pension Presentation in the News-Leader

Posted on by David Stokes

Today’s Springfield News-Leader has a detailed article about the city’s pension issues, which also discusses the Show-Me Institute’s presentation at a luncheon yesterday and comments by our executive vice president, Dr. Joseph Haslag, before the pension commission last night.

Actuarial expert Richard C. Dreyfuss participated in yesterday’s lunch presentation, discussing Springfield’s pension problems (he also wrote a policy study for us last year detailing Missouri’s public pension issues). Springfield is in a very tricky situation with its pension, and the privatization of City Utilities would be one way to address it — unless this guy gets to decide how to fix the problem. I feel I must give one correction to a statement in this column, when he said that private utilities, aka IOUs, “are not accountable to the communities they serve. IOUs do not have a local Board for Utilities or City Council to report to.”

First, private utilities are generally more regulated than public utilities. Second, Springfield is free to require reporting to a local utility board as a condition of any sale or franchise agreement with a private utility. Springfield might see a decrease in the price offered for CU if it did insisted on such a requirement, but it is certainly an option. The Public Service Commission and Dept. of Natural Resources would still be the dominant regulators, but Springfield could add additional requirements if it so chose.

There’s No Free Lunch ? Even When You Recycle

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Some St. Louis residents are disappointed that the city ended a recycling pilot program. You can still recycle in St. Louis, but now you have to bring your own stuff to the recycling center. The city won’t pick it up for you the way they pick up garbage.

People are finding some costs of recycling difficult to face. Here’s one comment about the change in policy:

“Now it’s become very unhandy to recycle.”

In fact, it always was unhandy to recycle. It was never free and instantaneous. Under the pilot program, St. Louisians enjoyed the benefits of the recycling pickup without paying for it directly. The cost was spread out through taxation, and no one got a bill specifically for that service.

Once again, St. Louis residents will have to bear some of the cost of recycling, either by paying for a pickup service or by taking it to one of the drop-off centers themselves. People who truly value recycling will gladly give up the extra time or money. Those for whom recycling is less important will find better uses for their resources.

Great Discussion of the “Fair Tax” in the Columbia Missourian

Posted on by David Stokes

I definitely recommend this piece in today’s Columbia Missourian discussing the growing support for Missouri’s “Fair Tax” proposal, which would replace the state’s income tax with a higher sales tax. (Link via Monsieur Combest.)

I don’t recommend it only because it quotes the Show-Me Institute’s executive vice president, Dr. Joseph Haslag — although it does, which is pretty cool. There is also a great, and perfectly accurate, comment from Democratic state Rep. Chris Kelly, about the current sales tax laws:

Kelly sees his support of a consumption tax as a continuation of the 11 years he spent trying to remove sales tax exemptions. He likes the consumption because he says it is “efficient and universal.” He sees the current tax code as riddled with exemptions and favors for the very wealthy and the very powerful.

“If you own a big boat, I mean a big boat, I mean you’re a party dog … you can get your boat exempted from the sales tax by effectively donating your boat to the Coast Guard so that your boat is available to defend the people of Missouri,” Kelly said. “Like for instance if the Kansans attack down the Osage River … we will be prepared to fight hard. … We’d have our luxury boats in place.”

Former state Rep. Ed Robb gave a nice summary of the simple reason that all taxes are not equal, and state income taxes do more harm than sales taxes:

“Capital and money, they can move very easily, and they will move to areas where they perceive a better rate of return, or less tax threats, like Tennessee,” said Robb, who is seen as an economics expert in Jefferson City.

There are legitimate questions about the sales tax strategy — in particular, the Kansas City area might see a major increase in retail business moving to Kansas. But some legislators still prefer ideology to facts, and propose ideas like this one from the article:

By raising the state’s tax rate from 6 percent to 9 percent of higher personal income brackets, Oxford thinks the state would be better able to meet the challenges of funding health care and education.

“In terms of real dollars, we’re funding programs at the same levels as five, even 10 years ago,” Oxford said. “A modest increase like this would free up $1.3 billion for state-funded programs.”

A modest increase? Taking away three percent of someone’s income is a modest increase? If Rep. Oxford’s goal is to have a flood of higher-income people leave the state and take their money with them, then she’ll succeed with that proposal. Just unbelievable. …

“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.

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