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
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
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.
Virtual Schools in Jeopardy
Edspresso links to this op-ed about the virtual school controversy in Oregon. It describes how Oregon restricts virtual school attendance for students outside of specific districts — a policy that can have no other purpose than to hinder online schools’ growth, because, by their very nature, the schools could serve far-away students just as well as they serve nearby students. Virtual school opponents are now pushing for an enrollment freeze.
If these tactics work in Oregon, I predict that unions in other states will lobby for similar restrictions on virtual schools. The price of lasting education reform is eternal vigilance!
Rating Schools in Britain
I came across this story by way of the Panama City Renaissance School blog. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has suggested that parents should rate schools, and their opinions be used to expand some schools and close others.
This article is an instructive example of how parental choice is more accepted in European countries than it is here. Britain’s education system is far from a free market, but parents do have choices. Take a look at this sentence (emphasis mine):
Under the plans, if parents are dissatisfied and too many are missing out on their first choice in the admissions process, councils will be forced to expand the number of places at the most popular schools, open new schools, or change the management of those that are struggling.
In the British education system, parents choose between different schools that are financed completely or partially by the state. (Partially financed schools may charge parents for room and board, or for religious courses, but still receive state money to teach the national curriculum.) As happens in U.S. charter school lotteries, parents don’t always get their first choice of school.
It’s striking how this choice is so normal in Britain that parents can complain that they didn’t get their first choice. In the United States, charter school lotteries take place only in the individual cities that have charters — when the political constellations align to give parents any alternative to their assigned schools. We don’t hear a lot of complaints about first or second choices here, because the ability to choose is so unusual. Choice advocates regard it as a victory when parents get to enter a lottery at all.
Although Britain’s education system incorporates more choice, British politicians have not abandoned their characteristic aversion to markets:
Brown attacked Tory plans to introduce a Swedish-style market in education, where schools compete for pupils and are allowed to profit under a voucher system. […]
He said: “A market free-for-all would fail because, as some schools go under slowly as competitors overtake them, children in those weaker schools would be left behind. A whole generation failed – waiting for the market to work.”
The idea that competition leaves children in failing schools for generations, while the political process improves schools in the blink of eye, is laughable. We observe the opposite: Vested interests keep the worst state schools going despite a consensus that they’re terrible. And, under market competition, bad schools are forced to change or close, because otherwise their support dries up.
Education, Not Regulation
Last night I had the pleasure of offering my thoughts about Clayton’s proposed ban on smoking in “public” places. I prepared written testimony for the Board of Aldermen, but when my turn came to speak I departed significantly from what I had written because the previous speakers (mostly in favor of the ban, ironically) had really made my point.
Many of those calling for smoke-free businesses in Clayton went out of their way to show that a large number of St. Louis–area businesses (including several in Clayton) have already made the transition and are doing very well. As I pointed out to the board, this is proof that the market is already at work! Businesses are realizing that, if given a choice, large numbers of people would prefer to dine in smoke-free environments, giving smoke-free restaurants a competitive advantage among that group of consumers. In the meantime, other businesses believe that demand will also rise for places that cater to smokers, as their competitors jump onto the smoke-free bandwagon. Each set of establishments has a niche they can cater to, and each enjoys a competitive advantage against the other in regard to the consumers in that niche. Under the current situation, everyone — business owners, customers, and workers — is free to choose the path that suits them best, maximizing overall satisfaction.
Under the proposed ordinance, however, that freedom would be obliterated. Because all businesses would be forced to adopt smoke-free environments, the competitive advantages that both sides currently enjoy would be destroyed. Nonsmokers would likely experience only a very slight rise in their satisfaction, but this restriction of liberty would greatly inconvenience those who prefer to smoke.
The main point I tried to make last night (which is, unfortunately, curtailed at the :45 mark in this KSDK news clip) is that I appreciate the concerns and the passion of those who want to see more smoke-free environments — but their energy should be focused on educating their fellow citizens and lobbying business owners to voluntarily go smoke-free. While it might be easier to persuade lawmakers to eliminate freedoms that you don’t like, that sort of authoritarian approach runs directly contrary to America’s greatest strength: our freedom to make decisions for ourselves.
Don’t Blame Term Limits for Budget Problems
This is from a story on Missourinet:
Some veteran state legislators worry that term limits have hurt the process of deciding how much money will be spent on the state programs, services, and institutions that serve the taxpayers.
These legislators appear to believe that if Budget Committee members were allowed to stay in the General Assembly longer and accumulate more experience, they would make better decisions about state spending.
Leaving aside the issue of whether term limits are good policy, they’re a poor excuse for flawed budgets. People elect their representatives with the expectation that they will represent them right away, from their first day in office. Anybody who wants to work in government needs to familiarize himself with the budget and make decisions about spending priorities. If it’s impossible to do that far removed from the budgeting process, then candidates should spend some time as interns in the Capitol while they learn the ropes.
Once they’re elected, legislators begin exercising political power. They don’t have a training period during which their votes don’t count. So their claim that they can’t write good budgets for their first several years in office shouldn’t be taken seriously. If they can’t do a good job of writing a budget during those years, they shouldn’t be voting on other bills then either!
Legislators may become skilled budgeters during long terms, but they may also grow distant from their constituents. It’s not clear that more time in office is always better.
Chickens? Yes. Pythons? No.
Where do you draw the line on animals in residential areas? I don’t just mean dogs and cats, but any animal kept in a home, particularly wild ones. We’ve published some entries here at Show-Me Daily arguing against individuals being allowed to keep dangerous animals as domestic pets. But what about animals like chickens, which violate the zoning codes of many cities? Today’s Kansas City Star has a story about the burgeoning chicken movement. Is there a difference here?
Of course there is, and it is an easy one to identify, define, and enforce. Animals that are threats to the lives of people should not be allowed to be kept as pets. This includes any non-domesticated mammal or reptile. If it can kill a child, it should be outlawed. “But, David, dogs kill people,” you might say. Yes, that happens, but there is a definition of domestication that dogs fit into — attacks are outliers.
In short, more animals should be outlawed than allowed as pets. In rural areas, the rules can obviously be lighter than in urban areas (especially when talking about numbers), but I still don’t think anyone should be allowed to own wild animals that are any threat to people at all. So, no tigers, bears, poisonous snakes, pythons, komodo dragons, wolves, etc. You have the right to live your life, but not to attempt to control the life of a wild animal while endangering the lives of your neighbors.
Chickens are small, domesticated animals that pose no ordinary threat to human beings, either by attack or disease — although I guess you never can be sure when it comes to the latter. People should be allowed to keep chickens as pets, though it would be understandable to limit their numbers in a residential area.
Talkin’ ‘Bout St. Louis City and County at the Arch City Chronicle
Dave Drebes has a smart piece up over at the ACC about the discussion over the city of Saint Louis re-joining the county, which Mayor Francis Slay has already touched on several times. I was quoted in the article, so I’d like to take this opportunity to expand on a few things regarding this very intriguing discussion.
I remember there was an effort around 2005 to open a public pool in the Affton area. I sat in on a few related meetings for my boss, Councilman Kurt Odenwald. Whenever the issue of the price for pool usage came up, there were always some who wanted a lower rate for Affton residents (aka, unincorporated area residents) and a higher charge for residents of nearby municipalities. Their reasoning was that if Shrewsbury was going to charge more to non-Shrewsbury people to use their pool, then Affton should do the same. We always had to explain to people that the county could not do that, because that person who lived in Shrewsbury was paying just as high of a county tax rate (which would have funded the pool) as the residents of the unincorporated areas were paying. They just happened to also be paying municipal property taxes, which residents of the unincorporated areas didn’t pay. A few people had trouble wrapping their heads around that.
Which gets us to the issue of unincorporated/incorporated county spending breakdowns:
Stokes points out that the County expends much more per capita on unincorporated areas of the County than it does on denser municipalities.
Now, the county does not break down its spending in that manner, so I can’t point you to a line item in the budget to prove it. But it is obvious to anyone who works for the county, and it is the same in every other county in the state. There is nothing wrong with this — if someone chooses to live in a municipality (I live in U. City), they are going to pay for the services that city provides. You can’t charge a different county tax to people based on whether or not they live in a municipality. It has to be flat across the board. But the county does have more responsibility for the people who don’t live in a city, so they are going to spend a higher percentage of the budget on those areas. That’s just the way it is. So, if the city rejoined the county, you’d get an enormous increase in assessed valuation without adding significantly to county expenditures. Result: a lower county tax rate for all, although it would not feel like a tax cut for city residents who weren’t paying to the county beforehand. It would be a very real tax cut to current county residents, however.
The other thing I want to add is that while I stand by my belief that, in immediate terms, the real beneficiaries would be county residents, I think the city reentering the county would greatly benefit city residents, too. It just might take a few years for those benefits to become apparent. Right away, as the county took over some of the city’s “county” offices, the city could cut its own tax rate to partly offset the new county taxes. Over time, as the county and city each decided which services to manage, the city’s tax rate could be cut even further. There would not be any wholesale takeover of city services, though. For a few things, like major arterial roads under local control (think Forest Park Parkway), it would benefit the entire area if the county highway department had responsibility for the road for its entire length. The change would also bring many other benefits to city residents, but I will discuss those in the future.
Lastly, I have to run the numbers on the sales tax question. Yes, the city would be giving up some of its sales tax revenues, but its population might be large enough to get almost all of that money back from the pool distribution. You can’t really know the answer until it happens, because any particular decision could affect marginal behavior — i.e., a county resident might spend more in the city if it was in the sales-tax pool, and a city resident might keep more of their money within the city if it was a “point-of-sale” city.
