Welcome to College; Check Your Personal Liberties at the Door

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I always enjoy Katy Steinmetz’s excellent columns, but I think she misses the target in this piece arguing against concealed carry at the University of Missouri–Columbia. Here’s my summary of her main points, with comments:

  1. It’s a bad idea to legislate based on rare occurrences like school shootings. We should not adopt a risky policy in hopes of averting unlikely disasters.

I agree completely that panic over freak events (like the birth of octuplets) can prompt the creation of ill-considered policies. This just isn’t one of those cases. Steinmetz compares allowing guns at MU to allowing concealed hand grenades as a defense against sharks on the beach; I think that’s a stretch. We don’t allow hand grenades other places for good reason, and it would be foolish to make an exception for beaches because we’re scared of the occasional shark. In the case of guns, Missouri does permit concealed carry across the state. The proposal would change the law for MU to make it like the law for other parts of Missouri — hardly an instance of singling out MU for a departure from the norm.

  1. People who carry concealed weapons aren’t always the knights-in-shining-armor they claim to be. Saying that permit holders are nice because they don’t engage in public brawls is faint praise.

The fact is, most states do allow concealed carry, and it hasn’t led to those public brawls critics said it would. Permit holders’ restraint may not be sufficient evidence of heroic virtue, but it does indicate that concealed carry isn’t so risky as Steinmetz fears.

  1. People don’t need to carry guns at MU because the campus is very safe. Concealed carry advocates haven’t demonstrated that there’s anything to gain from changing the law.

There is something to gain: The personal freedoms that apply in other parts of the state would be upheld at MU as well. Why should MU be different?

Ode to the MAP, From Edudiva

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Edudiva comments on districts’ MAP test preparation in a post titled “Ode to the MAP.” The issue is not drilling students in facts and test-taking strategies, which most people associate with test prep, but the cheerleading, banana-feeding, and other last-ditch efforts to motivate students.

Other students were encouraged to write poetry about their feelings.

Standardized tests aren’t fun, and this poem creatively captures that feeling. But I’m amazed that students can harbor so much hatred for a test in elementary school that doesn’t take up much time, and the results of which won’t affect them one way or the other. Can you imagine Singaporean students writing poetry like that about the TIMSS in English class? (If you can, check out Two Million Minutes and think again.) I think there are two possible causes: Either schools are turning what should be a routine test into a traumatic event (unlikely, since lots of them give out candy and have pep rallies beforehand), or all the bribing and coaching is actually making students more anxious about the tests.

Campaign Finance, Again

Posted on by Dave Roland

As if to follow up my blog post from last week, the Post-Dispatch ran an editorial today highlighting the pervasive problem of moneyed interests exercising influence over elected officials. Naturally, the editorial board calls for the return of strict campaign finance regulations.

The board misses three very important points. The first is that campaign finance laws curtail peoples’ constitutional freedoms. The second is that big-money campaign contributors tend to be very smart, meaning that they can figure out how to use their funds in such a way that they get the influence they want without necessarily running afoul of any laws. And, third, campaign finance laws are made by people with every incentive to create loopholes, soften consequences, and make life more difficult for candidates (especially third-party candidates) who might try to unseat them.

The most important of these three points is the constitutional issue. The First Amendment guarantees citizens’ freedoms of expression and association. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out, these protections are most vital when political ideas are the motivation behind a given expression or association. Not only do campaign finance laws curtail expression (by restricting what someone can express, when they may express it, and what means they can use to express it) and impose barriers to association (by denying citizens the right to pool their resources or to offer their resources for someone else’s use), they do so precisely because that expression or association has political motivations.  This turns upside-down the most fundamental elements of the First Amendment’s protections.

We must not be willing to sacrifice liberty in the name of “protecting” the political process. As I argued last week, the better policy would be for those who are worried about the evils illustrated in the Post-Dispatch editorial should use the political process itself as a weapon against those who engage in those sordid behaviors. Such a solution would not only deal with the problem far more directly than letting lawmakers craft toothless, self-interest-driven laws that can be twisted (or avoided) to suit their desires, it would do so while preserving — and, perhaps, enhancing — the freedoms that this nation is supposed to cherish above all others.

Bingo

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Thank you, Combest, for this link. How crazy is it that the state tells charities how many times a week they can hold bingo games and how much money they have to pay out? If you give money directly to a charity, you don’t have to limit your donations to certain days, and the charity doesn’t have to give you some of the money back as a prize. But if you donate through a bingo game the regulations kick in.

Nietzsche Versus the Associated Press

Posted on by David Stokes

The Post-Dispatch is hosting a truly stupid AP article lamenting that the nation’s uninsured (as in health, not personal effects) don’t band together to force change in Washington, D.C. “Change” here would, of course, involve making people who pay taxes pay more, so that people who don’t (with plenty of exceptions) can have health insurance given to them. Any potential problems with this utopia are ignored by the AP writer.

Articles like this make Nietzsche’s (one word, I am proud to say, I can spell without any help) prediction about democracy seem relevant (emphasis added in all of this blog entry’s quotes):

All political powers nowadays try to exploit the fear of socialism in order to strengthen themselves. But in the long run it is democracy alone that derives the advantage: for all parties are nowadays obliged to flatter the “people” and to bestow on it alleviations and liberties of every kind through which it will in the end become omnipotent. As socialism is a doctrine that the acquisition of property ought to be abolished, the people are as alienated from it as they could be: and once they have got the power of taxation into their hands through their great parliamentary majorities they will assail the capitalists, the merchants and the princes of the stock exchange with a progressive tax and slowly create in fact a middle class which will be in a position to forget socialism like an illness it has recovered from.

Consider this along with the AP story, which seems to be begging for the uninsured to band together and collectively demand to be covered — and not with some radical idea like health savings accounts, you can be sure:

But going without health insurance is still seen as a personal issue, a misfortune for many and a choice for some. People who lose coverage often struggle alone instead of turning their frustration into political action.

The tone of the article — although maybe I am reading it wrong — suggests that the idea that some might choose to be uninsured is insane, or that the reporter can’t comprehend the thought some people who don’t have insurance might actually not want to force others to provide it.

Ten Hours of CWIP Debate Yields No Resolution

Posted on by Ryan Davisson

As the debate over Missouri’s Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) law heats up, senators are spending copious amounts of time debating this important issue. Senate Bill 228, which would rescind the existing anti-CWIP law, has gone back to the drawing board after a rigorous and visceral debate. Some think the bill should be voted on by the people, akin to the original CWIP law’s conception during the ’70s.

Signs of compromise are now taking place; an amendment passed that allows exemptions for CWIP rate hikes to those older than 65, disabled, and who earn less than $40,000 a year. One opponent of the bill was able to pass an amendment requiring that “customers get 100 percent of any profits Ameren would realize if it ever sold the permit to build the nuclear plant.” Another proposed amendment includes a cap on the percentage increase that utility customers would pay.

The economics of this situation seems simplistic, in my opinion. There is a growing demand for energy, and neither wind nor solar power are technologically advanced enough to fulfill this demand. Furthermore, it seems logical that those who will benefit by consuming cleaner sustainable energy should be those who assume the cost. It is possible that, in another economic climate, Ameren could have found enough investors with deep pockets to finance this gargantuan investment without needing CWIP funding, but this is not the case. The consumers who need the product must therefore bear the costs if the plant is to be constructed.

More on this topic from the Show-me Institute:

Policy Pulse: Legislation Aims to Allow CWIP Billing By Missouri Utilities

Op-ed by David Stokes: Kick Anti-Cwip Laws to the Curb

Initial Franklin County Charter Thoughts

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

So, the question of the day for me is: Why did the proposed Franklin County Charter fail? Now that I’ve had a few days to think and talk about it, I think there are a number of reasons for its demise, all of which need to be addressed.

One of the most common sayings used by charter opponents was, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” I can understand that kind of thinking, because a lot of Franklin County is rural and we really enjoy life the way it is. There is also a natural human condition that resists change. Lots of people (my family included) still live on in a rural area, on 10 or more acres, and the last thing they want is more interference in their daily lives. My objection, however, is that by passing home rule, those who want to limit interference could have protected themselves from outside laws. Home rule can be a good insulator.

Some argued that the charter would increase the size of local government, but I think this was a misinterpretation of the charter — just because there’s greater representation doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be greater intrusion. Why expand the county council to seven members when you can stay with two associate commissioners? Well, when you’re debating a tax hike or deciding where to put a road, wouldn’t you want people from each of the the county’s seven regions to provide input, rather than just two people? Additionally, a seven-member council would better represent the county as a whole. While David Stokes and I were interviewed on KLPW AM radio in Franklin County, we heard multiple people call in with this sentiment: “This is just Washington trying to rule the rest of Franklin County.” I don’t think people realized, however, a seven-person council would have made Washington as equal as the county’s other regions — whereas it’s currently the biggest voting area.

Judging by our radio experience the other day, there had been a campaign of misinformation about the entire issue. For example, people thought that the new county council people could (and would) vote itself a raise as a first order of business. However, this would not have been possible because the charter froze salaries until 2014. After that, Missouri’s Constitution would prohibit a raise from taking effect till after there had been an election. So, even if the council would have voted itself a raise down the road, the members would have to get reelected after that vote. Something tells me that would be a hard campaign to win.

Overall, I think the charter proposal failed out of resistance to change, rather than a true understanding of what charter government is and how it can work either for or against the county’s residents. Hopefully, next time a charter is proposed people will have access to better information about what type of government a charter would really bring.

Low Turnout for St. Louis Election

Posted on by Clovis Ouangraoua

As you all know, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was reelected, joining a club of rare political authorities to maintain himself in this particular position for a third term. But, as it turned out, he was elected by a fairly high percentage of a very low vote turnout. He won the most votes cast by a mere 15 percent of registered voters, in a city that has a little over 350.000 citizens. People seem so involved and preoccupied by the current economic and market situation that they may not have prioritized getting out the vote.

The mayor is expected to unveil his new economic plan of development for the city during his inauguration speech on April 21.

I Found the Holy Grail at the End of the Rainbow

Posted on by David Stokes

Knowing, as my dedicated readers do, that my two favorite things to blog about are the nanny state and the fragmented nature of local government in Missouri (and especially St. Louis), I have long dreamed of the opportunity to comment on a newspaper article that perfectly combined the two issues somehow. My quest has been fulfilled, and I assure you that I just excitedly jumped up and ran around the office (fully clothed, unfortunately) while screaming “Eureka,” which is just delightfully clever in this situation.

The article I am referring to is in today’s Post-Dispatch, and discusses the issues regarding enforcement of St. Louis County’s child helmet laws within the various county municipalities. Readers might be confused by statements such as this in the article:

Maryland Heights Police Chief Tom O’Connor, when asked about helmet laws, said, “That’s a St. Louis County ordinance and we don’t enforce county ordinances.”

What? They don’t enforce county ordinances? That might sound strange to people, but it is quite normal.

Most county ordinances only apply in the unincorporated parts of the county. The 91 cities enact the local ordinances within their boundaries. There are crossovers, though. The county sets traffic laws on county roads, even those within municipalities. This occasionally leads to disputes, as the county has to count on local police to enforce the county traffic laws on the county roads within cities, and the question is what will the city police enforce if the city and county disagree on something like a speed limit? (Something very close to this happened when the Forest Park Parkway reopened after MetroLink construction, with St. Louis County, Clayton, and University City disagreeing on the new speed limits for the Parkway.)

The primary area in which county laws trump local control is in the health code. No municipality in the county is large enough to have its own health department. I believe a city has to have at least 70,000 people before it can have its own health department (that number is from memory; I don’t feel like looking it up). So, the county health code automatically applies within cities, which is why they enacted the helmet requirement under the health code rather than the criminal code. Cities can certainly enact tougher legislation in the area of health laws, like Ballwin’s smoking ban, but generally the county rules govern when it comes to public health issues. It is not hard to see why a city police chief might not be aware of this exception.

Whether or not they were aware of the rule, it is great to read some of the police officers’ comments exhibiting common sense and anti-nanny-state sentiments:

“Is it practical to enforce if you come across three or four kids out riding bikes without helmets? What the hell do you do, confiscate their bikes and then drive them all home to tell their parents? It ought to be the parents’ responsibility in the first place.”

Not surprisingly, the health department bureaucrat who has made it her mission in life to tell everyone else how to live their lives doesn’t agree:

The driving force behind it was Shirley Scatcherd, a county public health coordinator. She had worked for four years to extend to municipalities a regulation in effect in the unincorporated areas since 2001.

“The law was never intended to be punitive, but we do expect that it will be enforced,” she said.

Soon enough, my son will start riding bikes, etc., and when he does we will make sure that he uses a helmet. When he starts to ski, that will also be the end of my helmet-less time on the slopes, because I will have to set a good exemple for him. (The argument over “moral hazard” — or, whether the presence of a helmet will cause me to ski more dangerously than I would without one — is a topic for another post. Hint, the answer is: “guaranteed it will.”)

But I can once again feel my blood pressure rising with yet another example of a public official taking away our own individual liberties and responsibilities under the guise of “safety.” This case is particularly maddening, because she wasn’t happy enough just to enforce the rules in the unincorporated parts of the county. Nope, the nanny state must apply everywhere!

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