I swear that if you read this article in the Star while imagining that you are Norm MacDonald impersonating Bob Dole, you will get a nice laugh out of it. It’s not a bad article, it just uses his name a lot — which Bob Dole used to do, too. At least, Norm made people think he did.
Government Pork: “In Oklahoma, Not Arizona, What Does it Matter?”
The annual Citizens Against Government Waste Pig Book is out for 2009. I have to guess this was a particularly fertile year for the authors, what with the entire District of Columbia becoming a gigantic printing press. If I needed a reminder (which I don’t actually need) as to why I was so proud to be one of John McCain’s county chairs last year (on my own time), then here it is. Arizona is dead last in government pork, and I think everything is going just as well there as in any other state. I know some of Arizona’s other officials deserve credit for this, too, especially Rep. Jeff Flake. As an aside, it was probably unfair for me to single out Oklahoma above, given that it’s ranked 44th, but, heh, the song says what it says.
Missouri is right where we usually are in things like this — in the middle of the pack. At least we are moving in the right direction, down from 24th to 26th. Sen. Claire McCaskill is probably the reason we are moving that direction, and hopefully we will continue to go further. It is interesting how three of the top four spots are held by entities other than the contiguous 48 states. And, yes, it is notable that there is a 51-spot difference between McCain and his erstwhile running mate — although, in Gov. Sarah Palin’s defense, this money comes from Washington D.C., not Juneau.
(Hat tip to Prime Buzz for the original link.)
Twitter and Government
As a follow-up to my last post on technology, I’m happy to point out this article about Missouri legislators using Twitter. They’re giving constituents updates on their activities and accepting ideas and questions in return.
The article mentions that legislators may run into trouble if they divulge classified information on Twitter or make libelous statements. That’s true, but those are potential problems any time politicians open their mouths. The technology isn’t to blame.
Welcome to College; Check Your Personal Liberties at the Door
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
