… And I Am Out of Here!

Posted on by David Stokes

I am off for vacation until Monday. Here’s hoping the Cardinals win the big game on Sunday:

Rev. Lovejoy: [surveys his congregation, one man and two old ladies] Well, I’m glad some people could resist the lures of the big game.
Man: Oh, my God!  I forgot the game! [rushes out]
— Super Bowl Sunday, “Lisa the Greek”

Hopefully, when I return to work on Monday, all bones intact, we will have no red light cameras, fewer state government employees, Warner will have his second ring, Fitzgerald his first, and the attention of the state of Missouri will turn to my study of state government, to be released next Thursday. I know how excited you all are.

P.S. — I make no claim to being anything more than a fair-weather Cardinals fan, who — like most of St. Louis — has decided to root for them on Sunday because of the presence of Kurt Warner. Although Larry Fitzgerald really is an amazing player.

Cutting Back

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

A good pair of articles (links via Combest) recently discussed the increase (or lack thereof) in pay raises for state officials. While legislators were denying themselves and judges a pay raise, the governor’s office had a mixed result. Some positions saw an increase, while others saw a decrease. Overall, though, there was an increase. A few legislators proposed an amendment to give a raise to judges while excluding themselves, but this was struck down.

I’ve always thought that the pay of elected officials and their staff is a tricky subject. On one hand, you want to ensure that you attract the “best and the brightest,” so that the taxpayers are getting good government. On the other hand, you don’t want to spend more of the taxpayers’ money than necessary in order to have a good working government. I realize that the combination of someone being brilliant and also willing to accept what is normally a substantially lower salary than they might receive elsewhere is a rarity. The people who fit this description are usually driven by a sense of service and duty to the state.

Salaries in the governor’s office are up $21,757, and by rejecting their 4-percent cost-of-living increase, the state legislature “saved” the taxpayers $234,165.80 according to my calculations ($35,915 x .04 x 163). That is a fairly substantial savings, in my book. Additionally, by rejecting pay raises for associate circuit judges, they saved the state $289,500 (193 x $1,500). Overall, there was a “savings” of $501,908.80 ($234,165.80 + $289,500 – $21,757). The cynical part of me understands that the legislature needed to make a political move, because voting for a pay raise — even if it is a cost-of-living increase — can be political suicide, but it is a good move nonetheless.

While I’m on the subject of pay raises for judges, it seems that a modest increase of $1,500 per judge won’t be enough to make an actual difference for either cost of living or recruitment away from the private sector, so the fact that this didn’t pass is a good thing. Additionally, the judges just received a pay raise in July, up to $$109,366. So, a new increase from $109,366 to $110,866 doesn’t seem all that enticing. This decision to let each of the 5,842,713 people in Missouri keep their average of $0.90 (443,367.35 ÷ 5,842,713) is a good thing. Yes, I know that not each one of those people pays taxes, but you get my point).

So, that’s just my $0.02.

Another Take on Gov. Nixon’s Speech

Posted on by Dave Roland

I just got done reviewing the governor’s State of the State speech, and I’d like to follow up on Sarah’s post with one of my own. After reading the speech, I think that even though Gov. Nixon and I may differ in the way we reach conclusions about what would be wise in terms of public policy, he seems to have arrived at some very good ideas.

Far too frequently, bureaucratic inertia allows certain government programs, positions, and workers to continue on well beyond the point at which they are more expensive than is justified by the value they provide to citizens. Sentimentality and political concerns make it difficult for elected officials to fire government workers, which is one reason why the government tends to be less efficient than private businesses, which are under constant pressure to discard workers or divisions that are no longer creating enough value to justify the expense. Gov. Nixon has pledged to cut nearly $200 million from the budget by treating the government more like a business. I’m certain that this is an unpopular position among many people with whom the governor associates, but it is one that — assuming he follows through with it — will be very good for the state. And, for all those worried about what will happen to the government workers who will be downsized, remember that if they are as good and effective workers as we hope they are, they should have little trouble finding a job somewhere in the private sector.

Gov. Nixon also announced his intention to review the state’s system of tax credits, suggesting that he will work to eliminate those that are corporate welfare masquerading as the public good. This is an excellent idea. Tax credits can be very useful to encourage private businesses and citizens to invest in Missouri, but they should never be used to give a special advantage to certain businesses, industries, or interest groups. Examples of good tax credit programs are those that lighten the tax burden for people who donate to chartities — such as domestic violence shelters, food pantries, and the Higher Education Scholarship Program. Examples of negative tax credit programs are those that lighten the tax burden only for specially favored businesses and industries, such as last year’s proposed Bombardier tax credit, the Hazelwood Ford Plant tax credit, or the tax credit for grape and wine producers. While we don’t know which tax credit programs Gov. Nixon will eventually target, his stance offers hope that he will work to end corporate welfare tax credits.

There are certainly points in the governor’s address that I disagree with, and you can be assured that I’ll address those points in the future. But, for now, I just want to say that I applaud him for the positive positions that he seems to be taking in regard to improving government transparency and efficiency, and targeting the misuse of tax credit schemes.

One Way in Which We Should Not Imitate France

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

France has many things going for it. It has smart public policy on nuclear power, and its court ruled in favor of Linden Labs when a complaint was brought against them. (I mention that last point to try to win back the commenters who were outraged by my anti-Second Life post.)

However, reading Mound City Money reveals one aspect of French policy that ought to stay in France: free newspaper subscriptions for teenagers. If you’re going to waste money on newspapers, at least give them to someone who will read them.

Best and Worst Parts of Nixon’s Speech

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

When I saw this, I immediately thought of Dave Stokes’ classic post about people who don’t seek government assistance. Here’s the Post-Dispatch’s summary of what Nixon said about uninsured children in MIssouri:

Most are eligible for coverage under the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program but haven’t signed up.

“That’s unacceptable,” Nixon said. He promised to start identifying eligible families, who can make up to three times the federal poverty limit, or $63,600 for a family of four.

Now’s a good time to review what Dave said:

Some types, generally of the left-leaning persuasion, just can not understand that people eligible for government aid might still prefer to make it by on their own.

And for the good news, here are Nixon’s words on reducing the number of Missouri state employees:

In total, my FY10 budget proposes the elimination of more than 1,300 positions. We will cut nearly $200 million from overhead by eliminating these positions and cutting bureaucracy.

I’m glad he isn’t using the economic situation as an excuse to add government jobs.

Schools and Technology

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

There’s more good stuff at Education Next. Here’s a forum on the subject of technology in K–12 education. John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe think that technology will radically transform the sector, while Larry Cuban is more cautious and maintains that reformers are too quick to buy the latest gadget for every classroom.

I think that technology has the potential to change the market and the way educational services are delivered to students. Virtual schools bring competition to areas where there was none before, and help break the connection between where a student lives and his learning environment. They bring enrichment opportunities to students who once had only the foreign languages and electives offered by their local schools to choose from.

However, curriculum and learning processes will evolve more slowly. “Virtual” students take tests and complete assignments online, but they still read books and practice handwriting. Although they have more subjects to choose from than their counterparts in brick-and-mortar schools, they don’t study them in radically different ways. A student learning Chinese online will memorize vocabulary and learn to write just as a student studying French in a classroom would.

Smoking Bans

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Some municipalities in Missouri have smoking bans on the books; some don’t. Some private businesses forbid smoking on their premises; some allow it. That’s the kind of spontaneous order that legislators just can’t resist overriding with a statewide policy.

I recommend reading John LaPlante’s excellent post today about smoking bans, and why the decision should be left to individual businesses.

“Can You Smell It In The Air, Opus?” “Dirty Socks?” “No, Reassessment.”

Posted on by David Stokes

One thing that my brother, Mike (the second-oldest of four, with moi being the eldest), and I have in common is a devotion to the “Bloom County” comic strip. I own all the books, have read them all at least six times, quote them a lot, etc., which is also true for Mike. For whatever reason, many of my interests/hobbies are ones I share with my friends (“The Simpsons,” politics, Axis and Allies, darts, trivia nights, everything sports), but “Bloom County” — like skiing and Coen Brothers movies — is one I mostly share with my family. There are certainly crossovers between these sets of interests, especially so for politics and sports, but for whatever reason my friends never really gotten into “Bloom County.” Dunno, maybe they’re cooler than I am. …

I know what you are thinking: Is there a point to all of this? Not really, but because I am the only staffer to make it through the snow to come in today (thanks to my new 4WD SUV, and the fact that I live only a mile away), I may be particularly inclined to poignancy. Which gets me to reassessment, that special period every two years in Missouri during which our property gets revalued — a process that determines our tax rates.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal has bad news for anyone expecting the upcoming reassessments to lead to tax cuts, at least in the St. Louis area. You can’t read the full article without a subscription, but I’d like to point you to the map that’s on page one today, if you are interested. This map lists the decline in the price of homes in about thirty major cities during the past year. St. Louis has one of the smallest declines, at 3.7 percent. Many other cities have seen declines well into double digits, and only a few cities have slightly smaller declines.

This is all pertinent because, as the Post-Dispatch has reported recently, many homeowners are gearing up for a fight in St. Louis County, which has been ground zero for assessment and property tax issues during the past decade. From what I’ve heard, many people were astounded when, in an article that ran a few weeks ago, the St. Louis County assessor claimed property values really hadn’t gone down that much. Well, at least according to Zillow.com and the WSJ, he may be right. Frankly, the difference may be even less than negative 3.7 percent in St. Louis County, because that number applies to the entire metro area, and the new home construction prices in extended suburbs like St. Charles have probably fallen more than areas like St. Louis city and county.

I am not saying that this is a good thing. Of course, I would like to see lower property taxes and less government involvement in our lives. Fewer government employees and (self-assumed) government responsibilities are the best things that can come from a recession. But, to repeat what I said here a few weeks ago, the best thing that most of us can probably hope to arise from this reassessment in Missouri is that our property taxes will remain level for the next two years. Considering how much they have increased during past cycles, perhaps a leveling-off would not be so bad.

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