There Is a Market for Everything

For most men, beer and sports go well with just about anything. That is the basic business plan of Knockouts barbershop in St. Joseph. Guys can go in, have a beer, get a haircut from an attractive young lady, and watch TV. Of course, the state can’t possibly allow something like this to go on without intervention of some type. So, now there is an investigation into whether or not Knockouts needs a liquor license — because, you know, God forbid the government not get its cut.

Mr. Schler, the acting state liquor and tobacco supervisor, said any salon requiring a purchase in order to obtain a complimentary drink is indirectly selling alcohol.

“You’re getting a haircut and alcohol all in one monetary consideration. It’s all a package,” he said. “You cannot get the drink without the money. So, it’s not actually free.”

I am pretty sure that at some point in the future, the government will try to license Super Bowl parties at your house. Because, you know, somebody has to pay for the television in the first place — so it’s not actually free. Speaking of guys who love beer and sports, thanks Combest for the link.

School District Spending on Drinks, Among Other Things

I was intrigued when I saw this headline on Combest: “Lawmaker seeks to cut alcohol tab for school staffers.” Are education officials given some kind of allotment to spend on alcohol, which is being cut? No, but it turns out that at least one district has a problem with employees buying alcohol on the taxpayers’ dime:

The audit, available on the district Web site, flags $4,513 in confirmed alcoholic beverage purchases, including 14 pitchers of beer charged in one evening and as many as 46 alcoholic beverages split between two administrators on one other occasion.

And, in response, a state representative wants Missouri law to forbid the practice.

I’m sympathetic to this attempt to curb egregious spending, but I don’t think it will even make a ripple in the ocean of district wastefulness. The same audit revealed unwarranted purchases of items like sunglasses and flowers. We can’t write a separate law for each of these things: “No buying sunglasses … no buying this … no buying that …”

And if the state gives districts more incentive to conserve — for example, less money to begin with, or the threat of competition — there wouldn’t be a need for all those express prohibitions.

Talk to Me, Sarge

The reactions have been swift to the decision by the incoming governor’s administration to halt a contract with Motorola that would have led to installation of a statewide emergency communications system allowing different public safety departments to talk to each other during emergencies. This is of great interest to me, because I actually did an extremely small amount of work on this project at the request of the Department of Public Safety. (So small, in fact, that I was unaware the contract with Motorola had been signed until I read on Combest that it had been canceled.)

If this halting of the contract is merely part of the new administration’s review of everything, than it is not a big deal. It is understandable that a new administration will want to take a look at pending projects, especially during tough financial times. But the fact that times are tough also makes it more important than ever to get the best deal, and when a well-known company like Motorola comes in with a bid that is significantly below the estimated cost, you don’t want to miss the opportunity to address an important need for a very reasonable price.

I am confident the governor’s administration will see the benefits of partnering with Motorola to give public safety officers the tools they need during emergencies.

P.S. — The work I did only involved gathering information about the involvement of public-private partnerships in emergency communications around the world, and forwarding it to the Department of Public Safety. It was a great deal of fun, and — just to be clear — the state did not pay us anything for the work. We don’t do contract work for anyone, or accept government money for anything.

No Experience? No Problem!

There’s an interesting post on the Freakonomics blog about the computer game SimCity and how it relates to a new web application from the Kansas Department of Transportation.

In SimCity, you play the role of the concerned and active government planner, taxing, zoning, and highway-building your citizens into a better tomorrow. When I was younger I found playing the game very stressful; it was tough to balance an attractive tax rate that will grow the population with satisfactory services, such as sufficient power plants, highways, railways, and appropriate balances of residential, commercial, and industrial zones.

A few years ago, I realized that the reason the game was not fun for me is that I don’t and can’t know what the people really want. I just do the best I can with the limited information I get from them. If they claim to want more industrial zones, the question becomes: “Do they demand industrial zones?” If they do, and it’s efficient to provide them, someone will start some heavy industry plants, hopefully where the people want, or he will be competed out of business by a superiorly located competitor. That’s what the market is all about: many competing actors, each with their own share of limited information, discovering they can reach remarkably efficient arrangements without a central organizing plan (or planner).

The T-Link Calculator is your chance to experience the confounding, hapless charade that is central planning. Try to make predictions about things as varied and likely-outside-your-expertise as “Will existing revenue sources grow slower or faster than they have historically?” and “Will KDOT’s non-construction expenditures grow faster or slower than they have historically?” I suppose someone has to make these tough decisions for all of us, and here’s your chance to be that planner.

I don’t mean to pick on Kansas in particular. Its funding calculator is actually a fun tool that performs the task it was perhaps meant to — namely, it shows the people of Kansas and elsewhere which sorts of decisions go into the roads they use every day. It is a relic of static thinking, however. Roads, like shoes, chicken dinners, and haircuts, are an example of something that can be well handled by private enterprise. Here’s some reading, if you’re interested.

The Reality of Tax Appropriation Via Bailout Sets In

Chrysler’s full-page thank you advertisement to American taxpayers has provoked an unintended reaction.

As for the price of the ad, which ran in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal (among others), Judson Berger with Foxnews.com found that “A full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal runs between $206,000 and $264,000, and a full-page ad in USA Today runs between $112,000 and $217,000.” So, there is little surprise that the advertisement has spurred some critical remarks.

On the same topic, Citigroup’s $400 million contract to name the newly built Mets stadium “Citi Field” came into question as Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo suggested the stadium’s name be modified to “Citi/Taxpayer Field” in order to pay homage to those who kept the company afloat.

The FDIC recently clarified that transparency concerning federal bailout money is a requirement rather than a suggestion. Three major companies in Missouri that received financial aid include: Blue Valley Bancorp (Kansas City), which received $21.75 million; Hawthorne Bancshares Inc. (Lee’s Summit), which accepted $30.26 million; and Enterprise Financial Services Corp. (Saint Louis), which accepted $35 million.

New Columbia Education Blog!

I always love to announce new education blogs focusing on Missouri issues, but this time the pleasure’s bittersweet because it means the closing of Class Notes. Jonathon Braden will write the Columbia Daily Tribune’s new education blog, to be called Homeroom. Janese Heavin begins blogging at Capitol Notes, and, from a glance at the first page of Homeroom, it looks like she’s continuing to discuss education there as well — but now in the comments section, like the rest of us.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Homeroom.

MoDOT Needs Mo’ Money

I promise you that is the last time I am going to use a version of that line. Before I go any further, I want to give a nod to Jonathan in Jeff City, who loves the blog and reads it every day. I won’t get him in trouble by printing his full name or position, but he’ll know who I mean when he reads this. (Not that it would really get him into any trouble, but it’s fun to pretend it would.)

Combest had a nice link yesterday to a Missourinet story about MoDOT Director Pete Rahn’s talk with legislators. The great part about the presentation is its inclusion of notions that would have been almost unthinkable for Missouri just 10 years ago. Many people would probably recoil at the fee for vehicle miles traveled, but I don’t mind it so much — provided it replaces existing taxes (as opposed to just raising new ones), and provided it’s done as part of an annual inspection, and does not involve GPS tracking of your car and where it goes. The idea is worth considering, as are toll roads and public-private partnerships in transportation. It is great for our state that Director Rahn has been such a promoter of new thinking for Missouri.

How They Do Things in Kansas City

The Star has the goods on the latest disputes in the KC mayor’s office. I’ll let the story speak for itself, because commenting on political squabbles isn’t really our role. But this can serve as a jumping-off point for a brief discussion of the government structure in KC.

The mayoral positions for Kansas City and Saint Louis are two of the weakest, structurally, of any large city in the country. (I want to emphasize that I mean the structure of the positions, not the people holding those offices, now or in the past.) Kansas City is one of the largest cities in the country with a full-out city manager system, which is more common in mid-size cities and suburbs. The mayor is really just first among equals on the City Council, and the right to determine who sits on and chairs which committees is probably the strongest lever that the position holds. That’s why you see articles and disputes like the one in the Star today.

Saint Louis has no city manager, but the mayor’s power is dramatically checked by a powerful City Council and 10 other citywide elected officials. The mayor of Saint Louis is really first among equals on the city’s Board of Estimate & Apportionment, the committee of three that approves major issues on top of council approval. In many ways, the city functions like a bicameral legislature, and the Board of Estimate & Apportionment serves as a Senate to the council’s House.

In both cities, the bully pulpit of the mayoral position is as valuable as any structural power they hold. When people want answers, they go to the mayor rather than to a council member or other city official. Leveraging that bully pulpit into political power is the trick for occupants of both offices.

Contract Schools

Years ago, the General Assembly approved a law that would allow public school districts to make deals with nearby private schools in order to see that certain students had the best educational environments for their particular needs. This program is a great idea, but as of right now it is only used in very, very limited circumstances.

In my latest op-ed, which ran yesterday in the Columbia Daily Tribune, I point out that the state could help schools and cut costs simply by expanding on this basic idea and allowing school districts to contract for some of their students to be educated at cheaper schools in the area. Check it out, and take advantage of the comments section below to let me know what you think.

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