Page 805 – Show-Me Institute

The Merging of All Good Things in Life

Posted on January 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by Phil Eckelkamp

Someone once said to me that “There is nothing left in the world to invent; you can only combine things that already exist.” Chesterfield soon will be home to a great new idea that I wish I had thought of first — a great bar that takes advantage of the free market and offers customers a choice well beyond what the market already offers. There is a new restaurant coming called “International Tap House.” Just for some brief background on this, it will have 40 beers on tap and 500 bottles in stock that you can choose from — or, if you so choose, that you can take home with you.

The part that caught my interest was not only the wide range of beer selection (who can disagree with that?) but also the way they will do their food. Instead of trying to be good at everything, they have chosen to be really great at one thing, and let others deal with the hassle of cooking. Rather than serving food from an in-house kitchen, they will instead be allowing customers to order food from local surrounding restaurants, such as Surf Dogs, Foodies, and East Coast Pizza. Just tell the servers what you want, and they will order it for you.

I particularly love this idea because it allows the merging of several different capital markets into one place. Instead of offering subpar or par food, they will be offering good/great food from other merchants, thereby utilizing the services those establishments already offer. Additionally, they will be a no-smoking bar inside and a smoking bar on the outside patio — again, playing to the widest possible market. They seem to have merged a Growler’s-style menu (which has gotten too bland for my tastes) and a Friar Tuck’s or Lucas Liquor type of selection. This kind of restaurant allows for the percentage of drinkers who actually enjoy lots of choice and high-quality food to come together with the same people who “enjoy” BMC and bar food. Additionally, I like the fact that they still allow smoking on some level. Hopefully, they won’t draw a line in the sand with cigars — but we’ll see. I’m not sure there is anything better than a good cigar from a small island nation south of Florida and a good RIS. Who knows, this may even get me out of U. City once in a while.

A strong hat-tip goes to my buddy Mike Sweeney over at STLHops.com (a St. Louis beer blog), who first alerted me to this story.

Earmark Reform Hot Off the Presses

Posted on January 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

I have praised Sen. Claire McCaskill several times here for her refusal to use earmarks for pork barrel projects. Today, Dave Catanese’s awesome KY3 Political Notebook has a story about an effort by McCaskill and Sen. McCain to put the screws to the earmarking process.

Now, first, let’s get our terms right: Are we talking about earmarking, or about pork spending? “Pork” is a result; “earmarking” is a process. Most pork spending is done via earmarking, but not all — and not all pork spending is bad. The reforms McCain and McCaskill are fighting for would force more pork spending (loosely defined as federal money that benefits local projects — some worthy, some not) to go through the full budget process rather than just being added on at the last minute to various bills, with little oversight or review.

I think these reforms are desperately needed. I wish Sen. McCaskill all the luck in the world in succeeding, and all the help I can give here in my tiny little corner of the blogosphere. As for my opinion of Sen. McCain, because I am also praising a Democrat in this post, I can probably say in the interest of full disclosure that I (on my own time, outside of work) was one of his honorary St. Louis County chairmen in the recent election — so that should tell you all you need to know.

I know that pork spending represents only a fraction of our budget issues, and I will admit that in areas of transportation and the military, not all pork spending is money poorly spent. In the big picture, it is dwarfed by the entitlement debts we face as we move toward a system in which one person with a job pays the Social Security and Medicare for 27 retired people (a slight exaggeration). But every dollar counts, and these reforms are still very important.

Great Op-Ed in the Post About Unions and the Secret Ballot

Posted on January 8, 2009May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

Former (as of yesterday) state Senator John Loudon has a terrific opinion piece in today’s Post-Dispatch about the need to preserve the secret ballot in union certification votes. As you probably know, there is an absolutely horrendous bill in Congress that has a terrifyingly high chance of passing now, known as the Employee Free Choice Act — which Loudon correctly identifies as a rather Orwellian title. This bill would discontinue the secret ballot for union votes.

Its only purpose is to increase union membership, by making it easier for workers who want unions to win these votes. If you think the days of On The Waterfront are over, I need only point you to the tactics employed by unions in fire districts around the St. Louis area. You can find that information here and here.

Thanks to Combest for the original link, and to South County Truth Spot for the work they do covering the field in South St. Louis County.

Budget Deficits and Speeding Tickets

Posted on January 7, 2009May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

The Post-Dispatch had a great story yesterday about a recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that documented an increase in traffic tickets during times of government budget deficits. While study’s data came from North Carolina, the factors involved apply in Missouri just as well. If anything, they apply even more so, because everyone knows how common the practice of amending speeding tickets is in Missouri. This makes issuing more tickets even more profitable to Missouri governments, without any noticeable increases in insurance rates or driver’s license points.

While speeding tickets, and citations for other violations, should only be issued to enforce traffic and safety rules, everyone knows that they are used for other purposes. Generally, in small cities, towns, and suburbs, they are used for enhancing local revenue, as the study proves. However, we all know that they are also used to keep some people out of certain areas, such as the well-known “DWB” violation.

My dearly departed friend Sherman Parker relayed a few stories about how he would attempt to tell his bosses — senators and congressmen — about the problems his white friends would have with the cops when they would try to visit his house in North St. Louis. Of course, Sherman would be crying, he was laughing so hard, when he would relay these issues to them — as we all basically found it hysterical. (“Get rid of those fireworks” was a parting line I remember from a cop, after a team of them had searched my car up and down for drugs after I dropped Sherman off one night. Although, in that particular case, I had accidentally made an illegal turn, so the pull-over was completely legit.)

Sure, it’s funny when it’s white kids from the suburbs who don’t have drugs on them getting hassled a few times for a few minutes, and then being let go when the officers realize the car is clean and the person (me) really is just visiting a friend. But it’s not funny when it happens to people often, or when there is absolutely no legitimacy to the pull-over, or when the ticket is issued solely to raise money for the city, as is the case with red light cameras.

Missouri should lower the maximum percentage that any one government can receive from traffic violations, down from the current 50 percent (I think that’s the number, and it is a good thing we have that cap there at all) to about 10 percent. There is no excuse for filling budget deficits with traffic fines, no matter how many times you amend the tickets to muffler violations.

Would You Like a Comfortable Retirement With That?

Posted on January 7, 2009May 5, 2026 by Josh Smith

MSNBC has a nice article — with a real focus on St. Louis, no less — about the very generous retirement program offered to McDonald’s employees. It’s not exactly efficiency wages, but it certainly turns the spotlight on benefits packages and the issue of retirement saving. The 401k offered by McDonald’s is far more lucrative than, say, Social Security, yet the chain still has trouble enticing employees to take advantage of it.

I could go on for some time here about budget constraints, the individual spending decision, and future value; but, instead, I will merely say that probably everyone (especially people who do not regularly read this blog, unfortunately) could benefit from increased reading on the topic of retirement saving. On that note, I think it’s appropriate to link to our recent policy study about Missouri’s public pension programs. A bit unnerving, but I learned a lot from it.

The Minimum Wage

Posted on January 6, 2009May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

Thanks, Josh, for the great post on the minimum wage increase. I’d like to add a few thoughts about potential drawbacks of the minimum wage.

In an economic downturn, it will be hard to sort out the unemployment effects of the minimum wage from the job losses that would have happened anyway. And some economists believe that the unemployment effects would be minimal, because most businesses will just grin and bear it — they won’t fire anyone.

Even if that’s the case, raising the minimum wage is not the wisest labor policy. Here’s why:

Some employers can’t be that flexible. The layoffs may not be widespread enough to have a big effect on unemployment, but they could cause hardship for individual workers. Interestingly, government agencies and departments with fixed budgets may have to let go of more workers than private businesses. I don’t have the link on hand, but I remember a news story a year or two ago about a state university that fired people in the wake of a minimum wage increase.

Employees who get to stay on the job could still lose out. Businesses might make up for the extra labor expense by doing away with training, on-the-job learning, and whatever other practices temporarily distract from productivity. For now, the employees will happily keep their jobs at the new, higher wage. But in the future, they’ll be unprepared to advance in their careers because of all the training that didn’t take place.

Minimum wage increases give citizens an unwarranted warm, fuzzy feeling. Voters are content that they’ve done their part to help the poor, despite the fact that most poor people don’t work for minimum wages. Then there’s less momentum behind proposals (earned income tax credit increases, training programs, etc.) that actually make a difference.

District Calendars

Posted on January 6, 2009May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

Over at The Grade, Steve Giegerich blogs about districts that are holding a professional development day today. He fears this scheduling decision could irk parents who have to arrange child care for the extra day.

To me, it sounds like a pretty good idea. If a professional development day falls in the middle of a regular school week, the entire week is disrupted. Teachers have to spend extra time reviewing what they covered before the day off, and it takes away from the grading and lesson planning they might normally do on that day to prepare for the rest of the week. Scheduling professional development on the first day after a break solves the problem.

As for the child-care dilemma, parents already knew winter break was coming, and they had to plan accordingly. I imagine adding an extra day to the break would actually be easier on parents than choosing some random day in the spring semester (which would require them to make those plans all over again).

Time to Raise the Gas Tax?

Posted on January 6, 2009May 5, 2026 by Sarah Brodsky

The Kansas City Star reports on the approbation that commentators from varying political camps are showering on a proposal to increase the gas tax. Given that the economy has been in bad shape lately, some are suggesting that the increase should be revenue-neutral, with money returned to taxpayers through a rebate or similar mechanism. Here’s a quote from one supporter:

“There are tremendous benefits for the environment, for the economy, for energy independence and national security” from that approach, said Dan Rosenblum of the Carbon Tax Center, which supports higher levies on all carbon-based energy.

Two things bother me about this reasoning. First, I don’t believe a $1 or $2 tax increase would afford tremendous benefits. Slight benefits? Maybe. People would buy less gasoline, but they would still buy gasoline. Cars would continue to pollute the environment. The U.S. would continue to buy oil from OPEC, which in fact has little or no bearing on our national security. (I don’t see any petroleum executives trying to blow up buildings, do you?) If you want to improve the economy, the environment, or foreign relations, it’s better to confront those issues head-on instead of waiting for a small change in driving habits to solve the problem.

Second, even if the benefits would be substantial, that’s a bad reason to impose a tax. The purpose of taxes is to raise money for the many worthwhile things the government does. If it’s necessary for people’s driving habits to change in order to keep us safe or whatever, then we need a new law to state that explicitly. Legislators shouldn’t use taxes as a sneaky way to trick people into doing what they want.

Let’s Get the 2009 Debates Started Off Right …

Posted on January 5, 2009May 5, 2026 by David Stokes

A judge upholds the Kansas City public smoking ban, reports the Star. Also in KC’s newspaper of record, AmerenUE fights to be able to charge current customers during construction of future facilities (like any private business would be able to do). A St. Louis cab driver talks to the Post-Dispatch about being an entrepreneur in this highly regulated industry.

Please let me know your thoughts, especially you former interns who are now tasked with keeping our comments section flowing. You know who you are!

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.