Is Having a Big Family Reason to Call in Social Services?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Aisha Sultan at Parents Talk Back writes about the recent birth of octuplets to a woman who already had six children:

This is the height of selfishness and abdication of parental responsibility.[..] Instead of showering this woman with free diapers and formula, social services should keep a close eye on the health and welfare of a these 14 children.

Of course, I don’t personally know this woman, so I can’t vouch for her responsibility. But going by the information provided in the AP story, it sounds like she had six children and wanted seven. She had a fertility treatment that can result in multiple births (or single births, or none at all if it doesn’t work). Now she has 14 children.

There are other families in the U.S. that have 15, 16, 17, or even 18 children, with or without fertility treatments. Teachers in public schools are in charge of that many children at a time. So I don’t think a relatively low “parent-child ratio” is reason by itself for state surveillance.

Someone Needs a Hug

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This is funny to watch: A state senator explaining her vote in favor of a pay increase for legislators and judges. Although the state senators who voted against the increase may have been motivated more by political pressure and PR considerations, it’s amusing to hear her call for raises so the legislators will “value” themselves. I thought your self-esteem was supposed to be based on your inherent specialness and character, and not on how much money you make.

So Many Blogs, So Little Time

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Thank you, Combest, for linking to this. I can’t believe I’ve been missing out on this excellent blog from the Southeast Missourian. Today, Brad Hollerbach writes about license plate redesign and the waste it entails:

I’ve had the same personalized plates for almost 20 years. This will be the third set of plates I’ve had to get because the bureaucracy in Jeff City thought they needed spruced up.

You know, like adding a squiggle that symbolizes the Mississippi River and changing the color scheme. Real mission-critical stuff.

Is license plate redesign the #1 irresponsible use of state resources? No, but little things add up. We’ve got to point out the waste that nobody cares about to make the case for lower government spending, or at least diverting the money to better uses.

Speaking of little things that matter to me but not to many other people, as soon as I wrote that last post about how getting calls from strangers is a great source of information, some scammer starting calling my cell phone and asking for my relatives to call their 800 number. When I inquired what the call was regarding, I was told they can’t discuss it because of “privacy laws.”

I still think legitimate telemarketers are a good, but maybe we shouldn’t have all these complicated regulations for the fake ones to hide behind.

Bravo, North Dakota

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

I want to just take a minute to thank and applaud North Dakota for being on the cutting edge of technology and tax policy. A CNET article talks about how a North Dakota state legislator filed a bill that would specifically exempt digital downloads from taxation. The article touches on a few of the issues that I previously mentioned, like how a state government can’t be a nexus for external taxation, and how this proposed taxation of digital products is a short-sighted and foolhardy expedition. The article also talks about the states (17 of them) that are already taxing digital downloads, and two more that are going to try: Mississippi and New York. Despite failing previously, New York is yet again trying to kill business and growth.

I know this is not a Missouri issue yet, but I would really love to see someone who has a great record of being in touch with the people and populist issues take it up here in Missouri. Any suggestions?

Seeing Red

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

An article in the Post-Dispatch (link via Combest) reports that Jim “70 votes” Lembke (R-1), narrow victor of the race for his state Senate seat, has filed a bill to ban red light cameras (full text of the bill here).

This blog has not exactly been quiet about red–light cameras. Enough has been said about the issue before, but I just wanted to keep our loyal readers up to date with some new movement.

Last Call for Summer Fellows!

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The deadline to apply to be a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow — a program that includes two weeks of seminars at the Institute for Humane Studies in D.C., and eight weeks working as an intern with the Show-Me Institute here in Missouri — is rapidly approaching. Applications are due on Saturday, January 31.

We’re not yet sure whether we’ll be holding our regular summer internship program this year; it all depends on how many summer fellow applicants we accept. So, if you’d like to work with the Show-Me Institute this summer, the summer fellow program is your best bet for now.

If you’re debating whether you should apply, take a look at some of the highlights that Matt Simpson, our Koch Fellow from last summer, had from his time working here:

Not bad for an eight-week internship here, eh? And that just scratches the surface of all the research that he, and our other interns, helped out with behind the scenes.

So, once again, if you’d like to have the chance to dive into Missouri public policy this summer, be sure to apply to be a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow. After Saturday, it may be too late.

Robo-Calls

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I know it’s me against the world on this issue, but I really think robo-calls are a valuable source of political information. Not that I get my information from them, personally! It’s just that I would hate to see them disappear. What’s next? No mailing brochures to people? No knocking on doors reminding them to vote? No emailing them or campaigning in virtual realms like Second Life? (Notice my new positive attitude towards Second Life.)

It’s like advertising — everyone complains about how annoying it is, without considering that the flow of information would be constrained without it.

Non Sequitur of the Day

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This argument for requiring insurance to cover autism treatment just doesn’t make sense (emphasis mine):

Grisamore noted the exponential increase of the incidence of autism—going from one in 10,000 children to one in 150— as proof that his legislation is urgently needed. He also pointed to the growing number of states that that have passed and signed similar legislation as another indicator of the need for Missouri to do the same.

Insurance experts have documented that such insurance coverage would require less than one half of one percent in premium increases.

You can’t have it both ways. Either autism is becoming ubiquitous, or it will be cheap for insurance to cover its treatment. Autism treatment is expensive (hence the demand for an insurance mandate) and passing a law won’t change that reality. There’s no free lunch.

Dark Chambers

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

A recent article in the Political Fix (link via Combest) discusses the use of laptops on the Senate floor. Now, I may be speaking out of school on this subject, but I can’t imagine a better idea to allow legislators to have actual debates. Giving legislators ready access to the world of information represented on the Internet only serves to help the Missouri people.

A good Internet-enabled machine is relatively cheap, and gives legislators access to a plethora of information. I’m not talking about visiting Wikipedia to figure out the annual cost for dolphin studies during 2008; I’m talking about being able to figure out how much the Missouri government spends on particular projects, and how those figures compare to other states. Also, wouldn’t it be great if someone could easily pull out an article from the Show-Me Institute, the Cato Institute, or the Institute for Justice, and actually start talking about policy in-depth?

Having worked in the legislature, I am all for the efficiency of government — and there was more than one occasion in which I received a phone call or text message asking me to look up certain facts or find a rebuttal to a policy argument. I was happy to do my job, but by the time I actually found something, printed it out, went to the floor, had an usher get my legislator, wait for him read it, and then watch him wait to be called on by whomever was at the dais that day/hour, the point was moot — by that point, the bill or amendment was no longer up for discussion. So, allowing each legislator a laptop would hopefully solve at least this issue, while allowing them to particiapate in actual debate.

I know that there may be some issues with security and whatnot but I have to downplay those as minimal. Good firewalls, antivirus programs, and a great tech staff already exist, and this would not present any significant additional burden on the system. I have a very hard time understanding why legislators would protest the proposal so much. Someone care to explain it to me?

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