‘I Speak for the Meats’

Posted on by Jacob Voss

I am no stranger to livestock. Out in WashMo, I lived across the street from Regal Dairy Farm. My dad always claimed it was the second-largest dairy farm in Missouri, but I have yet to find a way to verify this. My grandpa Othmar (pronounced Ought-Mur) lived about a mile down the road on his farm, where he would raise cows to slaughter. Today, I’m dating a young Washingtonian woman whose father happens to own Williams Brothers Meat Market (the perks there are endless). Beef holds a special place in my heart … and stomach. So, when I read this story from the Kansas City Star, I just couldn’t help but comment.

Commercial farms, in a lot of ways, are like Walmart (yeah, they got rid of the dash). A lot of people have a problem with Walmart, whether it be the low wages or the way they treat their employees, many people opt out and choose to shop at other, smaller, local places — like, say Schnucks. But, on the other hand, there is also that large portion of people who choose to shop at Walmart regardless of what they hear. The externality costs, to them, are outweighed by Walmart’s low prices.

Now, large commercial farms, like those described in the article, are a lot like Walmart. They are good at what they do, raising healthy animals to slaughter. And lots of them, too. Just like some people have a problem with the way Walmart treats its employees, many have a problem with how these farms treat the animals they raise. Yet, for many people, these costs are still offset by the cheaper price of meat. Going to Sam’s Club and buying your own weight in ground beef at a low price sounds very appealing to many people.

Now, I’m not saying these commercial farms are wrong or evil, or what-have-you. Heck, I’m an econ major. I’m always the unpopular guy in the argument, defending Walmart and outsourcing. Economics, after all, is the study of choices. People always have a choice. If you don’t agree with commercial farms, there are always smaller options, such as Williams Brothers. While the prices sometimes don’t match Wally-World, you know the cow or hog you are eating was raised locally and as humanely as possible.

It’s all about choices. You have to weigh the costs and benefits and decide which is best for you.

I think the difference between commercial farms and Walmart is fairly obvious: people vs. animals. Walmart employees have people to speak out for them, whether they be unions or lawyers, these people have a voice. With the animals being raised at these farms, it almost seems like people are waiting for some sort of Lorax-type character to appear and speak for the animals. On the other hand, I’m sure the commercial farm industry would love to find an animal like the Dish of the Day from Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe — a cow that not only wants to be eaten, but is vocal about which parts of his body taste the best, and which sauces go well with them.

Now, hopefully, I have plugged Williams Brothers enough so that I can score some free pulled pork sandwiches next time I stop by.

Won’t Someone Think of the Children?

Posted on by Josh Smith

One of the top stories in the Post-Dispatch today reports that registered sex offenders will be closely monitored by increased police presence on Halloween.

There are some problems with sex offender registration as a whole, so it may not be worth the increased police presence. Some states require handgun owners to register with the state; would we want increased police presence outside the homes of registered gun-owners?

If parents worry (they will, and should, worry) for their children’s safety on this most-spooky holiday, perhaps their concern should center around more obvious dangers. The kind you can literally see coming.

Questions of Transit Efficiency Need to Include Both Costs and Benefits

Posted on by Joseph Haslag

What is the most efficient means of getting people from the place they are to the place they want to be? Here, the term “efficient” encompasses a broad set of issues, including travel time, future flexibility, resources used, and external costs to society. One answer to this fundamental question, at least in part, is on the Nov. 4 ballot in Saint Louis County, and is referred to as Proposition M. Specifically, voters will choose whether to add a half-cent sales tax to fund MetroLink expansion and operations.

In a pair of op-eds posted on the Show-Me Institute’s website, authors Wendell Cox and Keith Womer offer arguments for and against Proposition M, respectively. To briefly recap, Cox provides a political economic history of sales tax increases, citing the difference between the promised expansion in light rail lines in St. Louis, Los Angeles, and Paris, and the actual outcomes. His lesson is clear: Expanding costs have historically meant that voters do not get what they were promised when tax initiatives were proposed. Correspondingly, Cox suggests that Proposition M would not be a wise use of tax funding.

Womer cites the myriad costs, both observable and unobservable, associated with different modes of travel. He contends that current conditions — including high gas prices and partial shutdown of the 64/40 artery — combined with the large external costs that exist for each additional mile of highway traffic, are sufficient reasons to favor the goals that Proposition M might further.

While I agree with the framework developed by Keith Womer, I find his conclusions to be more like a leap of faith than the logical result of compelling argument. I start with the premise that we do want a transportation system for our children and grandchildren. The difficulty, however, lies in assessing whether the transportation system we want is worth it. The notion of worth has two components: One entails how much society would enjoy the transportation system being proposed. The other involves accounting for the costs of building, operating, and maintaining it.

What can we say about the value of the MetroLink system? Womer cites a figure from a previous Show-Me Institute commentary, indicating that 2 million people rode Metro to special events. One problem with this evidence is that it measures demand only for the existing line, not the proposed future lines. In other words, ridership figures for existing lines cannot be used to measure the demand for new lines being developed. More importantly, this data measures only one side of the equation that voters will inevitably use in deciding whether to vote for or against Proposition M.

The other side of the equation is quantified by a variety of authors — most recently, Randal O’Toole. In studying the proposed development of the first light-rail lines in Kansas City, O’Toole measures the cost of this transportation infrastructure investment. He demonstrates that building light-rail lines is expensive. He measures costs broadly, including efforts to measure reduced pollution, savings to drivers from reduced congestion, and relative costs as compared to other mass transportation methods (such as bus service). He concludes that other types of infrastructure, including building new highways, offer higher returns to society than building light-rail lines.

The fundamental question, again, is this: Is the MetroLink expansion worth it? Only voters can ultimately decide. It is important to recognize that there are other transportation systems that would require lower costs to produce, thus getting people from where they are to where they want to be a lower cost, even when costs are measured broadly.

That said, there is one open rationale: If voters really like light-rail systems, they may justify voting yes on Proposition M regardless of the costs. It is important to understand that what they claim to like is actually a socially inefficient mechanism for transporting people. The Proposition M tax would result in every county taxpayer subsidizing the small percentage of people who regularly ride the MetroLink. And, finally, my own belief is that hovercrafts are more modern than light rail. Could the tax pay for a few hovercrafts instead?

Joseph Haslag is executive vice president of the Show-Me Institute and a professor in economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

 

Prop. M Would Help Fund, Expand Crucial Alternative to Highway System

Posted on by Keith Womer

Next week, the citizens of Saint Louis County have the opportunity to invest in the future. Passage of Proposition M would add a half-cent to the St Louis County sales tax supporting expansion of the MetroLink system in the county and operation of the current MetroLink and bus system in both the city and county. With the passage of Proposition M, by reallocating existing sales tax revenue, the county’s plan is to increase funding for county highways as well. This measure would help build the kind of infrastructure that will move our region toward economic growth and prosperity, rather than allowing our transportation system to deteriorate.

Should the county subsidize Metro? In an ideal world, the price that each of us would pay for any good or service would cover all the costs of providing it. This is the basis for the argument against public funding for light rail advanced by Molly Castelazo and Thomas Garrett of the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis. But we don’t live in that ideal world. Our world is full of subsidies for highways and oil companies and auto manufacturers. Whether we like it or not, the decision to own and operate an automobile is heavily subsidized.

Likewise, in our world, drivers do not pay the full cost of highways and autos. Some of these costs are obvious, such as air pollution and congestion. But others are more subtle, such as worker immobility, highway injuries, and dependence on hostile nations for energy. Subtle or not, these highway costs are passed on to the population as a whole. That is, the automobile and highway system imposes substantial hidden costs on society, costs that are paid in taxes unrelated to fuel, as well as costs to our physical and economic health.

In contrast, light rail offers benefits to society in addition to transportation. It provides a clean travel alternative, and it fosters a healthy lifestyle by combining walking and biking with the work trip. Patrick Eckelkamp of the Show-Me Institute tells us that “in 2007, Metro carried almost 2 million riders attending special events” and that “The reduction in gas usage that Metro facilitated on these occasions, paired with reduced congestion on our roads, are factors that benefit us all — even those who don’t use public transit.” What is the value of having a transportation alternative when major arteries like 64/40 are shut down for repairs? In particular, high gasoline prices have led to an acute need for public transportation, so that low-income workers can get to their jobs. In our world of job cuts and dynamic changes, workers need to have a reliable way to get to locations where jobs are available.

Of course, as Wendell Cox argues in his Show-Me Institute commentary, it is true that light-rail systems cannot replace automobiles and highways, and that traffic congestion remains even in the presence of light rail. These arguments miss the point. While the light-rail choice does not appeal to all commuters, it does help many. The resulting reduction in traffic and air pollution benefits us all. Just this week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that while August 2008 saw a 5.6-percent decrease in auto travel compared to the previous year, it also saw a 6.2-percent increase in public transportation use, an increase that would not have been possible without the public transport option.

In our world, if we want clean public infrastructure that provides alternatives to the highway, then we must be willing to pay for it through a combination of fares and taxes. If we want a modern transportation system for our children and grandchildren, then we must invest for the future. This is just what Proposition M offers — the chance to invest in infrastructure so that we will continue to have a choice.

Keith Womer is dean of the College of Business Administration at the University of Missouri–Saint Louis.

 

Metro’s Broken Promises Likely to Continue After Proposition M

Posted on by Wendell Cox

Voters in Saint Louis County are being asked to approve yet another sales tax to fund transit on the November ballot. However, Metro’s string of broken promises and its profligate spending suggest that the revenue from this tax increase would not be wisely spent.

The broken promises go back to even before construction of the first MetroLink line. In 1988, officials told the public that no tax increase would be necessary to operate light rail, but by 1994, the Bi-State Development Agency (Metro’s former name) threatened to close it down unless a new tax was provided.

Voters in both Saint Louis County and city were told in 1994 that five rail lines would be built with a new tax, which they approved under threat of light rail closure. The result: one new line, rather than five, and building it required borrowing more money — which was not a part of the original plan. Metro had promised an absurdly high federal funding share, which never materialized, leaving local taxpayers to fund the entire project. It didn’t help that the new cross-county line cost far more than planned — a pervasive hazard for such projects, as the international evidence indicates.

These kinds of broken promises are an all-too-familiar refrain in public transit. In 1977, I was appointed to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) by Mayor Tom Bradley, and was subsequently appointed to two more terms. In 1980, we asked the voters to approve a one-half-cent sales tax to build 11 rail lines. Then the trouble began. Costs for the first light-rail line escalated rapidly, while transit operations took more money than planned. So, in 1990, LACTC went back to the voters for another one-half-cent sales tax, to construct what had been promised in 1980.

Even after the 1990 tax increase, though, Los Angeles officials have had to drastically scale back rail construction plans. Nearly 30 years later, the two taxes and additional funding have produced only four of the 11 promised rail lines. Voters there will consider a November ballot asking for a third tax increase that would presumably get the area a bit closer to the 11 lines that officials promised in exchange for the original 1980 tax. Meanwhile, Los Angeles ridership figures remain approximately the same as they were in 1985, before any of the rail lines opened — despite increasing population and high gas prices.

Saint Louis faces a similar trend. Metro’s present promises are as unlikely to be fulfilled as those it has made before. Agency officials claim they face a huge budget deficit, and yet, somehow, plan to use this new tax to provide new bus services and more light-rail lines. History suggests that this will not likely add up.

One of the reasons that the agency’s 1994 MetroLink promises could not be kept is that Metro could not keep its costs under control. By 2006, the agency was spending at least $40 million more on bus service annually than would have been the case if it had pegged cost increases to the rate of inflation. Giving a blank check to Metro, as the new tax would do, is an invitation for more out-of-control spending and more broken promises.

Finally, even with light rail, transit is barely “treading water” in Saint Louis. Cars carry virtually the same percentage of metropolitan area travel as before MetroLink was built. Why has there been so little impact? It is simply a matter of access. Transit systems are good at providing access to high-density employment areas, but not elsewhere. There are only a few such areas in Saint Louis — such as downtown and Clayton.

This is no different than in the rest of the United States, or even Western Europe. In Paris, for example, the western world’s best transit system provides good access to the high-density core. However, the 80 percent of people who live in the suburbs — or the 70 percent of people who work in the suburbs — use transit only for travel to the core. For the overwhelming majority of trips in the Paris metropolitan area, cars are the only solution, because transit service is either unavailable or takes too long. In Saint Louis, the implied promise that spending more money on transit will provide an alternative to car usage is simply delusionary. It would be more appropriate to think of Proposition M as a subsidy to central business districts.

Finally, however, I must admit that it would be a mistake to suggest that Metro breaks all of its promises. If the new tax is passed, it will keep its promise requiring you to pay. And, as promised, Metro will spend all the money. But the other promises will be broken, just as they have been in the past.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, a Belleville-based demographics and public policy firm. He serves as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris, served on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, and was a congressional appointee to the Amtrak Reform Council.

 

Civic Duty ? the New Recess

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

When I was an elementary student at Kennard Classical Junior Academy, I remember being absolutely furious about having my gym class canceled. I had stretched, my shoes were tied tight, and I was ready for a classic game of kickball — but three guys named Clinton, Bush, and Perot spoiled my day. Our gymnasium was taken over by grown-ups who used our facility as a polling place in the 1996 presidential election. This year, things will be a little different for the lucky kids of St. Charles and St. Louis County.

An article in the Post-Dispatch had me floored when I read that more than half of the St. Louis County school districts were canceling classes at the request of the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners. In a report released last Monday, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan announced that 76 percent of Missouri’s registered voters are predicted to vote in the November 4 election. If this holds true, more than 3.2 million votes will be cast, which may create complications. From the article:

Because this election is expected to have a huge voter turnout, election organizers and schools are concerned about building security and parking. They also want to make sure schools can set up voting booths in their largest areas available, typically in cafeterias, gymnasiums, hallways and classrooms.

I understand the logic in closing some of the schools down, but what about those parents that work full time? Forcing them to look for a babysitter or take time off from work could put them in very inconvenient positions. School that considered closing, but chose to remain open, have called on parent volunteers to help patrol halls and asked teachers to carpool. Other districts, like Parkway, chose to keeps schools open just so the students could “observe the legislative process, to see it in action,” in the words of one official.

I think that parents’ biggest fear is that: (1) Obama and McCain volunteers will get involved in a royal rumble in the school cafeteria; or, (2) a serial killer or child molester will happen to find his way into a random hallway of the school. While I am not much of a fan of disenfranchising felons from the voter booth, Missouri law prevents felons who are still on parole or probation from voting or entering the premises. As far as an Obama McCain brawl, I think that would provide entertainment for all ages.

Hmm … if the students could get a day off, I wonder whether there is any hope for interns?

Question

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

On the cover of today’s Post-Dispatch, there’s a photo (unfortunately not online) taken at Hazelwood MIddle School. It depicts a handmade sign that reads “Voting Place,” and includes the names “Obama” and “McCain.”

Doesn’t that violate regulations prohibiting campaign signs at polling places? Or is that sign up just for the kids’ voting, to be taken down when the adult voters arrive next week?

I’m hoping that it’s just for the kids — but, even so, this might be a good opportunity to teach them that we don’t promote particular candidates at the polls.

Beating the Dead Renewable Energy Horse

Posted on by Jacob Voss

I don’t know if you guys knew this, but I’ve done a bit of work regarding the upcoming Proposition C. Cough. Cough.

Well, as you might already know, Prop C — also known as the Missouri Renewable Energy Initiative — would require Ameren, Empire, and KC Power & Light to produce 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2021, with a 1-percent rate increase cap.

Surprisingly, there has been little to no opposition to this measure. Even KCP&L has endorsed it, while Empire and Ameren have remained surprisingly neutral. Well, the Springfield Business Journal has posted a great article this week detailing the support and limited opposition to the law. Spoiler alert: A certain Show-Me Institute intern is interviewed near the end of the article. This article is as cool as the Fonz, Bart Simpson, Steve Holt, Chester Cheetah, and Batman rolled into one.

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