Caution: This Sign Has Sharp Edges

Posted on by Jacob Voss

In Gray Summit, there is a road called, unimaginatively, Old Gray Summit Road. This is a curvy road with lots of signs warning about deer, and it happens to be the road my girlfriend’s parents live on. Old Gray Summit Road runs alongside a nature reserve in Gray Summit, so deer there are abundant. There have been many nights where I have had close calls with these deer. Luckily, the signs are there to forewarn me that at any moment a deer could jump out from behind a bush and hit my Danger Ranger. (Not that any earthly force could hurt my Danger Ranger.) Lucky the signs were there, eh?

The Joplin Globe has an odd article (link via John Combest) comparing the median wires along I-44 to the need for fog signs in Joplin. Now, while the usefulness of median wires cannot be argued, how useful are signs warning about fog? Fog does not jump out at your car from behind a bush, and it doesn’t appear out of nowhere. Fog isn’t hard to spot. On the contrary, fog is easy to spot. A sign saying “FOG” is the equivalent of a sign saying, “Slow down because there is a giant wall of water vapor ahead, and you won’t be able to see through it because it is so thick. So thick, in fact, that you can see it from far away, thus making this very sign redundant.” And one would think that while driving through heavy fog, nobody would need a sign telling them to slow down.

Honestly, “FOG” has to be the most redundant road sign since “Slippery When Wet.” If a driver is unwilling to slow down in heavy fog, is a sign telling them there is heavy fog truly going to make a difference? How far away are we from, “Danger: Darkness Occurs After Sunset. Use Headlights”?

So, I guess what I’m trying to say is, if you are approaching a large area of fog, rather than look around for appropriate signage that gives instructions on how to drive, just slow down.

Ridership Estimates? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Ridership Estimates

Posted on by David Stokes

Instead of providing my own commentary in this post, I’m going to let the following quotes from various sources speak for themselves. This article about light rail in today’s Kansas City Star provides this quote about ridership and costs:

Opponents will have a harder time proving that argument this year. The reason: We won’t know the projected ridership until after the Nov. 4 election.

The project is priced at $815 million in today’s money, but planners say it probably would exceed $1 billion when — and if — it is built four or five years from now.

What does Randal O’Toole write about ridership estimates and costs in his study about KC transit, written for the Show-Me Institute?

“The systematic tendency to overestimate ridership and to under-estimate capital and operating costs,” says U.S. Department of Transportation researcher Don Pickrell, “introduces a distinct bias toward the selection of capital-intensive transit improvements such as rail lines.”

I think this next quote from the Star might fall into the category of a Kinsley Gaffe:

“If you told them we’re going to have 10,000 (riders) a day, or 20,000 a day or 30,000 a day, that doesn’t mean anything. Compared to what?” said Pat McLarney, a Kansas City lawyer and a leader of the pro-light rail campaign. “I wished we did have an exact number to give you because it would sure make our lives easier.”

Randal would certainly agree that figure does not mean anything, but would consider it an argument in opposition, rather than in favor. From his study:

Many of the transit agencies that built these lines claim they are successful, pointing to the number of people who ride their light-rail trains. But many of these riders might have been riding bus transit anyway, so rail ridership numbers are meaningless without a comparison to total transit figures.

At least someone in Kansas City is calling this out for what it is:

“If we’re going to spend a billion dollars to build something and we don’t know how many people are going to ride it, this becomes a fairy tale,” said former City Councilman Bob Lewellen, who is a leader in the campaign against the proposed 3/8-cent sales tax to fund light rail.

(Insert Gambling Pun Here): The Stakes of Propostion A

Posted on by Jacob Voss

Thursday, The Columbia Tribune ran a quality editorial (link via John Combest) about the costs and benefits of Proposition A. This is the kind of article that I, loyal intern of the Show-Me Institute, like to read. It highlights reasons why the Schools First Initiative is beneficial, but also points out potential drawbacks. Best of all, the author takes no stance on the issue itself, but leaves it up to us, the readers/voters, to decide.

Frankly, the bit that catches my eye within the legislation is Missouri potentially freezing any future gambling licenses, thus creating the possibility for the current casinos to form a cartel. Now, having watched Casino recently, and not wanting De Niro or Pesci to bash my hand with a hammer, I won’t go any further than that.

Now, for the clichés that are associated with any piece written about Prop A. The stakes are high for Missouri voters this November. They have to place their bets on an issue and hope the odds are in their favor. There’s a 50/50 chance that Prop A will pass, and hopefully Missouri won’t have to fold. Bluffing won’t help you at the polls. You’ll have to choose, yes or no, red or black, hit or fold. Hopefully, we won’t bust.

And, just because I’m in the mood, here are my top five casino/gambling movies:

  1. Vegas Vacation

  2. Ocean’s 13 (yes, I liked it more than 11)

  3. The Sting

  4. Rounders

  5. Casino (obviously)

Stock Slump Provides Bridge to Cheaper Gas

Posted on by Josh Smith

The stock market troubles that have made the front page of CNN’s website almost every day for the last two weeks (at least) are fairly generally accepted to be part of a national economic slowdown, which is almost certainly much older than the recent turmoil.

Two results of the slump from USA Today: Missouri is one of the states having to cut back on spending (namely, on Lambert airport renovations and bridge repairs), and has seen dropping gas prices (Missouri is one of the three states in which average prices dropped to less than $3 per gallon).

There is an interesting coincidence here. Reduced gas prices will almost certainly mean increased gas consumption (depending on the relative effect that other aspects of these hard times have on Missouri residents’ incomes and expectations), so the federal highway trust fund may well prove to provide more than anticipated to fix those bridges, which would alleviate the need for additional highway funding from the general fund.

Lastly, I feel I would be remiss if I did not link to our policy study from February about Missouri’s transportation future.

Vice Presidents and Lieutenant Governors: Should They Be Abolished?

Posted on by David Stokes

An op-ed in the LA Times (link via Freakonomics) advocates that we abolish the position of vice president. As I am required to do, I shall Missouri-fy the question and ask it about the lieutenant governorship as well. Gov. Palin’s comments about the proper role of the VP in the recent debate here at Wash U. have also placed the utility of her prospective office in the spotlight. Should these positions be abolished?

The author of the Times piece dislikes the VP office for several reasons, but primarily because presidential candidates select running mates based largely on political benefits instead of leadership qualities, so the nation is damaged when one of those people moves up to be the president after a death or impeachment. The author cites several examples in which, because of a death, the voters ended up with someone very different than the person they had elected. (The author does, however, make one blatant factual error that the Times corrected.) Because governors and lieutenant governors in Missouri do not run on the same ticket, part of that objection is made moot. The author also cites Mexico and France as countries with system similar to ours, that do not have VPs.

I do not agree with the author about the VP position — nor the lieutenant governor position, for that matter. Just because voters usually don’t put much weight into the quality of a VP candidate when they make their choices for president does not mean they can’t at least consider it. For each position, there are essentially two main jobs: cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate, and be available in the case of a death or impeachment (which we have come close to twice during the past 35 years). In years past, presiding over the Senate was also a large part of the job. That changed a long time ago in DC, and a few decades ago in Jeff City, as well, after a lawsuit between the majority Democrat senate and the new Republican lieutenant governor (Bill Phelps) was won by the senators.

As for France and Mexico, I love comparative politics, so I’ll dive in. As you may or may not know, most nations have a head of state and a head of government. For example, Britain has a queen and a prime minister. Nations without kings, no matter how little power they hold, generally choose to elect another official to hold a post — that might be called president — to serve as head of state. Germany and Israel are two examples of this. That post tends to have very little power, is mostly ceremonial, and usually goes to popular elected officials later in their careers. The United States is one of the only countries that combines both positions into one office.

Most nations also have bicameral legislatures, like ours. However, generally one house dominates the other. Historically, the House of Lords had a great deal more power than the House of Commons, but now the reverse is usually true. So, the leader of the House of Commons, or whatever it may be called, is the Prime Minister, and by far the most powerful politician. In the United States, both of our houses of Congress are comparable in power, so we don’t have a singular dominant politician. (Don’t even get me started on the Federal Reserve.) In short, because we don’t have a clearly marked other person to take over in case of a death (head of state for head of government, or vice versa), it behooves us to elect someone to be designated to fill that role, if required. The same goes for governors in the states.

France is interesting in comparison, because it is one of the few western democracies to maintain more power in its president than in the prime minister, although it does a have a prime minister who is very influential. If the president of France were to expire, the prime minister would be there to manage things in a way that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate might not agree with each other on. As for Mexico, its system comes out of a long period of one-party rule, and it has a strict one-term limit, anyway. Historically, if its president died, you could count on another member of the one party to be quickly chosen to replace him. With a two-party system, this is different — but I’m no expert on Mexican politics, so I don’t know what to recommend.

This post is getting too long, but I want to correct one inconsistency in the Times author’s logic. He says we should abolish the VP post and designate the secretary of state to serve until we can elect a new president. But, without a VP, what does he think would happen to the office of secretary of state? That office would quickly become politicized, with pressure on candidates to name who they would select for it during the campaign, so that voters could judge them just as they do the VP. The idea that qualified diplomats and generals would continue to be chosen for secretary of state if it was designated to succeed the president is crazy. Same goes for any other position that could be made second in line. We are much better off keeping the VP, and the lieutenant governor, and allowing voters to consider it is much or as little as they want in their votes.

The Fatted Gaffe

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Yesterday, the Columbia Daily Tribune‘s publisher, Henry J. Waters III, ran an outstanding editorial about the importance of personal choice and responsibility.

Waters notes that Rep. Craig Bland (D-Kansas City) has long been sponsoring obesity legislation, hoping to promote scholastic nutrition and even set up a state commission to deal specifically with Missouri’s ever-expanding girth. Frankly, I’m partially to blame for the state’s higher obesity statistics. As a bona fide fattie of amplitudinous proportions, I single-handedly nudged the statewide average ever-so-slightly higher than it was before I moved here in mid-2007. The ready availability of excellent Missouri barbecue hasn’t helped matters since.

But here’s the thing: My waistline is not the government’s fault. Not even slightly. And if I’m to exorcize my own edible demons, the solution won’t arrive in the form of political hectoring. I know how to lose weight — I’ve done it before, and one of these days I may just escape the clutches of my La-Z-Boy long enough to do it again. The point is, living a healthier life is no mystery, even for the corpulent; everybody knows how to eat less and exercise, even if they’d rather while away the hours with a can of Pringles in one hand and their TiVo remote in the other (any similarity here to my own life is purely coincidental). Ultimately, it’s a personal choice. Waters recognizes this:

Jawboning in opposition to overeating is fine, but I’m not sure I want to spend public tax dollars. Is anyone in Missouri unaware of the “obesity problem?” Is it an official problem the state should undertake with additional commissions and boards?

The report blames rising food costs, lack of exercise and bigger portions. This makes sense, but where is the correction except in the habits of private eaters?

I’d like to weigh less, sure. But as an economics enthusiast, I believe in the supremacy of revealed preference. The economist David Friedman encapsulated this principle nicely in a brief aside to his price theory textbook:

Economics Joke #1: Two economists walked past a Porsche showroom. One of them pointed at a shiny car in the window and said, “I want that.” “Obviously not,” the other replied.

In economics, preference is revealed through behavior. If the first economist had really wanted that Porsche, he would have bought it, perhaps by giving up other luxuries. Instead, his actions reveal that he’d rather spend his money elsewhere — or, even, that he’d rather spend recreational time strolling with a friend instead of working overtime, or taking a second job, to save up enough money to buy the Porsche.

It’s a joke, so the example is appropriately extreme — but the principle holds. My own actions indicate that I’m more fond of that extra helping of Pad Thai than I am of possessing a wardrobe that couldn’t double as a fleet of pup tents. If I’m going to change, it’s my own responsibility, perhaps with encouragement from friends and family. The government shouldn’t be in a position to intervene at all.

Radio Alert: Joe Haslag on Gary Nolan’s Show This Afternoon

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Show-Me Institute’s executive vice president, Joe Haslag, will be appearing this afternoon on The Drive with Gary Nolan, on Eagle 93.9 FM in Columbia (you can also listen online). The show begins at 4:00 p.m. and lasts until 6:00.

They’ll have a scintillating conversation about taxes — specifically, which is least distortionary? A tax on consumption or a tax on land? If you have time before the show, you can bone up on the arguments Joe made in his three studies about earnings taxes in St. Louis and Kansas City. He demonstrates in these latter two studies how land taxes eliminate the dead-weight economic loss involved with other forms of taxation.

The Star Dishes on Cordish

Posted on by David Stokes

When you build developments based on tax incentives from governments, rather than market forces, you end up with the Kansas City Power & Light district developer screaming at the city for not doing more for the development. I admit, I am not very knowledgeable about this development, but I certainly could have told you that major, professional sports teams are hard to come by. Anyone creating a plan based on a hoped-for NBA or NHL team would be taking an enormous risk. I have to wonder: Would this particular risk have been taken if tax incentives had not reduced potential losses in the first place?

Anyway, it is a true guilty pleasure to read about developers who don’t build anything without tax giveaways (Cordish is doing this in St. Louis, too), and about the fights between city officials who court them. The most egregious line in the correspondence quoted in the article is where Cordish decries the city’s allowance of festival liquor licenses in parts of the city other than downtown. The audacity! How dare city hall allow people to have fun outside of the power and light district! I don’t generally side with the government, but it is hard not to do so here. Excellent series of articles by the Star.

Police You Can Count On

Posted on by Josh Smith

The Post-Dispatch reports that St. Louis has a new police chief. My favorite part of the article:

[New chief Daniel] Isom said he will take a more modern approach by decentralizing the decision-making.

“I want to push resources down to the district level in the neighborhoods, so officers can rapidly respond to crime,” he explained.

I was pleasantly surprised by this. All too often, governments speak of the strength and reliability of centralization, while nearly the whole history of free-market economic thought touts the benefits of individual-level decision making. In particular, this reminds me of the argument for law enforcement decentralization put forth by David Friedman in chapter 17 of this month’s Show-Me Institute book club selection. Friedman makes the case that centralized police forces tend to invest more of their resources protecting the wealthy, causing the poor to feel powerless against crime and, indeed, infractions by the police themselves.

Delegation of authority to local levels should result in, at the very least, increased accountability. I look forward to observing the effectiveness of Isom’s implementation, and, more importantly, his administration’s results.

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