Spring 2009 Internship Applications Now Being Accepted!

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Show-Me Institute today announced its spring internship program. For those interested in applying, the internship will run from early January through late April or mid-May, and will be based at the Show-Me Institute’s Clayton office near Saint Louis. Applications are due on November 14.

Our spring 2007 intern, Steve Bernstetter, wrote a great blog entry about what it’s like to be an intern here. I’d also like to quote a few paragraphs from a farewell letter written by one of our summer 2008 interns, Dan Grana:

I began the summer by attacking an ineffectual bill that will impose nominal regulatory burdens on textbook producers starting this school year. Although the issue is relatively minor and the legislative action I criticized succeeded, I found immense satisfaction in combating the absurd economics used by students, like me, to justify a mistake. Scholars of regulation repeatedly note that massive damages come in incremental steps. The Show-Me Institute takes this truism to heart, and I appreciate its support of my opinions regarding one particular issue that is especially relevant to me.

I will end the summer by researching different formulations of state education budgets and the taxes that they come from. I understand that this information will be used in an exciting paper […] on Missouri’s educational funding. This project has familiarized me with research methods and policy issues I would not have otherwise encountered. I am certain that this knowledge will prove valuable in my remaining years of economics education, where I will increasingly be asked to raise original ideas in assignments, and beyond. I can only hope that I’ve been as helpful to this project as it has been to me.

During the time between these two endeavors, I’ve found satisfaction in blogging about diverse issues and helping around the office. For what it’s worth, even the most stereotypically inglorious intern duties have provided a newfound understanding of the practical necessities behind a successful office’s operation.

Perhaps more than anything, I’ve benefited from the Show-Me Institute’s exceptional staff. In addition to being extremely friendly, the members of this organization have been great educators. By talking with them about a variety of topics, I’ve gained an understanding of different political philosophies that draw on the same respect for economic freedom.

If you’re a college student who would like to have a similar experience conducting real research and making a difference in the world of Missouri public policy, apply today! If you know a college student who might fit that description, be sure to spread the word.

This Blog Post Has Not Been Approved by the General Assembly

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This story in the Post-Dispatch reminds me of the official state animals and desserts that Missouri schoolchildren have been shepherding through the General Assembly lately.

At first glance, it may seem unrelated. The article I link to reports on the case of a proposed “Choose Life” license plate, which was rejected by legislators. The Alliance Defense Fund argues that rejecting the plate violated free speech, while the state maintains that it has veto power over messages on plates.

I don’t know enough about the legal considerations here to comment on which side is right. But I immediately thought of the official invertebrates, because that’s another issue on which the state arbitrarily endorses certain positions. The case was made for crayfish; now crayfish are “official.” Crayfish generally stay out of controversy, so it was easy to get them approved. Lawmakers are understandably a bit more hesitant to place their stamp of approval on a message about abortion.

We could avoid this problem altogether if we said, “Enough is enough.” No official animals, and no official messages on license plates. If people want to promote the “Choose Life” message, they can display bumper stickers. Fans of crayfish, ice cream, and whatever else can decorate their cars to reflect their preferences. The General Assembly doesn’t need to be involved.

Two Million Minutes

Posted on by Dave Roland

The Post-Dispatch’s education blog pointed out today that tomorrow night, Principia College will be screening Two Million Minutes, a documentary by one of its graduates. The film is the first of several that will compare how education is addressed in China, India, and the United States.

I went to the film’s website and found that they have a set of seven short exams available to see how you would fare on a typical high school evaluation in India. While a few of the questions could reasonably elude American test takers (particularly where they focus on Southeast Asia or a distinctly non-American turn of English phrasing), I found that most of the questions, while quite difficult, fell in the range of topics covered in my high school and college education. I encourage anyone interested to give the exams a try and (if you’re not embarrassed), report your results in the comments below. In the meantime, I’ll try to attend the film screening tomorrow night and offer an assessment next week.

Future of Missouri Higher Education

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

Education is one of the most important issues facing our country, and the Show-Me State in particular. Missouri’s higher education system is currently ranked 47th in the country when it comes to funding. As a poor graduate student, I can not help but think about some of my peers who are swamped with loads of debt. It gives me nightmares! This November, both gubernatorial candidates of Missouri are offering slightly different solutions for funding colleges and universities in Missouri.

Jay Nixon’s Missouri Promise plan would expand the A+ Schools Program so that all Missouri high school students who meet the performance requirements are eligible to use an A+ scholarship to attend a technical school or community college. The students who participate in the A+ program would also be able to sign the “Missouri Promise,” a deal that allows them to use a new scholarship to earn a four-year degree after completion of their two-year degree. The Missouri Promise scholarship would be contingent on earning at least a 3.0 GPA, completing 50 hours of community service, and staying out of trouble.

Kenny Hulshof would increase needs-based scholarships and establish the Missouri Prosperity Initiative, a public-private partnership that would increase funding for biotechnology, math, chemistry, and engineering. According to Hulshof’s campaign information, “State contributions will be leveraged by requiring a 2-to-1 match from businesses and philanthropic interests.” The program would also fund an endowment to “help attract world-class researchers to Missouri,” and would peg Missouri’s spending on higher education to the rate of inflation plus two percent. This would all be subject to an annual “Missouri Higher Education Accountability and Performance Report.”

First and foremost, both plans tackle the issues of funding/student loan debt while allowing for a college education to be more accessible. I do like the Missouri Promise provision pushing civic engagement by making students complete 50 community service hours. While a two-year college degree is almost equivalent to a high school degree in our current fast paced society, there are a few students that might not have had the proper training to jump right in to a major four-year institution. So those two years at a community college might provide the right stepping stone to allow targeted students to get on track for a higher degree. I also enjoy the Missouri Prosperity Initiative’s plan to increasing funding for mathematics, chemistry, and engineering. All of these areas are going to play a major role in creating new businesses in a world dominated by technology. Finding ways to increase giving, and making funding recipients accountable is also a plus.

I could continue to go on about the pros, and then list the cons, but I would like see what you all have to say about it. …

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.

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