Close Call for Missouri’s Renewable Energy

Posted on by Jacob Voss

An article from today’s Kansas City Star details the close call faced by the group Missourians for Cleaner and Cheaper Energy (aren’t we all), when its proposed “Clean Energy Initiative” was nearly skipped over for the upcoming election. It was almost taken off the November ballot because the Secretary of State had rejected too many petition signatures. Luckily for the concerned group, a Missouri judge agreed with them and ruled that the initiative would be placed back on the ballot.

After spending a summer working for the city of St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, it is no surprise that a petition could be rejected in the final moments of its processing. Petitions are mostly signed on the street by people in a hurry, so legibility is not their first concern. My handwriting isn’t glorious, of course, but wow — some people’s signatures would have pharmacists scratching their heads. Plus, there is always the percentage of jokers out there who think it’s hilarious to put down fake information. Frankly, I think the odds are very slim that anyone named “McLovin” are in favor of any petition being placed on a ballot.

The Clean Energy Initiative was not the only petition blocked by the Secretary of State for lack of valid signatures. Two petitions dealing with eminent domain abuse were also dropped. To gain a place on the ballot, a petition must have at least as many signatures as 5 percent of the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, from at least six of the nine congressional districts in Missouri.

This news comes in the same week that Ameren proposed a 12-percent increase in its rates. With today’s energy costs, Missourians need to be aware of any options they have when it comes to their energy sources, and have the opportunity to voice their opinions.

When expressing those opinions, Missourians should make sure to write neatly.

Show-Me Institute Releases 2007 Annual Report

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

The Show-Me Institute today released its 2007 annual report, providing a thorough summary of the institute’s many policy victories and research accomplishments during its second full year of operations. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction by R. Crosby Kemper III, the institute’s chairman, and Rex Sinquefield, the institute’s president:

Our second full year of operations was a time of both tremendous growth and phenomenal success. We haven’t won every battle, but that doesn’t mean we’ll stop fighting — or even slow down. Missourians deserve to have their tax dollars spent wisely, and the work of the Show-Me Institute is an instrumental part of making that happen. We want to make the best in policy research readily available to everybody who cares about the future of the state. As we lay the economic groundwork for an honest and accurate analysis of Missouri policy, we’re putting valuable tools of knowledge and insight into the hands of those who want to work toward a more prosperous future. We invite you to help us make 2008 even better.

We had hoped to release this a few months ago, but a string of delays kept pushing it back in our schedule. We’re planning to begin working on the 2008 annual report in the next month or two, so that we can have most of the content ready by year’s end, then add the financials and other finishing touches in early 2009. That should allow for a much earlier release date next year.

In the meantime, though, take a few minutes to read about the dizzying variety of things we accomplished during 2007. I know the board and staff share my own sense of pride and satisfaction in the work we’re doing. Slowly but surely, we’re helping to make Missouri a better place for everyone.

Skiers Will Be Punished for Out-of-Control Zoning

Posted on by David Stokes

Now, here is an issue I am uniquely qualified to write about. It involves my primary area of study (local government), an issue (zoning) that we regularly debate around the Show-Me Institute, and pretty much my favorite thing to do: skiing. And, yes, I’ve have been to Hidden Valley plenty of times, although not in the past few years.

Wildwood, with its 16 (why?) councilmembers, is regulating Hidden Valley out of business. I know this will come as a shock to some people in government who think you can just take and take and take, but sometimes businesses and citizens can’t take it any more and they leave. Much like the citizens in Chesterfield who complain about the noise from Spirit airport, citizens who almost assuredly moved to Wildwood after Hidden Valley opened are now complaining about it. Complaining is one thing, but shutting it down through nuisance regulations is another. From the article in the Post-Dispatch, I present you the picture of local zoning run amuck (my comments in italics):

Boyd said he learned last week, at a meeting of the Planing and Zoning Commission, that he may be required to pay a nearly $252,000 fee to build the proposed parking lot.

$252 K for a parking lot. Amazing, but not surprising.

The city also was requiring that Hidden Valley get its permission to stay open past 11 p.m.

Liquor is not involved here, as I understand it, so there is no reason to enforce this, other then neighbors’ complaints about something that predated their arrival.

Woerther said Boyd had several ways to get around the $252,000 fee, such as offering up a few of the resort’s acres for public space.

Beautiful. If you just give us some of your property, we will waive the fee. The owner is right to call this blackmail.

I understand that conflicts occur as areas change — from farmland to suburbs, from slums to gentrified lofts, from nature to business parks. This is why you grandfather things in, so that property owners who ride out the changes do not get punished. You also need local officials with a modicum of common sense. Wildwood officials do not appear to have any of that, which is why they are losing a great business, a great asset, and a large property taxpayer. But, most of all, I hope they are happy that the local disabled skiers association no longer has a place to ski. Job well done, Wildwood.

Why We Need to Tighten the Initiative Petition Process

Posted on by David Stokes

The Kansas City Star has a write-up on a perfect example of why Missouri needs to tighten up the requirements for initiative petitions to amend the constitution. By “tighten up,” I mean “make more difficult.” Missourians will now get to vote on whether or not our utilities will be forced by constitutional law to use more renewable energy in the future. This is a decision that should not be made by voters. It should be made by the utilities, the regulatory agencies that oversee them, and elected officials on the appropriate committees that can study this complicated issue. The idea that voters — the vast majority of whom will have absolutely no idea what the economic implications (good and bad) of this petition are — will make this decision is absurd.

I write this while giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who prepared it and assuming they have at least some idea of what they are talking about. As the 2006 Kansas City light rail initiative petition demonstrated, though, you can’t necessarily make that assumption. Here is one atrocious example:

[The petition] also would limit rate increases associated with moving to renewable energy resources to 1 percent.

So, we are going to mandate all sorts of changes to the companies, but now allow them to pass those costs on to customers. I can’t see anything bad coming from this. No potential for reduced investment in other areas (like nuclear), or reduced wages for employees, or reduced returns to shareholders (such as Joe Sixpack’s IRA), to make up for this legally mandated loss. The idea that you can just force a company to absorb costs and assume there will not be negative consequences is idiocy.

To the defenders of the petition process, I know that the legislature also makes a lot of stupid laws. But, at least in theory, those stupid laws are also changeable — i.e., the village law. These petitions amend our constitution, making it difficult to alter decisions on an issue such as this where the people making this complicated decision will have no idea what they are purporting to do, beyond a feel-good move to renewable energy.

Do You Get What You Pay For?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Edudiva notices that there’s no clear link between district spending and low-income students’ achievement:

There is no correlation between per pupil spending in a district and the percent of free or reduced lunch students who test proficient or advanced on the math MAP test.

One conclusion we should not draw from these results is that spending doesn’t matter. Of course spending matters! But it’s not a simple question of more or less spending. Who spends the money, and how wisely they spend it, are more important than the exact dollar value. When you compare districts that face the same incentives and are run in much the same way, spending doesn’t make a big difference.

Tennessee vs. Missouri: Taxes May Tip the Odds

Posted on by Joseph Haslag

Missouri nestles against eight states, so border wars of all sorts are common. Some are fun, such as this week’s Missouri-Illinois football game. But others we can’t afford to lose. That includes economic competition between Missouri, which has an income tax, and Tennessee, which does not.

By any economic measure, Missouri dominated Tennessee at the end of World War II. Since then, Tennessee has reported faster economic growth and now has higher per-capita income than Missouri. With continued strong growth, the gap will just keep widening.

It is easy to see the switch by looking at the past decade’s worth of data. In 1997, Missouri led Tennessee: The market value of goods and services produced within its borders, divided by the state population, was $30,688. That measure is called per-capita gross state product. Tennessee’s per-capita gross state product was $29,647. Ten years later, Tennessee’s annual per-capita gross state product, after adjusting for inflation, was $34,117 while Missouri’s per-capita value was $33,326.

Tennessee’s growth rate during that period was 0.6 percentage points higher than Missouri’s growth rate. This may not seem like much, but note the effect that compounding has. Over a generation, if the growth-rate gap were to continue, the average Tennessean would realize income equal to $48,416 while the average Missourian’s income would be $40,975. In other words, the gap would expand from $791 to $7,441 in 25 years.

Productivity, employment, and population all show the same leapfrog by Tennessee when compared to Missouri. Economic growth depends on lots of different factors. Research shows that the rule of law, especially property rights enforcement, is related to growth rates across countries. Tennessee and Missouri share the same basic contract law.

Moreover, they share regional similarities that cannot account for the growth-rate discrepancy. By taxing income, the state government is collecting revenues on something that you own — your labor. Economic theory indicates that the difference in income tax rates — that is, the property rights enforced on people’s labor, and the payment for that factor of production — can help to account for the differences in growth rates.

The basic idea is elementary economics. Consider two people with identical characteristics, one in Missouri, the other in Tennessee. Suppose those two people were given identical work opportunities, so that they had access to the same machines and plant surroundings. For one hour of work, each produced the same amount, and was paid $20. Excluding federal taxes, the person in Missouri would take home $18.80 while the person in Tennessee would take home $20. (If the person worked in Saint Louis or Kansas City, take-home pay would only be $18.60. We will save that discussion for another time.) The person in Tennessee will supply more labor because he realizes a higher return for his effort.

The difference in returns applies also to those owning machines, plants, and other equipment. Other things being equal, the after-tax return to capital in Tennessee is higher than in Missouri. Consequently, when deciding where to locate plants and equipment, Tennessee has an advantage.

Together, the incentives to locate machines and people in Tennessee can account for why the Tennessee economy is performing better than the Missouri. This is not to ignore other factors that affect the two states’ economic performance. But the comparison does suggest that tax structure does matters. Perhaps it is time to ask: What tax structure is in Missouri’s best interest?

Joseph Haslag is executive vice president of the Show-Me Institute and a professor in economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia. This piece originally appeared in the St. Louis Beacon .

 

Everyone’s Favorite Alternative Teacher Certification Program

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

From the debates about the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE), you’d think that alternative teacher certification is a risky proposition. In fact, an alternative certification program has been in place for several years now — and it’s widely acknowledged as a success. That’s Teach for America, the organization that, through a short training camp and mentoring, trains recent grads to teach in public schools.

They train not-so-recent grads, too:

When it comes to her postretirement career, Karen Evans, 61, says her acquaintances are of two minds. […]

Grant Besser, a Teach for America recruiter, said approximately 15 percent of the 37 men and women training for the program this summer don’t fit the program’s typical path of college straight to classroom.

The article lauds Ms. Evans’ completion of the “rigorous” Teach for America application and five-week training camp. By all reports, Teach for America’s preparation is excellent — but it uses essentially the same methods as other alternative certification programs. It’s interesting that alternative training and mentoring is considered rigorous when you call it TFA, but risky when the acronym is ABCTE.

Censorship

Posted on by Dave Roland

My colleague, Ms. Brodsky, has hit on one of my hot-button issues. The first contribution I ever made to a brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court was a section arguing that the First Amendment “properly functions to prevent the government from influencing the marketplace of ideas by invidiously supporting or disfavoring particular viewpoints.”

Censorship occurs whenever any authority acts to suppress or inhibit free access or exchange of ideas disfavored by that authority. Not all censorship, however, is a problem. As Sarah pointed out, if parents want to prevent their children from encountering certain ideas, I fully support their right to do so. The problem, as with so many things, is when the government assumes the role of the parent. In a free society, it should never be the place of a government actor to decide what ideas are too unworthy or too “dangerous” for citizens to encounter. As the Supreme Court put it in Griswold v. Connecticut:

[T]he State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and the press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read […] and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach […]

The U.S. Supreme Court has been called upon several times over the past few decades to address the question of to what extent government officials (or persistent community activists) can lawfully compel libraries to limit or terminate access to various materials. In 2003’s U.S. v. American Library Association, a divided court upheld legislation (sponsored by Senator John McCain), that required libraries receiving federal funds to install Internet filters on computers available to the public. The Court reasoned that because the law allowed librarians to temporarily disable the filters at a patron’s request, thereby giving the patron free access to whatever websites they hoped to view, the First Amendment’s prohibition on censorship was not violated. A good paper discussing the events leading to this case, and its implications, can be found here.

I disagreed with the court’s conclusion, of course, because the imposition of Internet filtering was an example of the government putting itself in place of the parent, saying, “We think these sites are naughty.” The appropriate solution would be for parents to take responsibility for keeping an eye on what their kids are reading or viewing. I’d be perfectly fine with libraries allowing parents to monitor their children’s check-out history. I’d even be fine with libraries allowing parents to bar their children from checking out books by certain authors. And I’m definitely fine with libraries making judgment calls about the best classification and shelving location for any given title — or whether to purchase a book in the first place. But a constitutional problem arises when librarian (or vocal special-interest groups) block someone’s access to an otherwise available book simply because they don’t like the book’s content.

Teacher Pay

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Will pay raises for math and science teachers lead to school disunity? That’s an objection raised by people quoted in this Post-Dispatch article:

Lobbyists for two of the state’s leading teachers’ groups — the Missouri National Education Association and Missouri State Teachers Association — both said Thursday that there could be dissension within schools if teachers of certain subjects get more money than others.

No school pays the same amount of money to everyone who works there. Even if all teachers earn the same pay, custodial staff generally earn less, and principals earn more.

Teachers understand that principals should be paid more than them. If a school could offer principals no more than it offered teachers, prospective principals would easily find more lucrative jobs somewhere else, and the school would be left without a principal. It’s the same for math and science teachers. People with advanced training in math and science have excellent employment options outside of the teaching profession, so schools have to offer comparable salaries to hold on to them.

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