Bob Herbert’s Weak Attempt on Health Care

Posted on by David Stokes

If Bob Herbert of the New York Times had read the Show-Me Institute’s primer on health savings accounts, perhaps he would not have written such a pathetic piece about health care, carried in today’s Post-Dispatch. Some of the problems Herbert decries — such as employees losing their health care, and young, healthy people choosing to go without — are already happening now. Increasing the options available for private insurance is an answer to those problems, not a way to make our health care system worse. As for the tax implications, we absolutely should level the playing field between the tax code’s treatment of employer-based plans and individual plans. Why should health care provided by a company be tax exempt as pretax income and individual insurance be classified as after-tax? Reducing the cost of individual plans via a tax credit will encourage insurance plan purchases by more healthy, young people — not fewer.

I guess in the end, though, it comes down to a difference of outlook:

The upshot is that many more Americans — millions more — would find themselves on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace.

Herbert, and others like him, think that average people are too stupid to take care of themselves. Needless to day, I disagree.

Property Tax Increase Shot Down in St. Charles

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

This morning, the St. Charles County Council considered a plan to fund county employee pay raises through an increase in property tax rates. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the plan was withdrawn because the council lacked the requisite number of votes to overturn an objection by the county executive. Proponents said the tax boost was quite minuscule, and was needed to keep sheriff’s deputies and other workers from leaving for other jobs. Opponents say the county should hold the line on taxes during a time of economic distress.

While I am not a fan of increasing taxes, I do understand the logic and legitimacy of the few supporters of the tax increase. If you want good employees, you have to pay for good employees. But I do not recommend placing all of this responsibility solely on the taxpayers. While tax increases aren’t always necessarily a bad thing, I would prefer to see government officials figure out how to solve this issue by other means (e.g., perhaps outsourcing some county offices to the private sector).

They’re Back: Missourians for Cleaner and Cheaper Energy

Posted on by Jacob Voss

It wasn’t too long ago that the “Clean Energy Initiative” was almost dropped from the November election ballot. You may remember this initiative as the law that would require 2 percent of Missouri’s electricity be derived from renewable energy by 2011, with 15 percent being required by 2021 (with at least 2 percent being solar). To top it off, electricity rates can only increase 1 percent each year, somehow. I assume magic and/or sorcery will be involved.

Members of Missourians for Cleaner and Cheaper Energy were ready to do battle with the utility companies until November, but there’s just one problem: The utility companies have yet to oppose the measure. This is an unexpected turn of events. Imagine the MCCE’s shock after finally making it onto the ballot, then finding no opposition. It would be like Clubber Lang not showing up for the end of Rocky III.

According to the Kansas City Star (link via John Combest), the initiative looks as though it will pass without any problems now. If the measure achieves what it promises, Missouri should be in great shape. But I am suspicious that energy prices will rise beyond the 1-percent promissory increase. They may call it something else in the ballot language, but either way, I will have to pay more. I’m sure a bit of the proposed 12-percent rate hike will go toward renewable energy standards.

So, when considering the little energy initiative that could, find out how the law will affect you and whether the advancements it promises are worth the price.

Disappointment, Bemusement, and Sadness

Posted on by David Stokes

Disappointment because the innovative plan to finance our bridge repair program has been replaced. There is nobody to blame here — it is just a bad time to go for large amounts of private capital. The decision to go with bonding is an unfortunate necessity. (The above link, and other articles on the subject, at Combest.)

Bemusement because silly cases also make bad laws, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes. Is it really necessary to have Kansas City practically come to a constitutional crisis over the issue of a wife volunteering in the office? I understand the complaints against her, but this entire situation is just crazy. I am generally in favor of anything that paralyzes local and state government. Gridlock is good! But this is insane. …

Sadness because one of my best friends had a brain aneurysm yesterday, and will be taken off life support today. I commend his wonderful family for its decision to save other lives by donating Sherman’s organs. I will miss you forever, Sherman.

Check Out Policy Pulse!

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The Show-Me Institute recently unveiled a new online resource: Policy Pulse, an interactive tool that gives users greater flexibility and control in researching the policy areas and legislation that interest them. While the new Missouri Accountability Portal is an outstanding resource for government transparency, we wanted to complement its functionality by creating an easy-to-use search and tracking system that integrates the ability to keep tabs on legislative action with the latest highlights in relevant news and commentary.

So, be sure to check it out and spread the word!

Metro On My Mind, Still

Posted on by Jacob Voss

After my post yesterday about Metro’s proposed Daniel Boone Corridor expansion, I was looking around the usual websites that a Show-Me Institute intern might search and found this interesting tidbit from the Kansas City Star.

Kansas City’s light-rail plans are making some folks on the west side of the state nervous, as well. Who can blame them?

The article should raise a few eyebrows, mostly by showing how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent with such little hesitation.

Well, Duh …

Posted on by David Stokes

People respond to prices, incentives, and mandates. We all know that, although many people wish it were not so. Today’s Joplin Globe has an enlightening article on how one such business has responded in a very rational way to incentives, and left Missouri for Kansas. Thanks to Combest for the link, and my point here is not to call for further tort reform. Missouri passed some great, much-needed changes in 2005, and they need time to work themselves out. Just as doctors on the west side of the state may favor Kansas over Missouri, doctors on the east side favor Missouri over Illinois. I understand that on the south side doctors perfer to practice in the middle of Table Rock Lake so they can be in either Missouri or Arkansas depending on the precise situation.

Licensing + the Cost of Child Care

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

According to the National Association of Childcare Resource and Referral Agencies, full-time, year-round child care for young children now costs more than public university tuition in 44 states. The state of Missouri is actually quite lucky, thought, because it is one of the six states where the average tuition of its four-year state colleges is slightly higher than the average cost for full-time infant child care. In Missouri, child-care enrollment costs represent about 10 percent of the $66,580 median household income for a married, two-parent household with children under 18. This could all change very soon, however.

Yesterday in Columbia, a group met to consider restructuring and reshaping regulations that deal with everything from class enrollment size to professional development, hygiene, and safety in child care centers:

This is the second time in three years the state has attempted to revise the rules that some consider outdated and lax. […]

In 2005, the Missouri Department of the Health and Senior Services, which oversees child care regulation in the state, attempted unsuccessfully to internally revise the rules for every type of provider at once. It failed to gain support from providers, who argued the changes would prove a financial hardship.

In 2008, I see the very same issues at play — and it’s even worse now, given the state of the economy. Adding such frivolous legislation would only increase the already-substantial costs of child care.

Does Metro Deserve a Second Chance?

Posted on by Jacob Voss

I’m an impatient guy. I hate waiting around for small problems to get solved so I can move on with my life. Some people might call me bullheaded. I won’t argue with them. But I don’t even come close when compared to the Metro transit agency.

Yesterday, September 16, I had the good fortune to attend the Metro public hearing in Clayton and watch Dave Stokes give his opinions about Metro’s future financial options. At the hearing, I was given a handy packet explaining the state Metro is in today. There were three main theses in the packet. The first, as one would expect, was explaining all the good Metro has done for the community, such as employing more than 2,200 people and reducing traffic, pollution, and oil dependence. Great — I would expect that from public transportation of any kind. You don’t need to tell me twice how convenient the MetroLink is, especially for public events like Cards games.

The second section gave a great color-coded map of all the expansions Metro is currently planning. MetroLink would run all over the city and county, all the way from Chesterfield Bottoms Valley, to I-55 & I-270. Also, it gave a detailed plan of the next planned expansion, the Daniel Boone Corridor, which will run from Clayton to I-270 at Westport. This new line could be open in as soon as 10 years. Ironically, the offices of the Clayton branch of the Show-Me Institute overlook the area that would be dedicated for the MetroLink expansion. There is also a highlighted section explaining bus–rapid transit (BRT). According to Metro, “BRT is an innovative, high capacity, lower cost public transit solution that can significantly improve urban mobility.” These buses would have designated lanes and traffic signals, and would be allowed to travel at great speeds. And not only that, the BRTs look strikingly like a vehicle found in Star Wars.*

Now, if I were to stop the blog post here, you would think Metro is in great shape. They are helping the community and have ambitious expansion plans. The only problem is the third thesis included the packet, the section that details the potential service reductions Metro is planning for both MetroBus and MetroLink. If MetroLink does not gain additional local funds, it will not be eligible for additional state and federal funds, which would mean not only an end to expansion, but also a reduction in service in order to lower costs. MetroLink would be reduced by 42 percent. There would be no service after 8 p.m. and no extra trains for events like Cardinals games. Also, trains would run every 20 minutes rather than every 15. Overall convenience would fall even more. Why take a train into the city that won’t be operating by the time you need to leave? I can’t remember the last time I left a Cards game before 8 p.m. In all, 57 percent of service would be reduced, including nearly half of all bus routes.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an article this morning detailing the woes of Metro’s newly released audit. Apparently, a great deal of Metro’s financial trouble dates back to the creation of the Shrewsbury line, which opened in 2006. This line has plagued Metro with problems, including a disastrous lawsuit that cost the agency $27 million, including legal fees. In total, the Shrewsbury line cost Metro $676 million.

With all the costs and problems associated with the Shrewsbury construction, Metro should be very cautious with any expansion. How many more fiascos can it survive before having to cut service drastically? This city has become very dependent on Metro, and cannot afford to have public transportation disappear.

Now, one would think that such a sizable debt, combined with the risk of having to reduce service, would cause Metro to focus on shrinking its defecit. Expansion should be the last thing on the minds of its officials right now. While these new lines and BRTs would be great, they simply aren’t attainable right now. As Dave stated in his testimony, fare hikes may be necessary to increase Metro’s revenue, but should not be the only factor. Alternate solutions need to be found to fill Metro’s debt, and increasing this debt by adding new lines should not even be up for debate.

For more thoughts about public transportation, be sure to take a look at the Show-Me Institute’s policy study with the Reason Foundation, “Missouri’s Changing Transportation Paradigm.”

* If I’m not mistaken, I am the first person on the blog to link to Wookiepedia. I take great pride in this fact.

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