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.

Regulations in the Wild Blue Yonder

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Regulations come in three categories. First, you have common-sense regulations to protect public health and safety — the kind everyone agrees we need. Then, you have pointless regulations about the fat content of restaurant food, or who can call themselves an interior decorator. And, finally, there are those well-intentioned regulations that try to do the impossible. Like making skydiving safe. The current skydiving regulations have been deemed insufficient, perhaps because they don’t outlaw gravity.

Freakonomics to the Left, Freakonomics to the Right

Posted on by David Stokes

Nicely correlating with our presentation of an upcoming appearance by Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, is an interesting post on his blog of the same name. (Note: Registration is full and closed for Tuesday’s talk, so don’t even think about it.) The “Freakonomics” post discusses a recent survey of economists by Scott Adams on how they feel about the upcoming presidential election. (Note #2: What is the proper way to differently style and cite a book and a blog of the same name? I honestly have no idea.) The survey itself is very interesting and worthwhile to peruse, but my intention here is to point out one small but important error in the demographics part.

The survey and the related discussion both point out the easy fact that economists who list themselves as registered Republican or registered Democrat obviously favor the candidate of their party affiliation. But the discussion then goes to note that economists who are registered independent also favor Obama, by a fairly substantial margin. The problem with the party affiliation question is that it does not account for states that do not require, or even allow, voters to register by party. I often hear people in Missouri say while talking politics that they are “registered this-or-that’s.” I always want to say, and sometimes do say, “No, you’re not, we don’t register by party here.” A more accurate way to phrase the question is, “Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, Indepedent, third-party supporter, or non-voter?”

How the hell can this affect the results? Well … if someone, for a poll or survey, asks me whether I am a registered member of a party, it is perfectly legitimate for me to say no. If they instead ask me whether I consider myself a member of a certain party, I would say yes, and any other answer would be lying. We can be sure that some of the responders to this question are from states like Missouri that do not register by party. As such, people from those states with strong political leanings may have very reasonably chosen “registered independent” as the best of the available options, even though they are not truly independents. With a polling universe heavy on people from acadamia, it is likely that many of those not-really-independents favored the obvious candidate.

The results of the poll are not my point. And the overall survey is very interesting. But doing the demographics in a way that assumes all people register by party, or else officially register as an independent, is erroneous.

Bunge Executive Jumps Into the Ethanol Debate

Posted on by David Stokes

We have a new winner in the easiest-to-write blog post title contest. I deserve no praise, and am certainly no genius, for combining the corporation “Bunge” with the verb “jump.” Nonetheless, I simply must point out a great post by David Nicklaus over at Mound City Money concerning recent comments made by Bunge CEO Carl Hausmann about Missouri’s ethanol mandate. Check out the entry, and the comments, as well as the Show-Me Institute’s own contribution to the debate on ethanol. The highlight of Mr. Hausmann’s talk is clearly:

“I believe very much in free markets. … I hate government mandates, including biofuels.”

Beautiful.

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