The Springfield News-Leader ran an op-ed this week written by one of the aldermen for the city of Ozark, in which he attempted to characterize (or, perhaps, caricature) those individuals and groups who are demanding an end to eminent domain abuse as radical activists “promoting their own personal agendas hoping to cost taxpayers thousands.”
Reading the comments at the bottom of the page has been the highlight of my day.
The Springfield News-Leader has a very sharp op-ed about ethanol that Mr. Combest linked to this morning. It raises some worthy questions regarding the effect of ethanol and the E-10 mandate on food prices. I recommend it.
Any time people actively discuss the Missouri budget, I get excited. When it happens to be the editorial board of the biggest newspaper in Missouri and the governor himself — well, it just doesn’t get any better than that. In an article yesterday (link via Combest) Gov. Matt Blunt responded to the Post-Dispatch‘s recent editorial criticizing his handling of the Missouri budget. While I’ve accepted the fact that both camps are probably manipulating some numbers to make their case, the article still makes for an interesting read. I encourage everyone to check out the linked article and make the decision for themselves.
I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that the governor probably has a better understanding of the state budget than the Post-Dispatch editorial board does. To me, it appears that he does an excellent job of explaining the budget and what the numbers actually mean. Particularly, he is right to point out that using 2001 as a base year to explain K–12 education funding is extremely misleading. As most Missourians are aware, former Gov. Bob Holden had just come into office in 2001 — which has nothing to do with current funding for education. Gov. Blunt goes on to explain that since he came in to office, K-12 education funding has actually increased by 17.2 percent.
In this editorial war of words, the Post-Dispatch fired the first shot — but the governor stood his ground and fired right back, explaining the state budget in-depth and providing a level of analysis that the Post-Dispatch was lacking. In my humble opinion, I think Gov. Blunt deserves some credit for what he has been able to do with the the state budget during the past four years. Some people may not agree with me, but, hey — that’s all right. At least people are talking about the budget.
There’s no question in my mind that the “Yes for Schools First” campaign would more accurately be called “Yes for Casinos First.” But schools would finish a close second if the initiative passes in November.
The initiative proposes eliminating the $500 loss limit in Missouri casinos imposed by the Missouri Gaming Commission, which says that casinos “shall insure through internal controls that no person shall lose more than five hundred dollars ($500) during each gambling excursion.”
If voters approve removing that regulation, casinos will respond by increasing the gambling tax from 20 to 21 percent. Why is that important to Missouri public education? The vast majority of those tax dollars go toward education spending in the state.
I know full well the criticisms that will be leveled at this post. Removing the loss limit preys on those addicted to gambling, for starters.
Gambling is not synonymous with casinos. Those who have problems would find a way to gamble — on the Internet, at poker night in their own homes, at their church bingo night, or even by traveling to other states. Attacking a lawful form of entertainment is an outlet for frustration with a different problem. And it’s an entirely legitimate problem. But removing temptation from one quarter isn’t the answer. It’s not the casinos that create the problem, just like it’s not the poker or bingo nights.
Another criticism is the extortionist bent to the initiative. It’s the nudge-nudge, wink-wink “let us get away with taking more money and we’ll kick some your way.”
It’s true that casinos are asking to be allowed to take more money, but in my line of thinking, they shouldn’t have to ask in the first place. Why is the loss limit now in place? Why should the government step in to tell me how much money I can spend on entertainment in any given evening?
Casinos are simply providing Missourians with an incentive to remove a regulation that limits their business. If the incentive is great enough, Missourians will respond. But it should be Missouri citizens who decide, not the government deciding for them.
And a final criticism is the rhetoric being used by the “Yes for Schools First” campaign. Many would say it’s a business deal cloaked in feel-good language. I’ve already acknowledged my misgivings about the wording of the initiative, and I’m not overly fond of the fact that casinos can use schools to make their business seem more altruistic.
Anyone who gives it half a thought knows casinos aren’t in it for the schools. They’re businesses, and they’re in it for profit. But why shouldn’t Missouri schools profit at the same time? You’d be hard-pressed to argue that a person who otherwise wouldn’t set foot in a casino will choose to gamble just to help the schools.
Missouri voters will have to carefully weigh their options this November. Gambling addiction is a serious problem, and not one I’m trying to make light of. But the gambling in question is legal in Missouri. And I simply do not believe that removing the casino loss limit will appreciably change the amount of gambling engaged in by Missouri citizens. The only change I anticipate is that it may become more localized.
And it will help Missouri schools.
If you have comments, please leave them below, or email me.
But these aren’t the same as the price-control induced lines from the 1970s. According to the Post-Dispatch, Rhodes 101 Service Station in Poplar Bluff, Mo., offered gas for $2.69 per gallon on Tuesday as part of a promotion with Big River Telephone. People waited in lines for nearly 45 minutes to get the savings, which amounted to $10–$25 per customer, according to one commenter. That comes out to $13.33–$33.33 an hour. This probably isn’t a very good deal for the average middle class American, who probably earns more than than that.
However, unlike the gas lines of the 1970s, which were induced by price controls, these people still had the option of spending a bit more money to get their gas immediately. If the lines had been induced by price controls, and thus existed nationwide, they would be much longer — and the lower price almost certainly wouldn’t be worth the extra wait. That is the lesson of price controls: The posted price of gas, or anything else, may be lower under price controls, but the price consumers have to pay skyrockets once you take into account their lost time and search costs.
Tuesday, the Columbia Public Schools superintendent announced that she was retiring.
The timing was off. The shuffle of superintendents, either into retirement or among school districts, already happened this year. Most made the transition July 1.
According to the city’s two newspapers, at least a few school board members had no idea Superintendent Phyllis Chase was considering retirement until the board’s closed meeting with Chase. That’s strange, too, though allowable. Chase’s contract with the district lets her terminate the contract upon retirement at any time — no notice period was specified. Her retirement is effective Aug. 31.
Within minutes of her announcement yesterday, online comments sprang up on newspaper message boards and blogs, blaming the exiting superintendent for budget and curriculum problems, low MAP scores, and a total lack of community trust in the operation of the school district. In the past, Chase has been criticized for receiving a much-too-high salary — $200,340 — as well as a large car allowance of $7,200 per year.
A major part of my research this summer has been to request and collect the contracts of every single Missouri superintendent (as of today, we have 335). After reading many of those, and speaking with a few superintendents about the difficulties they and their districts face, I think one of the main hazards of being superintendent is the risk of public blame and accusations.
I spent a year reporting on this school district for the Columbia Missourian, so I have mixed feelings about Chase leaving. On one hand, she did seem to control public information tightly, and yes, she was slow to admit mistakes and make fixes. Blame for that rests squarely on her shoulders. However, this retirement looks like she is taking a fall for the district and its other administrators. And it’s a graceful one.
Show-Me Institute staff and scholars are hosting the Gary Nolan show this afternoon while Gary is on vacation. We will be discussing education reforms, property rights, and toll roads from 4 to 6 p.m. on The Eagle 93.9 FM. If you are in the Columbia area, please listen in. If outside Columbia, enjoy the online listening application to tune in. Basically, you have no excuses if you fail to listen. …
Edudiva is blogging about the just-released MAP scores. There’s good news and bad news: Some districts in the greater St. Louis area have high scores, with most students at or above grade level. Other districts have appallingly low percentages of students proficient in math or communication arts. It’s not a simple city/county divide, either. The best districts are in the county, but so are some of the worst.
Chicago has a similar problem with inconsistent suburban districts. They’re considering expanding charter schools in the suburbs, so families in the lowest-performing districts have a choice. Chicago has two suburban charters now, and parents are campaigning for a new one in Waukegan, Ill. Illinois state law allows a limited number of charter schools in the suburbs, and it looks like they’ll try to target the districts that don’t yet face much competition.
The same idea could be applied in St. Louis County. There probably wouldn’t be a huge demand for a charter school in the Clayton district, but new charters in the now-unaccredited Wellston district would give students an option other than leaving the area.
We have a desk stacked with 324 superintendent contracts. Quite a few superintendents have asked Audrey and me just what we’re doing with those contracts. It’s a fair question, and one we haven’t completely addressed for our readers.
We’ve said that we’re looking beyond salary, and that our purpose is research, not advocacy. Now, let’s talk about what our research includes.
I can’t speak for Audrey, but for me, at least, sketching out superintendent compensation for Missouri citizens is important not because it allows me or the Show-Me Institute to say we should change this or that to improve public education, but because it allows Missourians to see where their tax dollars are going. And it allows them to make judgments about how their money is being spent, apart from what I or SMI might think.
We’ve requested contracts from every Missouri superintendent, and we’ve received more than half. While we’re waiting for the remaining 200, we’ve begun entering the contract information into a spreadsheet. In all honesty, it’s a judgment call — what gets coded, what doesn’t, or how to compare benefits across contracts when they’re often not entirely comparable.
For the sake of increasing public information, I’d rather be more thorough than overlook something important.
