Turning the Page?

Posted on by Matt Simpson

The Post-Dispatch reports that Chrysler is closing its minivan plant in Fenton, laying off 2,400 workers. Political Fix has the responses of several prominent politicians, including this from Missouri Rep. Sam Page:

My sympathies go out to the employees who lost jobs today and their families. These men and women were hard workers, who made a good product. But they, like many Americans, have fallen victim to higher gas prices and a bad economy. They have suffered because of a government unable or unwilling to fix this problem.

We must now look forward at bringing new industry to our state. Missouri has given Chrysler $32 million in tax incentives to keep its plants operating here. After the loss of up to 2,800 good-paying, benefit-providing jobs, it is clear that that investment has not been returned. Instead, we need to be welcoming companies committed to investing in Missouri’s economy.

I have to commend Page for admitting that the government is perhaps incapable of fixing a problem. All too often, this lesson seems to be lost in political matters. In this particular case, it is very unlikely that the government can fix the problems posed by the increasing scarcity of energy. In fact, the cure is likely worse than the disease. Any incentives that the government can muster to spur innovation in energy provision are likely to be minuscule in comparison to the incentives already in the marketplace for such innovations, and the marketplace doesn’t discriminate based on politics.

Another lesson is to be learned from Page’s quote: Tax incentives for individual businesses are a bad idea. There is no guarantee that the business will stay in the area once the tax incentives are granted and no guarantee that the state will pick the best candidate for the incentive. Furthermore, a lower tax rate for everyone is a much more effective means of stimulating growth because it encourages greater productivity and attracts entrepreneurs that the state might not have even been aware of, let alone tried to pursue. Rather than handing out tax incentives, lowering taxes would be a great way to “welcome companies committed to investing in Missouri’s economy.” Hopefully, this is what Page has in mind.

Fair Is Not Fair Everywhere (An Elaboration)

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

SUPERINTENDENT BOND UPDATE: According to Ronald Beutell, of the St. Louis Public Schools’ treasury office, “To my knowledge, no superintendent has ever not faithfully performed the duties of his office by law and forfeited the bond.”

Today, I’ll talk about superintendent salary increases. I’m not going to make generalizations. Instead, I’ve picked seven school districts that illustrate different ways superintendents are given pay boosts. Some increases depend on a superintendent’s annual evaluation, while others lock in automatic salary increases of more than $5,000 per year.

Cape Girardeau, Hickory, Fayette, Fort Zumwalt, Fox, Hickory, and Springfield school districts all do it differently.

Continue reading “Fair Is Not Fair Everywhere (An Elaboration)”

Comments Are Now Open!

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

After months of blandishments from an eager staff, the Show-Me Institute’s powers that be have given us the green light to open comments on this blog. We’d love to hear from you, and we hope that our comment sections will help Show-Me Daily serve as a forum for vigorous, active debate.

All we ask, really, is that participants keep the tone civil, and try to offer something substantive. We assiduously work to avoid insults and and ad hominem attacks in our posts, and we hope our readers will follow suit. Disagreements are fine, but remember that this is an opportunity to discuss policy — don’t make it personal.

That said, welcome to our now-interactive blog! Let us know what you think.

Textbook Bill Sold

Posted on by Dan Grana

The inevitable has come to pass. The Missouri Textbook Transparency Act has become law.

I adopted this issue as my pet cause at the beginning of the summer, leading to a critical op-ed that received a little bit of attention.

It’s not surprising that the bill passed. I understand that only one senator opposed it as it glided through the General Assembly. I am, however, satisfied to see that its proponents have already begun apologizing for its inadequacies. From the AP article:

The law’s sponsor, Rep. Jake Zimmerman, D-Olivette, said his measure won’t help the price of new textbooks but could give students and their instructors more ways to save money.

I’d like to emphasize again how unlikely it is that any government mandate will positively affect the marketplace for used books. I contend that the combination of the law’s shortcomings and a vibrant online alternative to school bookstores offers virtually no benefits to outweigh the costs of market intervention. I don’t anticipate seeing an increase in textbook success stories for otherwise cash-strapped students during the coming years. More likely, this law will pass into obscurity, where it may or may not create hidden costs for buyers. If nothing else, it can serve as an example of unnecessary regulation in an area that has and will continue to be well-served by market forces.

The Compliance/Resistance Divide

Posted on by Cynthia Juedemann

It’s just not something you ask: How much money do you make in a year, what exactly do you do to earn it, what insurance does your employer provide, and what’s your allowance for a company car?

Contrast this to: What was the turnout in last year’s school election?

If you ask the first questions of a superintendent, and the second of a county clerk, both are required to answer. But the first is clearly a more invasive question.

In the Show-Me Institute’s Columbia office, my fellow researcher, Audrey Spalding, has been asking the first question of all 522 Missouri school districts. I, in the same office, also using the Sunshine Law, have been asking the second of all 114 Missouri county clerks, plus the city of St. Louis election board, if you’re keeping score.*

So, who’s had more success?

The answer might surprise you.

Continue reading “The Compliance/Resistance Divide”

Motive

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

"You don’t just file that sort of request without expecting to find something," said one Missouri superintendent when I called to ask for a copy of his employment contract.

A few superintendents have asked about Rex Sinquefield‘s involvement (directly, next to none), or how closely these requests are tied to the Show-Me Institute’s apparent support of charter schools (we have sent several requests to charter schools as well). Many simply want to know why I am filing a Sunshine Law request for each and every Missouri superintendent’s contract. I do not need to justify my request, nor does anyone else asking for public information. But the question itself is fair.

The point of these requests is not, as I see it, to publish each superintendent’s name and annual pay and then highlight every six-figure salary as excessive. Yes, perhaps it is fair to scrutinize a contract that pays $8,000 or so to a superintendent for his dependents’ health care, regardless of whether he has any. From here, that looks like a salary bonus for not having children.

But, in general, the contract between a superintendent and a school district can tell us a lot about what a school district values, and where it is struggling.

Continue reading “Motive”

Be Sure to Check This Out

Posted on by Justin Hauke

We’ve added a new tool to our Show-Me Living arsenal.

Check out our new Google map of the Saint Louis metropolitan area. It provides our visitors with the ability to interactively look up the academic rankings for their school and school district on a map, and compare those rankings to other schools nearby. Thinking about moving this summer? See how your new school compares with "Show-Me: The Grades." And, while you’re there, be sure to check out how your taxes might change, too.

We plan to expand this map to cover the entire state, so please feel free to send us your thoughts on how we can make it more useful for you.

Nerdiness Is Next to Godliness

Posted on by Justin Hauke

I’m a meticulous record-keeper, particularly when it comes to either my car or my finances.

In our recent ethanol case study, Dave Stokes and I argued that the E-10 savings projections reported in the Missouri Corn Merchandising Council’s study were wrong partly because they failed to address the fuel efficiency decrease of ethanol-blended fuel that had been noted in numerous scientific studies, including one by the Environmental Protection Agency.

So, I’ve been curious to see how much the E-10 mandate has affected my car’s individual performance. After filling up my car this morning, I looked through my fuel log and made a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the difference in fuel efficiency this year.

My car has a 13-gallon tank, but I typically fill up about 12 gallons on average. In 2007, my car averaged 308 miles between fill-ups (25.67 miles/gallon). This year, my car has averaged 281 miles between fill-ups (23.42 miles/gallon). That’s a drop in fuel efficiency of 8.77 percent.

Now, admittedly, this is a little bit of an ad hoc calculation and other variables clearly impacted my car’s gas mileage. But Missouri’s E-10 mandate has obviously played some role.

So, how much has the drop in fuel efficiency cost me? Let’s say I fill up my car twice a month (24 gallons). With $4-per-gallon gas, the 8.77 percent drop in fuel efficiency will cost me nearly $100 this year.

So much for E-10 savings.

Zoning Disputes Here, There, and Everywhere

Posted on by David Stokes

This is a "Read it all and make up your own mind"-type post. The Show-Me Institute’s Dave Roland just wrote a new op-ed about the issue of zoning and property rights in Missouri. To put the op-ed into today’s context, here are two ongoing major zoning disputes in Missouri, neither of them related to the "Village Law." In Kansas City, the Star is reporting on a dispute involving the proposed expansion of a prominent museum. Just north of there in Platte County, the St. Joseph News-Press reports on a subdivision dispute — the kind typical in many fast-growing areas. (Or, at least, areas that were fast-growing before $4-a-gallon gas, but that’s another issue.)

Not to put words in his mouth, but Dave Roland would say that both the museum and the subdivision developers have the right to develop their property however they want to, and no city or planning commission or neighbor has the right to prevent that. Subsequently, if those developments harmed the neighbors’ property values, the neighbors should be compensated for that harm via civil action. I encourage you to read it all (particularly the op-ed), and come to your own decision.

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