Our own David Stokes had an interview yesterday with KQTV Channel 2, based in St. Joesph, discussing the institute’s newly released ethanol study. Here is a synopsis of the the interview; in the meantime, we are working on getting a video link.
Less Confusion … and Less Information
It confused people too much.
That was what a Franklin County employee told me when I asked why election results reported in the same format were less detailed in 2007 and 2008 than they had been in 2006 (and earlier years). In 2006, the reports had a figure labeled “times counted.” This was simply the number of ballots cast in a particular race, paired with the total number of registered voters eligible to vote in that race. And it allowed turnout to be calculated. In 2007 and 2008, that figure was missing.
At first, because I’ve seen it so often, I assumed the missing data was caused by a computer error. Even though the format hadn’t changed, I figured it must have been omitted accidentally on the hard copies I was given.
I was wrong.
What Has Ears But Can’t Hear?
The answer is corn, which makes ethanol, which leads me to my post, which suggests that gubernatorial candidate Sarah Steelman was listening to the Show-Me Institute …
Yesterday, Steelman held a press conference calling for an end to the notoriously bad ethanol mandate. She cited the mandate as one of the reasons that food and gas prices are at all-time highs, and that it must be repealed because of these unintended consequences. As many of you know, the Show-Me Institute recently produced a case study highlighting the negative effects of the mandate and its cost to Missourians. Initially, Steelman supported the mandate, but thanks to our study (at least, I’d like to think so) Steelman is among the growing list of officials who realize that the mandate was a mistake and have lobbied for its repeal.
Although our study does not focus on food prices, this effect is mentioned — along with the additional taxpayer costs that government subsidies bring. I commend Ms. Steelman for recognizing that the ethanol mandate is a bad deal for taxpayers, and I hope that her fellow politicians follow suit.
The failure of this regulation provides further evidence that such mandates are almost never a good deal for taxpayers, and shouldn’t be implemented in the first place. However, that’s a broader topic for a different day.
Personally, I’m a Sucker for Kittens
“Financial incentive offered for vets to treat cows, not kittens”
That’s the headline from Missourinet, which brings us this detail:
Half a million dollars has been set aside in the state budget to lure six vet students into a large animal practice, an appropriation to get the Large Animal Veterinary Student Loan Program off the ground.
And why do we need this little subsidy? According to the acting state veterinarian, Dr. Taylor Woods:
[…] it would take at least ten years to ease a critical shortage of veterinarians to serve Missouri’s farms as well as its livestock markets.
Assuming that the wages of veterinarians are allowed to freely adjust to market forces, the subsidy is completely unnecessary. In the short term, the vets who are qualified to treat livestock can charge a premium. As a result, anyone who needs this sort of service is encouraged to seek alternatives, and to purchase these services only when they are absolutely necessary. Also, anyone who can provide treatment for livestock is encouraged to spend more time doing just that. In fact, this is exactly what is happening:
Woods says some [livestock markets] are staffed by elderly vets who have come out of retirement to help out.
Elderly vets certainly aren’t a long-term solution, but market forces take care of that, too. Because the shortage of livestock vets raises their wages, it becomes more attractive for people to become trained in the field. As this happens, the price of livestock vet services comes back down.
This isn’t a novel chain of reasoning, of course; it’s merely the operation of supply and demand applied to the caretakers of our animals.
Of course, the vets don’t really want to hear all of this — but you wouldn’t want to hear it either if the government was offering you free money.
Interesting Conference on the Horizon
From July 10–15, Lindenwood University (over in St. Charles) will be hosting an exciting conference, “The American Decentralist Tradition.” Among the topics of discussion will be the Declaration of Independence, the Kentucky Resolutions, and the Webster-Calhoun Debate (also known as the Webster-Hayne Debate), as well as contemporary issues such as the effect of centralization of political power on corporate structure and the correlation between highly centralized governments and the murder of their citizens. The conference’s very structure will imitate its subject matter, shifting among several unique locations in eastern Missouri, including historic Ste. Genevieve, the St. Louis Cathedral, Daniel Boone Village, and the mounds at Cahokia, Ill. If you are interested, you can get additional details by dropping a line to Prof. Rachel Douchant, who is heading up the conference.
Turning the Page?
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)
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!
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
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.
