Why Is Missouri Losing Congressional Seats?

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The South County Journal poses this question without (in my opinion) the right answer. In 1980, Missouri lost its first Congressional seat when its population growth began to stagnate. Preliminary estimates suggest that Missouri will lose a second seat after the 2010 census.

John Stoeffler, the co-founder of a constitutional think tank, argues that the reason Missouri is missing out is because the Census doesn’t apportion representatives based on citizenship. In other words, he argues that the gain in congressional seats in border states is based on an influx of immigrants without voting rights.

But I wonder if something else could be going on, too? Maybe the reason why “border state” representation has been growing while Missouri representation has been declining is indicative of fundamental economic growth shifts. Could it be that Missouri is stagnating while other states are growing?

In 1900, Missouri had a larger population than California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. Today, only New Mexico lags behind Missouri. An even more interesting picture emerges if we look at the compound annual growth rates of those states’ populations versus that of their household incomes since the 1980 Census.

MO TX CA NM AZ
1980-2006 CAGR (Population) 0.66% 1.90% 1.63% 1.53% 3.17%
1980-2006 CAGR (Personal Income) 2.49% 3.81% 3.24% 3.45% 4.86%

Since 1980, Missouri’s population and household income growth has lagged behind those of all four southern U.S. border states. Could it be that declining congressional representation has more to do with shifting economic importance?

Missouri is stagnating. This is why it is so important that Missourians petition their state representatives for better legislation. Lower taxes, better education, and more secure property rights will make Missouri a more competitive place to do business. For example, Missouri has a higher marginal income tax rate than any of the states listed above (except for California). Missouri’s education system continues to decline and remains below the national average. If we fix these things, Missouri will become more attractive and people will flock to the state once again.

Missouri needs better laws. That’s why it’s losing congressional seats.

Lessons From South Korea

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Neal McCluskey blogs about South Korean education and the roots of its success. McCluskey argues that the private sector is driving South Korea’s academic achievement, and that the state-mandated curriculum and tests do more harm than good. I was reminded of this article, which appeared in the New York Times about two weeks ago. The article describes how private high schools in South Korea are preparing students for American colleges, in some cases by requiring them to study for 15 hours a day. These schools go beyond the state curriculum:

Still, the schools are highly rigorous. Both supplement South Korea’s required, lecture-based national curriculum with Western-style discussion classes. Their academic year is more than a month longer than at American high schools. Daewon, which costs about $5,000 per year to attend, requires two foreign languages besides English. Minjok, where tuition, board and other expenses top $15,000, offers Advanced Placement courses and research projects.

For students who are studying many foreign languages and preparing for AP exams, a state-mandated curriculum is at best unneccesary. At worst, the required lectures could be a waste of time for students who are engaged in more interactive research and could push schools to lengthen their class time in order to fit everything in.

Besides cautioning us against state standards and tests, the case of South Korean education should give us a new perspective on educational innovations in the United States. For example, some people have objected to the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools that are coming to St. Louis because of the schools’ long hours and tough discipline. But compared to the Korean schools profiled in the New York Times article, KIPP school days are really not excessive. And although the KIPP program is definitely not right for every student, we can see that this approach works well for some kids in Asia.

A New Payday Pundit

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The Springfield News-Leader has another op-ed on payday lending today.

The author, Ryan Cooper, has a great anecdote at the beginning of his article (it just goes to show you how an actual writer — i.e., someone other than me — can spin the same concept with better words). He points out how his decision to use a payday lender to avoid bouncing several checks when he fell on some brief hard times ended up saving him more than he would have paid in bank fees (not to mention the damage to his credit report) had he done nothing. He correctly points out that the interest charged by payday lenders is no more usurious than the "fees" of traditional banks and that "the free market should decide the appropriate price to pay for speed and convenience."

It goes to show how well-intentioned politicians’ attempts to micromanage personal decisions are not always in their constituents’ best interest. Why not let people choose for themselves? Is it so much to ask that our legislators respect the decency and the intelligence of the individual?

A Healthy Trend

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Yahoo! Finance is reporting the largest annual federal budget deficit in history. In FY2008, the U.S. government will post a shocking $396 billion budget deficit.

Do we see an end to such budget shortfalls in the future? The U.S. government can’t issue new debt forever. Unless, of course, you think this is a healthy trend:

At some point, these bills will be due, and Americans will be forced to make some very important decisions. We either have to: a) increase taxes to record levels; b) significantly decrease governmental spending; c) devalue the dollar and crowd out private investment with higher interest rates; or, d) pretend the problem doesn’t exist, hide under the covers, and wait for somebody else to fix it. I personally prefer option b. Most politicians seem to like options c and d.

Of course it’s not just a federal problem, but a state problem as well. The Missouri General Assembly will face a $500 million budget shortfall next year as tax receipts continue to decline. This morning’s Post-Dispatch provides a good assessment of where those shortfalls are going to hit hardest:

That $500 million will have to come from the general revenue budget, which makes up only about a third of the overall $22.5 billion state budget. (The rest largely is funded by federal funds passed through to the state and by tax funds limited to specific applications such as highways and conservation.)

So most of the $500 million in cuts would have to come from just four programs: elementary and secondary education, higher education, corrections and human services (Medicaid and mental health).

Well, that’s great, because those just happen to be four areas in which the Show-Me Institute has researched ways in which the state could easily save money.

Personally, I think former Missouri governor Bob Holden says it best in the Post-Dispatch editorial when he summarizes the current fiscal situation.

There’s a solution here, but it’s going to take a level of courage and bipartisanship that hasn’t been seen in Missouri in recent decades. "It’s going to take political leadership," Mr. Holden said. "Instead of demagoguing the problem, they’re going to have to try to solve it."

Gonna Have to Side With the Sewer District on This

Posted on by David Stokes

The Metropolitan Sewer District, which provides stormwater and sewer services to Saint Louis city and County, has changed its billing practices. The Post-Dispatch has the story on it here. MSD’s own explanation is here. I like the change a lot, and not just because my bill is basically staying the same. I like it because it is good policy, whenever possible, to direct fees or taxes to the people who use — or, in this case, cause — the system, event, or service being provided. Now, obviously, you can’t do this for all things government provides. People who live in dangerous neighborhoods should not pay more for police protection than others. But for many policy areas, such as tolls on highways, it is good policy to make the user pay.

MSD’s new billing plan is for stormwater, not wastewater services. They are now taking into consideration how much of your property is able to absorb rainwater without sending it into the sewer system. So if you have a lot of land that is paved over, you are sending more water to the system than someone whose land is all grass and trees — so it seems very fair to me that you should pay more. To be sure, it’s the same rate, just a higher fee based on less permeable land.

The main dispute involves people who use a septic system for wastewater, who in the past did not pay anything for stormwater service either, even though they used the stormwater system. Actually, they would have received a charge for stormwater service, but because the charge was less than postage, MSD never actually billed anyone. The spokesperson for MSD could teach other PR people a thing or three about succinctness and clarity. From the article:

Lance LeComb, a spokesman for the district, said everyone should be billed because nearly all storm water eventually reaches the district’s storm water system, which includes creeks.

"Everyone benefits from it," LeComb said. "They have to pay for it."

As we often say around here, good tax policy involves basing taxes or fees widely, and then keeping them as low as possible — along with making the actual users of services pay fees directly, when that is possible. This new billing system does all of this. People on septic no longer get a free ride for stormwater service, and people who send more stormwater into the system pay more for the system. It all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

People Respond to Pricing

Posted on by David Stokes

Incentives and prices matter. As prices change, habits and activities change. Here are two articles relating to how people are making changes because of the high cost of gasoline. The New York Times has a story about the increased use of mass transit in cities throughout America. MSNBC has an article about the booming business at bike shops across the country. The Post-Dispatch has a story about bicycling in Saint Louis. As very few people expect the price of gasoline to come down, these changes may well be long-term. In my opinion, these changes are neither good nor bad, they just are. This is the way it is (and likely will be for the future), and free, educated people will make adjustments.

Now, how does this relate to public policy, you might ask? Well, clearly in lots of ways. Let’s just take mass transit. Randal O’Toole wrote a study for the Show-Me Institute arguing against light rail for Kansas City. While most people who read it focused on the argument not to do something, the study also discussed what he thought Kansas City should do. Randal recommended that Kansas City expand its bus?rapid transit system and embrace competitive contracting for its buses. BRT, when done right, makes buses operate more like light rail at a fraction of the cost, and competitive contracting allows the power of private enterprise into the provision of transit. There is always an important role for mass transit in our cities. High gas prices make that role even more important. As for St. Louis, the potential of competitive contracting should also be embraced for the bus system.

As an aside, I love the picture accompanying the Post article. Nothing says "Share the road with bicyclists" like a biker clearly riding in the middle of the road and blocking two lanes of traffic from passing. With that in mind, this is Bike-to-Work Week and Friday is National Bike-to-Work Day. I have a meeting off-site on Friday, so I am gonna bike in on Thursday. Or maybe I’ll just walk. You worry about the price of gas a lot less when you live one mile from work.

Bike to work

More on the Missouri Health Transformation Act

Posted on by Justin Hauke

I wrote about the Missouri Health Transformation Act (MHTA) when it passed the Senate last week, so I thought I would revisit the bill now that it has reached a stalemate in the House.

The primary point of contention in the bill (and the reason it has grown to the behemoth size I lambasted before) is how to insure low-income uninsured Missourians. The House wants to control costs. The Senate doesn’t.

Essentially, House leaders believe that low-income Missourians should receive “vouchers” to shop for coverage that meet their needs, rather than receive generic broad coverage by the state. I whole-heartedly agree. If consumers shop around for the best deal, prices will be lower for everyone. This is the real problem with the existing health insurance model. Do you have any idea how much a doctor visit costs? How much does it cost to get your teeth cleaned or to get your appendix out? Honestly, I couldn’t even ballpark these things. All anyone focuses on is their insurance deductible. So if it costs you $100 out of pocket to get your appendix out, do you even care what the true cost is?

The lack of medical price transparency has two negative effects. One, we overuse our insurance because we have no idea what the true costs are and the costs don’t accrue to us individually. And two, medical providers have no incentive to keep costs down if costs can’t be compared. Would you have any idea whether or not your doctor charges a “fair” price? Prices of various procedures could vary widely from doctor to doctor, but we would have no idea because our copay would be the same regardless.

The House wants to cover the uninsured in a way that keeps costs lower. It wants insurance providers to encourage competition and to publicly disclose medical costs. But, as the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch covers in an article in this morning’s paper, hospitals, doctors, and other groups are balking at the request.

I’d probably be upset too if I knew that doing so would reveal that I’m charging three times as much as the next doctor to perform the same procedure.

What Is Your Definition of “Speedy”?

Posted on by Dave Roland

The Post-Dispatch ran a front-page story last Friday revealing the glacial pace of "justice" in the city of Saint Louis. Because of a variety of reasons, nearly 400 citizens have sat imprisoned in the city jail for more than a year without ever having their cases brought to trial. Eighty of those prisoners have been incarcerated for more than two years while waiting for trial.

Both the state and federal constitutions recognize in unambiguous terms that individuals accused of crimes are entitled to a speedy trial. The right to a speedy trial reflects the American notions that one must be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the government must provide due process of law in order to deprive someone of their liberty. Those responsible for these provisions recognized that the government must not be permitted to imprison presumptively innocent people any longer than necessary to afford a fair trial. Yet here in Saint Louis, this precise evil is taking place.

Part of the problem is that the public defender’s office has a limited number of attorneys to manage the host of Saint Louis defendants who cannot afford to hire their own lawyers. According to one representative from the public defender’s office, as many as 150 extra attorneys (statewide) would be necessary to meet national caseload standards, yet legislators are hesitant to authorize any additional funds for attorney hires.

I’m certainly no advocate for increasing the size of government or the amount it spends, but let’s consider the financial repercussions of this understaffing. The city estimates that holding a prisoner in the city jail costs about $50 per person per day. The United States Supreme Court’s current position is that eight months (240 days) should be adequate time for a serious felony case to go to trial, assuming the defendant does not voluntarily initiate delays. Illinois is even stricter on the government, requiring prisoners to be released if they are not brought to trial within four months (120 days).

For an accused person to be held in jail for eight months (as opposed to posting bail), taxpayers can expect to spend roughly $12,000 per defendant, not including the cost of legal expenses. The incarceration bill for the 400 accused who have spent more than a year waiting for trial comes to at least $7.3 million — $2.5 million more than would have been necessary if they were brought to trial within the time period deemed to be reasonable by the Supreme Court, and $4.9 million more than would have been necessary under Illinois’ guidelines.

The judges responsible for overseeing St. Louis’s criminal docket have instituted new procedures that they believe will provide some improvement to the system, but they have also
asked the Board of Aldermen to consider an additional $520,000 to bring
in additional defense attorneys to help alleviate the logjam. It is true that many of these trials, once held, will likely result in convictions. In those cases, taxpayers will still bear the financial burden of incarcerating felons, although the burden will be shared by the rest of the state — whereas the city jail is financed primarily by local taxpayers. If the new public defenders resulted in just 84 of these accused citizens ending their incarcerations (either through acquittal or plea bargaining) within the Supreme Court’s eight-month guideline, the attorneys would, essentially, have paid for themselves. While I cannot speak to whether the full $520,000 would be necessary to secure the constitutional rights of those being held without trial, hiring more public defenders is an idea worthy of the city’s consideration.

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