Bodyguards and Pay Raises for City Officials

Posted on by David Stokes

Kansas City has an interesting way of setting salaries for its city officials. The salaries of the mayor and City Council members is pegged to what judges make — either equal to that, in the mayor’s case, or a percentage of that, for the council. The end result is that the Mayor makes $114 K and the councilmembers make $57 K per annum. There has been controversy recently about the decision by the mayor and council to accept the most recent increase in salary. For the sake of comparison, the mayor’s salary is very comparable to that of other mayors, while the council’s is somewhat larger than average. It’s about $20 K more per year than a St. Louis City alderman makes, but Kansas City deserves credit for having far fewer councilmembers (12), than St. Louis has aldermen (28, plus 1 president of the board).

I prefer to see an election take place between elected officials’ salary increases, rather than for them to just go and do it — or, in the case of Kansas City, accept one that was scheduled. There is nothing wrong with elected officials getting raises, I just like to see voters get a chance to take those items into consideration when they vote. Other than that timing issue, I do not think Kansas City officials are overpaid.

We have a strange and related item going on in Saint Louis city. The president of the Board of Aldermen and the comptroller have both added a budget item for security to their offices. In short, they both want a deputy sheriff to essentially be a bodyguard for them. In their defense, the positions would be "as needed" and not full-time — which is especially appropriate for the president of the board, as that is not a full-time position itself.  Even with the realization that the bodyguards would not be full time, only the highest-profile public officials really need bodyguards. The county executive of Saint Louis County does not have any security, so I certainly don’t think the comptroller and president of the Board of Aldermen need it.

The best item in the entire article, though, is at the end when State Rep. Tom Villa, formerly president of the Board of Aldermen, commits a classic Kinsley Gaffe. Here’s a quote from Villa, who had security when he was board president:

Tom Villa, the last Board of Aldermen president to have a deputy sheriff assigned to him, said he used the position as an extra staffer, "running errands, delivering papers and, in some cases, serving as a driver."

Just classic. You provide a bodyguard for security so an elected official can have someone else to run errands. Beautiful.

Are You There, Free Market? It’s Me, Sarah

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Following Dave’s example, I couldn’t resist a Judy Blume-inspired titled. The question is about the education market. I wrote the other day about why we shouldn’t extrapolate from a few controlled experiments and conclude that choice is ineffective. Now, I’ve found an interesting podcast at Cato discussing whether there’s an education market in the U.S. at all. John Merrifield points out that the limited choice programs in existence now lack prices, profits, and other essential aspects of markets.

I think the situation in the U.S. is a little better than Meffifield describes it. In Missouri, we have many private schools (including some boarding schools at the high school level), fairly free homeschooling laws, and several charter schools — with an especially strong charter movement in Kansas City. Some people do have educational options. On the other hand, choices for some aren’t the same thing as a free market for everyone. To find out what we need for a real market, listen to the podcast!

Bombardier Tax Credits Revised, But Still a Dangerous, Unjust Idea

Posted on by Dave Roland

The ill-conceived Bombardier tax credit plan is moving forward, albeit in a more limited form. Instead of being worth as much as $880 million, the bill would now grant only a maximum of $240 million in tax credits to the French-Canadian corporation if it relocates to the Kansas City area. While several lawmakers seem to think this adjustment would make the plan worthwhile for the state, even in a best-case scenario the state would not break even on this deal until sometime between 2021 and 2039. That’s a long time to wait for a "payoff" that may never materialize.

The larger problem, however, is that this bill illustrates how the government plays favorites among businesses. Missouri is already home to tens of thousands of businesses that employ millions of people — and they would happily employ more if a lower tax burden freed up the money to do so! The only fair and just way of encouraging this sort of growth is to lower the corporate tax rate across the board so that all companies are treated equally. In the alternative, the General Assembly could offer these tax credit plans to any company that creates new jobs in the state. Either of these ideas would be a far more equitable solution, and it would show loyalty to the businesses already serving Missouri, rather than blatantly offering to bolster the profits of a foreign corporation.

The Evidence for Free-Market Education Reform

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

At Cato-at-Liberty, Andrew J. Coulson and Neal McCluskey respond to Chester E. Finn, Jr.’s criticism of free-market education reform. This criticism takes the form of a quick blog post replying to a book review, rather than a developed argument, but his contention has been brought up by many people so it’s worth addressing. According to Finn, free-market reformers are trying to destroy public education based on crazy philosophies, with no regard for evidence.

As Coulson points out, free-market proposals like tuition tax credits are not incompatible with the ideals of public education, such as preparing children for citizenship. And Coulson has done extensive research on education markets around the world. I’m guessing that one reason people like Finn discredit that evidence is that it’s from other countries. Here in the U.S., the public education system has a tight hold on the education sector, and the only experience we have with a free-market system are a few limited voucher programs. People are then left to make judgments about free-market education from these programs (which are a good start, but not big enough to transform the education sector the way universal parental choice would).

Caroline Hoxby’s research on charter schools presents evidence that’s a bit closer to home. Although charter schools are still public schools, they face incentives more like the ones private schools face. Consequently, they do things differently from the traditional public schools. Here you can watch Hoxby explain why incentives matter.

In short, there’s evidence that free-market reforms work. And there’s evidence that the traditional public system is failing — as Finn himself writes, the nation is "still at risk." That doesn’t look like a crazy philosophy to me.

Terrible Economics in Poll on Stltoday.com

Posted on by David Stokes

I know Internet polls are just for fun, and one should not read anything into them, but that does not mean the people who design the polls should actively promote ignorance and errors. The poll today at stltoday.com does just that. If you go to the poll they have on the main page now, you’ll see that the question is, "Who do you blame for the economic slowdown?" They give you five choices: Congress, the president, the Federal Reserve, private business, or all of the above. This is just absurdity, and promotes a lack of understanding of economics. At least they could have given a sixth choice, along the lines of: "A series of events, often beyond the control of American policymakers, and including the natural movements of the business cycle, leading to a general slowdown in our economy."

This is not to say everyone is blameless. I blame the president and Congress for overspending on programs of all types (particularly entitlement programs) that have us in such debt. Many private businesses and banks have made obvious mistakes with poorly researched loans. Left unmentioned in the poll is the responsibility of individual Americans who took out substantial loans they could not afford, certainly a prime cause of the housing problems we face. I don’t know why the banks get all the blame there. But to attempt to lay blame teaches people that the government controls the economy, which it does not, could not, and should not.

‘Good Fiscal Planning’

Posted on by Dave Roland

Look here for a story that ought to get any taxpayer’s blood boiling. The Post-Dispatch reports that the Foundry Art Centre in St. Charles wants $100,000 to help it pursue some of its programs. Rather than, say, earning the money based on services provided to consumers, and rather than raising the money from appreciative patrons, the Centre’s first priority was to ask the city government for the desired funds. As Dick Sacks, the head of the Centre’s board, put it, "The obvious thing is to go to your daddy[.]" Sacks also said that the request for taxpayer funds was not because the Centre was "broke" or "in trouble," but rather the move was just "good fiscal planning."

I’m sure that many people (and businesses!) would be thrilled if they could figure out how to pursue their pet projects by having their government forcibly extract the funding from their neighbors. But to suggest that this sort of extortion represents "good fiscal planning" is especially sick at a time when so many of the people who would be compelled to bear those costs are already struggling to avoid foreclosure, or fill their gas tanks or grocery baskets.

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