The Missouri Plan

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The Federalist Society has released a study investigating the correlation between states with a merit selection judiciary (the so-called “Missouri plan” model) and school finance litigation.

The “Missouri Plan” amended the state Constitution such that judicial nominations are selected — at least in part — through an independent nominating counsel (generally comprising state American Bar Association-appointed lawyers) instead of by popular election. Today, 26 states have adopted some form of the “Missouri Plan” for their judicial appointments.

The legal benefits of the “Missouri Plan” are debatable. Many studies have examined the impact of such plans on business-friendly legislation (the argument being that judicial nominations appointed by ABA members will be less friendly to issues that might limit the market for lawyers). In fact, in an upcoming policy report, the Show-Me Institute will examine the Missouri Plan in detail. (Stay tuned for the excitement!)

The Federalist Society’s research highlights at least one negative aspect, however. To date, 45 states have addressed education adequacy litigation. According to data gathered by Columbia University, about two-thirds of adequacy decisions in Missouri Plan states strike down the legislatures’ funding statutes. This means that courts have effectively commandeered the power of the purse — something clearly within the proper domain of the legislatures.

In addition, in a joint study by the Institute for Justice and the American Legislative Exchange Council, analysts found that school voucher systems are constitutional in 77 percent of states with popularly elected judiciaries, versus 50 percent in Missouri Plan states.

So I guess this was a long way of me saying that there is evidence that courts are friendlier to the school choice movement in states where judges are elected by the people themselves.

Missourians Should Save Their Stimulus Checks

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Amid the clamor about an uncertain economy, government officials feel pressure that they should do something to fix it all. First, we have the federal tax rebate checks, as part of a "stimulus" package intended to spur consumer spending (David Stokes handily addressed that topic last month). Now we have a sales tax holiday proposal (link via John Combest) to provide an even greater incentive to spend rather than save.

It’s true that consumer spending is a crucial part of any healthy economy, but officials have confused cause with effect. Spending doesn’t create economic growth — rather, it’s a symptom of the growth that results from saving.

That’s right, saving. When you sock money away in the bank, you’re not hoarding it. You’re investing in capital growth. Economic literature is filled with explanations of how this works, but economist Mark Skousen summed it up nicely in a 2004 article about spending vs. saving:

Studies in business cycles and marketing demonstrate repeatedly that CEOs, entrepreneurs, capitalists and other business decision-makers are the primary activators of the economy, and determine when to start investing in capital again and turn the economy around. Government leaders cannot depend on consumers to lead the recovery. They tend to be passive, responding to rather than creating new products and services.

In normal times, increased savings expands the pool of capital investment, lowers interest rates, and allows firms to adopt new production processes, new technologies, and create new jobs. Thus, saving is just as much a form of spending as consumption, only a different form of spending, and in some cases, a better form of spending when it fulfills a need for more capital and investment.

So when you get that stimulus check in a few months, don’t let the tax holiday tempt you to rush out and buy something you don’t really need. Save it for a rainy day, and help lay the foundation for a real, lasting economic recovery.

For Those of You Looking to Compare Individual Missouri Schools’ Academic Performances …

Posted on by Justin Hauke

Look no further.

I was introduced to SchoolDigger this morning as a nifty little cut-and-dried Missouri school evaluator. Unfortunately, the school rankings are assessed entirely by MAP test scores, and many alternative (and charter) schools are omitted. There’s also no direct district comparison, which would be useful, and even the individual school comparisons aren’t that helpful.

But the Google Maps feature is sweet!

A Hit Against Your Property Rights

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

The Missouri Supreme Court handed down a 6-1 decision yesterday in favor of "development" trumping property rights in the matter of City of Arnold v. Homer Tourkakis. According to the decision (summarized nicely by one of the outlets throughout the state) the city is justified in using the power of eminent domain to seize the office of Dr. Homer Tourkakis, a dentist who was the lone holdout resisting the city’s unjust taking of property, because (according to the opinion summary prepared by the Communications Counsel):

[T]he constitution does not limit the legislature from giving such cities authority to use eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, the state’s tax-increment financing act is constitutional, and the trial court erred in dismissing a non-charter city’s condemnation action against private landowners.

The courts’ decision, authored by Judge Russell, reversed the previous decision by the trial court, which had held in favor of Mr. Tourkakis (also from the summary; link added):

The trial court erred finding that article VI, section 21 limits the entities that may exercise the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes and in dismissing the City’s condemnation action. The City is authorized under several statutes, including the TIF Act, to exercise eminent domain.

It should be noted, though, that the court failed to rule on the controversial nature of Missouri’s "blight" definition, which has allowed municipalities in the past to condemn pristine areas and doom them to economic failure. Also, as reported by the Post-Dispatch, the court left open the issue of whether Arnold’s status as a non-charter city brought any bearing to the issue at hand:

[O]ne of the dentist’s attorneys, Tracy Gilroy, said she believed the Supreme Court had failed to address whether the state’s Tax Increment Financing Act actually sets out a procedure for nonchartered cities like Arnold to use the power of eminent domain.

"We may need to request a rehearing on that matter," Gilroy said.

This particular point was highlighted again by Judge Teitelman in the lone dissent to the majority opinion:

[A]rticle VI, section 21 provides that with respect to non-charter cities, "laws may be enacted" that provide for the exercise of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Article VI, section 21 does not expressly authorize the wholesale delegation of such power to third-class cities. Instead, it provides only that the legislature may enact a law allowing the use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project. In this case, the General Assembly has enacted no law authorizing the City of Arnold to exercise the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes.

Three tragedies result from this ruling. The first, and most direct, is that Homer Tourkakis will almost certainly lose his office, and that any payment he will receive will be a pittance compared to what the property is worth, in terms of both financial and sentimental value (read more about Dr. Tourkakis’ story).

Second, the ruling in favor of the city of Arnold leaves the door open for other municipalities throughout the state to go forward with plans to seize private property for private use through the power of eminent domain. As explained by Show-Me Institute policy analyst Dave Roland, the Missouri Supreme Court had an opportunity to strengthen citizens’ rights:

The Court could side with the city and its commercial developers, meaning that virtually every home, business, and house of worship in the state could be condemned and given away for the profit of a government-chosen owner. Or the Court could turn the tide in favor of individual liberty by deciding that the state Constitution’s protections for private property still have meaning.

But obviously, the court watched that opportunity sail right by.

Finally, I leave you with this story. In a time when the economy is sliding and half-million dollar homes are being abandoned because of defaulted mortgages, what right does the city of Arnold have to call the pristine, entrepreneurial office of Homer Tourkakis — which was doing nothing but an honest service to the community — a blight?

Something to think about.

Two New Cities Considered in Franklin County

Posted on by David Stokes

We have a new leader in the "most boring headline ever" competition here at SMI. The only way anyone is ever going to click on this post is if my friend Gus W. stops by the site. But anyway …

There are two new municipalities being considered in Franklin County. The Post-Dispatch has a good article on the debate today. One of the proposed cities, Lake St. Clair, has gone about the process the right way, and one, Stonewater, has taken advantage of the controversial "village law" passed last session to attempt to bypass the normal rules. It should also be noted that there is only one resident of Stonewater, and nobody can reasonably be so pro-property rights that they think any single individual should be able to incorporate their property into a new political entity on a whim.

I actually don’t have too much to add from the article’s coverage of the decisions of the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. It seems correct to me that the residents of Lake St. Clair form a new city, and it seems more than reasonable that Stonewater was denied:

Stonewater is 40 acres of almost entirely vacant ground off Holtgrewe Road southwest of Washington. Ferguson, a developer in the county, is the site’s only resident.

Just because Wikipedia has a terrific article on micronations does not mean you have to grant political autonomy to every jerk who wants his own city. ‘Nuff said.

Christmas Comes to an End in Kansas City

Posted on by David Stokes

I would like to commend the leadership in Kansas City for seriously addressing the budget situation there. The Star has been closely covering the debate and discussion as city officials try to close a substantial budget gap. The great news to come out of this is that they are doing the single best, and most difficult, thing they need to do: They are proposing to lay off hundreds of unnecessary city workers. Now, if this sounds callous of me, let me tell you that:

  • A) I don’t care; and,
  • B) I was fired from a government job once, too (for reasons of a party change of control), so at least I know of what I speak. Trust me, it’s not hard to recover.

When I read that the mayor wanted to eliminate more than a hundred middle managers, including both vacant positions and lay-offs, I was admiringly stunned. I am perpetually aghast, but not at all surprised, that so many people just sort of hang on in government jobs even though they are not needed. It may be the same way in parts of corporate America, but that hurts the shareholders — not the taxpayers.

So I commend the mayor and City Council for making the tough decisions! I will post more about this subject soon. … Isn’t that exciting!

Driving the Snakes Out of Politics (St. Patrick’s Day-Themed)

Posted on by Justin Hauke

There is a dangerously misleading letter to the editor in this morning’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch regarding Missouri’s Special Needs Tax Credit Bill (HB 1886 and SB 993).

Devotees will recall that Dave Roland, the Show-Me Institute’s education policy analyst, testified in Jefferson City several weeks ago regarding the constitutionality of these bills. Because he’s currently on vacation, however, I’ll take it upon myself to address some of the more pernicious segments of today’s letter (and I won’t even comment on the author’s politically loaded rhetoric).

Investigating a similar model program in Florida, the Palm Beach Post reported that "77 percent of participating schools have no special programs for disabled children." […]

In St. Louis County, the Special School District provides more than 1,300 private school students with special education services not available from their private schools, and contracts with qualified private agencies for the small number of students whose needs are not met by public school programs.

Great! That’s the whole point of choice. If parents are happy with their current arrangement, there’s no harm done. Providing parents with additional educational options can only improve their situation. Even if only 1 percent of families chose to take advantage of a special needs tax scholarship, the other 99 percent who chose to remain in the current status quo would be no worse off. State funding would be exactly the same and their learning environment would be identical to what it was before. And the 1 percent who did chosoe to leave their current schools would also be better-served.

State revenue lost through tuition tax credits would be better invested in reducing the local property tax burden, by supporting public education programs and expanding the available public assistance for children with special needs.

This statement is completely irrelevant, since the Special Needs Tax Credit is revenue-neutral, meaning that the decrease in tax revenue is directly offset by the decrease in per-student state contributions to the public school. If the parents of an autistic child were to decide that their child was better-suited to an alternative school and withdrew from their district, the decrease in state spending would be matched by an equivalent tax credit scholarship. Arguing about better uses for special needs funding is simply a non-sequiter for the bills under consideration.

Personally, I agree with state Rep. Rodney Hubbard’s (D-St. Louis) comments on the merits of the special needs tax credit bill: “Either you’re for autistic kids, or you’re against autistic kids.”

Which side is today’s letter-writer on?

Gouging for the Green

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

It’s raining in St. Louis on this St. Patrick’s day, so I wouldn’t be surprised if today’s Ancient Order of Hibernians Parade were less well-attended than usual (which is fine by me, because I managed to combine my celebration with exercise at a previous event this past weekend). However, the controversial outside alcohol ban enacted around the parade (and previously commented upon by Mr. Stokes) gained another dimension this morning after this report was issued by the Post-Dispatch.

According to the Post, parade organizers set up a checkpoint system to prevent parade-goers from bringing in outside alcohol without remembering that there was still one non-bar establishment within the checkpoints from which alcoholic beverages could be purchased:

But the Hibernians forgot about Patrick’s. The store is inside a
city-designated "festival area," only the perimeter of which the
security guards will patrol.

Bob Kraiberg, the city’s excise commissioner, said that the city has
lifted its usual ban on street drinking for the parade and that nothing
is to stop liquor store customers from drinking their purchases
outdoors.

Thus, in a land of $8 beers, thousands of wet, drunken parade goers will have a single refuge where gallons of a certain locally brewed product can still be obtained in the aluminum format St. Louisans love so much:

Patrick Wrzesinski, the store’s owner, said there’s a good chance this
year’s sales could set a record. On Friday, he said, he was stocking
500 cases of beer.

Although I won’t be at the event, I can certainly understand the appeal for all parties of a within-checkpoint liquor store where purchases can immediately be consumed outside on the street. Although the issue of protectionism was already commented upon in the previous post by our resident redhead, it seems that  Mr. Wrzesinski has suddenly been presented with a wonderful practice point in market economics.

When you go to a ballgame at Busch Stadium, you’re not paying $8 for a beer because that’s how much it costs the good people on Pestalozzi Street to make — you’re paying that much because naming a building after your company pretty much gives you a monopoly over the market. If you could get it cheaper, you would — but instead, you fork over the cash. Patrick’s now has the luxury of benefiting from restricted supply and heightened demand, and they are perfectly within their right to do so. After all, if the beer is $8 outside, what’s to stop Patrick’s from doubling its prices to take advantage of the situation? This practice has been defended before in this space, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t again be applied here.

So go forth, lucky lone liquor store, charge $10 for six cans of Bud Light! Everyone will thank you for it … except for every other alcohol retailer within five miles — they’ll still hate your guts.

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