Just Desserts

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Legislators are starting to lose their cool about ice cream cones — official state ice cream cones, that is:

Farmington Senator Kevin Engler is fed up with teachers thinking it’s a good teaching idea to come up with new state symbols and have their students convince lawmakers to pass a bill for them. "These things are stupid," he has told the Senate.

He argues the legislature is not a teaching tool for fourth graders…and that it demeans itself by creating new state symbols when it should be addressing […] things of importance.

There are many other hands-on ways students can learn about state government, like researching ideas for legislation and holding mock debates in their classrooms. Nobody wants to prevent students from having fun with their first civics lessons. But if every class has to get their symbol considered, or even if only a few of children’s bills go to the General Assembly each year, the precedent puts too much pressure on kids to lobby for their bills and try to get them passed. Inevitably, kids will be disappointed when symbols are turned down or when their ideas don’t make it to the floor in the first place. Fourth-grade civics class should be a pleasant fourth-grade experience, not a win-or-lose situation.

Most importantly, as the article points out, flooding the Legislature with state symbols wastes valuable debate time and distracts legislators from the serious issues that Missourians need them to address. That was just a hypothetical concern when there were only a handful of symbols; now, legislators themselves are complaining about the annoyance. Let’s respect them and find other ways to teach kids.

We already have 24 state symbols. Enough is enough.

The Stupidity of Springing Forward

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

On Sunday, I will get to sleep for one hour less than I otherwise would have, through the wonders that come with the beginning of daylight saving time. Had I been flummoxed by a pitch-dark commute, frozen at a sporting event, or not had enough sun left over to harvest my crops, this event might’ve been a boon for me. However, with the rise of such wonderful technologies as central heating, the incandescent light bulb, and the John Deere 600 Rigid, I think it’s time that we step back and look at whether or not we need to keep pretending it’s an hour earlier than it truly is.

In the state of Indiana, where the economy is primarily based on agricultural pursuits (much like in Missouri), daylight saving time only came into existence in April 2005. Prior to that date, rural counties generally chose to rebuke the practice of changing clocks, while the more urban regions surrounding Chicago, Louisville, and Cincinnati chose to adopt the practice. The reason? Daylight saving isn’t that great for agricultural communities.

Despite the fact that a large majority of the public seems to think that daylight saving time exists "to help farmers," shifting clocks back an hour actually has the opposite effect. Farmers do most of their work in the morning, to avoid as much direct, burning sunlight in the middle of the day as possible. If nothing else, the practice hurts them more than the rest of the population. In actuality, daylight saving time was adopted in order to help cut energy costs by reducing electricity use in the evening hours. But again, with the rise of modern technology, this isn’t the case either.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that, as a result of Indiana’s switch to the system, researchers at the University of California?Santa Barbara were able to determine that an additional $8.6 million was spent on electricity in those Indiana counties which switched over to daylight saving time. The reason? Air conditioning costs. People are home when the sun is still out during the summer, and they crank up the AC to stay cool — whereas before, they would just enjoy the sunset.

The federal government passed a law in 2005 that standardized the start and end times for daylight saving time, but as seen by Indiana’s recent shift, said law is not a mandate for state observance. Missouri, a state that depends on agriculture, is desperately trying (like every other state) to keep energy costs down. Why not end daylight saving time? While I’m not advocating some ridiculous Indiana-like system that would keep St. Louis and Kansas City on daylight time while letting the rural counties ignore it, I think that avoiding the issue entirely is something worth a bit of thought. Sunlight is something our bodies are naturally attuned to. Shouldn’t we listen to it when we make our schedules?

Or maybe I’m just angry about losing that hour of sleep.

St. Patrick’s Day Celebrates Protectionism in Dogtown

Posted on by David Stokes

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting that the organizers of the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Dogtown (one of two parades in St. Louis for St. Paddy’s Day) are prohibiting people from bringing in their own alcohol this year. The Ancient Order of Hibernians, which hosts the parade each year and always holds it on March 17, has decided to take this step for various reasons, according to the article, including cutting down on underage drinking, reducing trash and broken bottles, and making the event more of a "good, family parade." If you believe any of this, I have some Irish snakes to sell you.

You can still drink at the parade — now you just have to buy the drinks from the vendors in Dogtown (a historically Irish neighborhood in St. Louis). From the article:

Dogtown bars will be open throughout the parade and the street party that follows it, and vendors will continue to sell alcohol outdoors.

Does anyone believe this is being done for any reason other than the profits of Dogtown bars? I would respect the policy more if they just admitted this up front.

I recognize that alchohol is one thing that most people would agree deserves some level of government control, such as closing hours for bars, age restrictions, etc. So I realize that the parade organizers have the right to do this, as one does not normally have the right to drink alchohol on the street, no matter where it was purchased. I am just using my little corner of the blogosphere to call out the parade organizers by pointing out why they are really making this move. And I look forward to buying an $8 beer on the 17th.

Tolling a Valuable Option for Missouri’s Transportation System

Posted on by David Stokes

What is the only tolled transportation facility in Missouri? You don’t have to Google it, I’ll give you the answer: It’s the Lake of the Ozarks Community Bridge, built in 1998. The area had long needed a bridge connecting U.S. Business Route 54 with Shawnee Bend, but after years had passed without funding, officials determined that the only way the bridge would get the necessary financing was to build it as a tolled facility. Legislators passed the Missouri Transportation Corporation Act of 1990 with this proposed bridge in mind, allowing non-profit, quasi-governmental corporations to construct and operate tolled facilities in Missouri. So far, the Lake of the Ozarks Bridge is the only one. If you have ever used it, cutting 30 minutes off your drive around the lake, you probably found the toll to be money wellspent.

Here in Saint Louis, one intriguing fact to emerge from the difficult negotiations about the proposed new Mississippi River Bridge was that a toll bridge was at least given serious consideration. Although independent consultants determined that a tolled facility was not likely to work for this particular project, and the idea of a toll bridge was dropped — partly spurred by opposition from Illinois — the point is that there are innovative ways to finance transportation projects outside of using gas taxes and bonds. For some large projects, the use of a toll may be a more effective way to finance much-needed facilities.

Public roads are a public good, and gas taxes are a relatively fair and reasonable way to pay for them. However, tolling should be given strong consideration for certain projects, such as ones that are urgently needed before traditional funding can be secured, or projects that principally benefit a specific class of people — such as commuters or tourists. Tolling allows a quicker turnaround for some types of projects, and ensures that the people who actually use a new facility will be the ones to help pay for it.

Many Missourians may object to tolls because of their experiences waiting in long lines at old-fashioned toll collection plazas, but the old ways of building toll roads are obsolete. It no longer requires a new government agency, or hundreds of patronage jobs for manual toll collection. New highways in California, Virginia, and locations throughout the world are being built by private companies that contract with the government, leasing the rights to operate a toll road. These new roads make extensive use of EZ Pass technology and license plate–based billing to collect tolls in a safe and efficient manner.

These “public-private partnerships” often require the selected private company to pay an up-front amount to the state, after which that company builds and operates a new highway or bridge, and collects a toll to recoup its investment. The levels of service that the government will demand from a private partner are laid out in extremely detailed contracts, running hundreds of pages. I only wish this possibility had been considered for the Page Avenue Extension connecting Saint Louis and Saint Charles counties, completed in 2003. It could certainly have been built by a private company and funded by toll payments from commuters, who are the extension’s primary users.

Back in 2000 and 2001, MoDOT officials debated how to improve I-70 across Missouri. The agency considered a new parallel toll road to the north of the current highway, but for a variety of reasons, officials settled on expanding the current highway as their preferred alternative. It is now 2008, though, and that project has not yet begun — nor is it anywhere close to beginning. Would tolls have provided the people of Missouri with a new cross-state highway option by now? There is no way to know, but the question is worth asking.

I write this not to fault MoDOT officials for the choice they made in 2001, but to encourage Missourians to consider public-private partnerships and tolled roads or bridges as important new options in addressing the state’s serious, long-term transportation and mobility needs. The future of Missouri’s economy depends of the efficient movement of goods and services. Toll roads are one way to make certain we all move forward, rather than idling in traffic.

David C. Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

 

Single-Sex Public Education

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Schoolhouse Talk links to a New York Times article on single-sex public schools and notes that the Columbia Public Schools have been considering the idea for a year now.

It’s important to keep in mind that many of the successful schools mentioned in the New York Times piece are charter schools. So, in addition to maintaining a single-sex environment, they have more flexibility when they hire teachers and choose curricula. It’s hard to tell whether their good academic results are caused by the single-sex environment or by one of those other factors. But determining whether the average boy or girl learns best in a single-sex environment is less important than choosing the best schools for individual kids. Even if most girls prefer girls-only classes, for example, some individual girls might do better in a coed school.

No matter what the research shows about general patterns of achievement, parents should be able to choose the best educational environments for their kids — whether that means choosing between single-sex and coed classrooms in a traditional public school, or choosing a single-sex charter school.

Quick Hits After a Journey

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

After nine hours in a rented Pontiac G6 (that handled remarkably well in sleet, by the way) the second leg of the Show-Me Institute’s release tour for our study on Missouri transportation has been completed. In case you haven’t read it yet, KODE — Joplin’s ABC affiliate — ran a piece last night that nicely highlights the study’s main points. We thank them, and all of the other members of the media who we spoke with, for their time and hospitality.

That being said, the only thing you can really do after a long drive is riff on the news you missed:

  • The Pew Center on the States (which also released a study I commented on last week) released Grading the States 2008, its annual report card on the performance of state governments. Missouri was one of five states ranked as a B+, behind only three states ranked as an A-. According to the Post-Dispatch, the improvement comes largely from improvements in state-sponsored road projects. Yay, MoDOT.
  • The St. Louis Metropolitan and County police departments are going to start pursuing fugitives without warrants for their arrest. Despite the fact that without warrants these individuals are technically not "fugitives" per se, there is an administrative step that prevents warrants from being sought until an individual is first apprehended. This is, coincidentally, why lots of fugitives miss court dates in the first place: Often in St. Louis County, a suspect will be released from custody and assume that everything is hunky-dory until he gets pulled over for rolling a stop sign two years later and finds out that he’s had a warrant for his arrest out since the day after he was first brought in. Happens all the time. That said, pursuing individuals without warrants isn’t the step that needs to be taken. Rather, warrants should be made easier to get in the first place.

Beer Bloggles

Posted on by David Stokes

There is nothing I would rather do more than blog about beer — except maybe drink beer while blogging about beer … from the hot tub. But here at SMI we have strict rules against drinking on the job before noon, so I’d better not. The Arch City Chronicle linked to a very interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about proposed changes to Pennsylvania’s arcane and archaic liquor laws.

If you have ever been to a state-operated liquor store in Pennsylvania — and they are all operated by the state — you know that you can only buy beer by the case. There is a proposal to change that, and allow beer to be sold in various six-pack quantities: six, 12, 18, or the beloved case of 24. This change would make beer sales in Pennsylvania pretty much like they are in the rest of the western world. Unbelievably, the microbreweries in Pennsylvania are opposed to the 12- and 18-pack allowance. I’m all for making sure small businesses have everything they need to compete, but not at the expense of basic economic choices for the consumer. From the article:

The problem for many is the proposal to allow the sale of 12- to 18-packs of beer: Smaller breweries don’t have the packaging equipment to produce those sizes. It would give larger breweries an even larger price advantage.

"Who’s this bill going to help? It’s certainly not going to be the little guy," said Joseph Piccirilli, consultant to the Iron City Brewing Co. near Pittsburgh, one the state’s larger brewers.

Arguing against these changes just because smaller companies might have to invest capital in packaging equipment is NOT a worthwhile argument against giving consumers more options. The supporters of the bill have some very sensible counterarguments:

The two senators contend the measure would help in-state brewers by creating more outlets for six-pack sales. Customers now may be reluctant to try a case of their beer because if they don’t like the taste, they are stuck with unwanted bottles.

That seems very logical to me, although truth be told I pretty much just drink Budweiser, so I am not the ideal test case here. I also usually buy my beer by the keg instead of in six-packs or cases. (I’ll let you decide whether or not that is a joke. And please note that the required Missouri connection for this blog post is Anheuser-Busch’s extensive lobbying for these changes.)

Here is an obnoxious quote from a microbrewer who clearly enjoys people having the freedom to drink alcohol, but only on his terms:

"There’s not one microbrewer in this state that can make an 18-pack, not one," said Piccirilli, the Iron City consultant, who supports expanded access to six-packs, even 12-packs, but nothing beyond that.

Another microbrewer apparently knows more about both economics and human nature (the two go closely together), and trusts his product and his customers a little more:

Tom Kehoe, president of Yards Brewing Co. in Philadelphia, agreed that the larger-size beer packs would put a strain on in-state brewers. But he does not believe it will drown the state’s craft-beer businesses.

Microbrews, Kehoe said, appeal to a different kind of beer drinker, who usually won’t buy from "the big guys."

I subscribe to the beer theory of civilization, and beer is a great part of life. People should be able to responsibly enjoy it in whatever quantity they choose to buy it. (Safety-based limits are another issue — a drunk should not be able to buy a case on his way out of the bar.) These choices should be up to consumers, not laws backed by breweries.

 

Microlending in Missouri

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I love finding market solutions to social needs. So I was happy to write about Grameen Bank’s expansion into New York City, and I’m even happier to report that microfinance loans are already available to small business owners in Missouri. ACCION USA accepts applications from business owners anywhere in the United States, and it has licensees in several states — including nearby Illinois.

Passing stricter laws about payday loans may sound like attractive policy, but it doesn’t give anyone better access to credit. So nonprofits like Grameen and ACCION are stepping up to the plate.

I’m still hoping for an announcement of microcredit offices opening in Missouri — if not from Grameen, then from ACCION or one of the other organizations out there.

Should We Push Everyone Into the Health-Insurance Pool?

Posted on by Justin Hauke

MarketWatch tackles this question. The article mostly considers the dueling Clinton/Obama “mandate” requirements for a national health insurance plan for the nation’s uninsured:

[M]any analysts believe a requirement that individuals buy health insurance — when paired with subsidies for people who can’t afford it, effective purchasing pools and easy enrollment — is a critical mechanism for extending coverage.

National health care advocates argue that health insurance mandates should be required, in the same way that automobile insurance is required for drivers. They recognize (correctly) that this is the only way to cover the high costs of the elderly and the sick (by forcing younger, healthier Americans to directly subsidize them through mandated enrollment).

I have never understood this auto insurance analogy. Sure, states require that drivers have liability insurance — that is, that drivers have insurance that covers the costs inflicted upon the counterparty in an accident. But states don’t require drivers to enroll in comprehensive coverage for their own car, which would be a much more valid comparison.

There’s no external cost to an individual’s illness. If I get sick, the cost is borne by me, and me alone. We don’t purchase insurance to cover the costs of those we infect when we cough in a crowded elevator. Comprehensive auto insurance would run into the same problem as health care if it had a mandated requirement. Owners of old, beaten-up cars would never enroll in comprehensive coverage without being required to do so. They would recognize that the perceived benefits they might receive from such insurance would never justify its costs. This is why it’s so much more expensive to insure a new car — because the insurance pool is overwhelmed by newer cars that lead to more expensive payouts when something goes wrong.

A mandated comprehensive insurance policy would effectively subsidize new car owners at the expense of older, used car owners. It’s like the health insurance problem in reverse. How many drivers of a 1987 Ford POS would be willing to subsidize the insurance costs of a 2008 Ford Mustang?

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