New Study Shows Role for Private Investment in Missouri Transportation

A new study, jointly produced by the Show-Me Institute and the Reason Foundation, examines the relatively new funding paradigm of public-private partnerships and how such arrangements may benefit Missouri’s public transportation infrastructure. The study provides an overview of the types of public-private partnerships that can be utilized for transportation projects, including their benefits and best practices, and responses to common concerns. It also explores how public-private partnerships can be used not only to upgrade, modernize, and expand Missouri’s road and bridge network, but also to improve the delivery of transit services.

As cars have become more efficient, the fuel taxes used to fund the state’s highways have leveled off — but the transportation needs of the state have not. Other states have looked to the private sector to provide transportation infrastructure, as a means of augmenting gas taxes. This new study, titled "Missouri’s Changing Transportation Paradigm," takes a detailed look at the transportation issues that Missouri will face in the future, and surveys the ways in which public-private partnerships have been used as a tool to help solve similar problems elsewhere.

The study’s authors — David Stokes, a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, Leonard Gilroy, the director of government reform at the Reason Foundation, and Samuel Staley, Ph.D., the director of urban growth and land use policy at the Reason Foundation — outline the many benefits of public-private partnerships. When undertaken properly, these benefits may include: delivery of tomorrow’s infrastructure today, cost savings, greater access to capital, greater efficiency, performance of quality improvements, changing the incentive structure, enhancing risk management, spurring innovation, and increased flexibility.

The full study is a bit of a lengthy read, as such studies go, so of course we’ve produced a four-page policy briefing that condenses the study’s arguments and analysis into a more easily digestible format.

Gateway to 21st Century Education

I know what you’re thinking: "Enough, Justin, we’re sick of you already." I know, but this is the last post for today, I promise.

I attended a St. Louis Regional Education Roundtable discussion this morning, about Missouri charter schools. Although most of the discussion was rather pedantic, focused on the nuts and bolts of charter school accountability, a couple of interesting statistics were discussed that I feel compelled to share with you all.

First, a study by the Friedman Foundation, focusing on the cost of failing to reform Missouri’s public education, has an interesting take on the numbers. The author calculates the annual tax revenue that is lost from Missouri high school dropouts whose earnings are precipitously lower than they would be if they had become high school graduates. For example, the median adjusted gross income of a high school graduate in Missouri is $24,996, compared to $15,373 for a high school dropout. Multiplied by the number of high school dropouts, that difference results in lost annual tax revenues ranging from $158?177 million.

The other quick statistic is more anecdotal than a hard fact. One of the panelists at today’s discussion, Cheri Shannon, is the superintendent of University Academy, a charter school in Kansas City. Commenting on the operating efficiency of charter schools, she explained that adopting a new textbook or curriculum in a public school takes five years on average (from her experience as a public school teacher/administrator). In a charter school, though, because of greater operating efficiency, a new curriculum can be adopted in less than one semester if the current model isn’t working.

Food for thought.

Not Really Our Issue Area …

But DailyTech reports today that all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, and RSS) are showing the largest one-year worldwide temperature drop in history.

New research suggests that solar output has a much larger impact on global temperatures than previously thought. Not that one year of data discredits global warming enthusiasts, but if these records can be trusted, the past year’s temperature drop is enough to wipe out nearly 100 years of warming “trends.”

Graph below.

Taxes Matter

Faced with a record budget surplus this year (on the order of $14.8 billion U.S.), the territory of Hong Kong announced that it will immediately cut or reduce personal and corporate income tax rates.

What’s amazing is how low Hong Kong’s taxes already are. The corporate income tax rate in Hong Kong is currently 17.5 percent, while the highest marginal personal income tax rate is 20 percent. Compare that to the United States’ 35-percent corporate tax rate, the highest in the world among industrialized nations, and top marginal income tax bracket of 35 percent.

Now consider the Missouri case. Missouri imposes an additional 6.25-percent corporate income tax. That means the total corporate tax burden in Missouri is 41.25 percent. And if you happen to be in St. Louis or Kansas City, the tax bill will be 42.25 percent.

Ask yourself this. If you’re an international corporation, where would you choose to open your doors: Missouri or Hong Kong?

Even among the individual states, would you rather open a new factory in Texas (with no corporate or personal income tax) or Missouri?

These are pretty simple answers. This is how we can bring quality jobs to Missouri.

Put on the Red Light (Camera)

The city of Arnold (which has graced this forum before for alternate reasons) is now the first municipality in Missouri to face a federal lawsuit regarding the legality of the red-light cameras that it has installed at certain busy intersections. The lawsuit, according to an article in the Post-Dispatch, questions the constitutionality of the cameras based on the presumption of guilt that they impose on the owners of automobiles that are photographed:

The ordinance forces you to come forward and "basically declare your
innocence," says Washington University law school professor Peter Joy, who reviewed the suit at the request of the Post-Dispatch.

"In essence, it sort of compels you to finger your wife or child or someone else you loaned the car to," he said.

Additionally, the plaintiff in the suit has alleged that the city of Arnold has gone as far as committing mail fraud by attempting to extort money from innocent citizens victimized by the cameras.

With red-light cameras spreading as a method of traffic control (the attorney for the plaintiff indicated that he may be interested in expanding the lawsuit to include more of the 20 communities in Missouri and Illinois that use red-light cameras) it will be interesting to track the progress of this case on a federal level. In line with some opinions expressed here before, the plaintiffs are to be commended for attempting to highlight an injustice that Missouri municipalities were presumably planning on expanding until someone called them on it, but it will be interesting to see if their line of reasoning stands up inside the Eagleton.

Either way, it gives me some ammunition with which to complain the next time I get angry at the "No Right on Red" sign at Delmar and Skinker.

Alternative Teacher Certification

Thanks, Combest, for linking to an article about this excellent legislation:

Sen. Luann Ridgeway, R-Smithville, sponsored a bill to give the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence the authority to certify professional people looking for careers in education in Missouri. […]

Through ABCTE, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., and funded through federal grants, people can obtain a teaching certificate without having a bachelor’s degree in education.

This alternative certification program could help relieve teacher shortages at the middle-school and high-school levels. (ABCTE doesn’t certify elementary or special-education teachers.) That would be a big help to the districts that currently struggle to fill math and science positions.

This might not be as big as the initiative in California, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Don’t Know Much About History

USA Today has a new poll out detailing today’s sad state of educational affairs.

Educators have proudly pointed out that while U.S. math and science scores have continued to slide, a record number of students are taking and excelling in college-level advanced placement history and literature courses. The defense is that students are at least performing well in these critical subject.

Yet according to the USA Today poll of 1,200 17-year old students:

  • 43% knew the Civil War was fought between 1850 and 1900.
  • 52% could identify the theme of 1984.
  • 51% knew that the controversy surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy focused on communism.

In all, students earned a C in history and an F in literature.

How can fewer than half of graduating seniors not be able to pinpoint a 50-year window in which the Civil War was fought? That is absolutely inexcusable.

Another Reason to Vote

Here’s another situation in which economists are wrong and your vote does count. You might someday want to run for office:

Public records show Olivo, who is now running for Congress, has never voted in an election, in Missouri or elsewhere. […]

"I got caught up in the wave of apathy that has affected many of my generation," Olivo, 31, said. "I’m the first to admit that I was wrong for not voting."

The Ice Cream Market Works; Why Doesn’t the Market for Education?

Edspresso links to an article in the Washington Post about how to choose the best school for your child. Anybody who thinks there’s no problem with the public education system needs to take a look. The first recommendation is to buy a really, really expensive house. It doesn’t get any more encouraging as you read on. Elite high schools don’t guarantee admission to the Ivy League. Middle schools are universally bad. And as for elementary school, just close your eyes and let your finger fall on a map, because it doesn’t matter anyway:

All the studies show that you are going to have much more influence over your child’s academic achievement through sixth grade than the elementary school you choose. So as long as the school is safe and you like it, it really doesn’t matter whether its test scores are not the highest.

There’s some sensible advice here — for example, talk to other parents, and don’t stress out if your kids don’t get into the top magnet school — but the article reveals the difficult situation many parents find themselves in. If you don’t have a lot of money, you don’t have much choice about where your kids go to school. Not everyone has the financial means to follow that all-important first step.

Even for those who can afford the priciest neighborhoods or the steepest tuition, a largely monopolistic education market doesn’t offer them many attractive choices. Middle schools are all bad? Elementary schools are irrelevant? No, of course not. But in the public system, they all look about the same to a newcomer. They just come in neighborhoods with different price tags. How can you tell if you’re getting the best sixth-grade teacher or the most enthusiastic principal? It’s a gamble. There are some charter schools and private schools that specialize, that have well-defined goals, and that attract parents. But they’re vastly outnumbered by the plain-vanilla public schools.

Speaking of vanilla, and because I want to prove that I have nothing against ice cream, here’s an analogy: Suppose you went to an ice cream store, and you weren’t sure which flavor of ice cream to buy. Would you throw up your hands and say, "Well, it doesn’t matter which flavor I buy, because studies show that ice cream flavor has little effect in the long run," or, "I don’t care whether I get chocolate brownie or chocolate fudge, because chocolates are all bad?" Or maybe you’d think, "Whatever flavor I get, I’m fine because this is an expensive neighborhood." I hope not. You’d probably think about which flavors you’ve personally liked in the past, and maybe you’d ask which ones most other customers prefer. In other words, you’d make a choice.

Parents who can choose consider what their kids are interested in and how they learn best. They read school publications and they ask which schools retain satisfied families. If they try a school but find it’s not the best for them, they can switch schools without hiring a U-Haul truck.

But those are the lucky few — for now. Parental choice policies could give that freedom to all parents. That would be good, because matching students with the schools where they’ll learn best is much more important than matching people with ice cream flavors.

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