Spotlighting Special Needs

Posted on by Dave Roland

Yesterday, committees in both the House and Senate of Missouri’s General Assembly heard testimony on several bills designed to help the families of more than 50,000 children suffering from a range of developmental disorders. Three bills have been introduced as possible solutions to the problem.

SB 770, sponsored by Senator Rupp, would create a publicly funded scholarship program, much like a traditional voucher program, that would allow the parents of students diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder to redirect the public education dollars already allocated for their child toward the public or private school of their choice. SB 993, sponsored by Senator Crowell, and HB 1886, sponsored by Representative Scharnhorst, would allow taxpayers to claim a partial credit for charitable contributions made to non-profit scholarship organizations that would help parents of special needs children afford the schools best prepared to assist their kids.

The hearings yesterday included moving testimony from parents who have faced (and, in some cases, overcome) enormous obstacles in trying to help their children, as well as testimony from a number of parents, educators, and administrators opposed to changing the status quo. Unfortunately, this morning’s news reports missed the opportunity to note that some of the points raised by those opposing the bills were clearly and thoroughly debunked. Articles in the Southeast Missourian and the Post-Dispatch try to present a relatively balanced picture of the issues, as presented at the Senate committee’s hearing. Both of these articles, and the one posted at Missourinet, point out concerns raised by some educators that the programs would take money away from public schools — but (as conversations at the House committee hearing made absolutely plain) it would be impossible for the tax credit bills, as written, to divert any money away from the state’s educational funding formula. If the special needs tax credit program is adopted, public schools will receive exactly the same level of funding as they would without the program.

I was on hand to present testimony at both hearings, a written version of which we have posted on the Show-Me Institute’s main website. I hope that anyone interested in learning more about these proposals will glance it over.

Whoops

Posted on by Justin Hauke

One month into Missouri’s new ethanol fuel standards, and what have we learned? The 2006 legislation that required all gasoline sold in Missouri to contain a 10-percent ethanol blend was heralded as a great  step forward for Missouri’s environmental needs. As Governor Matt Blunt stated at the time:

“Missouri is a leader in the use of alternative fuels, and this change benefits Missouri’s consumers, economy, environment and farmers,” Gov. Blunt said. “Filling our gasoline tanks with E-10 will improve our air quality and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.  Missouri corn fields have now become the oil fields of the 21st Century.”

Except that they haven’t. A new study in the journal Science (not known for taking up right-wing causes) finds that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn ethanol during the next 30 years will be twice as high as they would be from regular gasoline. The cost discrepancy comes from previous estimates that failed to account for the carbon dioxide emissions that have arisen from the clearing of forests and grassland for biofuel production. About 2.7 times more carbon is stored in terrestrial soils and plant material than in the atmosphere, and this carbon is released when land is cleared for ethanol production.

So, while ethanol may be a boon for corn farmers, it will be a huge detriment to everybody else (I’m not talking about the CO2 issue, but the impact on commodity prices).

So much for the government’s success at picking industry winners. The most recent estimates suggest it will take 167 years before the reduction in carbon emissions from ethanol “pays back” the carbon used by land-use change.

Good thing Missouri is one of only three states that have adopted such strict(ly stupid) industry standards.

Sol Stern and SLPS

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

An article in the New York Times about Sol Stern reveals some similarities between his disappointment with parental choice and the St. Louis Public Schools’ attitude toward innovation. Here is the reason for Stern’s change of heart:

Although colleagues long thought they had him pegged, he made an abrupt about-face on vouchers in the most recent issue of City Journal, the [Manhattan Institute]’s magazine, saying there was little evidence they had done much to improve public education across the country. […]

“Milwaukee’s public schools still suffer from low achievement and miserable graduation rates, with test scores flattening in recent years,” Mr. Stern wrote. “Violence and disorder throughout the system are as serious as ever. Most voucher students are still benefiting, true; but no ?Milwaukee Miracle,’ no transformation of the public schools, has taken place.”

And here is the St. Louis Public Schools’ response to a teacher’s effective math program:

"He knows what works for him. That’s not to say he doesn’t have a program that works well for his students. But he doesn’t have the research base yet to implement what he is doing on a larger scale," said William Parker, an assistant superintendent for elementary education.

In each of these cases, a small portion of students is enjoying the success of a new idea — parental choice in Milwaukee, and a curriculum in St. Louis. But there’s opposition to expanding these ideas, because they haven’t helped everyone yet. It’s true, we wouldn’t want to implement a policy or a curriculum on a wide scale if there’s no indication it works. But if it’s helped a few students — the students who were exposed to it — that’s a good reason to expand it to a few more students and see whether the strong results continue.

The only students who will benefit directly from a parental choice program are the students who get to change schools. Caroline Hoxby has shown that competition can improve public schools too, and that’s a welcome side effect, but we can’t throw out every choice program because it hasn’t transformed the public schools yet. 

Likewise, if a curriculum works in a classroom of 20 kids, you don’t throw it out because it hasn’t yet been demonstrated to work for an entire district.

A Diverse Opinion

Posted on by Justin Hauke

There is an op-ed in this morning’s Kansas City Star opposing Ward Connerly’s grassroots-based Missouri Civil Rights Initiative.

Many so-called “civil rights” advocates despise Ward Connerly because the African-American head of the American Civil Rights Institute brings a great deal of legitimacy to his cause to abolish affirmative action programs throughout the country. I’ve written before about why I oppose affirmative action programs, but I’d like to address one statement in today’s editorial in particular.

Diversity matters, and affirmative action helps promote diversity in education, contracting, businesses and jobs, making America more competitive.

Surely the author must be more open-minded than to believe that we can judge an individual’s "diversity" solely on the basis of his/her skin color. Just because someone is “black,” this doesn’t imply a qualitative difference from someone who is "white." This assumption alone ensures that affirmative action programs do more to segregate people along racial lines than they do in promoting racial harmony.

Civil rights protections are of the utmost importance to a free society. But affirmative action should be anathema to civil rights advocates and the history of their movement. Civil rights legislation aims to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of their sex, race, religion, etc. Affirmative action ensures that they most certainly are.

?

On the lighter side, I’d like to make one correction to Dave’s last post.

In that post, Dave stated that:

“As for being informed, active, and intelligent, when I was 16 I was none of the three, and I now work at a think tank!”

We apologize for this error. Dave’s statement incorrectly implied that Dave is now somehow “informed, active, and intelligent,” which we assure you is incorrect. We sincerely apologize for any confusion this may have caused to our readers.

Ready, Fire, Aim!

Posted on by David Stokes

Hits and misses from around Missouri newspapers, blogs, and elsewhere today:

  • Education Week has a story on how the increased enrollment in charter schools across the country has hurt enrollment at Catholic schools. We have certainly seen this in St. Louis, with the controversial decision to close several city parishes and schools in recent years. I think this is one of the things that just happens. As parents get a less expensive (free), quality option for their children’s educations, many low-income people are going to take that. Change is often good, but nobody said it was always easy.
  • The Arch City Chronicle is reporting about a bill that would take away the driver’s licenses of teenagers not in school. While I certainly understand the use of incentives to keep kids in school, and none is more powerful than a driver’s license, I would recommend to you Eric Dixon’s post the other day on unintended consequences. A fairly obvious unintended consequence of this bill would be to limit the employment opportunities for teenagers who have left school. It would be limited to jobs along public transit routes, which don’t require a car. Now, that may be a decent number of jobs, but further limiting opportunities for people who are already limiting their own opportunities might not be such a good thing.
  • Missourinet has a story on the Missouri House of Representatives moving to restore the deductibility of property taxes for outstate taxpayers who work in Missouri. This is an excellent, and unanimous, move by the House, and if it passes overall it will head off retaliatory moves by other states. This is very important to me, because I commute here to work from Singapore.
  • Finally, in a contender for stupidest idea of the year, the Post-Dispatch is reporting that Illinois is considering lowering its voting age to 17. However, an even worse idea is contained within the article:

Alex Koroknay-Palicz, executive director of the D.C.-based National Youth Rights Association, said his group is pushing for the voting age to be 16 across the country.

"(They’re) informed, active and intelligent, and they deserve a voice in our democracy just as much as everyone else," he said.

Koroknay-Palicz said 16- and 17-year-olds are typically more stable than an 18-year-old. Eighteen-year-olds have more on their plate — starting college, getting a job or moving away from home, he said.

"The trouble is, though, that when you give people the right to vote at 18, it’s actually a bad time to start voting because you’re going off to college or getting on with your life," Koroknay-Palicz said.

Seriously, is this a joke? Is there really a National Youth Rights Association? How are they funded? Do they get an allowance from other lobbying groups? As for being informed, active, and intelligent, when I was 16 I was none of the three, and I now work at a think tank!

If you don’t have a voice in how your own house is run, you don’t need a voice in how the country is run. This guy’s statements remind me of the end of Wild In The Streets, after the 20-year-old dictator insults a kid, and the 10-year old looks in the camera and says, "We’re gonna kill everyone over 12." (And yes, I deserve enormous praise for not only being able to reference this camp classic, but to paraphrase it from memory despite only seeing it once about 15 years ago.)

Alex’s statements just get more absurd. His arguments that 18 is a bad time to start voting could just as easily serve as a reason to take voting rights away from senior citizens. Switch "…starting college, getting a job, or moving away from home," to "retiring, collecting social security, and moving into an assisted care facility," and wham!, it now makes the point that there is too much change in your 70s for you to vote. Just unbelievable.

A Car for Me? No, a Car for We

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

In an effort to help lower emissions and reduce the congestion associated with the Highway 40 shutdown, both downtown St. Louis and Washington University recently signed on to a new car-sharing program by Clayton’s own Enterprise Rent-a-Car. The program, dubbed WeCar, allows subscribers (for a small hourly fee) to briefly rent hybrid Enterprise vehicles to use for errands throughout the downtown area.

Although I was skeptical of this program at first (most likely because of the fact that I’ve never seen two of the Wash U. vehicles leave their spaces in front of Mallinckrodt Center), further thought has led me to believe that the prevailing joy of this Post-Dispatch piece might not be misguided after all.

WeCar represents the efforts of a private company using its resources to correct a social and economic problem. Enterprise, noting that the Highway 40 shutdown would create monumental traffic congestion in the St. Louis area, is offering a fair and convenient service to St. Louis residents that will make their lives easier. In turn, the company itself earns revenue from the rental fees for the vehicles.

The best part about this, though, is that it is a market correction to a civic problem. A car sharing service may not lower congestion all that much, but it certainly costs taxpayers less than the costs associated with expansion of, say, St. Louis’ Metrolink light-rail system.

I know sometimes David Stokes and I don’t agree on things in this forum, but this whole privatization thing might not be that bad of an idea after all.

Some Senators Should Stop the Stupid Stimulus

Posted on by David Stokes

Ahh, alliteration, the simple pleasure of a poetic mind. This post really doesn’t have anything to do with the Senate — that just fit nicely in the title. I have been looking for an opportunity to connect the proposed federal stimulus plan with a Missouri story and blog on it, and the Kansas City Star has given me the opening today. The Star has an article on the problems that the federal stimulus plan will cause Missouri and Kansas. The headline, though — which is also quite alliterative — made it sound like the stimulus plan would hurt the people of the states. But as I read the article, it became clear that the focus of it is on hurting state government budgets, which I care far less about. Nonetheless, I have my opening …

There are numerous reasons why the stimulus plan is unnecessary and improper, and it’s easy to find excellent criticisms of it on the web. I think my favorite line comes from one of the writers in the second link:

“Forget the ‘stimulus’ label, this is merely additional deficit spending,” wrote Dartmouth College economics professor Andrew Samwick, on his blog.

Then there is the fairly obvious disconnect between the fact that Americans don’t save enough money, with the government’s encouragement to spend this $600 giveaway as fast as you can. How about the idea that, since the government never truly knows until a few months after the fact when our economy is in or out of a recession, we could well be on our way out of the recession by the time these checks hit — making it even more of a worthless giveaway?

My primary objection, though, is with the principle that it is the government’s job to manage our economy and to take care of people going through troubles. The government often worsens economic problems when it jumps in. (With some exceptions — and I don’t mean the Federal Reserve here, I mean the government.) I recommend "The Forgotten Man," by Amity Shlaes, for a great discussion of this subject. For all the new programs and taxes and spending, the New Deal did not get us out of the Depression. I would think most people should know that by now, but alas …

As for the article in the Star, though, I think I found the only good thing the stimulus package might do. Since the depreciation schedules would shorten for businesses, state governments might lose significant income, according to the article. If this happens (emphasis added):

“It becomes all about priorities,” Icet said. “After increased funding for K-12 education and Medicaid, you’ve got a few options, but they are very, very limited. So a lot of new programs you simply might not fund.”

So the stimulus plan might prevent the funding of new state government programs? I take back everything I said. Sounds great to me!

Campaign Finance Regulations Eviscerate Free Speech

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

I can’t let Nick’s post in favor of campaign finance reform pass without rebuttal. It can be easy to miss the connection between free speech and direct contributions to campaign efforts, so it’s understandable that many people don’t think of it as a free speech issue. That aside, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, aka McCain-Feingold) was one of the most blatantly unconstitutional pieces of legislation ever to pass the initial scrutiny of all three branches of government. State-based efforts to regulate campaign funding aren’t as wide-ranging, but are still almost universally terrible ideas.

Nick assures us that "The goal of campaign finance reform isn’t to destroy the 1st Amendment," which is undoubtedly true, but beside the point — destruction of the First Amendment is not the goal, it’s a side effect. Even though killing free speech isn’t the overt purpose of campaign finance reform, we can’t judge legislation solely on what it intends. The need to ferret out unintended consequences is one of the most important lessons of economics.

But really, the most obvious restrictions aren’t even unintended. The BCRA explicitly banned broadcast ads mentioning the name of a federal candidate from appearing within 60 days of a general election, or 30 days of a primary. This notwithstanding the fact that the importance of unrestricted political speech is a primary reason we have the First Amendment in the first place. And, as Jonathan Rauch pointed out, "Educating voters influences them, which is the whole point. ‘Electioneering’ is not distinguishable from other forms of political speech, even in principle."

The real driving force of the campaign finance reform movement has been politicians who want to be protected from competition. Make no mistake, campaign finance reform doesn’t level the playing field; it stacks the deck even further in favor of incumbents by restricting ordinary people from speaking out against those in power — those who already have plenty of exposure in the public eye on their own terms. Ryan Sager of the New York Sun has it exactly right: "Money has never been the issue. Cleansing our speech of impure thoughts about politicians is the real agenda."

Fans of campaign finance reform inevitably respond that "money isn’t speech," or that nobody is prevented from speaking, it’s just that groups are prevented from buying airtime. Semantic issues aside, I don’t know of anybody who ever claimed that money is speech. Money buys many things, and one of them is access to an audience. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Without the freedom to pursue such an audience, the freedom to speak is practically worthless. How much regulation will it take before advocates of campaign finance reform come to their senses and realize that the laws they favor promote real, actual government-mandated censorship? How about a law banning personal conversations that mention a political candidate within 60 days of an election? Maybe not: "You’re still free to speak. You can stand inside a locked closet and shout about whatever you want, to your heart’s content. Relax — the First Amendment is just fine."

For those who still think something needs to be done to "fix" political speech, there are solutions available that don’t happen to tear parts of the Constitution to shreds. Roger Pilon, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, provides a guide for real reform (emphasis added):

[F]or some time now we have heard a chorus of calls in Congress and in the nation for campaign finance "reforms" that would almost certainly compromise political speech and hence the First Amendment. At a general level, I join that chorus, for there is something fundamentally wrong with the way political campaigns in America today are financed. But the reforms I would advocate would take us in a very different direction than that charted by most others in the chorus. Indeed, many of the problems that most reformers see in our present arrangements are the products of earlier reforms. Thus, if we are serious about addressing those problems we should look first to those earlier reforms. Far from needing further restrictions on political speech, we need fewer. Deregulation not only would be consistent with the Constitution but would solve the problems regulation brought into being. Here, as in so many other areas, the Founders had the better of it when they set us on a course of freedom rather than regulation. […]

There is a measure, however, that will withstand judicial scrutiny, the aptly-named "Doolittle bill," introduced in the 105th Congress as H.R. 965, the "Citizen Legislature and Political Freedom Act," sponsored by Rep. John Doolittle and co-sponsored by 70 other members of the House. In essence, that bill would remove the campaign contribution limits now in place and require instead that candidates and parties promptly report their financial transactions to the Federal Election Commission for disclosure to the public. The bill would, in short, deregulate the process and open it up to the public. Its simplicity is its virtue.

I’ve already spent much more time on this blog entry than I should have, so I’ll stop here for now, and let my colleague David Stokes tell everybody tomorrow why public funding of elections is one of the worst ideas under the sun.

Bit by Bit

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

The Post-Dispatch ran an article this morning about a pair of bills recently introduced in the General Assembly that would seek to drastically change Missouri’s policies on political contributions for state contests. The first, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields (R–St. Joseph) seeks to eliminate the contribution limits established by Missouri voters after a 1994 petition. The second, brought by Sen. Jeff Smith (D–St. Louis) takes a more populist view by instead promoting a system of public funding revolving around a number of small donations.

Shield’s bill is the latest in a decade-long back-and-forth debate between supporters and opponents of campaign finance limits that has already seen a U.S. Supreme Court decision (that helped pave the way for a certain piece of federal legislation that I’m rather fond of), and a Missouri Supreme Court decision. Removing limits, supporters claim, will actually increase transparency by eliminating the need for wealthy donors to shuffle money through PACs. This argument, though, has been echoed for years. Much more exciting, in this author’s opinion, is Sen. Smith’s idea:

"[Smith] wants to ‘draw a contrast’ between special interest-funded campaigns
and his model, where candidates would get public funding if they
garnered a certain number of $5 donations."

The goal of campaign finance reform isn’t to destroy the 1st Amendment (although this may be disputed by some of my colleagues). Instead, limits exist in order to ensure that the voices of a few with extraordinary means don’t drown out the words of others who can’t (financially) shout as loud. Smith’s bill hopes to correct this disparity by giving those who have proven their support through small donations the public financing they need to compete with candidates receiving the backing of a few massive donors. Although public financing has often been disputed for its ineffectiveness in campaigns, I think the populist nature of Smith’s bill does more to promote the idea of free speech than the removal of any limits ever could.

It’s a good idea. It’s a shame even he doesn’t think it will pass.

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