Midwives at the Movies

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I see on the Ethical Society’s website that they just had a program presented by Free the Midwives and showed a new film about maternity care. You can follow that last link to see snippets from the documentary.

I agree with the director that the legal environment discourages choice. Doctors can charge their patients more because they don’t have to compete with the cheaper midwives. However, from the trailer, it looks like this film is less about extolling the benefits of competition and more about putting down the people who run and work at hospitals.

This strategy could backfire. The trailer says that hospitals just care about money. But most midwives aren’t volunteers, and they have to admit that women who give birth in hospitals enjoy extra security thanks to all the lifesaving equipment hospitals have ready — expensive equipment that patients have to pay for. And while many mothers have been satisfied with their experiences with midwives, there are some high-risk births that midwives will never be able to handle.

It’s also inconsistent to censure hospitals for moving women out of hospital beds too quickly, while praising midwives for helping women stay away from the hospital. Hospitals have good reason to try to get women to go home as soon as possible; there’s the risk of infection, for example.

And some of the complaints about what happens in delivery rooms could be more fairly directed at patients. Women have a responsibility to talk to their doctors about what medications they’ll take and what will be done in case of complications. If they don’t choose to inform themselves when they go to the doctor, they may make the same mistake even with a midwife.

Women should be able to choose midwives if they wish, so I’m rooting for the midwives. But I hope they’ll turn their PR efforts away from exaggerating the extent of their persecution and spreading fear about hospitals, where most babies will be delivered even under the freest laws. Even if hospitals do a good job, and I think most do, women should still have the choice to use a midwife.

New Study Examines Tuition Tax Credits

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Today, the Show-Me Institute released a new policy study, "The Fiscal Effects of a Tuition Tax Credit Program in Missouri," by University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor and Show-Me Institute board member Michael Podgursky, former Show-Me Institute policy analyst Sarah Brodsky, and current Show-Me Institute policy analyst Justin Hauke.

A tuition tax credits program would allow Missouri taxpayers to target their tax dollars towards meaningful educational reform by providing educational scholarships to low-income Missouri families. In the states where they have been adopted, such tax credits have allowed thousands of children to obtain quality educations in the schools of their choice. They have been a beacon of hope to families who otherwise would have few educational opportunities.

Not only would such a program offer new educational opportunities to thousands of students, it could well save taxpayers’ money. The study concludes:

Depending on the average scholarship size and low-income families’ responses to the change in tuition, the state could potentially save money from a tuition tax credit program. A partial credit offers the greatest opportunity for savings, but in all cases, the cost to the state will be far lower than the tax revenue loss. Most importantly, a tuition tax credit program would help to reduce the gap in educational opportunities between Missouri’s high- and low-income families, and would provide meaningful choices for students in school districts that have lost accreditation.

Steve Walsh of Missourinet has just posted a brief article accompanied by a 60-second radio spot featuring comments by Justin Hauke, coauthor of the study and regular Show-Me Daily blogger. During the interview, Justin said, "Wealther Missourians already have this opportunity. Families that can afford to send their children to private school, or whatever school they want — that’s already an option for them. We’re trying to reach the vast majority of families that don’t have that option. So we’re really just trying to level the playing field."

Ultimately, this is the most valuable aspect of school choice. It makes the best educational opportunities available to children from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

The Cussin’ Ban Lives!

Posted on by Dave Roland

I wrote last week about St. Charles’ proposed ban on "indecent, profane, or obscene language, song[s], entertainment, literature, or advertising." Yesterday, Rachel Kaatmann reported that the city had abandoned its effort to implement the cussin’ ban.

Not so!! Instead, the city has engaged in some legal sleight-of-hand. Richard Veit, the councilmember who was sponsoring the amendment that would have adopted the ban, has modified both his story and the proposed ordinance. He now says that the cussin’ ban was merely intended to formally adopt regulations that have long been promulgated at the state level. To satisfy objectors, he removed the (ironically) offending language from the ordinance.

Veit was correct in that state regulations — specifically, 11 CSR 70-2.130(13)(A) — already include the cussin’ ban. The trick is that these regulations are only enforceable by representatives of the state government, unless local authorities adopt ordinances that would allow local enforcement. So how did Veit make sure that he could still hang on to the cussin’ ban? When he took the ban out of the text of the ordinance, he added section 115.32(A)(2)(g), providing for the revocation of a business owner’s liquor license if a proprietor allows behavior that would constitute a violation of "state regulations." Thus, St. Charles still fully intends to have the legal ability to punish bar owners who allow language, music, entertainment, etc., that might offend the sensibilities of some.

Very sneaky, Councilmember Veit. But we’re on to you.

Regulating Fake Identities on the Internet

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Here’s an interesting twist in the Megan Meier case. Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles might charge the people who allegedly harassed Megan with defrauding MySpace, because they opened an account with a fake identity.

A law professor quoted in the article explains why prosecuting people for using fake identities on the Internet could lead to trouble:

Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said that if the grand jury brings an indictment, it could raise 1st Amendment issues and questions about how to fairly enforce such a law on the Internet, where pseudo-identities are common.

"This may be a net that catches a lot of people," she said.

Levenson is right — so many people have fake identities on the internet that enforcement would have to be selective.

Most people are aware that Internet appearances can be deceiving, and they discount information from anonymous sources. If a major news website reports on social trends, you might give it some consideration. But if someone identifying himself only as "Josh" says he doesn’t like you anymore, you probably wouldn’t consider that credible. Teenagers with fragile self-esteem approach the situation in an entirely different way, and can feel devastated after whoever happens to be online expresses disapproval.

That’s a good reason for parents of teens to be careful in monitoring their online activities. It’s not a good reason to prosecute people for using fake identities on the Internet. Anonymous communication online is usually not harmful, and it can be beneficial. In other media, people publish letters to the editor, op-eds, or books anonymously. That allows anyone to safely express unpopular opinions. We should have the same freedom of speech online.

The Bandwagon Just Got Fangs

Posted on by Nicholas Loyal

After the General Assembly last week introduced legislation to prevent another sub-prime mortgage crisis in Missouri, the Kansas City Business Journal is reporting that Gov. Matt Blunt has introduced proposals to strengthen said bill, which would include creating the crime of "Mortgage Fraud," a class-C felony.

Wow, that escalated quickly.

Now, I really have no problem with the establishment of criminal statutes for the prevention of obviously criminal activity. What I have a problem with is this (emphasis added):

"A trade group for bankers has said that most of the state’s regulated
financial institutions — such as neighborhood banks and credit unions ?
aren’t deeply involved in sub-prime loans. But the leader of a trade
group for mortgage bankers warned that going too far with penalties on
lenders could make it more difficult to get credit in Missouri."

Ignoring the obvious criticism of a mortgage banker protesting actions targeted specifically against members of his industry, do we really think that a state response to a national credit crisis is going to be the biggest threat against the financial security of Missourians?

Heck, I’d probably be more worried about this guy.

Jumping on the Sub-Prime Bandwagon

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The General Assembly is out to "protect" consumers once again, this time from unscrupulous mortgage brokers.

I’ve written before about why usury laws are a bad idea. While I sympathize with what legislators are trying to do (I like to believe that most of them are well-intentioned), regulating mortgage brokers is not going to help sub-prime borrowers or protect home ownership rates.

The Post-Dispatch’s coverage of the bill has one particularly revealing quote about the motivations behind such legislative "protection":

Rep. David Pearce, R-Warrensburg, a banker and the bill’s co-sponsor, said most subprime loans are not offered by local banks or credit unions.

"It’s from out-of-state firms that are coming into Missouri and preying on our consumers," he said.

Wow, talk about playing up the "us and them" fallacy. Now, from my cynical point of view, here’s how I interpret that sentence (emphasis obviously added):

"It’s from out-of-state firms that are coming into Missouri and preying on our consumers. And because they offer more competitive rates, I have been unable to compete and am losing business. Therefore, we need to pass legislation that will ensure Missourians face stricter lending limits that will insulate me from competition, at the expense of consumers."

Good, I feel safer.

Amazing Statement From a Federal Judge

Posted on by David Stokes

I usually leave comments about the educational field to the other bloggers, what with their ivory-tower smarts and all, while I had to complete my GED during a stint in prison for a crime I didn’t commit in the manner the cops said I did. But that is another story entirely…

Today’s Post-Dispatch has an article on a ruling in a case of "educational larceny", which is, simply put, attending public school in a district you don’t live in. Now, while I, along with the others here at SMI, favor complete school choice, until that is implemented I understand that the rules of residency are going to be enforced. I don’t disagree with the ruling in favor of the district, per se, but I just wish to point out some of the over-the-top language the judge uses in his opinion. Do you think this judge supports the status quo in education? (Emphasis added, as usual.)

He added: "Were each child entitled to choose where to go to school, regardless of where that child lives, the structure of the public school system of the State would collapse into chaos, thereby resulting in an actual deprivation of the right to a free public education."

Imagine substituting words live "work" or "live" for "go to school" and see how that sounds. "Were each person allowed to choose where to work," or "Were each person allowed to move to wherever they wanted." One of the nice things about not being a lawyer is that you get to criticize judges when they say absurd things like this without worrying about ethical violations. Does Judge Autrey really believe that if people were given more freedom for their own lives that our entire school system would descend into chaos? Unbelievable.

State of the State

Posted on by Justin Hauke

The 2008 legislative session kicked off yesterday, and among the General Assembly’s initial priorities are increases to minimum teacher salaries and the expansion of property tax relief for senior citizens.

I don’t really have a problem with expanding the property tax credit, because it mostly entails leveling the income eligibility limit between single and married taxpayers. The revenue hit would be pretty small, and it probably costs the state more when seniors are forced to sell their homes because they can’t meet their property tax obligations.

But I’m opposed to the mandatory increase in minimum teacher salaries. The proposal would increase minimum salaries from $23,000 to $31,000, which would be a boon for rural districts, where teacher salaries are generally lower than the proposed new minimum but are comparatively well paid, but would do very little for teachers in urban and suburban districts, where minimum salaries are already well above the new state minimum. For example, the lowest paying district in St. Louis County, Hancock Place, has a minimum starting teacher salary of $30,900.

And, of course, there’s no mention of merit pay, which I think would be a far better solution to increase teacher salaries. Let good teachers be rewarded for their work. Why should they only receive a raise if every other teacher does, too?

High-Tech Pigs in a Cellular Trough

Posted on by David Stokes

While the growth of the federal government gets most of the attention from people who care about things like that, the size and budgets of local governments are growing rapidly as well. While this is probably true around the nation, there is an article in today’s Post-Dispatch (link via Combest) that unintentionally illustrates this fact for Missouri quite well.

The article regards the recent settlements of the tax disputes between cell phone companies and local governments in Missouri. We have written about this before, and I will repeat that it seems sensible to me that a tax on land lines should also apply to cell phones. To sum up quickly, the cell phone companies have now agreed to collect the tax and pay back taxes, too, which will result in both a temporary windfall and a new revenue stream for many local governments in Missouri.

The Post-Dispatch interviews seven different officials from the St. Louis area as to what they plan to do with the new money. All seven are eager to spend it in various ways, easily demonstrating why local government grows as it does. Not one of the seven officials interviewed even mentions lowering taxes in their community as a response to the increase in tax money available. Not a friggin’ one of them! And we wonder why government keeps growing, and why it is so hard just to get a simple reassessment rollback? Apparently, our local officials like to spend money just as much as the national officials.

Now, I really don’t have a problem with officials spending the back-tax windfall; I object to the basic assumption that all future money from the tax will also be spent without even considering lowering the tax in question. Most of the planned expenditures from the windfall seem to be in the area of transportation, which is honestly as good an area as any to use it. How about this statement from Mayor Slay’s office (emphasis added in all below quotes):

Ed Rhode, a spokesman for Mayor Francis Slay, said repairing bridges was a likely priority although that would be up to budget deliberations with aldermen and the Estimate Board for the fiscal year beginning in July. He said future revenue from the 10 percent tax, one of the highest in the area, could shore up city pensions.

And they wonder why more people don’t want to move into the city? On top of a local income tax, you get the highest telephone utility tax in the area. And when the tax base is expanded, officials don’t even consider lowering the overall rate to benefit everyone. But when a large corporation wants to move in, officials give away the entire store to them in the hope of potential long-term returns. Its just insane.

I don’t mean to pick on the city here; others are just as bad. I can sense the Wildwood city administrator frothing at the mouth over the new money:

Wildwood’s city administrator, Daniel Dubruiel, says the fact that cell phone firms will pay the tax from now on is more significant than the city’s $1.2 million settlement payout. "I’m much more interested in the long-term effect," he said. 

Perhaps now they can give a pay raise to Wildwood’s SIXTEEN members of the board of aldermen. That works out to one member of the board of aldermen for every cul-de-sac in Wildwood. Articles like this make me wish that local officials also ran in partisan elections, so at least we could have an idea whether one of them cared about lower taxes and smaller government. (Note: I don’t really wish for partisan local elections — just for one person on a city council somewhere in St. Louis County to care less about local government and its employees, and more about the taxpayers.)

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