“Smokey, this is not ‘Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.”

There’s another article this morning on Missouri campaign contribution limits (I’ve blogged about this issue before). Apparently, the contribution limits are ineffective (surprise!).

Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay is one of a handful of candidates who has voluntarily returned excess individual campaign contributions in anticipation of a decision by the Missouri Ethics Committee. But the irony is that he subsequently collected the same amount in contributions by breaking them up among multiple donors, with each individual contribution coming in under the state limit. This has become common practice at the federal level, and only exacerbates the “problem” of campaign disclosure.

But what does it matter whether or not the funds come from an individual donor? “It undermines democracy,” Nick Nyart, President of the Washington-based advocacy group Public Campaign says, “by making it difficult to track donations, and giving corporations more sway than voters.”

It seems to me that it undermines democracy (well, at least freedom) to restrict individuals from spending their money as they please.

Internship Application Deadline Extended

We’ve extended the application deadline for Spring 2008 internships through Friday, November 16. So if you’re a student (or you know one) who’s interested in Missouri public policy, be sure to look into our internship program.

Spring 2008 internships will generally last from mid-January through mid-May, although schedules can be adjusted to meet individual student needs.

Here are a few highlights from our internship program description:

  • Because the Show-Me Institute is a "small shop," interns will be involved in virtually all aspects of the institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
  • Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, organizing events, and writing and editing opeds, newsletters, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks may also be required.
  • A Show-Me Institute internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest to him or her. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from SMI staff members throughout the process.

We have an ambitious publishing schedule lined up for early 2008, and Show-Me Institute interns will play a large role in that process. Consider signing up today!

“I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means…”

On Sunday, the Kansas City Star ran a column that misinterprets a recent report published by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. I read the study a couple of weeks ago and was baffled — not so much by the results, but by the focus of the study and its methodology. Naturally, choice opponents have taken its publication as an opportunity to twist the findings to fit their worldview. I’ll try to explain what the report actually said, and why it is of dubious value. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

While commenters have repeatedly suggested that this report demonstrates the failure of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program, it is vitally important to note that the report was limited to an attempt to guess the levels of parental involvement in the public schools, and the decisionmaking process of parents exercising public school choice — all based solely on the demographic characteristics of parents in the school district. These guesses were based on data for Milwaukee supplied by the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey, and on demographic-based trends for parent and family involvement in education reported by the National Household Education Surveys Program. The NHESP data amounts to demographic assumptions about the effect of parents’ educational attainment, race, and ethnicity, household composition (single-parent v. two-parent), and mothers’ employment status. The author of the WPRI report simply applied these assumptions to the census data for Milwaukee families.

The report concluded that less than half of Milwaukee parents whose children are in public schools consider more than one school when deciding where their children will attend, and only two-thirds of those who do consider two or more schools factor academic performance into their choices. The author further assumed that only about one-third of Milwaukee public school parents are highly involved in their children’s schools, and that less than half are projected to participate at home in their children’s educations. According to the author, because Milwaukee’s demographics suggest that the city’s parents are unlikely to be involved with their children’s educations and unlikely to consider academic credentials when choosing among public schools, the city’s public schools should not be expected to realize significant improvements from the impact of public school choice.

This report’s methodology renders it practically worthless, for several reasons:

  1. The report makes no effort to describe realities in Milwaukee. The author points to no local study that demonstrates how Milwaukee’s parents might mirror (or diverge from) the results of the national research. Put simply: the author’s report isn’t about Milwaukee, it’s about what you might expect from a nationwide random sample of people whose demographics roughly match those of parents with children in Milwaukee’s public schools. One of the reasons this assumption should be challenged is the fact that the city has had a school choice program in place for nearly twenty years, whereas the vast majority of parents nationwide still have no choice. Given this unique history with school choice, why would the author assume that Milwaukee’s parents’ decisionmaking must still conform to national norms? Because it is completely divorced from the reality of Milwaukee’s situation, this report would have yielded exactly the same results even if Milwaukee had no school choice program.
  2. The report provides no basis for comparing the current levels of educational attainment in Milwaukee Public Schools with those prior to the adoption of the choice program. The author shows that the city’s public schools currently lag behind the rest of the state, but fails to point out that the achievement gap is narrower today for schools exposed to competition than it was before the introduction of competition.
  3. Similarly, the report does not compare academic outcomes between schools insulated from competition, and those exposed to competition, which improved. This report has absolutely nothing to say about how competition and choice has affected Milwaukee’s public schools.
  4. The report suggests that public school choice should be considered a failure if parents place more value on non-academic factors when deciding where their children should attend. Parents prefer schools based on a huge array of considerations, and many families believe themselves to be best served by schools that are conveniently located, safe, or values-based. The power of choice — and the reason that choice programs routinely have long waiting lists — is that parents can make decisions based on what they think is best for their children and family, not what is important to or convenient for bureaucrats.

The fact of the matter is that the best available research — and there is a lot of it — shows that school choice in Milwaukee has been fantastic for kids who are given the chance to attend private schools, but that it has also driven improvements in public schools as well. School choice is no longer an unknown commodity, and two recent books make a compelling argument that choice is remarkably effective at generating improvement in failing public schools. Because I live in the St. Louis Public School District, I can only hope that Missouri will accept the wisdom of school choice by the time I have school-age kids.

Does This Really Surprise Anyone?

The school districts acting as the plaintiffs in CEE v. Missouri, which have thus far used more than $3 million of taxpayers’ money to purchase themselves a thorough, well-reasoned judicial beating, have announced their intention to use several million more of your dollars to see if they can persuade the Missouri Supreme Court to take leave of its senses and force taxpayers to give school districts an additional $1.3 billion.

As I have previously mentioned, the insanity of this case is that these districts are spending your money in a misguided effort to get at even more of your money. With this post, however, let’s look at just how deep this money pit could get:

This summer’s trial required public spending in excess of $4 million, accounting both for the districts’ spending and the expense of the state’s legal defense. The plaintiffs’ Supreme Court appeal will cost at least several million more. But that won’t be the end of it! Even if the districts prevail at the Supreme Court, the taxpayers’ financial bleeding will continue because the case will almost certainly be kicked back to the trial court to determine how much taxpayers must add to the 36 percent of state revenues already going to education. That probably means at least one more trial — and, in all likelihood, another trip to the Missouri Supreme Court. The eventual total for legal expenses in this case could easily run to $25 million, and that doesn’t even consider the financial burden taxpayers would face if the districts win.

History also shows that even if the suing school districts are successful, the issue will remain embroiled in costly litigation for years as the districts continue to push for more funding. Courts in other states have been forced to confront round after round of these legal battles. A study discussed at our recent school finance conference points out that the billions of dollars in court-ordered educational spending has resulted in zero improvement in the educational outcomes for students in those states.

So I hope that Missouri citizens will enjoy the progress of this case for its entertainment value, if nothing else. After all, we’re the ones paying for it.

It’s like one of those VH1 Specials

The U.K.’s Daily Telegraph has compiled a list of the 100 most influential American conservatives and liberals, releasing 20 names for each category each day this week.

Today they announced the top 20 for each category.

The top five for liberals: 1) Bill Clinton; 2) Al Gore; 3) Mark Penn; 4) Hillary Clinton; 5) Nancy Pelosi

The top five for conservatives: 1) Rudy Giuliani; 2) General David Petraues; 3) Matt Drudge; 4) Newt Gingrich; 5) Rush Limbaugh

Yawn.

Well, that was a week-long let down …

Comments on Comments in KC Prime Buzz

The Kansas City Star’s Prime Buzz online column (link via Combest), which — thank goodness — is free to access again, makes some interesting points about the Show-Me Institute’s study on how to abolish the earnings tax in Kansas City. They make it sound so nefarious to send all the councilmembers a copy of the study:

A group affiliated (with) Sinquefield has sent out fliers that council members describe as "very slick."

Well, it wasn’t so much a "group" affiliated with Rex — it was just Rebecca and I stopping by the Kansas City Hall and Jackson County offices to hand-deliver copies of our work to all the elected officials. I thought it was awesome the way City Hall and the County Courthouse complement each other from opposite sides of the street, by the way. I have been to KC many times, but that was my first visit to the government section of downtown.

The other point is more serious. The councilmembers and their lobbyist, who were quoted in the article, have totally missed the fact that Dr. Haslag’s study is completely revenue neutral, pointing out that the earnings tax can be replaced with a less distortionary land tax. From the article:

Gamble said he would emphasize to legislators that the loss of the earnings tax would "bankrupt the city."

No, it wouldn’t. The study intentionally gave KC a revenue-neutral roadmap. That would be clear to anyone who had actually read it. But it is great to see that some people in Kansas City are taking Dr. Haslag’s fine work to heart.

In Defense of Usury

I’ve written before on the negative consequences of anti-usury laws targeted at Missouri payday lenders. An op-ed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal has a great defense of these so-called “usurious” practices.

The article cites a new study by Dean Karlan and Jonathan Zinman (two economists from Yale University and Dartmouth College, respectively) which finds that borrowers with poor credit are actually better off (measured by various psychological and economic indicators) when they are provided with high-interest installment loans (in this case, an APR of 200%), compared to similar borrowers who are denied such credit.

If you can’t read the Wall Street Journal article, Reason’s blog also has some good coverage. And the National Center for Policy Analysis summarizes the main findings of the study.

Basically, I believe in freedom of action, and the responsibility for those actions’ consequences. Unfortunately, too many legislators don’t. And that only shows how little faith they have in the individuals they represent.

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