I’ll Bite on Telemarketers

Posted on by David Stokes

We are on the No Call list, and nonetheless somehow receive a large number of calls each evening. Lately, Discover has been particularly active in trying to get our business. I have nothing against telemarketers themselves — they are just people trying to support a family and earn a living, or work part-time through college, or burn their way through 20 years of purgatory, whatever their reason might be for doing what they do. Sarah already made a key point as to why some no-call lists need to be allowed: fax machines. Unsolicited faxes have a direct cost in paper and ink to fax machine owners, and as such are not merely some random inconvenience.

I do believe in some type of hard-to-define right to privacy. I like No Call lists, and do not feel they are an intrusion on free trade or a right to work. They are a voluntary listing of people who choose not to receieve calls, and should be respected by telemarketers in the same way "No solicitation" signs on doors should be respected.

Why Education Reform Can’t Wait

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

There’s a sad post today on the Missouri Parents for Public Schools blog:

My children are the most important things to me. Therefore, the education of my children is incredibly important to me. […]

Unfortunately, I am unable to pay for my school of choice and have been forced to send them to the public schools in the St. Louis School District. Where and when I grew up, the public schools were pretty good. Now, the schools I send my boys to have been unaccredited, which really did not surprise me. I am trying to make the best choices for my boys. However, I am currently standing in front of a brick wall. I cannot seem to get them transferred out to better schools. I hope this is taken care of quickly.

When we debate the pros and cons of hypothetical future reforms, it’s important to remember that there are real people in the district trying to find a better education for their kids right now.

Maybe these boys will be able to attend one of the charter schools that are now in the works.

Lawyers Continue Rolling in Taxpayer Dollars

Posted on by Dave Roland

You can’t really give away something that doesn’t belong to you — especially if the "recipient" is its rightful owner! While it may seem like common sense for most people, Attorney General Jay Nixon apparently has trouble grasping this simple idea. Instead, he continues to insist that the Department of Natural Resources is nefariously giving Union Pacific Railroad a sweetheart deal just by allowing the company to do what it wants with its own property.

The bridge at the heart of the lawsuit belongs to Union Pacific Railroad, which purchased it from the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad in 2004. The dispute has come about because in 1987 MKT reached an agreement with the state that gave the DNR nearly 200 miles of right-of-way for use by the Katy Trail project. That agreement specifically excluded the Booneville lift bridge, although the state was given assurances that the railroad would not modify the bridge in such a way that the Katy Trail would be disrupted.

Since that agreement was reached, the DNR has decided not to use the bridge for trail purposes, and the bridge is currently not being used by anyone at all. To make absolutely certain that the DNR’s intentions were clear, and to guarantee that the railroad had no further duty to maintain the bridge for trail purposes, the DNR officially released and permanently waived any rights it might have had to use the bridge.

The attorney general’s misguided lawsuit, which has already cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, basically claims that the DNR has no authority to say that it isn’t interested in using the bridge. Nixon wants to force the DNR — against its avowed desires — to claim a right to keep using the bridge even though it does not fit into their plans for the Katy Trail.

Even though two courts have now thoroughly rejected Nixon’s arguments about the bridge’s ownership, he is vowing to press on — at taxpayer expense — to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The bottom line is that Union Pacific, the rightful owner of the bridge, now wants to make use of its raw materials for another bridge and Nixon should be ashamed for using taxpayer dollars in his personal quest to prevent them from doing so.

Too Bad This Is No Longer Current

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I’ve been searching for more good blogs and other websites about public policy outside of St. Louis, and today I almost thought I’d found one. It has news about politics, crime, transportation, and courts — and it’s mainly about Kansas City. But upon closer inspection, it turned out to be 100 years old:

The county court in Independence yesterday issued the order to Oscar Koehler, county surveyor, to prepare all necessary profiles and plans and specifications immediately, so that there may be no delay in the work next year of closing up the gaps in Jackson county’s rock road system.

Can we make a time machine?

Merit Pay for Teachers

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Merit pay for teachers is on the horizon. With gratitude to Combest for the link, here’s an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune about the possibility of merit pay for all of Missouri’s teachers:

Rep. Ed Robb, R-Columbia, said he plans to file legislation that would clearly allow merit pay in Missouri schools.

The Ladue School District in St. Louis County has had performance pay for teachers for more than 50 years without legal challenge. The district assigns teachers points based on yearlong evaluations, then doles out raises accordingly.

The article discusses Ladue’s merit pay system and describes why teachers like the idea. It makes sense to pay teachers like the individual professionals that they are, not like interchangeable assembly-line workers.

I Love Telemarketers

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

I feel really bad for telemarketers. Everybody is out to get them. Here’s an article in the Post-Dispatch about Missouri’s No Call list:

In Missouri, more than 2.5 million phone numbers are registered on the state’s No Call list. (Missouri residents can join the federal list too, which will also get them enrolled on Missouri’s own list. Illinois residents enroll directly through the national registry.)

Attorney General Jay Nixon has aggressively enforced Missouri’s law, filing 130 lawsuits and collecting $1.7 million in penalties since July 2001, when the list began.

Here’s why I love telemarketers. First, they can be entertaining. Sometimes they introduce themselves with economic non sequiturs, like, "What if you could sell your used car at above the market price?" Second, it’s much easier to quickly say, "No, thanks," to a telemarketer than to deal with the people who aren’t soliciting anything but just have wrong numbers. I usually keep my cell phone off, a habit inspired by professors’ ire when students’ cell phones ring, but today I left it on for about two minutes after making a phone call and was immediately contacted by someone looking for "Charlie:" "Is this the Charlie who called me last night? No? Are you sure?" And when answering the phones at SMI, I’ve fielded inquiries from people looking for everything from homeless shelters to hardware stores. Unfortunately, a law can’t solve that problem.

I do see the need for some restrictions on soliciting. People should be able to leave their fax machines on without getting all their paper used up by mortgage ads. But, in general, I’m not a fan of No Call lists. This is just one more indication that I am a unique, special person, since everyone else loves those lists. In fact, I expect some of my colleagues to post rebuttals about why the No Call list is saving humanity. Dave S., Dave R., Justin, Eric, any thoughts? Maybe I should give them a call. …

Forget Light Rail, This Is What Kansas City Really Needs

Posted on by David Stokes

Actually, this post is indeed about light rail, I just liked the connection to the prior post. Damn, this is a big news day in Missouri think-tank world. And trust me, that is one small world.

In one of the politically gutsiest moves I have ever seen, the Kansas City Council overturned the voter-approved light rail plan for the city. The first question many people probably have is: How can they overturn a vote of the people? The answer is: I don’t know, but I assume it is allowed somewhere in their city charter, or else they would not have done it.

The Kansas City light rail plan was loaded with problems, starting with the direct taking of bus funds instead of new taxes for light rail. There are many more problems that just that, though, and the Show-Me Institute is going to weigh in on this issue in a serious manner soon enough. I look forward to seeing how the voters respond to this. Either this is going to be a shining moment for why we are a representative republic rather than a direct democracy, or the mob’s torches will be lit very soon. I hope it’s the former.

Forget Ballpark Village, This Is What St. Louis Really Needs

Posted on by David Stokes

Today’s Post-Dispatch has a front-page article on Mayor Slay’s newly announced plan to seek a major expansion of the network of charter schools in the City of St. Louis. This is some of the most exciting news I have heard in a long time. It’s right up there with Led Zeppelin reuniting. Mayor Slay cannot be praised enough for this bold initiative. Another tremendously useful step would be for the state Legislature to give the mayor’s office the power to sponsor charter schools on its own. If we look back 20 years from now and see a growing, prosporous, and safe St. Louis city, this initiative is going to be the reason why.

A Step Forward

Posted on by Justin Hauke

It’s hard to miss this morning’s front-page article in the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch about Mayor Slay’s new plan to expand charter schools in St. Louis.

The new plan ambitiously hopes to open two or three new charter schools a year in St. Louis during the next 10 years, in the hopes of wooing parents from the suburbs to the city.

Obviously, I believe that the introduction of new charter schools will be beneficial for St. Louis, even if the charter school model is far from perfect. Since charter schools are exempt from much of the public school red tape, they have the flexibility to adapt their teaching strategies and pursue alternative educational methods targeted to “at risk” students. And while some charter schools have been failures, many have been hugely successful. But the best part is that, unlike traditional public schools, charter schools represent choice and allow parents to vote with their feet.

But I do have one qualm with the plan. Charter schools are still controlled and overseen by governmental watchdogs, which from an accountability standpoint is fine, but it also invites potential corruption. For one thing, new charter schools will be heavily subsidized (low-interest loans, state grants, etc.), which puts up red flags in my mind that there will be abuses in the system (who gets these contracts, and why?). And traditionally, the universities and school districts that have overseen Missouri charter schools have been less than enthusiastic about the task.

But this is a great step forward for St. Louis and the school choice movement, and this will go a long way toward improving the city of St. Louis. As Mayor Slay states in the article:

“St. Louis has it all — except enough quality public schools.”

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