More Tax Rates in St. Louis County Rolled Back …

More good news rolls in for county taxpayers as political entities around the county continue to do a good job of rolling back rates in response to assessment increases. The early favorite for Senator Mike Gibbons‘ “Friend of the Taxpayer” award has to be the Maplewood-Richmond Heights school district, which has probably the largest tax cut I have seen as a result of assessment increases. They cut the residential rate by $1.35 per $100, and they even cut the personal property rate, which I am pretty sure they are not legally required to do. (Because personal property is not reassessed every two years like real property is, its rate does not have to be rolled back. What’s more, the tax is determined by blue-book value, which goes down every year unless you buy a new car.) That is great news for taxpayers in that area. Anyone who has been to Maplewood recently has seen the business explosion along Manchester, and the reduction in commercial tax rates will help keep that great business environment going!

Riternour School District also had a sizable tax cut this year. They deserve great credit for that, as it does not appear they were all that close to their cap — but they cut the rates substantially, nonetheless. The people of South County will benefit from a nice rate cut in Bayless School District as well. Now, if Bayless and Hancock Place school districts would just merge, we would be making some real progress for the taxpayers. But good for the Bayless School Board anyway! Finally, I am pleased to say that the University City Library Board, on which this author is priviledged to serve, has cut its 2007 tax rate, as well.

Senator Gibbons deserves tremendous credit for bringing pressure to bear on governmental bodies throughout Missouri, getting them to roll back their rates even when they are not legally required to do so. In my personal opinion, municipalities, school districts, etc., will greatly benefit from following both the letter and the spirit of the law. When government bodies roll back rates when assessments go up, whether or not they are required to do so, taxpayers will more likely trust them with new tax money if and when tax increases are truly needed by those districts.

The Tax Rates Are Rolling In …

Some local governmental entities are doing what they are supposed to: lowering their tax rates in response to assessment increases. Now, I know some of them are required to, as they appear to be very close to the legal cap — but a rollback is a rollback, so let’s give credit where its due. According to the Post-Dispatch, we need to give a shout out to Valley Park School District. Let’s hear it for Parkway schools! Lindbergh is in the house — or, I guess since they just lowered the commercial rate, I should say they are in the building! Perhaps some of these rollbacks should have been more substantive; I don’t know the exact details of every one. But they all deserve credit for rolling back the rates in response to assessment increases.

Wall Street Journal and Mo’ Better Judges

The Wall Street Journal has a lead editorial today on Missouri’s system of selecting judges, very originally known as "The Missouri Plan." Unfortunately, as most of you know, the Journal’s damned website is subscription only, so I can’t link to the entire thing for you. I had the bright idea of cutting the article out of our dead tree edition, scanning it, and linking to the file (a clever idea only about a billion people have already thought of), but stopped when I was informed that might be illegal. Anyway, the editorial is interesting but ultimately disappointing. The final summation:

Keeping judicial selection democratically accountable is the best insurance for choosing the best judges, and ensuring that they are serving the interests of the citizens.

I can’t tell whether that is calling for all judges to be elected, or just for increased transparency and more involvement by elected officials in the selection process. My guess is that they are calling for all judges to be elected, which would be an absolutely terrible idea statewide and in larger counties. If they are merely calling for more openness and input from elected officials, I agree with that, to a large extent.  As a reminder, my own op-ed on this issue is here. There are many good parts of the editorial, too, especially the none-too-kind comments on the current Supreme Court panel Governor Blunt gets to pick from.

The ending of the Wall Street Journal editorial isn’t its only weakness, though. It quotes a poll, as if that is some sort of evidence for anything:

In a Federalist Society poll done in March, 87% of state residents were unaware even of the make-up of the nominating commission.

An any point in time, about 30 percent of Americans can’t name the vice president. Should we get rid of that office? Any idea how many people can, right now, name their state representative? I am guessing 20 percent at most. Should we get rid of them? (Don’t answer that.)  I am actually surprised 13 percent of Missourians could correctly list the commission’s make-up. Just because people watch "Entertainment Tonight" instead of reading The Economist does not mean the Missouri Plan is flawed.

I was going to post today on additional feedback my op-ed has received, but the Journal seemed more topical. I’ll do that tomorrow. Can’t you just feel the excitement? 

P.S. — You wanted more Spike Lee references, you got ’em!

Privatization Brings Efficiency, Savings, and Quality

At the risk of making it seem like this blog is now all David Stokes, all the time (as though that would be a bad thing), we’re pleased to announce the publication of David’s new case study, "Saint Louis County, Drugs, and Competitive Bidding: A Privatization Success Story."

St. Louis County privatized its pharmacy services a few years ago in the face of spiraling costs, and the transformation was remarkable. Pharmacy spending had outstripped budgets consistently for years, until privatization began — and in that first year, costs suddenly dropped below budgeted figures. The downward trend in costs continues, and pharmacy services are now coming in under budget consistently even as the budgets are lowered in response to the existing savings.

Take a look at the graph on page 4. Its numbers show a stark difference, made all the more striking when presented visually. It demonstrates that when done right, utilizing market alternatives to public policy problems can bring renewed efficiency, savings, and quality to taxpayers. A lesson like this bears repeating.

Ladue School District Gets It Wrong On Assessments …

The Post has a very short blurb that still manages to say a great deal about assessments and basic economics. It is so small I’ll reprint the entire thing here (emphasis added):

The Ladue School Board has decided to keep the district’s residential real estate tax rate at $2.75 for each $100 of assessed value. The rate is the same as last year. Board members said they could keep the same rate because of the district’s growing tax base and an increase in assessed value. The board approved the debt service rate at 23 cents for the third year.

Where should I begin? First of all, you have to like how they seem to be bragging about not raising the taxes on property owners in the district. Assessments in Ladue School District went up 21 percent during the past two years. As school districts are heavily dependent on local property taxes, that will lead to a 21 percent increase in their budget, from property taxes alone. Without any rollback, if you live within Ladue School District (which is much larger than just Ladue), you’ll see a 21 percent increase in your tax bill for the schools, but hey — at least they didn’t raise your tax rate!

I emphasized the part about the growing tax base because it is all the more reason to roll back the rates! Good for Ladue to have a growing tax base, but new construction is not even counted in the math for assessment increases. So Ladue schools will actually see an even larger increase in funding than 21 percent, but hey — at least they didn’t increase your tax rate!

License Me, Please, Please, Please …

According to legend, when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, the British military band played "And The World Turned Upside Down." I sometimes feel that way when I read about occupational licensing. David Nicklaus has a great article in the Post-Dispatch today about a recent study released by the Reason Foundation, about licensing just for the right to work in America, which I wrote about here. Nicklaus writes that Missouri may not actually lead the nation in the fewest licensing requirements — the study missed some — but we clearly have far fewer statewide license requirements than most other states. As I said previously, this is something we can be very proud of.

Back in the 1990s, I owned a legal support company and we did a lot of process service and some investigation for attorneys. So I joined the statewide investigators association, a voluntary group, and I recall how badly many of them wanted to be licensed statewide by the government. There were different reasons for this, but I vividly remember some people arguing that their profession could never be a truly respected occupation until it was licensed, as if some governmental entity regulating you makes you legitimate. I think a great deal of people share that sentiment, and it is one I cannot fathom. Many people in professions like being licensed, because not only does it help to eliminate competition, but for some strange reason it makes them feel more proud of their own occupation.

From the Nicklaus article:

Missouri’s interior designers, who sought and won state licensing in 1998, and sports agents, who have been licensed since 2004, also show up as unregulated on the Reason Foundation’s list.

Why the hell should interior decorators be licensed by the state? What is god’s name could possibly be the safety rational for protecting someone from having the interior coloring and furniture of their house poorly designed? Please don’t read this as a rip on interior designers — we had one come to our house last year, and she was terrific. I assume she was licensed, as I just read a few minutes ago that they have to be, but I honestly could not care less whether or not she had a license. Rugged Individualism is in deep trouble in our society if people continue to think that what they choose to do for a living is not truly valued or impressive until they get a government license to do it. To use one of the best clichés we have: All work is honorable — government license or not.

Property Tax Rollbacks And You: A Love Story …

There is a citizens’ group that is attempting to make changes to the state’s property assessment and tax system. The South County Times has an article (via Combest) about the group’s recent rally outside the St. Louis County Administration Building. I signed the petition on their website — even though, as I have previously noted, we won the assessment lottery this year and saw a very small increase while many of our neighbors were in the 20-percent range. I signed because I would like to see changes at the state level to the assessment laws, as well as officials at the local level rolling back rates — even when not legally required.

Local officials who don’t roll back rates, or who don’t roll them back very much despite large assessment increasese, are correct in many circumatances that they don’t have to roll them back. St. Louis County government tax rates are so far below the authorized maximum that they are not required to roll back.  But not being required does not change the fact that rolling back rates, even slightly, is the proper thing to do. My own ideas on improvements to the statewide system can be found here. I wish this group well.  They are going to hit a brick wall when they talk to rural and urban legislators about this, though, and realize how little people outside St. Louis and Jackson Counties care about reassessment.

School Choice Would Bring Greater Student Diversity

In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school assignments based on race are unconstitutional. The ruling has sparked a firestorm among people who believe that this change in precedent could create de facto segregation in public schools. There’s a much better way to solve the problem of institutional racism in U.S. education than through the use of government-issued mandates. A system of competitive school choice gives people of every background the chance to provide their children with the best educations possible. Why not allow parents the choice to send their children to schools where they would do well? If schools had to compete to attract students, a greater diversity of race, ideology, and socio-economic background would occur naturally, without bogging down both schools and students in burdensome, unworkable regulations.

The federal government has employed several methods in its attempts to erase the legacy of de jure segregation — all of which have had mixed results. From school busing to increased funding for select school districts, these efforts to improve schools for all children have not proven to be cure-alls. The changes have, at times, produced feelings of anger and bitterness. Judges and government officials developed plans for where to send children to school without understanding individual school dynamics, effectively rejecting input from parents who want a say in where to send their children. Communities with the potential for harmony become, instead, resentful — and increasingly view attempts to achieve diversity in a bad light.

School choice would improve the dynamics necessary to create educational diversity. Everyone wants their children to receive good educations. No matter their background or race, parents want their children to attend schools with high-quality teachers and curriculum. One excellent example of this phenomenon is Metro High School in Saint Louis. The school’s academic reputation and success attract the interest of parents from a wide variety of backgrounds. Diversity is not a problem there, with an approximate 50-50 split of black and white students. Because parents of all backgrounds want their children to attend, there is no need to enforce diversity in cases like this.

Some critics are afraid that school choice would exacerbate segregation in schools. They believe that vouchers would be used primarily by white families who would relocate their children to better schools with a white-majority student body, leaving behind lesser-quality schools with a black-majority student body — resulting in de facto segregation. Others fear that vouchers would end up leaving behind poor black children whose parents don’t care enough about their children’s educations to use the vouchers they’re given, and switch their children to better schools. This wouldn’t be the case, though, because all people — not just the privileged — would have the ability to decide which schools to patronize with their educational vouchers or tax credits. Schools that see their enrollment drop drastically would be forced to implement equally drastic reforms in order to stay in business. They’d either improve their educational methods or somebody else would take over the school and reform it for them, in an effort to attract students. This would better serve children who are “left behind” in today’s system.

If parents are able to remove their kids from schools that have failed, those schools will have an incentive to educate children with quality and efficiency — lip service and bureaucracy would no longer suffice. In addition, none of this would depend on student body demographics. The views that all people share about educational quality would lead to a natural emergence of real diversity — because everybody, regardless of race, creed, or socioeconomic status, wants their children’s schools to work.

Working toward greater diversity in schools is an admirable goal, but the current system has brought more problems than solutions. Through school choice, reinforced with vouchers or tuition tax credits, real diversity can follow from the commonalities we all share. Parents want their children to have access to the best schools possible — no matter who else attends them.

Maurice Harris is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank. He is currently studying political science and history at Knox College.

 

Feedback on Missouri Plan Op-Ed

I have had the pleasure of receiving some great feedback from David Steelman over the past two days about my op-ed on the Missouri Plan. We have had an excellent discussion. Steelman, an attorney and former state representative, corrected me on one point. I said I couldn’t imagine that the framers of the Missouri Plan had in mind the ability to "stack the deck" (my term, not his) with supporters of an ex-governor, when they instituted six-year, staggered terms for members of judicial commissions. He pointed out that at the time of the reforms, Missouri governors could not serve consecutive terms — so the six-year term was absolutely an intentional decision by the plan’s framers to take politics out of the appointments, by making commission members independent of whomever was currently serving as governor. So I stand corrected and appreciate the information.

He pointed out that the most clearly political selections come after one party has had a stronghold on the commission selection for a long period of time. He then suggested that the best way to go would be for the commission to have no political appointments, since that inevitably leads to politics being injected into judgeships. I don’t think he intends for every member of the judicial commissions to be elected lawyers or automatic judges, but rather that citizen members should be chosen by some other method. Since, in his opinion, that last option is unlikely, he believes keeping six-year staggered terms is the best way to have more consistent, less volatile, and less political judicial selections.

In short, my opinion is that if the use of six-year, staggered terms for appointees was intended to keep politics out of the appointments and increase independence, then that is one part of the Missouri Plan that failed. Too often, the appointees of ex-governors — particularly in the current Appellate Court panel — are more loyal to their party than to the idea of a fair panel. So it would be better, to my mind, to eliminate the idea that appointed spots aren’t political, and instead just admit the obvious and have appointees serve their terms concurrent with the governor. There would still be checks and balances on appointees through elected lawyers and the automatically placed judge on each committee. This is what I mean by respecting the will of the voters.

But David made a number of good points, and I greatly appreciate his time and thoughts.

I also received a call today, with some similar commets and critiques, from a judge I won’t name (even though it would not be a big deal if I did). I appreciate the judge’s feedback, as well. I wish to emphasize again that I support the Missouri Plan and think it would be an enormous mistake to get rid of it. If my op-ed can play a small role in sparking discussions about ways to improve the plan, while keeping it primarily intact, then I will be very pleased.

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