Be a Show-Me Institute Intern!

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Today, we’re announcing our spring 2008 internship program. From the release:

Interns at the Show-Me Institute Internship are involved in virtually all aspects of the institute’s operations, working closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. Show-Me Institute interns develop an in-depth understanding of how a think tank works, including editing and publishing, event planning, and occasional travel around the state.

Recent interns have also had articles published in newspapers throughout the state, including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Columbia Daily Tribune, the Springfield News-Leader, the Kansas City Daily Record, the St. Louis American, and the St. Louis Business Journal.

But don’t take our word for it — here’s a testimonial from one of our spring 2007 interns, Steve Bernstetter:

Seriously, these guys do great work, are really nice people, and are spearheading a movement with great promise for affecting positive change. Whether you’re a naive young grad student like myself, looking to change the world for the better, or a grizzled cynical veteran of the politics game simply looking for a breath of fresh political air, you’d be a fool to pass up this opportunity.

If you’re a college student, be sure to apply! If you’re not a college student, pass along the word to someone who is.

Messenger Gets the Message on Eminent Domain

Posted on by David Stokes

Cato Institute scholar and former Show-Me Institute editor Tim Lee e-mailed to make sure we linked to this excellent column about eminent domain in the Springfield News-Leader. Ron Calzone, who is leading eminent domain reform efforts in Missouri, met with the hardest working man in the Ozarks, Tony Messenger, to discuss his work and the issue. Enjoy.

Hey, Verizon Customers: Your Bill Is Going Up …

Posted on by David Stokes

And probably everybody else’s cell phone bills will be going up too, if this settlement trend in the lawsuit over cellular phone taxes continues. We have covered this before here on the blog, and, to repeat, I have always thought that it passes the common-sense test for phone taxes to apply to cell phones, too. I hope and pray that municipalities respond to the (likely) upcoming cellular tax windfall by lowering utility tax rates across the board for their citizens, but I might as well ask for cherry pies to be delivered to my house when they pick up the trash each week.

There is a great line in the article quoted by the above-linked Post-Dispatch blog entry that really sums up well the attitude that many people (but not all) in local government, and government in general, hold toward business — as well as demonstrating their fundamental misunderstanding of economics (emphasis added):

"When they put it on the bill it looks like a sales tax and gives people the impression that it’s some sort of tax on them," said Tim Fischesser, executive director of the St. Louis County Municipal League. "And that’s not the case."

He suggested that companies include the utility tax in their overall cost of business "just like their corporate or income taxes or the golden parachutes" they give executives.

Now, I know Tim Fischesser and he is a very nice guy who does a great job running the municipal league. However, that statement is beyond silly. The idea that ANY BUSINESS IN THE WORLD is just going to accept higher taxes and fees, and eat them, is crazy. That is not how the machine operates — and not just because they are more interested in extravagant executive pay and perks than they are in serving customers.

Business costs are figured into the price of services offered to the public, and when government increases those costs, prices go up. Competition (which there is plenty of in the cell phone industry) lowers costs as much as possible, but a government-mandated charge or tax is always going to be passed along to consumers in some form or another.

A final note: Income and corporate taxes are ALSO calculated into the price offered to the public.

More Tax Rates in St. Louis County Rolled Back …

Posted on by David Stokes

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 …

Posted on by David Stokes

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

Posted on by David Stokes

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

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

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 …

Posted on by David Stokes

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 …

Posted on by David Stokes

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.

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