Trash Talkin’ 2: Think Tank-Style

Posted on by David Stokes

I must admit, this is one issue I am really torn on — the St. Louis County plan to divide the unincorporated parts of the county into trash districts and award one hauler the rights to do the job for that area. There is a great deal of opposition to this in South County. People like having the freedom to contract with whomever they choose to pick up their trash. Who can blame them for that? On the other hand, there would be undeniable cost and efficiency benefits to the trash districts.

I wrote about this a few months ago. The Mayor of Affton has also chimed in with his always enjoyable opinions. The argument for freedom in choosing your hauler carries great weight with me, although — let’s be honest — we are just talking about trash removal here. In the end, it’s just garbage, not freedom of speech, or religion, or beer. Most citizens in the county are probably having trouble understanding what the fuss is about, considering that most people live in municipalities that have long done with trash service exactly what the county is planning to do — bid the contract out to a hauler that comes into your neighborhood once a week to pick up the trash.

So, what should trump here? The right of the people to keep the system as it is, in which they contract with their own hauler and pay all the costs? If they want to have trash trucks come onto their street multiple days each week, that is up to them. On the other hand, having multiple trucks come on multiple days is obviously bad for the street itself, which everone in the county pays for with our tax dollars. (You may not be aware of this, but if you live in a municipality you pay the same county tax dollars as you do if you live in the unincorporated parts.) So, lower costs versus economic freedom of choice? Usually, these two things go hand in hand. This is a rare case where they seem to be opposed. I say, always err on the side of more freedom. Scrap the trash plan for areas that clearly do not want it, and keep it for areas that do.

Parental Choice Within Schools

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

When I was a little kid in a public elementary school, my parents would ask around about which teachers were the best. They got to request that I be assigned to a classroom — but more often than not, the school didn’t pay any attention to those requests. When I was in first grade, I didn’t like my teacher and my parents asked that I be allowed to switch. The school would only do that on the condition that I, the six-year-old, present my grievances to the teacher in person at a formal meeting. (Needless to say, I stayed in that classroom and learned to deal with it.)

I’m happy to see that there’s more choice than that at Carmen Trails Elementary School. A Post-Dispatch article about single-sex education reports that parents can choose between single-sex and coed classes for their first-grade kids. The school might expand the program to other grades, as well.

I’m guessing the impetus for this program was competition from the Catholic schools in the area, many of which are single-sex. If public schools want to retain students whose parents prefer single-sex classrooms, they need to offer it as an option.

If there were more parental choice in education, I predict we would see more examples of public schools giving parents different options. For example, instead of forcing a phonics (or more likely, whole language) curriculum down everyone’s throats, a school might allow parents to choose which method will be used to teach their child reading. Disputes about "new math" could be resolved in a peaceful way too.

I do have a concern about one thing in the article:

Boys engaged in a math contest meandered around the room Tuesday, scampered on the floor and fidgeted at tables.

Gleeful taunts shot up each time a high card trumped a low one. It was boys being boys.

And where were the girls?

They were next door, in Alicia Wall’s class, sitting quietly as Wall asked them to talk about colors clipped from magazines.

Olivia Rosewell raised her hand and politely observed of a classmate’s project, "You sure found a lot of pink."

It’s not often that I agree with anyone from the National Organization for Women, but if I ever have daughters I would not want them to be finding colors in magazines while their male peers learn math. However, that’s a decision parents should make for themselves.

We Need More Lawmakers Like Belinda Harris

Posted on by Maurice Harris

State Rep. Belinda Harris wrote an op-ed that appears In today’s Southeast Missourian, challenging the merits of the Quality Jobs Act (H.B. 327). She argues that cherry-picking industries to receive tax credits does not help the economy at all, but puts unfavored businesses at a disadvantage. Also, allowing legislators to decide who receives benefits can politicize the process altogether:

When legislators pick and choose which businesses get tax credits or
subsidies, the process becomes politicized. They will be influenced by
personal interest and political contributors. Government should not be
the one to decide what businesses get subsidies and tax credits, thus
putting competing businesses at a disadvantage.

She argues correctly that market forces and a low-tax environment for all businesses should be the mechanism that gives people incentives to start businesses. We have stated at the Show-Me Institute that the Quality Jobs Act is a bad idea overall, even in its scaled-down form, and that the state should instead lower tax rates across the board, and reduce regulatory red tape that discourages job creation. Rep. Harris has the right idea, and hopefully she can spread her message to her fellow legislators during the special session.

No Child Left Behind

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

It’s hard to determine what combination of goals, evaluations, and consequences will get public school districts to improve. But No Child Left Behind seems to have changed Parkway’s attitude for the better:

"This is indicative of the bigger picture and demonstrates why everyone in public education has to drill deeper to find students who are not successful and to find out why they are not successful," Parkway district spokesman Paul Tandy told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

My observation as a student in Parkway was that the district threw around labels like "disabled," "gifted," and "English second language" in order to avoid teaching everyone. I’m glad they now have an incentive to pay attention to each individual student.

At the same time, we don’t want a system in which districts follow directives from the top against the wishes of district residents. To see what could happen if we go too far, here’s an article in the New York Times extolling the virtues of Britain’s top-down education establishment, which imposes all kinds of rigid requirements on schools. As noted in the article, that wouldn’t work in the U.S. for political reasons — we wouldn’t agree on one comprehensive national education program. (Although some people are trying.)

Is the St. Louis Public School District Ready?

Posted on by Maurice Harris

In today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, an article discusses preparations for opening the city’s schools soon, and the new unity that is growing between the Special Administrative Board and the district:

The Special Administrative Board now running the St. Louis Public Schools joined the district superintendent and the presidents of the teachers and principals unions in a show of unity on Tuesday to declare a "fresh start" for the troubled district.

Schools open on Monday for the district, and its goal is to have full attendance on the first day. The new board and district officials, in their new display of unity, plan to make appearances across the city to encourage parents to send their kids to school on that first day. It will be crucial that attendance is high if the new board wants to show that it has legitimacy. Hopefully, their efforts — which range from church appearances to back-to-school festivals — will bring the high-percentage turnout they hope to instigate.

Thinking Ahead

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

While my editor is busy looking for live music and ethnic food, I’m planning my retirement and long-term care. Or, at least, Gov. Blunt thinks that would be a good idea. The Columbia Daily Tribune Politics Blog reports that the state and federal government have teamed up to create “long-term planning kits” to help consumers in Missouri:

The program — dubbed ‘Own Your Future’ by the governor — is a joint project of the state of Missouri and the federal Department of Health and Human Services will be working together to increase consumer awareness about this effort to plan for long-term care.

Speaking of financial awareness and foresight, listen to this state official hem and haw about how taxpayers are paying for the program:

“We’re very involved with the development of the product,” said Doug Ommen, director of the Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration. “Some of the materials that are going out are paid for by federal funds and some of it is being covered by other funding that’s available. I think with grants, but it’s coming from state production.”

My intuition is that if the state runs a huge marketing campaign to inform consumers about every product and service out there, it won’t be financially sound in the long term. But how do I tell Gov. Blunt? Should I send him a kit?

I’m Running as Fast as I Can

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

The other day, I noticed an article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about rankings of the world’s 30 "fast cities" by Fast Company magazine. Being a relatively recent newcomer to Missouri, I try to read as much state news as I can — but some days I’m busy enough that I don’t manage to get through much more than the tremendously useful set of links John Combest provides every day. So it was a few days after the fact that I discovered Fast Company has designated St. Louis as a "slow" city — slower, even, than Boise, Idaho.

It’s actually not much of a surprise to me that Boise was chosen for one of the 30 "fastest" cities in the world — although I grew up in Portland, Oregon, my dad was raised in Boise, and we vacationed there every summer. Not too long after my dad retired, my parents moved inland to Nampa (part of the extended Boise metro area), and I joined them for a little while — leaving my six years in Washington, D.C., behind me. I stayed busy with freelance projects and a copy editor job. Before the Show-Me Institute enticed me to Missouri, with its siren song of free-market think tankery, I had come to appreciate the Boise area’s status as one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation. There’s no question, it’s an up-and-coming burg — I mean, it would have been unthinkable only a few years ago to see Nampa sandwiched directly between Las Vegas and Los Angeles on a 2006 list of Rolling Stones tour dates.

But, hey — the very fact that I’ve moved here makes Boise a little slower, and St. Louis a little faster. My residency here has already slightly increased the local demand for tasty ethnic food, live music, and independent film. And it’s reduced Boise’s demand for those same things by a similar margin. I can argue all day that a few simple economic reforms would work wonders in revitalizing St. Louis, but nothing speaks louder than personal action. Although I can’t bring St. Louis from the bottom five into the top 30 singlehandedly, it won’t be for a lack of eating, listening, and watching on my part.

I just need to know where you’re hiding the crazy, avant-garde jazz. Does St. Louis have a budding John Zorn or Frank Zappa? A nascent Henry Threadgill or Albert Ayler? A homegrown Sonny Sharrock or Marc Ribot? If you know, don’t keep it to yourself.

Not So Fast, Berkeley …

Posted on by David Stokes

The city of Berkeley has managed to almost eliminate its budget deficit, merely by transferring money out of certain funds and into the general fund. The fact that Berkeley is using "creative accounting" might be of concern to its citizens, but a greater concern is that it appears the city may be transferring money from funds it is not allowed to use for other purposes. From the article in the Suburban Journal (emphasis added): 

The second resolution deals with the 2007 budget. The budget was amended to appropriate a transfer amounting to $975,688. Of this total, $279,292 came from the capital fund, $6,227 from the fire equipment fund, $680,169 from the parks fund, and $10,000 from the sewer lateral fund.

The last line is the key — $10,000 from the sewer lateral fund. Here is the state statute regarding sewer lateral funds. The relevant part is in the middle (emphasis again added):

3. If a majority of the voters voting thereon approve the proposal provided for in subsection 2 of this section, the governing body of the city, town, village or county may enact an ordinance for the collection and administration of such fee in order to protect the public health, welfare, peace and safety. The funds collected pursuant to such ordinance shall be deposited in a special account to be used solely for the purpose of paying for all or a portion of the costs reasonably associated with and necessary to administer and carry out the defective lateral sewer service line repairs. All interest generated on deposited funds shall be accrued to the special account established for the repair of lateral sewer service lines.

The next statute has similar language regarding collection of sewer lateral bills (emphasis thrice added):

All revenues received on such combined bill which are for the purpose of providing for, ensuring or guaranteeing the repair of lateral sewer lines, shall be separated from all other revenues so collected and credited to the appropriate fund or account of the city, town, village or county.

I would be pleased to stand corrected, but based on everything I see and know, Berkeley is violating the state statute by transferring money out of the sewer lateral fund, into the general fund.

“Hot Fuel” Legislation Is a Step in the Wrong Direction

Posted on by Maurice Harris

Sen. Claire McCaskill is proposing legislation, according to the Washington Missourian, to end the practice of selling "hot fuel" at the same per-unit volume as fuel sold when temperatures are lower. "Hot fuel" is the term used for fuel that has expanded in gasoline storage tanks during high-temperature weather, which means consumers end up buying slightly less gasoline per gallon, as measured in terms of energy output, than they would otherwise:

The Star series said at the standard 60 degrees, a 231-cubic-inch
gallon of fuel delivers a certain amount of energy. At 90 degrees,
however, the same gallon expands to more than 235 cubic inches. Because
consumers are still buying 231-cubic-inch gallons, "hot fuel" forces
them to spend more to obtain the same amount of energy.

According to the editorial, this legislation would help save Missouri motorists $15 million dollars annually, because it would require gas stations to install automatic temperature-compensating equipment in all retail gasoline
station pumps. The updated technology would adjust the price of gasoline as it
expands during warmer temperatures.

As a previous post discussed this same issue, supply and demand efficiently determines the retail price of gasoline in a competitive market — bidding down the price slightly when temperatures have temporarily expanded supplies. In general, motorists don’t think about the energy output that a
gallon of gas gives their cars, because that information isn’t relevant in deciding where to buy gas. Focusing on the price per gallon at one station in comparison to a nearby station helps fuel consumers much more than figuring out price per energy-output-unit at varying temperatures. Websites can also help consumers compare the cost of gas.

These new regulations would produce is higher fuel prices for consumers that would amount to much more than the $15 million dollars that "hot fuel" is ostensibly costing consumers in Missouri now. Rather than trying to find short-term relief through short-sighted legislation, we should encourage market-based technological solutions in our search for a way to reduce consumer energy costs.

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