Missouri Term Limits

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Yesterday in the Columbia Daily Tribune, columnist J. Scott Christianson had a few unpleasant things to say about an organization I used to work for:

Any re-examination of our experiment with term limits is bound to draw the attention of the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Term Limits organization. Last week, Jeremy Johnson, the U.S. Term Limits director of state government affairs, said in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that he was “prepared to run TV and radio ads and ‘do whatever it takes’ to keep Missouri’s legislative term limits in place.”

Claiming to be “one of the largest grass-roots movements in American history,” this organization goes from state to state testifying, lobbying and pontificating about the great benefits of term limits. U.S. Term Limits, however, has no interest in leveling the political playing field by supporting public financing of elections, free media time for candidates or any other type of campaign finance reform that would actually reduce the advantages of incumbency. In fact, their main goal seems to be to make sure that races for the General Assembly are based on one criterion: Money. Or, special interest money, to be exact.

You see, U.S. Term Limits is not the grass-roots organization that it makes itself out to be. It is yet another “Astroturf” organization funded almost entirely by billionaire Howie Rich, a real estate tycoon from New York who has been trying to get states to enact his radical ideas for property rights, education spending and state funding for the past 20 years or so.

Now, I’m the new guy here at the Show-Me Institute, but as far as I know we haven’t taken an official position on term limits. I’m convinced term limits are an excellent idea, but your mileage may vary. One thing I can say for sure, though, is that U.S. Term Limits is not an “Astroturf” organization. During the five-plus years I spent as an editor and webmaster for U.S. Term Limits, I had plenty of exposure to the organization’s membership databases and fundraising efforts — and we had huge broad-based grassroots support from throughout the nation. Including Missouri.

Term limits have gotten quite a bit of attention in the Missouri press recently, as pundits throughout the state blame them for an indecorous Legislature, in which lawmakers squabble and strongarm each other rather than compromise in order to get things done. “Go along to get along” should be the rule of the day, I suppose.

But for those of us who heed the adage (oft attributed to Mark Twain) that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session,” a Legislature beset by gridlock and filled with lawmakers who mistrust each other’s motives is a welcome improvement over the usual politics of glad-handing and backroom deals. I don’t want a Legislature that functions smoothly and with minimal dissent as it screws over taxpayers. Passing new legislation should be a difficult, contentious process, laden with scrutiny and debate. It should also be flexible enough so that if lawmakers, in retrospect, realize they’ve passed something that’s simply a bad idea, they can kill it or change it to make it better. If this is what term limits is bringing Missouri, we should be grateful.

Mr. Christianson claims that term limits “have succeeded in increasing the power of capital city lobbyists.” He gives one anecdotal source for this absurd claim, but no evidence. If they’re more powerful, why do surveys show that, consistently, lobbyists are more anxious to repeal term limits than anybody else? Lobbyists can’t enter into cozy long-term relationships with lawmakers who will be gone in a few years. They become less powerful under term limits, not more. If somebody is overhearing term-limited lawmakers talk about their lobbyist affiliations, it’s likely that they just haven’t learned to keep their nascent attempts at mutual back-scratching hushed up and out of sight, like career politicians have.

It’s telling when Mr. Christianson complains that “U.S. Term Limits, however, has no interest in leveling the political playing field by supporting public financing of elections, free media time for candidates or any other type of campaign finance reform that would actually reduce the advantages of incumbency.” These are all measures that limit free speech and entrench the political establishment against dark-horse candidates or outside criticism. It’s a common rejoinder that “money isn’t speech,” but the freedom to speak is worthless if the law prohibits you from buying a soapbox so people will actually hear your message.

Mr. Christianson also seems to object that the founder of U.S. Term Limits is spending “his New York money to influence how people live in some 14 other states,” as though good ideas about policy are dependent on geographic point of origin. The Show-Me Institute is based in Missouri, and we focus our research on Missouri economics and policy. But national groups have a broader purview, and it’s illogical to be wary of an idea simply because it comes from somebody based outside the state. Although I’m no longer an employee of U.S. Term Limits, I recall a column written by Paul Jacob during the last couple of months I worked there. He wrote:

U.S. Term Limits hears this argument about out-of-state influences quite often. Of course, the critics of term limits would like nothing better than for friends of term limits to pack our bags and go home. They don’t have any good arguments to make, so they talk about this out-of-state thing instead. Only when it’s convenient, though; career politicians love out-of-state influences when it adds to their campaign coffers.

In any case, U.S. Term Limits will not back away. We’re a national organization, with members in every state. And, of course, the nation is made up of 50 states, and term limits are a good idea for each and every one of them.

This is true for any good idea — regardless of the source.

Faint Praise

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

A few days ago, at the Laissez Faire Books blog, David M. Brown added a cautionary note to my May 7 praise of Claire McCaskill’s fight against the congressional earmark process. Although McCaskill has stood firm so far, refusing to dole out pork to her Missouri constituents, David isn’t so sure her stance will last:

McCaskill is under pressure from Democratic colleagues in both House and Senate to revise her distaste not for bloated rip-offs of the taxpayer per se but the way the bloated rip-offs are done. Stopping pork would not be a minor achievement: incumbents crave and exploit earmarks, and it would be a good first step to prevent them from furtively slipping pet projects into the spending bills and require them to discuss more openly how best to rip us off. And it’s only fair to wait and see what McCaskill does.

But the track record of politicos isn’t that auspicious. There have been a few principled congressmen in the modern era. But most of even the most anti-politics-as-usual newcomers to Washington tend to become mushier about their toe-the-line intentions the longer they’re in the capital, and regardless of partisan affiliation or alleged political philosophy.

In retrospect, I suppose congratulating a politician for not doling out taxpayer money hand over fist is sort of damning with faint praise. In a way, it reminds me of my Memorial Day weekend trip to my sister’s house, where my just-turned-three-year-old nephew was excited to let me know he could use a potty now. It feels silly to cheer effusively for someone using a toilet, but positive reinforcement helps cement his new skill as a step toward an ongoing civilized habit.

Simply doing the right thing isn’t an extraordinary accomplishment, it’s true. But it’s so far from the norm in politics, that I rush to offer positive reinforcement in the hopes that it might help — in some small way — to nudge a good political decision into a climate of ongoing political responsibility.

Books or Wine?

Posted on by Maurice Harris

An editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today is right on the point in discussing the inherent failures of school districts, in particular the Riverview Gardens School District, to keep track of spending by staff and administration.

A Post-Dispatch analysis of the district’s accounting records found
that school board members and district employees spent at least $1.7
million on travel in less than four years. That’s more than some
districts twice its size spend on travel. The district sent almost 600
teachers, staff members, principals, administrators and board members
on more than 100 trips to at least 60 cities, from the Lake of the
Ozarks to New York to San Francisco to Cape Town, South Africa.

All of this spending was discovered not by an internal audit of the district, but by two St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporters. Some people may say travel costs are needed to help with training and staff development, yet how does wine help administration officials run the district better?

District guidelines limit meal expenses to $40 a day, but at times,
school leaders enjoyed $8 glasses of Pinot Grigio, $28 entrees of rock
shrimp and $10 servings of creme brulée. In one case, a principal and a
school board member billed the district for $50 pedicures.

This shows that when districts do not watch spending or enforce their own limits, the district wastes taxpayers’ money on frivolous items that have nothing to do with education — and, in the end, the students and taxpayers are on the short end.

The St. Louis School Board’s Downward Spiral

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A letter in the Post-Dispatch criticizes the St. Louis School Board for awarding a no-bid contract to bash the charter schools:

Should anyone doubt that patronage still trumps pupil performance in the St. Louis Public Schools, look no further than the recent board vote to grant Lizz Brown a no-bid contract for "marketing" ("Firm with ties to city school board gets no-bid deal to counter charters," May 30).

It also notes that the district ended its contract with Teach for America:

The board also voted to discontinue its contract with Teach for America, an innovative nonprofit program celebrated nationally for its efforts in aiding urban schools. In her rants against outside contracts, Ms. Brown derisively refers to the group as "Can’t Teach for America." What, in her "expert" negative marketing opinion, does she know that the rest of the nation does not?

The district is panicking because parents are turning to the increasingly attractive charter schools. But it won’t keep anyone in the district with this unpopular PR contract or by getting rid of Teach for America.

This situation illustrates an important economic principle. The prospect of competition doesn’t necessarily cause a business or organization to make smarter decisions. It might keep doing the same counterproductive things. But competition allows the customers (in this case the students) to choose better alternatives. Of course, virtually everyone would prefer that the St. Louis Public Schools improve when they’re threatened with losing students. Unfortunately the board’s recent actions show that change probably won’t happen as soon as we’d like.

Beef and Pork Shouldn’t Mix

Posted on by Maurice Harris

In MissouriNet today, an article notes there could be a new tax break for beef producers if Gov. Blunt signs the Quality Jobs Act into law:

"A $30 million beef tax credit is buried among a number of tax credits
and incentives included in the $100 million-plus economic development
bill, HB 327, Governor Blunt has yet to sign. Rep. Charlie Schlottach
(R-Owensville) says the credit will provide an incentive to fatten
calves here rather than sell them to out-of-state feedlots."

Instead of continuing giving tax breaks to dozens of business groups, how about just cutting taxes across the board to encourage economic growth. Would pork create more beef? I don’t think so!

Au Contraire

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Rep. Brian Nieves has an op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader in which he defends his proposal to require using English in official proceedings:

If a town in Missouri decided to do official meetings in a language other than English, there would be nothing in our state constitution or laws to stop them. A person might say, "well, that would never happen in Missouri." I pray that’s true. But, I’m not willing to risk it.

First, we shouldn’t amend the constitution to rule out every scary remote possibility. Second, people who want to be convincing to others generally find a common language that everyone understands. I don’t stay up nights worrying about whether a town in Missouri may one day hold a meeting in Spanish, and I’m glad Rep. Nieves has no more pressing concerns.

Is English in danger? As we say in Aramaic, "the opposite makes sense!"

A Forthright Editorial in the Post-Dispatch

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

An editorial in the Post-Dispatch today chastises the St. Louis School Board for wasting money on a PR campaign against the charter schools:

School board members William Purdy, Peter Downs and Donna Jones seem convinced that waging a public relations campaign promoting St. Louis Public Schools is an effective way to counter negative perceptions of the district. But parents are capable of judging the merits and deficiencies of the school district on their own. They don’t need a PR flak to tell them what to think or how to evaluate what they can see with their own eyes. They also don’t deserve to be stuck with the tab.

The Post-Dispatch isn’t arguing in favor of tuition tax credits or vouchers. But doesn’t the same analysis apply? Parents can judge the merits and deficiencies of public, charter, and private schools — not just of this particular district. And they shouldn’t have to pay for a failing public school that they’ve chosen to leave.

Missouri Revolutionizes Health Insurance

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

We’re constantly reminded by the media that health care is in a crisis in the United States. Too few people with policies, too few conditions covered, an uncertain economy in which a lack of job permanency leaves people stranded without options when they get sick. You’d think reporters would jump all over a story about a new law that proposes to help alleviate many of these problems. At least our own Beverly Gossage has the pertinent info:

A long-awaited free-market step on the path to cover those without health insurance came out of Jefferson City on Friday. Gov. Matt Blunt signed HB 818, making Missouri the first state to permit pretax contributions from small business owners to their employees’ individually selected policies. Unlike other health care reform “solutions” that require more government intervention and bureaucracy?third-party or one-payer systems, employer mandates, tax hikes, and cost shifting?this law offers a common sense approach to health care reform.

The media has focused on a controversial midwife provision that was inserted into the bill at the last minute. But the real news here is the bill’s revolutionary approach to health insurance reform — and the fact that the bill won such overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers of the Legislature. There’s a lot to be excited about in HB 818, so here’s a primer you won’t find in the press.

Every newspaper article I’ve seen about Friday’s HB 818 signing frames it in terms of the midwife provision. It’s easy to focus on that because the fact that Sen. John Loudon managed to sneak the measure into the larger bill without anybody noticing is simply interesting. It’s a juicy story of political controversy and legislative dysfunction that illustrates several public choice insights. And besides, legalizing the practice of midwifery is also a great idea, as Sarah Brodsky has reminded us in this blog. At heart, it’s as much an issue of economic freedom and consumer choice as any other occupational licensure restriction.

But HB 818 is exciting for many other reasons. The health care crisis of today is largely a government-created problem, stemming from state licensure and financing of the medical profession, and from World War II-era wage freezes and price controls that gave employers an incentive to provide health insurance benefits instead of paying higher wages. This ultimately led to employer-based benefits becoming cemented as the norm for insurance coverage in the United States, a system that leaves out a tremendous number of people.

When government officials see problems they themselves created, their usual response is ever-spiraling regulation. More top-down control. Instead, the insurance bill signed into law on Friday takes a significant step in the right direction — allowing more individual choice and decentralized control.

Read more in Beverly Gossage’s primer on HB 818 and her Friday op-ed about why it’s so important.

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