Read It to Me!

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A letter in the Springfield News-Leader criticizes a recent editorial. The editorial argued against the proposed English-only amendment, stating that English is already Missouri’s common language. Here’s an excerpt from the letter:

It seems to me that we, the general public, could have been better served and educated by including a direct quote from the Missouri Constitution about official language. Yes, I can get a copy of the Constitution and read it. I haven’t done so. How many of us would you expect to do so?

It’s funny to hear this from someone who’s complaining that immigrants ask for everything on a silver platter, forcing us to translate official documents for them because they won’t take the initiative to learn English:

(I)t is a necessity for them to learn and use the English language if they are to become productive and successful citizens.

If they follow the lead of this writer, they’ll just sit around waiting to be "served and educated."

Trafficking in Good Ideas

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Paul Jacob has been writing and recording his Common Sense radio commentaries for years, first for U.S. Term Limits, then for Americans for Limited Government, and now for The Sam Adams Alliance. I mentioned a three-year-old Common Sense piece last week in a blog entry I wrote about term limits here in Missouri.

Now, the Show-Me Institute has turned up in Common Sense for the first time:

[A] suggestion by a think tank in Missouri might cause a few heads to shake. In disbelief.

The idea? Make the Poplar Street Bridge a part-time toll bridge.

Southern Illinois University economist R. W. Hafer, writing for the Show-Me Institute, argues that another bridge might not even ease congestion. Why? By making commuting easier it would effectively lower the cost of commuting. When costs go down, demand grows, in this case even taking people off of public transit to drive their cars.

Putting a price on bridge travel, on the other hand — especially if the prices rise when demand rises — would encourage commuters to economize, and thus make the trek over the Mississippi easier for all.

This Common Sense excerpt refers, of course, to an op-ed written last month by Show-Me Institute scholar R.W. Hafer. He takes price theory, which works so well for goods and services in the private sector, and applies it to roads and traffic patterns. It’s a good idea, too often overlooked by people who are used to using roads for free. But, as I pointed out last month in a piece about ticket-scalping, goods that are priced below market value still have a high cost — usually in terms of time spent waiting in line. In this case, it’s a high cost in terms of wading through rush hour traffic congestion. Ultimately, no goods are free. The important thing is not to make prices artificially lower, but determining the most efficient way to distribute real-world costs.

It’s against federal law to charge a toll on roads constructed with federal gax taxes, and the Missouri constitution currently disallows using state funds to build toll roads, so we can’t just slap a few toll booths on existing roads and bridges without somebody passing some legislation first. But getting legislation enacted isn’t our job — we simply conduct research and educate people about our findings, and the value of free-market mechanisms in public policy.

In other words, we traffic in good ideas. So does Paul Jacob.

No Pork for Claire

Posted on by Maurice Harris

In today’s The Hill, an article points to the excesses of pork barrel spending by Democrats and Republicans in the Defense Authorization Bill going through the Senate. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the panel, are on the top of the list of requesting pork projects.

Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total…Meanwhile, Levin’s tally far exceeded Clinton’s take: 45 earmarks worth about $210 million.

The only two senators who did not request projects: Missouri’s own Sen. Claire McCaskill and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Both of the senators  have sponsored earmark-disclosure language as part of the bill’s markup. Luckily there are some senators that understand the problems of pork-barrel spending and the drain it is on the U.S. treasury. Good job, Sen. McCaskill, for refusing to include more pork projects that take money out of the pocket of Missouri taxpayers.

The Cycle of Regulation Never Ends…

Posted on by David Stokes

Those of us here at the Show-Me Institute have strongly supported the midwife legislation passed by the legislature. The various reasons for this were generally simple: Responsbile adults should have the right to choose who will assist them in the birthing process. To this end, the final legislation that made it through was great (how it made it through is another issue) — a simple rule allowing midwives certified by a national organization to work in Missouri. However, from this article in the Springfield News-Leader, it appears that Missouri midwifes might be looking a gift horse in the mouth, to use a related medical term:

This year we proposed a bill that would set up a comprehensive licensure board, modeled after many other states, for Certified Professional Midwives.

CPMs go through thorough [sic] pregnancy and birth education (the academic portion of their work takes two to six years) and rigorous training (including 1,350 clinical hours one-on-one with a senior midwife and attending a minimum of 40 births, 20 where they must act in the primary role under supervision in an out-of-hospital setting). Then CPM applicants sit for an eight-hour written exam and pass a skills assessment.

The bill would have allowed midwives with CPM certification to apply for a Missouri license. It would provide a regulatory mechanism to investigate and, if necessary, punish a midwife just as the Missouri State Board of Nursing does.

I hope that midwifes do not continue to push for this legislation in future sessions. As the world of government grows and turns, it appears that midwifes want to be regulated just as much as the doctors who fought against them are — and for the same reason every existing group likes its own certifications. That reason is to make it harder for newcomers to perform the same job, and to diminish competition. Being that midwifes haven’t even been allowed to start competing yet, it is unfortunate that they seem to be already trying to get a midwife monopoly going.

There are other amusing items in this article. How about the above line that learning to be a midwife can take up to six years? Why would you not just be a doctor if you are going to study obstetrics for six years? There is always a medical school somewhere willing to take you. Just as good is the description of the fear those using midwives have been living under:

For the first time in 48 years, mothers won’t have to tell their midwives to "park behind the barn" or worry that their home birth will be interrupted.

Birth being interrupted?  Do the cops bust in on midwives at home births like they are raiding a crack house?  Perhaps, since midwifery mostly occurs in rural Missouri, a meth lab metaphor would be more appropriate.

This is a good law that was passed to allow midwifery in Missouri. We don’t need silly exagerations by midwives to prove their point. And we certainly don’t need them, now that they have achived their goals, to try to practice the same exclusive regulation as other occupational groups.

Sarah Brodsky also contributed to this entry.

Taxing for Better Roads!

Posted on by Maurice Harris

In today’s Columbia Missourian, an article discusses the problems that the Missouri Legislature is having in finding an appropriate amount to tax to improve transportation infrastructure in Missouri. Both the House and the Senate transportation chairman, Neal St. Onge and Bill Stouffer respectively, want to raise the sales tax by either 1/2 cent or 1 cent to improve roads in Missouri. Yet both sides are far from agreeing on many of the details of the new tax, which they want to send to the voters by the August 2008 election:

The chairmen of the House and Senate transportation committees have
proposed their own transportation tax packages with hopes of putting
them on the August 2008 ballot. But both said Monday that prospects for
legislative approval appear iffy and a better route may be an
initiative petition by citizens.

Overall, the voters of Missouri will have to decide on any tax increase for future projects, but I believe the better option to this problem of funding transportation construction is coming from Sen. Matt Bartle:

Separately, Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee’s Summit, has proposed a
constitutional amendment allowing the Missouri Department of
Transportation to operate toll roads.

Instead of raising taxes on people who may almost never use highways for long distance travel, put in tolls for people who always use the highways. It’s a fairer way to collect money for roads and will cost taxpayers nothing — but the government will still receive the money they need to expand our transportation infrastructure in Missouri.

How Old is Old Enough?

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

A letter to the editor in the Columbia Daily Tribune suggests that we should allow people to serve as state legislators only if they are at least 40 years old:

Anyone younger probably does not have the life experience, job experience or kids they’ve put through college needed to fully comprehend legislative repercussions.

First, most 40-year-olds haven’t put kids through college either — unless they had kids at age 18. And what if a legislator doesn’t have kids, or his kids decided to work after high school? Does that mean he isn’t fit to serve?

What we really need is legislators who have common sense. Someone who didn’t have this quality at age 25 or 35 is unlikely to gain it suddenly when he turns 40.

If at First You Don’t Succeed …

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

D. Kent King, the state’s Commissioner of Education, says "no" to the St. Louis Public Schools’ appeal of the state takeover:

"Based on the information submitted, I find you have presented no new or corrected information," King said in a written denial sent to Superintendent Diana Bourisaw.

The district will keep trying in court tomorrow. I give the St. Louis Public Schools an ‘A’ for effort. Had they worked as hard to improve student academic achievement as they’re working to hold on to their jobs, the district would probably be in much better shape now.

When Government is Unaccountable

Posted on by Maurice Harris

In today’s SE Missourian, an article discusses the sorry financial state that Puxico, MO, is in. The state auditor found that the town uses restricted funds that supposed to be spent on streets and the water went to the general fund of the town. Also, the audit found excess spending for items that Puxico did not need:

The city also used approximately $1,400 of taxpayer money to purchase
hams for Christmas presents for employees and for a Christmas party, as
well as purchasing flowers, figurines and candy for city employees or
other individuals for illness or death, and paid for an official’s
spouse to attend a conference.

The article also discusses that the town was missing money as well, causing budget deficits that grew over the last few years. Finally, the town broke sunshine laws that kept citizens ill-informed of what was going on:

"The city does not document when agendas for board meetings are
posted," said Lewis. There was no information available to determine
when the agendas were posted.

This is proof positive that when government is not overseen by the people it serves, incidents like this happen, where government waste runs rampant. Also, Puxico’s economy is not in the best shape to expand the tax base and add revenue to the town’s treasury. This is probably due to the sorry fiscal shape of the town. Overall, it shows that when governments are not kept in check, making sure that their tax dollars are well-spent, waste and malfeasance can happen.

Reliability Engineering for Property Rights

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

On May 24, the Springfield News-Leader published an editorial about eminent domain, highlighting the fact that Ozark, a town outlying Springfield to the south, ended up electing a new mayor because of the city’s use of eminent domain threats to buy up homes for private development. It’s a heartwarming tale of citizen action standing up against abuse of power by government officials — but the News-Leader drew the wrong lesson. The editorial claims that because, in this case, local activism led to a change in policy, constitutional protection against eminent domain is not required. If officials abuse eminent domain, citizens will respond through electoral pressure, which is "how democracy works best." So why try to stave off that abuse beforehand, through constitutional law?

On Saturday, the News-Leader printed a response op-ed by Ron Calzone, chairman of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, who handily dismantles the newspaper’s earlier arguments:

It was no small thing for citizens of Ozark to throw out an incumbent mayor in favor of a candidate who was pro-property rights. And a circuit court in Arnold, Mo., declaring unconstitutional the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment by non-chartered cities, was the most significant advancement for property rights in decades.

These victories were fought for and won on the local level, but that is no indication that the state should abdicate its responsibility to protect its citizens’ rights. Imagine if we made the same application to other types of crime. A homeowner thwarts a burglar with his 12 gauge shotgun. A little old lady’s screams scare off a purse snatcher. A mugger picks the wrong victim when he preys on the martial arts instructor. These are all "local" successes, but they do not mitigate the need for an able police force.

In fact, the very purpose of government is to protect its citizen’s property — both their material property and also what James Madison referred to as that encompassed by the "larger and juster meaning" of "property". Our own state constitution is based on this principle.

I’m reminded of the time I attended the Foundation for Economic Education‘s Las Vegas conference in 2002. On my final day in town, I caught Penn & Teller‘s magic show and saw them perform their version of the infamous bullet catch illusion. Penn Jillette assured the audience (he did the assuring, since Teller doesn’t speak onstage) that the trick was completely safe — they had several layers of redundant safety precautions built in to the routine. If any one, or even two, of those precautions failed during the actual performance, the others would still prevent either magician from coming to harm.

This is also known as reliability engineering. The idea is, you don’t want a critical system to have any single point of failure that can jeopardize the entire operation when only one thing goes wrong. If, like Penn & Teller, you build redundant safety mechanisms into your system, you’ll be much less likely to succumb to a crisis if any one part of the system fails.

What Calzone is arguing for here is a reliable system for protection against eminent domain. Sure, citizens can organize at local levels to protect themselves, but let’s face it — everybody has their own lives to lead, and fighting city hall isn’t high on most people’s priority lists. If there were a safety point at the constitutional level as well, abuses would be far less likely to require local activism in the first place. Redundancy at multiple levels would protect more people from unjust property takings.

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