According to an analysis of Census data conducted by Aaron Renn for the Show-Me Institute, the Missouri portion of the region is falling behind in every measure: per capita income, college degree attainment, population growth, job growth, and well as personal income and GDP growth. Renn points out:

The Missouri portion of the metro area by itself would perform worse and be ranked lower on all the statistics above as compared to the Kansas City metro area as a whole. This is due to the superior performance of the Kansas portion of the region compared to the Missouri portion.

Show-Me Institute researchers have written for years about the many things Kansas City can do to make itself a more attractive place to live, work, and shop. Too often rosy regional stories have lulled local leaders into a false sense of success. Kansas City, Missouri isn’t succeeding. This report should spur leaders and activists to look seriously at our own performance and work to improve it.

The post Kansas City is Falling Behind the Region appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These struck me as very large increases in such a short period of time. The last census report on biking to work was published in May 2019 and only includes data up to 2017. It indicated that only 0.6 percent of U.S. workers commute to work by bike. In Kansas City, the 2017 census data indicated that the number was 0.3 percent in the city and only 0.2 percent in the broader metro area. Where is the data that bike commuting has jumped 130 percent since 2016?

After Rogers stated those percentages, Shanin asked him what the numbers of commuters were [starts 3:39]. Rogers declined to answer, suggesting instead that viewers could do the math on their own. But they can’t from what Rogers provided; a percentage increase does not indicate the actual numbers. In fact, the high percentage increases may be a function of low actual bike commuting numbers. If two people in Kansas City biked to work in 2016, and three more joined them in 2018, that would represent a 150 percent increase—but it’s still hardly impressive.

Rogers has yet to respond to several requests for the data underlying his claim.

Incidentally, Rogers still has a blog post on BikeWalkKC that makes demonstrably false claims. In an April 1 (!) post titled, New Bike Plan Will Save Lives and Boost the Local Economy, he writes, “Economic Impact Analysis shows new bike master plan will save 36 lives every year, add $500 million to the regional economy, and create 12,000 jobs.” My colleague Kelvey Vander Hart addressed the claim about saving lives earlier this year.

But the jobs claim is just flatly wrong. The summary of findings upon which the Bike KC Master Plan claims are based states on page 6 that “this increase in economic activity leads to 12,600 additional jobs (measured in job years) over the period.” The period is 30 years, 2020 through 2050. Dividing 12,600 “job years” by 30 years gets 420 actual jobs. (Frankly even that seems high, but it’s not 12,600!)

Contorting data to justify dubious claims about job creation doesn’t help anyone. It only gives Kansas Citians even more reason to be skeptical as advocates ask taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something in which some neighborhoods see little value.

The post Bike Walk KC’s Fuzzy Math and Incorrect Claims appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The author of the Brookings Institution study referenced above does not know about Kansas City proper, or more specifically about downtown Kansas City. The Downtown Council itself apparently can’t provide worthwhile numbers either. Trying to piece together the data requires investing a lot of time and resources going through Census data at the county level. Until someone does that in 2019, we can rely on a 2016 paper for the Show-Me Institute by Wendell Cox, “Kansas City—Genuinely World Class.”

In Figure 3 on page 6, Cox offers us the chart at the top of this post. As you can see, populations have not grown in the urban parts of the Kansas City but rather in the areas outside the city proper. In fact, the urban and near-in suburbs are shrinking. This is expected to continue. Cox writes:

According to the Mid-America Regional Council, population growth will continue to be concentrated in the suburban counties. Between 2010 and 2040, it is projected that approximately 45 percent of the population growth will be in Johnson County, which will make up the bulk of the 55 percent of metropolitan area growth that is projected to occur in the Kansas suburbs. The Missouri counties are projected to constitute 45 percent of the metropolitan area growth, with Cass County accounting for 18 percent and Jackson County for 11 percent (Figure 4).

Lots of organizations spend a lot of money trying to attract people and jobs to Kansas City. All them have an incentive to show that all that money—in many cases tax dollars—is well spent so that their budgets will be expanded. Successes seem rare and the data aren’t promising. But if city leaders are serious about attracting residents and jobs, we need to have a serious conversation about what is working and what is not.

The post Follow-up on Kansas City Population Trends appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We already have a RTW law – passed by the Missouri Legislature and signed by the governor in early 2017. It was supposed to take effect on Aug. 28, 2017. However, on Aug. 18, organized labor groups collected enough signatures to give voters the choice of implementing the law (with a “yes” vote on Prop A) or rejecting it (with a “no” vote). A simple majority wins.

At a labor rally in St. Louis on June 23, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka joined with other labor leaders in proclaiming that RTW would set off a “race to the bottom” for all workers, not just union members. He said: “Proposition A will lower wages, destroy jobs, (and) increase poverty.”

Naturally, no union boss who can limit the supply of labor to members of his own union wants to give up that ability. Who wants competition – when you are in the cushy position of not having to compete? But the idea that competition is bad for growth and job creation is complete nonsense.

In fact, RTW states have consistently outperformed forced-union states in job growth, personal income growth, and economic growth. That’s not a matter of opinion; it comes from hard data provided by three federal bureaus (Census, Labor Statistics, and Economic Analysis) over the ten-year period from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, average job growth in the 22 states with RTW laws in place for most or all of that time was more than twice as fast (at 9.1 percent) as in the 28 forced-union states. The RTW states also had considerably faster growth in personal income (at 54.7 percent compared to 43.5 percent), and a much stronger economic growth (50.7 percent compared to 38.0 percent).

And there were other ancillary benefits, including faster population growth (more than double that of forced-union states). From 2004 to 2014, many Americans voted with their feet in moving into RTW states and out of forced-union states.

The devastation that befell the U.S. auto industry during and after the 1980s exemplifies what happens when companies are kept from responding to market forces as a result of compulsory unionization, forced to pay an artificially high price for labor, and forced to absorb “legacy” costs (health care and pensions) they cannot possibly afford over the long run.

During the Great Recession of 2008–2009, two of the three big automakers – GM and Chrysler – would have collapsed but for government bailouts totaling billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, Toyota and other foreign manufacturers that had opened plants in RTW states continued to perform well without bailouts.

In 2012, Michigan – the state that gave birth to the United Auto Workers union – became the 24th state to adopt RTW. Gov. Rick Snyder said that he believed that the legislation would lead to “more and better jobs for Michiganders.”

It is not just employers who benefit from right to work. It is anyone and everyone who seeks employment. Compulsory unionization represents an unfair and counterproductive abridgement of the freedom of people to offer their services to the highest bidder; they should not be locked out of an opportunity because a union with political clout has been granted a broad monopoly over the supply of labor.

The post How and Why Prop A Will Boost Jobs and Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This new notoriety (from Google Fiber) and all the press and tweets that went with it gave us a new way to tell the Kansas City story, Tech entrepreneurs discovered that Kansas City was a great place to start up. They moved here just to plug in to Google Fiber and gigabit connectivity.

Well, maybe not. Google Fiber came to the Kansas City area in 2011, the same year Mayor James took office. Prior to that, information jobs in the region, according to the U.S. Census, had been sliding downward. The number of these jobs slipped from 52,000 in 2008 to 39,000 in 2011, a loss of one-quarter. Since then, the numbers through 2013 are pretty flat.

We don’t need to rely solely on Census data. The Show-Me Institute’s Joe Miller recently reviewed a study by the San Diego Economic Development Corporation that ranked cities based on the health of their tech scenes. Miller concluded that the tech industry in Saint Louis is “not a large player nationally, nor is it a terribly significant driver of,” the economy. The outlook for Kansas City is even worse. Of the country’s 50 largest metros, Kansas City ranked 34th, behind peer cities St. Louis (28th) and Oklahoma City (24th) but ahead of Louisville (39th).

Kansas City ranked even lower (42nd) for tech talent, a measure based on tech employee retention rates, percent of population with computer or math degrees, and the number of computer science degrees being awarded. The Mayor recognized as much in his remarks,

Our tech companies need more trained help—people who can manage the flow of information and data, write code, fix equipment and implement creative ideas. And lots of people in our city need jobs, or better-paying jobs to support their families.

While more recent Census data may show an uptick in information jobs and employers in the Kansas City region, for all the spending and talk of momentum and people moving to Kansas City “just to plug in,” the data suggest otherwise. 

The post Kansas City’s Tech Inertia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 1950 Saint Louis was the eighth largest city in the United States with a population of 856,796. According to the 2014 Census estimate, Saint Louis has two-thirds fewer people than in 1950.

Such a dramatic decrease in population has major effects on local government. As the population declines, taxable income and sales leave the area and revenue declines with it. Lower population levels exacerbate other issues such as abandoned buildings, lower property values, and, as a result, fewer funds for public schools.

Saint Louis is a city that has much to offer. So why are people continuing to leave? What should the city do to halt the deflating population?

The post The Incredible Shrinking City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To a person, those in the room were opposed to the implementation of the EEZ. They asked questions about the zone, the required findings of blight, and the implications for the property values. Some were upset about the implications of blight and if their property could be subjected to eminent domain as a result. The Lee’s Summit Journal reported:

By state statute, such a zone does not alter local zoning nor can a city enact eminent domain on an EEZ area, a claim made by members of the Show-Me Institute.

“Any use of eminent domain within an EEZ is deliberately misleading,” [city consultant Chris] Sally told the crowd, adding that the term “blight” doesn’t mean a residence is blighted or run down and would not decrease property values, a claim that brought groans and sighs from the audience.

Members of the Show-Me Institute do not make this claim. We asked the Journal for a revision, but did not receive one. In our brief discussion about eminent domain in the testimony and op-ed, we put EEZs into the larger context of incentive and subsidies programs such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which do sometimes involve eminent domain. This is appropriate because recent history shows that when cities start implementing programs like this, they do not just stop at one. If you blight an area once for an EEZ, it will be even easier next time to blight it again for a TIF, and that very well could involve eminent domain abuse.

It is understandable that economic development consultants such as Sally are frustrated by research showing that the economic development “tools” from which they make their living are useless. Sally had to admit as much when he was asked if the job growth claims of Enhanced Enterprise Zones accounted for growth that was already happening in the area. He answered that they did not. In other words, and as the Show-Me Institute research pointed out, consultants and politicians just use EEZs to claim credit for economic growth that was already going to happen.

What is deliberately misleading, however, is the designation of EEZs themselves, and several attendees  commented the process was dishonest. In order to blight the area in which the Lee’s Summit City Council wants to attract development, it must include other “low-income” areas so that the whole EEZ qualifies. As a result, some of the so-called low-income areas are, in reality, neighborhoods with a large number of retired people. The City Council must also rely on 13-year old Census data regarding poverty and income — because more recent and accurate data won’t provide the numbers they need to create the EEZ. As a result, consultants like Sally draw lines around a Lee’s Summit that doesn’t exist, and state bureaucrats and city leaders seem willing to go along with the charade.

Democracy is alive and well in Lee’s Summit. The people understand a bad idea when they see it, even if city officials cannot.

The post Democracy Alive And Well In Lee’s Summit appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2006 and again in 2010, Money Magazine cited Lee’s Summit as one of the 100 Best Cities in the United States. The Lee’s Summit Chamber of Commerce boasts on its website: “Lee’s Summit is an ideal place to live and work, providing a desirable lifestyle that everyone can enjoy — high-quality, affordable housing in safe neighborhoods endowed with fine schools and excellent health care facilities.”

So why in the world is the Lee’s Summit City Council rushing to adopt an economic development program aimed at blighting large swaths of the city?

There is only one possible answer: The city council has been bitten by the same parasitical EEZ bug (Enhanced Enterprise Zone) that has attached itself to other cities and counties across Missouri.

In fact, almost a third of our state has been officially declared “blighted” as a result of the widespread use of EEZs, TIFs (Tax Increment Financing), TDDs (Transportation Development Districts), and other such programs that combine local subsidies for commercial development with the use of eminent domain — enabling developers to force residents out of their homes and small business owners out of their shops and offices.

On April 11, we presented testimony to the city council on the efficacy — or, more accurately, the inefficacy — of Enterprise Zones in Missouri. The Show-Me Institute had recently conducted a study comparing the economic performance of two groups: (1) eight Missouri counties that employed Enterprise Zones, and (2) 12 neighboring and economically similar counties that did not. We found that economic growth in the two groups was almost identical.

In other words, there was no evidence that Enterprise Zones had any positive impact on economic growth or employment. They seemed to be a waste of time and money.

Our statements to the Lee’s Summit City Council made this perfectly clear, and none of the economic development officials, city staff, or consultants at the meeting made an effort to argue otherwise.

Yet it was a clear that most members of the city council, along with the consultants and development staff, had already made up their minds: They wanted to move ahead as quickly as possible in setting up an EEZ.

One reason for the rush is the fear that the 2010 Census numbers, which are still being finalized, will show that poverty and unemployment rates in Lee’s Summit have dropped since the previous Census — which could have the effect of making Lee’s Summit ineligible for the subsidies from the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED).

Not that Lee’s Summit was any kind of an economic basket case 10 years earlier. Based on the 2000 Census, the median income for a family in Lee’s Summit was $70,702, or close to double the median family income for the state as a whole.

Nor does Lee’s Summit suffer from a lack of growth. Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Lee’s Summit grew from 70,700 people to 91,364 — an increase of 29 percent.

But neither prosperity nor rapid growth has dampened the enthusiasm of some city council members at the thought of spending some easy money.

On the night that we testified, one member of the city council argued that because the DED is giving the money away, Lee’s Summit might just as well take it. The proposed EEZ for Lee’s Summit is a particularly egregious example of throwing away taxpayer money for no good cause — in promoting a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Patrick Tuohey is the western Missouri field manager and David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Lee’s Summit EEZ: A Solution In Search Of A Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Indeed, Missouri has increased the number of high school graduates over the past 40 years, but so has every other state. Below I include a graph of the percentage of college graduates from 1990 to 2009 for Missouri and the neighboring states. This was a very quick comparison compiled from data reported by the Census (Table 233: Educational Attainment by State). It is clear from this graph that Missouri is not improving at a rate significantly different from other states. It is a well-established fact that more Americans are graduating from college than they were years ago. The question is, how are we doing in comparison to others?

Table 1: Percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or more

To illustrate this point, take a look at the Show-Me Institute essay Slip Sliding Away. The authors of the piece look at the growth of Missouri’s Gross Domestic Product from 1997 to 2010. Without a doubt, the GDP of Missouri grew within that time frame. Yet, the authors do not conclude that Missouri has been making gains, because they put the estimates in the appropriate context by comparing Missouri to the nation and neighboring states.

Just as it was in the GDP comparison, it is clear that Missouri is not making gains in academic attainment, when the appropriate comparisons are made. I do not mean to get all wonky, but the folks at Missouri Wonk simply have this wrong.

For more information about Missouri’s middling academic growth, please check out other Show-Me Daily Posts: here, here, here, and here.

The post Stuck In The Middle: Context Matters, Just Not For Missouri Wonk appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last Friday, I travelled to the 108th Missouri State Fair in Sedalia, for my shift at the Show-Me Institute’s booth, fully prepared to engage in conversation with Missourians about how state and local governments create barriers to the free exchange of goods and services. I expected to field some tricky questions about whether the Show-Me Institute has partisan affiliations — we have none — or about pending, unaffiliated ballot initiatives, but I did not meet a single Missourian who wanted to know about either of these matters. Instead, I got tripped up by a seven-year-old’s query, “What is the smallest town in the state?”

Had the child asked which of Missouri’s 115 counties has the highest rate of tax abatement as a percentage of total real property assessed valuation, I could have provided an answer. Had he inquired about the intricacies of state supplemental tax increment financing, I would have jumped at the chance to describe its function and effects. I certainly would have had something to say about state spending for historic preservation or the myths of downtown “revitalization” in St. Louis. But I did not know the answer to the question, “What is the smallest town in the state?”

I promised my questioner that I would get back to him after consulting the Census, so, without further ado, here is the answer to the trickiest question from Sedalia:

Goss Town, population one, in Monroe County, population 9,311, is the smallest town in the state.

If you have a question for the Show-Me Institute, please feel free to stop by our booth in Sedalia for the remainder of the fair, or place a comment on the blog.

The post “What Is the Smallest Town in the State?” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Considering the federal government hired 7,300 temporary census workers last month, it doesn’t mean much at all. In the private sector, Missouri actually lost jobs. Employment gains in leisure, hospitality, and “other” services experienced modest gains, but other sectors saw more substantial job losses. Construction, manufacturing, professional and business services, and educational and health services all experienced job losses in Missouri last month. Not counting the newly hired and temporary census workers, Missouri actually lost 2,400 jobs.

Furthermore, some Census workers have alleged that the bureau has engaged in repeated hiring and firing in order to intentionally inflate employment numbers. A personal friend of mine who recently worked as a Census taker in the St. Louis area claims to have filled out new hire paperwork and been retrained every time he finished a neighborhood. The training of a census employee takes three or four days, so taxpayers pick up the check for the “training” — with no actual benefit to the Census efforts — every time a worker is retrained. Ultimately, special interests affect every level of government.

The post Show Me the Real Unemployment Rate appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“The census is the basis of over $400 billion in federal funding,” she said. “The LGBT community is not able to effectively lobby to be recipients of any of that money.”

If advocates believe the Census questions are discriminatory or offensive to any group, they should certainly make that case. However, greater ease in lobbying is not a good reason to add to the list of questions. Census participation is required by law, and it would be an inappropriate invasion of respondents’ privacy to compel them to share their sexual orientation or other personal characteristics that some lobbyists would like statistics on. Similarly, while it would help advocates for funding of medical research if everyone had to reveal their medical histories on the Census, the Census does not gather this information.

Advocates can use other means, like petition drives and rallies, to show lawmakers how many people support their causes.

The post Lobbying Through the Census appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The video was produced by a University of Michigan student for a university-sponsored contest. It won second place. In the clip, students gather numbers representing how many people live in their houses — one takes a big “4,” another a “5,” and so on. The students bring their numbers to a bureaucrat and pile them on his desk. He, in turn, pulls a humongous dollar sign out of a drawer and hands it to them. Words flash across the screen, informing viewers that they can “earn money and recognition” for their communities by participating in the Census.

You have to see it to believe it:

The post University of Michigan Student: Census Participation = Cash appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Contact your local representatives and let them know how important this event is to you and for what reasons, whether it is because of the economic impact it has on the local communities and state as a whole, the educational aspect of providing an interesting curriculum to the schools, that it promotes healthy lifestyles for children and adults alike (Bike sales increased the week of the event in 2009), the Tourism exposure as the eyes of the world focus on Missouri for a week each year, or the increased sense of community as all of the host cities unite to put together a special welcome to the visitors from nearly 100 countries and all 50 states. Or maybe you can just tell them you want it because it is a heck of a lot of fun!

The Tour of Missouri, like other potential recipients of state funds, does a lot of constructive things. But that’s not enough reason for the state to continue subsidizing it when revenue decreases.

In order to show that Tour of Missouri deserves a subsidy, supporters would have to demonstrate that a dollar spent on the Tour gives Missourians more benefit than that same dollar would if spent on anything else. There are other programs out there that claim to accomplish some of the same things as the Tour. For example, it’s been suggested that archery is a good basis for interesting curricula. Film tax credits are said to boost the economy, local food initiatives to engender healthy habits, and Census promotional events to build community.

This state representative gets the idea:

“You wouldn’t want to cut something that was proven to have brought money back,” he said, adding that the money has to come from somewhere. By way of example, he said you could ask educators if they would cut $1 million from Parents as Teachers or Career Ladders programs to fund the race.

Some people have told me that comparing programs like that is a “false choice.” They say that we don’t have to choose between Parents and Teachers and a bicycle race, because we can have both. They imply that it’s unfair to bring up education funding when you’re discussing a subsidy for an unrelated program — as if no program could appear deserving when held up against the schools.

If by “false choice” people mean that we shouldn’t fund one program we like best to the exclusion of all others, then they’re right. We don’t want to fund public schools and nothing else; government funding is not winner-take-all. However, at the margin — when we’re deciding where to spend that last dollar of state funds, or where to make the next cut to balance the budget — we do need to compare programs. We need to make sure that we’re cutting funds from the program that is least necessary, not the program that is most productive.

People who still think these decisions at the margin are “false choices” are making a mistake. They’re assuming that their favorite program doesn’t need to be as productive as others when, in fact, it does. Resources are scarce. Tax dollars can’t go toward funding just any program that does a nice job. Deciding to increase funding for one program but not another would be a false choice only if there were some way to give every program the full funding increase its supporters want. There isn’t — so, as the state representative pointed out, a dollar spent on one program is a dollar that could have been spent on something else.

It’s also a mistake to think that schools would gobble up all the money if only the most deserving programs were funded. Suppose we decided to spend tax dollars where they’re most needed, and we started funneling dollar after dollar into education. Pretty soon, the state would be in dire need of other services that schools can’t provide. In that situation, a dollar spent on one of several other programs would be more productive than a dollar spent on schools.

Besides comparing programs as I’ve discussed, legislators also have to consider whether the last dollar spent on a state program would have been put to better use if left in the private sector. If the answer is “Yes,” it should be returned to the taxpayers.

Choosing between funding a program that’s “a heck of a lot of fun” and funding a program that’s boring but productive may be a difficult choice, but it isn’t a false choice.

The post Hard Choices, Not False Choices appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, everything the Census Bureau put up on YouTube has been a wild success when compared with the embarrassing event in Jefferson City yesterday. I say “embarrassing” not because I’m scandalized that there were belly dancers there, but because almost no one showed up to watch them. My Two Census picked up the story as an example of ineffective Census promotion.

I actually feel bad for the belly dancers, who had to perform with little clothing on when the temperature was in the low 50s. The poor turnout couldn’t have helped their self-esteem much, either.

I have a better idea for promoting the Census: Promise that if enough people mail back their forms, the Census Bureau will post a clip on YouTube of its director belly dancing.

The post The Census Bureau Should Stick to YouTube appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many reports about the Census (like the Springfield News-Leader article I wrote about) stress the connection between Census data and funding for government programs. They include quotes anticipating dire things if participation is low and funding falls short. From this point of view, the larger the total the Census Bureau arrives at for your area’s population, the better.

What sets the AP’s article apart is that the people quoted in it are focused on accuracy. Whether the Census records eight or nine residents in a town doesn’t change federal appropriations. The difference matters only to people who want the numbers to be exactly correct, for truth’s sake. One woman is actually quoted complaining that the Census Bureau states there are two residents in her town, when in fact she alone lives there. I haven’t seen any other calls for the Bureau to revise its numbers downward.

The post Counting the Smallest Towns’ Residents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Portrait of America video has just over 6,500 hits…which would sound pretty pathetic for a 10 month campaign if only it wasn’t revealed that the other six videos posted 10 months ago each received between 347 and 1,305 hits. In the series of videos posted 6 months ago, the most widely-watched video, about the address-canvassing operations, has been viewed a measly 1,083 times. (This means that only a tiny fraction of the workers involved in this process even watched the video…)

For comparison, 1,700,000 people watched Google’s Super Bowl ad on YouTube. And “How Many Times Must Our Health Care Fail,” the song I linked to in this post, has been viewed 3,700 times.

My Two Census’ numbers don’t reflect the Census Bureau’s full impact on YouTube, because they don’t take into account the separate channel that the Bureau created for its Super Bowl ad. The ad features an imaginary film director named Payton Schlewitt, and it can be found — along with other clips of Schlewitt’s antics — on the Payton Schlewitt channel. There, the numbers are better. The ad itself drew 117,300 hits within five days. Another video of Schlewitt and his cohorts, which highlights the fact that animals are not counted in the Census, is up to 1,400 hits, also after only a few days.

So, the numbers aren’t as bad as they would appear from the Census Bureau’s channel alone. Still, My Two Census has a point. Payton Schlewitt’s viewership pales next to Google’s. And, of the people who watched the Census ad, many reacted unfavorably. Viewers rated it a mediocre two-and-a-half stars, and several comments complain that taxes had to pay for it.

The post The Census Bureau Is Not a YouTube Sensation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are a few other Census promotions that I just don’t get. One is this public service announcement that urges viewers to “make your voice heard.” The Census asks people very specific and limited questions, as it should. It doesn’t ask for your opinion or for a personal statement. People who fill out every line of the Census form won’t be making their voices heard — they’ll just be reporting basic details about their households to the government.

And then there’s a clip from a legislator from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota that’s both inspiring and scary. I say “inspiring” because it starts off with a message of being true to yourself and overcoming whatever obstacles you face. (The legislator then loses me by saying that the way to overcome those obstacles is to participate in the Census.) The scary part is the end of the segment, when the legislator ominously warns that federal funding for health care will be insufficient if some tribal members don’t fill out their forms.

I hope Show-Me Daily readers will mail back their Census forms, in accordance with the Constitution. But I’m not expecting thunderbolts from heaven if a few of you don’t participate. And, to the people who want to express themselves: Blogs are a better medium than government paperwork.

The post Census Singalong and More appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The editorial concludes:

The unseemly competition for federal dollars will continue until state and local governments join forces on the principled high ground and refuse to play anymore.

Race to the Top is similar to this year’s Census marketing campaign. The end goal of each is for the federal government to distribute money to the states. The difference is that the Constitution mandates a census, whereas there’s no constitutional justification for a race to the top — or for any other federal interference in education.

If Race to the Top is a show, I’d like Missouri to call a friend; we should call Texas and learn from a state that won’t run for the tax dollars.

The post Dancing with the Feds appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Making people more vulnerable to scams could be an unintended consequence of this strategy. We want people to remain cautious about giving out personal information. They shouldn’t be eager to share details of their lives the minute someone knocks on their door and claims to work for the Census.

And people should know that the Census asks for some kinds of information, like phone numbers, but not others, like credit card numbers. When the Census Bureau gathers videos and photos about life in general, it blurs the line between data that’s part of the Census and personal information you shouldn’t give out to just anyone.

The post Another Reason the Census Bureau Shouldn’t Collect Stories appeared first on Show-Me Institute.