In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, about his latest book Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation. They discuss reducing housing regulations to address the housing shortage, the broader impacts of housing policy on urban development and affordability, how to talk about public policy, and more.

Order the book here.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Build More Housing with Bryan Caplan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A bill introduced in the Missouri Legislature, Senate Bill 88, would build on improving past successes in the occupational licensing sphere. It would strengthen prior licensing reciprocity legislation by reducing the maximum wait time for oversight bodies to waive requirements from six months to 45 days. This bill would also make it possible for Missouri licensing requirements to be waived for workers in states without such requirements provided they have at least three-years of applicable experience.

Ness Sandoval, a professor from St. Louis University, has written that Missouri is in a demographic winter—more people are dying in Missouri than are being born. Pair this finding with declining student enrollment in the state, one can see the need for Missouri to attract workers from out of state rather than put barriers in their path.

Against the substantial cost of licensing requirements we need to weigh the potential benefits to the quality and safety of products/services, but evidence of such benefits is underwhelming. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University conducted a meta-analysis of 19 different studies in Florida directly related to licensing and product quality. In 16% of these studies, researchers observed positive relationships between licensing and product quality, in 21% they observed a negative relationship, and in 63% they observed no relationship.

The Institute for Justice has identified nine occupations that Missouri licenses but are not licensed by at least 15 states throughout the country. For example, Missouri is one of 22 states that require a license to work as a sign-language interpreter—which entails $442 in fees, 60 credit hours of education, and two exams. Under current statute, if a sign-language interpreter with three years of experience from Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, or Ohio wanted to move to Missouri, they would have to spend the time and money to acquire a license before they could work here. The same would be true for an experienced veterinary technician from one of the 15 states that don’t require a license.

Occupational licensing increases costs to consumers, limits competition, and by its nature involves government in the free market. In some cases (e.g., physicians), such costs may be justified in order to ensure the safety of the public. But policymakers should look for ways to limit the burden of licensing to cases in which it is absolutely necessary. Embracing the policies embodied in Senate Bill 88 would be a step in this direction,

The post Senate Bill 88 and Licensing Restrictions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recorded on December 1, 2022 at the World Chess Hall of Fame in St. Louis, Missouri

Tony Woodlief is Executive Vice President at the State Policy Network. He helps oversee SPN operations, supports SPN’s president in her guidance of the leadership team, and helps ensure the organization’s projects and programs measure success, evolve as SPN grows, and maintain alignment with our vision and mission.

Tony previously served as president of the Bill of Rights Institute, and before that the Market-Based Management Institute. He has also served as president of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. An alumnus of the University of North Carolina, he has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Michigan, and an MFA from Wichita State University. Tony has appeared in media outlets including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, National Review, and C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.

Tony is also the author of I, Citizen: A Blueprint for Reclaiming American Self-Governance. In writing I, Citizen, Tony conducted extensive research on American public opinion to find out what Americans believe and uncover the source of their political animosities. Through his research, Tony discovered that America is more united than divided, despite what the pundits tell us, and traced the source of our perceived animosity to a small minority of dedicated partisans within the political establishment of Washington, DC. I, Citizen tells the story of how these partisans have created the myth of a divided America and how they’ve concentrated power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and partisan elites, and offers practical solutions for how we can reclaim our right to self-governance by focusing on solutions and commonalities closer to home.

The post WATCH: The Red Vs Blue Myth and the Real Threat to American Stability appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Visit MoSchoolRankings.org

About the Project

In response to DESE’s failure to perform one of its most basic functions, we launched The Missouri School Rankings Project and MoSchoolRankings.org.

The mission of The Missouri School Rankings Project is to make student performance data more transparent by providing parents, policymakers, educators, and taxpayers with access to easy-to-understand information about every Missouri school and school district in order to motivate actions that will result in dramatic reforms to Missouri’s education system.

Why School-level Data Matters

Parents Need Information to Choose

Parents need accurate information to make informed decisions about which school will best serve their children. MoSchoolRankings.org provides a detailed picture of student performance for each school.

Comparison Reveals Problems and Solutions 

The MoSchoolRankings.org comparison tool allows users to compare student performance from up to 3 schools at a time.

By comparing schools that serve similar student populations, we can identify successful schools and learn from them.

The ability to compare individual schools also allows families who are relocating to make informed decisions about which districts or school boundaries to move into. The comparison tool also highlights that many Missouri families, who are not able to move, are trapped in low-performing schools and districts.

Spending Data

The public sector should make it easy for citizens to see how their money is being spent. The powers that be shouldn’t tailor spending numbers to include some things and exclude others. So we’re providing everything, and users can decide what they consider to be relevant. The entire data set of nearly 500 variables for each district available for download. And the DESE accounting manual can be accessed on the site.

The Rankings

Each student performance metric is given a grade of A through F. The grades are combined to produce a grade point average, or GPA, which is then converted to a single letter grade. Each school and district receives a letter grade and is ranked accordingly. Information on how grades and ranks are calculated can be found on the Grading Methodology page.

The performance rankings are calculated using several performance metrics that measure student performance.

These metrics are:

• Student performance in ELA and mathematics
• Low-income student performance in ELA and mathematics
• Student growth in ELA and mathematics
• A comparison of student performance in ELA and math to each school or district’s expected performance based on its enrollment of economically disadvantaged students
• 4-year graduation rate
• ACT scores

If multiple schools or districts had the lowest possible score for an item (for example, if 0 percent of their students scored Proficient or higher in math), then they would share a rank.

Key Terms

Definitions and further explanations of the terms used to determine rankings can be found in the glossary section.

Some key terms to understand while exploring the portal are:

Achievement Levels

• Below Basic—the student has only a minimal understanding of the material.
• Basic—the student has a partial understanding of the material.
• Proficient—the student has an adequate understanding and is able to apply subject matter as defined by the Missouri Learning Standards.
• Advanced—the student demonstrates a thorough understanding and ability to apply subject matter.

Academic Growth

A statistical model used to identify differences in student academic growth from one year to the next among schools or districts with similar baseline scores.

Adjusted Achievement 

For each school or district, the percentage of low-income enrollment was multiplied by the baseline rate and subtracted from the baseline. The result is the school’s (or district’s) predicted score. If a school’s (or district’s) expected score is higher than its actual score, it underperformed. If a school’s (or district’s) expected score is lower than its actual score, it overperformed.

Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted School Improvement (TSI)

Schools with these designations are low-performing schools. 

Additional Information About Districts and Schools Includes:

• Percent of low-income students
• Percent of students with disabilities
• Full-Time Equivalent teachers
• Average teacher salary
• Total expenditures
• Total expenditures per pupil

About the Research

The Missouri School Rankings Project is led by Show-Me Institute’s Director of Research and Education Policy Dr. Susan Pendergrass. Before joining the Show-Me Institute, Susan Pendergrass was Vice President of Research and Evaluation for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, where she oversaw data collection and analysis and carried out a rigorous research program. Susan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business, with a concentration in Finance, at the University of Colorado in 1983. She earned her Masters in Business Administration at George Washington University, with a concentration in Finance (1992) and a doctorate in public policy from George Mason University, with a concentration in social policy (2002). Susan began researching charter schools with her dissertation on the competitive effects of Massachusetts charter schools. Since then, she has conducted numerous studies on the fiscal impact of school choice legislation. Susan has also taught quantitative methods courses at the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies, at Johns Hopkins University, and at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. Prior to coming to the National Alliance, Susan was a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of Education during the Bush administration and a senior research scientist at the National Center for Education Statistics during the Obama administration.

Contact Us about the Project 

The post The Missouri School Rankings Project appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The evidence against economic development subsidies (which this paper defines as “any government-granted privilege that creates exclusive economic benefits for its recipient(s)”) is stacking up. Research shows that subsidies may benefit the specific firm or industry that receives the privilege, but most subsidies don’t result in any measurable improvements in the broader communities that pay for them. In fact, they may reduce economic development in the broader community if states fund them with tax increases or reduced spending on public services, two things that drive away economic development. There’s also little evidence that economic development subsidies sway a company’s decisions to relocate or expand.

So why do policymakers still give out these subsidies?

The paper identifies a few reasons, but one seems particularly relevant to Kansas City’s situation: Policymakers feel pressure and may view it as politically advantageous to offer subsidies if surrounding states are also offering them. This seems to be a driving force in the Kansas–Missouri border war; each subsidy offered by Kansas policymakers encouraged policymakers in Missouri to offer one, and vice versa. As the paper points out, “[between] 2011 and 2018, Kansas and Missouri paid a combined $335 million to subsidize the relocation of around 12,000 jobs from one state to the other, with most companies moving only five to seven miles.”

These researchers propose an interstate compact as a solution, the specifics of which can be found in the paper. The current truce between Kansas and Missouri is a small step in the right direction, in theory. But in practice, it has numerous problems and hasn’t produced the hoped-for results. If lawmakers are serious about ending wasteful economic development incentives and promoting economic growth, they should take some notes from this Mercatus paper and truly end the border war for good.

The post New Paper Suggests Kansas and Missouri on the Right Track with Truce appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Mercatus project to analyze state-level regulation is a continuation of the state-level analysis on regulations conducted in Missouri for the No Mo Red Tape campaign initiated under Gov. Greitens. Mercatus says of the effort,

Mercatus researchers Patrick McLaughlin and Oliver Sherouse created QuantGov, an open-source policy analytics platform designed to help create greater understanding and analysis of the breadth of government actions. The platform allows researchers to quickly and effectively examine bodies of text using some of the latest advances from data science, such as machine-learning and other artificial intelligence technology.

The top-regulated industries in Missouri are utilities followed by ambulatory health care and chemical manufacturing. Only three other states bordering Missouri have utility regulation in their top ten, and they are much further down on the list (Kentucky 7^th, Tennessee 7^th, Iowa 8^th). It would be interesting to learn why Missouri regulated utilities so much more than our neighbors and the degree to which that might be driving up utility rates in Missouri.

While this study does not explicitly make the link, it is generally understood that regulation drives up cost. The difficult work is to determine which regulations are necessary and what costs are reasonable. Researchers and policymakers looking for more efficient ways to regulate may find this data useful.

The post Missouri in the Middle on Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri has spent more than $6 billion in 2019 on public education.

Do we know what we are getting for our money? How well are our schools performing? Which schools are performing better than others?

Dr. Susan Pendergrass and Abigail Burrola have created a report card that evaluates and grades how well Missouri provides school performance information based on federal requirements in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Join us at this St. Louis Policy Breakfast where they will present their findings.

RSVP here.

Featured Speakers:

Susan Pendergrass, Director of Research and Education Policy

Before joining the Show-Me Institute, Susan Pendergrass was Vice President of Research and Evaluation for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, where she oversaw data collection and analysis and carried out a rigorous research program. Prior to coming to the National Alliance, she was a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of Education during the Bush administration and a senior research scientist at the National Center for Education Statistics during the Obama administration. Susan holds a doctorate in public policy from George Mason University with a concentration in social policy.

Abigail Burrola, Analyst

Abigail Burrola graduated from Azusa Pacific University with a bachelor’s degree in political science in 2018. She is originally from the Minneapolis area, and her policy interests include special education practices and rural school choice.

The post Missouri’s Report Card and ESSA Requirements appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So how should cities measure success? Typically, city success is characterized by periods of sustained growth, whether that growth is in population or employment. Booming local economies bring businesses to an area, and those businesses bring more people to a region who can then contribute to the same economy. The idea seems simple, but not every city is going to have a booming economy. So what can struggling cities do to turn things around and grow their economy?

Figuring out how to attract new residents and businesses is something cities of all sizes across the country struggle with. Aaron Renn, of the Manhattan Institute, argued that cities should take steps to harness their unique characteristics and build a more desirable brand. Gary Ritter, of St. Louis University, explained that quality schools are essential to the recruitment of businesses and their employee’s families, but also help adequately train the workforce for the emerging jobs in that city’s economy. Howard Wall, of the Hammond Institute at Lindenwood University, asserted that rapid population growth for cities over an extended period of time is rare and quite difficult, and that perhaps St. Louis’s success has been hampered by its previous growth.   

Eileen Norcross, of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discussed some of her research surrounding the rise and fall of historically successful cities. She found ultimate success for older cities was tied to how it responded to the decline of the local manufacturing sector.  Despite her assertion that regulatory and institutional environments are more important for prospective businesses, many of these cities spent incredible sums of tax payer dollars to lure businesses without otherwise addressing the business environment. In the end, those moves hurt the city’s long-term financial health without providing the desired opportunity for future economic growth.

While there doesn’t appear to be a silver bullet for city success, the seminar provided a variety of ideas for research and reform, including occupational licensing, regulatory changes, and tax policy.

The post Is St. Louis Successful? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The authors describe the will to paternalism as

the belief that if left to their own accord, individuals have biases or tendencies that may lead them to make bad decisions in the absence of a governmental “nudge.”

The manifestations of these policies are familiar to all of us—sin taxes such as those on alcohol or tobacco, subsidies for recycling, and mandates on automobile/health insurance or retirement savings are a few examples. While well intended, these policies substitute government bureaucrat decision-making for individual decision-making in an effort to protect us from ourselves. (A reasonable person may ask why the “individual biases and tendencies” of a state employee are superior to the “individual biases and tendencies” of anyone else.)

To arrive at their conclusions, authors Russell S. Sobel and Joshua C. Hall awarded scores to states for a variety of policies, including:

• Their reliance on selective sales taxes such as those placed on unhealthy foods and products.
• Their propensity for subsidizing good behavior such as recycling or using energy efficient appliances.
• Use of miscellaneous bans and regulations such as plastic bag bans, fireworks bans, or motorcycle helmet requirements.

When all states scores were tabulated, Missouri came out 6th least paternalist. That is good news. Kansas came out 4th and Illinois 44th. Perhaps not surprisingly, New York ranked the most paternalistic state and Wyoming the least.

This is not to say that the policies examined in the study are necessarily bad or undesirable, or that there aren’t other state regulations that significantly hamper innovation or create unnecessary burdens on business. Nor does it conclude anything about state spending. But Missouri’s rank suggests that relative to other states, Jefferson City is not inserting its own values into individual consumers’ transactions.

The post The Show-Me State Charts a Course of Independence appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Heterodox Academy is a collection of university professors committed to supporting intellectual diversity and free speech on campus. Its ringleader is Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at New York University. Haidt’s work focuses primarily on business ethics, but increasingly he has become known for his efforts to promote civil debate and ideological diversity in the academy.

Heterodox Academy’s ranking relies on four main metrics. First, it grades schools on whether they have endorsed the University of Chicago’s principles on free expression. Second, it adds the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s rating of the school’s speech code. Third, it uses the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s rating of openness to conservative and libertarian students from its guide Choosing the Right College. Finally, it notes any relevant events related to free speech on campus since 2014.

The top five schools in the ranking are the University of Chicago, Purdue, Carnegie Mellon, William and Mary, and George Mason.

The bottom five are the University of Oregon, Mizzou, Rutgers, Northwestern, and (ironically, given Haidt’s employment there) NYU.

Mizzou was dinged for not adopting the University of Chicago’s speech code, for being rated red (the lowest possible distinction) by FIRE, and red (the lowest possible distinction from ISI). It also lost points for University of Missouri police asking individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech to call the campus police station (or 911), banning student protests, the censorship of students, and for efforts to limit press access on campus.

Debate on college campuses is healthy. As Haidt and his colleagues have demonstrated, ideological diversity leads to more interesting and useful research and helps guard against errors driven by groupthink. Mizzou's spot at the bottom of this list is an embarrassment. The university should take the criticism seriously and work to make campus a more welcoming place to people of different viewpoints.

The post Diversity of Viewpoints? Not at Mizzou appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

His quip aptly describes a sport popular in Missouri: The one that elected officials play when they use taxpayers’ money to support the growth of selected businesses or industries.

The attempt to single out economic winners through government planning and intervention is a dismal sport that can only end in disappointment and failure. The nutritional value of the object of the hunt may be safely described as zilch. If you eat the uneatable, you will only make yourself sick.

But you wouldn’t know that from the behavior of many of our elected officials of both parties.

Whooping and hollering, they ride to the hounds of corporate welfare—passing out hundreds of millions of dollars every year in targeted tax credits and other subsidies that go mainly to large and deep-pocketed corporations and a supporting cast of lawyers, developers, urban planners, and consultants.

In a recent report, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University identified Missouri as one of nine states that rank as “the corporate welfare kings of America.” According to Mercatus, Missouri has committed to more than $5.2 billion in subsidies to private businesses over the past couple of decades.

So how much good has being a “corporate welfare king” done for the people of Missouri? Has it made our state a magnet for growth and job creation?

Emphatically, not!

Over the last decade and a half, Missouri has lagged every other state in the nation but one in average annual economic growth.

In the 16 years from 1997 through 2013, real gross domestic product in the United States grew at an average annual rate of 2.23 percent. Meanwhile, Missouri grew at an average annual rate of just 1.08 percent—or less than half as fast as the national average. By this measure, Missouri ranked 49th out of the 50 states—just ahead of Michigan at the bottom of the barrel.

There are two things that typically can happen with taxpayer-assisted commercial developments—both bad.

The first is the support of bad ideas that would never get off the ground without the helping hand of government, such as the now-bankrupt and disbanded Mamtek artificial sweetener plant that was supposed to provide 600 jobs in Moberly. The CEO of Mamtek was recently sentenced to a seven-year prison term.

Second is wholly unnecessary pump priming at taxpayer expense. In our state, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is commonly used to “induce” powerful companies and their allies in commercial development to do things they would do anyway, such as opening new stores or building more opulent corporate headquarters.

To cite two recent examples of the abuse of TIFs, Kansas City and the state of Missouri are prepared to pick up $1.6 billion out of the $4.3 billion cost of building a brand-new and super-deluxe corporate campus for the Cerner Corporation. If Cerner needs a corporate pleasure dome, it should pay for it on its own nickel.

Another egregious example of a private development that does not require or deserve public assistance through the grant of what amounts to a tax holiday from the property and sales taxes that apply to other businesses is the Whole Foods Market and high-rise apartment complex that is going up in Saint Louis’ trendy Central West End.

If Missouri wants to stimulate growth and job creation, the first step is to put a stop to corporate welfare, including the $400 million in targeted tax credits earmarked for commercial development that the state hands out on an annual basis. And that dictates the next step, which is to return the money to the people who earned it—through cuts in the state income tax.

Brenda Talent is the CEO at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Riding to the Hounds of Corporate Welfare appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Are you listening, Missouri lawmakers? This is the Ghost of Christmas Past. I am calling on you to mend your ways and adopt a whole new set of economic policies to replace the failed policies of the past two decades.

Yes, my friends, it is time for you to admit that what you have been doing—in spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidize commercial projects for the benefit of big, cash-rich companies such as Boeing, Cerner, Capri Casinos, Wal-Mart, and Whole Foods—has been a ghastly mistake.

In the 16 years from 1997 through 2013, Missouri has trailed every other state in the nation but one in average annual economic growth. Missouri ranked 49th out of the 50 states in growth of state gross domestic product—just ahead of bottom-dwelling Michigan.

And that is despite (or, I would say, because of) the fact that you have turned Missouri into one of the nine states considered the “corporate welfare kings of America.” According to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Missouri has committed more than $5.2 billion in state and local subsidies to private businesses over the past two decades. That is more than all but eight other states.

What else can I say to convince you of the urgent need for change? Well, perhaps some specific suggestions would help.

Here are five New Year’s resolutions for making Missouri a better place to live and work and grow a business:

• Stop putting the public sector cart in front of the private sector horse. That is to say, begin with the recognition that all the private sector really needs to create wealth and jobs is competition and freedom of choice. It doesn’t need central planning and controls, which have the opposite effect of stifling individual initiative and economic growth.
• Abolish the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) and return the money that the DED passes out in targeted tax credits for economic development (about $400 million a year) to everyone (not just the politically selected few) through broad-based cuts in the state income tax for individuals and businesses.
• Take advantage of a wealth of opportunities across the state to enlarge the private sector and shrink the public sector through privatization. That is what Arnold did recently in selling its publicly owned and operated sewer system to a private contractor for $13.2 million—allowing the city of 20,000 people to pay off $8 million in sewer bonds and devote another $5.2 million to other public improvement. Better yet, under private ownership, the sewer system will go on the tax rolls and help pay for schools and other public services.
• Make greatly increased use of tolls on Hwy. 70 and other major roadways and bridges. Tolls are an extremely efficient tax, and—as a result of new technology—they are readily collectible without toll booths or other inconvenience to people using the roadways. In fact, through variable tolls, the Missouri Department of Transportation could—at minimal cost—guarantee drivers congestion-free traffic flows at all hours of the day on major roadways and bridges.
• Finally, look to what neighboring states are doing in reorienting their tax structures and put Missouri in the forefront of states that are pursuing pro-growth, pro-economic freedom reforms.

In the Christmas spirit, I urge you to make all those changes—knowing that you will wake up shortly wanting to fix the problems that have kept Missouri from reaching its full potential.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute.

The post New Year’s Resolutions for Missouri Lawmakers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Researchers at MIT and George Mason University estimate that delayed and canceled flights imposed on passengers an aggregate delay of 28,500 years in 2007. The cost of these delays, and of risk-averting behavior like traveling early to destinations, was estimated at $15.3 billion, a startling number that accounts for the opportunity cost of time but doesn’t measure the consequences of missing critical appointments like weddings or job interviews.

While Sexton refers specifically to airline cancellations, his larger point is about the time costs to passengers. This study mirrors recent observations from SaveKCI’s blogger Kevin Koster:

Yesterday, I had to make a day trip to Denver. As I tweeted yesterday morning, it literally took me only 8-minutes from the time I locked my car in the KCI garage until I was through security and standing at the gate ready to board. By comparison that afternoon in Denver, it took me 45 minutes from the time I was dropped at the curb until I was at the gate – and I was told the security lines were unusually short.

More impressive though was our return to KC. It took me less time to get from the gate to my home than it did in Denver to get from the gate to a waiting cab outside. To the business traveler time is money – on average $150/hr. We should be selling KCI’s “private jet speed” convenience to businesses in other markets, rather than considering destroying it.

Airport administrators want to move to airport models used elsewhere in the country to maximize revenue. Kansas Citians like Kansas City International Airport because it allows them to be efficient with their time. For many in the region, this time cost is the most important.

The post The Price Of Air Travel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

New Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in Saint Louis is a tool the government uses as an attempt to design where and how we live. They want to make more people ride the Metro, reduce car trips, and increase economic development in the area. There is nothing wrong with wanting economic development, but the government cannot see into the future. I used to work for the government, so trust me — they know just as much as you or I do. They cannot prove that Transit-Oriented Development will achieve their goals.

Just because the government creates shops and housing around a Metro station, it does not mean that more people will want to ride the Metro. Those who already used the Metro will continue to ride it, but those of us who prefer to drive our cars will continue to drive our cars.

Surveys suggest that four out of five Americans prefer a home with a yard as opposed to living near shops, transit, or jobs. It is a waste of resources to create TODs because they simply are not capable of achieving the intended goals. If the government really wants us to ride the Metro, they will have to do something more drastic, such as shutting down all the roads, or making it illegal to drive. But I think it is safe to say those things will not happen.

The post We Like the ‘burbs: TOD Problems (Part 2 of 3) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Modern jurisprudence has increasingly allowed the federal government to regulate commerce that is not of an obviously interstate nature. The issue here is that PPACA goes further and regulates the non-purchase of a good or service. Rather than simply regulating the manner in which the health insurance market will operate, PPACA requires that everyone in the country buy something, or be fined. Under this paradigm, market participation would no longer be required for regulation under the Commerce Clause; instead, and in a very real way, the feds would subject you to a purchase requirement merely for being a living, breathing American.

That is a problem. Having a health insurance plan makes sense, but compelling Americans to buy a health insurance plan through heavy-handed federal coercion is awful policy and arguably unconstitutional. Reading into the U.S. Constitution a federal right to demand purchases from its citizens would eviscerate many of the limits on government power enshrined in that document.

If the federal government can require individuals to purchase health insurance, what can’t the federal government require us to purchase? Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University who has filed a brief with the court, contends that if PPACA passes constitutional muster, then Congress could pass “a broccoli mandate, a car-purchase mandate, really any other mandate that you’d want.” Where is the line against such coercion drawn if not by the plain meaning of the Constitution?

Proponents of PPACA have dismissed the suggestion that the federal government would impose a “broccoli mandate,” arguing that the federal government would never try to expand a mandate to purchase goods and services into such areas. But Americans should not have to entrust their freedoms to the word of politicians and bureaucrats, well-meaning or not.

There is no “just trust us” clause in the Constitution. The Constitution is the check that keeps capricious leaders from doing capricious things, and should remain so.

The post Previewing Day Two Of Health Care Reform Oral Arguments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. A huge chunk of these tax receipts would then be spent by government officials on building and operating supermarkets. County residents, depending upon their specific residential addresses, would be assigned to a particular supermarket. Each family could then get its weekly allotment of groceries for “free.” (Department of Supermarket officials would no doubt be charged with the responsibility for determining the amounts and kinds of groceries that families of different types and sizes are entitled to receive.)

Except in rare circumstances, no family would be allowed to patronize a “public” supermarket outside of its district.

Residents of wealthier counties – such as Fairfax County, VA and Somerset County, NJ – would obviously have better-stocked and more attractive supermarkets than would residents of poorer counties. Indeed, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in determining people’s choices of neighborhoods in which to live.
[…]
Does anyone believe that such a system for supplying groceries would work well, or even one-tenth as well as the current private, competitive system that we currently rely upon for supplying grocery-retailing services?

You should read the whole thing, but I’d like to expand on Boudreaux’s analogy to show that such a system of public supermarkets would not only be inefficient, but also inherently inequitable.

Because people would try to buy houses in districts with good stores, much of the price of groceries would be built into the price of housing. The price of housing would rise, but not uniformly. Areas with relatively good supermarkets would become more expensive while areas with very poor supermarkets would become cheaper. Less expensive housing would attract people with lower incomes, and they would quickly become locked into a system of bad supermarkets.

Even if one of the supermarkets in a low-income area managed to improve drastically and become one of the better supermarkets, this likely would not benefit those low-income residents in the long run. The improved supermarket would attract people with relatively high incomes and slowly drive out those with low incomes through increased housing prices. Considering that housing is already the single largest expense for most Americans, tying rents to supermarket service would only further restrict the already limited options for buying food that those with low incomes currently face.

The analogy to education isn’t perfect, obviously. The biggest difference is that people without school-age children don’t usually consider a district’s school system when deciding where to live. That might help to explain why more young professionals are choosing to live in Saint Louis, but the city is losing population among almost every other group. As long as lower- and middle-class residents of cities like Saint Louis and Kansas City cannot choose from a number of quality schools, they will continue to stagnate or decline, trapping the worst in their failing institutions.

The post Designed to Fail appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several of the speakers have since noted the growth in both the quantity and quality of young liberty activists over the last few decades. In his Washington Examiner column, Cato Institute Vice President Gene Healy recollects that when he founded a college libertarian group in the early 1990s, “we considered ourselves lucky when we could get a couple of dozen socially awkward malcontents together to grumble about the government.”

But economist Bryan Caplan probably summed it up best: “Twenty years ago, a pack of libertarian students would have been roughly as awkward and freakish as attendees at Comic-Con … or, say, me. Now I see hundreds of students who aren’t just smart, but smooth.”

My college experience was not nearly as benighted as Healy’s or Caplan’s. I helped lead a libertarian group at Washington University in Saint Louis from 2001 to 2005, and we were extremely active: holding weekly meetings, bringing speakers to campus (sometimes multiple times per semester), debating other student groups, helping to publish a biweekly conservative-libertarian student newspaper, etc. The group was a major force in campus political life, but we were still outnumbered and isolated. There were only a few other large and active libertarian college groups across the country (Loyola New Orleans, Hillsdale College, and George Mason University spring to mind), so we felt like the last of a dying breed, a remnant of brighter days.

At one point, we tried to launch a national libertarian student group, much like what SFL has become. When we started planning for a conference, we thought 100–200 student attendees would be phenomenal, but we never achieved that because there wasn’t a great deal of interest in the idea outside of those few groups. If someone told us that, less than 10 years later, there would be a pro-liberty student group hosting a convention with more than 500 attendees (and many others turned away because of a lack of space), we would have laughed in his face.

I don’t think it has ever felt this good to be wrong. (Maybe in 2006, when the Cardinals surprised even me by beating the Tigers and winning the World Series, but I’m pretty sure this is better.) Students and young people in general are listening to the message of freedom being articulated by talented writers, filmmakers, artists, etc. — and by groups like the Show-Me Institute. I get dispirited on an almost daily basis when I see the government grow and grow, seemingly without end, but I have seen real changes in people’s beliefs since I first started tilting at these government windmills. That’s no guarantee that things will change for the better, but it is something. It’s hope.

The post A New Hope appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I just returned from the Biltmore, America’s largest home. Built by George Vanderbilt between 1889 and 1895, the Biltmore is a symbol of how good the rich had it during the Gilded Age. I’m sure that most of the other visitors would answer “very good indeed.”

But how many would actually want to trade places with George? Despite his massive library, organ, and so on, I submit that any modern with a laptop and an internet connection has a vastly better book and music collection than he did. For all his riches, he didn’t have air conditioning; he had to suffer through the North Carolina summers just like the poorest of us. Vanderbilt did travel the world, but without the airplane, he had to do so at a snail’s pace.

Perhaps most shockingly, he suffered “sudden death from complications following an appendectomy” at the age of 51. (Here‘s the original NYT obituary). Whatever your precise story about the cause of rising lifespans, it’s safe to say that George’s Bane wouldn’t be fatal today.

I visited the Biltmore when I was in elementary school and remember being struck by the novelty and opulence of Vanderbilt’s private two-lane bowling alley. Vanderbilt no doubt spent a small fortune to build his alley and employ the servants necessary to run and maintain it, but I use far better equipment to bowl in my weekly league than Vanderbilt could ever imagine. The ball return at my alley is likely faster and more reliable, and the pins are reset far more quickly and exactly by a machine than a low-wage pin setter. Finally, whereas Vanderbilt had to keep score on his own — or pay a servant to do it — I have a friendly robot to count up my pinfall for me and give me advice on my next shot.

In many — if not most — ways, the average American lives a far better life than even the richest mustache-twisting robber barons of the Gilded Age, and it’s all thanks to steady economic growth. If two economies started at the same level and one grew by an extra 2 percent each year, it would be twice the size of its rival in a little more than 35 years. The Nobel Prize–winning economist Robert Lucas once remarked, when contemplating the differences in international economic growth rates, “The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else.” A similar idea is expressed more succinctly by a quote usually (but falsely, in all likelihood) attributed to Albert Einstein: “The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.”

Rising living standards allow us to live longer, healthier, and, yes, even happier lives. (No, you cannot buy happiness with money, but as best we can measure these things, people on the average seem to get happier as they get wealthier.) Consequently, that means we should make high growth levels a priority in economic policy, and that requires us to keep taxes and government spending low.

The post The Gilded Age Comes to the Masses appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Roberts and Papola are producing another video with the same actors playing Hayek and Keynes, and applying their theories to the present situation. You can catch a preview of the video, along with a short interview with Roberts and Papola from a conference sponsored by The Economist magazine, embedded below.

The post Rapping the Recession appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Such problems led the government to scrap the private system in favor of a public one in 2007, and Munger explains how this led to far worse outcomes on pretty much every measure. The average commute for a mass transit rider immediately skyrocketed from 40 minutes to an hour and 40 minutes. This encouraged more people to drive or use small taxi services, feeding a vicious cycle. Furthermore, because bus drivers are paid based on how often they are on time, they have no incentive to stop for passengers at bus stops if they are running late. The extremely lengthy lines for buses routinely lead to pushing and shoving to board and fights often break out. Although the public system was specifically designed to solve safety problems in the private system, the number of wrecks actually increased because the city purchased extra long bendy buses, which require two lanes to turn, so cars frequently crash into them. Finally, the system as a whole went from running a profit of $60 million to requiring a government subsidy of $600 million — more than $100 for every resident of Santiago.

Munger argues that the problems with the private buses could have been solved relatively easily without resorting to socializing the system. A very minimal licensing requirement could ensure that the buses do not emit excess levels of pollutants, and the enforcement of property rights in private bus stops has been shown to prevent buses from driving recklessly to swipe passengers out from under the competition. Although Saint Louis and Kansas City do not have the same level of demand for bus services as Santiago, the city has shown that government ownership is not necessary for a decent mass transportation system.

The post Government: Ruining Everything Functional One Program at a Time appeared first on Show-Me Institute.