We have all seen the television ad where the man walks into the sandwich shop and orders bread but nothing inside of it because that’s all he can afford. “Everything is so expensive these days,” he says.

That may well be how many Americans are feeling, but I only wish that were true for our government. The price tags for government’s infrastructure “improvements” are becoming astronomical, and at some point we have to recognize that this isn’t an unfortunate fact of life. The high cost is a choice, not a requirement.

Let’s start with the high-speed rail disaster in California, which was originally approved in 2008 for an estimated cost of $33 billion; the current estimate is $135—for a system that won’t have anything completed until the 2030s at the earliest. Actually connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, as promised, is many more years away. All this for a system that hasn’t laid any track 15 years after it was approved.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In Spain, they built an entire 2,500-mile system of high-speed rail for $62 billion. That’s obviously a lot of money, but it got them an entire, advanced rail system for less than half of what California will spend for two routes at best.

Unlike high-speed rail, elevators have been around for a long time. There is nothing fancy about an elevator. Yet in New York City, a project to replace 70 elevators at transit stations cost taxpayers $5.5 billion, or about $80 million per elevator. Elevators for subways may indeed be more expensive than in office buildings, but in Germany they have managed to hold the cost to less than $10 million per elevator per transit station. Something is deeply wrong with how we fund government infrastructure in America.

Closer to home, St. Louis County is considering several options for its governmental complex in Clayton. The most expensive and most comprehensive plan—which includes replacing the main county administration building with an entirely new building among other projects—is estimated by the county to cost around $600 million. If that sounds preposterous, it should. The key part of that proposal—the new administration and public safety building in downtown Clayton, is estimated to cost $250 million for a 190,000-square-foot building. (This doesn’t even include the cost of demolishing the existing buildings.)

Currently, a 21-story residential tower has been approved by the city for downtown Clayton. It would have 299 units, some retail space, and over 300,000 total square feet. What is the total estimated cost of that project? $106 million. This residential tower would be significantly larger than the new county building, yet it would cost approximately $150 million less. Based on cost per square foot, the proposed county building is almost four times as expensive.

In Robert Caro’s book The Powerbroker, about Robert Moses, the autocratic boss of New York city and state infrastructure projects for four decades in the mid-20th century, Caro spent an entire chapter detailing the way Moses employed various interest groups to get his projects going, no matter the cost. Moses had support from a wide cross-section of interest groups because he made sure that they all made money from his projects. Construction companies, contractors, labor unions, consultants, banks, law firms, the list goes on. If any politicians started opposing his projects, there was an orchestrated campaign of pressure from all these groups to get it approved. The people who benefitted from these enormous expenditures benefited greatly and quickly. The taxpayers or commuters who paid more than they should have did so in small increments over time via higher taxes, tolls, or other fees, but they didn’t feel the higher costs all at once. So the taxpayer shakedown has continued on to the present day.

In simpler terms, the developer of the high-rise in Clayton is spending its own money to build it, where St. Louis County officials are not. The county is spending taxpayer money, obviously, and when you do that in Missouri’s largest and richest county you can get away with spending a lot of it. Taxpayers aren’t going to revolt over an extra $50 a year in taxes spread out over 365 days of sales tax on purchases or mixed in at the end of the year with a dozen other property taxes on their bill. This is why you end up with a proposal for a new county building that costs four times more (per square foot) than a new, private building nearby.

Addressing this overall problem is going to be extremely difficult. Every option for change involves cutting off someone else’s golden goose. For now, let’s just hope St. Louis County government doesn’t put the New York Transit Authority in charge of the new elevators. Then it’s going to really get expensive.

The post Government Infrastructure Costs Are Out of Control appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As Harford explains, Sony, Xerox, Kodak, and the British Army couldn’t readily adapt to new ideas because of their organizational structure. Teams of lawyers who were used to negotiating large contracts with banks and government agencies did not translate well into marketing and selling a computer to a single consumer, and a regimented military with centuries of tradition could not readily adapt to the advent of mechanized warfare.

So what does this have to do with in-person learning during the COVID-19 pandemic? The issue is one and the same—traditional school systems are simply not organized in a manner that allows them to adapt to the new challenges presented by this virus.

Think about the two big issues that school leaders must address in light of the coronavirus—social distancing and the mixing of students. For social distancing, students should be able to sit in classrooms with several feet of space between them and their nearest peers. And, to the extent possible, the number of other students that a student encounters each day is supposed to be limited. If a student is in one class with a total of 20 other people, they only have 20 possible chances of exposure to COVID-19. If, however, they switch to a new class every hour, the possible chances of exposure increase exponentially.

The solution to this seems simple enough: reduce class sizes and reduce the number of times students switch classes. As we have seen throughout the country, however, this has been difficult for school districts to accomplish in practice.

The reason schools are not able to meet in person is because they are trying to deliver education in the same way that they have always delivered education. Some states have laws that dictate when the school year must begin and when it must end. In many school districts, contracts spell out when teachers may be asked to begin work, how many classes they may be asked to teach, and a host of other issues that shape a school system’s operational plans.

The current structure, from the school board down to the kindergarten teacher, is designed to deliver an in-person education that packs 20 to 30 students in a single class. Additionally, at least at the middle- and high-school levels, a bell rings every 50 minutes to tell the students to shuffle through the halls to a new classroom filled with different students.

Most school districts have responded to the pandemic in one of three ways: They’ve gone fully virtual, they’ve gone hybrid with half of the students coming to school each day, or they have rolled the dice with students returning to “normal” as much as possible. None of these scenarios fully meets the challenges of social distancing and mixing. Virtual learning gives up on in-person learning altogether. Blended learning only addresses the social distancing by having half as many kids on campus at a time, but typically still has kids mixing in different classes throughout the day. And doing school “as usual” almost ignores the problem altogether; which may be possible (even desirable) in small schools, elementary schools where the effects of COVID have been mild, or in communities where the number of cases is extremely low. Nevertheless, school as usual does not address the issues of distancing or mixing.

Addressing both the social distancing problem and the mixing problem caused by COVID-19 would require school districts to be nimble and to rethink many of the norms governing how schools operate. Do we have to have two semesters and four quarters, or could we spread the school year over the entire calendar year? Could we use trimesters? Do students have to take seven or eight classes at once, or could they take two or three classes at a time? Do we have to meet all day from 7:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., or could we have two shifts of in-person learning?

If we reconsidered the norms around school and how schools must operate, we would have a much better chance at coming up with solutions that allow us to social distance in classrooms and to keep student mixing to a minimum. But we don’t do these things. We simply say it is all too hard and do virtual learning, we force a blended model on our old structures, or we just put our heads in the sand.

Tim Harford’s cautionary tale helps us to understand why organizations often do not adapt to new ideas and inventions—their organizational structures aren’t designed to do so. It also helps us understand why school districts are struggling to provide robust in-person learning opportunities for students during the pandemic. Our public schools simply aren’t equipped to be nimble, out-of-the-box organizations.

The post In-Person Learning during the Pandemic appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, my friend, if you are, I have to admit: You had a couple of modest “wins” in 2018. Here in Missouri, free-market thinking took it on the chin in two ballot initiatives. On Aug. 7, by an overwhelming majority, Missourians voted to kill a right-to-work law passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2017. Then on Nov. 6, Missouri voters passed another ballot initiative boosting the state’s minimum wage from today’s $7.85 to $12 by 2023.

Compared with other news, however, those victories by deep-pocketed trade union groups and their co-dependent, big-government allies were small beer. The year’s big story was the striking success at the national level of free-market policies in driving faster growth and widely shared prosperity for all groups of people. For two years, the federal government has been lifting the burden of regulations and taxes on businesses and consumers alike. The dynamism of American capitalism has done the rest.

Recent GDP growth has been close to 4 percent – or about double the rate sustained over the eight years of the prior administration. Suddenly, there are more job openings than people seeking work. That, in turn, has led to higher pay for people at all income levels.

On Oct 2, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that he was raising his company’s internal minimum wage for warehouse and other unskilled workers to $15 an hour. This led to mutual back-slapping between Bernie Sanders and Bezos. The self-declared socialist complimented the world’s richest man on “doing the right thing,” and Bezos responded with self-congratulations, saying he hoped that other companies would follow his lead.

But guess what? He wasn’t leading. The U.S. Labor Department recently reported that wages for nonsupervisory warehouse employees had risen 4.6 percent from a year earlier, to $17.87 an hour. That’s almost $3 an hour more than the wage set by Amazon’s act of supposed enlightenment. Faced with the demands of an expanding economy and a tight labor market, companies did what they had to do – they raised wages to poach workers or keep the ones they have. So it wasn’t Mr. Bezos who deserved the compliment, but the unimpeded operation of the free market.

If you look around the country and the world, you see people everywhere who are fed up with the cluelessness of wealthy and long-established political elites who continue to pursue highly questionable policy objectives regardless of the cost in higher taxes, reduced paychecks, and lost economic growth. We are witnessing what the Wall Street Journal calls a “Global Carbon Tax Revolt,” with ordinary people rising up in protest against fuel-tax hikes and costly climate-change initiatives aimed at boosting unreliable renewable power. That has happened with the violent “Yellow Vest” protests in Paris and many rural areas that have rocked the presidency of France’s Emmanuel Macron. Other hot spots in the same revolt by taxpayers opposed to sacrificing growth on the altar of environmental piety include Germany and Canada, along with the states of Arizona, California, and Washington.

In sum, 2018 was a bad year for government-failure deniers. It was a much better year for those who believe in the unrivaled power of free markets to create and spread wealth and to promote greater individual freedom, responsibility, and creativity. But 2018 wasn’t all roses either, with rising fears of a global trade war sparked by retaliatory tariffs.

Tariffs are another tax – a tax on commerce. Of course, the more you tax something, the less you get of it. Missouri is a soybean basket to the world. Our state can ill afford a major disruption in world commerce. Neither can the nation. Looking ahead to 2019, let us hope that the substantial economic gains made in 2018 are not jeopardized or lost through the folly of managed (or mismanaged) trade policy.

The post 2018: A Bad Year for Government-failure Deniers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, my friend, if you are, I have to admit: You had a couple of modest “wins” in 2018. Here in Missouri, free-market thinking took it on the chin in two ballot initiatives. On Aug. 7, by an overwhelming majority, Missourians voted to kill a right-to-work law passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2017. Then on Nov. 6, Missouri voters passed another ballot initiative boosting the state’s minimum wage from today’s $7.85 to $12 by 2023.

Compared with other news, however, those victories by deep-pocketed trade union groups and their co-dependent, big-government allies were small beer. The year’s big story was the striking success at the national level of free-market policies in driving faster growth and widely shared prosperity for all groups of people. For two years, the federal government has been lifting the burden of regulations and taxes on businesses and consumers alike. The dynamism of American capitalism has done the rest.

Recent GDP growth has been close to 4 percent – or about double the rate sustained over the eight years of the prior administration. Suddenly, there are more job openings than people seeking work. That, in turn, has led to higher pay for people at all income levels.

On Oct 2, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that he was raising his company’s internal minimum wage for warehouse and other unskilled workers to $15 an hour. This led to mutual back-slapping between Bernie Sanders and Bezos. The self-declared socialist complimented the world’s richest man on “doing the right thing,” and Bezos responded with self-congratulations, saying he hoped that other companies would follow his lead.

But guess what? He wasn’t leading. The U.S. Labor Department recently reported that wages for nonsupervisory warehouse employees had risen 4.6 percent from a year earlier, to $17.87 an hour. That’s almost $3 an hour more than the wage set by Amazon’s act of supposed enlightenment. Faced with the demands of an expanding economy and a tight labor market, companies did what they had to do – they raised wages to poach workers or keep the ones they have. So it wasn’t Mr. Bezos who deserved the compliment, but the unimpeded operation of the free market.

If you look around the country and the world, you see people everywhere who are fed up with the cluelessness of wealthy and long-established political elites who continue to pursue highly questionable policy objectives regardless of the cost in higher taxes, reduced paychecks, and lost economic growth. We are witnessing what the Wall Street Journal calls a “Global Carbon Tax Revolt,” with ordinary people rising up in protest against fuel-tax hikes and costly climate-change initiatives aimed at boosting unreliable renewable power. That has happened with the violent “Yellow Vest” protests in Paris and many rural areas that have rocked the presidency of France’s Emmanuel Macron. Other hot spots in the same revolt by taxpayers opposed to sacrificing growth on the altar of environmental piety include Germany and Canada, along with the states of Arizona, California, and Washington.

In sum, 2018 was a bad year for government-failure deniers. It was a much better year for those who believe in the unrivaled power of free markets to create and spread wealth and to promote greater individual freedom, responsibility, and creativity. But 2018 wasn’t all roses either, with rising fears of a global trade war sparked by retaliatory tariffs.

Tariffs are another tax – a tax on commerce. Of course, the more you tax something, the less you get of it. Missouri is a soybean basket to the world. Our state can ill afford a major disruption in world commerce. Neither can the nation. Looking ahead to 2019, let us hope that the substantial economic gains made in 2018 are not jeopardized or lost through the folly of managed (or mismanaged) trade policy.

The post 2018: A Bad Year for Government-failure Deniers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Charter schools are public schools, but instead of being governed by a local school board, they are governed by a document—their charter—that lays out how the school will operate and the metrics by which its performance will be judged. The charter is granted to the group of individuals who seek to open and run the school, and it has an expiration date of three to five years, at which point it needs to be renewed or the school is closed. The charter is awarded by an authorizer, or sponsor, who is responsible for making sure that the school stays on track, both academically and financially, and who makes the renewal or closure recommendation.

A little history might be helpful in understanding how the charter school movement began. It started in the late 1980s as an idea to let teachers, parents, or community leaders open and run a public school outside of district oversight. Credit for the idea usually goes to Al Shanker—head of one of the two major teacher’s unions in the United States. In 1988, Shanker offered an idea for reinvigorating public education that was inspired by a visit to a school in Cologne, Germany the prior year. He argued that we should allow teachers to create innovative, autonomous public schools, and that these chartered schools would serve as laboratories from which effective ideas could be replicated.

Around the same time, political economists John Chubb and Terry Moe argued that the institutional structure of public education wasn’t working. they found that autonomy was the one indispensable requirement for an effective school. And, they concluded, the existing structure of public education limits and undermines school autonomy. In their book Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, Chubb and Moe proposed building an entirely new structure for public education that would withdraw authority from existing institutions and place it directly in the hands of schools, parents, and students. School districts could continue to operate their existing schools, but they would have no authority over the “chartered” public schools.

In 1991, bipartisan support for Al Shanker’s idea led to the passage of the first charter school law in Minnesota. The law was groundbreaking, and in 1992 eight chartered public schools opened in Minnesota that were autonomous, student-centered, results-oriented, and designed and run by teachers. The following year California followed suit. At the start of the 2017–18 school year, there were over 7,000 charter schools in 42 states plus the District of Columbia, serving nearly 3.2 million students. Charter schools now represent seven percent of all public schools and enroll six percent of public school students. Today, one in five public school students attends school in a district with at least 10 percent of its students in charter schools.

The post Charter Schools 101: What Is a Charter School? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As first appearing in the Kansas City Star and the American Spectator:

A surprised and outraged Franklin D. Roosevelt called it “a date which will live in infamy.” But Dec. 7, 1941, may also be remembered as one of the great turning points (for the better) in world history. It had the startling effect of rousing a sleeping giant (the United States) into purposeful action, and that was the primary factor in stopping the forces of evil from cruising to an easy triumph in World War II. In Churchill’s words, the world was in danger of entering “a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

The Japanese Imperial Navy struck Pearl Harbor in two waves beginning at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time. Japanese aircraft destroyed much of the U.S. Pacific fleet and killed a total of 2,403 Americans – which compares to the 2,605 Americans and 372 U.S. residents from other countries who lost their lives in the surprise attack on the United States launched by al Qaeda on 9-11-2001.

As the Japanese readied for their attack, Hitler was sitting pretty – perilously close to winning a two-front war. Having already conquered France and other smaller European nations in 1940, German troops scored one victory after another against the poorly equipped and outmanned British Army in Southern Europe and North Africa in 1941. “Evacuation going fairly well – that’s all we’re really good at!” Alexander Cadogan, at the British Foreign Office, observed in his diary during the British withdrawal from Greece. “Our soldiers are the most pathetic amateurs, pitted against professionals.”

Things looked no better on the eastern front – with the German army on the outskirts of Moscow. In three parallel offenses, German forces invaded Russia in late June – sweeping across the vast countryside with the same lightning speed that marked the earlier invasions of Poland and Western Europe. Desperately short of every kind of war materiel from boots and rifles to tanks and planes, the Russian army was saved by the onset of winter.

Pearl Harbor changed everything – ending the long, enfeebling debate inside the U.S. between isolationists and interventionists. Suddenly, America was at war, and almost everyone – from FDR on down to Charles Lindbergh, hitherto an arch isolationist – agreed that this was a war that had to be fought with everything we had. Overnight Lindbergh turned from dove to hawk. Though unable to regain the Army Air Corps commission which he had resigned in April 1941, Lindbergh flew 50 combat missions in the Pacific Theater as a civilian consultant.

Within days of Pearl Harbor, hundreds of thousands of Americans made up their minds to join the armed forces. That included the two oldest sons of Joseph Kennedy, another isolationist and outspoken advocate of the appeasement of Nazi Germany, whose departure from London where he had served as U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James’s was a major addition by subtraction for both Roosevelt and Churchill. The older Kennedy left England in October 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain, which reduced much of London and other cities to rubble.

My late father – then 24, a reporter with the Kansas City Star, with a wife and baby daughter – was one of the many who rushed to serve. He failed his first Navy physical – being exceedingly thin – but passed the second time after gorging on food and water. He was one of the “ninety-day wonders” – sent to officer training school for just 90 days of rigorous physical and classroom training – and went on to skipper a submarine chaser that saw action along the eastern seaboard, off the coast of North Africa, and in the North Atlantic.

If any disaster may be called a good disaster, it was Pearl Harbor, which awakened America with a violent start and averted what might easily have been the greatest setback to human freedom, joy, and advancement in world history.

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

The post Remembering Pearl Harbor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, some of the data relies on physician and patient surveys. Individuals in different countries have different expectations for their health care systems, an important factor that the study’s authors admit might have affected the ratings:

Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.

One of the categories I find most objectionable is “long, healthy, and productive lives,” which has a rather ambiguous meaning. The authors used three indicators to determine what constituted a “long, healthy and productive life.” (Table data excerpted from the study):

Exhibit 8. Long, Healthy, and Productive Lives Measures

These three indicators do not fully capture “productive” or “healthy” lives. There are more relevant measures of productivity and quality of life, such as statistics about morbidity, the amount of time spent ill, or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which account for degree of sickness as well as length of life. These are sometimes difficult to calculate, but they are standard measures used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and far more relevant for a category about “healthy” and “productive” lives.

The indicators used do not capture the fact that someone waiting 18.3 weeks for surgery in Canada may also be losing four months of work productivity, as well as spending a long time with an impaired quality of life. The United States ranked first in wait times for specialists and nonemergency surgeries. When one includes those factors, a different story emerges from the data.

For the indicator “Health life expectancy at age 60” the United States ranks sixth, but a closer look at the raw percentages shows a very small range from first to last; whether these differences are even statistically significant was not addressed in the study. Nor does the category capture that Americans work longer — both in their work week and in their lifespan — than the other countries listed, which could explain the slight difference in the raw percentages. American work ethic is a cultural issue, not an implication of the health care system.

Also, infant mortality is a contentious indicator for the success of a health care system. Different countries use different measurements to calculate the statistic. The United States strictly follows WHO guidelines by counting all babies that have shown any sign of life, whereas Germany, for instance, only counts babies that weigh at least one pound at birth. Other countries do not count births earlier than 26 weeks. This disparity in measures of reporting artificially skews the rates, without factoring in cultural differences, like teen births, that also contribute to higher infant mortality.

In developed countries, a large portion of the increase in life expectancy is not attributable to the health care system. During the past century, the average life expectancy in the United States has increased by 30 years; modern medicine can only account for five of those years, while public health measures account for the other 25. Attributing small changes in mortality to medical care is very tricky. Lifestyles can affect health outcomes as much — if not more — than health care. The obesity rates in the United States are much higher than the other countries listed. Holding health care systems equal, that one factor would lead the United States to have lower health outcomes. Again, this is a cultural issue, and not an indication that a universal system would improve U.S. results.

A conclusion some may reach after reading the study is that universal health care is the solution to perceived disparity; this seems to be the conclusion the authors hoped to make. In fact, the study actually suggests that the new federal health care legislation will improve U.S. outcomes:

Newly enacted health reform legislation in the U.S. will start to address these problems by extending coverage to those without and helping to close gaps in coverage—leading to improved disease management, care coordination, and better outcomes over time.

Incentives need to be realigned, but that has more to do with the disconnect between patient and physician — the health care wedge, explained in the Show-Me Institute study “Prognosis for National Health Insurance: A Missouri Perspective.”

The Commonwealth Fund study admits that none of the other nations considered have “ideal” health care systems, and makes some questionable comparisons in order to “prove” that universal health care is the best way to solve problems in health care. Show-Me Institute staff and scholars have discussed better solutions for health care reform in blog entries, op-eds, and policy studies.

The Commonwealth Fund study notes that the largest problem in the U.S. system is affordability of health care; the study thus concludes that universal health care is the solution, rather than making health care more affordable. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the recent legislation, lauded in this study, will actually increase the cost of health care. The Commonwealth Fund study suggests a solution that will bring the exact opposite of the problem it anticipated: Health care will become too expensive for some people.

Just because a few countries are getting (questionably) better results by some carefully selected measures under universal health care systems does not negate the fact that market-based solutions are a better solution for Missouri and the whole United States.

The post Questionable Comparisons, Questionable Conclusions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Working with a curriculum from a private Christian correspondence school — one not recognized by the German government — they expected to be punished with moderate fines and otherwise left alone.

But they soon discovered differently, he said, facing fines eventually totaling over $11,000, threats that they would lose custody of their children and, one morning, a visit by the police, who took the children to school in a police van. Those were among the fines and potential penalties that Judge Burman said rose to the level of persecution.

Reading these details of their story reminds me how fortunate homeschooling families in the United States are today. Some states impose more regulations than others; depending on where they live, parents may need to hold college degrees, to submit their curriculum for approval, or to agree for their children to take standardized tests. But it’s unheard of for the government to remove children from their homes forcibly and send them to school.

A sign of U.S. homeschoolers’ freedom is that when legislation is introduced that would affect them, the right to homeschool is usually not at question. And, secure in their ability to homeschool, parents can ask states for more than the right to be left alone. For example, homeschooling parents in Utah are currently lobbying for public schools to include homeschoolers in extracurricular activities. In Germany, parents fight to take their children out of the public schools; permission to bring them back for activities is the least of their concerns.

Supporters of homeschooling might point out that homeschooling can become an issue in divorce cases like this one in Missouri that Caitlin Hartsell discussed. It’s true; divorce courts do sometimes order a parent to send his or her children to school instead of teaching them at home. However, these decisions are not comparable to the harassment homeschoolers face in Germany and other countries. If divorced parents disagree about their children’s education, whatever the court ruling is, one parent will end up better satisfied and the other unhappy. Parents who want to send their children to public or private schools can be disappointed by these orders, and parents who want to homeschool are not immune from unfavorable divorce court rulings. What matters for homeschoolers in general is that divorce decisions apply only to individual families, and do not create new policies for everyone else.

The post Homeschooling Family in the New York Times appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On the other hand, not having a cap can encourage too many lawsuits and add to medical cost inflation. However, it is important to keep the costs of excessive lawsuits in perspective. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the savings for instituting a typical set of tort reforms (including but not limited to a cap on damages) saves 0.5 percent on total medical spending. This is not completely insignificant, but those savings would be totally swamped by a single year’s medical inflation.

There is a way to reform the tort system without giving anyone special privileges. Outside of the United States, most of the developed world uses what is usually referred to as the “loser pays” system, whereby whoever loses the lawsuit must pay both sides’ legal expenses. This system would have the salutary effect of eliminating frivolous lawsuits and lowering total lawsuit expenses. A 2008 Manhattan Institute study found that when compared to countries with the loser pays system (e.g. Britain, Australia, Germany), the United States spends at least twice as much on tort litigation as a percentage of GDP. If Missouri instituted loser pays, we could reap the benefits of lower litigation costs without creating a privileged legal class.

The post Real Tort Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The organization’s message was that Americans shouldn’t forget the lessons learned from a divided Germany, and that we should be wary as our government expands in size and scope.

Show-Me Institute intern Caitlin Hartsell was interviewed on KMOX (link via Combest):

“I mean it’s out there and it’s really out of the box,” said graduate student [Caitlin] Hartsell, “But I think it’s good that it really gets people thinking about what the actual implications of what socialism and communism mean.”

Ultimately, the university shut down the gulag because it was “too offensive.” Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit reports more on this subject.

The post Gulag Demonstration at Washington University appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Have you ever sat back and thought about the amazing freedom we have in this country to name someone who’s just been born? I hadn’t until I read this post on Freakonomics. Germany forbids extra-long surnames because German bureaucrats don’t like them. Those same bureaucrats approve the first names of new babies, too, and ensure that names are gender-appropriate.

The Freakonomics post lists a few other countries that regulate children’s names. I’m glad that the United States isn’t one of them. This is one of those quiet freedoms that don’t get a lot of press coverage, but that make up a part of human initiative and self-determination. Kind of like the freedom to enter your tractor in a parade.

The post Freedom by Any Other Name appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tennessee has fairly flexible homeschooling laws. Homeschooling families have to report on curriculum and attendance every year to their local superintendent. Missouri’s law is even better — it requires some record keeping, but those records aren’t looked at unless there’s a problem. This leaves parents free to focus on teaching rather than notifying the public schools about their “attendance,” a term that’s meaningless for homeschoolers anyway. (How could homeschoolers be absent? If they walk outside?)

I hope the Romeike family is enjoying the freedom to homeschool in Tennessee. If they ever find Tennessee’s regulations too burdensome, they should consider Missouri.

The post Internationally Competitive U.S. Education – at Home appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The author of the Times piece dislikes the VP office for several reasons, but primarily because presidential candidates select running mates based largely on political benefits instead of leadership qualities, so the nation is damaged when one of those people moves up to be the president after a death or impeachment. The author cites several examples in which, because of a death, the voters ended up with someone very different than the person they had elected. (The author does, however, make one blatant factual error that the Times corrected.) Because governors and lieutenant governors in Missouri do not run on the same ticket, part of that objection is made moot. The author also cites Mexico and France as countries with system similar to ours, that do not have VPs.

I do not agree with the author about the VP position — nor the lieutenant governor position, for that matter. Just because voters usually don’t put much weight into the quality of a VP candidate when they make their choices for president does not mean they can’t at least consider it. For each position, there are essentially two main jobs: cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate, and be available in the case of a death or impeachment (which we have come close to twice during the past 35 years). In years past, presiding over the Senate was also a large part of the job. That changed a long time ago in DC, and a few decades ago in Jeff City, as well, after a lawsuit between the majority Democrat senate and the new Republican lieutenant governor (Bill Phelps) was won by the senators.

As for France and Mexico, I love comparative politics, so I’ll dive in. As you may or may not know, most nations have a head of state and a head of government. For example, Britain has a queen and a prime minister. Nations without kings, no matter how little power they hold, generally choose to elect another official to hold a post — that might be called president — to serve as head of state. Germany and Israel are two examples of this. That post tends to have very little power, is mostly ceremonial, and usually goes to popular elected officials later in their careers. The United States is one of the only countries that combines both positions into one office.

Most nations also have bicameral legislatures, like ours. However, generally one house dominates the other. Historically, the House of Lords had a great deal more power than the House of Commons, but now the reverse is usually true. So, the leader of the House of Commons, or whatever it may be called, is the Prime Minister, and by far the most powerful politician. In the United States, both of our houses of Congress are comparable in power, so we don’t have a singular dominant politician. (Don’t even get me started on the Federal Reserve.) In short, because we don’t have a clearly marked other person to take over in case of a death (head of state for head of government, or vice versa), it behooves us to elect someone to be designated to fill that role, if required. The same goes for governors in the states.

France is interesting in comparison, because it is one of the few western democracies to maintain more power in its president than in the prime minister, although it does a have a prime minister who is very influential. If the president of France were to expire, the prime minister would be there to manage things in a way that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate might not agree with each other on. As for Mexico, its system comes out of a long period of one-party rule, and it has a strict one-term limit, anyway. Historically, if its president died, you could count on another member of the one party to be quickly chosen to replace him. With a two-party system, this is different — but I’m no expert on Mexican politics, so I don’t know what to recommend.

This post is getting too long, but I want to correct one inconsistency in the Times author’s logic. He says we should abolish the VP post and designate the secretary of state to serve until we can elect a new president. But, without a VP, what does he think would happen to the office of secretary of state? That office would quickly become politicized, with pressure on candidates to name who they would select for it during the campaign, so that voters could judge them just as they do the VP. The idea that qualified diplomats and generals would continue to be chosen for secretary of state if it was designated to succeed the president is crazy. Same goes for any other position that could be made second in line. We are much better off keeping the VP, and the lieutenant governor, and allowing voters to consider it is much or as little as they want in their votes.

The post Vice Presidents and Lieutenant Governors: Should They Be Abolished? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What would be the effects?

Well, first of all, gas prices would be higher, not lower. Demand for gasoline is inelastic, at least in the short run. Gas station owners are already squeezing out a mere two cents in profit per gallon of gasoline sold. Therefore, with no real retail markup, the higher wholesale gasoline costs incurred by distributors would have to fall on consumers at the pump in order for the retailers to break even. So we’re worse off here. If you like paying $4.00 per gallon, how about if we add another 20 cents or so to that?

And which investors will pay for the tax — the rich or the broad middle class? Robert Shapiro, President Clinton’s former undersecretary of commerce, argues that ownership of industry shares is "broadly middle-class," with the majority represented by institutional investments in mutual funds, pension funds, and individual retirement accounts that are held on behalf of millions of ordinary Americans. This coincides with my previous post about energy investors and who benefits from oil profits.

And, lastly, the early 1980s experiment with a windfall profits tax suggests that tax revenues would be significantly lower than expected. When Congress passed the windfall profit tax in 1980, the Congressional Budget Office projected that it would raise $393 billion in tax revenues. According to Congressional Research Services, it only raised $80 billion. That would be enough revenue to run the government for about 10 days, based on the 2008 fiscal budget.

Remember, gas prices are about three times as high in Germany and other European countries, where combined excise taxes, fuel taxes, windfall profits taxes, and VAT taxes are passed on by oil companies to the consumers. Oh, and if you factor in the exchange rate, they’re about 4.5 times higher.

So why are we debating this, again?

The post Populist Pontificating appeared first on Show-Me Institute.