As of 2009, Missouri had 41 mandates for health insurance. Considered singly, no individual mandate had a large impact on premium costs, but they each had a marginal impact. Every incremental increase in the cost of health insurance premiums leads to the possibility that some unknown number of individuals and businesses are no longer able to afford their previous coverage.

Here is a look at mandates in Missouri (data compiled from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance):

As we’ve discussed before here at Show-Me Daily, injecting competition into the insurance market is really the only long-term solution that will both increase coverage and lower health care costs. Sarah Brodsky has also suggested tuition tax credits for autistic children as another alternative to insurance mandates.

Regardless of how one looks at the issue, mandates do not serve as a solution. The list provided by CAHI contained 130 different mandates throughout all of the states and Washington, D.C. Health insurance would be prohibitively expensive for far more people if every policy had to cover all 130 items, and there will still be many other conditions or diseases that are not covered. Does every 20-year-old want insurance against Alzheimer’s disease? Does every 60-year-old want insurance against autism?

With more choice in the insurance market, people can better choose for which illnesses or conditions they wish to be insured. Eliminating the way in which insurance is tied to employment and encouraging health savings accounts would allow individuals to purchase portable, cost-effective policies, saving for foreseeable health-related expenses while hedging against unknown future risk.

The post Missouri’s Many Health Insurance Mandates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

More than 400 students from 10 Columbia public elementary schools participate in this Walking School Bus program, sponsored by the PedNet Coalition. A trained adult walks a set route each morning, picking up kids along the way and guiding them to school.

In addition to cutting costs for buses facing rising fuel expenses, the Walking School Bus is designed to increase physical activity for children in order to combat the country’s growing childhood obesity epidemic.

The difference between the two programs is that the Walking School Bus is grounded in the volunteerism of adults willing to walk with children to school, with the end of incentivizing good habit formation, whereas Farm to School is a government program that encourages the use of local food in school lunches. There are a couple of problems with the latter. As Sarah Brodsky and Caitlin Hartsell have pointed out, it’s incorrect to conflate “local food” with “healthy food”; food produced locally may not always be healthy, and food that is healthy may be imported from outside a given region. Mandating that school food be locally procured is also costly, because price-based competition from a large portion of the potential market for food is left unconsidered, and the increased demand for local food contributes to a rise in its prices.

It can also be a costly mandate for local farmers, who must cope with changes in the types of crops that they grow. A Columbia school district official admitted:

“We’re essentially asking farmers to start to grow what we want them to grow. And that’s a big risk for them.”

It is indeed a risk for Missouri farmers, who must diversify their crops to meet a new form of demand. Modern farmers maintain a delicate balancing act of running up huge debts in acquiring machinery that is geared specifically for the crops they have elected to raise. Mandating that schools provide local food presents an opportunity for local farmers, but also places a burden on them to raise a diversity of crops year-round — for many, a costly and impractical endeavor. Missouri farmers will be taking more than a “big risk” here and now; this involves their whole financial life plans.

Tackling the difficult issue of childhood obesity requires daily diligence in habit formation, because parents ultimately control the health of their children. One or more healthy meals served at school every day can be negated by a pantry full of junk food at home. This is not to say that schools shouldn’t care about serving healthy food — indeed, school lunch programs that focused on meeting nutritional guidelines, whether or not the food is locally procured, would better balance costs with student health.

Similarly, a mandated exercise class during the school day doesn’t affect the inactivity of kids who stay indoors and play video games all day on the weekends and during the summer. Yet initiatives like the Walking School Bus program directly incentivize the most important players on this issue — the parents and children themselves. Children are habituated toward associating activity with involvement with their peers, and parents are given an easy, safe, and inexpensive way of getting their kids to school that may benefit the community (e.g., through reduced traffic congestion near schools) at the same time. Yet again, volunteerism creates a win-win for everyone.

The post Salutary Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It strikes me that the debate over the appropriateness of raw milk consumption is a natural application of the general principle in Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society, by Peter McWilliams, which we recently read for the Show-Me Institute’s book club. His central idea is the following:

You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don’t physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.

It should not be the role of government to protect individuals from their own actions, such as consuming raw milk. Consumers of raw milk are rational, consenting adults. They can judge for themselves the costs and benefits associated with consuming milk that is unpasteurized. A person may harm himself by drinking raw milk (just as he may harm himself by drinking pasteurized milk), but he does not harm others by doing so.

Furthermore, it should not should not be the role of government to instruct individuals about which products are appropriate to consume and to produce, and which behaviors are appropriate to engage in, provided they do not hurt other individuals. Individuals who desire to buy raw milk should have the freedom to do so, and dairy farmers who want to produce and sell raw milk should similarly be free to do so.

As an unintended negative consequence, prohibiting the sale of raw milk will be ineffective at stopping its consumption; instead, it will drive such consumption underground and encourage real crimes. Raw milk bans will increase search and transaction costs for the consumer — they could join a raw milk club, travel to a state that permits it, or buy the product disguised with a misleading label.

Sarah Brodsky has written previously about the laws related to raw milk consumption. McWilliams would disagree that the consumption of raw milk should be illegal. From his book:

People often use the word legal too loosely. They fail to give sufficient thought as to what legal and illegal really mean. When we say a given activity should be illegal, what we’re saying is that if someone takes part in that activity, we should put that person in jail. When it comes to consensual crimes, however, when people say, “It should be illegal,” what they usually mean is, “That’s not right,” “That’s not a good idea,” or “That’s immoral.” When using the word illegal, it’s important to remember how forceful the force of law truly is. We are all entitled, of course, to our opinions about certain activities, but do we really want to lock up people who don’t go along with our opinions?

Parenthetically, from the article, I suspect that raw milk bans could be motivated by rent-seeking behavior. Producers of pasteurized milk could encourage banning raw milk as a means to create a barrier to entry to the market:

To some, new legislative efforts to relax raw milk laws could encourage more producers in the struggling dairy industry to get into the raw milk game[.]

Similarly, bans on the production and sale of raw milk discourage small farms from entering and operating in the market, and they favor larger firms that currently operate in the market and possess the resources to pasteurize their product.

The post Raw Milk Consumption: A Consensual Crime appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today’s Post-Dispatch has an article about the latest round of budget cuts in Jeff City. This round of cuts will apparently hit the PAT program hard. The national director of the organization, which is based in Missouri, is taking the cuts personally and hitting back hard:

“I have passed beyond astonishment at the governor’s actions to anger at this disparate attack on Parents as Teachers,” Stepleton said from the organization’s national headquarters in Maryland Heights.

I might understand her anger, but I have to come to the defense of the governor and legislature here. PAT is a worthy program, and by that I mean that I feel it serves its mission more effectively than many other social programs. My family uses it, and we pay for it through our property taxes. If we were asked to pay for it via both property taxes and additional fees, I readily admit we would not use it. But there is no reason PAT should not feel the cutbacks to the same degree as other programs — or, in certain cases like the Highway Patrol, more than other programs. There is nothing so important about PAT, compared to may other programs, that should make it immune to cutbacks when they are required. And I again remind you that I say this as someone who likes, uses, and supports the PAT program overall.

The governor has difficult choices to make, and he deserves credit for facing up to the task and making the hard decisions. The General Assembly also deserves great credit for working with him on many (not all, but many) of these choices, and refusing to raise taxes in these tough budget times. Raising taxes is the easy way out, not the hard way.

Other proposed cuts are positively exciting, such as reducing, even just temporarily, aid to Missouri’s insipid ethanol industry:

The state will delay paying $3.2 million in subsidies owed to biodiesel plants. Next year, they’ll get about 75 percent of what they’re owed, with the rest being deferred to future years.

Here’s hoping that they make the biodiesel cuts permanent, then cut it even further.

The post Squaring the Circle on Parents as Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Beginning Monday, the state will offer $5.6 million in rebates to Missouri residents who buy energy-efficient clothes washers, dishwashers, furnaces, air conditioners and heat pumps.

That’s not all. The state from April 19 to 25 won’t collect its 4.225-percent sales tax on those products, plus energy-efficient refrigerators and freezers.

Contributors to Show-Me Daily have written extensively about how programs like Missouri’s green tax holiday and last year’s Cash for Clunkers program are ineffective. These are examples of government programs that provide an incentive to consumers (i.e., a rebate) to buy certain items (e.g., an appliance or a car) in an attempt to incite economic activity and change individual behavior (which will ostensibly help preserve the environment). The following is a digest of these arguments. If any Show-Me Daily readers know of additional disadvantages to these programs, please add to this post in the comments.

1. Instead of creating new economic activity, programs that offer rebates on products like appliances and cars only distort the market.

In a previous post, Charis Fischer explained that these transactions would have occurred anyway in the future, independent of a rebate in the present:

Using tax dollars to help people buy more energy-efficient machines is likely an inefficient use of funds, because purchases of these machines will become much more common within the next few years anyway, as older machines start to die. The fact that people can save money on energy costs by upgrading their appliances is already a significant incentive.

2. The intended environmental impact is negated through the construction of the program.

The subsidy incentivizes the destruction of operational appliances and the construction of new appliances to replace them. It could also be possible that having an appliance that is more fuel-efficient would encourage a person to wash more dishes and laundry than he did before. Justin Hauke posted previously that, unless each Missouri resident buys a new appliances that week, the Green Tax Holiday would have no impact on overall energy usage in the state.

3. The money that is spent in rebates could be devoted to other programs.

Caitlin Hartsell explained in an earlier post how programs like Missouri’s Green Tax Holiday and Cash for Clunkers illustrate Bastat’s broken window fallacy.

[W]hen the government uses taxpayer money to stimulate one part of the economy, this comes at the expense of those other economic sectors that will no longer benefit from some measure of either consumer spending or invested savings.

4. This cements the idea that individuals should look to the government for approval of which products and services to buy and how to behave, which should not be the role of government.

Sarah Brodsky pointed out that, by eliminating state sales tax on only those appliances that have the Energy Star designation, the government favors certain products and behaviors over others.

The post It’s That Time of Year Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since the Internet hit the big time in the mid-1990s, Amazon and eBay have changed the way we shop, Google has revolutionized the way we find information, Facebook has superseded other ways to keep track of friends and iTunes has altered how we consume music. But kids remain stuck in analog schools. Part of the reason online education hasn’t taken off is that powerful forces such as teachers unions — which prefer to keep students in traditional classrooms under the supervision of their members — are aligned against it.

So children continue to learn from blackboards and books — the kind made of dead trees! no hyperlinks! — rather than getting lessons the way they consume virtually all other information: online. Putting reading materials and lecture notes on the Internet, like many teachers do today, is just the first step; it’s like when, in the early days of movies, filmmakers pointed a camera at a stage play. Kids are still stuck watching those old-style movies, when they could be enjoying the learning equivalent of “Avatar” in 3-D. Thousands of ninth-grade English teachers are cobbling together yet another lecture on the Globe Theatre in Shakespeare’s day, when YouTube is overflowing with accessible, multimedia presentations from experts on Elizabethan theater construction, not to mention a very nice illustrated series on the Kennedy Center’s ArtsEdge site. […]

How do we know online education will work? Well, for one thing, it already does. Full-time virtual charter schools are operating in dozens of states. The Florida Virtual School, which offers for-credit online classes to any child enrolled in the state system, has 100,000 students. Teachers are available by phone or e-mail from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. seven days a week. The state cuts a funding check to the school only when students demonstrate that they have mastered the material, whether it takes them two months or two years. The program is one of the largest in the country. Kids who enroll in Advanced Placement courses — 39 percent of whom are minority students — score an average of 3.05 out of 5, compared with a state average of 2.49 for public school students…

Moving lesson planning and delivery online can provide students with more supervision, not less, says Michael Horn, one of the co-authors of “Disrupting Class.” It would free teachers, Horn says, “to do hand-holding and mentoring, something which is pretty much impossible in the current model.” After all, where is it written that the babysitter, disciplinarian, lecturer and evaluator must all be the same person? Or even that they all have to be in the same building?

Some online learning models eliminate human interaction, but the vast majority do not. Instead, they connect students and teachers via polls, video, chat, text and good old-fashioned phone calls. The Virtual Virginia program focuses on offering Advanced Placement classes to every student in the state, bringing college-level courses to rural districts and inner-city Richmond, where high-level instruction is difficult to get. Rocketship Education, in San Jose, Calif., brings at-risk elementary students together in a safe, cheap, modular space along with a small staff and hands their studies over to online curriculum for part of each day.

Online education has already become a boon for kids with special needs, the students least served by the traditional system. Education entrepreneur Tom Vander Ark launched Internet Academy, the first online K-12 establishment, in 1995 in part to serve kids with unorthodox education requirements, from serious athletes to children with health problems or learning disabilities.

One of the most successful areas of online education so far is helping kids who have fallen off the educational grid. Companies such as AdvancePath Academics scoop up students classified as unrecoverable by traditional schools and help them complete their education. Some dropout-recovery programs can be found in shopping malls and gyms.

Online education is no silver bullet for Missouri’s educational problems because there is no such thing. Each student is different, and although the traditional models may work well for most (a point I think is debatable), others may experience far more success in a more structured online program that still allows students to move at their own pace. Others could benefit from more independent learning styles like Montessori schools. All these options have their places, and we will be most successful when we allow parents and students find the pedagogical methods that work best for them instead of trying to force hundreds of thousands of individuals into the same boxes.

Sarah Brodsky has written about online schooling several times, and Caitlin Hartsell has also blogged about the issue.

The post Celebrate Educational Diversity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Taxpayers understand you don’t add to your stock investments when you are struggling to buy food and pay for college tuition. Business owners rarely add a second location, no matter the potential, when times are tough and they have payrolls to meet.

So, too, the state’s legislators and economic-development leaders must choose between funding the cycling competition or fully funding such things as teachers and early-childhood education.

This is an example of the “hard choices” that Sarah Brodsky described earlier on this blog. Before they spend money on any program — be it a cycling competition, a light-rail expansion, or anything else — state and local governments should perform this kind of cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the money can be spent more wisely elsewhere.

The post “Consider the Competing Needs” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

WHEREAS, Wisconsinites generally have a love/hate relationship with all things from Illinois but the sold-out crowd at the Overture Center on February 20, 2010 had only love for this band from Chicago; […]

In an article in the Duluth News Tribune, Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz pokes fun at the situation. I realize that he’s joking, but there’s a sad element of truth in his statement.

“If it’s a typical resolution for the city of Madison, it will be referred to 20 different city committees, it’ll be amended and we’ll probably vote on it in August 2012,” the mayor said.

On the one hand, although the Common Council could spend its time more productively, at least it isn’t passing resolutions that limit personal liberties or promote fiscal irresponsibility.

However, as Sarah Brodsky has communicated on this blog, legislating state symbols encourages people to ask the government to affirm their preferences. I happen to enjoy listening to Wilco, but why should it matter to me that Ald. Rhodes-Conway and Mayor Dave do as well? In a recent blog post, Mayor Cieslewicz confesses that he doesn’t like John Mayer. Does this mean that I shouldn’t like him too? If John Mayer is barred from becoming an honorary citizen in Madison, does he face a barrier to performing concerts in Madison?

I hope that Mayor Cieslewicz is only joking about this, too:

There are also questions being raised about where honorary citizens would be allowed to live. Some have suggested a referral to the Zoning Code Revision Advisory Committee to mull that one over, though the City Attorney has hinted darkly that he won’t allow it.

I hope that these cities stop short of providing tax advantages to their honorary citizens. I wouldn’t be that surprised if they did, though; Midwestern states have already demonstrated a willingness to bend their tax codes in an effort to attract glitz and glamour.

The post She Fell In Love With The Drummer appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is also the start of a national conversation about the importance of understanding where your food comes from and how it gets to your plate. Today, there is too much distance between the average American and their farmer and we are marshalling resources from across USDA to help create the link between local production and local consumption.

The USDA’s program relies on the premise that local production is a social and environmental good that should be encouraged by the government. Blake Hurst, the author of the Weekly Standard article, debunks the idea that local is necessarily more “carbon neutral.” He cites a study by Hiroko Shimizu and Pierre Desrochers for the Property and Environment Research Center about “food miles.” The study’s abstract includes this conclusion (emphasis added):

The evidence presented suggests that food miles are, at best, a marketing fad that frequently and severely distorts the environmental impacts of agricultural production. At worst, food miles constitute a dangerous distraction from the very real and serious issues that affect energy consumption and the environmental impact of modern food production and the affordability of food.

Certain climates and types of land are better suited for particular agricultural purposes. The local-food movement trumpets locality and proximity above all else, though, ignoring the enormous energy inputs required to grow food on land that is not well-suited for that purpose. An assessment of the environmental impact of food growing needs to take into account all of the inputs — not just the distance traveled from the farm to the store.

The USDA has created its own matrix for evaluating the most important environmental factor for farms — proximity — without taking into account other criteria that could also have significant environmental impact. If an individual thinks it is important to buy locally, that is fine. But that decision should be made by the individual, without the help of a massive advertising campaign by a governmental agency that expends large sums of taxpayer dollars in order to promote their particular environmental model.

(This discussion is related to my recent post about farmers’ markets, and to Sarah Brodsky’s blog posts about local food.)

Another problem, in addition to USDA program’s misguided focus on buying local, are the implications that local food is somehow healthier. Fruit grown in Missouri is not any more nutritious than fruit grown in California or Florida, yet the USDA program seems to conflate the idea with statements like, “USDA wants to expand access to local, nutritious foods,” implying that proximity could contribute to nutritional value. Local food may not even be as fresh as food transported from other locales; in fact, the PERC study found that because larger farms ship much more frequently than small farms, their food is often more likely to be fresh when it reaches market. The USDA’s misleading claims about the purported environmental and health benefits of local food makes its program even more questionable, beyond the way in which it exerts influence on consumer choices.

Buying local food is not always the best way to be environmentally or health-conscious. At any rate, it is not the government’s job to influence consumer behavior, and the $65 million used by the USDA in its program to promote local food surely has a better use.

The post Buying Local Not Always Environmentally Friendly appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“I don’t want someone’s hand in my child’s mouth,” said Sarah Brodsky, a teacher at First Path Day Care in Watertown and mother of 4-month-old Noah. “It’s a little too much” government intervention, Ms. Brodsky added.

I’m not the Sarah Brodsky in this article, although we do have the same name and her quote is basically what I would have said. She’s right; the decision of whether to incorporate teeth brushing into the school day should be left to preschools and day care centers.

The new law is an intrusion into preschool management, and the fact that parents can opt out is little consolation from a preschool director’s point of view. Every preschool now has to set up sinks and take time away from other activities in order to brush teeth, all while keeping track of which students’ parents opted out. Preschool teachers are sure to hear complaints from parents if one child sticks someone else’s toothbrush in his mouth, or if an opted-out child inadvertently gets into the toothpaste. Those kinds of mix-ups are unavoidable when you have a bunch of little kids brushing their teeth at the same time.

I hope Missouri won’t follow Massachusetts’ lead and mandate teeth brushing in day care centers. But now that I think about it, I don’t know whether the in-school dental care policy would catch on in Missouri — people would probably demand taxpayer-funded home visits!

The post Massachusetts Tells Preschools to Brush Kids’ Teeth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am sympathetic to Sarah Brodsky’s argument that the role of the state should not include handing out endorsements, and that individuals shouldn’t look to the state for approval. However, I am OK with legislation about state symbols. I feel that the more time the state spends making non-financial endorsements such as for a “state bird” or “state animal,” the less time it spends passing legislation that increases bureaucracy or infringes upon our personal liberties.

The post In Support of State Symbols appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri has higher education standards than do many other states as it is; adopting national standards would simply entail an increased use of standardized tests, resulting in more wasted classroom time. Getting the program started would also require a great deal of additional funding: Texas estimates that it will cost $3 billion to implement.

Adopting a federal standard would be the first step toward relinquishing the state’s constitutionally granted control of its public education system.

Missourians already know what their students should be learning, and have thus far created a fairly rigorous set of statewide standards. And, as it is, fewer than half of Missouri’s students are meeting or exceeding the MAP standards Adopting lower national standards instead would only provide a misleading inflation of achievement metrics.

Why should Missouri surrender its authority to meeet the educational needs of its children simply in order to conform to a national standard that would provide no measurable benefit?

The post “Race to the Top” in Education Meaningless for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Friedman Foundation’s president and CEO, Robert Enlow, said in a release that the new law “creates a new tax credit scholarship program for children with special needs and children in foster care.” He also pointed out that that the program replaces an earlier voucher program that the state’s courts discontinued:

This tax credit scholarship program was enacted in response to a State Supreme Court ruling declaring that a voucher program serving these children was unconstitutional. The new legislation offers priority to the children who received vouchers under the earlier program, ensuring that the educational needs of these children will continue to be served.

Sarah Brodsky, former Show-Me Institute policy analyst and still regular contributor to this blog, suggested last year that tuition tax credits are the best solution for Missouri’s autistic students, who generally don’t have access to the special educational programs they need in Missouri’s traditional public schools. Insurance plans generally fail to meet these students’ needs, as Brodsky points out:

Kids with autism may need up to 30 hours each week of behavioral modification, help with social skills, music therapy, and personal attention — in other words, a special school environment. Health insurance companies are set up to pay for medical treatment — which is only one part of the services autistic kids need — not to pay tuition.

Tuition tax credits are an especially useful solution in this case, because — as pointed out in an early 2008 Show-Me Institute study, “The Fiscal Effects of a Tuition Tax Credit Program in Missouri” — tuition tax credit programs can be constructed in such a way that they actually save the state money, so even more existing educational funding can be devoted to traditional public schools:

Opponents argue that such legislation would “cost” the state a significant amount of money, because it would decrease funding to public schools by the amount of the lost tax revenue from the credit. We demonstrate, however, that the net fiscal cost of a tuition tax credit program would actually be considerably lower than the lost tax revenues, and might even raise net revenues for the state. […] If such savings occur, it means that additional revenues will be available for students who remain in public schools, for other state programs such as Medicaid, or for tax reduction.

Congratulations to the people of Arizona for obtaining a little more educational freedom. Here’s hoping that they expand their program still more, to include all willing students, and that Missouri follows suit in bringing a new variety of educational options to all children throughout the state.

The post Great News From Arizona appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Apparently this is supposed to create an “incentive.” Sarah Brodsky has written about cash incentive programs before, so I refer readers to her post on the matter.

Personally, I thought that the incentive came from the fact that a passing grade on an AP test exempts the student from college coursework (about $412 per credit hour on average at a four-year public university, by my count), but I guess Exxon-Mobil has to find something to do with that $34.5 billion of cash it has on its balance sheet. …

The post Cash for Grades? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A tuition tax credits program would allow Missouri taxpayers to target their tax dollars towards meaningful educational reform by providing educational scholarships to low-income Missouri families. In the states where they have been adopted, such tax credits have allowed thousands of children to obtain quality educations in the schools of their choice. They have been a beacon of hope to families who otherwise would have few educational opportunities.

Not only would such a program offer new educational opportunities to thousands of students, it could well save taxpayers’ money. The study concludes:

Depending on the average scholarship size and low-income families’ responses to the change in tuition, the state could potentially save money from a tuition tax credit program. A partial credit offers the greatest opportunity for savings, but in all cases, the cost to the state will be far lower than the tax revenue loss. Most importantly, a tuition tax credit program would help to reduce the gap in educational opportunities between Missouri’s high- and low-income families, and would provide meaningful choices for students in school districts that have lost accreditation.

Steve Walsh of Missourinet has just posted a brief article accompanied by a 60-second radio spot featuring comments by Justin Hauke, coauthor of the study and regular Show-Me Daily blogger. During the interview, Justin said, "Wealther Missourians already have this opportunity. Families that can afford to send their children to private school, or whatever school they want — that’s already an option for them. We’re trying to reach the vast majority of families that don’t have that option. So we’re really just trying to level the playing field."

Ultimately, this is the most valuable aspect of school choice. It makes the best educational opportunities available to children from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

The post New Study Examines Tuition Tax Credits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s possible to make a case for official English legislation that would persuade many lovers of free markets and liberty, simply on fiscal grounds; eliminating some forms of multilingual paperwork and bureaucracy can definitely save a few taxpayer dollars here and there. But that argument is essentially about administrative policy, and doesn’t rise to the level of constitutional importance.

Other arguments for official English have more to do with government using language to promote a more cohesive culture — which I find entirely unpersuasive. This legislation is about the use of language in official government business, and has nothing to do with the many languages people use in their homes and private lives. Culture isn’t a real issue here.

Language legislation isn’t something the Show-Me Institute would normally cover as a matter of course, although Sarah has blogged about it a few times. She comes down on the side of eliminating regulation when it’s unnecessary and overreaching, and while she applies it here to an issue that doesn’t fit neatly into any of our policy areas, it does fit with our general approach of advocating less bureaucratic regulation where possible.

Ultimately, a think tank like this one has no official opinions outside of the research and conclusions of its scholars — and Sarah has made a good case for hers.

The post English MacGuffins appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Cascade Policy Institute in Portland, OR, last year reported on how government regulations squelch the efforts of the best biofuel research team the nation has — farmers:

In order to sell biodiesel one must register with, and make regular reports to, the EPA and either pay $2,500 to the National Biodiesel Board or spend millions of dollars to re-prove its environmental health safety. Otherwise one faces $25,000 daily fines.

The stifling effect of these obstacles can’t be overestimated. If it weren’t for the EPA, our family would have started a biodiesel business long ago, and so would many of the farmers I’ve spoken with. Making your own fuel is a financial solution. The incentives to plant are already there and the entire process can be done on a small-scale.

Farmers know it’s a bum deal to work through a middleman to reach customers. Fuel is sure to bring in a good price, but who can say what processors will pay for oil seed stock? If farmers can’t profit directly from biodiesel they will never plant enough crops to make a dent in America’s fuel demands and the price of biodiesel will remain too high for widespread adoption.

Biodiesel represents an enormous opportunity, not only for its environmental and economic benefits, but for its liberating potential. There is a reason the terms “fuel” and “power” also have political application. Petroleum can’t be obtained by just anyone so it is ripe for control. Biodiesel can literally put power into the hands of every person.

The biodiesel opportunity has been suppressed for over a century. Rudolf Diesel designed his engine to run on a variety of vegetable oils and thought the technology would be a boon to farmers.

Now that biofuels have finally regained the national spotlight, America is at a crossroads. We can pursue subsidies and use mandates to build on the petroleum fuel model, with large-scale agribusiness supplying a few giant processors. Or we can we remove counterproductive laws for a paradigm shift to an agrarian fuel model, where local farmers grow the industry from the ground up and reap the profits.

One of the most basic truths of government intervention in the economy is that intervention begets intervention, as the unintended consequences of government action become apparent, and then have to be "fixed" through more government action, spawning still more unintended consequences that require still more intervention, etc.

Sometimes the government’s best course of action is to stay out of the way and let the market do its work, without obtrusive regulations that kill alternative energy innovations before they have a chance to blossom.

The post Stay Out of the Way appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That is, the effects are substantial if one considers moving from one end of the Tiebout choice spectrum (a metropolitan area like Miami) to the other (a metropolitan area like Boston). Naturally, most metropolitan areas are between the two ends of the spectrum, and the current variation in Tiebout choice among metropolitan areas explains a modest amount of their differences in school productivity.

My point clearly stated that I think too many small, rural school districts are the primary problem here.  Further, choice is indeed a wonderful thing in many ways, but simple logic dictates that there is a limit to the top number. If 524 is not too many districts, then would we be better off with 1,200? Of course there is a limit to the benefits of choice contained by a large number of districts. I think 524 is WAY too high. The tax dollars wasted by 524 sets of administration, upkeep on a large number of underattended schools, and much more, clearly tell me the number should be much lower. What should it be? I have no idea, but cutting it in half would be a good start — and still give Missourians plenty of choice.

There is such a thing as too much choice. This article sums up the various ideas very well. From my own experience as a recent father, I would call it the "Babies ‘R’ Us" dilemma. If one company had a monopoly on making baby bottles, that would be terrible. Just two companies is better, but still bad. But at some point, the variety of choices leads to diminishing returns. Just go to "Babies ‘R’ Us" and try to decide which of the two dozen brands of bottles is right for your child. If you are like me, you quickly realize that the amount of time spent trying to determine that answer would be an enormous effort that would almost certainly result in more or less a tie among the products. So you just trust that "Babies ‘R’ Us" has tested them all, and buy the ones on sale.

The post Sarah is Brilliant, But Nonetheless Wrong … appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I worked for Kurt Odenwald at the St. Louis County Council, he led the fight to have St. Louis County opt in, and thereby exempt its sales tax along with the state’s for the weekend. As I recall, St. Louis City also opted in because St. Louis County did, and the city and county then saw an increase in sales for their businesses as shoppers came over from Illinois to shop that weekend in Missouri.

Sarah is completely right when she writes that tax policy should be broad-based, fair and consistent. And I agree that it would be preferable to just lower the sales tax slightly year-round instead of exempting it for a weekend. However, this is one case to me where the practical trumps the theoretical. It would be nice to lower the tax year round, but that is not happening. A sales tax holiday is happening, and I think it benefits Missouri consumers and businesses. And if it puts a slight hurt on some municipal budget, you can imagine how much I care about that. About this much.

The post I Love the Sales Tax Holiday! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Almost half of the 23 school districts in St. Louis County have slammed their doors in the faces of kids who want to transfer out of the beleaguered St. Louis Public Schools after the district loses its accreditation. The rest are undecided.

Sadly, not a single district so far has agreed to take more kids from the city schools. That’s bad news for parents desperately searching for educational options, bad news for kids and bad news for the future of our work force.

We already know that Missouri parents support school choice by huge margins. The Show-Me Institute has been staying on top of this issue with recent op-eds from Steve Bernstetter and Sarah Brodsky.

Steve points out in his article that "The recent loss of accreditation in the public school system in Saint Louis, because of chronic underperformance, presents the opportunity to expand these choice programs for the benefit of all students." Steve suggests contracting out education services to county school districts. It’s better to give these districts an incentive to serve new kids than to just assume they’ll be happy to have an influx of new students without accompanying resources. He goes on to say:

County schools, and even some private schools, generally spend less per pupil than the city district. According to Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Saint Louis public schools spent an average of $11,402 per pupil in 2006. As a comparison, my district, Mehlville R-IX, spent an average of $7,144 per pupil in 2006, while the statewide average for district spending in Missouri was about $8,221 per pupil in 2006. As a rough estimate, if the city is required to pay tuition and transportation costs?say $1,000 per year, per student?it would still save money by essentially contracting out to the county district. Whatever money is left over after this transaction would presumably be sunk back into the city, thereby increasing the per-pupil funds available to students remaining in the district. This program, a kind of voucher program completely contained within the public school system, would couple well with the current busing program.

Sarah’s article takes issue with Missouri’s current Virtual Instruction Program, pointing out that there’s no need to reinvent the wheel by building a new, limited online educational system from scratch. She says we should use current schools and districts, and give students the option of taking a wide variety of online courses from schools throughout the state. Sarah says:

A state doesn’t need dozens of virtual schools to create competition. When even a few virtual schools compete, they’re responsive to parents’ requests. Missouri parents were upset when they found out Missouri’s new virtual school doesn’t yet include courses at the middle school level. (Meanwhile, it offers some courses, like technology for kindergarteners, for which there is relatively little demand.) In Florida, middle school students can enroll in the Florida Virtual School, the Florida Connections Academy, or the Florida Virtual Academy. Besides the standard middle school courses, they can study electives like Spanish, French, home economics, the arts, and world cultures. If a virtual school in Florida didn’t offer enough middle school courses, students would switch to one of the other two.

Missouri’s Virtual Instruction Program didn’t have enough resources to build middle school courses from scratch in time for its first year of operations. Had it faced competition, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education might have realized it couldn’t reinvent the wheel. Some states partner with private organizations that have already produced courses at all grade levels. For example, many states allow virtual school students to take courses from William Bennett’s k12, which sells courses to home schooling families. Students in twenty states can choose this option.

The options are limitless if we really want to get kids the educations they need. Abandoning top-down institutional thinking in favor of a flexible, market-driven system would be a great first step.

The post School Choice Would Provide Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.