I Might Go to the Detroit Fireworks. Except That I Might GET SHOT.
How about a fireworks show in Detroit? It might be a good idea--if you don't get shot. Nine people suffered that fate last year.

My fellow Detroit News blogger George Bullard has this to say:

One persistent problem for Detroit is the baseline for conversation on improving the city.

Take, for example, the huge fireworks display planned for tonight. Much of the ink isn't on the size of the display or the expected weather or the festive mood.

Rather, people discuss whether the party goers will get shot if they come downtown for the show.

Eminem, accused of fomenting violence against gays and against women, will perform at the fireworks to improve its image. (permalink)

The Court as the Legislature of Last Resort.
My op-ed in last week's Wichita Eagle argued that the Kansas Supreme Court was usurping legislative power by dictating how much money that state must spend on K-12 education. Today, Charlie Arlinghaus uses the Kansas situation as an introduction to a similar problem in the Manchester Union-Leader.

Arlinghaus, Concord, New Hampshire-based Josiah Bartlett Center), focuses on the k-12 funding controversy in the Granite State. But his remarks are applicable elsewhere:

Education funding exists in a limbo where the Supreme Court is regarded not as a judicial body, but as a council of elders who can be counted on to right the wrongs imposed by the people who somehow managed to get elected. If democracy isn't working out for me, maybe a lawsuit will fix it all. After all, it doesn't matter what the people we elect think, it only matters what the court thinks. (permalink)

Education: Private Schools Bad, Except When They're Not.
Not quite sure what to make of this. Teacher unions are not exactly known as fans of helping people send their children to privately owned and operated schools. After all, the represent the competition.

And yet ... teachers in the Minneapolis school district (like many government employees) can "purchase" service time, which enhances their pension payout in a defined benefit scheme.

Say that you work as a teacher in a military school for five years, and then take a job in the Minneapolis schools. You can then deposit a sum of money into the Minneapolis teachers retirement fund, and then be treated, in the benefits calculations, as if you worked in the MPS for those 5 years.

Aside from working in the military, you can get credit for working in what other organizations? Among other things, private and even parochial schools.

Labels: Public employee pensions

(permalink)

State Says: You're Not Paying Enough for Gasoline.
Really. The State of Minnesota requires that gas stations mark up gasoline at least 8 cents a gallon.

So much for the need for laws and regulations to protect the consumer.

Naturally, an official from the state says "Our complaints come from competitors [of stations selling cheaper gas], not consumers." (permalink)

Supremely Disappointing
Last week's Supreme Court ruling giving federal blessing to demolishing Granny's house to make way for Enormous Shop-A-Lot has sparked a lot of commentary. Today's first (and perhaps only) blog entry links to a couple of thoughts I have posted to the Detroit News blog.

As I argue here , the Kelo decision is simply the latest step in the logic that government-led economic development is better. It also provides an out (that is, a way to get more revenue) for politicians who might wish to avoid the hard work of either persuading constituents to raise tax rates, or withstanding the firestorm of criticism that would come from de-funding some existing programs.

Another post mentions the two ways that land-grabs for private gain can be resisted: relying on the public to exert political pressure on those who plan coercive economic development projects, or (better) enacting or strengthening constitutional protections at the state level. (permalink)

Combat Monopolies Through Socialism?
Combat monopolies through government ownership? That's what the Institute for Local Self-Reliance wants Minnesota cities to do, according to a report in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

The group says that

Minnesota municipalities should consider building their own broadband infrastructure to keep prices affordable for Internet access.

[snip]

Morris said municipally owned broadband infrastructure can provide for "more robust competition" and be used as a way to protect customers "when private monopolies and duopolies misbehave."

At least one city in the state is now running a commercial venture, signing up residents to its wi-fi service. (permalink)

Education Funded by Gambling?
What happens if you enhance spending on k-12 education by bringing casinos to your state?

Writing for the Wichita Eagle, Randy Scholfield has a satirical take:

Mrs. Rollem opened her second-grade class with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a video greeting from Seymour Heist, president of MultiState Casino Holdings, urging the children to study hard, play the hand they're dealt and "always bet on success."

Read it all here. (permalink)

Education: School Funding Amount is a Political, Not Judicial Question.
Today's Wichita Eagle runs the PolicyGuy's op-ed on the debate in Kansas on how much money (if any) the state will add to next year's school funding bill.

Here's the lead:

There's something even more important than money at stake in the special session of the Kansas Legislature: some important constitutional principles, including the role of the Legislature and the courts.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Hey Big Spender, Spend a Little Time At Home.
Corporations routinely cut back on travel budget when times are tight. Are governments doing enough to follow this example?

Officials in several states have cancelled plans to travel to a conference of the National Association of Counties--a conference held in Hawaii.

One county administrator in Minnesota defends the expense against the argument that travel budgets should get cut.

"I understand that argument," Blue Earth County Administrator Dennis McCoy said, "but I challenge it by saying, in lean times, that is the time when you need the best ideas. That's when you're really scratching for: 'What are you guys doing? How did you handle this?'"

Says the Center of the American Experiment in an e-mail missive: Perhaps they could learn more about dealing with “lean times” from the county officials who decided to forgo the trip to Hawaii in order to save taxpayers money. (permalink)

Minimum Wage Increase: It's the Same Old Song.
Efforts to raise government price floors on labor (otherwise known as the minimum wage) continue apace. The latest is an effort in pensiveness.

That state's Commonwealth Foundation offers a succinct statement of arguments against such economy folly. (permalink)

Legal: State Constitutions May Offer Some Hope to Propery Owners.
The Goldwater Institute reminds us that state constitutions can offer citizens more protections than the U.S. constitution. This is useful in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelso case (see prior post).

Here's what the Goldwater Institute has to say:

Supreme Court Abandons Constitutional Limit on Government Power
"All Private Property Is Now Vulnerable"

PHOENIX—The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not protect property owners from government seizures for redevelopment purposes.

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London is a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes will now be razed to make room for an office complex. In speaking for the 5-4 majority, Justice Stevens held that “the city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a ‘public use’ within the meanings of the takings clause.”

“It’s a tragic day when the U.S. Supreme Court drains a constitutional guarantee of meaning,” explains Goldwater Institute senior fellow Clint Bolick. “That’s the worst type of judicial activism.”

In her stinging dissent, Justice O’Connor wrote, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded . . . [T]he fallout will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process.”

The Goldwater Institute filed an amicus brief in the landmark case contending that the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes violates Fifth Amendment private property protections, which state that “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Goldwater Institute president and CEO Darcy Olsen observes that “the U.S. Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling. We will continue fighting against unjust takings under the Arizona State Constitution, which contains stringent protections for private property owners.” (permalink)

Legal: Your Home Belongs To Government.
In a decision with horrific possibilities, the Supreme Court has ruled that a city can take away your property, give it to a private developer, and justify it all by saying that the company will pay more in taxes than you.

Standing up for the little guy: Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist (bogeymen of the Left) as well as sometimes-conservative Sandra Day O'Connor.

Said one anonymous blogger on the SCOTUS Blog:

You know what's ironic? It was the four left liberals (and one weathervane) "justices" that ruled that government can take property away from citizens and give it to Big Corporations.

So, when the local Homeless Shelter & Needle Distribution Center gets bull-dozed to make way for a Wal-Mart SuperCenter, the left can thank Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter.

Simply put, this is a horrible decision. It's easy to talk about minority rights (they were tossed around during the debate on changing the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate). But the Supremes have ruled that nobody's property is safe from the schemes of developers and politicians. All it takes is a majority of those with political power to kick you out of your home of years, or decades. (permalink)

A Boring Financial Disaster Awaits Taxpayers
Do your eyes glaze over when someone mentions the Social Security debate? Here's something even more boring, but important to your pocketbook: the health of public employee pension plans.

Why is this important? After all, you're paying for them. The Reason Public Policy Foundation has a new study that explains why a series of incentives translates into generous benefits for public employees, political gain for politicians, and a looming fiscal crisis for taxpayers. In West Virginia, for example, the public pension debt exceeds the size of general fund!

The Reason Public Policy Foundation offers a press release, executive summary, and full-blown study on its web site.

Labels: Public employee pensions

(permalink)

Are you Evil, or Just Stupid?
Are you evil, or just stupid? That's the question that people too often wonder about those on the other side of policy and political debates.

I may have been on the receiving end of that question last night. Despite the fact that there is a "No Solicitors" sign on my front door, a young man knocked. And despite the fact that I surmised the chances of it being a solicitor anyway were pretty high, I answered the door.

A young man was peddling not cookies or magazine subscriptions, but the chance to sign some sort of petition relating to environmental cleanup. Clean water. Now who could object to that?

"So do you have any brochures I could look at?" I asked.

"No, but it's all here," he said, without actually giving anything to me. "See, it's like this," he continued.

His brief message, to put it crudely was that signing this petition in support of some particular piece of legislation was the key to keep all of us from drinking out of the toilet bowl. After it's been used.

Not knowing even the name of the legislation in question, I demurred. "I'm not sure what this is or what it does or if it's a good thing," I said.

"WHAT? You like drinking [deleted]?"

"No," I said. "It's just that I work in public policy, and I know that there's more than one way to skin a cat."

What an ugly metaphor.

Woulda Could Shoulda.

I would have launched into a discussion of costs and benefits. I could have asked whether or not we were going to double our clean-up budget to fix only the remaining 0.005 percent of the problem. I should have given a little talk on the fact that there are several ways to achieve any given goal, and that I did not know if the goals of this particular legislation.

But I had work to get back to. So I left the activist on my front steps, obviously puzzled.

Some Christians hand out evangelistic tracts to children who come to their house for Halloween goodies. Maybe I could hand out a trifold tract on economics 101 the next time someone comes a clipboard drops by my front door. (permalink)

More Reaction from Court Activism.
The Kansas Taxpayers Network has a partial round-up of reaction to the recent rulings of that state's supreme court requiring increased spending on k-12 schooling.

Judges deciding how much you're going to pay? Not good. (permalink)

Who Decides What the Fiscal Priorities of Government Are? Courts, or the Legislature?
The Wall Street Journal comments on the separation of power controversy on its editorial page. [Link may be valid until June 29, if I have got this figured ought right.]

The lead paragraph introduces the problem very well: "As any junior high civics student knows, under the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, the legislative branch makes the laws and the judicial branch interprets them. Not so in Kansas these days. There the state Supreme Court has commanded that the legislature must increase spending on the schools, as well as the taxes to pay for it, by precisely $853 million over the next two years."

What's interesting about this case is that the proximate controversy is not so much about equity, but about the total amount that the state will spend on education. As important as that is, however, the more serious question is whether the courts will be able to trample on legislative power. Setting a minimum level of spending on one policy area (in this case, k-12 schools) is a de facto establishment of fiscal priorities, an inherently political task for the Legislature to undertake. (permalink)

Education Ruling Undermines Separation of Powers.
Gerrit Wormhoudt offers a critique of the Kansas Supreme Court decision in the Montoy case, calling it an "assumption of power" that is "clearly inconsistent with the foundations of a constitutional democracy."

While this school funding case touches on questions of equity across districts, the plaintiffs' complaint is that the Legislature isn't spending as much money on schools as some people would like. (This despite the real increases that the schools have enjoyed, which I have documented in policy briefs for the state as a whole, as well as Wichita, Topeka, and, to date, six other districts in the state.)

The Legislature hired a consulting firm. The firm recommended increasing overall funding by something close to $1 billion a year. The Legislature said "Thanks, but no thanks."

Incredibly, the state's supreme court held that the Legislature acted unconstitutionally when it ignored the recommendations of a private, third party. Wormhoudt takes them to task for doing so, and (being a man who has experience arguing cases in front of high courts) suggests that such a path brings disrespect to the judiciary.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Washington DC: Latest on the No-Smoking Disregard of Property Rights?
Advocates opposing property rights and freedom of association favoring clean air in restaurants are working in Washington, DC. Marc Fisher, columnist for the Washington Post, argues that DC Should Keep the Freedom in Smoke-Free.

Carol Schwartz, a member of the DC council, is against a ban. She throws abortion and smoking in the same sentence: one is free, the other may not be. This brings up an odd scenario. On the one hand, a person may be able to submit to a medically invasive procedure that a large percentage of the population believes is taking a human life. On the other, the same person is not able to decide whether to light up a cigarette with a meal or drink.

For the record, the PolicyGuy is not a smoker. He does, however, favor the right of customers and business owners to decide among themselves whether a particular establishment is smoke-free or not. (permalink)

The PolicyGuy Book Tag Blog Post.
At last, the PolicyGuy responds to a blogging fad. Welcome to the "book tagged" post, brought to you through the prompting of OurHouseBlog.

There's so much to say, and so little time to say it. In keeping with the theme of this blog, the subject here omits what may be some fascinating (or at least interesting) personal information, and sticks with the policy angle.

Total number of books owned, ever.
Like most people whose "tags" I have read, I would have to say "I don't know. Too many to count." Two thousand? Not only is there personal reading, but four years of college and three years of graduate school. I've not kept track of how many bags of books I have given away.

Last book I bought.
Relating to policy? It might be The Price of Government, a re-inventing government kind of book. It's got some great ideas, though it also works best if we could actually get rid of politics, which is actually not as good of an ideas as it seems.

Last book I read.
See above.

And now to the "Five Books that Mean a Lot to Me" theme.

Books Touching on Public Policy

Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt
If only members of Congress and state legislatures would read--and take to heart--the theme of this book. As with physics, so in economics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The problem for sound policy is that the politically popular actions--the visible ones--often cause less visible, and negative effects. One problem: if the point of the book is to talk about one lesson, why does it take so many pages? The numerous chapters apply the lesson in a a variety of settings, some of which could have been profitably chopped from the book.

Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
"Isn't Friedman the guy who says that drugs should be legalized?" Yes, but read this book despite (or if you wish, because) of that view. Think of C & F as a more in depth, expanded, more scholarly version of Hazlitt's book. Trade policy, Social Security, minimum wage laws, it's all here. Financing k-12 education through vouchers? Find it here, first, over 50 years ago. Solid work, a bit textbookish. Too bad it's not used as a textbook in more econ classes, though.

The Other Path, Hernando de Soto
The desire to better one's material condition isn't simply the American Dream; it's universal. Faced with an unhelpful legal, regulatory, and political climate, South America's poor operate in a shadow economy--the other path--that brings some measure of success. Even so, the absence of proper institutional arrangements is costly.

The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Michael Novak
Though later books have expressed some of the same themes in a more approachable fashion, this is a classic in the field where economics, policy, and sociology meet.

Love and Economics , Jennifer Roback Morse
Drawing both on her training as an economist and experience as the mother of an adopted child who had significant problems forming lasting relationships with others, Morse presents explores how childrearing and other aspects of family life shape economic life. There's a small overlap with Novak, but much more readable.

Bonus Section: Books on Language

A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, Bryan A. Garner
Now in its second edition and retitled as Garner's American Usage, MAU is useful for anyone interested in writing. Affect, Effect, or Impact? Garner tells you the difference. He takes the middle path between the prescriptivist (what you should do) and descriptivist (what people actually do) schools of language. In other words, stand athwart history yelling "Stop!" to changes in the language--but only for a time. After a while, you become irrelevant. Filled with opinionated essays and boners gleaned from newspaper clippings, Garner's American Usage is a book that might, in some circumstances, count as "pleasure reading."

Field Guide for Effective Communication, Fred L. Smith and Alex Castellanos, ed.
It's one thing to have the ideas that will make the world better. It's another thing entirely to know how to communicate them effectively. This small volume, communicated by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Media Inc., is an introduction to taking the message from the world of policy nerds to citizens at large.

The Elements of Style, William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White
The fourth edition is compromised by political correctness, but is still probably useful; I made do with the third edition of 1979. Principle of composition 17 alone would make many publications more readable. Here it is: "Omit needless words."

The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law
Another usage book? And one written by a committee, no less? Yes. If you're going to write for newspapers (as I do), why not make your editor's job easier by knowing what their standard practices are? (permalink)

Legislator Speaks Out: Court Cannot Appropriate Money.
Richard Carlson, a member of the Kansas House of Representatives, responded (in part) to the state's Supreme Court ruling:

Possibly the most disturbing aspect of the ruling is the total lack of regard for the voting citizens of the state and their disregard for the representative republic of our constitution.

The court criticized the Legislature for letting "politics" influence its decision as to the proper amount of funding.

Politicians practicing politics.

Imagine that. Policy is the ideal world, but those policy debates, in a republican form of government, must be resolved in the most obviously political branch of government. (permalink)

The Eagle Has Landed ... in the Blogosphere.
The Wichita Eagle is the latest of a handful of newspapers that is now publishing a blog.

The Eagle is owned by Knight-Ridder, the second largest newspaper chain in the country, and the largest "big city" chain. In addition to the Eagle, KR operations include the Detroit Free Press, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Miami Herald, and the Kansas City Star.

The largest chain Gannett, is best known for its McPaper, USA Today. Other properties include the Detroit News, whose politics blog is dominated by people not on the paper's staff, including the PolicyGuy. The Eagle's blog, by contrast, is heavy on staff positions, including the editor of the editorial page. (permalink)

So Much for Economic Development Experts.
Many economic development efforts conducted with the involvement of the public sector assume that planners can figure out what the best jobs are. But as an article in today's Wall Street Journal demonstrates, subjective value is where it's at.

The Jobs Rated Alamanac ranks 250 jobs for their desirability. Near the bottom of the list: cowboys.

In "Cowboy as Career?" Perri Capell, writing for the Wall Street Journal introduces us to a cowboy, Rick Link. Though Link earns no more than $12,000 a year--and that's in a good year--he says "I can't believe I get paid for this, actually."

Mr. Link works from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. during the summer, and during grazing season lives in a shack without running water or electricity. Though his father warned him that his chosen profession would leave him "cold and broke and out in the weather," he says "I wanted to do it anyway. I had a passion for it."

Marxist analysis, of course, would label Mr. Link as a fool, a victim of false consciousness who doesn't know how badly The Man is abusing him.

Yet it seems to suit him just fine.

If there's any lesson in this story, it's that government planning efforts cannot adequately reflect the diversity of human motivations and desires. Yet another reason to leave less room for government, and more room for private action. (permalink)

Does Education Cost, Pay, or Do Both?
Can you ever pay too much for education? If you're spending it in the wrong way, yes.

The education establishment asks for more money, continuously. It makes economic sense, does it not?

On an aggregate level, it's easy to see some logic: people with graduate degrees earn more than those with bachelors degrees who in turn earn more than people with no degree. Then again, that's in the aggregate; you can always find, for example, the Ph.D. in history earning less money than the business entrepreneur with no formal education.

A long story of education funding as well as a separation-of-powers debate is currently being played out in Kansas. The Legislature hired a consulting firm to define a model of a suitable education (a dubious proposition in itself, given the variety of students, but that's another story). The consulting firm came up with a report that suggested raising the state education budget by a large amount, which the Legislature declined to do.

Various school districts sued the state for more funding--though equality of spending across districts is a factor, it's a minor one--and the Supreme Court agreed, saying that the Legislature had to increase the state budget on education by $143 million on top of what was already the most generous increase in several years. The PolicyGuy is among the various parties quoted.

Assuming that the increased funding comes from a tax increase, the court's decision will have economic ramifications. But what will those be? That's where it gets interesting.

The Salina Journal runs an article that, for a newspaper in the popular press, does a good job of laying out the claims and counter claims.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Is "Let's all Suffer" a Good Way of Planning Roads?
Toll roads, though useful for creating and maintaining roads, is opposed for reasons both good and goofy. Here's the goofy.

Tolls for Thee," a commentary (not found online) in the May 2005 issue of The Rake casts a critical eye on the possibility of toll lanes recently opened in the western region of the St. Paul-Minneapolis metropolitan region.

Thanks to a recent policy innovation, a seldom-used HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lane is now HOT (high occupancy OR toll). With a MNPass, commuters can use a dedicated lane of I-394 in one of two ways: be in a carpool, or pay a fee based on a transponder.

Adding the toll option shifts cars to a seldom-used lane. The ability to get in the fast lane by paying a toll obviously benefits people who fork over the fee. (Otherwise they would drive in the "free" lane). And when some people leave the "free" lanes, that frees up some space for everyone else. Finally, it makes the cost of using the road more transparent than the gas tax, which is rolled into the price at the pump.

Sounds like a win-win-win situation, doesn't it?

That depends on whether you value actually making it easier to get around, or whether you have an equality-of-misery way of thinking. The folks at The Rake seem to have the latter.

"While it's nice to see that car-poolers will still be able to use the lanes unharrassed, the idea that you can substitute money for socially agreeable behavior is repugnant to us."

Do we have to hold hands and sing folk songs, too?

Please. Being in a carpool is not a virtue. It's simply a matter of convenience and preference, much like whether a person takes a toll road, or a "free" local road. (I was in a car pool for five years, commuting 25 miles one way from one small town to another. Our motivation was not to be "socially agreeable," but to save ourselves a few bucks in wear-and-tear on the cars and gasoline.)

Discussions of politics and law sometimes lead to the slogan "You can't impose morality." The editorialists at The Rake go out of their way to do exactly that.

We think the punishment of sitting in traffic fits the venal sin of insisting on driving your own automobile alone, every day.

I've never been one to keep a list of venal (or even mortal) sins, but imagine what one can add to the list: having your own house or even condo (why not live in dormitories, to save "open space?"); having your own cookware (perhaps we should all save all that precious aluminum wasted on family-owned pots and pans, and all eat institutional food?), and well, how about abolish private ownership of ... just about everything, including books and magazines? (All that paper currently being wasted on Harry Potter novels? Queue up for your copy at the library.)

The Rake does skirt across the proper way of thinking about the issue--personal choices are made as a result of considering many different costs--but for some reason never get the right answer.

The high price of gas is already putting a pinch on drivers, and in a rational world, it should lead to more car-pooling, more public transit, and more long-term solutions in which we all participate.


That's assuming a lot of things there. Public transit, by its nature as rule-bound, public-union dominated bureaucracy, will impose significant non-financial costs on people, including significant time-wasting. Car-pooling's advantages must be considered against its disadvantages of inflexible schedules, the trouble of finding compatible riding companions, and so forth.

So while the costs of personal auto ownership and use has increased in nominal (though not necessarily income-adjusted) terms, they haven't risen enough to persuade large numbers of people to abandon the "venal sin" of solo driving.


In our bizarre, delusional state, we seem to believe that social and civic responsibility is optional, that morality is a commodity that can be traded in the open marketplace.

Following the dictates of public scolds is morality?

Who says that old-style liberalism is dead?

Labels: Transportation

(permalink)

Some Reason in Road Planning.
The Reason Public Policy Institute has some new work on road planning. A recent newsletter from them is reproduced below:
------------------
Few are far between these days are states, counties, or cities that have not fallen way behind on building needed transportation infrastructure. With each passing month the need gets greater, and now a vast range of state and local governments are looking at public-private partnerships as a means to fund and build needed roads.

Reason has recently released a number of items to help state and local officials grapple with transportation problems:

First, the recent $1.83 billion lease of the Chicago Skyway has government officials across the country examining the potential benefits of selling or leasing their own toll roads and bridges. While privatizing existing toll facilities is a viable option that can often yield large financial profits, a Reason study released this week warns the "devil is the details" and offers a comprehensive guide to help policymakers determine if privatization is the right step and to ensure that the long-term lease agreement is advantageous to motorists. You can find the full study – Should States Sell Their Toll Roads? - at www.rppi.org/ps334.pdf.

Our latest issue of Surface Transportation Innovations (http://www.rppi.org/surfacetransportation23.html) includes a number of valuable articles:

--How Much Can Tolls Pay For? examines the extent to which new market-priced congestion-relief lanes can be paid for out of toll revenues.

--The Continued Decline of Car-Pooling discusses Census data showing that car-pooling has continued to decline, reaching a new low of 10.4 percent in 2003, down from 11.2 percent in 2000, and what that implies for transportation planning and projects.

--How Much of Congestion Is Due to Incidents? looks at new research into how much of urban congestion is caused by accidents, breakdowns, etc. vs. plain old too much traffic. The answer is shocking.

You can read the testimony of my colleague George Passantino before the CA state senate on how the state can tackle major new road projects in partnership with the private sector at http://www.rppi.org/testimony_california_transportation_ppp.shtml.

Finally, you can listen to Reason's Bob Poole talk about transportation needs, congestion, and toll roads on NPR's Talk of the Nation at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4629059.

Labels: Transportation

(permalink)

What's a Legislature For?
From the guys at Powerlineblog.com

I have been reading your Power Line blog for some time and I enjoy your analysis and wit. I'm interested to see what the Power Line guys think about the Kansas Supreme Court's decision on Friday in Montoy v. State, where the unanimous court ordered the legislature to increase school funding by $285 million by July 1. The decision will force a special legislative session and a possible tax increase. The Kansas Constitution apparently says the legislature shall "make suitable provision for finance" of schools. The court used that general provision to take it upon themselves to decide that the legislature's funding was short of what the Constitution required and the increase needed to be ... drum roll .... $285 million. They determined this after reviewing some consultant's view of appropriate funding. The court then warns the legislature that if they don't increase spending enough next year they could order the rest of the increase recommended by the unelected consultant (another $568 million).

This is not the way a democratic government is supposed to work: the judges decide the elected legislature did not increase spending enough for education (only $142 million increase) and so it orders them to increase spending twice as much ($285 million). They then warn the legislature that if they don't increase spending enough next year they will order the rest of the increase recommended by some unelected consultant (another $568 million). The activist judges have gotten totally out of hand.

This case brings to mind an extraordinary case in my own state, Gov. Guinn v. Nevada State Legislature, where the Nevada Supreme Court unbelievably ordered the Nevada Legislature to raise taxes "by simple majority vote" in violation of the two-thirds vote requirement of the state's constitution. The Court used a general constitutional provision requiring the legislature to provide for the "support and maintenance" of the public schools to trump the two-thirds requirement for taxes increases. They did this even though the tax limitation provision was adopted after the education funding provision and even though the two requirements could have been read consistently by simply requiring that education be funded before the other spending. This facilitated the Nevada Legislature implementing the largest tax increase in Nevada history. John Eastman of the Claremont Institute, which I know you write for occasionally, did some excellent work for some of the Nevada legislators in their unsuccessful attempts to appeal the case.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Weekend in ... Detroit?
The New York Posts suggests a novel idea for a vacation: Detroit. So says the Detroit News, which unfortunately does not link to the Post story, whose format makes for some difficult reading.

In an unscientific poll being conducted on the Detroit News web site, readers are given a choice of three reactions to the Post story. Three out of four picked "Is this a joke?"

So see why, stop by at a photo collection called The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit. (The link is to a commentary from former resident. Follow that read with a link to the actual gallery.) (permalink)

Small Business Owners for Government-Oriented Solutions
A long-standing error of Marxist thought, that lives on today, is that economic interests drive views on politics and policy. This is even seen in the one group that is widely thought to be anti-government, small business.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses can be counted on to oppose higher minimum wages, laws that require employee-paid health insurance, or otherwise increase the role of governments at all levels.

On the other hand, the American Small Business Alliance takes a different approach. It favors, for example, "reasonable health, safety and environmental standards" and "balanced solutions on other issues such as taxes and regulatory reform."

Well, that sounds fine. But as this profile notes, the ASBA supports the Family Leave Act, increases in the minimum wage, shills for government loans to business (something not exactly pushed by the NFIB.)

Now I haven't done a thorough reading of ASBA's history or positions--their web site is sparse--but its criticism of NFIB as "a tool" for "the right wing of the Republican Party" (Fortune, June 2005) suggests that even among small business owners, economic interests alone are not entirely reliable predictors of preferences.

Labels: Health care

(permalink)

The Family Farm is Dying. Government Policy is Helping it Happen.

The June issue of Fortune (not yet online)

In the last five years, taxpayers have handed over almost $100 billion in farm subsidies.

"Do subsidies work? Are they good for America? Or family farmers? The answers are No, No, and No."

One problem with subsidies: they stiffle innovation, as farmers spend lots of time figuring how to work the federal welfare system, and little time working on new products or methods. Says Fortune writer Cait Murphy, "It is in unsubsidized agriculture that incomes an innovation are growing fast."

Meanwhile, the subsidies don't achieve many of their intended purposes. "There is no evidence that the prices of America's few subsidized crops ... are more stable than those of the hundreds of unsubsidized ones," says the magazine.

Further the "family farmer" isn't what he used to be; "fewer than one-third of America's full-time farmers now fit the idealized image," and the largest 10 percent of farms get nearly 3 out of every 4 subsidy dollars. (permalink)

Taxpayers, Feepayers, or Patrons?
It's a cliche that language is a tool of politics. But as debates over fees and taxes bears out, it's also true.

While there are legitimate uses of fees (college tuition quickly comes to mind), at other times the term "fee" is simply an attempted sleight-of-hand. Another mind trick is to refer to citizens as government "customers" or "patrons."

To some extent, this is beneficial, if it causes government employees to give the rest of us better "customer service," such as treating members of the public with respect, answering questions quickly and accurately, and so forth.

But the new language can also be used to obfuscate the truth that many payments to government are taxes, not fee payments freely given in exchange for services voluntarily chosen.

For example, I've been reading newspaper and school accounting publications that refer to residents of a school district as "patrons," not "taxpayers."

A distinction without a difference? Hardly. "Patron" suggests an exchange of money for services, voluntarily entered into by two parties. You can choose to shop at Wal-Mart, or Sears; Home Depot or the Ace Hardware; the high-priced attorneys at Duey, Cheatum & Howe, or the guy in solo practice, operating out of an old house.

In all these cases, you have at least two choices. One, you can choose whether or not to purchase the good or service in question. You don't have to spend the money. (Condo-dwellers have no need for lawn tractors, for example.) And two, you have a choice among providers: Burger King or McDonalds.

But the use of the word "customer" and "patron" is, at the least, misleading when it's applied in many situations involving government, such as the relationship between homeowners and a local school district.

Now it's true that you can choose to live in District A or District B, or you can pick up stakes and move to District C. But the transaction costs of doing so are substantial, both emotionally and financially. And within a given residence--123 Elm Street, for example--you really have no choice at all. You're not a patron. You're a taxpayer. District A will, by law, require that you pay a certain amount of money into its checkbook. You can't really choose not to pay it--if you do, the sheriff will come knocking on your door, and put the house up for auction. And you can't choose to send your money to district B.

None of this is to say that all taxes are bad. Some are necessary, and even desirable, such as those used to fund a national military.

But referring to taxpayers as patrons or customers can easily be a way to obscure the pain caused by--and critical analysis of--taxation.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Taxes Cause Some People To Take a Hike
Tax hike, my latest commentary for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, lays out some evidence that higher tax rates can lead to lower population growth. It's true; people do vote with their feet. (permalink)