January 2003

Bill Hobbs and the Taxpayers Bill of Rights

In the interest of promoting discussion, let me point out Bill Hobbs site that is the center of the ongoing discussion concerning controlling spending and a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. He has some interesting stuff and points out that Colorado has managed its spending limits pretty well (IIRC they have a slight surplus this year?). The Devil is in the Details and I some of the ideas may well have some merit.

Then again, perhaps the problem with Missouri is the people.

SLPS, VICC sue Misery

Funny thing about legal agreements is that the other party expects you to uphold them. Yesterday, the SLPS and VICC sued the State of Misery for not living up to the obligations of the Desegregation Settlement.

Accounting tricks are nice, but they don’t actually solve public policy problems. In this case there is an legal agreement that requires full funding and the state, after it winds it way up the legal system, will end up paying.

One of the arguments about the desegration suits in St. Louis is that they often saved the State of Missouri from itself–apparently those suits still are.

The Dog Ate My Survey

Kieran Healy responds to Kevin Drum’s question regarding whether Lott’s results could have happened.

Kieran is correct in that weighting could plausibly have created the results. If one weights the respondents, all sorts of oddities can arise in the total numbers and with only two firing a gun as a DGU, then wacky results aren’t that unlikely. Of course, they are utterly useless. As I mentioned early the Margin of Error in sample of 25 DGU would be +/- 20% assuming the survey was flawless in every other way.

As Kieran points out, the chances of the survey being of any quality rapidly approach zero and it isn’t even a good bet that the survey is close to representative given the half ass manner in which it was administered.

Kieran is far too nice when he discusses the issue of DGU’s being a reasonable number. As mentioned below, the Margin of Error on such a sample would be +/- 20%. IOW, the results are utterly meaningless. Of course, that is even generous because that works on the assumption that the sample is representative. Given Lott’s inability to answer basic questions about survey reliability and validity, that is highly unlikely.

Lott claims his new survey will solve the problems, but that assumes he oversamples DGU’s. If he doesn’t, his finding will be as pointless as the above.

What is really fascinating is how much information he claims to have collected. Here is a bit from Lambert’s page:

6) weighting the sample
I did not weight the sample by household size but used the state level age,race, and sex data that I had used in the rest of my book. There where 36categories by state. Lindgren hypotheses why you can get such small weights for some people and I think that this fine of a breakdown easily explains it. I don¹t remember who answered what after all these years, but suppose someone who fired a gun was a elderly black in Utah or Vermont.

So he collected 36 demographic variables in his survey? Or are there 36 breakdowns of a smaller number of demographics collected? Either way this was a pretty involved survey that had to take a lot of time on the phone to collect all that data. Surveying isn’t nearly as quick as it sounds and collecting that many distinct variables plus gun use information would entail significant amounts of time on the phone.

Using a professional center I’m guessing he would have looked at least $20,000. Even using cheaper labor (less reliable), this had to cost a lot of money. Gathering that much demographic data with untrained surveyors without the benefit of computer assisted surveying techniques would likely be 10 minutes a call (this is charitable). At 2400 respondents that is 400 hours of labor not including non-responders and no answers. At $7/hr this is $2800 alone, plus charitably the long distance of $1200 at $.05 a minute. So he paid $4,000 out of his own pocket?

Does he really think that anyone buys that he didn’t at least deduct this expense from his taxes? The costs above are a bare minimum and the out of pocket costs would have been twice that just to obtain the sample, let alone code it and enter it. Of course, according to Lott,

Lindgren has the ³impression² that the students entered the data on sheets.I do not directly recall this part of our conversation, but I would have said that both were done.

This adds another significant amount as even a simple database for 2400 respondents would take time to construct–especially with 36 categories.

Of course, all of this should have been overseen by a competent researcher, which Lott appears not to be. The stunning thing is that if it is true Lott did all of this, he wasted a fair amount of money on a useless survey that lacked even rudimentary controls to ensure a sample of any quality.

It may be that Lott didn’t just make up the number, but he might as well have. One can complain all they want about how this is only about one sentence. Strictly speaking it is, but it also shows an incredible lack of understanding about data collection and analysis. His other results aren’t very impressive once one looks at the standard errors anyway. I am beginning to wonder if Lott uses these side issues to avoid discussing his actual results. By focusing on claims of fraud and providing just enough information to be plausible, no one ever gets around to questioning the actual theory and statistical results.

The IRB question is very interesting. Often, a survey center deals with IRB issues and so the researcher doesn’t have to worry. In this case, I believe Lott should have filed a report. In fact, his careless control over data demonstrates a good reason for IRB. According to him, the results tied to specific individuals data were lying around dorm rooms. That isn’t a professional or acceptable manner of ensuring repsondent confidentiality.

UP DATE: I just looked up the figures for some phone surveys done professionally and a 10 minute survey for 1200 people would run around $20000. Meaning that even with some economies of scale, Lott’s survey (assuming 10 minutes was adequate) would come in above $30,000. Now one can claim that they can do it cheaper on the fly, but with basic costs I’ll allow that to only be about half of a professional center’s cost and that is at least $15,000.

Dick Cunningham: Attorney for the Damned

The day that George Ryan commuted the death sentences of all Illinois death row prisoners, Lawrence Marshall mentioned a man in his introductory remarks that few are familiar with. That man was Dick Cunningham, an attorney formerly in Illinois’ State Appellate Defender’s Office. Marshall said of Cunningham:

Where would we be today without the scores of committed death penalty lawyers who have labored so intensely to keep their clients alive?in body and in spirit–for this day to come? If only Dick Cunningham were here today to witness the fruits of his work on behalf of so many. For Dick, the practice of law was not simply a means to earn a living, but a way to satisfy his hunger for justice. When you hear your next lawyer joke, remind the cynics about who Dick Cunningham was, remind them about what Chick Hoffman has done, remind them about how Anna Ahronheim has represented her clients, remind them about what Tom Geraghty has taught all of us, about the impact of Andrea Lyon?s advocacy, about how Barry Scheck has changed the world, about what Tom Breen has sacrificed to do the right thing, about the incredible dedication of Locke Bowman, about the intensity of Flint Taylor, about the passion of Mike Metnick, about the humanity of Jeff Urdangen, about the power of Terry Mascherin, about the generosity of Kimball Anderson, or the perseverance of Mark Ter Moelen. These are just a few examples of hundreds I could mention.

Dick Cunningham devoted his life to defending convicted felons in the appellate process and played a significant role in bringing the public’s attention to the great injustices that have occurred in the Illinois justice system. Dick Cunningham lived to see the day a moratorium was put into place, but was murdered in 2001 by his mentally ill son. The Tribune has done one of the most touching series I have ever read on Dick Cunningham.

In Illinois 17 people have been exonerated while 12 have been killed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970s. The 4 most recently exonerated were tortured to obtain confessions. False confessions. 33 others convicted on murder charges have been exonerated in that same period.

The Illinois Legislature refused to deal with the issue leading George Ryan to say:

The legislature couldn’t reform it.

Lawmakers won’t repeal it.

But I will not stand for it.

I must act.

And he did. I have deep reservations about that act because I fear it closes the window for repeal or substantive reform. But one thing is for sure, without Dick Cunningham and his colleagues, we never would have realized the extent of the problem. He cared about those most would like to forget and made their cause, his cause.

Misery knows Hancock and you don’t want it

Calpundit and South Knox Bubba are discussing state constitutional limits on spending. As always, the devil is in the details, but here in Misery, this has been pretty much a disaster. While it limits profligate spending, it also makes it really hard to deal with budget cycles. If Misery had been able to bank some of the excesses during the good years, we would have a reasonable rainy day fund to deal with the current downturn.

Most importantly, the Hancock Amendment here in Missouri, has limited effective investment in transportation and other infrastructure investments that have long term benefits. The St. Louis Business community is fed up with poor transporation infrastructure and Hancock is being rightly blamed.

Hancock defines limits as such:

he revenue limit shall be calculated for each fiscal year and shall be equal to the product of the ratio of total state revenues in fiscal year 1980-1981 divided by the personal income of Missouri in calendar year 1979 multiplied by the personal income of Missouri in either the calendar year prior to the calendar year in which appropriations for the fiscal year for which the calculation is being made, or the average of personal income of Missouri in the previous three calendar years, whichever is greater.

Perhaps there is a way to impose a limit and not deal with the problems Missouri has, but my experience is that the best way to deal with spending is through elections.