Licensing laws are typically seen as a way to ensure that members of a profession are well-trained and, thus, their customers well-served and protected. But could overly restrictive licensing rules actually be bad for customers’ health? There is reason to believe so; restrictive and ambiguous Missouri licensing requirements in health care have kept, and are keeping, some charitable medical groups from providing free medical care to the needy.

Last year, I wrote about an important free speech case that the U.S. Supreme Court had just handed down. Knox v. Service Employees International Union dealt with the manner in which unions could automatically deduct dues from public employee salaries and apply those dollars toward the union’s political purposes. Knox dealt with a narrow fact pattern, so extrapolations of the Court’s findings to future fact patterns will not be perfect, especially given the status of the case law. Yet the substantive question addressed in the Court’s opinion I think really boils down to this: should the burden be on a public employee to opt-out of an automatic salary deduction program whose proceeds could fund a union’s political activities? Or should the burden be on the union to get employees to opt-in? Are these “free speech dollars” taken from the employee’s paycheck presumptively the employee’s, or presumptively the union’s?

The primary justification for government regulation of the economy is to address a market failure. As the argument goes, the smelter bears no direct costs by polluting the air, so it is necessary for the government to come in and regulate the activity. With that in mind, I am at a loss to see the market failure that these proposed new regulations in Senate Bill 412 would address. We can all agree that there should be some government regulation of the alcohol industry: age limits, driving-while-intoxicated laws, basic liquor licenses, and more. However, I think that preventing a producer from having even a small interest in a distributor goes way too far, as do the rest of these proposed legislative changes. Producers should be able to have the same freedom to get their product in front of final consumers as any other business.

There are few absolute truths in life, but we do have some: death, taxes, gravity. If demand for a good increases and supply remains the same, the price will increase. And, — most germane to this committee meeting — attempts to license certain occupations will be initiated by the current practitioners of that field. Missouri has fewer of these occupational licensing requirements than other states, and we should be proud of that. This is significant, because fewer licensing regulations means that goods and services are cheaper for consumers, and fewer job seekers have to ask the government’s permission before working in the occupations of their choosing. Missouri, nonetheless, has plenty of examples of unnecessary licenses at the state and local levels.

One of the methods by which current practitioners and their respective licensing boards limit competition within their field is through overly burdensome educational requirements. Some common-sense changes to licensing rules can reduce the burdens of the educational requirement in a way that will benefit consumers. House Bill 448, which modifies the requirements for hearing instrument specialists, makes some of those beneficial changes.

Even supporters of strict licensing must acknowledge the simple fact that tighter licensing rules increase prices. If there are fewer electricians, dentists, and plumbers in an area due to licensing rules, it will cost, on average, more to hire a member of that trade.

The question in the proposed change is whether or not the public administrator of the City of Saint Louis should be appointed instead of elected, as is the current case. In my opinion, the citizens of Saint Louis would be well-served if the public administrator is an appointed position.

There are few absolute truths in life, but we do have some: death, taxes, gravity. If demand for a good increases and supply remains the same, the price will increase. And, — most germane to this committee meeting — attempts to license certain occupations will be initiated by the current practitioners of that field. Missouri has fewer of these occupational licensing requirements than other states, and we should be proud of that. This is significant, because fewer licensing regulations means that goods and services are cheaper for consumers, and fewer job seekers have to ask the government’s permission before working in the occupations of their choosing. Missouri, nonetheless, has plenty of examples of unnecessary licenses at the state and local levels.

Before this body is a proposal that would renew a state mandate requiring optometrist or physician eye exams for incoming kindergartners in Missouri’s public schools (Senate Bill 641). The mandate places both a legal and financial burden on Missouri families that only two other states in the country place on their citizens. There are several troubling aspects of the proposal.

There are few absolute truths in life, but we do have some. Death, taxes, gravity. If demand increases and supply remains the same, price will increase. The St. Louis Cardinals team will contend for the pennant. And, — most germane to this committee meeting — current practitioners of certain fields will initiate attempts to license their occupations.

Saint Louis, the city where I live and work, is home to the oldest land bank in the United States. The Saint Louis land bank, also known as the Land Reutilization Authority, has been in existence for more than four decades. It owns more than 10,000 parcels, making it the largest land holder in the City of Saint Louis. I hope that you consider its track record before creating a similar entity in Kansas City.

In their own lives, individuals regularly make the tough choices to eat less and exercise in order to achieve better health. The state government can do the same. Policymakers in Missouri can make those same hard decisions to outsource, privatize, consolidate, or share services in order to perform key public services at as low a cost as possible. H.J.R. 11 would encourage Missouri’s state government to conduct a top-down, bottom-up review of all state agencies and regulations to eliminate waste, inefficiency, and government intrusion unrelated to essential services.

David Stokes, a policy analyst with the Show-Me Institute, testifies before the Saint Louis County Council Committee of the Whole in opposition to new licensing requirements for HVAC contractors and workers in Saint Louis County. Stokes discusses how licensing rules like those proposed in this code amendment are used to limit competition and increase costs for consumers.

Kansas City officials deserve credit for wanting to update and revamp the city's business and occupational licensing system. Economic activity benefits the city whenever it occurs, whether directly or indirectly. Many of the changes proposed here will positively benefit Kansas City's economy by simplifying many parts of the system.

One of the reasons that America has long been known as the “land of opportunity” is that its citizens are understood to have the freedom to make decisions for themselves. Rather than having their lives dictated to them, as is the case in so many nations across the world, Americans engage in the pursuit of happiness by cultivating an extremely broad array of tastes and interests. For many, this includes the choice to smoke.

David Stokes, a Show-Me Institute policy analyst, makes recommendations for provisions that should be included in the proposed Jefferson County charter.

Stop the ceaseless moves toward greater regulation of occupations in Missouri. Stop allowing existing businesses to limit their own competition and call it safety or consumer protection. Realize the harm that is done to our economy by occupational licensing requirements, and the barriers it can place on entry-level workers who are meeting service needs within their community, the essence of the free market.