Andrew B. Wilson

At his July 21 press conference at the Danforth Plant Science Center in Saint Louis, Gov. Jay Nixon did his best imitation of Larry the Cable Guy, the stand-up comic with the signature line "Git-R-Done!"

In officially joining the “Aerotropolis” bandwagon and calling for a special session of the Missouri Legislature in September, Nixon used the phrase “Let’s get it done” several times in a twenty-minute speech. That was his way of endorsing the much-talked-about bill to support the development of an air cargo hub at Lambert-Saint Louis International Airport.

The bill would pass out $360 million in tax credits – with $300 million going to support the development of additional warehousing space and the rest going as an inducement to freight forwarders to send additional cargo through Lambert.

But if the goal is to transform Lambert into the world’s next great cargo hub, will this legislation be enough to “get it done”? Will it succeed in creating thousands of new jobs and providing a major boost to the region and state?

There is no reason to suppose it will.

As policy analysts at the Show-Me Institute have pointed out in a number of papers and commentaries, there are acres and acres of unused warehousing space in and around Lambert. If setting up a Midwestern cargo hub at Lambert is such a great idea, why has the sensible money stayed on the sidelines? Why does the hub need tax credits or other government guarantees to attract investments for upgrades, retrofits, or new construction for refrigeration?

After months of discussion, supporters of the Aerotropolis legislation have yet to produce a serious cost-benefit analysis of what Missouri taxpayers should expect in return for a substantial investment in the project.

The St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA) produced an eight-page statement making the claim that $300 million in public incentives for new warehousing would lead to $34 billion in private economic activity over the next two decades. That is an economic multiplier of more than 100. Perhaps suggesting the lack of a sound basis, the RCGA has yet to identify the assumptions used in reaching this astounding conclusion.

At the same time, no group supporting the proposed legislation has produced a shred of evidence that the Chinese government or even a single international carrier is committed to turning Saint Louis into a major air cargo hub.

Greg Lindsay, who co-wrote the book Aerotropolis: The Way We’ll live Next, has publicly scoffed at the pending legislation. He has called the proposed investment both “too much” – in representing an egregious waste of taxpayers’ money – and “too little” – as billions of dollars of additional investment would be required to enable Lambert to compete with established powerhouses such as Dallas Fort Worth and Chicago O’Hare International Airports.

It is not surprising that supporters of the Aerotropolis legislation are anxious to stop talking and swing into action in passing a bill. Even they must know the economic case behind the legislation does not survive close scrutiny.

In his press conference in Saint Louis, Governor Nixon engaged in the kind of chest-thumping that often accompanies large job creation schemes, calling for “decisive” action by the public sector. “We need a bold spirit and competitive vision again,” Nixon proclaimed. “We are competing against the world.”

But if business generation is the real goal, you don’t start by slaying the great Goliath of global competition. Instead, you begin by providing a better product or service that someone else will want to pay for – at a price that will provide a decent profit.

That kind of thinking is alien to glory-seeking and intervention-minded politicians. It is also alien to rent-seeking business people – business people, that is, who would rather lobby for special favors from government than compete in the open market; business people who would rather drop the real risk of capital investment at the feet of taxpayers rather than lift it onto their own shoulders.

Over the past several years, we have seen many examples of much touted job creation and pump-priming economic schemes, at the federal as well as the state level – everything from “cash for clunkers” to the massive $787 billion stimulus bill.

What they all have in common is simply this: They don’t "Git-R-Done."

About the Author

Andrew Wilson
Fellow and Senior Writer

A former foreign correspondent who spent four years in the Middle East and served as Business Week’s London bureau chief during Margaret Thatcher’s first two terms as Britain’s prime minister, Andrew is a regular contributor to leading national publications, including the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal.