Milton Friedman’s Theory Casts Doubt on Responsible Stimulus Spending

Governments across the country have been given the responsibility of spending trillions of federal stimulus dollars. In his book “Free to Choose,” Milton Friedman outlined the four ways to spend money, differentiated by whose money is spent and on whom money is spent. Unfortunately, this theory doesn’t bode well for spending stimulus dollars.

The image below outlines the four spending options and how they all change behavior.

Spending your money on yourself is when you economize (reduce expenses) and seek the highest value, as you are both the one losing the money and receiving the product. The exact opposite is spending someone else’s money on someone else. You don’t economize or seek high value because it is neither your money nor do you receive the product; you have very little invested in the decision.

Unfortunately, that’s the scenario that most closely resembles lawmakers spending stimulus money; it’s someone else’s money that they are spending on someone else. Of course, lawmakers are always spending someone else’s money in the form of tax dollars, but stimulus money is even farther removed because it doesn’t just come from their constituents.

This theory doesn’t paint a promising picture for spending the billions of stimulus dollars that Missouri received. Taxpayers do not want billions of dollars being spent in a way that is inefficient and wasteful. Lawmakers will need to be mindful of this incentive structure when deciding both what to spend these one-time funds on and whether to spend some of these funds at all.

Podcast: School Choice and The Culture War with Jay P. Greene

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jay P. Greene about whether education reform organizations should embrace cultural debates or not.

Jay P. Greene is a senior research fellow in the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation. At Heritage, Jay conducts and disseminates research on the key issues facing education today, including the cultural, civic, and economic implications of how education systems are designed and implemented.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Municipal Contracting Is What Missouri Needs More Of

Greendale, Missouri (population: small) is a St. Louis suburb. Like many cities within St. Louis County, it is very small. It is a nice little place nestled in between cemeteries, parks, a golf course, and a university. Did I mention it has a small population?

The key to successfully operating a small city, town, or village (Greendale is a village) is to not try to do everything yourself. Small towns need to contract out, share services, or privatize as many services as they can. These are valuable strategies for all cities, but they are vital for microcities such as Greendale, Champ, Lichtenstein, or Sealand.

Greendale is reopening its police contract for a nearby department to bid on providing police and court services for the village’s people. I understand those services are currently being provided by Normandy, but best practices are to rebid contracts like this at regular intervals. The most important thing is that Greendale is not attempting to provide its own police services. Whether a neighboring city such as Normandy, the St. Louis County police department, or the new North County police cooperative win the bid is not the point. The point is that Greendale deserves credit for this municipal policing strategy. There are plenty of other towns in Missouri that bid out services, but even more should.

Many people in Warson Woods went nuts when the city proposed merging police services with neighboring Glendale, even though the two towns had shared fire services for decades. That very modest proposal to share services failed. Hopefully, the Greendale plan is the future for St. Louis County instead of the Warson Woods reaction.

March 17: Russia, Ukraine, and the Impact on the United States Virtual Event

Join us on March 17 for a virtual event with Senator Jim Talent and Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano as they discuss the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the United States.
Attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions via a Q&A session following the discussion. You can submit questions ahead of the event to [email protected]

Register Here

About the Speakers

Senator Jim Talent

Senator Jim Talent brings over 30 years of government and political experience including service in both chambers of Congress. He is a nationally-recognized leader on military affairs whose counsel is frequently sought by administrations and members of the House and Senate on both sides of the political aisle. During his service in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, Senator Talent served on each chamber’s Armed Services Committee where he worked to advance a strong national defense and military readiness. In the U.S. House, in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, he was a vocal opponent of cuts in the size and strength of the military On the Senate Armed Services Committee, he fought to rebuild the force, which even then was too small, too stressed and desperately in need of recapitalization. An advocate for expanding the U.S. Navy’s fleet to project American power abroad and keep the peace, he chaired the committee’s Naval Power Subcommittee.

James Jay Carafano

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is the vice president of Heritage’s Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy and the E. W. Richardson Fellow. Carafano is an accomplished historian and teacher as well as a prolific writer and researcher. His most recent publication is “Brutal War” (Lynne Reinner, 2021), a study of combat in the Southwest Pacific. He also authored “Wiki at War: Conflict in a Socially Networked World” (Texas A&M University Press, 2012), a survey of the revolutionary impact of the Internet age on national security. He was selected from thousands to speak on cyber warfare at the 2014 South by Southwest (SXSW) Interactive Conference in Austin, Texas, the nation’s premier tech and social media conference.

Brody Corners TIF—It’s Back

The previously delayed Brody Corners incentive package is back in front of the Springfield City Council. The plan would redirect $3.4 million to the developer of this multi-use project through tax-increment financing (TIF) and a community improvement district (CID). As always, giving away tax dollars to developers is not a good deal for taxpayers.

Apparently, the problems that led to the initial postponement of the project have been overcome as the plan for the $27 million development with retail, restaurant, and office space is moving forward. The land for the proposed development was only annexed into the City of Springfield in June 2021.

The obvious question is: Why would the city annex an area only to spend millions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing the development of the land?

I’ll admit that the area seems to be in pretty bad shape, so it may legitimately be considered “blight,” a designation that would qualify the project for TIF. (Blight designations for TIF projects are frequently not legitimate.) But there are other programs intended for environmental remediation that the land’s private owners could pursue that are much less harmful to taxpayers.

Economic development incentives such as TIF put taxpayers on the hook to increase private business profits. While passing this TIF proposal may make Springfield lawmakers look like they are “fixing” this eyesore, it’s at the expense of taxpayers. Lawmakers should focus on keeping tax rates low for everyone instead of playing favorites and artificially lowering them for a chosen few.

Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights Moves to the House Floor

Missouri parents have a right to play a central role in their kids’ education. A critical piece of legislation that would help to guarantee that right advanced out of committee last week. HJR 110, the Missouri Parents’ Bill of Rights (MPBR), was passed out of the House Rules Committee last Thursday, meaning its next stop is the Missouri House for debate and a vote. Among other things, the resolution would require curriculum transparency and impose meaningful grading of schools and districts so parents can see how their schools and districts stack up to their peers.

One notable thing about this MPBR legislation is that it’s being advanced as a “resolution” rather than just a “bill.” What makes a House Joint Resolution (HJR) different than a bill is that in contrast to a bill that would change state law and requires a governor’s signature, a joint resolution—if agreed to with the Senate —does not require a signature by the governor and is instead sent to the public. If approved by the public, the joint resolution’s language is then added to the state constitution. If approved by the House and Senate, a vote on the MPBR would happen either this summer or fall.

Although HJR 110 has advanced to debate in the House, when that debate will happen remains to be seen. It may get its vote in the next week, or it may get its vote in the next month; House leadership will determine the timeline from here. But given the friction in the Senate, I hope this resolution gets out of the House fairly quickly to provide some breathing room for a vote before the end of the session, should the Senate continue its slow grind. We’ll keep you posted.

WATCH: Missouri School Rankings Project Virtual Event

On February 23, Dr. Susan Pendergrass, Director of Research and Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute, presented her findings from the Missouri School Rankings Project and give an overview of how to use the website.

Visit MoSchoolRankings.org.

Missouri schools are failing to teach the core subjects of reading and math, and the most recent test scores show that students are falling further behind. In response to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) failure to perform one of its most basic functions, the Show-Me Institute, in conjunction with Show-Me Opportunity, launched The Missouri School Rankings Project and MoSchoolRankings.org.

 

 

 

 

Telemedicine Needs Legislative Action

After nearly two years of Missourians enjoying greater access to telemedicine, Governor Parson allowed the waivers that enabled the service’s expansion to expire at the end of 2021. Telemedicine played a crucial role in Missouri’s response to COVID-19, but as I’ve written previously, this required waiving various state laws and regulations. Now that the temporary waivers are gone, telemedicine needs a permanent solution.

Prior to the pandemic, state law made it difficult to use telemedicine for a health care provider that you hadn’t already seen in person. In addition, there were rules that impacted which providers could use the service, the level of services they could provide, and even the treatments they were allowed to prescribe. Once these unnecessary restrictions were waived, telemedicine grew tremendously. Today, there are likely many patients who would prefer retaining expanded options for remote care.

Some providers, including many pharmacists, found that they enjoyed the flexibility provided by Missouri’s COVID-19 waivers. In fact, the Missouri Board of Pharmacists is establishing new rules to prepare for the industry’s more remote-friendly future. Further regulatory changes will be required for other professions, such as re-establishing an easy path for doctors from out-of-state and other willing providers to treat Missourians remotely.

Perhaps the biggest remaining hurdle for telemedicine is the Missouri laws that need to be updated. For example, state statute should be changed to make it easier for providers to write prescriptions for patients they’ve seen remotely. If providers were able to safely treat patients remotely for nearly two years while this law was waived, there’s no good reason to bring it back now. Fortunately, there are multiple bills filed that would represent steps in the right direction on this front, and I’m optimistic one will make it across the finish line this legislative session.

While the telemedicine restrictions were waived as a response to a public health emergency, their absence showed that access to health care in Missouri can be improved without risking patient safety. It’s time for Missouri’s legislature to capitalize on this momentum and make the ease of access Missourians have come to enjoy a permanent feature of telemedicine.

What I Would Like to See from the Resurrected Trolley

The Bi-State Development Agency has granted the Loop Trolley a new lease on life. Given the trolley’s poor track record, it’s going to be a steep uphill climb for Bi-State to salvage anything worthwhile from this project.

The biggest problem with the Loop Trolley is that nobody wants to ride it. During its 13 months of operation, ridership was under 10 percent of expectations, which led to equally depressing revenue shortfalls. Time and again, trolley management turned to taxpayers to fill its budget gaps, ultimately pouring $51 million of other people’s money into the project. One of those funders, the Federal Transit Administration, issued an ultimatum to the Loop Trolley Transportation Development District (LTTDD): either restart the trolley or pay back $37 million in federal grants.

Show-Me Institute analysts have been issuing warnings about a taxpayer-funded trolley with minimal demand for more than a decade, so this is not your average “I told you so.” But now that Bi-State has decided to clean up the Loop Trolley’s mess, let’s hope it has a good plan.

Bi-State should do what it can to reduce the overall taxpayer burden. As of now, trolley funding will come solely from the LTTDD’s sales tax on loop shoppers, which will not be enough to run the trolley for long. One way to potentially reduce taxpayers’ burden is to sell advertisement spots on the trolley. (Yes, even park bench personal injury lawyers—somebody needs to represent the owners of the cars the trolley kept managing to hit last time).

Bi-State can also lessen taxpayer burden by charging passengers to ride the trolley. Currently, Bi-State is considering letting passengers ride for free. If the thinking is that this revenue would be too small to make a difference, Bi-State should remember that people voluntarily paying to ride the trolley is better than reaching into the pockets of people who don’t ride the trolley. Charging fares from the start would be better, but if Bi-State decides not to do that, it should at least try to boost ridership to the point of charging fares. Whether that’s seasonally themed rides, reaching out to business and marketing students at Wash U for consulting, or any other novel idea, boosting ridership to the point of charging for fares should be the goal.

The trolley is coming back whether we like it or not. Let’s hope Bi-State finds a way to get taxpayers off the hook.

 

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging