Fall 2018 Internships

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

The Show-Me Institute is pleased to offer internship opportunities for Fall 2018.

  • Internships are open to current undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates.
  • Internships last approximately four months. The exact starting and ending dates are flexible, but we anticipate that each internship will run from September 17 until December 14.
  • Fall interns will work a part- or full-time schedule (9 a.m.-5 p.m.).
  • Interns will be involved in many aspects of the Institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
  • Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, organizing events, and writing and editing blog posts, newsletters, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks also will be required.
  • A Show-Me Institute policy internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce regular blog posts and an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest to him or her. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from SMI staff members throughout the process.
  • Policy internships as well as communications and development internships are available.
  • Internships are available at the office in St. Louis or Kansas City.
  • Interns will be paid on an hourly basis.

Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit the attached application and the requested supporting materials. The deadline for applications is August 24, 2018.However, we will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision in early September.

Not Bronze, or Silver, or Gold, or Platinum-Just Affordable

Posted on by Geneva Lee

Paying crippling premiums for health insurance? There may be a solution. On August 1, the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury implemented new rules expanding short-term, limited-duration health insurance (STLDI) options by increasing the plans from a maximum of three months to twelve and permitting renewability for up to three years—thus making short-term plans, in essence, a long-term option.

How do STLDI plans save their members money? For starters, short-term plans are not ACA-compliant. They do not offer all ACA required benefits, cover preexisting conditions, prohibit dollar limits on benefits, or insure dependents to the age of 26—some of the very provisions that drive up the cost of insurance. But because coverage is less comprehensive, individual monthly premiums for STLDI plans cost substantially less than unsubsidized ACA plans (see chart below). For many Missourians, these affordable plans are a welcomed option.

The rise of these STLDI plans will likely affect the ACA insurance markets. The departure of low-cost, younger and healthier customers could increase the volatility of ACA risk pools and stoke spiraling premiums further. And for those who choose an STLDI plan? Those customers may have made a bad bet if they get really sick, given STLDI’s comparatively skinnier benefits relative to the more expensive ACA plans. But considering that almost half of Missouri’s population is under the age of 34 and that many are being crushed by exorbitant premiums, a number of Missourians could benefit from an STLDI expansion.

Missouri currently limits its STLDI plans to six months, requires plans to cover some state-mandated benefits, and necessitates that customers have a 63-day gap in coverage before purchasing short-term plans. These regulations impede customers’ access to these plans, creating significant barriers to affordable insurance.

In the 2018 legislative session, Missouri considered House Bill 1685, which would have extended the six-month limit on plans to a full year. Though the measure did not pass before the session ended, it received support in both chambers, and a similar bill could appear in 2019. In light of the change in federal rules, isn’t it time for policymakers to consider expanding short-term plans for the sake of Missourians’ health—both physical and financial?

Health plan cost comparison

Film Tax Credits: Facts and Fiction

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Over the weekend, the St. Louis Post Dispatch published a piece about yet another Missouri-based television program that is being filmed in Georgia. While some lament that Missouri has stopped offering tax credits to film makers, it remains the right decision.

The Post-Dispatch mentioned that many other states have also ended their film tax credit programs due to low returns on the investment. But the Post did manage to find one advocate in Kansas City:

Steph Scupham, director of the Kansas City Film Office, said the benefits of landing a project outweigh the costs.

“I don’t know what’s wrong with people coming in, doing business, spending money and leaving,” she said, “especially when it also educates the people in our industry and gives our industry that is here more experience.”

Indeed, nothing is wrong with “people coming in, doing business, spending money and leaving.” What is wrong is taking precious tax dollars intended to support basic services like police and schools and giving them to private film companies. Not only is it wrong, it doesn’t work.

A recent study from the Beacon Center of Tennessee found that “using available box office data, over 40 percent of films that receive grants made less at the box office than they received in incentives.” That is a stunningly bad track record. Missouri’s own Tax Credit Review Commission wrote in their 2010 report that the film tax credit should be cut because it “serves too narrow of an industry and fails to provide a positive return on investment to the state.”

My colleague Patrick Ishmael wrote exactly one year ago that to the degree Georgia is underwriting a piece about the Ozarks, Missouri is coming out ahead. Thankfully, the Post-Dispatch makes clear there is no danger of reinstating such a film tax credit regime statewide. Kansas City ought to scrap its effort, too.

Who’s to Blame for Stagnant Teacher Salaries?

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Last spring, in what has been referred to as a “smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em” moment, teachers in four states staged walkouts to protest low wages and low spending on education. They did so just before an expected Supreme Court ruling that could cut into the power of teachers’ unions, so it made some sense that they would flex their muscles ahead of the ruling.

It’s not hard to understand why teachers are angry. In Missouri, the average teacher salary in 2000 was $51,100 (in 2016 dollars) and in 2016 it was $48,300. But the question is: Who should they be mad at? Can the folks in Jefferson City give raises to all Missouri teachers? They cannot. In most Missouri districts, school boards negotiate with the local teachers’ union to determine salary schedules. So somewhere along the line, even as spending per student increased from $8,900 to $10,500 (both in 2016 dollars), higher teacher salaries have gotten lost.

One important factor has been the growth in staff since 2000. Since that time Missouri’s public school enrollment had a net increase of  4,250 students, but public school staffing increased by 5,500 individuals, about half of whom were teachers. That’s right—there have been more adults hired to teach and run schools than there have been new students. I’ve written quite a bit about legacy costs (pensions and buildings) consuming more and more education dollars, but staffing increases are a huge driver of lower teacher salaries—the payroll money is being spread among more and more employees.

In 2015, the average pupil/teacher ratio in Missouri was about 14:1, and the average spent per student was $10,500. This means that about $150K was spent to run the average classroom. If I were a teacher and only about 30 percent of what was spent in my classroom went to my salary, I’d want to know where the rest went, and why. I’d also like the option to bump my class size up to 15 or 16 students if I were able to keep the increased funding.

I’m not second-guessing staffing decisions, but school districts have to make tradeoffs between hiring more staff or paying teachers more—and they seem to have chosen the former. If teachers don’t like that, they need to go to the actual decision makers—school boards and superintendents, maybe even those who represent them at the table–and demand something different. And if they’re paying dues to their local union to do their negotiating for them, they may want to consider how that’s working out for them.

[[{“fid”:”4907″,”view_mode”:”default”,”fields”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”},”type”:”media”,”field_deltas”:{“1”:{“format”:”default”,”field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”,”field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]”:”Teacher’s desk”}},”attributes”:{“alt”:”Teacher’s desk”,”title”:”Teacher’s desk”,”class”:”media-element file-default”,”data-delta”:”1″}}]]

Downtown Subsidies Forever

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

The economic development subsidy regime downtown has become a policy paradox.  If previous subsidies successfully created a vibrant economic center, then why are they still needed? If previous policies failed, why are we doubling down on an economic development regime that doesn’t work? The reason seems to be that corporate welfare is sought not because it is needed, but because the money is there for the taking.

Developers, who are no fools, don’t have any reason to believe that the City won’t say no to them. And any developer with common sense can look at everyone else getting sweet deals and reason, “why not me?” We were reminded of this once again in a story in The Kansas City Star earlier today about the plans to build a 13-story extended stay hotel downtown. According to the paper,

Owner Scott Pedersen said he would seek property tax abatement for the project, which he said would cost more than $36 million.

“Most of the new hotels downtown have applied for and received certain incentives to help the revitalization of downtown, and we’re doing the same,” he said.

Remember, this was also the case when the Intercontinental Hotel on the Plaza sought a blight designation so it could create a Community Improvement District to charge guests an additional sales tax to be used to replace carpets and wallpaper. Once other hotels learned of what the Intercontinental was seeking, they planned to seek the same.

We don’t fault businesses for seeking every advantage they can get. But we’d like to see city leaders recognize that until they say “no,” the requests will keep coming.

Chesterfield Should Protect Taxpayers in Mall’s Redevelopment

Posted on by Graham Renz

In the age of Amazon, only fools, tricksters, or geniuses invest in malls.

To which group the new owner of the Chesterfield Mall—Hull Property Group—belongs, we’ve yet to see. Hull acquired the mall earlier this month and, even though it currently has no plans to redevelop it, Hull is already asking taxpayers for a handout.

In a statement, Hull said the mall is “too important to fail,” and that, without community support (read: your money), “the marketplace may dictate an unfortunate and unforgiving future.”

Those don’t sound like a fool’s words to me.

Hull has an impressive portfolio of dozens of malls and redeveloped retail centers across the southeast. It didn’t purchase the mall without a plan, or from some sense of benevolence. Hull knows what it’s doing.

Trickster? Maybe.

“All communities need their enclosed mall and the surrounding retail corridor to succeed as it is a symbol of a thriving community,” Hull’s website reads. Really? Is the entire Chesterfield Valley not such a symbol, with its dozens and dozens of retailers and other malls? And in Chesterfield, where the median household income in Chesterfield is over $97,000—tens of thousands more than most of the region and country—does anyone really believe that the mall—sitting lonesome atop a hill—is the lifeblood of Chesterfield?

Genius? Perhaps.

Hull purchased the property for a cool $13 million, less than 5% of what it was valued at in 2006. For acres and acres of land, replete with infrastructure and a massive improvement, directly adjacent to the interstate, that isn’t a bad deal. Whether because of changes in broader economic trends or a creative repurposing, the mall could become incredibly valuable again. Perhaps the mall is repurposed for retail or a mix of uses, razed and platted for a subdivision, or just sat on and later sold. Whatever happens, the property has a huge upside potential.

Whether fool, trickster, or genius, Hull shouldn’t be given a handout. If its plans are foolish, taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear the risk. If it’s a trickster, the public shouldn’t pad its bottom line. And if it’s a genius, no public money should have to be involved at all. Plus, given how much taxpayer money has already been doled out to developers and landowners in the Valley (especially to the outlet malls, one of which is already slated for redevelopment a mere five years after opening!), now is as good a time as any for officials to turn the spigots off.

Fortunately, Chesterfield officials have intimated that incentives won’t be forthcoming. Given that it is was just last year that other city officials suggested a special taxing district be created to help subsidize the mall, this is very welcome news.

Let’s hope that policymakers in Chesterfield stick to their guns and continue to stand up for taxpayers.

How and Why Prop A Will Boost Jobs and Growth

Posted on by Andrew B. Wilson

Outside of Missouri, the most closely watched contest in the Aug. 7 elections here will not be any of the political races; it will be the resolution of an important policy question. In the referendum known as Proposition A, voters will have the final word on whether Missouri becomes the nation’s 28th state to enact right-to-work (RTW) legislation.

We already have a RTW law – passed by the Missouri Legislature and signed by the governor in early 2017. It was supposed to take effect on Aug. 28, 2017. However, on Aug. 18, organized labor groups collected enough signatures to give voters the choice of implementing the law (with a “yes” vote on Prop A) or rejecting it (with a “no” vote). A simple majority wins.

At a labor rally in St. Louis on June 23, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka joined with other labor leaders in proclaiming that RTW would set off a “race to the bottom” for all workers, not just union members. He said: “Proposition A will lower wages, destroy jobs, (and) increase poverty.”

Naturally, no union boss who can limit the supply of labor to members of his own union wants to give up that ability. Who wants competition – when you are in the cushy position of not having to compete? But the idea that competition is bad for growth and job creation is complete nonsense.

In fact, RTW states have consistently outperformed forced-union states in job growth, personal income growth, and economic growth. That’s not a matter of opinion; it comes from hard data provided by three federal bureaus (Census, Labor Statistics, and Economic Analysis) over the ten-year period from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, average job growth in the 22 states with RTW laws in place for most or all of that time was more than twice as fast (at 9.1 percent) as in the 28 forced-union states. The RTW states also had considerably faster growth in personal income (at 54.7 percent compared to 43.5 percent), and a much stronger economic growth (50.7 percent compared to 38.0 percent).

And there were other ancillary benefits, including faster population growth (more than double that of forced-union states). From 2004 to 2014, many Americans voted with their feet in moving into RTW states and out of forced-union states.

The devastation that befell the U.S. auto industry during and after the 1980s exemplifies what happens when companies are kept from responding to market forces as a result of compulsory unionization, forced to pay an artificially high price for labor, and forced to absorb “legacy” costs (health care and pensions) they cannot possibly afford over the long run.

During the Great Recession of 2008–2009, two of the three big automakers – GM and Chrysler – would have collapsed but for government bailouts totaling billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, Toyota and other foreign manufacturers that had opened plants in RTW states continued to perform well without bailouts.

In 2012, Michigan – the state that gave birth to the United Auto Workers union – became the 24th state to adopt RTW. Gov. Rick Snyder said that he believed that the legislation would lead to “more and better jobs for Michiganders.”

It is not just employers who benefit from right to work. It is anyone and everyone who seeks employment. Compulsory unionization represents an unfair and counterproductive abridgement of the freedom of people to offer their services to the highest bidder; they should not be locked out of an opportunity because a union with political clout has been granted a broad monopoly over the supply of labor.

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