The Quintessential Quint

On this day – and, indeed, on many other days of every year going all the way back to 1968 – retired St. Louisan Gary E. Quint stops to give thanks for the fact that he and some of his Vietnam wartime buddies are still alive. Caught in the jaws of a U-shaped ambush by a much larger enemy force, he believed that there was little or no chance that any of them would live to see the light of another day – let alone another 50 years.

Separated from others in two mechanized U.S. Army platoons, many of them already killed or wounded, and hunkered face-down behind an 18-inch high dike in a paddy field, he experienced a my-life-flashing-before-my-eyes moment. “I totally zoned out,” he recounted, “disconnected into a rapid slide show in my head. Beginning as quick flashes of scenes from my early life, long since forgotten, progressing in chronological order to a family scene at a point just before I left for Vietnam.”

Waking up from that dream (“While obviously only seconds had passed it seemed like an hour or more”), he peeked over the top of the low dike and saw supremely confident North Vietnamese Army (NVA) soldiers advancing in the direction of the scattered remains of his unit in no particular hurry. They were visibly smiling and engaged in audible sing-song chatter – firing their rifles as they went about what they clearly saw as an easy mop-up operation. The beginning of the end?

Hardly. A minute or two later, Quint heard the distinctive roar of M-113 armored personnel carriers (also known as APCs or “tracks”) – the first crashing at full speed through a line of hedgerows that had constituted one of the two extended arms of the U-shaped ambush. In a manner of speaking, it was the U.S. cavalry arriving in the nick of time.

 

Prelude to the Battle of An Bao

Fought 5–6 May, in Bing Dinh Province, South Vietnam

RIP: 22 American soldiers killed in action

This is Gary Quint’s story and that of several other combatants, including my own brother, Lieutenant Harry B. Wilson, and his company’s commander, the hard-charging and intrepid Captain Jay Copley, who spearheaded the rescue mission in what came to be known as the Battle of An Bao. On April 28, 2011, Capt. Copley was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. Though badly injured, Copley survived the battle. He lives today with his wife in Columbus, Georgia, and recently celebrated his 86th birthday.

All of the Americans in this story were part of 1st Battalion of the 50th Infantry Regiment of the U.S. Army, which was engaged in action in Vietnam from 1967 to 1970. The battalion consisted of four companies (A, B, C, and D). In this battle, C Company under Copley’s command, with about 120 men, raced to the rescue of a large part of A Company under the acting command of Lt. Dennis Hinton, with 50 men. Hinton was killed by sniper fire in the first 30 minutes of the battle.

The story begins at Landing Zone (LZ) Uplift, which was the battalion’s command post. On this same day, C Company arrived at the site and was scheduled to take over base defense from A Company the following day. This was standard procedure, with responsibility for defense of the battalion’s base camp rotating between companies on roughly a weekly basis.

At 7:48 a.m., Lt. Hinton departed from LZ Uplift with nine APCs, or tracks, with orders to search for an NVA regimental command post somewhere in the central coastal plain to the north (going up the asphalted Highway 1) and west (across dirt trails and coastal flatland). As it happened, the distance between what became the battlefield and the command post was not far – just five kilometers as the crow flies, but double that by road in having to skirt around a hilly mass – known to the soldiers as “Miss America” because of its supposed resemblance to a reclining woman.

Quint, a tall, lanky man who had been drafted into the army within a few weeks of his graduation from Lindbergh High School in 1966, was riding in the command track with Lt. Hinton as his radio operator.

Late in the morning, A Company broke into big rice paddy field. Except for a wide opening at the northeast corner of the field, it was bordered by long lines of thick hedgerows that backed up on tall palm trees. Uncomfortable with the situation, Hinton ordered a strafing of the hedgerows and sent out foot patrols to probe into the hedges and palms. Satisfied, at about 11:40 a.m. he told the men they could break for lunch.

“The respite was short lived,” Quint recalls, “Alpha (A Company) was literally out to lunch when the first high-explosive round aimed at the command track fell. Fortunately, that one missed. Then – BOOM, BOOM, BOOM. We lost three other tracks in less than a minute” – all of them set ablaze by rifle fire or rocket-propelled grenades.

You can get some sense of the awful speed of the assault from three radio dispatches sent in rapid succession by Quint to the command post (preserved in the battalion’s radio log from the battle):

11:44 a.m. Received one round recoilless rifle fire.

11:45 a.m. Request MEDEVAC (i.e., medical evacuation by helicopter), just had one APC hit.

11:46 a.m. Receiving fire from 360 degrees.

The battalion’s base camp mobilized artillery and air support within the next few minutes. At 12:12 p.m., it radioed back that air strikes were on their way and that C Company had been dispatched from the base to provide on-the-ground support and rescue.

One of the helicopter gunships sent to the embattled rice field was hit with enemy fire and exploded with the loss of four lives. The situation on the ground became increasingly desperate. Inside the command track in the large opening behind the turret, Lt. Hinton stood fully exposed from the belt up. He was trying both to direct the movement of the craft and to direct its firepower against the enemy. When the track became stuck on a berm, he gave his last order. He directed everyone to “leg it” – meaning to evacuate out the back side of the vehicle and continue the battle on the ground. Hit in the head by sniper fire a moment later, he died instantly.

C Company to the Rescue

In a personal account of the battle, Lt. Harry Wilson gave this account of how C Company entered the battle:

We pulled into LZ Uplift in mid-morning on 5 May 68, supposedly for a stand-down after a long, hard time in the field. We got orders to mount up again on the tracks after a very short period, with almost no knowledge of what we were doing other than that A Company was in trouble over Miss America, a line of hills. We went down Highway 1 at top speed (over 40 mph on pavement), with Capt. Copley continually radioing me (the point platoon) for more speed. He was hammering for speed.

After turning west off the highway, Wilson’s 3rd platoon APC encountered heavy small arms fire. He pulled up to return fire, but, as Wilson put it, “Capt. Copley in the command track (following the point platoon as usually did), just kept going past us through the incoming fire – without holding up at all – and burst out into the dry paddies, and we followed . . . The captain, and then we, just drove right through a serious firefight.”

It appears that the NVA battle planners had devised a double and perhaps even a triple ambush for the Americans. Having marshalled an unusually large force in the immediate vicinity of the battle (more than 1,000 men with heavy equipment and firepower), it is plain that they fully expected and were prepared for the U.S. battalion command to send another company (and possibly a third company) out to rescue the first company.

Capt. Copley spoiled this plan by hurtling straight through both ambushes and exposing NVA forces to heavy casualties of their own. The captain told me: “Perhaps we shocked them as much or more than they shocked us. We were able to consolidate and pull Alpha Company in with Charlie Company, though both of us suffered heavy casualties.”

Postscript to the Battle of An Bao

C Company arrived at the scene at about 12:45 p.m. – and just about 60 minutes after A Company first came under fire. Gary Quint – who went on to a 43-year-long career with the Kirkwood Police Department ending with his retirement in 2012– was one of those who was scooped up and taken to safety. Today he says: “If they [C-Company] had even stopped for a cigarette, we would have all been dead.”

 

Are Missouri’s Neighbors Passing It By?

As a general rule, it isn’t wise to spend too much time worrying about keeping up with the neighbors. But we might make an exception to that rule for Missouri, especially in light of a new report that shows how weak our economy is relative to other states in the region.

The State of the Heartland Factbook 2018, a joint effort by the Walton Family Foundation and the Brookings Institution, uses 26 different socioeconomic measures to detail the performance of the 19 states that compose America’s Heartland. This data is compiled into the full report, and is accompanied by an interesting interactive database.

This new information makes it easy to compare Missouri to the other states in our region. However, the comparison is hardly flattering. The two best examples of Missouri’s stagnation are the change over time in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the total value of everything produced by the people and companies of the state, and standard of living. Measuring the change in GDP from 2010 to 2016, Missouri only grew faster than two nearby states (Mississippi and Louisiana), averaging a 0.8 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR). Most of the other states had a CAGR of over 1.0 percent.

Standard of living (which the authors measure as GDP per capita) showed practically identical results, with Missouri once again coming in third from the bottom (again ahead of only Mississippi and Louisiana). While Missouri showed a positive CAGR of 0.5 percent in standard of living, the majority of the states where data was reported averaged at least a 1.0 percent CAGR from 2010 to 2016.

The story was the same with regard to wage growth. Missouri held its popular position of third from the bottom, a CAGR of 0.4 percent from 2010 to 2016.

Clearly, there is work to be done in Missouri if we want to climb to a position where we are competitive with the states surrounding us. Policy initiatives that spur economic growth will be key in helping turn the Show-Me state into a better place to work and live.

Does Kansas City Really Have Too Many Hotel Rooms?

The other day we highlighted a letter from a developer who claimed that his client, a hotel company, should receive higher-than-offered taxpayer subsidies because of a saturated hotel market. The hotel won’t make as much money, he argued, so the city should be more generous in its offering. That taxpayers should continue subsidizing hotels when there are already plenty seemed an odd position to take. But are there really too many hotels in downtown Kansas City?

Yes, according to the Hotel Muehlebach, a Kansas City landmark first opened in 1915. A developer is asking the City Council to execute “a Tax Contribution Agreement with Platform Ventures LLC for the purpose of incentivizing the redevelopment of the historic Hotel Muehlebach” (Ordinance No. 180842.)

The developers want tax money to help them redevelop the hotel into offices, residential apartments, and a 144-room hotel. This is a dramatic reduction from the Muehlebach’s current 420 hotel rooms. This is not the first time the Muehlebach has sought taxpayer subsidies. As we pointed out a few years ago in a post about Kansas City’s long history with hotel subsidies, a previous subsidy for the Muehlebach in 1992 was a disaster for taxpayers because there wasn’t enough demand for the hotel rooms to make the venture profitable.

Too Many Hotels in KC, According to Hotel Developer Seeking Subsidies

In a blog post earlier this year I wondered about Kansas City, “If previous subsidies successfully created a vibrant economic center, then why are they still needed?” The recent news that Drury Hotels is withdrawing its application for tax-increment financing (TIF) makes this question relevant again.

The reason for the withdrawal is that Drury’s original request for TIF was only partially approved by the Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Drury would have received some taxpayer support if the development had gone forward—but not as much as requested.

Consider the letter from a development attorney working for Drury announcing the withdrawal. According to the letter, the subsidy is needed not because downtown is an economically challenged market, but because there is too much hotel development.

From the letter (which is available in its entirety via the link at the bottom of this post):

Additionally, Drury believes that the Project is financially risky, particularly given the projected doubling of downtown hotel room inventory over the next twenty-four months. Drury anticipates that a substantial decline in revenue per available room will take place over the next several years while the market absorbs this unprecedented growth in available rooms.

Let that sink in. Developers think that the area is overdeveloped, so taxpayers need to protect them from the risk of low revenue due to market saturation.

We only know this because a representative of this developer stated its position bluntly in writing. How many other developers—hotel or otherwise—are using economic development subsidies not to address a public need, but to protect themselves from offering too much of a private product?

Reading the letter, it’s difficult to understand why the EDC would have recommended any subsidy at all for hotel development. Downtown clearly has enough hotel rooms; taxpayers don’t need to fund any more. Unfortunately, the EDC is funded with fees paid by TIF recipients, so they have every incentive to say yes. Maybe Kansas City leaders need to follow Nashville’s lead and put a halt to TIF until the process can be improved.

No Longer Forgotten

Far too often, our policy conversations focus heavily on urban locations. This is especially true in education. Yet there are over 9 million children in America’s rural schools who deserve our careful and thoughtful attention as well. That was what prompted Show-Me Institute Senior Education Policy Fellow Mike McShane and Andy Smarick, director of the Civil Society, Education and Work program at the R Street Institute to assemble an edited volume on rural education titled No Longer Forgotten: The Triumphs and Struggles of Rural Education in America.

Show-Me Institute Distinguished Fellow of Education Policy James Shuls contributed a chapter on rural school finance. Although the chapter is not about any specific state, James drew on several examples from Missouri. For instance, he explained how Missouri’s property tax assessment practices place rural schools at a disadvantage when raising local funds for schools and how many rural communities tax themselves at lower rates. When you combine these two facts, it’s easy to see why rural schools receive much less money than their suburban and urban counterparts.

There are a myriad of issues affecting rural schools, and the book is a good reminder that education reform shouldn’t stop at city limits.

 

How Can Missouri Support Students with Special Needs? Find Out.

In November, the Show-Me Institute will host two events on Bryce’s Law.

Haven’t heard of it? Don’t worry, few have—and even fewer have benefitted from it.

Bryce’s Law was passed in 2013. It was intended to provide scholarships to students with special needs so they could get the educational services they need from specialized private institutions such as the Judevine Center for Autism. As Mike McShane, Susan Pendergrass, and I point out in our recent essay, “Bryce’s Law Revisited: Serving Missouri’s Neediest Students through Targeted Scholarships,” not a single student has benefited from Bryce’s Law.

Join Mike on November 13 in Kansas City or Susan in St. Louis on November 15 as they share how Bryce’s Law could be revised to do what it was meant to do—serve students with special needs.

If you have a child with special needs or know someone who does, or even if you just want to find out more, I highly recommend you attend one of these events. Unlike some political issues that generate millions of dollars in backing from organized interest groups, scholarships for students with special needs are not likely to receive that kind of substantial support. You won’t see any television adds. You won’t see yard signs. And if people are not educated on this issue, we won’t see any special needs students benefitting from Bryce’s Law.

The Tax Burden in Kansas City Is High

On Ruckus the other day, panelist Woody Cozad mentioned that taxes in Kansas City are high. He’s right. My colleague Patrick Ishmael has made the point repeatedly. But a study of taxation out of Washington, D.C., underscores just how bad things have gotten here relative to other U.S. cities.

The study, issued by the government of the District of Columbia in December 2017, “aims to calculate the combined state and local tax burdens that would apply to a hypothetical family at five different income levels living in D.C. as well as the largest city in each state.” Kansas City is included and St. Louis is not, and neither are some cities that we’ve identified as peers. But the data are valuable nonetheless.

The estimated tax burden for a family earning $50,000 in Kansas City—the median income is $47,000—is $5,444. That’s 10.9 percent of income and includes income, property, sales, and auto taxes. This places us 8th in the country, ahead of places well-known as expensive such as Boston, New York, Portland, Seattle, Denver, and Los Angeles.

Dave Helling of The Kansas City Star has pointed out that taxes in Kansas City are also regressive. This report supports that conclusion regarding auto sales taxes, stating that “Providence, Rhode Island; Bridgeport, Connecticut; and Kansas City, Missouri are the cities with the highest automobile tax burdens across all income levels.” Combined with all other taxes, a Kansas City family earning $25,000 pays a combined tax burden of 12.6 percent; 8th highest of the cities measured. For a family earning $100,000, the burden is lower at 11.2 percent, placing us 12th.

What’s worse, the sales tax estimates are low for Kansas City. On page 39, the study lists Kansas City’s sales tax rate to be 8.475 percent, but anyone living here knows it goes much higher due to the proliferation of special taxing districts across the city.

Individuals can determine for themselves if City Hall is providing a return worthy of the investment, but the debate over whether taxes are high is settled. Kansas City is a high-tax city. Our taxes are regressive, too, but they are certainly high.

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