House Vote The First of Many Important Health Care Milestones

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amended draft of the American Health Care Act, described by Congressional leaders as the first phase of a replacement package for Obamacare. Its passage was not without drama, obviously, as the vote had to be put on hold earlier this year when consensus language couldn’t be reached in the lower chamber. The conflict was driven both by substantive policy differences and by concerns that if the entire Obamacare law wasn’t repealed in the AHCA, that it would never be repealed. I share concerns in both categories; I am disappointed that the reform continues to track with insurance as a primary vehicle for health care, and I am hesitant to believe politicians when they say they’ll finish the job of unwinding Obamacare.

But as has been said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. The House’s action today is an important step of a longer journey, not only at the federal level but among the states as well. From licensure reciprocity to direct primary care promotion to Medicaid reform, the list of projects to be undertaken by free marketeers at the state level is a lengthy one that would never be accomplished in a single law, federal or otherwise. Indeed, ours is a policy journey that will span years and even decades to reach anything resembling completion.

That said and with the initial passage of the AHCA, I am hopeful that the federal government is commited to taking that long and important policy trip with us.

Why Subsidize It Once When You Can Subsidize It Twice?

Posted on by Graham Renz

There is so much demand for hockey in the Saint Louis region that officials and special interests want to subsidize not just one, but two new ice facilities. That’s right; even though the Hardee’s Iceplex in Chesterfield is going out of business, officials want taxpayers to help pay for two new facilities in its place.

One facility, planned for construction in the Chesterfield valley, would include $7 million in taxpayer handouts from a special sales tax district known as a transportation development district (TDD). If the TDD is approved (by the less than 1% of households in Chesterfield who get to vote), anyone who shops in the valley retail area will pay extra sales taxes to help subsidize the private venture. The other facility, which would double as a new practice facility for the Saint Louis Blues, would entail $6 million in taxpayer help from the City of Maryland Heights and 40 acres of free land in Creve Coeur Lake Park from Saint Louis County.

At least two aspects of these proposals warrant further discussion.

  1. Proponents of both projects claim there is high demand for hockey and ice time in the Saint Louis region. This may or may not be true (though a recent market analysis concluded it is not). One would think the closure of the current ice complex in Chesterfield is telling of the market for hockey and ice time. But, suppose it isn’t, and that subsidy proponents’ claims are true; let’s say there is genuine demand for ice time in the region. If so, why does the public need to subsidize private ice facilities? If Saint Louis (or Chesterfield, or Maryland Heights) is a “hockey town,” and if these facilities will be such powerful economic engines, why are project boosters panhandling? If a project is meeting a real demand, it shouldn’t need taxpayer help.
  2. One facility is leaving the market, and two are trying to take its place. This would be fine—if no public money were involved. Subsidizing a private business (especially in a depressed market) is questionable policy, but it is even harder to justify asking taxpayers to subsidize competing businesses. Suppose one facility puts the other out of business. What then? Are taxpayers left holding the bag as their “investment” in one facility goes down the drain? It should go without saying that it isn’t the taxpayers’ responsibility to subsidize one facility to siphon business away from another taxpayer-subsidized facility.

The region dodged a bullet when cash-hungry millionaires were denied $60 million in public funds for a professional soccer stadium in downtown Saint Louis. But some local officials, along with those on the receiving end of subsidies, still appear to have taxpayer dollars in their sights. Policymakers who want to know where demand exists for ice time (or anything else) would do well to listen to the market instead of special interests.

Statewide Electrician License Advancing in the House

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

From hair braiders to physicians, Show-Me Institute analysts have supported a lot of important licensure reform initiatives over the years, but one area we haven’t addressed recently is the licensure of electricians. Unlike many other states, Missouri does not have a statewide license for its electricians, which—given our skepticism of many state licensing regimes—would seem at first glance to be a good thing for free marketeers.

The problem is that in the absence of state action, local governments have imposed their own licensing regimes on their respective electricians, effectively requiring already-qualified electricians to re-license if they want to practice in, say, Springfield, if they aren’t already licensed there. In that respect, the plight of Missouri electricians parallels that of doctors who can’t easily practice across state lines: Onerous licensing requirements create barriers to entry that negatively impact practitioners and also reduce options (and increase prices) for local customers who would benefit from greater access to these services.

That regulatory tension may be relieved if a Senate bill currently before the House becomes law. SB 240 would allow local municipalities to continue licensing electricians, but it would also require them to accept a statewide electrician license without also requiring the local licensing requirements be fulfilled. Moreover, the bill would grandfather many electricians operating already under a local license into the statewide licensing framework. That means that a longtime electrician with a local license could access a statewide license, and with that statewide license, she could access other municipalities—whether a city had its own licensing regime or not. Also worth noting: the bill passed the Senate unanimously. Given the slow pace of other legislation through that chamber this session, unanimous passage of this bill is amazing in its own right. 

Whether the bill passes the House remains to be seen, but electrician licensure reform certainly deserves consideration. Our ongoing skepticism of state licensing remains in effect, and as time goes by, regular audits of the effect of electrician licensure would be necessary to ensure it does not fall victim to regulatory capture. Future legisuatures should also consider national reciprocity measures for these licenses so that Missouri electricians and customers are able to work where they want, and hire who they want at the best price. That said, the proposed reform—which ultimately simplifies life for Missouri electricians and customers alike—would be an improvement over the current licensing system in effect in the state.

What Happened to Course Access?

Posted on by Michael Q. McShane

In the early days of this legislative session, course access seemed primed for success. Both the House and Senate held hearings for course access bills for which there were zero witnesses in opposition. The Governor made it clear that it was a priority of his office as well. One version of the bill passed the House, and the other made it out of committee in the Senate. And then . . . nothing.

It is no secret that the Missouri Senate is a tumultuous place in these waning days of the legislative session. But as the final days of the calendar tick away, it’s looking increasingly likely that course access isn’t going to happen this year.  This would be a shame, for several reasons.

First, a course access program would address a serious problem in our state. As we have reported for some time now, hundreds of districts in our state have zero students enrolled in AP classes or advanced math and science classes. Other districts lack access to quality career and technical education because they simply don’t have the capacity to offer such programs. Course access could help solve this problem and amplify what smaller schools and school districts are doing to try and meet the needs of their students.

Second, it would help bridge the urban/rural divide. Education policy debates in the state often break along urban and rural fault lines. Rural folks think that the state is too narrowly focused on Kansas City and St. Louis, and to be honest, this is often a fair assessment. A program designed specifically to help rural school districts (though urban and suburban students would benefit as well) could help establish common ground across the state.

Finally, passage of course access legislation would be an example of bipartisan comity that the education policy community could build upon in the future. In our polarized times, there is less and less that unites people across the political spectrum. Education policy is not spared from this trend. Course access is an issue to which legislators on both sides of the aisle have contributed their support. It would be awful to squander that.

All is not lost. The legislature, and particularly the Senate, still has time to consider the course access bills before it.  Here’s hoping they make use of their final days to score a big win for students, our state, and our political culture.

Join the Pension Discussion!

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Pension discussions are all the rage these days. Don’t believe me? Just check out the Post-Dispatch.

A few days ago, an op-ed by a retired teacher made some inaccurate claims about Missouri’s teacher pension system. Today, the Post-Dispatch graciously ran a letter by yours truly in which I rebut them.  Primarily, I discuss the pension system’s underfunding, the potential for retirees to lose some of their income, and who would benefit from changing the retirement plan.

Additionally, David Nicklaus, business columnist for the Post-Dispatch, has an article in which he highlights my forthcoming paper in the Journal of Education Finance. Nicklaus writes:

Teachers love their pensions. A generous monthly check at the end of one’s career helps make the important, and sometimes underappreciated, profession worthwhile.

I wonder if teachers in Missouri’s lower-paying rural districts realize, though, that their pension contributions help subsidize the retirements of their better-paid counterparts in districts like Rockwood and Clayton.

It is great to see all of this attention going to an important topic that affects so many hard working Missourians. 

Resolution for Article V Convention Deserves Serious Consideration

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

It’s been said that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but can you remind an old dog of long-forgotten tricks? That theme (and variation) are relevant to a bill currently being debated in the Missouri legislature that would amend the U.S. Constitution and rein in federal power through a little-used section of Article V.

How would legislators do it? As our readers may know, the most commonly attempted way to amend the Constitution has been via a two-thirds vote of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. But perhaps less known is that two-thirds of the states themselves can call their own constitutional conventions for the purpose of independently proposing amendments to the Constitution. As the National Archives notes, “None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.” That no amendments have been proposed in this way,  however, doesn’t mean amendments can’t or won’t be, and if supporters of a Missouri Senate resolution have their way, the 28th Amendment will be the first of its kind to have been initiated by the states themselves.

There’s a lot in the resolution itself about what it intends to do and how, but here’s the heart of the resolution:

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the members of the Missouri Senate, Ninety-ninth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the House of Representatives concurring therein, hereby apply to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the United States Constitution, for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and members of Congress;

Later provisions lay out the precise nature of the convention and what it may consider—it’s worth your time to read—but the key reform elements of the bill are clear enough: federal fiscal limitations, federal power limitations, and federal term limitations. Beyond that, the exact reforms are open to debate, albeit circumscribed by the reform language of the bill itself to prevent a runaway convention. Resolutions like this one have passed in ten other states and may also pass later this year in North Carolina, as well, so it’s certainly an active idea nationally.

Twelve states aren’t enough to initiate a convention, of course; to initiate it, thirty-four states will have to pass similar resolutions. But the objectives of the resolution here are worthwhile enough, and its prospects plausible enough, to highlight here. If the bill passes the House, Missouri would become either the 11th or 12th state to sign on to this initiative. We’ll keep you posted if that happens.

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