Checking the Fact-checkers

Posted on by Michael Q. McShane

Politifact Missouri has a new “Fact Check” out on the Governor’s statement in his State of the State Address that over 200 districts in Missouri do not offer Physics. That data point comes from a research paper we published over a year ago (which we have since updated). After our corrections, our overall numbers align pretty closely with those from Politifact (the author found 178 districts with no students enrolled, 156 districts if you counted a course called “Physics First”).

But once the hard numbers were established, the article started to go off the rails.

First, the author makes the case that Physics First should be counted as “Physics” for the purpose of measuring course access. I disagree. Physics First is, by the author’s own admission, an “introductory science course.” There is absolutely nothing wrong with introductory courses, but if we allow Physics First to “count” as the only physics course offered in a district, we are defining our expectations down severely. Just like we would want a district that only offered Geometry or Algebra to step up its game, so too should we if it only offers Physics First.

The author then proceeds to use overall physics enrollment in the state to make the case that Missouri is not behind the rest of the nation when it comes to Physics. The problem is that overall enrollment numbers don’t have a lot to do with course access. Sure, Missouri might have one of the higher rates of Physics enrollment around the nation, but how is it distributed? Given the population patterns of the state, high enrollment in our cities and suburbs could mask the fact that rural students don’t have access to higher level courses. Given the author’s own findings that 178 districts don’t offer advanced Physics, this very well might be the case.

But perhaps most problematic is the blurred line between fact and opinion. Whether we should count Physics First is a judgment call on which reasonable people can disagree. The author assumes that the Governor was using the Physics course access statistic to buttress a point about Missouri being behind on academic indicators. I took it as a simple statement that not enough districts offer Physics. Again, reasonable people can disagree. When we look at the hard numbers (not counting Physics First) from 2014-15, the Governor was off by less than 5 percent. If we look at our updated 2015-16 numbers, he was off by less than 3 percent. That doesn’t strike me as being “mostly false,” but I’ll leave that for readers to decide.

That said, I don’t want to go too far down the rabbit hole of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We cannot lose sight of the fact that, whatever you think on the question of defining Physics courses, far too many school districts do not offer higher-level classes. This includes not only Physics, but Calculus and AP classes as well. And those are not just statistics, but real children’s lives that are being denied the opportunity to get the education they need. Let’s focus our energy on fixing that.

Was It Something We Said?

Posted on by Rik W. Hafer

For many years, both Atlas Van Lines and United Van Lines have compiled data on the number of moves into and out of states. Over the past several years Missouri has seen more households moving out than moving in. Based on the van lines’ recent reports, that all-too-familiar story continued in 2016.

Between January 1 and December 31 of 2016, Atlas reports that 1,062 households left Missouri and 989 households moved in. A similar tale is told using the data from United Van Lines: Of the 4,362 total moves made in 2016, 2,256 were outbound and 2,106 were inbound. Although the numbers are close, it is still true that on net more Missouri households are deciding to leave the state.

The United study is valuable because it breaks down the total number of into reasons for moving, and they disaggregate the data by income and age. In terms of reasons for moving, not surprisingly the vast majority of households move because of jobs. Sixty-two percent of those moving out cited job-related reasons, and 60 percent of those moving into the state did so because of work. The second highest category was “family,” with about 20 percent inbound and outbound choosing that reason for the move.

The income and age characteristics of those moving are more revealing. The table below breaks down of inbound and outbound moves by income (left-hand side of table) and age (right-hand side of table). The data suggest that those in the highest income ranks—incomes exceeding $100,000—were, in 2016, net out-migrants: more left Missouri than moved in. This accords with earlier results: Michael Rathbone and I found that, based on IRS data, those who moved out of Missouri tended to be higher income individuals.

When age is the common denominator, it appears that in-migration in 2016 is concentrated in the younger age groups (those younger than 44). Of those between the ages of 45 and 64, prime wage-earning years according to a New York Federal Reserve study, there was a net migration out of Missouri, however. And for the 65-plus age group, it is essentially a wash: just about as many moving out as moving in.

This 2016 data builds on the prevailing story that Missouri’s residents continue to reveal their preferences and, on net, seek other, more attractive economic environments. 

Yes, the Soccer Stadium Proposal Will Cost City Residents

Posted on by Graham Renz

We have covered the rollercoaster ride of bringing a Major League Soccer team to Saint Louis for a few months now. The turbulent trip culminated in a proposal to raise the city’s use tax—essentially a sales tax on businesses—to provide $60 million in public funding for a soccer-specific stadium near Union Station. You can read Show-Me Institute analysts’ concerns regarding public support for sports stadiums here, here, and here.

In this post I’d like to address something besides the economic issues with subsidizing stadiums. And that’s the claim (see page 13 here) that “if you aren’t a business paying the Use Tax or don’t go to the stadium, your money will NOT be used for this project.” This claim is simply incorrect.

To understand why, we need to look at how the stadium proposal is connected with another proposed tax-hike. There is a proposal to increase the city’s sales tax rate by 0.5%, with the new revenue dedicated to MetroLink expansion and other “economic development” projects. If approved, this increase in the sales tax (on goods purchased in the city) will trigger an increase in the use tax (a tax paid by businesses on goods purchased outside of the state but used in the city). The money that would be generated by an increased use tax isn’t dedicated to a specific purpose—at least not yet. Funding for the soccer stadium would tap into this new use-tax revenue. But that new use tax revenue will only exist if the sales tax hike is first approved. So, in short, to dedicate use tax revenue for the stadium, taxpayers would have to approve a sales tax hike. And to increase the city’s sales tax rate is to make city residents pay for the stadium, whether they visit it or not. 

In addition, the use tax increase will ultimately be paid by consumers—again, city residents included—through higher prices. Businesses in the city will initially pay the higher use tax, and while they may try to absorb some of the cost, it is nearly inevitable that they will pass some of it on to consumers. And when city residents buy goods and services from city businesses, they will end up paying the increased use tax (in the form of higher prices). Again, city residents will pay for the stadium, just not directly.  

The claim that city residents will not pay for the stadium unless they visit it is specious. Taxpayers deserve straight-talk where their money is concerned, and in this case, they don’t appear to be getting it.

First Responders Have Rights, Too

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

When it comes to labor reforms, the dance card is filling up fast in the Missouri legislature. First the Legislature passed Right to Work, protecting the rights of workers to join, or not join, a union. Hot on its heels came project labor agreement (PLA) and prevailing wage reform legislation, which would protect taxpayers as well as countless workers in the construction industry. Missouri is now racing Wisconsin to be the first to pass such a reform package this calendar year.

 

Also coursing through the state House and Senate, however, are two important measures that would protect government employees as well. My former colleague John Wright wrote at length about the substance of the first measure, dealing with recertification votes and transparency in government unions. That basket of reforms will likely also include common-sense financial transparency requirements for government unions as well, consistent with disclosures private unions already file. Taken in total, that worker empowerment proposal is a game changer on its own.

 

The second measure, Paycheck Protection, also deserves attention from good governance supporters. Rather than forcing workers to opt out of a union, Paycheck Protection flips the presumption by allowing employees to opt-in to a union instead. It’s sort of like a mini-recertification vote; if an employee wants the union to represent her, she can confirm her support and continue the representation, or do nothing and keep her money. Either way, it’s the employee that’s empowered, not organized labor.

 

This year’s government union reform proposals are superior to versions that were proposed in previous years, in no small part because they don’t carve the rights of first responders from the bill. Why those rights have been carved away in the past is a subject of debate, but dealing strictly with the policy itself, passing a government reform bill that doesn’t protect first responders would be disappointing. First responders should be able to see what their union is spending money on, to keep or drop a union that represents them, and to retain or give the money in their paychecks that may currently underwrite a union’s activities. That this year’s law includes these workers deserves praise. I never understood why first responders would be deserving of fewer rights.

 

If these reforms are enacted, Missouri workers will have a lot to be excited about in the months and years ahead.

Hairbraiding Bill Advances in the House

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Over the last year we’ve talked a lot about the fight to liberalize licensing requirements for a host of professions, including hair braiding. The problem, is that onerous state regulations make it very difficult for qualified individuals to deliver a variety of services to consumers, and that is especially true of professional hair braiders. Litigation is ongoing for the requirements currently imposed on braiding practitioners, and the result of those fights remains unclear.

Fortunately Missouri’s Legislature isn’t letting the licenscing fights just play out in the courts; rather, it’s taking a proactive stance to these issues and is already considering legislation to resolve the hair braiding question once and for all.

Rep. Shamed Dogan, the lone African-American lawmaker on the Republican side of the aisle, said his plan to lift state regulations on African-style hair braiders could trigger the creation of jobs in minority communities if those businesses take the opportunity to expand.
 
Under current state law, a person needs to go through a cosmetology school and complete 1,500 hours of training in order to obtain a license to legally braid hair.
 
Dogan’s measure would not require hair braiders to obtain a license. Instead, they would need to register with a board and receive a brochure including information about infections and disease control.
 
As my colleagues and I have reiterated time and again, licensing laws should not unduly burden qualified practitioners in a field or otherwise prevent consumers from easily accessing services and care that, but for government, they could readily receive. That argument is especially easy to make when it comes to hair braiding. Incumbent interests in the cosmetology industry should not be empowered to lock out professionals who are fully qualified to serve their fellow Missourians, and for too long that has not been the case.
 
Kudos to the supporters of reforms like this one; hopefully we’ll see some progress in this area by session’s end.

The Race is On: Wisconsin Pushes to End Project Labor Agreements and Prevailing Wage

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Earlier this year three states were competing to become the next Right to Work (RTW) state. Missouri ended up being the second of the three states considering RTW to pass the law; Kentucky enacted RTW early in January, and New Hampshire is currently battling it out in its legislature.

But RTW isn’t the only labor reform where states are scrambling to beat their peers to the finish line. Indeed, states are also looking to reform their project labor agreement (PLA) laws, which circumscribe who can work on some public projects, and their prevailing wage laws, which can affect the price taxpayers pay for public projects.

And as in Missouri, the policy pairing of PLAs and prevailing wage has hit the top of the reform list in Wisconsin.

Prevailing wage requirements and project labor agreements would be prohibited under a proposal in Wisconsin’s 2017-19 biennial executive budget and tandem legislation speeding through the state legislature.

Gov. Scott Walker (R), already recognized for his tough stands against organized labor, included a single sentence in his 644-page budget proposal Feb. 8. The language repeals the state’s prevailing wage requirements and bans “any unit of government in the state from requiring or considering the use or lack of use of a project labor agreement by a contractor as a condition of bidding on a public works project.”

The state legislature could beat Walker to the punch under separate bills that would prohibit state and local units of government from requiring project labor agreements as part of public works programs. The Senate passed its version of the PLA bill, Senate Bill 3, by a vote of 19-13 on Feb. 8. The Assembly’s Committee on Labor approved nearly identical legislation, Assembly Bill 24, on a party-line vote Feb. 9.

Not only is Wisconsin racing against Missouri to become the next PLA and prevailing wage reform state, but there is actually competition among its own branches of government to see who will get it done first for the state.
To be clear, the point here isn’t to rush legislation, and to their credit Missouri legislators have done a good job of fully debating and improving the PLA and prevailing wage bills as they move through the Legislature. What Wisconsin reaffirms, though, is that the cutting edge of reform can often be a crowded space, and as Missouri works to improve its climate for workers, employers, and taxpayers, other states are not standing still.

Right to Try Becomes a National Issue

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

In 2014, Missouri became the third state to enact a Right to Try law. The legislation, pioneered by the Goldwater Institute in Arizona, empowered terminally ill patients to take control over their care options by allowing them access to experimental medications without undue interference from state government. As I wrote in Forbes at the time, “Right to Try does not attempt to supersede or nullify federal laws in this area. It only clears the way from the state’s perspective for RTT treatments to move forward.” It was a common-sense law that we testified in support of and were delighted to see passed.

Well, the RTT movement has expanded since then. Today over thirty states have already enacted the law, and it looks like federal officials may be following suit very soon.

More than a year after his wife, Trickett Wendler, died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), [Tim Wendler] is giving voice to a congressional bill in her name.
 
The Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act, authored by Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, would allow terminally ill patients to receive experimental drugs — which have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration — and where no alternative exists. There is a companion bill in the House.
 
With 40 Republicans and two Democrats co-sponsoring the legislation, Johnson plans to try to get the measure passed by unanimous consent, perhaps as early as Wednesday. The parliamentary maneuver is unlikely to succeed, since a single senator can block the request. But the issue probably won’t fade away.
 

Indeed it hasn’t. With a new Congress, bipartisan support, and a potentially supportive President, the prospects for a federal RTT statute passing are as good as they have ever been. If it does pass, it will be a win for patients across the country seeking greater control in the most precarious health situations imaginable. As we’ve said many times before, government should let people help their fellow Americans on terms largely or entirely unencumbered by state or federal bureaucracies. Right to Try laws are fundamentally designed to advance that end — and to offer hope to the most vulnerable among us. 

It isn’t clear when the federal Right to Try law is going to be debated and voted on this year. We’ll update you as the legislation goes through the process.

Questions for the Chesterfield Valley TDD

Posted on by Graham Renz

The unconstrained growth and abuse of special taxing districts in Missouri marches (or better, skates) on.

This evening, the Chesterfield City Council will hear details on a proposed ice complex in the valley retail area. Show-Me Institute researchers have followed and testified on the proposal for several months now, and we look forward to learning more tonight. What interests us about the proposal, and what might concern taxpayers in Chesterfield, is that it calls for $7 million in public handouts.

The subsidy, which would cover nearly a third of the project’s costs, would require authorization from voters within a special taxing district, known as a transportation development district (TDD). That district, the Chesterfield Valley TDD, was authorized in 2005 to collect a 3/8 cent sales tax to fund a variety of transportation projects, not all of which have been completed. But TDD voters might be asked to extend and redirect the 3/8 cent sales tax to subsidize infrastructure and parking improvements for the ice complex.

There are far too many questions about the proposal to ask in a single blog post, but below are a few that anyone who lives or shops in the Chesterfield valley area might want to think about.

  • A recent market analysis concluded that “current demand for ice time has not exceeded the supply which has resulted in creating a ‘buyer’s market.’” Given this, and the fact the existing ice facility in Chesterfield, the Hardee’s Ice Arena, is going out of business, should policymakers invest taxpayer dollars in a new ice complex?
  • The Chesterfield Valley TDD collects sales tax on the entire retail area south of I-64. Why should shoppers in the valley help subsidize a privately-owned facility they may never use? That is, why should shoppers buying groceries at Walmart or craft materials at Michael’s have to pick up the tab? Shouldn’t those who use the facility be the ones who pay for it?
  • Is subsidizing a private ice complex appropriate business for a TDD? TDDs are meant to finance transportation improvements that benefit the entire public. How does paying for infrastructure for a private facility benefit the public?
  • If Chesterfield is, as some argue, a “Hockey Town,” why must the public pick up the tab for an ice facility? If there is so much demand for ice time in Chesterfield, why does the public have to subsidize a new ice facility?

We encourage taxpayers across the state, and those in the Saint Louis region especially, to think about these questions. Even if you don’t live or shop in the Chesterfield valley, you may very well patronize businesses located in special taxing districts like the Chesterfield Valley TDD. And that means you could be subsidizing an ice facility—or who knows what else—of your own sooner or later.

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