Fuzzy Thinking on the “Price” of Doing Business

As someone who ran his own business for many years, I am aware of the difference between cost and price, even if it is something that eludes many political leaders and more than a few businesspeople with their noses in the public trough.

Cost is the expense that a business incurs in making a product or performing a service. Price is the amount of money that a customer pays for the product or service. The difference between the two is the business’s profit or loss.

In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Dec. 24, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon spoke in favor of awarding $120 million in subsidies to a group of wealthy businessmen who want to build a brand-new stadium and bring a Major League Soccer (MLS) franchise to downtown Saint Louis.

“It’s the price of doing business,” Nixon said, adding: “Folks may want to anguish a little bit” over the ladling out of such a large sum of public money to underwrite a private venture, but not to worry – because, “quite frankly,” this is a necessary and “cost-effective” way of putting a new business (the MLS franchise) on its feet.

The suggestion here is that the city of Saint Louis and the state of Missouri must be willing to part with $120 million – that being the price demanded by the group of businessmen (with the enthusiastic support of MLS Commissioner Don Garber) – in order to have a good chance of landing the soccer franchise.

But wait a minute.

If this was such a great business opportunity, why were these self-described businessmen and the MLS panhandling for public support? Why didn’t they think they could cover their costs – including the cost of building the stadium – through the sale of tickets, merchandise, and TV rights?

Running a business isn’t supposed to be easy. If misguided or self-interested political figures try to make it so (through public subsidies to private ventures), they inevitably divert scarce resources to less productive uses.

They make it possible for those without a solid business plan, and without any real appetite for innovation or risk, to enjoy an undeserved moment in the sun – at taxpayer expense.

At the same time, they encourage others to eschew enterprise for the seemingly easy but dead-end path of cronyism.

In short, they only poison the well that produces prosperity under the free market system.

What our outgoing governor called “the price of doing business” has nothing to do with business in any serious sense. Incoming Gov. Eric Greitens called it by its proper name.

It is “corporate welfare” for the idle rich.

City of Saint Louis Joins Charter School Fight

Saint Louis charter schools received good news earlier this month: the City of Saint Louis is taking their side in a lawsuit with the Saint Louis Public Schools regarding more than $50 million in local tax revenue.

In the lawsuit, which was filed in April, SLPS contends that charter schools should not have access to funds from a special sales tax levied for school desegregation programs because they were not mentioned in the original agreement when the tax was passed. You can read Mike McShane’s full explanation of the lawsuit here. As Mike wrote in April, “Depending on the outcome, this case could financially cripple the city’s charter schools and jeopardize the education of the more than 10,000 students who attend them.”

According to the Post-Dispatch, the city’s brief argues that the 1998 law authorizing charter schools and the law authorizing the sales tax were both a part of the state’s efforts to desegregate public schools. Thus, the revenue from the tax was intended to fund traditional public schools and charter schools alike. While there has not been a final ruling on the lawsuit, the support of the City of Saint Louis is a big win for charter schools. 

Missouri Should Not Stop at a State EITC; Larger Entitlement Reforms Are Needed

This month the Show-Me Institute was proud to publish our 2017 Blueprint for Missouri government, a document that catalogues fifteen state-based reforms to make Missouri more competitive and her citizens more prosperous. Included among the suggested reforms is transitioning some of the state’s welfare spending toward an earned income tax credit, or EITC. Apart from the well-documented economic benefits of the program, the EITC offers other benefits as well, including the promotion of work. As my colleague Michael Austin and I wrote in the Blueprint, 

[t]ransitioning current public welfare dollars to an EITC will help foster a culture of self-reliance among the state’s poor while also restricting growth in public welfare spending. Not only does the EITC help working families make ends meet, but it also encourages recipients and families to find jobs and increase hours worked.

The EITC bills that appear to be next year’s legislative frontrunners are encouraging. Longtime readers know that Show-Me Institute writers have long supported unloading destructive income taxes; that the proposed EITCs can help achieve this for the poor is an added bonus to the work incentives embedded in the program.

But for the EITC to do the most good, policymakers should work toward a “transition” to it, not simply an implementation of it. Rather than viewing the program in isolation, EITC supporters should have an eye toward parallel reforms and work requirements in existing entitlement programs as well. That could mean a dollar-for-dollar downsizing of other entitlement programs to make room for the EITC, or the passage of other work-related reforms for able-bodied enrollees in Missouri’s entitlement programs.

A straight up expansion of entitlements, however, should be a non-starter for supporters of small, efficient, and effective government. The EITC should be part of a larger government push toward offering an effective hand up out of poverty, not just a new state program in addition to countless others already in existence. Without that conversation and action toward reducing the costs of other programs, the state risks undermining the good that can come from an EITC—for beneficiaries and taxpayers alike.

 

 

New Paper Offers Guidance for Improving Mizzou

It has been hard to watch the flagship public university of our state struggle this past year and a half.  Just recently, it was announced that after 15 years of steady growth, Mizzou’s enrollment  shrunk last year.

The tumult in Columbia has caused people around the state to ask “What can we do?” The Missouri legislature even went so far as to create its own independent review commission to examine the workings of Mizzou and the rest of the University of Missouri system.

We’re here to help.

In a new case study released today, Michael Highsmith and I present three case studies of different universities and university systems from around the country tackling the very problems that are facing Mizzou today: namely, how do we make college more affordable, relevant, and rigorous?

We travel from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, where President Mitch Daniels has embarked on an ambitious program to keep costs down and design new majors and programs that allow students to progress at their own pace, to Texas, where then-Governor Rick Perry’s call to create a $10,000 degree spurred innovation statewide. Finally, we conclude at one of the finest universities in our nation, the University of Chicago, to show what it means to have a commitment to free speech and the open exchange of ideas.

We don’t present these stories as a paint-by-numbers guide to exactly what Mizzou should do to improve its standing in the state and region. Rather, we hope to spark a conversation about how to make Mizzou, and higher education in Missouri, stronger. We hope you’ll join us in that conversation in the coming months.

Click here to read more.

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