At Session’s Midpoint, Reforms Loom Large On Legislative Agenda

If you visit Jefferson City this week, you might notice that the Capitol's a bit quieter than usual. That calm will soon give way to the storm, of course; the chambers are on a regularly scheduled mid-session break and will return to work next Monday to finish out the session. But while the legislature is out, the break provides supporters of good government to take stock of where the policy debates have gone so far in 2016. Here are a few items I'm following:

Kansas City Star Defends Corporate Welfare, Again

Yael Abouhalkah of the Kansas City Star blogs today in defense of the earnings tax and against my call to curb cronyism in Kansas City. The Star's position in favor of corporate welfare won't surprise our readers, since the newspaper has been a longtime beneficiary of the city's tax largesse and frequent interlocutor for City Hall. Although it was disappointing, Yael's endorsement of the city's trickle-down development culture was expected—the latest in a long line of such columns.

But I was more disappointed that in his quest for an interesting headline, Yael again shuttled past a decade's worth of Show-Me research on the earnings tax. Rather than simply Google "Show Me Institute replace earnings tax," Yael chose to bowlderize a recent Show-Me blog post and ignore a host of detailed Show-Me reports published since the mid-2000s, showing how the earnings tax is destructive to growth and how it can be replaced. The newspaper didn't need a Woodward or Bernstein on staff to discover the research: just a passing familiarity with the Internet and glancing engagement with the earnings tax issue.

The research is there. It's been there for a long time.

Yet the argument against an earnings tax doesn't just spring forth from some economics lesson. That the Star doesn't find a city taxing the paychecks of the poor and subsidizing the rich a "compelling" reason to phase out the tax is its own commentary on the present state of the paper. I can accept that the Star has an entrenched and dire interest in maintaining the current taxing system, which at least explains the content and tenor of so many of the Star's editorials these days.

But I don't have to accept the self-serving cronyism that the Star would have us all perpetuate by keeping the earnings tax gravy train running. Neither does anyone else.

Kansas Citians deserve a serious discussion about the negative impact—on families, on businesses, and in the aggregate—of funding city government through an earnings tax. Fortunately for the city's taxpayers, the Star won't be mediating that debate. Not this time. Not anymore.

Texas Toll Road Goes Bankrupt, but Taxpayers Don’t

This month, a major toll road company filed for bankruptcy in Texas. The company in question is the SH 130 Concession Company, which manages segments 5 and 6 of SH 130 between Austin and San Antonio. Like the bankruptcy of the Indiana Toll Road Concession Company in 2014, the problem for the SH 130 Company was that traffic estimates turned out to be optimistic following the recession.

Some toll road opponents have latched onto this bankruptcy as an example of how privatized toll roads are a bad idea. But when we look closer, the case of SH 130 (as well as the Indiana Toll Road) teaches the opposite lesson. A private, international investment consortium—and not the Texas Department of Transportation—spent almost a billion dollars improving highway infrastructure in Texas. Traffic estimates did not live up to expectations, but that is a normal risk with highway expansion, a risk that would normally be that of state taxpayers.

SH 130 received no money from the state of Texas. The only public support for the project came in the form of over $400 million in Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans from the federal government. If the SH 130 Company is unable to restructure its debt and cannot find a buyer for the toll road, the federal government (and hence the taxpayer) is at risk of taking some loss on the loan. But as we have pointed out before, financing part of infrastructure projects with federal loans (with the risk of losses) is a vast improvement over the current modus operandi, where the federal government provides 80 to 90 percent of a highway project’s funding with no mechanism for getting a return.

So what is the future of SH 130? While the bankruptcy is proceeding, SH 130 Concession Company will continue to operate the road. The company will then either restructure its debt or the toll road will be sold to a new operator (as happened with the Indiana Toll Road). It is too early to say whether the company will default on any federal TIFIA loans. Whatever the end result, Texas residents will continue to enjoy the highway that private investment built. 

How Much Testing Is Too Much?

From a student’s point of view, standardized testing is stressful, particularly in the elementary school years. It can also be very disruptive to the material students are normally learning. When I was a kid, any kind of testing put me on edge, especially when the tests were hours long. Some testing is certainly necessary as a source of information about our education system and what it’s getting right or wrong.  Still, testing takes up a substantial amount of school resources—both time and money—and anyone with a stake in our schools should take an interest in why we do so much of it.

Before we can decide if there is too much or too little testing, we should lay out some facts:

·         Missouri spends roughly $30 million a year on standardized tests

·         On average, students spend 20–25 hours per school year taking standardized tests. Over the course of grades 3–12, that totals out to be 180–225 hours of testing.

·         Grades 3–8 are required to take the yearly MAP (Missouri Assessment Program) test which assesses students understanding of concepts in language arts and math. Grades 5 and 8 are also tested in science.

·         Grades 4, 8, and 12 are administered the NAEP (National Assessment of Education Progress) which tests all students in the areas of math, science, reading, and writing.

·         High school juniors are required by the State Board of Education to take the ACT (at no charge)

·         High school students must pass a personal finance assessment in order to graduate. This assessment can be taken by students who are enrolled in a personal finance course or students who wish to test out of the course and still receive the half credit.

·         End of Course (EOC) evaluations are administered to students enrolled in Algebra I and II, Biology, English I and II, Geometry, Biology, American History, Physical Science, and Government courses.

Rep. Kurt Bahr of St. Charles is sponsoring a bill that would allow students to opt out of Missouri standardized testing if they or their parents request it. What would this accomplish, though? Students will simply have to wait for school to resume while other students take the tests they opted out of. And if the tests are administered only to the students who want to take them, they wouldn’t be a representative sample of the student body.

Is there a better way we can retrieve this information and not overwhelm students and teachers? Knowing how well our students and schools are doing, and what should be improved on, is important. However, we need to remember that the only “right” amount of testing is that which gives us the information we need in the most efficient way possible, so that teachers can spend more time teaching and students can spend more time learning. Determining the purpose and use of each test might be the key. 

Tax Levy Increases by the Numbers

Two weeks from today, voters in 10 school districts across the state will be asked to increase property taxes to provide more funding for their local schools.  The proposed tax levy increases vary from 17 cents per $100 of assessed valuation in the Bloomfield school district in Stoddard County to 96 cents per $100 of assessed valuation in the Newburg district in Phelps County.

First, a quick primer on property taxes. Homes are assessed at 19% of their market value. So, for example, a school levy rate of $3.00 per $100 of assessed value applied to a house with a market value of $100,000 would mean that person pays $570 per year in tax.  An increase of 50 cents per $100 in assessed value would mean paying an additional $95 per year.

As a reference point, the statewide average millage rate is $3.69 per $100 in assessed value, and the state calculates “local effort,” the amount local districts are expected to contribute before the state adds its funds, at $3.43 per $100 of assessed value.

Sometimes tax levy increases are necessary.  For districts that are growing and need to build new school buildings, or districts that operate efficiently but are facing aging infrastructure, modest increases to the tax levy are perfectly appropriate.

That said, there are reasons to be skeptical. First, many school districts are not currently operating as efficiently as they could be. By comparing teacher/student ratios and administrator/student ratios, we see that many schools do more with less.  The same is true with the average salaries for those positions—there is serious variation across districts (even in what seem to be similar labor markets) in how much teachers and administrators get paid. Also, some districts ask for levy increases to build new buildings when it is clear that their enrollment is on the decline.  They should be figuring out how best to use what they already have.

We should also always be on the lookout for the pernicious effect of TIF deals that erode the tax base of school districts.  Kansas City and St. Louis are chronic abusers of this system, which diverts tax revenue that should go to schools back into the pockets of developers, but TIF projects take place all over the state.  If a district has hollowed out its tax base through TIF, why should ordinary citizens have to pick up the slack through increased property taxes?

To better inform voters, we have put together a series of information sheets on the proposed mill levy increases that are on the ballot on April 5. We provide data on what the mill levy means for homeowners in terms of the increased taxes they will be paying every year.  We also provide data, drawn from publically available spreadsheets on DESE’s website, on the school district and the school districts that surround it so taxpayers can compare and contrast how well or how poorly the district is being managed.  

Links to each of the info sheets are below.

Update, March 23: We now have an info sheet for the Maplewood-Richmond Heights school district.

Evergreen Headline: Kansas City Needs More Good Schools

Over at the Star, Joe Robertson put together a heart-wrenching piece of journalism documenting the struggles of Kansas City families trying to figure out where to send their kids to school. Should they take a chance and participate in a charter school lottery? Should they move to Kansas or another school district?

Kansas City is home to several great public charter schools. As Robertson reports, Crossroads Academy has a waitlist 150 students long.  Academie Lafayette has a 130-student waiting list. Scuola Vita Nuova has a waiting list of over 60 students, the Kauffman School has a waiting list ranging from 10 to 50 depending on the grade, and University Academy has a waiting list of 9 for kindergarten.

The problem in Kansas City is that there simply aren’t enough great schools to go around.  Families with money can hedge their bets by entering the lottery to get into one of the schools I’ve mentioned, and if they lose they can move to a different district or pay for a private school. Parents without those resources cannot.  Those less-fortunate families live within the Kansas City Missouri School District, but they also live in Raytown, Hickman Mills, Center, and in several of the other districts that overlap with the borders of Kansas City. Charter schools are functionally limited to the KCSD boundaries, so students zoned to attend low-performing schools anywhere else are simply out of luck.

Crossroads Academy has a promising expansion plan, and I’m particularly interested in watching the parent-led Citizens of the World charter school that is slated to open next year, but even with that growth, supply is nowhere close to meeting demand.

Here at the Show-Me Institute, we’ve documented the declining enrollment of the KCSD, and these families’ stories continue to make the case for the correct course of action moving forward. Rather than figuring out the best way to apportion a small number of good seats in schools across the city, why don’t we focus our efforts on creating new seats? Expand good charter schools. Help new schools get buildings.  Allow charter schools to open outside of the narrow bounds of KCSD.

Until we take these steps, we can expect to see a constant stream of stories of families struggling to find places for their children. 

Will Lawsuit Funding Regulation Limit Access to Justice?

Some Missouri lawmakers are considering legislation to regulate lawsuit funding companies. This regulation is pitched as consumer protection, or even tort reform, but it falls short on both accounts.

For background, a civil litigation funding company helps a person pay for the costs of a lawsuit before a reward is obtained. In return, the company gets a portion of the reward if the litigant is successful. Critics say that civil litigation funding companies often take an unreasonably large portion of the eventual reward. Critics are also hopeful that regulation will reduce the number of lawsuits brought against businesses, saving businesses money.

Defenders of civil litigation funding say that without these funding arrangements, many people with legitimate claims wouldn’t be able to access our justice system. In many instances people who’ve been injured or wronged would be forced to settle with an insurance company for a fraction of the compensation necessary to make them whole again. If you make it harder for people to fund lawsuits, you won’t necessarily decrease the number of frivolous claims—but you will limit access to justice for people who can’t afford to wait for resolution of their claim.

I’m most interested in whether regulating lawsuit funding companies is consistent with a free market. Shouldn’t a plaintiff be able to sell a portion of a legal claim at any freely agreed upon price? What business does the state have in regulating how people pay for a lawyer?

Professor Jeremy Kidd, a law professor at Mercer University, addressed the Alabama State Senate Judiciary Committee opposing a bill that would regulate lawsuit funding in Alabama. In doing so, he helped answer this question:

“This issue—and so many others—requires acknowledgement of a simple truth, that there is a fundamental difference between being pro-business and being pro-market. Free markets enable tremendous human flourishing, and protecting markets is essential to growth. Importantly, however, while protecting markets protects consumers and businesses, protecting businesses typically improves the businesses’ bottom line at the expense of markets and, by extension, every consumer. Senate Bill 67 is pro-business, rather than pro-market, because it is designed to protect businesses against lawsuits without inquiring as to whether those businesses are actually at fault.”

I see a great deal of truth in this statement. Real tort reform will address the problematic aspects of our tort system. Regulation of civil litigation funding appears to ignore the merits of individual lawsuits, making it even more difficult for poor Missourians to pursue legitimate legal claims.

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