Show-Me Minutes

Posted on by Rick Edlund

Listen to these minute-long audios from the Show-Me Institute about free-market ideas:

  • Accounting: Missouri is behind in funding its public pensions because of flawed accounting assumptions.
  • Alphabet Soup: Lawmakers offer favored corporations tax subsidies like TIFs, EEZs, TDDs, and many others. Let’s end corporate welfare.
  • School Choice: We have liberty in America, but our kids are assigned to a public school based on where they live. Let’s change that and give school choice a try.
  • Tax Credits: Elected officials gamble your money on their favored corporations. Let’s end corporate welfare.
  • Privatization: Privatization—public services provided by private companies—can deliver needed services at lower costs to taxpayers.

 

Give Tax Cuts A Chance

Posted on by Rik W. Hafer

Taxes IconPerched atop his ivory tower, Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, has declared that the tax cuts enacted by the Kansas legislature in 2012 are a failure. Writing in The New York Times, Krugman avers that “the Kansas debacle shows that tax cuts don’t have magical powers” and that “faith in tax-cut magic isn’t about evidence.” Is the all-knowing economist correct?

(As an aside, it was Mr. Krugman, writing in The New York Times in 2011 who stated that “the V.H.A. [Veterans’ Hospital Administration] is a huge success story, which offers important lessons for future health reform.”)

Mr. Krugman’s predictable protestations notwithstanding, there actually is a significant body of empirical evidence finding that, on average, states and countries with lower tax rates tend to grow faster. (See articles in this SMI study.) While economists, like any other group of scientists, debate their findings, there is real-world evidence to believe that reducing taxes can improve the economic lives of a state’s citizens.

Every principles of economics student, even those using Mr. Krugman’s textbook, learns that if you wish to reduce an activity, tax it. Since income taxes are derived from working, basic economic theory predicts that higher income taxes will reduce people’s incentive to work more hours. At the extreme, tax me 100 percent of my income and I’ll just stay home, thank you. So, lowering tax rates in income should reduce this disincentive to work.

Mr. Krugman does not seem to think that lowering taxes matters. The story that Walgreens is contemplating moving its headquarters to Switzerland to lower its tax burden belies that notion. Even if you find this proposed move disturbing, you cannot ignore the simple fact that Walgreen’s likely would not consider relocating if taxes were equal in the two countries. Tax rates really do matter in making economic decisions.

There is no denying the fact that since the Kansas legislature enacted the tax cut in 2012 (it became effective in 2013), the state’s economy has yet to achieve the economic take-off that some promised. Job growth is slower than the national average and, due partly to income shifting in response to the fiscal cliff, the drop in tax revenues in 2014 compared to 2013 has been larger than predicted.

Changes in the tax code cannot be expected to reverse years of weak economic performance overnight. Kansas, like many other states, is still recovering from the effects of the Great Recession. Like most medicines, changes in tax codes should not be expected to deliver immediate cures.

Before Mr. Krugman is anointed as the Cassandra of tax cuts, let’s give the experiment time to take hold. Time will tell, but basic intuition and existing evidence predicts that Kansas’ economic future is brighter today than it would have been without the tax cuts.

What’s in a name?

Posted on by Brittany Wagner

Normandy rose

That which we call an unaccredited school by any other name would perform as well.  William Shakespeare spoke of roses, but his four-century-old logic applies to Normandy Schools Collaborative’s “nonaccredited” status.  The Missouri State Board of Education’s decision to give Normandy a “nonaccredited status” allowed the Board to take control of operations.  It essentially gave the district a do-over, but left many with questions concerning the legality of subsequent decisions:

  1. Can the Missouri State School Board set a tuition ceiling?

  2. Can receiving schools reject transfer students?

  3. Can Normandy prohibit new students from transferring?

These questions stem from the transfer law’s wording regarding unaccredited schools.   The law refers to a “district not accredited”.  According to the state board, Normandy’s new unclassified status of “nonaccredited” is somehow different than “unaccredited” (even though, non is Latin for not, non making this up).  Because of the new classification, schools like Francis Howell decided not to allow transfer students to return.   Using the same rationale, Normandy Schools Collaborative might not receive extra money from the 2015 state budget.  The additional funding is earmarked for intensive reading instruction and pre-K programs, programs meant to help low-performing, unaccredited schools like Normandy.

Normandy has a history of low-performance—low-achievement, high drop-out rates, and low college readiness.  If the goal of the state Board of Education is to give Normandy students access to high-performing, quality schools, calling the district by another name is not the answer.

Don’t Forget the Streetcar is Bad Policy

Posted on by Joseph Miller

The $500 million Kansas City streetcar expansion plan is back in the news. With the August 5th election on the streetcar’s proposed transportation development district drawing near, media outlets have exploded with anecdotes on the development potential of the streetcar and stories on the city’s (possibly illegal?) public information campaign. But whether the city’s plan to provide door-to-door information on the streetcar directly ahead of the election is legal or not, no one should forget the incredible waste and dubious benefits of a streetcar system.

  • Mass Transit GraphIncredible waste: months ago, we pointed out that Kansas City could buy and operate 100 buses serving 130 miles of routes for the same price as the Kansas City streetcar expansion plan. While critics might claim that buses cannot be compared with streetcars (they can), the basic math is unchallenged. Streetcars, which provide only limited service improvement over buses, are many times more expensive and incredibly restricted in their range.

  • Dubious benefits: Streetcar supporters must have a hard time keeping a straight face when they claim that streetcars have any transportation benefit. Instead they rely on the argument that these projects bring billions in development. The evidence on this proposition is anecdotal at best, as cities with streetcars have heavily subsided surrounding development. Kansas City is already pushing ahead in this tradition, with anecdotes about new developments that are not so believable on closer inspection, and a raft of subsidies at the ready.

  • Everyone will be paying: Even though supporters freely admit that a streetcar is a development scheme limited to a small section of Kansas City, everyone else still gets to pay for it. After all, building a half billion dollar streetcar line can be financially difficult. The proposed transportation development district’s 1% sales tax and new property taxes will cover less than half of the streetcar’s total cost. The rest will come from the federal government, Kansas City residents outside the TDD, and if the proposed 0.75% statewide transportation sales tax passes, the whole state.

Streetcar supporters often make groundless statements about illusive millennials and streetcar economics, but they do make perfect sense when they say that now is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity with the streetcar project.” That’s because once the shine is off the new rails and promises of citywide transformation are unfulfilled, the streetcar will be seen for what it is: just another transit system. Another transit system that is as slow as a bus, but ten times the price. Perhaps that explains the rush to get as much money as possible, as quickly as possible.

 

Vetoes, Vetoes, And More Vetoes

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

There has been a lot of consternation in the Missouri Legislature about Gov. Jay Nixon’s vetoes and withholds (withholds differ from vetoes in that withheld money can be released if state revenues are available later in the year, while vetoed funds are just not spent) from the fiscal year 2015 budget. Many legislators are upset with the governor for claiming that their budget is out of balance while his own executive budget was larger than the one the legislature passed. To be fair, a lot of the difference is due to the governor’s budget including funds for expanding Medicaid, but the governor’s budget also was relying on revenue growth that was higher than even the legislature was expecting.

All that said, there actually is a lot to like in these vetoes. For example, the governor vetoed more than $7 million in funds for biodiesel incentives. The state should be eliminating these types of incentives and it is a good thing that Gov. Nixon is cutting back on them. The governor also is vetoing $2 million in funding for the Rolling Stock Tax Credit. The Show-Me Institute has published numerous writings about the desirability on cutting back on these types of tax credits. It is good to see Gov. Nixon trying to do so.

Gov. Nixon’s vetoes could go further. For example, he withheld $5 million from efforts trying to lure the Republican National Convention to Kansas City. There has been a lot said about using government money to try to lure big events, but in this case, the money isn’t necessary because the Republican National Committee has already narrowed its search down to Cleveland and Dallas. Gov. Nixon should have simply vetoed this specific appropriation.

There was a lot to like in the governor’s vetoes. If the legislature was more disciplined, many of the vetoes would not have been necessary. Hopefully, state spending can be controlled going forward.

Blame Canada Washington!

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Austin Alonzo, of the Kansas City Business Journal, recently reported that Kansas City Mayor Sly James argued that a door-to-door public outreach effort that Burns & McDonnell will conduct is necessary to meet federal guidelines:

On Monday, Mayor Sly James said the work being performed by Kansas City’s Parson & Associates LLC and Scott Hall & Associates will help the city fulfill a federal requirement to incorporate an environmental assessment into the expansion routes so the city is eligible to receive federal funding.

“If this assessment is not completed, then the city will have no opportunity to receive federal funding,” James said in the statement.

The effort is the subject of an ethics complaint that opponents to the streetcar sales and property taxes have filed, claiming it is electioneering. Alonzo followed up with the federal agency awarding the grants and found there is no such requirement.

No federal mandate requires Kansas City or its contractors to hold door-to-door meetings before part of the city votes on a proposed extension of the streetcar project, according to the Federal Transit Administration.

This is not the first time the mayor and Kansas City officials have been caught trying to blame federal regulators for forcing the city to adopt questionable policies. Steve Vockrodt, at The Pitch, just penned a piece pointing out that the EPA has never cited the Kansas City airport for environmental shortcomings:

City officials distributed a fact sheet in April 2013 that said KCI couldn’t meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for capturing de-icing runoff.

“The current terminal infrastructure does not allow the airport to meet the EPA’s new standards for capturing deicing fluids, which require capturing about 30 percent of the run-off,” the fact sheet reads. “The new single terminal will capture nearly 100 percent of the runoff and resolve Environmental Protection Agency issues the airport is currently facing.”

But there is no such EPA guideline.

Two EPA officials contacted by The Pitch could not identify any published guidelines that call for the capture of 30 percent of de-icing fluids.

And let us not forget the recently ended bid for the GOP convention, in which Mayor James argued that it was necessary to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, in secret, just to keep up.

The Show-Me State’s Harry Truman once famously quipped, “The buck stops here.” But in Kansas City, Mayor James and Kansas City government officials point the finger elsewhere and the bucks don’t stop at all.

Show-Me Now! Let Transfer Students Return

Posted on by James V. Shuls

More and more school districts around St. Louis refuse to let transfer students from Normandy come back this year even though its in their power to do so. Director of Education Policy, James Shuls, has a simple message for these districts: “let the students return!” and he’s not alone. Adolphus M. Pruitt, 1st vice president of the Missouri NAACP and president of the Saint Louis NAACP, joined Shuls in a joint statement asking area school districts to allow last years transfer students from Normandy to return again this year.

Beware The Jabberwock (And Downtown Streetcars)

Posted on by Joseph Miller

In an iconic episode of the TV cartoon The Simpsons, a Music Man-type salesman convinces the town of Springfield to build a monorail. When one of the characters, Marge, laments that “Main Street’s still all cracked and broken,” her son Bart retorts, “sorry Mom, the mob has spoken.”

Back in the real world, Kansas City is caught up in a questionable transportation project of its own – joining the rush to become the latest U.S. city to build a super-expensive, super-trendy downtown streetcar system.

With an initial 2.2-mile line already under construction, the Kansas City City Council has unanimously approved the creation of a Transportation Development District (TDD) to expand the streetcar line to almost 10 miles. Kansas City residents need to consider the project’s enormous costs and questionable benefits of the proposed expansion.

Streetcars are an extremely costly form of public transportation. The Kansas City TDD aims to spend $472 million to build 7.6 miles of streetcar routes in Kansas City. That is a mind-boggling $62 million per mile to build a system that (as one critic puts it) “offers little more than a way to move downtown workers from their offices to lunch.” For no more money, Kansas City could add 100 buses to its existing fleet of 250 buses and greatly increase bus service throughout the entire Kansas City metro area.

It is always fun to spend other people’s money and supporters of streetcar expansion expect to raise more than half of the needed funds – or more than $250 million – from the federal government. That still leaves a substantial sum of money that will have to be raised in additional taxes on residents and businesses inside – and, it is important to note, outside – the transportation district.

People within the TDD will have the opportunity to vote in a special election (at a time yet to be determined) on whether to accept higher sales or property tax levies to support the project. Taxpayers outside the district will not get a chance to vote, but they will be on the hook as a result of the fact that the city of the Kansas City is a major property owner within the TDD. As such, the city will shoulder a significant portion of the tax load – and it will pass that burden along to at-large Kansas City residents through higher taxes or reduced services.

The whole project begs the question: What possible advantage can there be to building a new streetcar system, given the much lower costs and the much greater range and flexibility that buses provide?

NextRailKC and others describe the huge expense and extreme inflexibility of streetcar systems as a hidden asset – signifying a valuable long-term commitment on the part of government to provide reliable public transportation within a designated area. According to this argument, developers and investors see this commitment, and so they are inspired to build around streetcar routes.

As a favorite example, streetcar supporters point to Portland’s celebrated Pearl District. There, it is argued, is the proof that streetcars can spearhead incredible urban development that justifies the streetcar system’s out-sized expense. However, even streetcar proponents admit that Portland’s streetcar was only a part of a large-scale investment plan, involving more than $400 million in tax subsidies that supported growth in streetcar corridors.

Kansas City residents would be wise to reject Bart’s advice and listen to his mother’s more mature assessment. Better to improve what is already there – roads and existing public transportation – than to join the rush to be part of the latest urban planning fad.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

 

Kansas City To Spend 27 Percent Of All Regional Transportation Funds On Streetcar

Posted on by Joseph Miller

In a recent article, the Midtown KC Post reported that Kansas City officials reached an agreement with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) to fund the proposed streetcar expansion with proceeds from a proposed 0.75-cent statewide sales tax. Under the agreement, the streetcar’s Transportation Development District (TDD) sales tax would be reduced to 0.25 percent. In return, MoDOT would provide $3 million a year in funding for the streetcar.

But anyone who has read the streetcar’s financial plan knows the math for that “swap” does not add up. The streetcar TDD’s sales tax is supposed to bring in almost $30 million a year. If it is reduced to 0.25 percent, the TDD would only raise $7.5 million per year. With an extra $3 million a year from the state, that leaves almost $20 million per year in lost revenue unaccounted for, or $200 million over 10 years. Because the streetcar needs every dime (and then some) of that sales tax money, where is the extra $200 million going to come from?

The answer to this conundrum lies in Resolution 140500, which Kansas City Mayor Sly James introduced on June 19. It proposes spending an incredible $210 million of the 0.75-cent statewide sales tax revenue to fund the streetcar expansion. To get just how incredible of a request that is, consider that the Kansas City region is only supposed to receive a total of $776 million for all of its road, bridge, transit, rail, port, aviation, and greenway projects. In the plan that the regional planning agency (MARC) released, that is almost every dollar the region planned to spend on transit. That original plan had $32 million for the streetcar, but millions more for improvements throughout the entire region.

MARCplanbargain

 

This money grab for what is essentially a development scheme for downtown Kansas City should enrage not only residents in the Kansas City region, but taxpayers throughout the state. For parts of the Kansas City region not called downtown Kansas City, it essentially means no new funds for more cost-effective transit solutions or other more pressing projects. For the state as a whole, it underlines the incredible waste of a transportation sales tax supposedly needed to fix MoDOT’s highway funding problems. That 4 percent of all sales tax revenue raised over 10 years would go to support an incredibly expensive want with dubious development potential makes the proponents of the sales tax, who constantly argue that our infrastructure is crumbling, look like chicken littles.

If reports are accurate, MoDOT may already have made an agreement with Kansas City to divert this vast sum of statewide sales tax revenue, completely upending the open process through which MARC developed its regional plan and entirely contradicting MoDOT’s preliminary list of projects (which Kansas Citians have been asked to fruitlessly comment on) for the Kansas City region. That should indicate to Missourians just what kind of policy the transportation sales tax would create: wasteful, opaque, and catered to special interests.

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