Missouri’s Tax Reform Journey Has Only Just Begun

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Taxes IconFor Missouri’s tax reformers, this was one big week. Sure, the legislature passed the state’s first individual income tax reduction in nearly a century. But Tuesday’s override vote also signaled that the sands in the Missouri capitol are finally shifting toward sound, market-oriented, and growth-promoting tax policies, and away from Jefferson City’s business-as-usual tax policies.

As an organization that has helped lead tax reform efforts in Missouri for many years, the Show-Me Institute is pleased to see the legislature take this baby step of reform. Make no mistake — this is a very modest tax cut, and smaller than we preferred. But to be clear, this tax cut serves as a mile-marker on the path of greater reforms.

Thanks to the hard work of countless supporters of the free market, that pathway of reform is now opening wide. Policymakers are finally recognizing that the words “free market” actually mean something . . . and that free markets actually matter.

When we at the Show-Me Institute say that we believe in free markets, what we’re really saying is that we believe in people. We believe in people to invest in themselves and their families and to make this state a better place to live. We believe in that bottom-up solution which puts its faith in our people, not a top-down plan that puts its faith in the government. We believe in you.

And we believe this week’s tax cut is just the first step on the road to enduring, people-empowering tax reform in this great state. We look forward to the future, and we hope you’ll join us on our journey to make our state even better.

Streetcar Supporters’ Tortured Logic On Display In North Kansas City Extension Option

Posted on by Joseph Miller

It seems the downtown streetcar line and the proposed 7.8-mile extension plan have not slacked some Kansas City residents’ thirst for more rail. As the Kansas City Star reported today, the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) is still pushing for a streetcar extension to North Kansas City. According to the most recent report, the proposed line would not get its own bridge because it is too expensive. Instead, the streetcar would run across the congested Heart of America Bridge before heading north to 18th Ave. As we wrote when the plan was first proposed last year:

All streetcar lines are expensive and redundant, but the proposed northern extension is especially wasteful. Opponents and friends of the streetcar alike should be able to agree that this is not the best use of city resources.

Well, it seems like we can agree, with some rail supporters arguing against this extension plan. The price tag is an obvious point of criticism, but some streetcar supporters undercut their previous argument for streetcars by claiming that North Kansas City does not have the economic density to warrant a rail line. As Kansas City Councilman Russ Johnson put it, “it’s hard to have rail where there isn’t economic density.”

But wait a second. Haven’t we all been told that streetcars create economic density? Even Johnson has “insisted that the streetcar will help economic development near the rail lines and could help build urban population density.” He is not alone. Supporters of the streetcars have claimed that development follows the rail and that the un-built line in Kansas City has already driven development. If that is truly the case, a streetcar line makes more sense in North Kansas City than elsewhere, because its economic density could use a boost.

Johnson’s statements betray the truth about streetcars: they do not necessarily drive development, but they benefit greatly from existing development. The massive expense of streetcars usually requires densely developed areas that can act as a supportive tax base. Downtown Kansas City has businesses and property owners who can be taxed to pay for the streetcar, North Kansas City does not. Sales and property taxes, like those proposed for the downtown streetcar, would not be sufficient to support a streetcar extension to North Kansas City.

Imagine: Kansas City Schools Attracting Residents

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

We have heard it for years: Kansas City schools are so bad that it is driving people from the city in droves. The district enrollment has dwindled from 75,000 a few decades ago to approximately 14,000 today. And this isn’t just the much-maligned “white flight;” people of all races continue to flee the city.

But there is one glimmer of hope. At a recent morning talk at the Central Library, Dean Johnson, of the Crossroads Academy, a publicly funded but independently operated charter school, offered this:

Two weeks ago, we conducted our lottery for next school year. For kindergarten alone, we had 95 applications for only 47 open positions. Among the applicants is a family seeking to relocate from Kansas City, Kan., for the primary purpose of sending their children to Crossroads academy. Now this is not something we often hear — people moving to Kansas City because of the schools. But here’s the simple truth: families will go wherever they find the best teachers.

Johnson is correct, but he downplays the important role of administration. There are excellent teachers in the Kansas City School District, but the administration often is so bad that teachers are unable to teach. As local public education reform advocate Pam Kingsley said, “You could replace every teacher in the Kansas City district with the best teachers in the world, and after a year, they’d all have left because the schools are run so poorly.”

One family moving to Kansas City is anecdotal, but it is good news in what seems to be decades of bad. If Kansas City is serious about improving its education system, it needs to embrace school choice. After all, charter schools, which are public schools that are independently governed rather than district-run, not only out-perform public district schools, but they do so with less resources. It’s no wonder that more than 40 percent of the children in Kansas City’s public schools are already in charters. The program needs to be supported and expanded.

If charter schools can offer better education for less — and in the meantime actually attract people to the city — then everyone should encourage their existence and success.

Post Dispatch’s Criticism Of Sen. Chappelle-Nadal Misses the Mark

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Misses the mark

Patrick Gibbons, public affairs manager for Step Up for Students – Florida’s only tax credit scholarship organization – has a great critique of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s tirade against Missouri Sen. Maria Cappelle-Nadal (D-Dist. 14).

He wrote:

The newspaper editors declared Sen. Chappelle-Nadal to be “clueless on the value of public schools.” They expounded on that value by discussing the ways public schools benefit the general public, including increasing home values, greater economic development, higher incomes and more. Naturally, an educated population improves the greater public good.

But those public benefits don’t magically disappear if more kids are educated at private schools using publicly funded vouchers (or even privately funded tax-credit scholarships). The benefit ensues WHEN students are educated, NOT because of WHERE they are educated.

If privately funded vouchers improve educational options for children (and the vast majority of research says they do), then society is better for it. Society is worse off if we eliminate options for students struggling in schools simply because newspaper editors and politicians are concerned about the geography of where the education occurs.

Gibbons is absolutely correct. The goal of public education is advanced when students receive a quality education, not when public schools educate more students. This goal can be advanced by providing students with opportunities to attend quality schools, regardless of who operates the school.

Joy Pullman, of the Heartland Institute, joins Gibbons in criticizing the editorial board. To read her piece, click here.

Airport Advisory Group Recommends New Terminal Plan

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Today, the Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) recommended that the city move forward with a $1.2 billion new terminal plan for Kansas City International Airport (MCI). Their recommendation flies in the face of clear opposition from the airlines and revelations that the new terminal plan is far more expensive than a simple renovation of the airport.

That ATAG recommended the new terminal plan is inexplicable based on facts, but not so surprising given just how tilted the scales really were. Nearly all the information at ATAG meetings came from the authors of the new terminal plan (Kansas City Aviation Department), the only real option presented in any detail was the new terminal plan, and the process for selecting a conclusion was weighted in favor of the new terminal plan.

Fortunately, the ATAG’s recommendation is by no means binding. MCI and its airlines have already signed an agreement allowing them to basically rewrite the plan in conjunction with the Aviation Department. In addition, Kansas City voters will get a say on whether a new terminal is built. Hopefully, fiscal discipline and common sense will prevail and voters will permanently ground this boondoggle.

Our full position on the new terminal plan is outlined in this presentation from February:

It’s Difficult To Compete With Free

Posted on by James V. Shuls

If it were your decision and you could select any type of school, what type of school would you select in order to obtain the best education for your child? This question was posed to 660 Missourians in a poll that the Show-Me Institute and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released this week. In their responses, Missouri voters overwhelmingly demonstrated that it is difficult to compete with free.

Only one-third of respondents indicated they would select the regular public school system. Thirty-nine percent indicated they would select a private school, making it the most common response. Another 21 percent indicated they would choose to homeschool their children or send them to a public charter school.

Q7 Friedman Missouri Poll

These responses stand in stark contrast to reality – nearly nine out of 10 students in Missouri attend public schools. Why this mismatch between preferences and actual choices? Cost and access.

Public charter schools are only located in Saint Louis and Kansas City and are limited on where they can expand. Private schools cost additional money. As anyone with a cursory knowledge of basic economics knows, demand decreases when cost rises. In other words, many parents are more likely to choose a free public school than they are to pay for a private school – regardless of preference.

But public schools do not have to be the only option for parents. Currently, 24 states and Washington, D.C., have school choice programs. Kansas became the most recent state to adopt a private school choice program with the creation of a tax credit scholarship program.

There is a clear desire for expanded educational options in Missouri. Yet, there is entrenched opposition to school choice from education establishment groups. These groups claim to oppose choice because they want to protect students. It seems obvious, they actually oppose school choice because they want to protect their advantage over the costly private competition. That is why economist Milton Friedman once said:

There is no doubt what the key obstacle is to the introduction of market competition into schooling: the perceived self-interest of the educational bureaucracy.

Opposition to school choice stands in the face of clear support among Missouri voters (including rural voters) and in the face of evidence that school choice works.

Paul DiPerna, the research director at the Friedman Foundation, and I discuss the new poll on this segment of Choice Media’s Reform School.

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