The Sorry State Of The Professional Left In Missouri

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Yesterday, the Springfield News-Leader published a supposed scoop about the Show-Me Institute and the blase art of grant applications, a story undoubtedly connected to a poorly produced smear campaign led by a credibility-challenged liberal group. I would expect rehashes of tired opposition research from liberal flacks, but it is pretty surprising that the News-Leader would so blithely do the Left’s tactical bidding, I guess without realizing it.

So there is no misunderstanding the dynamic at play here, the liberal groups promoting these stories are supported by special interests who, like their free-market counterparts, fund what they tend to believe in. In this case, what these liberal funders “believe in” generally works out to be cookie-cutter reports attacking state-based think tanks nationwide. To each her own. To be clear, that the progressive network has well-heeled supporters doesn’t bother me a bit. The Left has its patrons — check out this revealing chart from 2008 — and the free-market movement has its patrons. The Left has populist supporters; we have populist supporters.

What baffles me is why any reporter would think this “leaked” document about pension grant proposals is some sort of revelation about the Show-Me Institute, or even think tanks generally, because little if any of it is surprising even to a casual observer of the policy world. Probably the most chuckle-inducing example of the article’s shallowness is this section (emphasis mine):

Although Show-Me is open about its conservative viewpoint, the summary of the grant proposal provides a glimpse into how the non-profit charity organization works and is evidence of its ties to larger, national organizations such as the State Policy Network [SPN].

“Evidence of its ties”? The Show-Me Institute is and has been listed as a member of SPN on SPN’s own website for as long as I can remember. The way it’s being portrayed here, it’s as if the Show-Me Institute or SPN have tried to conceal the fact that we know each other and intermittently share resources. It’s like saying a letter from Kansas City Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is “evidence of the team’s ties to the NFL.” Uh, yeah. And? Even the document that’s cited in the main article reveals that the Show-Me Institute hasn’t received even a wooden nickel from this particular grantor since at least 2009. So, what’s the story again?

And I hate to have to spell this out, but the Show-Me Institute is composed of free marketeers, not intellectual nihilists. The market-based diagnosis of the pension problem is pretty straightforward when you just look at the basic facts: defined benefit pension programs tend to hurt both the state and, in the long run, many pensioners, by cutting out market forces that would diversify risk to both the pension provider and the beneficiary. Just ask Detroit; just ask Detroit’s pensioners. That analysis doesn’t require a complete intellectual build-out from nothing, and even a cursory dive into the subject of defined benefit pensions produces an incredible amount of data from which an institution or researcher could start a well-founded and intellectually honest project.

Which is, of course, all beside the point of this story. This wasn’t so much about informing people as it was about promoting a very caustic brand of bad-faith politics — an attempt by the Left to cast aspersions on free marketeers rather than fight these important policy fights on the field of ideas.

It’s pitiable that this is the best the Left has to offer to Missourians. Heck, just look at Progress Missouri’s silence on the cronyism of the Boeing deal, which we’ve roundly criticized in print and on the airwaves over the last week. What’s their excuse for hiding rather than fighting this latest case of corporate welfare? What do they really stand for? What do they really believe in? We’d all like to know.

What does the Show-Me Institute believe in? Free markets. Who do we believe in? You. People are the market. We believe in, seek, and promote free-market solutions because we trust our fellow Missourians and Americans to make their lives and our lives better. They’re people-powered solutions. They’re solutions that work. That premise is what under-girds this organization, and I suspect our opponents find this bottom-up philosophy to be a startling threat to their top-down sensibilities — a sensibility that can’t even drag itself out of its hole to engage even an obvious and bipartisan instance of cronyism.

Kansas City Streetcar Northern Extension: The Bus With Rails Also Wants Its Own Bridge

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Kansas City is proposing to build a wasteful addition onto its as yet unopened streetcar line. As the Kansas City Star reports, the city is planning to conduct a $600,000 study on a 2.2-mile streetcar route from the River Market across the Missouri River to North Kansas City. The estimated price tag: $50 million for the bridge alone. The Show-Me Institute has consistently detailed how publicly funded streetcar construction in Missouri is not good policy. We argue that streetcars have exorbitant costs, do not increase mobility, and only divert economic activity. But this latest proposal is especially egregious for the following reasons:

  • Price tag: Streetcar lines are expensive; most cost more than $50 million per mile. With an additional $50 million for a dedicated streetcar bridge across the Missouri River, the Northern line would be far more expensive per mile than the starter line in downtown Kansas City. To make matters worse, federal dollars might be difficult to come by, because, as the Star reports:

. . . funding depends in part on the economic development potential of the project. There’s no way to have economic development activity, consultants admitted, on a bridge that would have to span 1.7 miles of existing heavy railroad lines, the river itself and other unusable land to get to North Kansas City.

Of course, a much cheaper option is to run the line across the Heart of America Bridge. But this route has significant congestion from cars, trucks, bicycles, and buses. Which brings us to:

  • Public transit options already exist for the route. Three bus lines (38, 133, 142) already connect the River Market with North Kansas City, two along almost the exact route of the proposed streetcar. If those bus routes do not adequately serve the area, Kansas City could increase bus service for a fraction of the cost of the streetcar.

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.

The Finer Details Of The Boeing Incentive Package

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Patrick Ishmael did a fine job yesterday of discussing Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s new tax giveaway idea for Boeing. Here is the legislation from the Missouri House of Representatives that would authorize these new incentives. Here are a few highlights:

A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation finds that if a company created the minimum 2,000 jobs and if maximum benefits were paid out annually, the total subsidy would amount to $75,000 per job per year. Now, that’s just a simple calculation and it is not certain that the entire $150 million would be paid every year, but you get the picture.

If the state is willing to forgo $150 million in revenue every year (the bill has no language about offsetting the lost revenue), then why not just cut the corporate income tax in half? Last year, the corporate income tax brought in $360 million. If the state can live without $150 million to benefit one industry (and really, it’s more like one company), then can’t it live without $180 million to benefit corporations from all industries? It just makes more sense when you think about it.

Discussion Of New Kansas City Airport Terminal More Manipulation Than Debate

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Anyone who participated in debates in high school or college knows that controlling the framework of the argument is the key to winning. If you can get your opponents to accept your assumptions, reduce the available alternatives to your position, and control the discourse, then victory is almost assured. It appears that the Kansas City Aviation Department officials are using these tactics to push through their preferred terminal option while feigning an open discussion. Below is an analysis of how they have controlled the argument with these tactics.

They have stated assumptions as facts:

They have reduced available alternatives:

  • Alternatives to the terminal plans do not appear to be made in good faith. During the planning phase, the plan alternatives were the more expensive South Terminal option and a mirrored single terminal plan. It doesn’t take much skepticism to recognize either a severe lack of imagination or an attempt to make the current plan the only plan. During the so-called “debate” in recent months, there has been no alternative plan to the single terminal option. In Columbia, Mo., aviation officials presented the city with several alternatives and comparisons of each.

They have controlled the discourse:

  • The majority of the information about financing a new terminal, alternative plans for MCI modernization, and repair estimates has come from the Aviation Department.

  • The Airport Advisory Committee has broken down debate into a choice between (a) repairing all of MCI (with shoddy estimates) or (b) building a $1.2 billion new terminal. This is a false choice.

  • The Aviation Department, not independent sources, essentially taught the Airport Advisory Committee’s “airport school.” As such, it is unlikely that the “Advisory Committee” could come to a conclusion that is different from the Aviation Department’s conclusion.

While this is textbook debating technique, as a matter of public policy, it seems manipulative. No one in Kansas City should be under the illusion that there is an open discussion regarding the future of the airport. Perhaps that discussion can occur, but only when the city government seeks out independent advice and presents a true slate of alternatives.

Outrageous: After Denying You Tax Cuts, State Officials Return Monday To Give Boeing One Instead

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Incredible chutzpah.

Governore [sic] Nixon is calling the legislature into special session, beginning at 4 o-clock Monday afternoon. He wants it to enact legislation that will let Missouri bid for Boeing’s new airliner factory.

Missouri is competing to be the site where Boeing will build its new 777x airliner.

Nixon says in his call that “building this next-generation commercial aircraft in Missouri would create thousands of jobs…and secure our position as a hub for advanced aerospace manufacturing.”

He’s asking for incentives legislation adding up to $150 million a year for large-scale aerospace projects under four state economic development programs.

This is the definition of cronyism. If we’re going to basically wipe out taxes for a single business, here’s a better idea: Instead of giving out massive special tax breaks to one company or project, how about we stop taxing the income of all businesses? And don’t stop there: eliminate the individual income tax and stop sponsoring special tax cuts like this one for just a handful of companies and well-connected individuals.

Will Boeing be picking up the per diems we have to pay the legislators during the special session and all the associated costs for their tax cut package? Asking rhetorically.

Missouri School Leaders Wrong On School Choice

Posted on by James V. Shuls

In a carefully coordinated effort, Missouri school leaders have hatched a new plan to rehash old ideas. First, the Cooperating School Districts of Greater St. Louis (CSD) issued a position paper that calls for stopping school choice and increasing funding for traditional public schools. Then, the Missouri Association of School Leaders (MASA) released its legislative platform, which lays out a plan to stop school choice through “administrative trickery.”

Each plan attempts to come across as fresh by sprinkling in new ideas. However, the intent of these plans is a simple rehash of an old idea — stop school choice.

The CSD position paper boldly states that “St. Louis area superintendents urge the state to move beyond providing choice options.” They claim that school choice doesn’t work. “In the private sector, choice does create competition in the marketplace. It works there. But is [Sic] does not work in public schools, at least not in Missouri.”

Can choice and competition improve nearly every aspect of our lives except for education? The evidence would suggest otherwise (and yes, there is evidence that choice is working in Missouri).

The Friedman Foundation published a report detailing the studies on private school choice programs. They reported that 11 of 12 “gold standard” studies of voucher programs find positive benefits for all or some students. They also reported that choice and competition have a positive impact on the traditional public schools. At least that was the case in 22 of the 23 studies that examined the issue. Not a single study has found that students are worse off when schools face competition.

Is it possible that choice and competition work in education in other states, but not in Missouri? Not likely.

In fact, a study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that Missouri charter schools produced significantly larger learning gains than the nearby public schools.

MASA and the CSD ignore the evidence because they want to stop school choice. Thus, their plans are simply a guise for the same policies that brought us to our current predicament. We don’t need more of the same. Kids need choices and schools need competition.

We Are Thankful For Data

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Debate over public policy is rife with stories about individuals who will benefit or suffer from proposed legislation. It can be a difficult thing with which to wrestle. And because much of what is offered is anecdotal, it could be true and yet not at all representative of the impact of the regulation at hand.

Debate in Missouri about Medicaid, education, and taxation is filled with anecdotes that give an either incomplete or misleading picture of policy proposals. That is why we here at the Show-Me Institute love data. Spreadsheets may not make for an impressive photo opportunity, but data analysis is necessary if we are going to improve the lives of Missourians.

To that end, our colleague Michael Rathbone has been shepherding our new website: ShowMeData.org. This new interactive tool allows you to generate all sorts of data on property taxes, population, Gross State Product, labor force, employment, unemployment, and more over the years. And not just in Missouri but the entire country. For example, is it true when Missouri politicians complain that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is poaching people and  jobs? This chart shows that Texas’ population has been growing for decades while Missouri’s remains stagnant. Want to research cigarette tax rates in Missouri and neighboring states? That’s here.

Should you be locked in a political discussion this holiday with that irascible brother-in-law, visit Show-Me Data for some valuable context. We’re all grateful for the stories of America’s greatness, now we have the data to back it up.

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