New Strategy On TIF Reform In Missouri

Last week, I testified in favor of Missouri House Bill 914 in Jefferson City. This latest attempt at Tax Increment Financing (TIF) reform is simply a cap on the size of individual TIF projects along with a total cap on the amount any one company (or “anchor tenant” in the definitions) can receive via TIF in Saint Louis, Saint Charles, and Jefferson Counties. I think the cap is justified and necessary. More importantly, I hope we can take this good step toward TIF reform in our state (even though the substitute version of the bill limits this reform to the Saint Louis region).

The language in the bill is admirably simple, maybe too simple. Clever lawyers will have little difficulty in getting around the caps and what I hope is the plain intent of the law. With that in mind, I hope the Missouri General Assembly strongly considers some of the language changes we suggested in the testimony. Those changes are not designed to change the bill, but simply to buttress the limits from the inevitable municipal end-runs.

The Missouri Municipal League (MML) testified against the TIF reforms, which restored order to the universe after the incident the previous week when the MML and I actually agreed on something.

Happy Tax Day!!!

For those of you racing to finish and mail your tax returns in today, you have my sympathies (not that you would notice because you probably are struggling to get all your paperwork out the door and are not reading this blog). I know nobody — except maybe your accountant (I am looking at you, H&R Block) — actually enjoys dealing with tax returns, but they are as constant as the Northern Star. However, not many people really know the true cost for all of us to do our taxes.

According to the IRS’s own numbers, most taxpayers have to spend an average of 16 hours to collect their records, do their tax planning, and fill out their actual forms. For businesses, that number jumps up to an average of 23 hours. Taken together, taxpayers spend a total of 6.1 billion hours doing their taxes. Talk about a lot of time that could be spent doing more productive things.

However, that is not the whole story. If you think April 15 is the end of your tax nightmare, think again. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans will have to work until April 18 to earn enough money to pay their tax bills. So even after they file their tax returns, the American people will have to work an extra three days to pay their share to the government.

The government needs money to function, but 3 1/2 months of income is a bit much (to put it lightly) and there is no reason why doing one’s taxes should take more than 16 minutes, never mind 16 hours. To save us time, money, and the prospect of even more inane commercials, policymakers should give us a break and fix the tax code.

NorthSide Receives State’s Largest TIF

The Missouri Supreme Court enabled Saint Louis City to award a staggering $390 million TIF (Tax Increment Financing) package to NorthSide Regeneration (a.k.a. Paul McKee).  This is not only the largest TIF in Saint Louis history — it is the largest TIF ever awarded in the state of Missouri.

Do you think that pumping hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to one developer is the key to successful North Side revitalization? I would love to be wrong on this, but can someone please give me evidence (economic, historic, etc.) where this type of huge subsidy to one developer working hand-in-hand with government planners has managed to successfully revitalize a community? Some say that McKee’s dream is worth a shot despite a high uncertainty that it will work; I obviously do not agree in this case. But who knows, maybe McKee will be to Saint Louis what Baron Haussmann was to the rebuilding of Paris.

If you are not familiar with the NorthSide project saga, I recommend reading this short article in St. Louis Magazine to get the Cliff’s Notes version.

Saying Hello To An Amazon Tax

Late last month, a New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state of New York can force online retailers such as Amazon.com and Overstock.com to collect sales taxes, even in states where the retailer does not have a physical presence. This sets up a potential showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court because this ruling conflicts with an earlier Supreme Court decision stating that states cannot force retailers to collect sales taxes in which they are not located.

If the Supreme Court rules that states can impose an online sales tax, expect to start paying more. In Missouri, the Senate approved a bill that would force online retailers to collect sales taxes; the House is considering the proposal now.

I have been going back and forth on the prospect of paying sales taxes on my Internet purchases. I am sympathetic to proponents’ arguments that say the tax code should not favor one type of business over another.

However, these types of taxes can be really complicated. There is also a decent chance that they will not generate much money. After one study in Illinois estimated that the state would collect $153 million, it turned out that after instituting a tax on e-commerce, it was on track to collect just  $6.4 million from the tax, a mere 4 percent of the original estimate (hat tip: Illinois Policy Institute) .

Again, I am sympathetic to the idea of ending tax preferences in the tax code. However, if the cure is worse than the disease, which these types of taxes are starting to look like, the state should take a pass.

Is Head Start ‘Worth Every Penny’?

In light of a recent federal study, which concluded that the Head Start program does not have lasting benefits, there have been increasing calls to cut funding for the program. But in Saint Louis’ KSDK-NewsChannel 5’s recent report, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said the program is “worth every penny.”

Since 1965, we have spent more than $180 billion on Head Start. That is a lot of pennies! I am not so sure this program is worth the cost.

The KSDK piece does a nice job of presenting the traditional arguments on both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, the traditional debate lines are structured as Head vs. Heart. That is, the academic literature says Head Start is not working, but the heart says that we must serve these disadvantaged students. The proposition is set up as if it is an either-or; either we can serve low-income families through Head Start or we do not serve those families.

I firmly support helping disadvantaged families access quality educational programs. That is why I support school choice. In my opinion, the question is not whether we should help poor families. The question is whether Head Start is an effective way to do that or if there might be a more effective method.

Watch the video and tell me what you think the proper role of government is in this regard.

Additionally, here are some previous Show-Me Daily posts on Head Start:

Early Childhood Education Funding

Choice, Not Early Childhood Education, Is a ‘Smart Investment’

On The Medicaid Proposal Coursing Through The House

Last week, the Missouri House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability voted 7-2 to pass House Bill 700, a proposal that would expand Medicaid eligibility, but short of the levels that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) proscribes. The media has variously described the proposal as an “expansion” and an “alternative,” and Democrats and Republicans alike — depending on what they want to see in the measure — can and have described it as both. In view of that rhetorical ambiguity, it is unsurprising then that not only was committee support for the bill bipartisan, so, too, was its opposition.

Rep. Kevin McManus, a Kansas City Democrat, pointed out that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has repeatedly said states couldn’t get full federal funding unless they fully complied with the national law. That’s why he was one of two lawmakers to vote against the bill in committee.

Joining him in opposition was Rep. Mark Parkinson, a St. Charles Republican who said he could not support the bill because of an ideological opposition to the federal health care law. Three times, he said, voters in his district have rejected Obamacare. The first was a ballot measure in 2010 on the individual mandate. The second was last fall’s ballot measure on health insurance exchanges. The third was a vote against President Barack Obama’s re-election.

The committee had previously voted down an attempt to amend HB 700 to actually implement a full Medicaid expansion. That was not altogether unexpected, either; the House has been stalwartly opposed to an ACA Medicaid expansion as both standalone bills and amendments. Suffice to say, I share their skepticism and concerns about the program.

As to HB 700 itself, my views about the proposal have been documented; the legislation has some good points, including reforming some aspects of how Medicaid is delivered. But it seems in some respects to bow to a perceived political reality that more has to be spent on the program for reform to be passed. I do not agree with that view. Medicaid reform is a good unto itself that policymakers of all stripes should be able to get behind. Moreover, I worry that in the process of HB 700’s continued legislative sausage-making that we ultimately will find the state passing a law that, inadvertently or purposefully, actually expands and implements the Medicaid program under Obamacare. The governor is still pushing for that, and by keeping the increased spending aspect a live wire, I am still concerned about this possibility. Indeed, if this compromise legislation moves any further in the expansion direction, it will be right and truly compromised.

The perfect need not be the enemy of the good, but I am not yet convinced the pavestones of this legislation are leading us someplace Missouri voters want to be. Stay tuned.

Empowerment Scholarship Accounts

I have written several times about education savings accounts (ESAs). In 2011, Arizona enacted the first ESA program and named them “Empowerment Scholarship Accounts.” Watch the video below and I think you will see why these scholarships truly empower parents to access the educational services needed for their child.

Before you watch the video, I want to point out one very interesting thing that you may miss. When the mother of the special needs student is interacting with the physical therapist, you see her swipe a card on the doctor’s phone. That card is the debit card linked to the family’s ESA.

We May Still Have Mail Delivery On Saturday

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) intention to cut Saturday delivery. I argued that this proposed cutback is consistent with the Postal Service’s status as a government-sanctioned monopoly: Instead of finding innovative ways to cut costs without sacrificing customer service, the USPS simply opted to strengthen its bottom line at the expense of the latter. By law, no other entity can deliver first-class mail, so why worry about keeping your customer base happy?

It now seems the proposal will not materialize. Congress passed legislation last month, which President Barack Obama signed, that obligates the USPS to maintain six-day delivery. The USPS may still alter the kind of mail it delivers on Saturday, with plans to eliminate first-class mail delivery and pick-up service while continuing delivery of packages and pharmaceutical drugs on Saturdays.

Officials with the USPS have warned that a $47 billion bailout, which taxpayers would fund, may soon be necessary if it is not given more freedom to change course. Everybody knows that the Postal Service needs to cut costs (or increase revenue), but Congress is standing in the way. This is all part of a broader pattern: It is precisely this inability and/or unwillingness to confront economic reality that made the sequester necessary.

One of two scenarios seems likely: Service will be cut to avoid bailing out the USPS or Saturday service will continue at the price of funding a bailout. This is a false alternative, one that the free market would not present. The proper course of action — privatizing and abolishing the monopoly status of the USPS — would yield a twofold benefit. Companies would compete with one another to not only keep their costs sustainable, but to continually improve their services. Moreover, if one such company failed to maintain financial solvency, it would simply go out of business. In short, these forces would function to keep customers satisfied without putting their property at risk (through taxpayer-financed bailouts).

The dilemma about the USPS is totally unnecessary and such situations can be solved if we keep the government out of business and out of our pockets.

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