MIT Study Cautions Small Community Airport Expansion

Posted on by Kacie Barnes (Galbraith)

Columbia and Kansas City have been busy planning airport expansions and hoping to attract new service to their cities. A new study by the MIT International Center for Air Transportation suggests this might not be such a great idea.

The headline? The near future of all air service is looking grim. Airlines continue to consolidate service at their largest hubs, consolidate with each other, and will continue further reductions at small community airports.

Columbia has felt this decline over the past several months, and the final Frontier Airlines flight from Columbia took off for Orlando, Fla., on Monday. Columbia is not alone. Data in the MIT study shows that Missouri airports, along with almost every other airport in the country, have lost service over the past five years.

This data shows us that the fate of air travel is not dependent on how shiny your airport is. Airlines have shifted away from capacity expansion because it was not a profitable strategy. They will continue to seek ways to maximize profits; unfortunately, small- and medium-sized airports are disproportionally affected in the process.

Standards-Based Reform Lacks Evidence

Posted on by James V. Shuls

This past weekend, I was featured prominently in a story by Elisa Crouch of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about the Common Core State Standards.

Crouch summarized my position on content standards like this: “Shuls of the Show-Me Institute would prefer parents and schools to set their own standards, rather than states.” She also quoted me as saying, “Ultimately, there’s absolutely no evidence that content standards improve education.” Both of these are true, but they deserve a little more explanation. In this post, I will address the evidence on content standards.

Proponents of national standards often point to some of the top-performing countries and note that they have national standards. These proponents often fail to point out that some countries that perform better than us do not have national standards and many who perform worse than us do have national standards. We could just as easily point to those countries at the bottom and say, “look, national standards don’t work.”

Even at the state level, the evidence that rigorous standards improve student achievement is very weak. The Fordham Institute, one of the biggest supporters of the Common Core, has issued grades for state standards for some time now. Using these grades, the Brookings Institution examined the correlation between the rigor of each state’s standards and performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The authors concluded that there is no relationship between standards and performance. Moreover, they predict that the Common Core will have very little impact on student achievement:

What effect will the Common Core have on national achievement? The analysis presented here suggests very little impact. The quality of the Common Core standards is currently being hotly debated, but the quality of past curriculum standards has been unrelated to achievement. The rigor of performance standards — how high the bar is set for proficiency — has also been unrelated to achievement.

Believing that rigorous standards will increase student achievement may be a fine theory, but it simply has not panned out in practice. There are several reasons for this, which I will address in my next post. I will also explain why I think parents and schools could do a better job of setting standards than the government.

Tax Rates: How Missouri Really Stacks Up

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

With the passage of the “Broad-Based Tax Relief Act of 2013,” opponents of tax cuts are wasting no time blasting it. One of their chief claims is that if tax rates are so important to economic growth, then Missouri should be booming because of our already (supposedly) low tax rates.

Does Missouri really have low tax rates? The truth is, it kind of depends. Missouri has higher tax rates than its neighbors in some areas and lower rates in others. This matters because not all taxes have an equal impact on a state’s economic growth. Income taxes harm an economy more than a sales tax does. Thus, all other things being equal, a 7 percent sales tax rate would be less damaging to a state’s economy than a 7 percent top income tax rate. Missouri has a higher individual income tax rate than most of its neighbors. On the other hand, its state  sales tax rate is lower than most of its neighbors.

Tax cuts are not everything. With Missouri’s income tax rates higher than most of its neighbors, there is a real need for it to stay competitive. Missouri cannot afford to do nothing. The “Broad-Based Tax Relief Act of 2013” is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction, and contrary to what its opponents say, it is necessary.

Kansas City’s Power And Flight District

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Think voters in Kansas City will get a say on whether the city issues billions in bonds to build a new airport terminal? Think again, and be prepared to foot the bill.

Kansas City’s recent past is full of rosy development projects that did not pan out; KCP&L (Kansas City Power & Light) is chief among them. As a result, the city — and the taxpayers who fund city operations — are on the hook for about $13 million each year. Funds used to support the project are being diverted from other worthy causes.

Aviation Department Administrator Mark VanLoh says: “One common misconception the city must overcome: People think Kansas City will have to raise taxes to pay for a new terminal. It will not.” Maybe, maybe not.

Let’s review airport revenue. Dave Helling wrote in the Kansas City Star about how a new terminal would struggle to raise revenue:

There aren’t a lot of ways airport users could generate that kind of revenue. Ticket sales are already taxed, and air travel here is slumping. The airlines could pay more in rent, but other airports would pounce if the cost at KCI gets too high.

Indeed, VanLoh has admitted in press interviews that airports in Branson, Mo., and Wichita, Kan., are already taking market share from Kansas City because they are paying airlines to land there. Increasing rents or landing fees are not a realistic option.

If the airport is unlikely to be able to generate the revenue needed to support those bonds, can’t we turn to the federal government for help? VanLoh says “no,” telling the Star that large-scale federal participation in the project faces headwinds.

If the city were to issue $1.5 billion in revenue bonds in order to pay for the new terminal, it certainly would require a vote of the people. (Note that the $1.5 billion they are now considering is already a 25 percent increase over where we started, at $1.2 billion.) But what of Kansas City’s 2nd District City Councilman Ed Ford’s assertion in November that the project is “going to happen regardless of whether our citizens want it to happen”?

It turns out that not all bonds require voter approval. These bonds, known as Special Obligation Bonds, are not considered debt in the same way as other bonds and therefore require no public vote. Kansas City uses them all the time, and in fact is preparing to issue some this year to pay for the streetcar. Special Obligation Bonds were created to address a city’s immediate need — say, a broken water main — when it does not have the resources to fix it or the time to seek a vote. Kansas City issued two such bonds in 2012 amounting to $75 million that funded computer upgrades for the city’s revenue collectors, garages, and the refinancing of the ill-fated Citadel Plaza project.

Unlike revenue bonds, which do require a public vote, these bonds are normally secured by property. In this case, the Aviation Department may secure the $1.5 billion debt with the airport itself. While the city may not have to raise taxes, as VanLoh says, it is well within reason that the city will have to cover those bond payments from the general fund just like we cover KCP&L.

Welcome to the Kansas City Power and Flight District.

The Ayes Have It: Volunteer Health Services Act Passes

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The Volunteer Health Services Act has passed in the Missouri Legislature. If the governor signs it into law, the legislation would allow out-of-state medical professionals to easily provide free, charitable care to Missouri’s neediest — an activity that Missouri license law currently complicates. It is an issue I have talked about a lot, both this year and last. I am glad the bill gained the legislature’s approval.

Some bills are legitimately tough calls, but the Volunteer Health Services Act is, I think, a no-brainer. Missouri should be letting people help people, and in this case, the helpers are highly trained for the purpose. The bill’s passage is a great call. Kudos, Missouri Legislature.

The Ayes Have It: Worker Speech Rights Bill Passes

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

In April, I testified before the Missouri Legislature about the importance of reaffirming the free speech rights of government employees. Senate Bill 29, which changes how union dues are collected and are used for political purposes, just passed the Missouri House with an 85-69 vote. The legislation’s next stop is the governor’s desk.

Currently, Missouri requires public union employees to opt-out of having dues money removed from their paychecks that could be used for political objectives with which the employee may disagree. Under the reform, union members would presumptively keep those dollars unless they opt-in to paying for the union’s political activities. That is a better system that supports employees’ free speech rights.

I am glad to see it get through the legislature, and I look forward to seeing whether the governor agrees that union members’ money is their money first, not the union’s. Kudos, Missouri Legislature.

The Ayes Have It: Income Tax Cut Passes

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The Missouri Legislature has passed arguably the state’s biggest tax reform in years, the “Broad-Based Tax Relief Act of 2013,” and sent it to the governor for his signature. Today, the Missouri House passed the Senate Substitute for House Bill 253 with a 103-51 vote. The bill reduces the individual income tax slightly, but more importantly, it cuts the corporate income tax by almost half over the course of about 10 years and the tax on other businesses by half over five.

As we have discussed — especially in the past few months —  a state focus on business taxation reform is well-warranted, not only because taxes on businesses tend to negatively affect growth, but because Missouri risks being left behind by its pro-growth neighbors if it does not act. I expect Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon will sign the bill, but even if he vetoes it, there may be sufficient support in both the state House and Senate to override him. Whatever the path to its final enactment, this tax reform is the right thing for a state in need of an economic course change.

As the original HB 253 demonstrated, there was considerable support for deep business tax cuts for Missouri’s companies. That bill would have cut taxes in half for all businesses over about a five-year period, including the taxes on C-Corporations — an excellent, literature-responsive idea. To be clear, the corporate income tax reduction schedule the legislature passed should have matched that for pass-through entities at five years, not 10.

Yet, that should not take away from the fact that this tax relief measure is a good first step toward instituting even better tax policy in Missouri in the years ahead. Kudos to all who worked to get this over the finish line.

No Need To Throw Taxpayer Money Down The Well

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

Last year, at the height of the drought in Missouri, I wrote about Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s Executive Order authorizing government assistance for water sharing and distribution to farmers affected by the drought. I argued that the government should not be spending public money to assist those who already have (publicly subsidized) crop insurance.

Fast forward to today. One might think that due to the drought, farm incomes would be seriously hurt. However, that is not what happened. According to a recent survey (hat tip: St. Louis Post-Dispatch) that the St. Louis Federal Reserve released, farm income for the last quarter of 2012 was either on pace to match that of the previous year or even increase. A Kansas City Federal Reserve report had similar findings. The reason incomes did not fall: “Many bankers cited the effect of crop insurance in alleviating the expected negative impact of the drought.”

So, these farmers did not really need all that extra help last year. Their insurance was enough to cover their losses. I am glad that was the case. However, if many farmers are making more money after the drought than before it hit, couldn’t they afford to pay a bit more for their insurance premiums? Currently, taxpayers heavily subsidize crop insurance premiums.

I am not advocating eliminating crop insurance. However, cutting back on public support for crop insurance is a good idea. According to one Government Accountability Office report, a 10 percent reduction in government subsidies would have saved the taxpayers $1.2 billion in 2011. Buying insurance is meant to help prevent catastrophic losses, it is not meant to make you money. The government should reduce its commitment to paying for insurance subsidies; it seems the farmers can afford it.

Missouri Is 31st For Business Friendliness In CEO Survey

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Earlier this week, Chief Executive magazine issued its annual “Best & Worst States for Business” survey, which asked business leaders nationwide how they view states in key policies areas such as taxation, regulation, quality of workforce, and living environment. As with most surveys, your mileage will vary based on what you think of the survey’s methodology.

Yet, it is worth noting that the business leaders who responded to Chief Executive did not hold Missouri in especially high regard. The Show-Me State ranked 31st in business friendliness compared to the rest of the United States. Lucky for us, our neighbor Illinois came in at an abysmal 48th place; unlucky for us, Kansas came in at a comfortable 19th. (Incidentally, the Chief Executive survey results resemble the Kauffman Foundation’s findings last month on business friendliness.)

Houston, we have a problem.

Speaking of Texas, there is one other thing worth noting about Chief Executive‘s survey — what the states in the top five have in common. Three of the top five states — Texas (first place), Florida (second place), and Tennessee (fourth place) — do not have an individual income tax. Indiana (fifth place) just enacted legislation to cut its income tax; North Carolina (third place) is pushing hard to reduce its income taxes as well.

I have talked before about the Growth Corridor developing in the Midwest. Missouri should cut income taxes of all sorts, not only because they harm growth in a vacuum, but also because we are surrounded by neighbors who are enacting pro-growth policies in an effort to grow their states’ businesses . . . and to attract ours. Kansas may be the most visible example these days of a state’s tax policy posing a threat to Missouri’s economic future, but it is not just about Kansas. It is about the whole region.

We cannot wait any longer to start cutting these taxes. Missourians need tax relief, and they need it now.

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