More Than Puppy Love 2: A Better Film Than Winter’s Bone?

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

On Tuesday, I spoke with Mark Reardon on KMOX about Missouri’s film tax credit program. Though he agreed with me that it is pretty indefensible for taxpayers to subsidize hotel stays and large living allowances for well-paid actors and directors, Mark pointed to critically-acclaimed films that have received the credit (Winter’s Bone and Up in the Air) as examples of success.

Sure, Winter’s Bone received $260,000 under Missouri’s film tax credit program. And the film did receive great reviews. But the state actually paid more to the film More Than Puppy Love 2, the (apparent) sequel to More Than Puppy Love, a 2002 film that IMDB users panned. One wrote that “This just might be the worst movie ever made.”

I do not know what reviewers said about More Than Puppy Love 2, because I could not find any references to it. But I do know that state taxpayers paid more than $285,000 to have that movie made here in Missouri. I wonder if the puppy used in the film was counted as one of the “jobs” associated with the production of More Than Puppy Love 2. There have been more dubious job claims made when justifying film tax credits.

If you love film, or anything else creative, the last thing you should want is for it to receive taxpayer funding. Some of the best works of art, films, and books are controversial — as they should be. Censorship and the funding of saccharine works begins when taxpayer dollars allow politicians and bureaucrats to get involved in deciding what is, and what is not, art.

Double Trouble In Maplewood

Posted on by Mary Hopkins

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Maplewood City Council voted Tuesday night to ban food trucks from operating within city limits. Additionally, the City Council moved forward with a redevelopment plan for the Deer Creek Center, approving the area as a Community Improvement District (CID) and giving a stamp of approval to the redevelopment agreement. In one fell swoop, the City Council managed to limit competition in the food service business and pave the way for yet another development project that will use Tax Increment Financing (TIF).

Policy analysts for the Show-Me Institute have written extensively about food truck regulations, and now Maplewood has jumped on the regulation bandwagon. City Council members who voted in favor of the ban said they were concerned that the food trucks would “cannibalize” existing businesses in the area. I think they are confusing cannibalism with another “c” word that is vital to any market-driven society: competition. Protectionism is bad for new vendors in the short term, but also bad for consumers in the long run because competition improves choice and helps keep prices reasonable. Yet, in Maplewood, because a new food concept is creative, mobile, and relatively inexpensive, it has brick-and-mortar restaurant owners running to the City Council crying foul. Government should not be putting limitations on ingenuity and entrepreneurship.

As if the food truck prohibition was not enough, Maplewood officials moved forward with the plan to redevelop the Deer Creek Center, likely to be paid in part with TIF. Although the Saint Louis County TIF Commission rejected the request for $8.5 million in public funding in January, it would only take a 5-2 vote from the Maplewood City Council to approve the funding. According to the Post-Dispatch, that is expected to happen when the City Council meets later this month. This is yet another example of a city overriding a county TIF commission so that the city can impose its will on the entire county.

Legislators Who Opposed Corporate Welfare Receive Low Grades

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce has released its 2012 voting scorecard. State legislators are graded based on how they voted during the past legislative session on the “most important issues.” The Chamber did not post what those issues were, so it is difficult to discern how grades were awarded.

But several Missouri state legislators who received low grades happen to be strong supporters of free-market policies and/or opponents of corporate welfare.

Take Rep. Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City). The Missouri Chamber gave him an ‘F’.’ I certainly do not agree with everything that he proposed during the 2012 legislative session (nor do I agree with everything that any other lawmaker discussed in this post has sponsored). But Barnes sponsored several bills in the wake of the Mamtek scandal that were designed to limit the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) and local governments from irresponsibly awarding large subsidies to corporations.

Rep. Paul Curtman (R-Pacific), who was given a ‘D,’ also sponsored some good legislation aimed at limiting corporate welfare. Curtman sponsored a bill that would require two-thirds of area voters to approve local property tax development subsidies. He also sponsored one of my favorite bills, which would allow people to enter some professions that require a state license without obtaining a license, as long as they do not advertise themselves as being licensed. Do we really need to license interior designers, private investigators, and cosmetologists?

Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau) was awarded a ‘C’. In my book, Crowell deserves an A+ for taking strong stands against tax credits. Various state departments award hundreds of millions in tax credit dollars every year, frequently with little to show for it. Some state tax credits have been created for just a single company. Crowell has filibustered against these handouts, and during the 2012 legislative session, sponsored a bill that would subject tax credits to the state budgetary process. He also sponsored a bill that would limit tax-delinquent developers from receiving property tax subsidies.

Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-St. Louis) was awarded the lowest grade. She has introduced bills with which I disagree. But Oxford’s “Good Jobs First” bill would have gone a long way to help bring more transparency and accountability to Missouri’s corporate subsidy programs.

I hope that Missouri legislators continue to fight bills that increase corporate welfare, as well as continue to try and roll back some of our existing corporate welfare programs, regardless of grades received from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce.

Banning Beer? In Saint Louis?

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

This weekend, Saint Louis will host its annual Heritage Festival, a giant celebration of all things Saint Louis beer. Craft beer enthusiasts will have the opportunity to sample up-and-coming brews and some old favorites. However, due to intervention from some city officials, it appears some beers will have to be enjoyed another day.

Homebrewers primed themselves Tuesday for a potential legal battle while seeking to ensure that the hundreds of gallons they brewed for this weekend’s St. Louis Brewers Heritage Festival won’t go to waste.

Dozens of amateur brewers were stunned by a decision Monday from the city’s Excise Division that will keep homebrewed beer out of this year’s festival, which runs Friday through Sunday at the Ballpark Village site downtown. Homebrewers do not possess licenses to sell beer, so serving their beers at a festival that people pay to attend would violate a city statute, Excise Commissioner Robert Kraiberg determined.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s report, homebrewers had been sharing their brews at the Festival since 2008, and yet this year was the first time public officials ruled against the homebrewers. Homebrews have been served without apparent problems for years, and yet now is the time for the government to step in?

The law should not be prohibiting these sorts of community exhibitions by homebrewers, but if that is how the law is being interpreted and used, it needs to be amended post haste. The timing of the ruling —days before the event and after the beer had long been brewed for it — is no doubt frustrating to the brewers, but the (drinking age) community is hurt because they have fewer choices at an event where choice is paramount.

Baffling, really. Maybe the city ran out of food trucks to regulate?

Meet Me On The Lido Deck After Class

Posted on by Mary Hopkins

There are many concerns about rising costs of higher education in Missouri. These concerns are warranted; a USA Today article that was published earlier this year found that the average cost of attending college in-state has grown 35 percent in the past five years. According to a study by the College Board, the average tuition and fees at public colleges rose 8.3 percent last year alone. Everyone knows that higher education continues getting more expensive, but the question that really needs to be addressed is: What are students these days paying for?

Take, for example, the Tiger Grotto at Mizzou. It was part of a $50 million recreation center that opened in 2005, paid for by an extra $75-per-semester fee for every student taking more than six credit hours, regardless of usage. The Grotto features palm trees, a heated spa, a lazy river, and an oversized big screen TV, all of which caught the attention of Sports Illustrated in 2005 and won Mizzou the title of Best Rec Center in the Country. For additional charges, students can also sip smoothies poolside at the outdoor Truman Pond or, since 2006, enjoy services like facials and manicures (even teeth whitening and tanning). According to the MizzouRec website, “the Grotto will transform your dullest day into a vacation,” and they proudly promote its “resort quality facilities.” It sounds like Missouri students are paying for a nine-month stay at a Sandals Resort instead of for a top-flight education.

Projects like Tiger Grotto show just how extravagant modern colleges and universities have become. Addressing the rising cost of higher education should perhaps begin with a reassessment of what purpose a university should serve, and whether that purpose is best achieved with flat screen TVs and spa days. Perhaps more funding for the classrooms and less funding for facilities that house smoothie-fueled tanning sessions would solve a few problems that face Missouri’s higher education system. Cutting projects like Tiger Grotto, which drive up student fees, would help keep costs manageable for students as state funding decreases. This whole process would help move higher education in Missouri closer to a model where students pay the true cost of attending college.

Nullification Is Unconstitutional

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

A few weeks ago, we had a lengthy conversation in Show-Me Daily’s comments about whether it would be constitutional for Missouri to nullify the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Then last week, the Heartlander published a story on the “nullification” issue wherein I was quoted reiterating my concerns with such proposals. (For context, my Heartlander remarks were drawn from an interview I gave the publication in early May, before Missouri’s legislative session ended.)

Generally, I would let my prior remarks speak for themselves, but given the continuing interest in the topic, I think it is worthwhile to revisit the issue at least one more time.

Is there a constitutional right for states to nullify federal laws? The answer is “No.” As the Heritage Foundation notes, the nullification question was decided far more conclusively than some have suggested, and was decided in substance by the founding generation and its immediate successors. The right did not exist then, and it does not exist now.

Although James Madison’s work is frequently cited to support nullification arguments, the fact is he did not advocate for nullification in 1798. To the contrary, Madison — often recognized as the “father of the Constitution” — vehemently asserted that no nullification right existed for the states, “with a surprise hereafter, that any other [interpretation] should ever have been contended for.” Even President Andrew Jackson, a staunch and boisterous defender of states’ rights, rejected nullification as a right reserved for the states.

There is no “secret” or “forgotten” history here. Whether things “should have” turned out this way and whether they did are very different questions, and they should not be confused as being the same. While I love a good philosophical discussion about how the best or ideal government would be structured, I would be in error if I expressed my philosophy as a history in spite of the history. There is no provision in the Constitution for states to “nullify” a federal law, and I hope the liberty-minded will decline to try and breathe life into such an interpretation.

Kansas City Citizens’ Commission: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?

Posted on by David Stokes

If you were trying to break a gambling problem, would you want your intervention team
to consist of a bunch of guys you know from the blackjack tables? Probably not. In some
situations, taking advice from people outside of your circle is a good idea. You should not count
on the people who helped put you into a problem situation to help get you out of it.

A Kansas City citizens’ commission that the mayor appointed recently released a draft
report on changes to the city’s municipal revenue structure. Not surprisingly, this commission
that is stacked with former city and county employees avoids anything substantive or radical in
its report. When you load up a finance commission with lawyers — and do not put one
economist on it — this is what you are going to get. However, not all of the Citizens’
Commission on Municipal Revenue’s (CCMR) recommendations are bad. Indeed, there are
several good ones in the report.

Kansas City’s business and occupational license system is very complicated. The system
is unfair to businesses and city government alike. Collection costs are higher for this tax than
others because it is so complicated. The CCMR has decided to continue its work with a singular
focus on simplifying and improving the license system. It has identified the problem, and seems
serious about a solution. Kansas City would greatly benefit from these changes that would treat
businesses equally and require less work to administer.

Dedicated taxes with sunset provisions are good things. They let taxpayers know exactly
what they are voting on, and give taxpayers a chance to judge results. However, it is possible to
go too far with dedicated taxes, as Kansas City has done. For example, Kansas City previously,
and unnecessarily, chose to dedicate its entire 1 percent baseline sales tax to capital
improvements. The committee is right to suggest that Kansas City loosen the requirements for
that tax so that it can be used for more general purposes.

One of the major disappointments in the report is the refusal to take on Tax Increment
Financing (TIF). It is difficult to see how a commission tasked with reviewing municipal
revenues could overlook TIF beyond a meekly-worded warning that Kansas City carefully
evaluate future TIF projects. TIF has been abused in Kansas City and throughout Missouri. A
true analysis of municipal revenues would encourage its elimination, not gloss over it.

One of the most audacious suggestions was to tax income from non-residents earned
outside the city. Essentially, the city wants to tax the income of people who do not live in Kansas
City for work they did not do in Kansas City. To be fair, this was not included among the final
recommendations. The fact that the commission even considered ways to keep tax money it does
not have a moral or legal right to is disturbing.

One tax idea that has widespread agreement among economists is the benefit of land
taxation to fund local governments. Land taxation is fair, consistent, has very limited economic
distortion, encourages investment, and is easy to collect. Kansas City is the only local
government authorized to collect a land tax in Missouri. So, what does the CCMR want to do
with the single-best tax Kansas City enacts? Get rid of it, of course, and replace it with higher
sales taxes.

Kansas City has a tax that other cities in Missouri should envy, and economists would
almost universally encourage. And this is what the CCMR wants to eliminate. When you load up
a commission on taxation with lawyers and bureaucrats, this is what you are going to get.

The mayor wishes to enact the recommended changes by putting them on the ballot later
this year. He wants voters to approve higher sales and property taxes while removing certain
taxes. I hope the city council thinks twice before replacing effective taxes like the land tax with
higher and more harmful substitutes.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for
Missouri public policy.

The Media’s Take on the Missouri Legislature 2012

Posted on by Mike Ferguson

Mike Ferguson — formerly of the Eagle in Columbia, currently director of
Missouri News Horizon — spoke on the topic of the 2012 Missouri
Legislative Session at the most recent Show-Me Forum in Columbia, MO.
The speaker gave a media perspective on what did and did not happen, and
why. One focus of the talk was the republicans, who control the
legislature, not wishing to rock the boat during an election year, and
thus being unwilling to discuss or move forward on important issues to
the state, such as roads, education, and tax credits.

Ameren: A Boost For Nuclear Energy?

Posted on by Daniel Ritter

For years, Ameren Missouri officials have worked to reform Missouri’s construction-work-in-progress (CWIP) law that prohibits utilities from billing customers for expenses during a construction phase.  There is room for debate on whether this anti-CWIP legislation has been good for consumers or harmful to economic growth, but there is no denying it has impeded the expansion of energy resources in Missouri. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposes more greenhouse emission regulations on coal-fired power plants, Missouri officials must seek alternative sources of energy. Unfortunately, Missouri’s CWIP law prevents nuclear power expansion in the state; such an expansion would provide the state with more power, cleaner energy, and potentially lower rates over the long run.

However, Ameren Missouri officials may have found a solution to the dilemma: the U.S. Department of Energy’s competitive federal cost-share investment funds. Ameren Missouri and Westinghouse Electric Company recently announced that they are seeking competitive federal cost-share investment funds from the Department of Energy, which would be used to manufacture Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. If Ameren receives the funds, Ameren would then expand the nuclear power plant in Callaway County without the need for reforms to Missouri’s CWIP law. This would help Missouri generate more alternative energy without unnecessary mandates. Making this deal even sweeter is the potential for the partnership between Ameren Missouri and Westinghouse Electric Company to create thousands of jobs for the engineering, manufacturing, and operation of the Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. Finally, because portions of the electricity produced in Missouri will be shared around the nation via the electric grid, some level of federal investment is legitimate here. It makes sense that Missouri customers will not pay every penny for something that benefits more than just Missouri.

This is an exciting project that has potentially great benefits for Missourians.

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