I’ll Have a Cheeseburger With Fries – Hold the Lawsuit

Because most of the nation is focused on recent union issues in the Badger State, many people might overlook the fact that the Gopher State is also engaged in a healthy debate. State lawmakers in Minnesota are discussing a proposal to prevent people from suing food companies — including fast-food chains — for making them fat. According to an Associated Press article:

The bill would prevent consumers from suing the food industry for weight gain, obesity and health problems caused by long-term consumption of fattening foods and non-alcoholic drinks such as soda.

In general, I believe that the less government does, the better. However, encouraging tort reform is not inconsistent with a free-market philosophy (we discuss the issue often on Show-Me Daily), and interpreting this policy as simply another government restriction is an oversimplification. Reducing frivolous lawsuits will have positive consequences for companies and their consumers.

One possible benefit of this policy is that it will encourage people to take ownership over their own health, encouraging personal responsibility and limiting government dependence — things that Free Marketeers like me support (e.g., health savings accounts, limiting the welfare state, etc). Americans tend to blame their weight problems on everyone except themselves, but this policy would limit their ability to blame food companies. As I always say, personal responsibility is the best medicine. As one state legislator puts it:

“Let’s say I choose to eat 100 bananas and my stomach ruptures,” said Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, a Glencoe Republican. “That’s not the banana growers’ fault.”

It’s also possible that more businesses will locate to the state because they will no longer fear a barrage of frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits increase the cost of doing business in the state, which discourages companies from locating there.

Additionally, perhaps this policy would result in lower food costs, much like medical malpractice reform leads to lower health costs. In the health care industry, medical providers practice defensive medicine; I wonder if an equivalent practice exists in the fast food industry?

Lawmakers in Missouri would be wise to watch how Minnesota fares under this policy, if and when it is enacted. As long as the measure doesn’t restrict consumers from suing food companies when they incur actual harm (e.g., health code violations), it will likely benefit the state.

Paper Questions City Landholding Policy

Why does the city of Saint Louis hold so many vacant homes and properties without selling most of them? How can a financially strapped city afford to hold onto thousands of properties when there are potential buyers? Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Audrey Spalding spent nearly a year researching the issue and will soon publish a policy study that raises some interesting questions. Here’s a video preview.

Full Study, Policy Brief, and Supporting Research

How Much Will Pujols Pay in Taxes?

I appeared on “McGraw in the Morning” on KTRS today to discuss my recent commentary about Albert Pujols’ economic value (you can listen to the interview here). We got into a discussion of how much Pujols would pay in taxes on his new salary, assuming he eventually negotiates a contract with the Cardinals that is to his liking. If Pujols’ contract is for $30 million annually, he will pay in the neighborhood of $12,450,000 on his salary.

Pujols falls into the top federal tax bracket with a 35 percent marginal rate, so his federal tax bill will come in a little below $10.5 million. (It’s lower than that because of the lower rates he pays for the first few hundred thousand dollars and his ability to write off his Missouri income tax on his federal tax return.) The state of Missouri’s take is easy to determine because it is a flat 6 percent, clocking in at $1.8 million. The Saint Louis earnings tax is for 1 percent of income, but it only applies to games he plays in Saint Louis, so it will be half of 1 percent in his case, or $150,000. (He will have to pay earnings taxes in other cities that have them, like New York City and Kansas City, for the games he plays there, but if I were to try to tabulate his tax bill exactly, it would be absurdly complex, and I’d demand to be paid like his accountant.)

In short, it’s a bit of an exaggeration to say that Pujols might make $30 million a year, because after paying the various taxmen, he will end up with closer to $17 million — or less than 60 percent of his gross income.

Swings, Hits, and Misses

I was out on vacation last week, so here is a quick round up of recent goings on in Missouri that relate to my work here. And I use the term “work” loosely, recognizing that research and writing on subjects I love at a think tank ain’t exactly mining coal, smelting steel, or loading a barge. (That last part is a shout-out to one of our regular commenters; you know who you are.)

Last week, Jefferson City voters passed a hotel tax increase. This is one tax increase for a city that will be paid by all the people of Missouri, because so much hotel business in Jeff City is state-related. I guess, from the perspective of a Jeffersonian (or is it Jeff Citian?), it makes sense to raise this tax. But that does not mean it is good policy to raise taxes on other people to pay for something (a conference center) that is not a core responsibility of government. So that one counts as an out. …

Nuclear power is being hotly debated in the state capitol, as well. It would be excellent for our state to increase our use of nuclear power, and that depends on changes to existing CWIP financing regulations currently being debating in the legislature. This would be a home run (and this post is quickly running the risk of analogy overuse).

A bill to decrease the number of state representatives is being discussed in a House hearing tomorrow. This is a terrific idea that we have discussed before, and I hope it gets a fair hearing and due consideration. This would be about a double. …

Just because it (almost) fits with the title.

Subsidies to Private Industries Equal 3 Percent of the Missouri State Budget

Yesterday, I highlighted how the state government spends billions in subsidies to private industries in Missouri — $6.476 billion since 1997, to be precise. My colleague Audrey Spalding wonders:

$500 million may be only 0.27 percent of GSP, but how does it compare to Missouri’s budget? If this is all money the state spends, I would think a better comparison would be to the state budget. My guess is that’s a higher percentage…

Her suspicion is correct. During the period between 2002 and 2008, the amount of subsidies to private industries equals 3 percent of the state government’s total expenditures on governmental activities.

Year Total Subsidies Total Expenses —
Governmental Activities
Percentage
2002 $409,000,000 $17,690,103,000 2.31%
2003 $610,000,000 $17,436,504,000 3.50%
2004 $559,000,000 $18,594,078,000 3.01%
2005 $755,000,000 $19,626,984,000 3.85%
2006 $590,000,000 $19,669,008,000 3.00%
2007 $534,000,000 $19,711,347,000 2.71%
2008 $557,000,000 $20,901,172,000 2.66%
Sum $4,014,000,000 $133,629,196,000 3.00%

The subsidy data come from the Gross Domestic Product by State data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The total expenses for government activities data come from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports from the Missouri Office of Administration.

Another commenter requests a breakdown of this data to understand where these subsidies go. Here it is:

From 1997 to 2008
Industry Amount
(In Millions)
Percentage
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting $3,437
Crop and animal production (Farms) $3,437 100%
Forestry, fishing, and related activities $0 0%
Finance and insurance $7
Federal Reserve banks, credit intermediation and related services $7 100%
Real estate and rental and leasing $2,602
Real estate $2,602 100%
Rental and leasing services and lessors of intangible assets $0 0%
Transportation and warehousing, excluding Postal Service $429
Air transportation $226 53%
Rail transportation $165 38%
Water transportation $33 8%
Truck transportation $5 1%
Warehousing and storage $0 0%
Other transportation and support activities $0 0%
Pipeline transportation $0 0%
Transit and ground passenger transportation $0 0%

Pujols Is Worth Every Penny (All 3 Billion of Them)

We are rapidly approaching the deadline imposed by Albert Pujols and the Cardinals’ front office to secure a new contract for Saint Louis’ franchise player. Both sides claim that if an agreement is not reached by Feb. 18, when position players report to spring training, discussion of the matter will be shut down until the end of the season. This would make it far more likely for Pujols to enter free agency in November, undoubtedly driving up the price of his contract. Regardless of whether he wears the “Birds on the Bat” beyond 2011, Pujols is widely expected to earn more than the $25 million per year that Saint Louis native son Ryan Howard signed for last year, as first baseman for the Philadelphia Phillies. Although people frequently denounce such salaries as obscenely high, the practice makes perfect economic sense.

For most of baseball’s history, even the best professional players did not make salaries hundreds of times greater than the average American. In large part, this was attributable to the reserve clause attached to player contracts that forced them to bargain solely with the team that signed them — even after the contract expired. In 1975, an arbitrator allowed two players to become free agents, effectively striking down the reserve clause. From that point forward, general managers have been forced to compete against each other for free agents, driving player salaries skyward.

In most cases, these multimillion-dollar salaries benefit everyone involved. Most obviously, the players benefit because they earn more money. And, although ownership would undoubtedly like to return to the days of the reserve clause and cheap labor, they still generally prefer paying stratospheric salaries instead of fielding a third-rate team. Most importantly, baseball fans enjoy watching their highly paid stars play up to their potential, as shown by our willingness to spend money on the sport. Until the recession hit in 2008, Major League Baseball (MLB) set attendance records on an almost annual basis, peaking in 2007 with more than 79.5 million tickets sold — an average of 32,785 fans per game. Attendance has declined about 7 percent since then, down to (still healthy) 2003 levels. The reason that superb athletes like Pujols can command millions or even tens of millions of dollars per year is because people willingly give their hard-earned money to watch them perform.

Seen from the perspective of the value he brings to fans, Pujols is a bargain at $25 or even $30 million a year. The Cardinals had the fourth-highest MLB attendance in 2010, with 3,301,218 fans attending 81 home games, according to ESPN. If each of those fans contributed only nine dollars — just once — it would net Pujols $30 million for the year. Of course, this dramatically understates how dearly Cardinals fans value his skills, because it ignores attendance at away games and the much larger audiences listening on the radio and watching on television. J.C. Bradbury, an economist at Kennesaw State University and author of The Baseball Economist, estimates that an eight-year contact with Pujols is worth $350 million, based upon similar deals to other superstars and current revenue growth. That’s $43.75 million per year. Another examination, using the statistic Wins Above Replacement (WAR), pegs the dollar value of an average season for Pujols at $32.3 million.

This analysis is complicated by subsidies that the Cardinals have received from the government — mostly in the form of deferential tax treatment and government-secured loans for the construction of the new Busch Stadium. Some area taxpayers do not care for baseball or the Cardinals, so they lose out on that deal. Such subsidies, however, are not an argument against high salaries per se, but rather against government favoritism toward certain businesses.

In 1960, Stan Musial came off a substandard season and requested a pay cut from $100,000 to $75,000. It was an honorable move from a man who demanded nothing short of perfection from himself. But nothing suggests that Pujols’ success as a player will decline any time soon. The value that Pujols has added to his fans’ lives far outstrips even the eight-digit figure on his current contract — so go ahead and pay the man what he deserves.

John Payne is a research assistant for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Spotted: Food Trucks and the Free Market

When I was in Washington, D.C., over the weekend, I encountered a food truck parked next to the Woodley Park Metro station. A crowd of people waited in line next to the truck, with wallets wide open and hungry for lobster.

The District is evidently friendlier to mobile vending than certain municipalities in the Saint Louis region, which may even be losing some business to the D.C. area. Pi Pizzeria of Saint Louis has been restricted from Clayton, Mo., and Edwardsville, Ill. — but it expanded into the D.C. area this month! Although I can’t suppose that the Pi food truck wouldn’t have gone to D.C. anyway if the Saint Louis area were wide open for Pi’s trucks to do business, I do find the coincidence interesting.

Who would have predicted that there would be such a demand for lobster from a food truck? I bet that it wasn’t a government official.

Lobster food truck in Washington, D.C.

Lobster food truck in Washington, D.C.

Using Your Property to Criticize Us for Taking Your Property? You’d Better Believe That’s Illegal

End Eminent Domain AbuseOn Wednesday, lawyers from the Institute for Justice will argue before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Saint Louis on behalf of Jim Roos, whose anti–eminent domain mural has become familiar to most of us in the Saint Louis metro area.

Roos painted the mural to protest the city’s decision to use eminent domain to seize numerous properties from his low-income housing nonprofit organization, Sanctuary in the Ordinary. After Roos completed the mural in 2007, the city cited him for violating its sign code and ordered Roos to remove the mural. Roos refused, and fought the case in federal court on First Amendment grounds. Last March, a U.S. District Court ruled against Roos, remarkably claiming that the mural would be legal if it were devoid of political content, like a fleur-de-lis or a Cardinals logo. This turns the First Amendment on its head, because it was explicitly added to the Constitution with the intent of protecting political speech.

The case also illustrates the unity of property rights and civil rights. If the government can legally regulate away Roos’ most effective platform, it will have the same chilling effect on free speech as direct censorship. Similarly, freedom of religion is useless if zoning laws prevent groups from building places of worship; freedom from search and seizure only applies if your home is your castle; and freedom of the press will not get you very far if the government can block access to all the presses. Many people think of property rights and civil rights as fundamentally different things, but if the government places enough restrictions on how you can use your property, it must necessarily interfere with our fundamental political rights. Let us hope that the appeals court will understand this connection and allow Roos to speak his mind.

Headline allusion here.

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