Just the Fax, Ma’am: Dubious “Rankings” Press Release Emphasizes Importance of Transparency (part 1)

Posted on by William Redington

Last month, Governor Mike Parson’s office posted the following infographic on its website to minor fanfare:

Unsurprisingly, this document found its way onto my desk with a request that I—a Policy Intern of two months—was basically bred for: fact checking. And fact check I did.

My first challenge was that the governor’s office didn’t “show its work” by citing sources for its claims. A Google search allowed me to infer where some of the rankings came from, but others were harder to verify.

Indeed, I found several online sources that issued rankings that were similar but not identical to the governor’s claims.  Here, for example, Missouri is listed as sixth in cost of living, not third. Some were further off the mark; here not only is Missouri not number two for “low cost of doing business,” we’re not even on the list. And with some claims, I was completely lost. What does it even mean to be “third for apprenticeships?” Is it referring to the number of current apprenticeships? Completed apprenticeships? Apprenticeship applicants? What organization even collects that data?

After consulting longtime staff members here at the Institute, I learned a Sunshine request was probably my best way forward. Sunshine requests legally require Missouri government employees and officials to provide the requested information, provided that they actually have it. Send a request to the correct official—requests tend to bounce around like a customer service call—and if all goes well they will send back the correct records. In some cases, however, you’ll be told that the information does not exist or that there will be a charge for the collection of the information you requested.

So, I typed up a Sunshine request and went to the Governor’s website in search of a contact email to send my letter to. Instead of an email, I saw only this at the bottom of the page:

It’s 2023. Where is the email address? After browsing the website to some length, I concluded that if an email contact point existed for Sunshine law purposes, it was very well hidden. And without an email address, I had to fax it.

Dear reader: if you’re under the age of 35 there’s a good chance you have never had to send a fax before and may not even know what a fax machine is. In short, think of text messaging, but with printers.

While awaiting a response, I pondered the situation. If the Sunshine law didn’t exist, I would have been hunting snipes in my quest for the truth. Yet I felt disheartened by the need to use a Sunshine request. Not every Missourian knows how to do a Sunshine request, or even that they exist—I certainly didn’t before my time at the Institute. It is good practice in any field to cite your sources. Are governments exempt from that expectation? Citizens of Missouri value government transparency and accountability and our governor should respect that value: Show-Me your work.

Several days after I sent the fax, I received a reply. Part two of this blog discusses the response I received from the governor’s office.

So, What Exactly Should Missouri Do about Property Taxes and Assessments?

Posted on by David Stokes

Property assessment increases are driving people crazy throughout Missouri. People love it when their homes increase in value, except when they hate that their homes increase in value. High inflation means that local governments will not have to roll their rates back this year as much as in prior years, so the combo of high assessment increases and small rate rollbacks will likely mean substantial tax increases for many Missourians later this year. Obviously, politicians want to address this high-profile issue.

Wanting to do something to address higher property assessments and taxes should not mean doing the wrong thing, though, and doing the wrong thing is where we are headed. Giving one population group a tax or assessment freeze, as state law allows counties to do this year and which many are considering, is wrong for reasons you can read here. A more comprehensive limit on the rise in assessed valuations or taxes, similar to what California famously did with Prop 13 in 1978, is also the wrong thing to do. Proposition 13 has certainly had its intended effect of making it easier for California residents to stay in their own homes. However, it has also reduced mobility, dramatically increased alternative taxes, limited homeownership opportunities, and caused substantial tax disparities among similar properties receiving similar services. This is not what we need for Missouri.

The easiest way to address that—for local governments to voluntarily roll their tax rates back more than legally required (as St. Charles County did in 2022)—is unlikely to happen in most places and especially unlikely for school districts, which make up the bulk of your tax bill. So, what else can we do about property taxes and assessments?

There are things people and government can do in the short term to make the overall process better. Right now, people should be pressuring their local officials to roll tax rates back, especially the Kansas City school district which is the only taxing body in the state exempt from rate rollbacks. Removing that constitutional exemption for KCSD should also be a high priority. That would involve amending the state constitution, but it should be a high priority to get that on the ballot in the next legislative session.

While we are addressing short-term impacts and constitutional changes, adding personal property to the tax rate rollback requirements should absolutely be done. In 2021 and 2022, many local governments enjoyed a windfall from increased used car values. That is not how the system is supposed to work.

Finally, did you know that a few counties require certificates of value to be filed with the assessor when property is sold but most do not? We should require them statewide to help make assessments more accurate, especially in rural areas.

In my next post, I’ll discuss what we can do in the long run to make our property tax and assessment system better.

Recession: To Be or Not To Be, That Is the Question

Posted on by Aaron Hedlund

First the Fed pause, now the unpause: what do recent data and events mean for the U.S. economy? Just last week, the Federal Reserve announced that it was restarting its campaign of interest-rate hikes to curb still-too-high inflation. What is yet-to-be-determined is whether the most recent hike—which took the target federal funds rate to 5.25% to 5.5%—is merely an encore or a sign of future hikes to come.

This same ambiguous outlook applies to the U.S. economy as a whole. On the one hand, data released by the Department of Commerce last week reveals that real gross domestic product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services produced by the US economy, adjusted for inflation—increased at a 2.4% pace in the second quarter, following 2% growth in the first quarter. If this pace continues—a big if—then the economy will have safely avoided recession territory, having rebounded modestly from the two quarters of negative GDP growth at the beginning of 2022.

But past is not prologue. The economy still faces multiple headwinds that leave the risk of recession—or at least a significant weakening of growth—very much on the table. For one thing, the effects of monetary policy (i.e., rate hikes) on the economy operate with a time lag. The primary mechanism through which rate hikes fight inflation is by making borrowing costlier, thereby discouraging the demand for spending and, with it, the pressure on prices. The medicine from earlier doses of rate hikes is already having an effect on the economy; headline CPI inflation fell to 3% year-over-year last month, down from a peak of over 9%. However, rate hikes from late spring have not yet fully reverberated throughout the U.S. economy. Even so, the recent GDP data indicate that consumer spending only grew by 1.6% in the second quarter, with durable goods spending only growing by 0.4%. This particular subset of spending is useful as a gauge because durable goods like washing machines and other expensive household items are often purchased using credit, which now commands higher interest rates because of the Fed’s actions.

Another headwind facing the economy is the impending resumption of student loan repayments this fall. Make no mistake: student loan repayments ought to resume. Bailing out student debt by transferring it from the people who are reaping the financial gains from their education to taxpayers is regressive, fiscally irresponsible, and inflationary. However, this reality does not take away from the fact that people will feel the sting of being required to pay debts that they have been shielded from during the past few years. Consequently, consumer spending growth is likely to slow further or even turn negative. Considering that consumer spending contributed 1%age point (out of the 2.4) to GDP growth in the second quarter, a hypothetical scenario where consumer spending growth flatlines would by itself reduce GDP growth to just 1.4%. Moreover, another important component of GDP—investment—is sensitive both to rates themselves as well as business expectations about future consumer demand. It is entirely plausible—maybe even likely—that investment growth will decline from its most recent rate of 5.7%, and if that happens, GDP growth could easily fall below 1%.

Still another important headwind is the fact that, for all the progress the Fed—and the Fed alone—has made in combatting inflation, it has not yet succeeded in achieving its 2% target. As shown in the figure below, headline inflation is down to 3%, but core inflation—a better measure of fundamental pricing pressures—is still nearly 5%. Moreover, because the inflation readings are year-over-year measures, and because the monthly numbers from July and August 2022 were very low, it is quite possible that the headline year-over-year inflation numbers may rise modestly over the next few months.

Lastly, and arguably most importantly, the U.S. economy has been facing a productivity crisis over the past two years. Productivity—that is, economic output per hour of labor—has decreased by nearly 2.5% since the second quarter of 2021, which is unprecedented. By comparison, productivity rose by nearly 5% from the first quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2019. Not coincidentally, that earlier period corresponded with household income rising by over $5,000 after inflation—meaning higher purchasing power—as compared with the recent decline in purchasing power of over $2,000. The figure below gives a stark visual reminder that prices have grown consistently faster than wages since the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act “stimulus” bill in early 2021, with price growth decreasing only in response to the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate-hiking campaign.

 

As speculation continues over the near-term trajectory of the U.S. economy, it is worth mentioning again the essential need to raise productivity—not just to avoid recession, but to lift the economy out of the doldrums of 1% to 2% growth and return to or exceed its historical norm of 3% growth. While these numbers may seem difficult to relate to, a rule-of-thumb may prove useful. The amount of time (in years) that it takes for the U.S. economy to double in size is roughly 70 divided by the growth rate. Thus, if an economy grows at 3% per year, it will take approximately 70/3 = 23.3 years to double in size. By contrast, if the economy grows at 2% per year, it will take 70/2 = 35 years to double, and it will take 70/1 = 70 years to double if growth is persistently only 1%. That would be a disaster for the U.S.’s potential to remain the leading economy in the world.

So how do we achieve growth liftoff? Answering this question is much too large for a single blog post, but the key is productivity, and one important point to remember is that raising productivity is not about squeezing more out of workers and making life at work more of an unpleasant grind. Quite to the contrary. The most effective way to increase productivity is to ensure that workers are equipped with the skills to succeed, unencumbered by regulations to find the best occupation and employer to realize their potential, and where both workers and employers are able to keep more of the fruits of their productive activity. That phrase—productive activity—is key to keep in mind. While public debate often focuses on spending, spending, spending, it’s time to shift our attention to producing.

Sharing Classes for the Kids

Posted on by Avery Frank

Open enrollment—a policy that allows students to transfer to any school of their choice in the state—has been gaining momentum nationwide. While Missouri decided to ride the bench this session, numerous states expanded opportunities to help families find the best fit.

The nonprofit yes. every. kid. released a report that discusses how allowing non-residential students (those outside the district) access to individual classes and extracurriculars could effectively complement open enrollment. Whereas open enrollment focuses on full-time transfers, this complementary policy would allow students to remain in their school and enroll part-time in individual classes—maximizing flexibility. According to the report, eight states* allow students to enroll in classes outside of their current school.  In these states, students in a smaller rural district could enroll in physics, AP calculus, or even a music program in another district if their school does not have these classes or programs available. If open enrollment finally gets its long-needed day in Missouri, this policy could create additional opportunities for families across the state.

First, how could this benefit students?

Well, the answer is pretty obvious—more classes and more opportunities to help every kid in our state!

Second, why would a school with no physics program want its own students to participate?

The number one reason is that districts should care about their students. Competition can be cooperative, and districts should all be on the same team to best educate the students of Missouri. I chose physics as my example subject because there is a legitimate shortage of qualified physics teachers. These sending districts should want every student in their district to succeed, and many simply cannot provide classes in valuable subjects. Additionally, allowing your students to participate would lower their incentive to leave. If Johnny wants to study physics in college, but your district does not have it, he may be forced to leave your district by moving or enrolling in a private school.

Third, why would a receiving school share its resources?

The freeloading problem goes like this: “This policy would incentivize bad schools to not expand or offer new programs because they can simply mooch off our resources (and tax levies).” In Arizona, one of the states that employs this policy, part-time students (those which enroll in individual classes at different schools) are funded by the state at one fourth, one half, or three fourths of a full-time student—depending on how many classes they are taking. Therefore, state funding follows the student. Missouri does not have backpack funding like Arizona does (which we need), but a similar policy could be implemented to compensate receiving districts. Additionally, if you properly paired this policy with open enrollment, these classes could attract students. It would go both ways, as many students would stay in their home district and take individual courses elsewhere so they would not have to transfer away from their friends, sports teams, or other extracurriculars.

Receiving districts should care about all the students in our state trying to receive the best education they can. I can understand why one might take issue with another district benefitting from your district’s resources, but the most important thing is doing what works best for students. One may not think it is “fair,” but is it “fair” that a student cannot learn physics just because they live within arbitrary boundaries? Petty jealousies over dollars and cents should not stand in the way of opportunities for children across the state.

*Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, and Wisconsin (all these states have open enrollment)

Want Higher Teacher Salaries? Raise Property Taxes

Posted on by James V. Shuls

In the past year, much has been made about Missouri’s teacher salaries. According to the National Education Association, Missouri ranks 50 out of 51 states (including Washington, D.C.) in starting teacher salaries. I have shown that we cannot put too much stock in that ranking, as it undervalues Missouri’s true starting teacher salary by putting disproportionate weight on small, low-paying school districts. For this post, let’s set that aside and for the sake of argument assume that Missouri needs to increase teacher salaries. If so, who should pay for it?

The policy conversation around this question typically assumes a state solution. Read the newspapers or listen to testimony before the state legislature and you will hear a clear narrative—it is the state’s responsibility to raise salaries. This ignores the fact that local school districts set the starting salary. Assuming the state is responsible also ignores the important role of local school districts in raising funds for schools.

The Missouri funding formula is a complex partnership of state and local effort. When the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) determines how much aid each school will receive, the state calculates how much money the district can raise locally. In doing so, the state assumes a tax rate, or performance levy, of $3.43 per $100 of assessed valuation.

Yet more than 30% of all school districts in Missouri do not even tax themselves at the rate DESE assumes in funding formula calculations. In 2022, 162 school districts taxed themselves at rates lower than $3.43.

School property tax rates are set locally. Changes to tax rates are proposed by local boards of education and local taxpayers vote on those changes. Though Missouri allows for tax rates to vary among school districts, the state has instituted a required minimum rate of $2.75 per $100 of assessed valuation.

In 2022, 55 school districts taxed themselves at the state minimum rate. On average, these districts raised just 38.4% of their funding from local sources.

Missouri could go a long way in raising teacher salaries if these low-tax school districts would simply tax themselves at the state’s assumed performance levy. That, of course, has rarely been mentioned in serious policy conversations.

“Tax-Free Weekend” Underscores Importance of Sound, Stable and Uniform Tax Policies

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

My colleague David Stokes has been in the news in recent weeks as one of a handful of vocal (and correct) policy professionals objecting to local property tax freezes for seniors, a policy enabled by legislation passed earlier this year. As he noted in his testimony to St. Louis County, freezing taxes on one set of payors without reducing spending “will almost certainly lead to higher tax rates on those properties that are not subject to the property freeze.”

My general position on taxation has always been about maximizing growth, and specifically moving from income taxes to the least destructive tax for growth—the property tax. That does not mean, however, that I am unaware of or unsympathetic to alternative considerations that could be reasonably offered.

  • Property taxes are the least destructive tax for promoting growth, but other objectives beyond “growth” do enter the calculus for policymakers. Is it “fair” for a taxpayer who owns property to get a tax benefit, but not a taxpayer who rents? Are real property taxes problematic in the same way personal property taxes are, or are they completely different policy issues? Like most things in life, tax policy is not a one-dimensional issue; stipulating to that reality is appropriate, even as I support reforms that stoke growth, against possible alterative priorities.
  • From a practical perspective, it also isn’t great if seniors on fixed incomes find themselves unable to make their property tax payments if a massive assessment adjustment, like what we’re seeing in Jackson County, makes staying in their longtime homes fiscally impossible.

All that said, cutting the state and local tax base to ribbons, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, is a precarious proposition precisely for the very reason David highlights: unless government spending falls as tax exceptions are made, the cost of government will inevitably fall to the rest of the taxpayers.

And speaking of . . .

Missourians shopping for school supplies, clothes and computers during the state’s tax-free weekend Aug. 4-6 can save up to 5% more than in previous years.

A 2021 Missouri law taking effect this year prevents all cities, counties and special tax districts from charging local sales taxes during the back-to-school weekend.

Tax holiday shoppers have been exempt from the state sales tax of 4.225% since 2004, but many municipalities still charged local sales taxes. With local sales taxes eliminated, this year, shoppers will save up to 9%.

I would love to say that the sales tax holiday for school supplies is a net good for the state and families, but as The Tax Foundation notes:

While sales tax holidays have been politically popular for a long time, they have seen a boost this year as lawmakers look for ways to share surplus funds with taxpayers who are struggling to afford goods and services amid high inflation. But however well-intended they may be, sales tax holidays remain the same as they always have been—ineffective and inefficient. [emphasis mine]

Sales tax holidays have been and always will be dubious tools for promoting reasonable public policy objectives—they simply shift consumer spending patterns instead of changing them and are often used to promote illusory economic development benefits. As with tax credits on income taxes and tax abatements on property taxes, carving up the sales tax base with “tax holidays” can have similarly unintended consequences, even if the policy is good politics and good intentioned. But as with the senior property tax carveout, even a good intentioned sales tax holiday is bad policy.

Tax Free Weekend, Property Tax Freeze, and School Lunches

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Patrick Ishmael, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to discuss freezing property taxes for seniors, what the research says about the impact of “Tax Holidays”, the latest developments in the Kansas City Royals search for a location for a new ballpark, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Data’s Double-Edged Sword

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

Missouri’s outdated information technology (IT) systems appear to be in the center of another controversy. Typically, Missouri’s antiquated IT systems unnecessarily inflate government costs and reduce efficiency. But now, Missouri’s IT systems are so poor that the state can’t participate in the federal government’s summer food stamps program. Without diving into the merits of whether Missouri should be opting into this program in the first place, the state’s excuse serves as a reminder of how outdated technology and poor data quality can cut both ways.

For years, I’ve been complaining about Missouri’s IT systems and have been begging for improved data quality. Back in 2020, due to insufficient computer systems, pandemic unemployment benefits couldn’t be tied to recipient incomes, which led to the federal government paying many individuals more to stay home than to go back to work.

More recently, I’ve written about Missouri’s sluggish start to the post-pandemic Medicaid eligibility redetermination process. States often struggle to keep up-to-date income or address information on Medicaid and other welfare program recipients, which is why there are frequent checks to see whether those enrolled in these costly programs are still eligible to receive services. But for the last three years, many recipients maintained coverage because the state didn’t know that they no longer qualified, or weren’t allowed to remove them even if they did. It’s easy to see how poor data in such cases can quickly result in serious government waste.

These data limitations are a big reason why I wrote that the recently signed “benefit cliff” legislation is a bad idea. While it may sound good to slowly reduce welfare benefits as recipient incomes increase to avoid an abrupt loss of services, the government implementing something like that requires far better data than what is available. Missouri doesn’t keep real-time income data on program recipients, and often only checks earnings once per year. Even if a program tries to offer a welfare off-ramp, if eligibility is only checked once per year, all you have is another cliff.

All this to say, accountability in government spending is incredibly important, and it’s unfortunate that Missouri has fallen so far behind. But it’s also a good thing that the federal government wants to know that the summer food stamp benefits are actually making it to kids who need them—regardless of whether Missouri could get its act together to comply with the program’s requirements.

For a while now, the costs for Missouri’s insufficient computer systems were primarily borne by state taxpayers via bloated programs. But now that our state is missing out on millions of available federal funds aimed at benefiting children, it is my hope the issue of improving IT is something everyone can agree on. Let’s hope Missouri’s legislature listens and takes action next year.

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