A Step in the Right Direction

Missourinet has a story about how the General Assembly may soon end the fee office patronage in Missouri (link via Combest). The state’s fee offices tend to be run by people who have given to or helped certain politicians — usually the governor, state representatives, or state senators — during the last election. Their contributions are rewarded with a Department of Revenue contract. These are the same offices that you have to go to, in order to get your license(s) and license plates.

This seems to be a great step in the right direction, which started today with competitive bidding on 6 of Missouri’s 183 fee offices. So, now instead of officials giving the offices away through political patronage, there will be a system of points for five different categories. Requiring bidders to offer the best quality at the lowest cost for a service that everyone has to use is a great thing. I hope that the practical execution of this legislation turns out well as the initial idea.

On a personal note I know several people who were recipients of fee office contracts, and they are all very good people. I heard from several of them after the election, and a few of them said, without prompt, that if they lost their fee office they would not be all that disappointed. They were able to articulate how much hassle the offices really are, and that all the negatives we experience (long lines, computer crashes, outdated software, etc.) are just as much of a negative for them — being the subject of so much hate is never fun. So, hopefully, the bid process will allow those who genuinely want to run the office to continue to do so, and for those that don’t — enjoy less hassle in your life.

Misery Loves Company

There is a story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (link via Combest) about how states are pushing for a new tax on Internet sales. It starts out talking about how New York wants to tax Amazon, and narrows its focus to Missouri and Illinois. The article says that Missouri “lost” as much as $400 million on Internet sales (which may actually be closer to $122 million, because that larger figure was derived from an early estimate of 2008 online sales that was much higher than the actual total turned out to be), and that “in these times,” legislators and states may be looking in new places for revenue.

The article says that Internet sales are on the rise for the second straight year, hitting $204 billion annually (which again is probably an overestimate), while traditional brick-and-mortar stores are continuing to lose money.  In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the state couldn’t collect a sales tax from a particular business unless it had a physical presence in that state — but Congress could lift that ban at any time. As we stand on the razor’s edge of a serious economic downturn, I believe it’s a mistake to institute new tax policy that would dampen consumer spending even more.

The article seems to totally disregard why Internet sales are up.  When the market is allowed to operate without interference, this allows a clearer view of what the invisible hand is doing. Things are cheaper online largely because they don’t involve sales tax, and are subject to fewer labor costs, but online products also often come with free shipping — and there is no added personal cost of travel to and from a store. The combination of these factors — the ease of shopping from home, paying less, and easily finding desired products — makes clear why Internet sales are on the rise. These are also good reasons for local stores to place their inventory online and lobby for lower taxes — not push for more taxes. Although placing a tax on Internet sales (whether by the local, state, or federal government) may appear to level the playing field, at least from the brick-and-mortar perspective, it really serves as a protectionist measure for local stores without benefiting consumers.

As a sidenote to the whole idea of Internet taxation, the logistics of how this would work are almost unfathomable. Would officials simply tax online purchases for traditional stores like Best Buy or Walmart and exempt purely Internet-based sales on sites like Amazon and Overstock? How would they track sales for sites like eBay and Craigslist? Are they going to send revenue agents out to track each sale?  Does the state have the authority to tax beyond its boundaries? Would this have to be a federal tax, pursuant to the Constitution’s commerce clause? Does the state realize that forcing commercial activity underground only promotes organized crime? These are are just a few things to think about when contemplating such an idea. Rather than spurring the creation of a new market for illicit online sales, the government should be in the business of fostering legitimate commerce.

A Very Interesting Tidbit About MOSERS Over at Bloomberg.com

Bloomberg.com, in a very interesting story about the problems facing public pension funds, reports the following (link via Drudge):

The Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System invested $25 million in half the equity portion of the BlackRock Senior Income Series 2006 collateralized loan obligation, managed by New York-based BlackRock Inc. Moody’s last month cut ratings on parts of the debt, saying a drop in value of the underlying collateral may cause “an event of default.”

Chris Rackers, the manager of investment policy and communication for the Missouri fund, didn’t return calls seeking comment.

This seems somewhat frightening. It also seems a good opportunity to plug our recent study of Missouri’s pension funds by the other Richard Dreyfuss.

‘No Pain, No Gain’ Meets the Hippocratic Oath

It is no surprise that the American health care system has severe problems. Add this one to the list: third- (or fourth-?) party agencies hired by insurance providers in an effort to economize costs of pharmaceuticals, even to the point of contravening doctor’s recommendations. The Columbia Tribune has the story.

Obviously, people are suffering as a result of this, and surely to some it is a repugnant practice. I hope I won’t sound like I am heedlessly advocating such things if I propose that it is a good thing that insurance companies are taking an innovative approach to cost cutting. Medical costs in the United States have run amok. It is important to remember that every dollar we save by using generic medicines for one patient is a dollar that can be spent helping someone else. Insurance has the tendency to divorce individuals from budget decisions that would require spending within their means. It is easy to make the emotional argument that no one should have to give up any amount of health care — but costs should be considered. I hate to miss an opportunity to plug one of my favorite studies of all time.

On balance, restricting access to needed medicines, and contravening doctors’ explicit instructions, is probably not the best way to manage costs. Pharmaceutical benefit management companies would probably do better to develop relationships with doctors as well as patients, perhaps helping to remind doctors that they should consider generic alternatives but not forcing patients to contravene prescribed treatment. The economics of medical care seem to be particularly vexing, given the high emotional context involved (although some things are still cut and dried, like this).

For more reading on free-market health care perspectives, check out the health care section of our main website.

The More You Learn …

Remember when I mentioned that everyone could probably benefit from learning more about retirement saving? Well, in a Wall Street Journal article with something of a Missouri focus, I learned that Edward Jones still employs financial Fuller Brush Men who discuss investment options with anyone who doesn’t slam the door in their faces. Their goal is to earn your trust and manage your investments — but, either way, you get some investment education out of the deal.

Speaking of educating oneself: traffic is much maligned, but also little understood. Proposed solutions to traffic problems are often unpopular, but worth considering (given the high cost that traffic exacts on society at large). There a couple of great guest posts on the Freakonomics blog dealing with the subject of traffic. I highly recommend them to everyone. And, if you’ve not had enough exposure to traffic policy information after reading those, this article is sorta long, but fantastic.

And, of course, let us not forget the Show-Me Institute’s own transportation studies.

Fully Licensed

Be sure to check out David Stokes’ interview in the Riverfront Times on licensing of professionals. I find it very informative and interesting. David has long been a proponent for deregulation of the licensing process for many occupations, because it is costly and prevents competition. He laid out the primary aspects of his position in his Dec. 4 case study for the Show-Me Institute, and there advocated a procedural review on the subject. Check it out.

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