Health Is a Right; Health Care Is Not

Posted on by Josh Smith

There’s a nice short article on KOMU Channel 8’s website advocating increased public funding for health care in Missouri. Now, I am not a monster. I do think it would be better if more people had better health care — but I am not willing to ignore the costs. Therefore, I disagree with the efficacy of the method supported in this piece. Sure, if we increase taxes or divert funds from current projects, we can spend more on health care. But there is little reason to believe this would bring about a preferable outcome.

My complaint is twofold. Firstly, it is difficult to be sure that public funds would be spent in the areas of greatest need. There is instead reason to believe that leaving money in the hands of the taxpayers will allow them to spend it on whatever medical treatment has the highest benefit/cost ratio for their particular time and place. Second, let’s not forget that public spending in particular areas tends to crowd out comparable private industry in those areas, even when that private area is charitable in nature. From the article:

Brown gets free therapy at the University of Missouri’s School of Health Professions from a program that runs on donations. Brown and his [fiancée] realize without it he would have no therapy at all.

Now, the government may have established incentives, such as tax breaks, to encourage this kind of behavior from the SHP — but this is plainly a privately funded project. Rather than encourage the government to tax/spend more on something that most people would agree benefits those in need, instead perhaps it would be worthwhile to encourage increased private donations to such programs, demanding no funds from already cash-starved public coffers. And, more importantly, let us celebrate the decency of the SHP and its donors for providing such a wonderful service to those in need.
For related reading from the Show-Me Institute, see Calvin Harris’ recent op-ed.

Two More November Ballot Issues

Posted on by David Stokes

To follow up on yesterday’s post, we have some studies and articles out looking at a couple more ballot issues. One of our current interns, the original Wizard of Washington (Mo.), Jacob Voss, has a well-thought-out piece about the renewable energy mandate on the ballot. This has also been the subject of some great discussion on Show-Me Daily, and MOPNS is hosting it on their site, as well. (And thank you for that, Scooter!) Whatever the pluses and minuses of the issue, mandates are very rarely a good thing in economics. Perhaps this is one of the exceptions? But I doubt it. …

The last major ballot issue about which we have something to say is the question of whether to adopt the Missouri Plan for judicial selection in Greene County. We released a major study about the statewide impact of such plans earlier this year. It concluded that states using judicial selection panels, in one form or another, rather than elections, have a high correlation with good overall environments for business. Yours truly framed that argument in relation to Greene County (that’s the Springfield area, in case you didn’t know) in an article where I argue that the Missouri Plan could benefit the area’s residents.

So, voters both statewide and in our big cities, please review our work before you go into the ballot box to make your own well-researched decisions. Especially because an informed vote has absolutely no marginal utility whatsoever over an uninformed vote — which is depressing, but I’ll leave that particular issue to our editor. …

It’s the Thought That Counts(?)

Posted on by Dave Roland

The Post-Dispatch reports today that the city of Valley Park has passed an ordinance that would forbid the use of eminent domain “for economic purposes or private gain.”

While I have not yet read the ordinance at issue, I fear that it says the city may not take property solely for these reasons, as that is almost always the way these things are phrased. If that is, in fact, the case, then Valley Park’s ordinance does absolutely nothing. The Missouri Constitution already forbids the use of eminent domain for these purposes. Cities across the state can simply avoid this prohibition by labeling properties “blighted” (which appears to be specifically permitted under Valley Park’s new ordinance) and claiming that any private profit that might follow the use of eminent domain to clear “blighted” areas is unintentional — and permissible.

Local residents and elected officials who hope to avoid these uses of eminent domain authority are frequently lulled into a false sense of security by ordinances such as these, only to be rudely awakened a couple of years later when the next developer’s plan threatens their homes, businesses, or houses of worship. The key is to draft ordinances with clear, carefully honed standards for determining what properties (if any) can be considered “blighted,” and to what use these properties may be put in the event they must be condemned. I strongly encourage anyone whose city or county is considering an eminent domain ordinance to contact us here at the Show-Me Institute. We will happily help educate elected officials and interested residents about the likely legal effect of changes to their eminent domain laws.

Upcoming Ballot Issues

Posted on by David Stokes

With an election approaching, so I’ve heard, you might be interested in some of the ballot issues that always seem to just appear toward the end. We’re releasing a series of articles coming about these questions, and if you mostly just come to the blog without visiting our main website, you may have missed them.

One of our interns, Calvin Harris, (no, not that Calvin Harris) discussed his thoughts about a proposal before the voters in Saint Louis County to raise the sales tax for youth services, aka Proposition 1. It is a great piece with some creative thinking, and I hope you enjoy it. The passage of Prop. 1 would mean, as a father, I could count on other taxpayers in Saint Louis to pay to care for my son. It was just so stupid of me to think that it was my own responsibility to take care of my child. How reactionary!

And, of course, over in Kansas City, you are voting on light rail. I strongly encourage everyone to read the study Randal O’Toole wrote for the Show-Me Institute about transit in Kansas City, before you make up your minds. It is well worth your time.

While we are on the subject of light rail, former intern and current global traveler Patrick Eckelkamp released an op-ed about the pluses and minuses of the transit tax increase in Saint Louis County. This is a big decision for voters in Missouri’s largest county, and Patrick did a great job of discussing the issue.

More pieces yet to come. …

Subprime Doghouse Mortgage Foreclosures Skyrocket

Posted on by Jacob Voss

It’s always the little four-legged guys who get stepped on in these turbulent economic times. The Kansas City Star reports that the number of pets being abandoned at shelters because of foreclosures has risen drastically in recent months. The costs of food and vet visits were simply too much for families, and they opted to get rid of their beloved animals rather than budget around them.

Now, before dropping off Santa’s Little Helper at the “farm,” consider whether there are ways to avoid this. Taking the Bob Barker approach to this problem, perhaps many families should not have pets to begin with. Having a pet is like having a child; it is a long term affair, and should be planned as such ahead of time. Regardless of what they are doing in Nebraska, pets — much like children — are a heavy financial burden, and should be treated as such.

There are, of course, instances where a family falls on hard times unexpectedly, and a pet is already in its possession. Surely, there is some sort of middle ground in which that pet could stay with the family. It seems quite drastic to progress straight from giving up your house to giving up your dog. There’s no intermediate expense that could be sacrificed instead?

I guess I’m trying to say that abandoning a pet because of economic fears is a drastic, and probably avoidable, situation. Tears can be avoided through patience and smarter financial planning.

No, I Will Not Pay for Your Nuclear Plant

Posted on by Jacob Voss

Did you know AmerenUE isn’t allowed to raise its rates to finance future construction projects? More specifically, if a customer is not gaining utility from a project that is currently in the works, Ameren is not allowed to raise that customer’s rates to pay for the construction work in progress (CWIP). Seems like a fair law to me. I don’t want to have to pay for something I’m not using, and, more importantly, something I don’t necessarily want. And, yet, that is what Ameren is trying to do in Callaway County.

Callaway County is the home to one Ameren nuclear plant, and could possibly be the home of a second. If Ameren gets its way, the current law that prohibiting it from charging for CWIPs would be repealed, and current customers would have to finance the second Callaway County nuclear plant. Already, Ameren is trying to pass the $46 million filing fee price tag onto customers. That’s right: $46 million. For a filing fee.

Now, this isn’t the first time these shenanigans have popped up. Ameren tried to get rid of this law back in ’82, but was unsuccessful. Isn’t this the type of law that keeps Ameren a nice, friendly monopoly rather than the scary, bags-o-money, monocle-wearing Mr. Monopoly?

Ameren claims that unless it is allowed to charge customers for construction as it goes, it will not be able to afford the plant and meet the demand for electricity.

What really bugs me is this: If Ameren is claiming it will have to charge us for plants not even in operation, how is it going to finance 15-percent renewable energy by 2021 if Proposition C passes? Perhaps in this current volatile economy, a multibillion dollar nuclear plant — or, for that matter, a massive renewable energy standard — isn’t in the state’s best interest.

Red-Light Camera Haters Unite

Posted on by David Stokes

A benefit concert will be held this Saturday in south Saint Louis city, for people opposed to the use of red-light cameras. As our regular readers know, there are few things that incense me, and some others here at the Show-Me Institute, more than red-light cameras. They are a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Even if they did achieve their ostensible goal — greater safety and a reduction in accidents — they would still be violating our rights. The fact that they do not increase safety, but merely raise revenue for local governments (their true purpose), is all the more reason to oppose them.

This concert will benefit efforts to eliminate red light cameras. The newly created effort is bipartisan, informational, and interested in enabling liberty, and as such I can safely link to it from this blog. My family and I will be attending. If you have never been to the Royale, it is a great place, owned and operated by the man who got me into competitive boxing. (One fight, lost on decision. My opponent won fair and square, but he was bleeding more than I was. And, yes, he also has a great restaurant that you should visit.)

Both a Democrat, state Rep. T.D. El-Amin, and a Republican, state Rep. Jim Lembke, will be addressing the gathering. It is organized by Ed Martin and Jesse Irwin. These are two elected officials and two citizens who care deeply about individual liberties. Please consider supporting the cause. Now I shall return to long-winded blog posts about zoning. …

Tax Incentive Goose, Meet Subsidy Gander

Posted on by David Stokes

The insantiy of Missouri’s tax incentive system is slowly becoming more apparent, though I have no confidence that, in this case, realization will lead to corrections. According to an article in Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly, the city of Saint Louis recently raised the issue of tax incentives at a board meeting of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments. (Unfortunately, we can’t link to the article, because it is subsciption-based — so you’ll have to trust us on the language.) From the article:

Slay spoke about the decision and questioned whether tax breaks and credits should be given for projects that end up attracting jobs from another Missouri city in the same region at a July 30 meeting of the East-West Gateway Council of Governments board.

The exact cause of the discussion was the move by the Armstrong Teasdale law firm from downtown to Clayton, to a development project being built with enormous subsidies by the state, county, and Clayton. But the issue is much bigger than one corporate relocation, as troubling as the move is for the downtown area. Examples in which tax money is used to help companies move from one Missouri city to another are numerous. Clayton, itself, was victimized by this game a few years ago when tax incentives helped Smutfit-Stone move its headquarters to Creve Coeur. And it seems peculiar for the city of Saint Louis to be complaining about tax incentives offered by Clayton when Saint Louis recently came very close to luring Centene to move downtown, thereby leaving Clayton, by offering significant tax incentives.

The solution is to stop handing out tax incentives entirely — no exceptions. “But, David, that would put Missouri at a disadvantage when competing with other states,” say the economic development officials. Perhaps, but if we created an overall business environment better than other states, then we would offset that. We could lower the state corporate income tax, eliminate the payroll tax in Saint Louis city, reduce occupational licensing even further, and more. We already passed tort reform, and that has been a great success. The key is to stop allowing tax dollars to be used when a government decides it wants a certain business in a certain place, rather than allowing markets to make those decisions. We have written extensively about this here at the Show-Me Institute.

Not every local government plays this game, but most do. If the city of Saint Louis really wanted to, they could follow the lead of Saint Charles County and refuse to use TIFs and other tax abatements. It is indeed insane that Sunset Hills gives tax incentives for businesses to leave Crestwood, but it happens all the time — and the city of Saint Louis has done it, too. You need to be against it when it favors you, as well as when it hurts you.

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