A Contrarian’s View

A summer gas tax “holiday” seems to be all the rage these days. Last week, the Missouri house approved a bill to rebate the $0.17/gallon Missouri gas tax consumer will pay throughout the summer. On the presidential campaign trail, both Senators Clinton and McCain have voiced their approval of a federal moratorium on summer gas taxes despite, as David pointed out yesterday, overwhelming opposition from economists of all stripes. In fact, more than 200 economists recently signed a petition against the gas tax break — including four Nobel laureates.

Politicians like scapegoats, and big oil companies are an easy target when oil futures trade at more than $120/barrel. But has the run-up in gas prices really made “Joe American” worse off? (Hat tip to Tim Iacono for this idea.)

During the past year, retail gasoline has increased from $2.80/gallon to approximately $3.60. An average American consumes approximately 500 gallons of gasoline per year. So let’s be conservative and assume that the entire purchase was at the higher price, resulting in a $400 higher gasoline bill this year (500 gallons * $0.80 = $400).

But the typical American is also heavily invested in energy stocks through mutual funds in their 401k accounts. A middle-class American family (in their 30s with household income between $40k?$80k) has about $90,000 in retirement accounts. On average, about 70 percent of these accounts are invested in broad U.S. equity indices, of which energy stocks compose about 13 percent. Energy stocks are up about 17 percent during the past year. So the increase in the average American’s wealth from high energy prices is about $1,392 ($90k * 0.7 * 0.13 * 0.17 = $1,392). That means that a typical American family is nearly $1,000 wealthier from the run-up in energy prices during the past year (in a very simplistic sense).

Of course, this ignores the several-trillion-dollar loss in home equity values most Americans have suffered lately, so it’s a small consolation. But it’s an interesting way of looking at the world.

A Victory for Alternative Teacher Certification

Great news: Alternative teacher certification in Missouri just got better. The new alternative route, which combines hands-on experience, mentoring, and education training, will help public schools that are trying to fill math and science positions.

Gov. Blunt explains why we need the new law:

“Under the old system, Bill Gates couldn’t teach a class in computer software in a Missouri high school,” Blunt said. “This bill allows experienced professionals to become certified teachers.”

People always ask, "But aren’t the things they teach in ed school important? What if Bill Gates is a genius but a bad teacher?" And that’s a good question. Teaching technique is important. And it’s certainly true that professionals can be knowledgable about their fields but unable to communicate with students. On the other hand, some people are great educators despite a lack of formal education training. Many college professors, for example, teach well but have never taken pedagogy courses.

By giving teaching candidates classroom experience up front, the alternative certification process may actually do a better job than traditional certification at weeding out smart people who shouldn’t teach. It will quickly become apparent to the candidates and their assigned mentors if teaching isn’t the right job for them. Besides, certifying people to teach doesn’t force districts to hire them. Districts won’t become less selective about hiring people — in fact, they’ll get to be choosier because they’ll have more candidates to consider.

Well, I Guess Hillary Would Not Be a Fan of the Show-Me Institute

Apparently, Senator Clinton has no intention of listening to anything that an economist might say (via Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish):

George Stephanopoulos began his televised interview with Senator Hillary Clinton by asking if she could name a single economist who supports her plan for a gas tax suspension.

She did not. "I’m not going to put in my lot with economists," she said on ABC’s "This Week" program. A few moments later, she added, "Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans."

So I guess there is no point to asking her about a phase-out of the city earnings tax. Considering that a few months back she listed management of the economy (a terrifying thought that anyone thinks they can or should do that) as her primary interest as president, you’d think she’d at least fake a little respect for all the economists out there.

Kansas City Light Rail Update

I am going to take the recent news about light rail in Kansas City as an opportunity to further plug Randal O’Toole’s work on this subject for SMI. In recent days, the lawsuit against the City Council for overturning the voter light-rail initiative was tossed out by the courts. Now, the Star is reporting on the pressure that the mayor and others are facing as they decide how to move forward, pun intended.

Randal O’Toole thinks Kansas City should move forward the responsible way, with expanded bus?rapid transit and the use of competitive contracting in the provision of transit services. I agree, and hope Kansas City oficials give his ideas strong consideration.

Bodyguards and Pay Raises for City Officials

Kansas City has an interesting way of setting salaries for its city officials. The salaries of the mayor and City Council members is pegged to what judges make — either equal to that, in the mayor’s case, or a percentage of that, for the council. The end result is that the Mayor makes $114 K and the councilmembers make $57 K per annum. There has been controversy recently about the decision by the mayor and council to accept the most recent increase in salary. For the sake of comparison, the mayor’s salary is very comparable to that of other mayors, while the council’s is somewhat larger than average. It’s about $20 K more per year than a St. Louis City alderman makes, but Kansas City deserves credit for having far fewer councilmembers (12), than St. Louis has aldermen (28, plus 1 president of the board).

I prefer to see an election take place between elected officials’ salary increases, rather than for them to just go and do it — or, in the case of Kansas City, accept one that was scheduled. There is nothing wrong with elected officials getting raises, I just like to see voters get a chance to take those items into consideration when they vote. Other than that timing issue, I do not think Kansas City officials are overpaid.

We have a strange and related item going on in Saint Louis city. The president of the Board of Aldermen and the comptroller have both added a budget item for security to their offices. In short, they both want a deputy sheriff to essentially be a bodyguard for them. In their defense, the positions would be "as needed" and not full-time — which is especially appropriate for the president of the board, as that is not a full-time position itself.  Even with the realization that the bodyguards would not be full time, only the highest-profile public officials really need bodyguards. The county executive of Saint Louis County does not have any security, so I certainly don’t think the comptroller and president of the Board of Aldermen need it.

The best item in the entire article, though, is at the end when State Rep. Tom Villa, formerly president of the Board of Aldermen, commits a classic Kinsley Gaffe. Here’s a quote from Villa, who had security when he was board president:

Tom Villa, the last Board of Aldermen president to have a deputy sheriff assigned to him, said he used the position as an extra staffer, "running errands, delivering papers and, in some cases, serving as a driver."

Just classic. You provide a bodyguard for security so an elected official can have someone else to run errands. Beautiful.

Are You There, Free Market? It’s Me, Sarah

Following Dave’s example, I couldn’t resist a Judy Blume-inspired titled. The question is about the education market. I wrote the other day about why we shouldn’t extrapolate from a few controlled experiments and conclude that choice is ineffective. Now, I’ve found an interesting podcast at Cato discussing whether there’s an education market in the U.S. at all. John Merrifield points out that the limited choice programs in existence now lack prices, profits, and other essential aspects of markets.

I think the situation in the U.S. is a little better than Meffifield describes it. In Missouri, we have many private schools (including some boarding schools at the high school level), fairly free homeschooling laws, and several charter schools — with an especially strong charter movement in Kansas City. Some people do have educational options. On the other hand, choices for some aren’t the same thing as a free market for everyone. To find out what we need for a real market, listen to the podcast!

Bombardier Tax Credits Revised, But Still a Dangerous, Unjust Idea

The ill-conceived Bombardier tax credit plan is moving forward, albeit in a more limited form. Instead of being worth as much as $880 million, the bill would now grant only a maximum of $240 million in tax credits to the French-Canadian corporation if it relocates to the Kansas City area. While several lawmakers seem to think this adjustment would make the plan worthwhile for the state, even in a best-case scenario the state would not break even on this deal until sometime between 2021 and 2039. That’s a long time to wait for a "payoff" that may never materialize.

The larger problem, however, is that this bill illustrates how the government plays favorites among businesses. Missouri is already home to tens of thousands of businesses that employ millions of people — and they would happily employ more if a lower tax burden freed up the money to do so! The only fair and just way of encouraging this sort of growth is to lower the corporate tax rate across the board so that all companies are treated equally. In the alternative, the General Assembly could offer these tax credit plans to any company that creates new jobs in the state. Either of these ideas would be a far more equitable solution, and it would show loyalty to the businesses already serving Missouri, rather than blatantly offering to bolster the profits of a foreign corporation.

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