Listen as a Podcast

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post China, Russia, and the Changing Global Landscape with Senator Jim Talent and James Jay Carafano appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In July 2010, Missouri politicians joined the state’s economic development agency to announce the awarding of $17 million in state tax incentives, along with $39 million in local tax subsidies, to the Mamtek project in Moberly. The project called for making artificial sweetener using a process that would start in China and finish at a new plant in Moberly, creating 600 local jobs here. There was just one problem—it was all a scam.

It may seem unfair of me to criticize a government agency for falling victim to a criminal conspiracy, albeit one that really wasn’t that sophisticated, but government economic development agencies are a catch-22 for taxpayers. When they do a bad job—as they did in Mamtek—they waste our tax money. As with the St. Louis Marketplace or the Olde Towne Plaza in Ballwin, we can list plenty of private business projects government had no reason to get involved in but did, to the detriment of taxpayers. But we can only wish they always did a bad job. It’s when they do their jobs right that taxpayers and average citizens really get burned.

When economic development officials do their jobs right, all they are really doing is subsidizing economic activity that likely would have happened anyway for the benefit of politically connected companies. As the old joke goes, economic development officials are great at creating jobs for other economic development officials. For everyone else, not so much. For all their skillful use of political buzzwords and claiming credit when none is deserved, it remains true that “government is a bad venture capitalist,” to quote President Obama’s economic advisor, Larry Summers. Summers was being polite. Government, in the form of local, state, and federal economic development agencies, is a terrible venture capitalist. It’s not that government officials don’t get their bets right often enough; it’s that they actively get them wrong because economic development officials are heavily influenced by the political incentives to reward supporters of the politicians who employ them. A short-term political payoff is more important than long-term success.

St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones came into office two years ago pledging to make changes to the city’s economic development process. To a small degree, her administration has reduced the subsidies it is giving out to companies, and for that she deserves credit. But they also figured out a way to somehow make a bad process even worse by imposing an “economic justice” imperative on it. So now, instead of listening to development officials fabricate how their corporate welfare led to jobs, growth, and so on, we get the additional pleasure of hearing how tax subsidies lead to more “equity.” Death can’t come fast enough.

Economist Dick Netzer mocked the exaggerated claims of success made by economic development officials when he wrote, “Who needs oil wells, when a state can be another Kuwait just by increasing the budget of a tiny agency?” Claims of subsidy successes often border on the absurd. The author once heard a Clay County economic development official claim that “All of the growth” in the town of Liberty—a fast growing, suburban community north of Kansas City, the likes of which have been growing across the nation for decades—was due to a tax-increment financing (TIF) package they passed. Chesterfield officials talk about the Valley TIF there in much the same way, as if suburbanization hadn’t existed until Missouri’s TIF law was passed in the late 1980s.

The self-aggrandizement of the economic development industry would be understandable if the system worked, but it doesn’t. The East-West Gateway Council of Governments (EWG) did a major study of TIF and other subsidies a decade ago and concluded that they created one job for every $370,000 in tax subsidies. That is a terrible return on the subsidy, as EWG stated. Economists Alan Peters and Peter Fisher studied tax incentives closely and concluded that they work about 10 percent of the time and are simply a waste of money the other 90 percent. They added that, like the Clay County officials mentioned above, economic development officials often credit all new employment and growth to tax subsidies. Yet our region continues to pass out tax subsidies like other people’s candy, evidenced by the atrocious decision of the St. Louis County TIF commission to approve $300 million in subsidies for the “blighted” part of Chesterfield just last month.

If we really wanted to help our community grow, residents of the St. Louis-area could get no better gift than the elimination of state and local economic development agencies. They are a blight on capitalism and an actively harmful influence on the civic and economic life of our state.

The post St. Louis Should Eliminate Its Economic Development Agencies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In July 2010, Missouri politicians joined the state’s economic development agency to announce the awarding of $17 million in state tax incentives, along with $39 million in local tax subsidies, to the Mamtek project in Moberly. The project called for making artificial sweetener using a process that would start in China and finish at a new plant in Moberly, creating 600 local jobs here. There was just one problem—it was all a scam.

It may seem unfair of me to criticize a government agency for falling victim to a criminal conspiracy, albeit one that really wasn’t that sophisticated, but government economic development agencies are a Catch-22 for taxpayers. When they do a bad job—as they did in Mamtek—they waste our tax money. As with the Bass Pro Shop in Independence and the Jamestown Development near Springfield, we can list plenty of private business projects government had no reason to get involved in but did to the detriment of taxpayers. But we can only wish they always did a bad job. It’s when they do their jobs right that taxpayers and average citizens really get burned.

When economic development officials do their jobs right, all they are really doing is subsidizing economic activity that likely would have happened anyway for the benefit of politically connected companies. As the old joke goes, economic development officials are great at creating jobs for other economic development officials. For everyone else, not so much. For all their skillful use of political buzzwords and claiming credit when none is deserved, it remains true that “government is a bad venture capitalist,” to quote President Obama’s economic advisor, Larry Summers. Summers was being polite. Government, in the form of local, state, and federal economic development agencies, is a terrible venture capitalist. It’s not that government officials don’t get their bets right often enough; it’s that they actively get them wrong because economic development officials are heavily influenced by the political incentives to reward supporters of the politicians who employ them. A short-term political payoff is more important than long-term success.

Late to the subsidy game but catching up fast, Springfield—having seen how St. Louis and Kansas City have operated their own subsidies and failed by every measure—has decided to follow in their footsteps. The trucking industry has long been important in Southwest Missouri, and there are numerous companies, stations, and stores in Springfield to service the various fleets. But not enough for the City of Springfield’s Department of Economic Vitality (that’s its actual name), which decided to use over $4 million in taxpayer funds (along with other subsidies) to entice an enormous new gas station company, Buc-ee’s, to locate in town.

The head of another local convenience store company, Rapid Robert’s, rightfully took issue with the plan. He didn’t object to the competition, but rather the use of tax subsidies in a field full of local companies that had grown without them. His objections fell on deaf ears, and likely would have been meaningless to the members of the city’s “economic vitality” department. They, like economic development officials everywhere, care nothing about history, propriety, or capitalist theory. They care about getting the forms marked up, the tax money spent, and the deal done so that they can claim credit, add it to their resume, and start searching for the next job.

Economist Dick Netzer mocked the exaggerated claims of success made by economic development officials when he wrote, “Who needs oil wells, when a state can be another Kuwait just by increasing the budget of a tiny agency?” Claims of subsidy successes often border on the absurd. The author once heard a Clay County economic development official claim that “All of the growth” in the town of Liberty—a fast growing, exurban community north of Kansas City, the likes of which have been growing across the nation for decades—was due to a tax-increment financing (TIF) package they passed. As if suburbanization hadn’t existed until Missouri’s TIF law was passed in the late 1980s.

Economists Alan Peters and Peter Fisher studied tax incentives closely and concluded that they work about 10 percent of the time and are simply a waste of money the other 90 percent. They added that, like the Clay County officials mentioned above, economic development officials often credit all new employment and growth to tax subsidies.

As Christmas approaches, Springfield residents could get no better Christmas gift than the elimination of state and local economic development agencies. They are a blight on capitalism and an actively harmful influence on the civic and economic life of our state.

The post Springfield Should Eliminate Its Economic Development Agencies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On March 17, 2022 Senator Jim Talent and Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano joined us for a virtual event to discuss the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and what it means for The United States, China, and more.

Download the podcast version of the event:

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Russia, Ukraine, and the Impact on The United States with Senator Jim Talent and James Jay Carafano appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Healthcare supply is an especially important issue in China. Ground zero for the pandemic, China had already long been beset by shortages of healthcare professionals, largely thanks to the surprisingly low pay and status of the health care professions in that country. Despite this, China has (as far as we can tell) mitigated this problem by shifting the supply of health care professionals from other areas into the Wuhan region. (Emphasis mine)

Sometimes it takes a crisis to highlight what’s wrong with a medical system. In China, however, the coronavirus hasn’t uncovered any surprises. Instead, it’s thrown a spotlight on problems that have festered for decades, including the lack of a primary care system, and — most critically — a shortage of qualified medical personnel. Although reform efforts have been underway for years, the situation in Wuhan is a stark reminder of how far China must go to meet the minimal medical standards expected by its fast-growing middle class. . . .

For now, China can treat Wuhan’s shortage of doctors as a health crisis and mobilize qualified personnel from across China to work in the city. Indeed, 6,000 medical workers from across China have either arrived in the Wuhan area or will soon, and they will alleviate much of the pressure building up in hospital corridors. But they’ll stay only as long as the immediate crisis requires. When they leave, Wuhan — like most Chinese cities — will be left scrambling to find enough doctors to treat a long-term health-care crisis.

Meanwhile Italy, which has also been hard hit by the virus, has also been dealing with a shortage of doctors and facilities for many years. That shortage has only been accentuated by the severe pressure the coronavirus has placed on the Italian healthcare system in recent weeks:

“We have a health-care system in southern regions, especially south of Naples, where we actually have very few facilities,” said Prisco Piscitelli, an epidemiologist and vice president of the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine. Their ability to cope may be “even worse with the increased number of occupied beds in hospitals and intensive-care units.”

Hospital berths are only part of the answer. Italy is also suffering from a shortage of doctors. As many as 1,500 leave the country every year after finishing their specialization, according to doctors’ association Fnomceo.

Thankfully the worst of the coronavirus hasn’t hit the United States yet, and hopefully the disease will be brought under control before it reaches Spanish flu epidemic levels. Whatever the outcome, the experiences of China and Italy reemphasize the threat posed by uneven and inadequate healthcare supply, both in terms of medical professionals and medical facilities. The consequences of government intervention in the United States and in Missouri that exacerbates these shortages—whether by blocking interstate licensing reciprocity or erecting barriers to new healthcare facilities—will be borne by patients, even under non-crisis circumstances.

Reformers should continue to focus on bringing supply-side reforms into law because not only will such reforms help the public during periods of healthcare normalcy, but they will also help the public when a healthcare crisis is upon us.

The post In Crisis, Supply-Side Healthcare Reforms Are Even More Important appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To be sure, there were different degrees of socialism. The totalitarian socialism of Mao and the Soviet Union killed people, ruined economies, and snuffed out freedoms critical to both political and personal life. The democratic socialism common in the West, softer and therefore less destructive, merely specialized in overregulating the private economy and extreme redistribution of wealth.

But even in the West, socialism manifestly failed. The democratic socialism of Great Britain reduced that country from a leading economic power to the “sick man of Europe,” and was firmly rejected by British voters during the Thatcher years.

Unfortunately, socialism has come slouching back onto our college campuses, settling itself comfortably among the students. A 2015 Reason-Rupe poll showed that 58 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds viewed socialism favorably. By contrast, only 28 percent of seniors ages 65 and above were favorable toward socialism. Several other polls say the same thing: A majority of young adults support socialism, and in fact prefer it to capitalism.

To older adults, this fact probably seems disturbing and inexplicable. How could anyone support a philosophy that has spawned evils ranging from economic stagnation to mass killing? Speaking as a 21-year-old college student, I believe that the explanation boils down to two things—discontent and ignorance. Most of today’s college students grew up during the Great Recession. They are graduating with large debts and, for many, bleak prospects for employment. They feel cheated, and believe that something is deeply wrong with our current system. Since that system is capitalist, they see socialism as an alternative.

At the same time, however, most young adults misunderstand socialism. In one study only 16 percent of millennials could define socialism as a government-managed economy. And who can blame them for their ignorance, considering what they’ve learned—or haven’t learned—in the classroom? In my experience, professors may not espouse socialism, but they seldom challenge its tenets. Most of my history classes in college have focused on the many ways America has victimized the poor and downtrodden. Professors equated capitalism with imperialism while failing to even mention the evils committed by totalitarian socialist countries or the economic destructiveness of democratic socialism. One of my professors dismissed the atrocities committed under Mao Zedong’s regime by saying, “While there were certainly many failures with Mao’s reign, during his rule China’s literacy rate went up, as did migration to cities.”

“Failures”—that is how my professor referred to the 45 million who starved to death under Mao.

I believe this same indifference to truth is what turned so many college students into enthusiastic supporters of Bernie Sanders during the last presidential campaign, giving him more youth votes in the primary than Clinton and Trump combined. While Sanders is no totalitarian, he certainly supports the same democratic socialism that emaciated Britain in the postwar years. Students loved the promises he made (free college, free healthcare, and forgiveness of debt) and were perfectly willing to believe that big and benevolent government could make almost anything “free” simply by raising taxes on the very rich.

It should be said that this support for socialism isn’t necessarily permanent. Studies find that support for socialism drops after college and goes down as people earn higher salaries. Young people aren’t stupid; they are just young, and some economic truths cannot be truly appreciated until experienced.

Of course, some college students don’t make it easier for themselves. Many refuse to listen to conservative voices and cannot stand correction—or argument. Nothing strengthens a lie quite like an echo chamber, so the lie of socialism has grown into a powerful force on campus that threatens competing (and worthier) ideas. Yes, most students are just young and will outgrow their revolutionary fervor. But right now, students are being cheated out of the best opportunity most will ever have to test competing political and economic ideas against one another. And until our colleges have the courage to break through the echo chamber, students will get—at best—only half the education they’re paying for.

The post Socialism: The Slouching Beast on our Campuses appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Ludwig von Mises, a mentor to Friedrich Hayek and a major figure in economics in his own right, set out his views on capitalism and inequality in a slender book (just 113 pages) called The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. First published in 1954, and readily available online for less than $10, it is well worth reading today.

Mises’ treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.

The first factor is simple ignorance. Few people credit capitalism for the fact that they “enjoy amenities that were denied to even the most prosperous people of earlier generations.” Telephones, cars, steel-making, and thousands of other advancements are all “an achievement of classical liberalism, free trade, laissez faire, and capital” — with the driving force being the profit motive and the deployment of capital used in the development of better tools and machines and the creation of new products. Take away capitalism and you wipe out most or all of the extraordinary progress that has been made in raising living standards and reducing poverty since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick. As Mises observes: “Capitalism grants to each the opportunity to attain the most desirable positions which, of course, can only be attained by the few … Whatever a man may have gained for himself, there are always before his eyes people who have outstripped him … Such is the attitude of the tramp against the man with the regular job, the factory hand against the foreman, the executive against the vice-president, the vice-president against the president, the man who is worth three hundred thousand dollars against the millionaire, and so on.”

And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. As Mises notes, the critics and anti-capitalists go on telling and re-telling the same story: saying that “capitalism is a system to make the masses suffer terribly and that the more capitalism progresses and approaches its full maturity, the more the immense majority becomes impoverished.”

Indeed, that is the story Piketty tells in his book, which has soared to the top of the New York Times and Amazon best-seller lists. Does inequality rank as the great defining issue of the twenty-first century? If you agree with Piketty, it does. He contends that disparities in income and wealth are spiraling out of control, setting the haves- against the have-nots. Without “confiscatory” taxes to create a new social and economic equilibrium, he warns, today’s democracies may ultimately collapse, taking capitalism and the capitalists down with them.

Piketty makes much of the seeming fact (some dispute his statistics) that those at the highest levels of income in the United States have claimed a sharply rising share of total U.S. national income over the past three or four decades. From there he leaps to the conclusion that the vast disparity in income between the top 1 percent and the bottom 90 percent will lead over time to the emergence of a new “patrimonial capitalism.” With nothing (save perhaps violent revolution) to worry about, the heirs to big fortunes will turn into a new class of rentiers, living off the rent they receive from owning land and other forms of capital.

In his analysis, it is set in stone that return on capital (r) outstrips economic growth (g), which means that the heirs to great fortunes stay on the fast track to even greater wealth – without even having to work – while the lower and middle class are condemned to economic stagnation or utter hopelessness. His little formula, r>g, is supposed to be one of the great takeaways from the book, but it points up one of the problems of presenting a far-too-static picture of how people behave in a competitive marketplace.

That would not have escaped Mises’ attention. Mises would have challenged Piketty’s assumption that the heirs to great fortunes would manage their money wisely, or that they would have the same success as others (more driven than they) in searching out the best investments. Mises maintained that “the dull and stolid progeny” of people who built business empires were likely to “fritter away” their heritage and “sink back into insignificance.”

Under a capitalist system worthy of the name (meaning, to Mises, a competitive market economy free of the crippling effects of state planning and controls); it is neither the powerful industrialist nor the rich investor who calls the shots; it is ordinary people in their capacity as consumers. Through their “buying or not buying,” consumers provide “a daily referendum on what is to be produced and who is to produce it.” They have the whip hand – the power to “make poor suppliers rich and rich suppliers poor.”

One may almost pity the poor capitalist portrayed by Mises. However hard he might work or fast he might run, someone is probably gaining on him. At all times, other suppliers are striving to unseat the incumbents by discovering new and better ways of serving their customers. In comes a Wal-Mart or Target and out goes a Sears or K-Mart. It is a battle fought with an unending supply of fresh recruits, and it is never the case (as Piketty claims) that “The past (i.e. wealth accumulated from previous success) devours the future.” Rather, it is the future (whatever the next big thing may be) that replaces the present with something better.

In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises states unequivocally: “Nobody is needy in the market economy because of the fact that some people are rich. The riches of the rich are not the cause of the poverty of anybody.”

Look at the fastest-growing countries in today’s world. Is there not a natural compatibility – as opposed to an inherent contradiction – between major advances in the standard of living in some countries and the ability of their most enterprising citizens to make spectacular gains? That is what has happened in China as a result of economic liberalization: the number of Chinese billionaires has skyrocketed (and is now close to the number of U.S. billionaires), while hundreds of millions of people inside China have worked their way out of poverty.

Is it true – as Piketty contends – that we are witnessing a hyperconcentration of wealth inside the United States?

It might be true if the people with the highest incomes remained the same from one year to the next – over an extended period of time. But they are not the same people. Just as Mises would have expected, it is an ever-changing cast of characters. A recent report from the Tax Foundation data shows IRS data on people reporting a million dollars or more in income over a nine-year period. Fully half of these people made a one-time-only appearance. Only 15 percent of them reported at least a million in income two of the nine years and only 5.6 percent made it all nine years.

There is no danger of an oligarchy of the rich taking shape here to rival the power and permanence of the landed aristocracies in the pre-capitalistic France and Britain. (Note: This assumes that governments do not intervene, as they have been doing, to favor certain groups and enterprises. For more on how government increases income inequality, see Frank Hollenbeck’s article on income inequality, and Andreas Marquart’s work on this topic.)

But there is something else to worry about – something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’ greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”

Ironically, the most ardent proponents of big government are those who carry on the most about inequality. Do they want nothing more (to paraphrase Churchill) than an equal sharing of misery?

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, a free market think tank based in St. Louis, MO.

The post Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That brings us to today’s version of the Aerotropolis project, the $60 million “Missouri Export Incentive Act.” While this bill is considerably pared back from the original, the practical and policy problems that beset that first Aerotropolis attempt should not be forgotten.

Read the full testimony:

The post Aerotropolis By Any Other Name appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The sliver that has come back to life this time is “freight forwarding tax credits.” These tax credits are available to airlines or air freight companies that transport cargo on a direct international flight. Missouri House Bill 1500 (HB 1500) proposes a 40-cent/kg. cargo tax credit for any of those flights leaving a Missouri airport. The proposal calls for eventually allocating $60 million, with a yearly cap of $8 million. The purported purpose of the bill is to encourage foreign trade, presumably by making it cheaper for Missouri products to reach international markets.

However, as of this year, no direct international cargo flights leave Lambert. In addition, the only international passenger flights from Lambert go to resort destinations in Latin America. Whatever demand there is for Missouri exports in Latin America generally, it is unlikely that this demand is in seasonal resort towns such as Cancun and Montego Bay. As HB 1500 only allows tax credits for cargo on direct international flights, there may be few or no companies to take advantage of the proposed tax credit.

So who benefits? One possibility is that this bill is designed to subsidize Brownsville International Air Cargo Inc., which was in negotiations with Lambert for cargo space that could involve freight forwarding to Mexico. Another possibility is that the tax credit will act as another carrot to attract direct international flights to Lambert. Passenger airlines make 5-10 percent of their revenue from “belly cargo” on passenger flights. Making that cargo more profitable could make Lambert more competitive.

While these might seem like enticing goals to some, they are far from promoting Missouri’s foreign trade. The fact is, most cargo hubs in the United States are at either the major air passenger hubs (Los Angeles International Airport, JFK International in New York, etc.) or centers for major shipping companies (Memphis International Airport). Export tax credit or not, Lambert will not become a major air traffic hub when its landing fees are three to four times those of competing airports. Subsidizing a direct flight to Europe or Latin America may bring benefits to a few, but there is little reason the whole state should pay for this.

Like the original Aerotroplis plan, HB 1500 gives tax credits to select industries with only long-shot hopes for significant increases in Missouri exports. Saint Louis could be better off by making the airport, the city, and the state more competitive and economically vibrant, not pinning hopes on tax credit magic.

The post Aerotropolis Revisited appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the governor is selling the idea that Missouri and other states should take all the help they can get from Uncle Sam. Nixon treats the offer of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury as “free money” — even though it is one more instance of expanding an entitlement today out of debt imposed upon our children and grandchildren tomorrow.

In his Jan. 28 State of the State address, Nixon spoke to the fear that Missouri would lose $5.7 billion in federal grants over the next three years if it does not step forward to claim the prize.

But that is hardly the worst thing that could happen — given widespread dissatisfaction with the rapid growth in spending that has already occurred in this program. We do not have to expand Medicaid. This would not put existing benefits at risk.

The far greater danger is that Missouri (and other states) will fail to stop their spendthrift uncle in Washington, D.C., from bankrupting the nation — and slamming the door on job and wealth creation for years to come.

It is time to reform Medicaid — not to expand it.

Even more than that, this is a time for the states to come to the aid of their country — in saying “no” to an overreaching federal government that is seemingly determined to spend not just to the absolute limit of its taxing power, but also to the absolute limit of its borrowing power.
Over the past four years, the federal debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to more than $16 trillion. Federal indebtedness now amounts to more than $50,000 for every man, woman, and child.
Anyone who does not think Medicaid is part of the problem should look at the numbers.

For more than a decade, Medicaid has been the fastest-growing part of state budgets across the nation. In Missouri, Medicaid expenditures increased from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $8.2 billion in fiscal year 2012. Despite the increased outlays, which now amount to more than a third of the state’s total expenditures, it is increasingly difficult for patients to find doctors. And doctors say they have little incentive to stay in the program because of reduced reimbursement rates and administrative headaches.

Medicaid showcases the many problems that grow out of greater and greater reliance on government-mandated and government-controlled health care — in limiting competition and freedom of choice and undermining the bond between patient and doctor.

In his address to the legislature, Nixon glossed over such problems, suggesting that the Medicaid expansion (as a critical part of the Affordable Care Act) is a done deal — passed by Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

“The question before us is a narrow one,” Nixon claimed. “Will we bring the tax dollars that Missourians send to Washington back home to strengthen our Medicaid system here in Missouri? Or will we let the tax dollars Missourians send to Washington be spent in other states instead?”
There are two substantial problems with this line of reasoning.

First, the Supreme Court did not endorse the law in its entirety. As originally written, the law would have required each of the states to support the planned expansion of Medicaid . . . or face the loss of all federal matching funds. The Supreme Court struck down that part of the law — calling it “a gun to the head.” The Court ruled that the states must be free to opt out of the Medicaid expansion program if they wish.

Second, the real issue is not tax dollars that are (in Nixon’s word) being sent to Washington from Missouri and other states. It is the use of borrowed money (much of it coming from China, Saudi Arabia, and other such countries) that will pass the bill for today’s higher (and heedlessly wasteful) levels of government spending to our children and grandchildren.

Even without holding a “gun to the head” of each of the states, the federal government continues to dangle a large carrot in front of their noses — offering to pay more than 90 percent of new Medicaid costs through 2022. That compares with the usual split between the federal government and the states of about 60-to-40 in Medicaid funding.

It will take real courage for lawmakers in Missouri and other states to turn aside the poisoned chalice. But that is exactly what they must do.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes free-market solutions for Missouri public policy issues.

The post Jay Nixon Makes The Wrong Call On Medicaid appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So it is not surprising that Aerotropolis supporters are coming back to the state for more moolah in 2013. On Saturday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Lambert would now be gunning for a new $60 million cargo tax credit from the legislature this session.

Gone this time are $300 million in credits to fund real estate development around Lambert. Gone, too, is the lofty name; this version is dubbed the bureaucratic Missouri Export Incentive Act. What remains is an eight-year, $60 million tax credit strictly for air cargo flights from St. Louis.

“We want to keep it simple, and focused,” said Dan Mehan, chairman of the Midwest Hub Commission. “It’s very much slimmed down from what you’ve seen in the past.”

I’ll say it is slimmed down. Back in 2011, Aerotropolis supporters told the legislature that they needed nearly a half-billion dollars in state support for the project to work. When that failed, supporters came back and said $360 million in state funding would be enough to get the project off the ground. (Pun intended.) When that proposal failed in the face of fierce opposition, supporters revised their figures again and concluded that $60 million would do the trick. They received nothing.

The only reason the Midwest Hub Commission has resigned itself to delivering a “slimmed-down version” of Aerotropolis is because no one in Jefferson City has an appetite to fight another long battle for this handout. Audrey Spalding and I were deeply critical of the Aerotropolis plan two years ago because its economic arguments were highly flawed and its marketing was highly questionable. Case in point: some legislators who supported Aerotropolis were talking up Missouri beef exports to China as an Aerotropolis selling point — despite the fact that American beef is banned in China. Indeed, the organization Mehan leads, the “Midwest Hub Commission,” was formerly called the “Midwest China Hub Commission.”

New bill name, new organization name . . . same stuff.

Supporters can call Aerotropolis whatever they want, but it is still Aerotropolis. Now on its third time before the legislature, and after an utterly failed dry run for Saint Louis County to fund it, it is time for Missouri to close the book on Aerotropolis. Instead of centrally planning Missouri’s economy, the legislature should focus on broad-based tax reforms that reduce taxes for all businesses, not just the chosen few. Enough is enough.

The post Part 1: It Is Time To Close The Book On Aerotropolis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In stark contrast to the study’s claims, official state figures actually show that historic preservation credits return 23 cents for each dollar the state spends. These tax dollars are often used on dubious projects of little or no public use, such as private mansions and at least one country club.

The main point I would like to highlight, however, is that the Columbia study was written explicitly to pump an agenda, a point that may not be immediately evident if casual newspaper readers just saw the headlines. The study’s authors were (refreshingly) transparent about this in the text of the study itself. Goal one on the study’s first page explicitly says that the report “will promote the economic development benefits of historic preservation to an expanded audience.” Goal two makes the study’s goals even clearer (emphasis mine): “This report will encourage tax credit eligible projects to homeowners and developers by promoting visible local examples.” And the “Vision Impact” outlined at the bottom of that page is clear that the objective sought is to preserve “historic areas” through “education, enforcement, and incentives” (emphasis mine) — namely, the HPTC. This is more about marketing than good policy, and should be understood as such.

We at the Show-Me Institute have seen this sort of report before, of course. Back when Aerotropolis was still a thing, I wrote about the National Center for Beef Excellence‘s “report” on whether it was “feasible” to “ship meat to China.” One would think that a state-funded group with “beef” in the name would make it clear that American beef was actually, er, banned in China. Alas, the NCBE attempted to pass off the study as objective when its only goal was to pump Aerotropolis.

That is, in the end, what is going on in Columbia, albeit with laudable transparency. There should be a vigorous debate about the merits of tax credits generally and particularly the historic preservation tax credit, but this report is only one especially biased side of that conversation. There should be no misconceptions about that fact.

The post Columbia’s Historic Preservation Study Should Be Understood As PR, Not Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to watch the program online.

The post Donnybrook: Brenda Talent Returns to KETC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kerr’s testimony follows testimony from Moberly officials on Tuesday. A key point of Kerr’s testimony was that it would be a poor use of time and effort for the DED to double check the claims that every business makes when seeking incentives. Kerr said that if every business seeking incentives is treated as a criminal, fewer businesses will come to Missouri. I think that if a background check would deter a CEO with a history of passing bad checks from applying for tax credits, it might be appropriate.

There are two broad issues that legislators and the general public should consider in light of Mamtek. The first is that government officials (and others) mistakenly believe that with the right subsidy package and safeguards, they can eliminate all or nearly all of the risk associated with using public dollars to subsidize a private business. Any business can fail, due to its own negligence, or due to factors beyond its control. Public financing for a project cannot guarantee success, though it may prop up a business that otherwise would not be profitable without taxpayer money. Furthermore, as we may see in Moberly, no matter how many safeguards are used, the result may be that taxpayers are left holding the bag.

The second issue that may be at the heart of the Mamtek debacle is the fact that people and businesses will strive to get the largest benefit for the least amount of effort. That behavior has been seen in Missouri with gaming the requirements of the Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits and the general tendency of companies trying to access as many subsidy programs with a single project. It also has happened in China, where shoddy construction work on a high-speed train may have resulted in at least 39 deaths, along with corruption charges and the misuse of public funds.

As an outside observer, I don’t know whether any of those involved (Mamtek, the DED, current and former top state officials, etc.) deliberately misled anyone. There are ongoing criminal and civil investigations that may determine that.

However, the testimony that the House committee has heard so far sounds bleak, particularly the state’s investigation of the Mamtek company. The Columbia Daily Tribune posted the House committee information packet on Mamtek, and portions of it are riveting.

For example, one point of contention is whether Mamtek ever had an operating plant in China, as the company claimed in its project summary. The company wrote:

As of December 2009, Mamtek had moved from development into manufacturing and sales. We have completed both an 18-ton pilot production line and a full-scale, fully-functional [sic] 60 ton line (metric tons per annum). Each step and detail in the manufacturing and operational processes have been verified independently by the international patent firm Perkins Cole (page 27 of the House committee packet).

And then, Michael Wise, the patent attorney of Perkins Cole, a company closely affiliated with Mamtek, allegedly told the Moberly Economic Development Corporation that he had seen the plant himself, and that it had been operational for several years (page 43).

But yet, in April 2010, attorney Edward Li, a Chinese trade consultant for the Missouri Department of Agriculture, wrote to state officials to say that construction of a plant in China began in 2008, but was never completed (page 5).

Greg Havener, at the DED, wrote in an email with the subject “RE: BUILD PROJECT RUSH”  that he couldn’t find much information about Mamtek. “There is little on Google, oh well it will be a ‘thin report,’ “ he wrote (page 41). That email was sent on June 3, 2010, days before state incentives for Mamtek were approved.

Oh well, indeed. It is my prediction that while the future of Mamtek is uncertain, and while the financial future of the city of Moberly and its 13,000 residents is uncertain, the future of the DED is not.

In the private sector, if a business makes a $40 million mistake, it suffers dire consequences. For many businesses, that kind of mistake can result in bankruptcy. If no substantive reform is implemented at the DED, its operations will continue as usual. In the past, that has meant tax credits awarded to voided projects, inflated job and investment numbers, and vast amounts of taxpayer dollars going to incredibly inefficient programs.

I hope this episode will lead to major changes at the DED. If a more thorough investigation on each development package leads to fewer development handouts, that is a good thing.

The post Oh Well, It Will Be A Thin Report: The Mamtek Hearings appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While that is not the worst of all possible outcomes, it
represents a failure of leadership on multiple levels. Missouri Gov.
Jay Nixon should not have called the session. Leaders of the
Missouri House and Senate are equally to blame. They should have
made it clear to the governor that he would be wasting their time –
and, more importantly, taxpayers’ money. In fact, they wrote a
public letter to the governor requesting that he call a special session.

Just as Missouri Sen. John T. Lamping (R-Dist. 24)
predicted at a public event at the Show-Me Institute on Tues., Oct.
4, the special session has foundered on the vain hope of a grand
compromise between two fundamentally-opposed viewpoints —
with leading figures in the Senate wanting to make major
reductions in Missouri’s sprawling and out-of-control tax credit
programs . . . and House leaders prepared to extend hundreds of
millions of dollars in new tax credits to support a “Midwest China
hub” or “Aerotropolis” at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

In Lamping’s analysis, there was never any real possibility
that Aerotropolis subsidies could win legislative approval on a
standalone basis. They were therefore tied to deep cuts in other
programs — including tax credits for low-income housing and
historic buildings, with strong support from special interests of their
own. Hence the deadlock.

What, then, are the lessons learned from this inconclusive
and not-so-special session of the legislature?

While Sen. Lamping may be right about the tactical reasons
for the impasse in the legislature, I would point to a deeper
underlying cause. Simply put, the China hub had a big credibility
problem. No one — even the supporters — seemed to believe the
extravagant promises that were made on its behalf.

St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA)
claimed that $360 million in tax credits and other subsidies for
Aerotropolis would create tens of thousands of new jobs and generate
nearly $34 billion in economic activity over a 20-year period — paying
back the original investment in taxpayers’ money more than 100 times
over.

But did anyone believe that? It is a tell-tale sign of weakness that
some of the strongest supporters of Aerotropolis subsidies framed their
arguments almost as if they were buying a ticket for Powerball. While
freely admitting to considerable skepticism about whether “Missouri can
or will pull off the China hub deal,” they insisted that it was worth taking
a shot anyway — given a huge potential payout.

President Barack Obama, it may be noted, has used similar
language in talking about placing “bets” and being prepared to “double
down” in spending on clean energy, electric cars and other politically favored
enterprises or industries.

Sorry, Gov. Nixon and Mr. President, but few taxpayers these days
like the idea of political leaders playing hunches with hundreds of
millions or even billions of tax dollars. To the contrary, more and more
people are inclined to blame excessive government spending and
interference in the marketplace for the sorry state of the economy.

Over the past few years, policy analysts at the Show-Me Institute
have cited numerous instances, in St. Louis, Kansas City and other places
around the state, where targeted tax credits have failed to produce
promised economic results. The list includes failed shopping centers, the
stalled “Ballpark Village” in downtown St. Louis, and other economic
wonders that turned sour. And this is a lengthening list as we have seen
recently with other tax-favored enterprises defaulting on debts in Moberly
(Mamtek) and in Kirksville (Wi-Fi Sensors).

When the legislature reconvenes in January, let us hope that our
lawmakers realize their own limitations when it comes to picking winners
and losers. That is a task best left to the marketplace. The government
may have a role in creating infrastructure that can be used by anyone, but
targeted tax abatements are a form of corporate welfare — favoring one
group of businesses over others.

In 2012, the governor and the legislature should conduct a
thorough reexamination of the state’s 61 different tax credit programs,
with the objective of channeling the savings from those that are
terminated to all Missourians – through permanent reductions in taxation.

Andrew Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me
Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

The post The Not-So-Special Session: Lessons Learned From a Public Policy Viewpoint appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As the St. Louis Business Journal put it: “…devotion to God, country and the region was [questioned] by almost anyone who dared question the planks of the China proposal.”

From today’s St. Louis American, which is generally sensitive to incorrect negative stereotypes: “…and some rhetorical heat was added by tea party types who created hysteria around a threatened ‘Chinese invasion’ of Missouri subsidized by Missouri taxpayers.”

The claim above is similar to those echoed in online forums and elsewhere that the widespread public opposition to the Aerotropolis tax credits was based on a fear of increased international trade with China, or that concerns voiced came from uninformed individuals.

Ostensibly, the purpose of the tax credits was to encourage increased international trade at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. However, the tax credit proponents made numerous claims that lacked evidence, or were flat out wrong.

I don’t dispute that well-informed individuals can disagree on a policy proposal. But throughout the past year, I have spoken to many community groups about tax credits and answered questions from many other individuals who were concerned about the Aerotropolis proposal. The accusation that those concerns are rooted in xenophobia is false.  I am disappointed that some tax credit proponents have characterized the advocates for reform in that way.

Look, the primary concern I heard was genuine interest in encouraging legislators to abandon corporate welfare policies of the past. True, some focused specifically on the Aerotropolis tax credits. But many voiced skepticism and concern about tax credit programs in general — on the grounds that state government shouldn’t be favoring some industries or individuals over others.

I hope that when the legislature reconvenes in 2012, we can have a public debate regarding the merits of tax credit programs, instead of resorting to name-calling.

The post It’s Not About China, It’s About Corporate Welfare appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri house has pushed through the China hub bill after putting in nine amendments and leaving out tax credit sunsets.

Senate leadership says a tax bill with no sunsets doesn’t stand a chance, but the House passed China hub anyway. Speaker of the House Steve Tilley says he hopes the Senate is willing to compromise.

[…]

The bill passed the House by a vote of 98 to 48 and heads back to the Senate Tuesday.  The Senate will take the issue up when they resume Tuesday.

As a reference point, the original House tax credit bill passed with a 142-14 vote during the regular session in April. Big change.

Setting aside the political considerations in play — considerations that, granted, are nearly indispensable to understanding the day-to-day dynamic in the chamber — it is mystifying to me that budget hawks in the House aren’t demanding sunsets on most tax credit programs. When an amendment was introduced yesterday that would have phased out the Low Income Housing and Historic Tax Credits, it was resoundingly defeated with a 131-17 vote.

That’s unfortunate. Taken together over the last decade, the LIHTC and HTC have carved out a multi-billion dollar hole in Missouri budgets for a highly questionable return. An 11-cent return for every tax dollar spent on the former? A 23-cent return for every tax dollar spent on the latter? Whether or not you’re inclined to believe those findings, it’s worth keeping in mind how economic development tax credits have been distributed, and in what amounts. If tax credits are the spur to economic growth that proponents in the House say they are, I’d like to know what evidence precisely has brought them to that conclusion.

It would be apropos, however, that a House which initially envisioned an enormous half-billion dollar Aerotropolis tax credit would effectively reduce the program to $0 because it chose not to sunset — and therefore require legislative reauthorization — for a host of tax credits that have had ample time to prove their value to the state, but failed to compellingly do so. Barring a breakthrough between the House and Senate before the constitutionally-required close of the session in early November, that’s precisely where the House will find itself: without a bill passed into law, and therefore, without an Aerotropolis tax credit of any amount. We’ll know more next week.

Collecting fiscal boondoggles is not a credible economic strategy, and setting Missouri’s fiscal ship on a new course does not simply mean stopping bad policy from becoming law; it also means reforming existing law. Until Missouri’s legislators get serious about reforming or ending economic programs that are failing and, simultaneously, reducing the tax burden for all rather than a select few, Missouri will continue to drift into troubling budgetary waters.

The post Aerotropolis and the Climate for Substantive Tax Credit Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

US-China Chamber of Commerce President Siva Yam says Missourians shouldn’t expect too much from Chinese investment.

“There has been an illusion that Chinese investment are coming to America and help the economy. “

Yam says most of the investments from China are looking for research and sales opportunities, rather than hiring laborers.

I wrote on Monday about the “mistakes” that were made that China Law Blog identified with regard to Mamtek. CLB calls it the “China is rich. We want money. Therefore this is a good deal” syndrome. Economic activity requires more than just a connection to China.

Yam seems to agree. In fact, it’s not the St. Louis economy that a China Hub would mainly help, Yam says. It’s the city’s PR.

Yam says the publicity values are what St. Louis and Missouri really benefit from.

“It’s a good news for St. Louis not from an economic perspective, but having a China hub would basically help St. Louis proceed itself to be more international in the future.”

We’ve been skeptical of the job estimates given for the project for a long, long time. It’s amazing that at this late stage in the session, the president of the USCCC is basically saying Aerotropolis is a giant public relations project.

The post US-China Chamber President ‘Doesn’t See Significant Economic Value’ in Midwest China Hub appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is no rumor. What makes this story even more depressing is the fact that the reporters at the Mirror were right to ask questions: The development in question made big news recently when it left the city of Moberly on the hook for nearly $40 million in debt. This story is an especially relevant warning, because tax credit supporters have recently been touting absurd job creation and business investment numbers as a sign that the state should create more development subsidies.

During mid-2010, state and local officials raced to close a deal with Mamtek, a company that promised to build a factory that would produce SweetO, an artificial sweetener. According to the Mirror, $7.6 million in Missouri Quality Jobs tax credits and $6.8 million in Missouri BUILD tax credits were promised to the company, as well as $2 million in Community Development Block Grant funds, $800,000 in funding for job training, and $368,000 for job training.  The city of Moberly kicked in, too, providing nearly $40 million in bonds, and $500,000 in grants and services.

The total came to nearly $50 million in promised state and local tax dollars.

As is always the case with these things, a large press conference was held. In July 2010, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon spoke to a large crowd about the Mamtek deal.

“And SweetO is about to make Missouri’s economy a just a little bit sweeter, too,” Nixon said then. “Because Mamtek will be creating 612 new jobs and investing $46 million in capital.” He repeated: “612 jobs, they’re investing $46 million.”

Understandably, the Mirror was curious about the promises touted. As editor Janet Morales wrote, the Mirror wondered about the employment numbers and asked whether it might make more sense to use an existing vacant facility instead of building a new one.

But answers were less than forthcoming. Morales wrote that Mamtek wouldn’t answer her question, and directed her to the local Chamber of Commerce. Morales writes that the “[executive director of the chamber] told me not to ask questions or Moberly could lose the Mamtek company.

In the fall, Morales writes that she was informed that area merchants had been told about the Mirror‘s “investigation,” and that they were warned not to advertise with the Mirror. Seeing that businesses were no longer interested in subscribing to the Mirror and that the paper would soon close, the Mirror decided that it might as well investigate the Mamtek deal in its last month.

Some of the Mirror’s unanswered questions and concerns sound strikingly familiar to our questions regarding the Aerotropolis subsidies. Why were there conflicting job estimates? Where were the supporting documents? Why was there such a rush to get the deal approved? Proponents said that their Chinese business interests were involved, but the Mirror was unable to locate them, or anyone who was familiar with Mamtek’s operations in China.

As I already noted, this story does not have a happy ending. The Mirror is gone, though it still hosts the Mamtek story on its homepage. A nearby paper, the Marshall Democrat-News, covered the Mirror‘s closure, noting that Marshall had also considered the Mamtek deal, but considered the public support requested for the project too great. The executive director of the Marshall-Saline Development Corporation told the Democrat-News that “…Moberly offered them $15 million and took (Mamtek) off the market. That was part of the deal. I wouldn’t do that. I wouldn’t ask the city to do that.” He added “I’m not sure it’s legal.”

It now appears that the city of Moberly is on the hook for the nearly $40 million in bonds it issued for the project. And, sadly, it appears that state and local officials have not heeded the Mamtek warning. There is still an effort to expand tax incentive deals in Missouri.

Some critics of the Show-Me Institute have dismissed our concerns about the Aerotropolis tax credits because, sometimes, tax credit deals and public partnerships “work.” Well, a broken clock is right twice a day. There will always be successes. The question is, what level of failure are we willing to pay for in order to attain those successes? Sometimes, in public policy matters, failure is a rarity. But it has been well-documented that tax incentive deals frequently do not deliver the results that were promised.

So, I wonder, how many Mamtek-type failures are tax incentive proponents willing to trade for the chance of success?

The post The Moberly Mirror: Pressured For Asking Too Many Questions About Tax Handouts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is in that spirit that lawmakers in Jefferson City are now looking at the proposed legislation calling for creation of a “Midwest China hub,” or “Aerotropolis,” at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

According to newspaper reports, the legislature is prepared to scale back or totally eliminate $300 million in tax credits intended for owners of warehouses and real estate in and around the airport, while retaining $60 million in subsidies to encourage freight forwarders to route international freight through Lambert.

If so, that represents real progress – and a greater responsibility on the part of our lawmakers, including some of the prodigals who call themselves fiscal conservatives. However, while the final numbers are uncertain, talk of finding other means to funnel tax credits to Aerotropolis demonstrates a continuing blind spot on the part of legislators.

The question is: Why should the state of Missouri put up any money for Aerotropolis unless it supports the public good in some clear and identifiable way? Where is the justification for taking $60 million out of the pockets of Missouri taxpayers and giving it to unseen and unknown freight forwarders located in other cities around the world?

No one has advanced the slightest evidence that Missouri farmers or businesses have suffered a loss of exports – to China or anywhere else – because of inadequacies in the current transportation system.

Whether it is in shipping tools, pharmaceuticals, or frozen meat, there are fast and efficient means for Missouri exporters to reach key destinations around the world.

Supporters of Aerotropolis confuse economic incentives and competitive advantage. Yes, we can give taxpayers’ money to freight forwarders – the socalled travel agents of cargo – to offset obvious disadvantages in routing cargo through Lambert, which has no regularly-scheduled passenger or cargo flights to destinations outside North America. But that’s just asking people to take your money for doing something that doesn’t make any sense.

The real irony in the Aerotropolis saga is that our politicians and lawmakers – joined by business lobbying groups in St. Louis and Jefferson City – want to use taxpayers’ money to help Chinese carriers compete against U.S. carriers. In its eight-page economic impact report, the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association noted that “China has determined to grow their market share in air freight from 15-20% to 50%” in the transport of Chinese-made goods. Do we really want to help the Chinese government reach one of its objectives at the expense of our own carriers?

Our lawmakers may think that they should leave something on the table for the special interests that have lobbied long and hard for the Aerotropolis legislation.

But $60 million is not some trinket that a spendthrift might pick up upon leaving a store. It is taxpayers’ money and it is equal to the median household income in Missouri multiplied 1,300 times. Here’s a novel idea: Why not return the $60 million to Missouri taxpayers?

Andrew B. Wilson is a fellow at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri Public Policy.

The post The End of Aerotropolis Subsidies? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.