The A-Plus program currently grants over 13,000 scholarships to Missouri community college students.  To be eligible, students need to attend a community college or vocational school, must have graduated from a Missouri high school with at least a 2.5 GPA and 95% attendance, and have completed at least 50 hours of community service.  The cost for the program in 2014–15 was more than $33 million.

At slightly more than $2,500 per student, this may seem like a good deal, until we see exactly what we are getting for our money. A forthcoming study in the Journal of Higher Education by scholars at the University of Missouri, for example, finds the A+ program increased “two-year college-going rates by 5.3 percentage points.” This gain, however, was nearly offset by a 3.8 percentage point decline in the number of students attending four-year institutions.  While this is not entirely bad, it is a far cry from a “bright shining light.” If the goal is to get more students into college, we are not seeing much bang for our buck.

There is no question that college costs have been spiraling out of control.  According to the College Board, the cost of public, two-year college has more than tripled in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1975. It has almost quadrupled at public four-year colleges. Middle class families are feeling the squeeze. They want their children to get good jobs, which increasingly require a college degree, but cannot afford the skyrocketing prices. 

Some politicians are tapping into those fears and proposing plans, like the A+ scholarship, that would make some or all of college “free.”  But here is the dirty little secret about “free college” plans. They don’t actually make college free. They simply shift who pays for it.

We have a college cost problem. Just changing who pays that cost doesn’t make it any less of a problem.  We should be talking about ways to rein in the cost of college, like promoting greater transparency of results and breaking up the accreditation cartel that keeps out new, lower-cost providers. We should also make universities that accept public scholarship dollars have some skin in the game, and require them to pay the state back some portion of those dollars if students do not succeed.  Andrew Kelly at the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute has written volumes on how to accomplish this.

These reforms would actually help drive down the cost of college and help the state strategically use its scholarship dollars to promote real student success.  That, not revolving-payer shell games, is what we can do if we really want to help our students.

The goals of Missouri’s A+ program are certainly commendable, but that does not make the program a model for the nation. We’re not even confident that is the right model for Missouri. 

The post Is Missouri’s A-Plus Program a Model for the Nation? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While there is some local support for keeping the airport open among politicians and a particularly vocal tenant, the principal protector of St. Clair Regional Airport is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Because the airport has received federal grants to improve the airport in the past, the ability of the local government to operate (or close) its airport is tightly constrained by FAA grant assurances. As we wrote before:

Two of the more cumbersome assurances for a city like Saint Clair are Nos. 5 and 25. Assurance No. 5 obligates Saint Clair to maintain it as a public airport and not dispose or sell any part of the airport without FAA approval. The FAA will only give approval if Saint Clair can show that closing the airport improves aviation in the area. In addition, the dispensation to sell the airport does not free Saint Clair from reimbursing the federal government all recent federal grants. This will cost the city more than $750,000.

The city’s back-and-forth negotiations with the FAA have failed to produce results.

In an attempt to accelerate the process, Senator Claire McCaskill introduced a bill (S.2759) that would specifically close St. Clair Regional Airport. That bill passed the Senate on December 3, and if it passes the House and receives the president’s signature, the FAA would have to allow the airport’s closure.

You read that last paragraph right. Getting a bill through the U.S. Congress is considered a shortcut to closing a general aviation airport owned by a Missouri city with less than 5,000 residents. That is the kind of intransigence and red trap cities encounter when they, by taking what looks like free money, accept the oversight of federal bureaucracies over local infrastructure. If other local governments want to avoid Saint Clair’s headaches, they should support the development of private airports and local user-funding sources whenever possible.

The post Why Saint Clair Wants Congress to Close Its Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since 1965, we have spent more than $180 billion on Head Start. That is a lot of pennies! I am not so sure this program is worth the cost.

The KSDK piece does a nice job of presenting the traditional arguments on both sides of this issue. Unfortunately, the traditional debate lines are structured as Head vs. Heart. That is, the academic literature says Head Start is not working, but the heart says that we must serve these disadvantaged students. The proposition is set up as if it is an either-or; either we can serve low-income families through Head Start or we do not serve those families.

I firmly support helping disadvantaged families access quality educational programs. That is why I support school choice. In my opinion, the question is not whether we should help poor families. The question is whether Head Start is an effective way to do that or if there might be a more effective method.

Watch the video and tell me what you think the proper role of government is in this regard.

Additionally, here are some previous Show-Me Daily posts on Head Start:

Early Childhood Education Funding

Choice, Not Early Childhood Education, Is a ‘Smart Investment’

The post Is Head Start ‘Worth Every Penny’? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this appearance, Stokes and the host discuss topics such as Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Claire McCaskill’s “Truth About Todd Akin” website, Stacey Newman’s victory in the primary by just one vote, and Stokes’ personal experience appealing his property tax assessment (“It was fun!”).

The post McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to watch video of the event.

The post Donnybrook: Audrey Spalding Back on KETC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Thank God the employees of the federal government got their pay raises. I was definitely worrying that millions of government bureaucrats would not get a raise during the recession, while millions of others lose their jobs completely. Who cares that there has not been a cost of living increase? Let’s give them one anyway!

Federal workers would receive pay increases averaging 2 percent, with people in areas with higher living costs receiving slightly higher increases.

Do you love earmarks? Well, it’s got earmarks!

The measure contains 5,224 pet projects for lawmakers totaling $3.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group.

And don’t worry, Missouri got ours, too. I love Kit Bond, and would absolutely vote for him if he was running for reelection, but why can’t Kansas City pay for its own community center?

[…] Christopher Bond of Missouri, pulled down 21 projects worth $32.5 million from the some portion of the bill, including $2.5 million for a community center in Kansas City.

Don’t take that personally, KC — if they had cited a St. Louis project, I would have gone with that instead. Hey, while we are at it, let’s stick it to the children:

It also would phase out a D.C. school voucher program favored by Republicans […]

And I won’t do anything but quote the article when it comes to Missouri’s other senator’s vote:

The Democrats opposed were Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — who voted “no” only after Lieberman arrived to ensure the bill would advance.

I realize this kind of vote planning happens all the time in politics, but still. … This entire story makes me need a drink.

The post Horrible Stuff Up and Down New Federal Spending Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

favors giving Social Security recipients a single 250-dollar payment next year. Paying for even that, however, is an issue.

Later on in the article, it says:

She’s not yet committing to vote for the 250-dollars. She says she’ll wait to see how the money is found.

So, I guess I have to hold back for a while until the votes are finally cast, but I am certainly concerned that McCaskill, or any other Missouri member of Congress, might support this ludicrous payment to seniors that has absolutely no purpose to it other than satisfying an interest group by giving them money the country simply does not have. Take from the young and give to the old. It’s like a geriatric Robin Hood. (We have a video coming out about this shortly. It is in editing right now.)

This blog has praised McCaskill a number of times for her opposition to earmarks and other fiscally responsible stances. I hope that the article’s headline is wrong, and we get to compliment her again. We’ll wait and see.

The post “Say It Ain’t So, Claire, Say It Ain’t So” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Defenders of earmarks, which include Rep. Ron Paul and his fans (of which I am one, although I didn’t support him in the GOP primary in ’08), like to state that earmarking gives elected officials the power to distribute money instead of bureaucrats. For example, if Congress appropriated $10 million for widgets, it can either trust bureaucrats to determine who gets which widget, or the elected officials can decide themselves how to spend the $10 million on widget-related projects. Either way, $10 million is spent on widgets. With earmarks, they argue, voters can more easily render judgments upon the choices that were made.

That argument is valid, but only in a short-term sense: It holds true for the market day of whatever bill is being voted on. In the long run, however, the power to earmark a bill — which involves taking appropriated money and directing its use in a manner that does not get specifically debated or voted on — is a big part of the continuing pressure to spend more and more money every year. If members of Congress did not have the power to direct money quickly and easily back to their constituents, some of them would undeniably have more of an incentive to reduce expenditures. If they could not earmark, they would have to go through the longer and more transparent process of getting individual approval for each of their pet projects, with up and down votes for all of the various amendments and proposals. No doubt much of the spending would remain. At some point, though, when it becomes more difficult to get projects approved, there would be less spending. If the process became more open and obvious, some members of Congress might think twice about how self-serving their projects appear.

Earmarking is one of the central issues in the problem of targeted benefits and dispersed costs that is central to the phenomenon of pork barrel spending.

Once again, I commend Sen. McCaskill for her efforts in this regard.

The post McCaskill Targets Earmarks, Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Columbia Tribune paints this legislation as a much-needed check on out-of-control spending and tax cuts. In theory, it sounds like a great idea, but it is actually a red herring. The Wall Street Journal published an article back in June calling the PAYGO supporters’ bluff. Passing PAYGO would give Congress the appearance of fiscal responsibility without backing it up; the rules would apply neither to discretionary spending nor to existing programs, like bloated Medicare.

PAYGO does ensure, however, that future tax cuts will be nearly impossible to pass. When the Bush tax cuts sunset in 2010, PAYGO would virtually guarantee that government, already overly large as it is, will not get any smaller. Government spending needs to be limited, but in order for such measures to be efficacious there also needs to be spending cuts across the board. Balancing the budget is a noble goal, but the PAYGO proposal won’t satisfy Missourians who want actual fiscal discretion.

The post PAYGO Would Only Provide Appearance of Fiscal Responsibility appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“If there is going to be enough support for the bill, it will be a very gradual implementation as we move toward changing to wind and solar and other kinds of energy,” McCaskill told conservative Missouri talk radio host Mike Ferguson. “I’m going to be one of those trying to craft it in a way that is very gradual, that is not going to hurt a state like Missouri that is so coal dependent.”

McCaskill also said she’s in no rush on cap-and-trade because other world powers haven’t agreed to do their share.

“We need to be a leader in the world but we don’t want to be a sucker. And if we go too far with this, all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes,” she said.

It is good that the Senate recognizes the harms that Missouri would incur upon passage of the cap-and-trade legislation as it is currently structured. We’ve been blogging about this often recently.  Cap and trade would significantly diminish the competitive ability of the state of Missouri. And I say this not as a global warming skeptic; I’m pro-environment. Still, this is not the way to go.

The post Missouri Will Likely Be Spared Cap-and-Trade Pain appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“If we are trying to move anything on health care and we’re trying to move anything on climate change, then putting another stimulus on top of that is a backbreaker,” she told POLITICO. “It is a political backbreaker — for people from states like mine anyway.”

We don’t see eye to eye on government action regarding health care and climate change, but her “backbreaker” comment is right on target. Hopefully, Missouri will continue to resist further stimulus and massive national debt.

The post Missouri Can Do Without Second National Stimulus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The climate bill passed by the House last week now goes to the Senate, where capping greenhouse emissions could face a rougher ride.

Its fate could depend upon a group of about 15 moderate Democrats who have generally staked out a middle ground on President Obama’s domestic agenda.

One of them, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, said on Twitter over the weekend: “I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri.”

The realization that cap and trade systems are ineffective and highly injurious to state and national economic welfare is not a partisan issue. I will keep this pithy, and point you all to read Caitlin’s excellent discussion of the matter. The environment is worth saving, but it is important to remain open to other alternatives, and to not exploit the conveniences of one tool to silence discussion of all others.

The post Standing Up for Missouri’s Economy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri is right where we usually are in things like this — in the middle of the pack. At least we are moving in the right direction, down from 24th to 26th. Sen. Claire McCaskill is probably the reason we are moving that direction, and hopefully we will continue to go further. It is interesting how three of the top four spots are held by entities other than the contiguous 48 states. And, yes, it is notable that there is a 51-spot difference between McCain and his erstwhile running mate — although, in Gov. Sarah Palin’s defense, this money comes from Washington D.C., not Juneau.

(Hat tip to Prime Buzz for the original link.)

The post Government Pork: “In Oklahoma, Not Arizona, What Does it Matter?” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now, first, let’s get our terms right: Are we talking about earmarking, or about pork spending? “Pork” is a result; “earmarking” is a process. Most pork spending is done via earmarking, but not all — and not all pork spending is bad. The reforms McCain and McCaskill are fighting for would force more pork spending (loosely defined as federal money that benefits local projects — some worthy, some not) to go through the full budget process rather than just being added on at the last minute to various bills, with little oversight or review.

I think these reforms are desperately needed. I wish Sen. McCaskill all the luck in the world in succeeding, and all the help I can give here in my tiny little corner of the blogosphere. As for my opinion of Sen. McCain, because I am also praising a Democrat in this post, I can probably say in the interest of full disclosure that I (on my own time, outside of work) was one of his honorary St. Louis County chairmen in the recent election — so that should tell you all you need to know.

I know that pork spending represents only a fraction of our budget issues, and I will admit that in areas of transportation and the military, not all pork spending is money poorly spent. In the big picture, it is dwarfed by the entitlement debts we face as we move toward a system in which one person with a job pays the Social Security and Medicare for 27 retired people (a slight exaggeration). But every dollar counts, and these reforms are still very important.

The post Earmark Reform Hot Off the Presses appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Referring to Anheuser-Busch, the News Tribune quotes Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill:

"[…] This is a company that’s been profitable year in and year out and has provided good middle-class jobs in America. It feels like to too many people in our country right now that these are the kinds of jobs that are going away."

This seems a bit confused. It assumes that if InBev does successfully purchase Anheuser-Busch, it will move the production facilities overseas. This isn’t necessarily the case. In fact, in the same article, InBev CEO Carlos Brito is contends:

"What we’re proposing basically is really to take an American brand, so successful as Budweiser, and unleashing that to the world via our distribution system," Brito said.

Taken at face value, this quote suggests that there is no reason to assume that InBev wants to move the production of Anheuser-Busch beer overseas. Even if this were right, the idea that the move would cause job losses to the U.S. is still misguided. A certain Frenchman is always relevant. The problem lies in focusing only on what can be easily seen — the jobs lost overseas. A careful analysis will also reveal what is unseen.

If InBev were to move Anheuser-Busch’s production facilities overseas, suddenly a large amount of consumption goods in the U.S. would be imported rather than produced domestically. If this occurs, the importer (in this case, InBev) can do one of two things with the U.S. dollars it receives: invest in U.S. assets or purchase export goods. To the degree that the former occurs, domestic industries are able to expand and create new jobs with the increased investment. In the latter case, export industries see increased demand and respond by ramping up production, creating new jobs.

The net impact of the move overseas on job creation is ambiguous without empirical data, but it isn’t obviously negative (or positive, for that matter) because there are effects running in both directions. The likely long run effect would be minor, if there is one at all. This is assuming that all else is held equal, of course. Without any evidence to suggest that the net effect would be negative, inferring that it would be negative is a bit rash.

One might argue that this is all well and good for an entire country, but what is at stake in this case are the jobs of Missourians — or, more accurately, St. Louisians. This argument is also misguided. The above analysis applies no matter where the border of the domestic region is defined, whether it be St. Louis or your own backyard.

The post Removing the Beer Goggles appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“I was very upfront,” McCaskill said of her discussion with [InBev’s CEO Carlos] Brito. After offering him a Budweiser and sipping one herself, she told him she would “do everything I could to stop this sale from going through … It’s a bad idea. I don’t want you to buy it. The people of Missouri don’t want you to buy it.”

Politicians never seem to understand how capitalism works. The InBev deal is not the government’s decision or the people of Missouri’s decision. It is the decision of the shareholders of Anheuser-Busch. If shareholders reject the InBev deal, AB stock will plummet. But that is the shareholders’ decision, not ours.

More from the article:

Speaking to reporters after, McCaskill blasted the proposal as a “premium profit for hedge fund investors” and said A-B is a strong company that has provided thousands of good middle class American jobs.

Anheuser-Busch displaced thousands of good middle class American jobs last year when it bought out Pennsylvania’s Rolling Rock. And despite a website that looks very familiar to another local website, there was no outcry (or even a tear) from Missouri public officials.

“We do not have a ?For Sale’ sign on our front lawn in America,” she said.

Well, then maybe the government shouldn’t have gotten to the point where the American people owe $9.2 trillion dollars (of which about a third was accumulated under President Clinton, and another third under President Bush). If I owed trillions of dollars in debt, I might have to sell off a few possessions, too.

The Post-Dispatch (surprisingly) ran a pretty good reality check on the AB deal. And yours truly did, too.

The post This Bud’s for Them appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What would be the effects?

Well, first of all, gas prices would be higher, not lower. Demand for gasoline is inelastic, at least in the short run. Gas station owners are already squeezing out a mere two cents in profit per gallon of gasoline sold. Therefore, with no real retail markup, the higher wholesale gasoline costs incurred by distributors would have to fall on consumers at the pump in order for the retailers to break even. So we’re worse off here. If you like paying $4.00 per gallon, how about if we add another 20 cents or so to that?

And which investors will pay for the tax — the rich or the broad middle class? Robert Shapiro, President Clinton’s former undersecretary of commerce, argues that ownership of industry shares is "broadly middle-class," with the majority represented by institutional investments in mutual funds, pension funds, and individual retirement accounts that are held on behalf of millions of ordinary Americans. This coincides with my previous post about energy investors and who benefits from oil profits.

And, lastly, the early 1980s experiment with a windfall profits tax suggests that tax revenues would be significantly lower than expected. When Congress passed the windfall profit tax in 1980, the Congressional Budget Office projected that it would raise $393 billion in tax revenues. According to Congressional Research Services, it only raised $80 billion. That would be enough revenue to run the government for about 10 days, based on the 2008 fiscal budget.

Remember, gas prices are about three times as high in Germany and other European countries, where combined excise taxes, fuel taxes, windfall profits taxes, and VAT taxes are passed on by oil companies to the consumers. Oh, and if you factor in the exchange rate, they’re about 4.5 times higher.

So why are we debating this, again?

The post Populist Pontificating appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Earmarks are line-item requirements in the federal budget that direct federal agencies to provide funding to specifically targeted organizations. This year, the average U.S. senator brought home more than $180 million in earmarked projects to their constituents ($28 million for representatives).

Earmarks are a huge problem at the federal level, because the benefits from such projects flow to small groups of interested individuals while the taxes used to pay for them are spread across the entire population as a whole. This diffusion of cost encourages the earmark practice, because it allows politicians to bring money to their constituents without putting the cost on them directly. The result is an ever-expanding federal budget, which this year passed the $3 trillion mark — or more than $10,000 per U.S. citizen.

Sadly, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected the bill’s earmark restriction. From Bloomberg’s coverage of the vote:

The proposal ran into opposition from senators in both parties as lawmakers said it would merely shift authority to make spending decisions to anonymous bureaucrats in the executive branch.

Fortunately, six Democrats and a handful of Republicans did vote for the bill’s adoption, including Missouri’s own Claire McCaskill, who has been a strong opponent of congressional earmark proposals. And to the best of my knowledge, only McCaskill and Sen. John McCain (the bill’s sponsor) were true to their vote, refusing to direct federal dollars into earmarked projects in any of the legislative bills they sponsored last year. That’s much better than the (transparent) electioneering support by Sens. Clinton and Obama, who voted for the bill, yet oversaw $342 and $98 million in earmarked projects last year, respectively.

The 29 senators who voted to approve the legislation should be commended for their commitment to reducing governmental spending on pet projects. It’s a shame that more elected officials don’t share their commitment to fiscal discipline.

The post It Must Be a “Mc” Thing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Star series said at the standard 60 degrees, a 231-cubic-inch
gallon of fuel delivers a certain amount of energy. At 90 degrees,
however, the same gallon expands to more than 235 cubic inches. Because
consumers are still buying 231-cubic-inch gallons, "hot fuel" forces
them to spend more to obtain the same amount of energy.

According to the editorial, this legislation would help save Missouri motorists $15 million dollars annually, because it would require gas stations to install automatic temperature-compensating equipment in all retail gasoline
station pumps. The updated technology would adjust the price of gasoline as it
expands during warmer temperatures.

As a previous post discussed this same issue, supply and demand efficiently determines the retail price of gasoline in a competitive market — bidding down the price slightly when temperatures have temporarily expanded supplies. In general, motorists don’t think about the energy output that a
gallon of gas gives their cars, because that information isn’t relevant in deciding where to buy gas. Focusing on the price per gallon at one station in comparison to a nearby station helps fuel consumers much more than figuring out price per energy-output-unit at varying temperatures. Websites can also help consumers compare the cost of gas.

These new regulations would produce is higher fuel prices for consumers that would amount to much more than the $15 million dollars that "hot fuel" is ostensibly costing consumers in Missouri now. Rather than trying to find short-term relief through short-sighted legislation, we should encourage market-based technological solutions in our search for a way to reduce consumer energy costs.

The post “Hot Fuel” Legislation Is a Step in the Wrong Direction appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Heat expands fuel and cold contracts it, so that if you were to buy a single gallon of gas in Florida, you’d actually be buying a somewhat lower amount of energy output than if you were to buy a gallon of gas in Alaska. This temperature dichotomy is particularly relevant for a state like Missouri, with both infamously hot summers and cold winters.

From yesterday’s article:

The stories, which began last August, found that consumers are being overcharged about $2.3 billion per year because of the effects of temperature on fuel.

“We have the technology to change that, and there’s no good reason not to utilize it,” McCaskill said.

As the article also notes, the "physics of hot fuel are fairly straightforward" — but it’s not at all clear that this undeniable variation in purchased energy output actually results in consumers being overcharged. Price is a function of both demand and supply. So, in a competitive market, when temperatures rise and the contents of fuel storage tanks simultaneously expand, gas stations have an increased supply of fuel to sell.

The competitive drive to outsell the station down the street gives each gas station an incentive to lower its prices slightly — precisely because it has that temperature-increased supply of fuel. "Overcharging" is only taking place if we assume gas stations aren’t competitive, which is an absurd assumption. Individual gas stations wouldn’t stay in business long if they didn’t ever lower prices to compete with other nearby stations. This sort of fierce competition is one of the reasons we’re not still at $3.00-plus-per-gallon pump prices — when overall market price drops, so do individual station prices.

The article continues:

The bill would give the Federal Trade Commission, working with the National Institute of Technology and Standards, the authority to implement its provisions. If the legislation is approved, its provisions would go into effect within a year of enactment.

The legislation calls for all retail dispensers in the United States to be equipped to adjust for fuel temperature fluctuations within six years. State inspectors would determine whether the necessary equipment had been installed.

A trust fund also would be established to help pay as much as $1,000 to upgrade each retail pump. To be eligible for the subsidy, however, the retail fuel stations could not be owned by a major oil company. Details on financing the trust are to be disclosed later.

If equipment like this is installed, and gas stations are required to dispense slightly more gas per "gallon" when temperatures are hotter, the price charged for each one of those larger gallons will also naturally rise. Just as prices would fall slightly when hot temperatures bump up the gas supply available in storage-tank reserves, the prices would increase accordingly if that extra supply were, instead, parceled out to motorists a little at a time with each gallon purchased. There would be no consumer savings as a result of this regulation.

But there might at least be more accurate information at the pump. So, aside from the illusory specter of hot fuel "overcharging," it might seem at first glance like a good idea to make sure that consumers know exactly what they’re getting when they buy a gallon of gas, in terms of energy output per gallon. As useful as this information might be, though, it’s necessary to weigh its value against the cost of obtaining it. Temperature-managed pumps would require a huge investment, and would be reflected in still higher gas prices — or higher taxes, depending on how the upgrades are financed. The fact that this investment would be required by law means that economic valuation becomes irrelevant. It wouldn’t matter whether consumers actually think the information is worth the cost — they’d be getting the information, and paying the cost, regardless.

What really matters when buying a gallon of gas isn’t knowing its energy output in relation to other temperatures, but in relation to other nearby stations. If you can be sure that the gallon of gas you’re buying at one station is the same size as the gallon of gas you might buy down the street, you can make an informed decision about which relative price is worth your patronage.

In short, this legislation would increase costs across the board, all in the service of providing consumers information that’s not relevant to comparative fuel shopping.

The post “Hot Fuel” Regulations Would Harm Consumers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.