Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andrew G. Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, about the Social Security trustees’ latest report and what it means for the program’s future. They discuss the projected 2032 insolvency of the retirement trust fund, why the trustees’ birth rate assumptions may be too optimistic, the proposed Moreno-Warren plan to eliminate the payroll tax ceiling, the Cassidy-Kaine plan, and why pension experts oppose it, what would actually happen if the trust fund ran out, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
I feel fortunate to have grabbed some of your time. Andrew Biggs from the American Enterprise Institute, I appreciate you coming on to talk to us. Social security has been nothing but in the news recently, and you know more than anyone else. So thank you for taking the time.

Andrew Biggs (00:14):
That’s why I’m so cheerful. The more you know about Social Security, the happier you are. But thanks for having me, Susan. It has been busy. I’m really happy to be with you today.

Susan Pendergrass (00:16):
I’m in my sixties. I see something about Social Security running out of money and I pay attention. So just to bring us all up to speed: in the last week, there was a news flash that Social Security is going to run out of money sooner. What does it really mean?

Andrew Biggs (00:39):
Every year the Social Security trustees, which is mostly members of the cabinet, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Social Security Commissioner, and so on, come out with a report projecting the program’s financial health, both in the short term and the long term. That happens every year, and it’s been getting worse every year. In this year’s report, they projected that the retirement trust fund will go insolvent, or run out of money, in 2032. They also projected a significantly larger long-term funding gap in the years thereafter, and this is worth explaining.

When the trust fund runs out, it doesn’t mean there’s zero money to pay benefits. As long as we’re paying a trillion dollars a year in payroll taxes, there will be money to pay benefits. But when the trust fund runs out, it means benefits will be cut, and their projection is somewhere around 22%. The size of that long-term funding gap dictates how big the cuts are going to be in the years thereafter. The trustees lowered their projections for birth rates, and they found that the One Big Beautiful Bill has worsened Social Security’s finances. A variety of things made this long-term funding gap worse. It’s really hard to paint a happy picture. The trust fund can be running out in about six years, and the funding gap and the benefit cuts in years thereafter are going to be larger. It’s a sobering picture.

Susan Pendergrass (02:16):
I’m not trying to pile on, but I think I saw that they extended the time when they expect birth rates to bounce back. Is that true? Because I have not seen anything anywhere, and I’ve spoken to some demographers, to suggest birth rates are ever going to bounce back.

Andrew Biggs (02:35):
Here’s the interesting thing. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office or the US Census Bureau, right now the fertility rate is about 1.6 children per woman on average, and both the CBO and the Census project that’s going to remain pretty much steady, declining a little bit over coming decades. Social Security had a very different picture. As of last year, they thought the birth rate, which is 1.6 now, was going to immediately start rising and go back up to 1.9 children per woman in the next several decades. That makes Social Security’s finances better. More kids being born means more people paying into the system. What they did in this year’s report is moderate a bit on fertility. They said, okay, it’s not going to rise back to 1.9, it’ll rise back to 1.75. So they are still over-optimistic. I’ve talked to some demographers and economists who’ve really focused on the birth rate, and they described the trustees’ assumptions as, quote, fanciful, meaning they just weren’t plausible. Now they’re somewhat more plausible, but they still tend

Susan Pendergrass (03:32):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (03:48):
to be more optimistic than other agencies. And to me, frankly, this is a concern. You really want the people who are the scorekeepers, the umpires, to be playing it as straight as they possibly can. We know that these guesses are going to be wrong because this stuff is impossible to predict with certainty, but most demographers think the best guess is we’ll stay around 1.6 going forward. You’ve seen a decline, and a good predictor of birth rates is religiosity, the level of religious belief in a country. The US has typically been much more religious than Western Europe, and that’s played into fertility. There has been a big decline in religious belief, particularly among younger Americans, along with all the other pessimism you see among younger people. When people are pessimistic, they tend not to have a lot of kids. So the best guess is we’re going to stay about where we are.

I wrote something the other day saying the bad news in this trustees report is even worse than last year’s, but it could have been even worse. They project a long-term funding gap above 4.4 percent of payroll. What that means is if you took the 12.4% payroll tax today and raised it immediately and permanently by 4.4 percentage points, from 12.4 to 16.8, that would in theory keep the trust fund solvent for 75 years. But a better guess would be a funding gap of around 4.8 to 5 percent. This is real money. For years, people on the left have said, well, okay, we know Social Security has a solvency problem, but it’s a manageable issue. They were saying that when the funding gap was 2% of payroll. Now you’re looking at four to five percent. That’s a lot of money, at a time when a lot of other things are making claims on the budget. We have some difficult choices to make and we really have to start thinking hard about this.

Susan Pendergrass (06:09):
Okay, so what about this idea that’s been floated in the last week of getting rid of the payroll cap? First of all, explain the payroll cap, and then this idea of getting rid of it.

Andrew Biggs (06:17):
Sure. Social Security has a 12.4% payroll tax, half paid by you and half paid by your employer. That applies only to wages up to $184,500. That’s called the payroll tax ceiling, or the tax max. That dollar figure goes up every year, but this year it’s $184,000. You only pay taxes on those wages, and you also earn benefits only on those wages. People say, well, Bill Gates doesn’t pay more taxes than that. But he doesn’t earn any benefits either. So you’re capping both the taxes and the benefits.

To fast forward a little bit: there’s an op-ed in the Washington Post this week from Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts. They say it’s just common sense to eliminate that cap and tax all earnings for Social Security. The interesting thing is how uncommon that would actually be. Our payroll tax ceiling is $184,000. Almost every other country has a ceiling on their payroll taxes for their pension system, and in almost every other country that ceiling is lower. In Canada, you only pay taxes and earn benefits up to around $60,000 in earnings. In the UK it’s about $70,000. In Germany it’s about $70,000. We are already an outlier for how high up the income ladder we tax people. To eliminate the cap entirely is a big deal. It’s effectively a 12 percentage point increase in the top marginal tax rate. I pulled an example of somebody living in New York City. A high-income person already pays 37% in federal income taxes, plus regular Medicare taxes, the additional Medicare tax, state taxes, and city taxes. If you add another 12 percentage points on top of that, their marginal tax rate would be in the mid-60s. And that’s before we’ve fixed Medicare or done anything else. The federal budget is still broke, and you’ve taxed these people as high as you possibly can. So these things that look like common sense, why don’t we just tax everybody,

Susan Pendergrass (08:37):
Right, right.

Andrew Biggs (08:46):
look, there are reasons for that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:49):
And were they suggesting that if I make $300,000 and I pay my 6.2 percent, totaling 12.4 with my employer, on my entire salary, that my Social Security benefit one day would be higher? Are they talking about capping the benefit or just getting rid of the cap on contributions?

Andrew Biggs (09:06):
They haven’t been very specific. They say Social Security would continue to be an earned benefit, which kind of implies you would continue to earn benefits on the additional taxes you would pay. Let’s say if we uncap the payroll tax and base your taxes on your total earnings, you’d also base your benefits on your total earnings. What you get then is, okay, you’re getting all this money from people in the short term, but you have to pay them higher benefits in the long term. That offsets some of the savings. And this morning I was running some numbers looking back to the 1970s. We had a huge run-up in benefit levels from Social Security in the 1970s. The benefit formula we have today is not the one FDR invented. It really happened in the 1970s, where they jacked up benefits in a really foolish way, and then to help pay for it, they increased the payroll tax ceiling. Right now you pay taxes on earnings up to $180,000. If we had just kept the tax max from 1970 and indexed it to wages, it would have been only $95,000. So they essentially doubled the wages on which you pay Social Security taxes. But what happens is they also doubled the wages on which people earn benefits. I’ve highlighted the point that if you have a high-income

Susan Pendergrass (10:38):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (10:43):
couple retiring today, they could get almost $100,000 in total benefits, which is absurd. There’s no reason a government program should be paying anybody that amount. If you want that kind of income in retirement, you save more in your 401k. It’s better for you, better for the economy. But it was a result of this short-term step they took in the 70s. They said, hey, we raised benefits too high, let’s jack up the tax max. And they didn’t worry about the fact that in the future you’d have to pay benefits on that. Well, the future is today.

Susan Pendergrass (11:05):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (11:13):
Now we’re broke again, we need extra money again, and these guys say, well let’s just jack up the tax max. But then you’ll pay extra benefits in the future. It becomes this chasing-your-tail kind of thing.

Susan Pendergrass (11:16):
Yeah. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (11:25):
And the problem when you do it is there’s no country on earth paying $100,000 a year from a social insurance program, except for us. And the reason we do is these stupid historical decisions. If you’ve got this high-income couple in the US retiring today, they can get almost $100,000 from Social Security. If they lived in Canada, they’d get like $35,000. And that’s perfectly fine. Nobody’s starving to death in Canada in retirement. They just save more on their own.

Susan Pendergrass (11:35):
I’ll say.

Andrew Biggs (11:55):
The irony is that we think of ourselves as a free-market, small-government country, and our Social Security program is enormous, primarily because we’re paying benefits to people that other countries say, yeah, we don’t need to pay benefits to these guys.

Susan Pendergrass (12:11):
And yet people say, I put my money in, I get my money out.

Andrew Biggs (12:14):
Yeah, and I understand it. When I say we shouldn’t be paying $100,000 a year to a high-income couple, you get the email saying, well, I paid in. And if you paid in, you feel you have this moral claim on benefits. The problem is Social Security is still broke. We still need higher taxes or lower benefits. The idea that you’re just going to get your full benefits with the taxes you paid doesn’t work because the system can’t afford to do it. So you have to make the choice: do I want to pay higher taxes or get lower benefits? I’ve got to pick my poison. Most high-income people would prefer to get lower benefits. They care more about their taxes than their benefits. But people are still living in this dream world where this system, which is $30 trillion in the hole, is somehow going to pay them everything they’ve been promised and just screw somebody else. Everybody thinks they’re the guy who’s going to get everything and somebody else is going to get screwed.

Susan Pendergrass (13:14):
Yeah. I definitely hear people saying today, maybe I should go ahead and take it early and then I’ll get grandfathered in and my benefits won’t get lowered.

Andrew Biggs (13:26):
It probably won’t make a difference. In general, the Social Security benefit formula works based on your birth cohort, the year in which you’re born, not really the year in which you claim benefits. And people who are going to do Social Security reform understand the incentives. They don’t want to make it easy for people to game the system. So Social Security reform will probably work itself out in such a way that

Susan Pendergrass (13:42):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (14:03):
you can’t get some big advantage by claiming early. I could think of some conceivable possibilities, but I still would not encourage people to claim early.

Susan Pendergrass (14:14):
Okay, I want to talk about two more things I read in the last week. One was a letter from Tim Kaine about his idea with Senator Cassidy. What’s that idea for fixing it?

Andrew Biggs (14:24):
The interesting thing is people say Social Security reform has to be bipartisan. So we have two bipartisan ideas. We have Moreno and Elizabeth Warren, a Republican and a Democrat. They’ve got one idea, eliminating the payroll tax ceiling.

Susan Pendergrass (14:39):
Third rail.

Andrew Biggs (14:49):
Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, they’ve got a bipartisan plan. And guess what? Their plan is also terrible. If there’s any lesson from this, it’s that bipartisan doesn’t mean good.

Susan Pendergrass (15:00):
Bipartisanly terrible.

Andrew Biggs (15:04):
Yeah. Look, ultimately Social Security reform is going to have to be bipartisan, given the way the political system works. On the other hand, there is some lesson that if both Republicans and Democrats can agree on something, it might be a terrible idea. With Cassidy and Kaine, they are explicitly, and Cassidy said this, solving a political problem. The political problem is that neither Republicans nor Democrats want to vote for either tax increases or benefit cuts. You’d think Democrats want to raise your taxes and Republicans want to cut your benefits. The reality is they don’t want to do either of those things because they realize both are politically unpopular, which is why we’ve gone 40 years literally doing nothing. So their solution is that we don’t have to make these difficult votes. Instead, the federal government will borrow about $2 trillion, invest that money

Susan Pendergrass (16:02):
Tough.

Andrew Biggs (16:04):
in stocks and private equity, high-risk, high-return stuff. Then they claim they’re going to hold this fund for 75 years so it can build up value. In the meantime, when Social Security’s trust fund runs out in 2032, the federal government will borrow against the assumed gains on this investment fund.

Susan Pendergrass (16:06):
Right. Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (16:29):
They say the borrowing will be at a lower rate because it’s the federal government. And they say after 75 years, all the gains in this investment fund will pay back all the borrowing and we’re all good. And let me count the ways there are problems with that. If you work at the state level,

Susan Pendergrass (16:45):
It’s just kicking the can.

Andrew Biggs (16:52):
state-based think tanks almost know more about this than federal people. A lot of underfunded state pension systems do things called pension obligation bonds. Their pension system is underfunded, they don’t want to raise contributions or cut benefits, so they borrow and invest in the stock market and hope it works. The pension obligation bond is the hallmark of a poorly funded, poorly run pension system. Think New Jersey, Illinois, things like that.

Susan Pendergrass (17:21):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:23):
There’s a national group of state budget officers that has come out and basically said as an institution, don’t do this. Borrowing for your pension is a bad idea. So it really is fitting for the times that the Cassidy-Kaine plan says, let’s take this worst idea from state and local government

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:47):
employee pensions, which has been condemned as bad practice, and put it on steroids and do that for Social Security. And what it really gets to is they just don’t understand the finances of it. And to be frank, they won’t listen. They have talked to every pension expert I know, and this Social Security world is pretty small. We all know each other on both sides. We may not agree on everything. Literally every pension expert I know says this is a terrible idea.

Susan Pendergrass (17:54):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (18:17):
But their political considerations are more important than policy, and that’s the problem with all of them.

Susan Pendergrass (18:24):
I mean, it feels free. They’re basically saying it’s like a timeshare. It just feels free right now. We just borrow the money. Okay, so

Andrew Biggs (18:31):
It’s been pointed out to them that if you can fund Social Security this way, you could fund the entire federal government this way and never collect any taxes. At one point Senator Cassidy was quoted in a newspaper article saying, well, yeah, sure, in theory you could. And I’m like, if something implies there’s a free money machine, maybe you need to question your assumptions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:38):
Sure. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (18:54):
I could give you a whole variety of reasons why this doesn’t work, but one macro point that’s come to me: I’ve been doing Social Security for a long time. I worked in the Bush administration in 2005 when they tried and failed to do Social Security reform. One of the problems we face today is that your elected officials understand Social Security policy much less well than they did 20 years ago. They just don’t understand how the system works. Going back to the Moreno-Warren idea of applying the payroll tax to all earnings,

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (19:37):
okay, you’re adding 12 percentage points to your top tax rate. There’s a reason Sweden and France and others don’t do this anymore. They used to have incredibly high tax rates. They don’t now. We would end up in many cases with a higher tax rate than most European countries. We have some philosophical dedication to small government and things like that. They don’t. And so if they’re not doing it,

Susan Pendergrass (19:43):
Yes. Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (20:02):
it’s because there’s a practical reason this isn’t a good idea. The same applies to wealth taxes. That’s been tried in Europe. They’re like, yeah, we’re not doing that anymore because it doesn’t work. But your average senator now

Susan Pendergrass (20:14):
It is happening around the country, the billionaire tax. What happens in 2032 if no one is either brave enough or smart enough to take this on in the next six years?

Andrew Biggs (20:17):
They’re just not aware of these policy issues, and that’s a real problem. It’s like having a guy fix your car who doesn’t know how to fix cars. 2032 is the date. If you have a recession, it might be 2031. It’s not certain, but it is certain it’s happening soon.

Susan Pendergrass (20:47):
Yeah. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (20:53):
There’s a literal reading of the law, which is that Social Security can’t pay out benefits it doesn’t have dedicated resources for. Once the trust fund runs out, the only dedicated resources are mostly the payroll tax, plus a little bit of money from income taxes levied on retirement benefits. And those were cut as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. So if the trust fund runs out, they’d have to rely on the money they have on hand, which implies around a 22% benefit cut.

A lot of times people assume that benefit cut has to be across the board. If you did it that way, you’d throw a lot of people into poverty. I did some work a year or so ago with a lawyer in DC named Kristen Shapiro, and what we found is that the legal precedent shows the executive branch, meaning the president working through the Social Security Commissioner, would have some discretion. What we found is you could maintain full benefits for about 50% of people, the poorest 50% of seniors, and then cap benefits above that. If you cap the maximum benefit at about $24,000 per year for a single person or $48,000 for a couple, that is enough to make Social Security solid without raising taxes. So the point is simply you have some discretion.

The reality is Congress isn’t going to allow big benefit cuts, for political reasons. On the other hand, are they willing to have the size of tax increases needed, all in one go, to keep Social Security paying full benefits? I don’t think they want that either. So the reality is probably they’re going to borrow a lot of the money. And that’s where you get to the issue of how much more borrowing the financial markets will swallow. We effectively borrow from the public to repay the Social Security Trust Fund, but there’s an end to that. You say, okay, 2032, we have to do something. We have to raise taxes or cut benefits. If in 2032 the stated policy of the federal government is, well, we’re just going to keep borrowing to pay Social Security even though we have no prospect of paying it back, you wouldn’t blame some big market players for saying, yeah, I’m out, because you don’t want to lend money at low interest rates to someone who says they can’t pay it back. Then you start getting a couple of things. One is more federal borrowing squeezes out capital in the rest of the economy, and so interest rates naturally rise.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (23:31):
But then there’s a second element: if you’re afraid the federal government can’t pay you back, over and above that natural increase in the interest rate, you’d apply a risk premium to treasury debt. You’d say, look, Treasury is not this rock-solid investment anymore. It’s more like a junk bond, or like borrowing from Illinois, and you make them pay a premium. That’s going to drive up

Susan Pendergrass (23:43):
US government borrowing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:01):
interest rates, and that makes it tougher not just for the federal government but for everybody. If you want to buy a car or a house, all your interest rates rise. There’s also going to be real temptation to inflate away the debt. The federal government doesn’t want to default on its debt, but

Susan Pendergrass (24:24):
Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:25):
historically the way you deal with this is inflation. Think about all the debt we took on during COVID, shoveling money out the door to everybody, and then we had massive inflation after it. A lot of those people who bought treasury debt didn’t get a good deal, because if you get 20% inflation on

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Absolutely. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:47):
a treasury bond with a nominal fixed interest rate, that’s a real problem. So inflation becomes increasingly tempting. You look at this scenario and you’re like, can’t anybody here play this game? Every other country is not going bankrupt. We just have to do what they do.

Susan Pendergrass (24:51):
Yeah, yeah. So could we, if we really got our heads around it and started today or next year, incrementally raise the 12.4%, or incrementally get people used to lower benefits after a certain income or wealth level?

Andrew Biggs (25:18):
Sure. Yes. The way I think about it, there are two ways people think about it: the wrong way and my way. The wrong way is, let’s just pick from this menu of options to make Social Security solvent. We can raise the payroll tax a bit, raise the retirement age a bit, cut cost-of-living adjustments a bit, raise the tax cap a bit, and do these things until the system is solvent.

Susan Pendergrass (25:34):
Yes. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (25:54):
That’ll get you a solvent program, but it won’t be a program that particularly works very well or is good for the economy. A more effective way is to ask, what do we want this system to do? If you talk about Social Security reform, what you hear is that it’s a social insurance program, a safety net, an anti-poverty program. Okay, it has to do that. And that part is really very cheap, because we don’t literally have that many poor seniors, their benefits aren’t very high, and it’s not a problem to maintain benefits for low-income seniors. When you ask what Social Security should do, nobody is saying we need to be paying high-income seniors $100,000 a year. There’s no public purpose for it. Nobody thought it out in advance. It was simply an unintended consequence. So if you’ve got things that are really costing a lot of money and have no public purpose, and those people can save for retirement on their own, you start scaling that back. The distinction I’m making is between policy changes simply for the purposes of keeping Social Security solvent, and policy changes for the purpose of making Social Security do what it needs to do, the real public purpose, and not doing things that serve no public purpose. My point is the things I’m talking about are things you should do whether Social Security is insolvent or not.

I’ll give you an example: Australia’s retirement system. Australia is a lot like us, not particularly more conservative or liberal, just sort of normal. Their Social Security program essentially is targeted at eliminating poverty in old age. It’s actually a better safety net than Social Security provides, but the benefits decline down to zero once you get above the poverty level. And to help people above that level save for retirement, everybody is enrolled in a 401k-type account. What that says is, if everybody’s participating in retirement plans as they should, the government’s job becomes easier. Their Social Security system costs about two percent of GDP. Ours costs about six percent. It’s a third as costly, provides a better safety net, and it comes because they’re actually thinking about what they’re doing.

Susan Pendergrass (28:18):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (28:26):
We’re literally not thinking about what we’re doing. There’s a saying in business: the worst reason to do something is because we’re already doing it. That is literally how Social Security policymaking works. Nobody knows why our benefit formula is what it is or why the tax max is what it is. It’s all just stuff we inherited from the 1970s from people who were not in any way thinking clearly about what they were doing. It was people in the 70s trying to win elections, and we end up with the bag.

Susan Pendergrass (28:52):
Speaking of 2005, there was an attempt to offload a small portion of people’s contributions into the market, right? That failed.

Andrew Biggs (29:09):
That was the Bush proposal. I was in the White House then, kind of in a number-cruncher role, so I knew that stuff pretty well. I did a lot of events with President Bush around the country. When we came up on the 20th anniversary of Bush’s proposal in 2025, I started thinking to myself, what if his plan had passed? What would have happened? So I built a model. Back then they were saying, okay, you’re going to have some reductions in traditional Social Security benefits for middle and high-income people, and then you’re going to have a personal account where you can invest part of your existing payroll tax in stocks and bonds. The total benefit you get at retirement is a combination of those two. People were speculating. Well, we don’t know what the stock market’s going to do. But 20 years later, we’ve got some data, so let’s just see what happened. The results were that for people

Susan Pendergrass (30:01):
Now we do.

Andrew Biggs (30:07):
retiring today, low and middle-income people would have had higher total benefits by a little bit. The very highest-income people, their benefits would be down by a couple percent because the cuts to their traditional benefits would be larger than the gains from their personal account. But even they would be fine; it’s not a big deal. Going forward, it looked like people would do a little bit better with the Bush plan than with the traditional system. But here’s the important thing: the traditional system is broke. We just talked about how it goes broke in 2032, with huge deficits. The Bush proposal wouldn’t have made Social Security totally solvent, but it would have addressed half or two-thirds of the long-term funding gap. So you’d get a system that would have paid you benefits around the same as, or maybe a little bit better than, Social Security, but would be in much more solid financial shape. Today the times are different, and I don’t think personal accounts are really viable. But the point is, if they had done something back then, everything could be easier today. But members of

Congress were just too afraid. Republicans were afraid of taking the political hit. For Democrats, it was too tempting to give the political hit. They knew they had to do something, but they couldn’t swallow hard and say, look, let’s just go in on this thing together. They didn’t want to give Bush the win because by that point Iraq was going badly and they really didn’t like him. So they beat him up. But the problem is Bush served his term and is happily retired in Texas. The people who really got screwed were the ones who depend on Social Security, because we didn’t fix it. And you just hope that’s not what we do again.

Susan Pendergrass (31:42):
Yeah. Somebody not us in 2045 could be having the same conversation, right? Like, if only in 2025 or 2026 we’d gotten serious. And I do think people mix up the trust fund with the whole program. A lot of people think all of Social Security is going to be bankrupt in six years, versus the reality that we’re still taking in a trillion dollars, we just need about 22% more than what we’re taking in.

Andrew Biggs (32:14):
Yeah. If you go back 20 or 25 years, there were all these arguments about whether the trust fund is real or fair or whatever. The trust fund is essentially IOUs written from one side of the government to the other. I thought at the time the trust fund is not real in an economic sense. It doesn’t make it easier for the government to pay Social Security benefits. It is a pledge that we will pay them, but it doesn’t make it easier to pay them. But here’s the interesting thing:

Susan Pendergrass (32:25):
Right. Al Gore. The lock box.

Andrew Biggs (32:50):
if having a trust fund doesn’t make it easier to pay benefits, then not having a trust fund doesn’t make it harder. The trust fund runs out, we still have taxes coming in, we can still pay 80% of what is owed. If we retarget that, you can maintain the safety net. It’s not like you’re totally insolvent or broke. All those long debates over whether the trust fund is real get resolved because the trust fund itself is gone in six years. So that doesn’t matter very much anymore. But I do hope that, as you said, we’re not in 2045 looking back on a solution of just borrowing $500 billion a year or whatever it’s going to be. People in 2045, when the federal government is bankrupt, the dollar is dropping, and all these financial crisis things we think only happen to other countries are happening to us, they would look back and say, I wish those people were more responsible. The Social Security problem, in a sense, if we went back 25 or 30 years ago, was a manageable problem. The real issue is not the demographics or the benefit growth or whatever. The real issue is just poor stewardship of this program by Congress and respective presidents. It is absolutely a governance problem. It is not a problem of economic or demographic fundamentals. All of that can be handled.

Susan Pendergrass (34:19):
Everyone wants to be Santa Claus, right? No one wants to be the Grinch.

Andrew Biggs (34:22):
It’s very true, but leadership is about giving people bad news. Good news kind of tells itself. Bad news has to be told and people have to be convinced that this is going to hurt, but we’ve got to do it. And we just didn’t have the willingness. President Clinton in the late nineties tried to do some stuff, but he didn’t deliver much bad news because we had surpluses. President Bush was willing to tell people, okay, look, you’re not going to get every penny you’ve been promised. Beyond that, the level of leadership has been very poor.

Susan Pendergrass (35:01):
Hasn’t been good. All right, well, next year when the trustees report comes out, come back and give us more bad news.

Andrew Biggs (35:09):
Yeah, until then, things are looking up. But no, it’s something people want to be aware of, and I think that’s the key thing.

Susan Pendergrass (35:13):
Well, I think one of the more important things you said is that no one understands it. People are upset and arguing over something they don’t understand the mechanics of. I do know people who think they have an account with their name on it that their Social Security taxes went into, and they’re just going to start taking the money out.

Andrew Biggs (35:23):
I have some bad news for that. Your taxes go into Social Security and go straight out the door to pay for your grandmother’s benefits. If you want to know where your taxes are, they’re in your grandmother’s bank account. So go ask her.

Susan Pendergrass (35:45):
That’s right. That’s right. All right, thank you so much. I really appreciate the time.

Andrew Biggs (35:51):
Thank you, Susan. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Social Security Crisis Is Worse Than You Think with Andrew G. Biggs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Judge Glock, director of research and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor at City Journal, about the growing debate over data centers in Missouri and across the country. They discuss why some communities are banning data centers while others are welcoming them, how Loudoun County, Virginia became the global epicenter of data center development and what it has meant for local tax revenue, whether concerns about noise, aesthetics, and energy use are valid, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): Thank you for coming on the podcast again, Judge Glock. We’re going to talk about something that is certainly in the news and certainly good and bad for Missouri in the past week. We’ve had stories about both new data centers being announced and more communities banning them. What’s your take on that? You live in Virginia. In Missouri, we are certainly at odds with each other between one area that is going to have both a massive Amazon and a massive Google data center and then very close to that a large county that just banned them. Where do you think this is going?

Judge Glock (00:36): In some sense, it’s going the way of a lot of American projects in that there’s going to be a diversity of local responses to them, which I think is actually quite OK. One of the things I gather when I talk to some of my friends across the pond in the UK or in Europe is that they basically have to have this grand national debate about data centers, whether to allow them and where to allow them. That’s obviously an important and worthwhile debate, but in America what we’re going to have, and what we’ve already had, is a near infinitude of local debates about data centers. I think that’s the right path. When you nationalize or centralize these issues, you create more veto points for people who want to refuse any sort of growth. You also force certain kinds of growth on people in areas that aren’t necessarily favorable to them or most likely to benefit from them. The American system of fairly decentralized governance, combined with a fiscal horse-trading side where the main benefit of local data centers is the fiscal bump local communities can get, I think is going to lead to a more positive outcome than a more centralized system that tries to create a single answer for a whole country or state.

Susan Pendergrass (02:07): But we have at least one county in Missouri that within the last few days said, regardless of the money, we’re a community and these things ruin towns and communities. I wonder if it isn’t going to be like driving across some states like West Virginia where the biggest, ugliest, most pollution-spewing plants are there. I wonder if it’s because Virginia was willing to have them. Now you have these communities in Missouri that are like, we’ve got acres and acres of land and we don’t care what it looks like, versus these other communities that are saying we don’t want big white buildings everywhere. That to me is a very interesting dynamic, because I feel like they’re going to end up in places where nobody wants to build anything else.

Judge Glock (03:02): Yeah, and that might not be the worst outcome. Can I give a quick segue into the history of something called environmental racism? This was a movement started to some extent in the South in the 1970s and 1980s to meld general anti-industrial, pro-environmental sentiment with the burgeoning civil rights movement. The argument at that time was that evil polluters were forcing their factories into places that were poor and largely Black or minority-majority areas, and that this was a travesty because it was burdening people with increased environmental harm, pollution, and factory soot. The problem with that analysis, which has been carried out by the federal government for decades, is that a lot of times poor and minority communities really, really wanted these factories. They were willing to accept the trade-offs of the environmental harms for the fiscal and monetary benefits in a way that wealthier communities were not. Precisely because they were poor, they usually put a lower value on the environmental concerns that exercised a lot of high-income people and put a much higher value on getting good jobs and all the rest. There’s a famous case from the 1990s where I believe the Clinton administration sued a Louisiana parish and a company that was trying to place a factory in a majority-minority district, claiming it was an example of environmental racism. It actually turned out that the largely Black politicians in the local area were saying this was insane, that they were being sued by the federal government for being racist against themselves when they wanted the factory. That’s a long segue into environmental racism, but I think it’s the sort of analysis we should apply to data centers. There are going to be some areas that put a higher value on the fiscal benefits of data centers than others. On the whole, I imagine those will be poorer areas that care a bit more about reducing property taxes and perhaps the fairly small but not insignificant job benefits of data centers. Estimates suggest a finished data center will create around 50 or so permanent jobs, though certainly hundreds during construction. Some of those communities will be more likely to accept them than maybe wealthy suburbs or other areas that don’t want them for various reasons. Now there are exceptions to that general framework, and I’ve written a bit about Loudoun County, which is a very strange case study.

Susan Pendergrass (06:02): Tell me about that, because I’m surprised that it’s the data center capital of the world given what I’ve seen in Loudoun County.

Judge Glock (06:08): I happen to live in Fairfax, Virginia, in part of the suburbs, and grew up in the general area. So it surprised me to learn not too long ago that Loudoun County, just a little further west from Fairfax, a county generally considered ex-urban and rural, and by one measure, median income, the richest county in America, with a median household income of around $170,000 a year. And yet despite this reputation as a wealthy Northern Virginia ex-urban community, what Loudoun has actually become is the global epicenter of data centers. By some measure, the amount of gigawatts used by data centers, the only place close is Beijing, and they’re not even close, at about half the level of what Loudoun and Northern Virginia have. As I showed in an article I wrote for City Journal that got some attention, that came from a particular confluence of events, a history of Defense Department buildup that left a lot of what’s called dark fiber in the area, which created what’s known as low latency, meaning data centers there could communicate with each other very quickly. That made it a good place to locate internet and communication-focused data centers, and today data centers focused on inference for AI, that is the answering of AI queries. That history made it a particular location. But the other side of the Loudoun story is that for decades, and especially in the last decade, the county just recognized the fiscal benefits. Right now data centers are paying for 45% of all taxes in the county, which is pretty remarkable.

Susan Pendergrass (08:12): How much are they taking in from data centers in person?

Judge Glock (08:15): For the next fiscal year, the estimate is that data centers will bring in $1.3 billion in county revenue. That’s about 45% of all local tax revenue. But maybe an even more startling way to frame it is that all local government uses and projects outside of schools are a little less than what Loudoun raises from data centers alone. So the local residents of Loudoun County effectively get free police, free firefighters, free animal control, free roads, and so on.

Susan Pendergrass (09:00): Have they lowered their property taxes?

Judge Glock (09:02): Yes. Thanks to this absolute boom in data center revenue, Loudoun not only has very well-appointed and well-funded schools, roads, and police departments, but they’ve also lowered their property tax rate pretty continuously for over a decade. It’s about 40% lower than it was in the early 2010s. Now that’s offset to some extent by increases in assessments and other rates, but it is much lower than what I pay over here in Fairfax, about a third lower. So data centers for Loudoun, which can kind of be seen as the first area to really embrace them, and home to one of the first significant data centers in America built by a now large firm called Equinox in the late 1990s, has worked really, really well for that county. I don’t think it’s necessarily going to work as well for every possible county that doesn’t have the same advantages Loudoun does, but it does show that for those that embrace them, there can be real benefits. It clearly hasn’t hampered the ability to attract high-income, well-funded residents with good jobs and a nice community. On the whole it seems to have been beneficial, even if you’ve seen growing opposition there as you’ve seen elsewhere.

Susan Pendergrass (10:46): Virginia horse country. But now it feels like the word is out and people are hearing that there could be health risks, that the buildings buzz, that they use all the water. I’ve seen some recently that have like some blue stripes and stuff on them, but the originals were pretty plain. The latest vote in Missouri was in St. Charles, and people cheered and wrote all these emails saying we don’t want them in our backyard because of health risks and noise. How valid are those concerns?

Judge Glock (11:22): Before I was celebrating the local diversity of responses to data centers relative to the alternative, but I don’t want to slight the classic concerns with local NIMBYism, the not-in-my-backyard movement, or the idea that local governments often try very hard to restrict new development of housing or other projects in their area, which can be a substantial burden for people looking for housing or hoping for jobs and fiscal revenue. On the whole, I think the competitiveness of local governments will help wash that out. If St. Charles or another county refuses to build a data center, it’s often not too difficult to find another county willing to accept one. But I do think a lot of this anti-data center hysteria is driven by people with not just local concerns, which can be legitimate though to my mind often vastly overblown, but with a general anger at technological civilization and AI writ large. A lot of that has been strangely channeled into specific local opposition to data centers. That old leftist slogan of think globally and act locally presents a problem here: a lot of local issues don’t really map well to global concerns about climate change or AI. If someone has an issue with AI and they ban a local data center, that is in no way going to stop AI. Stopping a data center nearby is not going to stop the revolution. It will barely even slow it down. There is a lot of generalized opposition to modernity and technology that gets channeled into opposition to local data center construction, which is totally irrelevant to that debate. As for the actual local concerns, when I was reporting on the story for Loudoun, I spent some time driving around and checking out these data centers. For those who have not seen one, or frankly a park of them, it’s a pretty amazing sight. These things can be huge, nearly approaching a hundred feet tall, very solid concrete boxes, not often the most beautiful structures you’ve ever seen. The trend now is placing blind windows in them randomly to make them look better, though depending on your preference that may or may not help. I think a lot could be done to address the aesthetic concerns. Those are real. If you look at some parts of Loudoun and elsewhere, there are data centers built right next to housing subdivisions, and it can feel uncomfortable to have a looming concrete block right next door. The other local concern I think is somewhat legitimate but again overblown is the noise. Data centers, mainly because of their cooling systems, emit a fairly regular hum. It’s a low frequency, low decibel hum, but at a low frequency it can go through walls and subtly shake things. It can be irritating. I personally would not like a low frequency hum right next door. But the solution, as with the visual impact, is simply to push them back a bit. This is not like a local school that needs to be right next to a subdivision. If you’re talking a few hundred yards down the road, you’ve pretty much solved most of the hum and visual impact issues, especially if you surround it with some trees or berms or other methods to both hide the structure and limit the noise. Those two issues, the noise and the visual impact, are real. I understand why people are concerned, but they can be and have been easily addressed. In most of the debates you see, that’s not really the issue. It’s these generalized concerns about AI or false concerns about water.

Susan Pendergrass (16:03): What about the use of energy?

Judge Glock (16:19): Again, to some extent this is another local versus global problem where the local energy use of a data center is not really going to change the price people pay on their local residential energy bill. Most energy here in Virginia and elsewhere is part of a big interconnection, which is a market where different energy producers and power plants share electricity across large transmission lines. The price for electricity, besides state-level mandates, laws, or environmental regulations, is usually determined in that general market. Yes, a data center will drive up electricity costs somewhat in that general market, but it’s not necessarily a substantial driver of that. One new data center will have a very minimal impact on anybody’s bills across the whole region and will have no real effective impact on somebody’s local energy bills. To some extent, data center builders have also been doing a lot more work to construct what’s called off-the-grid or behind-the-grid energy production attached to the data centers. That can be problematic because of increased noise, even in Loudoun and elsewhere where a lot of places just have backup diesel generators that can produce a loud crack when the backup energy turns on, since data centers want to be running constantly. But in general, as before, you have very localized concerns about noise that you want to address with very localized attempts to limit those impacts, either through distancing the data center or finding ways to cover it and limit the noise it emits. The electricity issue is real in the sense that demand for electricity is going up because of data centers, and as economists like to say, supply is inelastic, meaning supply of energy is not going to ramp up as quickly as demand. That means prices are going to go up a little bit nationally because of that. But as long as the value of these data centers is there and people are going to build them, they’re not really going to have a meaningful impact on local electricity prices, and the data center builders are going to find other ways to get electricity and make sure that generation capacity comes online.

Susan Pendergrass (19:28): Missouri is building these two massive data centers not far from our one nuclear plant, and I know that’s something that has been discussed. When I hear that Loudoun County was the first to do this in such a massive way that they could bring in half of their income from data centers, it feels to me like when Colorado legalized cannabis and was the only state to do so. They took in so much money that residents got money back on their income taxes, and every other state said they were going to be just like Colorado. But Colorado was the one that did it first. Maybe Loudoun is the one that did it first with data centers. So now when a community brings in a data center, it’s not going to have the same impact it had in that first wild test case that was Loudoun County, right?

Judge Glock (20:18): I think that’s correct. I would note though that for some smaller communities, especially small rural communities with relatively small populations, such as some of these Texas counties, a single data center can become a third or more of the city’s or county’s budget overnight. So they can have a huge impact on smaller and poorer areas. But do most data centers as they’re built today have the huge fiscal impact that Loudoun got? Absolutely not. The other side of the fiscal story, though, and one that will apply more universally, is that data centers require very little in the way of services. When a city allows a new subdivision or apartment building, it gets more property taxes but also has to pay for schooling for the kids, roads, fire departments, and all the rest. When a city allows a new office park, there are similar property tax benefits but fewer service costs than residential development. According to one estimate I saw, for every dollar a typical office building or commercial retail project generates, a city spends about 25 cents on actual services to it. For data centers, because there’s basically no one in them, that number drops to about four or five cents. They basically need nothing. As I talked to some of the local officials in Loudoun, they said these things don’t send kids to school, they don’t even put cars on the road. There’s basically no impact on anything else. Once it’s built, it just sits there and throws off property tax revenues. No trash pickup, no breaking up fights at a local bar. It’s just money that keeps flowing in. So even if the property taxes aren’t as massive as they are in Loudoun, local communities still aren’t going to have to worry much about services, and they’re still likely going to see a big net benefit. Some people point out that data centers don’t offer many jobs over the long run, and a lot of industrial projects get approved because of job creation. But the flip side is that very few jobs also means low services and low impact. A big concern with local communities approving projects is traffic, and data centers just don’t create much of it for their size. So yes, other counties are not going to get the kind of deal Loudoun got and still is getting, because it remains the epicenter and data center builders want to build next to other data centers. But they are going to get a project that really doesn’t cost much of anything, still throws off at least some money, and doesn’t really burden local communities as long as it’s placed ever so slightly out of the way.

Susan Pendergrass (24:16): That brings me to another point. I’ve read that there are a lot of very smart engineers working on the problem of AI inference and how much energy and space it requires, and how to make it more productive. Eventually I think they’re going to solve this. We used to have server rooms that every business kept cool, and then everyone ended up with a laptop or even a phone. Eventually I think people are going to address this problem of requiring so much physical space to do what we need to do. I wonder if in a decade we’re just going to have empty white blocks sitting around because it’ll be too expensive to demo. What do you think?

Judge Glock (25:08): It could happen. You mean the data centers will be depopulated of their servers because they’ll be so miniaturized. That’s true, and it could be. To some extent, counties like Loudoun that have benefited massively from these data centers can and have set up rainy day funds, similar to counties that get a sudden oil influx, to say that if this ever starts to peter out, they’ll still have a long-term benefit they can continue placing into their budget and at the service of their residents. Right now I think we’re so far away from a potential data center bust that it really shouldn’t be a concern. As I’ve also pointed out, right now about one and a half percent of our whole economy is spent building data centers. This is just from basically zero just a few years back. This is a wild building boom, absolutely wild. We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We need, if anything, to make sure that people can build out those data centers to do the other things that the AI revolution is going to require and demand, no matter what local opposition one county or another expresses. When you talk to people in the industry, the consensus is that we just can’t even build them fast enough. If very smart companies and very smart people are willing to invest hundreds of billions of dollars a year in data centers, and when I say data centers I mean mainly the servers and computers in them, I think they know it’s going to be a good return.

Susan Pendergrass (27:09): Well, it’s going to be interesting to see it play out in Missouri, because there’s definitely been backlash coming through the local town councils and the voters have been pretty loud in some areas. Have any Virginia counties banned them that you know of?

Judge Glock (27:29): Virginia has not only been the epicenter of the growth of data centers, it has been the epicenter of the opposition to data center movement as well. There is a group, something like Data Center Reform Watch, that has been monitoring local opposition. You’ve seen a bunch of counties take pretty strong steps against new data center construction. I forget if they’ve gone all the way to a formal and complete ban, but you definitely have votes in major counties either to block individual sites or to ban them from large swaths of the county. My take is that some other county is going to want and find ways to get those data centers, and when some of these counties realize they may have gone a little too far, they’re going to look at ways to pare it back and focus more on where to place the data centers rather than banning them outright and everywhere. I really struggle to find the logic in a local community banning a data center that’s going to be two and a half miles from anybody else. Frankly, as weird and big as they are, are they that different from, say, a local warehouse? A warehouse has trucks coming in and out all day, spewing pollution. One of these fulfillment centers is a big concrete box just like a data center, but with all that traffic on top of it. Data centers just seem much less problematic in that regard. In some sense they’re like a warehouse without all the trucks. If not for this huge generalized concern with AI, which is a separate debate, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of logic to just banning them completely.

Susan Pendergrass (29:42): Well, it is early days. I would love to have you come back again to talk to us when the dust settles a little bit, especially in Missouri. One of the first places I remember reading about a ban was Festus, Missouri, and now there are more. I’m also hearing about some of the biggest data centers going in there. So we’d love to have you back.

Judge Glock (30:02): That’d be great. I look forward to it.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Are Data Centers Good for Communities? with Judge Glock appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Center for Building in North America found that small apartment buildings with one stairwell are just as safe as those with two. But Missouri’s biggest cities—Springfield, St. Louis and Kansas City—use building codes that require two stairways in buildings taller than three stories. That rule drives up construction costs and makes many projects financially unworkable.

These two-stair rules are based on the International Building Code, the widely adopted national standard. But they block a housing type common in Europe and now gaining traction in U.S. cities such as New York and Seattle.

The data challenge the logic of the two-stair mandate. In New York, none of the 4,440 single-stair apartment buildings built since 2012—each equipped with fire sprinklers—has been tied to a fire death caused by blocked exits. Seattle shows the same pattern: no increase in fatalities for single-stair buildings.

What’s changed? Modern safety systems such as sprinklers, smoke detectors, and fire-resistant stairwells have significantly improved safety in multi-unit buildings. The redundancy of a second staircase adds cost without increasing safety.

That trade-off matters. A second staircase means longer hallways, less usable space, and fewer units—especially in tight or oddly shaped lots. For developers trying to build mid-size, lower-cost housing, the extra stairwell often kills the project.

Critics may argue redundancy is good policy. But the evidence shows single-stair buildings, built to modern standards, are safe. Other states are already adapting. Washington and California have created carve-outs or pilot programs allowing single-stair buildings under certain conditions—typically height limits and requirements to use safety features like sprinklers.

Although Missouri is one of a handful of states without its own statewide codes, if our cities want to expand housing options without major subsidies or rezonings, removing outdated design rules is a practical place to start.

The post Missouri Should Rethink Fire Code Rules that Block Small Apartments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Center for Building in North America found that small apartment buildings with one stairwell are just as safe as those with two. But Missouri’s biggest cities—Springfield, St. Louis and Kansas City—use building codes that require two stairways in buildings taller than three stories. That rule drives up construction costs and makes many projects financially unworkable.

These two-stair rules are based on the International Building Code, the widely adopted national standard. But they block a housing type common in Europe and now gaining traction in U.S. cities such as New York and Seattle.

The data challenge the logic of the two-stair mandate. In New York, none of the 4,440 single-stair apartment buildings built since 2012—each equipped with fire sprinklers—has been tied to a fire death caused by blocked exits. Seattle shows the same pattern: no increase in fatalities for single-stair buildings.

What’s changed? Modern safety systems such as sprinklers, smoke detectors, and fire-resistant stairwells have significantly improved safety in multi-unit buildings. The redundancy of a second staircase adds cost without increasing safety.

That trade-off matters. A second staircase means longer hallways, less usable space, and fewer units—especially in tight or oddly shaped lots. For developers trying to build mid-size, lower-cost housing, the extra stairwell often kills the project.

Critics may argue redundancy is good policy. But the evidence shows single-stair buildings, built to modern standards, are safe. Other states are already adapting. Washington and California have created carve-outs or pilot programs allowing single-stair buildings under certain conditions—typically height limits and requirements to use safety features like sprinklers.

Although Missouri is one of a handful of states without its own statewide codes, if our cities want to expand housing options without major subsidies or rezonings, removing outdated design rules is a practical place to start.

The post Missouri Should Rethink Fire Code Rules that Block Small Apartments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the United States, school choice can mean many things. It could involve public schools in open enrollment, or public charter schools, and, increasingly, it can mean choosing a private school via a scholarship tax credit, a voucher, or an education savings account program. I was contrasting choice versus a residential assignment system that does not allow for choice. Residential assignment is what most Americans have in their local public school system. My English colleague didn’t comprehend this. They have choice within their public education system, so he thought I was arguing for a private pay system where individuals must pay for their children’s education.

Once I discovered the misunderstanding, I clarified what I was talking about. He said, “You mean students are just assigned to attend a school based on where they live and don’t have any choice?” When I said “Yes,” he replied, “Well, that’s just a terrible system.”

I couldn’t agree more.

The post Residential Assignment, No School Choice: A Terrible System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So why is President Donald Trump taking Harley-Davidson—another U.S.-based global super-brand—to task?

A day after the company announced plans to serve the European market with motorcycles built in Europe, the president thundered: “A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country—never!” He accused the company of hoisting the “white flag” of surrender and predicted “If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end.”

Harley-Davidson, Inc., made its announcement after the European Union raised tariffs on U.S.-made motorcycles by 25 percent—in retaliation to the 25 percent tariff on European exports of steel to the U.S. imposed by the Trump administration. Noting that the higher EU tariff would add approximately $2,200 to the average cost of a motorcycle exported from the U.S. to Europe, the company said:

Increasing international production to alleviate the EU tariff burden is not the company’s preference, but it represents the only sustainable option. Europe is a critical market for Harley-Davidson. In 2017, nearly 40,000 riders bought new Harley-Davidson motorcycles in Europe, and revenue generated from the EU countries is second only to the U.S.

The president said that he had “chided” Harley-Davidson executives on an earlier occasion for moving production to India as a way around high motorcycle tariffs in that country. But is it reasonable to expect a profit-seeking enterprise to keep all production and employment in the U.S., regardless of the cost in lost sales, profit, and overall competitiveness?

Certainly, the Trump Organization has not followed such a policy. Under licensing or other arrangements, it has fancy hotels bearing the Trump name in four different cities in India (Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, and Kolkata). Apart from Chicago, however, the Trump Organization has no luxurious hotels anywhere in the great American heartland. Why not?

Presumably, it made more sense from a business perspective to build hotels for the super-rich in India—though other cities in the American Midwest would have welcomed the same investment.

The president faulted Harley-Davidson for not being more “patient”—suggesting that his deliberately provocative approach to trade negotiations would force other nations to bend to his will for fear of losing access to the rich U.S. marketplace. As he said a couple of months ago— “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.”

But as Joe Haslag, the chief economist for the Show-Me Institute, notes, the president is playing “a very dangerous game,” because “the size, scale, and scope of the products that we are now talking about in increasingly acrimonious trade negotiations are staggering—a potentially U.S.-GDP-changing event.”

A grand strategy? Maybe, but early results are not promising. Mid Continent Nail in Poplar Bluff says its orders have dropped in half as a result of having to raise prices to make up for the higher cost of importing steel from Mexico. It has laid off 60 workers and says it may have to dismiss all of its 440 remaining workers by Labor Day.

In 2017, the Trump administration withdrew from the Trans Pacific Partnership—an agreement that would have reduced tariffs in Asian markets on motorcycles made in the U.S. That seems to have prompted Harley-Davidson’s earlier decision to build a manufacturing plant in Thailand. It may also have been a factor in the company’s decision to close its Kansas City manufacturing facility by 2019.

What caused the world-famous company with the “HOG” stock exchange symbol to make those choices? Surely it was rising tariffs on manufactured goods—a problem that does not exist in the luxury hotel business.

The post Trump vs. Harley-and the World appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Wow’s expansion into St. Louis could be more of a curse than a blessing because of the cost to the city’s tax base from taxpayer-funded subsidies. The largest of these will come from the Saint Louis County Port Authority, which will provide $600,000 to advertise Wow’s services over the next two years. However, the fun doesn’t stop there; Lambert Airport (a public entity) will contribute another $200,000, and Wow’s landing fees will be waived for 18 months (a subsidy of nearly $400,000).

Unfortunately, corporate welfare seems to have become standard operating procedure for cities, usually to their own detriment. And while the example of Wow Airlines is not the most dramatic, it does show the pervasiveness of corporate welfare in Missouri. It’s great that a European airline wants to enter the Saint Louis market, but should taxpayers really be subsidizing their neighbors’ travel expenses?

The post Subsidies Are Cleared for Takeoff as Wow Air Comes to Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Privatizing Lambert could be a win–win–win proposition for St. Louis. The city could get an infusion of cash; private firms could get the opportunity to pursue profits; and the traveling public could get an improved and more efficient airport. But skeptics point out that a limited number of airports have gone through the APPP, implying that privatization is rarely successful, if not unrealistic.

So, is privatization realistic? Why hasn’t it taken off in the US?

The answers: “Absolutely” and “It’s complicated,” respectively.

Privatization is becoming more common abroad. As of 2016, 41% of European airports were partially or fully privatized, and the Canadian National Airport System (comprising Canada’s 26 largest airports) has been successfully operated by the private sector for decades. According to Airports Council International, the private, market-based approach in Europe has led to “significant volumes of investment in necessary infrastructure, higher service quality levels, and a commercial acumen which allows airport operators to diversify revenue streams and minimize the costs that users have to pay” (p. 1). Privatization has also led to greater competition, which has “pushed airports of all sizes to fight for route development and traffic growth, to become leaner and more efficient… and to find the optimal means of financing investments “(ibid). In short, privatization works; in fact, it works really well.

But European and Canadian airports weren’t privatized through the APPP, which might be why privatization has been faster and smoother abroad. While the APPP is promising, it can take years to finish the application process, and time is money. For perspective, Henry County Airglades Airport had its preliminary application approved in 2010 and has yet to receive final approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The APPP also imposes restrictions that can make crafting a privatization deal challenging. For instance, a 65% majority of airlines need to approve a lease agreement for privatization to go forward. And if the city wants to use proceeds from the agreement on projects outside the airport, it’ll require that same 65% approval. Moreover, private operators must assume any public debt held for the airport unless the FAA waives the responsibility. On top of all this, the passenger facility charge (PFC) airports levy on travelers is capped at $4.50 by Congress, which limits revenue for private operators. (Read this recent Congressional report on the APPP for a more detailed account of the program and its challenges.)

The question isn’t “Should we privatize?” but “How should we privatize?” The FAA has discussed the benefits of privatization and increased competition for decades, and the APPP gives St. Louis a chance to capitalize on those benefits. And while few airports have been privatized through the APPP (note that most simply withdrew their applications), policymakers can work to craft a deal that works for all involved: the city, the airport, airlines, and the traveling public. Look for more soon on what a privatization deal could include to offer the best outcomes for all parties.

The post Putting the APPP in Perspective appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’ll report back with what I learn—in the meantime, here’s the promotional video.

The post Auf Wiedersehen Kansas City, Guten Tag Vienna appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A quarter of a century ago, Margaret Thatcher threw the British House of Commons into an uproar when she mocked the concept of a United State of Europe in no more than three words. Punctuating each one, she said:

“No. No. No.”

This wasn’t just verbal overkill.  More precisely, she was saying “No” to a European Parliament comparable to the U.S. House of Representatives, “No” to a European Council of Ministers comparable to the U.S. Senate, and “No” to a European Commission approximating the power of the White House and executive branch.

Nevertheless, senior members of her party railed at her vehement rejection of a new conventional wisdom.  They challenged her leadership—and forced her resignation.

After eleven years (the most of any British prime minister in the 20th century), she was booted out of office on the issue of European integration. She resigned on Nov. 28, 1990.

Since her departure, every British PM (two Conservatives and two Laborites) has waved the pro-Europe flag. Support for the European Union (EU)—supplanting what began as the European Common Market—has been the consensus view of the British political establishment EST (Ever Since Thatcher).

However, with the “Brexit” vote last month, this era may also come to an abrupt close. After 26 years, will the British public  have swung around to her thinking? 

Thatcher foresaw many of the difficulties today’s Europe.

In 1975, as opposition leader, she campaigned to keep Britain in the Common Market. However, after winning a third term as prime minister in 1987, she worried about the metamorphosis of the Common Market from free-trade zone into the “Babel Express”—a new super-state with many different languages and national identities. Ironically enough, the EU was taking shape just as an older super-state (the Soviet Union) was falling apart.

A new super-state centered in Brussels, Thatcher thought, would be as antithetical to democratic freedom and democratic accountability as the older one centered on Moscow.  In her memoirs she wrote: It would have “the same inclination toward bureaucratic rather than market solutions” . . . and it would make distant and unelected elitists the masters rather than the servants of the people.

“Ultimately,” she wrote, “there was no option but to stake out a radically different position from the direction in which most of the Community seemed to be going, to raise the flag of national sovereignty, free trade, and free enterprise—and fight.”

Here are eye-opening excerpts from a major speech she gave less than two years out of office.  At the Hague, she predicted worsening problems of:

Insecurity—because Europe’s protection will strain [relations with the U.S.] on which the security of the Continent ultimately depends.

Unemployment—because the pursuit of policies of regulation will increase costs, and price Europeans out of jobs.

National resentment—because a single currency and centralized economic policy . . . will make [people in various countries] feel angry and powerless.

Ethnic conflict—because the wealthy European countries will not be the only ones faced with waves of immigration from the south and east.

Suffice it to say that all she predicted has come to pass.

The post Leadership Lessons from Attila the Hen: Margaret Thatcher on Europe-and the United States appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As first appearing in the Kansas City Star and the American Spectator:

A surprised and outraged Franklin D. Roosevelt called it “a date which will live in infamy.” But Dec. 7, 1941, may also be remembered as one of the great turning points (for the better) in world history. It had the startling effect of rousing a sleeping giant (the United States) into purposeful action, and that was the primary factor in stopping the forces of evil from cruising to an easy triumph in World War II. In Churchill’s words, the world was in danger of entering “a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

The Japanese Imperial Navy struck Pearl Harbor in two waves beginning at 7:48 a.m. Hawaiian Time. Japanese aircraft destroyed much of the U.S. Pacific fleet and killed a total of 2,403 Americans – which compares to the 2,605 Americans and 372 U.S. residents from other countries who lost their lives in the surprise attack on the United States launched by al Qaeda on 9-11-2001.

As the Japanese readied for their attack, Hitler was sitting pretty – perilously close to winning a two-front war. Having already conquered France and other smaller European nations in 1940, German troops scored one victory after another against the poorly equipped and outmanned British Army in Southern Europe and North Africa in 1941. “Evacuation going fairly well – that’s all we’re really good at!” Alexander Cadogan, at the British Foreign Office, observed in his diary during the British withdrawal from Greece. “Our soldiers are the most pathetic amateurs, pitted against professionals.”

Things looked no better on the eastern front – with the German army on the outskirts of Moscow. In three parallel offenses, German forces invaded Russia in late June – sweeping across the vast countryside with the same lightning speed that marked the earlier invasions of Poland and Western Europe. Desperately short of every kind of war materiel from boots and rifles to tanks and planes, the Russian army was saved by the onset of winter.

Pearl Harbor changed everything – ending the long, enfeebling debate inside the U.S. between isolationists and interventionists. Suddenly, America was at war, and almost everyone – from FDR on down to Charles Lindbergh, hitherto an arch isolationist – agreed that this was a war that had to be fought with everything we had. Overnight Lindbergh turned from dove to hawk. Though unable to regain the Army Air Corps commission which he had resigned in April 1941, Lindbergh flew 50 combat missions in the Pacific Theater as a civilian consultant.

Within days of Pearl Harbor, hundreds of thousands of Americans made up their minds to join the armed forces. That included the two oldest sons of Joseph Kennedy, another isolationist and outspoken advocate of the appeasement of Nazi Germany, whose departure from London where he had served as U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James’s was a major addition by subtraction for both Roosevelt and Churchill. The older Kennedy left England in October 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain, which reduced much of London and other cities to rubble.

My late father – then 24, a reporter with the Kansas City Star, with a wife and baby daughter – was one of the many who rushed to serve. He failed his first Navy physical – being exceedingly thin – but passed the second time after gorging on food and water. He was one of the “ninety-day wonders” – sent to officer training school for just 90 days of rigorous physical and classroom training – and went on to skipper a submarine chaser that saw action along the eastern seaboard, off the coast of North Africa, and in the North Atlantic.

If any disaster may be called a good disaster, it was Pearl Harbor, which awakened America with a violent start and averted what might easily have been the greatest setback to human freedom, joy, and advancement in world history.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Remembering Pearl Harbor 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.

Here are five market-oriented resolutions for a more prosperous 2014:

1. Privatize the United States Postal Service (USPS). The United States should follow the lead of other Western nations, including Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Britain, in deregulating and privatizing mail service. It is a form of economic insanity, which can only be explained by the power of the postal union and its political friends, to require daily delivery of mountains of mostly junk mail to U.S. households. The USPS should have to compete with FedEx, UPS and other private concerns in the delivery of first-class mail.

2. Follow suit with other public services. Look for other ways to benefit consumers and taxpayers by deregulating or privatizing other public services, with airports, roads and public utilities at the top of the list. There is a reason vacation travel is much cheaper and more convenient within European and Mediterranean countries than it is in North America and the Caribbean. Europe has widespread airport privatization and greater reliance on market forces to allocate scarce resources. As travel writer Rick Steves says on his website, “Ryanair routinely flies from London to any one of dozens of European cities for less than $20” (through its most heavily discounted fares paid weeks or months in advance).

3. Do not buy the “living wage” rhetoric. Recognize the folly of calls to increase the minimum wage — now $7.25 nationally — to $10 or more at a time of sky-high youth and minority unemployment. Why would a fast-food restaurant — or any other business — want to hire someone for $10 an hour who adds, say, only $6 an hour in additional profit, before counting the cost of his or her wages? To do so would be to accept a $4-an-hour loss. Raising the minimum wage thus has the perverse effect of causing unemployment. It artificially reduces the demand for labor and makes the first rung on the job ladder higher than it ought to be for young and unskilled workers.

4. Break the health insurance oligopoly. The next stage in the seemingly never-ending debate about health care, now entering its sixth year, might be between full-scale nationalization — as one way of rescuing the Affordable Care Act from going into a full-scale “death spiral” in 2014 — and the creation of a much more market-oriented system than the status quo ante. The starting point for a market-oriented approach should be in freeing — and, indeed, forcing — insurers to compete across state lines on both price and range of product offerings, without a great assortment of government dictates or mandates at either the state or federal level.

That would give individual consumers the right to buy low-cost, low-price health insurance — from a far larger universe of sellers. And it would cause big insurers to lose the monopolistic or oligopolistic positions they have built up over the years through assiduous lobbying at statehouses around the country. Their cozy arrangements with state regulatory offices have resulted in mandates to cover everything from hair pieces and contraceptives to acupuncture and marriage counseling. Opening the insurance market to open-ended interstate commerce will cause all producers — both insurers and health care providers — to reduce costs and look for more and better ways to satisfy the health care customer.

5. Choose growth over class warfare. Be prepared for the proponents of big government to try to turn every debate — whether it is about health care, privatization, the minimum wage, entitlement reform, curbing the power and privileges of public sector unions or any other issue — into another rant on what President Obama has called “the defining issue of our time”: namely, income inequality. However, the president and others greatly exaggerate income disparities between different quintiles in the distribution of income by ignoring the effects of high taxes on high earners and, for lower earners, the effects of income tax rebates, food stamps and other welfare. One study finds that income inequality actually declined between 1993 and 2007, after adjusting for taxes and transfer payments.

But the real takeaway here is what the poor and the middle class really need to achieve a better life for themselves and their children. That is faster growth, not more income redistribution. It is the opportunity for self-improvement, not the fallback of welfare dependency.

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

The post Let Market Guide Us To Prosperity In ’14 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These are our resolutions for 2013:

1. Ask not what government can do for you; ask what you can do for yourself — without being a burden to others. Recognize, and encourage others to recognize, the grave danger that is posed by a supposedly “caring” government which is in the habit of making promises it cannot keep.
2. Do not go quietly into the dark night of buying into arguments about “fairness” and “social justice” as an excuse for the limitless expansion of government. You will be accused of being heartless, cruel, just plain stupid, or worse. But do not let others define you, or dismiss you — when they are the ones who press ahead in ignoring the lessons of history, common sense, and genuine humanity.
3. Always keep in mind that our history and form of government (unlike many other hopeful but fleeting “democracies”) were not built on the proposition of One Man, One Vote, One Time. The great debate in the U.S.A. about the size and scope of government did not end with the 2012 elections. But the proponents of big government are seeking cloture — attempting to discredit and marginalize those who continue to believe in liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility as the essential pillars of democratic self-rule and human progress.
4. Write out — and be prepared to defend — your own Declaration of Independence against the prevailing orthodoxies of the Hollywood/academic/media elite, who favor every kind of “free lunch” — whether it is universal, “free” health care or universal, “free” college education even if it means severely limiting individual choice, undermining quality, and raising the real costs of health care and higher education.
5. Do not shy away from the battle of ideas as it continues to evolve inside your own family, your circle of friends and acquaintances, your community, and the state of Missouri. Ideas have consequences, and it is time to consider the catastrophic consequences of thinking it is possible to expand government spending and mandates without destroying jobs and economic growth — and condemning young people to the bleakest of futures. You only have to look at the extraordinarily high rates of unemployment and under-employment among young people in much of Europe (the nations teetering on the brink of bankruptcy) to appreciate the magnitude of the threat.

There is solace in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who looked upon anti-federalist sentiment at the state and local levels as an important bulwark in an enduring democracy. They used the words “the states” and “the people” interchangeably. Thus, the 10th Amendment, the final element in the Bill of Rights drafted in 1789 as part of the U.S. Constitution, famously states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

We the people can begin to reassert the principles of liberty and limited government by stopping the growth of crony capitalism (and crony unionism) at the local and state levels which occurs when officials award tax credits, Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and other subsidies to politically favored businesses and constituencies.

Along with other states, we in Missouri can say “no” both to the expansion of Medicaid in our state and to the creation of a state-run health insurance exchange that would implement the hugely expensive, deeply flawed, and greatly unpopular Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).
The battle for liberty, freedom, and responsible self-government continues. Indeed, it is never-ending.

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

The post Five New Year’s Resolutions for Enhancing Liberty – And Pulling Back from the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is exactly why I listen to the Freakonomics podcast, which highlights the ways that economics can provide insight to seemingly inexplicable situations. Recently, Freakonomics discussed efforts in Romania to fine witches if their predictions fail to come true. The jail-time punishment being proposed for multiple false predictions could result in six months to up to three years in jail.

I suppose that if you acted on a false prediction, you would want to punish the person who led you astray. But think of all of the people and organizations who make predictions that affect the way our economy runs. We don’t penalize, say, politicians, economic development officials, or coalition groups when the promises they make fail to materialize.

As Steven Dubner, host of the Freakonomics podcast put it, “I don’t care if you’re anti-witch or pro-witch or witch-agnostic. Why should witches be the only people held accountable for bad predictions?”

In Missouri, it isn’t very hard to find evidence of bad economic development predictions. The recent Mamtek scandal is one. The 2006 prediction that the Ballpark Village development in downtown Saint Louis would result in more than $700 million in economic impact looks unlikely, to put it kindly. And, for a recent example, we have the ever-changing job estimates associated with a proposal to dedicate $300 million in state tax credits to construct warehouses and facilities.

Consider also a state audit report that found, among many other problems, that Missouri’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit is much more costly than initially predicted. How about the overly rosy economic growth assumptions used to sell Tax Increment Financing (TIF) projects? An East-West Gateway Council of Government study found that “broad measures of regional economic outcomes strongly suggest that massive tax expenditures to promote development have not resulted in real growth” (emphasis mine).

Of course, I’m not advocating that we throw politicians and economic development officials in jail for making the wrong promises. But I would suggest, for the health of Missouri’s economy, that we start holding these people responsible for their predictions.

As Freakonomics co-host Steve Levitt points out in the podcast, people have every incentive to make absurd predictions:

So, most predictions we remember are ones which were fabulously, wildly, unexpected and then came true. Now, the person who makes that prediction has a strong incentive to remind everyone that they made that crazy prediction which came true. …But if you’re wrong, there’s no person on the other side of the transaction who draws any real benefit from embarrassing you by bringing up the bad prediction over and over.

Levitt’s point reminds me of the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association’s outlandish predictions. The RCGA frequently issues press releases touting incredible job and investment numbers. Sometimes, the message of one RCGA study (say, that the region needs to build millions more in warehouse space) conflicts with another RCGA press release (that the region has an abundance of cheap warehouse space). The agency clearly isn’t worried about making an unlikely prediction, either.

I also wonder about the Missouri Department of Economic Development, and the state legislature’s propensity to create tax credit programs in the hopes of attracting jobs to the state. Audit reports have shown that these tax credits are more expensive than anticipated, and that the state gets little in return. And yet, in the face of  bad earlier predictions (and even blatant overstatements), state legislators continue to fail to pass substantive tax credit reform.

A solution that Freakonomics proposes is a little unexpected, but elegant. We all are familiar with baseball players’ batting averages. Let’s apply those to people who make economic development predictions.

Consulting organizations should report their track record of success (and failure). What if every estimate of job and investment creation the RCGA publishes had to be accompanied with a percentage showing the accuracy of previous estimates the agency predicted? What if, when contemplating creating new tax credit programs, we considered whether existing programs delivered on the promises used to create them?

If we are considering whether hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars should be allocated to a particular project, it is not enough to take proponents’ claims for fact, especially if those organizations have a track record of poor prediction. We need to know how frequently those predictions actually become reality.

We wouldn’t throw anyone in jail. We might find that some organizations are really good at making predictions. And, like Romanians burned by a bad prediction from a witch, we could stop relying on organizations and individuals that provide wildly unreliable predictions.

The post Witches, Economic Development Promises, and Baseball appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Most strikingly, owners of warehouses that use two modes of commerce – not necessarily air cargo, but perhaps road and rail transportation – could draw on the tax credits. So could owners of warehouses that are refrigerated for storage of perishable materials. Again, the Senate substitute for the Aerotropolis legislation doesn’t require those facilities to process international cargo.

The recent revelation by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch‘s Tim Logan that factories using “two separate ‘modes’ of transportation” could get Aerotropolis tax credits is, therefore, old news to SMI regulars. In a story published Monday about how a prospective car manufacturer coming to St. Louis might pay for a possible $160 million plant (“likely … a mix of private money, federal loans and, probably, state and local incentives,”) there was this tidbit (emphasis mine):

Then there’s Aerotropolis. Since it would be exporting, Emerald [Auto] may also be eligible for the tax credit program being debated by state lawmakers right now.

The legislation would offer credits, worth up to $300 million, towards the construction of warehouses and factories that house goods bound for export. Those goods don’t actually have to be flown by plane, just moved by two separate “modes” of transportation. So cars shipped to Europe may qualify.

[Sharon Heaton, Emerald’s general counsel and a managing director at Wellford Energy, a D.C-based clean energy lobbying and investment firm] said she wasn’t sure yet if Emerald would seek Aerotropolis credits – should they become law. But, she said, they’re watching the debate, and said the credits represent the kind of thinking a company wants to see.

“Aerotropolis says a lot about the forward thinking of St. Louis area,” she said. “They’re really thinking about ‘what are the advantages we can provide a business to come here?'”

Logan is right that there’s a multi-modal aspect to the Aerotropolis tax credit legislation. He’s wrong that export is required to get a tax credit. The relevant text of the legislation is in 135.1513.1.(2) and says that “The owner of any qualifying gateway facility with level two air cargo activity, a qualifying assembly and manufacturing facility, or a qualifying cold-chain facility shall be entitled, during the eligibility period,” to Aerotropolis tax credits (emphasis mine). And what constitutes a “qualifying assembly and manufacturing facility”? As defined by the legislation itself in 135.1500.2.(28):

“Qualifying assembly and manufacturing facility,” a new building located within a gateway zone that is equipped for manufacturing or assembly and in which the receipt of production materials or components or the shipment of finished goods or products, or both, involves at least two modes of multimodal commerce;

Multimodal commerce is defined in 135.1500.2.(21) as “modes of commerce for the shipment of materials, components, goods, or products, including road transportation, railroad transportation, water transportation, or aircraft transportation.” (The “including” language is fun, too, because it means that a wide variety of transport methods — horse and buggy, bicycle, burro and/or foot — could qualify as multimodal modes of transport because the language doesn’t limit the number of modes that qualify.) But in any case, nowhere is there a word requiring that Emerald export a product to receive the credit.

And it’s reasonable to believe that the Emerald Auto example will not be an outlier as it pertains to the Aerotropolis legislation once implemented. We’ve noted the dubious beef export theme many times — and over the weekend the Columbia Missourian confirmed that “U.S. beef still banned” — but that aspect of the debate obscures the fact that the Aerotropolis legislation’s language could send millions of dollars to projects completely unrelated to international trade and even completely unrelated to the airport itself.

If Emerald Auto could snatch Aerotropolis tax credits without flying or even exporting their products, who else could? And why on earth would taxpayers need to subsidize it?

Update: After an e-mail from the Show-Me Institute noting exports aren’t required for the tax credit, the Post-Dispatch has edited its article. The key paragraph now reads (emphasis mine):

The legislation would offer credits, worth up to $300 million, towards the construction of warehouses and factories that house goods being shipped through St. Louis. Those goods don’t actually have to be flown by plane, just moved by two separate “modes” of transportation. So cars shipped to Europe may qualify – in fact the bill doesn’t specify that they must go overseas. The program also includes breaks on state and local income taxes.

The post Post-Dispatch on Aerotropolis: “Those goods don’t actually have to be flown by plane…” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In his article “Supply-Side Soccer,” economist Kevin A. Hassett describes the findings of a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Taxation and International Migration of Superstars: Evidence from the European Football Market.” The report, by economists Henrik Kleven, Camille Landais, and Emmanuel Saez, studied the top soccer clubs in 14 European countries from 1980 to the present, exploring how changes in tax rates affected players changing teams, and to what extent player mobility affected club performance.

To break the results down simply, countries such as Spain, which lowered income taxes for the highest tax brackets, ended up attracting the best players. This, in turn, led to higher performance in the European soccer leagues. In order to compete with the lower-taxing countries’ offers, high-tax-bracket countries would have to offer much larger salaries for the players to obtain equal standards of living.

At the end of his article, Hassett points out that this same principle stays true for business climates between political jurisdictions. This is a point that Missouri should take under advisement, for businesses often follow the same trends between states.

As seen in the Show-Me Institute case study examining the differences in tax policy between Tennessee and Missouri, while Missouri instituted and then raised an income tax, our southeastern neighbor remained income-tax free. The study found that this difference in policy is positively correlated with Tennessee, historically our economic lesser, rising above us in terms of population and economic prosperity.

Attracting new business is a crucial part of ensuring future economic prosperity, and revitalizing the economy. Instead of offering giant multi-million-dollar tax credits to developers or specific businesses in efforts that rarely if ever deliver on their hoped-for success, why not cut taxes across the board to create a climate conducive to all businesses?

The post Gooooooaaaaaaaallllll!!!!! Supply-Side Economics, 1; Missouri, Nil appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I believe the main reason for this disparity is that foreign languages are treated by our public education system as less important than math, science and English. In contrast, E.U. governments expect their citizens to become fluent in at least two languages plus their native tongue.

Another panelist laments the fact that “unlike Europe, the U.S. has no coherent strategy for making our society bilingual.”

I suspect European countries’ policies are a reflection of their citizens’ interest in languages, rather than the cause. Europeans have ample reason to study languages; they all live within a short distance of other countries where different languages are spoken. As Norman Matloff notes in his response to the Room for Debate question, Americans who live close to the border with Mexico show more enthusiasm for learning Spanish than do their fellow citizens to the north.

Could it be that although proximity to foreign language speakers can spark people’s interest, policies are what really make them use other languages? If that’s the case, I’d be hard pressed to explain what happened in Ontario, Canada, where a ceremony was conducted in English a few weeks ago. That was despite French’s status as an official language of Canada, and despite the French-language public school boards and community colleges that are established throughout the province. When a language isn’t useful to people, policymakers who promote it are wasting their time.

The United States shouldn’t order everyone to learn languages, but the education system should give opportunities to become bilingual to people who are interested. Magnet schools and charter schools are good environments for language specialization, as are the optional language-immersion programs offered by some traditional districts. (Examples in Missouri are Academie Lafayette, the St. Louis Language Immersion Schools, and the Kansas City School District’s Foreign Language Academy.) Parents who want their children to have a lot of foreign language exposure can enroll them in these schools.

If Chinese language education is to continue growing, more people must be free to choose schools that teach it. Policymakers who are worried about American students learning English only ought to try to make it easier to open new language-immersion choice schools.

The post “No Coherent Strategy” for Teaching Foreign Languages appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The bar on producing Stilton cheese here is a curious consequence of EU efforts to protect revered local foods by limiting the geographical area where they can be made.

Here is the ponderous statute. It looks like the people of Stilton, the village, could make Stilton, the cheese — but they couldn’t market it as such, so it wouldn’t do them any good. The law also forbids them to label their cheese “Imitation Stilton” or “Stilton Style,” proof that the regulations enforce a monopoly for producers without helping consumers at all. Were the goal to protect consumers from misleading advertising or inferior products, it would be fine to label products as imitations and let consumers choose between them and the “real thing.”

As more Americans become interested in where their food comes from and in giving preference to products from certain areas, I hope the United States doesn’t model any legislation on Europe’s detrimental policy.

The post Food Protectionism in Europe appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

State Transportation Director Pete Rahn has warned lawmakers that transportation funding will soon drop from $1.5 billion dollars to $421 million, which would end the ramped up construction the past few years which has vastly improved Missouri roads and bridges.

The article talks about proposals to address the decreased budget with more taxes, specifically targeting Missouri’s gas tax, which is lower than in all of our neighboring states — except for Oklahoma, which has the same 17-cent tax. A reliance on gas tax increases can only do so much, however. After all, as the article mentions, new cars are becoming more fuel efficient, and raising the gas tax only accelerates a switch to more fuel-efficient cars, decreasing the budget further.

Instead of taxes, what about tolls? The Show-Me Institute published a policy study last year about privately funding roads. It’s a model that has worked in Europe, and in other parts of the United States. The Skyway in Chicago is a good example of a public highway being successfully transferred to private ownership. A 99-year lease shifted a large cost from the government to a private company, and the people are paying directly for their travel on that road, rather than having to pay a flat fee regardless of their usage.

Maintenance of roads is expensive, but also potentially lucrative for a private company. The profit motive incentivizes companies to attract customers by maintaining the roads and keeping road closures to a minimum; so, a private company almost certainly wouldn’t entirely shut down a highway for two years to do roadwork. Rather than increasing taxes, Missouri should be transferring its expensive public roads to private companies that have a a financial stake in keeping the traffic flowing.

The post Paved With Good Intentions? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.