The Florida Tax-Credit (FTC) Scholarship program allows corporations to make donations to a scholarship funding organization, and then receive a credit toward their state taxes. Students must apply for the scholarship, and the organizations only distribute scholarships to applicants whose household incomes are no more than 185 percent above the federal poverty line. Students then use the scholarship to help pay for private school expenses. The FTC serves more than 100,000 students each year.

The Urban Institute study used data from the National Student Clearinghouse to track FTC students’ progress into college, comparing them to non-FTC public school students who share a similar background and test performance history. The study found that of the students who began FTC in elementary or middle school, 57 percent of FTC students enrolled in college compared to 51 percent of non-FTC students. Of the students who began FTC in high school, 64 percent of students enrolled in college compared to 54 percent of non-FTC students. FTC students were also 10 to 20 percent more likely to complete college and graduate with a bachelor’s degree. More impressive is that the longer students were enrolled in FTC, the larger the positive effects. This private school choice program is helping thousands of Florida students receive a quality education and has lasting benefits.

A private school tax-credit scholarship program is one aspect of a larger school choice agenda that is bringing about exciting results for Florida students. This success should encourage Missouri to implement a private-school choice option, and give our students a greater opportunity for success.

The post Private School Choice Students More Likely to Graduate College appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

 A lawsuit before the Florida Supreme Court potentially could oust over 92,000 students from private schools across the state. Despite lower court rulings that the plaintiffs had no legal standing, the Florida Education Association (FEA) continues to challenge Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship (FTC) program run by Step Up for Students.

 FEA, Florida’s largest teachers union, and other groups filed the lawsuit claiming the program takes funding away from public schools and violates the state constitution by giving taxpayer money to religious schools. The district court ruled that the plaintiffs could not prove they had been harmed by the program because the FTC program concerns the state’s taxing power and not its appropriations.

 Step Up for Students, a state-approved non-profit organization, handed out nearly 100,000 scholarships for the 2016–2017 schoolyear. Along with administering the Gardiner Scholarship, which helped Malachi Kuhn and 5,843 other special needs students, Step Up for Students provided scholarships for a record 92,011 low-income students this year to attend private schools.  

 While the Gardiner Scholarship is funded from Florida’s state appropriations, the FTC program is completely funded by private donations. This tax credit, established in 2002, allows corporations to receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for their donations to Step Up for Students. 

 The result? $2.2 billion donated and 572,237 scholarships funded in the past 14 years.

 While remaining optimistic, parents are getting ready to defend the program and the educational opportunity it creates for their children. For low-income families, the FTC program provides an alternative to the public schools that are in many cases failing to offer quality education.

 How does Florida’s FTC program relate to school choice in Missouri? If the Florida Supreme Court upholds the FTC program as constitutional, that ruling could bolster the case for any similar program in Missouri against possible constitutional challenges, opening the door of opportunity for tens of thousands of Missouri students. This summer, Marty Lueken and Mike McShane released an essay estimating that a tax credit-funded scholarship program in Missouri could provide over 12,000 scholarships and, contrary to the claims of groups like FEA, save the state and local districts around $8.3 million per year.

 The FTC program has made a tremendous impact on low-income and minority communities in Florida. Hopefully the program will be upheld in court and school choice programs will continue to spread throughout the nation. 

The post Another Misguided Legal Attack on School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the case, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, the FTC claimed the North Carolina dental board violated federal antitrust laws in its attempt to eliminate market competitors, even though the board was empowered by the state to regulate dentistry.

Prior to this case, it was assumed that state-created professional boards and regulatory bodies were immune from antitrust law. But in their decision, the Supreme Court held that this is not always the case. The majority opinion stated that active state supervision is required for bodies that act as regulatory agents of the state but are controlled by market participants. In the case of the North Carolina dental board, the supervision was found lacking.

This brings us to the MTC. While the commission was created by the state, many of its members represent taxicab companies. There is no meaningful state oversight of what the MTC actions. It is possible that, if a court holds that the commission is effectively controlled by taxi market participants, the MTC would not be immune from antitrust legislation.

This would be a serious legal problem for the MTC, which fixes pricing, limits the number of taxi permits, and blocks the entry of ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft. To preempt this type of legislation, the state could either make sure taxicab companies do not control the commission or more closely supervise the MTC’s actions. Given the anti-competitive behavior of the MTC as it exists today, either outcome would be an improvement for Saint Louis residents.

The post Is the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission Acting Illegally? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The essence of the dispute is that Tesla, uniquely among U.S. car companies, does not use middlemen (dealerships) to sell its cars. MADA, which represents those middlemen, wants it to be illegal for a car company to directly sell its vehicles to consumers. They claim it already is illegal, under the Missouri Motor Vehicle Franchise laws. But the Missouri Department of Revenue disagrees, claiming the laws are only applicable to manufacturers that have dealerships in the state and are not designed to enshrine dealerships as the only method of selling cars.

Along with their legal and legislature maneuvering, MADA is publicizing why Missouri should create more regulations to enshrine the dealership model as the only way to sell cars. They argue that without car dealerships the state’s economy would suffer and that consumers need the type of long-term car care that only they, and not the manufacturer, can provide.

Without a doubt, using car dealerships as a sales and maintenance unit has many advantages for manufacturers and consumers. After all, it became the dominant mode of selling cars for a reason. However, it is not an intrinsically superior way to buy and sell a car and certainly should not be afforded new legal protection.

For example, according to a report from the Department of Justice, dealerships can raise the costs of selling cars. Experiences from General Motors sales internationally have shown that manufacturer-direct sales can lower the cost of a car by 8.6 percent. Furthermore, consumers may prefer manufacturer-direct sales over the uncertainty of haggling with car dealers, if they are given the choice. One poll conducted in the United States found that half of respondents would prefer to buy from the manufacturer even if they were not offered a lower price.

MADA’s efforts would take that choice away. They claim that buying a car is an important financial decision and that dealers provide the long-term care customers need. But there is no shortage of ways consumers could choose to service their vehicles if they buy directly from Tesla, including agreements with auto-repair shops. Car buyers are no less capable of looking after their assets than homebuyers, who somehow manage to purchase and maintain houses without house dealerships.

As for the economy as a whole, protecting a certain way of selling cars is no way to increase jobs or increase competitiveness. Business models change constantly and create new opportunities and products even as they replace older ones. That sentiment underlined the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) criticism of Missouri’s legally entrenched franchise system. They stated, “[C]onsumers are the ones best situated to choose for themselves both the cars they want to buy and how they want to buy them.” That may not always be to the benefit of car dealers, but it’s good economics and good for the state.

The post Don’t Ban Tesla to Protect Middlemen appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission found that CON programs “pose serious anticompetitive risks that usually outweigh their purported economic benefits.” So far, I have written about how CON regulations can limit access to care and have been shown to not effectively control costs. CON regulations have the potential to stifle competition and grant existing hospitals monopolies over certain regions. Some existing hospitals may even attempt to use these regulations to prevent competition from entering the market.

How does this play out in Missouri?

In the past, any time a new hospital wanted to open up in Missouri, it had to apply for a CON – irrespective of its size and cost. A revision to Missouri’s CON rules changed the criteria for review from every new hospital to every new hospital whose cost is at least $1 million.

In April 2010, Patients First Community Hospital expressed its intent to build a small hospital in Saint Louis County that did not meet the new threshold for certificate of need review. Shortly thereafter, a regional rival, St. John’s Mercy Health System, filed a lawsuit against the Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee and Patients First. St. John’s challenged the legitimacy of the new $1 million amendment and construction of the new hospital. In 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the new criteria for review was perfectly legal, thus giving Patient’s First the green light for the project.

Despite the ruling against St. John’s, this is an excellent example of a hospital using the legal system in an attempt to stomp out the competition, all under the pretense of CON regulation. It took about two years for Patients First to have its plan approved. These sorts of delays can deprive patients of new, much-needed medical facilities.

The state should not allow such an environment to exist.

The post Show Me Better (Part 4): Certificate Of Need And Market Power appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“If we want to sell more beef to Asia, we need more refrigerated warehouses. If we want to sell more pharmaceuticals and aerospace equipment, we need safe and secure transport facilities,” he said. “I am a strong supporter of this initiative.”

Missouri Speaker of the House Steven Tilley did it (emphasis mine):

Tilley said while the cargo hub would bring in planes filled with imports, the returning flights will open new markets for Missouri agricultural exports, specifically beef.

And former U.S. Senator Kit Bond did it, too. (Audio: Fast-forward to 14:45.)

Yet no matter which way you cut it, beef is — according to the Department of Agriculture — ineligible for export to China. If you loaded American beef onto an airplane tomorrow, it seems pretty clear that it could not go to China under these regulations. So every time a politician touts this beef angle, taxpayers should keep this important fact in mind.

We noted the beef prohibition in our Aerotropolis case study, specifically citing internal emails from Jason Van Eaton, the current China Hub executive director and a former high-level staffer to Sen. Bond. The relevant part (emphasis mine):

Bottom line, pork is officially open between the US and China. Beef is not but the word is that it will open soon … but that’s been the word for months. Many other trade issues keeping this tied up right now.

“Beef is not.”

Kudos to Sen. Jason Crowell, then, for telling his constituents in southeast Missouri how the beef export aspect really plays out (emphasis mine.):

“It will help the job market in St. Louis and our neck of the woods as well,” [Speaker] Tilley said, noting that many people in Perryville, Farmington and Cape Girardeau County drive to work in the St. Louis area. The increased tax revenue from about 20,000 jobs created by the Aerotropolis project would also provide more money for schools and transportation statewide, he said.

“Things that make St. Louis thrive spill over to help the rest of Missouri,” Brandom said.

But Crowell called Aerotropolis a “boondoggle for St. Louis” and said it will not help Southeast Missouri cattle producers because China has a ban on imported beef.

“We’re not stupid down here,” Crowell said. “We can see when politicians who want to take St. Louis money speak down to their constituents.”

As the old Wendy’s ad asks, “Where’s the Beef?”

Much more soon.

The post ‘Where’s the Beef?’ A Reminder That American Beef Products Are Ineligible for Export to China appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Eight million Americans cut up their credit cards this year, according to new data out from credit bureau TransUnion. Some of those plastic deserters were folks who faced scary economic conditions and decided to voluntarily cut back on debt spending. But for others, it wasn’t a matter of choice.

Millions of customers found themselves unceremoniously ejected from the ranks of the card-worthy thanks to last year’s Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, or Credit CARD Act. The new rules were supposed to “protect American credit card holders” by stopping “unfair rate increases.” Instead, credit card companies prepared for their new straitened circumstances by booting customers who would no longer be profitable (read: poor people and other risky borrowers), and hiking interest rates for others. American Express even offered $300 bonuses to customers willing to pay off their cards and close their accounts—a deal designed to entice the kind of cash-strapped customers AmEx was soon to find less lucrative.

But as the new rules make it less appealing for credit card companies to offer their services to certain segments of the population, most of those people don’t revert to a cash-only state of nature. The appetite for credit doesn’t vanish when credit cards are harder to get. Instead, customers turn to options like installment plans, layaway, and payday lending for quick credit—and the fees they pay for those options are as high or higher than the credit card costs Congress and the White House found so objectionable. And in an economy that runs on plastic, debit cards replace credit cards for everyday purchases.

Congress has destroyed credit card access for many low income individuals, but many states have already eliminated second- and third-best options like payday loans, and there is pressure for Missouri or its localities to follow suit. For instance, in this editorial from the Springfield News-Leader, Pastor Roger Ray argues that Springfield should ban payday loans because “on a per capita basis, no state takes such reprehensible advantage of the desperate poor, fueling drug and alcohol addiction and gambling addiction with easy-to-get but hard-to-pay-back loans.” The rest of the editorial is packed with evidence-free assertions, overblown rhetoric, and enough fallacies that it would take a book to refute them all, so I will confine myself to the consequences that would follow from such a ban.

As I showed in my op-ed about this subject earlier this year, restricting payday loans leads to more bounced checks, complaints to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt collectors, utility shutdowns, and higher rates of bankruptcy. Payday loans are far from the best form of credit, but, in some cases, they are the best available to people. If Pastor Ray wants to eliminate payday loans in his community, I would encourage him and his congregation to start a fund to lend to low-income individuals at lower interest rates (or for free). If enough people share his sentiment, the payday loan industry can be eliminated without the force of law because very few people will opt for a more expensive loan over a cheaper one.

However, if the city government eliminates the loans by law, debtors will be forced to turn to even worse alternatives. I’m relatively certain Ray believes that a ban on payday loans would improve the lot of the poor, but that is an empirical question that most studies of the issue have answered with a resounding “no.” So, in the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

The post Helping the Poor by Denying Them Access to Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1. Payday Holiday: How Households Fare after Payday Credit Bans (ungated), Donald P. Morgan and Michael R. Strain.

   “Compared with households in states where payday lending is permitted, households in Georgia have bounced more checks, complained more to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt collectors, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection at a higher rate. North Carolina households have fared about the same. This negative correlation—reduced payday credit supply, increased credit problems—contradicts the debt trap critique of payday lending.”

2. The Economics of Payday Lending (ungated), John P. Caskey, Swarthmore College.

   General overview of payday lending industry and basic issues. Written for a lay audience.

3. Do Payday Loans Cause Bankruptcy? (ungated), Paige Marta Skiba and Jeremy Tobacman.

   “Though the size of the typical payday loan is only $300, we find that loan approval for first-time applicants increases the two-year Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing rate by 2.48 percentage points.”

4. Factors Affecting the Location of Payday Lending and Traditional Banking Services in North Carolina (ungated), Mark L. Burkey and Scott P. Simkins.

   Explores the geography of payday loan institutions. “A key finding is that after controlling for many covariates, race is still a powerful predictor of the locations of both banks and payday lenders.”

5. The Profitability of Payday Loans (ungated), Paige Marta Skiba and Jeremy Tobacman.

   “Despite charging effective annualized rates of many thousand percent, we find lenders’ firm-level returns differ little from typical financial returns. The data are consistent with an interpretation that payday lenders face high per-loan and per-store fixed costs in a competitive market.”

6. Quantifying the Economic Cost of Predatory Payday Lending (ungated), Keith Ernst, John Farris, Uriah King:

   “Our analysis of quantitative data reveals that payday lenders collect the vast majority of their fees from borrowers trapped in a cycle of repeated transactions, where borrowers are forced to pay high fees every two weeks just to keep an existing loan outstanding that they cannot afford to pay off.”

7. A Comparative Analysis of Payday Loan Customers (gated), Edward C. Lawrence and Gregory Elliehausen.

   “By analyzing the data collected in a national survey of payday customers, this research allows policymakers to better understand what type of consumer borrows from payday lenders, for what purpose, and what the true benefits and costs are. The results confirm a strong demand for payday loans that satisfy a real financial need within a certain segment of the population.”

8. Mayday Payday: Can Corporate Social Responsibility Save Payday Lenders (ungated), Carmen M. Butler and Niloufar A. Park.

   “In this article we ask what the best ways are to maximize the wealth of the payday lending industry while limiting the industry’s harmful impact on consumer communities? We assert that payday lenders will likely demonstrate greater corporate social responsibility only after there is a change in the laws that govern the industry coupled with industry-wide reform in corporate governance.”

9. Restricting consumer credit access: Household survey evidence on effects around the Oregon rate cap (ungated), Jon Zinman.

   “Borrowing fell in Oregon [after interest rate caps] relative to Washington, with former payday borrowers shifting partially into plausibly inferior substitutes: bank overdrafts and late bill payment. Additional evidence suggests that restricting access caused deterioration in the overall financial condition of Oregon households. Overall the results are consistent with restricted access harming, not helping, consumers on average.”

10. Consumers’ Use of High-Price Credit Products: Do They Know What They Are Doing? (gated), Gregory Elliehausen:

    This paper asserts that consumers of payday loans are sufficiently rational. A caveat, however, is that rationality is a just a process and does not imply that “good” decisions are made.

Some op-eds include:

• In Defense of Usury (gated), by Dean Karlan and Jonathan Zinman
• Congress Takes Aim at Payday Loans (ungated), by Robert DeYoung
• Payday Loan Reform Bad for Borrowers (ungated), by Justin Hauke

The last of those op-eds was written by a former employee of the Show-Me Institute. Perhaps unsurprisingly, my views on payday loans are fairly similar to his. Taking an economic view, I’m concerned that regulatory reform will be unable to limit payday loan harms effectively without driving the market underground. Taking a political view, I view payday loan consumers as sufficiently rational and believe that a government (at least in this arena) has more of an imperative to maintain free, private contracts than to protect the politically weak.

The post Payday Loan Reading List appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Show-Me Institute authors have previously written a few blog entries and op-eds pointing out that, for the vast majority of borrowers, payday lending is a useful service in a tough time. As Katherine Mangu-Ward argued in an indispensable discussion of the industry in Reason magazine:

As horrifying as 400 percent annual interest sounds, it doesn’t reflect the experience of the typical borrower. No one keeps a payday loan for a year; that’s not how these things function. Payday lenders charge about $15 per $100 on a seven- or 14-day loan, plus another $20 or so in fees. They check your paperwork and then give you $100 in cash. You leave a post-dated personal check as insurance and promise to come back in two weeks with $135. If you show up empty-handed, or not at all, they cash your check. If the check bounces, the firm sends debt collectors after you—not the knee-breaking kind, but the same guys who interrupt your dinner when you miss a couple of credit card payments. If you miss your deadline to repay, the lender refuses to deal with you again. Nine out of 10 customers pay on time. […]

What happens when a rate cap is imposed statewide? Dartmouth economist Jonathan Zinman looked at the payday lending industry in Oregon, where in 2007 an effective cap of $10 per $100 borrowed was imposed along with a minimum borrowing term of 31 days. (In neighboring Washington, by contrast, the standard is $15 per $100 and there is no minimum term.) Oregon’s Consumer and Business Services Department reported 346 licensed payday lending outlets at the end of 2006, six months before the cap kicked in. Seven months after the cap took effect, that number had fallen to 105. In September 2008 it was 82. In a December 2008 working paper, Zinman concluded that former payday customers in Oregon ended up using less desirable alternatives such as overdrafts and utility shutdowns, and that “restricting access caused deterioration in the overall financial condition of the Oregon households.” In summary, “restricting access to expensive credit harms consumers.”

A February 2008 study for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found similar results: “Compared with households in states where payday lending is permitted, households in Georgia [after a May 2004 ban on payday lending] have bounced more checks, complained more to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt collectors, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection at a higher rate,” wrote Federal Reserve research economists Donald P. Morgan and Michael R. Strain. In North Carolina, where payday loans were banned in December 2005, “households have fared about the same. This negative correlation—reduced payday credit supply, increased credit problems contradicts the debt trap critique of payday lending, but is consistent with the hypothesis that payday credit is preferable to substitutes such as the bounced-check ‘protection’ sold by credit unions and banks or loans from pawnshops.”

Two weeks before I got my loan, new restrictions took effect in Virginia, including a rate cap of 36 percent. As predicted, payday lending chains are now fleeing the commonwealth. Check ’n Go stopped originating loans in Virginia and will soon close its 68 storefronts and fire its 100 employees. The State Corporation Commission counted 630 payday lending stores in April, down from 786 in December.

As well intentioned as I’m sure Still is, Virginia’s experience shows that a 36-percent ceiling on interest rates will force lenders to shut down and consumers to turn to even costlier alternatives.

The post Restricting Credit for Poor People appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The colleges allege trademark infringement. The beer cans don’t feature any mascots or logos, though, so I don’t see how Anheuser-Busch could be in violation of trademark. Surely, these schools don’t have a monopoly on color combinations like blue and yellow.

Regarding marketing to underage students: It’s true that most college freshman and sophomores aren’t old enough to drink, but what about the juniors, seniors, graduate students, and faculty? Are they off-limits, too?

The FTC would have a weak legal case because of a concept called “free speech.” The government can’t forbid a company to use a combination of two colors on a package. However, that doesn’t deter an FTC lawyer from harassing Anheuser-Busch:

“We would certainly hope that something like this never happens again,” she said.

The post Beer Cans and Freedom appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

From yesterday’s article:

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

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

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

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

The article continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Missouri Association of Realtors calls the law a "Homeowner’s Bill of Rights." But as the FTC report points out, consumers would be better protected if the law simply required realtors to disclose which services they’ll provide. Consumers could then make an informed choice without being forced to buy everything a realtor sells.

The post Real Estate Law Protects Realtors From Competition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.