This chart is produced by Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute, and this version is an update he released in January of 2024. As he describes in an earlier blog post, there is an important pattern in the price trends: the greater the degree of government involvement in the provision of a good or service, the greater the price increase over time.

If this chart is the answer, the question would be something like “Why are free-market principles so important?”

The chart shows that between 2000—2023, inflation was 82.4 percent. Price changes over this time period greatly exceeded inflation in the following categories: Hospital services, college tuition and fees, college textbooks, childcare and nursery school, and medical care services. Housing and food and beverage prices also increased by more than inflation, but barely.

At the other end of the spectrum, prices on electronics, toys, clothes, cars, cellphone service, and household furnishings have fallen, or grown much less than inflation.

Once you see the stunning gap between goods and services in industries regulated and subsidized by the government versus goods and services in industries where the government is mostly uninvolved, it is hard to unsee it. This is just descriptive data and is not meant to be a rigorous causal analysis of the effect of government. But where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire.

This is a good reminder of the reason we fight for free-market policies in Missouri. Though often well intentioned, the government is just not very good at providing goods and services efficiently. When it gets involved, we all pay the price. Of course, there are some roles the government must handle (national security is an easy example), but for the most part, we’re better off when it stays out of the way.

The post The Power of Markets appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In December 2024, in Springfield, Missouri, the Show-Me Institute and Show-Me Opportunity hosted an event featuring Dr. Aaron Hedlund, Chief Economist at the Show-Me Institute, and Elijah Haahr, former Missouri Speaker of the House and host of The Elijah Haahr Show on KWTO.

The discussion focused on the 2025 economic outlook for Missouri and the U.S., exploring issues such as unsustainable government spending, the growing national debt, and the Federal Reserve’s role in shaping inflation, housing, and labor markets.

This episode is a recording of that event.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post 2025 Economic Trends for the U.S. and Missouri with Aaron Hedlund and Elijah Haahr appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute and editor of the book The War on Prices: How Popular Misconceptions about Inflation, Prices, and Value Create Bad Policy. They discuss the effects of price controls, recent interventions in the economy, how to remind people about free market principals, and more.

Ryan Bourne occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato and is the author of the recent books Economics In One Virus, and The War on Prices. He has written on numerous economic issues, including fiscal policy, inequality, minimum wages, infrastructure spending, the cost of living and rent control.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The War on Prices with Ryan Bourne appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On May 15, 2024, Show-Me Institute Chief Economist Aaron Hedlund joined Pete Mundo on KCMO to break down the latest inflation data and discuss what it means for the Federal Reserve’s next move on interest rates.

Photo credit:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/partial-view-federal-reserve-fed-headquarters-2258307915

Photo ID: 2258307915

Photo Contributor: christianthiel.net

The post What Does the Latest Inflation Data Mean for the Fed’s Next Move? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To be fair, if the House budget becomes law, it will be Missouri’s first budget in more than a decade that is smaller than the previous year’s budget. Not only is the House budget smaller than last year’s, it’s also approximately $2 billion smaller than what Governor Parson recommended for next year, which represents a small step in the right direction.

It should be noted that the budget process will now move to the Missouri Senate—the chamber more accepting of higher spending in recent years. It’s therefore still too early to tell if the state’s streak of record-breaking budgets is coming to an end.

The recent budget negotiations in Jefferson City also served as a reminder of how much things have changed for Missouri financially over the past several years.

• Missouri’s total budget has nearly doubled since Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, growing from a little more than $27 billion to $53 billion this year (FY 2024).
• General Revenues (mostly state income and sales tax collections) have increased by significantly less, going from approximately $10 billion to more than $13 billion over the same period.
• The biggest driver of budget growth has been the temporary influx of federal funds associated with the federal COVID-19 pandemic relief and infrastructure packages.
• The federal share of Missouri’s budget has grown from around 30% to closer to 50%.
• While Missouri (much like the rest of the country) has dealt with record-breaking inflation in recent years, state spending growth has outstripped the increase in prices, and has even grown faster than the state’s population and economy.
• Going into next year, the state will lose access to the billions of temporary federal dollars, all while state general revenues are expected to remain relatively flat or decline.

Keep in mind that the extraordinary state spending growth in recent years occurred even though Missouri’s constitution includes a balanced budget requirement—the requirement does not apply to federal funds.

There are myriad reasons to think the road ahead will be a tough one, and cutting spending will be a mandatory part of the equation. That’s why I’m happy lawmakers in the House took the measures they did to start turning the tide on state spending, even though I wish they’d gone further. I’m also looking forward to the Senate debating its spending plan in the coming weeks, with the hopes that members of the Senate also share the House’s view that spending should be reined in.

But with so many important spending decisions left to be made, and such dark clouds ahead in Missouri’s financial future, state taxpayers should join me in waiting until the budget makes it across the finish line before considering whether to celebrate any savings.

The post Harsh Budgeting Truths appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Earlier this year, Missouri homeowners received their reassessment notices on the value of their property. For many homeowners, the new values were quite a shock. In Jackson County, for example, the average assessment increase was 30 percent.

Missouri’s Hancock Amendment is supposed to require tax rate rollbacks as assessed values increase. Reassessment is not supposed to be a tax increase. However, the high inflation of last year allows local governments to roll back rates far less than usual, if at all. Columbia announced it was keeping its city tax rate exactly the same, despite an eight-percent average valuation increase in Boone County. Don’t let your county or other local government do the same.

In September, counties throughout Missouri are setting their tax rates for 2023. Many of them are seeing large increases in the assessed valuations within their boundaries. Missouri taxpayers need to demand that their counties—and other taxing districts within certain charter counties—roll back rates to offset the otherwise large property tax hikes people will see later this year. Yes, this means local governments should roll back rates even more than is required by Hancock.

Large increases in assessed valuations don’t have to translate to large tax increases, but they will if local officials keep their tax rates the same or lower them by the bare minimum required. High inflation shouldn’t be an excuse to hammer taxpayers with large tax hikes. Taxpayers deserve—and should demand—better treatment from their county officials and other local governments.

The post Taxpayers should demand larger rollbacks than Hancock Amendment requires appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When you freeze assessments (or implement a similar plan), you create distortions in the system that have their own economic consequences. For example, people not taking a job because it would require moving, and moving would result in higher property taxes on a new home. The best way to deal with the problem of trying to reduce tax increases on property owners without creating harmful market distortions is through tax rates. That is what the Hancock Amendment has done with some success over the years.

To start the discussion, If there is one number I would suggest changing, it is the maximum five percent inflation adjustment. That number could be lowered to, perhaps, three percent, to allow for local governments to still address inflation at least in part. Yes, during this period of recent high inflation, lowering the number from five to three percent could affect the bottom lines of taxing agencies (by limiting that portion of their tax rate calculation to below inflation levels), but my interest has never been ensuring that taxing agencies get as much money as they can. My interest is in ensuring that we have a property tax system that funds local government while encouraging economic growth.

Don’t believe this constant canard that we aren’t funding our school districts, cities, etc. Local governments have more money than they know what to do with right now thanks to the various federal stimulus programs and assessment increases. They can all live with a lower inflationary adjustment in their annual rate-setting process just fine this year. If they have to make some budget adjustments, then so be it.

Another thing we should do in the next few years is phase out the personal property tax. Property taxes work best when the thing being taxed is immobile. That means taxing land and buildings, but not taxing cars, boats, and livestock. (Yes, livestock really is taxed.) Missouri taxes personal property more than most other states. Moving property taxes in a revenue-neutral way more toward land and buildings and away from mobile items like cars will create a more stable tax base. Yes, it would shrink the tax base some, which I am generally against, but in this case I think there is strong evidence that it would be a beneficial change.

Next up, what are some of the bigger, more complicated changes we can make to our property tax and assessment system?

The post So, What Exactly Should Missouri Do About Property Taxes and Assessments? Part Two appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Wanting to do something to address higher property assessments and taxes should not mean doing the wrong thing, though, and doing the wrong thing is where we are headed. Giving one population group a tax or assessment freeze, as state law allows counties to do this year and which many are considering, is wrong for reasons you can read here. A more comprehensive limit on the rise in assessed valuations or taxes, similar to what California famously did with Prop 13 in 1978, is also the wrong thing to do. Proposition 13 has certainly had its intended effect of making it easier for California residents to stay in their own homes. However, it has also reduced mobility, dramatically increased alternative taxes, limited homeownership opportunities, and caused substantial tax disparities among similar properties receiving similar services. This is not what we need for Missouri.

The easiest way to address that—for local governments to voluntarily roll their tax rates back more than legally required (as St. Charles County did in 2022)—is unlikely to happen in most places and especially unlikely for school districts, which make up the bulk of your tax bill. So, what else can we do about property taxes and assessments?

There are things people and government can do in the short term to make the overall process better. Right now, people should be pressuring their local officials to roll tax rates back, especially the Kansas City school district which is the only taxing body in the state exempt from rate rollbacks. Removing that constitutional exemption for KCSD should also be a high priority. That would involve amending the state constitution, but it should be a high priority to get that on the ballot in the next legislative session.

While we are addressing short-term impacts and constitutional changes, adding personal property to the tax rate rollback requirements should absolutely be done. In 2021 and 2022, many local governments enjoyed a windfall from increased used car values. That is not how the system is supposed to work.

Finally, did you know that a few counties require certificates of value to be filed with the assessor when property is sold but most do not? We should require them statewide to help make assessments more accurate, especially in rural areas.

In my next post, I’ll discuss what we can do in the long run to make our property tax and assessment system better.

The post So, What Exactly Should Missouri Do about Property Taxes and Assessments? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This same ambiguous outlook applies to the U.S. economy as a whole. On the one hand, data released by the Department of Commerce last week reveals that real gross domestic product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services produced by the US economy, adjusted for inflation—increased at a 2.4% pace in the second quarter, following 2% growth in the first quarter. If this pace continues—a big if—then the economy will have safely avoided recession territory, having rebounded modestly from the two quarters of negative GDP growth at the beginning of 2022.

But past is not prologue. The economy still faces multiple headwinds that leave the risk of recession—or at least a significant weakening of growth—very much on the table. For one thing, the effects of monetary policy (i.e., rate hikes) on the economy operate with a time lag. The primary mechanism through which rate hikes fight inflation is by making borrowing costlier, thereby discouraging the demand for spending and, with it, the pressure on prices. The medicine from earlier doses of rate hikes is already having an effect on the economy; headline CPI inflation fell to 3% year-over-year last month, down from a peak of over 9%. However, rate hikes from late spring have not yet fully reverberated throughout the U.S. economy. Even so, the recent GDP data indicate that consumer spending only grew by 1.6% in the second quarter, with durable goods spending only growing by 0.4%. This particular subset of spending is useful as a gauge because durable goods like washing machines and other expensive household items are often purchased using credit, which now commands higher interest rates because of the Fed’s actions.

Another headwind facing the economy is the impending resumption of student loan repayments this fall. Make no mistake: student loan repayments ought to resume. Bailing out student debt by transferring it from the people who are reaping the financial gains from their education to taxpayers is regressive, fiscally irresponsible, and inflationary. However, this reality does not take away from the fact that people will feel the sting of being required to pay debts that they have been shielded from during the past few years. Consequently, consumer spending growth is likely to slow further or even turn negative. Considering that consumer spending contributed 1%age point (out of the 2.4) to GDP growth in the second quarter, a hypothetical scenario where consumer spending growth flatlines would by itself reduce GDP growth to just 1.4%. Moreover, another important component of GDP—investment—is sensitive both to rates themselves as well as business expectations about future consumer demand. It is entirely plausible—maybe even likely—that investment growth will decline from its most recent rate of 5.7%, and if that happens, GDP growth could easily fall below 1%.

Still another important headwind is the fact that, for all the progress the Fed—and the Fed alone—has made in combatting inflation, it has not yet succeeded in achieving its 2% target. As shown in the figure below, headline inflation is down to 3%, but core inflation—a better measure of fundamental pricing pressures—is still nearly 5%. Moreover, because the inflation readings are year-over-year measures, and because the monthly numbers from July and August 2022 were very low, it is quite possible that the headline year-over-year inflation numbers may rise modestly over the next few months.

Lastly, and arguably most importantly, the U.S. economy has been facing a productivity crisis over the past two years. Productivity—that is, economic output per hour of labor—has decreased by nearly 2.5% since the second quarter of 2021, which is unprecedented. By comparison, productivity rose by nearly 5% from the first quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2019. Not coincidentally, that earlier period corresponded with household income rising by over $5,000 after inflation—meaning higher purchasing power—as compared with the recent decline in purchasing power of over $2,000. The figure below gives a stark visual reminder that prices have grown consistently faster than wages since the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act “stimulus” bill in early 2021, with price growth decreasing only in response to the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate-hiking campaign.

As speculation continues over the near-term trajectory of the U.S. economy, it is worth mentioning again the essential need to raise productivity—not just to avoid recession, but to lift the economy out of the doldrums of 1% to 2% growth and return to or exceed its historical norm of 3% growth. While these numbers may seem difficult to relate to, a rule-of-thumb may prove useful. The amount of time (in years) that it takes for the U.S. economy to double in size is roughly 70 divided by the growth rate. Thus, if an economy grows at 3% per year, it will take approximately 70/3 = 23.3 years to double in size. By contrast, if the economy grows at 2% per year, it will take 70/2 = 35 years to double, and it will take 70/1 = 70 years to double if growth is persistently only 1%. That would be a disaster for the U.S.’s potential to remain the leading economy in the world.

So how do we achieve growth liftoff? Answering this question is much too large for a single blog post, but the key is productivity, and one important point to remember is that raising productivity is not about squeezing more out of workers and making life at work more of an unpleasant grind. Quite to the contrary. The most effective way to increase productivity is to ensure that workers are equipped with the skills to succeed, unencumbered by regulations to find the best occupation and employer to realize their potential, and where both workers and employers are able to keep more of the fruits of their productive activity. That phrase—productive activity—is key to keep in mind. While public debate often focuses on spending, spending, spending, it’s time to shift our attention to producing.

The post Recession: To Be or Not To Be, That Is the Question appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My general position on taxation has always been about maximizing growth, and specifically moving from income taxes to the least destructive tax for growth—the property tax. That does not mean, however, that I am unaware of or unsympathetic to alternative considerations that could be reasonably offered.

• Property taxes are the least destructive tax for promoting growth, but other objectives beyond “growth” do enter the calculus for policymakers. Is it “fair” for a taxpayer who owns property to get a tax benefit, but not a taxpayer who rents? Are real property taxes problematic in the same way personal property taxes are, or are they completely different policy issues? Like most things in life, tax policy is not a one-dimensional issue; stipulating to that reality is appropriate, even as I support reforms that stoke growth, against possible alterative priorities.
• From a practical perspective, it also isn’t great if seniors on fixed incomes find themselves unable to make their property tax payments if a massive assessment adjustment, like what we’re seeing in Jackson County, makes staying in their longtime homes fiscally impossible.

All that said, cutting the state and local tax base to ribbons, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, is a precarious proposition precisely for the very reason David highlights: unless government spending falls as tax exceptions are made, the cost of government will inevitably fall to the rest of the taxpayers.

And speaking of . . .

Missourians shopping for school supplies, clothes and computers during the state’s tax-free weekend Aug. 4-6 can save up to 5% more than in previous years.

A 2021 Missouri law taking effect this year prevents all cities, counties and special tax districts from charging local sales taxes during the back-to-school weekend.

Tax holiday shoppers have been exempt from the state sales tax of 4.225% since 2004, but many municipalities still charged local sales taxes. With local sales taxes eliminated, this year, shoppers will save up to 9%.

I would love to say that the sales tax holiday for school supplies is a net good for the state and families, but as The Tax Foundation notes:

While sales tax holidays have been politically popular for a long time, they have seen a boost this year as lawmakers look for ways to share surplus funds with taxpayers who are struggling to afford goods and services amid high inflation. But however well-intended they may be, sales tax holidays remain the same as they always have been—ineffective and inefficient. [emphasis mine]

Sales tax holidays have been and always will be dubious tools for promoting reasonable public policy objectives—they simply shift consumer spending patterns instead of changing them and are often used to promote illusory economic development benefits. As with tax credits on income taxes and tax abatements on property taxes, carving up the sales tax base with “tax holidays” can have similarly unintended consequences, even if the policy is good politics and good intentioned. But as with the senior property tax carveout, even a good intentioned sales tax holiday is bad policy.

The post “Tax-Free Weekend” Underscores Importance of Sound, Stable and Uniform Tax Policies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Cooling Inflation, Unwinding Medicaid, and Breaking Water Mains appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is the debt ceiling, and what would have happened had we not raised it?

The debt ceiling (or debt limit) is a legal limit on how much money the U.S. government is authorized to borrow. Once the country reaches this limit, the Treasury is not permitted to issue more debt.

Can we simply not raise the debt limit?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal government will run a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion in 2023 alone, with spending amounting to $6.4 trillion and revenue coming in at $4.8 trillion. Of the $6.4 trillion in spending, $4 trillion is for mandatory programs that operate without Congress needing to regularly reauthorize them (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), $1.7 trillion is discretionary spending, and $660 billion goes to interest payments. Balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit in one fell swoop would require essentially zeroing out discretionary spending or making instant, draconian cuts to mandatory programs. Given the deep fiscal hole that the federal government has put the country in, there was no real alternative to raising the debt ceiling.

If both sides agreed that the debt ceiling had to be raised, what were the negotiations about?

Historically, occasions when the government has reached the debt ceiling have produced negotiated agreements that both raise the ceiling and limit spending, as was the case with the Budget Control Act of 2011 during the Obama-Biden Administration. However, this time around, the White House insisted for months that it would not negotiate on any spending reforms as part of raising the debt ceiling.

Given the unsustainable fiscal path that the United States is on, the White House was essentially sending the message that the only way to avert a debt crisis now (by raising the debt ceiling) was to cement the current spending trajectory in place—and thereby increase the chance of a debt crisis down the road. The House of Representatives disagreed with this false choice between a debt crisis today and a debt crisis later and instead passed the Limit, Save, and Grow Act, which simultaneously raised the debt ceiling and slowed the trajectory of spending, among other reforms. Passage of this bill forced the White House to the table, abandoning its no-negotiations stance on spending reforms.

What is contained in the debt ceiling deal?

The debt ceiling deal contains a number of elements. First, it raises the debt ceiling through the end of 2024 and it establishes spending caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 that limit the growth of spending to 1% with tough enforcement provisions during the appropriations process, which is when Congress formally makes detailed, program-level spending decisions. In addition, the bill prescribes a 1% cap on spending growth through 2029. By way of comparison, the CBO projected an 8.1% jump in discretionary spending between 2024 and 2025, followed by average annual increases of 2.8% through 2033.

Besides affecting topline spending, the debt ceiling bill rescinds certain COVID-19 and IRS funds, expands work requirements for food stamps and welfare, and implements energy-permitting reforms to reduce delays from excessive and unresponsive bureaucracy.

What is the overall effect?

The CBO projects $1.5 trillion lower spending growth (or in Washington, DC parlance: cuts) because of the deal. Without the deal, discretionary spending would have risen from $1.7 trillion in 2023 to $2.4 trillion in 2033, whereas now the projection is for $2.2 trillion in discretionary spending in 2033.

To give further perspective, the figure below plots three different projections for the path of discretionary spending as a percentage of the country’s annual economic output. The blue dots are CBO projections made in fall 2019 under the previous administration and before COVID-19. The orange dots are CBO projections from this May, but before the debt ceiling deal. The red arrow showing the upward shift from the blue dots to the orange dots represents the persistent increase in discretionary spending under the current administration’s policy plans. The gray set of dots represent discretionary spending under the debt ceiling deal, with the green arrow showing the reduction relative to what was slated to occur before the deal.

As the figure makes clear, the debt ceiling deal essentially takes discretionary spending halfway back to the path it was set to follow before COVID-19 and the change in administration.

Figure 1: Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. Source: Congressional Budget Office, Show-Me Institute calculations.

How should Missourians view this deal?

The United States faces a profound and troubling fiscal situation with its unsustainable spending levels, not to mention slow economic growth, declining productivity, and inflation that remains much too high. It is important to recognize that the country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Federal revenues are currently above historical average, but the reason deficits are so large is that spending as a share of GDP is higher than it has ever been over the past century except during peak COVID-19 and World War II. The debt ceiling bill does not fully reverse the spending increases of the past two years, but it represents a step in the right direction, especially compared to the White House’s previous no-negotiations spending stance.

Taking a step back, whereas the debt ceiling debate focused on discretionary spending, the vast majority of federal spending goes to mandatory programs, chiefly entitlements. The CBO projects that, absent reforms, federal spending will rise from 23.7% of GDP in 2023 to over 30% by 2053, annual deficits will more than double to over 11% of GDP, and the national debt will balloon to almost 200% of GDP. In this scenario, interest payments on the debt would triple as a share of the economy and would represent the single largest spending item for the U.S. government. Even this scenario is rosy in that it assumes an infinite willingness among investors to buy U.S. debt regardless of how dire the fiscal picture becomes—a rather implausible assumption that America would be wise not to test.

Going forward, much work remains to be done to right-size government and revitalize economic growth so that Americans can enjoy a more prosperous future free from the risk of steep tax hikes, crippling inflation, debt crises, and adversarial foreign governments buying up large quantities of government debt. The debt ceiling deal is by no means a cure to the country’s current fiscal ills, but it’s one step in the right direction, and the starting point for a much-needed national conversation.

The post Debt Ceiling Deal Q&A appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post A New Economic Playbook with Allison Schrager appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First of all, consumer spending is holding up. After only growing by 1.3% in the first quarter of 2022, it ended the year growing at a 2.1% clip—hardly robust, but clearly in positive territory. Consumers have been slammed by high inflation and eroding purchasing power for the better part of two years, but the steady job market and still-elevated checking account balances of households have managed to keep them afloat. Unfortunately, so too has rapid growth in credit card utilization, which may act as a source of financial vulnerability for consumers going forward as they grapple with continued interest rate hikes. Transitions into credit card delinquency are already on the rise, driven especially by households in the 18–29 and 30–39 year age ranges.

Switching gears, gross private domestic investment declined notably in the third quarter of 2022 (9.6% on an annualized basis) but increased by 1.4% in the fourth quarter. On the surface, this turnaround is good news. However, peeking beneath the hood reveals some reasons to be cautious. Most strikingly, residential investment fell by 26.7% as the housing market gets pummeled by the rapid rise of mortgage rates over 2022. In the first week of January 2022, the average rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages sat at 3.2%. In the last week of December, it was at 6.4%. Such a huge increase in rates translates to a jump in monthly payments of over $800 for someone buying a $400,000 house with a 20% down payment—making it more difficult to qualify for a loan.

Looking beyond the housing market, nonresidential fixed investment increased by an anemic 0.7% on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter after growing by 6.2% in the third quarter, a sizable deterioration. As a result, fixed investment overall fell by 6.7% on an annualized basis in the fourth quarter, which is even worse than the 3.5% decline in the third quarter. So how is it, exactly, that private investment still increased by 1.4% overall? The answer: inventories increased, which is far less important for economic growth in 2023 and beyond than businesses confidently investing in new factories and capital.

So what does all this mean for 2023? Unfortunately, not much. The good news is that the economy is not crumbling—at least not yet. And there are also reasons to be hopeful that the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes are finally breaking the back of inflation despite the federal government’s fiscal profligacy since the beginning of 2021. However, interest rates are still on their way up, consumers are borrowing more, gas prices are on the rise again, and the housing market is stalling out, with very real prospects of modest to moderate house price declines in at least certain pockets of the country. None of these trends bode well for consumer sentiment or small business optimism. But there’s still a chance that the Federal Reserve can manage to thread the needle, and divided government in Washington, D.C., means that more blowout inflationary spending packages are less likely. It’s certainly something worth crossing our fingers about.

The post The Latest GDP Report: What Does It Mean for 2023? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Beginning in early 2022, the Fed initiated a rate hike campaign that, to date, has taken the federal funds rate (which influences other interest rates in the economy) from 0% to over 4%. We now have evidence that the Fed’s rate hikes are beginning to bite. Consumer price inflation peaked in the summer of 2022 at over 9% and has been on the decline ever since, most recently hitting 6.5%. This lag between rate hikes and inflation dropping is common. Moreover, because the monthly inflation increases were so high in the first half of 2022 and have been considerably lower over the past few months, the topline year-over-year inflation readings are set to fall rapidly over the next several months—possibly even falling below 4% by early summer. The figure below visualizes a plausible path of inflation over the next few months.

If this projection comes to pass, it would of course be very good news for families’ pocketbooks. Keep in mind, however, that inflation is declining despite the federal government continuing to spend too much money, and not because of any of the recently passed legislation. Absent the spending binge of 2021 and 2022, the United States would almost surely not have seen the decades-high inflation that has robbed families of precious purchasing power—an erosion shown in the figure below. Since the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act in early 2021, consumer prices have risen cumulatively by nearly 14%. During that same period, worker earnings have increased by less than 10%. This four-point gap marks a significant decline in purchasing power that is showing no immediate signs of reversing.

By contrast, if one looks at recent history—namely, the period between early 2017 and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic—earnings noticeably outpaced inflation, as shown in the figure below. In fact, inflation-adjusted median household income jumped by the most on record during that period, just as poverty rates hit historic lows. It is worth pointing out that economic gains of that size were not expected. Instead, the economy outperformed earlier projections from the Congressional Budget Office made prior to the pro-growth tax reforms passed in 2017 and the concerted effort across federal agencies to streamline and reduce the burden of regulations.

Looking forward, the good news is that inflation is likely to continue falling, and possibly at a faster pace over the next few months. Producer price inflation is also moderating, with the most recent core reading (which strips out volatile components related to food, energy, and trade services) coming in at “just” 4.6% year-over-year. However, it is important that we do not move the goalposts and lower the bar for victory. The objective clearly stated by the Federal Reserve—and to which Americans have become accustomed over the past few decades—is inflation that is 2% or less. For this reason, nobody should expect the Federal Reserve to immediately stop hiking rates—let alone begin to cut them—until inflation falls below the 2% threshold and stays there for a while. The Federal Reserve has signaled this much in its recent communications.

Of course, the timeline for finally taming high inflation could be significantly accelerated with a pro-growth, supply-side agenda that unleashed the productive capacity of the U.S. economy whereby businesses could meet demand without raising prices. If we conceptualize inflation as too much money chasing too few goods, one approach to reducing inflation is to take money out of the economy—exactly what the Fed is doing right now—while the other approach is to ramp up the amount of goods and services the economy produces. In light of divided government, substantial tax and regulatory reform is unlikely, but on the positive side, massive partisan tax hikes and spending bills are unlikely too. Inflation relief is (likely) on the way, but it is important to understand how we got here so we don’t end up making the same mistakes again.

The post Inflation and the Dangers of False Narratives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click here to read the full report.

The post The Case for Modernizing Unemployment Insurance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A year later, in January 2023, a lot has changed, but some things remain the same—especially the amount of economic uncertainty on the horizon. The economy began the year with rock-bottom interest rates, but after the Federal Reserve finally came to terms with the persistence of inflation, it wisely abandoned its lax stance and proceeded to tighten the screws by raising interest rates at an extremely rapid pace—taking its benchmark Fed Funds rate from 0 percent at the beginning of the year to over 4 percent by the end. During this same period, mortgage rates jumped from historically low levels of under 3 percent to over 7 percent. As a result, existing home sales fell by 35 percent over the year, and residential investment plummeted. Meanwhile, gross domestic product shrank during the first two quarters of the year but managed to register a respectable number in the third quarter (fourth quarter data is not available yet).

The primary questions on everybody’s minds entering 2023 are these: Can the economy achieve a soft landing? And can inflation come down without the U.S. economy entering recession? Unfortunately, it is still far too early to tell. Today’s jobs report revealed that the labor market continues to hold up, with payrolls growing by 223,000 in December 2022 and the unemployment rate falling to 3.5 percent. While these data are good news, they don’t tell us much about the future, because the labor market tends to lag the rest of the economy. In other words, if the U.S. economy hits turbulence in 2023 and enters recession territory, the labor market response will likely be delayed, as has been the case historically. In the meantime, the main takeaway from the most recent jobs report is that the prospects for the Federal Reserve reversing its rate hikes are basically nil—at least until inflation drops back down to 2 percent and remains there for a while. The recent release of the Federal Reserve’s minutes from its most recent policy meetings confirms that there is no sentiment at the Fed to begin rate cuts anytime soon.

It is still possible to gather some other tea leaves from some of the recent economic data, however, to get a sense for where the economy may be headed. The downside of the latest jobs data is that there is little to no evidence that workers are being enticed from the sidelines. As shown in the chart here, the labor force participation rate—which counts people who are working and those actively looking for work—remains below 2019 levels by a full percentage point. Some of the drop is due to early retirements during COVID-19, but if one looks at the data just for prime-age workers (those between the age of 25 and 54—see the chart here), their labor force participation rate hasn’t fully recovered either. With 1.75 job openings per unemployed worker, the labor shortage has no imminent end in sight, which also complicates the inflation picture by making it more difficult for businesses to accommodate demand without raising prices.

Thankfully, the end of 2022 offered some promising signs for inflation. Most directly, the inflation data itself showed some moderation, although it continues to run hot at over 7 percent year-over-year. Also, the most recent jobs report showed that wage pressures also may be subsiding to some extent. Of course, faster wage growth in principle is a good thing for workers, but only when driven by sustainable forces. Over the past nearly two years, wage growth has run hotter than in prior years, but the increase took place amidst a backdrop of declining productivity. The result has been even faster price growth, resulting in a steep drop in purchasing power, leaving families poorer in terms of their living standards. Going forward, 2023 offers a lot of uncertainty, and data over the next few months regarding inflation and productivity will be quite revealing. One thing working in the economy’s favor is a divided Congress, which should mean a stop to the glut of inflationary government spending. The question is whether it will be too little, too late to avoid a hard landing.

The post Year-End Jobs Report: Goldilocks, or Calm Before the Storm? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s government grows larger every year, significantly outpacing inflation, and the federal government is the primary reason. Today Missouri is more reliant on federal aid than ever before, with more than 40 cents of each dollar spent coming from federal coffers.

The federal government primarily exercises its power over state policy through what are called grants-in-aid. These grants are transfers of money from the federal government to state or local governments to fund specific projects or programs. Upon accepting the federal funds, which are not loans and do not have to be repaid, state or local governments agree to spend the funds according to guidelines established by the federal government.

For most of American history, federal grants-in-aid were rarely used, but over the past 60 years, their influence on state budgets has skyrocketed. What were once seen as state prerogatives, such as maintaining roads, educating children, and caring for the needy, are now areas where the federal government holds enormous power. It is important to note that this loss of state control comes at a real cost to state taxpayers, emphasizing the point that these federal grants are in no way “free” for Missouri.

This report analyzes the various ways Missouri’s state government receives and spends federal aid, considers the strings attached to those dollars, and discusses how those policies have shaped the spending of state tax dollars. Finally, this report discusses the broader implications of increased state reliance on the federal government and proposes reforms for righting Missouri’s financial ship for generations to come.

Click here to read the full report.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

The post Saving Federalism: How Federal Policy Affects Missouri Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tax relief and reform alone won’t solve all of Missouri’s problems or immediately launch Missouri to the front of the pack in attracting talent and capital from around the country. We need better schools with more educational opportunities We need to reduce crime, especially with three of our major cities—St Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield—ranking distressingly high on national crime indices. But solving either, let alone both, of these problems is very complex and likely to require a multi-pronged approach as policymakers work to build consensus and tackle each element of the problem.

There are some things Missouri can never have—like Florida’s coastline (although the Lake of the Ozarks is plenty to brag about)—but implementing good tax policy is well within our grasp. Some would seek quick, superficial, and ultimately harmful “fixes,” like using subsidies or tax credits (subsidies by a different name) as handouts to lure large, well-connected companies to expand in Missouri, with no guarantee that any jobs they create would outlast the flow of taxpayer money. But history and research have undermined the claim that we can subsidize our way to prosperity or successfully pick winners and losers. One thing policymakers absolutely can do is create a better, more level playing field for families and small businesses with an income-tax cut that returns money to their pockets and reduces the penalty on hard work and investment.

Thankfully, Governor Parson and the General Assembly appear poised to pursue exactly that—rate reductions to Missouri’s income tax—in the upcoming special session of the legislature. Doing so would not only be welcome relief to Missourians suffering under decades-high inflation, but it would also be a great way to kickstart a bold tax-reform agenda to improve the economic prospects of every Missourian. Economic research has demonstrated that lower income-tax burdens encourage work, improve productivity, increase entrepreneurship, promote innovation, and attract people and firms from places with more punitive taxes. When we enable people to earn higher returns on their labor and investments, it should come as no surprise that we get more of both.

This isn’t theory or idle speculation. One only needs to look as far as neighboring Tennessee to see a state much like our own that has grown dramatically faster than Missouri in recent decades. One major reason for that growth is that Tennessee is one of nine states with no income tax, and its major cities do not have local income taxes. Greater economic growth is more than just a statistic. It’s more jobs and new businesses at places ranging from local mom-and-pop shops to modern tech start-ups—all driving up wages and creating ladders of opportunity. Growth benefits Missourians of all backgrounds, which is why we must seize on the opportunity to return power and money to the people through the kind of income-tax-rate reductions now being discussed.

Those who oppose these cuts look past the obvious success of Tennessee and Florida and instead bring up the specter of Kansas, which faced negative consequences in the years following its own major tax cuts. But not every tax cut is created alike, and prudent budgeting always demands running the math both on the revenues and spending sides, which is exactly what Missouri policymakers are doing carefully and seriously as they deliberate. By contrast, when Kansas cut taxes, it created a special zero percent rate for only certain forms of income (namely, LLCs, S-Corps, and other pass-through entities) and did not undertake other subsidy and spending reforms to ensure that the numbers would add up. Favoritism and bad arithmetic are bound to create problems. Not surprisingly, many businesses changed their structure to these newly tax-free entities, and Kansas state revenues fell. Kansas reduced the tax rate on pass-through income to zero, far below that of regular income. Not only did this change have little justification economically but it also greatly encouraged tax avoidance behavior through income reclassification

That is not the proposal under consideration in Missouri. Governor Parson and the legislative leadership are considering accelerating already-planned rate reductions by cutting the Missouri income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 4.8 percent—a move well justified by the enormous surge in revenues the state continues to experience. It would be even better for our state if Missouri were to push even further past 4.8 percent. The prudent course of action in that case would be to also pursue subsidy reductions and other tax and spending reforms to ensure the stability of Missouri finances for vital public services. State leadership is also considering increasing the standard deduction on state taxes, which would deliver further relief to working- and middle-class Missourians, removing some from the tax rolls entirely.

At a time of high inflation and labor shortages, putting Missouri on a faster growth track through pro-growth, pro-work, pro-investment income tax reductions could not be more appropriate. In the short term, having more money in their pockets will provide much-needed relief to struggling families and empower Missourians to achieve their dreams, whether this means saving for a house, starting a business, or donating to their communities. In the long run, taking an important step toward major tax reform signals that Missouri is open for business and no longer willing to cede ground to states like Tennessee, Florida, or Texas. If those states can attract investment and talent by rewarding hard work and entrepreneurship, then we can too.

However you measure it, Missouri has not been growing compared to other states. If the Governor and legislature succeed in passing some combination of tax rate reductions and other adjustments to our income-tax system, they will increase opportunities for all Missourians. That would be a legislative special session we could be proud of.

The post Would an Income-tax Cut Benefit Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The personal property tax is exempt from our Hancock Amendment rules on rolling back property tax rates as values increase. As car values have typically declined over time, this has not been a problem in the past. But with used car values increasing and no tax rollback required, local governments around Missouri will see an unexpected windfall in property tax payments this year. That is not how the tax system is supposed to operate.

There is a solution here. Local elected officials, including county, city, and school district representatives, should voluntarily roll their tax rates back once property valuations are finalized. St. Charles County government has taken the lead on this, and other local governments around the state should do the same for their residents. The personal property tax rate is unconnected to the real property tax rate, and rolling it back to a revenue-neutral level is simple, allowable, and—most importantly—good public policy.

Local governments in Missouri are awash in federal stimulus and COVID-relief funds, while ordinary citizens are getting hammered by inflation. Cities, counties, and school districts don’t need another bonanza on the backs of Missouri taxpayers. Rolling personal property tax rates back is the right thing to do.

Link to the letter on the EMissourian site here.

The post A Letter to the Editor: Roll Back Personal Property Tax Rates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.