Chiefs President Mark Donovan committed such a gaffe when he spoke at a press conference to unveil planned renovations at Arrowhead Stadium. He was asked why the Chiefs aren’t planning to build any retail developments if the Royals leave the complex to move their stadium downtown. He responded: “Right now in this market, this is not a location that is worthy of developing. As harsh as that sounds, it’s just the reality from a business standpoint.”

At the very least, this was an impolitic thing to say about the region. Located between Kansas City and Independence on Interstate 70, the location would seem to have a lot of potential. More importantly, Donovan concedes what many economists conclude and what Show-Me Institute researchers have been pointing out for years: stadiums do not generate economic growth.

Rest assured, I will be adding Donovan’s comment to my PowerPoint deck on the many false claims of economic development impact statements.

The post Chiefs Team President Accidentally Speaks Truth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, it does. Stick with me on this.

Last year, Missouri’s budget included an appropriation increasing the minimum Missouri starting teacher salary to $38,000, funded primarily by state tax dollars and not local school taxes. This year, officials are proposing legislation to raise it even higher, with the same primary funding from the state. Where do you think those state tax dollars are going to come from, and where is this new fund to increase starting teacher salaries going to be spent?

It is more difficult for rural school districts to fund themselves with property taxes because of the high percentage of agricultural property in those areas. (I’m not saying it’s impossible, just more difficult.) Whether you like it or not, farmland is underassessed in Missouri(most farmers presumably like it). It is hard to raise the revenue necessary for a small school district with a tax base starting out so low. Since tax rates are the same for various classes of property (except in St. Louis County), setting a rate high enough to raise enough funds from farmland would mean incredibly high taxes on the more accurately assessed homes and businesses in those communities.

Urban and suburban school districts, for the most part, aren’t starting their teachers out at $25,000. At Indeed.com, every job opening I saw for City of St. Louis public schools started at $46,000. In this blog post, James Shuls goes into more detail on this discrepancy. (James goes into even further detail on the problems of funding rural school districts here.)

Where do the taxes that fund much of Missouri government and, by obvious extension, this new state teacher fund, come from? As this map shows, our larger urban counties produce an outsized percentage of Missouri’s economic activities. St. Louis County alone produces over 25% of the state’s GDP. State income and sales tax collections are going to largely align with those totals.

If you were a voter in rural Missouri, and you were told that you could vote for a local tax increase or have the state pay for salary increases for your school district, what would you pick? We would all pick the latter.

This issue will play out similarly to the sheriff salary issue of about 15 years ago. There, the state decided to increase sheriff’s deputy salaries by adding a fee to process service around the state. The problem was that St. Louis County, which has a county police department and a sheriff’s department that is not a law enforcement agency (trust me on this, I used to be a county sheriff), was ineligible for the funds even though it generated more fees from process service than any other county in the state. Yes, lawsuits were filed over it, but they failed (unfortunately).

I like low taxes. If rural Missourians want low taxes, I’m all for it. But we should not establish a system where rural teacher salaries are paid for (mostly) by taxpayers in urban and suburban areas. The combination of low assessed farm values and a desire for low tax rates in rural areas should not be addressed by taking money from urban areas. I recall signs along I-70 years ago on farm fences objecting to using state funds for sports stadiums in St. Louis. Those signs were correct then, and they still are now, but it works both ways.

The post The Connection Between Farmland Assessment and Teacher Pay Increases appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But failure needn’t be permanent, as racecar driver Josef Newgarden showed this past weekend. While being a professional racer is an achievement in itself, Newgarden had been hounded by his inability to take the Indianapolis 500 checkered flag in his 11 attempts. But this year, on his 12th attempt, Newgarden found the winner’s circle. It was a relief compounded by years and years of frustration.

“It is mentally draining to be here for weeks and just to know that you really only have one opportunity, and it comes down to today, and that’s the day you’ve got to be perfect and great and everything has got to work out.

“So you spend all this time and effort, and it’s really just a mental grind to work through that. The more you’ve been here, the more it’s not worked out, the more that grind really starts to gnaw at you.

“I don’t necessarily subscribe to the fact that if you don’t win the 500 your career is a failure, but I think a lot of people really view this race and this championship with that lens, that the 500 stands alone – and that if you’re not able to capture one, then the career really is a failure in a lot of ways.

“I’ll be honest, it’s annoying. It’s been terrible,” said Newgarden, which also happens to describe the Missouri Legislature to a T. It has been terrible, despite the potential to do great things in the last couple years, getting close to the podium . . . but not quite to the winner’s circle.

In 2023, legislators crashed spectacularly and didn’t finish. Here’s to hoping their attempt in 2024 is, finally, victorious.

The post Legislature Might Look at Indy 500 Winner for Inspiration appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Widening I-70, Education Bills, and How Much is Your House Worth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But boy, is there a lot of spending—some of which might be justified, such as expanding Interstate 70—but the emphasis on expanding government made the speech basically indistinguishable from a speech by a tax-and-spend liberal. The governor didn’t propose a single meaningful change to the state’s failing education system or suggest a single reduction in government. Nothing about further tax cuts. Nothing about anything truly aspirational, reform minded, or geared toward good governance at all.

It’s understandable that the governor would want to pursue some form of legacy initiative or project near the end of his final term. Frankly, redoing I-70 should be plenty. But programs that permanently expand the reach of Missouri’s welfare state—like a universal pre-K program that the Heritage Foundation has eviscerated time and again—run completely against the small government view that many politicians in Missouri had historically given lip service to.

Perhaps in future speeches and press availabilities, the governor will expand upon his State of the State remarks, adding back in some of the reform-minded small government conservatism.  The legislature has been advocating for a variety of these small government reforms, and I thought the governor’s office was in agreement. The governor can, and should, do better.

The post Missouri’s State of the Bloating State appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While the team appreciates its history with Arrowhead, Chiefs president Mark Donovan acknowledged on Tuesday that the franchise has considered other options for when their lease expires in 2031. Donovan said that the team has specifically considered options in Kansas, as it has been pitched stadium offers [by] developers in the state, via Kevin Clark of The Ringer.

Upon seeing what Donovan said, Kansas City mayor Quinton Lucas quickly issued a response via Twitter.

“Kansas City has proudly hosted the Chiefs since the early 1960s,” Lucas said. “We look forward to working with the Chiefs, our state of Missouri partners, and local officials to ensure the Chiefs remain home in Kansas City and Missouri for generations to come.”

As a Chiefs fan, the idea of the team leaving the place they’ve called home for 50 years is disappointing. While only Lambeau Field and Soldier Field are older, Arrowhead Stadium is nonetheless an updated and modern (publicly owned) facility that could easily serve fans and the region for many decades to come. But that may be my sentimentality speaking. I was also aghast when the New York Yankees tore down the House That Ruth Built in 2010 and replaced it with the new Yankee Stadium. Old habits die hard.

The good news for Chiefs fans is that the alternate site being discussed is also in the region, albeit across the state line in Kansas. And while public money and tax incentives didn’t come up in the original story, you can rest assured that if the Chiefs made such a move, the package from Kansas would be worth billions. Like I told Pete Mundo the other day, teams wouldn’t threaten to leave if threats didn’t get them more money from taxpayers. It’s certainly the Chiefs’ right to try to get as much money from the public as they can get.

But that doesn’t mean the Kansas City and Missouri governments need to acquiesce. Even if the Chiefs moved to Kansas, the team would continue to be a regional asset and, likely, would still be easily accessible by Interstate 70—in this case, 15 minutes west of downtown in Kansas rather than 15 minutes east of downtown in Missouri. Simultaneously, the Royals have also started talking about a stadium in downtown Kansas City—a good business idea and a bad tax incentive idea! If that’s coming and it gets taxpayer support, it’d put the city on the hook for potentially two new stadiums in the span of about a decade should it keep the Chiefs on Missouri soil, too.

If Kansas wants to spend money to help carry the cost of the region’s professional sports franchises, more power to them. It’s bad policy, of course, but my focus is on Missouri policy and decision making.

As far as Missouri policy is concerned, my perspective for the Chiefs is straightforward: if you want a new stadium in Missouri, build it yourself, as any other business would. I’ll be cheering the Chiefs on wherever they are in the region, and even for a traditionalist like me, I’ll admit that a new stadium may add some excitement to an already exciting team. But there’s no reason to force single moms paying the earnings tax, or frankly any city taxpayer paying any tax, to underwrite such an amenity.

Hail to the Chiefs . . . but with all due respect, pay for the stadium yourself.

The post Hail to the Chiefs! And Pay for Your Own Stadium appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With fuel tax revenue in a years-long stagnation and transportation revenues uncertain in the COVID-19 work-from-home era, P3s can be useful for funding big transportation projects. P3s are arrangements between a government agency and a private company to partner on a project’s financing, construction, and operation, typically through a long-term agreement. A big advantage of P3s is that investors can finance large projects upfront, rather than waiting for state transportation budgets to get back to normal.

P3s have other benefits. Because a company is responsible for road maintenance for, say, 30 years, it has an incentive to minimize costs over the long run. In contrast, state governments often have an incentive to minimize initial payments or upfront costs in order to make tax hikes or bonds more politically palatable.

Many states have turned to P3s to finance and operate road infrastructure improvements.

Toll road P3s shift the risk of generating enough revenue from the state government to the private sector. Moreover, by relying on tolls rather than existing state revenue sources, toll road P3s open up a new funding stream for road improvements and maintenance. P3s enable the private sector to offer toll-financed solutions where there isn’t a tolling agency or the political will to establish one.

P3s also avoid adding new state debt or liabilities. The toll road company is on the hook for future maintenance obligations, and the state can terminate the contract if the company does not hold up its end of the bargain.

The benefits of using P3s for toll-financed road improvements should prompt Missouri policymakers to reexamine Missouri’s P3 laws. Currently, P3s can be used for a range of infrastructure projects, but not toll roads. Several bills have been introduced in recent years that would change this, but none have passed. Perhaps falling fuel tax revenues and uncertain transportation budgets will encourage policymakers to reconsider.

The post How Transportation Public–Private Partnerships Can Benefit Missourians appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri is considered one of the most “conservative” of the 50 states. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It depends on how you define the word.

Over the past several decades, Missouri has been going downhill both economically and educationally—as one of the worst-performing states in GDP growth and educational achievement in K-12 public education. Why?

Too often, Show-Me State conservativism has been characterized by a lack of urgency and a satisfaction with the status quo.

As I would define it, conservatism does not begin and end with the preservation of existing institutions, and it most definitely is not about protecting the privileges of the rich by exploiting the poor or being indifferent to the problems of the needy. Where it begins is with the desire to protect and enlarge freedom for all members of society—enabling people to work and live lives of their own choosing so long as they do no harm to others in the pursuit of their own betterment.

Here, then, are five New Year’s Resolutions for leaders in local and state government:

#1: Improve Missouri’s competitiveness; turn the Show-Me State from an economic sluggard into a great place to live, work, and own or operate a business. That means lowering taxes—leaving more money in people’s pockets to spend or invest as they choose. It also means removing obstacles to commerce and opportunity posed by excessive licensing and regulatory requirements.

#2: End crony capitalism—stop providing subsidies and tax carve-outs for politically favored businesses that are not available to all other businesses. In 2019, Missouri reported 524 tax-increment financing (TIF) projects from 100 political subdivisions across the state. These projects are anticipated to have $10.1 billion in TIF-reimbursable project costs. Such subsidies drain money from public services and have a bad track record of failing to deliver promised job, investment, or economic growth. Reductions in tax incentives and spending can provide some of the budgetary space to lower or eliminate individual income and earnings taxes.

#3: Don’t treat small, owner-operated businesses as the designated fall-guys in government-ordered lockdowns—calling them “non-essential” businesses while allowing their big-box counterparts such as Wal-Mart and Target to continue to operate.

#4: Don’t be penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to taking care of essential infrastructure on a timely basis. Interstate 70, an economic and transportation lifeline, is falling apart. Numerous other major roads are badly in need of repair. Travel on Missouri’s roads has increased by 12 percent since 2008, but the state’s transportation budget has fallen by 15 percent. According to Missouri’s Department of Transportation, it now gets only enough revenue to cover a little more than half the state’s needed road and bridge repairs. One thing is certain: Postponing needed maintenance on long-lived assets such as roads and bridges is not a smart idea. It leads to escalating costs and catastrophic failure.

#5: Expand educational choice for students and families at all income levels throughout the Show-Me State. There is no worse example of blind allegiance to the status quo than Missouri’s K-12 public education system.

Supported by nominally conservative lawmakers, the state’s educational establishment—meaning school superintendents, teachers’ unions, and DESE (Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education)—have blocked almost every initiative aimed at expanding school choice from vouchers and education savings accounts to expansion of charter schools. Despite a long record of poor results in the so-called “Nation’s Report Card,” members of the establishment continue to oppose all forms of competition and choice in public education.

And who is hurt the most by this self-serving obstinacy on the part of the providers of public education? It is of course the users: students and their parents and families, and most especially lower-income families trapped in non-performing schools who cannot afford to move to other school districts or to private schools.

As I see it, true conservatism is really about an allegiance to principles—and to enduring values such as freedom, hard work, and equality under the law—rather than an allegiance to the status quo.

The post Five New Year’s Resolutions for Missouri Lawmakers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over $700 billion of products travel over Missouri’s roads each year, and transportation and warehousing industries support over 83,000 Missouri jobs. These numbers are only expected to increase.

It is surprising, then, that the Greater St. Louis, Inc.’s report’s recommendations for improving our transportation infrastructure contain few details on funding mechanisms given that Missouri is currently coming up short on transportation funding.

Here are a few recommendations for the policymakers reading the report to consider.

People who use the roads in Missouri should, as much as possible, be the ones responsible for paying for the roads. This could mean policies such as adequate fuel taxes or location-specific tolling. If new lanes on interstates are planned—and the plan mentions rebuilding some sections of I-64 and I-70—tolling on new lanes would not require federal approval. Many states operate lane-based tolling, also known as high-occupancy toll lanes.

There are other funding mechanisms for transportation that ought to be avoided. For instance, a new sales tax or earnings tax in the region receiving the transportation upgrades could raise a large amount of money. But these taxes are not connected to how much the roads are being used. Non-users end up subsidizing users.

The consequences of such a funding disconnect would mean that those using the roads are shielded from the true cost of doing so. Not being exposed to driving’s true cost leads to inefficient road usage. This, in turn, leads to higher maintenance costs as well as other hidden costs such as wasted fuel and time, air pollution, and congestion.

While the creators of this plan seem to understand that transportation is critical for Missouri, they don’t articulate how to fix what’s wrong with Missouri’s infrastructure.  What Missouri needs is a plan to address our infrastructure funding issues with real reforms, not just platitudes.

The post Greater St. Louis 2030 Plan Scant on Transportation Funding Mechanisms appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s road maintenance funding is on a road to nowhere.

Interstate 70, Missouri’s economic and transportation lifeline, is falling apart. Many other roads Missourians travel on each day also need to be fixed, and they too will continue to deteriorate because the Missouri Department of Transportation is running out of money.

While travel on Missouri’s roads continues to increase (up 12 percent since 2008), MoDOT’s budget has been headed in the opposite direction (down 15 percent in the same period), and that has resulted in a whopping $745 million in unfunded road transportation needs.

MoDOT remains heavily dependent on the state fuel tax (17.4 cents per gallon) for road maintenance, and that’s part of the problem. Because of the improved fuel economy of today’s gas and diesel-powered cars and trucks, fuel tax receipts have declined even though people drive more and put more wear and tear on the roads. Furthermore, drivers of electric vehicles are paying significantly less for road maintenance because they aren’t paying fuel tax.

It’s time to rethink transportation funding. The damage inflicted upon roads is determined by how much drivers drive on them and how much their vehicles weigh, not by how much fuel they consume. A better way to match the damage drivers do to the road with what they pay for its upkeep is to charge by the mile, instead of by the gallon.

Several states experimenting with road-usage charge programs demonstrate how such programs could be implemented. One method to record mileage is by a simple odometer reading. Drivers could self-report their odometer readings as part of the annual vehicle registration process or by plugging a recording device into the vehicle’s diagnostics port. While this method would pose no threat to driver privacy, it would be impractical for those who frequently drive out of state.

A more controversial method is to record precise in-state miles driven by using GPS technology. Current programs in Oregon and Utah use third-party providers to record in-state mileage either through a GPS-equipped plug-in device or a smartphone app. In both cases, the state receives the total miles driven for billing purposes with no location data.

While this poses more concerns for driver privacy, it should be noted that GPS satellites do not track locations. GPS responders, whether in plug-in devices or cell phones, track their location in relation to satellites, but do not necessarily share their location with those satellites. Protecting driver privacy is a serious concern, and the reporting of personal or location-specific data should only be allowed when explicitly agreed to by drivers.

With these first two methods, as drivers pay for their miles driven, they are reimbursed for the gas taxes they paid to travel those miles.

A third method is to use electronic tolling to raise maintenance funds specifically for heavily traveled highways, as many states already do. Drivers can use transponders that send a signal that is picked up at certain points along the road, and payments can automatically be deducted from that driver’s account. Those with concerns about the privacy implications wouldn’t have to opt for a transponder. Instead, cameras on the highway could record their license-plate number and a bill could be mailed based on their driver registration information.

No system is perfect, but in each of the examples listed above, drivers can choose their method of payment and are presented with several options depending on their privacy concerns.

In any case, our current system of taxing fuel usage is becoming less viable. Missouri policymakers should consider solutions already in use in other states to move Missouri’s transportation funding methods in the right direction.

The post Commentary: Funding Roads by the Mile, Not the Gallon appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Tax Foundation study focuses on funding for America’s highways, and how road usage has been growing while the revenue to maintain them has been shrinking. This is true nationwide and for Missouri.

The bulk of Missouri’s highway funding (and that of many other states) comes from the federal Highway Trust Fund—which is funded by a federal fuel tax that has not changed since 1993. The tax is levied on vehicles that are increasingly fuel efficient. State fuel taxes supplement the federal funding; each state approaches its fuel tax differently. Some index the tax to inflation, some periodically raise it, and still others keep it constant, as Missouri has since 1996, with inflation eating away at its purchasing power.

This funding formula disparity will only get worse as fuel economy improves and no change is made to fuel taxes. In fact, the Highway Trust Fund, which sends money to states for road maintenance, is on the verge of insolvency by the end of next year unless the current funding formula is changed.

The study’s author promotes a charge on highway vehicle miles traveled as a potential solution. This charge would vary based on how much the vehicle weighs to account for the damage it does to the road. As the study notes, this highway formula “gets closer to capturing the externalities and approximating the road maintenance cost of each vehicle.”

In other words, toll roads.

The highway funding situation in Missouri will need to be addressed soon. Travel on Missouri’s interstates has increased 17 percent since 2008, and travel on other Missouri freeways and expressways has increased 20 percent since 2010 (the most recent year for which data for the latter category is available). Conversely, since 2008, the Missouri Department of Transportation’s (MoDOT) overall revenue has decreased by 15 percent, with state fuel tax revenue—the largest state-contributed source of funding—falling 0.5 percent.

Making MoDOT do more with less led to an average of $745 million in unfunded road and bridge priorities between 2014 and 2018. And some of the most traveled roads in Missouri—Interstates 44, 55, and 70—will need to be reconstructed soon.

With these pressing problems, shouldn’t Missouri lawmakers heed the advice of the Tax Foundation report and consider tolling?

The post New Research Highlights Need to Modernize Transportation Funding appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While it is good news that MoDOT appears to use available funds efficiently, that does not mean it has enough money to cover all needed infrastructure repairs in Missouri.

MoDOT has been in the midst of a years-long funding strain (pages 33-38). Between 2000-2010, MoDOT relied heavily on federal reimbursements and issued billions of dollars of bonds to fund its projects. Both sources, however, began to dwindle in 2011. While Missouri has the seventh-largest highway system in the country, it has the second-lowest fuel tax. Multiplying the problem, a decrease in money raised in Missouri for transportation means a decrease in matching federal funding.

Federal money makes up 42% of MoDOT’s budget. The fuel tax is the second largest component at 23%. The gasoline tax was set at $0.17 in 1996 and is still $0.17, meaning the value of that money has dropped significantly due to inflation. Relative to the size of the highway system, the revenue Missouri brings in per mile is less than a quarter of the national average. Simultaneously, construction and upkeep-related expenses have significantly increased due to lower productivity and higher regulatory barriers, as well as asphalt, crushed stone, and paving mixtures being significantly more expensive than just a decade ago. Having less money to spend on more expensive projects has made upkeep more difficult.

The amount of money MoDOT spent fell in 2011 and has not kept up with inflation, as you can see in the graph below:

Source: Missouri Budget Fiscal Years 2003–2017. Graph made by author. https://www.modot.org/previous-reports-joint-committee.

The surge in expenditures in 2010 coincides with the passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) in 2009, commonly known as the federal stimulus package. The ARRA added $400 million to MoDOT’s budget, which dissipated just as quickly due to the large number of projects for which it was needed. In 2014, ARRA funds totaled less than 1% of MoDOT’s revenues dedicated to the highway system (page 8).

Relying on large and sudden injections of federal money is not a viable funding solution, and any bonds that are issued face their day of repayment.

To raise the revenue needed to maintain our roads and bridges, a clear solution presents itself – increased use of user fees. The concept is simple and works in everyday life. Those who use a service pay for that service in return.

Numerous other states employ user fees in the form of more effective gasoline taxes and tolling, significantly boosting transportation revenue in a market-based way. Legal hurdles remain, though. Tolling interstates in Missouri would require federal approval, as Missouri turned down the opportunity to toll I-70, and questions remain regarding constitutional limits on where the funding to construct a turnpike authority can originate.

User fees may only be part of MoDOT’s solution, but they could increase its budget to meet current needs.

The post Show Me the Money appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a revealing example of the magnitude of the changes that would be required to put the so-called “Green New Deal” into effect, let’s look at the little village of Kingdom City, Missouri, population 124. Endorsed by several presidential candidates, the Green New Deal would ban all use of fossil fuels over the next decade.

The big business in Kingdom City is servicing heavy trucks passing through Missouri going East and West on Interstate 70 and North and South on U.S. 54. Three filling stations in Kingdom City handle more than 450 18-wheelers on an average day.

What would it take for the Kingdom City filling stations to do the same work using electric power rather than diesel fuel?

That is an answerable question, using mathematics to convert from one form of energy usage to another. We know that a “Green” 18-wheeler must supply essentially the same average power to move a load of cargo over the same distance as a diesel-powered vehicle. Based on diesel fuel usage and engine efficiency, we estimate the required average power at 160 kW (a little over 200 horsepower).

To recharge a single truck after eight hours on the road in 20 minutes would require a charging station capacity of 3.88 megawatts. For three truck stops, each with 10 electric “pumps,” you must multiply this number by 30 to get the needed capacity. That comes to 116 megawatts, which is the equivalent of 58 2-megwatt windmills costing $3 to $4 million each.

In other words, to use electricity to refuel heavy trucks passing through Kingdom City would require a starting investment on the order of $200 million in new wind-generated electric capacity. This calculation does not include further substantial change-over costs, including the installation of additional transmission lines and the construction of recharging stations. For simplicity sake, we have also ignored the significant reduction in fuel economy caused by the approximately 10 tons of extra weight of the Tesla-like batteries that a “Green” 18-wheeler would carry.

The Kingdom City example underscores the prohibitively high cost of trying to implement even a tiny part of the all-encompassing Green New Deal. Take the $200 million starting investment in this little village and multiply it by the thousands of other locations across the United States. You quickly arrive at a figure in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

But would there be any positive impact on the environment?

Now, you must consider that three-quarters of Missouri’s electrical generating capacity comes from burning coal and another 5 percent from natural gas. We also get another 10 percent from nuclear energy, but the Green New Dealers are not calling for more nuclear power. So where, over the next decade, could we find the additional generating capacity that would power electric cars and trucks?

It could only come from increased burning of fossil fuels.

The post What It Would Take to Bring Green Energy to Kingdom City, Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Are businesses and people in our state ready to make the jump from an economy that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels to one that would “meet 100 percent of power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy” over the next ten years?

Let’s start with Missouri farmers. Are they ready to switch to electric tractors, trucks, and combines in order to reduce their carbon footprint to the vanishing point over the course of a single decade?

We can answer that question with an unequivocal “No.” Here’s why.

Begin with the fact that there are no—repeat, no—Tesla-like, battery-powered farm vehicles on the market today that could begin to replace most of today’s diesel-powered vehicles in doing the heavy-duty, energy-intensive work involved in ploughing fields and gathering harvests. The battery-powered substitutes for today’s machines don’t exist, and – even if they did – other problems would prevent their instant and widespread use.

Did any of the utopian thinkers who devised the Green New Deal stop to consider that most farms are wired in much the same way as most homes. That is to say, they are not wired for industrial use – which is what would be required to bring about the presumed greening of agriculture through electrification.

The problem here cannot be solved by putting up hundreds or even thousands of new wind turbines to supplement the 500 now in use in Missouri – which provide an average of two megawatts of power per turbine, and then only when the wind blows.

As Blake Hurst, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, points out, the electrification of Missouri agriculture would be an immensely expensive undertaking. It would require nothing less than “totally rebuilding the electrical grid” in order to deliver far greater quantities of electric power to farms in thinly populated areas around the state. The grid, along with charging stations and other supporting infrastructure, would have to treat every farm with a fleet of one truck, one tractor, and one combine or cotton-picker as if it were a town with 10,000 or more inhabitants.

To understand the physics, consider a conservative estimate of the electrical requirements posed by a hypothetical electric combine that replaces a typical grain combine. The latter weighs 15 tons, consumes approximately 15 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and is often used about 16 hours a day during harvest. At 40-percent efficiency, its diesel engine delivers about 244 kW of power.

To do the same work, the electric combine would need to carry the equivalent of about 3.5 Tesla batteries (4,400 pounds) for each hour of continuous use. It would therefore need approximately 28 Tesla batteries to go eight hours without recharging. The combined weight of all of batteries would be 17 tons, making the electric combine significantly heavier than the piston-driven combine. While battery technologies are improving, it will be some time before any dramatic changes in energy to weight are likely to take place.

Since recharge time has to be short for economic reasons (a farmer racing against time to bring in a harvest can’t afford to spend several hours a day twiddling his thumbs), suppose that the electric combine “fast charges” in 20 minutes, an optimal time suggested for electric cars. The charging station and related infrastructure (i.e., generation and power distribution) would have to be capable of supplying in the vicinity of six megawatts of power during the recharge period! Let us pause to consider what that means.

Recharging a single combine requires the same power output as three of today’s wind turbines. According to government data, 1 megawatt of power capacity will supply 750 homes. Looked at in this way, the infrastructure necessary to recharge just one electric combine in 20 minutes would also be capable of supplying electrical power to the equivalent of 4,500 homes.

Suffice it to say: If you multiply that one combine by the total number of big combines and other heavy-duty vehicles used on Missouri farms today, you arrive at a very big number.

Even if we, as a state, were prepared to pay the huge costs of participating in a federal government-led crash effort to transition from diesel-powered to battery-powered farming, it is doubtful that our farmers would thank us. Apart from the inevitable adjustment problems in the introduction of new equipment, the electric combines, tractors, etc. would be more likely to bog down in muddy fields because of the extra weight of carrying a multitude of Tesla-like battery packs. And that’s not all. Barry Bean, a large cotton grower in the Bootheel in southeastern Missouri, shudders at the thought of the long lines of farmers with their tractors and cotton-pickers at charging stations at the end of a long day: “We all work the same hours and we’d all be coming in at the same time.”

*****

Let us turn then to freight transportation, another area important to Missouri as a crossroads between East and West, North and South. If, in the year 2030, all of the heavy trucks passing through Missouri were battery-powered, what would it take to charge them? We could not answer that question without a good deal more research. But we can say what it would take to open a single recharging station to handle a tiny fraction of the heavy-truck traffic that flows through the little village of Kingdom City, lying at the intersection of Interstate 70 and U.S. Route 54, on a daily basis.

Using the same analysis as above, to support a single service station at this site capable a) of recharging a Class 8 truck in 20 minutes that has been on the road for eight hours, and b) of handling 10 such trucks simultaneously, we have estimated that the supporting electric infrastructure must be capable of supplying close to 40 megawatts. That is the equivalent of about 20 2-megawatt windmills just to serve one refueling station. That same infrastructure would serve the needs of about 30,000 homes, or a decent-sized town.

*****

All this brings us to a final consideration. Where does Missouri’s electrical power come from? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we get more than three-quarters of Missouri’s net electrical generation from burning coal, and another five percent from natural gas-fired plants. Oh, yes, our one nuclear power plant in Callaway County is good for another 10 percent, not that the Green New Deal manifesto is calling for more nuclear power.

Even in the act of saying “sayonara” to the use of fossil fuel in just two sectors of the state’s economy – agriculture and freight transportation – we would have to fall back on fossil fuels to provide additional electrical generating capacity.

The post Why the “Green New Deal” Will Not Fly in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: User fees.

User fees are about having the people who use things pay for them. That means the people driving on the roads are the ones who pay for the roads. Raising Missouri’s fuel taxes—which haven’t been raised since 1996—to account for inflation would raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help MoDOT maintain the state’s road system in the near term. But other, long-term solutions, such as tolling on major interstates and bridges, can help keep infrastructure funding sustainable. Public–private partnerships (P3s) could also help raise funds. Furthermore, expanding MoDOT’s use of design-build (a project delivery method in which a single contracter both designs and builds and improvement, reducing costs and time to completion) could save roughly 20% per project.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Various forms of tolling are either planned or implemented in many states. Dozens of projects are funded by P3s in more than 10 states.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Missouri has the 3rd-lowest gas tax and the 3rd-lowest diesel fuel tax in the country. Adjusting these fuel taxes to inflation—raising them by less than 10 cents per gallon—would provide the funding necessary to keep Missouri’s infrastructure in good repair. With I-70 soon requiring a full rebuild, simple tolling infrastructure and a design-build workflow could be implemented to help increase available capital and reduce costs.

KEY POINTS

• A robust and well-maintained transportation system is vital to a strong Missouri economy.
• User fees are the most fair and economically sound way to fund major projects.
• Design-build and public–private partnerships bring the strengths of the free market to public infrastructure investment.
• User fees could prevent unfair special taxing districts from forming to fund wasteful projects.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: Funding the Missouri Department of Transportation and the State Highway System

Blog Post: With MoDOT’s Tank Nearly Empty, a Fuel-Tax Increase Might Be the Answer

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Highways/Transportation Infrastructure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Show-Me Institute researchers have analyzed numerous roadway funding policies, ranging from general revenue diversions to fuel taxes to tolls. We’ve concluded that the best policies are those that let the free market work and impose the costs of roadways on those who use them. That means tolling and fuel taxes should be the way forward for funding Missouri’s road system.

Not everyone agrees. An anti-tolling group is calling for a constitutional ban on tolling in Missouri, claiming that tolls are unfair and economically pernicious. The group claims to be committed to “solving Missouri’s transportation crisis,” but I can find nothing on their website about how the rebuilding of Missouri’s interstates should be funded. The group offers an abundance of negatives about tolling, but many of their claims are incorrect or misguided. Let’s break some of them down here and set the record straight.

• Tolling is double taxation. We already pay for roads with fuel taxes, so we shouldn’t have to pay tolls, too.

MoDOT cannot cut its way to a new I-70. Over the past six years, it has reduced costs by $605 million, but that’s not money for new projects—that’s money to keep shop open. So, for I-70 to get the attention it needs, new revenues will need to be generated. Whether those revenues come from tolls, fuel taxes, general taxes, or some other source, they will be new; they will be on top of existing taxes. One might worry that tolls constitute double taxation, but do tolls differ that much from a higher fuel tax or higher (or diverted) sales taxes? Is paying two taxes, $1 and $1 each, really any different or worse than paying a single $2 tax?

Important to note too is that discussions about tolling I-70 have mostly focused on tolling only new, additional lanes, not the existing lanes. That means only the drivers who use the new lanes would be tolled, so if you didn’t want to pay a toll, you wouldn’t have to.

• Tolling will hurt businesses near tollbooths and hamper the freight industry’s growth.

This argument is another way of complaining that businesses near interstates will not be subsidized.  When driving is made artificially cheap through general taxation (e.g., through sales taxes as opposed to fuel taxes or tolls), land near interstates becomes more valuable because of the higher consumer traffic. On the other hand, if drivers must pay to use the roads, the consumer traffic on interstates could be lower, reducing the value of nearby land. In short, a toll-free road means all Missourians are paying to create demand for a select few businesses along the interstate.

Some worry that tolling, which would show drivers the true cost of driving, would deter consumers from businesses along the interstate. While it’s true that tolling may hurt some businesses near interstates, it does so only by unburdening taxpayers in general. If roads are paid for with tolls, that means other taxes previously dedicated to roads can either stay in taxpayers’ pockets or be spent on other public services.

And just as taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize businesses near interstates, they shouldn’t have to subsidize trucking companies (many of which do not employ Missourians). Heavy trucks do well over 90% of the damage to our roads, so why shouldn’t they should pay for rebuilding them (via tolls)?

• Toll roads are poor investments, and when they fail, taxpayers are on the hook.

Some proposals to toll I-70 call for private firms to invest in the roadway in exchange for tolling concessions. Such an arrangement would let firms try to make a profit from tolls, but only by assuming the risk of major capital investment. Like other enterprises, toll roads run the risk of going under. But contrary to what anti-toll crusaders claim, taxpayers do not bear the risk of toll roads. Firms are required to invest in the roadway before collecting tolls, so the public gets a new road regardless of whether the company makes a profit. If a firm goes under, its assets are repossessed, but that just means a different firm owns the road—the new road the public gets to enjoy.

Tolling is by no means the only way forward, but it is a way forward. Dozens of states across the country have successful toll roads and bridges, and Missouri can, too. Banning toll roads won’t solve Missouri’s transportation woes; in fact, given policymakers’ reluctance to increase fuel taxes, it would cut off yet another free-market policy solution.  

The post WRONG WAY: Anti-Tolling Group Gets It Wrong appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A few proposals to fund I-70’s reconstruction have emerged in Jefferson City this legislative session. One bill, SJR 3, would raise fuel taxes by just a few cents (1.5 cents/gallon on gasoline, and 3.5 cents/gallon on diesel fuel) , and is estimated to generate $57M a year for MoDOT and $24.5M for local governments to spend on roads. Another bill, HB 155, would allow the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC, which oversees MoDOT), to receive proposals from the private sector on the rebuilding and eventual tolling of Interstate 70. Both proposals focus on increasing user fees, which directly tie the funding of roads to the consumption of roads.

Another bill, SB 457, takes a different approach. SB 457 would, for 10 years, divert 8% of state sales and use tax proceeds away from the general fund to a newly established “Interstate 70 Improvement Fund.” Most of those funds, averaging $250M a year, would go towards reconstructing and expanding I-70 to four lanes each direction. SB 457 would generate enough revenue to rebuild and expand I-70, but the question arises: Are sales and use taxes appropriate sources of revenue for transportation investments? The answer isn’t so clear.

For one thing, it isn’t necessarily fair to force people who don’t use I-70 to pay for it. Should a working-class family in Cape Girardeau have to pay for an interstate they’ll never drive on? Should someone who doesn’t drive at all pay for the interstate system? Moreover, basing highway funding on sales and use tax revenue could lead to unintended economic consequences. As former Show-Me Institute Policy Analyst Joseph Miller put it, “If people pay for roads and bridges based on how much they shop and not how much they drive, it will make driving look comparatively cheap, pushing people to drive more at any gasoline price, thereby increasing congestion, pollution, and urban sprawl.” In short, by socializing the cost of roadways through general taxation, people will drive more than they usually would, creating negative externalities that a user fee-based system could internalize.

It’s also worth asking whether diverting general revenue, which funds public safety, education and other important services, is the best policy option at a time when the state is making budget cuts. If general revenues are used to fund interstate improvements, could that mean services traditionally funded with general revenues will be scarcer? It’s hard to know, but policymakers would be wise to consider possible consequences before shifting funds away from other areas.

In 2014, Missourians soundly rejected a transportation sales tax hike. Perhaps that, if anything, is a signal that Missourians don’t want their shopping patterns dictating their roadway funding.

The post Should Sales and Use Taxes Fund Interstate Improvements? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, nothing was accomplished. On the issue of MoDOT funding, many reforms were proposed, such as reducing the size of the state highway system, increasing the state fuel tax, and allowing for public-private partnerships for tolling I-70. None of these proposals became law, although a proposal to increase fuel taxes by 5.9 cents came very close to going to a vote of the people.

As for ridesharing regulation, bickering over the exact level of safety regulation in the Senate was enough to scupper a promising reform bill. Until lawmakers are convinced that Missourians can choose for themselves the level of security that they consider adequate, the chances are slim for further regulatory reform in the state.

The only major transportation bill that passed the Missouri legislature was SB 861, which started out as a port improvement measure but ended up as a grab bag of corporate welfare measures. For instance, the bill would authorize tax deductions to lure back jobs that have gone to other states, whether or not these jobs have anything to do with ports.

While the legislature may have left transportation in the lurch, the news is not all bad. The recent passage of more funding at the federal level (through the FAST Act) and increased revenue at the state level has placed MoDOT on firmer financial footing, at least for the near future. This has led MoDOT to add 855 projects to its 2017–2021 state transportation improvement program, providing more than $700 million in new construction awards every year through 2021. As the threat that MoDOT will be unable to maintain the state highway system recedes, so does pressure to do anything to increase MoDOT’s funding.

However, major projects, like the rebuilding of I-70, remain out of reach for Missouri. And access to ridesharing services in Missouri’s largest metropolitan area (St. Louis) is still in legal limbo. It would be a mistake for Missouri’s policymakers to think they can continue to put off making sound policy reforms and hope outside circumstances continue to break in our favor. 

The post End of Session Puts the Brakes on Transportation Reform in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What was farmland near the lake not long ago is now subdivisions teeming with young families.  Over the past 20 years, the Wentzville School District, where Lake St. Louis is located, has grown nearly 200 percent, adding an average of almost 500 students each year. That population growth is the talk of the town today, as it is going to require the school district to build at least one new school in the near future. In doing so, the school board will change the boundaries of the existing schools.  This process will likely uproot hundreds of children from schools they already attend and force them to go somewhere else.

Folks are not happy. Petitions are being circulated. Facebook posts are being shared. The community is in turmoil.

This drama is not unique to Lake St. Louis, to Missouri, or even to 2016. As the American educational system evolved and matured, small schools and small school districts consolidated into larger and larger political units, from more than 170,000 public school districts in 1949 to the 14,000 or so bodies that oversee K-12 education today. This has empowered a smaller and smaller number of school boards to make decisions like where to locate schools, where to demarcate attendance boundaries, with whom to contract for busing and food services, how to compensate teachers, and many, many other decisions. At every point in this journey, as you might imagine, there was controversy.

Still though, it is popular to offer paens to local control, irrespective of political orientation. When education reformers tried to amend the Missouri constitution to change how teachers are evaluated, the Missouri’s NEA affiliate’s headline screamed “local control of public schools takes a hit.” When the NEA’s Michigan affiliate wanted to praise the recent Every Student Succeeds Act, they said that it “puts students ahead of politics; educators ahead of politicians; and local control ahead of federal mandates.” Similarly, Sen. Ted Cruz’s website states that “education decisions should be made on the state and local level, where parents and communities can be more involved and find solutions better suited to their kids’ needs.”

De Tocqueville wrote long ago, “local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations.”  Unfortunately, our local institutions governing education have been weakening in recent decades.  On the other side of the Show-Me State, the recent school board elections in the Kansas City School District didn’t have a single name on the ballot. Only one candidate got the necessary number of signatures to run in the election and was thus automatically elected, and the three other seats had to be filled entirely by write-in candidates.  

To turn a phrase of left wing activists around, is this what democracy looks like? Or, more pointedly for conservatives, what does local control mean in education today? 

Local control is not simply a tyranny of the majority on a small scale. Local control, properly understood, means empowering families, those “little platoons” that another lover of local control, Edmund Burke, so valorized, to make the best educational decisions for their children. It means allowing local community organizations like nonprofits and churches to operate schools where students are free to use their state support to finance their education.  It means interpersonal networks within communities coming together to share information about what schools are doing, which ones are better than others, and where children might thrive.

In short, is has nothing to do with having a school board.

Local educational bureaucracies have unfortunately become 14,000 mini-monopolies. They routinely fight charter school or private school choice programs that would give families more choices as to where they send their children to school. In fact, the National Association of School Boards officially opposes private school choice and makes anti-voucher talking points available on its website.  As the University of Pennsylvania’s Marc Meredith has shown, they purposefully schedule elections to drive down turnout to make it easier to get their desired outcome.  Rather than represent the will of the people, they represent the needs of the bureaucracy.

The people of Lake St. Louis tax themselves to provide for a quality education for the children that live in their community. What if rather than being geographically assigned to schools, students were free to attend whatever school in the district they wanted to? What if they could take the funds levied for their education to schools in neighboring communities or to local private schools because they were the schools that best fit their needs? That would not be incompatible with the purpose of public education or the intent of their neighbors. In fact, it would more tightly align with what the children themselves, not the bureaucracy that has arisen over the years, actually want.

It is long past time that we, in the spirit of Confucius, rectify the name of local control. It does not have to be synonymous with monopoly.  It does not have to fight innovation.  What it needs to do is empower—and reflect the will of—citizens and families. That is the vision of de Tocqueville and Burke, and that is something worth pursuing.

The post Local Control in Education, Properly Understood appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Saint Louis stadium folly
• Winston Churchill on taxation
• Homeschooling
• Transparency in public sector collective bargaining
• Tolling and I-70's future
• Medicaid: Reform instead of expansion

Read it here:

Newsletter March 2015.pdf

The post March 2015 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.