The post The Eternal Struggle for Lower Transaction Costs: A Short History of the Modern Free Market Movement appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Less excusable are the actions of supposedly wise politicians who lay down billions in tax dollars in the vain hope of hitting it big with a stimulus or economic development bill. We are promised that a dollar in government spending will create more than a dollar in economic growth.

This idea, known as the fiscal multiplier, has never been borne out by evidence. When the actual results of government spending on the economy are examined, they show lackluster or even negative returns. However, that has not stopped proponents of greater government spending from using the multiplier to promote everything from the federal stimulus bill to state and local subsidies for warehouse construction around Lambert–St. Louis International Airport.

The multiplier is based largely on the work of economist John Maynard Keynes, who argued that higher government spending combats people’s propensity to hoard money in a recession and puts unemployed people and resources to work. As the spending ripples across the economy, a dollar in government spending should cause substantially more than a dollar in economic activity.

The Barack Obama administration invoked multiplier theory to promote the $787 billion federal stimulus package. The president’s economic advisers assumed every dollar spent by the stimulus would add $1.50 to gross domestic product (GDP). In a March 2 column for the New York Times Economix blog, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan showed that stimulus spending did not boost GDP, and may have caused it to shrink.

Nor has stimulus spending delivered the bounty of jobs that its supporters promised. Obama claimed that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from exceeding 8 percent., yet it hit 10 percent and now remains stubbornly stuck at 9 percent.

Others have taken this idea a step further, claiming a still bigger multiplier effect for specific projects — thinking, just as I did in my youth, that it must be easy to toss the ring around the bottle. When final plans for Ballpark Village were announced in 2006, the Saint Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA) estimated that Phase I of the project would cost $387 million, but generate $273 million annually — paying for itself in a year and a half. Of course, this assumed that everything would go as planned. Almost five years later, construction has not started and the investment has been downgraded to $155 million, with at least $57 million of that coming from various levels of government. Furthermore, Ballpark Village is primarily shuffling existing businesses around instead of attracting or creating new ones. Stifel Financial Corp., the village’s largest future tenant, will move all of seven blocks.

Despite these failures, politicians of every stripe recently trotted out the multiplier to support subsidies for warehouses around Lambert, through “Aerotropolis” legislation. Although the precise equation behind it remains shrouded in oracular mystery, an RCGA study predicts that $300 million in public funding will lead to almost $34 billion in private economic activity over 20 years, suggesting a truly absurd return of more than 10,000 percent. Here, the Keynesian multiplier has itself been multiplied by the central planner’s conceit of being able to pick winners successfully — truly a sucker’s game.

The government cannot create resources from thin air. It must take them from taxpayers through taxation or borrowing. Resources used by the government therefore cannot be used by the private sector. Increasing government spending does not in itself increase the country’s capacity to produce — it just shifts existing production away from goods and services that consumers demand, and toward those demanded by politicians.

The multiplier is a lie, but an attractive one, luring the listener like the familiar siren song of my youth: “Ring the bell, win a prize!”

John Payne is a research assistant with the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Development Spending by Government Only Multiplies Madness appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Across the country, there is widespread disagreement among educators, politicians, and the general public about what constitutes a good curriculum. Even within districts, conflicting interest groups fight heated battles over curricular changes.

On April 26, a group of students took over a board meeting of the Tuscon Unified School District, protesting a proposal that would change the district’s Mexican American Studies program from a social studies credit to an elective. Student supporters of the program chained themselves to the board’s dais and could not be removed by security. Under a national curriculum, disputes such as this would have to be resolved at the federal level. Congress would determine what students should learn. Allowing Congress to serve as the custodian of truth in the teaching of history, social studies, and other subjects is asking for trouble.

In fact, our current system is already too centralized, with state legislators and boards of education committing new crimes against veracity every time curriculum design comes up for debate. Last spring, conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education pushed through a new social studies curriculum. Among other changes, the new curriculum required a greater emphasis on the “conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s,” and excised the insufficiently religious Thomas Jefferson from a list of thinkers who inspired revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries, replacing him with overtly Christian figures such as John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas. The left plays this game just as much as the right. California’s guidelines forbid textbooks to “cast adverse reflection on any gender, race, ethnicity, religion or cultural group.” That sounds well-meaning, but it has led to a whitewashed version of history for fear of offending any interest group.

We should return decisions about educational content to the local level. That would not make these arguments disappear, but it would give parents the greatest opportunity to find a curriculum that suits their educational preferences.

Furthermore, localized curricula would give teachers more flexibility in meeting students’ individual educational needs. When I pursued teacher certification, I encountered repeatedly in my coursework the idea that every student learns in different ways. Good teachers must vary the information they present and how they present it in order to appeal to the different aptitudes and interests of their students. A national curriculum may not completely strip teachers of the ability to tailor lessons for the particularities of their students, but every new mandate from on high removes a little more autonomy from the educators who know their students best.

Many American schools are in desperate need of reform, but more federal micromanagement is not the solution. We need more autonomy for schools to innovate and serve the individual needs and interests of their students, and greater choice for parents to hold those schools accountable. A national curriculum would take us in the opposite direction — toward heavily politicized subject matter and no alternatives for students whose needs are left out. Reforming education in this country is not one large problem — it’s millions of small ones, and a national curriculum would only make them harder to address.

John Payne is a research assistant with the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy. He is a former high school social studies teacher, and an original signatory to “Closing the Door on Innovation,” a manifesto opposing a national education curriculum.

The post Don’t Nationalize Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There were a few minor factual errors in this presentation, for which we apologize. Here are corrections:

• At the time this talk was given, national unemployment was 9.0 percent, not 9.5 percent.
• The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed in 1930, not 1931.
• The Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States decision was delivered in 1935, not 1937.
• Eisenhower won some southern states, therefore Goldwater was not the first Republican to do so (since Reconstruction).

The post Why Was the Great Depression So Great? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

During the debate surrounding the 2006 minimum wage law, the Show-Me Institute released a study by University of California, Irvine, economist David Neumark showing that minimum wage laws decrease employment among unskilled workers and prevent them from acquiring the skills they need to climb the socioeconomic ladder. When the minimum wage increases, businesses respond by hiring fewer low-wage employees. The employees who keep those jobs are more likely to be teenagers from relatively affluent families than minority workers from poorer households.

In essence, a higher minimum wage destroys jobs for the most vulnerable workers in the labor market and redistributes a portion (but not all) of the lost wages to workers who frequently live in families that make more than four times the poverty level. Neumark’s thorough review of the literature demonstrated that a 10-percent increase in the minimum wage (about 70 cents, at present) caused teenage employment to drop by 1 to 2 percent and increased poverty by three quarters of a percent. It is a peculiar type of anti-poverty program that throws poor people out of work.

A 1994 study by economists David Card and Alan Kreuger purported to show an increase in employment in New Jersey’s fast food industry after the passage of a higher minimum wage. However, Card and Kreuger relied on telephone surveys for their employment information. Subsequent studies using payroll documents from the restaurants themselves showed that employment fell after the minimum wage was increased, just as standard economic theory predicts.

Business owners generally do not employ people or give employees raises out of the goodness of their hearts — nor could they, without bankrupting their enterprises. If the government forces a business to pay workers more than the owner believes their labor is worth, those workers will soon be out of a job. Wages do not rise because of government mandates, they rise as workers acquire more skills and create more goods and services at lower costs. We can boost wages across the board with improvements like better education or greater investment in technology, but simply waving the wand of government and expecting low wages to rise magically is no solution at all.

John Payne is a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post The Minimum Wage Hurts Those It Is Designed to Help appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Full Interview (MP3)

The post The Economics of Pujols’ Contract appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For most of baseball’s history, even the best professional players did not make salaries hundreds of times greater than the average American. In large part, this was attributable to the reserve clause attached to player contracts that forced them to bargain solely with the team that signed them — even after the contract expired. In 1975, an arbitrator allowed two players to become free agents, effectively striking down the reserve clause. From that point forward, general managers have been forced to compete against each other for free agents, driving player salaries skyward.

In most cases, these multimillion-dollar salaries benefit everyone involved. Most obviously, the players benefit because they earn more money. And, although ownership would undoubtedly like to return to the days of the reserve clause and cheap labor, they still generally prefer paying stratospheric salaries instead of fielding a third-rate team. Most importantly, baseball fans enjoy watching their highly paid stars play up to their potential, as shown by our willingness to spend money on the sport. Until the recession hit in 2008, Major League Baseball (MLB) set attendance records on an almost annual basis, peaking in 2007 with more than 79.5 million tickets sold — an average of 32,785 fans per game. Attendance has declined about 7 percent since then, down to (still healthy) 2003 levels. The reason that superb athletes like Pujols can command millions or even tens of millions of dollars per year is because people willingly give their hard-earned money to watch them perform.

Seen from the perspective of the value he brings to fans, Pujols is a bargain at $25 or even $30 million a year. The Cardinals had the fourth-highest MLB attendance in 2010, with 3,301,218 fans attending 81 home games, according to ESPN. If each of those fans contributed only nine dollars — just once — it would net Pujols $30 million for the year. Of course, this dramatically understates how dearly Cardinals fans value his skills, because it ignores attendance at away games and the much larger audiences listening on the radio and watching on television. J.C. Bradbury, an economist at Kennesaw State University and author of The Baseball Economist, estimates that an eight-year contact with Pujols is worth $350 million, based upon similar deals to other superstars and current revenue growth. That’s $43.75 million per year. Another examination, using the statistic Wins Above Replacement (WAR), pegs the dollar value of an average season for Pujols at $32.3 million.

This analysis is complicated by subsidies that the Cardinals have received from the government — mostly in the form of deferential tax treatment and government-secured loans for the construction of the new Busch Stadium. Some area taxpayers do not care for baseball or the Cardinals, so they lose out on that deal. Such subsidies, however, are not an argument against high salaries per se, but rather against government favoritism toward certain businesses.

In 1960, Stan Musial came off a substandard season and requested a pay cut from $100,000 to $75,000. It was an honorable move from a man who demanded nothing short of perfection from himself. But nothing suggests that Pujols’ success as a player will decline any time soon. The value that Pujols has added to his fans’ lives far outstrips even the eight-digit figure on his current contract — so go ahead and pay the man what he deserves.

John Payne is a research assistant for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Pujols Is Worth Every Penny (All 3 Billion of Them) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Full Interview (MP3)

The post Is Albert Worth 30 Million? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These schools are not perfect — far from it, in some cases — but, for most of these students and parents, the system works relatively well. There is a well-known correlation between academic achievement and socioeconomic status, and students from higher-income families outperform lower-income students on practically every measure. This disparity is also reflected in the achievement gap between white and minority students. Tino Sanandaji, a Ph.D. student in public policy at the University of Chicago, recently compared the scores of non-Hispanic white American students with those of non-immigrant Europeans on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test, and found that the American students performed admirably. White Americans scored seventh out of 28 countries, beating students from Denmark, Sweden, and France, as well as an average of 15 European Union countries.

On the other hand, our educational system routinely fails poor and minority students — those least able to choose a different school by moving to another district. Although the racial achievement gap has narrowed somewhat in recent years, at age 17, black and Hispanic students still score about 10 percent worse on average than white students on the reading portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). There a number of proven ways we can expand choice and improve academic achievement for those students.

Missouri has already experienced some success with charter schools. According to a 2009 study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, students attending charter schools in Missouri show more improvement in both mathematics and reading than similar students in traditional public schools, and this remains true when looking only at black and Hispanic students. Unfortunately, state statute limits the existence of charter schools to the cities of Saint Louis and Kansas City. If that restriction were removed, the gains of charter schools could be expanded to students in other struggling districts.

Furthermore, we could provide parents and students with more options in existing public school districts simply by restructuring how the schools are funded. Under a weighted-student-formula program (also known as “backpack funding”), students can attend any school within the district, and the schools are funded based upon the number of students they attract — with more dollars devoted to students who typically require more resources to educate (e.g., those with disabilities). Schools are then allowed more autonomy to experiment and compete for students — and for the money attached to them. In California, the cities of San Francisco and Oakland both implemented backpack funding and saw large gains in student achievement across ethnic and socioeconomic lines. San Francisco is now the top performing large urban school district in California. There is no reason, outside of political intransigence, that the Saint Louis and Kansas City school districts could not enact the same reforms.

It would be difficult to design an educational system worse for the disadvantaged than one that assigns students to schools based on the housing that their parents can afford. Although our best schools, public and private, are the product of parental choice, poor and minority students are frequently stuck in monopolistic urban school districts. School choice is not a panacea for this problem, but giving parents the power to choose is a necessary step toward ensuring a quality education for all of Missouri’s students.

John Payne is a research assistant for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Real School Choice Options Would Help to Narrow Educational Achievement Gap appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Meth incidents, I should note, are a count of the number of times that meth labs, dumpsites, or even meth production equipment is seized. The statistic is not, as I once naïvely thought, a count of meth lab explosions, or even labs themselves. The AP’s analysis does not delve into which types of “incidents” are on the rise, just that the total is up. Additionally, an uptick in meth lab incidents could just be an effect of law enforcement cracking down on meth production more effectively. So, already, we should approach the AP analysis with skepticism.

A few years ago, a number of states, including Missouri, limited the purchase of pseudoephedrine, restricted where it could be sold, and began to track those who purchased the drug. The AP says that those restrictions have created a black market trade in pseudoephedrine, the cold medicine.

From the AP:

An Associated Press review of federal data shows that the lure of such easy money has drawn thousands of new people into the methamphetamine underworld over the last few years.

“It’s almost like a sub-criminal culture,” said Gary Boggs, an agent at the Drug Enforcement Administration. “You’ll see them with a GPS unit set up in a van with a list of every single pharmacy or retail outlet. They’ll spend the entire week going store to store and buy to the limit.”

Well, don’t count me among the shocked. After all, it’s pretty common knowledge that regulation and restriction can create all sorts of black markets of perfectly banal commodities, such as “food, cookware, haircuts, clothing, machinery repair, house building—almost everything people use in their everyday lives.” In this case, government restriction has made something that had previously been easy to acquire that much more difficult, thus increasing the price of pseudoephedrine on the black market to far above the, say, Walgreens price.

Recent government regulation of pseudoephedrine appears to have led to a brief decline in meth production after the regulations were put in place, followed by a bounce back as meth producers found other ways to acquire drug ingredients. In the past year there were, as the AP breathlessly tells it, “10,064 meth incidents, a 62 percent rise over the previous two years.”

Yikes, I guess. This means that there are 0.00003278 meth incidents for every person in the U.S. If that’s too many decimal places for you, perhaps a better way of looking at it would be to say that there is one meth lab incident for every 30,505 people. Per year. And that can be as minor as the seizure of “chemicals and glassware.” I personally am more concerned with car fatalities (which are, by definition, fatal and occur three times more frequently than meth lab incidents).

Say you, or perhaps Gov. Jay Nixon, are still concerned by this uptick in meth statistics. Let’s set aside that we don’t know what type of “incident” is on the rise; whether this is attributable to an increase in use or to better law enforcement; whether the previous low points in the statistics were attributable to declining drug production, or just a shift from one type of drug production to another; and the extraordinarily probable explanation that drug producers will figure out how to adapt (as they have already done) to additional government regulation of pseudoephedrine.

Let’s say that the governor, or even AP reporters, suggest instead that pseudoephedrine be put behind a prescription wall. Only those who have a prescription from a doctor would be allowed to purchase cold medicine. Would that solve the problem? And would that step be worth it?

Okay, yes, those were rhetorical questions. For the first question: Of course not. If meth producers are paying individuals to buy up pseudoephedrine until they hit government-imposed purchased limits, it certainly seems likely that those producers would pay individuals to take the additional step of getting prescriptions to buy up pseudoephedrine. I suppose such a policy would help at least one group of people: Those who could get a perscription and then sell pseudoephedrine to meth producers. I bet that they could get a better price.

The second question is one that I’ve already answered on this blog, and has the same answer as the first: Of course not! There are so few “meth incidents” that to reduce them even by half hardly seems worth the cost to everyone else of either having to go to the doctor’s office when they have a cold, or forgoing treatment.

Again, I’d like to remind legislators, governors, and reporters that health care costs are a huge issue that seems insurmountable at the moment. Regulations like these are bound to increase those costs: Either individuals will have to pay for a doctor’s time in order to obtain a prescription for cold relief, or, if that person has a low co-pay, this regulation will raise health insurance providers’ costs, which will most certainly result in health insurance premium costs rising.

I hope that politicians and reporters will find some other, less intrusive issue to sensationalize for personal gain.

(H/T for post title suggestion to John Payne.)

The post I’m Just Disappointed That the AP Didn’t Play Up the “Dickensian Aspect” a Bit More appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I hope the SNL editors research and footnote the types of benefits offered to the Show-Me Institute’s employees, if any, and that Harbin discloses her participation, if any, in them. My guess is that she would refuse to disclose which benefits she receives, much like the GOP Congress refused to do this week.

The commenter guessed incorrectly. Even though I don’t consider it to be relevant to my argument, nor do I consider it to be the responsibility of the Springfield News-Leader to investigate it before running an editorial, I’m happy to clarify the health care benefits that I enjoy. This is no secret — it’s something that I mentioned yesterday when I was talking about health care policy on the Mike Ferguson show on the Eagle 93.9 FM in Columbia. It’s a characteristic of my generation — we tend to be very willing to disclose details of our finances.

I have a health savings account (HSA) and a health insurance policy with a $5,000 deductible. My monthly premium, which I pay out of pocket, is around $100, which is manageable. I work at the Show-Me Institute because I am committed to the ideas of liberty and individual responsibility — certainly not because I receive a lucrative benefits package, because I don’t. If I simply wanted a fat paycheck, I would get a job in the private sector or become a school superintendent.

Insurance policies are not one-size-fits-all, particularly in health care. Although high deductible insurance plans and HSAs work very well for healthy 20-somethings like John Payne and me, I’ll readily admit that it is not something that works best for everybody. However, a plan that works best for everybody doesn’t exist. A so-called Cadillac insurance plan with a low deductible, for instance, would be a poor fit for me at this time in my life. This is precisely why health care should remain in the free market — it preserves consumer choice and ensures that individuals can select the policies that fit their needs. We can see that when the government increases the number of mandates, the cost of coverage rises.

Show-Me Institute staff and scholars have highlighted the advantages of HSAs previously. As one particular benefit, my policy is portable (i.e., it’s not tied to my employer). Therefore, if I were to leave the Show-Me Institute, my health care coverage would be unaffected. From my perspective as a young person, an additional benefit of an HSA is that it serves as a tax-sheltered savings account. Unlike flexible savings accounts, which expire every Dec. 31, the money that I put into my HSA rolls over each year. Furthermore, if I don’t spend the money in my account by age 65, I can withdraw it without penalty like I would with a traditional IRA.

The bottom line is that it is important to preserve choice in health care. Overall welfare would decrease if families and individuals weren’t free to choose the policies that best fit their particular lifestyles and budget constraints.

The post Hello, My Name Is Christine and I Have a Health Savings Account appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The following are additional resolutions that didn’t make the final list. I tried to model these after resolutions that individuals commonly make for themselves. I thank my colleagues for their collaboration, and I encourage our Show-Me Daily readers to leave additional resolutions in the comments section.

1. Get Out of Debt:
    
   This year, state and local governments in Missouri should resolve to get a handle on their finances. Policymakers can accomplish this by holding off on the pork barrel spending projects and fitting in time for fiscal fitness. Eliminating and reducing debt will have positive fiscal consequences in the future, because the state will not be spending tax monies on interest on debt. Government should resolve to live within its means, as an individual does. There are many policy areas that could save money. For example, school districts could elect against giving superintendents health care for life.
2. Eliminate Clutter:
    
   The state government should conduct a top-down, bottom-up review of all state agencies and regulations to eliminate waste, inefficiency, and government intrusion unrelated to public health and safety. To accomplish this, policymakers may pursue public-private partnerships, privatize services, eliminate underperforming programs, etc.
3. Get Organized:
    
   The state can take measures to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, especially huge mistakes and oversights in its expenditures. For example, the state government is issuing targeted tax credits too quickly to keep track of them. According to an article from the Associated Press, 56 businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals in Missouri have failed to meet the mandates of a 2004 state law that requires annual progress reports after receiving tax credits. The state government awarded $2 million in tax credits to a convicted embezzler for a development project in Cape Girardeau. With better organization, scandals like this would be much less likely.
4. Find a Job:
    
   The state unemployment rate continues to exceed 9 percent. Missouri would attract a greater number of businesses to the region if it implemented strategies that reduce the cost of doing business in the state. Specific strategies that policymakers can implement are: eliminating personal and corporate income taxes, reducing occupational licensing requirements, and eliminating property tax surcharges.
5. Lose Weight:
    
   Just as individuals need to lose weight to remain fit and healthy, cities and other taxing districts need to save money by cutting out the fat whenever possible in order to remain fiscally sound. Policymakers in Missouri should take steps to limit this growth. Individual governments in Missouri can share resources, consider consolidation or disincorporation when appropriate, and contract with private service providers as much as possible. Individuals make the tough choices to eat less for better health. Taxing districts can make those same hard decisions to outsource, privatize, consolidate, or share services in order to perform key public services at as low a cost as possible. (Hat tip: David Stokes!)
6. Spend More Time With the Kids:
    
   Missouri can take measures to improve educational outcomes, such as increasing school choice. A specific strategy that policymakers can implement would be to expand access to charter schools and virtual schools, the latter of which can provide 24-hour education services to meet flexible schedules. It’s important to note that the most successful charter schools lengthen both school hours and the school year in order to help students catch up with their peers in other schools. (Hat tip: John Payne!)
7. Quit Smoking:
    
   Even staunch environmentalists now understand that the total carbon emissions from the use of ethanol are worse than the emissions from the fuel that ethanol replaces. Energy specialists recognize that it takes more energy to produce a unit of ethanol than the energy that unit returns. It’s bad for your health, your wallet, and the environment. It’s time for the state of Missouri to quit subsidizing, mandating, and abusing this substance.
8. Travel Less:
    
   Gov. Jay Nixon has the habit of holding ribbon-cutting ceremonies for subsidized projects around the state, and then billing the expenses to other agencies. These travel expenditures come at the expense of other programs because they compete for the agencies’ services. Taxpayers in Missouri would be better off if they weren’t footing the bill for these trips, because they could keep a greater proportion of their earnings. (Hat tip: Audrey Spalding!)
9. Spend More Time With Family and Friends:
    
   Just as an individual resolves to “Spend more time with family and friends,” a state government can resolve to increase the level of civil society interaction in Missouri through privatization. Instead of seeing government employees take care of your water utility, or going to a government-sponsored health clinic, we can interact with members of our community that we choose to do business with privately. This resolution could also describe hanging out with a family member or friend while they African-braid your hair or examine your horse’s teeth, even though they do not have a license.

The post New Year’s Resolutions for Missouri Public Policy: From the Cutting Room Floor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Public pension systems across the country are falling apart before our eyes. The California Public Employees Retirement Security System (CalPERS), the largest pension system in the country, lost 20 percent of its value during three particularly bad months in 2008. That same year, the city of Vallejo declared bankruptcy after spending 75 percent of its annual budget on pensions for its employees. It might be comforting to think of these problems as limited to California, but that is far from the truth. Citing an analysis from PricewaterhouseCoopers, a late 2009 Washington Post article reported that within 15 years, the average public pension will not possess even half the money required to pay the benefits that they owe. If these systems go bankrupt, either public employees will see dramatic cuts to their retirement benefits — which is a remote possibility, given the strength of public employee unions — or taxpayers will be forced to make up the shortfall.

Although Missouri does not have nearly the range of problems that fiscal basket cases like California have, our state is far from immune to pension woes. The Columbia Daily Tribune reports that its city’s pensions for police and firefighters are underfunded to the tune of $55 million. Earlier this year, budget pressures forced the legislature to enact reforms to Missouri’s pension system, including raising the retirement age to 67 and forcing workers to contribute to their pensions for the first time starting in January. These reforms are positive steps, but we must consider fundamental changes to our system if we want to avoid similar problems down the road.

According to a new Show-Me Institute study written by University of Missouri–Columbia finance professor John Howe, shifting public pensions from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans could generate higher returns for pensioners while limiting the risk to the public when pensions do not perform well. Defined benefit systems pay out a guaranteed amount of money to pensioners based on a formula that typically uses criteria like years of service and annual salary. On the other hand, defined contribution plans, like the 401(k) and Roth IRA, focus on the amount of money that employees pay in over the course of their careers and give employees more control over how that money is invested.

During the last 20 years, private companies have shifted towards defined contribution plans, but public pensions are still dominated by the defined benefit model. Missouri’s new reforms make the public pension system into a hybrid of defined benefit and defined contribution plans, which is an improvement over a pure defined benefit plan, but still subject to paying more in benefits than it receives in contributions.

The primary benefit to society of a greater reliance on defined contribution plans is that individuals would be more directly responsible for their own retirement funds, as opposed to relying on taxpayers for support. Furthermore, although it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the returns of defined contribution and defined benefit plans, because there are numerous variations of each, Howe cites evidence that defined contribution plans typically outperform defined benefit plans. This can be attributed to the fact that individual employees are generally willing to take on a somewhat higher level of risk than most companies or government agencies.

The downside to this risk is that a few people using defined contribution plans end up with less money for their retirement than they might otherwise have had. However, a system in which a relatively small percentage of pensioners becomes dependent on a social safety net is better than a system in which almost every beneficiary collects more than he contributes — with the difference made up by tax dollars.

All pension systems run the danger of failing to meet employee expectations, but we are less likely to encounter a complete systemic failure if we give greater control of pensions to the people who must live off of them in the future. Public employees are as capable as the rest of the working public to provide for their retirements.

John Payne is a research assistant for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Missouri’s Public Pension Plans Need to Be Reformed to Maintain Solvency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With the 2010 Census complete, Congress will soon reapportion seats in the House of Representatives, and it appears that Missouri will lose one of its nine congressional districts. According to a new report by Americans for Tax Reform, our state shares a feature with the other nine states likely to lose representatives: relatively high state income tax rates and government spending. Four of the eight states gaining seats — including the biggest winners, Texas and Florida, with four and two new seats, respectively — have no income tax at all. The average top income tax rate for all eight states is 2.8 percent, compared to 6.05 percent in the losing states, which is just higher than Missouri’s top rate of 6 percent. The governments of states that gained representatives spent only $4,008 per capita — almost 22 percent less than their counterparts in the states that lost seats, which spent $5,117. These figures suggest that high taxes and government spending tend to drive people away. They also lower the standard of living for those who remain. Two new studies released by the Show-Me Institute explain why and suggest alternatives that can once more set Missouri on a path for growth.

In his new policy study, “A Review of Cross-Country Evidence on Government Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth,” University of Missouri–Columbia economics professor Shawn Ni compares economic growth and taxation rates, along with government spending, for a number of countries. He finds that taxes reduce economic growth by discouraging businesses and entrepreneurs from creating the capital that raises productivity and, ultimately, wages. Ni estimates that a 10-percent cut in the corporate income tax rate will lead to a 1- to 2-percent increase in the rate of GDP growth. This may not seem terribly significant, but if two economies started at the same level and one of them grew by an extra 2 percent each year, it would be twice the size of its rival in a little more than 35 years.

The Nobel laureate economist Robert Lucas once remarked when contemplating the differences in international economic growth rates, “The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are simply staggering: once one starts to think about them, it is hard to think about anything else.” A similar idea is expressed more succinctly by a quote usually (but inaccurately, in all likelihood) attributed to Albert Einstein: “The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.”

Long-term economic growth rates are affected not only by the rate of taxation, but also by the form of taxation. Show-Me Institute Chief Economist and University of Missouri–Columbia professor Joseph Haslag, along with Washington University economics doctoral student Grant Casteel, argue in a new essay that replacing Missouri’s income tax with a sales tax will lead to a higher growth rate and therefore higher lifetime consumption than we would have under the current system. Casteel and Haslag concede that shifting the tax burden to a broad-based sales tax would result in consumption falling initially, because it would increase total prices for goods and services. However, eliminating the income tax provides a greater incentive for people to create new income — and, therefore, wealth — for society as a whole. This translates to a higher economic growth rate.

The authors estimate that, absent the state income tax, the average annual growth rate for Missouri would rise from 0.6 percent to 1.4 percent. Over time, consumption would rise along with people’s real incomes. Within nine years, consumption would be as high under the sales tax system as under the income tax — and it would continue to rise. After a generation (29 years), according to Haslag and Casteel’s calculations, consumers would derive more overall satisfaction in a sales tax system, with even bigger gains to come in the future.

Using statistics from Gapminder, we can see that in 1910 Russia and Japan had very similar per capita GDPs: $1,731 and $1,736, respectively, adjusted for inflation. However, after a century of marginally better than average GDP growth, the average citizen of Japan enjoys a standard of living more than twice that of the average Russian. If we want to give Missourians a higher standard of living, we should strive for better economic growth by keeping taxes and spending low and broadly based. Furthermore, the few necessary taxes should not be designed to punish people for creating new wealth, thereby slowing down the engine of economic growth, as the income tax has been shown to do. Over time, small changes can make a huge difference.

John Payne is a research assistant for the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank.

The post Income Taxes Decrease Economic Growth, Prosperity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Enjoy!

The post At Long Last: The Payne-Stokes Debate Is Online appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A: Whoever causes an accident.

This is a trick question, designed to make you think about which driving distractions are actually dangerous. Some people get in collisions when there is no identifiable distraction, but the list of possible distractions is endless, including a blinding glare from the sun, kids in the back seat, and hilarious bumper stickers on other cars. One important aspect of driving, or just being on the road, is safely negotiating the hazards that come one’s way.

In the Springfield News-Leader, Timothy Cloninger postulates that texting is no more dangerous than other driving distractions, and requests that both drivers and lawmakers exercise common sense in assessing the danger (emphasis mine):

Distracted driving is the problem, not texting. Existing laws already cover this, including careless driving, driving without due care and attention and reckless driving.

Cloninger also points out that legislation against texting while driving could simply encourage violators to pay more attention to hiding their behavior:

Even if you believe it should be illegal, a law that specifically calls out texting is impossible for police to proactively enforce: One, it’s too easy to avoid detection: simply hold your phone in a lower, more dangerous position.

Show-Me Institute research assistant John Payne stated on this blog that “a newly released study by the auto insurance industry found no decrease in auto crashes in states that enacted laws banning texting or talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving.”

While creating more legislation may seem like a proactive way to protect us from one another, this is not necessary if there are already laws that prohibit dangerous driving. Most people want to drive safely and will go to great lengths to avoid a collision. I personally wish that drivers would not text or play with Foursquare while operating a vehicle. Yet I respect their rights to make their own decisions, and I evaluate their driving safety based on how many accidents they are involved in, rather than on what they were doing at the time.

The post Multiple Choice: You Will Be Graded on This appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Since the end of World War II, libertarians have typically been considered a part of the right, in a “fusionist” alliance with traditional conservatives. However, a number of libertarians have questioned the usefulness of this longstanding relationship in light of the dramatic growth in the size of government and restrictive social policies instituted by self-described conservatives in government.

Both Stokes and I want to see dramatic reductions in the size of government and the roles it plays, but we disagree on the strategy for achieving those goals. Stokes will argue in the affirmative that libertarians’ best hope is to ally with conservatives — the only other group he sees as trying to limit the size of government. I will take the negative, contending that, despite their rhetoric, the conservative commitment to limited government is only skin-deep.

Outside of our employment at the Show-Me Institute, I serve as the Missouri state chair of Young Americans for Liberty, and Stokes is the Republican committeeman for Clayton Township in Saint Louis County.

Join us tonight (Thursday, Sept. 30) at Dressel’s in the Central West End for food, drinks, and discussion. (Cash dining and bar.)

The post Debate Tonight! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Editor:

The editorial board recently oversimplified our views on rural broadband access (“It’s a wired world, after all,” Aug. 20 issue). We do not oppose the proliferation of broadband into rural areas, merely the government subsidization of such expansion. Greater broadband penetration in rural areas indeed provides social benefits, but we remain skeptical that those benefits will outweigh cost of millions in taxpayer dollars.

Solutions for extending broadband exist in the private sector. I-Land Internet Services, for example, is expanding broadband into rural western Missouri at no cost to taxpayers. Fifty percent of people living in rural areas already have home broadband Internet service, according to a Pew Internet study released earlier this month. Furthermore, of the people who do not have high-speed Internet, only 6 percent cited a lack of access as the primary reason for not subscribing, compared with 48 percent who find the Internet irrelevant and 18 percent who have usability issues. Eighty million dollars is a very high cost to benefit such a small subset of people.

Christine Harbin, research analyst, Show-Me Institute
John Payne, research assistant, Show-Me Institute

Of additional note, contributors to Show-Me Daily have discussed this issue before.

The post Letter to the Editor: Government Subsidy Too High for Broadband Extension appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This panel discussion is our attempt to explore the issues of liberty at stake, as well as provide the opportunity for anyone who is interested to meet the panelists and to ask questions.

The discussion will begin at 6:00 p.m. TODAY at the Show-Me Institute’s office at 4512 W. Pine Blvd in the Central West End of Saint Louis.

The event is free, and snacks will be provided. However, because Liberty on Tour is traveling across the country, we suggest a $5 to $10 donation to help pay for the group’s travel costs.

Our star-studded panel includes:

• Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre of Liberty on Tour, a project to tour 13 cities in 13 weeks to talk about the principles of voluntaryism. Adam is also a founder of Cop Block, an organization devoted to watchdogging police officers who break the law. Pete Eyre currently works for the Future of Freedom Foundation, which advocates for individual liberty, free markets, private property rights, and limited government. Both Adam and Pete were part of the Motorhome Diaries project.
• Redditt Hudson, of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Redditt is a former Saint Louis police officer, and part of his work at the ACLU is to lead workshops that educate people about their rights under the law, including practical advice about how to interact with the police.
• John Payne, a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, will be moderating the discussion. John has argued for greater transparency and recording of SWAT raids in Missouri, and follows issues of civil asset forfeiture closely.

If you have the time, please drop by, and don’t hesitate to bring questions! The panelists will speak briefly about their perspectives on recording the police, and then we will open up the discussion for questions from the general public. After about an hour of discussion, we will move the group to Sasha’s on Shaw for dinner and drinks.

If you can’t make it, you can send questions you’d like asked to info@showmeinstitute.org, tweet them to @showmeinstitute, or post questions on the event’s Facebook wall. Finally, we will film the discussion and post it online for those who cannot attend.

The post Tonight: Panel Discussion on Recording the Police and Your Rights appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These arrests raise interesting questions of privacy expectations, free speech, differing state laws, and, as Reason Senior Editor Radley Balko has noted, your right to petition the government. This panel discussion is our attempt to explore the issues of liberty at stake, as well as provide the opportunity for anyone who is interested to meet the panelists and to ask questions.

The discussion will begin at 6:00 p.m. on Friday, August 20, at the Show-Me Institute’s office at 4512 W. Pine Blvd in the Central West End of Saint Louis. Please RSVP either by email to info@showmeinstitute.org, by phone to (314) 454-0647, or by commenting on this blog entry.

The event is free and snacks will be provided. However, because Liberty on Tour is traveling across the country, we suggest a $5 to $10 donation to help pay for the group’s travel costs.

Our star-studded panel includes:

• Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre of Liberty on Tour, a project to tour 13 cities in 13 weeks to talk about the principles of voluntaryism. Adam is also a founder of Cop Block, an organization devoted to watchdogging police officers who break the law. Pete Eyre currently works for the Future of Freedom Foundation, which advocates for individual liberty, free markets, private property rights, and limited government. Both Adam and Pete were part of the Motorhome Diaries project.
• Redditt Hudson, of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Redditt is a former Saint Louis police officer, and part of his work at the ACLU is to lead workshops that educate people about their rights under the law, including practical advice about how to interact with the police.
• John Payne, a research assistant at the Show-Me Institute, will be moderating the discussion. John has argued for greater transparency and recording of SWAT raids in Missouri, and follows issues of civil asset forfeiture closely.

If you have the time, please drop by, and don’t hesitate to bring questions! The panelists will speak briefly about their perspectives on recording the police, and then we will open up the discussion for questions from the general public. After about an hour of discussion, we will move the group to Sasha’s on Shaw for dinner and drinks.

If you can’t make it, you can send questions you’d like asked to info@showmeinstitute.org, tweet them to @showmeinstitute, or post questions on the event’s Facebook wall. Finally, we will film the discussion and post it online for those who cannot attend.

The post Recording the Police and Your Rights: A Panel Discussion With Liberty on Tour and the ACLU appeared first on Show-Me Institute.