That pushback didn’t materialize, though, because not only would jobs not be lost, but the workers at Crossroads would be employed at a nearby facility. Specifically, when I heard it mentioned during debate on the Senate floor that Crossroads was across the street from the facility it would be consolidated with—the Western Missouri Correctional Center (WMCC)—at first I thought that was an exaggeration. “Across the street?” Really?

But lo and behold, Missouri has had two prisons operating across the street from each other for about 20 years now:

Why it took so long to consolidate the prisons, I’m not sure. Because Crossroads is a maximum-security prison, security will have to be fortified in at least part of WMCC, to the tune of about $3 million. Perhaps that was the reason. But that $3 million is a small price to pay for even larger savings, and from a good governance perspective, it sure looks like bringing these facilities together is the right call. Missourinet elaborated on the reasoning for consolidation:

The department has been battling to fill hundreds of correctional officer job vacancies. [State Department of Corrections Director Anne] Precythe says the reorganization plan will create a fully-functioning, safe environment, versus trying to “limp along” with two half-staffed, half-full institutions.

The estimated $20 million savings from closing CRCC is slated to give department employees, minus executive staff, a one percent pay raise for two years of continued service. If Parson’s proposed three percent state worker pay increase happens, then corrections workers would get another raise. Precythe has touted the pay boost as the largest in the department’s history.

This consolidation may have been in the works for a while, but whatever its genesis, it’s an elegant solution to saving taxpayer money and reorienting, if ever so slightly, the state’s criminal justice strategy. If the state can build fewer prisons and push potential inmates back into being contributing members of society, Missourians on the whole will be that much better off.

The post Prison Consolidation a Smart Step Toward Better Government appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At the heart of our efforts is one of economic growth. Our message that Missouri is open for business cannot be just lip service coming from this building (the Capitol). The policies we pass must focus on cultivating employers and not controlling their businesses,” Haahr tells the House….

Haahr also focused on conservative policies during his address, saying that “gone are the old ways of thinking that public money alone can end our problems.” He tells the House that Missouri has passed a balanced budget without raising taxes for 15 years that “that will not change on our watch.

Other items, including some health care and transparency reforms, appear to have some inertia behind them, but time will tell what eventually makes the cut and can find a pathway through the Senate.

On the other side of the building, Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz laid out a similar vision as that of the House, focusing on employment growth and job training. A recent St. Louis Public Radio piece outlined his agenda:

We face an economy that is very different than the one many of us grew up in,” said Schatz, R-Sullivan. “Advanced, practical skills are the ticket to the middle class and economic prosperity. We need to invest in the citizens of our state by offering training opportunities, regardless of age and experience. And any Missourian that wants to better themselves through hard work and education should have their state as an ally.

What does seem clear is that both the House and the Senate are generally in step with Governor Mike Parson’s priorities of workforce development and infrastructure, particularly roadways. How the two chambers will come to an agreement on specific ways forwards is an open question; the Senate, for instance, may be more predisposed to use a new internet sales tax to fund some of these items—which as we’ve said before, should be a non-starter.

But all things considered, these are good starting places for state government to be beginning the year from. We’ll keep you posted on their progress or, heaven forbid, their lack thereof.

The post 2019 Legislative Priorities Generally Lining Up with Market Reforms appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

 Let’s do just what Rep. Ellington has suggested. Let’s look at the evidence from these places. Ellington is correct in saying there hasn’t been an exodus of “corporations or companies,” but there have been some negative outcomes.

 Washington D.C.

 D.C. passed the “Fair Shot Minimum Wage Amendment Act of 2016.” The amendment increases the district’s minimum wage to $15 by 2020 and then sets annual increases that are pegged to changes in the Consumer Price Index. Earlier this year, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer for the D.C. mayor’s office released a study that estimated the impact this will have on the city, and the findings aren’t anything to be bullish about.

 As one would expect, wages will increase. By 2021, the study’s authors estimate that “the average resident will gain roughly $5,100 more (20 percent higher) in wages as of 2021, but approximately 2 percent of impacted residents will experience job loss; this job loss estimate increases to about 3.4 percent by 2026.” Additionally, the study found that “average citywide prices will increase by roughly 0.2 percent and businesses will experience a 2.3 percent average reduction in profits as a result of this policy.”

 Seattle

The Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance went into effect in 2015. From 2015 to 2016, the minimum wage increased from $9.47 to $13. This is roughly a 37 percent increase in a short amount of time. The ordinance has different provisions for different types of employers, but will gradually increase the minimum wage to $15. Earlier this year, a team of researchers from the University of Washington released a paper on the impact thus far. When the minimum wage went up, employers did what we would expect them to do; they reduced the hours of employees. The researchers suggest the increased minimum wage resulted in a reduction of 3.5 million working hours per calendar quarter. Low-wage jobs (jobs paying under $19 per hour) went down 6.8 percent.

 As economist David Neumark noted in his 2012 policy study for the Show-Me Institute, “Should Missouri Raise its Minimum Wage?,” there are clear tradeoffs with this policy proposal. Raising the minimum wage increases the wages for a select portion of the population: those earning roughly minimum wage who manage to not have their hours cut (or their jobs eliminated altogether). This increase comes at the expense of the low-skilled workers who are not able to enter the labor market or lose their jobs. This issue is particularly concerning in our border cities, where higher pay may attract people from neighboring suburbs in other states. As these individuals enter the job market, they may take jobs away from low-skill Missourians living in Saint Louis and Kansas City.

 The real question for Missouri lawmakers is: Do you want to increase unemployment for some Missourians to provide others with higher wages? 

The post On Raising the Minimum Wage in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Have questions or comments about any of these legislative items? Leave them in the comments below. 

The post Bevy of Laws Come into Effect Today appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s common for school districts to engage with and give back to taxpaying community members. Homeschool parents are taxpaying community members too, but the Missouri State High School Athletic Association (MSHSAA) excludes their children from participating in after-school activities. The MSHSAA requires students to attend a public school for “not less than 80 percent of an allowable course load.”

Legislation was introduced last month that would give homeschoolers an opportunity to participate in sports and after-school clubs.

Twelve-year-old Isaiah Craft testified in favor of the proposed legislation. Missourinet reported:

“I came today to testify because I like football, but I don’t do the best in a classroom because I have Tourette’s and OCD. So, I just find it easier and I enjoy it more at home.”

Isaiah’s father touched on how the current law limits scholarship opportunities for homeschooled athletes:

“. . . what is troubling is the way it is now, it’s just the wall is there, there’s no option, and it’s just kind of a dead end.”

Opposition to the legislation suggests that homeschool participation would take away from academic incentives set for student-athletes. The fear of sitting out is often enough to motivate a student to complete an assignment or perform well on an assessment. The argument that homeschoolers have lower educational standards, which would be unfair to public school athletes, is unfounded. In fact, a lack of high academic standards in traditional schools is one of the top reasons parents choose to homeschool their children.

Homeschool parents make the same investment in public education as public school parents. If schools use taxpayer dollars to fund non-educational activities, such as football, then homeschoolers should have access to these programs. Children like Isaiah should have the chance to play too.

The post Homeschoolers Want to Play Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This may have a marginal positive impact, allowing school districts more time to weed out ineffective teachers before they gain tenure. But frankly, I am skeptical that this provision will do much. Many of the school districts we highlighted on this blog earlier this week that had terminated just one or no teachers since the year 2000 also reported low non-renewals of teachers who have not attained tenure status.

For example, the Belleview School District, which reported not terminating a single teacher since the year 2000, reported only three non-renewals. The DeSoto School District, which reported terminating one teacher, reports zero non-renewals since the year 2000. The Potosi School District, which employs about 170 teachers and has not terminated a single teacher since the year 2000, reports 10 non-renewals.

However, I do think a provision in the Teacher Multiyear Contract Act may give school districts the latitude needed to terminate poor-performing teachers when needed. Under existing law, if a school district needs to lay off teachers due to budgetary concerns, the district is required to lay off its newest teachers.

The Multiyear Contract Act would change that. The legislation states:

Seniority or years of service shall not be used as criteria for reduction in force; effective teacher performance shall be the deciding criterion.

This provision would allow districts facing financial distress to keep the best teachers — not those who have stayed on the longest. This would certainly help struggling school districts prioritize providing a good education to students, instead of being required to provide employment to those who have been there the longest.

The post Some Progress on Teacher Tenure Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute is in the process of researching the impact of Missouri’s existing teacher tenure laws. We have made hundreds of information requests to school districts throughout the state to discover just how many teachers have been terminated in the past decade. Generally, we are seeing few — and in some cases no — teacher terminations. Clearly, some of these school districts continue to employ bad teachers.

I have listed teacher termination statics that we have received from school districts that fall within Engler’s Senate district. Three districts report that they have not terminated a single teacher since the year 2000.

Senator Kevin Engler’s Area:

Arcadia Valley R-III: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

Belleview School District: Reports that the district has not terminated any teachers since 2000.

DeSoto School District: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

East Carter County R-II: Reports terminating one teacher since 2000.

Potosi R-III: Reports that the district has not terminated any teachers since 2000.

Van Buren School District: The superintendent writes that “There were no teachers [since 2000] that were asked to leave, terminated, or were fired by the district.”

Legislators should remember that the purpose of public education is not to employ as many teachers as possible; it is to provide education to Missouri students. As we have pointed out on this blog, we must acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that not all teachers are above average. A consistent finding in academic studies is that teacher quality matters. In fact, a study by Eric Hanushek of Stanford University found that students can learn three times as much from a good teacher than they do from a bad one.

Restricting school districts’ ability to fire bad teachers ensures that some Missouri students are receiving a poor education. As shown in the school districts from the area Engler represents, some districts rarely terminate teachers. Is this practice the best for Missouri students?

The post Some School Districts Rarely Terminate Teachers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This provides the perfect narrative for what some might consider to be very compelling and policy-minded journalism: A tragedy has occurred and a cell phone was involved. Shouldn’t there be a law against that?

Consider this line from the New York Times’ series of articles on the subject: “With virtually every American owning a cellphone, distracted driving has become a threat on the nation’s roads.” Indeed, in September 2009, the newspaper wrote that it was time to crack down, saying that “…texting at the wheel is a national hazard that calls for a firm federal response.”

This weekend, I heard an interview on National Public Radio with Matt Richtel, the author of several Times articles regarding the dangers of cell phone use while driving, discussing whether he considered himself to be an advocate. Richtel provided the standard journalist line, saying that he just thinks it is important to ask tough questions.

Well, here are two more.

1. Traffic fatalities, crashes, accidents, etc. have declined dramatically. If driving is safer than ever, why is there such concern?

The argument I hear again and again (most recently when I sat in on Donnybrook) is that banning cell phones while driving is about safety. However, Missourinet reports that this year, traffic fatalities are headed for a 62-year low. The same trend is seen on the national level. Fatality, injury, and crash rates have all declined substantially since 1990.

If fatalities, crashes, and injuries are down, then I hardly think that we are experiencing a “national hazard” that warrants an outright ban on cell phone use while driving. Of course, there have been accidents where cell phones were clearly the cause. However, with traffic accidents and fatalities down during the same time period that cell phones became popular, cell phone use is clearly not as dangerous as some fear.

And, even if an action comes with a small amount of risk, that does not mean we should pass a law to ban it. In fact, driving with children in the car may be more distracting than those pesky cell phones. Should we ban driving with children? Are we in the midst of a national driving-with-children epidemic?

2. How could this possibly be enforced? And, do we really want to create another vague reason to stop and question citizens?

How on earth could a ban on cell phone use be enforced? Would a police officer be able to pull you over if you look down briefly while driving? How could the officer discern whether you are talking on a hands-free phone or merely singing along to the radio?

The New York Times should know better than to advocate for additional vague ways for police to stop and question individuals. After all, the Times did an excellent study of a “stop, question, and frisk” policing policy. The newspaper found that after a drastic decline in violent crimes in New York City, the number of stops the police made increased dramatically.

Knowing that police officers can sometimes abuse their ability to stop, question, search, and detain individuals, why would anyone advocate for more vague reasons to stop and question people? Driving dangerously is already illegal. What more do cell phone ban advocates need?

Indeed, the last thing I want to see after the passage of federal legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is another vague reason that police can use to stop and search citizens.

The solution is not to ban cell phones.

I do not condone texting while driving. I also am not a fan of eating while driving, or letting your adorable pet distract you while driving. Though it would make an excellent point and is legal, I do not recommend that you hold a banana to your ear and pretend to talk to it while driving.

I was in a nearly fatal car accident when my family first moved to Michigan. The culprit? Ice. Should driving in Michigan be banned from October through April? Obviously not. Instead, I support independent groups working to inform drivers about dangerous winter driving conditions. Similarly, efforts to educate drivers about the dangers of distracted driving may end up saving lives.

But an outright ban? It is an overreaction to a tragedy.

The post What’s Next? Indefinite Detention Of People Who Text And Drive? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If you’re debating whether you should apply, take a look at some of the highlights that Caitlin Hartsell, our Koch Fellow from 2009, produced during her time working here for the eight-week program (and later, as a Show-Me Institute research assistant):

• Op-ed: What Does the State Income Tax Cost Missourians?
• Report: NorthSide Project Passes Board of Aldermen
• Op-ed: Filling the Cavities in Missouri’s Dental Care
• Op-ed: Well-Intentioned Autism Bill Also Carries Negative Consequences
• Speech: A Panel on the Best and Worst of the 2010 Legislative Session
• Video Production: Show-Me Institute Free-Market Field Trip No. 3: Ticket Scalping
• Show-Me Daily: 92 blog entries

Here are more highlights from our 2008 Koch Fellow, Matt Simpson:

• Op-ed: Flood Relief Establishes Perverse Incentives
• Missourinet interview: Controversial proposal would deny government aid to flood victims
• Post-Dispatch blog citation: The flip side of flood aid
• Show-Me Daily: 30 blog entries
• Show-Me Quarterly: Front cover photo

This just scratches the surface of all the research that they, and our other interns, helped out with behind the scenes.

So, once again, if you’d like to have the chance to dive into Missouri public policy this summer, be sure to apply to be a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow. After the Jan. 31 deadline, it may be too late.

The post Students: Apply to Work at the Show-Me Institute This Summer! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The best part–and this is why the health department needs to sign on–is that they’ll take the cigarettes back to Illinois to smoke them, meaning their later health problems will be issues for Illinois to deal with, not Missouri. So Missouri would profit, generating more money for education, highways, and maybe for health programs, and Illinois would have to deal with the problems smoking causes. […]

Let’s all root for Illinois to pass this dollar-a-pack cigarette tax increase.
It can mean so much to The Smuggler State.

States already do use selective tax rates to advertise products, to a certain extent. Recently, I saw such an advertisement for cigarettes on the Wisconsin-Illinois border.

I realize that the author is largely being facetious, but there is truth in his analysis that Missouri would likely experience benefits as a consequence of this policy. By keeping its tax rate on cigarettes low relative to other states, Missouri will encourage a marginally higher number of individuals to buy cigarettes in Missouri instead of in their home states.

The post Missouri: The Show Me Smuggler State appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On a high level, running government like a business is a good principle. Government should be as efficient, accountable, and transparent as possible because taxpayer monies are at stake. However, the statement “Government should be operated like a business” is a gross oversimplification. I agree with the author that there are many differences between businesses and government that make it nearly impossible for the government to operate like a business — but they are not the differences that the author describes.

He writes:

Here’s one big, really big, difference. When income slows, or when expenses rise, businesses can and often do increase their prices. Businesses, unlike government, like to make profits and many of them are not reluctant to increase their rates or their retail prices.

I think that the converse statement has more truthiness: Governments, unlike businesses, like to run a deficit and are not reluctant to increase taxes.

Here’s a different difference that the author overlooks: In the private sector, consumers decide to patronize businesses voluntarily, whereas they are required by law to pay money to government. If a person thinks that a price of a good or service is too high in the private sector, then she will choose not to pay. If a person thinks that taxes are too high, well, too bad, she has to keep paying them or get thrown in prison.

Here’s another difference: Because businesses face competitive pressures, they have an incentive to innovate their products, improve their services, drive down prices, become more efficient, etc. Government doesn’t experience this kind of competitive pressure, so it does not have an incentive to do those things.

The post “Government Should Be Operated Like a Business,” Part One of Two appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

All the standard justifications for licensing were used: Higher standards would be good for the industry, would lead to increased public respect, would bring more profits for current practitioners, etc. In most cases, for most industries, those reasons are totally bogus. In the case of private investigators, however, I can see some merit in licensure.

The lifeline of the private investigation industry is access to information. In the Internet age, information is all around us, but some of it is still restricted. Consider driver licensing or credit bureau information. Both of them are imperative to the investigation industry; they contain obvious key information needed for finding people, etc. If you allow some people access to that information, I can understand that you would want to know who has access to it and who is using it, in case they start to abuse it. It is really just a modern technology version of the logic Milton Friedman used to support registration of taxicabs.

I can understand the arguments some readers might make, that private investigators should not be able to access information like that in the first place, license or no license. So why not just prevent access altogether and get rid of licensing rules at the same time? I can agree with that in part, but I don’t like the implicit assumptions that only agents of the government (including lawyers, as members of the bar) get to have access to certain information. Obviously, you can’t be giving out that information to everyone, either, so I admit I don’t quite know where to draw the line.

In reading the rules of private investigator licensing in Missouri, they appear to have left out the worst excesses of licensing. They don’t appear to have placed any limit on the number of licenses, or instituted any extreme education or experience requirements. However, that same lack of explicit guidelines might allow the board too much discretion in rapidly approving ex–law enforcement officials (who, for obvious reasons, make up the bulk of the labor pool in this field), while rejecting applicants without law enforcement backgrounds. I hope that does not happen. Those are decisions that clients and markets should make.

The fees for the application process are high, which is probably intentional. Not high as in law school high, but still high. Often, licensing rules are designed to help the current practitioners by reducing part-time competition. A $500 application fee might not deter anyone who wants to do the job full-time, as a career, but it may well be high enough to prevent someone from applying who is looking to do it part-time. The fact that the fee is only $50 if you want to be an employee of an existing agency tells me the same thing, and I don’t think it is proper for government to be making those decisions.

P.S. — Thanks to Combest for the story link, and our thoughts go out to John on the recent passing of his father.

The post Private Investigators Can Go to Jail if They Don’t Get Their Licenses appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So if Ford develops an all-new vehicle, it’s investing about $3 billion before it even builds the production line and hires and trains the workers to put the vehicle together.

Woe is Ford! It has a high cost of production! Boo hoo!

I have no sympathy for the company and its high cost of production, given that it made $2.6 billion in profit in the second quarter alone and forecasts even more growth in the immediate future. (By comparison, the $150 million in tax credits that the Missouri legislature decided to give Ford is just a drop in the bucket!) Cars and trucks may be costly to produce, but they are also associated with high marginal revenues that cover this cost.

The debate on subsidizing Ford could benefit from a refresher on the theory of the firm.

This $3 billion investment for a new vehicle is a one-time upfront cost, and because Ford produces vehicles in very large quantities, that cost is diffused. Ford is making billions of dollars in profit, so we know that the marginal cost of producing a car is lower than the marginal revenue. Ford is a firm that operates in (what is supposed to be) a competitive industry; the perfect competition ideal is illustrated in the following graph:

Ford in the Short Run

If, perhaps, Ford finds that the marginal cost of producing a vehicle is lower than the price it can charge, it will lose money and will eventually choose to leave the market. Other firms that are able to produce the good at a lower average cost will enter the market instead because they can realize profit. This is how the competitive environment is supposed to work.

It would be beneficial if, instead of providing subsidies to profitable companies like Ford, the Missouri state government took a laissez-faire approach. Consumers would benefit, because they would be able to purchase goods at a lower cost instead of subsidizing private firms with their tax dollars. Producers in other industries would also benefit, because they would not be forced to compete at an artificial competitive disadvantage.

The post Woe Is Ford! Boo Hoo! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

President [Barack] Obama said in his speech that just a few years ago, the U-S accounted for 25% of the world’s economy, but was only making 2% of the world’s advanced batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles.

“But thanks to our new focus on clean energy and the work that’s taking place in plants like this one, we could have as much as 40% of the world’s market by 2014,” Obama said.

It is true that if we devote a large amount of our resources to clean energy, we could expand our share of the world’s market. If we wanted to, in fact, I’m sure we could devote exorbitant sums to clean energy and capture 80 percent of the world’s market.

Does that mean that it would be a good investment for the U.S. government? When someone invests her own money, she has a stake in that investment working out. Investors who make wise investments have more money to make additional wise investments. No matter how vital government officials think it is to invest in clean energy, they do not have that feedback; whether they invest wisely or not, their cash inflow is not affected. The government does not have the right competitive mechanisms in place, and thus may create more problems for clean energy than they solve.

Why is that? When the government favors certain types of clean energy over others (perhaps yet undiscovered) energy sources, they change the dynamic. As a result, those energy producers make money not because they efficiently produce energy, but because they have curried political favor. Energy producers who receive government monies are also restrained by government regulation and procedure, which stifles innovation.

From the aforementioned speech (emphasis added):

“[…] But my answer to those who don’t have confidence in our future, who want to stop, my answer is come right here to Kansas City see what’s going on at Smith Electric. I think they’re gonna be hard pressed to tell you that you’re not better off than you would be if we hadn’t made the investments in this plant,” Obama said.

I beg to differ. In the cases where clean energy is as good an investment as some proponents claim, private individuals will be willing to put money toward the venture. Many companies want to use efficient, environmentally friendly energy because consumers appreciate that. Clean energy, at its best, will lower costs, a condition necessary for it to become a primary energy source. Cutting the tax rate for all businesses would better promote the move toward clean energy sources than targeting incentives toward specific clean energy plants. If clean energy production is to become sustainable, it needs further exposure to market forces so that the most efficient product can succeed.

The post Next on the Agenda: 100% of the Carriage Wheel Market! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In Missourinet’s piece, Amy Blouin, executive director of the Missouri Budget Project, claimed:

“Childcare … that’s going to be taxed,” said Blouin. “Educational services, tutoring, private K-12 education if your kids are in a private school – a Catholic school – you’re going to pay this on those schools.”

Former Missouri Budget Director Jim Moody echoes Mrs. Blouin’s concerns and worries about the effects of the expansion of the tax base:

“That [includes] hospitals, doctors, everything in medical care,” said Moody. “So you’re going to tax, at 5.11 percent, things you’re not currently taxing – prescription drugs, medical care, hospital visits, nursing homes.”

They’re right. It’s true, all those goods and services will be taxed under the change, along with several others that have historically been exempt from taxation. Unfortunately, Blouin and Moody fail to appreciate that tax changes do not happen in a vacuum. This is a subtle point, but — as we have argued before — although the prices of these newly taxed goods would increase by the sales tax rate, several changes would simultaneously occur elsewhere in the economy to make consumers better off.

To begin with, its important to understand that a change in the tax code implies a change in incentives. People and firms alike respond to these changing incentives in many ways, including altering their supply and demand of goods and services. With that in mind, the claim that the prices on all goods and services would increase by the tax rate is misleading. In the long run, prices would increase at most by the tax rate, but this increase would be dampened by microeconomic changes.

Prices would indeed increase, but consumers would also become richer following the repeal of the income tax, and some of that reclaimed wealth would be used to protect against price increases stemming from the sales tax. Meanwhile, lower corporate and personal income taxes would create strong incentives for the inflow of people and investment funds to the state. In the long run, this translates to higher employment, higher incomes (which shield against price increases), and, ultimately, greater revenues from sales tax receipts.

In the process of presenting her case against the tax change to the state legislature, Blouin has suggested that 95 percent of Missourians would be hurt by HJR 56. It’s difficult to follow her reasoning. It is clear that 100 percent of Missourians would be affected by this policy change, but the claim that 95 percent would be hurt is unsubstantiated by the evidence. In the study I cowrote with Dr. Haslag, we presented a model that we used to compare tax burdens under both the current income tax rate and the proposed sales tax rate. We even used our own computation of the sales tax rate, 5.96 percent, which is higher than that suggested in the bill. We found that the break-even point was $60,000. At this income level, the burden under both tax systems was comparable. Because only 28 percent of Missouri tax filers in 2008 earned incomes higher than $60,000, the 95-percent figure that Blouin cites seems highly suspect. Hopefully, she will clarify her arguments and engage our own.

The post Addressing the FairTax Critics … Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From the article, we can see that support for this policy comes from those who would benefit most (i.e., rent-seeking behavior):

The push for the legislation comes from what is known as the Missouri Coalition for Data Centers, which is made up of businesses and local economic development agencies.

For reasons I’ve explained before on this very blog, targeted tax credits aren’t good policy. I’m beginning to feel like a broken record here!

Missouri should stop using targeted tax credits as an economic development policy, and instead let the free market decide which economic activities take place inside state borders. Officials should focus on creating tax policies that don’t favor one kind of business over another, such as reducing commercial property tax surcharges or corporate income taxes.

If other states decide to spend tax money to attract specific industries, be it filmmakers or data management centers, then Missouri shouldn’t feel the need to imitate them. To paraphrase Josh Smith’s comments on my recent post about tax credits to filmmakers, this is particularly true when Missourians: (1) are still able to get the benefits of the product by paying to receive the data management service; and, (2) don’t have to spend their tax money to entice the data management companies to locate here, resulting in a few obvious benefits.

Link via John Combest.

The post Targeted Tax Credits Rear Their Ugly Head in the Missouri Legislature Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Thanks to John Combest for linking to the post.

The post Shameless Self-Promotion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

favors giving Social Security recipients a single 250-dollar payment next year. Paying for even that, however, is an issue.

Later on in the article, it says:

She’s not yet committing to vote for the 250-dollars. She says she’ll wait to see how the money is found.

So, I guess I have to hold back for a while until the votes are finally cast, but I am certainly concerned that McCaskill, or any other Missouri member of Congress, might support this ludicrous payment to seniors that has absolutely no purpose to it other than satisfying an interest group by giving them money the country simply does not have. Take from the young and give to the old. It’s like a geriatric Robin Hood. (We have a video coming out about this shortly. It is in editing right now.)

This blog has praised McCaskill a number of times for her opposition to earmarks and other fiscally responsible stances. I hope that the article’s headline is wrong, and we get to compliment her again. We’ll wait and see.

The post “Say It Ain’t So, Claire, Say It Ain’t So” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Be sure also to read the briefing paper and the op-ed that go along with the full study.

The post Show-Me Institute Study on High-Speed Rail appeared first on Show-Me Institute.