With Kansas City preparing to host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Missouri lawmakers are considering a bill to simplify food truck licensing in Jackson County. The proposal would allow vendors licensed by the county to operate in any municipality without additional city permits.

The change would remove a common barrier: multiple permits just to cross a city boundary.

The idea makes sense. But if it will help entrepreneurs and visitors during the World Cup, why should the same principle not apply across Missouri? As the Squirrel Nut Zippers sang, “If it’s good enough for Grandad, its good enough for me.”

Food truck regulations vary widely by city. Vendors operating across a metro area may face requirements for multiple permits, fees, and regulatory approvals.

Show-Me Institute writers have written about these barriers for years. In 2019, we noted that St. Louis food trucks still faced significant regulatory constraints despite growing demand. Food trucks offer a flexible and relatively low-cost entry into the restaurant business, but local regulations can make that opportunity harder to pursue.

In some places, additional rules beyond health and sanitation standards function as a de facto ban on mobile vendors.

Health and safety regulations would remain under the proposal being considered in Jefferson City. Missouri already regulates food safety through inspections and sanitation standards administered by local health departments.

The real issue is duplication. Requiring vendors who already meet health standards to obtain a license in every municipality adds cost and delay without improving safety.

Every occupational license carries costs: higher prices for consumers, barriers to entry for workers, fewer providers, and lost time and money for licensees. The central policy question is whether those costs are justified by clear benefits to public safety or product quality.

Several Missouri communities have taken steps to loosen food truck restrictions in recent years. Clayton, for example, expanded opportunities for food trucks to operate at events and public gatherings while maintaining basic safety requirements.

Such changes recognize that mobile vendors are part of the broader restaurant ecosystem and often serve as a first step toward larger businesses.

Starting a small business often requires navigating numerous regulatory steps and fees. Reducing unnecessary barriers can make it easier for entrepreneurs to test new ideas and serve customers.

That flexibility helps explain the popularity of food trucks: vendors can move where demand is strongest, serve events, and test new concepts without the overhead of a traditional restaurant.

Major events like the World Cup highlight that advantage. When large numbers of visitors arrive, mobile vendors can help meet the temporary surge in demand for food and entertainment.

But the benefits of reducing unnecessary regulation should not depend on an international sporting event. If getting government out of the way helps vendors serve World Cup visitors in Kansas City, it should also help them serve customers across the rest of Missouri.

The post If Food Truck Reform Is Good for One County, It’s Good for All appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There’s a long track record of inflated claims around the economic benefits of hosting major sporting events. Economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson found that the 1994 World Cup resulted not in a $4 billion boost, as advertised, but in a net loss between $5.5 billion and $9.3 billion across host cities. Despite this, city officials—and their usual partners in the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Council—continue to market the 2026 event as transformational for Kansas City.

A recent Kansas City Star article outlines the Small Business Storefront Vacancy Revitalization initiative, under which the city will offer up to $25,000 per year in rent subsidies to small businesses that occupy empty retail spaces. The goal is to fill downtown with activity and present a more vibrant environment to World Cup visitors.

But if the World Cup were the growth engine it’s advertised to be, wouldn’t businesses already be competing for these spaces?

The need for incentives suggests otherwise. Rather than a natural uptick in demand, the city appears to be staging vitality. Pop-up stores and subsidized art installations may look good for a few days, but they are not a substitute for long-term market viability. Officials point to similar programs in Seattle and San Francisco, yet even there, long-term results remain unclear.

Yes, some storefronts may light up temporarily. But if Kansas City genuinely wants to support small business, better options exist: streamline the permitting process, reduce regulatory barriers, address infrastructure needs, and improve public safety. These are structural reforms that support entrepreneurs regardless of tourist calendars.

Instead, city leaders appear to be following a familiar pattern: promote a high-profile event, rush to spend earmarked funds on short-term optics, and then dodge accountability when outcomes fall short.

If it hasn’t worked so far, why would anyone expect it to work in the future?

The post Kansas City’s World Cup Potemkin Village appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These moves are a win for local entrepreneurs and a sign that St. Louis is serious about economic development through deregulation.

For too long, starting a bar or restaurant in the city meant navigating a confusing maze of fees, delays, and arbitrary requirements. The plat petition, for instance, required business owners to collect signatures from nearby property owners before getting a liquor license. This often turned into a nightmare, particularly for small businesses in lower-income neighborhoods, where support can be harder to gather. Ordinance 71819 eliminated this burdensome step, replacing it with a more straightforward hearing process. This, along with provisions allowing for easier license transfers and extending opportunities to people with criminal histories, could be a game-changer for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Yes, there is a lot more St. Louis must do to recapture its economic vibrancy, But leaders deserve credit for listening to the community, acknowledging that heavy-handed regulations do more harm than good, and taking action.

Show-Me Institute writers have long argued that cutting red tape is essential for fostering a vibrant local economy. St. Louis, with its layers of outdated regulations, has been a case study in how excessive government interference can choke off innovation and growth. By reducing these barriers, the city is empowering local residents to build businesses that create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods.

The post St. Louis Making the Right Moves on Regulation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The playbook highlights how excessive occupational licensing, convoluted permitting processes, and outdated zoning laws create significant hurdles for small business owners. For instance, starting a barbershop often involves not only obtaining city permits but also navigating state-mandated requirements such as barbering school and licensing fees, adding unnecessary time and cost. Punitive late fees, illogical license renewal cycles, and restrictive home-based business rules further complicate the landscape for aspiring entrepreneurs.

One major recommendation is the establishment of one-stop shops for business registration, such as KC BizCare, which can streamline the process by allowing entrepreneurs to complete all necessary steps in one place. This approach reduces confusion and inefficiencies, helping business owners navigate regulatory requirements more easily. Additionally, the playbook suggests cities adopt more flexible licensing terms and graduated fee schedules to lower initial costs for new businesses, particularly those started by lower-income residents.

A separate policy report written exclusively for Kansas City, Missouri, included conversations with a number of local entrepreneurs to determine the most significant barriers facing business start-ups. The report made several recommendations—including improving the KC BizCare program—and the IJ Cities Work team pledged to remain involved in Kansas City’s efforts, including collecting feedback on the success of reforms and even drafting ordinances.

The playbook underscores the importance of reducing regulatory barriers to foster a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem. By adopting its recommendations, cities in Missouri and elsewhere can create more dynamic environments for small businesses to flourish, ultimately contributing to stronger local and state economies.

The post How Missouri and Other States Can Foster Entrepreneurship by Reforming Local Regulations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In response, I weighed in on the details of this policy. In particular, I noted the lack of trust in free-market innovation, even though the EV industry was kickstarted and fueled by market forces and ingenuity.

The Missouri legislature appears to be fearful of NEVI opening a Pandora’s Box of EV expansion mandates and is considering ways to curtail it in the upcoming session. House Bill (HB) 184  was recently pre-filed and would create protections for small-business owners subject to onerous local government mandates like the NEVI Deployment Plan. Under this bill, any political subdivision that adopts a rule requiring the installation of charging stations at any non-fueling business would be required to pay all costs associated with the installation, maintenance, and operation.

While I appreciate this pre-filed bill defending the rights of some small business owners, why are fueling-businesses excluded from its protection? If a fueling business does not have charging stations, that probably signals it does not have market demand for that service. Only 1% of cars on the road are electric, and in many rural counties you could probably count the number of EV’s in the community on one hand. When it makes economic sense for fueling businesses to install charging stations, they will, and they shouldn’t be forced to do so prematurely.

Unfortunately, a law protecting against overreaching EV mandates only treats a symptom of the disease—the mandates shouldn’t be happening in the first place. The EV market has been rapidly innovating through fierce competition and expanding due to increased consumer interest. As it grows, restaurants, hotels, fueling-stations, landlords, and other businesses will face economic decisions about whether to add charging stations to their premises to attract consumers. A barbershop with limited parking may not want to build an EV station, but for a landlord, an EV station could be beneficial for luring tenants. Why is the government getting involved when market forces are driving progress on their own? By the time government-mandated projects like NEVI are actually completed, who’s to say that those charging stations will even be up to date?

These inefficient mandates are unlikely even to significantly increase the convenience and allure of EVs. In a study published by Plug-in America, only 9% of all EV owners said charging stations being too far apart was a major difficulty, and 7% said that there were not enough charging stations at each location. In addition, 60% of EV owners charge their vehicle at home daily. What problem is the government trying to solve if current EV owners are comfortable with the availability of chargers and most of them charge their cars at home?

Hopefully, protections can be put in place for business owners when inefficient EV expansion projects are implemented, but I hope HB 184 will not even need to be invoked.

The post Curbing Forced EV Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although the ban was removed, strict regulations still exist, as food trucks must be part of a special event, which is a serious obstacle. Special events require a thirty-day notice prior to the date, and if a special event uses more than eight vendors (among other stipulations), then 120 days of notice are required. These rules constrain opportunities for food trucks in Ladue, making the city an occasional stop rather than a hub.

The scale of the food truck industry has skyrocketed in recent years, as the number of businesses has increased from 9,705 in 2012, to 22,474 in 2018, to 35,512 in 2022. Ladue regulations prevent the city from effectively capturing sizeable sales tax revenue, increased options for consumers, and job opportunities for aspiring entrepreneurs.

For consumers, food trucks provide on-the-go food options to those on lunch break, on a walk with their children, or hanging out with friends. The increased competition drives down prices and provides increased choices (including niche ones) to consumers.

Permission to more easily operate in Ladue could lead to more permanent businesses in the city. If a food truck found success in Ladue, food truck operators may decide to establish traditional brick-and-mortar locations in the city. This isn’t just hypothetical—food trucks have turned into traditional restaurants elsewhere in St. Louis.

Most anxieties about food trucks are unfounded. If concerns exist regarding restaurant surplus, increased competition helps create a more efficient economy. If policymakers fear exacerbating the labor shortage in restaurants, the average food truck business has 1.2 employees. Whatever the worry may be, food trucks should not be strictly limited to special events, and Ladue would benefit from food trucks being able to fully and freely operate within its borders.

The post Ladue Food Trucks Have Started Rolling—Now We Need to Step on the Gas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On June 8th, legislation was approved in the City of Clayton to allow more freedom and flexibility for mobile food vending equipment. Previously, food trucks could serve closed groups at private events, but they could only serve the public on their own property. That essentially allows food trucks to do the “food” part of their name but not the “truck” part.

This new legislation allows food trucks to operate at public events outside downtown Clayton with an approved special events application, expanding a food truck’s market to include block parties, neighborhood gatherings, and similar events. The legislation also lifts the prohibition on individual cash payments at these events.

Current permit requirements remain (temporary merchant permits, right of way permits, special events permits, etc.) and safe use of streets and sidewalks remains a priority. While food trucks still cannot serve the general public in downtown Clayton (unless the food truck is on its own property), these changes mark significant progress. This legislation is a good move for food truck vendors and customers.

The post Clayton Expands Opportunities for Food Trucks appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As things currently stand, the American Rescue Plan promises jobless workers $300 per week on top of the usual wage replacement rate of just under 50% all the way into September. For most of the workers who are receiving nearly the same or more to remain jobless, it is understandable that they might be reluctant to accept a pay cut just to go back to work. For small businesses struggling to reopen, these unemployment benefits represent anywhere from a short-term headache to an existential threat. Many of them operate on small profit margins and cannot afford to compete with the artificial compensation offered by a federal government with a nearly endless capacity to borrow. Tacitly acknowledging the role of unemployment benefits in the lackluster jobs numbers, President Biden is now exhorting workers that “if you’re receiving unemployment benefits and you’re offered a suitable job, you can’t refuse that job and just keep getting unemployment benefits.” He has also directed the Department of Labor to work with states to reinstate job search requirements, which in their current form are mostly window dressing that cannot effectively monitor or induce search effort. Instead of trying to fill the leaky bucket caused by bad policy, the federal government ought to plug the hole and stop erecting hurdles to small business hiring and reopening.

In Missouri, the economy sports what sounds like a healthy 4.2% unemployment rate, but here, too, many Missourians have exited the labor force, and there are over 114,000 fewer people working relative to back in February 2020. Missouri’s recently announced termination of enhanced unemployment benefits is one positive step toward addressing this jobs shortfall and returning its economy to pre-pandemic strength.

The post How to Put Missouri on a Faster Path to Recovery appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We saw similar weak employment recovery following the 2009 financial crisis when endless extensions of unemployment insurance benefits discouraged some from seeking jobs and reduced job creation. Could the forces that created the “Redistribution Recession” last time also be a threat now?

One reason to be extra concerned is that people may be getting more money on unemployment than they would if they were working. The most recent federal relief package, the American Rescue Plan Act, extends unemployment benefits through at least September and maintains the $300 supplement that gets paid out on top of the usual state benefit.

Unemployment benefits are meant to provide temporary assistance for people as they look for jobs. These benefits are not intended to replace work and therefore should not put people in a position of taking a pay cut to get a job. Why would people go back to work if that’s the case? We also need to be mindful of other factors here—disincentivizing work hurts small businesses that are trying to find workers to get back up and running.

Of course, not all unemployment benefit recipients are receiving more than their previous paychecks. Some workers are getting paid too much—disincentivizing them from taking a job—while others are still left to make do with less money than when they had a job. To fix these problems, it may make sense to replace the $300 supplement with unemployment benefits that are more closely tied to previous wages.

The best way to get the economy on track is to help jobless workers avoid financial distress while still ensuring that it is financially advantageous for them to find a new job rather than remain unemployed. Putting money in people’s pockets is a temporary Band-Aid that staves off hardship. But if an unemployment insurance program delays the real cure of getting people back to work, is it really a stimulant for the economy? Or a depressant?

The post Are Unemployment Benefits Making It Harder to Find Workers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I have to say I am disturbed. During last night’s debate, the conversation seemed to make it clear that some senators have more common cause with local political officials than they do with the people who elected them. The role of the legislature isn’t to simply defend bad local decisions. The role of the legislature is to defend constituents—the people who elected them in the first place—against bad local decisions.

Keep in mind it wasn’t long ago that the state stopped local officials from banning plastic bags. The state was also okay with stopping local officials from hiking their minimum wages locally, for fear of the business-destroying effects the higher wage requirement might have.

But straight up banning entire categories of legal businesses from operating for indeterminate periods of time?

The state senate is A-OK with that.

How excruciatingly unserious.

State elected officials are elected by the public, not by local bureaucrats, and it’s the interests of those regular Missourians that the legislature is duty-bound to prioritize. State officials need to realize now, not later, that they are elected to be a check on local officials. Their job is not to rubber stamp business-destroying decisions simply because a local official did it. Their job is to fight those decisions and protect their constituents from them.

The post Who Will Speak For the Family Businesses They Shut Down? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But that hasn’t kept Kansas City and other local government from bah-humbugging it, flying the banner of coronavirus prevention as it dumps coal in the stockings of local proprietors in the food service industry. In November, city officials shut down The Corner Bar and Grill in the historic 18th & Vine District during a Chiefs game when a “field supervisor noted multiple violations of the mask and social distancing rules” set out by the mayor. In fact, until relatively recently, Kansas City proper was requiring all bars and restaurants to not only close by 10 p.m. to mitigate the spread of COVID-19—because it’s, what, not communicable during the day?—but force all of the patrons out by that time, or else be sanctioned by the city.

The Corner Bar’s closure and the city’s draconian time restrictions meant that when the Chiefs played the Denver Broncos for the league’s Sunday night game on Dec. 6, Kansas City bars were forced to turn patrons away due to capacity limitations and to warn patrons who were allowed inside that they’d be kicked out of the bar before the late game had finished. This isn’t hearsay either; this happened to me. However, not all places of imbibing and engorging for the game were closed. I eventually found myself at, of all places, a local casino that is not only open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but whose social distancing norms are, shall we say, necessarily loose.

Having the right to leisurely eat, drink, smoke and gamble at 10:30 p.m. on a Sunday from the comfort of a barstool in the middle of a pandemic would feel a lot more liberating if you do these things at any establishment of one’s choosing, pandemic or not. But on this Sunday night, the patrons of the Argosy Casino had acquired an immunity to coronavirus (or, rather, to government-imposed coronavirus restrictions) that the small businesses and patrons in downtown Kansas City had not yet achieved. Shortly after that weekend, Kansas City officials “clarified” that the city’s bar and restaurant patrons could now remain in their seats and finish their meals, even past 10 p.m., but couldn’t order food or drink after that hour and had to be out of the building by 11 p.m.

It’s tempting to accept the clarification of mandated closure times as an improvement, and in technical terms, it is. After all, requiring establishments to close in the middle of a sports event is bad for business. But local officials are merely returning rights to taxpayers that I believe should never have been taken to begin with and where in other local businesses like casinos, the same rules aren’t being applied. That’s before addressing whether these new rules should be applied at all, and on what actual scientific basis they’re being pursued.

But I’ve said this before and I must say it again, especially now that we’re close to the 2021 legislative session: If a rule is good enough for big businesses, it’s good enough for the small ones too. That applies to all of “Chiefs Kingdom,” both in Kansas City itself and outside it. If casino patrons can live it up safely and watch the Chiefs beat the hated Broncos late at night, so too can supporters of local bars. If Chiefs fans can socially distance at Arrowhead, so too can fans of Blue Springs High School. And in the coming weeks, state legislators must start the process of reining in the excesses of local governments. Kansas Citians may live in Chiefs Kingdom, but they aren’t the subjects of their elected officials.

The post Living in Chiefs Kingdom Doesn’t Make You Kansas City’s Peasant appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• A Level Playing Field for Small Businesses
• Public Schools and COVID
• Preparing for Medicaid Expansion
• Regulation of Food-delivery Services
• Power-density: Implications for Green Energy

Click on the link below to read more.

The post Show-Me Institute’s September 2020 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But you know who’s doing just fine? Box stores like Walmart and Home Depot and online giants like Amazon. For those massive commercial players, coronavirus evolved into a windfall so great that some of these businesses had to shorten their hours or delay shipping packages.

You know who else is doing just fine? Gun stores, but not because of the goodness of local officials’ hearts. Under Missouri law:

The state, any political subdivision, or any person shall not prohibit or restrict the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, storage, display, or use of firearms or ammunition during an emergency.

Despite attempts to temporarily shut down gun shops around the country, local officials in Missouri largely resigned themselves to applying social distancing guidelines rather uniformly against gun retailers, from Cabela’s to tiny mom and pop gun shops. The purpose of Missouri’s gun law—protecting individuals’ Second Amendment rights—is straightforward. But the effect of the law was to level the playing field between big and small gun retailers, which stands in stark contrast to how local officials treated other small businesses.

Small gun shops could stay open as legally “essential.” But what about small businesses that sold candles, or sporting equipment, or anything else that Walmart and a cadre of other protected operators sold throughout the pandemic? Those small businesses did not get to enjoy the protections of state law, were often deemed “inessential” by local officials and were shut down—in some cases for months.

That’s wrong.

If Walmart can stay open and sell, say, candles, Missouri’s locally owned candle makers should be able to stay open. There is no reason to believe that small businesses can’t undertake rational social distancing and cleaning practices that large retailers have used throughout this pandemic.

How do we know this? Because local gun shops did it. Missouri law should reflect this reality for all small businesses and ensure that Missouri’s entrepreneurs aren’t the victims of disparate treatment by panicked local bureaucrats.

And Missouri should come back into special session and pass a law that makes this clear: If Walmart is essential, all of Walmart’s competitors should legally be, as well. Whether this requires the creation of a brand new statute or can be achieved by expanding the section that already protects gun retailers, it doesn’t matter. What’s important is that legislators act now—before another round of the pandemic hits, and before local businesses can be victimized a second time by inequitable and uneven local public health enforcement.

The post There Oughta Be A Law: If Walmart is Essential, Small Retailers Are Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• 41.4 percent of businesses reported that they were temporarily closed because of COVID-19. A far smaller number—1.8 percent—reported that they were permanently closed because of the pandemic. By contrast, only 1.3 percent reported that they were temporarily closed for other reasons. 55.4 percent reported that they were still operational.
• Approximately one-fourth of firms have cash on hand totaling less than one month’s worth of expenses. About one-half of firms have enough cash on hand to cover between one and two months of expenses.
• More than 64 percent reported that it is very or extremely likely that they would be open on December 31, 2020—which is used as a measure of the probability of being open. A growing literature has found entrepreneurs to be overoptimistic about their prospects

It is completely appropriate for policymakers in Missouri and across the country to debate the efficacy and appropriateness of aid to small businesses. As with aid to municipalities, we do not want to reward bad decision-making with public funds. But as Glaeser and his co-authors point out, the impact of the virus and the public response is great and already with us.

While I am often skeptical of government intervention in the economy, it is difficult to argue that there is no role for government here. After all, even the most ardent Objectivists over at The Atlas Society understand that there we are in unprecedented times. For anyone who wants to consider exactly how unprecedented, this NBER paper is a good start.

The post Some Estimates on the Impact of Covid-19 on Small Business appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several years ago, Show-Me Institute’s Patrick Ishmael discussed the overregulation of food trucks, with emphasis on the then-new food truck map that outlines the numerous no-park zones for food trucks within the Downtown Vending District. So, years later, have we seen food trucks gain substantial freedoms in the market?

Unfortunately, and perhaps unsurprisingly, no.

The map mentioned above is still in effect and places a large barrier between food trucks and success in the market. As the map shows, food trucks cannot set up within 200 feet of a restaurant or in the stadium or conference center areas. Though this map may be a little outdated in terms of restaurant placement, the rules are still in place and still very restrictive. These regulations make large parts of the “vending district” off-limits to food trucks. According to the city’s vending rules and regulations, trucks must stop serving by 11 p.m., cutting off access to late-night crowds after a concert or hockey game.

St. Louis ranked 12^th out of 20 cities in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation’s report on regulatory burdens for opening and operating food trucks in 2017. Much of this low ranking is attributed to what Ishmael pointed to years ago: operational limitations.

Food trucks are still bogged down with regulatory restrictions that make it much harder to succeed. If we want more success stories like Balkan Treat Box, the popular food truck that grew into an award-winning brick-and-mortar hotspot, we need to give food trucks the freedom to meet our ever-increasing demand for delicious, on-the-go food.

The post Overregulated Food Trucks appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state minimum wage is currently $7.65. In 2015, the City of Saint Louis sought to raise the minimum wage on businesses within its borders. This initial attempt was struck down by a circuit court judge in 2015, but Tuesday’s ruling reversed that decision. As a result, the minimum wage that applies to businesses within Saint Louis proper (not the county or surrounding areas) will rise to $10 this year and $11 in 2018.

Saint Louis businesses will face higher labor costs, putting them at a competitive disadvantage against businesses located just across the city–county boundary. If I were an entrepreneur or business owner unsure of where to locate or expand, this minimum wage increase helped make the decision for me.

Show-Me Institute analysts have written many times about the effects of minimum wages hikes; see here and here for two examples. There are two main effects from this wrongheaded action.

First, and most obvious, raising the minimum wage imposes higher costs on businesses. Some of those businesses simply will not be able to maintain current operations: they will reduce the number of workers they employ, close up shop, or move. Why is it that supporters of the minimum wage hike have so much disdain for small business owners? After all, not every employer is McDonald’s.

Liberals and conservatives alike recognize that increases in the minimum wage will negatively affect exactly those workers for whom proponents claim to be champions; namely, the least skilled, entry level workers whom this higher wage will make even more unemployable. This is perhaps the most pernicious (there’s that word again) effect of all: Of the city’s estimated 69,000 individuals earning less than $11 an hour, how many will lose their jobs or face reduced hours? Can proponents claim success if the number of employed individuals declines by 6, or 600, or 6,000? It is bad policy that claims success on the backs of those made worse off.

And how many of those who are harmed by this latest minimum wage increase will we see interviewed so that the public understands how they were put out of a job by this unwise intervention? My guess is that the answer is zero. Out of sight, out of mind.

Lawmakers and union leaders will now sing their own praises and pat themselves on the back for the “good” they have done—no matter how much harm is done to workers and business owners.

The post Pernicious: St. Louis Goes Forward with Minimum Wage Hike appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The executive order calls for agencies to pinpoint “at least two” current regulations to be repealed for each new proposed regulation. And it says the net incremental cost for fiscal 2017 should “be no greater than zero,” meaning the cost of new regulations should be offset by existing rules that will be rescinded.

House Speaker Paul Ryan applauded the order in a statement Monday afternoon, noting that it builds on House Republicans’ “Better Way” agenda and comes as the lower chamber is set to repeal a number of Obama era regulations this week.

“The explosion of federal regulations has hamstrung small business growth and crippled our economy,” he said. “President Trump’s executive order helps bring the nation’s regulatory regime into the 21st century by putting regulators on a budget, and addressing the costs agencies can impose each year.”

After the President’s announcement, my colleague Mike McShane reminded me that, in fact, he has talked about precisely the same kind of regulatory reforms in the past. In his case, the context was education. From his US News and World Report piece from last year:

Our Tory compatriots across the pond offer a way forward. In 2010, the Conservative government of the United Kingdom implemented what they called “one in, one out” (later revised to “one in, two out“) that required government to remove a regulation of equivalent compliance cost for every new regulation that they proposed. Want to require a new form to be submitted to the Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills tracking how businesses recruit new employees? Lovely, not a bother at all. You simply must find another form that takes the same amount of effort or another requirement that takes the same amount of time and eliminate it.

But the regulatory push doesn’t end there, of course. Newly inaugurated governor Eric Greitens has established his own regulatory beach head to fight from, and while it may not be “one in, two out” quite yet, it’s reasonable to believe something similar is on the horizon. That regulatory freeze is important because it halts business as usual in the state bureaucracy and offers an opportunity for a clear-eyed reassessment of what the state is doing well, and doing wrong, in its rulemaking and regulatory processes.

Expect more about good-government regulatory reforms as this year’s session proceeds, but it is refreshing to see that our state and federal governments may soon be getting smaller, one rule at a time.

The post Regulatory Reform Emerges as Major Issue, Nationally and in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As the Associated Press reports, Missouri State Parks is planning to open a $52 million facility in Shannon County, and the parks department would like to provide canoe-rentals to park goers. The department purchased a piece of property formerly known as Camp Zoe. The campground was seized by the DEA in 2012 and later sold by the Department of Natural Resources to Missouri State Parks for $640,000.

Launching canoes into the river is not as simple as buying a piece of land at an auction. Businesses must have a permit for each canoe, and the number of canoes is limited. Therefore, the parks department will either have to purchase an existing canoe company and take over the company’s permits or attempt to wrestle permits away from an existing company. In either scenario, the government is poised to crowd out private enterprise with the financial backing of state taxpayers.

It is quite possible that the family-owned canoe rental place you love (Mine is Windy’s) could be put out of business by the good intentions of public servants. While parks and recreation may seem like a natural place for the state to offer services, it is important to realize that when the state takes on a larger role providing recreational activities, it crowds out private businesses that are already providing these services.

The post Missouri State Parks Floating the Idea of Crowding Out Private Enterprise appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

JJ first stopped into the restaurant after smelling the food. “I could smell the smoke from Louisiana.” JJ tells me. [Louisiana is a street several blocks from Sister Cities.]

When JJ and his girlfriend went inside to check out the place, Pam needed someone to help out in the back of the house. She asked him if he’d like to make some extra money. “I was like, sure, why not?”

After starting washing the dishes, JJ quickly worked his way to the front of the house. Pam told him, “You have a good smile. You have a good personality. I need you in the front. You can’t be nice to the dishes anymore. They’re clean now.”

Now JJ seats customers, takes orders, takes care of checks, and works as a back bar man. Sister Cities put up a chalk board, so JJ taught himself chalk art from a Youtube channel. He now does much of the signage for Sister Cities.

JJ’s story is a common one. When I was a teen I got a restaurant job under similar circumstances; the manager needed someone to wash dishes. I got my foot in the door cleaning, bussing, and earning minimum wage, but soon moved up to a position where I took orders and prepared food.

Minimum wage mandates are so dangerous because they threaten people like JJ who don’t already have formal work experience. If Pam had been forced to pay a starting wage of $11, she probably wouldn’t have taken a risk on someone without previous restaurant experience. If you remove the bottom rung of the economic ladder, it’s harder for people to get the skills they need to move up.

Minimum wage laws can also keep businesses from operating altogether. “I’m afraid I’ll ultimately have to close my doors,” Pam tells me when I ask her about the impact of the minimum wage hike. If Pam has to shut down Sister Cities or move out of the city, JJ will be out a job.

The post Minimum Wage Harms the Workers It’s Meant to Help appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

·         Iron Barley – Tom and Gen Coghill started Iron Barley in 2003 and were the first business to start Dutchtown’s contemporary revitalization. Several Food Network television shows have featured their food. They also put on an annual Tomato Fest; proceeds from the festival go to help local charities.

·         Urban Eats –Caya Aufiero and John Chen started Urban Eats 7 years ago with the express purpose of helping revitalize Dutchtown. Urban Eats shares space with an art collective and hosts community events such as a regular board game meet-up.

·         Sister Cities – Pam Melton and Travis Parfait started Sister Cities in 2013. The restaurant serves Cajun food and barbeque. A local Bitcoin group meets in the restaurant once a month and, as with Urban Eats, art from locals decorates the walls.

I spoke with the owners of all three of these restaurants about the minimum wage hike (parts of my interviews can be seen here). The bottom line: the mandated wage increase will harm this community. Increasing the minimum wage from $7.65 to $11 will force these restaurants to restructure in order to remain profitable. This could mean laying off employees, moving to the county, or perhaps even shutting down.

Travis Parfait, co-owner of Sister Cities, told me that with an $11 minimum wage, he might have to cut out much of his staff completely and work the front of the house himself. “Restaurants are a very low profitability business, and if you increase one of the many costs by almost 50 percent . . .  it can’t hold it. It won’t bear that.”

It’s a similar story at Urban Eats, where John Chen says that poverty is a wider social problem that cannot be fixed by mandating minimum wages for employers. John calls the city’s minimum wage law the “sink or swim” approach: “Here’s the minimum wage increase, and you figure out how to cope with this. . . . That’s irresponsible. I argue that it’s unethical.”

The minimum wage hike is an another government-made obstacle to urban renewal—one that threatens to undermine the efforts of local business owners who have spent years working to help bring economic life back to their neighborhood. Without the jobs and community spaces provided by the people I spoke with, the revitalization of Dutchtown might be stopped in its tracks.

The post The Minimum Wage and Revitalization in Dutchtown appeared first on Show-Me Institute.