What should raise concerns, however, is whether state legislation that mandates optometrist eye exams for incoming kindergartners is right for Missouri. At least one state commission does not think so, which does not even begin to address the philosophical consistency question implicit in the move. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports (emphasis mine):

Calling the law ineffective and a financial burden on families, a state commission recommended that legislators drop the exam and instead beef up vision screenings by school nurses. The state’s eye physicians and surgeons embraced that approach.

Optometrists, however, are mounting a big push to get the Legislature to renew the exam requirement, which is slated to expire this June. The Missouri Optometric Association has hired 11 lobbyists. More important, they have a key ally: House Speaker Steve Tilley, an optometrist.

Tilley, R-Perryville, put the optometrists’ bill on a fast track — it is headed to the House floor after a packed committee hearing last week — while he bottled up the alternative, the school nurse bill, by not referring it to a committee.

Caught in the political crossfire are families who may have to shell out $100 for a child’s eye exam, because private medical insurance generally won’t cover it.

The chair of the Children’s Vision Commission, Oscar Cruz, is not impressed about the merits of the current law. “It’s a political process, unfortunately,” he said. And then there is the fiscal note.

The fiscal note on the optometrists’ bill suggests the state could use a $99,000 appropriation earmarked for blindness screening and treatment to pay for exams for about 6,637 uninsured kindergartners and first-graders in districts without kindergarten.

But that would average out to only $15 an exam. Mickey Wilson, director of the Legislature’s Oversight Division, said the analysis assumes that some optometrists would do the tests for free, or at a reduced cost.

That sounds like an awfully big assumption, and it does not even answer concerns for insured children whose plans would not cover the exams, the cost of which would fall to Missouri’s parents. The commission notes that outfitting school nurses to perform eye care screenings makes more sense.

Cruz said screenings by school nurses catch about 95 to 97 percent of eye problems that can damage vision on a long-term basis. Forcing 65,000 kindergartners a year to get comprehensive eye exams, he said, is “an incredible waste of resources.”

Only two other states — Kentucky and Illinois — have similar eye exam mandates. Is imposing an onerous mandate on Missouri families really the right course, especially as the legislature (very publicly) fights the onerous Obamacare mandate? The inconsistency should cause some pause.

The post Will Missouri Impose One Mandate As It Fights Another? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

access to and a copy of all e-mails sent to, from, and within the governor’s office containing the words “aerotropolis” or “china” since May 1, 2011. I also request all e-mails referencing legislation related to aerotropolis or the china hub. I also request any and all emails or correspondence from or to Speaker Steven Tilley or one of his representatives regarding the possibility of a special session, including any discussion of legislators calling a special session independently of the governor.

In a letter dated July 27, the governor’s deputy counsel informed us that it would take 14 business days — about three weeks — to determine “the approximate time needed to complete processing” and the estimated cost of getting the information. Last week we were informed it would take an additional 30 days to receive these e-mails, meaning we would not receive the requested information until late September — well after the special session has begun — or if it’s in fact 30 business days, well into October.

If this sounds familiar, it should. From just two weeks ago…

We reported yesterday on the National Center for Beef Excellence’s Beef Study That Wasn’t, and last night KMOV reporter Andre Hepkins, who’s been covering the NCBE “meat feasibility” story since last week, sent along this latest development concerning the Beef Center’s elusive meat report:

KMOV’s Craig Cheatham is having his own devil of a time getting China Hub documents, and this part in particular jumped out at me. (Emphasis mine)

On Thursday, the day after the Hub Commission insisted that I refile the request under the Missouri Sunshine Law, I interviewed Mike Jones, the group’s Chairman. Jones admitted that it was his decision to make me refile the request. I told him it was an “abuse” of the process, and that any request for information must receive the same attention as one identified as a “Sunshine” request. He disagreed and stands by his decision.

And now we hear from Cheatham,

I filed a #Sunshine Law complaint today against Midwest #ChinaHub Commission. Is this how you sell #Aerotropolis ? http://tinyurl.com/3zeqh5g

Throw in that our most recent request for information from the China Hub has been referred to the Hub’s lawyers, and all of the sudden, we have the makings of a major problem. Are government record holders trying to run out the clock?

The post Has the Public Records Runaround Begun? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“If we want to sell more beef to Asia, we need more refrigerated warehouses. If we want to sell more pharmaceuticals and aerospace equipment, we need safe and secure transport facilities,” he said. “I am a strong supporter of this initiative.”

Missouri Speaker of the House Steven Tilley did it (emphasis mine):

Tilley said while the cargo hub would bring in planes filled with imports, the returning flights will open new markets for Missouri agricultural exports, specifically beef.

And former U.S. Senator Kit Bond did it, too. (Audio: Fast-forward to 14:45.)

Yet no matter which way you cut it, beef is — according to the Department of Agriculture — ineligible for export to China. If you loaded American beef onto an airplane tomorrow, it seems pretty clear that it could not go to China under these regulations. So every time a politician touts this beef angle, taxpayers should keep this important fact in mind.

We noted the beef prohibition in our Aerotropolis case study, specifically citing internal emails from Jason Van Eaton, the current China Hub executive director and a former high-level staffer to Sen. Bond. The relevant part (emphasis mine):

Bottom line, pork is officially open between the US and China. Beef is not but the word is that it will open soon … but that’s been the word for months. Many other trade issues keeping this tied up right now.

“Beef is not.”

Kudos to Sen. Jason Crowell, then, for telling his constituents in southeast Missouri how the beef export aspect really plays out (emphasis mine.):

“It will help the job market in St. Louis and our neck of the woods as well,” [Speaker] Tilley said, noting that many people in Perryville, Farmington and Cape Girardeau County drive to work in the St. Louis area. The increased tax revenue from about 20,000 jobs created by the Aerotropolis project would also provide more money for schools and transportation statewide, he said.

“Things that make St. Louis thrive spill over to help the rest of Missouri,” Brandom said.

But Crowell called Aerotropolis a “boondoggle for St. Louis” and said it will not help Southeast Missouri cattle producers because China has a ban on imported beef.

“We’re not stupid down here,” Crowell said. “We can see when politicians who want to take St. Louis money speak down to their constituents.”

As the old Wendy’s ad asks, “Where’s the Beef?”

Much more soon.

The post ‘Where’s the Beef?’ A Reminder That American Beef Products Are Ineligible for Export to China appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It began with a flurry of blog posts and some radio gigs, and it grew from there. Late last month, Audrey and I stopped by The McGraw Milhaven Show on The Big 550, KTRS in Saint Louis, and the Mike Ferguson show on 93.9 FM “The Eagle” in Columbia. We talked about how the Aerotropolis proposal would be more of a boondoggle than an investment.

A little more than two weeks ago, Audrey and I both testified about the Aerotropolis proposal before the Missouri Senate Jobs, Economic Development and Local Government Committee. The written version of our testimony is available on our website. You can also watch the video of our testimony here on Show-Me Daily:

Note the part where Sen. Ron Richard said, “I’ve got business people and friends of mine that live in Saint Louis that are begging for something new and creative. So we take a chance.” He has it completely backward. Tax credits aren’t new and creative. Neither is draining more money into Lambert. Aerotropolis is more about subsidizing business as usual than taking a chance.

Audrey and I penned an editorial explaining how Sen. Richard was mistaken. It ran in the Southeast Missourian and the Columbia Missourian this week.

Late last Monday night, lawmakers made many changes to the bill. The amount of tax credits dropped from $480 million to $360 million. We’re still talking about a lot of money, though. State lawmakers combined Aerotropolis with a bill that would otherwise limit tax credits. It’s schizophrenic public policy, and it doesn’t make sense. I’ve called for limiting tax credits for a long time, so I am disappointed that state lawmakers are negating the benefits of limiting tax credits by combining them with a policy that would expand them. It’s like the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of tax credit legislation.

Next, we split up to reach more people. Audrey went back on the McGraw Milhaven Show on The Big 550, KTRS on Wednesday. The audio archive of the interview is available here. Audrey reviewed how the bill has changed, and how it will do even less to encourage international trade. Meanwhile, I spoke to KMOX radio about how it’s a bad deal for taxpayers.

Yesterday morning, I was a guest on the Charlie Brennan Show on KMOX. I had a great time. I talked Aerotropolis with: Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge, director of Lambert–St. Louis International Airport; Rodney Crim, director of the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC); and Steve Johnson, executive vice president of economic development for the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA). An archive of the audio is available online. I argued that, if building cargo warehouses next to the airport is such a good idea, private entrepreneurs will pick up their shovels. They would have broken ground already — they wouldn’t be waiting around for tax credits.

Later that day, the Show-Me Institute’s executive director, Brenda Talent, released an open letter to Missouri Speaker of the House Steven Tilley. She encouraged him to remove the Aerotropolis bill from the current legislative agenda. I wonder: What’s the rush? Why are state legislators frantic to get Aerotropolis enacted in the final days of session? What’s the harm in studying the issue a bit longer?

This morning, I enjoyed talking with Steve Helms on “Morningline,” on KWTO AM 560 in Springfield. We discussed the fact that the Lambert airport is already drowning in debt — to the tune of more than $900 million. Much this is left over from the failed $1.1 billion runway expansion from not too long ago. I wonder: Is draining even more money into the airport the best use of taxpayer dollars? Couldn’t Steve’s listeners in Springfield spend their tax monies on things closer to home?

Even though it’s Friday, we’re not taking a break from our media outreach. KWMU Radio ran a commentary of mine a couple times today, and the St. Louis Business Journal ran an editorial written by Audrey Spalding and me.

I wonder what next week will bring for Aerotropolis. Stay tuned to the Show-Me Institute team — we’ll continue to track the issue and provide up-to-date analysis on what it will mean for Missourians.

The post “Aerotropolis” Roundup appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It appears that Missouri legislators are about to place a huge and ill-advised bet on the so-called “Midwest China Hub,” or “Aerotropolis.” In its present form, the pending legislation would give private developers $300 million in tax credits for the construction of warehouses around the Lambert–St. Louis International Airport, and $60 million in tax credits for international flights. The hope is to gain the support of the Chinese government, international airlines, and cargo carriers to develop an international cargo hub at Saint Louis.

The Show-Me Institute has published numerous articles pointing out the folly of handing out tax credits and other subsidies for favored industries. Our policy analysts have also appeared on radio programs around the state alerting Missourians to some of the pertinent facts regarding the China Hub:

• Private developers would qualify for tax credits for building warehouses that process only a small amount of air cargo. According to the latest version of the bill, a warehouse would be eligible for state subsidy if as little as 10 percent of its operations consisted of sending cargo to international destinations.
• The state government is already short on funds, and with spending cuts looming, Missouri cannot afford to give away hundreds of millions of dollars. Tax credits are not free money. Every dollar that the state gives away in tax credits is a dollar that won’t be received in the state coffers and that the state won’t be able to spend on elementary and higher education, health care, public safety, and other state programs.
• Missouri has to balance its budget every year, so every dollar that is given away in tax credits is a dollar that our state government must replace by further increasing taxes on other Missourians or making additional cuts in current programs.
• As the bill stands now, legislators are poised to take $57 million in tax credits from the low-income elderly all across our state who rent their residences, to pay instead for warehouse construction in Saint Louis.
• The government should stop trying to pick winners and losers in the economy. The China Hub would be the latest in a long line of unfortunate state-supported enterprises that began with the aim of “stimulating” or “jump-starting” growth by offering guaranteed returns to private developers while shifting real risk and hundreds of millions of dollars of expense, to the backs of our taxpayers.

For all of these reasons, the legislation is deeply flawed and goes against the best interests of the overwhelming majority of Missourians. It is also difficult to understand why there is not even a minimal amount of accountability in the process of applying for and receiving the tax credits. The program is established as an “entitlement,” and similar tax credit programs over the last few years, such as the historic tax credit program, have been severely criticized for being established in such a fashion.

The best way for Missouri to grow the economy is to create a business climate that does not award special handouts to favored industries, and that relies instead on reducing taxes and regulatory constraints on businesses and individuals alike. Entrepreneurs in Missouri will seize upon the opportunities around them as soon as the government gets out of their way.

I urge you to withdraw the “China Hub” or “Aerotropolis” bill from the current legislative agenda.

Most respectfully,

Brenda Talent
Executive Director, Show-Me Institute

The post An Open Letter to Missouri Speaker of the House Steven Tilley appeared first on Show-Me Institute.