Now that the champagne corks have popped at Crown Center over the plans to build a ballpark there, it’s worth considering what comes next for Missouri and Kansas.

On the Missouri side, Kansas City ordinance 260339, passed on April 9, instructs the city manager to move ahead on all sorts of things regarding the deal. Section 7 provides for up to $250,000 for, among other things, “professional services, including but not limited to economic advisory services, financial advisory services, bond advisory services, legal services . . .”

That means the city is going to seek professional opinions on the deal’s feasibility. Who the city hires will tell us a lot about how committed it is to protecting taxpayers. As one person told me, “if they hire an architectural firm, we’ll know they’re not serious.”

The city has a history of relying on conflicted organizations to conduct studies, as it recently did with the World Cup. In 2016, the city paid CDFA—a trade group formed “to promote the common interest of Development Finance Agencies with respect to public policies and programs”—to measure the effectiveness of Kansas City’s subsidy culture. The laughable conclusion was “each incentive dollar invested generated $3.83 in additional tax revenue.”

In Kansas, taxpayers are still waiting on two things. First, they don’t know how big the STAR bond district will be. Previous reporting was a 293-square-mile district encompassing Wyandotte County and the western half of Johnson County. But it could be much, much bigger to make the deal pencil out. Once the district is set, the secretary of commerce is empowered to make it larger whenever he would like (see page 1) to capture more tax revenue.

Second, taxpayers are also waiting on Kansas to determine the base year, which is the year in which the state sales tax revenue is fixed, diverting every additional dollar within the district to the Chiefs’ developments. You might expect the base year to be 2026, when the legislature endorsed the measure, or whenever the project breaks ground. Or perhaps 2025, when the deal was agreed to.

But the deal actually allows the secretary of commerce to set the base year whenever he wants (see page 22). It could be set at 2015, meaning every state sales tax dollar generated over the amount collected in 2015 would go to the Chiefs.

In a deal this expensive for Kansas, the size of the district and the base year are likely to reignite howls of protest from all quarters.

As elected leaders in Topeka and Kansas City throw themselves self-congratulatory parties, the rest of us are faced with the bar tab. And the hangover.

The post Next Up on Chiefs and Royals Stadium Saga appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That truce, however tenuous, is now over. And the legislative safeguards that underpinned it? Those are collapsing too. Missouri’s border war limitations on cross-state tax subsidies are set to expire in August. Earlier this year, legislation was introduced to preserve the truce by eliminating the expiration date entirely. Lawmakers added it to Senate Bill 10, which passed both chambers independently—but couldn’t get reconciled before session’s end. So the bill died, and with it, hopes for ending the economic arms race.

Kansas Governor Laura Kelly indicated last year she was never really serious about the truce. But now Missouri has let the truce expire. And in doing so, our lawmakers joined Kansas in an economic race to the bottom. It’s bad policy. Worse, it’s profoundly unserious governance.

Economic development isn’t war. It’s not supposed to be a battlefield where neighboring states trade artillery in the form of publicly issued bonds and tax abatements. Yet here we are again, watching legislators in Jefferson City and Topeka dress up like Civil War reenactors—reenacting the Border War with new costumes and worse math.

Meanwhile, Missouri public officials continue their own subsidy spree, throwing tax breaks at data centers and entertainment districts while the state is unable to keep the streets repaired or safe. If lawmakers were serious about our state’s economic health, they’d rein in their own giveaways first.

Instead, we’re back to playing an expensive, performative game—one that enriches developers, flatters politicians, and drains public coffers. Legislators in both states want to be seen as “fighting” for jobs, but all they’re doing is trading fire in border skirmishes that make the region poorer.

The original truce was imperfect, but it pointed in the right direction. It said we could grow the region without cannibalizing each other. That we didn’t have to subsidize the illusion of progress. That good policy could also be good politics.

By breaking the truce or letting it expire, politicians on both sides demonstrated they are not interested in sober economic stewardship. They may win a few headlines or ribbon cuttings. But the public—taxpayers, students, local governments—will be left paying the bill.

If this is a reenactment, let’s at least admit it: The weapons are new, but the economic costs are the same.

The post Border War is Back On! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Simply cutting the vast majority of tax incentive spending would accomplish this; the less discretion the states have to spend your money on their cronies, the better. But a secondary option, relating directly to the incentive war itself, would be the establishment of a “truce” between Kansas and Missouri—for both states to largely or completely prohibit the issuance of incentives that would draw businesses from one state to another. What that might look like was outlined in a recent Kansas City Star article: 

Missouri first approved a bill prohibiting the use of state incentives to poach businesses in Douglas, Johnson, Miami or Wyandotte counties in Kansas in 2014.

But to go into effect, the law required Kansas’ governor to enact a similar ban on incentives to lure businesses away from Cass, Clay, Jackson or Platte counties in Missouri.

Kansas, under then-Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, balked at the plan. He came back with a proposal of his own two years later, but it ultimately yielded no agreement.

The Missouri law expired in 2016. A bill filed this year by Sen. Mike Cierpiot, R-Lee’s Summit, would renew it through 2021 to open the door for further discussion.

Extending the period for the truce to be offered is an altogether reasonable proposition, one that I would hope the state of Kansas would consider. In an ideal world, Missouri wouldn’t be doling out vast amounts of money on special projects; bad policy is still bad policy, and tax credit reform that puts a hard cap on incentives should still be the ultimate goal. That said, an all of the above approach that includes a “truce” is nonetheless appropriate as the state’s overall tax credit problem is whittled down.

The post Will There Be a Cease-fire in Kansas City’s Economic “Border War”? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Anecdotally, it appears that TIF doesn’t really create jobs. As we’ve written about the H&R Block TIF and the Power & Light District, TIF doesn’t really create jobs. At most it just moves them from elsewhere in the area. Byrne wondered,

If the number of jobs created by TIF, as reported by TIF administrators, is a true economic impact, then the number of reported jobs should have a positive impact on county employment as measured by the BLS.

Anyone familiar with research on TIF (and not everyone cares about the research) will not be surprised by the results. Byrne concludes,

This paper’s results indicate that the number of jobs supported by TIF, as reported by local economic development agencies in Missouri, does not have a significant positive effect on county employment as measured by the BLS. The lack of a positive impact of reported jobs on employment suggests that TIF-supported jobs either come at the expense of other areas in the county or would have located in the county regardless of the existence of Missouri’s TIF districts.

TIF diverts a lot of money from municipalities that would otherwise go to support schools and basic services. Research from all over the country tells us that it does not create jobs, does not spur investment, and does not mitigate blight. It’s time for reform or elimination altogether. 

The post TIF Doesn’t Create Jobs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While the details of Kansas City’s pitch remain predictably secret, other cities have made offerings, both substantive and gimmicky. Tucson, Arizona, tried to send Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos a 21-foot cactus. Stonecrest, Georgia, recently offered to name part of the town Amazon if chosen.

Not to be outdone, Kansas City Mayor Sly James took to the internet in a “desperate” attempt to get attention by spamming Amazon’s website with hundreds of fake product reviews each extolling the town.

This is all reminiscent of Google’s contest to choose the first city to host their Google Fiber service back in 2010. Like Stonecrest, for example, Topeka, Kansas, actually did change its name to Google. In the end, Google Fiber selected Kansas City, Kansas—our neighbor to the west—to offer its service. In doing so, they told The Kansas City Star, “We wanted to find a location where we could build quickly and efficiently. Kansas City [Kansas] has great infrastructure and Kansas has a great business-friendly environment for us to deploy a service in.”

Similarly, Amazon’s request for proposals includes that Amazon has a preference for “A stable and business-friendly environment.” While Kansas City is genuinely world class, our government is definitely not business-friendly. Property taxes and sales taxes are high, and on top of that the city charges a 1 percent earnings tax. The head of the Economic Development Council said that the city uses tax subsidies to mask the full impact of Kansas City’s regulations. Let’s not forget an unaccredited school district and a years-long spike in the homicide rate. Even one of the prominent consultants working on our Amazon bid, Richard Florida, does not include Kansas City on his list of top-five prospects.

Regardless of the outcome of this process, Kansas City must do a better job demonstrating it is a good place to locate a business. Government must be small and responsible, taxes low, and services efficient. That is not the city we are now, and gimmickry will not get us there.

The post Like Google, Amazon Wants Good Government over Gimmickry appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First of all, CDFA is not an accounting or financial auditing firm. According to their website, they are:

a national association dedicated to the advancement of development finance concerns and interests. CDFA is comprised of the nation’s leading and most knowledgeable members of the development finance community representing hundreds of public, private and non-profit development entities.

Their mission is “to promote the common interest of Development Finance Agencies with respect to public policies and programs,” which isn’t exactly what you’d expect from an independent, disinterested organization.

In short, we’ve agreed to pay up to $350,000 to an association that represents development financiers and their “interests” to evaluate the effectiveness of our development financing. How likely is it that CDFA will be critical and impartial? This is a legitimate concern, because Mayor James has already stated that “City Hall doesn’t do a good enough job of promoting how economic development benefits the city.” Are we paying for analysis, or for cheerleading?

To assess their own economic development programs, the Saint Louis Development Corporation hired The PFM Group, an independent public financing advisory company. Of themselves, PFM writes,

Founded April 11, 1975 on the principles of expert, unbiased advice, the PFM Group of companies also provides investment advisory and management/budget consulting services to clients across the country and are recognized as industry leaders. 

For $180,000—roughly half of what Kansas City proposes to spend—PFM completed a substantive analysis of St. Louis economic programs and concluded that TIF and abatement are extremely costly and have little or no economic development impact. (We’ve reviewed their findings here.)

Other studies of economic development subsidies like TIF have been conducted by scholars at universities such as the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Washburn University in Topeka. These studies, along with works published in the Journal of Urban Economics, and in Urban Studies have raised serious concerns regarding the impact of economic development subsidies.  Other regions have found substantial costs associated with little economic benefit, so Kansas City should take its self-evaluation seriously.

States like California, which ended TIF in 2012, and cities like St. Louis should be applauded for facing the reality of their economic development policies. Not so in Kansas City. If our leaders are serious about promoting good policy, they need to be willing to seek out independent, disinterested research and make the appropriate changes.

The post Kansas City Hires Fox to Watch Henhouse appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is a lesson to learn here. It is one that people across the country have found when their great superintendent leaves for greener pastures.  We cannot have school systems that are completely dependent on a one-in-a-million talent at the helm in order to succeed.  There is only one Tiffany Anderson.  Missouri has 520 school districts.

One of the main reasons that I advocate for a decentralized schooling system is that it is more resilient to the shocks that occur in everyday life. People move. People’s life priorities change.  People die. If, for example, a school district is run by a collection of independent charter school operators and one amazing principal leaves, there is a limit to the disruption in the equilibrium of the system. But if power is centralized and the person at the top leaves, the whole system is affected.

Tiffany Anderson is proof that there are great leaders out there who can turn around struggling organizations. The problem is that there just aren’t enough of them.  Our response should not be to bemoan this fact, just like it doesn’t make sense to get upset at blizzards or floods or thunderstorms.  We should try and build systems that can handle the snow, the rain, and the wind.

We will have to see if the Jennings district is resilient enough to absorb the loss. For its kids’ sake I hope it is. But if it isn’t, we’ve got to start moving toward a better way.

The post Jennings Superintendent’s Departure: Lessons for Education Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Liberals love to hate Sam Brownback, and for good reason. The Kansas governor threatens a central tenet of liberal orthodoxy: the belief that higher taxes are a price that must be paid for progress.

“If your objective is to grow the economy, would you rather put more money into government, or leave it in the hands of small business?” Mr. Brownback asks during a recent interview in his office at the state capitol. Three years ago Kansas enacted the biggest tax cut of any state, relative to the size of its economy, in recent history. Lawmakers reduced the top rate on the personal income tax to 4.9% from 6.45%. They also eliminated the income tax for small business owners who file as individuals, a broad group that includes sole proprietors, limited liability partnerships and S-corporations.

The governor declared that Kansas was “open for business” in such strong terms that he might as well have donned a sandwich board reading “Come to Kansas / Keep Everything You Earn.” He boasted: “Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy.”

The comment was subsequently picked up by critics who wondered why the Kansas economy wasn’t suddenly leaping ahead at, say, 4%-5% growth annually. When Mr. Brownback ran for re-election last year, national reporters descended on the Sunflower State and quickly made Kansas the national symbol for the alleged depredations of “trickle-down economics.” A sampling of headlines includes: “How Tea Party tax cuts are turning Kansas into a smoking ruin,” L.A. Times, July 9; “Kansas’ Ruinous Tax Cuts,” the New York Times, July 13; and “The Great Kansas Tea Party Disaster,” Rolling Stone, Oct. 23.

Yet voters re-elected Mr. Brownback by a four-point margin. What the news coverage missed was that if Kansas hasn’t exactly catapulted into the front ranks in economic growth and employment, then it has at least moved a long way from the stagnation of recent decades. Consider:

• In March 2013, unemployment in Kansas stood at 5.5%. It has since dropped to 4.2%, tied for 14th lowest in the country.

• From 1998-2012, Kansas ranked 38th in private-sector job growth, according Bureau of Labor Statistics data crunched by the Kansas Policy Institute. In 2013—the first year after the tax reform—the state climbed to 27th place, and in 2014 it moved to 21st, placing it in the top half of states.

• In the second half of 2014, hourly wages in Kansas grew 3.5%, according to BLS data, far faster than the national average of 1.9%.

Then there is the Kansas City metropolitan area, a living laboratory that straddles the border with Missouri. On Mr. Brownback’s side of the divide, the top personal income-tax rate is now 4.9%, beginning at $15,000 for single filers; in Missouri the top 6% rate starts at $9,000.

“I just think Kansas City is a great study,” the governor says. “This is an unusual place, where you’ve got a city virtually equally divided between two states.” The results? Over the past two calendar years, private-sector jobs increased by 5.6% on the Kansas side and only 2.2% on the Missouri. In the same period hourly wages grew $1.22 on the Kansas side, compared with $0.61 on the Missouri side.

To Mr. Brownback, those kinds of statistics show the success of his tax cuts. He says a reporter recently asked whether he could “definitively say this wouldn’t have happened” without the reforms. “We don’t have the studies that say that,” he replies, “but we’re in terrain that we have not seen before—and it’s good terrain.”

Such results make intuitive sense. Patti Bossert, who owns two employment agencies in Topeka, estimates the tax cuts saved her firms $40,000 last year. Seeing a windfall on its way, she spent $375,000 to buy and remodel an old building for a new company headquarters. “Our business has been phenomenal,” she says. “Wages are going up, and the big problem now is that there are many more available job openings than there are qualified people to fill them.”

Critics contend that Mr. Brownback’s tax cuts have blown a hole in the state budget—$344 million in the 2015 fiscal year and $600 million in the next. The governor is filling those gaps by moving money from highway projects and delaying some public pension contributions. He has also proposed raising cigarette and alcohol taxes and pausing some of the tax cuts still scheduled to take effect. But he insists that the state will maintain a balanced budget and at the same time “continue our march to zero income taxes.”

Even so, Ms. Bossert worries that budgetary issues could cause the legislature to roll back the tax cuts. “Kansas can’t afford to break the promise it made to small business in 2012,” she says. “We have to stay the course to reap the real long-term benefits of this reform.”

If Mr. Brownback has anything to do with it, Kansas will stand firm. The governor expresses mild regret that his use of “colorful language”—the shot of adrenaline line—became a distraction. But he’s still eager to take on liberal assumptions across a host of issues, including the best way to eliminate poverty.

“I love the debate on wage growth because the left wants to push mandatory minimum-wage growth,” he tells me. “They want to do it by statute, and we will do it by growth.”

Mr. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the St. Louis-based Show-Me Institute.

The post Seeded With Tax Cuts, Kansas Harvests the Benefits appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Proclaiming Kansas “open for business,” Gov. Sam Brownback on Thursday signed into law a measure that makes additional income tax cuts over the next five years while generating new revenue through higher sales taxes and other adjustments. …

Conservative Republicans pushed the initial cuts through last year while acknowledging that the plan was too aggressive and would need refinement in 2013. Those changes in the bill signed by Brownback on Thursday include decreasing income tax deductions over time as overall rates drop, as well as giving a less generous standard deduction for married couples and single parents.

The top in personal income tax rate [sic] will drop to 3.9 percent for 2018, down from 4.9 percent, and promises future rate reductions in years when revenues grow more than 2 percent.

Notably, Kansas’s lowest income tax bracket will also drop, from 3 percent to 2.3 percent. And taken together with last year’s cuts, Kansas’s new cuts put the state on track to return nearly $4 billion to Kansans over the next five years. Huge.

There was a great deal of talk last week about how “progress” had been made to end the Kansas-Missouri economic border war, but the “progress” appears to boil down to Kansas deciding that it will drink Missouri’s milkshake, and Missouri hoping for a handshake in return. That’s a bad, bad deal, and that deal will only get worse the longer Missouri does nothing to lighten the state’s tax load on its families and businesses.

The post Milkshakes and Handshakes: Brownback Signs Another Kansas Tax Cut appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Don’t believe it? If so, that’s only because our governor and most of our lawmakers and business leaders have yet to wake up to what has happened.

For many years now, the economic development agencies in both states have fought to a draw, poaching business from each other through targeted tax credits and other subsidies to induce individual businesses to move from one side of the border to the other. Local governments have compounded the problem by offering tax incentives of their own to cater to a tiny contingent of well-connected companies, choking funds from libraries, schools, and other public services dependent on local tax revenues.

This high-stakes game was a win-some-lose-some proposition for both states, played out in a particularly frivolous way in the Kansas City region when corporations moved a handful of miles one way or the other to gain a temporary tax advantage – a situation not unlike the short-sighted Tax Increment Financing (TIF) wars seen in Saint Louis County. Then Kansas got serious about economic growth.

In May, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed the biggest tax cut in the state’s history. The new law cuts the top personal income tax by more than a point to 4.9 percent, well below Missouri’s top rate of 6 percent. That would be cause enough for concern in Missouri if that was all Kansas had done. But more boldly, Kansas cut its tax on the non-wage pass-through income of businesses such as limited liability corporations (LLCs) and subchapter-S corporations (S-Corps), reducing taxes on the income generated from approximately 191,000 Kansas businesses to a rate of zero. Millions of small businesses nationwide are organized as LLCs and S-Corps that enjoy many of the legal benefits of a traditional corporation while being taxed like partnerships. A tax rate of zero on this income is awfully hard to beat, freeing capital for Kansas entrepreneurs to reinvest in their businesses and spend in the market.

The excitement brewing in Kansas does not have to stop there. Missouri may not have the chance to be the “first” to embark on the sort of economic development revolution taking place in the halls of Topeka, but it does not have to be the last. Significant and similar tax reductions and reforms are achievable in Missouri, if there is a political will for it in Jefferson City.

But what happens if Missouri does not act? The state will almost certainly be left behind — not only by Kansas, but by other smart, pro-growth leadership across Missouri’s western border. This year, Nebraska cut its personal income taxes and has primed the pump for future reductions. Oklahoma is seriously considering phasing out its income tax entirely, including deep near-term rate cuts.

If Missouri lawmakers do not arm the state with sound, broad-based, free-market tax reforms of their own, the state risks economic defeat at the hands of her cross-border rivals in one of the most important games imaginable: the one that will determine our future prosperity. We can turn this game around, but time is running out.

Brenda Talent is executive director and Patrick Ishmael is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Kansas Rolls Out the Red Carpet to Missouri Companies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.