If you like alcohol, cigarettes, and gasoline — though, of course, not all at the same time — then this video is for you. Check out our latest video on the good economic reasons why Missouri’s low excise taxes on these products benefit our state. Please read the text accompanying the video as well, because, you know… I worked hard on it.

Brazil: A land entailing natural wonders, a powerhouse economy, and sugar cane ethanol? Yes, that’s right. Ranked second in terms of production and first for exporting, Brazil has long been a pivotal mover and shaker in the global ethanol industry.

Together with the United States, Brazil produces nearly 88 percent of the world’s ethanol supply. However, Brazil uses sugar cane as a preferred alternative to corn in its ethanol production.

With an annual yield of nearly 370 million bushels of corn, many Missourians are deeply connected to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the industry were to dry up, thousands stand to suffer in the short run. Even so, could there be a sweeter alternative?

Well, quite literally, yes. The Brazilian sugar cane industry is said to be seven times more efficient than that of the United States, and less expensive, too — nearly 30 percent cheaper, in fact. Regardless, it appears that the federal government has little interest in the more viable Brazilian blend.

In order to offset a federal tax credit targeted to ethanol blending companies, the United States has levied a tariff on Brazil’s ethanol, perhaps as a way to keep the international market out while spurring on its own domestic product.

Current and past administrations have vowed to reduce foreign oil imports, claiming that we have become too dependent on them. So, why a virtual ban on Brazilian imports? If ethanol is federally promoted as a solution to the so-called national security issue of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, why wouldn’t cheap, clean-burning ethanol from friendly Brazil be satisfactory? If officials are serious in addressing this as a national security issue, they would invest in other forms of energy — namely, those which are not harmful to our country’s environment and well-being.

Thankfully, it appears that lawmakers might be making a move in a better direction. Last week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fathered an amendment that would slash government subsidies of the corn industry while also lifting the tariff. Unfortunately, Coburn’s amendments may never become actual laws. Nonetheless, the Senate has shown an ever-increasing readiness to bring ethanol subsidies to the curb.

So, is investing in the precarious, ever-expanding corn-based ethanol industry worth the higher food prices, loss of necessary agricultural groundwater, and increased pollution that result? Well, some would argue that the aforementioned are a small price to pay to support an industry. I contend the contrary. Surrounding Missouri’s ethanol industry, we have corn farmers benefiting from subsidies, cattle farmers suffering from feed shortages, and mandates that often require we burn at least 10 percent less-fuel-efficient ethanol in our cars.

When subsidies are involved, benefits for some lead to costs for others. So, who’s right? You be the judge.

There has been a great deal happening on the issue of privatization throughout our state. Tony’s Kansas City has been reporting that Missouri-American is in talks with Kansas City officials involving the city’s water division. Here’s hoping this is true. This would be excellent for Kansas City in both the short and long run. Private companies do a perfectly fine job of providing gas and electricity to Kansas City, and water to many other parts of Missouri. Private utilities are heavily regulated in Missouri, and local mandates can be included in any agreement between KC and Missouri-American Water. (I am not saying local mandates should be included, just that they could be if local officials think they are necessary.)

In economic terms, public goods are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Except in extreme circumstances, the water I consume does not limit your consumption of water. In this case, the water in the Missouri River is non-rivalrous. However, with utility services — as opposed to national defense or local roads — it is easy to prevent someone from using the asset if necessary. They are excludable. It is hard to argue that water access and infrastructure needs to be provided by the government, especially when there are private providers operating in the area that have a proven ability to provide the product. And it is even more difficult to make that argument when a lease, management contract, or utility sale would be valuable to taxpayers. (To those who might scream about everyone having the basic right to water, you are all free to collect rain water to drink, and to take baths in a local stream all you want. This is about the demand for pressurized hot or cold water coming into your home on demand by turning a tap.)

To its credit, Kansas City’s water division at least charges for its water like a private good instead of a public good. The fact that Saint Louis still lacks water meters for most of its consumers is absurd. Even if Kansas City changes the debate some by charging for water more like a private good, the fact is that public utilities far too often lack the political will to charge what they need to charge for the asset.

Also in Kansas City, the private contract to operate the animal shelter has been pulled. This happened awhile back, and I touched upon it here, but this is a great disappointment. This is clearly not a failure of privatization, unless saving money and increasing adoptions is a failure. It might be considered a failure of this particular private operator, but I remain unconvinced. I think that there is a core group of activists/volunteers who will never be happy with any system until they get a no-kill shelter in Kansas City. I say this as a dog-lover who got my dog (who passed away last year at 10) back in 2000 from a local shelter.

I think the city caved to accusations, as this statement indicates:

“We’ve been receiving allegations from some of the volunteers who put in time out at the shelter regarding mistreatment of animals,” said David Park, director of Neighborhood and Community Services for the city. 

Park acknowledged the shelter has been run better now than in the past. 

“They’ve done a wonderful job, as far as increasing the number of adoptions. (Previously) the number of animals that were euthanized was far greater than the number that was adopted, and now the opposite is true,” Park said. 

According to Park, the city has to protect itself, even if the allegations have yet to [be] proved. 

“Until we have the formal results of the investigation back, we don’t want to renew a contract for a year, for another year, and then have something surprising come out of the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board — then we need to cancel right away.”

The private airport in Branson is struggling financially. It does not appear to be struggling in its day-to-day operations, but I’ll try to fly there next week to make a better judgement. They have two commercial airlines offering regular flights to Houston, Atlanta, and Denver, and more charter services. It remains to be seen how the airport’s debt issues will play out over time. I certainly hope that this experiment succeeds, but who knows? If it does fail, it will fail with (mostly) private money. Compare that to Mid-American Airport over in Illinois, and pick which style you want.

My father founded and ran several area gas stations until his death. At first, he embraced the use of oil and gas mandates like those that regulate the ethanol industry — he saw ethanol as a possible revenue stream. However, optimism dwindled as each fall’s harvest brought bushels of despair, not what others had promised. He would one day realize the strife that comes with perverse government regulations.

Many have regarded ethanol to be the proverbial “fuel of the future,” claiming that it reduces the cost of gasoline at the pump while also emitting less pollution. Although ethanol can replace gasoline in some ways, it is less beneficial than many expect.

The Department of Energy began releasing data in 1997 determining that some of the benefits derived from ethanol don’t outweigh the costs, as researchers had previously believed. Ethanol may emit less pollution when burned in place of gasoline, but the Environmental Protection Agency reports that it releases carcinogens at far higher levels than they predicted when it’s created.

Despite the abundance of new testimonies and information, however, both the federal and state government continue to support ethanol ardently, as our country’s energy messiah.

Pointing to often-circulated claims of environmental friendliness and cost-effectiveness, Rep. John Shimkus from Illinois recently introduced new legislation that would impose further government mandates for the production of ethanol. Amid another distressing year for Detroit, this governmental decree would require that 50 percent of all new automobiles be capable of running on ethanol and other non-petroleum fuels by 2014. That number would stiffly rise to 95 percent just three years later.

So, do the advantages of ethanol outweigh the costs? The answer, simply, is no. Aside from its counterproductive environmental effects and proven efficiency loss for each mile to the gallon, ethanol is a precarious investment for the government to force on us for several reasons:

• First, it has been shown that increases in ethanol production are correlated with an increase in food prices. These effects can be felt not only statewide, but also nationally and internationally.
• Second, and as a direct result of government mandates, a cloud of pseudo–market demand now hangs heavily above the heartland. Simply put, the current supply/demand ratio did not arise naturally from the decisions of producers and consumers, interacting voluntarily in the market. Instead, the ethanol industry is artificially bolstered by government sanctions.
• Finally, both this mandate and others like it point to the essence of how government controls harm the economy. There are too many hands in the cookie jar, and, as a result, everyone’s hand gets stuck; the cookie crumbles. Automakers should not be burdened with absurd requirements such as this from legislators who seek to alter the free market for the sole benefit of their constituents, and at the expense of everyone else.

Don’t get me wrong, I support the development of renewable energies and green solutions. Markets reward efficiency. However, as both a Missouri resident and an owner of my father’s businesses, I find that legislation like our own E-10 mandate and the proposal advanced by Rep. Shimkus in Illinois are harmful — especially in the long run.

Neither supply nor demand would exist at anywhere near current levels without both federal and state mandates, both of which have propelled ethanol into the forefront of the American auto and oil industries. As it stands, the eagerly pushed supply of ethanol more than satisfies current market demand. And that, folks, is just basic economic principle.

David Stokes will be discussing his op-ed about nuclear power financing regulations on KWTO AM 560 with Dan Vaughn and Dan Calfano, at 9:00 on Wednesday morning. Please listen in if you are able.

Gov. Jay Nixon wants to make Missouri a green state. According to an article in the Missouri Watchdog, the governor sent a letter to the leaders of the Missouri General Assembly encouraging them to pass legislation that supports the development of energy alternatives. From the letter (emphasis in the original):

My administration looks forward to working with the General Assembly to determine where those sources of renewable energy must be located in order to carry out the will of the people and promote a renewable energy economy in Missouri.

Sounds good, huh? Greener energy is a good thing for Missouri, right? Unfortunately, this is a problematic way to get to that goal. I strongly support the development of renewable energy, but I do not want the state to subsidize it!

The free market and basic economic forces, not government programs, will determine the development of alternative fuels. When the government enacts policies that impose higher mandates for alternative energy, such as the 2008 Missouri Renewable Energy Initiative referenced in the letter, it imposes high hidden costs and defeats its ostensible goal of helping the environment.

Just as government officials don’t know the socially optimal mix of any set of products and services, they do not have special predictive power, nor do they have access to perfect information. Politicians can’t identify new technologies and business opportunities as well as the unrestricted market can, because they are too far removed from the science of energy technologies to know the optimal state of the market. Plus, government is slow to react to changes in the economic environment because it is bogged down in bureaucracy.

Furthermore, when lawmakers in Jeff City roll out proposals for encouraging the development of alternative energies, Missourians would be wise to question whose interests their elected officials actually have in mind. Policymakers often bend the truth to promote their own political agenda, under the guise of helping the environment. Corn ethanol, which we discuss frequently on Show-Me Daily, is a classic example. Al Gore touted the corn ethanol industry with the ostensible goal of helping the environment. Last November, he changed his position on ethanol, admitting that he had previously supported ethanol as a means of pandering to Iowa voters. Gore had the interests of his political career—not the environment—in mind.

I was out on vacation last week, so here is a quick round up of recent goings on in Missouri that relate to my work here. And I use the term “work” loosely, recognizing that research and writing on subjects I love at a think tank ain’t exactly mining coal, smelting steel, or loading a barge. (That last part is a shout-out to one of our regular commenters; you know who you are.)

Last week, Jefferson City voters passed a hotel tax increase. This is one tax increase for a city that will be paid by all the people of Missouri, because so much hotel business in Jeff City is state-related. I guess, from the perspective of a Jeffersonian (or is it Jeff Citian?), it makes sense to raise this tax. But that does not mean it is good policy to raise taxes on other people to pay for something (a conference center) that is not a core responsibility of government. So that one counts as an out. …

Nuclear power is being hotly debated in the state capitol, as well. It would be excellent for our state to increase our use of nuclear power, and that depends on changes to existing CWIP financing regulations currently being debating in the legislature. This would be a home run (and this post is quickly running the risk of analogy overuse).

A bill to decrease the number of state representatives is being discussed in a House hearing tomorrow. This is a terrific idea that we have discussed before, and I hope it gets a fair hearing and due consideration. This would be about a double. …

Just because it (almost) fits with the title.

My recent editorial, “New Year’s Resolutions for Missouri Public Policy,” ran in the St. Louis Beacon and the Joplin Globe, and was linked to by Combest.

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

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

Why is “nuclear” so commonly mispronouced in this country? I have no idea, but hopefully Missourians will have an expanded opportunity to say the word as AmerenUE reignites (probably not the best word choice) its efforts to construct the second stage of the Calloway Nuclear Plant.

Here is what I wrote about the nuclear power efforts two years ago. Here is a quick Post-Dispatch summary of the just-released bill. My initial response to the proposal is very positive, but I’ll readily admit that I need to do more research on this exact proposal. The plan for multiple Missouri utilities to invest in the plant — and charge their customers for the costs — is fine with me. Because of the way the power grid system is structured, more people than just AmerenUE customers (and shareholders) will benefit from expanded nuclear power in Missouri.

I am to ethanol what Chrissy is to tax credits, so I have been mildly remiss in waiting a few days to write about the latest on the massive scam economic growth opportunity that is the ethanol industry.

First, the bad news, which is really not all that bad — yet. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved increasing the amount of ethanol allowed in the standard blend of gas, from 10 percent to 15 percent. The important thing to note here is that the agency has allowed such an increase, not required it. There is really no argument against allowing the option for retailers who wish to undergo the expense in order to sell a higher blend, or to consumers who choose to buy that higher blend. So, as long as it remains an option rather than a rule, I see nothing wrong with the EPA’s decision.

The fear, of course, is that states like Missouri will subsequently require the higher blend for gas sold in the state. We currently have a ludicrous law that requires a 10-percent blend of ethanol in Missouri gas, whether we want it or not. If the state were to increase that requirement now, it would be a sick joke. I am tepidly optimistic that this won’t happen, because the higher blend is not recommended for most old cars.

I agree with this part of the article suggesting that, minus the requirement, most gas stations won’t choose to sell the higher blend, and we might not have much to worry about:

Critics said the decision could be a frustration to drivers and argued that many retailers will opt not to sell the higher blend because of the expense of adding new pumps and signs.

In places where there is enough demand, retailers will choose to sell it. Customers should also be informed enough to realize that the suddenly cheaper option at the pump might not be right for their cars. If everyone read this blog, they would already understand this.

On to the potentially more exciting news: getting rid of federal ethanol subsidies entirely! The main ethanol support programs are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, and Congress has yet to renew them. Abolishing these subsidies — or, more accurately, just letting them expire — would be the sole crowning achievement of the 111th Congress. Seriously, getting rid of those subsidies would be a victory for markets and freedom, and a loss to rent-seekers everywhere. The 111th Congress would deserve praise for letting them expire.

Combest today links to a great piece from KMOV Channel 4 about who gets farm subsidies in St. Louis. I can honestly say that I think our national and state farm subsidy and tax credit programs are the single worst government programs (at any level). The only thing they accomplish is to make us pay more for the food we buy. And ethanol is the single worst use of that worst program, but I digress.

Really, all I want to do here is let you — our beloved readers — know of this excellent database from the Environmental Working Group. Have some fun with it. Check out your own zip code. Put in the names of politicians or former spouses. There is no end to the potential enjoyment! (Finally, I assure you that the David Stokes from Missouri in the database is a different David Stokes.)

Sunday’s Post-Dispatch had a great story about expanded interest in hydropower along the Mississippi River. New technology is making it possible to generate power from rivers without the vertical drop, or “flow,” that has been needed in the past. That is why most of America’s hydropower has, to date, come from rivers that emerge from mountainous areas — they have a much greater flow. Anyway, the Post article details the renewed interest in Mississippi hydropower by private industry and public utilities. Of course, private investment is much more interesting to me, although most of the private proposals do involve using public dams along the river. It is exciting to read about these proposals, and I hope that local hydropower can take its place along with wind and solar power as an important auxiliary, peak, or complementary power source.

Of course, if you want clean and remewable baseload power generation for Missouri, there is really only one way to go. …