Can anybody hear me yeah, I guess I keep talking to myself
Feels like I’m going insane, am I the one who’s crazy?

The president recently signed the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act. I might favor this type of reform if the fraudulent payments it intends to target were recovered in a cost-effective manner. But is this law even needed?

Here’s a quote from the White House Blog:

Last year, improper payments by the Federal Government added up to $110 billion.

If a publicly owned corporation misplaced $110 billion dollars, it would be more than reprimanded — it would be bankrupt and out of business.

This legislation shows in unadulterated clarity the inherent flaws of government. The federal agencies responsible for this irresponsible behavior will be fined and face “penalties and other repercussions,” but I wonder who exactly the federal government thinks pays for penalties levied on federal agencies.

And people wonder why consumer confidence is low.

Because it has more business leaders than bureaucrats, hopefully this committee will propose solutions that are more market-driven than government-driven. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the new Tax Credit Review Commission.

Additionally, I am pleasantly surprised to see that only a small minority of the committee members work for companies that have been issued state tax credits since 2000. Of the 40 individuals listed, I could only find four that received any. According to the “Show-Me: Tax Credits” application:

• Wells Fargo Advisors has received $2.5 million in tax credits for development.
• Global Velocity has received $150,000 in tax credits through the Rebuilding Communities program.
• Walsworth Publishing received $2.292 million in tax credits through the EZ – Enterprise Zone program in 2001 and $15,068 through the Youth Opportunity Program between 2001 and 2002.
• Washington University received $2 million in tax credits New Enterprise program between 2002 and 2005.

Hopefully, this means that they will be more willing to reduce or eliminate expensive targeted tax credit programs in Missouri.

It is in this spirit that I present one of my works in progress from my summer here at the Show-Me Institute.

Backers of the 25-percent Missouri Historic Preservation Tax Credit often cite the statistic that our state is “first in the nation” for “federal historic rehab tax credit projects,” so I thought that it could prove valuable to see exactly where said federal projects occurred.

Click here to view a draft map of Missouri rehabilitation projects that received the 20-percent Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit. Data comes from a June 2010 information request to the National Park Service, and includes projects dating from 1996 to mid-June 2010.

I see no need to editorialize about the map at this stage in my research, but I think that those who proudly support historic tax credit programs would do well by the public to explain why spending millions on certain construction activities is an appropriate use of public funds.

However, given that “historic preservation” is a catchall for education, place-making, job creation, and aesthetics, defining the precise function of public expenditures made in the name of preservation is an impossible task. Our positions as taxpayers, historians, developers, contractors, homeowners, tenants, policymakers, and tourists necessarily inform our differing and potentially divergent perceptions of these policies and expenditures. Our propensity toward repeated engagement in the same argument about the relative worth of a tax dollar spent on historic preservation as opposed to one spent on public education, while refusing to acknowledge some basic facts about the program in question, often leaves us blowing hot air.

At present in Missouri, recipients of historic preservation tax credits need not acknowledge the receipt of public funds in any format on the project site. In fact, recipients of historic preservation tax credits need not even acknowledge the historic significance of their taxpayer-supported property on site, such as in the form of a plaque. If we are to have a truly informed debate about the worth of the historic preservation tax credit, I would hope that we can all agree that disclosure is a good place to start.

Without good information, our state will never make good policy.

In my mind, the verdict is still out on whether the historic preservation tax credit really does what its backers aver.

As the first part of my strategy, I would hire a team of lobbyists in order to enact rules and regulations that discriminate against products from other states that compete with mine. If I could keep firms from other states from entering Missouri, I would not have to work as hard to compete with them. I would try to get the state government to impose strict licensing requirements in order to keep others from entering the industry and trying to compete with me. In doing so, I could charge a higher price to consumers living within the state because this protectionist policy would reduce supply, thereby raising my profits.

Protectionist policies may have high cost to society, but as a self-interested CEO, the profitability of my firm is my only concern. Of all business activities, lobbying has one of the highest rates of return. The Washington Post reported in April 2009 on a study finding that a single tax break in 2004 earned companies $220 for every $1 that they spent on the issue. That is a 22,000-percent rate of return!

I could invest a lot of money in research and development in an attempt to improve my product, only to have my efficiency copied and replicated by my competitors. On the other hand, I could contract with a lobbying firm to convince the Missouri state government to give me financial incentives, and then enjoy an artificial competitive advantage for a long period of time. I wouldn’t have to worry about competing with smaller companies that do not have my lobbying power. As an added benefit, by keeping these firms out of the market, Missouri workers can ensure the security of their jobs. Consumers will have the satisfaction that they are consuming products that were made by a worker in Missouri, not in another state — even if they have to pay more for their products in order to subsidize those jobs.

If this strategy doesn’t work, I could use a different one: pitting states against each other to see which will give me the most money. I’ll tell each state government that other states are offering me huge incentives to invest there, and that they must meet or exceed these offers in order for me to stay. Ford is an expert at this, and I’d definitely follow its example.

All of the large companies in Missouri engage in lobbying activities, so my firm would be at a disadvantage if I didn’t. It doesn’t matter how big or profitable the company is — they’re all doing this! Just in my recent memory, Scottrade secured $2.6 million, Ford secured $150 million, IBM secured $31 million, Mamtek got $17 million, and other, large, private developers secured TIF and tax credits.

Unsurprisingly, rent seekers tax credit supporters are critical of the new committee. According to an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (emphasis added):

While the commission does include several prominent tax credit advocates, [...] it lacks any representatives from small town Main Street groups, community development organizations or historic preservation groups, “all of whom have firsthand experience in how well the program works for the average citizen,” the [Coalition for Historic Preservation and Economic Development's] press release reads.

Judging from the list of people on the committee, I don’t foresee many calls for scaling back these programs. Not only does the committee include bureaucrats and politicians, who have an incentive to grow the size of government, it includes businessmen whose companies have been issued tax credits. The committee includes a member from Hallmark, in Kansas City, which has received $8,657,730 in tax credits from the state government since 2000, according to the “Show-Me: Tax Credits” application. There is also a member from Commerce Bank in Saint Louis, which received $5,401,975 in historic tax credits in 2002. Legacy group investments received $183,586 in historic preservation credits in 2003. In addition, many other members come from the real estate industry, which would likely benefit from increased construction activity.

As I communicated to the Missouri Watchdog, I applaud the effort to review these programs, but I am skeptical that this commission will accomplish anything, given that the governor continues to dole out tax credits to his favored few (e.g., Ford, IBM, sugar substitute producers, data centers, filmmakers, etc.).

We live in a world of second-best options, and a review process is more desirable than nothing. The optimal solution would be to cut these incentive programs altogether, because they distort the playing field.

If the governor were serious about stimulating productive economic growth in Missouri, he would eliminate the programs entirely and return the money to taxpayers to spend on their own. People tend to spend their own money better than they do other people’s money, after all.

This will be played in some circles as a lack of regionalism in the community, with Kansas residents unwilling to support an institution on the Missouri side of the river. I don’t think it is a big deal, because Kansas residents support the zoo every time they attend by paying an admission fee.

This is a more complicated question in St. Louis, where residents of both St. Louis city and county pay a tax for the zoo, and everyone gets in for free. I think that residents of the surrounding counties should be given an option whether to tax themselves to support the zoo or instead have to pay an admission fee. But I don’t think certain people should pay a tax to support a free zoo so that everyone else can also enjoy it for free. (And, yes, I realize you pay for the parking lots, and the train, and the food and drink sales, and the children’s zoo, so you probably spend plenty of money when you attend no matter where you come from.)

I’d like to see St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson counties institute a property tax (in the long run, hopefully just a land tax) for support of the zoo. Then the rate could be lowered even further — and it is already a pretty low tax. I also think the other counties should get a representative on the governing board of the zoo if they opt in.

Again though, it’s perfectly fine with me if the residents of those counties choose not to tax themselves for the zoo. In that case, they should pay an admission fee — simple as that. I’d love to hear someone from a surrounding county argue that they should pay neither taxes nor an admission charge to come to the St. Louis Zoo. All aboard the free rider train!

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

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

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

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

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

Ford in the Short Run

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

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

It is not clear who approached whom with the proposition to make Grant’s Farm a national park, but one can only hope it was not the National Park Service. The budget for our national parks is already strapped, and the lack of funds is evidenced by deteriorating infrastructure. The last thing needed is to add one more park to be maintained with public funds. Furthermore, the growing national debt makes it unlikely that the NPS will be receiving a significant increase in funding in the near future.

I believe Grant’s Farm has the potential to become sustainable if it were to charge an entrance fee. The 273-acre animal preserve is visited by 550,000 people a year, more than enough demand to allow the parks owners to cover costs — or even turn a profit, if management operates the park efficiently.

I hope the Busch family and Anheuser-Busch continue to run Grant’s Farm, even if that means charging an entrance fee. Grant’s Farm provides a unique experience that will be lost if it falls under government control.

Here’s how it works. Assume that you are a developer. You plan to build a low-income housing project with a total cost of $11 million. Of that, assume $10 million is eligible for the credits (land costs are excluded). The credits are limited to 90 percent of that figure, so assume that you get $9 million in credits.

The credits then are sold to investors. Assume that the investors, after discounting the net present value of the credits over 10 years, buy them for 60 percent of their face value — or about $5.4 million. Assume also that you get a regular mortgage loan equal to 70 percent of the $11 million total cost of the project — about $7.7 million. These are conservative estimates.

So the developer now has funding of approximately $13 million ($5.4 million plus $7.7 million) for a project that costs $11 million. The developer will receive a $2 million check at the closing, less any escrows.

Later in the editorial, the author demonstrates how these programs can be further manipulated to benefit the developer above all others. Then, he concludes:

At a time when government at every level is becoming insolvent, all of these programs should be subjected to a top-to-bottom review.

If tax credits programs in Missouri were continuously scrutinized, Missourians would be better off. This is particularly important because the Missouri state government doles out a tremendous amount of money through this program, which is a tab that taxpayers have to pick up. Using the “Show-Me: Tax Credits” application at Show-Me Living, I isolated the trend of tax credits issued under the Low-Income Housing program. Since 2000, there have been 437 credits issued in Missouri for a total amount of $1,360,900,251. The average amount awarded to a single recipient is $3,114,188. The smallest amount awarded to a single recipient is $14,230, and the largest awarded is $13,320,000.

The only positive thing that I can say about the following graph is that it illustrates a downward trend after 2006. However, I wonder if the decrease in the amount of credits issued and redeemed is simply indicative of a general decrease in construction projects because of the recession. It may be that fewer people build or renovate during periods of recession, regardless of state tax incentives.

Trend of Total Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Issued in Missouri

Pitting states against each other is one of the more significant negative consequences of offering generous incentive packages to single companies. It encourages states to offer incentive packages in ever-increasing amounts, in a desperate attempt to entice these companies to locate within the state. Then, the company tells each state government that other states are offering huge incentives for it to invest there, and that they must meet or exceed these offers in order for the company to stay.

In the case of Ford, it’s a confusing mess. After Ohio gave Ford $83 million in incentives during 2002 to expand in the state, Ford moved its production to Missouri. Because Illinois gave Ford an undisclosed amount of incentives in January 2010 to open an assembly plant in Chicago, the company moved its production of Explorers from Kentucky to Illinois. Just last month, the state government in Michigan awarded $10 million in Brownfield tax credits to Ford to redevelop a section of the Michigan Assembly Plant complex in Wayne. Meanwhile, Ford told the Missouri state government that it needs $150 million over 10 years to keep its Claycomo plant open, or else it would move production of its Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner to Louisville. At the same time, Ford seeks tax incentives from the Kentucky state government. They say that, in order to remain in Kentucky, they need financial assistance. Ford secured up to $180 million in incentives from Kentucky in 2008, and $66 million in 2007.

Now that Ford has secured $150 million from the Missouri state government, will the company ask for still more, or will it pack up and leave the state? How do we know that Ford won’t demonstrate the same behavior in Missouri?

When a large company like Ford pits states against each other, other groups are negatively affected. For example, it causes taxpayers to face a higher tax burden because the state has to pay for these incentive packages. It also forces small businesses that lack lobbying power to compete at a competitive disadvantage.

It’s a very expensive game, and taxpayers everywhere would be better off if their state governments stopped playing.

The project, cast as a “self-sustaining venture,” has had trouble occupying its 511,000 square feet of retail space. City planners blame the vacancy on the downturn of the economy. Without a fully occupied site, the project is having trouble recapturing the tax dollars originally allocated to finance the project.

This is not to say that the project was a failure, but rather to point out the difficulty in predicting its success. Of the original $295 million, $212 million was used to rebuild infrastructure around the project area (which could more readily be considered a legitimate expense). Many of my friends love the Power and Light District as a weekend hangout, but rosy projections and rationalization won’t save taxpayers any money.

A perfect example of the inherent fallacy of utilizing a centralized plan is found in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book The Black Swan. He writes:

The inability to predict outliers implies the inability to predict the course of history, given the share of these events in the dynamics of events.

Governments who believe they have a better chance than individuals of predicting future events have the tendency to be vastly irresponsible, and the bill almost always lands at the feet of the taxpaying public.

As plans like Kansas City’s Power and Light District come together, they are sold to the public in the most favorable light with the most favorable projections. Unfortunately, those projections almost never translate in the real world. Public projects usually cost more than expected and produce less.

The fact remains that the project has been undertaken, and I believe City Manager Troy Schulte put it best:

“20-20 hindsight is always good, but I’d tell taxpayers to come down and enjoy downtown, because you’re paying for it,” he said.

During the question and answer session afterward, a questioner who identified herself as a longtime teacher took issue with the merit pay suggestion. She argued that teachers do their jobs because they love their work and are passionate about it, and are not motivated by “greed” like people on Wall Street. There is some truth to this. Certainly, no one goes into teaching expecting to become fabulously wealthy. Still, I was reminded of what my cooperating teacher used to say when I was going through student teaching: “I’m doing it for the money … if they stopped paying me, I’d stop showing up.” Unless someone is independently wealthy, the money matters, and if school districts could pay more to the best teachers, they would likely attract and retain more highly skilled individuals to the profession.

In Superfreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner argued that one of the major factors for America’s falling educational achievement over the last half century is the movement of educated women into fields outside of teaching, such as law and medicine. That is not a reason to lament women entering the wider workforce, but if there were more upward mobility possible in teaching, far more qualified people — both men and women — would have opted for teaching. Teaching can be an inherently satisfying profession, but it would be foolish to pin the hopes of our educational system on pure altruism.

Did the state make the right decision to return the baby in the end? (I certainly think so. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees.) Should the state have taken the baby away in the first place? (I don’t think so, although some might think the question of the baby’s safety required some type of action.) Should the state have the power even to consider doing what it did in the first place? In other words, should the state have the power to take a child away because of the fear of potential harm (let’s assume it is a legitimate fear), but absent any actual harm?

I think the third question gets tougher. That is not to say I agree with anything the state did here; I am merely posing the question. Should the state have any power whatsoever to remove a child from its parents because of the potential of harm, but before any real harm occurs? The problem here is that we can all come up with hypothetical situations that would probably lead to an answer of “yes” (i.e., the parents are meth addicts), but as soon as you say “yes” you are granting the state the right to make judgment calls. Inevitably, they will at some point use that judgment improperly, just like they did in this example. Let’s discuss this in the comments.

I have a few points I want to make — and I write all of this as a fairly new parent, myself. I think this statment by the mother is one of the most honest statements I’ve read in a while:

“I needed help as a new parent, but not as a blind parent,” Johnson said.

Being a new parent is tough. It was certainly tough for me, and I am about as perfect a physical specimen as you will ever lay eyes on. I can’t fathom being a parent in the situation these parents are in, but I feel certain that the sense a parent has for the well-being of their children will trump the issues those children may face. Practically speaking, I would bet that a home designed for the blind would be just as well baby-proofed as anywhere. If other parts of their lives are a little trickier than they are for the sighted, those are the challenges of life. For example, letting a two-year old Mikaela run around at the park will be hard for parents who can’t see the child. Do they use one of those child leashes? Only go to parks with fully enclosed fencing, like DeMun park in Clayton? Take family or friends along with them?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. I do believe that the family’s love will overcome all these obstacles, and I think the involvement of the state here has been an outrage.

As absurd as this may be, I think we all know that some nanny-state politician somewhere will read this study, want to make the world a safer place, and attempt to implement some type of radio ban. And, sure enough, it will be met with ridicule at first, and go nowhere. But a few years after that, somebody will cause a major accident because they overreacted to a Tigers touchdown, or, worse yet, because they tried to change the radio station, and suddenly it will become a serious issue — one that must be dealt with because “public safety” demands it. And then, the next thing you know, radio controls will be mandated for the steering wheel, and internal car radio volumes will be legally controlled (we already have noise ordinances for the external volume), and sometime around 2025 I predict an outright ban on car radios. This study is just the start of an entire process.

Click here to register online.

The GOP should take positive action to keep jobs in Missouri. Look at Michigan. It offers numerous incentives to corporations to move to Michigan. And it works.

[...] With unemployment in Missouri at more than 9 percent, what exactly does the GOP have to offer?

From this letter, it is apparent that the writer measures success in terms of job growth. However, the writer ignores the fact that Michigan boasts the second-highest unemployment rate in the union — certainly higher than the rate in Missouri. According to the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in May 2010 is 13.6 percent in Michigan and 9.3 percent in Missouri.

Moreover, the unemployment rate in Missouri is historically much lower than Michigan’s. Using the Show-Me Institute’s IDEAS application, I produced the following graph:

Trend of Unemployment Rate In Michigan and Missouri

Why are there calls to emulate the public policies in Michigan? Its economy is in terrible shape! To paraphrase Catherine Aird, Michigan would be better viewed as a horrible warning than as a good example.

Furthermore, targeted tax credit programs do not work in Michigan. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan has produced many studies that demonstrate this. As Audrey Spalding recently wrote on this blog, tax credits fail to deliver on their promises — particularly in terms of job creation, and particularly in Michigan.

I think it is terrific that Kansas City gets the All-Star Game in 2012. All sports fans know that baseball’s All-Star Game is the only one in which the players legitimately compete. (This is mainly because of the lower marginal risk for injury in baseball than in other sports.) But the Freakonomics blog has a post up today that could give Kansas City pause and Saint Louis some statistical revisions.

The post is about the economic impact of major sporting events. Needless to say, they generally don’t live up to the hype. From the entry:

The gist of it is that you can make an economic impact study say pretty much whatever you want, since it’s an exercise in speculation, and that the economists hired by bid committees make sure the numbers say yes.

The entry goes on to quote economist Dennis Coates:

Few analysts who aren’t in the employ of the event boosters have ever found such events to pay for themselves in a purely dollars and cents view.

A study on this issue published in the Southern Economic Journal reported :

In March 2005, Denver, Colorado, tourism officials predicted 100,000 visitors for the NBA All-Star Game. Considering that the Pepsi Center, the game’s venue, only holds 20,000 fans and taking into account that Denver has only about 6000 hotel rooms, it is not clear exactly how such an influx of basketball fans would be possible.

At the very least, we should question numbers thrown around without any supporting documentation, as in this article:

Major League Baseball estimated that last year’s All-Star Game in St. Louis had an economic benefit of $60 million on the city. The game a year earlier at Yankee Stadium had a positive fiscal impact of $148.4 million on New York — while San Francisco’s estimate in 2007 was $65 million.

I recognize that there is a big difference between hosting an event for which you have to build facilities, like the Olympics, and hosting an event for which you already have the requisite facilities for other purposes. The All-Star Game fits into this later category, which means it is far easier to make money — or, at least, limit any losses. I am sure that the 2012 All-Star Game will be great for Kansas City in many ways, but I hope people don’t believe the financial projections and hype without any evidence to back it up.

I have no idea whether the 2009 All-Star Game in St. Louis actually resulted in the $60 million impact that all of these articles cited. The consistency of the number does not make me more likely to believe it — rather, it tells me that someone came up with a preliminary estimate and everybody else likely repeated that number after Googling it.

From the article:

Kickstarter is a concept: a Web site that puts together creative types seeking money with backers willing to chip in micro- and macro-payments, a way to crowd-source the financing of ideas. Started last year, the company has become an unexpected influence on indie culture, a new model for a D.I.Y. generation.
[...]
Matthew Lessner, the director of “The Woods,” made his directorial debut with a viral video starring Michael Cera and has worked on videos for of-the-moment bands like Dirty Projectors and Fools Gold. He had already shot the film, his first feature, financing it on credit cards two years ago. But then the economy collapsed, and Mr. Lessner, 26, was left without money to finish it.

Enter Kickstarter, where Mr. Lessner was able to raise more than $11,000 from 95 backers to complete the film. “One of the things that’s most exciting about Kickstarter to me, it really provides an opportunity for films that otherwise would not have a chance,” Mr. Lessner said.

This demonstrates that a vibrant film community can emerge in the private sector, and that it doesn’t require financial assistance from the state government. I have argued, admittedly obsessively, against the use of film tax credits in Missouri on this blog.

Furthermore, this is evidence that in the unrestricted market, individuals that have a demand for film will voluntarily pay for it. In the status quo, state tax credits coerce individuals who do not possess a demand for film to pay for it through a marginally higher tax rate. This practice is particularly harmful to taxpayers, because they end up paying for something that they do not want. It is also harmful to businesses and individuals who operate outside of the film industry, because it forces them to compete at a competitive disadvantage.

First, although it is true that Paideia’s test scores rank among the lowest in the state, absolute measures of test scores are not a very meaningful measure of school quality. The production of education is similar to the production of anything else in the economy: Poorer quality inputs, in the form of poorer students from historically disadvantaged ethnic backgrounds, translate to poorer quality outputs, in the form of test scores. It’s not only a mistake, then, to compare Paideia’s students to those of high-performing districts, but also to an arbitrary benchmark determined by the state. Taking a snapshot of test scores is not enough, because a reliance on mere glimpses into time discourages an understanding of the underlying trends at work. The more important measure is the longitudinal one: Are Paideia’s students learning more now than they were before the school existed? Perhaps the answer is no, but it doesn’t look like this question was considered by either the Board of Education or the Cole County Circuit Judge.

Second, I am willing to believe that we may overvalue test score measures of all kinds. One-size-fits-all models don’t work in schools, where abilities and interests vary greatly between student populations. Schools that produce less significant test score gains but more significant “creativity” gains may still be cultivating meaningful human capital.

Given the current state of the economy and the deficit, is this the time to pull back on stimulus spending and pay more attention to the deficit, or should Washington worry more about the short term and let the long term take care of itself?

The Paul Krugman camp, consisting of those economists wanting to stimulate the
recovery through expansive government spending, are — like the spending they are advocating — lost in their own arguments.
In the article, Steve Fazzari, a professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis, states, “One person’s spending is someone else’s income.” I absolutely agree. But then, in a quick turn of events, he goes on to say, “When the government cuts spending, it’s cutting income to someone.” This is also true, strictly speaking, but the implications of his first statement are more important.

I used to mow lawns, and if my employer had told me that he would give my payment to my brother after I finished my work so that my brother could do some weeding, I would have immediately walked away and taken my labor elsewhere.

If that same employer had given me $10 the week before I was supposed to mow the lawn, two things might have resulted: (1) With cash already in hand, my attention to detail would have suffered considerably; and, (2) I would not have been in any hurry to finish the job.

Historically speaking, capital evolved before credit, and for most of the real world, that is how personal finance is understood — you largely only spend what you have. The problem that got us into this recession was egregious spending beyond our means. If mortgage lenders hadn’t been so eager to hand out money — apart from the fact that home loans were implicitly backed by the federal government’s approval — this last recession most likely could have been avoided.

Without the possibility of high default rates at the micro level, the financial instruments that impregnated the system with risk may never have been implemented on such a large scale. Now, after the crisis, we see the world’s top economists trying to formulate a plan to fix the system. In practice so far, that has involved injecting liquidity into the economy through massive government spending. The Krugman camp claims this is more responsible than private investment, because the Fed can print more money to increase the flow of capital rather than bearing the risks of default. There’s no need to worry about the deficit now, they say; we can take care of that later.

Yet few are buying the empty promises of the government. And why should they? With an aging population and massive health care overhauls on the way, everyone can see that entitlement spending is about to skyrocket. Higher taxes are almost certain. Increasingly larger numbers of the American people are holding onto their money in an effort to maintain liquidity in anticipation of the expiring tax cuts at the end of the year. Stimulus money is falling into the same trap; it’s not multiplying the way Keynesians had hoped because investors are wary of the uncertain economic conditions that may be brought about by still more government spending and higher taxes.

We cannot extricate ourselves from the hole we are in until we stop digging. Americans need to see the sunlight before they are willing to buy an expensive ladder to climb out.

Some estimates project that the proposal will save New Jersey $210 million annually in taxpayer funds. From the article:

“The question has to be, ‘Why do you continue to operate in a manner that’s more costly and less effective?’ rather than, ‘Why change?’ ” said Richard Zimmer, the former Republican congressman who chaired the task force.

By and large, privatization lowers costs and raises quality. Unlike the government, which can continually operate in the red, a private firm must turn a profit to stay in business, a fact that makes private service providers much more accountable to consumers. The unresponsiveness of public service providers is especially evident when spending hours in line at the DMV or post office. A private firm with a similar service record would either have to take steps to become profitable, by increasing service and lowering costs, or face going out of business.

Missourians would benefit if state officials followed New Jersey’s lead by finding ways to privatize services and save taxpayer money. The efficiency gains that privatization bring would provide a means to cut costs without cutting services. Missouri could do well for itself by entrusting responsible private businesses to help carry some of the state’s fiscal load.

An economic impact study commissioned by the mayor of New York City concluded that the LeBron effect would likely inject $60 million per year into the local economy. Not surprising, given that ticket sales, advertising revenues, and team retail in Cleveland had increased dramatically since James’ rookie year.

Because of the way the free-agent landscape worked out, and overall team salary cap requirements, Miami was not able to offer James a competitive contract, while both New York and Cleveland were. But Miami did possess a wild card that the other suitors couldn’t match: tax-relief. No, not in the form of direct incentives, in the form of a healthier tax climate.

Interestingly, Florida does not impose a personal income tax, whereas both Ohio and New York levy personal income taxes of 6 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively, in their highest brackets. On a deal said to be worth around $100 million, that 12.6 percent tax on income wipes out the economic comparative advantage that New York may have had. However, the 6-percent income tax would level the playing field for Miami and Cleveland were it not for Cleveland’s pesky earnings tax. The 2 percent of James’ income that the city of Cleveland could claim was enough to give Miami the fiscal residual it needed to land its new money-making machine.

What can Missouri learn from all this?

Simply put, our current economic development plans may not be able to compete against states with lower taxes. New York may offer James lots of incentives to coax him to the state, but the simple ability to keep the money you’ve earned is a strong incentive in itself.

A special legislative session offering incentives to Missouri’s automobile industry was transformed Tuesday into a tax-break boon for elderly homeowners, airplane makers and more.

The Missouri House passed legislation extending tax breaks to senior citizens, computerized data centers and manufacturers in a broadly defined transportation sector encompassing everything from bicycles to rockets and food-vendor carts to floating offshore oil platforms.

My colleagues and I have have been arguing voraciously against other companies that seek handouts from the Missouri state government. Other states are discovering that tax credits fail to deliver the results that they promise, and I have heard no convincing reason to believe that targeted tax credit programs will work any differently in Missouri.

From the perspectives of economics and fairness, these programs defeat their ostensible intended purposes: encouraging employment and helping states compete. In subsidy programs, the state government redistributes wealth to special interest groups in the form of concentrated benefits (e.g., sugar substitute manufacturers, data centers, ethanol producers, car manufacturers) and it diffuses the costs of these benefits to all those who remain unsubsidized in the marketplace.

Whenever the government subsidizes an activity, it comes at the expense of other activities. This is because time, money, and resources are scarce and finite. As a result of its decision to subsidize an activity, the state government incites individuals and businesses in Missouri to divert resources from other productive uses and invest them in activities for which they have a higher opportunity cost than others. By subsidizing these activities, the state gives up marginal levels of productivity. Missourians would be better off if each market participant specialized in the activities that they do well and profitably without the need of a subsidy, and left the production of other things — such as vehicles — to those who posess a comparative advantage in producing it. By focusing on profitable non-subsidized economic activity and then engaging in trade with others, overall levels of productivity and consumption will increase.

There are two systems within the unrestricted market that are better than tax incentive programs at promoting productive economic development: the price system and the profit-loss system.

The price system is a better means of achieving an efficient allocation of goods and services than targeted incentive packages. Prices coordinate individual action efficiently by communicating relative scarcities and preferences, but government officials knock the price system out of this equilibrium whenever they decide to subsidize or restrict an economic activity. This results in a misallocation of resources, and produces a market bubble that will eventually burst, as the subsidy ends. (Will Missouri host the first sugar substitute bubble? I hope not!)

Allowing the profit and loss system to allocate resources efficiently in a free market is better way to encourage economic development. However, when the government intervenes in the market through targeted subsidies, the “loss” signal is muted as a consequence because producers are at least somewhat insulated from risk. As an additional consequence, producers have less of an incentive to respond to consumer demand, which mutes the incentive for producers to target their operations efficiently. For example, as a result of agricultural subsidies and tariffs, much of the sugar that we consume in the United States is made from beets instead of from sugar cane. This is a less efficient process of making sugar, and consumers pay a higher price for it.

Government should focus on providing the basic institutions that foster reliable market exchange (e.g., enforcing contracts, backing currency, etc.), instead of favoring losers in the marketplace in the name of economic development.

Developer Should Bear Risk of Failure

In responding to Judge Robert Dierker’s ruling that St. Louis officials lacked authority to offer hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize the NorthSide redevelopment plan, the editorial board, in the editorial “Celebrating Decline” (July 12), implies that the plan can proceed only if the city provides the anticipated subsidies. The developer’s own estimates indicate a belief that he will realize a profit of at least $251 million even without those subsidies.

Nothing in the ruling prevents the developer from pursuing his quixotic vision or from enjoying any profits that might result from its success; rather, it requires that, like all other entrepreneurs, the developer must personally bear the risks of failure instead of pushing them onto the taxpaying public.

Dave Roland — St. Louis

Policy Analyst, Show-Me Institute

As if on cue, today’s Post-Dispatch has a story about a disagreement between St. Charles County and MoDOT regarding bicycle restrictions on state roads within St. Charles. One councilman, Joe Brazil (I have had the pleasure of meeting him, and we have praised him here in the past for his stances against annexation and TIF abuse), wants to ban bicyclists from certain state roads in the county. MoDOT is opposed. My purpose here is not to discuss this specific issue, but rather the process. Nonetheless, I don’t support banning bicyclists from any roads other than interstate highways, and I have to point out one comment in favor of the proposal to ban bikes by someone who, understandably, has a personal interest in the matter:

Among supporters was Stephen East of Cottleville, whose 16-year-old daughter was seriously injured in a 2003 accident on DD when the vehicle she was driving topped a hill and encountered a bicyclist in her lane. East said she swerved, ran off the road, hit a tree and was thrown from the car.

“Public safety trumps personal rights,” East said.

No, sir, it doesn’t. And it is exactly this far-too-common belief that our safety is more important than our rights that is causing us to lose our rights to safety zealots via death by a thousand cuts. I give you helmet laws, seat belt laws, closed swimming pools, and the fact that organizations can no longer just have a bake sale or parish pot luck because health regulations forbid food cooked at a home from being sold or given away elsewhere. Because, you know, that’s “dangerous.”

But I digress. MoDOT says St. Charles can’t enforce the ordinance because the Highway Commission won’t approve it. MoDOT says it simply won’t post the signs telling people about the law — making it invalid under state law, which specifies that traffic rules must be properly posted for people to see. So, if St. Charles passes the ban and MoDOT won’t allow the county to enforce it, there will be some sort of court challenge. That might be the only way to answer the question of who has final say about roads — the governmental jurisdiction that owns it or the governmental jurisdiction it passes through.

In my opinion, the final say on traffic laws should belong to the jurisdiction that builds, maintains, and “owns” the road, if for no other reason than consistency. Hopefully, this will be further clarified soon, and hopefully in a way that does not allow cities like Charlack to do whatever they please on state or county roads.

I’d be delighted to see a statewide ban on things such as red light cameras and speed cameras on all roads. As the laws are currently written, though, I don’t think there is any doubt that cities can do whatever they want on city roads. (Thanks to Combest for the link.)

The major problem I have with the Paideia ruling from a policy perspective is that the closing is the result of a judge’s ruling, not from a lack of demand on the part of parents. Paideia certainly suffered from low test scores, but as charter school consultant Richard Hay argued in the hearing, improvement on the tests may be a far better metric of school success than absolute scores. Furthermore, perhaps the public schools into which the kids will be reassigned are even worse (and very unlikely to be closed for poor performance).

In the overwhelming majority of cases, parents and students have more incentive and better information to determine which school best meets their educational needs, and their decisions are far better guides for which schools should fail and which should flourish.

On July 9, after awarding a multi-million-dollar tax credit package to a company that produces a sugar substitute, Gov. Jay Nixon’s office issued a press release claiming that 612 new jobs will be created in Missouri. The governor said:

These jobs will be a significant boost to Missouri’s economy and our manufacturing sector, and they’re another positive sign that our economy is beginning to move forward. I am pleased that my administration was able to provide a competitive package of strategic economic incentives to help bring these jobs to Missouri.

Statements from proponents of the tax credit for the Ford plant in Claycomo, despite the political finagling being done to push it through, sound reasonable. Sen. Victor Callan (D-Independence) told the Kansas City Business Journal that up to 3,700 jobs could be lost if the state doesn’t award Ford a large amount of state tax money.

But, although the claims can sound reasonable, they are only claims.

The problems of using tax credits to encourage economic development have been discussed at length: Tax credits often don’t create economic activity, but instead merely shift it to another location; tax credits are a form of centralized economic planning, which has a bad track record of encouraging economic growth, whereas lower tax rates do a better job of stimulating the economy; government officials have no special ability to predict future economic growth or success; and, of course, tax credits allow elected officials to play favorites.

In addition to the list above, casual readers should be skeptical of the future job claims made when state tax credits are doled out, because they are merely promises and forecasts. Studies have shown that job claims are often very different than what is ultimately accomplished with taxpayer money. A study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy compared job promises made in press releases issued by Michigan’s economic development agency as it awarded tax credits to the actual outcomes of those programs. During a 10-year period, Mackinac found that of 127 projects that promised fully produced facilities, only 10 projects were completed on time and produced the number of jobs promised.

A report recently published by the Columbus Dispatch showed that Ohio is still waiting on some jobs and investment promised. In fact, as reporter Mark Niquette found, of the $1.6 billion in tax credits initially awarded in Ohio, only about 40 percent were ultimately redeemed. This disparity, as explained to me by Niquette over the phone, can be attributed to two factors: First, many tax credits awarded are never redeemed at all by the company, and second, some of the outstanding tax credits awarded may be redeemed in the future.

Of the companies that did manage to redeem Ohio state tax credits, roughly 1 in 10 jobs promised were not created.

Interestingly, one company that’s also dominating Missouri tax credit news failed to deliver on promised job creation in Ohio. Niquette writes:

Still, there are more than 100 projects that fell 50 jobs or more short with no action reported. At the top of the list is Ford, which received more than $1 million in tax breaks for a 2002 project to create 800 jobs for production of the Escape and Mariner in Avon Lake.

The data show “zero” jobs actually created because Ford moved the production to Missouri, officials said. The state said Ford stopped getting the tax breaks when the production left Ohio.

Only additional research can show whether Missouri’s Department of Economic Development has a tax credit track record better or worse than that found in Michigan, or that found in Ohio. But we all have to keep in mind that promises made in press releases about job creation and about the investment that will take place as a result of tax credits are only promises. In other states, those promises have a tendency not to bear out.

Despite criticism that cameras are aimed at generating revenue, [the city's mayor] said Charlack passed a budget that did not count on camera fines. He said the ultimate goal is to phase out the photo program once motorists regularly drive more slowly through town.

The idea that the city will phase out the cameras once people drive more slowly is perhaps the most unbelieveable statement I’ve heard a politician say in a long time. And who cares if they passed a budget that did not count on camera fines? All that means is that they can spend the money however they want once it starts flowing in.

I have argued that the many small cities in St. Louis County should continue to exist as long as the citizens want them to. Here is the conclusion to my Government in Missouri study:

Missourians have chosen to have a large quantity of smaller government units. They have also chosen to have a large number of elected officials, representing smaller areas than the national average, so that the citizens may be in closer contact with those officials and monitor them more effectively. Economies of scale can be exploited in larger governments, as shown in the graph of per-capita spending for class three counties, but the efficiencies and benefits of larger government are less common and less significant than often supposed. The assumption that larger, less fragmented government is a more capable and efficient provider of services does not stand up to initial analysis and is not supported by the research.

But behavior like installing speed cameras, which is nothing more than a technologically advanced version of St. George–style speed traps, makes me question that once again. I would certainly favor legislation at the state or county level to forbid these types of cameras on the road — at the very least, on state or county roads.

I believe that speed cameras, just like red light cameras, are nothing more than a giant scam. I also believe they violate our rights — most importantly, the right not to be tracked by cameras every moment of your life. I am confident that would have been the Eleventh Amendment included in the Bill of Rights, if cameras had been invented yet.