My blog post regarding an op-ed piece authored last week by Show-Me Institute co-founder R. Crosby Kemper III has aroused the ire of the institute, as did my qualified endorsement of the China hub proposal for St. Louis. Here’s my reaction to the response authored by Show-Me policy analyst Audrey Spalding:
“Hartmann was troubled by Crosby Kemper, Show-Me Institute board member and head of the Kansas City Public Library, authoring an op-ed about why creating hundreds of millions in tax credits is irresponsible.”
Incorrect. I wasn’t troubled by Kemper’s authoring of a piece on the China hub project. In fact, I was delighted that he would write a piece on behalf of the institute extolling the virtues of the Republican Party’s Tea Party fringe. It was quite revealing. Quick and easy blog opportunities like this one don’t come along every day.
I didn’t credit Kemper as the head of the Kansas City Public Library, because the credit line on the commentary only referenced his association with the Show-Me Institute and not his day job. I’m happy that Missouri taxpayers and those of Kansas City support his library, and I hope the Show-Me Institute isn’t planning a study to show that such public subsidy competes unfairly with the “market solutions” of private bookstores. I also hope that Missouri’s robust Tea Party doesn’t notice there were no public libraries in the United States prior to 1849, because that might prove such institutions are inconsistent with the foundation of constitutional government in America, and thus must represent socialism.
“I have never worked on a Republican campaign in any way, for pay or otherwise.”
This is not surprising. I didn’t say all Show-Me Institute staffers were Republicans. I said it was populated with Republicans, which it is, and added that this does not mean the organization itself is Republican. For the record, I have worked on the staff of a Republican governor (for pay) and have volunteered in a Republican campaign. Neither was anything to be ashamed of, although it’s not the sort of thing I brag about today.
"In fact, this issue is bipartisan."
You can say that again. My Democratic friends on the left are disgusted with me for supporting the China hub (even conditionally). My Republican friends on the right are stunned that I had what they consider a rare moment of good sense. Most of the top Democratic politicians in the area support the idea, but so do a lot of Republicans. The opposition is also bipartisan. I didn’t write a word about partisanship with regard to the China hub issue. I wrote about how your institute’s co-founder, writing on behalf of the institute, cited the emergence of a wing of the Republican Party as proof positive of progress in Missouri.
"Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, has written scathing missives about the tax credits."
There must be something good about them.
"As a staff member at the Show-Me Institute, I am thrilled that one of our founders chose to publish an op-ed calling out Republicans who say that they are for fiscal responsibility, but then work to create handouts for a small group of developers and warehouse owners in the St. Louis area."
I thought you said this was a bipartisan issue. For the record, Kemper didn’t use the word “Republican” at all. He called out “self-described conservatives in the legislature.” If you think that only means Republicans, you don’t follow Missouri politics closely.
"Hartmann searched the Show-Me Institute website for 'tea party' and found three references. I am not sure, but from his writing it seems that Hartmann was looking to find a relationship between the Show-Me Institute and a political party."
You can be sure: This is precisely what I was doing after reading your co-founder’s praise for the Tea Party. It made me curious as to what other things the institute has had to say about this wing of the Republican Party. It turns out, not much. Then I found that a substantive reference to “Tea Party rant” had fallen off your website. I suggested this might be a “technical error,” or not. But even if it is was just a mistake (and I don’t doubt that), it made for a quick and easy blog post, which is a good thing.
"A search of the St. Louis Magazine website results in many more references to the tea party, but any attempt to tie that finding to a relationship between the magazine and the tea party would be similarly as absurd."
Yes, it would be absurd. I didn’t search “Tea Party” on the Show-Me Institute's site to see how many references I would find, only to determine what the institute said about this wing of the GOP. If having lots of references was indicative of support, then The New York Times would be a major Tea Party backer. To suggest that would be even more absurd.
I would add, however, that inferences can be drawn when a search finds nothing. For example, search the institute’s website for “Cardinals” or “DeWitt,” and you get zilch. That’s pretty interesting, given Show-Me’s proud disdain for “corporate welfare.” It’s not as if the institute hasn’t opposed a stadium plan before. Somehow, the much bigger one in St. Louis just didn’t get on their radar. Funny thing. Throughout the Cardinals’ infamous crusade to bilk taxpayers out of hundreds of millions for a new stadium—and up through its current effort for corporate welfare for its “Ballpark Village” project—the institute has been strangely silent. You’d think having one of the Cardinals’ owners (Stephen Brauer) on your board would make this a topic of interest. Hmmm.
"Mr. Hartmann seemed intent on denigrating Rex Sinquefield, co-founder of the Show-Me Institute."
I said nothing in my blog to denigrate Sinquefield. I referred to him as King Rex, but that’s a term used by friend and foe, and no self-respecting purchaser of politicians’ loyalty by the millions could possibly object to being called “King.”
I have been happy to denigrate Sinquefield in the past—he certainly deserved scorn for his horrific (and pathetically failed) attempt to blow up earning-tax revenues in St. Louis and Kansas City, not to mention his past opposition to minimum-wage hikes—but I said nothing about him this time.
"Finally, I would like to extend an offer to Hartmann: I am happy to meet him at any time to provide an information briefing about the Aerotropolis legislation."
Thanks for the offer. However, I read everything written on the institute’s website on the China hub proposal, and I don’t need any further briefing. In general, I share the institute’s presumed opposition to corporate welfare. (I say “presumed” because I just can’t get beyond that decision to sit out the Mother of All Missouri Corporate-Welfare issues.)
I also share the institute’s skepticism about whether Missouri can or will pull off the China hub deal.
But here’s where we differ: I respect the effort that lots of people—from all parties and all parts of the political spectrum—have been making for the past three years to do something positive for St. Louis and, in particular, Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. It may be only one idea, but it’s one more than King Rex’s “think tank” has thought of.
And the presumed evidence that the institute offers in opposition to the tax credits is shallow at best. For example, a casual observer might find shocking the institute’s earlier revelation that “owners of warehouses with international cargo consisting of as little as 20 percent of their operations could receive the tax credits for an overall subsidy of up to 30 percent of their demolition, construction and equipment costs.”
So? It still sounds like the only companies that would benefit from such a provision aren’t doing business in St. Louis now, and even if they are, they’re not handling international air cargo here, because there isn’t any. I don’t like corporate welfare in general, but it’s the way of the world. Unless Missouri and St. Louis want to abandon all economic development and tourism efforts—and let other states and cities prevail thanks to their corporate welfare—unilateral disarmament isn’t such a great strategy.
The corporate welfare that I worry about is the sort represented by Ballpark Village (there I go again), handouts to rich developers for shopping malls in wealthy suburbs, or legal bribes to law firms (and other companies) not to relocate their offices. In cases like that, public subsidy gives advantage to some capitalists over their tax-paying competitors, often based on political connections, as well as size.
The institute should concern itself more with those ripoffs, rather than obsessing about the China hub or, for that matter, state film tax credits, which it also opposed strongly. Not all corporate welfare is without merit: The film tax credits are a perfect example, and if you don’t believe me, ask the city of Cleveland, Ohio, where the film Fun Size is producing hundreds of millions in jobs and activity because Gov. Jay Nixon (with Show-Me’s blessing) chose not to provide adequate tax credits here.
I still have reservations about the China hub’s success; I’ll believe it when I see it.
And I hope the legislators do everything in their power to reshape the legislation so that it doesn’t—as many fear—wreak damage on tax-credit programs that serve the elderly, the poor, and the cause of historic preservation, among others. Given the institute’s lack of affection for even these sorts of good programs, however, it’s no surprise that this isn’t one of Show-Me's objections to the China hub.
Finally, if indeed the backers of the China hub are proved to be bald-faced liars—if indeed the deal goes through, international planes never land here, and a bunch of bad guys get rich off the tax credits anyway—then I will have proven to be a real moron for having stood up for them, even conditionally.
I don’t believe that will happen, although it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve proven to be a real moron. (Now who is getting denigrated?)
If the China hub yields even a fraction of what its proponents are claiming, then it will be a very positive thing for St. Louis, achieved against all odds and after much hard work. I think it’s worth a shot.
Unless, that is, some think tank comes up with a better idea.
SLM co-owner Ray Hartmann is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m.
Commentary by Ray Hartmann
