There is a proposal for a $39 million tax-increment financing (TIF) district in the Midtown area of the City of St. Louis. The forces behind the TIF proposal include the area’s commercial and artistic associations. The backers are claiming that because the redirected taxes will go toward “public” items such as infrastructure improvements for sidewalks, crosswalks, and streets, that this is a responsible use of TIF. They could not be more wrong.

This TIF plan will work just like all the others do. If the appointed TIF commission approves it, up to $39 million in future increases in property, sales, and earnings taxes within the boundaries of the Midtown TIF district will be redirected away from City Hall. The funds will be given to the TIF district itself to privately allocate towards the projects that it chooses. The St. Louis school district, the city itself, and other taxing districts will still collect what they do now, plus a portion of increased taxes over the next 23 years. But most of the increased revenues will go toward projects chosen by the leadership of the TIF district.

Before you think that this sounds fair, please do a mental exercise with me. What if the residents of the wealthiest neighborhoods in St. Louis city, let’s say the area roughly surrounded by Lindell, Skinker, the Forest Park Parkway/Waterman, and Kingshighway, put together their own TIF district. Those residents could make the same argument. The city and the other taxing districts can keep what they get now, we just want the increased revenues for the next 23 years to come under our control, not the control of the various elected boards. We promise to spend it on better sidewalks, private security, public art along Lindell, and more. It’s only fair that we get to keep the increased revenue for our own community. Who are you to oppose this request?

I would hope that one would look at a request by the owners of the beautiful mansions along Lindell to keep their own taxes for their own, preferred purposes to be a ridiculous proposal. We pay taxes (at least we should) for public purposes and in a manner determined by elected officials who are responsible to voters. The request by the backers of the Midtown TIF proposal—including the Kranzberg Arts Foundation, Grand Center Inc., and the Locust Central Business District—is every bit as absurd as the theoretical example I gave for Lindell Boulevard.

This is not to defend, in any way, the other TIF arrangements used throughout the City of St. Louis and the rest of the region. They have been a failure from top to bottom. But at least the other TIF plans attempt to grow the overall economy through the tax incentives. This Midtown TIF proposal doesn’t even bother with that. The Midtown TIF district’s proponents just want to keep more of their own taxes for their own uses. I can’t blame them for wanting that; don’t we all wish to do so? But the idea that an unelected group would get to privately decide how its future taxes are going to be used makes a mockery of democracy itself.

Investments in the infrastructure serving the theatres and restaurants along Grand may well be necessary and beneficial investments. More police in North St. Louis may also be a good investment. A new fire house in South St. Louis may be a good investment. We elect people to make these decisions and answer to voters for the outcomes. Turning the entire process over to a private group is the exact opposite of everything we are supposed to be celebrating on this 250th anniversary of our nation.

The post Midtown St. Louis TIF Deal Is as Bad as It Gets appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Test data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that 42 percent of Missouri fourth graders can barely read. Some of these children are functionally illiterate; others can read written words but have little to no comprehension. Missouri’s fourth-grade reading scores rank 38th out of the 50 states on NAEP reading, far from our ranking of 14th in 2003.

There are several reasons for our decline, but a key problem is that teachers in Missouri still use scientifically unproven practices to teach reading.

Decades of research show clearly that phonics-based reading instruction is what works. In states that have emphasized phonics-based reading instruction, like Mississippi and Louisiana, fourth-grade reading scores have taken off.

Truly fluent readers perceive each and every letter of print. Ideally, skilled readers come to read every letter rapidly and fluently as they connect the letters’ sounds with their oral vocabulary. In contrast, an alternative practice known as the three-cueing system encourages students to rely more on memorization, on contextual clues, or on how the “whole word” looks.

We should teach students to practice reading using the foundations effective readers rely on. All teachers in Missouri should be teaching reading using phonics-based instructions, which is scientifically proven and field-tested.

However, many are not. There are various reasons for this (some claim it’s boring to teach, drives the “love of reading” out of students, etc.). But one system-level reason is that numerous teacher-preparation programs in Missouri have not bought into the science of reading.

The misalignment of our teacher-preparation programs is on display in a new 2026 report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). The report evaluates colleges and universities across the United States on how effectively their curriculum addresses the five core components of the science of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It also considers whether programs teach practices contrary to the science of reading, like the three-cueing method.

In the report, Missouri ranks 44th in its coverage of the core components of the science of reading, with an average score of just 2.3 out of 5.0 components. Half of states scored 4.0 or higher, while often-praised Mississippi scored 4.7.

Even more alarming, Missouri ranks second in the nation, behind only Maine, in teaching practices contrary to the science of reading. Teacher-preparation programs in Missouri taught, on average, almost four times more contrary practices than the national average.

Nearly half of the universities in Missouri evaluated by NCTQ received an F in teaching the science of reading, including Northwest Missouri State University, Truman State University, and Missouri Southern State University. By comparison, 73 percent of Mississippi’s programs received an A, and none earned an F.

Also concerning is that 52 percent of Missouri’s programs either refused to participate in the NCTQ survey, provided heavily redacted materials, or were otherwise unresponsive. These institutions are approved by the state to prepare future teachers; they should be transparent about how they train our teachers.

While there were some bright spots, most Missouri teacher-preparation programs remain poorly aligned with what works. The states with the largest reading gains—Mississippi, Louisiana, and Indiana—all rank among the best in alignment with the science of reading. Teacher-preparation reform is not a silver bullet, but it’s part of a comprehensive early literacy policy.

Until our teacher-preparation programs correct their practices, we’re going to continue to infuse our teaching workforce with new cohorts of teachers each year who are unprepared to follow the science of reading.

What can be done? The good news is that at least in principle, this is easy to fix.

In 2023, Indiana required teacher-preparation programs to align their curricula with the science of reading and prohibited them from teaching the three-cueing method, which NCTQ identifies as a contrary practice. If a program refuses to comply, it loses state accreditation. In a previous NCTQ report from 2023 based on data from before its reform, 33 percent of Indiana’s programs received an A+ or an A. In 2026, 96 percent received an A+ or A.

Missouri lawmakers must work together to prevent teacher-preparation programs in Missouri from licensing teachers if they teach methods of reading instruction that are known to be ineffective. This simple step would help address the growing reading crisis in our state.

The post Teacher Preparation in Missouri Is Getting a Failing Grade appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many communities are unsure how to respond to data-center proposals.

The upside is real. Data centers have multi-billion-dollar assessed valuations that can bring significant tax revenue, expand the tax base, and allow for lowering tax rates for everyone. Loudoun County, Virgina—part of “Data Center Alley” —is a clear example. There, data centers account for almost half of property tax revenues, enough to fund every county function outside the school system.

But there are costs, too. A single 100-megawatt data center can use 80,000 households’ worth of electricity and consume, on average, 2,600 households’ worth of water. Hyperscale facilities push that further, and can have power draws of 1,000 megawatts, which is comparable to the output of the Callaway Nuclear Energy Center, one of Missouri’s most powerful generators. That kind of load can seriously strain infrastructure.

Further complicating matters is the fact that technology can change quickly, especially when billions of dollars and national security interests are at stake. Computing power that once required hardware that filled warehouses can now fit in a pocket or be worn on a wrist. A decision that originally seemed reasonable when a proposal was first presented might not age well if the costs or benefits of a data center change as a result of technological advances.

Missouri has already taken some action to limit ratepayer costs resulting from new data centers by requiring large data centers to pay their share of costs for connecting to the grid, such as for transmission lines. But Ameren recently stated:

All Ameren customers, including residential customers, pay for expanding the grid through building new power plants through rate increases, and that may be needed to accommodate large-load customers.

This means that average ratepayers would likely pay for new power plants constructed to meet data center demand if Ameren or Evergy does indeed need new power plants. But this possibility is also in question based on how major technology companies implement their recently signed “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” with President Trump.

One promising state-level solution are private electricity grids, also called consumer regulated electricity (CRE). This could create a parallel path for energy generation, and help protect ratepayers from risk, accelerate capacity buildout and innovation for both data centers and power plants, and alleviate pressure on the government to meet every aspect of this complex challenge. New Hampshire became the first state to allow it, and the U.S. Congress is considering a federal CRE policy. Similar solutions can be implemented for water usage.

Locally, the most important thing communities can do is resist handing out large tax incentives. Beyond the digital services they support, the primary local benefit data centers provide is tax revenue. Unlike many other industries, data centers generally do not create large numbers of long-term jobs, generate substantial secondary development, or attract tourists.

If local governments heavily reduce tax collections through incentive packages, they ask residents to absorb many of the significant costs while receiving little benefit.

Besides, developers are scrambling to find suitable locations. We don’t need to bribe them to come here. At Missouri’s Nuclear Energy Summit at the University of Missouri, numerous development experts noted how electricity availability and speed-to-operation had moved to the very top of many industrial corporations’ priority lists. Communities with reliable electricity, water, and advantageous locations are already attractive. Reforms like CRE could make Missouri even more competitive while keeping risk on investors rather than ratepayers.

The better answer is patience. If communities resist handing out tax incentives, ensure additional revenues turn into broad tax cuts, and focus on removing barriers that could hinder timely development, then data centers could become a genuine opportunity rather than a threat.

The post How Missouri Communities Can Keep Data Centers from Raising Utility Bills appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

As technology companies try to meet the skyrocketing demand for AI-specialized computing capacity, they are dotting the country with data centers to the dismay of some and the delight of others. As is all too often the case in Missouri, many of these companies are being offered taxpayer-supported subsidies or tax exemptions.

For example, Independence, Missouri, is giving Nebius more than $6 billion in tax breaks over the next 20 years for a “hyper-scale” data center, and Montgomery County has offered Amazon hundreds of millions in tax abatements to build a data center near New Florence. But why would subsidies be needed when it seems like data-center developers have money to burn and are desperate for suitable building locations?

Recent actions of data-center developers suggest that it is not the cost of building and operating those facilities that is the barrier; the main problems appear to be finding pathways to secure reliable energy generation and getting their centers online smoothly and quickly (speed-to-operation).

These two obstacles are so serious that the major technology companies (Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc.) recently met with President Trump and signed the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” to supply and pay for their own power for their AI data centers.

Why would these companies agree to take on this expense? Because their constraint is not cash. For these firms, time is money. The costs of delays in permitting and interconnection outweigh the value of a local tax incentive.

The negative effects of economic development subsidies and tax breaks are well known. When local officials offer these incentives, they diminish positive benefits that could come from a new data-center development: increased property-tax revenue to fill in the gaps for local services or be used to lower the overall tax rate of the community.

With all of this in mind, rather than just doing what most other states do (handing out checks or tax exemptions) Missouri should work on policies that actually deliver what these companies need most: pathways to secure and reliable energy generation, regulatory certainty, and speed-to-operation.

For local communities, this means they should not offer taxpayer dollars. Even with big tech agreeing to pay for their own power, many municipalities will still try to lure projects with incentives. No doubt the companies will take whatever money is offered to them, but subsidies are unlikely to significantly drive their decisions about where to locate.

Instead, local communities should offer a stable, predictable permitting environment and a suitable location to build. That would help address the greater desire for certainty and speed-to-operation.

And at the state level we should think even bigger. Policies like consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) could help make Missouri a true hub for data center development—without using unnecessary subsidies.

CRE would enable private electricity providers to serve large, energy-intensive customers independent of the existing, permission-heavy grid structure by allowing them to build their own power plants. Rather than spreading the costs for this infrastructure, CRE would create a “parallel path to energy abundance” —one financed by the large customers who demand the power.

CRE would allow these data centers to work with a private partner to meet their own energy needs, with less red tape, more certainty, more control, and more freedom to innovate. These benefits are likely to be more appealing than subsidies.

Unfortunately, offering subsidies seems to be a reflexive reaction in Missouri when there is an opportunity to attract a new business. But especially in this case, Missouri would be better off focusing on what the data center sector really needs. Efficient regulatory and permitting policies (like CRE), a predictable and stable environment in which to construct, and abundant energy would be far better suited to attracting and improving data center development than taxpayer dollars.

The post Why Hand Out Subsidies to Data-Center Developers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Mound City Messenger.

A bad idea doesn’t get better with age. Bad ideas aren’t wine, jeans, or your high school memories. The tax subsidies for the Post-Dispatch building redevelopment in downtown St. Louis were a bad idea back in 2019 when the development was proposed, and they are a bad idea now.

Using tax subsidies for economic development rarely benefits the public. Instead, it lowers the risk and increases the returns for private investors. Under a capitalist system, the relationship between risk and reward for investors can be a wonderful thing, but in recent decades the government has somehow decided the public should get involved in private business dealings through tax subsidies and incentives. Taxpayers in St. Louis were left holding the bag for the failed St. Louis Marketplace tax increment financing (TIF) plan, the tax subsidy package for the Renaissance Hotel that was literally sold on the courthouse steps, and numerous other failed, subsidized enterprises. Most economic development schemes are like an expensive game of musical chairs in which the taxpayer is always the one with nowhere to sit.

The tax subsidy package for the old Post-Dispatch building at 900 N. Tucker on the northern edge of downtown St. Louis was approved by the Board of Aldermen in 2019. It primarily consisted of a $12 million TIF package. The summary included with the legislation featured the normal jargon required for such bills, and it included a statement that the development “will have approximately 1,250 jobs with an average salary of $76,500.”

How has that jobs promise worked out? Well, OK at first. The most recent annual TIF report (2024) filed by the developers with the state auditor repeated the same number of 1,250 estimated jobs created. It also listed 830 jobs created so far. There are two ways to look at that number, and both are accurate. The first is that, once again, developers exaggerated their job creation in order to get the subsidies they wanted. That often happens, and it may have happened here. The second is that getting to two-thirds of the promised jobs is actually better than many other subsidized developments, and maybe the developers deserve some credit. Not enough credit to justify all the subsidies in the first place, but, you know, some.

Except that recent actions indicate that the development is highly unlikely to ever get to 1,250, and it may quickly move in the other direction. The largest tenant in the redevelopment at 900 N. Tucker is Block, formerly known as Square. As you may have read, Block recently announced that it was laying off 4,000 people companywide, almost half of its total workforce. How many of those layoffs will be in St. Louis in unknown at this time, but the company previously announced much smaller layoffs in Missouri in both 2024 and 2025, so it seems unlikely that its St. Louis office will be unscathed.

I am not judging the company about the layoffs. If artificial intelligence is making some employees obsolete (the company’s stated reason for the move) then those people should be let go so they can do something else with their lives. That’s the creative destruction of capitalism. But this situation is a perfect example of why cities and counties should not give subsidies to private companies based on promises of employment, growth, renewal, or whatever the vibe of the moment is.

Numerous economic studies have disproved the belief that tax subsidies lead to economic growth. If tax subsidies worked, the City of St. Louis would already be awash in riches. Tax incentives have been piled on top of tax subsidies under every acronym under the sun for decades. None of it has worked. The city should focus on keeping tax rates level and low for everyone, not high for most and low (because of special exemptions) for the politically connected. A reliance on subsidies rewards cronyism, over-promising, and political grandstanding, but it doesn’t lead to real economic success. Just ask the Block employees who may be laid off soon.

The post Tax Subsidies Are a Mistake We Can’t Seem to Learn From appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s property tax system works best when the assessments are accurate, the tax base is wide, and the rates are low. That combination will help grow Missouri’s economy for everyone while properly funding the necessary functions of local government. However, a radical change in the system is being put before voters in Webster, Christian, Lawrence, and Dade counties in April. These four counties will vote on whether to prohibit any property tax increases due to reassessments. Current law requires local governments to roll back tax rates as assessments increase, but we all know that taxes still go up, sometimes substantially.

At the Show-Me Institute, we support low taxes, and I am well-aware of how tempting this will be to voters. But using market valuations in reassessment to set tax levels is a good system. While our property tax system needs reforms, eliminating any and all tax increases from reassessments will make Missouri more dependent on other taxes that hurt our economy far more than property taxes do. Hate them as much as you wish, but property taxes indisputably harm economic growth less than other taxes do.

These property tax limitations would reduce the ability of school districts to fund themselves and would make them more dependent on state aid. Consider the following: school districts in St. Louis County regularly receive at least 80% of their funding from local sources, primarily property taxes, and some are over 90%. It is nowhere near that level in Southwest Missouri. Nixa school district in Christian County is only 54% locally funded, while Marshfield school district in Webster is only 46% locally funded. Even Springfield school district, the largest school district in Greene County, where no property taxes changes are proposed, is only 58% locally funded. These changes would make school districts in these counties more dependent on state aid, not less. Again, I’m aware that many voters may view that as a benefit, but it is anything but.

Numerous other harmful effects would come from diluting the market forces (in the form of assessments based on market values) that form the basis of property taxation. California provides us with an example of the harms of these types of property tax caps with its famous Proposition 13, passed in 1978, which dramatically limited increases in property assessments and taxes. Proposition 13 certainly had its intended effect of lowering property taxes for California homeowners. However, it also reduced mobility, significantly increased alternative taxes, limited homeownership opportunities, and caused substantial tax disparities for similar properties receiving similar services. These negative consequences are exactly what these four counties would experience over the long run.

There are also significant constitutional concerns with this legislation. Missouri Constitution Chapter X, Section 3 states that “taxes . . . shall be uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.” So, consider the issue of the Logan-Rogersville R-VIII school district. This school district serves families in three counties. If voters approve these tax changes, the property tax system in one of those three counties would remain unchanged (Greene), while in the other two (Webster and Christian) it would be illegal to have a tax increase from reassessment. It would certainly seem unconstitutional for property owners within the same taxing district who own the same type of property (single-family homes) to face different tax and assessment systems for the same services.

We need property tax reform in Missouri, but this total limitation is too severe. If enacted, the property tax proposals before the voters in these four fast-growing counties would make the region’s overall tax system worse, not better. I hope voters will look past the easy appeal of a tax limit to think about the long-term harms.

The post The Wrong Way to Fix Property Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

They say that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is now. That about sums up my opinion on the City of St. Louis’s one-percent earnings tax, the continuation of which is before St. Louis voters on the April ballot. The best time to start phasing out the earnings tax really was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is still now.

The 20 years in the saying is particularly appropriate in this case, as the Show-Me Institute released its first study on the earnings tax almost exactly 20 years ago. Professor Joseph Haslag, then at the University of Missouri, documented how the earnings tax reduces overall income and employment in the city by encouraging businesses and individuals to locate outside of the city. Additional studies conducted by Show-Me Institute analysts and others have found similar results regarding the harms of local income taxes generally.

Haslag didn’t just demonstrate the harm of the earnings tax; he also recommended a strategy to replace it in order to maintain necessary city services. Haslag suggested changing state laws to allow St. Louis to institute a land tax, which is simply a property tax on the value of the land only. Pittsburgh is one city that had beneficial results from implementing land taxation in the 1980s. Alas, while land taxes are popular with economists and fiscally beneficial, they are politically unpopular to say the least. Needless to say, land taxes have never been adopted in St. Louis (nor has state law been amended to allow them). But the harms of the earnings tax have continued to help drive St. Louis’s population and economy lower, and those fiscal harms were exacerbated during the pandemic.

An easier change (legally, if not politically) than a land tax would have been to start phasing out the earnings tax 20 years ago while increasing a combination of property and sales taxes over time to replace the lost revenues (while cutting spending where possible as well). Poor decision-making over the past two decades has made that already-difficult change almost impossible. Damaging special sales taxes such as community improvement district (CID) taxes are now ubiquitous throughout shopping areas in the city. Primarily used as a smokescreen for harmful corporate welfare, CIDs and other special sales taxes have driven sales tax rates sky high. While the sales taxes have gone up, commercial property values have plummeted. According to the St. Louis Business-Journal, downtown St. Louis office buildings have lost 19 percent of their assessed value since 2019, and even more if you go back further. The largest office building downtown, the AT&T building at 909 Chestnut, paid $5.5 million in property taxes in 2009. It paid just $200,000 in 2024. While that is the most extreme example, similar examples can be found throughout downtown.

The economic situation in the city was already bad, and the tornado that hit in May made it even worse. It was the type of disaster that could make people consider radical changes, and perhaps the land tax is the type of radical change the city needs. (For the record, the Show-Me Institute’s offices were destroyed in the tornado, and while we’re a nonprofit, our office building is subject to property taxes.)

As large parts of the Central West End and the Northside are still recovering from the tornado, St. Louis city government has commendably allowed homeowners with damaged homes to reduce their tax payments, but the long-term impacts on city tax revenues may be significant. The population of New Orleans still hasn’t recovered from Hurricane Katrina and, while the damage to St. Louis was not that severe, the risk is the same.

I suggest it is time to change state law to allow for a land tax, including on land owned by larger “nonprofits” like Barnes Hospital. The land tax could be imposed on the value of the land throughout St. Louis at a level that would gradually increase to make up for revenue lost as the earnings tax is phased out over a period of 10 years (or more). (Other changes would be necessary, including ending the tax subsidies the city gives out.) What makes land taxation so beneficial is that as homeowners and businesses rebuild their damaged property, they aren’t hit with higher taxes for the home or building. The tax is set to the land, which can’t be altered, rather than the building. So, return to the city, rebuild your home or business, make it even larger—do whatever you want—and you won’t be punished with higher taxes.

Pittsburgh in the 1970s was experiencing economic difficulties just as St. Louis is now. Land taxation helped spur investment in Pittsburgh, and it could have the same effect on St. Louis. The city has been hemorrhaging population, jobs, and wealth for decades. Honestly, at this point in its history, what does St. Louis have to lose?

The post It’s Time to Phase Out the Earnings Tax. Honestly, Nothing Else Has Worked . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of this commentary appeared in the St. Louis Business Journal.

Missouri’s property tax system works best when the assessments are accurate, the tax base is wide, and the rates are low. That combination will help grow Missouri’s economy for everyone while properly funding the necessary functions of local government. However, a radical change in the system is being put before voters in St. Charles, Jefferson, and Franklin counties in April. These three counties will vote on whether to prohibit any property tax increases due to reassessments. Current law requires local governments to roll back tax rates as assessments increase, but we all know that taxes still go up, sometimes substantially.

This change would also reduce the ability of school districts to fund themselves and would make them more dependent on state aid. Consider the following: Parkway school district in St. Louis County is 89% funded by local taxes. However, Fox school district in Jefferson County is only 51% locally funded, while Wentzville school district in St. Charles is only 64% locally funded, and St. Clair school district in Franklin is just 45% locally funded. These changes would make school districts in these three counties more dependent on state aid, not less. Again, I’m aware that many voters may view that as a benefit, but it is anything but.

At the Show-Me Institute, we support low taxes, and I am well-aware of how tempting this will be to voters. But using market valuations in reassessment to set tax levels is a good system. While our property tax system needs reforms, eliminating any and all tax increases from reassessments will make Missouri more dependent on other taxes that hurt our economy far more than property taxes do. Hate them as much as you wish, but property taxes indisputably harm economic growth less than other taxes do.

Numerous other harmful effects would come from diluting the market forces (in the form of assessments based on market values) that form the basis of property taxation. California provides us with an example of the harms of these types of property tax caps with its famous Proposition 13, passed in 1978, which dramatically limited increases in property assessments and taxes. Proposition 13 certainly had its intended effect of lowering property taxes for California homeowners. However, it also reduced mobility, significantly increased alternative taxes, limited homeownership opportunities, and caused substantial tax disparities for similar properties receiving similar services. These negative consequences are exactly what St. Charles, Jefferson, and Franklin counties would experience over the long run.

There are also significant constitutional concerns with this legislation. Missouri Constitution Chapter X, Section 3 states that “taxes . . . shall be uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax.” So, consider the issue of the Meramec Valley R-III school district. This school district serves families in three counties. If voters approve these tax changes, the property tax system in one of those three counties would remain unchanged (St. Louis), while in the other two (Jefferson and Franklin) it would be illegal to have a tax increase from reassessment. It would certainly seem unconstitutional for property owners within the same taxing district who own the same type of property (single-family homes) to face different tax and assessment systems for the same services.

We need property tax reform in Missouri, but this total limitation is too severe. If enacted, the property tax proposals before the voters in these three fast-growing counties would make the region’s overall tax system worse, not better. I hope voters will look past the easy appeal of a tax limit to think about the long-term harms.

The post The Wrong Way to Fix Property Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

Missouri, like many states, mandates that a certain share of electricity come from renewable energy sources. Those sources typically include solar, wind, and biomass—but in many states, including Missouri, they exclude nuclear energy.

A productive debate could be had about whether state government should issue any such mandates. But in the meantime, legislators in Jefferson City have introduced several bills using different approaches, each of which would broaden Missouri’s existing standard to include nuclear energy.

Governor Kehoe discussed the issue in his recent State of the State Address, recognizing the long-standing mismatch between policy and reality.

What Is Missouri’s Current Policy?

Missouri’s current renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandates that no less than 15 percent of each electric utility’s sales come from generated or purchased renewable energy resources (such as solar, wind, biomass, small hydropower, and other non-nuclear sources certified by the state as a renewable). Many other states have adopted similar standards.

Justifications for RPSs vary. Some view them primarily as a tool to improve air quality or limit greenhouse gases. Others argue that portfolio standards help newer energy technologies compete with established fossil fuels or ensure a diverse and resilient mix of energy sources. In any case, if Missouri is going to have an RPS, nuclear energy should be included.

Is Nuclear Energy Clean?

If Missouri’s RPS exists in order to protect the environment, nuclear energy’s exclusion is unreasonable.

Nuclear energy is a zero (or near-zero) emissions energy source, in terms of both criteria pollutants (those that affect air quality) and greenhouse gases.

Further, to produce the same level of electricity, solar farms need 31 times more land than nuclear plants, while onshore wind farms need 173 times more land. In terms of total direct and indirect land use, nuclear is by far the most efficient.

What About Nuclear Waste?

This concern is common but often misguided. Nuclear energy does produce waste, but the waste is compact, carefully managed, and tightly regulated. Much of what is labeled “waste” still contains usable energy. In fact, only about four percent of nuclear fuel is truly unusable after each use, and the United States could reduce nuclear waste in terms of both volume and radioactivity if the industry recycled used fuel. While existing American nuclear power plants are not well equipped to use spent fuel, new advanced reactor designs are increasingly capable of using it to generate electricity.

Regardless, the presence of safely stored waste should not prevent nuclear energy from being included in an updated portfolio.

Government Interference in the Energy Market

Past arguments have held that subsidies level the playing field for renewable energy. Yet, while solar and wind have expanded rapidly in recent years, only seven nuclear plants have been constructed in the U.S. since 1990. Factors such as regulatory burden have also contributed to nuclear energy’s stagnation, but government interference has played a role. Subsidies, tax-credits, and mandates have actually significantly distorted the market in favor of renewables.

The lion’s share of the more than $80 billion in federal support for renewables came through tax expenditures—driven overwhelmingly by the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar projects, which is claimed when a project begins operation, and the production tax credit (PTC) for wind generation. State RPSs create guaranteed demand for these resources, while federal tax policy lowers the cost of supplying them—effectively a double incentive.

This is not to argue that nuclear energy should be subsidized to a similar degree. However, including nuclear energy in Missouri’s RPS would at least make existing policy more even-handed. Nuclear energy meets growing electricity demand cleanly and reliably. The Missouri Legislature should update the state’s RPS to recognize this fact.

The post Missouri Should Update Its Renewable Portfolio Standard to Include Nuclear Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In his January 30 op-ed for the Post-Dispatch, Kansas political scientist Michael Smith called Governor Mike Kehoe’s proposal to cut income taxes in Missouri a “near carbon copy” of Governor Sam Brownback’s 2012 income tax cuts in Kansas.

But Kehoe’s proposal for Missouri has large and important differences from Brownback’s. It isn’t a “carbon copy” at all.

The single largest flaw in Brownback’s tax cut was a peculiar change that eliminated all income taxes on “pass-through” business entities such as limited liability corporations (LLCs) without changing the tax code for other types of businesses. Even the right-leaning Tax Foundation criticized the provision at the time. Put simply, it didn’t encourage investment; it ended income taxes for one type of business while keeping them for others.

Not surprisingly, many businesses changed their corporate structure to suddenly become pass-through entities. The Tax Foundation found that over 390,000 entities claimed the exemption by 2015, more than double what was projected. These businesses didn’t invest in the state, hire more workers, or do anything other than change their legal status. Tax revenues declined significantly, and little growth followed.

Kansas also made critical mistakes in how it implemented income-tax cuts. The state slashed its top income-tax rate by nearly 30 percent immediately in 2012, with plans to cut even further. At the same time, Kansas’s elected officials failed to rein in spending. The combination of the pass-through exemption, immediate and deep rate cuts, and lack of spending discipline during this period fostered a fiscal crisis that could have been avoided. Even worse, the timing of these actions gave the state little room to adjust when projections weren’t borne out.

Kehoe’s proposal is fundamentally different. It asks Missouri voters whether they want to eliminate the income tax. If they do, the state can then expand and adjust its sales tax to replace the lost revenue. While many details remain to be finalized (and Missourians have every right to be skeptical while awaiting those details), the plan ensures that income tax rates can only be lowered after meeting revenue benchmarks, meaning Missouri would only cut taxes when it has the fiscal capacity to do so.

Setting aside the phasing out of the income tax, addressing Missouri’s outdated sales tax system is long overdue. While states nationwide are broadening what they tax, Missouri’s system remains narrow, with much of what is sold today escaping taxation entirely. Larger exemptions like home sales and healthcare services might make sense, but other current exemptions clearly don’t.

When you buy a book in person at Barnes & Noble or have the same book delivered to your house by Amazon, you pay the sales tax. However, when you buy the same text as a download to your Kindle, you pay no sales tax. Correcting such inconsistencies in Missouri’s tax code can level the playing field while expanding the sales tax base at the same time.

Opponents can point to Missouri’s western border all they want, but Missouri has other neighbors besides Kansas. Look at Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, which have all cut income tax rates significantly in recent years without any of the issues Kansas had. Look to our southeast border to see Tennessee, a state that has been growing rapidly for years thanks, in part, to having no state income tax. This isn’t surprising, as decades of economic research have shown consistently that states without income taxes grow faster economically than those with them.

As the Tax Foundation, which was highly critical of Kansas’ tax cut, wrote in 2024 about the larger picture of state tax cuts between 2012 and 2022:

In fact, far from tax cuts precipitating a Kansas-like crisis, tax collections have risen more on average in the past decade in the 25 states that cut income taxes (31.9 percent in inflation-adjusted terms) than in the four states and D.C. that raised them (27.8 percent).

The lesson from Kansas isn’t that eliminating the income tax is a bad idea, it’s that implementation matters. There’s no doubt that states without income taxes are growing faster than Missouri, and our state needs a new approach to keep pace in the national competition for families and businesses. Voters deserve the full picture, not an overly simplistic “Kansas” bogeyman, when debating our state’s tax future.

The post Missouri Doesn’t Have To Be Kansas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I remember when Game of Thrones was at the height of its popularity and its catchphrase seemed to be plastered everywhere I looked: “Winter is coming.” Today a similarly ominous refrain is echoing across the energy sector: Data centers are coming.

A data center is a physical location that houses servers and related hardware that process, store, and transmit digital information. As artificial intelligence use expands, demand for computing power is also rising at a feverish pace, driving the need for more and more energy-intensive data centers.

As in Game of Thrones, there is a certain mystery surrounding how dire the situation truly is.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5% to 8% of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in their energy usage for AI text prompts in a single year. It is difficult to predict how much more energy will be needed in the coming years.

Current Missouri law protects average ratepayers from “any unjust or unreasonable costs from service to such customers [such as data centers].” However, this does not mean none of the burden of building new generation capacity will fall on ratepayers, and an overbuild based on overly aggressive demand projections could leave them paying for unused assets.

On the other hand, failure to build sufficient power supply (whether due to demand miscalculation or delays in constructing multiple plants) could cause Missouri to miss out on significant investment in the state. Worse, an underbuild could create real reliability concerns. There is real tension here, and a great deal of pressure to predict and build effectively.

Fortunately, there is a policy that could help alleviate some of this pressure: consumer regulated electricity (CRE).

The premise of CRE is fairly straightforward: allow consumer-regulated electricity utilities (CREUs) that are disconnected from the ratepayer-supported grid to create “private energy islands” for the largest new customers (such as data centers). This approach makes sense for two reasons:

1. The anticipated surge in demand is expected to be fueled by a small number of users. By isolating the electricity supply of these customers from the ratepayer-supported grid, CRE can help shield everyday customers from spikes in energy prices.
2. The increase in demand is predicted, but it isn’t certain. CRE ties both the risk and the possible rewards of building new power plants to the companies that will use the resulting energy.

This year, New Hampshire passed a law to allow CREUs to generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity as long as they operate independently from existing utilities and do not serve the general public (CREUs are still subject to appropriate oversight, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear plants). Missouri could do something similar, and there are many reasons to do so.

#1: Protecting Ratepayers from Risk

If the projected surge in electricity demand materializes, CRE could help lessen the severity of rate increases by allowing some large customers to be served by independent CREUs. Because these facilities are privately financed and serve only their customers, their costs would not be spread across all ratepayers. If electricity demand falls short of projections, then the excess capacity will have been a poor investment.

#2: Accelerating Capacity Buildout and Investment

 Missouri needs to build new generation capacity. In a permission-first, regulated environment, that process can be slow. Letting CREUs build and operate their own generation facilities could help keep economic development from being constrained by red tape.

Further, CREUs could offer more tailored payment structures and allow companies to align their energy sources with their own environmental or strategic goals—without forcing all ratepayers to work toward those same goals.

#3: Alleviating Pressure

Not only does Missouri face new demand growth, but our two largest electric utilities are dealing with coal-plant retirements. This transition would be challenging even without a new surge in demand. CREUs would allow utilities to focus more on serving their current customers.

CRE could be an ideal response to an abrupt surge in energy demand driven by a narrow set of customers. It would provide price security to everyday ratepayers, give data centers control over their power supply, and decrease the need for governments to predict future energy demand. Data centers are coming, and CRE is worth exploring as a way for Missouri to prepare for them.

The post Data Centers Will Require Innovation in Missouri’s Energy Sector appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For years, the Show-Me Institute has scrutinized the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) —not out of malice, but out of a desperate desire to see our students succeed. The state’s commitment to education is vast, in terms of both a constitutional mandate and billions of dollars. Yet, as we examine the latest DESE budget request, it’s impossible to ignore the contrast between the department’s boldness when asking for money and its apparent bashfulness about what it will deliver to Missouri’s students. This disconnect reveals a fundamental weakness at the heart of the agency and a failure to act in a way that provides clear, student-focused leadership and results-based accountability.

In its FY 2027 budget request, DESE is seeking just under $9 billion, $7.5 billion of which comes from Missouri’s public coffers, to execute its mission. A large portion of the budget revenue is distributed to districts through the Foundation Formula. Other big-ticket items are the state institutions for students and adults with disabilities, subsidizing childcare for eligible families, and offsetting district transportation costs. Beyond this, there is a laundry list of programs managed by DESE and funded by the state, such as virtual education, teacher of the year awards, and summer enrichment programs. “And while there is a thousand-page accompanying document that explains what each budget line item is, there isn’t any real explanation for why the money is being requested or how it furthers education in Missouri.

Ideally, the budget request should correspond to the Strategic Plan created by DESE, with each line item of the budget request connected to a stated goal of the agency. Unfortunately, the two documents are only very loosely connected, and the disconnect demonstrates a lack of transparent, performance-driven accountability.

According to the DESE Strategic Plan for 2023–2026, DESE’s vision is to improve lives through education via the four pillars of (1) early learning and literacy, (2) success-ready students and workforce development, (3) safe and healthy schools, and (4) educator recruiting and retention. To accomplish this, DESE has given itself the following five performance measures and three-year targets.

1. The percentage of students entering kindergarten ready to learn (from 54% to 60%).
2. The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the English Language Arts state assessment (from 43.5% to 50%).
3. The percentage of students pursuing gainful employment after graduation (from 91% to 94%).
4. The three-year average of initial teacher certificates issued (from 3,662 to 3,850).
5. The three-year average annual teacher retention rate (from 89.9% to 91.2%).

Setting aside the fact that according to its Strategic Plan Scorecard it hasn’t hit any of the targets yet, this very short list of performance measures reflects an agency that is more focused on process and inputs than on measurable student outcomes. Where are the performance measures for math, science and social studies? What are the outcome goals for students with disabilities? Is all of the work of the 215 employees of the Office of Childhood to be measured by just the percentage of students entering kindergarten “ready to learn”? How does one even measure “gainful employment”? At the very least it seems like an easy number to game. How can we possibly measure the appropriateness of a 369-page, $9 billion budget request based on just these five items?

As they return to Jefferson City after the first of the year, it is time for the Missouri legislature to demand more from an agency asking for $9 billion. To hold DESE accountable and ensure taxpayer dollars are serving students first, the legislature should, at a minimum, require DESE to publicly issue an annual report that explicitly links every major budget request line item to a specific, measurable goal in its strategic plan. If a request does not directly advance a key student outcome, it should be subject to maximum scrutiny. And there should be repercussions for missing targets year after year.

The state constitution vests the responsibility for education in the legislature, not DESE. It is high time the legislature exercises its authority and forces DESE to replace its bureaucratic double-speak with real, measurable results for Missouri’s children. Our students deserve a budget that reflects a true commitment to their future, not one that simply preserves the machinery of a struggling bureaucracy.

The post It’s Time to Hold DESE Accountable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On November 4, Jefferson City voters will decide on a proposal to renew the city’s seven percent hotel tax. The proceeds from the tax will help fund a new conference center for the city. Supporters of the new conference center have claimed it will create 370 new jobs and generate over $100 million in economic growth. Exaggerated estimates such as this one have been made on behalf of convention and conference center projects all around the country for decades, and the historic evidence is clear that Jefferson City voters should be dubious of such claims.

Between now and November, Jefferson City residents who visit St. Louis should drive by the largely empty dome attached to St. Louis’s downtown conference center to see how these conference center promises often play out. That dome was a part of a large convention center expansion in the 1990s. The same promises of growth, revenue, and utopia were all made when St. Louis voters approved a hotel tax increase back then. Now the dome is mostly empty, and the regional body that manages it is struggling to pay for its upkeep. You can also visit the site of the taxpayer-subsidized convention center hotel that went along with the project. You can only visit the site of the hotel, not the hotel itself, because the hotel failed and was foreclosed on long ago.

Like a Cold War general in a Kubrick movie or a carpenter with a box full of nails, local tourism agencies have the same solution for every problem. Economic recession? Expand the convention center. Economic growth? Enlarge the convention center. Global nuclear war? Definitely gonna need a bigger convention center to commiserate in.

The renewed hotel tax isn’t the only public money being used as part of this plan. State tax dollars are being pursued in the legislature, and the conference center may receive local tax subsidies.

Supporters of the conference center plan in Jefferson City would likely say their plan is not as grandiose as a major convention center and dome project in St. Louis, and they are correct in that regard. However, there are plenty of examples of more comparable projects that have failed to reach the level of activity anywhere near was promised. Haywood Sanders is a researcher and writer with the University of Texas–San Antonio who has studied convention center expansions for decades. He has documented how cities and tourism agencies systematically inflate projections to get these projects approved. Sanders has cited the actual and underwhelming numbers of very comparable projects in Overland Park, Kansas, and St. Charles, Missouri. Overland Park opened its convention center and hotel in 2002. Project supporters had projected $36 million in annual hotel revenue by 2012, but the reality was much lower, coming in at under $20 million.

Sanders explains that the convention and conference-center industry peaked in the early 2000s and shows no signs of returning to the success it had back then. With a major convention area nearby in Lake of the Ozarks, a new center in Jefferson City will face intense competition for these limited conference opportunities.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for conference centers whose overstated benefits, small as they will be, will largely go to private entities. Jefferson City is the capital of the Show-Me State, and the claims being made by convention-center supporters should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism by voters.

The post Jefferson City Residents Should Be Skeptical of Conference Center Project appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On November 4, Springfield voters will decide on a proposal to increase the city’s hotel tax by three percent. The proceeds from the new tax will help fund a new convention center for the city. A recent report paid for by the Visit Springfield tourism bureau said exactly what Visit Springfield wanted it to say: that a new convention center will generate enormous revenue for the Springfield area. The report claims a new convention center will drive $1.3 billion in new spending over the next 30 years. Exaggerated estimates like this one have been made on behalf of convention centers all around the country for decades, and the historic evidence is clear that Springfield voters should be dubious of such claims.

Between now and November, Springfield residents who visit St. Louis should drive by the largely empty dome attached to St. Louis’s downtown convention center to see how these convention center promises often play out. That dome was a part of a large convention center expansion in the 1990s. The same promises of growth, revenue, and utopia were all made when St. Louis voters approved a similar hotel tax increase back then. Now the dome is mostly empty, and the regional body that manages it is struggling to pay for its upkeep. St. Louis’s local tourism agency thinks the solution is the same thing it always is: further expansion of the convention center. Like a Cold War general in a Kubrick movie or a carpenter with a box full of nails, tourism agencies have the same solution for every problem. Economic recession? Expand the convention center. Economic growth? Enlarge the convention center. Global nuclear war? Definitely gonna need a bigger convention center to commiserate in.

The increased hotel tax isn’t the only public money being used as part of this plan. Other local sales taxes are slated to be used for funding, and state tax dollars are being considered. Tourists, Springfield residents, and possibly all of Missouri will get to pay for this new event space, whether it is actually needed or not.

Haywood Sanders is a researcher and writer with the University of Texas–San Antonio who has studied convention center expansions for decades. He has documented how cities and tourism agencies systematically inflate projections to get these projects approved. Sanders has reviewed the Springfield convention report and noted in an interview with a Springfield News-Leader reporter earlier this year that the report didn’t state how it calculated its room occupancy estimates and ignored underwhelming numbers of comparable convention centers in Overland Park, Kansas, and St. Charles, Missouri. Sanders states that the convention-center industry peaked in the early 2000s and shows no signs of returning to the success it enjoyed back then. With two major convention areas so close by in Branson and Lake of the Ozarks, a new center in Springfield will face intense competition. But I have no doubt that local Springfield convention-center boosters will ignore reality in their quest for tax revenue and city spending.

Visit Springfield wanted a report that claims a convention center will be an economic boon for the city. They got it. As Springfield residents prepare to decide on the hotel tax increase proposal, they should study the work of Heywood Sanders and others to learn about how these claims have been made about many other convention centers in many other cities, and how they usually fail. Springfield voters can also go to St. Louis to see the failures of these promises with their own eyes. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for convention centers whose overstated benefits, such as they are, will largely go to private entities. This is the Show-Me State, and the claims being made by supporters of the convention center for Springfield should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism by voters.

The post Springfield Voters Should Be Skeptical About Convention Center Claims appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2001, a group of very libertarian-minded activists launched the Free-State Project, which encouraged thousands of libertarian believers in minimal government to move to New Hampshire. The overall success of the project has been limited, for a variety of reasons, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I’d like to see people in Missouri flatter the Granite State and try to do a similar thing here in one of our many cities.

What would such a limited-government, free-market oriented municipality look like in Missouri? To start with, it should be modeled on successful, small-government municipalities like Weston, Florida, and Sandy Springs, Georgia, which provide many local services by contracting with the private sector. It should not be based on the more radical, no-government “utopias” like Grafton, New Hampshire, where the removal of almost all government services led to an increase in bear attacks.

How many limited-government activists would it take to create a free city in Missouri? Not very many. There are hundreds of existing municipalities here with less than a hundred residents where, at most, a few dozen show up to vote in local elections. If, say, 50 true free-market believers moved into one city, what types of changes could they make to create that desired free city?

To start with, they could remove all municipal planning and zoning rules and replace them with private contracts managed by property-owner associations where allowed. Those property-owner associations could manage issues like short-term rentals, trash collection, and home-based businesses.

Municipalities, especially small ones, could focus on contracting with larger cities or counties to provide many services, like policing or building inspections. The new free city could contract with private companies to provide many other services, like trash collection and recreation management. It could similarly contract with nonprofits for some other services where profit opportunities are limited, such as animal shelters. If it had municipal utilities, it could privatize them into regulated, private utilities. The free city could reduce local code requirements, permitting rules, and occupational licensing to the largest extent possible. The important ones, like fire codes and elevator inspections, could be kept, while arbitrary or obsolete regulations, like television repairman licenses and pool-table taxes, could be thrown out.

None of these examples are farfetched. Every one of the above examples is already in place in a city somewhere in Missouri. Private utilities provide water, gas, and electricity to millions of Missourians. Cities contract with counties and other cities for services all over the state. In St. Louis County, every municipality (88 at last count) contracts with the county for at least some inspection services. Nonprofits provide important services to the public, like Pinnacles Youth Park near Columbia, and operate many animal-care facilities. Private businesses operate city-owned golf courses and manage municipal swimming pools throughout the state.

How would a free city fund these services? It would maximize private contracts between residents and companies and enact user fees to the largest extent possible. Low general sales and property taxes could fund the rest, along with revenues shared from other sources, like the gas tax. Importantly, such a city would avoid special deals such as tax abatements or tax-increment financing, for some businesses or people. Making the sales and property tax bases as wide as possible would allow the rates to be as low as possible for everyone. This free city would absolutely avoid the errors of a local income tax such as exist in Kansas City and St. Louis.

Overall, a Missouri free-city project would create a municipal government system not all that different from those in many rural, unincorporated parts of Missouri. It would just be in a more urban or suburban setting. It may seem unrealistic to expect hundreds—or even dozens—of people to make such a move based on political philosophy. But as a model of quality, low-tax local government, it is perfectly realistic. While no city may have enacted all of these ideas, each of them has been enacted with success somewhere. We just need the right number of people to put it together all at once.

I vote we try it somewhere near the Lake of the Ozarks.

The post The Free-City Project for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of Missouri’s four largest cities—Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield, and Columbia—Springfield will soon be the only one without charter schools. Charter schools are already thriving in Kansas City, and St. Louis and thanks to recent legislation Columbia will have its first charter schools up and running as early as 2026.

Springfield is missing out.

Charter schools are public schools that are exempt from some of the rules and regulations that apply to traditional public schools. In most Missouri counties, including Greene County, charter schools are not allowed to operate unless they are sponsored by the local school board—a requirement that effectively bans them. Senate Bill 727, signed into law in 2024, changed this requirement in Boone County, where Columbia is located. We need similar legislation in Greene County.

Why? There are several reasons—including that charter schools are popular with families—but the most important reason is that charter schools are more effective than traditional public schools. Academic studies consistently show students who attend charter schools outperform their peers in traditional public schools on state exams and are more likely to attend college. In some cases, the performance differences are substantial. A recent national study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that charter schools deliver additional academic growth equivalent to 6 extra days of instruction in math each year, and 16 extra days in reading, compared to traditional public schools. This same study shows that Missouri has some of the most effective charter schools in the country.

Charter school impacts are largest in areas where the local neighborhood schools are underperforming. Does Springfield have any low-performing neighborhood schools? Unfortunately, it sure does. At Westport Elementary School in 2024, only 24 percent of 5th-graders scored proficient or higher on the state English Language Arts test, and in math the number was just 14 percent. At Parkview High School, only 16 percent of students who took the Algebra I end-of-course exam scored proficient or above.

Now imagine your child is zoned for one of these schools and unless you move—perhaps not in your budget—this is where he or she will be required to attend. Charter schools give families in this situation new hope. Many charter operators intentionally open schools in neighborhoods where the traditional public schools are the worst—their mission is to provide educational opportunities in these communities that are not otherwise available. In many cities, the top charter schools have long waitlists.

If we want more Springfield children to have access to highly effective schools, permitting charter schools to operate in Greene County is one of the simplest ways to do it.

How can we make this happen? Following Boone County’s playbook, we need a champion for charter schools in the state legislature who will prioritize this issue in the upcoming legislative session. For Boone County, that champion was Caleb Rowden, a longtime charter advocate. Education legislation in Jefferson City is increasingly “omnibus” style, which means multiple different education policies are bundled into one bill. Rowden made sure that permitting charter schools to operate in Boone County, without the requirement that they be sponsored by the local school board, was part of the 2024 omnibus bill.

Will someone step up in a similar manner for Greene County? I sure hope so.

Charter schools are public schools, their students are public school students, and their teachers are public school teachers. They cannot charge tuition, they’re secular, and they’re open to all students (they must admit students by lottery if the number of applicants is greater than the number of available spots). We know charter schools work and that they’re popular with families.

Every year that passes without charter schools operating in Greene County is a missed opportunity for Springfield’s children.

The post Springfield Needs Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I will admit that calling for the privatization of the United States Postal Service (USPS) by free-market, limited-government policy people like me is hardly new. It’s a pretty standard viewpoint for people in positions like mine, sort of the libertarian equivalent of progressives calling for the government to fully fund public schools. But having said that, it really is time to privatize the post office.

In 1934, a federal law was passed that banned any entity except the USPS from placing items in any mailbox. That is the law that limited UPS and, later, FedEx, to parcel delivery. Even your neighbor is not allowed to put that party invitation in your mailbox. (If you are the type of person who reports neighbors who do so to the USPS, you probably don’t receive many party invitations in the first place.)

Until recently, the best defense of the post office monopoly was that, in all honesty, it worked fairly well. Sure, it was a monopoly that somehow managed to lose money each year, but at least the post office did a good job at its primary job of delivering the mail. You put a stamp on a piece of mail and it was delivered the next day if it was going nearby; two days later if it was going a little further; and three days if it was going a long distance. Big-picture concerns about USPS finances could be overlooked because stamps were cheap and the mail reliably went where it was supposed to go. That is, unfortunately, no longer the case.

A recent report on the post office by federal inspectors general found that, on average, on-time delivery of first-class mail has dropped 16 percent over the past year in the exact areas the post office has targeted for improvements. In St. Louis, over just two days in June at the downtown mail processing center, 2.6 million pieces of mail were delayed. There was no weather or mechanical reason for the delays, just bad operational management. Worst of all, sending mail in St. Louis puts your personal finances at risk. There have been multiple federal court convictions in the past year of St. Louis-area postal workers for stealing checks from the mail. The author knows two people who have had their identity stolen and finances ruined in this manner.

If the post office is no longer doing its main job well but is continuing to lose money, the entire system should be opened to competition. I’m well aware that FedEx won’t deliver a Christmas card for 78 cents (the current USPS rate), but if someone wants to pay more to make sure their Christmas card reaches Grandma before Christmas Day, why shouldn’t they be able to? UPS and FedEx should absolutely have a right to deliver first-class mail and place it into a mailbox where it will be better protected from rain and theft. (A reminder that you buy your own mailbox—the government doesn’t give it to you.)

USPS has long had a less-promoted role as a jobs program for political supporters and interest groups. When he was serving as a presidential advisor in the 1960s, former U.S. Senator Patrick Moynihan famously recommended changing to twice-a-day mail delivery, for the sole reason that it would allow the federal government to double the number of mail carriers.

It seems that, at present, the purpose of USPS is to deliver mostly junk mail in order to fund over $400 billion in postal-retiree pension and healthcare costs. Maintaining a failing monopoly to benefit those retirees may be politically popular, but it’s hardly good public policy. As the use of mail continues to decline, hard choices have to be made. Rural post offices shouldn’t be kept open just to appease rural interest groups, and urban post offices shouldn’t be protected against competition just to appease federal employee unions.

I would favor an attempt to sell the entire post office off to private operators. In 2025, the mail is no longer a necessary function of government (I will agree that it used to be). However, simply allowing other operators to compete against USPS by removing the mailbox monopoly would be a great step, too. You get to choose which phone, television, and internet services you use. You should have choice for your mail delivery, too.

The post Let’s Privatize the Post Office appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When one thinks of no-show political jobs in Missouri government, most people (at least those with a knowledge of Missouri history) would think of the infamous Pendergast political machine of Kansas City a century ago. Giving out jobs to political supporters who rarely, if ever, were required to actually show up to work was a staple strategy of that machine (and many others). Over the past decade though, there has been another job reminiscent of the well-paid, no-show jobs of political yore: the St. Louis County Auditor.

In June, the St. Louis County Council fired the county auditor, Ms. Toni Jackson, for lack of work output after her office completed only two audits in her more than three years in the position. (The county auditor is one of the only jobs in county government that reports to the council instead of the county executive.) Jackson had been hired in 2021 after the council had fired the previous auditor, Mr. Mark Tucker, also for lack of audit output. How little work have the last two auditors been doing? A quick perusal of the St. Louis County Auditor’s Office website shows that the office has released just 13 reports since 2018. Many of these reports do not qualify as “audits.” For example, three of the 13 reports were short 2018 memos about pet adoptions.

By comparison, the St. Charles County Auditor’s Office released 13 audits in 2024 alone, many of them substantial. If you are keeping score, that is 13 audits in one year in St. Charles County, and 13 reports (including a few actual audits) over eight years in St. Louis County. As frustrating as the lack of production in St. Louis County has been, one almost has to admire the audacity of it all. In Tucker’s case, he also wasn’t properly qualified for the job, so some of the blame for hiring him was on the council. In Jackson’s case, she was well-qualified, at least on paper, so the fact that she didn’t do the work is all the more frustrating.

It’s not like St. Louis County government is so clean that it has no need for auditors. I know of at least two cases of county employees embezzling large amounts of money in the past two decades. A qualified (and courageous) auditor could have raised questions about the activities of former St. Louis County executive Steve Stenger, who went to prison for various nefarious activities right when the prior auditor was busily engaged in doing nothing. A state audit of Stenger’s criminal actions as county executive identified Tucker’s lack of qualifications and actions as one of the reasons Stenger got away with his activities for as long as he did. Stenger, a CPA himself, was well aware of Tucker’s poor record as auditor. The former county executive routinely criticized the council for hiring Tucker while quietly benefitting from Tucker’s inability (or desire) to track any of Stenger’s illicit actions.

There is a pressing need for quality audits in local government. In a review of New York State comptroller audits of New York municipalities between 2003 and 2009, 234 out of the 259 audits included reports of deficiencies and recommendations for improvements in internal controls. Twenty-five percent of those cities with internal control problems had funds missing or unaccounted for (though outright fraud or theft was likely not the reason in every one of those instances). Within St. Louis County, two unsupervised clerks were charged in 2023 with stealing $650,000 from the village of Flordell Hills.

One of the recent St. Charles County audits identified several county-operated phone lines that the county was improperly paying phone taxes on. (As a government agency, it is supposed to be exempt from those taxes.) The audit identified the oversight and the matter was corrected. Have the last two St. Louis County auditors saved taxpayers money with insightful analysis and helpful digging? Since it is impossible to identify problems by audits when you don’t do any real audits, we all know the answer to that question is “no”.

Unreliable auditors have compromised the effectiveness of St. Louis County government in recent years. While outside auditors have reviewed the county’s annual financial statements for accuracy, the lack of a proactive internal auditor has deprived county residents and taxpayers of the watchdog they need and deserve.

Tom Pendergast may have mastered the use of the no-show political patronage job, but it was auditors who helped end his reign and send him to prison for tax evasion. Government auditors aren’t going to detect waste, fraud, or errors with taxpayer dollars if they don’t show up to do the job in the first place. Hopefully, that simple requirement will be understood by whomever the council hires next.

The post In St. Louis County, Who Will Audit the Auditors? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When asked why they want school choice, families often cite safety as their number one reason, which makes sense. How is a child supposed to learn if they’re afraid to be at school? Under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), students trapped in persistently dangerous schools are supposed to have a way out. It’s called the Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO). Unfortunately, Missouri has all but ignored this protection—and that needs to change.

ESSA requires every state to identify persistently dangerous schools and offer students the right to transfer to a safer public school. This is not a suggestion; it is federal law. Yet in Missouri, no school has ever been labeled as “persistently dangerous,” and no families have ever been notified of this option. Either Missouri schools are perfectly safe—which is unlikely—or the state’s criteria are so vague and restrictive that no school could ever qualify.

But let’s look at that more closely. Consider Poplar Bluff High School. According to data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), there were 12 violent incidents at the school in 2022, 19 in 2023, and 10 in 2024. In that same three-year period, there were 266 out-of-school suspensions. A “violent incident” in a Missouri school is one in which “a student uses physical force with the intent to cause serious bodily harm to another person.” It seems hard to believe that a school with these levels of violence would feel safe to students.

And then there’s University City Senior High School. From 2022 to 2024, according to DESE, there were 51 violent incidents and 21 weapons violations at the school. That is a lot of weapons being brought to school, and it certainly doesn’t sound like a safe environment to me. Last year in St. Louis Public Schools, teachers at Vashon High School sent a petition to the district claiming that they were teaching in a dangerous situation. In fact, one teacher had to use pepper spray on a crowd of students to get them under control.

There is no substitute for giving families an immediate exit from a dangerous situation. Additional funding, new programs, or behavior contracts might help improve school safety in the long run—but they do nothing for the student being bullied today, or for the child afraid to walk the halls because of fights, weapons, or harassment. For these families and students facing these problems, the only meaningful solution is the freedom to exercise their current legal right to transfer to a safer school.

In Missouri, for a school to be considered persistently dangerous it must have experienced at least one violent incident or one weapons violation in two out of the past three years. At least 30 schools in the state meet that criterion. However, the school must also have expelled at least five students (ten if the school enrolls more than 250 students) in each of the past three years. No school has met that criterion since the law was enacted. What if the Missouri definition were changed from violence/weapons and expulsions to violence/weapons or expulsions? Thousands of Missouri students could move to a safe learning environment—which should be the minimum standard.

Parents deserve honesty. It’s absurd to suggest that there are no unsafe schools in the state. If a school is unsafe, the state must acknowledge it and provide families with options—not pretend the problem doesn’t exist. If the state refuses to define what “persistently dangerous” means—or sets the bar so high that no school ever qualifies—then the federal requirement becomes meaningless in practice.

It’s time for Missouri to adopt clear, reasonable criteria that reflect real risks to students and activate the USCO in schools that meet those criteria. Every Missouri child deserves to attend a safe school, no matter where they live. Families in struggling districts should not be forced to wait years for conditions to improve—or worse, accept that their child’s school is unsafe with no way out.

The Unsafe School Choice Option was designed to give families an emergency exit from these situations. Missouri leaders must stop ignoring this law and start empowering parents to protect their children.

The post Missouri Families Need the “Unsafe School Choice Option” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While I will avoid any spoilers, the new movie, Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning, has an eerie resemblance to current events. The seventh and eighth films in the franchise revolve around a rogue artificial intelligence (AI) entity taking over cyberspace, with different nations racing against the clock to capture this entity and dominate the rest of the globe. The plot today may be different, but the emerging battle for AI-supremacy seems similar.

Recently, President Trump issued four executive orders aimed at unleashing nuclear energy to establish America’s “energy dominance” and maintain national security amid a potential global AI arms race. These orders could lead to the repeal or reform of burdensome regulations that have constrained the American nuclear industry in past decades. Did I expect national security to be a key driver of nuclear energy reform? Not exactly, but this is not an unprecedented scenario.

From the Battlefield to the Home Front

At the height of World War II, nations began working to apply atomic physics to wartime technology. This led to America achieving the world’s first self-sustaining nuclear reaction under the stands of Stagg Field in Chicago. While nuclear technology’s first use was in the atom bomb, its debut as an energy source came soon after with the launch of the USS Nautilus in 1954.

Since then, the technology has had a prominent role in both military and civilian affairs. Nuclear reactors are used to power submarines and aircraft carriers, and 19 percent of the United States’ electricity generation comes from nuclear power plants. National security had a role in its origin story—and now, it may be a factor in the nuclear industry’s resurgence as well.

An Opportunity for Missouri

To win an AI arms race, speed and time are of the essence. Missouri could position itself as a strategic partner by finding ways to more quickly connect new nuclear power to energy-intensive AI data centers.

One policy that could shorten the time of construction of nuclear power plants and also protect Missouri consumers from price hikes is consumer regulated electricity (CRE).

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (encompassing both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to meet new demand growth from large consumers. In order for a CRE entity to operate appropriately, it would need to be free from restrictions placed by the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). That means CRE systems would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and serve only new industrial and large commercial customers—like AI data centers.

CRE could not only attract investment but also relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising electricity demand (driven by large consumers), CRE could provide a targeted solution. New Hampshire passed a CRE measure this year, and Missouri may benefit from evaluating how its statutes could be amended to allow for such innovation.

By connecting it directly with national security, the Trump administration has made the development of nuclear-energy infrastructure an urgent priority. The mission for Missouri—if our policymakers choose to accept it—is to position the state to take part in the revitalization of nuclear power and reap the accompanying economic benefits. Adopting CRE is one important way in which Missouri could help meet the nation’s needs while benefiting in the process.

The post Mission Impossible and Nuclear Energy: President Trump’s New Executive Orders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.