As I’ve written repeatedly, Missouri’s annual budget totals have been misleading in recent years. Lawmakers aren’t including a full 12 months of funding in their approved spending plans, leaving out significant known costs that will have to be paid through supplemental funding bills later in the year. To be clear, that doesn’t necessarily have to be a problem if there is enough money set aside to cover those eventual costs. Unfortunately, the auditor’s report suggests Missouri isn’t setting aside enough.

Over the past six years, the state’s supplemental funding needs have averaged about $371 million. This year, however, the state has set aside just $100 million. The issue isn’t that every supplemental request will necessarily reach the historical average. It’s that lawmakers have repeatedly budgeted far less than the state ultimately needs, despite several years of evidence that this pattern is likely to continue. So far, the state has been able to cover the difference because sufficient surplus revenues have been available.

This issue has parallels with Missouri’s recent reliance on one-time funding. Both practices allow lawmakers to put off difficult choices about how to cover the spending commitments of the years ahead. When Gov. Kehoe signed the fiscal year 2027 budget into law shortly before July 1, he vetoed and restricted millions in spending approved by the general assembly. As I wrote last month, the governor also warned about relying on one-time funding for ongoing expenses. The auditor provides a concrete example of this problem, noting that the budget uses nearly $200 million from the Capital Preservation Fund and Blind Pension Fund for ongoing purposes, even though lawmakers know those fund balances will not recur.

Missouri’s budget has nearly doubled since 2019. The auditor projects Missouri will spend around $1.7 billion more in general revenue this year than it expects to collect, while facing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional mandatory spending increases in fiscal year 2028 and beyond.

That’s a dramatic change from just a few years ago, when Missouri’s fiscal outlook was much different. The state had more than $5 billion in surplus funds, an historic influx of federal money, and an opportunity to prepare before more normal fiscal times returned. Instead, I think it’s fair to say that the opportunity to proactively right Missouri’s fiscal ship has been squandered. The surplus will be exhausted by next year, and the need for tough decisions could arrive as soon as January, when the supplemental funding requests come in.

After three years of seeing this pattern play out, it’s clear that our elected officials should stop treating the gap between the budget and actual spending as a surprise. Fixing what’s broken with Missouri’s budget may not be easy, but providing an honest accounting of what government costs should be.

The post Missouri’s Ongoing Budget Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Robert C. Enlow, president and CEO of EdChoice, about whether Milton Friedman’s ideas still hold up seventy years after Capitalism and Freedom. They discuss why capitalism is losing favor with younger Americans, how regulatory capture rather than free markets is driving the backlash, what declining public school enrollment signals about the future of education, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:03): Thanks so much for joining us on the Show Me Institute podcast, Rob Enlow of EdChoice. You’ve been executive director, CEO there for how long?

Robert Enlow (00:13): Since two thousand nine.

Susan Pendergrass (00:15): That’s a long time.

Robert Enlow (00:16): Well, not as long as when I started in 1996, so thirty years this year.

Susan Pendergrass (00:21): 30 years. Yeah. Wow. Well, I don’t know how time is flying, but I wanted to have you on to talk about a couple things that are going on recently, and one thing in particular, which is, there’s poll after poll, there’s election after election, it seems to be the case that capitalism is losing favor with the American public, socialism is gaining steam with the American public. And recently I saw an editorial about the fact that JD Vance has said that Milton Friedman is essentially no longer relevant. That Milton Friedman’s ideas made sense in the 80s, but it’s no longer relevant for today. We need more of a Hamiltonian economic plan than what Milton Friedman put forth. And of course, Milton Friedman’s seminal work, Capitalism and Freedom, is now 70 years old. And well, I just realized 20 years ago you edited a volume on his work, Liberty and Learning, and certainly you worked side by side with him. You ran his foundation before he died, and you know him. I’m just curious your thoughts on whether or not Milton Friedman is still relevant.

Robert Enlow (01:40): I think we need more Milton, not less, right now. And I think we need far less Hamiltonian central banking, centralized scrutinizers, to quote the great Frank Zappa, I need no more central scrutinizers in our life, regardless of whether they come from the right or the left. There is a distrust in systems across the board, whether you’re right or left. And some people respond to that by saying we need to have a socialist system. And some people respond to that by saying we need to have a Hamiltonian sort of centralized control system. Milton Friedman’s correct solution is that we need a bottom-up system of individual liberty and enlightened self-interest. And we need far more of that than we need less.

Susan Pendergrass (02:25): So why is it out of favor now? What do you think is going on, that the idea of the government taking care of housing, healthcare, education, the basic foundations of each individual’s life, that the government should be managing that? Is it just too far in the rear-view mirror, the idea of individual liberty and individual responsibility, and folks haven’t seen it recently enough? Or maybe it’s neither of these, or is it that the particular form of capitalism folks are seeing right now, where some people are making a ton of money and a lot of people are not making much money at all, is that what’s causing this backlash against capitalism?

Robert Enlow (03:12): So what people are seeing is absolutely causing a backlash. Let’s just say that. I have a 28-year-old son, and he and I argue about this constantly, right? And I love him for that. Everyone seems to see that both government is a major problem, but also there’s a massive inequity in how our systems of competition are working. What people forget is what Milton would say about that. He would say, we do not have a free market, we do not have individual liberty, and we don’t. What’s happening in America and what’s happening around the world is Milton’s greatest fear, and it’s also beginning to happen in education reform, even among some of our allies. The idea of regulatory capture. People forget that what ends up happening, and it was chapter six in Milton’s Free to Choose, is Milton’s book story on what’s wrong with our schools. People often forget chapter seven, which is who protects the consumer. In that chapter, he talks a lot about what used to happen with the old ICC, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Railroad Commission, and how at one point everyone, all these people got together from right and left to create a change to a massive problem. That problem got changed, everyone was happy, and all the advocates went home, and the bureaucrats were left to put it in place. The bureaucrats did what? They put it in place in a self-interested way, and now all of a sudden you have to come and reform the reform. This is what’s happening, I think, both writ large in America and certainly with education. I think there’s this real challenge with regulatory capture. This is true among private schools, charter schools. The minute schools get into a choice program, sometimes they’re like, well, we don’t want any other schools in these programs. And so this regulatory capture is not a free market. Milton would be railing against that as much as he would be about anything else, in my opinion.

Susan Pendergrass (05:06): And I always go back to this very simple explanation of the four ways to spend money, right? And clearly the least careful way is when you spend other people’s money on other people. And the idea that folks want to expand that exponentially right now concerns me, because we’re just going to be burning more money for worse results.

Robert Enlow (05:29): This is why ideas like ESAs are so important, and directing direct funding to families where they have to pay something and have the actual act of paying, I think that puts skin in the game. For your listeners, maybe they don’t remember the four ways Milton said you spend money, but I think it’s important. Well, you know it, but I always use this with you. If I spend my money on you, I am super careful about how much I spend, I don’t care what I buy. If I spend your money on me, I’m super careful about what I get, but I don’t care how much I spend. And if you spend someone else’s money on someone else, you don’t care how much you spend or how much you buy. And I think that is our problem right now. And you mix that with companies, associations, unions that all make it harder for others to enter the marketplace. This is the real challenge of barriers to entry, right? We’re seeing this in K-12 education now, where a bad story creates a desire to have a regulatory impulse. This is not the right way to go. We should be going toward more freedom. And I think this is what young people are reacting to, Susan. In my opinion, people like my son and others are reacting to the basic, obvious problem that government is not capable of doing it, but the current structure of entering a marketplace is impossible and only advantages some.

Susan Pendergrass (06:54): Yeah. Right. Clearly the idea of parents choosing where their kids go to school is an extremely popular idea. You guys poll it every month. I think as long as those polls have existed, it’s been 70% plus, parents want to do this. And yet that’s one that’s being strongly resisted by the same folks who are leaning towards socialism. They want to really lock the doors on letting kids out of the worst schools.

Robert Enlow (07:26): So, you know me and my background. For those of you who don’t know, I actually did liberation theology work back in the day before I got to Milton Friedman’s organization. And then I got to meet Milton Friedman, which, by the way, in about 12 seconds I felt like a minuscule intellect, because he’s so incredibly smart. But I call my transition from liberation to liberty, and part of that is because I think Dr. Friedman, and I think the radical left, the socialist left, identify the problem. The problem is ineffective government and systems that do not work for people. So whether it’s an oppressive government or a fascist government or a dictatorial government, it is not working for people. Now the socialists and those who will argue, well, then the best solution is my view of government because I’m better, so, in a very sort of old George H. W. Bush way, it’s a kinder, gentler kind of socialism, my way, better than others. Milton’s argument was, no, the solution to this government problem is to give individuals more ability and autonomy. This is common sense that I don’t think a lot of our younger folks understand anymore. But the interesting thing is, it’s a difference, I think, between their public and private life. Publicly, they say this is a problem, we’ve got to solve this problem. Privately, they use choice and competition and individualization and customization more than any generation ever before. This is their entire life, and it’s called a cell phone. And every app leads them to individual customization.

Susan Pendergrass (09:04): Thank God that’s not my problem.

Robert Enlow (09:06): You mean scrolling, doom scrolling?

Susan Pendergrass (09:09): Yeah. Thank God I never scroll. But I just feel like there is a disconnect. You’re exactly right, of course they want more choice in everything. And I don’t want to say “they,” but I think this is also sort of crossing generational lines, this idea that capitalism is evil and bad and is creating, I think we see a lot of crony capitalism right now. We see our elected officials making billions of dollars and buying up parts of companies. We see this weird form of capitalism. And then we have the vice president himself saying it’s not relevant anymore. It’s for the 80s and it’s not relevant anymore. And maybe people are just buying that. Maybe there’s like, okay, I guess capitalism is on the way out, what’s the next thing? And socialism is being sold in a pretty neat package.

Robert Enlow (09:58): Right. Yeah, but you know who’s not buying it anymore? This is, I think, the hope for the future. Communities of color. Communities of color are seeing the importance of unleashing rampant individual capitalism and rampant opportunity. You see this with micro schools and homeschooling. The fastest growth of homeschooling is in the Black community. The same thing is often true in the micro school community. It is communities who are most challenged, often and sometimes most oppressed,

Susan Pendergrass (10:04): Yeah.

Robert Enlow (10:25): that understand the benefits of opportunity in free markets in a way that you might argue “bougie” suburbanites who go to Columbia don’t get. And that is, of course, I think a problem of privilege more than anything. And so I think that’s a challenge for our society. But I’m watching communities of color embrace competition and individual liberty in a way I’ve never seen before in education. And I think we’ll get there again, but I think right now there’s a real disillusionment. And I think part of it has to do with our current government and with our previous government. We’ve not had a really good go of it the last two times.

Susan Pendergrass (11:06): Yeah, and I’ve met many parents from communities of color, like Black parents, Black moms, who will do anything to make sure their kids get the same opportunities, particularly if they’re economically disadvantaged, to make sure their kids get the same educational opportunities. And they are the ones who are pressing. In Missouri, there are groups of parents pressing for open enrollment, pressing to expand our ESA program, going to Jefferson City, learning how to be politically active, and they’re putting pressure on these folks also to get their kids out of unsafe schools and to stop being told, yeah, I’m sorry, I know only three percent of the kids are proficient in math in your school, but we can’t let you out of it. They’ve had it with that argument, and they’re the ones who are really pressing it. I don’t know if it’s landing, because we’ve made some progress, but we haven’t really

Robert Enlow (12:01): Where it’s landing, Susan, here’s where you’ve got to remember it’s landing. What is the enrollment in our traditional schools looking like right now? Down dramatically, right? What is the enrollment and effort in what I would call, what Vela, my dear friends at Vela, call “indie education”? It’s dramatically increasing. And this is the proof of the positive. Milton used to say the readiness for a true free market can be seen

Susan Pendergrass (12:08): Down.

Robert Enlow (12:28): in the prior years by an underground marketplace. And in many ways we have an underground marketplace of education happening, which is fantastic. It’s leading to so many opportunities. You’ve done the research in Arizona and other places. The massive growth of new vendors, the massive growth of opportunity, is really amazing.

Susan Pendergrass (12:47): Yeah, it’s only limited by what parents can think up. And they just keep thinking up new stuff.

Robert Enlow (12:52): Yeah, it’s shocking. Milton’s quote is always true: there’s not been another way heretofore discovered to raise the masses out of poverty than what happens when you unleash the free market and capitalism. And I think the challenges we’re seeing with capitalism and with liberty and with the view of liberty now are problems related to government and cronyism and regulatory capture. I don’t think people realize, when a legislator says, how do I know if someone’s learning? Well, you know what doesn’t tell them if someone’s learning? A test they have to take once a year after a certain period of time. That does not really tell you. All that gives you is a mark in the day in the life of a kid. And by the way, those aren’t doing very well, right? Not anywhere. So I don’t want to rely on that system to tell me how kids are doing. And I think people see

Susan Pendergrass (13:38): Not in Missouri.

Robert Enlow (13:47): this huge disconnect between what they’re told and what they’re seeing in real life. And they want to do it themselves. Young kids want to do it themselves.

Susan Pendergrass (13:54): That’s right. And parents know when their kids can’t read. And they know when their kids are watching too many movies at school and don’t want to get on the bus. Parents know all of that. And if they don’t have any options,

Robert Enlow (14:07): And what’s exciting?

Susan Pendergrass (14:09): certainly work to expand options for parents. I know we’re up to a million and a half, maybe, in private school choice programs, maybe closer to two.

Robert Enlow (14:18): Yeah, I think it’s more important to look at what’s happening in some states. So it’s a million and a half across the country. That’s tripled in seven years, which is amazing in terms of publicly funded private school choice. You’ve got to look at what’s happened in places like Florida and Arizona and Arkansas. Florida has gone, since two thousand and one to today, from eighty-nine percent of kids in their assigned public schools to barely fifty percent. You’re seeing diversity of choice. And the future of education, and I think therefore the growth of liberty in educational marketplaces, is in the following three things: there are fewer kids, there are dramatically more options, and there’s no money. So that will lead to, in my opinion, a free market system of education far faster than any kind of top-down socialist idea.

Susan Pendergrass (15:08): And then they’re all going to come back and blame you, right? The idea that school choice is the reason, I mean Missouri enrollment is down, it’s projected to go down more. I looked at kindergarten cohorts, it’s absolutely going down. They continue to hire teachers. And when they have to start laying off teachers and closing school buildings, they’re going to say it’s because of school choice. And of course it isn’t because of school choice. But when parents can have school choice, they take it.

Robert Enlow (15:32): It’s the only system where I’ve seen you blame the customer for a failure of your product. I’ve just never seen anything like it in the country. We literally blame education failures on parents who don’t want to go to educational failures. It’s crazy.

Susan Pendergrass (15:53): And then in Missouri they lock the door on them. It’s like, well, too bad, you can’t leave. So maybe it’s just a matter of not needing to refer to any of this as capitalism, because when it comes down to it, parents don’t really care what it’s called, as long as they can pick their kids’ school. They don’t really care.

Robert Enlow (16:08): Look, the reality is parents don’t know if it’s a charter school, private school, or public school most of the time. And that’s okay with me. But the reality is, do they have power and control over how the money is spent and where their kids go? And the best thing we know about it, in my opinion, from the data we’ve seen, and we continue to see this, is families who make choices make better choices over time. This is one of the most amazing things. You start and say, hey, I want a good school for my kid, I think this is better. And then they get in there, and three years later they’re like, what’s the test scores, and how’s it working, and what’s your pedagogy? Because, shockingly, the more options you have, the better customer you become, because you care more. I use this story all the time. When I was a kid, I asked my mother for a ten-speed. I got it for Christmas and proceeded to leave it outside. By the fall it was all rusted and nasty. And I said, hey Mom, I need another ten-speed. And she said, no, but if you earn half of it, I’ll buy the other half. Well, I earned half of it and she bought it for me. Guess how well taken care of that ten-speed was.

Susan Pendergrass (17:14): Leave it outside.

Robert Enlow (17:16): Right, what happens? So when you put some skin in the game and allow free markets to work, this is what families benefit from.

Susan Pendergrass (17:24): So Milton Friedman’s still relevant?

Robert Enlow (17:27): I think Milton Friedman will become

Susan Pendergrass (17:29): Me too, even hearing it said, but yes, go.

Robert Enlow (17:31): Well, no, so actually I think what’s really interesting, I think Milton Friedman, if you read Michael Kanudi’s Wall Street Journal piece, which is amazing, the other day about Milton and this whole conversation, I think Milton is the countercultural revolution that’s coming. I think Milton is both, I mean, one of the things about knowing him and getting to know him over the last decade of his life was he was an equal opportunity challenger.

Susan Pendergrass (17:46): Okay.

Robert Enlow (18:00): If he was a right-leaning guy who didn’t like free markets, he would immediately call out a right-leaning guy who didn’t like free markets. If it was a left-leaning guy, he would do the same thing. Milton was about true individual liberty. I think we’re going to get back to that kind of countercultural revolution. Just like it was seen in Eastern Europe and Latin America. I think that’s the next thing, in America you’ll see communities who are poor reading Milton Friedman in the basement.

Susan Pendergrass (18:27): Love it. Well, you heard it here first. Maybe you can come back and talk to us more about it.

Robert Enlow (18:32): I’m happy. Thanks so much for having me.

Susan Pendergrass (18:34): Appreciate it.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Why Young People Are Turning Away from Capitalism with Robert C. Enlow appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Residents are asking why.

The answer, at least in part, is Missouri’s Sunshine Law. Smith and Goldman’s reporting found that Belle, another small Missouri town, has seen the once-free cost of producing public records rise sharply since it began contracting with Lauber. Alderwoman Rebecca Withouse has been pushing the town toward more openness on her own, trying to make records easier for residents to get without paying attorney fees. Nathan Nickolaus, an attorney at the firm, told the Missourian that an increasing volume of open records requests is part of what’s driving the cost, and that many small towns simply lack the staff to fulfill the requests without outsourcing the work. (The dramatic increase in the number of records requests in Sedalia has been driven in part by citizen opposition to real abuses of power over the last few years. More details are provided here and here.)

This is a real tension, and Missourians who care about open government should not wave it away. The Sunshine Law exists because taxpayers have a right to see what their government is doing, and that right shouldn’t depend on the size of the city. But when a town of 20,000 people is paying half a million dollars a year in legal fees, much of it tied to records requests, something in the system is broken. The law is functioning as intended—it’s the capacity to comply with it that’s failing.

Part of the problem is structural. Missouri’s smallest cities and towns often have no in-house attorney, no records clerk, and no dedicated compliance staff. When a Sunshine Law request arrives, towns often hire whatever legal help they can afford. Firms like Lauber have built a business model around exactly this gap. The arrangement isn’t necessarily predatory—someone has to do the work—but it does mean the cost of transparency in a small Missouri town scales with legal billing rates rather than with the actual complexity of the records involved.

The Show-Me Institute has documented this problem before, and the numbers get worse than Sedalia’s. In 2018, Institute researchers sent Sunshine Law requests to cities across the state asking for basic spending records. Battlefield billed $35,000 and Hollister billed $25,000 for records that Springfield, a far larger city, and Strafford, a far smaller one, handed over for free. The ability to produce a checkbook register has nothing to do with city size. It has to do with whether a city’s leadership wants residents to see how their money is spent. Missouri courts have recognized how far this can go—Rudi Keller wrote for the Columbia Daily Tribune in 2019 that a Boone County judge ruled that the University of Missouri’s demand for more than $82,000 to fulfill a records request amounted to a de facto denial, not a fee.

Small, struggling towns deserve some benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are simply receiving more requests as residents want more visibility into local government. A town that has historically operated with little scrutiny may find that its first real exposure to the Sunshine Law is uncomfortable. But there’s a difference between a town facing legitimate scrutiny and a town being structurally unable to respond without hiring outside counsel for routine requests.

If the goal is government transparency rather than legal billables, Missouri lawmakers and municipal associations have better tools available. The Missouri Municipal League could develop shared records-request templates and training so small towns aren’t paying attorney rates to answer routine questions. The legislature could examine whether some categories of Sunshine Law compliance could be standardized in ways that reduce the volume of one-off requests requiring individual legal review. And towns themselves should be asking whether a records clerk, even a part-time one, would cost less over a year than the current pattern of per-request legal bills.

Missourians should take seriously the problem that small towns are struggling to comply with the burdens of being open. The current model of outsourcing routine compliance to law firms billing by the hour is an expensive way to deliver necessary transparency. Sedalia’s residents are right to ask where the money is going, as are the taxpayers of a town paying outside counsel to handle a request that should take a few hours.

Missouri’s small towns didn’t create the Sunshine Law’s compliance burden, and taxpayers shouldn’t need to fund a cottage legal industry just to see what their government is doing.

The post Small Missouri Towns Are Paying a High Price for Open Government appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

1. The “Seven Sisters” colleges merging their women’s studies programs, or
2. Seven cities in St. Louis County merging their fire departments?

You could understandably guess A, but since I am writing about it you probably know it is B.

Olivette, Clayton, Richmond Heights, Maplewood, Webster Groves, Shrewsbury, and University City have launched a study to consider whether merging their individual fire departments would be a beneficial move. (As an aside, it is worth noting that University City has four streets named after a “Seven Sisters” school.)

The economic and political science literature on local government mergers is cautious. In one major literature review of studies of municipal mergers from dozens of counties, the author came to a few primary conclusions. First, cost savings from mergers do happen, but they are usually much smaller than predicted. Second, public services may be improved through having greater municipal resources, but this often results in a larger bureaucracy that limits potential cost savings. (The third main conclusion doesn’t apply in this instance.)

One of the main reasons cost savings are smaller than predicted is because governments rarely have the willingness to fire employees in mergers, so redundancies are maintained at first. Cost savings tend to come from attrition as redundant positions are not filled over time. That is indeed what happened when several fire districts merged in Oregon in the 1990s, where all reductions in employment came through attrition. But over time, there were some cost savings.

Another reason why local government mergers don’t save as much as promised is that everybody is moved up. If City A pays trash collectors more than City B, and City B pays their clerks more than City A, both sets of employees get moved up to the higher salary spot. That could certainly happen here. For these seven cities, the lowest median fireman salary is in Shrewsbury, at $83,668. The highest median salary is in Maplewood, at $117,873. Do you think the combined department will have a median salary closer to Shrewsbury or closer to Maplewood after negotiations with the union? According to the story in the Post-Dispatch, the union certainly likes its odds here:

There’s another reason the union supports a regional fire department — bargaining power.

Instead of negotiating seven separate contracts, which has sometimes led to conflicts between firefighters unions and city administrators, the union would negotiate just one contract with the fire authority. And it would have a chance to standardize pay and benefits.

The main reason I am supportive of this effort to study the merging of fire departments is because of what it is not. It is not an attempt to merge the fire services into a new, independent fire district. That has also been proposed, and it would be a terrible idea. The various firefighters’ unions prefer fire districts because they are easier for the fire union to control, although unions are certainly influential in cities with fire departments, too. Fire districts elect their board members in April elections that get very little attention, and their board members are only concerned with managing the fire district. Union support for these obscure votes is vital. With municipal fire departments, the local races, particularly the races for mayor, get more public attention. More importantly, the revenues and costs of operating the fire department must be shared as part of the revenues and costs of operating the entire city. Elected officials in a municipality have to operate the fire department within the overall revenues and budgets of the larger city. If these cities merged into a shared fire department, the cities would still be funding the departments. That’s a good thing.

Overall, I think there is reason to be optimistic about these proposed changes. If I have to pick between a regional fire department or a new fire district, I’m going with the department.

The post Seven Sister Cities in St. Louis County Considering Merging Fire Departments for Mutual Support appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Emily Ekins, vice president for policy and society and director of polling at the Cato Institute, about new survey data on Americans’ declining civic knowledge and growing openness to socialism. They discuss why younger Americans are less averse to socialism and communism than older generations, what Cato’s polling reveals about basic civic knowledge gaps, why the founders prioritized protecting rights and freedoms above solving economic problems, the psychological concept of locus of control and its link to support for socialism, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thanks so much for joining us on the podcast. Emily Ekins, you are at the Cato Institute, vice president of politics and society and also director of polling, right, Cato? Thanks for

Emily Ekins (00:10):
That’s correct, yes.

Susan Pendergrass (00:11):
joining us. You guys do lots of great polling and survey that you did recently this summer that kind of coincided with the two hundred and fiftieth birthday of the United States particularly caught our eye, and I appreciate you coming on to talk about it.

Emily Ekins (00:25):
Thank you for having me. Glad to talk about it.

Susan Pendergrass (00:28):
Yeah, I mean, honestly, there’s a lot in the news these days, multiple surveys coming up with results that I guess some people are shocked by, but clearly within this week we’ve had new election results, and something about the idea of socialism is really resonating with folks in the United States right now. Why do you suppose that is?

Emily Ekins (00:52):
Well, that’s a really tough question. I think

Susan Pendergrass (00:53):
That’s a big question. But first of all, you could tell us what your poll found on it, but your poll supports what many of them support, which is that views on socialism are more positive than they’ve been in the past, and views on capitalism are more negative. And I just wonder, since you’re out talking to people, why do you suppose?

Emily Ekins (01:12):
Yeah, so first let’s separate out young people from older people.

Susan Pendergrass (01:17):
Okay.

Emily Ekins (01:17):
especially Americans who grew up and came of political age during the Cold War, they know what socialism is and they know how many tens of millions of people it murdered over the past hundred years or so. And so there’s really a strong aversion to the word socialism, to the word communism, among people of that older generation. But there really is a drop-off. And it’s hard not to think that the Cold War ending had something to do with it, where these younger generations had less reason, perhaps, or teachers didn’t talk about why not socialism, why not communism, it just doesn’t work. And so right now, a lot of young people are worried about affordability, and particularly housing. I have to say, looking through the data, it seems like housing may be kind of a linchpin here, that people who are really struggling to afford their rent or their mortgage, or paying a large percentage of their income on housing, they’re very susceptible to these arguments, because people come around and say, well, we’re going to lower your price, the cost of living. The problem is that these policies, centralized economic planning, just does not work. It has the same set of consequences. But I think economic anxiety is part of it. But there’s actually more to it, and I’d love to talk to you about that, because our survey was connected to America’s 250th and the Fourth of July. We launched it right before the Fourth of July, but we had a lot of questions on our nation’s founding. What led to the founding and the creation of our country? And I think what we found is that young people know next to nothing about things that matter. We asked, we had a series of civic questions, seven questions. They only answered one of seven correctly. The one they answered correctly was, who was the first president? And 70% knew it was George Washington. And I thought, well, good, at least they know that. But the problem is they don’t know the more important questions. Why did we declare independence from Great Britain? Why did we adopt the Constitution of the United States? What is the purpose of the Constitution of the United States? And without knowing the why, it’s really easy for other people, trying to curry favor and win votes, to come in, rewrite history, and basically tell young people that they offer an alternative program that will solve their problems. And without knowing the history of why we set up a system of limited government, when they hear these alternative proposals, they don’t understand where it could go wrong.

Susan Pendergrass (04:10):
Yeah, and just to clarify, some of the questions you asked were like, how many branches of the federal government are there? And half, almost half, of the respondents got it wrong, right? They did not know it was three. What country we fought in the Revolutionary War, a lot of folks didn’t get that right. I mean, some of these very basic questions, and that jumped out at me immediately, like when you ask somebody their opinion on socialism and they don’t know how many branches we have of our federal government, how could they possibly answer that question in an informed way? Right.

Emily Ekins (04:40):
Yes, no, I’d love to share something with you. We kind of got into the weeds on this one question. We asked a question where we said, what is the purpose of government? Is the purpose of government primarily, not to say there’s no other purpose, but what’s the primary purpose of government, is it to protect rights and freedoms, or is it to solve economic and social problems, or both equally? And about a third of all Americans, so this isn’t just looking at young people, this is all Americans, only a third of Americans said to protect rights and freedoms. Most everyone else said it was either both equally or to solve economic and social problems. And so here’s the fun part. We took this question and we loaded it into four of the leading AI models, so Grok, ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini. We said, feed in all of the writings, speeches, drafts, letters, published and unpublished works of the American founders. How would they have answered this question? And all four models came back with the same answer. They said, this isn’t even contestable, this isn’t even hard, it was very clearly number one, which was to protect rights and freedoms. So why? Well, so that’s why I’m saying the why really matters. Teaching young people, teaching Americans the why. Why did the founders think it was protecting rights and freedoms? Aren’t there complex economic and social problems we want to tackle? Well, here’s why. The argument they made was, they weren’t anarchists, they wanted the government to do some things, but they recognized that when government was not constrained in its power, and was not governed by consent of the governed, right, that problems happened, that government exploited people, government oppressed people. And so there was a hierarchy of goals here, and the main goal was government needs to protect rights and freedoms first. And then everything else has to be subordinate to that. And as long as your program or your idea does not require the government to fail in its duty to that first goal, which is to protect rights and freedoms, then you can have a discussion. And apparently, this was just the thing the founders agreed on. Now, you had Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, different sides, different opinions about the role of government, but I thought that is the argument, that’s the discussion I think is missing from our current framework, which is why. Why is unlimited government dangerous? Why do we want to limit it? Isn’t it obstructive? Isn’t it preventing us from solving problems that we need to solve? Well, here’s why. And then if you want to have government do X, Y, or Z, make sure we don’t undermine liberty in the process of doing it.

Susan Pendergrass (07:41):
Yeah, I think that’s right, but then you also see, okay, so absolutely, when you talk to folks who are gravitating towards this new idea of socialism and democratic socialism, it’s like, well, I think

healthcare should be free for everybody, I think housing needs to be affordable, I think childcare needs to be affordable, without kind of taking that next step, which is to say the government’s going to pay for everything. And then the government’s going to decide. I’ve talked to people who like this idea, and they’re like, I’m

Emily Ekins (08:07):
Mm-hmm.

Susan Pendergrass (08:08):
willing to give some of my paycheck to help do this. And I’m like, but there’s central planning involved. They will decide how much of your paycheck and they will decide where it goes to. And that is, they, whoever’s in office. Like if you don’t like the people in office today, they, we are the central planners. That’s how it works, and generally they haven’t done a good job at it. But on the other hand, they’re like, I just want people to have healthcare and I just want people to have housing, what’s wrong with that? Without realizing, I think, to your point, this idea of the social contract, where the government only governs by the consent of the people, I just think that violates that in a way that says, we’ll give all the power to the government and we’ll let them decide how that gets redistributed. Not to mention the fact it’s never worked. It’s been tried multiple times and has never worked, but it sounds so attractive right now. And

Emily Ekins (08:57):
Right.

Susan Pendergrass (08:58):
I also think part of that attractiveness that comes out in your survey is people recognize that currently there is a feeling that capitalism is turning into crony capitalism, and there’s a lot of fears around fraud and things at the federal level, that I think is not only making socialism more attractive but is kind of giving capitalism a bad name. What do you think?

Emily Ekins (09:28):
Yes. Okay, there’s so much I agree with what you were saying there, and there’s a lot to unpack. I think that there’s two things going on when we’re talking about, like you said, people just want affordable healthcare, they want people to be able to afford their housing, childcare if they need that, and so forth. So there’s two issues. One is abuse of power, and then what actually works. So one is, make sure that you don’t give government too much power, because it always leads in the same direction. Can someone show me an example where unchecked government power ever didn’t result in the oppression of the people? I would

Susan Pendergrass (10:07):
Yeah.

Emily Ekins (10:08):
love for a democratic socialist to point that out, because there isn’t one. That’s something we’ve learned through the test of time. The second thing is just more pragmatic, centralized economic planning, where the government says, we’ll take more of your taxes and then we’re going to plan out your healthcare, your childcare, we’re going to, when it comes to housing and things like that. Whenever you centralize economic decision making, we have some data on that, and it has never worked, because of something called the knowledge problem. Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek wrote extensively about this. Those government experts, you could take the whole faculty from Harvard and MIT and Yale, and have them sit on a board and try to figure this out, they would not do as good of a job as millions of Americans making individual decisions when they’re free and able to do so. Now, people would say, well, then why isn’t the free market working in healthcare, why isn’t the free market working in housing? And the argument is this: that’s not the free market. That’s actually

Susan Pendergrass (11:16):
Right.

Emily Ekins (11:17):
government, excessive government management of those areas. Like with housing, there’s a lot that goes into it, and I’m not going to go, we don’t need to go into all of it, but there’s just some simple things, right? When you think about supply and demand, if you have more people in demand of housing than you have supply of it, the first thing you should look at is, are we limiting the supply of housing in some way? And if the answer is yes, start there before we have the government seizing property from landlords, for heaven’s sakes. So there’s some first steps that people should look to. But again, without civic knowledge, without economic knowledge, how could we expect people to do that?

Susan Pendergrass (11:57):
I mean, that’s the basic point, right? We talked a little bit before we started, like Missouri, our kids aren’t even learning to read. So I understand that we need to do a better job of teaching civics and history and geography, and certainly at the federal level, there’s NAEP tests on those things and the results are terrible. And the results of your survey are dismal when it comes to why younger people, what their civic knowledge even is about how the government works and why it was founded. But I don’t see how we can begin to tackle that, or what is capitalism, what is socialism, and who are Lenin and Stalin and Friedrich Hayek, how do we tackle that if they can’t even learn to read? I feel like we’re

Emily Ekins (12:36):
Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (12:37):
we’re slouching towards Gomorrah, it’s like, I feel like we need to start at these basic levels and then try to take on civics and history, but I could see you thinking we need to do them simultaneously. What do you think?

Emily Ekins (12:52):
Well, yes, to your point about wanting to raise the reading level of kids in Missouri, my very first thought was let’s think about Mississippi versus California, and the dramatic differences in reading competency between the kids in both states. One state implemented better processes, phonics, right? Phonograms, phonics.

Susan Pendergrass (13:17):
Yes. Yes.

Emily Ekins (13:19):
I was raised in California, they were like, we’re not going to do something new, we’re going to teach it this new way, like sight words, and learn by absorption. Anyway, some things work better than others. And when economic decisions like education are made in a centralized fashion, and the centralized planners get it wrong, then all the students suffer. So what can we do about that? Well, more school choice, that’s one approach that we could look at, and then also doing a better job at figuring out what works, what doesn’t work, and actually implementing it. Public education is not a jobs program for adults, right? It’s for children.

Susan Pendergrass (14:03):
Yeah, I’ve heard it argued both ways, honestly, in Missouri, but that’s it.

Emily Ekins (14:06):
Well, we care about both. We want teachers and students to be taken care of well.

Susan Pendergrass (14:11):
Yes.

Emily Ekins (14:11):
But again, if we have experimentation, competition, where people are actually innovating, apply what works. But if we just have it centrally determined by one small group of people and they get the answer wrong, lots of kids suffer.

Susan Pendergrass (14:30):
So where do you see this heading? You know, Zohran Mamdani is opening up government grocery stores in New York, and as somebody who grew up in the sixties and seventies, I can only think of what happened in the Soviet Union when they had government grocery stores, and there were lines and they were terrible. The fact that that isn’t an attractive idea to anyone kind of blows my mind. So where do you see this going? Are they going to have to, is it going to have to play out? Rent controls and government grocery stores and free childcare, are they going to have to play that out and see that it doesn’t work? Or what do you think is going to happen ten, twenty years from now?

Emily Ekins (15:09):
Yeah, it’s hard to say. Maybe they’re going to just do a live demonstration for us so we can repeat and learn exactly what we learned every other time government

Susan Pendergrass (15:17):
Yeah.

Emily Ekins (15:18):
tried to do these things. I mean, it’s just like a huge eye roll. Like, what are they doing? We

Susan Pendergrass (15:23):
Right.

Emily Ekins (15:23):
have some data. I mean, I think that a lot of these leaders would purport to support the idea of scientific research, academic research. Well, consult that. What does that say will happen with government-run grocery stores? It’s not going to go well. But

Susan Pendergrass (15:41):
Right.

Emily Ekins (15:42):
I understand, again, his goal, people could say, is noble. But

Susan Pendergrass (15:46):
Right.

Emily Ekins (15:47):
markets actually deliver that better than government, and empirically there is evidence to support that.

Susan Pendergrass (15:55):
I mean, New York’s had rent control for a long time. I just am kind of surprised, if it’s not maybe the person and the personality, I just don’t understand. And again, I go back to thinking to myself, right now we have a group of folks with a lot of money. We have our own president making a lot of money in office, and he’s hanging out with people with a lot of money, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and maybe if people are associating that with capitalism, maybe what they’re saying is they want to reject that.

Emily Ekins (16:27):
Yes, I think that that’s exactly right. There’s something called policy moods, where when you have a Democrat in office, the voters tend to say they want smaller government. When you have a Republican in office, the voters start to say they want bigger government. This is a well documented phenomenon, that kind of whoever’s in office, voters will tend to go the other direction. And I too have wondered that very thing, if having a billionaire for president and having him be friends with lots of billionaires, anyone that’s like, well, I’m against them, then whatever they stand for. So if they were religious, then they’d probably be like not as religious, depending on how they’ve really been framed. And I think Trump has been framed as this billionaire capitalist. And so I think that that is definitely playing a role here. I also think that there are some

deeper trends happening in the American electorate, and we probably don’t have time to go into that in too much depth. But

Susan Pendergrass (17:24):
Let’s try. Yeah.

Emily Ekins (17:25):
what I would say is I think some of the problems are psychological, in kind of almost a spiritual psychological sense, not religious, I’m talking about something else. I’m talking about this concept of the locus of control. In psychology, there’s this idea that people can differ to what extent they explain events in their lives as being within their control, or outside their control. And people who think of things inside their control, they’re more likely to be happier and earn more money, have better relationships, better friendships, be healthier, less likely to get in fights, because they think that they have some say in what’s happening in their lives. They think their choices matter. Now, for the external locus of control group, psychologists have really worried about this, because all the good things I just mentioned just reversed, flipped, worse grades, worse health outcomes, poorer relationships, more likely to get in fights when they’re in high school, because, you know, if people think, well, it’s not my fault, they’re just a victim of circumstance, then it’s harder for them to feel like their choices matter. Well, anyway, at a more societal level, what we are observing is that each generation of young people, when asked survey questions to measure their locus of control, they’re becoming more and more external in their locus of control. What that means is, young people, each generation of young people, we’ve been studying this since the 1970s, this is Jean Twenge’s work, each generation of young people is more likely than those before them to say external forces are shaping their lives. They’re less likely to believe that their own agency is what matters in their lives. Now, the reasons for that are complicated, multivariate, and

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
Sure.

Emily Ekins (19:23):
complicated. But what the consequence of that is, is that we do know this, people that have an external locus of control, they externalize the events in their lives, they are far more drawn to socialism. That’s just the way it is. They’re drawn to socialism, a zero-sum view of the world, it’s like us versus them. And some really bad things can happen when people go down that route. There’s a lot more tolerance of political violence, and we’re seeing that play out. And so the question is, well, why is that happening? I don’t have all the answers to why, but I do think we should recognize that it is happening, and it’s not just economic, it’s not just political, it’s at the level of psychology.

Susan Pendergrass (20:05):
Yeah, and were we to enact the agenda of some of these democratic socialists, then we would simply be, I think I heard somebody say, fitting people for cement shoes. We would simply be putting them more into the externalist camp, right? Where it’d be like, I depend on the government for food, housing, healthcare, and childcare, I have no control over my life. And if they decide to raise how much or lower how much, or put in a work requirement, I have no control over how well my family’s doing or my own well-being, because it all depends on these decisions by the government, doesn’t that exacerbate this idea of externalism?

Emily Ekins (20:48):
Well, that’s actually the irony here. So evolutionary biologists have actually gone through and documented what happens here, is that kind of this external locus of control will lead people to support policies that actually make the world more external, meaning

Susan Pendergrass (21:04):
Oof.

Emily Ekins (21:04):
that they have less control over the situation. So, in the case of the 2008 financial crisis, in which they were really examining this, the crisis will make people feel like they lack agency, because understandably a recession is not the fault of any one person. So then those voters go out and vote for politicians who promise to do X, Y, and Z policies that actually will, ironically, make another recession more likely, will actually slow the economy, make things worse. And so it’s interesting from an evolutionary biology perspective, how that can happen, those negative feedback

Susan Pendergrass (21:40):
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well, what’s the policy implication of that? Or what do we do to try to stem that tide? I mean, I’ve heard folks say, number one, we improve high school education in regard to civics, history, and economics. Maybe, I don’t know. That feels like a very

long term goal that’s unlikely to have any real impact, but what do you do from a policy point of view?

Emily Ekins (22:05):
Right, no, that gets tricky. I feel like a book could be written on this topic.

Susan Pendergrass (22:09):
Yes. Mm-hmm.

Emily Ekins (22:11):
But I do think, like, the way I’ve thought about it mostly is from a perspective of kids, and how do you raise each rising generation to have a more internal locus of control rather than external. Right now we’re doing the opposite. And, you know, just anyone that’s a parent of young kids, I think you can probably, or if you’re a parent of children at all, you’ve probably seen this in action, where kind of the zeitgeist in our public schools, the zeitgeist, and especially social media, is not helping, where like you can see at micro levels how we all the time are telling young people it’s not their fault, it’s forces beyond their control. I do think that in colleges and universities, as well as K through 12, critical race theory and ideologies that are similar to that really emphasize the external. That’s not to say that external forces like racism or sexism don’t exist or don’t matter, that’s not what we’re talking about. But if you tell kids the reason for the challenges you face are due to insurmountable challenges that you cannot overcome without electing this politician, that’s teaching young people an external locus of control. So at the college level, it’s rampant, and I don’t observe any efforts on the part of administrators or faculty to recognize the psychological harm that they are doing to their students by propagating ideas that really turn the attention of their students to focus and emphasize on external forces.

Susan Pendergrass (23:43):
Yeah, there’s certainly folks like Ian Rowe out there who are fighting hard against it, to say don’t

Emily Ekins (23:48):
Yes.

Susan Pendergrass (23:48):
you dare talk to our kids that way, but I think you’re exactly right, we don’t even talk about AI. But I can see us heading for a big correction, and if that’s what it takes, that’s what it takes. But it’s hard for me to foresee a future where the idea of the government taking care of things for everybody loses popularity. I just don’t see

Emily Ekins (24:18):
Right.

Susan Pendergrass (24:19):
where we’re going with it. Like, I just don’t know.

Emily Ekins (24:23):
And here’s why it works. This is what I would also remind people is that when the government runs businesses or runs industries, we observe the same sorts of consequences. It’s all a matter of degree, longer wait times, lower

Susan Pendergrass (24:35):
Yeah. Yeah.

Emily Ekins (24:37):
quality services, limited access to kind of the best of the quality. So, like in healthcare, for instance, the more government gets involved, and this is, there’s academic papers that demonstrate this, it’s quite clear, you have less access to the star doctors, to the star hospitals, to the highest ranked, in terms of quality. And think about it, if you have a cold or the flu and you need something minor, for instance, a government-run healthcare system, I think, probably seems great in that situation.

Susan Pendergrass (25:11):
Yeah.

Emily Ekins (25:12):
But what if you have a life-threatening illness? You don’t want long wait times. You want the best quality. You want to have access to the best doctors and providers, clinicians. Unfortunately, the more government gets involved in running things, longer wait times, lower quality, less access to the best. And it is like that everywhere it’s been tried. And I think we should do more to push back, to say no, they will fail to deliver what they’ve promised, and here’s why.

Susan Pendergrass (25:45):
Yeah, I know somebody who moved to Canada for the healthcare system and currently has a torn ACL. Surgery is

Emily Ekins (25:52):
Oh no.

Susan Pendergrass (25:53):
scheduled for like twelve months from now. And that’s like a year wait to fix a torn

Emily Ekins (25:56):
Oh my god. Yes. Wait time. Wait time.

Susan Pendergrass (26:00):
I assume it will heal itself, but I mean, I don’t think that reality sinks in. Certainly there’s a lot of work to be done, and there’s a lot of people with a lot of great ideas. You mentioned one I work on all the time, school choice, to improve outcomes in education for everybody, and give all kids, regardless of income, more opportunities. That’s what you do. You make the schools perform for the families. But even that faces incredible headwinds. And there’s great ideas out there around healthcare and around housing. We had Bryan Caplan on talking about, just build more housing. San Francisco, it’s impossible to buy a house, build more, stop regulating and over-regulating where they can be built. We know that there are some things that could work, but instead I think it just must seem easier to just have the government print the money and pay for it. I just don’t know. That’s why I think we might have to see a correction of some sort, because when I see in your poll that of the eighteen to twenty-nine year olds, thirty-eight percent had a positive view of communism, that means that we have an incredible work ahead of us. I mean, communism,

Emily Ekins (27:15):
That’s right.

Susan Pendergrass (27:16):
like Stalin, and like, yes, what led to genocides, and they must, I don’t think that side of communism is out there. So

Emily Ekins (27:28):
No. And I think there’s an organization that has polled on this, and we should do some polling as well. But most young people just don’t, I think they

Susan Pendergrass (27:34):
Yeah. I don’t know.

Emily Ekins (27:36):
run out of time after World War II, and like everything after that, they just

Susan Pendergrass (27:40):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Emily Ekins (27:41):
too. I was a studious student, I paid attention, and we didn’t get to any of that. Like

Susan Pendergrass (27:47):
No, yeah.

Emily Ekins (27:47):
the Cold War, the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, like all of these communist revolutions that killed probably upwards of a hundred million people. How did we run out of time to talk about that? Might there be some value in us

Susan Pendergrass (28:02):
Right.

Emily Ekins (28:02):
learning some lessons of the very recent past?

Susan Pendergrass (28:06):
Yeah, absolutely. Okay, well, what’s next for you guys in terms of what we can look for, for more interesting polls? I know you’re always doing

Emily Ekins (28:14):
Yes, actually, we are in the process right now of writing an exciting survey where we’re looking at economic populism and democratic socialism. And this is where I get really excited. We’re looking at the psychological correlates of those types of policies. What types of psychological traits and underlying beliefs and assumptions correlate with support for these types of economic policies? So we’ll have to wait to see what the data says, but I’d love to share it with you.

Susan Pendergrass (28:45):
That’s awesome. Thank you so much, Emily. I really appreciate it. I could talk to you forever, but let’s wait and come back and talk about that one. I do really appreciate it.

Emily Ekins (28:54):
Thank you for having me.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Rising Appeal of Socialism in America with Emily Ekins appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As I stressed in my first piece on Flock, there may be no clear “right to privacy” on public roads, but that doesn’t mean average American citizens should be tracked as we simply move around doing our daily business. Police have abused and will likely continue to abuse these systems. One police officer was recently fired in Joplin for doing so.

The risk, however, goes beyond bad law enforcement actors misusing the system. Concerns about constant government surveillance are legitimate. Surveillance equipment such as this was used by police around the world to enforce authoritarian restrictions during COVID. We shouldn’t have to give up our personal liberty—and that liberty includes the right not to be tracked by the government without a warrant—under the guise of safety.

Thankfully, people are starting to push back against Flock and similar police surveillance equipment. I don’t believe our state or our country should become a vast surveillance society (assuming we are not already there), even if it makes us “safer” in some ways.

The pushback against Flock has come in many forms. There are websites devoted to exposing and opposing it. John Oliver’s HBO show just released an episode dedicated to the issue. There have also been numerous acts of vandalism against Flock equipment. (Note: I do not support vandalism.)

Several Missouri communities have recently ended their Flock camera contracts. The towns of Weston, Seneca, Louisiana, and Bolivar have cancelled, or are in the process of cancelling, their Flock contracts. The Dutchtown CID in St. Louis did the same. I hope that this is the start of a major policy shift against the cameras.

Much more to come from me on this topic. The solution to crime in Missouri does not have to be a vast surveillance system watching every person in the state.

The post Update on Flock Cameras in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On July 30, 2026, while guest hosting Mundo in the Morning on KCMO Talk Radio, Patrick Tuohey spoke with Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway about her office’s lawsuit against Kansas City over its race- and sex-conscious contracting preferences.

Listen to more from KCMO Talk Radio here.

The post Missouri AG Catherine Hanaway Discusses the State’s Lawsuit Against Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen to the full segment here. 

On July 30, 2026, while guest hosting Mundo in the Morning on KCMO Talk Radio, Patrick Tuohey spoke with Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas about the city’s race- and sex-conscious contracting program. The city’s own consultants recently told the council it lacks the factual basis to continue the program.

The post Does Kansas City Still Need Race- and Sex-Conscious Contracting Preferences? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are several cities and counties seeking to have new taxes or bond issues approved by voters on August 4. These include several major bond issues in Kansas City, a countywide use tax in St. Louis County, and sales or property tax increases in cities throughout Missouri, including in Hazelwood, Lee’s Summit, Ash Grove, and many more.

I’ll begin with the one local issue that is being voted on statewide (for various reasons that I won’t get into): Should the Jackson County assessor be an elected position? This is a pretty easy answer. Yes, it should be elected. Jackson County reassessments have been a disaster for over a decade now, and taxpayers have every right to be angry. Jackson County voters held the county executive responsible for it by recalling him, but being able to hold the assessor directly accountable is even better. St. Louis County changed its assessor from appointed to elected almost twenty years ago, and in my very informed opinion, the assessment process has improved since then. (Here are a few pieces on the general question on which positions should be elected and which should be appointed.)

St. Louis County has a countywide use tax on the ballot (again). A use tax is simply a sales tax imposed on goods you purchase online or through a catalogue and have delivered to your home. Municipal use taxes in Missouri actually predate the internet, but unsurprisingly most cities didn’t enact them until online shopping took off over the past fifteen years or so.

My view is that use taxes are a good way to expand the tax base, level the playing field for businesses, and raise local revenues. However, the last point is key. They should not be used simply as a way for cities to get more revenue, whether they need it or not. Cutting other taxes after the use tax is imposed—especially if you have a particularly harmful tax—is a great way to achieve the above benefits without a tax windfall for the county or city.

St. Louis County is having budget difficulties now, so I would understand primarily using the use tax money to address those issues. However, it would be even better if county leadership would agree to cut—at least in part—other taxes. I would suggest reducing the St. Louis County commercial property tax surcharge as a great place to start.

Kansas City is seeking approval for some substantial water and sewer bond issuances—about $750 million worth of each. There is nothing wrong with cities issuing bonds for infrastructure uses. It happens all the time, and there is a huge market for municipal bonds. If Kansas City is going to own and operate its water and sewer systems, it should invest in the system to prevent it from decaying, which is what happened to the water system in St. Louis. If that takes revenue bonds or price hikes, then so be it. (Note that these bonds will not, at least for now, require a tax increase.) So while I have no argument against approving these bond issues, I would also be remiss if I missed this opportunity to repeat that Kansas City would be even better off if it privatized its entire water and sewer system.

Remember, August 4 is a party primary election day, but you can always ask for a non-partisan ballot if you wish to vote on local ballot issues like these without voting in a party primary. The more you know . . .

The post Local Issues on the Ballot in Missouri This August appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On July 22, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed a lawsuit against Kansas City for violating anti-discrimination laws. A copy of the suit is available here.

For some background, I recommend you read my June 18 column for The Kansas City Star. In short, I detail a city council session in which the city’s own consultants report that after reviewing seven years of contracting data, they could find no evidence to support the need for the city’s race- and sex-conscious contracting preferences. In fact, the consultancy’s director of research told the council bluntly, “You just don’t have the factual predicate” required to continue such set-asides.

What that really means is that the city has no defense against a lawsuit.

Members of the council were not pleased with the report’s findings. They could have viewed this as a huge victory for Kansas City—having reached a point where such discriminatory programs were no longer necessary. Instead, council members chose to question the results and the methodology. Mayor Lucas even offered a novel legal theory: “The courts suck.”

We know that column, the only reporting I have been able to find about the consultants’ report, played a role in Hanaway’s suit because she tells us so. Not only does the lawsuit track with what I wrote, including Lucas’s petulance, but she explicitly cites the column in the suit’s footnotes.

Following up on my column, on June 26, I spoke with Lee’s Summit–based civil rights attorney Jonathan Whitehead on KCMO Talk Radio’s Mundo in the Morning. Whitehead details the legal history regarding race- and sex-based discrimination, the rules it put in place for allowing such programs, and how the findings in Kansas City may put the city in legal jeopardy.

As with the Star column, you won’t find any such in-depth interviews on the topic anywhere else.

The post Show-Me Institute Shines Light on Kansas City’s Discrimination Policies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Thomas C. Albus, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, about public safety and criminal justice reform in the St. Louis region. They discuss the limits of risk assessment tools in bail decisions, why the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County have such different homicide rates, the case for judicial discretion over algorithmic recommendations, the connection between education, social capital, and crime, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:02):
Thank you so much for joining us, Tom Albus, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Show-Me Institute, in the last year or so, we’ve been digging into the issues of public safety and criminal justice reform, because one of our goals is to make Missouri a growth state where people want to raise their families and businesses want to come and open. Clearly, if our cities are perceived as being a place where you can’t walk to your car at night and put your groceries away, then people won’t want to do that. We’ve been trying to understand what’s going on mostly in the St. Louis metropolitan area and have realized that a lot of the issue is a disconnect between what’s actually happening and people’s perceptions. People just perceive St. Louis as a dangerous city. I did a podcast recently with Doug Burris, and he had some encouraging things to say about our prison system. I appreciate you coming on and giving us another perspective, because the most important thing for me is to try to understand this.

Tom Albus (01:20):
Thank you very much for having me. Just so everyone understands, I know Doug Burris very well and think very highly of him. He ran the probation office here in federal court for many years. When I was an assistant US attorney, I was a line prosecutor for many years before I got this job, and immediately before that, I was a circuit judge in St. Louis County, so I was a judge in the state system compared to the federal system. Doug came and helped run the county justice center, and he’s a very innovative, thoughtful person. So I don’t mean to argue with him, but I listened to your podcast with Doug, and one of the things he was talking about was getting people off probation faster, which is fine. You might remember the example he used, the first-degree robber versus the grandmother who cashed her deceased husband’s Social Security check. Those shouldn’t be treated the same, and of course they’re not treated the same now. Alternative probation is a great option for somebody like that grandmother rather than sending her to prison. But bear in mind, if you explain to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public that this lady cashed $75,000 worth of Social Security checks, do you want to do anything to her? We probably don’t want to incarcerate that person, but the alternative would be probation with a requirement to pay the money back to the extent she can. So no one’s suggesting treating that person the same as a violent criminal, but people do need to have accountability.

Susan Pendergrass (03:13):
About this idea of applying a risk assessment when somebody’s arrested or convicted, so that we’re sure to lock up dangerous criminals and aren’t simply using building more prisons as our policy solution, what do you think is the more efficient use of government resources when it comes to making people feel safer?

Tom Albus (03:42):
You’re absolutely right. We use this risk assessment in St. Louis County. I didn’t learn any of this in law school, but I did feel like it was common sense: does this person have a prior conviction, that person is riskier to let out on bond before trial; is this person under a certain age, that person is riskier. Social scientists create these risk factors, and frankly, I think intuitively anybody, whether they have legal training or not, would apply something similar. They’re fine as far as they go, but when we were in St. Louis County, no matter how many priors the offender had, no matter how young they were, no matter how frequently they had priors, the recommendation was always, well, you’re going to let this person out on bond, and it was just a matter of how many accoutrements to the bond, how frequently they had to check in, and so on. There was no part of the risk assessment where it said this person should be detained before trial, which to me didn’t seem sensible. Some people need to be detained before trial. Another thing these risk assessments didn’t take into account was the strength of the evidence against the person. What if the person was found by police with the smoking gun over the body of the victim? Shouldn’t you take that into account? These risk factors don’t. A lot of times the risk assessment tools are being pushed by NGOs and foundations that, if you look at their website, say their goal is to get everybody out of prison. Again, this is social science, not chemistry. Everybody has a point of view that should be considered, but we have to consider the point of view of the groups pushing to reform how probation credit is counted or to add these risk assessments, because everybody in the criminal justice system has their own point of view.

Susan Pendergrass (05:58):
So what is the reality with the prison population in Missouri? Is it growing or declining?

Tom Albus (06:04):
I believe, and I’ll have to check these numbers, that the Missouri Department of Corrections population is roughly one-third less than it was ten years ago. I believe the United States Bureau of Prisons, the people in prison for federal crimes, is one-quarter less than it was ten years ago, between COVID, a different approach, and the First Step Act. Now, I know you’re very interested in educational policy. What if we had a one-third increase in fourth-grade reading scores in Missouri? Everybody would be pretty happy with that. So here we have these great statistics, but to the extent everything else is equal, if crime is the same and the prison population is down, everybody wants that. But is crime down, and is it down to a level we’re satisfied with?

Susan Pendergrass (07:04):
And is it? People are talking all over the place, including leadership in St. Louis, about how much crime is down. But when we’ve talked to people on the street or had public events, people don’t feel like crime is down. People still see panhandling and graffiti and public disorder. People still don’t want to park their car and walk to a baseball game downtown. Everyone knows you leave your car unlocked because you’re going to get smashed and grabbed anyway. There isn’t a perception that St. Louis feels safer.

Tom Albus (07:38):
Right, and it’s a complex situation regionally. The city of St. Louis, to its credit, has reduced homicides from the mid-200s in 2020 to about 140 in 2025. That’s 50 homicides per 100,000 people. The national average is in the high single digits, so it’s still very elevated in the city of St. Louis. Now you go across Skinker to St. Louis County, where I was a judge, and we’re sitting at roughly the national average in the high single digits. A trend you don’t hear much about is that’s a much elevated rate over the last 10 to 15 years in St. Louis County, maybe 2x or 3x higher than it was 10 to 15 years ago. Then you go across the Missouri River to St. Charles County, and they’re looking at about one murder per 100,000 people. So it’s a big difference as you proceed west on Highway 70, and one size doesn’t necessarily fit all.

Susan Pendergrass (08:50):
What’s been going on in St. Louis County that it’s gone up?

Tom Albus (08:56):
I don’t really know the source of it, but we are dealing with a lot more violent crime in St. Louis County than we did, say, twenty years ago. For example, even though we’ve got approximately four times more people living in St. Louis County than in St. Louis City, we only have about one-third as many homicides every year as the city. Yet we’ve got 200-plus people awaiting trial for homicide in St. Louis County. That’s really the focus of the prosecutor’s office, and rightly so, but they didn’t have the capacity twenty years ago to handle the rate of homicides they’re seeing now, and this backlog is a consequence of that, in my view.

Susan Pendergrass (09:48):
Plus clearance rates haven’t really improved. A lot of the crimes identified as murders aren’t getting solved.

Tom Albus (09:56):
If you look at it, the City of St. Louis Police Department would say their clearance rate has gone up quite a bit, and those are statistics the city updates every day on the police department’s website. At some points they’ve recorded a clearance rate of over 100 percent in the last year because they’re solving historical cases in addition to new cases as they come in. So they’ve gotten their clearance rate very high, and that’s important too, not only for how long you’re going to sentence someone, but because people need to understand that if you commit an offense you’re going to be called to account. Chief Tracy in the city is proud of his clearance rate going up, and he’s right to be.

Susan Pendergrass (10:39):
What are your thoughts on mandatory minimums when judges have discretion?

Tom Albus (10:46):
Mandatory minimums exist in state and federal crime. You could say someone is in prison for second-degree murder and subject to a mandatory minimum of ten years, that’s true, but I don’t think that’s what people are really thinking about when they raise this issue. There are very few people incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections who are there only because of a mandatory minimum that the judge would have preferred to sentence below but wasn’t able to. There was a lot of that when I first became an assistant US attorney 25 years ago with the crack cases, where you could get a five-year mandatory minimum for a very small amount of crack. That was passed by Congress in the Crime Act of 1994, and those ratios have since been changed by Congress. People will talk about nonviolent offenders, but a drug dealer, to me, is not a nonviolent offender. We’re not talking about crack as much anymore. We’re talking about fentanyl, and everybody knows what happens when you come into contact with fentanyl, roughly two hundred Americans a day die from fentanyl overdoses. I would consider that a violent crime, not to mention that firearms and violence often go along with drug dealing. The whole point of my visit with you is just to say these are not easy questions to answer. But if somebody came into your neighborhood and was dealing fentanyl to anybody who wanted it and had money to pay, I would be concerned. Maybe strictly speaking that’s not a violent crime, but it’s a very dangerous, antisocial crime.

Susan Pendergrass (12:42):
So you see these nonprofits and NGOs saying, let’s clear the prisons, let’s put more people on ankle monitors, let’s stop building these massive prisons, Arkansas is building a billion-dollar prison, and there are a lot of foundations saying we could be smarter about this. It sounds like you don’t completely align with that thinking.

Tom Albus (13:13):
Everybody should know where everyone is coming from. You probably recall about ten years ago, when Governor Parson first became governor, Missouri was in the same boat. They said they didn’t have a lot of money, certainly not enough to build new prisons, and Governor Parson said we’re just not going to go down that road. As I said, we were able to reduce our DOC population in Missouri substantially, by a third, and the need for those new prisons went away. Statistically speaking, we’re doing better in 2026 than we did in 2020, notwithstanding the fact that we have a third fewer people in prison. That’s a good thing. But if a foundation comes in and says, well, we have this risk assessment tool, and it’s just science, nothing to it other than science, I’d suggest everyone go to that foundation’s website and see what their mission statement says. This is social science, not physics or chemistry or biology. Everybody has their political point of view, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but we need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that it’s a no-brainer, that you just use this risk assessment, let everybody off probation, and everything gets better and cheaper, a win-win-win. I just don’t subscribe to that.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
I saw a case, not in Missouri, of a guy accused in a terrible case involving a child, whose risk assessment was very low, but the nature of the crime was terrible. He was let out and reoffended. I remember thinking the risk assessment didn’t do its job because it didn’t pick up on this particular person’s potential for criminality. In a world with finite resources, what do we do to make St. Louisans feel safer?

Tom Albus (15:31):
That’s what’s so thorny about it. When I was sitting as a judge, sometimes I’d think, what would my wife think, or my mother, or a friend, about this particular person, risk assessment tool aside. For example, if someone’s on bond for a felony and then arrested for a new felony, that gets them a point on their risk assessment. But I think a lot of Missourians would say, I don’t care if you get one point or ten points or thirty points, if we’ve already let you out on bond and you committed a new offense, that’s it, you’re not getting another chance. And then we get into, well, was it a violent crime? If he stole a car on Monday and then steals another car the following Monday, some people would say we just can’t accept that, it’s absurd. I think people are at least entitled to that opinion, even though it’s contrary to what is supposedly following the science.

Susan Pendergrass (16:32):
So do we put more discretion in the hands of judges?

Tom Albus (16:35):
Again, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the judge can’t override the assessment. I overrode it all the time, and my colleagues did too, because that’s the role of the judge. One thing that came up, you may have followed, there was a juvenile assessment tool that was frequently followed, and the juvenile officer or judge was very reluctant to go against the risk assessment for the juvenile. That got the police up in arms, and there may have been some legislation around it. But the judge should always be able to go against the risk assessment. And as I mentioned earlier, what about a written confession? There’s no question the person did it. You’re presumed innocent at trial, but we can weigh the facts against the person in terms of setting the bond.

Susan Pendergrass (17:34):
Yeah, I think my biggest issue with the perception of public safety in St. Louis, when I lived right between Skinker and DeBaliviere, near Delmar, was just a lack of the rule of law around me. People ran stop signs and stoplights, and there were smash-and-grabs, and someone could commit a crime and get on the MetroLink and get away. We all kind of agree that the MetroLink stations feel really dangerous. We’ve all just accepted that we have to keep floodlights on the outside of our house. Living in the city of St. Louis, which I love, you just develop this tolerance for the fact that crime is going to happen around you and there’s nothing you can do about it. I didn’t feel like the police were really enforcing the small things, and people were getting away with big things too. I wonder what the fix is for that.

Tom Albus (18:40):
Right, and another thing being debated is that you need police officers, and we have perhaps fifty percent fewer police officers policing the city of St. Louis than we did ten years ago. That’s not a good thing. I am in favor of having police officers in the neighborhood. When I was an AUSA, I would go to neighborhood meetings and try to understand what was going on. I never heard anybody say we want fewer police in our neighborhood. I always heard people in every neighborhood saying we want more police, this corner’s a problem, please take care of it. It’s a challenge for the city of St. Louis, and I wish them nothing but the best in getting as many more police officers as they can.

Susan Pendergrass (19:28):
Yeah, and 911 is a bit of a problem too. People complain about not being able to get through. We have 28 different systems, and the city-county line makes it all very confusing. Talks of merging the two always seem to result in nothing, but as you just mentioned, the difference in the murder rate between one side of the line and the other, something needs to be done to fix that.

Tom Albus (20:01):
I always go by the murder rate, because those all get called in. There’s also a difference in how frequently a car break-in might get called in across different areas of our region, so you can’t necessarily rely on all statistics. But homicides get called in, and homicides are a good indicator of the overall safety of a community.

Susan Pendergrass (20:24):
So generally, if you could wave a magic wand, what would you do? Is there anything you would change within the probation, pretrial, and prison system?

Tom Albus (20:38):
No one likes to think about building more prisons because it’s very expensive and it’s kind of the last tool in the toolbox. But in the city of St. Louis, they took out of service and knocked down the medium-security institution known as the Workhouse. That’s not available anymore. So the only place state court judges in the city have to put offenders being detained pretrial is the Justice Center downtown, and that’s at capacity. I would want a lot more police officers, and I probably would want some more places to put the real repeat offenders, the antisocial people, certainly the violent people, so they are incapacitated and out of our community. People who commit Class A or Class B felonies, or new felonies while on probation, parole, or pretrial detention, they still get bond because we’re out of places to put these people. And as we all know, we’re talking about a very small percentage of our community committing these serious crimes. Then we could go back to people having more social capital in the community, people looking out for them, and not letting teenagers or young people be directionless. I see a lot of that when I sit in a courtroom in the city or county, people who just don’t have a plan for their lives and don’t have people in the courtroom supporting them. That’s what I would really change.

Susan Pendergrass (22:17):
Yeah. I mostly study education policy, and St. Louis Public Schools has a chronic absenteeism rate of about 55 percent. I don’t think they even know where those kids are. Until we fix some of those things and somebody’s keeping track of these teenagers, I don’t see their propensity for committing crime going down. I believe first you fix the education system, before they get to the criminal justice system, but unfortunately we don’t have that right now in St. Louis. Well, I appreciate you coming on and giving a different perspective. I’ve heard more than one person, not just Doug Burris, say that risk assessment is going to be the way to fix the problem, and it’s good to hear a different perspective that it comes with a lot of caveats, at minimum.

Tom Albus (23:09):
Right. There are a lot of good people working on this problem, but it’s just not a problem that has a silver bullet, that I’ve seen in 25 years.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18):
Good to know. Well, thank you so much, Tom. I really appreciate it.

Tom Albus (23:21):
Thank you very much, Susan. Thanks for having me.

Produced By Show-Me Opportunity

The post A U.S. Attorney’s Perspective on Criminal Justice Reform with Thomas C. Albus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the full report here,

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
So great to be joined today by Professor Joe Haslag of Auburn University, formerly of the University of Missouri. You’re an expert on all things economic in Missouri, and you have a new paper for the Show-Me Institute about the Missouri economy. A lot of people when they think of the economy only think of the national economy and not the fact that states have economies too, with GDPs and all kinds of things that influence them, and not all state economies are the same. One of the things I was struck by initially in the paper is that Missouri is ranked 44th for GDP growth. What do you think is going on with that? Why has Missouri fallen so far?

Joe Haslag (00:52):
We couldn’t answer that question in half an hour, Susan. That’s a big one.

Susan Pendergrass (00:55):
Yeah, well let’s just give it a shot. Why have other states’ economies grown faster than ours?

Joe Haslag (01:03):
Well, Missouri has not been a center of innovation, and those things are hard to pin down. There are states that have grown really fast. Since air conditioning has become more accommodating and cheaper, we’ve seen some growth in the South, and there are states like Florida and Texas that have opted for faster growth and attracted a lot of people. So there’s always this question of are you talking about just the total economy and how it grows, or are you talking about the economy per person? Both matter and both are relevant measures depending on the story you’re trying to tell. At the heart of it, though, where growth comes from is not just from adding a bunch of people. If that were the case, we would have grown during the Middle Ages just from population growth. It’s not just about adding people and workers, it’s about the productivity of those workers, how much each one can produce. We’ve seen innovations: the tractor was an innovation compared to the horse and plow, and computers were an innovation compared to adding machines. And when you say 44th, that’s one of the critical things. Missouri is also 44th in the average rate of productivity growth per worker. We just haven’t been a source of super

Susan Pendergrass (02:26):
Sure.

Joe Haslag (02:54):
strength in that area. And I still say “we” because I was born in Missouri and spent a major chunk of my professional career at the university there. Until we change, and it’s hard, what you’d like to say is is there an easy path? Can we just do X, Y, and Z and guarantee it? No. There is no one thing that fits all. But what we do see is that people respond to incentives. What you’d like to set up is a business environment, a tax environment, and other kinds of settings that just make people take some chances. Some are going to pay off and some are going to fail, and you recognize that, but over time you see faster growth in those places.

Susan Pendergrass (03:41):
Yeah. You talk specifically about states in terms of labor productivity. States that invest in certain sectors of the economy, particularly construction, where productivity may be growing faster than other sectors. Is that something Missouri should do? Should we be placing bets on labor sectors?

Joe Haslag (03:57):
That’s a great question. The evidence in this paper is that industrial policy is not something that works very well. Trying to pick winners and losers is exactly the kind of thing we saw in the failed experiments of the USSR and some other places. We all talk about China’s explosive growth for a couple of decades. That wasn’t part of the planned economy. That was coming from the part where they just let loose their entrepreneurs and gave them the right environment, that word again, where they could take chances and succeed. So yeah, picking an industrial policy, there’s just no evidence that growth in one sector’s labor is going to give rise to faster productivity growth.

Susan Pendergrass (05:10):
Okay, so let’s look at a different lever that we’re talking about a lot in Missouri right now, which is reducing or getting rid of the income tax. It feels like a lot of states are trying to do it. And what if all the states around Missouri did the same thing? Would that have an impact on how much our GDP benefits from it?

Joe Haslag (05:29):
Sure. I mean, if we, first of all you said something interesting at the beginning. We think about the national economy, but you can draw borders around any area you want, a state, a city, a metropolitan area like St. Louis, and ask how they’re doing. One of the things that is remarkable is the biggest metropolitan area in Missouri has been stagnant for four or five decades. The population in the St. Louis MSA has been about two and a half million people for at least thirty or forty years. Where they live on the Missouri side or the Illinois side may fluctuate, but the total hasn’t changed. And the city of St. Louis proper has this weird status. Missouri has a unique thing where the city of St. Louis is its own county entity. And the city of St. Louis is

Susan Pendergrass (06:05):
Yeah. Right.

Joe Haslag (06:25):
almost becoming a ghost town. It went from a million people in 1900 to somewhere around 300,000 right now.

Susan Pendergrass (06:32):
Yeah. And they of course have the earnings tax. I can definitely see the counterfactual to this argument. I know people who live in states where they keep raising the income tax and piling on other taxes, Oregon comes to mind, and people are leaving. And we know that Texas and Florida, like you said, people are moving there and they don’t have income tax.

Joe Haslag (06:50):
I think it’s more to it than just the income tax rate, but the income tax rate is part of this package of incentives. Alone, the income tax is a pretty powerful thing, because it changes the returns to every kind of business activity, every kind of trade where we’re exchanging work or productivity or investment for something. Getting rid of the income tax, and there’s a piece in the paper where there’s actually an estimate, a projection of how much, based on the evidence across the country, getting rid of Missouri’s income tax would add to the growth rate.

Susan Pendergrass (07:32):
And how much would it add to people’s pockets?

Joe Haslag (07:33):
Well, the growth rate is about between a

Susan Pendergrass (07:35):
I mean, this is a number that people have been talking about in Missouri the last year. We get rid of the income tax, everyone will have $2,800 or $2,900 more. And your estimate is $2,900?

Joe Haslag (07:39):
Right around $2,900. And it takes a few years to get there, but the point is you get an immediate pop and then faster growth for the rest of the time.

Susan Pendergrass (07:57):
And you have a similar estimate if we improve our labor productivity. How do we go about doing that?

Joe Haslag (08:02):
You create incentives. Productivity still comes from what human beings do, what men and women in the labor force do. My incentive to innovate in a state where the income tax rate is eight or nine percent is a lot lower than it is in a state where it’s one or two percent,

Susan Pendergrass (08:06):
Yeah. Right. Yeah.

Joe Haslag (08:29):
simply because I get to keep more of what the risk produces. We often talk about business as us versus them. But at the heart of the matter, there are people out there saying, I want a better standard of living for myself and my family, and I’m willing to take some risk. I may start in my basement, or in an office with just two or three people. But if my idea is a winning idea, those people who started with me, the people I employ as I expand my business, sure, do I benefit? Yeah, I do. But I also took a lot of risk to do that. I could have fallen flat on my face and come away with nothing.

Susan Pendergrass (09:05):
Yeah. I think you make that point quite well where you talk about dividing up the pie versus growing the pie. You could grow the size of the pie and everyone could theoretically get a bigger slice of it. And I think that’s where people assume everything is fixed. In fact, in the data you were analyzing, we have both the Great Recession and COVID bookending it, and that has to have some impact on Missouri’s long-term growth trajectory, right?

Joe Haslag (09:26):
Yeah, it’s harder to discern. The financial crisis cleared out a bunch of stuff where people had taken risk, some of those were financial risks, and it spread to a bigger group of people. The Great Recession

Susan Pendergrass (09:48):
Did it muddy things up at all?

Joe Haslag (10:09):
It goes back to the idea of creative destruction. Sometimes you have a big destruction and it creates an opportunity for lots of creation. Did the financial crisis of 2008 give rise to the AI expansion? It might have sped it up.

Susan Pendergrass (10:12):
Yeah. Yeah.

Joe Haslag (10:26):
I don’t know for sure, but I think COVID probably had some impacts on that as well. Since we couldn’t be with one another and couldn’t get those spillovers from working together, we relied on computer hardware and software to do those things for us.

Susan Pendergrass (10:36):
Yeah. It was an engine of change in education because people started tutoring and teaching online, realizing you could get a tutor from across the country. It really opened up a lot of interesting new things that I’m not sure have completely sifted out, and I assume that’s true throughout the economy. In a lot of ways, necessity being the mother of invention, it increased productivity.

Joe Haslag (11:16):
No doubt. But I also think that what we’re seeing is the call by so many corporations across the country that, sure, you’ve worked five days a week remote for a couple of years, but we really want you to come back. We think it’s in our best interest as a corporation, for our shareholders, for those folks to be back in the office. Maybe four days a week instead of five, but there’s something about being together that creates possibilities for innovations as well. I’ll tell you a quick story. The semester after the University of Missouri got off of any sort of

Susan Pendergrass (11:38):
Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah.

Joe Haslag (11:55):
remote or semi-remote teaching, I was teaching an undergraduate class. That class is typically between 60 and 80 kids, an advanced course, mostly juniors and seniors. You can tell with senioritis, somewhere about 12 weeks into a 16-week semester, you’re down to somewhere between 60 and 70 percent attendance.

Susan Pendergrass (12:11):
Yeah. Yeah.

Joe Haslag (12:19):
That first semester back, it stayed close to 90 percent the entire semester, simply because they were dying to just be in the same room with each other. They recognized that there were spillovers from being in the classroom.

Susan Pendergrass (12:27):
Right. That’s interesting. So if you were given a magic wand and you wanted Missouri’s GDP growth to not be 44th, to be maybe top 25, what would you do with the Missouri economy to really kick-start it?

Joe Haslag (12:52):
I think two things. The easiest one is on the policy front: we just let the returns go back to the people. The tax rate in Missouri, I wouldn’t say it’s an abomination, but I just don’t think it’s been very helpful. But on top of that, our K-12 education, and this is going to appeal to you, has been an issue. We don’t have much competition. But I’m also going to put in a plug: I think Missouri has almost turned its back on higher ed.

Susan Pendergrass (13:20):
Yeah. You say this in the paper. Our educational attainment is tanking, right?

Joe Haslag (13:36):
Yeah. We just don’t have a commitment to it. The question I think would be most interesting is what would the St. Louis economy look like if Wash U wasn’t there? Wash U is an engine of innovation. There’s a lot of great things going on at the med school and the engineering school, and I think it’s just teaching people to learn how to think. Now those people end up going all over the world, but if there was a commitment to, I mean, the University of Missouri has lagged behind some of our Midwestern counterparts. Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin are all suffering from the same straitjacket, which is that the amount of state funding they receive is down. But I’d also say Missouri is sort of doubly hurt because the state gives the university system whatever money they’re going to give, but then the university system is also controlled by the state in terms of how much they can raise tuition. So there’s no freedom to test what the market forces would look like. And at higher ed, maybe more so than K-12, spending per student at K-12 is not always the recipe for predicting success. However, at higher ed, because there are market forces that tend to work at a different level,

Susan Pendergrass (15:08):
It is not. Yeah.

Joe Haslag (15:19):
money and innovation tend to go hand in hand. Higher ed seems to be going through some sort of shift right now, and I’m not sure I understand exactly what’s going on with it. But if you were to tell me what the two big policies would be, I’m not saying the state of Missouri should spend more on higher ed, but they should loosen the purse strings and let those institutions compete with the market and see what they could do.

Susan Pendergrass (15:31):
Yeah. I think it’s one of the easier parts of the budget to cut. And as our revenue is going down, there seems to be a larger group of stakeholders in K-12: there are 520 superintendents and school boards. That’s a tougher one to cut than higher ed, and I feel like they’ve taken budget cuts.

Joe Haslag (15:55):
And maybe it’s not that the state should be paying the university systems more, but they should let them go. Let them set tuition rates at whatever they think is right. And if it doesn’t work and they fail, then you end up looking more like the University of Idaho than the University of Michigan in terms of how you’re contributing to the state economy. But

Susan Pendergrass (16:22):
Yeah.

Joe Haslag (16:37):
I think there are opportunities to exploit there and we just can’t seem to. There also seems to be this weird critical mass that’s important in higher ed. You have to have a bunch of people together who are all pulling the wagon in the same direction.

Susan Pendergrass (16:42):
Yeah. Well, we also have declining enrollment. Fewer kids coming up. I think we had our largest graduating high school class last year or the year before, so that’s going to make it tough. So just to clarify,

Joe Haslag (16:59):
Yeah.

Susan Pendergrass (17:03):
if Missouri were able to move its income tax rate down close to zero, you, based on your research, feel confident that Missourians would have more money in their pocket?

Joe Haslag (17:12):
More than confident. I think it’s unambiguous. The math is pretty straightforward. If you have a hundred-dollar paycheck and your taxes go from five percent to two percent,

Susan Pendergrass (17:15):
Okay. You heard it here.

Joe Haslag (17:35):
it was my pleasure. Susan, it’s always good to see you and cross paths. I wish I could be there on the ground and have all those conversations I had fifteen years ago when we were talking about this. Thanks for your service.

Susan Pendergrass (17:44):
We’ll welcome you back. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post How to Grow Missouri’s Economy with Joseph Haslag appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Frequently Asked Questions About Amendment 5 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of the items vetoed was $2 million for Missouri’s Violent Crime Clearance Grant Program. That was a disappointment. I’ve written previously about why improving violent crime clearance rates is one of the smartest public safety investments Missouri can make.

Even so, I understand why it was vetoed. Missouri cannot continue expanding government..

Spending restraint means worthwhile programs will sometimes be cut. The question isn’t whether every veto was perfect. No governor gets every decision right. The question is whether Missouri is finally willing to reverse a spending trajectory that accelerated during the years of extraordinary federal COVID aid and continued even after those dollars disappeared.

I hope lawmakers and the governor revisit the Violent Crime Clearance Grant Program when Missouri’s finances allow. Public safety is government’s first responsibility, and I continue to believe this is a high-return investment.

But spending restraint only works if programs with genuine merit are still subject to scrutiny. If every worthwhile program receives an exemption, then spending never declines. The test of fiscal reform is whether Missouri begins living within its means and creates the conditions necessary to reduce the tax burden on its citizens over the long term.

The post A Disappointing Veto, but the Right Fiscal Direction appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about Missouri’s education leadership shake-up and what comes next. They discuss how to find the right commissioner of education, why outside reformers tend to succeed where insiders struggle, what the dismantling of the US Department of Education means for state accountability systems, why public complacency about poor academic outcomes persists, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much, Andy Smarick, for joining once again on the Show-Me Institute Podcast. We love having you on and I appreciate you taking the time. You’re a busy man, so it’s really wonderful to have you back.

Andy Smarick (00:06):
I love being here. It’s a treat. Thank you for having me. I always like talking to you, but also anytime I get to talk about state-level education policy, it’s a treat.

Susan Pendergrass (00:19):
Well, I know that you have experience serving on a couple of state boards, both K-12 and higher ed. Just to bring you up to speed on what’s happening in Missouri: we have a relatively new governor, about a year in, and we had a state board of education where people stayed in expired seats, rubber-stamped decisions, and were very complacent, I feel comfortable saying. Our governor shook up that group and appointed new people who came in and said, what do you mean we don’t have bylaws? It was like, this is bananas. At the same time, the governor issued an executive order requiring letter grades on schools and districts, new school report cards. I don’t know exactly how everything went down, but our Commissioner of Education resigned, our Deputy Commissioner resigned, and our president of the state board of education resigned, all in about one week. So we are now straightening things out and there is a new board president. But this new, relatively new board now has the task of finding a commissioner. The way things have happened in Missouri is we always get a new commissioner from the ranks of the state education agency, maybe from the legislature, always from Missouri. Just a real this-is-how-we’ve-done-it mentality. And we have not been big reformers. No Chiefs for Change in Missouri. Like a lot of states, our reading scores for young kids are tanking, forty percent below basic for third and fourth graders. We have a state accountability system called the Missouri School Improvement Plan in which 516 of our 520 districts are fully accredited and about four are provisionally accredited, none unaccredited. So we have this meaningless accountability system where every district is fully accredited, even St. Louis, which I can’t even go into. So here we are, and I want to know a few things from you. Number one, if you were on the Board of Education in Missouri, how would you go about finding a new commissioner? What would you look for? And then later I want to get into what’s happening at the national level. We are not doing well academically, we have never had a bold reformer in charge, we keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. What would you do if you were in their spot?

Andy Smarick (02:59):
So in education, I’m going to wind up to this answer, so just bear with me for a second. Conservative can mean two different things. One is the traditional conservative view, which is to preserve, to stand athwart big, swift, dramatic, perpetual change. You’re trying to keep things the way they are because there’s a lot of wisdom that has gone into it and people are accustomed to it. In education, there’s also this other right-of-center conservative view, which is we have to be much more open to choice, competition, accountability metrics, and so on. And it seems that Missouri has been one of those very red states that has tended to believe in the first kind of conservatism: protect our traditional school districts, protect the hierarchies we have, protect the tradition of you grow up as a professional, as a teacher, then a superintendent, then maybe go to the state education agency. A lot of people believe that’s the way to do it.

There probably is an ethic among a lot of people to keep it that way. The only way you get out of that is if there’s a recognition among leadership that we can’t continue to preserve the status quo, that we have to change some things. That is a big step for a place that has elevated the idea of preserving for a very long time. If they get to that step, then they have to do the very tough things, which is start to pull out the Jenga pieces of that conservatism. The most important one is having board leadership and having a state superintendent who come from outside the state, and then having a board chair or board president who is not going to just do what the staff of the state education agency says or what the district superintendents say. We saw this work quite well about fifteen or twenty years ago. There was a big movement nationwide in educational reform led at the state level, and a number of states chose out-of-state superintendents and commissioners of education who did a terrific job of shaking things up and advancing a bunch of important proposals. The downside is a lot of them were so brash and so young, and I have to say so cocky, that they made unnecessary waves and kicked a lot of people in the shins in the states where they landed. So my view is a place like Missouri should pick someone from out of state for a state chief, someone with a long track record of success, but someone who isn’t so green as to think he or she knows everything. Someone with enough humility and enough time on task to know what they don’t know, and who can come in and be bold enough to make some changes, but not think that everyone in the state is a dummy who needs to be ignored. That’s how I would think about it. And if you have a board chair and board membership who get all of this, it makes things a whole lot easier. But that might be the hardest part of all. Who is your board president? Who are the board majority going to be? They have to be the ones with the backbone.

Susan Pendergrass (05:57):
Yeah. I feel like we’ve had people come in and say, well, I’m only the commissioner, it’s not my fault that the kids don’t read. And then people say, well, we’re a local control state, so it’s really the local guys’ fault that the kids can’t read. Then the legislators are like, well, who’s supposed to be making sure the kids can read? And technically, kind of they are, but them plus the board, and there’s just fingers pointing every different direction with nobody really taking responsibility. If we had the capacity for hard things, we would not have all of our districts be fully accredited. There’s even pushback on the letter grade idea because folks will say, well, then the teachers in those F schools feel bad and the parents feel bad and the kids who go there feel bad. I’ve seen some states change it to colors or something where nobody feels bad. I’ve also heard folks say it’s racist because a lot of the D and F schools enroll large percentages of students of color. So there are just all of these reasons to resist. It’s going to happen because there’s an executive order, but I feel like we’re going to have a hard time finding somebody who’s willing to do those things.

Andy Smarick (07:17):
Well, your state, like every other state, has a state constitution that makes the state ultimately responsible for education. Your state, like others, has both tradition and some laws that give a number of powers to local districts. The weird thing, and I’ve seen this in a lot of different states, is the state government ends up in a very weird position. The state can get sued and state leaders can get criticized if kids aren’t learning, because the state actually has constitutional authority to make sure kids are learning. But as a matter of practice, and often of state statutes, a lot of this power is delegated to districts. States then try to recapture some of that power through the accreditation system. It’s the way the state can say, okay, districts, you have the power to do these things, but we’re going to hold you accountable for results and we’re going to accredit you or not. And then it turns out it’s virtually impossible to take away the accreditation of these districts because of legislative pushback, and the state typically doesn’t have the capacity to run a district if it does take away accreditation. It just becomes a complete hot mess. That’s why you need state leadership who has some experience but also some backbone to say, this is how we’re going to thread the needle of state authority, state responsibility, local control, and still making sure that kids learn. This is not easy, other states have gone through it, but it isn’t the kind of thing that someone who has lived in Missouri all their life and grown up professionally there can do easily. It’s going to be hard for that person to get out of that box. Having someone from the outside who can start to do some bold things, including hiring smart, tough lawyers, having board leadership who’s going to stick by it. But I just want to emphasize this point: every state I ever talk to begins by saying, well, you know, we’re a local control state, our districts have all the power. Everybody says that. Go back to your state constitution. The state is the one that’s going to be responsible. And if the state has the backbone, it can do a whole lot. But whether it has the backbone is the operative phrase.

Susan Pendergrass (09:41):
Yeah. So about seven years ago we developed our own school report cards with letter grades, called MOSchoolRankings. I’ll just plug it. It was with GPAs, and this year for the first time I just took the GPAs and converted them to letter grades because folks found GPAs tricky. I put up the methodology. I took all the data from our state education agency, DESE, and just tried to make it a map you can zoom in and out on, easier to navigate. And my thinking is you have to do these things, make sure you say how you do it, and then people can argue with you and debate whether it’s right or wrong or good or bad. And many people have. A lot of people don’t like that the average is a C. I’m open to discussing why the average should be anything other than a C, but you have to at some point just make the move and then be confident enough in what you did that you can defend it and change it if people point out flaws. But this is where I think we struggle at DESE. They struggle to just put that out there because they worry about every negative outcome and consequence. And it’s like, yeah, but at some point to not do it is worse than to do it.

Andy Smarick (11:10):
For sure. And I’ve gotten to the point of realizing that if you have been in a system at different ranks for thirty or thirty-five years, all of your friends, your reputation, your pension, your income, everything about your identity is wrapped up with that system. Expecting these folks to suddenly turn the corner and say, you know, we’ve messed up, tens of thousands of kids are not learning right now today in classrooms, and we have to start holding the adults accountable for that, including teachers and principals and local school board members and local superintendents, and we have to be courageous about it. That’s asking a lot of people who are of, by, and for the system. It can be a whole lot easier if you just get someone from the outside with the courage to do it.

Susan Pendergrass (11:54):
Yeah. So can you think of an example of a state that has done this well?

Andy Smarick (12:02):
Definitely during the late No Child Left Behind era and then the Race to the Top era, a number of states found people from outside. Tennessee was famous for this. Arne Duncan ended up going to a couple of different places, including Rhode Island. New Jersey ended up picking Chris Cerf. There was a movement where probably ten or fifteen states did this quite well. My state, Maryland, brought in the superintendent of Mississippi after Mississippi had had so many gains, so she could carry some of those especially reading reforms to our state. This is not uncommon. Texas did something like this for a while. Louisiana became very famous during the John White era for doing this. But in all of these cases it began often with a governor, and then some members of a state legislature who said, we just can’t keep doing things the way we’ve done in the past. We have to do things differently. Once the governor says something like that, he or she can appoint people to the Board of Education who will do things differently, and the legislature, at least his or her party, will start to fall in line, and the media then starts to understand how serious it is. It is hard to do this without the governor leaning forward and giving the blessing to the bureaucracy to do things differently. So the question for you is, is your governor going to spend any political capital on this and say things are messed up and we have to do things differently?

Susan Pendergrass (13:29):
I don’t know. I hope so. But I haven’t seen evidence of that. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that they’re looking more internally than externally. However, I just want to add one wrinkle to this context that we’ve been thinking a lot about at the Show-Me Institute. If you’re following the US Department of Education, I believe you used to work there. Is that right?

Andy Smarick (13:54):
Yes, back in the day.

Susan Pendergrass (13:55):
Last week they moved the Office of Special Education over to the Department of Health and Human Services. They moved the Office of Civil Rights over to the Department of Justice. The building where the Department of Education used to be is now vacated. All those people are over at an old Department of Energy building. It’s a significantly reduced staff. Without touching the Every Student Succeeds Act, they are effectively dismantling most of the structure over there, at a time when the current president said that sending education back to the states was one of his priorities. I’m particularly concerned that at a time when Missouri has this vacuum, we could be looking at the apron strings being cut, states being told to sink or swim from the federal perspective. You don’t have to maintain the accountability systems. The Secretary is encouraging states to submit requests to waive parts of the law. I don’t really know exactly where it’s headed, but that concerns me. Do you think they’re going to let off the gas on mandated accountability systems in exchange for flexibility?

Andy Smarick (15:15):
Such a good question. To begin with just some editorializing: it is astonishing that Congress has allowed this to happen. In general I’m a big fan of decentralizing education power to the states, but that they’ve been able to administratively dismantle a department without Congress doing anything about it is just shocking to me. Even members of the Republican Party twenty years ago, let alone forty or sixty years ago, who jealously guarded the prerogatives of the legislative branch to create departments and fund departments, would have been appalled at this. There would have been unanimous consent to stop this from happening. So that says a lot that Congress has just sort of excused itself from the discussion. It has been remarkable the extent to which that building where we used to work, and the thousands of people there, is just empty, and they are handing off all the tasks to other places. I don’t know how this is legal, but I guess they’re figuring out a way to do it.

Now, the people who are leading this from inside genuinely believe that education will be better off if Uncle Sam isn’t meddling in it so much. That requires a theory of action, or at least a theory, that the reason why things are bad is that Uncle Sam is causing them to be bad, as though if Uncle Sam backs up there’s going to be a sunnier future ahead. Or it requires believing that it is just morally wrong for Uncle Sam to get involved, and whether states sink or swim after he gets out, that’s up to them. That’s a theory, it’s an ideological approach, and they have the right to pursue it. Donald Trump was elected and he gets to hire who he wants to. But then, to your point, it starts to implicate the Every Student Succeeds Act, which still requires the federal government to do some things related to state accountability systems. And if you believe you have the power administratively to undo a cabinet department, I suspect you probably believe you have the power to ignore some federal accountability provisions and just allow states to do what they want. So we’re going to be left in this position of saying, all right, the federal government is getting out of the business of accountability, therefore the states need to do it well. And then anyone who cares about kids learning will ask, okay, are states going to do this well? And so I turn to you as a state leader. Is Missouri going to

Susan Pendergrass (17:23):
Yeah.

Andy Smarick (17:47):
kick butt and take names?

Susan Pendergrass (17:48):
I’m concerned. I mean, No Child Left Behind was difficult and a lot of people didn’t like it, but test scores went up. Strict accountability, test scores went up. As we backed off, the Race to the Top era with waivers, and then Every Student Succeeds, which allowed more waivers, states were able to lower a lot of bars. Some states raised bars, like you mentioned, Mississippi and Louisiana. Some states are doing a great job, especially with early literacy. Others are not. And so Missouri, I think of it like this: you have a college student and you’re paying all their bills. You’re writing the checks, ordering their textbooks, doing all that work. Then one day you say, you know what, instead of that, I’m going to give you $3,000 a month: you pay your rent, your utilities, get your own books. There are going to be kids who step up and do fine. And there are going to be a lot of kids who take that $3,000 and immediately go to Cancun. We know this. It kind of depends on what you’ve done with the kids so far. And I feel like we have lulled the states into a feeling of compliance. If we just tell you how we spend our Title I dollars, fill out this form, and report that our test scores keep going down, no one cares. There’s no stick. They don’t withhold the money. We just say our test scores this year are lower than last year, and they say, good to know, here’s your

Andy Smarick (19:14):
Yep.

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
check. So if that’s how you were raising your kids so far, why would you expect them to step up and become suddenly responsible?

Andy Smarick (19:31):
Okay, I have to admit that I have learned a hard lesson in my years doing education policy, which is that I was wrong that the political system of its own volition will always push for big action to make sure schools are great. I believed that if we had accountability systems showing that schools were underperforming, there would be a perpetual energy within the public to say we have to fix this, that it was just a matter of making the knowledge available and then everything else would take care of itself. It turns out it just doesn’t work that way. You need leaders at the top to constantly push and say, we are not doing well enough, we have to do dramatic things to make sure kids are going to be better off. Otherwise, No Child Left Behind is in place for a while and then people get sick of it. Or you have some interesting testing regimes and then there’s pushback to that, or just resistance to Uncle Sam in general. And people like the two of us say, but kids aren’t learning anything anymore. We are seeing a cratering of student learning since the peak of No Child Left Behind’s learning gains. This is horrible. Kids just aren’t learning anymore. The Andy of twenty years ago would have assumed the nation would revolt and say, how dare we do this to our schools and our kids, we have to do something differently. Instead, I don’t want to say it’s crickets, but there has not been a major wave of energy to change things again. The only way to do this is for governors or presidents to say this is not good enough and keep pushing. It is the ultimate dog that didn’t bark. The story is why something isn’t happening. If things are so bad in student learning, why is there not a dramatic energy within the public to do things differently? So maybe I look to you. In Missouri, are people just satisfied? Do they just not want the hassle?

Susan Pendergrass (21:28):
Why do you think? Yeah, they are like, we love our schools. All the time: we love our schools. We love, love, love our rural schools. It’s hard, kids show up with a lot of baggage, it’s just hard. But we love our schools. God forbid we have tiny districts getting below fifty kids. We love it. There isn’t an appetite to say, well, thirty-some percent of our rural high schools don’t offer calculus, and we don’t think we need it. It’s like, well, those kids are going to join a world where a lot of other kids had access to these things. It’s just, I don’t know the word. Complacency for sure. And it gets exhausting to continue to talk about it because it feels like

Andy Smarick (22:20):
Yeah. So this is why it can feel that way. And listen, if I were a state superintendent, based on the things I have learned, I would always begin a big reform movement by saying, first, all of the things you just said, but sincerely, because I believe this. I would say I love our public schools. I know how much they do for kids. I know that we love our teachers. I know that these schools are part of the community. I know that they help shape young people in ways beyond reading and math scores. I know that we love to go to these sports events. I know that we love to go to our fifth-grade graduation. This is an important strand in the fabric of our community. We love these schools, we love our teachers, we need to protect them, and we have to do better. What I found in that previous movement of big, dramatic out-of-state actors who came in and took over is they were awesome at the we-have-to-do-better part and absolutely lousy at the we-love-the-schools-and-teachers part. And that just caused a lot of anger. It was toxic in the long run. It is so important to a state to hear the we-love-our-schools message. That’s why they end up picking leaders, board presidents and superintendents who are of the system, who sincerely love their schools and say that. But they’re bad at the second part: we have to do things differently. The key to leadership right now is finding someone who can say both. We love these schools. We love public education in our communities. But Lord, our kids deserve a whole lot better than this. We have to do some things differently. That’s a rare leader.

Susan Pendergrass (24:00):
Yeah. Well, I think that’s a great place to end, because what else can you say? That’s awesome. That’s what we’re looking at. We’re going to find out soon, and not just Missouri. Many states have the same problems. I would love to have you come back again, Andy. We love having you.

Andy Smarick (24:16):
I love getting emails from you or Zach asking me to come on. I’m happy to give my bad opinions on anything.

Susan Pendergrass (24:23):
No, you have such a good, crystallized view of these things, and your experience on state boards is invaluable. I do appreciate it. Thank you for taking the time. I know you’re busy and hopefully you’ll come back soon.

Andy Smarick (24:40):
Whenever you call. Have a great summer.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Case for an Education Outsider in Missouri with Andy Smarick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the Full Report Here

Download Infographic 

The post How Missouri Can Encourage Economic Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen to the full show: www.kcmotalkradio.com/

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Interview Transcript

Patrick Tuohey (00:00)
Good morning, Kansas City. This is Patrick Tuohey, Kansas City’s second favorite Patrick, sitting in on the Pete Mundo Show for the whole morning. If you have read anything in the Kansas City papers about either the Royals Stadium or the Chiefs Stadium, the chances are that you are familiar with my next guest. J.C. Bradbury, a professor of economics at Kennesaw State University, has been studying the economic impacts of building stadiums, tearing down stadiums, getting teams, and losing teams. He’s got a book coming out at the end of next month called This One Will Be Different. I’ll get to the book in a second, JC, but my first question is: why do you hate baseball?

J.C. Bradbury (00:43)
Hi Patrick, thanks for having me on. I get that question a lot because I bring a lot of bad news, or uncomfortable truths, let’s say, about baseball. But I study these things because I love baseball. I’m a huge fan. I grew up an Atlanta Braves fan, but I follow baseball generally and all sorts of sports. I was an Atlanta United season ticket holder for many years. That’s why I do this — because I enjoy it.

Patrick Tuohey (01:09)
It’s funny — years ago somebody recommended Moneyball. It’s a fantastic book. The movie is just as good. I rewatched it the other day, and if you haven’t seen it or haven’t seen it in years, it really holds up. I think of that because baseball claims to be so statistics driven that you’d think fans would be more amenable to the kind of economic analysis you’re doing. But maybe it’s just love of the game and fandom that clouds their reason.

J.C. Bradbury (01:44)
There’s some of that. There are many people who are baseball fans, sports fans, who understand what I’m arguing — and I’d argue it’s more than you’d realize. But most of the people vocally speaking out about stadium issues and public finance are largely blinded by their own fandom. I deal with people on social media all the time who respond to things I say about stadiums and tell me I don’t understand the public finance — and they’re just totally incorrect. They don’t even bother to check it. It’s religion to some people. I say most people would give up their religion before they’d give up their subsidies to their sports teams.

Patrick Tuohey (02:27)
If you don’t already follow J.C. Bradbury on Twitter, I recommend it — JC underscore Bradbury. If you’re a fan of baseball, economics, or The Simpsons, you’ll love his account. So JC, tell me about your book, This One Will Be Different, which comes out at the end of July.

J.C. Bradbury (02:44)
I’ve been studying stadium subsidies and publicly funded stadiums for a very long time. I fell into it accidentally because the Atlanta Braves Stadium opened in Cobb County, a few miles from where I live — just outside Atlanta, where my family has been for generations. I had a lot of interest in how the stadium was built and funded, with three hundred million dollars in subsidies. I was familiar with a lot of the economics behind stadiums, and when I tried to share this research with other people, I was heavily rebuffed. So I began to study the issue more, and before I knew it, I had a very long book about the economics of stadiums. My idea was to explain public finance issues in stadiums using simpler methods. I use sound research methods, but I try to explain it through the narrative story of the Braves coming to Cobb County — here’s what happened, here’s what people argued, here’s what actually happened, let’s look at some of the financial numbers, and let’s understand the general intuition of why stadiums get built even though economists say they’re a bad deal. I look at the politics of it too. And one of the things I find is that these stadiums are mostly built by insider coalitions — chamber of commerce types, folks who are going to sit in the owner’s box and enjoy cocktails, or people with season tickets. They’re the large beneficiaries of the subsidy. They push these advocacy campaigns and try to get them passed as quickly as possible without going to voters if they can. That’s why we get these deals.

Patrick Tuohey (04:35)
One of the things that frustrates me about this whole issue — and I’d be curious if you agree, though I hate when TV and radio hosts make a statement and then ask the guest if they agree, and here I am — is that when St. Louis was considering funding a Major League Soccer stadium, or here in Kansas City with the Royals or the Chiefs, what I wish they would do is just say, “Hey everybody, we are a sports town. We think it’s important to have a sports team here, so we’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build something.” And just leave it at that. It would be a defensible argument. You could argue whether it’s worth the expenditure, but at least everybody would be honest. But they don’t do that. They go the extra step and say, “And we’re going to make money doing it.” That’s where they mess everything up. That’s where they get the numbers wrong. Is it as simple as that, or am I missing something?

J.C. Bradbury (05:31)
Absolutely. I wish there was some honesty in these debates. The reality is that a lot of people who argue these things don’t actually believe the phony economic impact studies they put out. They do it for a couple of reasons. Number one, politically, it’s a winning issue — if you tell someone it’s good for them economically, they’re more likely to support it. But also, if you just argue it’s good for the community and we’re a sports town — okay, how much does it cost? A billion dollars. How much does that increase taxes? Three hundred dollars. Well, hold on, we’re not that much of a sports town. Think about how you make your own decisions. What kind of car do you want to drive? I want a Ferrari. Great. But to drive a Ferrari, you’d need to move into a two-bedroom apartment, never travel again, and eat ramen noodles. You know what — I’ll get the base model sedan. People make those kinds of decisions, and that’s one of the reasons they use false economic benefits — because once you start talking about social benefits, people look at the costs more closely, and it makes a lot less sense.

Patrick Tuohey (06:40)
I had your colleague Victor Matheson on a few weeks ago and we talked about this, specifically with the World Cup. I’ve also asked Neil Damas this question. In your experience, how good are journalists at reaching out to you and your colleagues to vet the numbers they’re being told by chambers of commerce or the city? Where are we now, and are we getting better?

J.C. Bradbury (07:14)
I think the situation is getting worse, and a lot of it is accidental. Newsrooms have gotten smaller and younger, so there’s less institutional knowledge. People don’t remember the last stadium being built, and they’re told to go cover this stadium story. They call a few local sources — who of course are members of the local chamber — and those people say it’s great. At best, they call a local economist who says it’s bad, and it ends up being a tie. But often they don’t even call the economist. That’s part of the nature of the news business, which is one of the reasons I think it’s so important to use social media and other mediums to get the word out. Even journalists trying to do their best often fall short. And journalists deserve some blame here — when I reach out to try to help them, they often get very defensive, and I think that needs to stop. I’m not just angry at journalists. Both my parents were journalists, and my first job was in a newsroom. I understand what’s going on.

Patrick Tuohey (08:19)
The previous segment, I talked about World Cup reporting. Local people put out outrageous economic development claims a year and a half ago, nobody questioned them, and journalists just repeated them — even though past experience hadn’t lived up to those claims. So what can we do to encourage journalists to reach out, or maybe just give them a primer on what economic impact studies look like and where the flaws are? Whether I’m looking in St. Louis, Kansas City, or around the country, they are all flawed in the same way.

J.C. Bradbury (08:56)
It’s important to always speak up. It’s easy to get tired and think you can’t keep doing it. When someone asks me to look through one of these studies, I tell them it’s not a real study — it’s a fake study. I try to spread that message. Part of the problem is that the big number is the story, and that’s what they want out there. The fact that it’s wrong later doesn’t matter. And sometimes people get mad at me because I’ll call out bad reporting. I do it not because I dislike journalists, but every time I’ve tried to be nice about it, I get told I don’t know what I’m talking about or that they don’t want to tell their boss they need a correction. I think it’s important for journalists to know that if they get it wrong, they’re going to get called on it — not to be mean, but to set the standard.

Patrick Tuohey (09:54)
And do a better job because policymakers and business owners are making decisions based on the numbers you’re putting out there. We see this with the World Cup — people were expecting much bigger crowds than they got. It’s not just a matter of being right. It’s a matter of being right so that people make decisions based on real information, not just projections. JC, I’m grateful for your time this morning. Thank you so much. We’ve been talking to J.C. Bradbury of Kennesaw State University. His book, This One Will Be Different, comes out at the end of July. We’ll be right back.

The post Why Stadium Deals Don’t Add Up with J.C. Bradbury appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andrew G. Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, about the Social Security trustees’ latest report and what it means for the program’s future. They discuss the projected 2032 insolvency of the retirement trust fund, why the trustees’ birth rate assumptions may be too optimistic, the proposed Moreno-Warren plan to eliminate the payroll tax ceiling, the Cassidy-Kaine plan, and why pension experts oppose it, what would actually happen if the trust fund ran out, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
I feel fortunate to have grabbed some of your time. Andrew Biggs from the American Enterprise Institute, I appreciate you coming on to talk to us. Social security has been nothing but in the news recently, and you know more than anyone else. So thank you for taking the time.

Andrew Biggs (00:14):
That’s why I’m so cheerful. The more you know about Social Security, the happier you are. But thanks for having me, Susan. It has been busy. I’m really happy to be with you today.

Susan Pendergrass (00:16):
I’m in my sixties. I see something about Social Security running out of money and I pay attention. So just to bring us all up to speed: in the last week, there was a news flash that Social Security is going to run out of money sooner. What does it really mean?

Andrew Biggs (00:39):
Every year the Social Security trustees, which is mostly members of the cabinet, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Social Security Commissioner, and so on, come out with a report projecting the program’s financial health, both in the short term and the long term. That happens every year, and it’s been getting worse every year. In this year’s report, they projected that the retirement trust fund will go insolvent, or run out of money, in 2032. They also projected a significantly larger long-term funding gap in the years thereafter, and this is worth explaining.

When the trust fund runs out, it doesn’t mean there’s zero money to pay benefits. As long as we’re paying a trillion dollars a year in payroll taxes, there will be money to pay benefits. But when the trust fund runs out, it means benefits will be cut, and their projection is somewhere around 22%. The size of that long-term funding gap dictates how big the cuts are going to be in the years thereafter. The trustees lowered their projections for birth rates, and they found that the One Big Beautiful Bill has worsened Social Security’s finances. A variety of things made this long-term funding gap worse. It’s really hard to paint a happy picture. The trust fund can be running out in about six years, and the funding gap and the benefit cuts in years thereafter are going to be larger. It’s a sobering picture.

Susan Pendergrass (02:16):
I’m not trying to pile on, but I think I saw that they extended the time when they expect birth rates to bounce back. Is that true? Because I have not seen anything anywhere, and I’ve spoken to some demographers, to suggest birth rates are ever going to bounce back.

Andrew Biggs (02:35):
Here’s the interesting thing. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office or the US Census Bureau, right now the fertility rate is about 1.6 children per woman on average, and both the CBO and the Census project that’s going to remain pretty much steady, declining a little bit over coming decades. Social Security had a very different picture. As of last year, they thought the birth rate, which is 1.6 now, was going to immediately start rising and go back up to 1.9 children per woman in the next several decades. That makes Social Security’s finances better. More kids being born means more people paying into the system. What they did in this year’s report is moderate a bit on fertility. They said, okay, it’s not going to rise back to 1.9, it’ll rise back to 1.75. So they are still over-optimistic. I’ve talked to some demographers and economists who’ve really focused on the birth rate, and they described the trustees’ assumptions as, quote, fanciful, meaning they just weren’t plausible. Now they’re somewhat more plausible, but they still tend

Susan Pendergrass (03:32):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (03:48):
to be more optimistic than other agencies. And to me, frankly, this is a concern. You really want the people who are the scorekeepers, the umpires, to be playing it as straight as they possibly can. We know that these guesses are going to be wrong because this stuff is impossible to predict with certainty, but most demographers think the best guess is we’ll stay around 1.6 going forward. You’ve seen a decline, and a good predictor of birth rates is religiosity, the level of religious belief in a country. The US has typically been much more religious than Western Europe, and that’s played into fertility. There has been a big decline in religious belief, particularly among younger Americans, along with all the other pessimism you see among younger people. When people are pessimistic, they tend not to have a lot of kids. So the best guess is we’re going to stay about where we are.

I wrote something the other day saying the bad news in this trustees report is even worse than last year’s, but it could have been even worse. They project a long-term funding gap above 4.4 percent of payroll. What that means is if you took the 12.4% payroll tax today and raised it immediately and permanently by 4.4 percentage points, from 12.4 to 16.8, that would in theory keep the trust fund solvent for 75 years. But a better guess would be a funding gap of around 4.8 to 5 percent. This is real money. For years, people on the left have said, well, okay, we know Social Security has a solvency problem, but it’s a manageable issue. They were saying that when the funding gap was 2% of payroll. Now you’re looking at four to five percent. That’s a lot of money, at a time when a lot of other things are making claims on the budget. We have some difficult choices to make and we really have to start thinking hard about this.

Susan Pendergrass (06:09):
Okay, so what about this idea that’s been floated in the last week of getting rid of the payroll cap? First of all, explain the payroll cap, and then this idea of getting rid of it.

Andrew Biggs (06:17):
Sure. Social Security has a 12.4% payroll tax, half paid by you and half paid by your employer. That applies only to wages up to $184,500. That’s called the payroll tax ceiling, or the tax max. That dollar figure goes up every year, but this year it’s $184,000. You only pay taxes on those wages, and you also earn benefits only on those wages. People say, well, Bill Gates doesn’t pay more taxes than that. But he doesn’t earn any benefits either. So you’re capping both the taxes and the benefits.

To fast forward a little bit: there’s an op-ed in the Washington Post this week from Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts. They say it’s just common sense to eliminate that cap and tax all earnings for Social Security. The interesting thing is how uncommon that would actually be. Our payroll tax ceiling is $184,000. Almost every other country has a ceiling on their payroll taxes for their pension system, and in almost every other country that ceiling is lower. In Canada, you only pay taxes and earn benefits up to around $60,000 in earnings. In the UK it’s about $70,000. In Germany it’s about $70,000. We are already an outlier for how high up the income ladder we tax people. To eliminate the cap entirely is a big deal. It’s effectively a 12 percentage point increase in the top marginal tax rate. I pulled an example of somebody living in New York City. A high-income person already pays 37% in federal income taxes, plus regular Medicare taxes, the additional Medicare tax, state taxes, and city taxes. If you add another 12 percentage points on top of that, their marginal tax rate would be in the mid-60s. And that’s before we’ve fixed Medicare or done anything else. The federal budget is still broke, and you’ve taxed these people as high as you possibly can. So these things that look like common sense, why don’t we just tax everybody,

Susan Pendergrass (08:37):
Right, right.

Andrew Biggs (08:46):
look, there are reasons for that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:49):
And were they suggesting that if I make $300,000 and I pay my 6.2 percent, totaling 12.4 with my employer, on my entire salary, that my Social Security benefit one day would be higher? Are they talking about capping the benefit or just getting rid of the cap on contributions?

Andrew Biggs (09:06):
They haven’t been very specific. They say Social Security would continue to be an earned benefit, which kind of implies you would continue to earn benefits on the additional taxes you would pay. Let’s say if we uncap the payroll tax and base your taxes on your total earnings, you’d also base your benefits on your total earnings. What you get then is, okay, you’re getting all this money from people in the short term, but you have to pay them higher benefits in the long term. That offsets some of the savings. And this morning I was running some numbers looking back to the 1970s. We had a huge run-up in benefit levels from Social Security in the 1970s. The benefit formula we have today is not the one FDR invented. It really happened in the 1970s, where they jacked up benefits in a really foolish way, and then to help pay for it, they increased the payroll tax ceiling. Right now you pay taxes on earnings up to $180,000. If we had just kept the tax max from 1970 and indexed it to wages, it would have been only $95,000. So they essentially doubled the wages on which you pay Social Security taxes. But what happens is they also doubled the wages on which people earn benefits. I’ve highlighted the point that if you have a high-income

Susan Pendergrass (10:38):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (10:43):
couple retiring today, they could get almost $100,000 in total benefits, which is absurd. There’s no reason a government program should be paying anybody that amount. If you want that kind of income in retirement, you save more in your 401k. It’s better for you, better for the economy. But it was a result of this short-term step they took in the 70s. They said, hey, we raised benefits too high, let’s jack up the tax max. And they didn’t worry about the fact that in the future you’d have to pay benefits on that. Well, the future is today.

Susan Pendergrass (11:05):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (11:13):
Now we’re broke again, we need extra money again, and these guys say, well let’s just jack up the tax max. But then you’ll pay extra benefits in the future. It becomes this chasing-your-tail kind of thing.

Susan Pendergrass (11:16):
Yeah. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (11:25):
And the problem when you do it is there’s no country on earth paying $100,000 a year from a social insurance program, except for us. And the reason we do is these stupid historical decisions. If you’ve got this high-income couple in the US retiring today, they can get almost $100,000 from Social Security. If they lived in Canada, they’d get like $35,000. And that’s perfectly fine. Nobody’s starving to death in Canada in retirement. They just save more on their own.

Susan Pendergrass (11:35):
I’ll say.

Andrew Biggs (11:55):
The irony is that we think of ourselves as a free-market, small-government country, and our Social Security program is enormous, primarily because we’re paying benefits to people that other countries say, yeah, we don’t need to pay benefits to these guys.

Susan Pendergrass (12:11):
And yet people say, I put my money in, I get my money out.

Andrew Biggs (12:14):
Yeah, and I understand it. When I say we shouldn’t be paying $100,000 a year to a high-income couple, you get the email saying, well, I paid in. And if you paid in, you feel you have this moral claim on benefits. The problem is Social Security is still broke. We still need higher taxes or lower benefits. The idea that you’re just going to get your full benefits with the taxes you paid doesn’t work because the system can’t afford to do it. So you have to make the choice: do I want to pay higher taxes or get lower benefits? I’ve got to pick my poison. Most high-income people would prefer to get lower benefits. They care more about their taxes than their benefits. But people are still living in this dream world where this system, which is $30 trillion in the hole, is somehow going to pay them everything they’ve been promised and just screw somebody else. Everybody thinks they’re the guy who’s going to get everything and somebody else is going to get screwed.

Susan Pendergrass (13:14):
Yeah. I definitely hear people saying today, maybe I should go ahead and take it early and then I’ll get grandfathered in and my benefits won’t get lowered.

Andrew Biggs (13:26):
It probably won’t make a difference. In general, the Social Security benefit formula works based on your birth cohort, the year in which you’re born, not really the year in which you claim benefits. And people who are going to do Social Security reform understand the incentives. They don’t want to make it easy for people to game the system. So Social Security reform will probably work itself out in such a way that

Susan Pendergrass (13:42):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (14:03):
you can’t get some big advantage by claiming early. I could think of some conceivable possibilities, but I still would not encourage people to claim early.

Susan Pendergrass (14:14):
Okay, I want to talk about two more things I read in the last week. One was a letter from Tim Kaine about his idea with Senator Cassidy. What’s that idea for fixing it?

Andrew Biggs (14:24):
The interesting thing is people say Social Security reform has to be bipartisan. So we have two bipartisan ideas. We have Moreno and Elizabeth Warren, a Republican and a Democrat. They’ve got one idea, eliminating the payroll tax ceiling.

Susan Pendergrass (14:39):
Third rail.

Andrew Biggs (14:49):
Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, they’ve got a bipartisan plan. And guess what? Their plan is also terrible. If there’s any lesson from this, it’s that bipartisan doesn’t mean good.

Susan Pendergrass (15:00):
Bipartisanly terrible.

Andrew Biggs (15:04):
Yeah. Look, ultimately Social Security reform is going to have to be bipartisan, given the way the political system works. On the other hand, there is some lesson that if both Republicans and Democrats can agree on something, it might be a terrible idea. With Cassidy and Kaine, they are explicitly, and Cassidy said this, solving a political problem. The political problem is that neither Republicans nor Democrats want to vote for either tax increases or benefit cuts. You’d think Democrats want to raise your taxes and Republicans want to cut your benefits. The reality is they don’t want to do either of those things because they realize both are politically unpopular, which is why we’ve gone 40 years literally doing nothing. So their solution is that we don’t have to make these difficult votes. Instead, the federal government will borrow about $2 trillion, invest that money

Susan Pendergrass (16:02):
Tough.

Andrew Biggs (16:04):
in stocks and private equity, high-risk, high-return stuff. Then they claim they’re going to hold this fund for 75 years so it can build up value. In the meantime, when Social Security’s trust fund runs out in 2032, the federal government will borrow against the assumed gains on this investment fund.

Susan Pendergrass (16:06):
Right. Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (16:29):
They say the borrowing will be at a lower rate because it’s the federal government. And they say after 75 years, all the gains in this investment fund will pay back all the borrowing and we’re all good. And let me count the ways there are problems with that. If you work at the state level,

Susan Pendergrass (16:45):
It’s just kicking the can.

Andrew Biggs (16:52):
state-based think tanks almost know more about this than federal people. A lot of underfunded state pension systems do things called pension obligation bonds. Their pension system is underfunded, they don’t want to raise contributions or cut benefits, so they borrow and invest in the stock market and hope it works. The pension obligation bond is the hallmark of a poorly funded, poorly run pension system. Think New Jersey, Illinois, things like that.

Susan Pendergrass (17:21):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:23):
There’s a national group of state budget officers that has come out and basically said as an institution, don’t do this. Borrowing for your pension is a bad idea. So it really is fitting for the times that the Cassidy-Kaine plan says, let’s take this worst idea from state and local government

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:47):
employee pensions, which has been condemned as bad practice, and put it on steroids and do that for Social Security. And what it really gets to is they just don’t understand the finances of it. And to be frank, they won’t listen. They have talked to every pension expert I know, and this Social Security world is pretty small. We all know each other on both sides. We may not agree on everything. Literally every pension expert I know says this is a terrible idea.

Susan Pendergrass (17:54):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (18:17):
But their political considerations are more important than policy, and that’s the problem with all of them.

Susan Pendergrass (18:24):
I mean, it feels free. They’re basically saying it’s like a timeshare. It just feels free right now. We just borrow the money. Okay, so

Andrew Biggs (18:31):
It’s been pointed out to them that if you can fund Social Security this way, you could fund the entire federal government this way and never collect any taxes. At one point Senator Cassidy was quoted in a newspaper article saying, well, yeah, sure, in theory you could. And I’m like, if something implies there’s a free money machine, maybe you need to question your assumptions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:38):
Sure. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (18:54):
I could give you a whole variety of reasons why this doesn’t work, but one macro point that’s come to me: I’ve been doing Social Security for a long time. I worked in the Bush administration in 2005 when they tried and failed to do Social Security reform. One of the problems we face today is that your elected officials understand Social Security policy much less well than they did 20 years ago. They just don’t understand how the system works. Going back to the Moreno-Warren idea of applying the payroll tax to all earnings,

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (19:37):
okay, you’re adding 12 percentage points to your top tax rate. There’s a reason Sweden and France and others don’t do this anymore. They used to have incredibly high tax rates. They don’t now. We would end up in many cases with a higher tax rate than most European countries. We have some philosophical dedication to small government and things like that. They don’t. And so if they’re not doing it,

Susan Pendergrass (19:43):
Yes. Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (20:02):
it’s because there’s a practical reason this isn’t a good idea. The same applies to wealth taxes. That’s been tried in Europe. They’re like, yeah, we’re not doing that anymore because it doesn’t work. But your average senator now

Susan Pendergrass (20:14):
It is happening around the country, the billionaire tax. What happens in 2032 if no one is either brave enough or smart enough to take this on in the next six years?

Andrew Biggs (20:17):
They’re just not aware of these policy issues, and that’s a real problem. It’s like having a guy fix your car who doesn’t know how to fix cars. 2032 is the date. If you have a recession, it might be 2031. It’s not certain, but it is certain it’s happening soon.

Susan Pendergrass (20:47):
Yeah. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (20:53):
There’s a literal reading of the law, which is that Social Security can’t pay out benefits it doesn’t have dedicated resources for. Once the trust fund runs out, the only dedicated resources are mostly the payroll tax, plus a little bit of money from income taxes levied on retirement benefits. And those were cut as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. So if the trust fund runs out, they’d have to rely on the money they have on hand, which implies around a 22% benefit cut.

A lot of times people assume that benefit cut has to be across the board. If you did it that way, you’d throw a lot of people into poverty. I did some work a year or so ago with a lawyer in DC named Kristen Shapiro, and what we found is that the legal precedent shows the executive branch, meaning the president working through the Social Security Commissioner, would have some discretion. What we found is you could maintain full benefits for about 50% of people, the poorest 50% of seniors, and then cap benefits above that. If you cap the maximum benefit at about $24,000 per year for a single person or $48,000 for a couple, that is enough to make Social Security solid without raising taxes. So the point is simply you have some discretion.

The reality is Congress isn’t going to allow big benefit cuts, for political reasons. On the other hand, are they willing to have the size of tax increases needed, all in one go, to keep Social Security paying full benefits? I don’t think they want that either. So the reality is probably they’re going to borrow a lot of the money. And that’s where you get to the issue of how much more borrowing the financial markets will swallow. We effectively borrow from the public to repay the Social Security Trust Fund, but there’s an end to that. You say, okay, 2032, we have to do something. We have to raise taxes or cut benefits. If in 2032 the stated policy of the federal government is, well, we’re just going to keep borrowing to pay Social Security even though we have no prospect of paying it back, you wouldn’t blame some big market players for saying, yeah, I’m out, because you don’t want to lend money at low interest rates to someone who says they can’t pay it back. Then you start getting a couple of things. One is more federal borrowing squeezes out capital in the rest of the economy, and so interest rates naturally rise.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (23:31):
But then there’s a second element: if you’re afraid the federal government can’t pay you back, over and above that natural increase in the interest rate, you’d apply a risk premium to treasury debt. You’d say, look, Treasury is not this rock-solid investment anymore. It’s more like a junk bond, or like borrowing from Illinois, and you make them pay a premium. That’s going to drive up

Susan Pendergrass (23:43):
US government borrowing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:01):
interest rates, and that makes it tougher not just for the federal government but for everybody. If you want to buy a car or a house, all your interest rates rise. There’s also going to be real temptation to inflate away the debt. The federal government doesn’t want to default on its debt, but

Susan Pendergrass (24:24):
Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:25):
historically the way you deal with this is inflation. Think about all the debt we took on during COVID, shoveling money out the door to everybody, and then we had massive inflation after it. A lot of those people who bought treasury debt didn’t get a good deal, because if you get 20% inflation on

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Absolutely. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:47):
a treasury bond with a nominal fixed interest rate, that’s a real problem. So inflation becomes increasingly tempting. You look at this scenario and you’re like, can’t anybody here play this game? Every other country is not going bankrupt. We just have to do what they do.

Susan Pendergrass (24:51):
Yeah, yeah. So could we, if we really got our heads around it and started today or next year, incrementally raise the 12.4%, or incrementally get people used to lower benefits after a certain income or wealth level?

Andrew Biggs (25:18):
Sure. Yes. The way I think about it, there are two ways people think about it: the wrong way and my way. The wrong way is, let’s just pick from this menu of options to make Social Security solvent. We can raise the payroll tax a bit, raise the retirement age a bit, cut cost-of-living adjustments a bit, raise the tax cap a bit, and do these things until the system is solvent.

Susan Pendergrass (25:34):
Yes. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (25:54):
That’ll get you a solvent program, but it won’t be a program that particularly works very well or is good for the economy. A more effective way is to ask, what do we want this system to do? If you talk about Social Security reform, what you hear is that it’s a social insurance program, a safety net, an anti-poverty program. Okay, it has to do that. And that part is really very cheap, because we don’t literally have that many poor seniors, their benefits aren’t very high, and it’s not a problem to maintain benefits for low-income seniors. When you ask what Social Security should do, nobody is saying we need to be paying high-income seniors $100,000 a year. There’s no public purpose for it. Nobody thought it out in advance. It was simply an unintended consequence. So if you’ve got things that are really costing a lot of money and have no public purpose, and those people can save for retirement on their own, you start scaling that back. The distinction I’m making is between policy changes simply for the purposes of keeping Social Security solvent, and policy changes for the purpose of making Social Security do what it needs to do, the real public purpose, and not doing things that serve no public purpose. My point is the things I’m talking about are things you should do whether Social Security is insolvent or not.

I’ll give you an example: Australia’s retirement system. Australia is a lot like us, not particularly more conservative or liberal, just sort of normal. Their Social Security program essentially is targeted at eliminating poverty in old age. It’s actually a better safety net than Social Security provides, but the benefits decline down to zero once you get above the poverty level. And to help people above that level save for retirement, everybody is enrolled in a 401k-type account. What that says is, if everybody’s participating in retirement plans as they should, the government’s job becomes easier. Their Social Security system costs about two percent of GDP. Ours costs about six percent. It’s a third as costly, provides a better safety net, and it comes because they’re actually thinking about what they’re doing.

Susan Pendergrass (28:18):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (28:26):
We’re literally not thinking about what we’re doing. There’s a saying in business: the worst reason to do something is because we’re already doing it. That is literally how Social Security policymaking works. Nobody knows why our benefit formula is what it is or why the tax max is what it is. It’s all just stuff we inherited from the 1970s from people who were not in any way thinking clearly about what they were doing. It was people in the 70s trying to win elections, and we end up with the bag.

Susan Pendergrass (28:52):
Speaking of 2005, there was an attempt to offload a small portion of people’s contributions into the market, right? That failed.

Andrew Biggs (29:09):
That was the Bush proposal. I was in the White House then, kind of in a number-cruncher role, so I knew that stuff pretty well. I did a lot of events with President Bush around the country. When we came up on the 20th anniversary of Bush’s proposal in 2025, I started thinking to myself, what if his plan had passed? What would have happened? So I built a model. Back then they were saying, okay, you’re going to have some reductions in traditional Social Security benefits for middle and high-income people, and then you’re going to have a personal account where you can invest part of your existing payroll tax in stocks and bonds. The total benefit you get at retirement is a combination of those two. People were speculating. Well, we don’t know what the stock market’s going to do. But 20 years later, we’ve got some data, so let’s just see what happened. The results were that for people

Susan Pendergrass (30:01):
Now we do.

Andrew Biggs (30:07):
retiring today, low and middle-income people would have had higher total benefits by a little bit. The very highest-income people, their benefits would be down by a couple percent because the cuts to their traditional benefits would be larger than the gains from their personal account. But even they would be fine; it’s not a big deal. Going forward, it looked like people would do a little bit better with the Bush plan than with the traditional system. But here’s the important thing: the traditional system is broke. We just talked about how it goes broke in 2032, with huge deficits. The Bush proposal wouldn’t have made Social Security totally solvent, but it would have addressed half or two-thirds of the long-term funding gap. So you’d get a system that would have paid you benefits around the same as, or maybe a little bit better than, Social Security, but would be in much more solid financial shape. Today the times are different, and I don’t think personal accounts are really viable. But the point is, if they had done something back then, everything could be easier today. But members of

Congress were just too afraid. Republicans were afraid of taking the political hit. For Democrats, it was too tempting to give the political hit. They knew they had to do something, but they couldn’t swallow hard and say, look, let’s just go in on this thing together. They didn’t want to give Bush the win because by that point Iraq was going badly and they really didn’t like him. So they beat him up. But the problem is Bush served his term and is happily retired in Texas. The people who really got screwed were the ones who depend on Social Security, because we didn’t fix it. And you just hope that’s not what we do again.

Susan Pendergrass (31:42):
Yeah. Somebody not us in 2045 could be having the same conversation, right? Like, if only in 2025 or 2026 we’d gotten serious. And I do think people mix up the trust fund with the whole program. A lot of people think all of Social Security is going to be bankrupt in six years, versus the reality that we’re still taking in a trillion dollars, we just need about 22% more than what we’re taking in.

Andrew Biggs (32:14):
Yeah. If you go back 20 or 25 years, there were all these arguments about whether the trust fund is real or fair or whatever. The trust fund is essentially IOUs written from one side of the government to the other. I thought at the time the trust fund is not real in an economic sense. It doesn’t make it easier for the government to pay Social Security benefits. It is a pledge that we will pay them, but it doesn’t make it easier to pay them. But here’s the interesting thing:

Susan Pendergrass (32:25):
Right. Al Gore. The lock box.

Andrew Biggs (32:50):
if having a trust fund doesn’t make it easier to pay benefits, then not having a trust fund doesn’t make it harder. The trust fund runs out, we still have taxes coming in, we can still pay 80% of what is owed. If we retarget that, you can maintain the safety net. It’s not like you’re totally insolvent or broke. All those long debates over whether the trust fund is real get resolved because the trust fund itself is gone in six years. So that doesn’t matter very much anymore. But I do hope that, as you said, we’re not in 2045 looking back on a solution of just borrowing $500 billion a year or whatever it’s going to be. People in 2045, when the federal government is bankrupt, the dollar is dropping, and all these financial crisis things we think only happen to other countries are happening to us, they would look back and say, I wish those people were more responsible. The Social Security problem, in a sense, if we went back 25 or 30 years ago, was a manageable problem. The real issue is not the demographics or the benefit growth or whatever. The real issue is just poor stewardship of this program by Congress and respective presidents. It is absolutely a governance problem. It is not a problem of economic or demographic fundamentals. All of that can be handled.

Susan Pendergrass (34:19):
Everyone wants to be Santa Claus, right? No one wants to be the Grinch.

Andrew Biggs (34:22):
It’s very true, but leadership is about giving people bad news. Good news kind of tells itself. Bad news has to be told and people have to be convinced that this is going to hurt, but we’ve got to do it. And we just didn’t have the willingness. President Clinton in the late nineties tried to do some stuff, but he didn’t deliver much bad news because we had surpluses. President Bush was willing to tell people, okay, look, you’re not going to get every penny you’ve been promised. Beyond that, the level of leadership has been very poor.

Susan Pendergrass (35:01):
Hasn’t been good. All right, well, next year when the trustees report comes out, come back and give us more bad news.

Andrew Biggs (35:09):
Yeah, until then, things are looking up. But no, it’s something people want to be aware of, and I think that’s the key thing.

Susan Pendergrass (35:13):
Well, I think one of the more important things you said is that no one understands it. People are upset and arguing over something they don’t understand the mechanics of. I do know people who think they have an account with their name on it that their Social Security taxes went into, and they’re just going to start taking the money out.

Andrew Biggs (35:23):
I have some bad news for that. Your taxes go into Social Security and go straight out the door to pay for your grandmother’s benefits. If you want to know where your taxes are, they’re in your grandmother’s bank account. So go ask her.

Susan Pendergrass (35:45):
That’s right. That’s right. All right, thank you so much. I really appreciate the time.

Andrew Biggs (35:51):
Thank you, Susan. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Social Security Crisis Is Worse Than You Think with Andrew G. Biggs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kansas City Star recently published a story examining the city’s gun violence problem as Kansas City hosts matches during the World Cup.

The article raises a legitimate concern. Kansas City, Missouri, suffers from far too much violence. Recent shootings have again drawn national attention to a problem local leaders have struggled to address for years.

The Star largely frames that problem through the lens of Missouri’s gun laws. Missouri allows permit-less carry. It broadly preempts local firearm regulations. Legislative efforts to tighten gun restrictions have gone nowhere, even after highly publicized tragedies such as the Chiefs’ Super Bowl rally shooting.

Reasonable people can conclude that these policies contribute to violence.

But if we are serious about understanding why Kansas City experiences so much violence, there is an obvious question that deserves attention:

What about Kansas? The state line is not hundreds of miles away. It is literally a road.

Kansas has permit-less carry. Kansas does not require firearm registration. Kansas does not impose waiting periods. Kansas does not require universal background checks for private firearm sales. Kansas broadly preempts local governments from adopting their own firearm regulations.

In other words, Kansas and Missouri have remarkably similar firearm laws, yet the outcomes on violence are very different.

The Star notes that Kansas City, Missouri, averages roughly 30 homicides during June and July, compared with four in Kansas City, Kansas. That is a remarkable difference. Accounting for population, Kansas City, Missouri, still experiences roughly twice the homicide rate of Kansas City, Kansas.

If neighboring jurisdictions with similar firearm laws experience dramatically different homicide rates, serious observers should be interested in what else might explain the difference. They should certainly acknowledge it.

The question is not whether gun laws matter. The question is whether they are sufficient to explain the difference in homicide numbers. The Star asks the first question. It largely ignores the second.

The post If Gun Laws Explain Kansas City’s Violence, What Explains Kansas? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Doug Burris, retired Justice Services Director and Chief United States Probation Officer, about criminal justice reform in Missouri and St. Louis. They discuss Missouri’s risk-based approach to sentencing and supervision; why building more prisons may not reduce crime; low violent-crime clearance rates in St. Louis; the case for bail reform and expanded electronic monitoring; the Safer Supervision Act before Congress; and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Welcome to the podcast, Doug Burris, who has been in and around criminal justice reform. I know you’ve been making a lot of pushes nationally, and you’ve worked within Missouri. What I want to talk about today is that in St. Louis city and county, folks are really celebrating this reduction in crime. Murders are down, and therefore we are on the verge of solving this issue. But it doesn’t feel that way to people who live there. I know you ran the county jail for a while and you’ve been closely involved in what’s going on there. What is your perspective on the St. Louis region in terms of where things stand today, in the middle of 2026, when it comes to criminal justice reform and identifying and clearing crimes?

Doug Burris (00:57):
Well, first of all, Susan, thank you for having me as a guest on your show. It’s greatly appreciated. I’m such a fan of the Show-Me Institute. To answer your question, there has been some progress, but I think what we have done is taken baby steps and we still need to walk and then run. There’s much work that needs to be done. I think the state of Missouri as a whole has been a great example of what can happen when criminal justice reform is done correctly. What was done with the Department of Corrections with prior work, including House Bill 1525, allowed for focusing on more high-risk cases and moving low-risk cases through the system quicker, getting them productive and out once they are. That’s what should be done more at the federal level, following what the state of Missouri did, and also at the local levels in the city of St. Louis. I think that’s exactly where we’re headed.

Susan Pendergrass (02:00):
So what did happen at the state level in Missouri? How did they shift their focus? It sounds kind of strange, but to make this system more effective and efficient, you need to find and lock up violent criminals, but people who are not violent criminals who commit a crime could be dealt with differently. What did Missouri do specifically?

Doug Burris (02:01):
Well, Missouri led the way for the rest of the country, as did Texas, where they implemented various reforms. One was making sentencing decisions and supervision decisions based on a risk level, where they had risk assessments that followed the science of criminal justice on who needs to be the most supervised and frankly the longest incarcerated, as opposed to the exact opposite. I’ll give two extremes of the situation. At the federal level, we have a grandmother who continues to cash her dead husband’s Social Security check, and that person ends up on federal supervision on the same caseload as a violent child predator. It’s really not necessary to have that woman on supervision when the real focus should be on the violent person. There is the Safer Supervision Act that’s before Congress right now, and we’re really hoping that gets passed so there will be more emphasis on supervising the people who are at highest risk, using risk assessments as a tool to determine that.

Susan Pendergrass (03:45):
And how long has Missouri been doing this? Do we know anything about how it has impacted the size of the prison population?

Doug Burris (03:53):
That’s a fantastic question. It’s been in play for about five years now. What has happened is the population of both the prisons in Missouri and the people on supervision has decreased, but the crime rates have not gone up. The same thing has held in Texas, which has done it for just a little bit longer than Missouri. So following the science really does work. And it’s at a considerable expense. It’s about thirty thousand dollars to house someone in a Missouri prison, and in a federal prison it’s over forty-two thousand dollars. It might be cheaper to send these people to college than to send them to jail or prison. And of course there might be more good done too, because there have been all kinds of studies showing that people who get an education or vocational training have drastically lower recidivism rates. That’s what we really need to be focusing on, and not the grandmother I talked about earlier.

Susan Pendergrass (04:58):
Well, it seems to me that a lot of states, including red states, are moving toward the idea of just building more and bigger prisons and locking everybody up, because if you want to show that you really care about crime, you demonstrate that you are ready to lock everybody up. But that’s not effective or efficient, right?

Doug Burris (05:21):
No, that’s exactly right. And unfortunately we’re seeing that in our neighboring state of Arkansas, where they’re constructing a new prison expected to cost one billion dollars to open the doors. One billion dollars. And then to operate it, if their annual rate of housing someone in prison equals Missouri’s, it will cost about a hundred million dollars a year to operate. And again, we’re going to have people in there who could be supervised in the community or given opportunities like drug treatment, job training, and education, things that will have people contributing to the tax base rather than taking from it.

Susan Pendergrass (06:03):
How do you convince people that a risk assessment is going to work when they want all the criminals off the streets?

Doug Burris (06:10):
Well, it’s twofold. One is we have to educate people that putting someone in prison is going to cost tens of thousands of dollars every year, and in the end they may come out more angry and less able to adapt to the community. The other thing is to follow the science. Look at what Missouri has done and what Texas has done, where they have lowered the prison population and crime has actually gone down. This is something other states should be following as well. We can’t keep everyone in prison forever. We just can’t afford it. And not only that, but it’s also inhumane. The cost would be astronomical if we start keeping people in prison for low-risk crimes that in some cases have no victims.

Susan Pendergrass (07:10):
A couple of things came up in the last legislative session. Governor Kehoe passed a violent crime clearance rate grant program, but the legislature hasn’t funded it. What are your thoughts on that?

Doug Burris (07:27):
When it comes to violent crime, I’m all in favor of keeping the most violent people in as long as possible and perhaps even for life. The question is where can we find ways to save money with those who aren’t violent? That’s what we really need to be focusing on. When you’re supervising a violent person but you also have nonviolent people on your caseload, it really just doesn’t make sense.

Susan Pendergrass (08:01):
Well, I was just thinking specifically about trying to direct some funds toward clearing crimes, because even though murders are down, clearance rates on murders are still pretty low in St. Louis, in the thirty to forty percent range. I would think that the same people who are interested in locking everybody up would like to clear more of these crimes. If you look at carjackings, most of those go unsolved. Maybe one in ten is cleared. While we focus on risk assessment, which is a great idea, there are other things we could be doing, like working harder to clear the crimes that are committed.

Doug Burris (08:39):
Absolutely. That makes complete and total sense, because when you’re talking about the worst of the worst, they don’t commit one crime and then never do it again. This is an excellent idea for putting resources toward making the community safer.

Susan Pendergrass (08:56):
Another thing that came up in the last legislative session was DNA testing people who are arrested, running their DNA and then disposing of it if they don’t match anything. I don’t think that went anywhere. I know there are a number of bills that have moved through trying to make Missouri a safer place. It wasn’t a really productive legislative session in 2026 in Jefferson City. A lot of things didn’t happen, but things are being attempted. What about St. Louis specifically? Having run the jail in the county, what do you think needs to be done there to improve residents’ feeling of safety?

Doug Burris (09:38):
I think more resources need to be directed at the court level, first of all, and at the investigative level like you talked about. But there are people in jail awaiting trial who have not been found guilty for three to five years. Can you imagine what it would be like to be in a place where you don’t see the sun for three to five years? You don’t feel the sun on your face or the hug of a loved one. I saw some of those cases where people were headed to trial and after three to five years the case just goes away. I think we need to really focus on giving the courts resources, and that includes both prosecutors and public defenders. Public defenders have some of the highest caseloads in the nation here in Missouri. If someone is innocent or can be dealt with quickly and given a path to become a productive citizen, that’s what we really should be focusing on.

Susan Pendergrass (10:37):
What about the bail system? Does that need reforming?

Doug Burris (10:41):
Yes, I really think so. That’s one of the things some other states have done that has shown incredible results: using a risk assessment at bail. The federal system does that currently, and I think it’s still underutilized. There are things that can be done with that risk assessment in terms of supervision strategies, but I think the judge needs to know the absolute risk of that person and what can be done to address it when making a decision on bail.

Susan Pendergrass (11:14):
Can’t we put more people on monitoring? I hate to suggest everyone gets an ankle monitor, but can’t we monitor more people while they’re awaiting trial rather than having to house and feed them?

Doug Burris (11:31):
Yes, absolutely. That’s an area that needs to be expanded. In the St. Louis County jail, for example, which is the largest jail in Missouri, there are three hundred people in custody right now who are low risk. We’re spending about a hundred and twenty dollars a day to keep them in jail, potentially for years. Low-risk people, if you follow the science, can typically be supervised in the community.

Susan Pendergrass (12:06):
So do you think that if we were to implement all of these reforms, do a risk assessment on every person charged, only lock up the violent criminals, and let people await their trial at home, that St. Louis would feel more safe or less safe?

Doug Burris (12:07):
Well, I think with proper supervision you’d have to do it right. You just can’t let everyone out. Utilizing the risk assessment would really be the key, because someone may be charged with a low-risk crime this time, but they could be on parole for a prior murder or rape or something along those lines. That’s why you really need to look at the risk assessment to determine the appropriate strategies for releasing people.

Susan Pendergrass (12:42):
Yeah. This just seems to be a growing sector of our economy and a growing slice of the budget pie. Missouri has budget problems. We’re putting so much money toward this idea of reducing crime, and for some reason people still just don’t want to walk to their car alone at night. I know there’s a lot of general public disorder in St. Louis, graffiti, homelessness, panhandlers, that also contribute to it. I wish I could understand a reasonable, cost-effective approach to

Doug Burris (13:26):
Yes.

Susan Pendergrass (13:37):
improving those conditions, because I know other cities have and I believe St. Louis can do it, but we have this reputation of being a crime-ridden city, and I think that’s so unfortunate.

Doug Burris (13:47):
Right. I completely agree with you. The truth is the answer isn’t to lock everybody up. The United States has the second highest rate of incarceration on the planet, only behind North Korea. The Department of Justice reports that if incarceration rates remain the same, one out of every fifteen adults in the United States will serve a prison term. One out of every fifteen. And that’s a prison term for a felony conviction, not a jail term for a DUI or a bad check. The costs are astronomical: thirty thousand dollars a year to house someone in a Missouri prison, paid for by the taxpayers. There have been proven strategies for getting people in and out of the criminal justice system. Ninety-three percent of those who remain employed on supervision successfully complete supervision. Those who remain unemployed throughout their supervision have a more than fifty percent failure rate. Getting people a decent job where they can care for others and find meaning is really one of the keys to lowering crime.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
Yeah. And there are public-private partnerships, and partnerships through religious organizations and other programs that have been shown to work, if we would free them up.

Doug Burris (15:13):
That is so true. Chuck Colson’s old organization, Prison Fellowship, is one of the best with the programs they offer in prisons and to people when they get out. It has proven, particularly in Iowa, to show drastic reductions in recidivism.

Susan Pendergrass (15:25):
Wow, that’s great. So I’m surprised to hear that Missouri has led the way on prison populations. I thought there was consideration about building a new prison, but I believe it’s not happening. Is that right?

Doug Burris (15:55):
Yes, that’s exactly right. Our prison population has actually decreased in the last few years.

Susan Pendergrass (16:03):
Wow, that’s really surprising to me. But good to hear. So what are you looking for the governor or the state legislature to do in the coming years?

Doug Burris (16:12):
I think they should build on the reforms that have already been proven to be successful. The one thing you mentioned that I think is frankly brilliant is the idea of working to close open violent crime cases, because on the violent cases, the chances are it’s not one crime they committed and then they go to work the next day and never commit another crime. I think that would be something fantastic for the state legislature to do.

Susan Pendergrass (16:37):
And at the federal level, what are you hoping to see done?

Doug Burris (16:46):
The Safer Supervision Act, as I mentioned before, is actually a bipartisan act, but it’s being led by the right right now. The conservatives are the ones who have introduced it into Congress. The Department of Justice is in favor of it. It would make the assessments we talked about more prominent, and it would also give people incentives to do things right, like getting a college education or a good-paying job and paying off restitution, where they can get off supervision earlier. That makes complete sense. But also, almost everyone convicted of a federal crime now is given supervision, like the grandmother I mentioned earlier who cashed her dead husband’s Social Security checks after he passed. This would allow for a more

Susan Pendergrass (17:33):
Mm-hmm.

Doug Burris (17:42):
thorough assessment at the time of sentencing, for the judge to not put people on supervision who don’t need it. That would clear up resources so more time could be spent on the people who really need to be supervised, as opposed to those who don’t.

Susan Pendergrass (18:01):
Yeah. A lot of the sentencing reform we hear about involves mandatory minimums, which force judges into incarcerating people whether they want to or not. I assume that’s not something you would support.

Doug Burris (18:16):
No. I worked in the federal system for twenty-three years and saw the damage that mandatory minimums have done. For instance, with crack cases, I saw a judge sentence someone who was selling five grams of crack. A gram is equal to about a sugar packet you put into your coffee, and five grams carried a mandatory five years. And then you would have people with no mandatory minimums who robbed a bank and did a shooting receive lower sentences than drug cases. Thankfully there were two reductions in the crack mandatory minimums, applied retroactively. Over 23,000 people had a resentencing, and when they were released, they did not offend at higher levels than those who served their full terms. That was money well saved. The judge has a better idea on sentencing someone when they have all the facts of the case before them, rather than relying on a statistical report done ten years prior that says, because he was convicted of this crime, he gets this sentence.

Susan Pendergrass (19:17):
Yeah. Right. Well, I’m relatively new to this area, but I think it’s all pretty fascinating. We struggle enough to get people to live in our cities, and if they don’t feel safe, that’s not going to help. I look forward to learning more about this area of policy and following more closely what Missouri and St. Louis specifically are doing. I would like to have you come back and talk about it again when there are real policies being considered, because it’s not going away and there’s a lot to learn.

Doug Burris (20:11):
Well, I appreciate it. I enjoyed my forty-year career in the criminal justice system, and hopefully I’ll be the only guy you’ve ever met who has been in more prisons than John Gotti.

Susan Pendergrass (20:16):
Hopefully. Thank you so much, Doug. I really appreciate it.

Doug Burris (20:27):
Thank you, Susan. It was a real honor.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Risk, Reform, and Public Safety in Missouri with Doug Burris appeared first on Show-Me Institute.