The post Memorial Day: Bravery and Sacrifice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Happy New Year from Show-Me Institute appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As 2025 comes to an end, we reflect on the progress made this year, from expanding MOScholars and strengthening property rights, to improving telehealth access and supporting Missouri’s entrepreneurs. Despite challenges, including rebuilding after the May 16th tornado, our mission remains the same, ensuring every Missourian has the freedom and opportunity to prosper. As we look to the next twenty years, we invite you to stand with us. Support the Show-Me Institute and help build a lasting legacy of liberty for Missouri. 

Click Here to Support Liberty in Missouri

The post Watch: Help Build Missouri’s Legacy of Liberty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Help Build a Legacy of Liberty in Missouri

The post This Giving Tuesday, Support Liberty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is with deep sadness that I share the news of the passing of Joseph Forshaw IV, longtime member of the Show-Me Institute’s Board of Directors, former treasurer, and past chairman of the board.

Joe was more than a board member to us. He was a steadfast champion of the Show-Me Institute’s mission, a source of wisdom and clarity, an incredible mentor, and a man whose integrity and good humor strengthened everyone around him.

A lifelong St. Louisan, Joe brought to our organization the same qualities that defined his life: intellectual curiosity, disciplined thinking, and generosity of spirit. Before joining the Show-Me Institute, he served for 30 years as president of Forshaw of St. Louis, the family business founded in 1871. His deep understanding of entrepreneurship and free enterprise made him an invaluable voice on our board and a trusted adviser to our team.

Joe served with humility and conviction, and he cared deeply about Missouri’s future. He was an extraordinary mentor to many of us, always ready to offer thoughtful counsel, encouragement, and the perspective that comes from a life well lived. Whether asking the question no one else had considered or reminding us to stay focused on the people we serve, he did so with grace, steadiness, and genuine kindness. His presence made our work better, and his passion for ideas strengthened the entire organization.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to his beloved wife, Liza; their children Sr. Maria Battista, Juliet, and J. Alexander; his grandson Aidan; and the entire Forshaw family. Joe’s leadership, generosity, and friendship will be deeply missed.

Details about visitation and services can be found here.

The post In Memory of Joseph Forshaw IV appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Honoring Our Veterans: Thank You for Your Service appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Marty Lueken, director of EdChoice’s Fiscal Research and Education Center, about the 2025 Fiscal Fact Book. They discuss how much is really spent per student, where the money comes from, why staffing has grown even as enrollment has declined, the fiscal impact of school choice programs, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding School Funding in the U.S.
10:03 The Impact of School Choice Programs
20:30 Challenges and Misconceptions in School Funding

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Fiscal Facts Behind School Choice with Marty Lueken appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Happy Fourth of July! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

From the Battlefield to the Home Front

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

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

An Opportunity for Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass is joined by Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, and Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, to break down the health care provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

They focus specifically on the bill’s Medicaid provisions, including efforts to enforce eligibility checks, freeze the growth of provider tax schemes, and reduce improper enrollment. Blase and Tsapelas also discuss the reality behind claims that millions will lose coverage, the true cost of Medicaid expansion, and the perverse incentives that allow states to game the federal reimbursement system.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The One Big Beautiful Bill’s Impact on Medicaid with Brian Blase and Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

By God’s grace, all of our team members are safe and unharmed. Over the weekend, staff worked tirelessly to recover essential equipment, documents, and other critical items before more rain arrived. I am deeply grateful for their quick action and dedication during this difficult time.

We are now working to secure a new location and restore operations so we can continue to serve the people of Missouri. But today, our thoughts are with those in the broader community who are suffering far more. Many of our neighbors have lost their homes, their livelihoods, and, in the most tragic cases, their loved ones.

To those families and individuals affected, we offer our heartfelt condolences. The path to recovery will be long for many, and we are keeping you in our prayers.

As we move forward, the Show-Me Institute remains committed to our mission of advancing liberty and opportunity in Missouri. We are thankful for the support of our community and will continue our work with resilience and purpose, even as we begin to rebuild.

The post Tornado Severely Damages Show-Me Institute Headquarters appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This has, not surprisingly, led to a lot of citizen concern and pushback. In response to this, city government has gone in exactly the wrong direction and scaled back public comments at its council meetings. This is not how local government is supposed to operate.

I worked at the St. Louis County Council from 2001 through 2006. Most of the time, very few people showed up to give public comment. There were exceptions. Over the past few decades, several things have happened to change how local governments in Missouri (and probably everywhere) handle public comments in meetings. First, security concerns have increased for obvious reasons. Second, adding video and streaming to local meetings has encouraged some people to attend and play to the crowd while speaking. Finally, COVID really brought local government front and center to a lot of people (and not in a good way).

So some local governments have changed speaking policies after some public comment sessions got out of hand, like this one. Sedalia, however, has in my opinion gone too far (and I say that as someone who speaks before a lot of local councils).

Sedalia has limited all public comments to items on the agenda unless you have requested permission 48 hours beforehand to speak about something else. I don’t oppose a similar version of this idea, which St. Louis County and a few others have implemented, which is to place public comment on agenda items early in the meeting (where it should be, before officials vote on the issue) and save non-agenda items for the end (where officials can leave if they have to as their voting is over). I also don’t disagree with time limits on comments, though those limits should be flexible based on the number of speakers. (Sedalia’s three-minute time limit is not flexible.)

Being forced by Sedalia city government to beg permission to speak on other items of concern 48 hours ahead of time is deeply troubling. Here is a recent video of people being aggressively gaveled down at the end of a meeting for simply wanting to make public comment. (I know at least one of these people stated they requested permission more than 48 hours ahead of time, but apparently that request was “lost.”)

Local governments have a right to impose some limits on public comments at their meetings to manage an orderly process. Sedalia is going too far, however. Requiring 48-hour notice and pre-approval for speakers who simply want to address city issues that might not be on that night’s agenda is not good local government practice. Sedalia should change its rules.

The post Shutting Down Dissent in Sedalia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of this commentary appeared in The Heartlander

Tradeoffs and give-and-take are at the heart of politics. We’re told that the politicians who are willing to compromise are the ones who “get things done.” But not every tradeoff is worth it. Case in point: In the Missouri legislature, passage of a relatively weak open-enrollment measure has been discussed as a “both/and” that could be tied to passage of another bill that strips the State Board of Education (BOE) of its authority to accredit (or refuse to accredit) Missouri’s public schools. If that’s the offer, it deserves a hard no from legislators.

I don’t often find myself defending the BOE, and for good reason. It is fair to wonder what a school district has to do in this state to lose accreditation. Out of 517 districts, 511 (98.8 percent) are fully accredited, six are provisionally accredited, and none are unaccredited. The Ferguson-Florissant school district is fully accredited despite the fact that only 20 percent of its students are proficient in English language arts, and just 16 percent are proficient in math. Hazelwood, another fully accredited district, shows similarly troubling numbers: 25 percent proficiency in English and 15 percent in math. The Clarkton C-4 district in Missouri’s Bootheel is fully accredited even though 85 percent of students scored below grade level in English/language arts or math last year. Sadly, these are just three examples among many.

The question is: if the BOE isn’t holding schools accountable, what should be done about it? According to the proponents of Senate Bill 360, the solution is to strip the BOE of the power it seems so reluctant to use. The bill would prohibit the BOE from using academic performance to classify schools for accreditation purposes. Districts would instead be allowed to hire outside accreditation agencies to evaluate them. It should be obvious that such agencies would have a strong incentive to tell the districts that hire them what they want to hear.

If the fates of these two bills are linked, what do Missourians get in exchange for essentially throwing in the towel on accountability for school districts? They get House Bill 711, which would allow for open enrollment . . . sort of. It would only let up to 5 percent of students transfer out of any district, and more importantly, it wouldn’t require districts to accept students who wanted to transfer in. Compared to what our neighbors in Kansas and Oklahoma have, this is entry-level open enrollment at best, and it isn’t worth letting the districts themselves decide whether or not they deserve to be accredited.

There is no law of nature stating that the BOE can’t hold districts accountable for student performance. The Missouri Legislature could also make the BOE do its job. In fact, we are about to have four new members of the 8-person BOE, and they are likely to bring fresh energy and commitment to accountability.

The research on high accountability and improved student outcomes is clear, so the rubber-stamping of school accreditation needs to stop. The state, which funds public education to the tune of $6.6 billion each year, has a responsibility to both students and taxpayers to make sure that money is being spent to prepare students for college or the workforce.

If a “compromise” is on offer here it is a troubling example of the misplaced priorities of Missouri’s educational establishment. Who are they protecting here—students trapped in failing schools, or school districts threatened by the prospect of being held responsible for their performance?

The post A Bad Deal for Missouri’s Children appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities is a multi-part series by David Stokes, director of municipal policy at the Show-Me Institute, offering practical, free market–oriented reforms for improving local government across the state. Each installment focuses on a core area of municipal policy—combining real-world examples, historical  context, and academic research to help cities, towns, and villages better serve residents and taxpayers.

The second installment, A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Two: Taxation, examines the sources of municipal revenue in Missouri and evaluates the state’s heavy reliance on sales and income taxes. It makes the case for rebalancing local finance by placing greater emphasis on growth-oriented taxes like property taxes and more targeted sources such as user fees, while reducing reliance on volatile and distortionary taxes. Topics include land taxes, special taxing districts, user fees, local gas taxes, and the economic consequences of tax subsidies like TIF. The report offers practical recommendations to make local tax systems more stable, transparent, and conducive to long-term prosperity.

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, Part Two: Taxation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I love science-fiction movies that portray a future, usually bleak, society. Thankfully, the predictions generally have not been borne out, yet. Los Angeles in the 2020s is a much nicer place than was predicted in The Terminator and Blade Runner. I appreciate futuristic settings where the all-powerful government maintains a sense of incompetence, like in Brazil. The byzantine bureaucracy in the future’s all-powerful dictatorship may be more sinister, but I doubt they will become more capable.

There is, unfortunately, one aspect of society that classic dystopian movies and novels did get correct: the surveillance state we live in. Still, one big difference remains between the surveillance state we have today and the one predicted in 1984 and other works. Instead of it being secretly imposed on us by the national government and the military-industrial complex, we have largely brought it upon ourselves with Ring Cameras, Life 360 phone apps, etc. It’s more Truman Show or Rear Window than Blue Thunder.

Which brings us to the expansion of Flock camera systems throughout Missouri. Flock camera systems are license plate readers along roads that connect into criminal databases. They alert police when a car involved in a crime is located. Columbia is just the latest city to contract with the company to install such a system throughout the city. The city council approved the plan in 2024, and they are currently being installed. These Flock plate readers are becoming ubiquitous in towns, counties, and subdivisions. Supporters, including the Columbia police department, claim the cameras will both help solve and deter crimes. Opponents are concerned about privacy violations and potential abuses.

As an opponent of these cameras, I will readily admit the claims about crime are true (although perhaps overstated) and that some good comes from these cameras. I am glad the murderer of the CEO in New York City was caught using the power of the vast surveillance system (much of it on private property) in Manhattan. I am also happy that the cameras can help solve many, lesser crimes.

I rarely read about supporters of the cameras acknowledging their opponent’s concerns, however. Even with the safeguards from abuse that Flock and local police have put in place, including a limited time that it maintains the data and a focus on the plate rather than the driver, these systems undoubtedly will be abused by some. For example, a police chief in Kansas used the system to stalk a former girlfriend.

Just as concerning is the troubling idea that your car is being tracked incessantly as you simply travel around. I am aware there is no “legal” right to privacy in public settings. That doesn’t make this kind of tracking right, though, and being concerned about such systems doesn’t make you a conspiracy theorist.

More legally secure but even more morally troubling is the embracing of Flock systems by private neighborhoods. If there is anything more terrifying than giving your local busybody homeowner’s association head some sophisticated tracking equipment, I have yet to see it. Imagine Tom Cruise in Minority Report, but this time it’s a Karen who’s angry about a high school party. Just because you don’t have a right to privacy when driving in someone else’s subdivision does not justify that subdivision tracking your comings and goings along (usually) public streets.

Nobody, including me, wants local government to be a partisan debating society where every decision is put through a philosophical prism. However, I wish that more of the part-time local officials around the state would have some type of larger political philosophy instead of just doing whatever the city manager or police chief recommends. These license plate readers and similar systems may be legal, but that doesn’t mean they are right, and the speed at which the entire system is expanding around Missouri is frightening.

Caged birds are safe but hardly free. Politicians at every level need to push back against the expansion of the surveillance state. The pursuit of happiness includes the ability to exist without being tracked. At this point, we may get to 1984 yet. The best we can hope for is that it is more like Idiocracy than Soylent Green.

The post The Surveillance Society Is Here appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These are average values, of course, and not everyone can afford an average mortgage or rent payment. However, the United Way also ranks St. Louis second in the nation (tied with Pittsburgh and trailing only Cincinnati) for the highest number of affordable rental units (80) per 100 households.

It’s good to see St. Louis earn a high national ranking in something other than crime; nevertheless, 80 rental units for every 100 households that need a place to live still isn’t enough housing. So, what can St. Louis do to meet the remaining affordable housing demand?

First, local governments need to get out of the way and let the free market work its magic. My colleague Patrick Tuohey has highlighted the harm that misguided government intervention has done to housing markets in both St. Louis and Kansas City:

Kansas City’s adoption of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) stifled new home construction by inflating costs. Builders, facing steep regulatory burdens, simply stopped building. In St. Louis, a reliance on tax credits and incentives for flashy developments has left vast swaths of the city with vacant lots and dilapidated buildings. In both cities, the results are clear: policies that ignore basic market principles fail to deliver desired results.

Second, the demand for low-income housing can be met indirectly by constructing more expensive or luxury housing. More housing, whether low-income or luxury, is beneficial and will positively impact the availability of affordable housing. Even if the construction of luxury housing occurs when there is a greater demand for profitable low-income housing, the filtering effect will help address the need.

Andrew Cline of The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy extrapolates on the positive effect of luxury housing construction, describing the filtering effects of new apartment development:

Building luxury or higher-end apartments draws higher-income renters out of yesterday’s luxury apartments and into the new luxury apartments. Increased vacancies in yesterday’s luxury apartments attract higher-income residents who’ve been living in mid-level apartments. As new construction creates more vacancies, rents come down. That effect filters throughout the housing supply, lowering rents all the way down. 

It is precisely because of this filtering effect that projects like the one in Town and Country are good news even for those looking for something in a lower price range. While a new luxury condominium development may seem irrelevant to someone seeking a more affordable place to live, it nevertheless represents an increase in supply and exerts downward pressure on housing prices.

The post For More Affordable Housing We Need More Housing, Period appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The size of Missouri’s kindergarten classes is getting smaller. The birth rate peaked in the state in 2008. Five years later, kindergarten enrollment in the state peaked at nearly 72,000 children. Since then it has steadily declined and total kindergarten enrollment is down by 10,000 students. The chart below illustrates the decline:

Missouri Public Schools Kindergarten Enrollment

It doesn’t take a demographer to see where total enrollment is going. Ultimately, every public school grade will be down by at least 10,000 students—which is a total of 130,000 from peak enrollment in the state.

There will no doubt be handwringing about teacher layoffs, school closings, and consolidation. But anyone who had been paying attention could have planned for this.  We’ve had a decade to adjust our perspective.

The post Public Education in Missouri Is Shrinking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Happy Thanksgiving appeared first on Show-Me Institute.