Boxes Are Finally Getting Checked

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

The Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Account program was passed into law in the 2021 session and went into effect last fall. This law creates scholarships that will help some Missouri families pay for things such as tuition, tutoring, online classes, educational therapies, and other education expenses. However, the necessary rulemaking and appropriations for administering the law have only just been completed. In the interest of getting eligible students signed up and scholarship accounts opened for them, the state treasurer’s office has issued emergency rules that went into effect at the end of April.

These rules govern the types of scholarship organizations that can be created, the types of programs that are eligible to receive scholarship funds, including certified homeschool, and the final eligibility requirements for students who can apply for the scholarships. The only remaining hurdle is getting taxpayers to donate to the program.

The wheels of government don’t always move quickly, but at least in this case they have moved. Hopefully, by the fall, nearly 5,000 Missouri students will have Empowerment Scholarships Accounts. Missouri parents are finally getting more options for directing the education of their children without having to move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Privacy Is for People, Not Government

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Earlier this year, I excoriated a concerning initiative out of the governor’s office that would have brought new barriers to government transparency, including reinstating attorneys’ fees in the document production process for Sunshine Law requests and limiting the kinds of documents otherwise available to the public. The governor’s plan appears to be mostly dead, but pieces remain in legislation that has now passed the Senate—and that should concern the public.

And as often happens with the Missouri Legislature, there is some irony with how the bill in question has “evolved.” Senate Bill (SB) 741 originally only established a “Personal Privacy Protection Act”—new provisions that would protect citizens’ private records from the government and, if the government had such private records, protected them from disclosure to the public. After it was amended in the Senate, SB 741 became a wide-ranging bill that now primarily protects government and government records from citizens.

How so? The revised bill now has a bevy of transparency-denying provisions, among them:

  • The bill excludes many so-called “transitory records” drafted in the process of government policy development but not finalized government policies
  • The bill grows the list of excuses to close public records and meetings to the public
  • The bill removes many records relating to the “legislative process” from the purview of the Sunshine Law
  • The bill extends the time allowed to respond to a records request

Suffice to say, if the House even bothers to take the bill up (time in the session is ticking down), it should amend this legislation dramatically, stripping out any language that protects the government from its people rather than vice versa. The “personal privacy” of constituents is an important priority, to be sure, but government doesn’t have “privacy,” and the legislature shouldn’t act like it does.

Lower Taxes, More Revenue?

Posted on by Corianna Baier

When a tax cut is proposed, critics often question how the government can function with the loss of revenue. But lowering taxes doesn’t necessarily mean the government will get less revenue, especially in the long run.

While taxes create a lot of adverse incentives, those in favor of tax cuts often predict that a tax cut will create incentives that have a positive effect on the economy. Companies and individuals certainly consider the tax climate when making major decisions (like where to locate or what to invest in). States and cities with lower tax rates may find that many of those decisions work out in their favor.

A recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece gives a few examples of how a cut to the federal corporate income tax changed behavior and seems to have increased corporate income tax revenue. The article notes that corporate income tax revenue is up 22 percent from the previous year for the first six months of 2022. Though there are other variables, the piece concludes, “Lowering the rates while broadening the base by eliminating loopholes created incentives for more efficient investment decisions that paid off for shareholders, workers, and the government.”

States and cities may see similar effects if they cut taxes—like the earnings tax in St. Louis City, as one example. The 1 percent income tax and 0.5 percent payroll tax in St. Louis City only apply to those who live or work within the city limits. This tax incentivizes businesses to locate outside the city, taking their money and their workers with them. It’s understandable why businesses react this way, but it doesn’t help a city that seems to be shrinking every day.

While a reduction or elimination of the earnings tax would be a blow to St. Louis City’s tax revenue, it’s likely that this tax cut would sway business decisions in the city’s favor. Businesses would be more willing to locate in the city now that they wouldn’t be effectively cutting their workers’ pay by 1 percent. After a while, revenue collected from new businesses and workers through other taxes could offset losses from the earnings tax.

Now, does a tax cut guarantee that a government will have more revenue? Of course not; there are many other factors that affect business decisions and tax revenue generation. But this is just some food for thought: lower taxes don’t necessarily mean less revenue.

Parents’ Bill of Rights Heads to Senate Vote, But Obstacles Remain

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

Yesterday I testified before the Senate Education Committee on House Bill (HB) 1858, a parents’ bill of rights that we’ve written about in the past. The bill addresses a number of education and parents’ rights issues, but in my view the biggest reform is the implementation of the mandatory posting of school curricula and instructional materials online. In a twist, the committee voted the bill through to the full Senate immediately after it received testimony. The speed of the committee’s action was somewhat surprising—a committee vote usually doesn’t happen until days or even weeks after testimony—but the committee’s action was by no means unprecedented.

Because HB 1858 was not amended in committee, the bill could technically be sent to the governor if the Senate passed it as is, since the bill’s language is currently identical to what the House passed. Given comments made by some senators at the hearing, however, it sounds like a handful of changes will be forthcoming, and those changes will then need to be approved by or negotiated with the House. The hearing also reaffirmed that a final vote in the Senate could be close, with one of the six committee Republicans voting against the bill.

On the heels of the Missouri Senate purportedly voting through “one of the most progressive budgets” it’s ever passed, the prospect of the parents’ bill of rights being gutted on the Senate floor or even failing is a more real possibility to me than at any time this legislative session. To be clear, I’m still generally optimistic about the current text, or something close to it, becoming law this year, but I hope the Senate leadership is prepared to use its political capital to get this important legislation across the finish line. Stay tuned.

Podcast: Charter Schools in America with Ron Rice

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan speaks with Senior Director of Government Relations at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Ron Rice.

Ron C. Rice has over 15 years of public policy experience in the fields of education, urban development, and community empowerment initiatives as an executive state government appointee and two-term local elected official.

Prior to joining the National Alliance, Ron served as the Special Assistant/Chief Policy Analyst for the Chief of Staff to the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education, and as a city councilman for two terms in Newark under Mayor Cory Booker where he created his ward’s Education Support Committee and consistently supported charter school facility needs and their growth and advancement throughout the city, specifically working with KIPP (TEAM Rise and SPARK Academies), Uncommon Schools (North Star Academy), and community charters such as Marion P. Thomas Charter School, Lady Liberty Academy, and Adelaide Sanford Charter School.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

You Like Options, Right?

Posted on by Corianna Baier

As consumers, we like options when buying things. We like choosing between the red and the blue package, the more expensive and the less expensive, the brand that’s on TV and the one that’s new. The same is true for services. Don’t you like being able to choose between multiple doctors or hairdressers based on your needs, schedule, and budget?

New options for Missouri consumers appeared to be under threat based on a bill currently in the Missouri House—but a recent change could fix serious problems with this proposal. House Bill 2138 seeks to establish Missouri as part of the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Interstate Compact. Joining the compact would allow for mutual license recognition between Missouri and other states in the compact for audiologists and speech-language pathologists. However, the original language of the bill seemed to allow this compact to nullify licensing reciprocity for this field, which was already established (for all occupational licenses) in 2020.

Licensing reciprocity vastly increased options for consumers by allowing licensed professionals from all other states to operate in Missouri without requiring an extensive relicensing process. If licensing reciprocity for audiologists and speech pathologists were nullified and replaced with an interstate compact, Missouri would only recognize licenses from states within the compact, not all states. This could result in significantly decreased options and higher prices for consumers. If you were looking for a speech-language pathologist to help with your child’s stutter, does it matter if their license originated in Colorado (a compact state) or Texas (a non-compact state)?

Fortunately, a positive change was made to the bill text. There is now language that appears to establish the compact while keeping reciprocity in place. This changes this bill from a step backward for consumers to a step forward for workers. If the legislature passes this bill (and that’s a big if) Missouri consumers will still have access to audiologists and speech-language pathologists in 50 states and Missouri licensees in these fields will now have access to customers in all the states within the compact. Increasing access creates more options for consumers and encourages competition, which lowers prices. Lawmakers made a good change to this bill; hopefully they can follow through and deliver on this legislation.

Another Crack at Expansion?

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

Earlier this week, Missouri’s legislature moved one step closer to sending another question to Missouri voters regarding Medicaid expansion. This time though, the ballot question won’t be about expanding Medicaid eligibility. The question this time is about how much flexibility the state’s elected officials should have administering the state’s Medicaid program.

Over the past few years, my colleagues and I have written a lot about Medicaid expansion and the problems it presents for Missouri. Before voters approved the Medicaid expansion ballot measure in 2020, I wrote repeatedly about how costly expanding eligibility would be for our state, despite the ballot language suggesting the measure could somehow save money. In addition, I discussed how administratively difficult it would be to grow an already oversized program, and what that could mean for other state funding priorities.

After expansion passed, there was a long legal battle about whether the ballot initiative required the legislature to fund Medicaid expansion. In short, some legislators argued that since the expansion initiative failed to include a way to pay for the costs incurred by expansion, it was their prerogative to decide whether to pay for expansion at all (because the constitution gives the legislature exclusive authority to approve all state spending). The state supreme court disagreed and ruled that the legislature was required to find the money necessary to cover the cost of expansion. Administering the state’s largest program is more difficult than just writing a check, so the legislature now appears ready to ask voters for additional input on how they think Medicaid should be run—thus a new ballot initiative.

So far, the legislative effort is focused on three separate Medicaid issues. First, should Missouri impose work requirements for able-bodied enrollees in the expansion population? Second, should Missouri continue paying medical bills for individuals who live outside of our state boundaries? And third, should the legislature have the flexibility to decide how much money can be spent on Medicaid expansion annually, or does the program really have a “blank check”?

Since Medicaid is a partnership with the federal government, it’s not clear how easy each of these changes would be to implement, as they’d likely require federal approval as well. But I do believe additional flexibility would represent a major step forward for Missouri’s Medicaid program. And as far as I know, Missouri voters have never weighed in on these three issues before, so it will be interesting to see if they agree.

Building Height Limitations Are Unwise

Posted on by David Stokes

There is a controversy in Kansas City’s Country Club Plaza. A developer would like to build a nine-story building on the Plaza. That doesn’t sound very high, especially in the place where they sang songs about seven-story skyscrapers.

Then again, in the song, they said that seven stories is about as high as a building oughta grow, and perhaps that explains the limits on building heights that they have in the Plaza, and, hence, the controversy.

The Plaza area has had height limits in place for three decades, although the limits were advisory until about three years ago when they became law. The limit for buildings is between three and five stories, depending on the location within the Plaza district.

I have been to the Plaza many times and I, like most people I know, love the look, feel, and vibe of it. But I think that the property rights of the developer along with the benefits of urban density make building height limits a questionable idea.

Kansas City is not the only city in Missouri with building height limits. St. Louis has them, too, in certain areas. I would imagine many other towns also have them, but they don’t come into play much. Nobody is proposing to put a 42-story office building in Poplar Bluff right now.

I think the most famous example of building height limits in the United States is Washington, D.C. Those very strict limits have certainly given our capital a consistent look, but they are undeniably one of the reasons housing and office costs in DC are so high.

Removing the height limits in Kansas City won’t make it Manhattan overnight (no, not that Manhattan). But if a developer wants to build an unsubsidized, tall building along the Plaza, shouldn’t the economic, social, and environmental benefits of allowing taller buildings be given greater weight than the desire to maintain a “consistent look” for an area, even an area as iconic as the Plaza?

Podcast: Discount Drugs and a Broken Program with Bill Smith

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Over the past decade, the revenue for hospitals generated by the federal 340B drug discount program, initially intended to serve low-income, uninsured populations, has exploded even while a number of important Massachusetts hospitals have reduced the level of charity care they provide, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute. The Pioneer Institute study, “340B Drug Discounts: An Increasingly Dysfunctional Program,” notes that nationwide, 340B drug sales rose from $9 billion in 2014 to $38 billion in 2020.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with William S. Smith, Senior Fellow and Director of the Life Sciences Initiative at Pioneer Institute, and co-author of the study. He has 25 years of experience in government and in corporate roles, including as vice president of public affairs and policy at Pfizer, and as a consultant to major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies. He held senior staff positions for the Republican House leadership on Capitol Hill, the White House, and in the Massachusetts Governor’s office. He earned his PhD with distinction at The Catholic University of America (CUA).

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging