Page 168 – Show-Me Institute

This Bill Could Hurt Consumers,Workers,and Businesses in St. Louis

Posted on July 31, 2020January 13, 2026 by Corianna Baier

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen just passed a bill that could have serious negative effects on St. Louis City consumers. The bill, which I discussed in a previous blog post, mandates a cap on delivery fees that food delivery services can charge restaurants in the city at 5 percent. Not only is this government overreach, but there will likely be negative consequences for delivery consumers.

The government overreach here is clear: Lawmakers want to change the market and pick the winners (restaurants) and losers (food delivery services) themselves. Businesses and food delivery services have been operating with mutually agreed upon rates for years. Restaurants aren’t being duped here; they’re not forced to work with delivery services, but agree to do so in order to serve more customers. There is really no reason for the government to get involved at all.

How could this bill effect those of us using food delivery services?

If delivery fee caps are implemented, who would make up the monetary difference between the previously agreed upon service rate (which reportedly is often 25 to 50 percent) and the cap of 5 percent? It seems unlikely that food delivery services would continue business as usual after this huge hit. It’s much more likely that delivery services would increase fees for consumers (since they can’t increase fees for businesses) or reduce their now-unprofitable business dealings in St. Louis City.

We could also see less pay and fewer job opportunities for delivery drivers as food delivery services try to make up for lost earnings. This could hurt restaurants as well. If there are fewer delivery options or fees get too high, customers may simply stop ordering delivery from local restaurants.

Though intended to help small businesses, this bill could ultimately hurt consumers, delivery drivers, and restaurants in St. Louis City. I realize that we are living in unprecedented times, but we don’t want to fall into the bad habit of allowing lawmakers to control our markets. Prices should be set in the market by supply and demand and consumer preferences; lawmakers do not belong in business and market decisions.

Kansas City is Falling Behind the Region

Posted on July 30, 2020January 13, 2026 by Patrick Tuohey

The Kansas City region is a rarity in that it straddles two states. Of the fourteen counties and 2.2 million residents in our metropolitan statistical area (MSA), only about 500,000 live in Kansas City, Missouri proper. And while the region is often feted for its relatively strong economic performance among our midwestern peer cities, that strength is chiefly due to the Kansas portion of the metro area. Kansas City, Missouri must come to terms with its failures and stop hiding behind our more successful regional partners.

According to an analysis of Census data conducted by Aaron Renn for the Show-Me Institute, the Missouri portion of the region is falling behind in every measure: per capita income, college degree attainment, population growth, job growth, and well as personal income and GDP growth. Renn points out:

The Missouri portion of the metro area by itself would perform worse and be ranked lower on all the statistics above as compared to the Kansas City metro area as a whole. This is due to the superior performance of the Kansas portion of the region compared to the Missouri portion.

Show-Me Institute researchers have written for years about the many things Kansas City can do to make itself a more attractive place to live, work, and shop. Too often rosy regional stories have lulled local leaders into a false sense of success. Kansas City, Missouri isn’t succeeding. This report should spur leaders and activists to look seriously at our own performance and work to improve it.

Lawmakers Need to Start Budgeting Like Adults, Not Teenagers

Posted on July 29, 2020January 13, 2026 by Corianna Baier

It’s typical teenage behavior to run up a credit card bill and hope that someone else (like a parent or a sibling) will foot the bill. At a certain point, we tell teenagers that they need to grow up and assume responsibility for their own finances. It’s time that we tell our governments the same thing. State and local governments need to stop waiting for their “big brother” (the federal government) to foot the bill and start adjusting expenditures in response to our current economic crisis.

The economic consequences of this pandemic will be substantial, and huge budget and revenue hits will likely have a long-lasting impact. We need to right-size government spending before we put ourselves in a detrimental position.

It’s easy to fall into the habit of asking for more money instead of adapting to new circumstances. However, if a financially responsible adult takes a pay cut, he adjusts his lifestyle to fit his new income. He skips a vacation or cuts back on frivolous spending to make sure he has enough to pay for the important things, like shelter and food. We need our state and local governments to start acting with this kind of financial responsibility; debt and handouts mortgage our future.

Times of crisis present lawmakers with opportunities to reconsider priorities and take action. To be fair, the state has already taken some steps to cut spending, but more will need to be done. Perhaps it’s time to cut the often-wasted spending associated with unfair economic development handouts like tax-increment financing and other tax subsidies. Or perhaps the solution lies with cutting costs in other sectors.

Whatever the answer, the point is that finding opportunities to trim the fat in the budget is an urgent priority right now.

COVID Makes it Clear – We Need Educational Options

Posted on July 28, 2020January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

A universal system of public education would be easy if we all agreed on what it should look like. COVID-19 is making it pretty clear, however, that there is a wide range of opinions among Americans about how schools should operate this fall. Accordingly, we have seen some pretty intense conflicts as school boards make decisions that will impact the lives and livelihoods of every family in their school district. The lack of a one-size-fits-all solution to the problems caused by the pandemic should lead us to rethink the role traditional public school districts play in our lives.

In Springfield, Missouri, for example, school officials announced students would not be returning full-time in the fall. Instead, they will be on-campus two days a week and online the other three. Many parents, especially those whose lives and careers have been greatly impacted by the COVID-induced school closures, are unhappy with this arrangement. Thus far, more than 800 people have signed a petition for the school to offer more in-person learning.

During these strange times, it is clearer than ever that a single school bureaucracy simply cannot meet the varied needs of every student and every family. Should a family with health challenges be left with no virtual option because most of their neighbors want to resume in-class schooling? Should a single mother be forced to choose between putting food on the table and educating her child if schools remain closed? The obvious answer is a resounding No, but we wouldn’t be in this position if our public education system was set up to fund students instead of systems.

If we allowed people more control over where their educational dollars were spent, we could provide educational options to every family.

There are no easy decisions for school boards when making decisions that affect so many lives. Giving people educational options, however, is a no brainer.

The Star PPP-Shames Kansas City Private and Charter Schools

Posted on July 27, 2020January 13, 2026 by Michael Q. McShane

The government filings of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans have provided ideologically motivated journalists and advocates a treasure trove for scoring points against businesses and organizations they don’t like. Call it PPP-shaming.

For those who aren’t aware, PPP was created by Congress to give forgivable loans to businesses and nonprofits affected by the coronavirus. As governments across the country shut down schools and businesses, Congress realized that it needed to provide support or businesses would go under, costing millions of jobs and carving deep scars into the American economy.

The first part of the story is important. Government shut these businesses and schools down. PPP was not a “bailout,” rewarding businesses that had acted poorly or were floundering. Businesses and schools had little say in whether or not they would be able to serve customers and did not deserve to be harmed as a result.

Lots of schools took PPP loans. This shouldn’t surprise us. As Dean Johnson, leader of the Crossroad Academies charter schools in Kansas City told The Kansas City Star, “I understand the economic realities, but one way or another we need to be able to meet our expenses, and if we’re trying to provide a more complex learning model what we certainly can’t be doing is laying off staff.”

But here is where the Star’s PPP story went off the rails. Rather than examining the effects of the coronavirus on local schools and their budgets, the author decided to pit charter and private schools against the Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS), making the case that it was unfair that charter and private schools could get PPP support while KCPS couldn’t. The article PPP-shamed them. It includes the predictable jabs at Rockhurst High School’s tuition ($15,000 for the upcoming year), and a quote from the local teachers union leader taking a dig at Betsy DeVos.

Like great Kansas City jazz, it’s the notes that it didn’t play that are the most revealing.

First, it left out the fact that KCPS receives more public funding than local charter schools, and even more per pupil than most private schools. According to the state of Missouri, KCPS spent $15,137 per student in 2019. Seems like an important detail to put in the story. KCPS is hardly in penury. It is certainly not “underfunded.”

Second, as Mayor Quinton Lucas pointed out on Twitter, in Clay County, federal CARES Act dollars were allocated to support the North Kansas City and Liberty public school districts. Jackson county could do the same for KCPS but hasn’t. Maybe someone should ask them why not.

Third, the article fails to mention that if private and charter schools were to close due to the economic effects of the coronavirus (as more than 100 private schools already have), it would be terrible for KCPS. State and local governments are already reeling from decreased tax revenue due to depressed economic activity; flooding schools with hundreds or thousands of new students would put tremendous strain on KCPS or any other public school district. If public school advocates could see beyond their immediate, narrow interests they would understand that charter schools and private schools are doing them a favor.

The disappointing thing about the Star’s article is that if it were not framed as adversarial, but as a system of schools wrestling with a shared problem, we might be better able to find solutions. Judging from the social media reaction, most readers walked away from the story angry at private and charter schools, not interested in how to help all children in Kansas City get a good education in the time of the coronavirus. That’s a shame.

A Fundamental Shift is Happening in Education

Posted on July 24, 2020January 13, 2026 by Susan Pendergrass

Listen carefully. Do you hear that? It’s the ground shifting beneath the public education establishment. Families across the country are getting ready for back to school season, and they’ve had it with the inadequate plans being rolled out by their districts. They’re taking matters into their own hands. And I’m not just talking about the elite parents described in a New York Times article.

I was in the produce section of a grocery store in a fairly rural school district yesterday and overheard two grandmothers discussing what they are going to do. These ladies are the primary caregivers for their grandchildren—not uncommon in rural areas—and they were talking about joining a micro-school being set up by a teacher on their street. Or they may join a group of students that are going to meet at their church. These children from a small group of families will either have a Zootor (A Zoom tutor who facilitates virtual education as the in-person guide) or have a teacher provide instruction in person. Like so many in my nonscientific poll, they said that what the district provided last spring was absolutely terrible. Regardless of their resources, they’re going to figure out a solution that isn’t more of that.

Here is the problem: We have an epic disconnect between how education is funded and how it is being delivered this year. We have about 100,000 school buildings across this country that have been largely unused for the past six months and may or may not be used for the next six. Are we keeping the lights on in them? Are we keeping them cool enough for the minimal personnel still using them? Are we keeping the full staff of bus drivers and custodians? And, given that the answer to all of these questions is probably “yes,” are we then asking parents and primary caregivers to go out of pocket to get an education for their children that is supposed to be provided by their district? Are we willing to even discuss making changes to the collection of property taxes and the distribution of state education funds in this new reality?

One thing that I know to be true—when called, parents show up. Of course, there are far too many children stuck in horrific households and we all need to make sure that they have safe places to be. But on the whole, parents will go to great lengths for their children. The grace given to their school districts last spring is beginning to wear very thin. The daily uncertainty driven by overdue and underdefined reopening plans is causing parents to figure it out on their own or with their friends and neighbors.

The money conversation is sure to follow. While the keepers of the pre-pandemic status quo would like to hold their breath, wait for this to pass, and get back to the way things were, there have been too many fundamental changes in the delivery of public education for that to happen without resistance. A significant amount of power has shifted into parents’ hands and, like it or not, it won’t be long before parents start talking about a shift in funding methods.

It’s been clear to me for decades that parents want direct control of at least some public education dollars. But they’ve been facing an impenetrable wall of the public education establishment that dictates how things “must be done.” Parents are starting to get a peek over the wall, and I look forward to seeing how the rest of that story unfolds.

Let’s Get Real (Time Pricing)

Posted on July 23, 2020January 13, 2026 by Jakob Puckett

Missouri’s electricity market does not include many free-market principles. Incorporating them has the potential to save customers money.

Electricity prices change as demand fluctuates throughout the day, but customers who pay fixed, per-kilowatt hour rates are shielded from those changes. This price shielding also means consumers don’t benefit from cost-conscious electricity use.

Many Missourians do have access to time of use rates through their utility, which do reflect market principles to a limited degree. Two or three different rates for electricity use are set based on demand at certain times of day. For instance, customers pay a higher set rate between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. (since demand is higher) than they do during all other hours, yielding some benefits for cost-conscious consumers.

But since electricity prices change by the hour, could this time-sensitive pricing principle be extended further to yield even more consumer benefits? How would that work?

Utilities in many states offer customers “real-time pricing,” which grants residents the ability to pay market rates for electricity that change hourly based on demand. Transparent real-time prices allow customers to plan their electricity use and save money accordingly. For example, real-time pricing customers of ComEd, Illinois’ largest utility, saved an average of 15 percent on electricity supply charges between 2015 and 2018 compared to what they would have paid under a fixed-rate plan. Ameren Illinois’ real-time pricing customers also saved 10 percent during that same period.

Logistically, utilities offer websites publishing day-ahead hourly electricity prices for their customers, who are equipped with an advanced meter to measure their hourly electricity use. No cost estimates for implementing a real-time pricing program in Missouri exist, but the only equipment needed is a low-cost meter upgrade. Enrollees in Ameren Missouri’s time-of-use program pay a $1.50 fee per month to use an advanced meter. If this is any guide, costs incurred should be low and only charged to customers applying to the program.

Ultimately, while Missourians have access to a watered-down version of real-time pricing, introducing more market-based principles into electricity markets has the potential to bring more consumers benefits.

KCMO Vs KCK: Aaron Renn Joins the Show-Me Institute Podcast

Posted on July 22, 2020January 13, 2026 by Susan Pendergrass

On the most recent Show-Me Institute podcast, Dr. Susan Pendergrass is joined by Aaron Renn and Patrick Tuohey. They discuss Aaron’s recent paper published by the Institute. The report analyzes the economic conditions of Kansas City, Kansas versus Kansas City, Missouri.

Aaron Renn is an independent researcher and was formerly a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Patrick Tuohey is currently a fellow at the Show-Me Institute, where he formerly served as director of municipal policy.

Listen to the podcast here: https://soundcloud.com/show-me-institute/smi-podcast-kcmo-vs-kck-aaron-renn-and-patrick-tuohey

Read the full report here: https://showmeinstitute.org/publication/employment-jobs/kansas-city-missouri-vs-kansas

Missouri Barely Managed Distance Learning. Here’s Why

Posted on July 20, 2020January 13, 2026 by Nathan Willett

Technology perpetually changes the way education is delivered. COVID-19 has accelerated a lot of these changes, with schools scrambling to create distance learning plans as a response to closures.

For quality distance instruction, you need a few basic items—students with high-speed internet connections, proper learning devices (laptops), content from the instructor, and synchronous feedback on student work.

How did Missouri respond overall? After reviewing distance-learning plans from the more than 500 school districts throughout our state, it can be said we barely managed.

The main obstacle for many schools to implementing quality distance learning was access to high-speed internet. For students without high-speed internet, education was delivered through printed learning packets.

And many Missouri students did rely on printed learning packets because nearly 1 in 4 students in our state does not have access to high-speed internet. Just as shocking: 1 in 10 teachers don’t have access either. Without a reliable internet connection, students couldn’t use online resources and their teachers couldn’t provide proper feedback. Thus, districts were left with providing homework packets that were for “enrichment” purposes only. From our research of distance learning plans, most packets found on district websites did not cover fourth quarter state standards that students were expected to learn. To put it simply, learning did not happen for many students.

Some schools deserve credit for responding creatively to the unexpected challenges. Some creative solutions included providing Wi-Fi in school parking lots, having teachers post read-a-longs on school Facebook pages, and partnerships with internet companies that provided two months of free service to households. However, these temporary band-aids are not long-term answers for Missouri student learning.

The few school districts that were able to continue with effective distance instruction made sure that every student had a device and access to high-speed internet before resuming instruction. Those districts were by and large suburban and already had the infrastructure in place. Most rural and urban areas in the state don’t have such infrastructure.

A majority of districts have sizable student populations without high-speed internet or without devices. In those communities, school leaders decided to not leave these students behind, meaning instruction goes at the speed of those receiving paper packets in the mail. This means instruction is slowed down to the lowest-common denominator, and other kids with online resources are being held back. And there’s no quick solution. Despite numerous grants, expanding high-speed internet across Missouri it is not cheap and is not a problem that falls on the school districts.

We all hope that schools can reopen and that students can go back to in-person learning. However, if schools must temporarily shut down due to an outbreak, students deserve more than what was offered last spring. If we don’t start getting ready for the next crisis now, the prospect of quality distance learning is unlikely for Missouri.

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.