Have a safe and happy Fourth of July from all of us at the Show-Me Institute.
Credit Where Credit Is Due
Governor Kehoe took a red pen to the state budget before signing it, indicating that he takes his fiscal responsibility seriously. When it comes to cuts in the education budget, of which there were more than 25, the governor repeatedly mentioned in a letter to the secretary of state that “the budget includes historic funding for public education, totaling over $4 billion, including a half a billion dollars in new funding over the prior fiscal year . . .”
His response to a laundry list of budget items that were earmarked for a particular school district was:
Given the State’s historic investments in education this year, it is incumbent upon local school districts to prioritize the use of their resources for this type of programming as they deem appropriate and necessary.
In other words, the Foundation Formula is intended to make sure that all districts have and are able to spend an amount that is “adequate” for the successful education of their students. The Foundation Formula funds should cover repairing an outdoor track in the Houston R-1 school district, not earmarks.
Some programs, such as the St. Louis reading literacy program or Kansas City for K-12 career literacy resources, were vetoed entirely because the budget contains “multiple other areas of funding for similar programs.”
Increases for programs such as the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Scholarships or the Workforce Diploma Program were removed. Perhaps the governor wants to see evaluations of the impact of these programs first.
All in all, the governor, along with his staff, appears to have finally taken a close look at the education items in the budget before signing it. Perhaps the next fiscal year, when the governor is involved from the beginning, will usher in a new era of responsibility and accountability for the spending of our hard-earned dollars.
Missouri Finally Dials in Telemedicine Reform
Following years of unanswered calls, lawmakers finally delivered much-needed reform to the state’s telemedicine laws in the waning days of Missouri’s 2025 legislative session.
Senate Bill (SB) 79 will (if Governor Kehoe signs it), among other things, expand the definition of “telehealth” or telemedicine to include audio-only and audiovisual services. On its face, SB 79 may not seem like the biggest or most impactful change, but it addresses a major problem with Missouri’s telemedicine laws that has been needlessly restricting access to care for years.
A few months ago, I wrote about several ways in which healthcare access for Missouri residents could be improved, and abandoning the requirement for video in cases where it isn’t medically necessary was one of the policies I highlighted. There are still large parts of Missouri without reliable broadband internet access, and not everyone has a phone or computer capable of transmitting video. Further, not every medical treatment requires a visual examination (for example, mental health services). Given our state’s well-documented shortage of healthcare providers, any effort to improve healthcare access without sacrificing safety or quality of care is welcome.
It’s easy to forget that back during the COVID-19 pandemic, Missouri ranked among the national leaders in telemedicine access. Various laws and regulations were waived for emergency response purposes, allowing patients to access their providers virtually with more ease than ever before. In turn, telemedicine grew tremendously in both functionality and popularity, among patients and providers alike—until the emergency ended and many of the unnecessary regulatory burdens telemedicine previously faced were allowed to return.
After several years of telemedicine reform nearly reaching but failing to cross the finish line, SB 79’s passage feels like a long time coming. As states across the country continue improving their licensing laws to expand healthcare supply and account for changing technology, Missouri could no longer afford to keep reform on hold. And while the bill doesn’t address all of the areas in which I think Missouri’s telemedicine laws could be improved, it does represent a small, important step in the right direction.
Going into next year, there is still plenty of work to be done to improve Missourian’s access to care. Hopefully, SB 79 is a signal that our lawmakers are dialing up more expansive healthcare reforms for 2026.
Why Is PortKC Keeping Secrets?
PortKC has become Kansas City’s go-to agency for economic development incentives—but with a troubling condition. Applicants must sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), quietly embedded on page 16 of its Development Application Package. Why?
Secrecy isn’t standard practice. The Economic Development Corporation—which oversees the TIF Commission and other incentive bodies—does not require NDAs.
These agencies also hold more public meetings, solicit community input, and include representation from schools and libraries. Mayoral appointments to the TIF Commission must be confirmed by the city council. In contrast, the mayor appoints PortKC board members unilaterally.
This lack of transparency disserves the public. While developers might prefer NDAs when pursuing public subsidies—which is a separate concern—here, it’s the public agency itself insisting on secrecy. That’s even more alarming.
PortKC has other problems, some of which I detail in a recent column for The Kansas City Star:
A series of audits from 2021 through 2024 flagged serious internal control problems, including one where the finance director had full authority over journal entries, deposits and account reconciliation — with no oversight. Port KC has repeatedly promised to fix these issues and repeatedly failed to act.
PortKC’s transparency problem is compounded by persistent failures in oversight. A string of audits from 2021 through 2024 flagged major internal control issues. In one case, the finance director had sole authority over journal entries, deposits, and account reconciliation with no checks in place. PortKC acknowledged the problem and pledged reform but never followed through.
The 2024 audit revealed yet another compliance failure: the agency hadn’t verified whether its development partners were barred from receiving federal funds—a basic federal requirement known as “Suspension and Debarment.” Given PortKC’s increasing intake of federal money, this oversight is especially serious.
These aren’t isolated lapses. PortKC also failed to properly vet Lux Living in 2022. The pattern is clear and ongoing. With long-standing problems still unaddressed, the question is no longer whether something will go wrong, but when.
These issues matter more than ever. At the time of my Star column, I noted PortKC might be involved in financing a downtown park for the Royals. That’s now more likely: the Kansas City Business Journal reports that tax-free bonds via PortKC are under discussion.
Meanwhile, city officials are exploring ways to approve deals without a public vote. Combine that with PortKC’s built-in secrecy, and the result is troubling: public funds deployed without public oversight.
Why Missouri Needs Universal Open Enrollment
Missouri parents deserve real choices when it comes to their children’s education. Open enrollment—the ability for students to attend a public school outside their home district—is one of the most promising tools for expanding educational opportunity in the state. But unless open enrollment is universal, meaning every district must allow transfers in and out, it risks becoming an empty promise.
The goal of open enrollment is simple; give families the ability to choose a public school, regardless of where they live. But for the past few years, the Missouri Legislature has considered, and the governor has voiced support for, a limited system in which only students in certain districts would have this option. This creates a patchwork of access. Families in one district may enjoy a range of transfer options, while a family just a few miles away may have none because neighboring districts refuse to participate. True educational freedom requires that all districts be required to take transfer applications, subject to capacity.
Open enrollment that is voluntary for districts is designed to protect school systems, not students. High-performing or in-demand districts can refuse to accept transfer students in order to limit competition and maintain the status quo. Universal open enrollment instead puts the interests of students and families first. It ensures that every Missouri child—regardless of their zip code—has a real chance to attend a school that better fits their educational needs.
Missouri needs a universal open enrollment system that is clear and easy for families to understand. Parents should know they have the right to apply to any public school with available space, and districts shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who gets access. This type of system has worked in states such as Florida and Wisconsin, where universal open enrollment has provided thousands of students with better options and driven improvement in both receiving and sending districts. Our neighbors, Nebraska and Kansas, have recently launched some of the strongest universal open enrollment programs in the United States.
Voluntary open enrollment systems create confusion, inconsistency, and frustration. Families must navigate district-by-district rules, and many discover they cannot transfer simply because another district chooses to “opt out.” In 2026, Missouri lawmakers have the opportunity to enact a universal open enrollment policy that truly empowers parents instead of protecting districts. Shouldn’t open enrollment be designed for all Missouri families and not just some?
Why the New Property Tax Rules in Missouri Are Bad, Part 2
This is the second in a series of blog posts about why the new property tax legislation passed as part of Senate Bill 3 in the recently concluded special session of the Missouri Legislature is harmful.
The new state law creates three types of counties with different rules for property taxes and assessments: five percent counties (75 total counties), zero percent counties (22), and unaffected counties (17). For more details on the differences among these counties, go here.
There are many reasons why these substantial changes to the system are bad. The first one, which I wrote about previously, is that property taxes are generally the least harmful tax for economic growth. So, if you want to create a tax system that encourages greater economic opportunity for all Missourians, the property tax is the last tax you should focus on.
This post is about the absurdity of putting Jackson County in the unaffected category. Jackson County is home to most of Kansas City and is the second-largest county in Missouri. It has had by far the worst administration of assessment and tax collection in recent years of any Missouri county. This is like a patient going to the doctor with a bad left knee and the hospital deciding to amputate their right arm. You made everything worse but didn’t address the main problem that started it all.
The solution to Jackson County’s issues is not to simply make it a zero percent or five percent county. That would cause serious problems over time, which we will eventually see in the other zero and five percent counties in Missouri if the law is upheld in court. What you need in Jackson County is first and foremost better administration. If 113 counties can generally make the assessment and tax process work without being sued by the state tax commission and one cannot, then the problem is with the one county, not with the overall process. Electing the Jackson County Assessor (instead of the assessor being appointed), which will be voted on soon, would be a good start. From a tax bill perspective, ending the rate rollback exemption for the Kansas City 33 School District is a vital change. The main reason bills increase so much in that part of Kansas City is because that district does not have to roll rates back at all, unlike every other taxing body in Missouri. Major reforms were needed in Jackson County, but instead in the special session we got bad legislation that did nothing for the taxpayers there. That’s not a win for anyone.
Future posts will discuss the potential constitutional problems with this bill, the harmful effects of favoring current homeowners over future homeowners, and a discussion of Charles Tiebout and his theories. For more information, please see my testimony from the special session, these policy studies on this issue of property taxes and assessments, and related commentaries.
Why Is the Department of Economic Development Keeping Secrets?
At a Missouri House hearing on the stadium bill, Michelle Hattaway, Director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development, opened her testimony with a startling admission: “I am currently in negotiations with the Chiefs and the Royals. I am under a non-disclosure agreement with both teams, so I will do my best to answer your questions.”
Startling to me, anyway. None of the legislators on the committee seemed bothered.
Is there any public benefit to this secrecy?
There can be when vendors are bidding competitively for a state contract—say, road construction. Protecting proprietary financial or technical details in that context may encourage better bids and serve the public interest.
But stadium subsidies are different—there’s no obvious reason why secrecy is necessary or helpful. When public officials negotiate deals to hand out taxpayer money, the public deserves transparency. Teams may want discretion. State representatives may want to negotiate without tipping off competing states. But neither, in my opinion, is a good enough reason to give it to them.
Yet secrecy has become the norm. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas won’t release the city’s proposal for a downtown stadium to the Royals—even though Clay County released its proposal. The city also kept its 2017 Amazon HQ2 bid under wraps, while many other cities disclosed theirs.
Judging by the lawmakers’ lack of reaction, non-disclosure agreements are now standard operating procedure. They shouldn’t be. Even if elected officials are fine being left in the dark, the public shouldn’t be.
Is Kansas City a Public Safety Charity Case?
In a recent column for The Kansas City Star, I detailed international media stories about crime here in the City of Fountains:
How bad is crime in Kansas City? If you believe recent international headlines, we’re a “Mad Max-style hellhole,” a reference to the post-apocalyptic movie franchise. Ouch.
I grant in the piece that the headline came from a news outlet known for being sensationalist, but as Kansas City prepares to host the World Cup in 2026, our international reputation is important.
Speaking to Pete Mundo on KCMO Talk Radio the morning of May 23, Mayor Quinton Lucas, just back from a junket to Qatar, said this [at 2:32]:
Of course the Qataris were very interested in saying, “we can send people over, free of charge, to come help you.” I’ll make sure I have a chat with [KC Police] Chief Stacey Graves and some of the others before we do that, but, [it’s a] well-resourced country.
That statement came right after a discussion about transportation, but Chief Graves does not handle city transportation, nor does she serve on the board of KC2026, the committee formed to organize efforts to host the 2026 FIFA event. It appears the mayors’ understanding was that the Qataris were expressing a security concern and offering to send assistance.
Federal law does not permit foreign nationals to exercise any police powers on U.S. soil. While there may be plenty of coordination among governments and their law enforcement agencies prior to events like the World Cup, I doubt that would be handled by the hosting city’s police chief.
Just as Mayor Lucas would have been in no position to coordinate security with a foreign entity, it’s possible that the Qatari making the offer was in no position to provide it. I don’t know.
What is clear, even if Lucas doesn’t realize the implication of the offer, is that Kansas City is seen internationally as a place that cannot provide public safety to its own citizens or international visitors. That won’t be solved by advertising on buses in London, but by competent management of city resources—something we have yet to see.
Mission Impossible and Nuclear Energy: President Trump’s New Executive Orders
A version of the following commentary appeared in the Springfield News-Leader.
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.
