David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, new federal proposals aimed at lowering healthcare costs through cost sharing, employer coverage reforms, and prescription drug transparency. They also break down the latest installment of David Stokes’ Free Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities on parks and recreation, the role of user fees and outsourcing, national polling on public school open enrollment and why parents strongly support it, what they are watching as the 2026 legislative session approaches, and more.
Guest hosting Mundo in the Morning on KCMO Talk Radio, Patrick Tuohey speaks with Thomas Friestad of the Kansas City Business Journal about how Kansas STAR bonds work and what they mean for a proposed Kansas City Chiefs stadium.
Guest hosting Mundo in the Morningon KCMO Talk Radio 95.7 FM and 710 AM on December 30, 2025, Patrick Tuohey of the Show-Me Institute breaks down the math behind Kansas STAR bonds proposed for a Kansas City Chiefs stadium, explaining why the revenue projections may not add up and why taxpayers could be more exposed than advertised.
Supporters of a plan to “revitalize” Charleston, a city in southeast Missouri just a bit north of the Bootheel, are acting like they have struck gold with the idea of a chapter 353 tax abatement plan for the city.
“We have gone from about 80 properties to about 480 properties,” Hulshof explained. “My cup runneth over.”
Like supporters of government-managed economic development programs everywhere, backers of the plan in Charleston think that if the government approves the right plan here, with the right subsidy there, with the right government agency approval soon, that government plans can magically turn a struggling city into a boomtown. As economist Dick Netzer once mocked these eco devo officials, “Who needs oil wells, when a state can be another Kuwait just by increasing the budget of a tiny agency?”
A Chapter 353 plan with mass property tax abatements would not help Charleston. It would, in fact, almost certainly hurt it more. If property taxes are too high for businesses in Charleston (which I doubt, to be honest), then the city, school district, county, etc. should lower the rate for everyone, not give some property owners in downtown Charleston a big tax abatement that will almost certainly force tax increases on everyone else to make up the difference.
There are a multitude of studies that demonstrate the fallacy of believing that government economic development agencies can successfully engineer economic growth through various subsidies. Here is one simple summary from two economists who have looked at the question thoroughly: “The best case is that incentives work about 10% of the time and are simply a waste of money the other 90%.”
Among the most vocal critics of the NorthSide plan was the chair of Washington University’s Department of Economics, Prof. Michele Boldrin, who testified at the trial that the benefits promised by McKee such as new jobs and increases in property value were “dreamy,” “out of thin air,” “unreasonable,” and “completely arbitrary” and further stated that “if an MBA student came up with it, I’d throw him out of my office.”
St. Louis and other cities in Missouri have been using tax incentives as a prop for politicians to claim they are “doing something” for decades. How has it worked out for St. Louis? As author Colin Gordon wrote in him study on that precise question in his book, “Mapping Decline”:
The overarching irony, in Saint Louis and elsewhere, is that efforts to save the city from such practices and patterns almost always made things worse. In setting after setting, both the diagnosis (blight) and its prescription (urban renewal) were shaped by — and compromised by — the same assumptions and expectations and prejudices that had created the condition in the first place.
If you think the results in Charleston are going to be any different, I have a bridge over the Mississippi to sell you. A Chapter 353 plan for Charleston will allow politicians and planners to claim they are doing something, it will benefit the politically connected and the lucky, and it will empower city government to get more involved in the local economy. All of these things are, by the way, bad things. What a 353 plan won’t do for Charleston is help revitalize the city or grow the economy.
For years, federal audits of state Medicaid programs weren’t much more than a bureaucratic annoyance. Come 2030, Missouri has something to fear.
Over the past several months, I’ve written about the many changes coming to Missouri’s welfare programs as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). One of the most impactful changes involves the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In short, if Missouri doesn’t get its SNAP payment error rate below 6%, state taxpayers will start paying for a portion of the program’s benefit costs (the federal government currently covers 100% of benefits), which could potentially increase the state taxpayer cost to $400 million per year. A similar change is coming to Medicaid.
Despite accounting for roughly one fifth of total U.S. healthcare spending, Medicaid has until now lacked stringent federal accountability for payment errors. Just last year, more than $31 billion in improper payments were made across the program according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The OBBB requires HHS to reduce state Medicaid matching payments (more here on how Medicaid is financed) starting in 2030 when improper payment rates exceed 3% of total Medicaid expenditures.
Missouri should be particularly concerned about this change. In 2022, when the state’s Medicaid program was last audited by the federal government, its improper payment rate was 4.2%, which already exceeded the new 3% threshold. And there’s little reason to believe things have improved since then. Just last month, I wrote about the recent state audit showing that Missouri lacks systems to check enrollees against death records and that thousands of recipients went years without having their eligibility verified.
The financial implications for Missouri could be substantial. With more than one in five Missourians now on the program and Medicaid already consuming a massive portion of the state budget, even a small reduction in federal matching payments could force state taxpayers to cover millions more in costs.
The good news is that Missouri has more time to address this than it does for SNAP. The bad news? Given the state’s track record on technology modernization and the sheer volume of problems that need fixing, there’s plenty of reason for skepticism about whether Missouri will rise to the challenge.
While the OBBB’s focus on program integrity might be a nuisance for state bureaucrats, there’s no doubt that a corrective measure is long overdue. Taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened with millions (or perhaps billions) in new Medicaid costs because our state can’t get its improper payments under control.
Under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states must identify unsafe schools and notify families of students who attend them that they have the right to move their child to a safer public school. This requirement is called the Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO). In Missouri, it isn’t working. The problem comes down to one word in state policy.
Right now, Missouri only classifies a school as unsafe if it has a high rate of violence and a high number of expulsions for three years in a row. Because expulsions almost never happen, the conditions are almost impossible to meet. As a result, no school is ever designated as unsafe, and families aren’t allowed to transfer out.
Changing one word, from “AND” to “OR,” would finally make the rule work the way federal law intended.
What doesn’t work
Since the law passed, there have been nearly 19,000 violent incidences in Missouri schools and over 4,000 weapons violations. In 2024, more than 12,200 Missouri students attended schools that had at least one violent incident in each of three consecutive years, 2022, 2023, and 2024. Even with these numbers, the state has not identified a single school as unsafe.
Missouri schools expelled zero students in 2024 and only five students in 2023. With so few expulsions, the Unsafe School Choice Option almost never applies, even in schools with serious safety problems.
The simple fix: change one word
In places like Poplar Bluff, University City, and the City of St. Louis, students face serious safety problems each year, yet their families have never been told about their rights.
Missouri should replace the word and with or.
A school should be designated unsafe if it has serious violence, or a high expulsion rate, or weapons violations.
This one change would help families learn when a school is unsafe and allow them to use the transfer option that federal law gives them.
More About the USCO
This one-pager explains how Missouri’s overly narrow definition leaves families without the protections ESSA guarantees and outlines steps policymakers can take to fix it.
Tiara Jordan-Sutton joined Susan Pendergrass on The Show-Me Institute Podcast to discuss school safety, parental power in education, Missouri’s failure to implement the federal Unsafe School Choice Option, and more.
Unsafe Schools and Parental Empowerment with Tiara Jordan-Sutton
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.
