The Super Bowl Is a Bad Bet for New Orleans

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

The Wall Street Journal reports that New Orleans is betting big on the Super Bowl, hoping the game will spark an economic revival and convince business leaders the city is more than just a place to party. But if history is any guide, splashy events like the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and political conventions rarely deliver the promised economic windfalls.

The Big Easy has long struggled with economic hardship. Between hurricanes, crime, population loss, and a fragile tourism industry, the city has spent decades trying to regain its footing. Now, officials are using a familiar formula: host a major event, clean up the streets in high-visibility areas, woo corporate leaders, and hope business investment follows.

We’ve seen this before, and the results are almost always the same. These big events provide a temporary tourism boost, but they don’t drive long-term economic growth. The promised “boom” turns out to be a weekend blip, leaving taxpayers on the hook for security, infrastructure, and publicly funded subsidies that rarely pay off.

Take the 2016 Rio Olympics: billions spent, venues abandoned. Or Kansas City’s NFL draft, which filled bars for a weekend but left downtown empty as soon as the crowds dispersed. And New Orleans has been down this road before. The city has hosted 11 Super Bowls, yet its economic struggles persist. If the game were truly a catalyst for prosperity, wouldn’t we have seen the results by now?

New Orleans’ real challenges have nothing to do with hosting big events. The city struggles with high crime, crumbling infrastructure, and a reputation for red tape that drives businesses away.

Louisiana officials tout a $10 billion Meta AI center as a sign of a turnaround. But real economic success comes from stability, not one-off incentives and government handouts. Businesses thrive where there’s predictability—not just tax breaks to lure companies in temporarily.

Visitors saw an enhanced police presence, vehicle restrictions, and heightened security in the French Quarter. But that won’t change the fact that the city has one of the highest crime rates in the country—a problem that can’t be solved with temporary measures.

Some business leaders remain optimistic about the benefits of incentives, arguing that Louisiana can’t afford to keep losing talent and investment to Texas and Florida. But unless the city addresses its deeper systemic problems—crime, education, infrastructure and a business climate that discourages investment—it will continue to rely on big events as temporary Band-Aids.

New Orleans doesn’t need another Super Bowl. It needs leaders willing to fix real problems—not just hang banners and hope for the best.

School Choice as a Driver of Economic Development with Patrick Tuohey

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Patrick Tuohey, senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, about the intersection of education reform and economic development. They discuss the importance of school choice, its impact on property values and community growth, and how current education systems often trap families in underperforming districts. Tuohey advocates for open enrollment policies that empower parents to choose schools that best meet their children’s needs.

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction to Education Reform and Economic Development
03:06 The Role of School Choice in Economic Growth
06:02 Challenges in Urban Education Systems
09:02 The Impact of School Quality on Property Values
12:08 The Case for Open Enrollment and School Choice
14:49 Comparative Analysis of State Education Policies
18:02 The Future of Education in Missouri
21:01 Conclusion: Empowering Parents and Students

Read more from Patrick on this issue here.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Download a Transcript of this Episode Here

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Will Missouri Follow Tennessee’s Example?

Posted on by Avery Frank

Every year, the Super Bowl reminds Titans fans like me of how they came up one yard short in Super Bowl 34 against the Rams. Granted, I was only four months old at the time, but it is nevertheless a somber (or cheerful for many Missourians) reminder of how Tennessee failed to get across the finish line.

In the political realm, Tennessee has a strong track record of crossing the finish line, such as reducing the individual income tax to zero. Now, the state is adding to its policy trophy case with a new statewide school voucher program that will open doors for students across the Volunteer State.

Under the Education Freedom Act of 2025, Tennessee will offer 20,000 vouchers worth $7,296 each in taxpayer funds to help students statewide attend state-accredited private schools. The vouchers are first reserved for families with incomes 300% below the income limit to qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. The remaining scholarships have no income restrictions. This is a major step forward in expanding educational choice for Tennessee families.

Families (and even individual children within a family) have different needs. Education options should reflect that reality, and private schools are not a feasible choice for many families without financial assistance. EdChoice recently released a 2024 survey comparing educational preferences to actual enrollment numbers.

In Figure 1, parents were asked where their children are currently enrolled (the bottom bar), and then were asked where they would enroll them if they could select any type of school (the top bar).

Missouri’s actual enrollment numbers are nearly identical to actual percentages shown in Figure 1. But what is Missouri doing to allow families to meet their preferences? Tennessee saw what families wanted and took action; Missouri should follow this formula.

Governor Lee of Tennessee, much like Governor Kehoe in his recent address, placed a high priority on school choice reform. And much like Missouri, Tennessee faced strong opposition to breaking up the status quo—but leaders remained determined and got it done.

Missouri has come up short in many instances. Charter schools exist in our state, but are extremely limited. Our own ESA program helps some families, but lacks necessary public funding. Open enrollment has made it through the House four years in a row only to stall in the Senate.

If Missouri wants to build momentum and deliver education reform, determination will be key. The plays are drawn up, the end zone is in sight—we just have to get across the goal line.

Former Secretary of Education: “Shut Down the Department of Education”

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Show-Me Institute analysts typically focus on Missouri education issues. Yet, with the present debates about dismantling the federal Department of Education, what is happening in D.C. deserves a bit of attention. My words, however, can add very little to what former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos wrote in The Free Press. In a long-form opinion piece, DeVos explains why the department DoE deserves to be shuttered. Referring to the Department of Education, she writes:

So what does it do? It shuffles money around; adds unnecessary requirements and political agendas via its grants; and then passes the buck when it comes time to assess if any of that adds value. Here’s how it works: Congress appropriates funding for education; last year, it totaled nearly $80 billion. The department’s bureaucrats take in those billions, add strings and red tape, peel off a percentage to pay for themselves, and then send it down to state education agencies. Many of them do a version of the same and then send it to our schools. The schools must then pay first for administrators to manage all the requirements that have been added along the way. After all that, the money makes it to the classroom to help a student learn—maybe.

In other words, the Department of Education is functionally a middleman. And like most middlemen, it doesn’t add value. It merely adds cost and complexity.

DeVos concludes with a call to close the Department of Education. I encourage you to read her full piece. They are strong words coming from someone who once ran the agency.

A Legacy of Liberty: 20 Years of Show-Me Institute

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

Founded in 2005 by Rex Sinquefield, Crosby Kemper III, and Michael Podgursky, the Show-Me Institute has spent two decades championing free-market solutions. With key victories like reducing Missouri’s income tax, expanding school choice, and increasing government transparency through initiatives like the Missouri School Rankings Project and the Show-Me Checkbook, the Institute has driven meaningful progress across the state.

As we look to the future, the Show-Me Institute remains committed to empowering Missourians and policymakers to build a freer, more prosperous Missouri.

Why Does Missouri Want to Keep Joining Compacts?

Posted on by Avery Frank

Missouri has made strides in occupational licensing in recent years, but a little-known exception in our licensing system has the potential to undermine its effectiveness.

The Current State of Occupational Licensing in Missouri

In 2020, Missouri adopted a form of universal licensing reciprocity, allowing most professionals (there are some exceptions) who have held a valid license issued by another state for at least one year to practice in Missouri at the same occupation or level, and have all Missouri licensing requirements waived.

However, this policy has a little-known exception, known as the “compact exception,” which states:

[Reciprocity] Shall not apply to an oversight body that has entered into a licensing compact with another state for the regulation of practice under the oversight body’s jurisdiction.

A licensing compact is an agreement between multiple states to recognize each other’s licenses, but it is governed by its own set of rules and oversight. One reason that licensing boards like to join compacts is because it makes it easier to process new licensure applications. These compacts act as a central hub with all the information needed for processing the application.

However, due to the “compact exception,” joining certain compacts can increase the regulatory burden in Missouri.  This is because the compact exception overrides universal reciprocity, and boards can limit eligibility to only its member states and those following the compact’s rules. In such cases, licensing reciprocity only extends to workers from other states in the compact, instead of any qualified and licensed person who wants to move to Missouri and begin working. Yet, some compacts explicitly preserve reciprocity and state regulations, and allow the compact to serve as a voluntary option for licensing. Given this, officials must carefully evaluate how each compact would treat our universal licensing regime if passed.

Different Missouri Compacts

Senate Bill (SB) 109 is one compact that may not fall into the trap of increasing the regulatory burden in Missouri. While this compact only has 10 member states, it appears that this compact is voluntary and serves as one option to streamline the transition for dentists and dental hygienists across state lines. It states:

Allows each state to continue to regulate the practice of dentistry and dental hygiene within its borders;”

“Eligibility or ineligibility to receive a Compact License Privilege shall not limit the ability of a Licensee to seek a state license through the regular process outside of the Compact.

Since this compact does not appear to supersede Missouri’s licensing reciprocity, it wouldn’t negatively affect people moving to Missouri.

Always Read the Fine Print on Licensing Compacts

In theory, compacts should make it easier for Americans to move all around the country, but some act as a pathway for asserting regulatory control. A compact can be used by interested industries to raise licensing requirements in states that cut back on regulation, increasing costs for both consumers and potential entrants alike. It is important to read the fine print to ensure that our universal licensing reciprocity is not superseded.

NAEP 2024: Declining Scores and Rising Concerns with Nat Malkus

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Nat Malkus, senior fellow and deputy director of education policy at AEI, about the troubling 2024 NAEP results. They discuss declining reading scores, stagnant math performance, the rise in students performing Below Basic, criticisms of NAEP, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps:

0:00 Understanding NAEP: A Vital Educational Metric
1:54 Post-Pandemic Performance: A Troubling Reality
5:41 The Role of State Education Systems
7:45 Accountability and Its Impact on Education
12:19 The Influence of School Choice on Test Scores
18:40 The Honesty Gap: NAEP vs. State Accountability
24:44 Looking Ahead: Future Scores and Educational Strategies

Download Episode Transcript

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

An Update on Land Banks in Missouri: From Bad to Worse

Posted on by David Stokes

What do you do with a program that has failed repeatedly and led to corruption and cronyism? Well, if you are government in Missouri, you expand it of course.

St. Louis County wants to follow the example of the City of St. Louis and create a land bank. This land bank will allow the county to become more aggressive about acquiring and selling property, primarily through tax auctions. If the examples in St. Louis and Kansas City are any indication, the land bank will fail in its goal of getting property back to the private sector. Creating a land bank will, however, increase opportunities for corruption and hold property off-market as a favor to politically influential developers. In case you have forgotten, here is the story on land bank corruption:

[Former Alderman] Boyd admitted accepting a total of $9,500 from Doe for his help convincing the city’s Land Reutilization Authority to accept a lower bid from Doe for a commercial property on Geraldine Avenue in Boyd’s ward. The LRA ultimately accepted Doe’s $14,000 bid. The LRA initially listed the property as worth $50,000. Boyd then worked to get a property tax abatement for Doe.

Inexplicably, the state authorized land bank expansion last year. St. Louis County is moving ahead with it. This is really the worst move the county could make and it isn’t going to end well for St. Louis County.

On the other side of the state, when St. Joseph created its land bank several years ago, the authorizing legislation included elements to help protect against corruption. It prevented people who might have a conflict of interest, such as anyone affiliated with St. Joseph city government, the land bank itself, or relatives of land bank staff or St. Joseph city government, from buying land from the land bank. Keep in mind that family members of the Jackson County Executive were able to purchase and flip land bank properties in Kansas City under questionable circumstances, to say the least. From the Kansas City Star:

No houses were built, and the company formed by Frank White’s stepsons Joseph, Darrel and Jordan Hurtt more than doubled its initial $3,700 investment by selling just four lots to a woman who lived near the properties on Montgall.

Now that it’s been several years since the St. Joe land bank was created and it has accomplished nothing, there is a bill in the legislature to remove those protections against corruption. It’s astonishing. What is the thought process here? Do St. Joseph city officials want to flip a few empty houses so badly that allowing those with inside information to profit is suddenly alright in St. Joseph? When something isn’t working under honest means, the answer is not to try it with dishonest means.  I hereby award House Bill 717 the title of the worst bill in Jefferson City this year.

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri’s Tough Road Ahead

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

On January 28, Missouri’s newly sworn-in governor Mike Kehoe delivered his State of the State address. His remarks were well within the normal limits. These speeches are often just a list of priorities, but they can be of some value, especially at the beginning of a term in office.

Kehoe committed to reducing Missouri’s income tax, which is welcome. Missouri needs to be more competitive with the states around us who are also working to attract families and businesses—including those already living and working in Missouri.

But he also introduced a budget larger than previous years, and detailed a number of places where he wanted to increase spending. Those increases included a number of items regarding public safety, such as $10 million for the Blue Shield Program, $2.5 million to support the sheriff’s retirement system, a new crime lab in Cape Girardeau, and boosting spending on the Blue Scholarship Program for law enforcement basic training.

Kehoe indicated he wanted $10 million to support childcare providers, $15 million in additional funding for career and technical centers in addition to $5 million more on an annual basis for their operational costs, $800,000 in funding for Future Farmers of America, and $55 million in new bonding for state fair facilities.

Regarding education, Kehoe indicated he wanted to spend $200 million more for the education foundation formula, $370 million to fully fund school transportation, $33 million for teachers’ salaries, and $30 million in grants for rural schools.

He also asked for an additional $10 million to be spent to support Veterans Homes.

The tab comes to $53.4 billion, $450 million more than the previous year. He did not mention any cuts to spending. But he did commit to ending the state’s income tax, “once and for all.”

All the programs the governor wants to support may be good and worthwhile. But it doesn’t take an experienced budget analyst to see the problem: one cannot continually increase spending while promising to zero-out an income stream that accounts for almost 60 percent of the state’s general revenue according to the state’s Office of Administration (see page 25).

Missouri’s financial position is all the more difficult because Kehoe’s predecessor, Mike Parson, spent money like a blue state progressive.

Reducing Missouri’s income tax to zero is necessary because of the economic benefits that will accrue. But if the effort is to be successful, Missouri needs to reduce spending. A lot.

I do not envy the incoming governor and those tasked with cutting spending—but there is no other way forward.

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