Page 357 – Show-Me Institute

You will be made to care: Sex Ed Edition

Posted on October 15, 2015May 5, 2026 by Michael Q. McShane

Conservative columnist and radio host Erick Erickson coined the phrase “you will be made to care” to describe the tendency of big government supporters to assume that all people should adopt their world view.

The Star’s “letter of the week,” titled “Sensible Sex Education Works,” provided a perfect example of this concept. In it, a retired healthcare executive from Johnson County, Kansas, implored the state to take action on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Given that unwanted pregnancies are by definition unwanted, trying to decrease them seems like a good idea.

But he goes off the rails in his second recommendation when he argues that the state should “develop comprehensive sex education in our schools, with no opt-outs.”

No opt-outs. Your children will be made to care.

Now, I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill here—it’s not clear that the author has any particular sway with any local education system. Nor am I opposed to schools teaching sex education. But I am bothered by the principle that schools should be able to force certain value-laced information on children, parental preferences be damned.

Kansas City would not be the first place where such a battle might be fought. In Fairfax County, Virginia, it took huge parental outcry to get an opt-out provision in the district’s sex education curriculum. Our friendly neighbors to the north have created mandatory sex education programs. It’s not far-fetched to think that some school might try that here.

In 1925, the US Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that children are “not mere creatures of the state.” Just because someone believes that a certain sex education program would decrease unwanted pregnancies, that doesn’t trump a parent’s right to shape their child’s education. If that means opting students out of sex education class, so be it.

But more than this, it should mean that parents have the right to opt out of the traditional public system entirely, and send their children to the charter or private school of their choice.

Saint Louis Minimum Wage Increase Put on Hold

Posted on October 15, 2015May 5, 2026 by Michael Rathbone

For those who have seen the James Bond movie Goldfinger, remember when James Bond stops the atom bomb from destroying Fort Knox with 007 seconds left on the timer? That scene was pretty high-tension. The scene in Saint Louis yesterday was not as tense as that, but if the recently passed minimum wage ordinance had taken effect, the result for many businesses (and their workers) would still be pretty bad. Thankfully, the Saint Louis Circuit Court struck down the ordinance only a few hours before it was set to take effect.

You can read the Court’s decision here. Basically, the Court ruled that the ordinance conflicted with existing state law and thus was invalid.

Mayor Slay has promised to appeal to ruling, but assuming this ruling stands, we are left with the question of how best to help those working families who are struggling to get by on the current minimum wage.

Increasing the minimum wage, either at the local, state, or federal level, is not the way to go. Instead, the state and/or federal government should look to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Economists across the ideological spectrum agree that the EITC is a program that is better targeted to helping the working poor.

The EITC is a better policy than increasing the minimum wage for at least two reasons. First, it is specially targeted toward low-income households. If the minimum wage goes up, a teenager from an upper-middle class family working a minimum-wage job would get the same benefit as a single mother of two. The EITC goes only to members of low-income families who are working. Second, unlike an increase to the minimum wage, the EITC does not increase labor costs for business owners. Thus, an expansion of the EITC would not cause businesses to reduce hours or lay people off.

A lot of people might be upset by the Circuit Court’s ruling yesterday. However, this ruling provides policymakers with an opportunity to enact policies that can better help those who need it. The EITC is one such policy.

Taxes Are Still Too High for Missouri

Posted on October 15, 2015May 5, 2026 by Michael Rathbone

In his 2014 state of the state address, Governor Jay Nixon bragged that “Missouri’s a low-tax state—sixth lowest in the nation—and we like it that way.” In his letter vetoing tax cuts in 2013, the Governor reiterated this point. This claim about Missouri being a low-tax state is repeated as an article of faith by newspapers, legislators, lobbyists, and activists.

Despite the Governor’s claims, Missouri is not a low-tax state. We may have low taxes on gasoline and cigarettes, but when it comes to something important like your income, there are many other states with lower taxes.

Why focus on income taxes? Economic theory—and everyday experience—tells us that if you want less of something, you should tax it. That is the thinking behind carbon taxes. But while taxing carbon emissions may reduce the levels of CO₂, taxing labor income will reduce the desire to work. That is, raise income taxes and people will work fewer hours, which will result in less output.

In the end, higher income taxes stifle economic growth—and the creation of wealth. That is why tax rates matter. There is hard evidence indicating that states (and counties) with lower income tax burdens perform better economically than states with higher tax burdens.

With that in mind, the important question becomes: How do Missouri’s income taxes stack up against those of other states?

To answer this question, Rik Hafer and I used standard tax preparation software to calculate how much a family of four earning the U.S. median income had to pay in income taxes across all 50 states This allowed us to compare the tax burden in Missouri to that in other states. (The full report is available at ShowMeInstitute.org)

Contrary to the claim that Missouri is a low-tax state, we found that this average family of four would have to pay more in income taxes in Missouri than in 27 other states. Closer to home, that family also would pay more in Missouri than in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, and Tennessee. Our results are just one indicator that Missouri’s income taxes are not among the lowest in the country.

The Tax Foundation has compiled information regarding the top marginal income rates for every state. According to their calculations, Missouri has the 22nd-highest marginal income tax rate in the country. While this does not mean Missouri has the highest tax rate, it does mean that Missouri is not one of the lower-rate states, either. This ranking can understate how Missouri’s rates compare for most people. For example, California’s top tax rate is much higher than Missouri’s. However, Missouri’s top rate kicks in after $9,000 of income, and California’s kicks in after $1 million. In fact, many Californians face lower tax rates than Missourians of similar incomes.

Taken together, these rankings suggest that there is room for Missouri to cut taxes in order to remain competitive with other states. Nine states, including Tennesse—which borders Missouri—do not tax labor income at all. Kansas, Oklahoma, and Illinois all have top marginal rates that are lower than Missouri's. There are ways to help lower income taxes for Missourians without causing large revenue shortfalls. This includes broadening the sales tax base and cutting down on issuing economic development tax credits. If Missouri wants to remain competitive with its neighbors, it needs to build on the tax cuts it has already enacted and pass more tax cuts.

People who claim Missouri is a low-tax state are ignoring the taxes that really matter, like income taxes. For Missouri to be a low-tax state, there is more work to be done.

$100 Million Here, $400 Million There-Are We Talking Real Money Yet?

Posted on October 14, 2015May 5, 2026 by Joseph Miller

Recently, the Saint Louis Business Journal reported that the Saint Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (CVC) is pushing for a $100 million improvement and expansion of the city’s convention center. To be clear, that would be different from and additional to $100 million in refurbishment for the Edward Jones Dome. It is also completely separate from the plans to spend around $400 million on a riverfront stadium for the Rams. The CVC claims it needs the upgrades to keep up in an ever more expensive convention center arms race taking place across the country.

So who is going to pay to make the CVC’s vision a reality? The first thought would be the city of Saint Louis, which already sets aside a 7% hotel tax and a 1% restaurant tax to pay for the current convention center (including the Edward Jones Dome). The problem here is that the city has already spent lavishly on the CVC, and is on hook for between $17.7 and $22.6 million in annual debt service until 2039, which far outstrips the city’s hotel tax and restaurant tax revenue ($14 million this year). If the riverfront stadium plan becomes a reality, the city will have to add an additional $6 million in debt payments for the next 30 years. Adding another $200 million to the city’s debt would mean new debt payments of $11 million per year. Will the city want to double its hotel tax to pay for that?

With the city’s convention center and stadium funding already about as high (or higher) than the public will put up with, the buck looks to be heading to Saint Louis County, which has a 3.5% hotel tax (or $8.5 million) that goes to fund debt on the Edward Jones Dome. Those bond payments are set to retire in 2021, which makes the county the perfect candidate to pick up slack in convention spending created by the city’s financial commitments to a riverfront stadium. The county executive is currently in talks with the CVC concerning upgrades.

We at the Show-Me Institute could point out that if it weren’t for all the spending being diverted to the riverfront stadium plan at the state and city level, there would be plenty of funding for convention center upgrades. We could also discuss how the economic impact of new convention centers is likely overestimated, or how the city’s rapidly increasing bread-and-circus spending has achieved few tangible gains thus far. But why do that, when we can just end with a “told you so” moment! From July 20:

Who pays for the $100 million-plus refurbishment of the Edward Jones Dome, along with its continued maintenance needs, when state and local bonds are repurposed [for the riverfront stadium]? (I’m looking at you, Saint Louis County, whose bond payments will “retire.”)

The Convention Hotel’s Promised Occupancy Rates Are Suspect

Posted on October 14, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Tuohey

A 2013 consultant’s report on the proposed convention hotel has some pretty rosy projections that are likely unrealistic. We have to rely on the 2013 report because the city is not releasing any of the data specific to this proposal. Readers of The Pitch may recall that developer/attorney Mike Burke said he did not want the Show-Me Institute to see the reports at all. As a result, we must look at the consultant's previous work for an indication of its reliability. This is all because the city is not transparent in its dealings.

Now we know why.

The report, which is labeled a "summary of findings" (no word yet on whether the city will produce the full findings) is dated February 21, 2013—two and a half years ago. It considered a 1,000-room hotel, not the 800-room hotel we're dealing with today. That caveat aside, it makes claims about potential Kansas City convention business that are sanguine, to say the least.

Let's dig in to the report, available at the link below. Figure 1-2, on page 6, is labeled, "Primary Competitors – Operating Performance," and it lists three hotels. Only one of them is downtown— the Marriott—and it gets 45% of its business from conventions. (The other two hotels are in Crown Center and get only 10% of their business from conventions.) The Marriott's occupancy rates for 2010, 2011, and 2012 are 51%, 51% and 53% respectively.

Just below, in Figure 1-3, are listed the "Secondary Competitors." Two of them, the Crown Plaza and the Holiday Inn, are downtown and get at least a quarter of their business from conventions (25% and 40% respectively). Their occupancy rates for 2010 through 2012 average around 55%. In other words, the downtown hotel business in Kansas City is awful. The national average occupancy rate for all hotels is around 64%, and the report says the rate in Kansas City hovers around 60% (Figure 1-1).

According to documents previously released by the City, the expectation is that the convention hotel, which will go downtown, will have an occupancy rate of 68%. That’s quite a jump.

Basically, proponents of a new 800-room downtown convention hotel are arguing that by increasing supply, demand will jump. Is it really reasonable to believe that this hotel will beat the downtown hotel average by nearly 20 points? Perhaps more importantly, is it reasonable to believe that it would do so without cannibalizing existing (and depressed) hotel traffic? We think not. How many members of the previous City Council, who hurried to approve this project, had been shown this report and understood its implications?

It would be wonderful if a private builder wanted to take on this project—and all its risks—with his or her own money. But that hasn’t happened, so Kansas City taxpayers are being asked to foot a large portion of the bill. Given what we are starting to learn about the project, we can understand why no private hotelier will touch this; and why taxpayers should be just as hesitant.

HVS Study – Summary of Findings – DRAFT – Proposed Convention Hotel – Ka….pdf

Charter School Unionization: An Innovative Approach

Posted on October 14, 2015May 5, 2026 by Brittany Wagner

Al Shanker, longtime leader of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), was an early cheerleader for public charter schools. Though he believed basic union structures of traditional public schools should remain intact, Shanker saw charters an ideal setting for committed groups of teachers and parents to experiment with new ways of educating children.

Recently, teachers at Grand Center Arts Academy have taken steps toward becoming the first charter school in St. Louis to unionize. Unionization in charter schools is uncommon. According to one survey, only 7 percent of charter schools were unionized in 2012. Last month, about 80 percent of the Grand Center Arts Academy staff signed cards indicating their desire to join a local chapter of AFT.

On the one hand, a union can give teachers a voice. A union that’s accountable to its members allows teachers to participate in the formulation and implementation of school policies. A good union can serve as a counterbalance to an administration that makes decisions without paying attention to the concerns of the people working in the classrooms.

On the other hand, restrictive components of union contracts can interfere with administrative decision-making, offering benefits to employees to the detriment of students. In the Fort Zumwalt School District, for example, the union contract provides guidelines for laying off teachers—last in, first out: new teachers are fired first, even if they are better teachers.

Unlike in traditional schools, families always have the option of leaving a charter school if it doesn’t live up to their expectations. Teachers can’t as easily leave a union. Once teachers unionize, it’s hard to de-unionize.

After an initial union election, no further elections are scheduled, no term limits are imposed, and the union stays in power indefinitely. New employees are forced to accept representation from a union they never had the chance to vote for. A 2015 American Association of Educators survey reported only 8 percent of teachers surveyed had voted for the union representing them.

As Al Shanker believed, charter schools should be laboratories for experimentation. So why not experiment with a new form of union representation in which teachers get to vote for their union in regular elections?

Regular union elections give employees the right to select a union to represent them for a fixed term. When this term ends, employees hold another election where they vote to keep their union, elect another union, or de-unionize the workplace all together. Union elections provide a distinct advantage over traditional union representation, where it can be very hard to remove a union from power if it doesn’t live up to expectations.

In Missouri, school boards get to adopt the labor policy for a school district. Confluence Charter Schools, which operates Grand Center Arts Academy, could set a labor policy that allows its teachers to unionize so long as they are allowed to vote on unionization every two years. This way, if the arrangement with AFT didn’t work out, or teachers wanted the services of a competitor like the National Educators Association instead, they’d have an established policy in place for making this transition.

Confluence has every reason to view the unionization of their teachers with concern. But they can also see it as an opportunity to advance the creative spirit of the charter school movement. And that benefits everyone.

Show-Me Institute On Ruckus

Posted on October 13, 2015May 5, 2026 by Rick Edlund

The Show-Me Institute's Patrick Tuohey appeared on KCPT's Ruckus on October 8 to discuss policy matters in Missouri and Kansas as well as nationwide.

Regionalism for Thee, But Not for Me

Posted on October 13, 2015May 5, 2026 by Joseph Miller

In their recent push to keep the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) in Saint Louis City, city leadership has argued the case of economic necessity. As the mayor put it:

The NGA is vital to our City’s economic health, and its relocation to North St. Louis will reinvigorate a significant urban area of our community. Conversely, losing the NGA would be a devastating blow to our City’s economy. The many benefits to the future of both St. Louis and NGA are immeasurable, promising and exciting.

With the NGA as the new centerpiece of the Northside Redevelopment Project (which has failed to achieve anything thus far), the city hopes to turn around a significant section of North Saint Louis City. The loss of the facility would, supposedly, be devastating.

You might be forgiven for thinking that the NGA is choosing between sites in Saint Louis and far away cities in Texas or Maryland. But that’s not the case. The NGA is choosing between sites inside the Saint Louis region, including sites in Saint Louis County and near Scott Air Force Base. If the NGA moves from its current location in South City to either location outside the city, it will change commuting patterns for current employees. However, the effects on the regional economy and regional jobs should be nil. The NGA’s move out of the city will not be a devastating blow to the city’s economy (which is ensconced in a larger region), but rather a blow to the city’s tax rolls, which depend on earnings taxes (more than $2 million a year) that the facility provides.

The city’s apocalyptic attitude towards losing tax revenue underscores Saint Louis City’s love-hate relationship with regionalism. When it comes to funding improvements in—and for the benefit of—Saint Louis City (and usually downtown), city leaders call for everyone to chip in for the Arch grounds and convention centers and stadiums and the light rail. Any refusal by outlying areas to throw in their money is treated as myopic, and a deep regional problem. But now that an important source of revenue might move out of the confines of the city, leadership is treating other parts of the region like they’re the surface of the moon.

The message city leadership sends when they speak this way is that regionalism means coming together to build up the city, not the outlying communities. That is hardly going to inspire residents who do not live or work in Saint Louis City (read: most metro residents).

Finally, just as an aside, would anyone have approved the massive tax subsidies to Paul McKee’s Northside Redevelopment project if they had known its success hinged on relocating a large Department of Defense instillation to the Northside? Wasn’t that project supposed to draw new jobs and residents to the city?