Establishing a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE)

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

The size of Missouri’s government has nearly doubled over the past five years, and given the recent commitment from President Donald Trump to establish a Department of Government Efficiency at the federal level, the time is right for Missouri to establish its own Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE) to rein in excess spending and unneeded regulations.

If Missouri’s elected officials are serious about addressing our state government’s unsustainable growth, they should look at past efforts undertaken across the country to see what might work. Perhaps the most successful state-based cost-cutting initiative in history was then–California Governor Ronald Reagan’s 1967 executive order creating the “Governor’s Survey on Efficiency and Cost Control”. (The text of that order is available here.)

Reagan’s blueprint outlined some some key principles that any Missouri initiative should consider:

Governor Created

  • The Governor is the elected official best situated to coordinate an effort that examines all parts of Missouri government and to start implementing solutions. He can ensure that all executive branch officials cooperate in providing information and executing reforms.

Goal-Oriented

  • To help ensure success, the initiative needs to start with a clear mission, a top-level objective, stretch goals, and a commitment from everyone involved (inside and outside government) to reach those goals.
  • Much of the data needed to inform decisions will not be immediately available. Rooting out inefficiency will require targeted requests or establishing new metrics to get the information necessary to achieve the initiative’s goals.

Led by Non-Government Experts

  • Reagan understood that getting a handle on government growth required innovation, creativity, and outside-the-box thinking that could only come from those outside of government. A Missouri initiative should seek insights from business executives, nonprofit experts, former government officials, and financial consultants with prior public-sector knowledge or experience successfully turning around companies.

Privately Funded

  • Efforts to find cost savings in government shouldn’t be dependent on government funding for functioning. Reagan’s efficiency initiatives at both the state and federal level were entirely funded by private sources.

Pre-Specified Timelines

  • Time is of the essence for Missouri when it comes to cutting costs. Ensuring the work is completed in a thorough and expedient fashion will require deadlines, perhaps with the option to extend them based upon meeting preapproved metrics.

Commitment to Implementing Solutions

  • One of the biggest hindrances to Reagan’s cost-cutting efforts was a lack of legislative commitment to implementing the survey’s recommendations. In fact, only about one third of the recommended cost savings could be realized without any legislation being passed. Going into the efficiency exercise with a commitment from legislative leaders will be key for the initiative’s lasting success.

All told, Reagan’s citizen-led commission of more than 200 private-sector leaders was able to recommend, in short order, more than 2,000 reforms to improve California’s government operations and significantly cut costs. These recommendations included long-term savings estimates for California taxpayers of more than $500 million, which if adjusted for inflation would amount to about $4.2 billion today.

A similar result for Missouri today would be a much needed step in the right direction. It’s long past time for a serious effort in Jefferson City to rein in the state government’s excess, and taking a page out of Reagan’s book by turning to the private sector for meaningful solutions might be the most promising path forward for achieving long-term success.

Following the Reagan and DOGE frameworks, here are some specific examples of what a Missouri initiative could look like:

Creation

  • Establish by executive order a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE)

Objective

  • Mission: The Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE) would conduct a comprehensive review of Missouri’s government. This review would include all services, programs, spending, regulations, and administrative practices. The goal would be to determine how Missouri’s government can be improved, as Governor Reagan specified in his original executive order, to be “the most efficient, expeditious, and economical” in the country.
  • Pre-Specified Timelines: This review, along with actionable recommendations, should be completed by no later than December 31, 2025.
  • Insights from Business (performance metrics): Given that Missouri’s budget is approximately twice its pre-COVID size, federal COVID relief for states is ending, and state tax revenues are down, a reasonable goal would be to return Missouri to its fiscal year 2019 cost trajectory unless a cost–benefit analysis by MOGE clearly justifies an alternative savings target. In dollar terms, this would amount to an approximate inflation-adjusted reduction of $2 billion in general funds.

Organizational Structure

  • Led by Nongovernment Experts: The governor could appoint two highly respected leaders from outside of government who have a proven track record of delivering transformational change to large organizations to lead MOGE. In addition, to help ensure the initiative’s success, MOGE leadership should be allowed to select any additional staff or members they deem necessary to conduct the review.
  • Privately Funded: The Governor or his allies could fundraise, as Reagan did, to fund MOGE. Ensuring that all funds used to conduct the work of MOGE come from private rather than public sources removes any undue leverage that government could have over MOGE and its policy recommendations.

Commitment to Implementation

  • Agency Cooperation: The Governor could order all government agencies to give full and timely cooperation to any MOGE requests for access to data or other information that MOGE deems necessary to conduct its work, except for any instances expressly prohibited by law.
  • Citizen Participation: MOGE leadership should commit to publishing intermediate findings and recommendations, formally submitting progress reports to Missouri’s General Assembly, and creating a website or holding public hearings to solicit input from members of the public who in many cases have pertinent first-hand knowledge of government inefficiencies and needed services that MOGE’s internal audit of agencies may not fully uncover.
  • Legislation: Fostering input and cooperation from Missouri’s General Assembly will be essential to achieving MOGE’s specified goals. To that end, the Governor should seek a commitment from legislative leaders both to cooperate with the MOGE efforts and to advance the legislative initiatives recommended to reduce the cost and increase the productivity of state government.
  • Transparency: MOGE leadership should make all final recommendations public with supporting analysis and make its leadership available for public hearings and information sessions to explain its findings and methodology.
  • Accountability: After MOGE issues its recommendations, the executive branch should be required to respond to every agency recommendation by either implementing it in full or detailing why it is not doing so.

The 2025 Missouri Legislative Session Begins

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

Susan Pendergrass, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the start of the 2025 Missouri legislative session. They cover budgetary reform, the need for a Missouri Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the creation of a recession preparedness fund, open enrollment policies, statewide school choice, improvements to Missouri’s school report cards, tax reform, telemedicine, healthcare regulations, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

When NGOs Make the Rules: Safeguarding State Sovereignty

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

State policymakers in Missouri and elsewhere often face the daunting task of crafting complex regulations. Enter nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), ready with model rules and expert recommendations. But as two recent reports caution—Beware the Trojan Horse of Rulemaking Nongovernment Organizations from The Buckeye Institute in Ohio and NGOs and Their Effect on Regulatory Policy from the Texas Public Policy Foundation—accepting these ready-made regulations can undermine state sovereignty and bypass public accountability.

Both reports warn against uncritical reliance on NGOs. The Buckeye Institute’s report highlights how groups like the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and the International Code Council (ICC) provide prepackaged regulations that states often adopt with minimal changes. This might simplify rulemaking but risks surrendering control over policies meant to serve unique state interests.

Similarly, the Texas Public Policy Foundation stresses that NGOs wield significant influence due to their specialized knowledge. However, when this expertise is accepted without scrutiny, state leaders may find themselves locked into policies shaped by national or even global agendas, often misaligned with local priorities.

Transparency emerges as a key recommendation from both reports. The Buckeye Institute calls for opening up the entire regulatory process, urging state governments to publicly disclose all interactions with NGOs, including drafts, meetings, and financial agreements. This would allow taxpayers to see who’s behind the policies affecting their lives.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation also emphasizes transparency but frames it as a cautionary principle: state leaders must “exercise extra caution and deliberation” when adopting NGO-driven proposals. Their point is simple—just because NGOs offer expertise doesn’t mean their rules are the best fit for every state.

The Buckeye Institute goes further by offering specific policy solutions:

  • Legislative Oversight: Every NGO-driven regulation should face legislative review before adoption.
  • Public Input: Create forums for broader public participation in the rulemaking process to counterbalance NGO influence.
  • Tailored Standards: States should adapt model rules to fit local contexts rather than adopting them wholesale.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation takes a broader approach, focusing more on raising awareness about the issue. The message: recognize the influence NGOs wield and remain vigilant.

Missouri’s policymakers should take these warnings seriously. Kansas City’s adoption of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) serves as a cautionary tale​. The city’s unmodified adoption of the more costly standards stalled new home construction.

Missouri must balance benefiting from NGO expertise with preserving state sovereignty. Public transparency, legislative oversight, and tailored regulations are essential safeguards.

As the Buckeye report warns, if policymakers fail to inspect every policy offer carefully, they risk inviting a Trojan Horse into state rulemaking—complete with hidden costs and unintended consequences. In an era of growing regulatory complexity, vigilance is necessary.

The Last Thing Missouri Needs Is More Urban Planning

Posted on by David Stokes

A recent op-ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called for substantially increasing the power of urban planners in St. Louis and other Missouri cities. Considering the state of government in the City of St. Louis right now, I did a double take to see if it was a joke. It wasn’t. Somebody is actually calling for increasing the role of local government in managing every aspect of our lives. I think that is terrifying, and I am not exaggerating when I say “every aspect.” From the commentary:

Every English city uses this basic framework, ensuring all elements of city life are working together to benefit everyone’s well-being. [emphasis added]

If New York City and Houston do not have a comprehensive plan, then our Missouri municipalities don’t need one either. As Jane Jacobs said about urban planning, “The pseudoscience of planning seems almost neurotic in its determination to imitate empiric failure and ignore empiric success . . .”

There is general agreement that some type of infrastructure planning is required by municipalities. As cities grow or change, there need to be plans in place for the installation of sewers, gas and water pipes, electrical lines, sidewalks, and roads. But urban planners rarely maintain focus on those needs. Planners frequently and disappointingly mandate the mundane. The growing sameness of so many American communities is a direct result of municipal plans requiring a consistent look in a community. When you realize that most zoning codes were copied (the literal cut-and-paste prior to computers and copy machines) from other cities, that most cities use the same (or very similar) building codes, and that zoning codes limit the options available for many lots, nobody should be surprised by the loss of distinct urban aesthetics across the nation. As Cody Lefkowitz wrote about the depressing sameness of urban areas now:

Before the rise of zoning and consolidation of development, the country was full of special places with wonderful vernacular architecture. These were cities and towns built by many hands. Cities and towns that aged gracefully through generations of stewards iteratively building from the foundations of their predecessors. New Orleans, that much-loved city, is one of the most exceptionally beautiful places one can imagine, with an identity as unique as it is mystifying. When you’re there, you could never mistake yourself for being anywhere else.

Municipal planning commissions are empowered to establish comprehensive plans for their cities and to approve changes, amendments, and variances to the current plans or zoning codes. They are largely advisory. The city council can easily approve a change the planning commission rejects, like in Kansas City when the council unfortunately approved building height limitations for the Country Club Plaza. In Creve Coeur in 2013, the city council approved changes to allow a new grocery store that the planning commission had rejected. City councils can also reject changes the planning commission approves.

The point is not that elected officials should be subservient to the planning commission members; far from it. The point is to overcome the idea that planning is some kind of urban science with a large public benefit. The planning process is wholly subject to the same political aims, interest group pressures, and regulatory capture that all of government is. Furthermore, the process institutionalizes and legislates the bias toward uniformity and present-day assumptions. Counties and municipalities should limit their use of planning to necessary infrastructure issues and refuse to engage in it otherwise.

No, California’s Minimum Wage Hike Did Not Create Jobs

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Despite the November 5 vote approving Proposition A (a measure that will raise Missouri’s minimum wage and mandate paid sick leave), there will continue to be debate on the matter in courts and perhaps the state legislature. Whatever those outcomes, Missourians need to be wary about the claimed successes of mandated wage increases elsewhere.

Regarding the courts, a coalition of Missouri business groups, including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, has filed a lawsuit challenging Proposition A.

The plaintiffs argue that combining wage increases with sick leave provisions violates the state constitution’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives. Proposition A, which passed with 58% of the vote, would incrementally increase the minimum wage from $12.30 to $15 by 2026 and provide workers up to seven paid sick days annually starting in May 2025. Supporters contend that wages and benefits are integral to overall compensation and thus constitute a single subject. The Missouri Supreme Court has yet to schedule hearings for the case.

As for the legislature, because the proposition was a statute, the legislature may act to overturn it. One Missouri legislator introduced the Entrepreneur Rights Act, which would exempt some small and seasonal businesses from minimum wage increases.

Supporters may point to California’s recent mandate elevating the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 per hour as a triumph for labor rights. However, a closer examination reveals that the anticipated benefits, particularly in job creation, have not materialized. A study from the University of California, Berkeley, initially suggested that the wage hike did not adversely affect employment levels. Yet, upon scrutinizing the data, it becomes evident that fast-food employment in California has grown at a slower pace compared to the national average. In fact, since the law’s implementation, California’s fast-food employment increased by only 1.85%, while the national rate rose by 3.22%. This discrepancy indicates that the wage increase may have hindered job growth within the state. Such outcomes underscore the complexities of implementing blanket wage policies without fully accounting for market dynamics and the potential unintended consequences on employment opportunities.

Show-Me analysts have consistently been critical of the arguments for, and the claimed benefits of, increases in the minimum wage. Minimum wage hikes just don’t deliver on their promises—even if academic studies twist themselves into knots trying to demonstrate otherwise.

Crime Trends in Missouri’s Largest Cities with Bryan McCannon

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Bryan C. McCannon, Dean of the School of Business and Economics and Robert S. Eckley Endowed Professor of Economics at Illinois Wesleyan University, and data analyst with Sicuro Data Analytics, LLC.

They discuss a new report written for the Show-Me Institute titled “Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Policies in Missouri’s Largest Cities”. The report examines the rise in violent crime and homicides in Missouri since 2015. Bryan breaks down how the report compares Missouri’s crime trends with other similar cities, explains how certain policies may have contributed to the increase, highlights some issues with crime data, and more.

Read the full report here

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

KC’s Corporate Welfare: JE Dunn’s HQ Renovation Gets Public Support

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

Thomas Friestad of the Kansas City Business Journal writes that JE Dunn Construction has secured public incentives through Port KC for a $20 million renovation of its downtown headquarters. Approved on December 11, the deal provides a 50 percent personal property tax exemption and a sales tax exemption on construction materials, covering $14 million in office finishes and $6 million in new personal property.

This is just the latest example over the years of City Hall favoring wealthy, connected corporations with taxpayer subsidies and special treatment.

Port KC CEO Jon Stephens framed the incentives as a “small, supportive element” aimed at ensuring Kansas City retains high-quality jobs. The project promises to add 150 jobs with an average salary of $126,000 while retaining 600 current employees. Yet no precise value for the tax exemptions was disclosed. Its not clear if PortKC attached performance requirements to the deal, but Friestad indicates there was no such discussion of it among the commissioners when the subsidies were approved.

Readers may recall Stephens backed subsidies for an independent baseball team in Kansas back when the team couldn’t pay its utilities. If nothing else, he is consistent in his apparent desire to redirect taxpayer money to private corporate interests

Such a deal is nothing new for JE Dunn. The company received a lucrative incentive package when building its headquarters in 2009. That project fell under the East Village tax-increment financing plan, redirecting $19 million in public funds for a parking garage, demolitions, and blight removal.

This latest deal follows a familiar script in which major corporations, including Cerner, H&R Block, Burns & McDonnell, and Commerce Bank have secured public funding for their private office projects. Research has indicated for years that such incentives do not significantly impact corporate decisions on location.

Port KC has repeatedly played a central role in funneling public dollars into private hands. Its recent involvement with JE Dunn reflects a long history of negotiating deals that often leave taxpayers holding the bag, such as the millions each year taxpayers must fork over to cover bond payments on the Power & Light District owned and operated by Cordish Company. (Stephens is a former manager of that project.)

As Kansas City grapples with persistent infrastructure needs, ballooning public debt, and limited funding for essential services, its continued reliance on subsidies for corporate renovations raises questions about priorities. For now, Kansas Citians can only watch as the city’s public funds are diverted to underwrite private gains.

Missouri’s Free-Market Policy Guide

Posted on by Show-Me Institute Staff

Missouri’s Free-Market Policy Guide outlines key areas where targeted, well-researched reforms can make a meaningful difference in the lives of Missourians. From expanding educational opportunities and empowering parents to choose their children’s schools to fostering greater economic freedom and accountability in government spending, the policies here can help create a more prosperous and dynamic Missouri. Each section offers a clear analysis of current challenges, explores solutions grounded in research and facts, and presents actionable recommendations for policymakers.

Click here to download this publication.

Model Policy booklet

Medicaid’s Checkup: Part 2

Posted on by Elias Tsapelas

In this post on my series about Medicaid in Missouri, I want to dive deeper into the effects of Medicaid expansion.

Missouri voters approved Medicaid expansion as a constitutional amendment in August of 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to legal challenges and various technical issues, expansion-eligible Missourians didn’t begin joining the program until October of 2021. As I stated in part one of this series, because of COVID’s impact on the program as well as the federal rules accompanying the increased funding, it’s been nearly impossible until now to fully analyze the rollout of Medicaid expansion.

Before voters weighed in on the measure, expansion supporters made several claims about how the policy would impact Missouri. At the time, I wrote repeatedly about three of their key claims with which I disagreed. First, they estimated that fewer than 250,000 people would enroll within the first year. Second, they said the expansion enrollees would be “newly eligible” for the program, which is something the federal government requires as a condition of receiving extra federal funding. And third, they said the expansion wouldn’t cost state taxpayers any money. In fact, they argued it would save money. Unfortunately, none of these projections came true.

As I also mentioned in part one of this series, prior to the pandemic, Missouri’s Medicaid enrollment was around 850,000, with about 520,000 of those being kids. Within one year of expansion being implemented (October 2022), Missouri’s Medicaid enrollment had ballooned to 1.4 million with 288,000 adults in the “newly eligible” expansion population. Today, with COVID safely in the state’s rearview mirror, program enrollment is still nearing 1.3 million total with 340,000 adults enrolled as a result of the expansion of eligibility requirements. The only Medicaid eligibility category that has seen a decline in recent years is that of people with disabilities—but that is a topic I’ll discuss in greater detail in the next post in this series.

To quickly summarize the impact of expansion thus far, enrollment has exceeded projections by around 35 percent, and current program costs are approximately 75 percent ($7.8 billion) higher than they were in 2019. The prediction that Medicaid expansion would be costless relied on Missouri being able to shift a significant portion of its costs to the federal government, which would in turn have saved state taxpayers money. Thus far, this has not been the case as Missouri taxpayers’ contribution to the state’s Medicaid program has grown by 74 percent ($1.6 billion) over the same period.

While hindsight is 20/20, it’s fair to say that the current problems with Missouri’s Medicaid program were predictable four years ago. Further, there’s no longer any reason to think today’s data represent anything other than the new normal for the program. It’s time to accept that Missouri voters were sold a bill of goods on Medicaid expansion, and it’s incumbent on our state’s elected officials to explore whatever actions are possible in the coming years to fix the problems that expansion has created.

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