Page 378 – Show-Me Institute

Is There Accountability for Virtual Schools in the Transfer Bill?

Posted on June 11, 2015May 5, 2026 by Brittany Wagner

In Virtual Schools Offer Students Another Option, But Questions Persist, Post-Dispatch legislative reporter Alex Stuckey discussed the virtual schools provision in the school transfer bill.

House Bill 42 (HB 42) has sat on the governor’s desk since late May and would allow, among other reforms, students in unaccredited and provisionally accredited districts in Saint Louis and Jackson County a chance to receive a virtual or online education instead of transferring to a higher-performing brick-and-mortar school.

In addition to portraying the school transfer law as “largely unpopular” (a 2014 poll showed that 60 percent of Missourians favor the program), Stuckey didn’t present a full picture of the virtual school issue.

Take Representative Bill Burns’ comment cut from his speech during the legislative session, as quoted in the Post-Dispatch:

“This is a special interest bill,” Burns said. “This virtual education, why does it have to be a private company? Why couldn’t the school system be in charge of virtual education?”

Other education officials and lawmakers alike questioned the measure’s wording, fearing it lacked the teeth to hold for-profit virtual education programs accountable for a students’ performance, given that the district wouldn’t have the means of regulating which company is used.

These comments suggest that school districts, not taxpayers, should hold schools accountable. Isn’t school choice the best form of accountability, because parents have the ability to pick a school that fits their child’s needs? The idea that school districts should regulate a private company assumes that school districts know what’s best for kids, not parents. And, do we really want failing school districts regulating anything?

HB 42 may not be perfect, but components like the virtual schools provision may give more kids a chance to escape an antiquated system where zip code, not choice, determines educational outcomes.

Private Airport Screening a Viable Option for U.S. Airports

Posted on June 11, 2015May 5, 2026 by Joseph Miller

In a recent St. Louis Business Journal article concerning the woeful performance of the TSA, the author claimed that privatization cannot be an answer to security screening in U.S. airports, like Lambert-St. Louis International. According to the author, “It doesn’t work. It never has.”

This statement is simply not true. In fact, Kansas City International Airport (MCI) has contracted for private screening through the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) for more than a decade. Under that program, the TSA sets standards for screening and selects a qualified vendor. Even compensation must match TSA standards. Kansas City is not an anomaly. In total, 21 airports, including San Francisco International Airport, use private screening.

The main reason airports opt for private screening is price. According to a report by the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, an airport like LAX (which uses TSA) could cut security costs by more than 40 percent if it moved to private screening. That more airports do not use private screening is largely the fault of the TSA itself, which the Government Accountability Office has consistently criticized for dragging its feet on improving and expanding SPP.

From a security standpoint, multiple studies show that private screeners do as good, or better, jobs than TSA screeners. And while we are now learning this is no high hurdle, at least a private company can lose its contract for bad performance; the same cannot be said of the TSA.

As an airport screening agency, the TSA is failing the flying public. In Saint Louis and elsewhere, perhaps it is time airport screening was privately bid out and the TSA receded to a regulatory role.

Will O’Fallon Use a Competitive Bidding Process?

Posted on June 11, 2015May 5, 2026 by John Wright

According to the Post-Dispatch,

Construction unions are pressing the City Council to adopt a “project labor agreement” mandating union labor and other rules for the $28 million police headquarters-court facility approved by voters in April. In return, unions agree not to call strikes on the project.

While a project labor agreement that forces the city to use union labor rather than the best available bid is a bad idea in its own right, the fact that construction unions appear to be threatening a disruption in order to get exclusive access to this project is beyond the pale.

Where to begin?

Shouldn’t public works projects be awarded based on contractor qualifications and bid amounts? Doesn’t this combination get taxpayers the best value for their dollar? On the other hand, when a city adopts a constraint on a public works project that favors a certain kind of contractor for reasons other than value, isn’t that a bad sign?

I would say so. An agreement that awards contracts exclusively to unionized labor seems to be less about getting taxpayers the best deal and more about appeasing a politically active special interest group. If unionized businesses offer taxpayers in O’Fallon a better deal than non-union shops, they will win public contracts through the strength of their bids. Special treatment is unnecessary.

I don’t think anyone wants to see a slowdown on a $28 million public works project like this, but special treatment for unions trying to exercise political muscle should be non-negotiable, especially if they’re threatening to punish the city if they don’t get their way. O’Fallon should do the right thing for its taxpayers: Take bids from all parties and assess them on their merits.

$3 Million in Taxpayer Money Spent On Stadium; Still No One Has Voted

Posted on June 10, 2015May 5, 2026 by Joseph Miller

This week, the Post-Dispatch reported that $3 million in taxpayer dollars has already been spent on a riverfront stadium project designed to keep the Rams in Saint Louis. This is up from about $1 million spent a little over a month ago. That money, which is supposed to go toward maintaining the Edward Jones Dome, is instead being spent on all aspects of the new stadium project. That includes engineering, financing, and railroad track removal. It also includes the legal fees of the attorneys suing to overturn a city ordinance that requires a public vote on funding a new stadium.

These tactics do not represent sound policymaking, but rather an attempt (by just a handful of leaders) to make an end run around deliberative processes that should precede public spending of this magnitude. Despite overwhelming economic evidence to the contrary, these leaders apparently believe that the stadium is a necessity and seem to have no qualms about spending money as quickly as possible and presenting the public with a fait accompli.

Imagine that the city ordinance is not overturned, or the Rams decide to leave regardless of the stadium plan. At that point the city and state will have spent millions designing a stadium, preparing to move tracks, and litigating with citizens. Residents will then have to choose between two options: Follow through on a new stadium (or some other grand vision) or throw all that “investment” away. Missourians should not be forced to make such a choice.

A History of Kansas City’s Convention Pursuits

Posted on June 10, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Tuohey

Consultant suggests convention-center expansion. Expansion disappoints. Consultant suggests 1,000-room hotel. No one questions consultant about previous suggestion. Instead, city officials gleefully accept hotel recommendation and hire the consultant to conduct further study.

The above was taken from a Pitch piece in May 2010, and it is certainly as true today as it was then. Actually, it explains Kansas City’s long 46-year dance of expanding convention space and increasing hotel rooms. Consider the following timeline:

• 1969: A number of bonds were put before voters, among them a $23 million bond for a new exhibit hall. A front-page Kansas City Star editorial claimed (12/15/69), “The prime consideration at the polls tomorrow is whether Kansas City is to grow or retrench in the 1970s.” All the bonds failed to get the required supermajority.

• 1971: Undaunted, the City Council developed a plan to fund a convention center through bonds in a way that avoided the two-thirds approval necessary in 1969. The Star again endorsed the plan, editorializing (12/16/73), “Tuesday can be a great turning point for Kansas City.” The bonds were approved, and the Bartle Hall Convention Center was completed in 1976.

• 1986-89: Consultants told city leaders that in order to support the convention center Kansas City needed a new hotel. The Vista International Hotel opened in 1985, but it quickly ran into trouble. According to The Pitch:

Called the “Miracle on 12th Street,” the 22-story hotel was expected to revive the city’s dying center. But within 18 months, its owners were contemplating bankruptcy. The building was damned ugly, too. Donald Hoffman, the Star‘s architecture critic, called the hotel “a public embarrassment” when it opened.

• The hotel changed management in 1987, and Marriott bought it in 1988.

• 1990: Again wanting to capture more convention business, a campaign launched to increase taxes to expand Bartle Hall. A column in the Star by H. Marshall Chatfield, the then-chairman of the Chamber of Commerce urged a Yes vote and fretted (1/31/90),

[W]ithout an expanded Bartle Hall, we will be able to accommodate fewer shows—and we will lose dollars we could have gained.

Yael Abouhalkah went one step further in the Star (2/4/1990),

Nothing in this world is 100 percent guaranteed. But the Bartle expansion would create a strong possibility that more development will occur downtown.

The voters approved new taxes for the expansion. The Star reported (2/7/1990) that not only was the city eager to expand Bartle Hall but,

[Developer Whitney] Kerr and H. Ross Perot Jr. pledged to build a trade center office tower if the city expanded Bartle. “We’ll keep pressing Ross on the trade center,” [Mayor Richard L.] Berkley said. “I’m confident it will be built.”

The trade center was never built.

• 1994: The expanded Bartle Hall opened to much fanfare. At a gala event, Carl Hubbell, then-board chairman of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and president of a convention services contracting company, told the Star (undated Star souvenir insert),

This means an opportunity for Kansas City to get back into the national picture as a premier destination city. This is a major step to get us back to where we were in the mid-70s when Bartle first opened. We’re 80 percent there. More hotel rooms will take care of the other 20 percent.

• 1992-1998: Kansas City used Tax Increment Financing to tear down Muehlebach Towers and renovate the Muehlebach Hotel. Marriott reopened the Muehlebach in 1998, but according to The Pitch, “The transaction has cost taxpayers millions because demand for the hotel rooms has fallen short of expectations.”

• 2002: Fearing that the city needed more convention space to attract conventions, leaders decided to expand Bartle Hall with the Grand Ballroom. Voters were urged to support new spending and were again told that without a Yes vote the city would continue to lose convention business, just like 1990. Back to The Pitch:

“This is going to be the economic engine,” said Chuck Eddy, then a city councilman, dreaming of the possibilities in 2004. . . . Former Mayor Kay Barnes took a hammer to a wall, celebrating Bartle’s second expansion in 15 years.

• 2015: Kansas City leaders say the city is losing convention business because it doesn’t have enough hotel rooms. And we’re off to the races again . . .

The desire to subsidize more development never abates; developers’ hunger for public funds is never satiated. Each new project costs taxpayers millions that could go to basic services such as police and infrastructure, libraries and schools, but instead the money funds dreams that never seem to deliver on their promises.

Are Work Requirements and Premiums On the Horizon for Medicaid’s Able-Bodied?

Posted on June 10, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Two years ago, I wrote about a variety of ways Missouri could reform its Medicaid program. From health savings accounts to regulatory reform, the paper presents a wide-ranging and integrated proposal for delivering better care to Missouri’s neediest patients at a better price for taxpayers. Could other reforms poke through too? Absolutely, and two of the more prominent alternatives right now have to do with work requirements and premiums.

The question of the cost of Medicaid in the years ahead is perhaps the biggest problem that work requirements and premiums address. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) forecasted in 2013 that the cost of Medicaid will continue to exceed the rate of inflation for at least the next decade because both the cost of services and the number of beneficiaries are rising. On that trajectory, the total cost of the program is set to nearly double to approximately $900 billion in spending annually by 2022, from about $450 billion in 2013.

Access for our most vulnerable is already being squeezed by today’s program, and this upward trend in spending—in contradiction, of course, to the “cost curve bending” claims about Obamacare by its supporters—does not bode well for the sustainability of the Medicaid status quo in the years ahead. Something will have to change to mitigate these spending pressures.

In this context, it’s very possible that work requirements and premiums for at least some able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries could become the norm in some states. On the one hand, a work requirement for the able-bodied would ensure that a beneficiary would have a stream of income to help support themselves and supplement their welfare benefits; on the other hand, a modest premium would not only give beneficiaries a stake in their care, but also a reduced benefit cliff as their economic prospects improve. Different proposals have set different thresholds for work and premiums, but the underlying idea is pretty simple—if you can help pay for your care, you should, and because you are, you’re also helping to ensure that care for the most vulnerable is more available and more fully funded.

Unfortunately, state Medicaid plans that include robust work and premium requirements have a tendency of being rejected or gutted by the HHS right now. Whether the HHS continues to do so is an open question; the department may view these reforms as unnecessary right now, but as Medicaid spending spikes in the years ahead, robust work and premium changes at the state level may look better and better as a way of ensuring the poorest have access to care. They’re certainly ideas worth considering—and considering sooner rather than later.

White House Report Is the Same Tired Medicaid Message, but Newly Packaged

Posted on June 9, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Last week the White House released a report titled, “Missed Opportunities: The Consequences of State Decisions Not to Expand Medicaid.” As you might expect with a political document, the White House’s paper was released to coincide with contemporary political events—specifically, a legislative debate over Medicaid expansion in Florida, whose circumstances I’ve discussed on this blog before. Florida’s House ultimately rejected the expansion proposal. That was the right decision.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much new in the report. As expected, the authors conflate Medicaid “coverage” and medical care, when the concepts are very different things, and they gloss over the fact that throwing more beneficiaries into the Medicaid program will actually make care delivery to the most vulnerable even more difficult.

Show-Me Daily readers may not be surprised, then, that my reaction, printed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was not exactly high on the report’s contents.

But opponents say such studies and data miss the mark when evaluating whether states should expand Medicaid eligibility. Patrick Ishmael, a researcher at the conservative Show-Me Institute, said the current program is “deeply broken” and that adding more people to it would be irresponsible and immoral.

Medicaid beneficiaries and Missouri taxpayers deserve a better program, not these tired talking points, and there are many reforms out there that deserve to be debated.

But that debate is not helped along by reports like this from the White House. Expansion is not reform; coverage is not care. Until the White House and Obamacare supporters in general take those facts to heart, fixing Medicaid in any sort of meaningful way will continue to be very, very difficult in the near term.

Is Democracy Too Messy for the Post-Dispatch Editorial Board?

Posted on June 9, 2015May 5, 2026 by James V. Shuls

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch released an editorial titled, “Republicans continue to peddle the Common Core lie.” A more appropriate title for the piece might have been, “Democracy is too messy for our refined tastes.” Rather than tackle any of the substantive arguments about the Common Core—Are they rigorous? Do they promote constructivist teaching practices? Was the federal government overly involved in adoption? etc.—the editorial team focused on denouncing legislative attacks on Common Core because they don’t actually remove Common Core. Of course, given their support for the standards, the editorial board likely would have been just as derisive had the legislature been 100 percent effective in removing the standards.

Thus far, the legislature has passed a bill which created workgroups tasked with developing new standards. I happen to be serving on the K-5 math standards group. The purpose of these groups is to come up with standards that have been created with the input of a wide swath of Missourians from varying backgrounds. If standards consist of the things we are going to teach our kids, everyone should have input. Now, this might mean that we have contradictory opinions and impassioned debate, but that is a good thing. That means the process has been inclusive and a wide range of views are being represented.

Sure, the Common Core sailed through the state department of education with little commotion, but that is not a good thing! They were not developed through an open, public process, but behind closed doors. This better, more inclusive process is going to take time. That is OK.

The legislature’s decision to remove funding for Common Core-aligned tests particularly drew the editorial board’s ire. The Post-Dispatch’seditorial board looks at these developments and says, “This is how we do education policy in the U.S. One step forward, two steps back.”

Regardless of whether the steps have been forward or back, the editorial board is right. This is how education policy works in the U.S. Our system of government is designed with checks and balances on purpose. These are not quirks, but features of the system designed to limit any one group’s ability, such as Common Core supporters, to railroad the entire population. These are exactly the features that were subverted through the development and adoption of the Common Core standards.

Our Democratic system can be messy at times, and it can frustrate well-intentioned central planners who wish to impose their will on us all, but this is an example of it working appropriately.

Back in the USSR

Posted on June 9, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Tuohey

The Kansas City Star published a piece this weekend that examined the impact on caterers of the proposed convention deal. Specifically, they examined the plan to give the Hyatt exclusive catering rights to the convention center that would cost existing local caterers millions in lost business.

According to some, ending competition for convention catering business would increase quality:

An exclusive food provider, according to O’Neal, would help the convention center ensure quality control because “with one vendor, the building can control quality better, and that’s what people remember about a building.”

City Manager Troy Schulte agrees. Even if the city weren’t negotiating with Hyatt, Schulte said, he was thinking about moving toward a single caterer. He said the city has received some complaints about catering, which he declined to specify. Schulte said a single provider would make quality control better.

You read that right. Some Kansas City leaders apparently think that reducing choice increases quality. (By the way, Aramark has an exclusive catering agreement at Kauffman Stadium, and they haven’t been doing so well regarding quality.)

This flawed thinking isn’t limited to the catering contract, according to the Memorandum of Understanding. Neither the initial award of catering nor the award of the construction contract for the hotel are to be competitively bid. The city apparently just plans to give those contracts to Hyatt and J.E. Dunn respectively without making sure their bids are the best or the cheapest.

Is it any wonder that city finances are such a mess when even the most basic economic principles of choice and competition are disregarded?

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.