Page 442 – Show-Me Institute

Op-ed: Excessive Regulation, Not Lyft, Needs To Stop Operating in Kansas City

Posted on May 13, 2014January 13, 2026 by Joseph Miller

Last Friday, my op-ed about Lyft and Kansas City’s absurd taxicab ordinances appeared in the Kansas City Business Journal. For many years, Kansas City’s livery and cab industry has been needlessly regulated for the benefit of large taxi companies at the expense of residents and entrepreneurs. As the op-ed pointed out:

City ordinances set fares, require potential cab owners to start with a fleet of 10 cabs, limit cabs to less than 600 city-wide, and require cab companies to provide 24-hour service.

Market controls such as these and others are not justified and Kansas City should lift these ordinances so that new business models can thrive in the city. Read the entire op-ed here.

Lawmaker Holds Double Standard For Private Schools

Posted on May 13, 2014January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

Missouri Senate Bill 493 includes a provision that would allow students in unaccredited school districts to attend non-religious private schools. This provision, the only one in the bill intended to expand opportunities for students rather than restrict them, has opponents of private school choice up in arms.

During committee hearings, Missouri Sen. Jason Holsman (D–Dist. 7) voiced the lone “no” vote against the bill. In doing so, he expressed one of the most erroneous arguments against private school choice: “Private schools have admission standards, they don’t take all kids.”

I have news for you. Public schools don’t take all kids — they only take the kids who live within a geographic boundary. In this sense, my private neighborhood swimming pool is a lot like public schools — you can get in if you can afford a house in the neighborhood.

More to the point, there are examples of public schools in Missouri that do not accept all students within the district boundaries. Here is a snippet that I wrote on Education News about one of those schools:

One prime example of a public school that does not serve all students is Metro Academic and Classical High School, a magnet school in the Saint Louis Missouri Public School District. U.S. News & World Report ranks Metro as the No. 1 public school in the state, for good reason. Metro grads regularly go on to top-tier universities and perform exceptionally well on achievement tests.

There may be great things going on at Metro, but it cannot be denied that part of the school’s success is derived from its admissions process. To be admitted, a student must score proficient or advanced on the state MAP test. In 2013, nearly 14 percent of black eighth graders in Saint Louis scored proficient or advanced. That means more than 86 percent of black students in the Saint Louis Public School District do not meet the admissions criteria for Metro.

Lincoln College Prep in Kansas City is another public magnet school with selective admissions. The school also de-selects, or kicks out, students who aren’t cutting it. If a student’s grade point average drops below a 2.5, he or she has one semester to improve or be shipped out to another district public school.

It is wrong to hold private schools up to a standard that the public schools do not meet. More importantly, it is bad policy to oppose expanding opportunities for the students who need options the most.

Tesla, Car Dealers and Milton Friedman: The Problem of Protectionism and Cronyism

Posted on May 12, 2014January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Last week at Forbes, I wrote about an attempt by Missouri car dealers to prevent electric car manufacturer Tesla from selling its cars directly to customers. Although the amendment in question quietly passed the state Senate, I do expect that free market advocates in the House will loudly reject this attempted protectionism and cronyism.

That said, it must be noted that although Tesla is being wronged by the proposed amendment, policymakers would do well not to proclaim the heavily-subsidized company to be some spirit animal of the free market. Indeed, many businesses are quick to proclaim their love of the market while simultaneously marshaling special protections and subsidies to themselves. Tesla fits that description to a T; hit up that last link for a list of examples.

The Tesla episode reminds me of an old video featuring famed economist Milton Friedman. Asked some decades ago about who can save the free market, Friedman framed his response this way:

You talk about preserving the free market system. Who has been destroying it? The business community must take a large share of the responsibility. … You must separate out being pro-free enterprise from being pro-business.

The short video, which I commend to all of our readers, is below:

There is a difference between being pro-business and being pro-market. Clearly the proposed legislation would be pro-dealers; it would not, however, be pro-Tesla or pro-consumer.

Thoughts on Medicaid, Right to Try, and Paycheck Protection As Legislative Session Wraps Up

Posted on May 12, 2014January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Expect things to get a little wild before the legislature finishes its work at 6 p.m. Friday. Here are some of the issues I’ll be paying close attention to.

First, Medicaid expansion. To reiterate, Missouri should not expand this expensive, broken health care program. “Medicaid Transformation” is not the same thing as “Medicaid reform.” Transformation is just expansion rebranded.

Second, Right to Try. The bill would allow terminally ill patients greater flexibility to seek experimental medications, making this bill the latest in a string of proposed reforms — including last year’s Volunteer Health Services Act and this year’s hemp oil bill — emphasizing greater access in care and treatment. I testified in favor of the law in both the House and Senate, and while several states are considering the law this year, Missouri could end up being the first in the nation to pass it.

Third, paycheck protection. Paycheck protection would allow public employees in unions to, by default, keep more of their money rather than have it automatically siphoned off for a union’s political activities. It’s a common sense approach to a thorny free speech problem, which I’ve testified about before. If it goes to voters, you’ll hear much more about this topic from me in the weeks ahead, but the Senate will have to vote on it first.

There are other issues which are also lingering in the legislature, including tax credit reform and voter ID. I support both. TIF reform and the transportation tax are also big issues, and I would direct you to David Stokes’ and Joe Miller’s excellent work on those topics respectively. The school transfer issue is still very much alive, and of course there’s Tesla versus the car dealers, which you can read more about here and here.

It’s been a long session, but it’s not over yet. Stay tuned to Show-Me Daily as the week goes on for updates on these issues.

Parents Agree: More Is Better

Posted on May 12, 2014January 13, 2026 by James V. Shuls

As first appearing in the Columbia Daily Tribune:

We have all seen the commercials: A man is sitting at a table with a group of children and asks, “Which is better, more or less?” The children quickly, and comically, explain why more is better. The ad ends with a familiar refrain: It’s not complicated.

Recently, the Show-Me Institute partnered with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice to ask a similar question among Missouri voters. Which is better: more educational opportunities or fewer? The responses in that survey reflected those of the children in the commercial — more is better.

Across the board, the majority of voters supported expanding educational options for students. Missouri lawmakers should keep this in mind as they work to “fix” the interdistrict transfer law.

Undeniably, there are problems with the current law that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, much of the fix will result in fewer, not more, educational opportunities for students in unaccredited districts. That is why a bipartisan compromise was inserted into the bill — a local private option, which would allow students in failing schools to attend a nearby, nonreligious private school.

Some argue the local private option does not belong in the transfer fix discussion. Sadly, these individuals are trying to make the transfer program more palatable for public school districts rather than increase opportunities for students.

The private option does exactly that. It’s doing so in 24 states and Washington, D.C., with Kansas being the most recent state to adopt school choice.

Missourians recognize having more educational opportunities is better than having fewer such opportunities. In fact, most Missourians would use school choice if they had it.

When participants in our survey were asked what type of school they would select to obtain the best education for their child, 39 percent indicated private schools would be their first choice, 11 percent said they would choose a charter school and 10 percent said they would home-school their children. Less than one-third of respondents said they would send their children to a regular public school.

Despite the strong desire for educational options and the high regard for private schools, nearly 90 percent of all Missouri students attend regular public schools. This mismatch between parents’ school preferences and the educational reality in Missouri has occurred because the Show-Me State lacks school choice programs. Without these options, many parents do not have the ability to send their children to the school of their choice.

Not surprisingly, a majority of the individuals in our poll said they would support expanding school choice. In fact, inter-district choice, charter schools and private school choice programs received similar levels of support — all above 60 percent. This includes strong support for school choice among rural voters.

Support tended to be highest among parents and low-income families — the individuals who stand to gain the most from the creation of school choice programs. They see the value in giving parents access to their children’s funding to choose the schools, public or private, that work best for them.

And why shouldn’t they support that policy? It’s not complicated.

James V. Shuls is the director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute. Robert Enlow is the president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. The full poll results are available at edchoice.org/MissouriSurvey.

Excessive Regulation, Not Lyft, Needs To Stop Operating In Kansas City

Posted on May 10, 2014January 13, 2026 by Joseph Miller

As first appearing in the Kansas City Business Journal:

Not long ago, stores such as Blockbuster rented out movies across the nation. Where are they now? Gone, “unwept, unhonored, and unsung,” as former customers stream “House of Cards” on Netflix. But imagine 10 years ago that Kansas City had regulations controlling the supply of video stores and setting rental prices. Imagine that regulations blocked Netflix from streaming in Kansas City, with the city claiming it flouted the law and was not competing on a level playing field.

That story may seem preposterous, but we are dealing with a very similar situation today as Lyft, a new ride-sharing app (smart-phone based application), has upset the highly regulated Kansas City taxicab market.

Lyft, Uber, and other companies like them allow users to schedule a ride from any registered driver in a geographical area. Lyft drivers need not be full-time cab drivers; they can be anyone with virtually any type of car that passes certain background and safety tests. After using Lyft, riders make an optional donation — not regulated fare — to the driver via electronic payment. No cash is needed. Drivers and riders rate each other, incentivizing both elevated service from drivers and generous rider donations. Lyft and other apps are rapidly expanding across the country and have many happy customers where they exist.

Not everyone is happy, however. Chief among the protesters is the Kansas City’s Regulated Industries Division, which regulates all for-hire vehicles in Kansas City. Under the argument of protecting rider safety and maintaining a balance between cab supply and demand, Kansas City controls the number of taxis in the city, how they can conduct business, and what prices they charge. Kansas City has threatened fines for Lyft drivers and has written to the company claiming its actions are illegal.

In the past, one could have argued that potential taxi users had too little information to avoid being ripped off and no way to know which company was safe, so regulation was necessary. Today, the ease of checking fares and cab company records over the Internet and smart phones has solved those problems, but Kansas City officials have not gotten the memo. City ordinances set fares, require potential cab owners to start with a fleet of 10 cabs, limit cabs to less than 600 city-wide, and require cab companies to provide 24-hour service.

These policies ensure that individuals cannot rent out their cars for hire. They also create high barriers for entry into the market, protecting the existing cab companies from entrepreneurial Kansas Citians. These barriers reduce the total amount of taxis available for Kansas City residents and can create especially large gaps between supply and demand during peak demand times, with no flexibility in cab supply and weak incentives for cab drivers to provide more service.

Lyft and other ride-sharing apps allow for a massive increase in for-hire vehicle supply in Kansas City. City residents and visitors would be able to use some of the excess capacity of the cars already owned to greatly increase mobility. That increased on-hire vehicle capacity is likely to contribute to higher taxi demand because prices may fall as service levels increase.

As for regulation, states such as California have already brought services such as Lyft into an established legal framework, called a Transportation Network Company. Companies such as Lyft can operate as long as they ensure that drivers have adequate insurance, clean records (in driving and otherwise), and safe vehicles. That seems like a fair set of regulations for Lyft’s operations in Kansas City. In fact, it seems like a fair set of regulations for anyone who wants to give people rides in Kansas City.

New business models relegate some regulations and regulatory bodies to the dustbin of history. It is time for Kansas City’s antiquated taxi regulations, and not Lyft, to cease operating in Kansas City.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Show-Me Now! Missouri’s Income Tax Cut

Posted on May 9, 2014January 13, 2026 by Brenda Talent

Show-Me Institute CEO Brenda Talent congratulates Missouri’s General Assembly for finally cutting the state’s income tax, but she also notes that more needs to be done. For Missouri to become more competitive it has to reduce taxes further. The Show-Me Institute has written about how to accomplish this:

Missouri’s Tax Reform Journey Has Only Just Begun

Posted on May 9, 2014January 13, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

For Missouri’s tax reformers, this was one big week. Sure, the legislature passed the state’s first individual income tax reduction in nearly a century. But Tuesday’s override vote also signaled that the sands in the Missouri capitol are finally shifting toward sound, market-oriented, and growth-promoting tax policies, and away from Jefferson City’s business-as-usual tax policies.

As an organization that has helped lead tax reform efforts in Missouri for many years, the Show-Me Institute is pleased to see the legislature take this baby step of reform. Make no mistake — this is a very modest tax cut, and smaller than we preferred. But to be clear, this tax cut serves as a mile-marker on the path of greater reforms.

Thanks to the hard work of countless supporters of the free market, that pathway of reform is now opening wide. Policymakers are finally recognizing that the words “free market” actually mean something . . . and that free markets actually matter.

When we at the Show-Me Institute say that we believe in free markets, what we’re really saying is that we believe in people. We believe in people to invest in themselves and their families and to make this state a better place to live. We believe in that bottom-up solution which puts its faith in our people, not a top-down plan that puts its faith in the government. We believe in you.

And we believe this week’s tax cut is just the first step on the road to enduring, people-empowering tax reform in this great state. We look forward to the future, and we hope you’ll join us on our journey to make our state even better.

May 6 (Columbia): 2014 Legislative Session: The Home Stretch

Posted on May 9, 2014January 13, 2026 by Joseph Haslag

Missouri Rep. Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) and Show-Me Institute Chief Economist Joseph Haslag, Ph.D., talk about Missouri's 2014 legislative session.

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.