Live Events May 22: The Insider’s Hour with Show-Me Institute

The Missouri legislative session is over. What did the House and Senate accomplish? How did Missourians fare?

Get the scoop from the experts at the Show-Me Institute at our Insider’s Hour!

Join us at one of two open discussions with Brenda Talent, James Shuls, and Elias Tsapelas from the Show-Me Institute.

Two chances to get the scoop: 

Both Wednesday, May 22

Lunch Event

MAC West

1777 Des Peres Road

St. Louis, MO 63131

Doors open: 11:30 a.m.

Discussion and Q&A: 12-1:00 p.m.

Ticket Price: $15.00 (includes lunch and beverages)

Lunch Event Tickets Here

Evening Event

Cafe Napoli

7754 Forsyth Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63105

Doors open: 4:30 p.m.

Discussion and Q&A: 5-5:45 p.m.

Ticket Price: $15.00 (includes a beverage and light snacks)

Evening Event Tickets Here

What Does the Latest Inflation Data Mean for the Fed’s Next Move?

On May 15, 2024, Show-Me Institute Chief Economist Aaron Hedlund joined Pete Mundo on KCMO to break down the latest inflation data and discuss what it means for the Federal Reserve’s next move on interest rates.

Photo credit:

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/partial-view-federal-reserve-fed-headquarters-2258307915

Photo ID: 2258307915

Photo Contributor: christianthiel.net

Choice versus No School Choice

Before Governor Parson signed Senate Bill (SB) 727 into law, opinion columns across Missouri were filled with statements of opposition. Among a laundry list of things in the bill is an expansion of the MOScholars program. MOScholars provides funding for students to attend non-public schools via donations from taxpayers. The donors in turn receive a credit toward their taxes. For the most part, SB 727 opposition focused on this part of the bill

David Rosman provided a typical example of this criticism in an editorial for the Columbia Missourian: “Conservative religious leaders and politicians see public education as inferior to private, charter and religious education, but there is no proof supporting that belief.” Rosman then goes on to support his claim by arguing that we do not have an effective way of comparing public and private schools academically, noting that public schools have to accept all students, and pointing out that public school students have won more Scripps National Spelling Bee titles.

It is not clear that Rosman’s examples actually support his claim, but the bigger problem is the claim itself. He says proponents of school choice support the cause because they think public schools are inferior, particularly in the area of academics. Yet academics is just one of the many reasons families support having school choice options.

While I’ve never met a parent who has chosen a charter school or a private school because they believe it will help their child win the Scripps spelling bee, I have met many parents who chose a charter or private school because their children felt bullied in their assigned public school or because they did not feel their children’s needs were being met. I have met parents who have chosen an arts school for their children and some who have chosen a STEM school. And, yes, I have met many parents, from nearly every faith tradition, who have chosen a religious school for their children.

When advocates argue for school choice, it is not because we think all private schools are inherently better than all public schools. Quite the contrary. There are many excellent public schools and many private schools where I would never send my own children. This is not a public versus non-public issue. It is a choice versus no-choice issue. It is a freedom versus control issue.

Proponents of school choice believe parents should be able to direct the upbringing of their children. They also believe that parents should be allowed to choose the type of school that best meets the needs of their children and aligns with the goals of their family.

In short, school choice supporters see assigning students to schools as inferior to a system that allows people to choose from a myriad of educational options.

Don’t Drop the Call for Telemedicine

Is the dysfunction of Missouri’s legislature going to claim another victim? With just a few days left to go in this year’s legislative session, the odds of any bills that improve Missouri’s telemedicine laws making it across the finish line get smaller by the day.

Several months ago, I wrote about the positive developments in the world of telemedicine, and the laws Missouri needs to change to bring these benefits to state residents. I was optimistic because several bills expanding the role of telemedicine received hearings near the start of this year’s legislative session, and there was little to no opposition voiced against the changes. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to me, the telemedicine bills haven’t moved much since their public hearings.

What makes the lack of movement so surprising is that much of what the telemedicine bills do is restore benefits that Missourians enjoyed a few short years ago. As I’ve written before, during the state of emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic, Missouri was one of the national leaders on telemedicine. Because various laws and regulations were waived for emergency response, it was much easier for patients to access their healthcare providers virtually. In response, patients and providers alike grew to value the service—until the emergency ended, and state lawmakers allowed the prior telemedicine restrictions to return.

Two of the telemedicine bills being considered this year seem like no brainers. One expands the definition of “telehealth” to include audio-only technologies. Not everyone has access to the devices or internet required to transmit video, and not every medical service requires a visual examination. Many in the mental health field would like the ability to treat patients over the phone, but state law needs to change for that to be possible.

The second bill makes it easier to establish the physician–patient relationship virtually. Currently, there are concerns about doctors prescribing medications to patients who they’ve never seen in person. Clarifying the process that needs to be followed for safely prescribing medicine remotely seems like it would benefit both patients and providers.

Many Missourians are still struggling with healthcare access, due in large part to a shortage of providers, and telemedicine is one of the best ways to expand the available pool of providers. There are many providers already calling on our general assembly to allow them to see more Missouri patients. There’s still enough time for our lawmakers to act and finally answer the call for improving telemedicine access.

No Way to Budget

Do Missouri’s elected officials think the phrase “better late than ever” applies to passing the budget? Last week, our general assembly cut things incredibly close by approving next year’s spending plan just a few short hours before the constitutional deadline.

For months, I’ve been expressing concerns about this budget. After years of record-breaking spending growth, the well of exorbitant federal funds will soon be drying up, and state tax revenues are expected to decline or remain stagnant. Not to be deterred, in January, Governor Parson laid out his plan that recommended more of the same, including spending more than the state expects to bring in. Over the next few months, the House of Representatives worked to pare that plan back, ultimately finding some (but not enough) savings.

Over the past month, the Senate had been working on its version of the budget, but to no avail. Due to an apparent combination of time constraints and chamber dysfunction, the spending plan didn’t see the Senate floor until the day before Missouri’s constitution requires it be passed. The result of this delay was a budget that almost no one had seen in advance, yet still had to be approved by both legislative chambers over a matter of hours. All this had to happen without anyone making any changes.

The problems with this process should be obvious. Instead of each chamber having its own version of the budget to compare against the governor’s, and a conference committee process to reconcile differences, the compromises were made outside of the public eye. Instead of taxpayers being able to see how each chamber prioritizes spending, the lack of conference meant that there was no avenue for input from citizens on the final product. And instead of lawmakers having several days, if not weeks, to examine the proposed budget and suggest amendments, they were stuck with a take-it-or-leave-it offer.

Unsurprisingly, the approved budget looks like it leaves much to be desired. As Missouri’s legislators are fond of saying, passing the budget is the general assembly’s sole constitutional responsibility. Given the gravity of the assignment, it’s incredibly disheartening that the process played out the way it did. Over the next few weeks, I’ll continue unpacking the spending decisions of our elected officials. At this point, what’s clear is that Missouri desperately needs more budget transparency, and what happened this year should never be allowed to happen again.

The Final Week of the Session

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss:

– The state budget

– The final week of the legislative session

– The latest plan in the City of St. Louis to deal with the prevalence of temporary tags, and more

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Missouri Needs to Be Prepared for Growing Energy Demand

When the legislature finally passed an education reform bill, I was hopeful this would mean we would see movement on other important bills as well. However, as we approach the final weeks of the legislative session, it seems that some bills may be sputtering out. Among them are bills that would strengthen Missouri’s energy sector—in particular, House Bills (HB) 1435 & 1804.

Missouri cannot keep putting off energy reform until the next year—change is happening now, and energy demand is growing.

For the first two decades of the 2000s, electricity consumption remained flat without significant growth, as increased demand was offset by increased energy efficiency. However, in recent years energy demand has been on the rise again.

Forbes, the Department of Energy, and The New York Times all note the same driving forces for this increasing demand—data center growth (accelerated by the growth of AI) and a boom in electrical manufacturing (batteries, computer chips, etc.). What is one thing data centers and factories have in common? They both require power 24 hours a day—something non-dispatchable resources like solar cannot effectively provide alone. (Small modular nuclear reactors are great at providing continuous power . . . just saying.)

Some prominent organizations, such as Goldman Sachs and McKinsey & Company, have forecasted that U.S. data center energy usage will double by 2030. To put it into perspective, Goldman forecasts that data centers’ share of total U.S. power demand will rise from its current 3% level to 8% by 2030. This is an enormous amount of electricity—equivalent to the power needed for over 40 million U.S. homes.

Ameren is planning to shut down all coal plants by 2045. To replace coal plants’ production and meet new demand, our state will need to build reliable, powerful, and clean power plants.

Nuclear power can check all of these boxes, but we need regulatory reform to allow nuclear to flourish in Missouri. To replace and meet new energy demand, our state should strongly consider nuclear energy.

The primary policy that has impeded our nuclear industry for decades is the construction-works-in-progress (CWIP) law. This statute prevents utilities from raising rates in order to help pay for construction-works-in-progress, making it much more difficult to develop nuclear projects. CWIP has proven fatal for Missouri’s nuclear industry, as nuclear projects are both extremely capital intensive and subject to extensive holdups in the regulatory process.

Nuclear plants do not arise out of thin air, and they will not be built in Missouri if there are too many regulatory barriers. Eliminating the longstanding CWIP statute by passing HB 1435 and HB 1804 would provide a backstop for the large upfront costs of small modular reactor construction so that utilities can work with both domestic and international nuclear developers to revive our state’s nuclear industry.

In the remaining weeks of the session, the legislature cannot forget about the need for modernization in the energy sector. Electricity demand is on the rise, and Missouri should prepare to meet this demand.

Useless and Expensive: The Proposed St. Louis MetroLink Extension

Metrolink Expansion Factsheet (1)

Download a copy of the Fact Sheet 

The proposed St. Louis MetroLink extension, with its staggering $1.1 billion price tag, would be useless and expensive.

Demand for public transit along this proposed new light rail route, spanning 5 miles primarily along Jefferson Avenue, is such that there is currently NO bus route that serves this same route, yet we are to believe a light rail system is sorely needed and will be heavily used.

The projected ridership of 5,000 boardings per day is underwhelming, especially when compared to past forecasts for MetroLink ridership. In 2004, Metro predicted 80,000 daily boardings by 2025 for the Missouri side alone; yet, in 2023, the entire system averaged just 16,700 boardings.

We can look to the Loop Trolley debacle as a cautionary tale. Despite abysmal ridership numbers, St. Louis is stuck funding the trolley due to federal funding stipulations. The exact same thing will happen with this latest MetroLink extension proposal. It will cost over a BILLION dollars, have VERY FEW riders, and we will be forced to operate and fund it for decades. This project isn’t merely wasteful. It is an actively harmful expenditure of federal and local tax dollars.

A New Baseline We Can Build From with Andy Rotherham

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Rotherham about how we should evaluate schools in a post-pandemic world, the importance of accountability, and more.

Andrew J. Rotherham is a co-founder and External Relations leader at Bellwether, a national nonprofit that exists to transform education to ensure systemically marginalized young people achieve outcomes that lead to fulfilling lives and flourishing communities. Rotherham also works in Bellwether’s Policy and Evaluation practice area and serves on the Virginia Board of Education. He occupies a unique place in the U.S. education sector working across silos. He has been appointed to senior policymaking roles by Democrats and Republicans, works at the intersection of research and policy, media, and practice, and is a longtime champion of heterodoxy, empiricism, and pragmatism in education policy.

Rotherham writes the blog and newsletter Eduwonk.com.

Learn more about Bellwether: bellwether.org/

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

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