Susan Pendergrass, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the end of 2023 Missouri legislative session.
Produced by Show-Me Opportunity
Watch or Listen: Jay Nordlinger – Adventures in Journalism
On May 9, 2023, Jay Nordlinger delivered a talk titled “Adventures in Journalism” at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Missouri.
During the talk, Nordlinger surveys today’s media landscape with what has become frequent dismay.
Listen as a Podcast
“We’ve never had so much journalism and so many outlets, which is great,” the National Review senior editor says. “But politics and journalism have merged, and … I’ve seen a lot of journalists begin to act like politicians with political calculations. That’s crippling to a writer.”
“You’ve got to be free at the keyboard,” he says, “to pursue the truth as you find it.”
Nordlinger, who lives in New York, writes the column “Impromptus” for NationalReview.com and is a book fellow of the National Review Institute. He’s the author of two books: Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World and Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators. Selections of his work have been republished in two anthologies.
He also is a music critic for The New Criterion and the host of two podcasts, Q&A and Music for a While.
The event was co-presented by the Show-Me Institute, National Review Institute, the John W. Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise, and Show-Me Opportunity
Mortgages, Job Applications, and Equity
What does applying for employment have to do with federal mortgage policy? Usually, the two have nothing in common. Nor should they. But consider this: to gain employment at some jobs, including many public universities, applicants are required to submit a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statement. Pay attention to the word “equity.” Now pay attention to recent changes to federal loan policy, which may increase fees on individuals with good credit to subsidize loans for those with lower credit scores. This is an equity policy in action.
When universities require applicants to swear fealty to equity, what are they asking them to commit to? Are they asking people to pledge their support for equity policies such as this new mortgage policy? If not, what are they asking applicants to pledge their support to?
This is the problem with requiring DEI statements. Without a clear understanding of what the employer is looking for, one can only speculate about the purpose and intent of a DEI statement. If an applicant gives an answer that is out of step with the ideology held by most at the university, will that person be denied a job? This is one of the reasons why conservatives have called this requirement nothing more than a political litmus test that should not be allowed at public universities.
In March, University of Missouri System President Mun Choi sent an email to faculty that outlined a new policy prohibiting the use of DEI statements in hiring. Instead, the university will ask candidates to reply to the following statement, which Choi called a “values commitment”:
We value the uniqueness of every individual and strive to ensure each person’s success. Contributions from individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives promote intellectual pluralism and enable us to achieve the excellence that we seek in learning, research and engagement.
This commitment makes our university a better place to work, learn and innovate. In your application materials, please discuss your experiences and expertise that support these values and enrich our missions of teaching, research and engagement.
This change is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, many public universities in the state still require an ideological litmus test DEI statements. It is time for more leaders, in the legislature and in higher education, to take a stand against these practices.
Right Idea, Wrong Approach
Each legislative session, there are more than 1,000 bills filed, and inevitably, many of them contain bad ideas. This year, my colleagues and I have written a lot about bad bills that contain bad ideas, and even good bills with good ideas. But what I haven’t talked about much are the bills that contain good ideas but, for one reason or another, are bad pieces of legislation. A perfect example would be this year’s “welfare” bill.
Welfare programs shouldn’t encourage dependency, but far too often they end up trapping recipients on government support. This year, two state lawmakers filed bills aimed at addressing the work disincentives that currently accompany welfare benefits. In theory, these bills sound like good ideas. Unfortunately, the approaches chosen by lawmakers for these bills have some glaring flaws.
Here are some examples:
Good Idea: Ensure welfare recipients aren’t discouraged from seeking work or career advancement.
Wrong Approach: The bills create new transitional benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs that stack on top of the program’s already existing transitional benefit programs. The result is a new layer of costly complexity on top of an already overly complex system.
Additionally, the new transitional benefit would scale benefits based on the recipient’s income. While this may sound like a good idea, the government does not collect real-time income earned by recipients, and checking income is not an easy administrative process. In reality, this change will mean more people are enrolled in state welfare programs longer.
Good Idea: Simplify income reporting to reduce burdensome bureaucracy.
Wrong Approach: The bills require applications for Missouri’s welfare programs to fit onto one page. The problem is, as the state’s department of social services reports, “a one-page form would not capture all of the information federally required to determine eligibility for these programs. FSD would need to follow up with each applicant to obtain the required information to determine eligibility.”
In other words, one page is not enough space to gather the information sufficient to comply with federal law. This increases the likelihood that more individuals will be enrolled in welfare programs than are eligible to receive benefits, only for state authorities to discover this problem after significant tax dollars are improperly spent.
Good Idea: Focus on federally funded programs that states have the flexibility to reform.
Wrong Approach: Since SNAP and TANF are federal programs, the federal government also gets a say in whether they will pay for whatever reforms Missouri enacts. But the reforms for TANF and SNAP outlined in the bill’s fiscal notes will very likely not be approved by the federal government. No other state has anything similar to what is being proposed here. So, if enacted, these reforms and new benefits would be paid for by state taxpayers. All told, the fiscal note estimates the bill would cost more than $200 million per year in new state tax dollars.
Given all of these concerns, it’s safe to say that without significant changes, I think these bills would move Missouri in the wrong direction. They would grow the welfare state, worsen program integrity, and significantly increase costs.
Since there are a number of welfare reforms that could have been proposed that encourage work, improve program accountability, and responsibly spend taxpayer dollars, it is mystifying why such reforms have not been pursued. With less than two weeks remaining in the legislative session, it’s unlikely we will see revisions to the current bills that truly reform the system. Improving Missouri’s welfare state is a difficult but worthy task. Instead of moving forward with bills that could do more harm than good, I hope lawmakers will choose to learn from this years’ experience and carry this important conversation into 2024 with reforms that actually accomplish what they say they want to accomplish.
Two Birds, One Stone: Could an Income Tax Cut Help Missouri Reverse Two Declines?
The American Legislative Exchange’s (ALEC) newest Rich States, Poor States report indicates that Missouri is currently facing an economic decline. The report’s “Economic Outlook Rank” is a “forward-looking forecast” based on 15 variables, such as the top marginal personal income tax rate and the sales tax burden. The report shows that for the most part “states that spend less—especially on income transfer programs—and states that tax less—particularly on productive activities such as working or investing—experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more.” Missouri’s rank in the economic outlook measure fell from 21st in 2021 to 31st in 2023.
As I wrote about a few weeks ago, Missouri is also facing a demographic decline. Recent college graduates or businesses looking to relocate will be more likely to choose a state with a promising economic outlook. When I wrote about demographic decline in St. Louis, I mentioned that Austin, Texas, and Orlando, Florida, have experienced substantial growth. One likely reason for these cities’ success in attracting new residents is their lack of a local or state income tax, which serves as an incentive for businesses and individuals to move to those cities.
So what can policymakers do? Show-Me Institute analysts have written extensively about the benefits that an income-tax cut could have for Missouri. States such as Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have cut their income tax to zero and also consistently fare well in ALEC’s economic outlook and performance rankings.
While Missouri has made incremental progress on cutting taxes, we still lag behind the true national leaders. This year’s legislative session is almost over, and so far we haven’t seen any significant tax reforms become law. Lowering taxes could help both our economic and demographic woes. But we need more urgency from our elected officials on this issue, or Missouri will only continue to fall further behind.
A Superintendent’s View with John C. Carver
Susan Pendergrass speaks with former superintendent John C. Carver. John writes about education policy at growthringsjcc.blogspot.com
Produced by Show-Me Opportunity
K-12 without Borders: School Choice in Missouri
On April 26, 2023, the Show-Me Institute, in partnership with EdChoice and Show-Me Opportunity, hosted a virtual event featuring EdChoice’s Marty Lueken, Director of Fiscal Research & Education Center, and Mike McShane, Director of National Research, join Show-Me Institute’s Director of Education Research, Susan Pendergrass. Mike and Marty discussed their recently published report titled K-12 Without Borders: Public School Students, Families, and Teachers Shut in by Education Boundaries, which examines what a K-12 education system with fewer school district borders would mean for students, teachers, and taxpayers.
Listen as a Podcast
Show-Me Institute Policy Briefs on Open Enrollment in Missouri:
School Choice and School Transportation: Exploring Opportunities
Produced by Show-Me Opportunity
Initiative Petition Reform Clears Senate Hurdle. Great! Now Stop Wasting Time
In a move that may open the spigot on legislation in both chambers, on Thursday the Missouri Senate finally passed an amended version of a Missouri House initiative petition (IP) reform proposal. The proposal would raise the threshold for the state constitution to be modified at the ballot box. This development is important for a couple of reasons.
The first reason it’s important is the policy itself. IP reform has been a long-overdue priority because in Missouri, the threshold to amend the state’s constitution is practically the same as the threshold to amend a law—only when the constitution is amended, it’s much harder to change later. Raising the bar for constitutional amendments—requiring a supermajority or some kind of concurrent majority of voters for passage, as this bill would do—is a rational move that should have been done last year, if not three years ago.
Whatever your thoughts on the various contentious constitutional ballot items over the last several years, not reforming initiative petitions has had an irrefutably enormous impact on policymaking in the state. Of course, two things still have to happen for IP reform itself to become law: the House and Senate have to agree to and pass the same legislative language, and voters will have to pass it into law.
But the second reason the Senate’s move on IP reform is important is more practical and political in nature. Reports in recent weeks suggested that the Missouri House would no longer advance Senate bills so long as House priorities, particularly the IP bill, languished in the upper chamber.
Keep in mind that the House finished its work on IP reform at the beginning of February; the Senate heard the bill in committee a week later . . . and then sat on the legislation for two months until literally the last legislative day in April. That approach in the Senate—and response by the House—dimmed prospects for all legislation in Missouri, especially as we approached the end of the session in mid-May.
Whatever the IP reform bill’s ultimate fate, it’s my hope that the Senate will take the present legislative opportunity to get its act together in the two weeks remaining in the session and, rather than (for instance) stop attempts to get woke diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT) programming out of government, instead stop making excuses and start keeping the promises legislators made to their constituents over the last six months. Tax cuts, school choice, transparency . . . the Senate is suffocating all kinds of reforms right now. That can’t continue.
A Better Way to Pay?
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the state’s new gas tax refund program and how its first year was a complete failure (learn more about the gas tax hike and refund scheme here). In short, very few Missourians took advantage of the program, and I think a big reason for that is how difficult the state made the process for claiming a refund. Fortunately, if a bill recently passed by the House can make it across the finish line, Missouri drivers would be in store for a much better experience next year.
If enacted, House Bill (HB) 519 would require the state’s department of revenue to develop a mobile application for claiming gas tax refunds, which is what I suggested the state do back before the program began. The idea of keeping track of gas receipts for a whole year to fill out a form and mail it to Jefferson City always seemed like more work than the refund would likely be worth to most Missourians. That’s why I think having an easy process for registering gas purchases at the point of sale and submitting those receipts through an app for refunds would be a real game changer.
Additionally, the bill would get rid of the arbitrary window for filing rebates. As much as I’d like to think most Missourians enjoy following the state’s budget along with me every year, I don’t think the end of the state’s fiscal year (which is the current deadline for filing gas tax refunds) represents an obvious time for most to be filing tax documents. Expanding the window to allow gas receipt submissions through the app all year, as well as when individuals file their taxes in April, would likely make things much more convenient for those interested in claiming a refund.
Finally, the bill allows taxpayers who don’t want to mess with tracking gas receipts to claim a “standard refund,” which will offer a specified amount as a credit against the individual’s income tax liability. For the 2023 tax year, the standard refund would be $30. But by 2026 and every year after, when the gas tax hike is fully ramped up, the refund would be $75.
As I explained previously, if the legislature really wasn’t trying to raise taxes on Missourians without their input, the refund portion of the gas tax hike should be simple enough that most taxpayers feel they can reasonably take advantage of the refund opportunity. Based on the data from the refund’s first full year, I’d say that was not the case. While HB 519 is not perfect, I think it goes a long way toward demonstrating the state’s commitment to the law enacted by the legislature. I, for one, would appreciate a better way to reclaim my tax dollars.
