Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andrew G. Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, about the Social Security trustees’ latest report and what it means for the program’s future. They discuss the projected 2032 insolvency of the retirement trust fund, why the trustees’ birth rate assumptions may be too optimistic, the proposed Moreno-Warren plan to eliminate the payroll tax ceiling, the Cassidy-Kaine plan, and why pension experts oppose it, what would actually happen if the trust fund ran out, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
I feel fortunate to have grabbed some of your time. Andrew Biggs from the American Enterprise Institute, I appreciate you coming on to talk to us. Social security has been nothing but in the news recently, and you know more than anyone else. So thank you for taking the time.

Andrew Biggs (00:14):
That’s why I’m so cheerful. The more you know about Social Security, the happier you are. But thanks for having me, Susan. It has been busy. I’m really happy to be with you today.

Susan Pendergrass (00:16):
I’m in my sixties. I see something about Social Security running out of money and I pay attention. So just to bring us all up to speed: in the last week, there was a news flash that Social Security is going to run out of money sooner. What does it really mean?

Andrew Biggs (00:39):
Every year the Social Security trustees, which is mostly members of the cabinet, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Social Security Commissioner, and so on, come out with a report projecting the program’s financial health, both in the short term and the long term. That happens every year, and it’s been getting worse every year. In this year’s report, they projected that the retirement trust fund will go insolvent, or run out of money, in 2032. They also projected a significantly larger long-term funding gap in the years thereafter, and this is worth explaining.

When the trust fund runs out, it doesn’t mean there’s zero money to pay benefits. As long as we’re paying a trillion dollars a year in payroll taxes, there will be money to pay benefits. But when the trust fund runs out, it means benefits will be cut, and their projection is somewhere around 22%. The size of that long-term funding gap dictates how big the cuts are going to be in the years thereafter. The trustees lowered their projections for birth rates, and they found that the One Big Beautiful Bill has worsened Social Security’s finances. A variety of things made this long-term funding gap worse. It’s really hard to paint a happy picture. The trust fund can be running out in about six years, and the funding gap and the benefit cuts in years thereafter are going to be larger. It’s a sobering picture.

Susan Pendergrass (02:16):
I’m not trying to pile on, but I think I saw that they extended the time when they expect birth rates to bounce back. Is that true? Because I have not seen anything anywhere, and I’ve spoken to some demographers, to suggest birth rates are ever going to bounce back.

Andrew Biggs (02:35):
Here’s the interesting thing. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office or the US Census Bureau, right now the fertility rate is about 1.6 children per woman on average, and both the CBO and the Census project that’s going to remain pretty much steady, declining a little bit over coming decades. Social Security had a very different picture. As of last year, they thought the birth rate, which is 1.6 now, was going to immediately start rising and go back up to 1.9 children per woman in the next several decades. That makes Social Security’s finances better. More kids being born means more people paying into the system. What they did in this year’s report is moderate a bit on fertility. They said, okay, it’s not going to rise back to 1.9, it’ll rise back to 1.75. So they are still over-optimistic. I’ve talked to some demographers and economists who’ve really focused on the birth rate, and they described the trustees’ assumptions as, quote, fanciful, meaning they just weren’t plausible. Now they’re somewhat more plausible, but they still tend

Susan Pendergrass (03:32):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (03:48):
to be more optimistic than other agencies. And to me, frankly, this is a concern. You really want the people who are the scorekeepers, the umpires, to be playing it as straight as they possibly can. We know that these guesses are going to be wrong because this stuff is impossible to predict with certainty, but most demographers think the best guess is we’ll stay around 1.6 going forward. You’ve seen a decline, and a good predictor of birth rates is religiosity, the level of religious belief in a country. The US has typically been much more religious than Western Europe, and that’s played into fertility. There has been a big decline in religious belief, particularly among younger Americans, along with all the other pessimism you see among younger people. When people are pessimistic, they tend not to have a lot of kids. So the best guess is we’re going to stay about where we are.

I wrote something the other day saying the bad news in this trustees report is even worse than last year’s, but it could have been even worse. They project a long-term funding gap above 4.4 percent of payroll. What that means is if you took the 12.4% payroll tax today and raised it immediately and permanently by 4.4 percentage points, from 12.4 to 16.8, that would in theory keep the trust fund solvent for 75 years. But a better guess would be a funding gap of around 4.8 to 5 percent. This is real money. For years, people on the left have said, well, okay, we know Social Security has a solvency problem, but it’s a manageable issue. They were saying that when the funding gap was 2% of payroll. Now you’re looking at four to five percent. That’s a lot of money, at a time when a lot of other things are making claims on the budget. We have some difficult choices to make and we really have to start thinking hard about this.

Susan Pendergrass (06:09):
Okay, so what about this idea that’s been floated in the last week of getting rid of the payroll cap? First of all, explain the payroll cap, and then this idea of getting rid of it.

Andrew Biggs (06:17):
Sure. Social Security has a 12.4% payroll tax, half paid by you and half paid by your employer. That applies only to wages up to $184,500. That’s called the payroll tax ceiling, or the tax max. That dollar figure goes up every year, but this year it’s $184,000. You only pay taxes on those wages, and you also earn benefits only on those wages. People say, well, Bill Gates doesn’t pay more taxes than that. But he doesn’t earn any benefits either. So you’re capping both the taxes and the benefits.

To fast forward a little bit: there’s an op-ed in the Washington Post this week from Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts. They say it’s just common sense to eliminate that cap and tax all earnings for Social Security. The interesting thing is how uncommon that would actually be. Our payroll tax ceiling is $184,000. Almost every other country has a ceiling on their payroll taxes for their pension system, and in almost every other country that ceiling is lower. In Canada, you only pay taxes and earn benefits up to around $60,000 in earnings. In the UK it’s about $70,000. In Germany it’s about $70,000. We are already an outlier for how high up the income ladder we tax people. To eliminate the cap entirely is a big deal. It’s effectively a 12 percentage point increase in the top marginal tax rate. I pulled an example of somebody living in New York City. A high-income person already pays 37% in federal income taxes, plus regular Medicare taxes, the additional Medicare tax, state taxes, and city taxes. If you add another 12 percentage points on top of that, their marginal tax rate would be in the mid-60s. And that’s before we’ve fixed Medicare or done anything else. The federal budget is still broke, and you’ve taxed these people as high as you possibly can. So these things that look like common sense, why don’t we just tax everybody,

Susan Pendergrass (08:37):
Right, right.

Andrew Biggs (08:46):
look, there are reasons for that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:49):
And were they suggesting that if I make $300,000 and I pay my 6.2 percent, totaling 12.4 with my employer, on my entire salary, that my Social Security benefit one day would be higher? Are they talking about capping the benefit or just getting rid of the cap on contributions?

Andrew Biggs (09:06):
They haven’t been very specific. They say Social Security would continue to be an earned benefit, which kind of implies you would continue to earn benefits on the additional taxes you would pay. Let’s say if we uncap the payroll tax and base your taxes on your total earnings, you’d also base your benefits on your total earnings. What you get then is, okay, you’re getting all this money from people in the short term, but you have to pay them higher benefits in the long term. That offsets some of the savings. And this morning I was running some numbers looking back to the 1970s. We had a huge run-up in benefit levels from Social Security in the 1970s. The benefit formula we have today is not the one FDR invented. It really happened in the 1970s, where they jacked up benefits in a really foolish way, and then to help pay for it, they increased the payroll tax ceiling. Right now you pay taxes on earnings up to $180,000. If we had just kept the tax max from 1970 and indexed it to wages, it would have been only $95,000. So they essentially doubled the wages on which you pay Social Security taxes. But what happens is they also doubled the wages on which people earn benefits. I’ve highlighted the point that if you have a high-income

Susan Pendergrass (10:38):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (10:43):
couple retiring today, they could get almost $100,000 in total benefits, which is absurd. There’s no reason a government program should be paying anybody that amount. If you want that kind of income in retirement, you save more in your 401k. It’s better for you, better for the economy. But it was a result of this short-term step they took in the 70s. They said, hey, we raised benefits too high, let’s jack up the tax max. And they didn’t worry about the fact that in the future you’d have to pay benefits on that. Well, the future is today.

Susan Pendergrass (11:05):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (11:13):
Now we’re broke again, we need extra money again, and these guys say, well let’s just jack up the tax max. But then you’ll pay extra benefits in the future. It becomes this chasing-your-tail kind of thing.

Susan Pendergrass (11:16):
Yeah. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (11:25):
And the problem when you do it is there’s no country on earth paying $100,000 a year from a social insurance program, except for us. And the reason we do is these stupid historical decisions. If you’ve got this high-income couple in the US retiring today, they can get almost $100,000 from Social Security. If they lived in Canada, they’d get like $35,000. And that’s perfectly fine. Nobody’s starving to death in Canada in retirement. They just save more on their own.

Susan Pendergrass (11:35):
I’ll say.

Andrew Biggs (11:55):
The irony is that we think of ourselves as a free-market, small-government country, and our Social Security program is enormous, primarily because we’re paying benefits to people that other countries say, yeah, we don’t need to pay benefits to these guys.

Susan Pendergrass (12:11):
And yet people say, I put my money in, I get my money out.

Andrew Biggs (12:14):
Yeah, and I understand it. When I say we shouldn’t be paying $100,000 a year to a high-income couple, you get the email saying, well, I paid in. And if you paid in, you feel you have this moral claim on benefits. The problem is Social Security is still broke. We still need higher taxes or lower benefits. The idea that you’re just going to get your full benefits with the taxes you paid doesn’t work because the system can’t afford to do it. So you have to make the choice: do I want to pay higher taxes or get lower benefits? I’ve got to pick my poison. Most high-income people would prefer to get lower benefits. They care more about their taxes than their benefits. But people are still living in this dream world where this system, which is $30 trillion in the hole, is somehow going to pay them everything they’ve been promised and just screw somebody else. Everybody thinks they’re the guy who’s going to get everything and somebody else is going to get screwed.

Susan Pendergrass (13:14):
Yeah. I definitely hear people saying today, maybe I should go ahead and take it early and then I’ll get grandfathered in and my benefits won’t get lowered.

Andrew Biggs (13:26):
It probably won’t make a difference. In general, the Social Security benefit formula works based on your birth cohort, the year in which you’re born, not really the year in which you claim benefits. And people who are going to do Social Security reform understand the incentives. They don’t want to make it easy for people to game the system. So Social Security reform will probably work itself out in such a way that

Susan Pendergrass (13:42):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (14:03):
you can’t get some big advantage by claiming early. I could think of some conceivable possibilities, but I still would not encourage people to claim early.

Susan Pendergrass (14:14):
Okay, I want to talk about two more things I read in the last week. One was a letter from Tim Kaine about his idea with Senator Cassidy. What’s that idea for fixing it?

Andrew Biggs (14:24):
The interesting thing is people say Social Security reform has to be bipartisan. So we have two bipartisan ideas. We have Moreno and Elizabeth Warren, a Republican and a Democrat. They’ve got one idea, eliminating the payroll tax ceiling.

Susan Pendergrass (14:39):
Third rail.

Andrew Biggs (14:49):
Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, they’ve got a bipartisan plan. And guess what? Their plan is also terrible. If there’s any lesson from this, it’s that bipartisan doesn’t mean good.

Susan Pendergrass (15:00):
Bipartisanly terrible.

Andrew Biggs (15:04):
Yeah. Look, ultimately Social Security reform is going to have to be bipartisan, given the way the political system works. On the other hand, there is some lesson that if both Republicans and Democrats can agree on something, it might be a terrible idea. With Cassidy and Kaine, they are explicitly, and Cassidy said this, solving a political problem. The political problem is that neither Republicans nor Democrats want to vote for either tax increases or benefit cuts. You’d think Democrats want to raise your taxes and Republicans want to cut your benefits. The reality is they don’t want to do either of those things because they realize both are politically unpopular, which is why we’ve gone 40 years literally doing nothing. So their solution is that we don’t have to make these difficult votes. Instead, the federal government will borrow about $2 trillion, invest that money

Susan Pendergrass (16:02):
Tough.

Andrew Biggs (16:04):
in stocks and private equity, high-risk, high-return stuff. Then they claim they’re going to hold this fund for 75 years so it can build up value. In the meantime, when Social Security’s trust fund runs out in 2032, the federal government will borrow against the assumed gains on this investment fund.

Susan Pendergrass (16:06):
Right. Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (16:29):
They say the borrowing will be at a lower rate because it’s the federal government. And they say after 75 years, all the gains in this investment fund will pay back all the borrowing and we’re all good. And let me count the ways there are problems with that. If you work at the state level,

Susan Pendergrass (16:45):
It’s just kicking the can.

Andrew Biggs (16:52):
state-based think tanks almost know more about this than federal people. A lot of underfunded state pension systems do things called pension obligation bonds. Their pension system is underfunded, they don’t want to raise contributions or cut benefits, so they borrow and invest in the stock market and hope it works. The pension obligation bond is the hallmark of a poorly funded, poorly run pension system. Think New Jersey, Illinois, things like that.

Susan Pendergrass (17:21):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:23):
There’s a national group of state budget officers that has come out and basically said as an institution, don’t do this. Borrowing for your pension is a bad idea. So it really is fitting for the times that the Cassidy-Kaine plan says, let’s take this worst idea from state and local government

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:47):
employee pensions, which has been condemned as bad practice, and put it on steroids and do that for Social Security. And what it really gets to is they just don’t understand the finances of it. And to be frank, they won’t listen. They have talked to every pension expert I know, and this Social Security world is pretty small. We all know each other on both sides. We may not agree on everything. Literally every pension expert I know says this is a terrible idea.

Susan Pendergrass (17:54):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (18:17):
But their political considerations are more important than policy, and that’s the problem with all of them.

Susan Pendergrass (18:24):
I mean, it feels free. They’re basically saying it’s like a timeshare. It just feels free right now. We just borrow the money. Okay, so

Andrew Biggs (18:31):
It’s been pointed out to them that if you can fund Social Security this way, you could fund the entire federal government this way and never collect any taxes. At one point Senator Cassidy was quoted in a newspaper article saying, well, yeah, sure, in theory you could. And I’m like, if something implies there’s a free money machine, maybe you need to question your assumptions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:38):
Sure. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (18:54):
I could give you a whole variety of reasons why this doesn’t work, but one macro point that’s come to me: I’ve been doing Social Security for a long time. I worked in the Bush administration in 2005 when they tried and failed to do Social Security reform. One of the problems we face today is that your elected officials understand Social Security policy much less well than they did 20 years ago. They just don’t understand how the system works. Going back to the Moreno-Warren idea of applying the payroll tax to all earnings,

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (19:37):
okay, you’re adding 12 percentage points to your top tax rate. There’s a reason Sweden and France and others don’t do this anymore. They used to have incredibly high tax rates. They don’t now. We would end up in many cases with a higher tax rate than most European countries. We have some philosophical dedication to small government and things like that. They don’t. And so if they’re not doing it,

Susan Pendergrass (19:43):
Yes. Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (20:02):
it’s because there’s a practical reason this isn’t a good idea. The same applies to wealth taxes. That’s been tried in Europe. They’re like, yeah, we’re not doing that anymore because it doesn’t work. But your average senator now

Susan Pendergrass (20:14):
It is happening around the country, the billionaire tax. What happens in 2032 if no one is either brave enough or smart enough to take this on in the next six years?

Andrew Biggs (20:17):
They’re just not aware of these policy issues, and that’s a real problem. It’s like having a guy fix your car who doesn’t know how to fix cars. 2032 is the date. If you have a recession, it might be 2031. It’s not certain, but it is certain it’s happening soon.

Susan Pendergrass (20:47):
Yeah. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (20:53):
There’s a literal reading of the law, which is that Social Security can’t pay out benefits it doesn’t have dedicated resources for. Once the trust fund runs out, the only dedicated resources are mostly the payroll tax, plus a little bit of money from income taxes levied on retirement benefits. And those were cut as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. So if the trust fund runs out, they’d have to rely on the money they have on hand, which implies around a 22% benefit cut.

A lot of times people assume that benefit cut has to be across the board. If you did it that way, you’d throw a lot of people into poverty. I did some work a year or so ago with a lawyer in DC named Kristen Shapiro, and what we found is that the legal precedent shows the executive branch, meaning the president working through the Social Security Commissioner, would have some discretion. What we found is you could maintain full benefits for about 50% of people, the poorest 50% of seniors, and then cap benefits above that. If you cap the maximum benefit at about $24,000 per year for a single person or $48,000 for a couple, that is enough to make Social Security solid without raising taxes. So the point is simply you have some discretion.

The reality is Congress isn’t going to allow big benefit cuts, for political reasons. On the other hand, are they willing to have the size of tax increases needed, all in one go, to keep Social Security paying full benefits? I don’t think they want that either. So the reality is probably they’re going to borrow a lot of the money. And that’s where you get to the issue of how much more borrowing the financial markets will swallow. We effectively borrow from the public to repay the Social Security Trust Fund, but there’s an end to that. You say, okay, 2032, we have to do something. We have to raise taxes or cut benefits. If in 2032 the stated policy of the federal government is, well, we’re just going to keep borrowing to pay Social Security even though we have no prospect of paying it back, you wouldn’t blame some big market players for saying, yeah, I’m out, because you don’t want to lend money at low interest rates to someone who says they can’t pay it back. Then you start getting a couple of things. One is more federal borrowing squeezes out capital in the rest of the economy, and so interest rates naturally rise.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (23:31):
But then there’s a second element: if you’re afraid the federal government can’t pay you back, over and above that natural increase in the interest rate, you’d apply a risk premium to treasury debt. You’d say, look, Treasury is not this rock-solid investment anymore. It’s more like a junk bond, or like borrowing from Illinois, and you make them pay a premium. That’s going to drive up

Susan Pendergrass (23:43):
US government borrowing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:01):
interest rates, and that makes it tougher not just for the federal government but for everybody. If you want to buy a car or a house, all your interest rates rise. There’s also going to be real temptation to inflate away the debt. The federal government doesn’t want to default on its debt, but

Susan Pendergrass (24:24):
Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:25):
historically the way you deal with this is inflation. Think about all the debt we took on during COVID, shoveling money out the door to everybody, and then we had massive inflation after it. A lot of those people who bought treasury debt didn’t get a good deal, because if you get 20% inflation on

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Absolutely. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:47):
a treasury bond with a nominal fixed interest rate, that’s a real problem. So inflation becomes increasingly tempting. You look at this scenario and you’re like, can’t anybody here play this game? Every other country is not going bankrupt. We just have to do what they do.

Susan Pendergrass (24:51):
Yeah, yeah. So could we, if we really got our heads around it and started today or next year, incrementally raise the 12.4%, or incrementally get people used to lower benefits after a certain income or wealth level?

Andrew Biggs (25:18):
Sure. Yes. The way I think about it, there are two ways people think about it: the wrong way and my way. The wrong way is, let’s just pick from this menu of options to make Social Security solvent. We can raise the payroll tax a bit, raise the retirement age a bit, cut cost-of-living adjustments a bit, raise the tax cap a bit, and do these things until the system is solvent.

Susan Pendergrass (25:34):
Yes. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (25:54):
That’ll get you a solvent program, but it won’t be a program that particularly works very well or is good for the economy. A more effective way is to ask, what do we want this system to do? If you talk about Social Security reform, what you hear is that it’s a social insurance program, a safety net, an anti-poverty program. Okay, it has to do that. And that part is really very cheap, because we don’t literally have that many poor seniors, their benefits aren’t very high, and it’s not a problem to maintain benefits for low-income seniors. When you ask what Social Security should do, nobody is saying we need to be paying high-income seniors $100,000 a year. There’s no public purpose for it. Nobody thought it out in advance. It was simply an unintended consequence. So if you’ve got things that are really costing a lot of money and have no public purpose, and those people can save for retirement on their own, you start scaling that back. The distinction I’m making is between policy changes simply for the purposes of keeping Social Security solvent, and policy changes for the purpose of making Social Security do what it needs to do, the real public purpose, and not doing things that serve no public purpose. My point is the things I’m talking about are things you should do whether Social Security is insolvent or not.

I’ll give you an example: Australia’s retirement system. Australia is a lot like us, not particularly more conservative or liberal, just sort of normal. Their Social Security program essentially is targeted at eliminating poverty in old age. It’s actually a better safety net than Social Security provides, but the benefits decline down to zero once you get above the poverty level. And to help people above that level save for retirement, everybody is enrolled in a 401k-type account. What that says is, if everybody’s participating in retirement plans as they should, the government’s job becomes easier. Their Social Security system costs about two percent of GDP. Ours costs about six percent. It’s a third as costly, provides a better safety net, and it comes because they’re actually thinking about what they’re doing.

Susan Pendergrass (28:18):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (28:26):
We’re literally not thinking about what we’re doing. There’s a saying in business: the worst reason to do something is because we’re already doing it. That is literally how Social Security policymaking works. Nobody knows why our benefit formula is what it is or why the tax max is what it is. It’s all just stuff we inherited from the 1970s from people who were not in any way thinking clearly about what they were doing. It was people in the 70s trying to win elections, and we end up with the bag.

Susan Pendergrass (28:52):
Speaking of 2005, there was an attempt to offload a small portion of people’s contributions into the market, right? That failed.

Andrew Biggs (29:09):
That was the Bush proposal. I was in the White House then, kind of in a number-cruncher role, so I knew that stuff pretty well. I did a lot of events with President Bush around the country. When we came up on the 20th anniversary of Bush’s proposal in 2025, I started thinking to myself, what if his plan had passed? What would have happened? So I built a model. Back then they were saying, okay, you’re going to have some reductions in traditional Social Security benefits for middle and high-income people, and then you’re going to have a personal account where you can invest part of your existing payroll tax in stocks and bonds. The total benefit you get at retirement is a combination of those two. People were speculating. Well, we don’t know what the stock market’s going to do. But 20 years later, we’ve got some data, so let’s just see what happened. The results were that for people

Susan Pendergrass (30:01):
Now we do.

Andrew Biggs (30:07):
retiring today, low and middle-income people would have had higher total benefits by a little bit. The very highest-income people, their benefits would be down by a couple percent because the cuts to their traditional benefits would be larger than the gains from their personal account. But even they would be fine; it’s not a big deal. Going forward, it looked like people would do a little bit better with the Bush plan than with the traditional system. But here’s the important thing: the traditional system is broke. We just talked about how it goes broke in 2032, with huge deficits. The Bush proposal wouldn’t have made Social Security totally solvent, but it would have addressed half or two-thirds of the long-term funding gap. So you’d get a system that would have paid you benefits around the same as, or maybe a little bit better than, Social Security, but would be in much more solid financial shape. Today the times are different, and I don’t think personal accounts are really viable. But the point is, if they had done something back then, everything could be easier today. But members of

Congress were just too afraid. Republicans were afraid of taking the political hit. For Democrats, it was too tempting to give the political hit. They knew they had to do something, but they couldn’t swallow hard and say, look, let’s just go in on this thing together. They didn’t want to give Bush the win because by that point Iraq was going badly and they really didn’t like him. So they beat him up. But the problem is Bush served his term and is happily retired in Texas. The people who really got screwed were the ones who depend on Social Security, because we didn’t fix it. And you just hope that’s not what we do again.

Susan Pendergrass (31:42):
Yeah. Somebody not us in 2045 could be having the same conversation, right? Like, if only in 2025 or 2026 we’d gotten serious. And I do think people mix up the trust fund with the whole program. A lot of people think all of Social Security is going to be bankrupt in six years, versus the reality that we’re still taking in a trillion dollars, we just need about 22% more than what we’re taking in.

Andrew Biggs (32:14):
Yeah. If you go back 20 or 25 years, there were all these arguments about whether the trust fund is real or fair or whatever. The trust fund is essentially IOUs written from one side of the government to the other. I thought at the time the trust fund is not real in an economic sense. It doesn’t make it easier for the government to pay Social Security benefits. It is a pledge that we will pay them, but it doesn’t make it easier to pay them. But here’s the interesting thing:

Susan Pendergrass (32:25):
Right. Al Gore. The lock box.

Andrew Biggs (32:50):
if having a trust fund doesn’t make it easier to pay benefits, then not having a trust fund doesn’t make it harder. The trust fund runs out, we still have taxes coming in, we can still pay 80% of what is owed. If we retarget that, you can maintain the safety net. It’s not like you’re totally insolvent or broke. All those long debates over whether the trust fund is real get resolved because the trust fund itself is gone in six years. So that doesn’t matter very much anymore. But I do hope that, as you said, we’re not in 2045 looking back on a solution of just borrowing $500 billion a year or whatever it’s going to be. People in 2045, when the federal government is bankrupt, the dollar is dropping, and all these financial crisis things we think only happen to other countries are happening to us, they would look back and say, I wish those people were more responsible. The Social Security problem, in a sense, if we went back 25 or 30 years ago, was a manageable problem. The real issue is not the demographics or the benefit growth or whatever. The real issue is just poor stewardship of this program by Congress and respective presidents. It is absolutely a governance problem. It is not a problem of economic or demographic fundamentals. All of that can be handled.

Susan Pendergrass (34:19):
Everyone wants to be Santa Claus, right? No one wants to be the Grinch.

Andrew Biggs (34:22):
It’s very true, but leadership is about giving people bad news. Good news kind of tells itself. Bad news has to be told and people have to be convinced that this is going to hurt, but we’ve got to do it. And we just didn’t have the willingness. President Clinton in the late nineties tried to do some stuff, but he didn’t deliver much bad news because we had surpluses. President Bush was willing to tell people, okay, look, you’re not going to get every penny you’ve been promised. Beyond that, the level of leadership has been very poor.

Susan Pendergrass (35:01):
Hasn’t been good. All right, well, next year when the trustees report comes out, come back and give us more bad news.

Andrew Biggs (35:09):
Yeah, until then, things are looking up. But no, it’s something people want to be aware of, and I think that’s the key thing.

Susan Pendergrass (35:13):
Well, I think one of the more important things you said is that no one understands it. People are upset and arguing over something they don’t understand the mechanics of. I do know people who think they have an account with their name on it that their Social Security taxes went into, and they’re just going to start taking the money out.

Andrew Biggs (35:23):
I have some bad news for that. Your taxes go into Social Security and go straight out the door to pay for your grandmother’s benefits. If you want to know where your taxes are, they’re in your grandmother’s bank account. So go ask her.

Susan Pendergrass (35:45):
That’s right. That’s right. All right, thank you so much. I really appreciate the time.

Andrew Biggs (35:51):
Thank you, Susan. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Social Security Crisis Is Worse Than You Think with Andrew G. Biggs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a writer, there are moments when someone else articulates an idea so well that rewriting it in my own words would be unnecessary. A recent op-ed in The Hill did exactly that, clearly laying out the energy challenges facing the United States:

The U.S. electricity sector is a slow-moving maze of regulations, shaped by decade-long transmission approvals, time-intensive interconnection studies for new generators and large new customers, and overlapping layers of state, regional and federal bureaucracy. . . . The regulatory thicket surrounding the electricity industry was tolerable when the pace of change was slow. However, with the rise of AI and renewed growth from manufacturing and electrification, we can no longer endure a sclerotic grid.

In addition to reforming our rigid, reluctant-to-adapt grid, there are questions about whether average ratepayers should be on the hook for increased electricity demand being driven by a few large customers.

In the midst of all of these concerns, there is a U.S. Senate bill that could help fix the problem: S.3585 – DATA Act of 2026. The bill was recently referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I have written about consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) for Missouri, which would reduce the number of state-level regulations that off-grid CRE utilities (CREUs) would face. (You can click here if you’re interested in what a CRE policy might look like in practice.) However, even if it were allowed in Missouri, there would still be many federal-level regulations that would diminish the benefits of the new practice.

That is where the DATA Act becomes so vital. The act would exempt certain new CREUs from specific federal regulations that apply to the broader grid. If our state and federal governments approve CRE, there would be a pathway for large electricity users like data centers and aluminum plants to more quickly generate their own electricity without impacting the rates of average Missourians. That would be a win for all of us.

All of this suggests that the DATA Act of 2026 is something to watch in Washington, D.C. But Missouri should not wait until the federal government makes its move. We should be proactive and allow CREs in our state, creating a pathway to address modern energy challenges that would become even more viable if federal reforms under the DATA Act follow.

The post Keep an Eye on the DATA Act in Washington, D.C. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The piece featured a quote from the mayor bemoaning the passage of Amendment 4 in Missouri, which required the city to up its spending on the police from 20% to 25%. The author begins with a quote from the mayor:

“The current system doesn’t work. We need more accountability, not less . . . We need more innovations in policing, not less.” Lucas explained that he doesn’t believe an increase in funding for the KCPD will be useful in countering rising violent crime.

This is interesting because in his latest budget, Mayor Lucas was eager for the Kansas City Police Department to significantly increase salaries for existing officers as well as new hires. Why would he want that if he didn’t think it would be useful?

The Pitch, perhaps to back up the mayor’s reaction to Amendment 4, offers the following:

A body of evidence shows that increasing police funding has no major impact on reducing local crime rates. One of the tropes used during the campaign for Amendment 4 was the need to fund the KCPD while skewing the increase in homicide rates in Kansas City to present the Lucas administration and the Kansas City Council as far-left partisans who care not for the safety of their constituents.

The first link (“body”) is to a page of Human Rights Watch. It doesn’t expressly conclude that police funding doesn’t reduce crime. Instead, it provides a two-stage yet still heavily qualified claim:

Studies show that investing in health care, housing, universal basic income, child care, universal pre-K, and public safety programs outside the criminal legal system infrastructure would reduce poverty and inequality, and research suggests, is likely to improve community safety. [emphasis added]

All of that may be true. But plenty—in fact most—people living in poverty and suffering inequality do not commit crime. Policing is about getting criminals off the street and deterring crime. And we know that the most common victims of crime are exactly those same poor people.

The second two links (“evidence shows” and “Increasing police funding has no major impact”) are about a single study of the 20 largest cities in Canada. Those may be compelling. But I suspect the dynamics of crime and policing between the United States and our neighbor to the north are sufficiently different to be unhelpful for Kansas City.

The last link (“reducing local crime rates”) has nothing to do with the relationship between crime and police funding. The article merely makes the argument that many places accused of defunding the police have actually increased police funding.

Instead, consider the conclusion of a 2018 study conducted by Princeton University, titled, “More COPS, Less Crime.” The author examined the impact that federal COPS funding (Community Oriented Policing Services) had on crime and concluded, without qualification, “one officer-year was added for every $95,000 spent by the federal government and that the social benefit associated with the ensuing crime reduction [was] on the order of $350,000.”

Another paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2020 concludes, without qualification, “Each additional police officer abates approximately 0.1 homicides.”

Issues surrounding crime and law enforcement are not easily settled. They are made even more complicated by partisan politics. I suspect Mayor Lucas knows better than what he claimed, and The Pitch should be a little more thorough with its facts and research.

The post The Pitch’s Half-hearted Crime Research appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, policymakers here should understand what the future of nuclear power looks like. Even though Georgia just saw the completion of Vogtle Units 3 & 4 (which cost around $30 billion and over a decade to build), Vogtle may well be the swan song for traditional nuclear power plants. It simply is not feasible to construct such an immense project, and this points to the direction nuclear is going—toward advanced and small modular reactors, which I discuss in another post.

Even on a smaller scale, nuclear construction is still immensely costly, and utilities and private entities alike take on a huge financial risk largely due to the regulatory barriers. In Missouri, while we wait for needed federal reform, we should do what we can at the state level to reduce the risks involved with investment in nuclear power.

Does this mean we should hand out subsidies and tax credits like candy? No. But we need to signal our openness to nuclear expansion. Fortunately, our state already has some history with nuclear. The plant in Callaway has been reliably operating in our state since 1984. We also have a nationally known nuclear engineering school; in 2021, Missouri University of Science and Technology awarded the 11th most nuclear engineering degrees in the country. We have the potential to attract more nuclear developers to our state and should be partnering with them.

Seeking out private nuclear developers, forming a nuclear advisory board (which would focus solely on legislative and policy changes/opportunities to address nuclear workforce and education barriers, storage and waste practices, and coordination with federal agencies), and passing pro-nuclear legislation could all help bring more nuclear energy to Missouri. In a future post, I will discuss how Missouri could also lure developers by creating nuclear infrastructure through acquiring early-site permits on brownfield sites or failed construction projects.

In Tennessee, the Tennessee Valley Authority is partnering with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (USA), Ontario Power Generation (Canada), and Synthos Green Energy (Poland) to jointly invest $400 million into developing up to four small modular reactors. Advanced nuclear reactors are a new technology, and the fact they are reliable, versatile, clean, and powerful is drawing global interest. Missouri should be similarly proactive in looking for potential partners

Missouri should also improve the regulatory environment so that it does not discourage investment in nuclear power. State utilities cannot raise rates to help pay for construction projects in progress; they must wait until the development is fully operational and used in service. But power plants do not arise out of thin air; they are necessary infrastructure that benefit anyone who uses the energy they produce. My colleague David Stokes has discussed how this law was made by the anti-nuclear lobby in the 1970s to kill nuclear construction in the state—and it has succeeded thus far. Last session, Missouri, through HB 225, wisely sought to allow utilities to file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (prior to the beginning of construction) in order to raise rates to pay (if needed) for small modular reactor projects only. If the newly requested rates are not “just and reasonable,” the commission can renegotiate or deny the proposed increase. This bill flew through the house but failed to gain traction in the Senate (where just about everything died). I understand the concerns with paying for a project that may never come to fruition, and I think adding a refund measure (if the project is cancelled) could help ease the concerns of ratepayers. A refund measure would also give utilities an additional incentive to finish what they started, which would further signal resolve to develop these reactors.

The emergence of small, modular nuclear reactors presents Missouri with a familiar choice: take the initiative or sit on the sidelines. Option B, which seems to be a traditional favorite among policymakers here, would be a costly error.

The post Can Missouri Be a Leader in a Nuclear Energy Resurgence? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study, published by ASU’s Center for the Study of Economic Liberty, ranks St. Louis 31 out of 115 cities in North America in regulatory competitiveness. That ranking doesn’t seem half bad, but 31 out of the 66 U.S. cities included in the study isn’t great. Among American cities, St. Louis is just middling.

The table below shows how St. Louis fares in the various categories. St. Louis ranks 12 overall in “Paying Taxes,” but sales taxes are not included in the scoring. Anyone who’s shopped in the city knows how steep the city’s sales taxes are; St. Louis’s ranking would likely be lower if they were included. In addition, “resolving insolvency” is a ranking where all American cities are tied for first place, so not much should be made of that stat in this context.

In two critically important categories, St. Louis is less than impressive, ranking 60 in “Starting a Business” and 47 in “Employing Workers.” These scores incorporate regulatory costs to business owners, including compliance fees for mandatory procedures and wage regulations like overtime requirements and probationary periods. As our low rankings indicate, starting and staffing a business is a costly and onerous process in St. Louis—and that’s not the inviting economic environment that we want.

Policymakers must recognize that all business regulations carry costs for business owners, and St. Louis’s costs are too high. 46 other major U.S. cities have found less costly ways to meet their public policy objectives for employing workers. And St. Louis was outranked by cities in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico when it came to ease of starting a business!

All this suggests that St. Louis has a lot of room for improvement when it comes to business regulations. Policy changes like lowering licensing requirements, taxes, or procedural costs are just a few things that may get St. Louis a better ranking. Without reform, St. Louis will continue to be mired in mediocrity.

The post St. Louis Ranks Poorly in Ease of Doing Business Study appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, it’s worth recalling that in 2018 the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) demonstrated how tax rates affect innovation. Looking at state-level taxation dating back to the early twentieth century, the NBER concluded, “A one percentage point higher tax rate at the individual level decreases the likelihood of having a patent in the next 3 years by 0.63 percentage points.” Specifically, they found that, “higher personal and corporate income taxes negatively affect the quantity, quality, and location of inventive activity at the macro and micro levels.” This should not surprise anyone; resources that might be put toward innovation can’t be used for that purpose if they are spent paying taxes.

The new study from Arizona State University, titled “Doing Business: North America“ looked at 115 cities in the United States, Canada, and Mexico and rated them in six different categories. Those were “starting a business,” “employing workers,” “getting electricity,” “registering property,” “paying taxes,” and “resolving insolvency.” (All U.S. cities tied for first place regarding insolvency.)

While St. Louis ranked 31st overall out of the 115 cities in Canada, the United States, and Mexico (no other Missouri cities were included in the study; Chicago scored 45th overall), the areas where it scored less impressively—starting a business and employing workers—feature significantly in attracting entrepreneurs and innovation.

St. Louis scored 60th on “starting a business” (46th among U.S. cities). This ranking resulted from a “study of laws, regulations, and publicly available information on business entry,” along with consideration of the time and cost of complying with applicable regulations.

Regarding “employing workers,” St. Louis ranked 47th both for the whole sample and among the 66 U.S. cities examined. This ranking was more involved and is described on page 177 of the report, but it reflects the cost of wages and wage regulations such as probationary periods, overtime requirements, and sick leave.

Policymakers can debate the value of local and state mandates and regulations associated with starting a maintaining a business, but all should acknowledge that each one imposes a cost on the employer. Forty-six other U.S. cities have formulated less costly ways to meet their public policy objectives when it comes to employing workers. And St. Louis was outranked by cities in in all three countries examined when it came to ease of starting a business!

All this suggests that when working toward the important goal of taking advantage of St. Louis’ “innovation districts” in the agri-tech, biomedical and technology fields, city government could do a lot more to help entrepreneurs take advantage of what the city may already offer.

The post St. Louis Ranked in the Middle in Ease-of-Doing-Business Study appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Berner goes on to offer examples from the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and many other countries that support a broad variety of schools. In a pluralistic system, students or their parents are allowed to choose the type of school that their child will attend. The school may be religious, it may have a specific pedagogical practice, or may have various other defining features, but it will still receive public funds.

Berner suggests that the key to a pluralistic education system is that there must be some form of accountability for all schools, even private ones.

While I may not completely agree with Berner on the extent to which the government should regulate private schools, her paper offers an excellent overview of what educational pluralism is, the perceived obstacles to pluralism in the United States, and an overview of compelling educational research.

To learn more, give her paper a read or check out her recent op-ed on the matter here.

The post What Is Educational Pluralism? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, my friend, if you are, I have to admit: You had a couple of modest “wins” in 2018. Here in Missouri, free-market thinking took it on the chin in two ballot initiatives. On Aug. 7, by an overwhelming majority, Missourians voted to kill a right-to-work law passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2017. Then on Nov. 6, Missouri voters passed another ballot initiative boosting the state’s minimum wage from today’s $7.85 to $12 by 2023.

Compared with other news, however, those victories by deep-pocketed trade union groups and their co-dependent, big-government allies were small beer. The year’s big story was the striking success at the national level of free-market policies in driving faster growth and widely shared prosperity for all groups of people. For two years, the federal government has been lifting the burden of regulations and taxes on businesses and consumers alike. The dynamism of American capitalism has done the rest.

Recent GDP growth has been close to 4 percent – or about double the rate sustained over the eight years of the prior administration. Suddenly, there are more job openings than people seeking work. That, in turn, has led to higher pay for people at all income levels.

On Oct 2, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that he was raising his company’s internal minimum wage for warehouse and other unskilled workers to $15 an hour. This led to mutual back-slapping between Bernie Sanders and Bezos. The self-declared socialist complimented the world’s richest man on “doing the right thing,” and Bezos responded with self-congratulations, saying he hoped that other companies would follow his lead.

But guess what? He wasn’t leading. The U.S. Labor Department recently reported that wages for nonsupervisory warehouse employees had risen 4.6 percent from a year earlier, to $17.87 an hour. That’s almost $3 an hour more than the wage set by Amazon’s act of supposed enlightenment. Faced with the demands of an expanding economy and a tight labor market, companies did what they had to do – they raised wages to poach workers or keep the ones they have. So it wasn’t Mr. Bezos who deserved the compliment, but the unimpeded operation of the free market.

If you look around the country and the world, you see people everywhere who are fed up with the cluelessness of wealthy and long-established political elites who continue to pursue highly questionable policy objectives regardless of the cost in higher taxes, reduced paychecks, and lost economic growth. We are witnessing what the Wall Street Journal calls a “Global Carbon Tax Revolt,” with ordinary people rising up in protest against fuel-tax hikes and costly climate-change initiatives aimed at boosting unreliable renewable power. That has happened with the violent “Yellow Vest” protests in Paris and many rural areas that have rocked the presidency of France’s Emmanuel Macron. Other hot spots in the same revolt by taxpayers opposed to sacrificing growth on the altar of environmental piety include Germany and Canada, along with the states of Arizona, California, and Washington.

In sum, 2018 was a bad year for government-failure deniers. It was a much better year for those who believe in the unrivaled power of free markets to create and spread wealth and to promote greater individual freedom, responsibility, and creativity. But 2018 wasn’t all roses either, with rising fears of a global trade war sparked by retaliatory tariffs.

Tariffs are another tax – a tax on commerce. Of course, the more you tax something, the less you get of it. Missouri is a soybean basket to the world. Our state can ill afford a major disruption in world commerce. Neither can the nation. Looking ahead to 2019, let us hope that the substantial economic gains made in 2018 are not jeopardized or lost through the folly of managed (or mismanaged) trade policy.

The post 2018: A Bad Year for Government-failure Deniers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, my friend, if you are, I have to admit: You had a couple of modest “wins” in 2018. Here in Missouri, free-market thinking took it on the chin in two ballot initiatives. On Aug. 7, by an overwhelming majority, Missourians voted to kill a right-to-work law passed by the Missouri Legislature in 2017. Then on Nov. 6, Missouri voters passed another ballot initiative boosting the state’s minimum wage from today’s $7.85 to $12 by 2023.

Compared with other news, however, those victories by deep-pocketed trade union groups and their co-dependent, big-government allies were small beer. The year’s big story was the striking success at the national level of free-market policies in driving faster growth and widely shared prosperity for all groups of people. For two years, the federal government has been lifting the burden of regulations and taxes on businesses and consumers alike. The dynamism of American capitalism has done the rest.

Recent GDP growth has been close to 4 percent – or about double the rate sustained over the eight years of the prior administration. Suddenly, there are more job openings than people seeking work. That, in turn, has led to higher pay for people at all income levels.

On Oct 2, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that he was raising his company’s internal minimum wage for warehouse and other unskilled workers to $15 an hour. This led to mutual back-slapping between Bernie Sanders and Bezos. The self-declared socialist complimented the world’s richest man on “doing the right thing,” and Bezos responded with self-congratulations, saying he hoped that other companies would follow his lead.

But guess what? He wasn’t leading. The U.S. Labor Department recently reported that wages for nonsupervisory warehouse employees had risen 4.6 percent from a year earlier, to $17.87 an hour. That’s almost $3 an hour more than the wage set by Amazon’s act of supposed enlightenment. Faced with the demands of an expanding economy and a tight labor market, companies did what they had to do – they raised wages to poach workers or keep the ones they have. So it wasn’t Mr. Bezos who deserved the compliment, but the unimpeded operation of the free market.

If you look around the country and the world, you see people everywhere who are fed up with the cluelessness of wealthy and long-established political elites who continue to pursue highly questionable policy objectives regardless of the cost in higher taxes, reduced paychecks, and lost economic growth. We are witnessing what the Wall Street Journal calls a “Global Carbon Tax Revolt,” with ordinary people rising up in protest against fuel-tax hikes and costly climate-change initiatives aimed at boosting unreliable renewable power. That has happened with the violent “Yellow Vest” protests in Paris and many rural areas that have rocked the presidency of France’s Emmanuel Macron. Other hot spots in the same revolt by taxpayers opposed to sacrificing growth on the altar of environmental piety include Germany and Canada, along with the states of Arizona, California, and Washington.

In sum, 2018 was a bad year for government-failure deniers. It was a much better year for those who believe in the unrivaled power of free markets to create and spread wealth and to promote greater individual freedom, responsibility, and creativity. But 2018 wasn’t all roses either, with rising fears of a global trade war sparked by retaliatory tariffs.

Tariffs are another tax – a tax on commerce. Of course, the more you tax something, the less you get of it. Missouri is a soybean basket to the world. Our state can ill afford a major disruption in world commerce. Neither can the nation. Looking ahead to 2019, let us hope that the substantial economic gains made in 2018 are not jeopardized or lost through the folly of managed (or mismanaged) trade policy.

The post 2018: A Bad Year for Government-failure Deniers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Privatizing Lambert could be a win–win–win proposition for St. Louis. The city could get an infusion of cash; private firms could get the opportunity to pursue profits; and the traveling public could get an improved and more efficient airport. But skeptics point out that a limited number of airports have gone through the APPP, implying that privatization is rarely successful, if not unrealistic.

So, is privatization realistic? Why hasn’t it taken off in the US?

The answers: “Absolutely” and “It’s complicated,” respectively.

Privatization is becoming more common abroad. As of 2016, 41% of European airports were partially or fully privatized, and the Canadian National Airport System (comprising Canada’s 26 largest airports) has been successfully operated by the private sector for decades. According to Airports Council International, the private, market-based approach in Europe has led to “significant volumes of investment in necessary infrastructure, higher service quality levels, and a commercial acumen which allows airport operators to diversify revenue streams and minimize the costs that users have to pay” (p. 1). Privatization has also led to greater competition, which has “pushed airports of all sizes to fight for route development and traffic growth, to become leaner and more efficient… and to find the optimal means of financing investments “(ibid). In short, privatization works; in fact, it works really well.

But European and Canadian airports weren’t privatized through the APPP, which might be why privatization has been faster and smoother abroad. While the APPP is promising, it can take years to finish the application process, and time is money. For perspective, Henry County Airglades Airport had its preliminary application approved in 2010 and has yet to receive final approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The APPP also imposes restrictions that can make crafting a privatization deal challenging. For instance, a 65% majority of airlines need to approve a lease agreement for privatization to go forward. And if the city wants to use proceeds from the agreement on projects outside the airport, it’ll require that same 65% approval. Moreover, private operators must assume any public debt held for the airport unless the FAA waives the responsibility. On top of all this, the passenger facility charge (PFC) airports levy on travelers is capped at $4.50 by Congress, which limits revenue for private operators. (Read this recent Congressional report on the APPP for a more detailed account of the program and its challenges.)

The question isn’t “Should we privatize?” but “How should we privatize?” The FAA has discussed the benefits of privatization and increased competition for decades, and the APPP gives St. Louis a chance to capitalize on those benefits. And while few airports have been privatized through the APPP (note that most simply withdrew their applications), policymakers can work to craft a deal that works for all involved: the city, the airport, airlines, and the traveling public. Look for more soon on what a privatization deal could include to offer the best outcomes for all parties.

The post Putting the APPP in Perspective appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Bombardier, the Canadian transportation company, said on Wednesday that it would lay off about 7,000 employees over the next two years, as it struggles to find buyers for a new series of planes that for the first time put it in direct competition with the aviation giants Boeing and Airbus….

While the Air Canada sale provided important help for the CSeries, sales of the aircraft remain below levels that analysts generally view as assuring the project’s success. Including the 45 planes for Air Canada, Bombardier now has 288 firm orders.

Making money in business is never a certainty, and yet time and again state and local officials seem to think they have a special insight for picking moneymakers when they don’t. Whether you’re talking about developing a hotel, a stadium, an airport, or something else, the incentives of politicans often diverge greatly from the long-term interests of the communities they’re supposed to represent. It’s fun to cut the ribbon at a groundbreaking and get your picture taken with a hard hat on, but who ends up with the bearing the burden when an incentivized business goes belly-up? Taxpayers, that’s who.

Fortunately, it wasn’t Missouri’s taxpayers who paid the price when Bombardier’s incentive-addled business plans crash-landed, and state officials should learn from having dodged that bullet. Rather than riskily cutting deals with a select few, policymakers should invest in every family and business in the state by simply lowering everyone’s taxes. 

The post Bombardier’s Troubles Continue As Company Lays Off 7000 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Which brings us to 2015: Bombardier, back in Canada, now needs a bailout.

The post Missouri Dodges A Bullet: Bombardier Seeks Billion Dollar Rescue in Canada appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At its peak Corinthian Colleges had over 100 colleges throughout the United States and Canada, including Everest College campuses in Earth City, Kansas City, and Springfield. Last month Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a large for-profit post-secondary education company, announced it would cease operations in all remaining U.S. locations effective April 27, 2015. The closure of Corinthian has left 16,000 students in quite the predicament. Many have taken on burdensome student loans, and now their school is closed.

In response, the Department of Education (DOE) announced a plan to wipe the debt slate clean for all students that attended these schools, a move that potentially could cost taxpayers $3.6 billion. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan defended the plan saying, “You’d have to be made of stone not to feel for these students.”

While I agree wholeheartedly that it is more than a minor inconvenience to have your school close, this is the wrong course of action. Indeed, this plan is wrongheaded and will simply encourage more of the behavior that created this crisis in the first place.

First, there is no need to forgive loans for courses students have already completed. They did not spend their time at Corinthian schools in vain. These students are still eligible to transfer their credits to other schools and continue their educations. Countless universities have made it clear that they want to help and are willing to open their arms to students who take the initiative to transfer credits and continue their pathway toward a better life. Long Beach City College President Eloy Oakley summed it up perfectly back in April: “They have options and no matter what, at the end of the day, we want them to finish their education, stay in the community and become economic assets to the community.”

Unfortunately, one of the catches of the DOE’s plan is that closed-school debt relief is only available to students who have not transferred their credits to another university. This bailout encourages students to throw away the years they have dedicated to attaining a degree and bettering themselves.

Second, this is potentially the largest debt relief program the government has ever offered students, and it sets a bad precedent. Taxpayers should not be held accountable for the billions of dollars students borrow in full knowledge of the consequences. Most of these students never would have attended a Corinthian College if it were not for the government’s subsidization of college loans. This bailout essentially means students bear no risk when making college selections; they can easily obtain college loans, and the government will forgive them if things go badly.

The students of the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges certainly got a raw deal, but that is no reason to enact measures that will encourage the same type of behavior in the future.

The post Corinthian College Crisis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, it is noteworthy that the stated purpose of the advisory committee is seemingly small ball. Their email soliciting participation asks only,

What’s it going to take for Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS) to regain full accreditation? What’s it going to take for your school to regain/sustain full accreditation? How can we retain and attract students?

In other words, “What do we have to do to provide the minimal state-required level of service?” We’re also suspect that they are looking toward parents and the community for ideas when there is an entire industry of specialists who have researched, written, and talked about what to do to improve schools. We at the Show-Me Institute have our own suggestions, and they aim at rebuilding world-class education in Kansas City. All our ideas have a common theme: Move power away from centralized school districts and toward students and parents.

For his 2003 book Making Schools Work, UCLA Professor and Author William G. Ouchi studied more than 200 schools in six cities and found that a school’s educational success may be most directly affected by how it is managed. The way to increase successful management, he argues, is to give schools more control over their own budget.

While schools may boast large budgets, Ouchi’s research uncovered that very little of it is controlled by the principal or the school itself. In one anecdote, he relates that a Los Angeles principal said her school had a budget of $21 million but added, “It doesn’t really matter because I only control $32,000.” Ouchi’s further research indicated that in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago the local schools only controlled 6.1 percent, 6.7 percent, and 19.1 percent of the budget, respectively.

In school districts that have seen tremendous improvements in their urban school performances, such as Seattle, Houston, and Edmonton, Canada, the percentage of the budget controlled by the local schools was 91.7, 79.3, and 58.6, respectively. This should be no surprise. Administrators, teachers, and parents at the school are best able to identify and address the specific needs of their students.

Here in Kansas City, better school management means moving the power of the purse away from the top-down centralized control at 12th and McGee streets and out to the principals at Paseo, Lincoln Prep, and elsewhere. Ouchi offers this warning to parents:

Control goes with the money. If your superintendent smiles, invites your group into his office, and tells you that he agrees with you and that he’s going to roll out a new school-based decision-making program that includes parent involvement—smile sweetly and ask him who will control the school’s budget. Don’t let him off the hook. Don’t let him think that you can be so easily fooled.

Remember, the author was chief of staff to Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. He has academic credentials, but he has weathered political fights as well. And the Kansas City district appears to be doing exactly what he describes: They smile, invite people to discuss the district, but surrender none of the control that is necessary for success.

The post An Idea for Kansas City Schools: Give Principals Power appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am optimistic about the future of K–12 education, because certain schools and education innovators have proven that what researchers and education administrators thought was impossible is, in fact, not.

For example, the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools have been especially effective in reducing, if not eliminating, the achievement gap:

Students in at least half the KIPP schools Mathematica studied gained the equivalent of 1.2 years in mathematics and 0.9 years in reading three years after enrolling. The results effectively cut the racial achievement gap in half.

Another example of what is possible are the incredible gains made in Harlem, N.Y., by educational advocate Geoffrey Canada. He chose to attempt to “change the odds” of low income children in central Harlem — an area the New York Times reported had a poverty rate of more than 60 percent, and where three quarters of students were scoring below grade level on state aptitude tests. Today, we know Canada’s education nonprofit as the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ).

HCZ reports that 90 percent of its high school seniors were accepted into college this past year, and that those students received more than $6 million in scholarships and grants. HCZ also reports that of the four-year-olds that entered one of its programs, nearly one in five were initially achieving educational scores so low that they were classified as “delayed.” By the end of one year in the HCZ program, none of those students were delayed, and the percentage of students in that class that were classified as “advanced” had doubled, to more than 40 percent.

Canada was featured extensively in Waiting for “Superman.” Besides showing the struggles of students, the documentary’s broader message is about the big failures of traditional public education — including rapidly increasing education costs with no change in student academic achievement, the extreme difficulty of firing an incompetent teacher, and the seemingly endless bureaucracy that impedes educational innovation. The documentary’s strength is that it juxtaposes the flat-lining of student academic achievement in traditional public schools with what education innovators, like Canada, have been able to accomplish.

After watching the movie, the panelists took questions from audience members. About halfway through, Chris Guinther, the president of the Missouri National Education Association (the state’s largest teacher union), stood up to rail against the movie. I could write a series of blog posts responding to the statements she made — but space is limited, and you, reader, can only take so much.

I was most disturbed by Guinther’s objection to Canada’s success, because he had, according to her, made money by running the school. Now, after some brief research, I can’t find any indication that Canada has made outsized profits from HCZ, especially because the organization is a nonprofit. However, for the sake of argument, I’ll grant Guinther’s claim that the man who turned around student achievement in one of the most dangerous places in Harlem made a lot of money doing so.

I would be ecstatic if Canada were one of the most wealthy people in the United States. He has unarguably helped some of this country’s neediest children — in an area with extremely high foster care rates — gain an appreciation and mastery of education. I am more excited about Canada potentially reaping financial rewards for his risk taking and success than I am for almost anyone else. Why would money invalidate the success of the HCZ program? If the only criticism of Canada and his work encouraging low-performing Harlem children to succeed academically is that he might be making more than the average teacher, then that’s really no criticism at all.

In fact, I wish there were more potential for great rewards for people who work hard and take risks to vastly improve K–12 education. That might encourage more people to work to solve some of the shortcomings we are seeing in U.S. schools.

The real scandal is that, although educational innovators can make great strides and perhaps be begrudged for their relative financial success, teachers who fail their students can be nearly impossible to fire. For example, New York City’s school system has managed to fire only three teachers during the past two years. Or, as Waiting for “Superman” director David Guggenheim illustrated, in Illinois, only one in every 2,500 teachers lose their credentials, while the disbarment rate for Illinois lawyers is roughly one out of 100. Florida has difficulties firing bad teachers, too. Missouri, at least, appears to have a slightly higher rate — about 2 percent.

The post I Would Be Thrilled if Geoffrey Canada Were the Richest Man in the United States appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The controversy surrounding this act raises two questions. First, how can we create more reliable sources for medical supplies that are difficult to produce? Both economic theory and our own history of imports and exports make it obvious that tariffs and bans on trade disproportionately harm the country that refuses to trade with others. Domestic production of medical isotopes would require massive government subsidies in order to upgrade nuclear reactors, such as the one owned by the University of Missouri for research purposes. Cutting off outside supplies of the isotopes, which is the intended purpose of the act, would drastically reduce efficiency in the production of medical isotopes and decrease the welfare of patients who need regular treatments with them. Although other countries are capable of making this product at present, and we are not, supporters of the act suggest that closing our doors to our current suppliers of medical isotopes would result in a more reliable supply.

The second question raised by the Isotope Production Act is more emotionally charged. What if terrorists get hold of the HEU and use it to construct bombs? Often, when fear is highlighted in a policy issue, it is used to distract voters from facts. Whether dealing with phone calls, airport security, or ingredients that could potentially be used to create weapons, it is important not to become so carried away by suspicion that we sabotage ourselves in other ways. Cancer and terrorism are both scary, but isotope technology can do something about cancer. Restricting it so severely, on the other hand, won’t put a dent in the many readily available materials that can be used to hurt people. The real market for medicines is too important to allow paranoia to dictate supply and demand.

The post Tumors, Tariffs, and Terrorism appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, some of the data relies on physician and patient surveys. Individuals in different countries have different expectations for their health care systems, an important factor that the study’s authors admit might have affected the ratings:

Patients’ and physicians’ assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.

One of the categories I find most objectionable is “long, healthy, and productive lives,” which has a rather ambiguous meaning. The authors used three indicators to determine what constituted a “long, healthy and productive life.” (Table data excerpted from the study):

Exhibit 8. Long, Healthy, and Productive Lives Measures

These three indicators do not fully capture “productive” or “healthy” lives. There are more relevant measures of productivity and quality of life, such as statistics about morbidity, the amount of time spent ill, or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which account for degree of sickness as well as length of life. These are sometimes difficult to calculate, but they are standard measures used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and far more relevant for a category about “healthy” and “productive” lives.

The indicators used do not capture the fact that someone waiting 18.3 weeks for surgery in Canada may also be losing four months of work productivity, as well as spending a long time with an impaired quality of life. The United States ranked first in wait times for specialists and nonemergency surgeries. When one includes those factors, a different story emerges from the data.

For the indicator “Health life expectancy at age 60” the United States ranks sixth, but a closer look at the raw percentages shows a very small range from first to last; whether these differences are even statistically significant was not addressed in the study. Nor does the category capture that Americans work longer — both in their work week and in their lifespan — than the other countries listed, which could explain the slight difference in the raw percentages. American work ethic is a cultural issue, not an implication of the health care system.

Also, infant mortality is a contentious indicator for the success of a health care system. Different countries use different measurements to calculate the statistic. The United States strictly follows WHO guidelines by counting all babies that have shown any sign of life, whereas Germany, for instance, only counts babies that weigh at least one pound at birth. Other countries do not count births earlier than 26 weeks. This disparity in measures of reporting artificially skews the rates, without factoring in cultural differences, like teen births, that also contribute to higher infant mortality.

In developed countries, a large portion of the increase in life expectancy is not attributable to the health care system. During the past century, the average life expectancy in the United States has increased by 30 years; modern medicine can only account for five of those years, while public health measures account for the other 25. Attributing small changes in mortality to medical care is very tricky. Lifestyles can affect health outcomes as much — if not more — than health care. The obesity rates in the United States are much higher than the other countries listed. Holding health care systems equal, that one factor would lead the United States to have lower health outcomes. Again, this is a cultural issue, and not an indication that a universal system would improve U.S. results.

A conclusion some may reach after reading the study is that universal health care is the solution to perceived disparity; this seems to be the conclusion the authors hoped to make. In fact, the study actually suggests that the new federal health care legislation will improve U.S. outcomes:

Newly enacted health reform legislation in the U.S. will start to address these problems by extending coverage to those without and helping to close gaps in coverage—leading to improved disease management, care coordination, and better outcomes over time.

Incentives need to be realigned, but that has more to do with the disconnect between patient and physician — the health care wedge, explained in the Show-Me Institute study “Prognosis for National Health Insurance: A Missouri Perspective.”

The Commonwealth Fund study admits that none of the other nations considered have “ideal” health care systems, and makes some questionable comparisons in order to “prove” that universal health care is the best way to solve problems in health care. Show-Me Institute staff and scholars have discussed better solutions for health care reform in blog entries, op-eds, and policy studies.

The Commonwealth Fund study notes that the largest problem in the U.S. system is affordability of health care; the study thus concludes that universal health care is the solution, rather than making health care more affordable. The Congressional Budget Office has calculated that the recent legislation, lauded in this study, will actually increase the cost of health care. The Commonwealth Fund study suggests a solution that will bring the exact opposite of the problem it anticipated: Health care will become too expensive for some people.

Just because a few countries are getting (questionably) better results by some carefully selected measures under universal health care systems does not negate the fact that market-based solutions are a better solution for Missouri and the whole United States.

The post Questionable Comparisons, Questionable Conclusions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is not exactly groundbreaking research for me to state that teams and players pay substantial income taxes in various forms. Here are the most recent payrolls and league ranking for the five Missouri teams:

1. Rams, $62,384,821 (32)
2. Chiefs, $83,187,156 (31)
3. Cardinals, $93,540,751 (12)
4. Royals, $71,405,210 (21)
5. Blues, $46,485,000 (22)

As far as I know, the location in which a team plays its regular season home games is the primary determinate for which taxes must be paid. So, the city of St. Louis, which hosts the home games of all three St. Louis teams, gets $1,518,079 per year in earnings and payroll taxes just from the Cardinals, Rams, and Blues players. Kansas City gets $772,962 from Chiefs and Royals players. (This post originally mistakenly said that the KC stadiums were outside of Kansas City proper. Thanks to David Nicklaus of the Post-Dispatch for sending me a correction, and for reading our blog!) Of course, when you account for team employees and the profit tax levied on each organization, the earnings tax receipts grow even larger.

Missouri receives an estimated $10,710,088 each year from applying the 6-percent income tax rate to athletes from each of its five sports teams. (With deductions, etc., this figure would be a little lower.) Missouri, like many other states, enforces its income taxes on visiting athletes, too. However, just as players from visiting teams must pay the income and earnings taxes, all the players get credit for taxes paid to other cities and states. The result is that the total taxes paid are just moved around between jurisdictions, as our former editor Tim Lee first pointed out when writing about the “jock tax” in 2005:

But Missouri athletes who pay other states’ jock taxes are able to subtract those tax payments from their Missouri tax bills. When you subtract the revenue lost from other states’ jock taxes, the result is practically a wash. If all 20 states repealed their jock taxes simultaneously, states would get virtually the same revenue with a lot less administrative overhead.

Two lists help us determine whether players pay more or less taxes: states without an income tax, and cities with an earnings tax. The Cardinals players don’t appear to do so well here. They pay both a state income tax and city earnings tax at home, and regularly travel to Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, New York, and Philadelphia. Only when they travel to play the Astros — and, less frequently, the Marlins — do they really get a pay raise. The Royals also pay the local earnings tax when they travel to Detroit, Cleveland, or New York. Both the Cardinals and Royals pay the other city’s e-tax each year when they travel across I-70 for the annual “rivalry” series.

The Blues pay a local tax on their frequent visits to Detroit or Columbus, but get a nice tax vacation when they head to Nashville. Of course, Canadian taxation becomes a issue for any hockey player, and for the Royals to a lesser extent.

The NFL schedule rotates from year to year more than other leagues, but the Rams players have to like getting to play one guaranteed road game in Seattle each year, because Washington has no state income tax and Seattle has no earnings tax. The Chiefs and Rams play this year in the regular season, so both teams will be paying the host city’s e-tax then, as well. (The two football teams usually play in the pre-season for the much-coveted “Governor’s Cup” but I don’t think athlete’s salaries are based on pre-season games so no earnings tax would be collected in that case.) If you are looking to avoid taxes, the AFC south is where you want to play — aside from the smallish earnings tax in Indianapolis, of course. The Chiefs have to pay high California state taxes for at least two games per year. (Disclaimer: All team opponent and schedule info listed here has been pulled from my own memory, with a little help from ESPN.com.) Of course, other factors such as where an athlete keeps his primary residence, the agressiveness of his accountant, etc., will all play a factor here. A player who lives full time in Missouri is going to pay Missouri income tax on salary earned, but not taxed, playing in Texas, while someone who lives in another state might not. I am a policy analyst, not a CPA.

What does all of this prove? Nothing really, yet. This post is less debatable than future posts in the series might be, because in these cases the teams and players are treated just like other businesses, and the taxes paid are substantial. That does not mean I think they should be substantial, just pointing out that the applicable tax policies show no favoritism. Also, it is simultaneously difficult to say that the athletes and teams are not paying enough in taxes when around 100 individual players generate more than $1.5 million per year to the city of St. Louis alone, and it is almost as hard to seriously complain about the taxes paid by modern professional athletes, who earn enormous salaries to play a game for a living. (Am I jealous? Absolutely!)

Future posts in this series will deal with areas in which teams are not treated like other businesses, for better or worse.

The post Taxes and Sports: The Earnings Tax (Part One in a Series) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I believe the main reason for this disparity is that foreign languages are treated by our public education system as less important than math, science and English. In contrast, E.U. governments expect their citizens to become fluent in at least two languages plus their native tongue.

Another panelist laments the fact that “unlike Europe, the U.S. has no coherent strategy for making our society bilingual.”

I suspect European countries’ policies are a reflection of their citizens’ interest in languages, rather than the cause. Europeans have ample reason to study languages; they all live within a short distance of other countries where different languages are spoken. As Norman Matloff notes in his response to the Room for Debate question, Americans who live close to the border with Mexico show more enthusiasm for learning Spanish than do their fellow citizens to the north.

Could it be that although proximity to foreign language speakers can spark people’s interest, policies are what really make them use other languages? If that’s the case, I’d be hard pressed to explain what happened in Ontario, Canada, where a ceremony was conducted in English a few weeks ago. That was despite French’s status as an official language of Canada, and despite the French-language public school boards and community colleges that are established throughout the province. When a language isn’t useful to people, policymakers who promote it are wasting their time.

The United States shouldn’t order everyone to learn languages, but the education system should give opportunities to become bilingual to people who are interested. Magnet schools and charter schools are good environments for language specialization, as are the optional language-immersion programs offered by some traditional districts. (Examples in Missouri are Academie Lafayette, the St. Louis Language Immersion Schools, and the Kansas City School District’s Foreign Language Academy.) Parents who want their children to have a lot of foreign language exposure can enroll them in these schools.

If Chinese language education is to continue growing, more people must be free to choose schools that teach it. Policymakers who are worried about American students learning English only ought to try to make it easier to open new language-immersion choice schools.

The post “No Coherent Strategy” for Teaching Foreign Languages appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s oral health is among the worst in the nation. The Centers for Disease Control ranked the state 47th in terms of the percentage of the population that visited a dentist last year, and 50 of Missouri’s 114 counties have a shortage of dental professionals. In response to this public health crisis, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) released its 2009 statewide oral health plan, which addressed the difficulty of recruiting dentists to rural areas. Although the plan points out that enabling improved oral hygiene and regular visits to a dental practitioner would narrow the disparity, it fails to address an underlying cause of Missouri’s dental predicament: the professional licensing law, and its restrictive definition of who can provide dental care in Missouri.

Alaska had a similar dental problem in its tribal areas, which had the worst rates of oral health in the country. Alaskan dental therapists — trained to do most basic dental work, like drilling and cleaning, but not oral surgery — became a much-needed solution to the problem. The American Dental Association (ADA) sued the Alaskan Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) as a result, and the two groups ultimately reached an agreement that limited the program’s scope. The ADA argued that dental therapists cannot adequately provide health care. However, a 2008 pilot study of the Alaskan program, funded by Texas A&M University, did not find any significant differences between the quality of care provided by dental therapists and dentists.

Other groups have argued that there are too many dentists already, and that opening the market to paraprofessionals is unnecessary. If dentists are so accessible, though, why are Missouri’s oral health outcomes so much lower than other states? Cost and access are both issues; even those who can conveniently reach a dentist may deem dental services to be too expensive when money is tight. Dental therapists, because they require less training, are able to provide comparable care for a wide range of dental services, at a more affordable rate. Those who need more than basic drilling and cleaning can be referred to a professional dentist. Dental therapists would not replace dentists; already, dental hygienists provide the majority of basic dental care before patients see a dentist. Also, in the same way that some people prefer to see a general practitioner rather than a nurse practitioner, some will always prefer a professional dentist to a paraprofessional. Dental therapists merely provide a less expensive alternative for those who cannot afford a professional dental checkup.

Dental therapists have been successful in England, Canada, and Australia at providing quality dental care. In Australia, dental therapists are proving their worth beyond the provision of basic oral care. A recent study found that nearly 94.6 percent of restorations performed by dental therapists were successful, and that patients were satisfied. Another study demonstrated that dental therapists can improve children’s oral health, especially in areas without proper coverage. Throughout the United States, new legislation is capitalizing on the international success of dental therapists; in the spring of 2009, Minnesota passed a bill creating a bachelor’s degree program in dental therapy.

Opening the market to dental therapists provides more than just quality, affordable health care. It also provides jobs, especially in depressed rural economies that have trouble attracting professional dentists on a permanent basis. A change in the law would benefit both those newly employed therapists and their patients, who would have significantly better access to dental care. This is an important contributing factor to general human welfare, because improving oral health helps to improve overall health. Recent studies have indicated that gum disease is correlated with increased risk — and is potentially a contributing factor — for other health problems, like heart disease.

Dental therapists provide an economical way to combat tooth decay, and public health officials have already suggested plans to implement training programs in the United States. The only obstacle to their introduction in Missouri — and to subsequent improvement in the oral health of Missourians — is the regulatory barrier of Missouri’s professional licensing law.

Caitlin Hartsell is a public health graduate student at Washington University and an intern for the Show-Me Institute.

The post Filling the Cavities in Missouri’s Dental Care appeared first on Show-Me Institute.