Learn more about the book here: www.cato.org/books/fighting-freedom-learn

Susan Pendergrass speaks with James Shuls, fellow at the Show-Me Institute and head of the Education Liberty Branch at Florida State University, and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute about their new book, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. They discuss how the fight for educational freedom long predates modern debates over public schooling, why early advocates viewed schooling as a family and community responsibility, and how today’s school choice expansion connects to America’s founding principles. The conversation covers the history of the common school movement, the roots of residential school assignment, and why educational freedom has always been central to the American story, and more.

Timestamps

00:00 Introduction

02:33 The Genesis of ‘Fighting for the Freedom to Learn’
05:41 Historical Perspectives on School Choice
08:04 The Evolution of Common Schools and Their Impact
10:59 The Role of Religion in Early Education
14:01 The Shift Towards Standardization in Education
16:43 The Need for School Choice in Disadvantaged Areas
19:29 The Historical Context of Property Taxes and School Assignment
22:17 The Recent Surge in School Choice Movements

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Certainly looking forward to this conversation with two very, very smart people: Dr. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute and Dr. James Shuls of Florida State University. James, can you first tell us about this new center that you are in charge of at Florida State University? I think it’s innovative and really cool, and I’d like to hear a little bit more about it before we talk about your book.

James Shuls (00:21)
Absolutely. So I’m with the Institute for Governance and Civics, and it was created by the legislature a couple years ago. And while I would like to take credit and say I’m in charge of it, as you sort of said there, Susan, I’m not in charge of the Institute, but I’m one of the branch heads. So the IGC, as we call it, has four branches. We focus on economic liberty, constitutional liberty, conscience liberty, and education liberty. I’m the head of the education liberty branch.
And so part of what we’re doing is outreach to K–12 schools, helping to focus on civics instruction, improving knowledge and preparation for teachers as it relates to civics and governance and those sorts of things. At the same time, we’re writing about issues of educational liberty from a school choice perspective, which is exactly the topic we’re talking about today.

Susan Pendergrass (01:12)
Yeah, so you guys have a book that you just co-edited, Fighting for the Freedom to Learn: Examining America’s Centuries-Old School Choice Movement. How did you come up with this idea, and why did you decide to put this book together?

Neal McCluskey (01:27)
Sure, I’ll go with that. The idea behind the book stems from just about everything I ever do, which is I got angry about something, and I was like, well, somebody ought to do something about this. If you work in school choice advocacy for more than a day or so, you’ll quickly hear that school choice started by people trying to avoid desegregation in the South. And that’s always given as the origin. And even if somebody wants to say, well, you know, Milton Friedman wrote this essay in 1955—and he really wrote it before 1955—we know that that was really just taking advantage, at the very least, of this backlash against desegregation.
And it just drives me nuts. There is a very long, rich history of the idea and practice of school choice. So I thought, you know, somebody ought to do a book on that, and we can hit, sort of semi-chronologically, all the different eras in which this happened and the ebbs and flows. The Cato Institute and the Center for Educational Freedom, which I direct, also had something called the School Choice Timeline—this interactive online timeline that I put together also because I was angry. In particular, I wrote a chapter about the gap where not much was going on in school choice, and I wanted to explain the gap.
But we have lots of chapters—one on how progressives were really into school choice for a while, and how schooling worked before the common-schooling movement, and all sorts of stuff like that. The genesis was aggravation on my part, at least, about always hearing this narrative that school choice stems from efforts to avoid desegregation. And then I said, you know, James Shuls—there’s a guy who probably is angry a lot, too. Maybe he’d like to get in on this.

James Shuls (03:17)
Yeah, that’s right. Susan, I’ve been on the podcast before talking about some of my scholarship related to Virgil Blum. He was a real strong school choice advocate starting in the ’50s, did a ton of work, and gets absolutely no credit. I was angry that Friedman gets all the credit—he wrote this paper in 1955, yada, yada, yada—and then in the 1990s we get school choice programs. It’s like, well, a lot happened in that yada, yada, yada period that we’re not covering.
I had been writing about that when Neal came along with the idea to do the book. Part of what we’re doing as we frame this is saying: looking at school choice today through the current lens we have is the wrong way to do it. We think of school choice today as opting out of the public school system—but that only works to frame it that way if there is a public school system. Before common schools were around, people were still advocating for their kids, still trying to get schools created. So there was lots of stuff that wouldn’t fit the framework we have today.
What we’re saying in this book is these impulses for educational freedom have always existed, and we’re essentially tracing them from colonial times to today.

Neal McCluskey (04:36)
James’s stuff on Blum was also a major reason I thought, here’s a guy who could really contribute to this. I just stumbled on Blum in large part because of what James wrote. I was like, why do people not know about this guy?

Susan Pendergrass (04:41)
We did a whole podcast on it. I’ll tell you what makes me mad is that in the last month or two, tops, there have been articles in The New York Times and The Washington Post talking about low-income families—both in Florida and Arizona—generally Black and brown parents, who are participating in this right-wing conservative movement to kill the public school system because they think they deserve to be able to choose where their kid goes to school.
Even locally in political groups, people say, well, that’s a MAGA person, which means they support charter schools. When those two things get put into a sentence, it really makes my blood boil because I’ve been working in this space a long time. As we’re going to find out more, school choice is not a new thing at all. The latest iteration of it is not a MAGA thing or five years old or a COVID thing. Since at least 1990—at least 35 years—parents and activists like Howard Fuller were saying, hey, this isn’t right. We’re literally assigning kids to the worst schools and not letting them out. We ought to let them out.
Somehow this has become the Republican agenda to kill teacher unions and break up the public school system. Nothing could be further from the truth. That makes me mad. That’s why I’m really glad you guys put this book together. Let’s go back—not to the very beginning of the country—but pre–industrial revolution, pre–John Dewey, before standardized schools, attendance zones, and district lines. What did it look like, say 150 years ago? Did parents decide where their kids went to school, or did you have to go to a certain school because that was the one you helped pay to create? How did it work back in the day?

James Shuls (06:50)
I’ll jump in here because I’m awfully angry about this. Before common schools, there was a wide mixture of different types of schools. You had dame schools, private schools, public schools, and publicly funded private schools.
What you get in Charles Glenn’s chapter, “Emergence of the Common School Ideology,” is an understanding of the movement towards common schools. The impetus behind them was really to separate schooling from the family and the community and to use schools for social change. That’s the difference that comes in here—schooling would be used for social change.

Susan Pendergrass (07:29)
Mm-hmm.

James Shuls (07:35)
—to create and form Americans. Some people look at that and say it’s a good thing, but there are certainly negative side effects as well when you separate the impact of community and families. An interesting element that comes out in this book is that the common school ideology and the public school system that has come in its wake was created to form a certain kind of American citizen.
Then we get into Neal’s chapter, where Neal talks about the sort of gap where things aren’t happening. It’s because these systems were under attack. You see a reemergence in the 1950s—not just because of Brown and segregation—but because you start to have a return to some of these values and a return to trying to connect schooling and the family and the church.
When you look at school choice with this longer arc, rather than looking at the ’50s as your starting point, you see the various impulses that were leading pre–common schools, how common schools helped to squash some of those things, and how we’re starting to come back to a decentralized and pluralistic system.

Susan Pendergrass (08:50)
Certainly the common schools—also called public schools before 1900—were Protestant. They absolutely taught religion. They didn’t stop teaching religion until the Catholics started showing up. Then it was, yeah, maybe we get religion out of schools, right? Because we don’t want Catholicism in a public school. Public schools taught Protestantism; they just didn’t want to teach Catholicism. People think there’s always been separation—no religion in public schools—and that’s not true.

James Shuls (09:16)
That’s a key point in Matthew Lee’s chapter: Catholics turned to private schools. He would say it’s not necessarily school choice because the Catholics were saying you had to go to the Catholic schools—so no choice among Catholic schools. Nevertheless, the Catholic schools came up because the public schools were Protestant. Protestants went in—though not all in. There were some segments, which Neal could talk about, with the Lutherans.
By and large, Protestants supported the common school movement. Then there was a movement to secularize public schools. Again, that’s part of what happens in the 1950s with the return of Protestants starting to support school choice—because their capture of the public school system had been weakened and there were no longer Protestant schools.

Neal McCluskey (10:10)
Just as a pitch for the book: there’s so much good history in here that we won’t be able to talk about. You definitely want to get the book. It’s worth noting that for much of our early history—colonial period, early republican period, even into the common-schooling period—there wasn’t a separation people would recognize if you say, well, this is a public school and this is a private school. There were schools. There was education.
Government was sometimes involved in assisting private schools. Going back to British traditions, someone would provide—usually from the proceeds of owning land—funds to help maintain a school. In America, land was the one thing in superabundance, so that wasn’t as profitable. Governments would sometimes say, look, you’re running a school here; we’ll give you a little money to do it. There was often cooperation between government and schools.
The first voucher program that we’ve at least been able to catalog was in 1802 in Pennsylvania—specifically in Philadelphia. So this is not new. Go back more than two centuries and you had people like Paine and John Stuart Mill talking about helping people to consume education by funding parents so they can choose, not by funding schools.
Even as we have common schools, they were extremely localized. Think of the one-room schoolhouse—it was also the meeting house and often the church—serving pretty homogeneous communities. Even within what eventually became common schooling, there was a lot of differentiation where people could get the schooling they wanted. It’s only as progressives consolidate control that we move far away from that community-level, very small schooling.

Susan Pendergrass (12:13)
I thought it was so odd that Maine and Vermont have had town tuitioning of high schools for a couple hundred years. Where the town didn’t want to build a high school, they just paid tuition for their high school students to go to a different school the student picked. In some cases it’s a boarding school, even overseas. They were challenged in the Supreme Court within the last couple of years, even though those programs have existed for hundreds of years.
All of a sudden, people who don’t like the voucher idea went after Maine for town tuitioning, even though that program has been in place for so long.

James Shuls (12:53)
That radical right-wing bastion in Maine.

Susan Pendergrass (12:55)
—decided at a town meeting to do it. I think as you get into the earlier or middle part of the last century, you start building up this industrial education complex: we’re going to be the great equalizer; everyone’s going to have the same kind of school; 20 kids and a chalkboard and teacher; separate kids by age, not ability; common standards; and we’re going to be in charge of it.
Anyone who disagrees with what’s being taught there is seen as a radical who wants to break the system and doesn’t understand the importance of it. That’s what I feel has been happening lately, where any parent—my own experience: I homeschooled one of my kids and was considered a radical because why wouldn’t I accept that the public school to which he was assigned would be best for him? The idea that uniformity is what we need.
I still think there are a lot of people within the public education establishment who say uniformity is the key. We are clearly seeing a backlash, but the uniformity principle—maybe 75 years, maybe the 1950s—would you say?

Neal McCluskey (14:15)
It depends. In the early republican period, people like Benjamin Rush said we need schooling for everybody to make them into good citizens—into “republican machines,” his term. Horace Mann certainly wants to standardize people. Not because of Catholics at the beginning—they hadn’t come in at great numbers—but because he saw people coming in from the countryside.
New England industrialized first—relatively poor farming area, but lots of rivers to run factories. These early factories with big water wheels. Mann saw parents coming from the countryside and thought they were all idiots. He thought we needed to take their kids away from them and standardize them. So we started it even at the very beginning.
It gets even more standardized as more immigrants arrive and people get scared of them. One overarching theme of the history of school choice: it’s about people who do not fit into whatever mold the elites decide. Catholics didn’t fit the Protestant mold. In my research, Germans were most disturbing for people because they spoke German—people said, they really need to speak English. We have a thread of fear of Germans going back to colonial Pennsylvania.
The chapter on African Americans is particularly powerful: it talks about a system that never wanted to incorporate them. They needed freedom to get the education people were denying them. That’s the big theme—people who don’t want to be standardized or who are refused help need school choice to get something out of education.

Susan Pendergrass (16:13)
I’ll only say that’s true today. It’s ironic that the kids with the least options—the most disadvantaged kids in the worst schools—are the ones people openly talk about denying options to. Even in Missouri, when public school choice is considered, some of the lowest-performing districts say, okay, but not us. We can’t let kids out of our district because we’re one of the worst in the state and everyone will leave and take money.
They want to draw a line and say, whatever unfortunate child got assigned to this school, we cannot let them leave. That’s flipped on its head. That child needs choices as much as every other kid. They say, no, we have to lock those kids in and strap them to the deck of a Titanic. Why do you think that is, James?

James Shuls (17:07)
I’d say Ron Matus’s chapter on the progressive movement toward school choice is terrific for the points you’re making. There was a tremendous progressive move for school choice in the ’70s and ’80s that culminated in the early voucher programs.
They were making exactly the cases you’re making: we should not assign students to failing schools; school choice was progressive in that it allowed disadvantaged students to opt out and get the type of school that would meet their needs, and to bring competition into the marketplace. The progressives were making the case for school choice exactly because the most disadvantaged students needed it the most.
That’s why the recent idea that school choice is a MAGA movement is off. The progressives got there first, as Ron and others explain.

Susan Pendergrass (18:12)
One last thing. I have a hard time articulating to folks who believe there’s an ironclad connection between property taxes and school assignment that goes back to the beginning of time and must continue until the end of time: if you pay property taxes here, your kid goes to school here; if you don’t, your child doesn’t get to go to school there. I don’t want any kids coming into my kid’s school if their parents didn’t pay property taxes.
I think that is particularly strong in Missouri. In St. Louis County we have dozens of school districts within one county. People feel very strongly—even supporters of school choice—about this property tax/school assignment idea. They can’t get past it. What would you say to that? You lived in St. Louis, James; what do you say?

James Shuls (19:13)
We didn’t write the book through this specific lens, but if you read closely you see this: the system evolved over time. You had a radically decentralized system. Horace Mann and the common school movement advocated for state structures and more organization. Over time it evolved to the system we have today.
From the founding, the idea of residential assignment where local property taxes only follow the kids—and the high level of state and federal regulation—was not anyone’s early vision. It’s not the system most people would advocate if they could design it from scratch. We get wedded to the structures we have.
What we have to do is step back and ask, is this the way it should be? I think the answer is no. We shouldn’t have systems that restrict resources to small local communities and assign students, because we get the problems we all see: high-poverty districts with struggling schools and students assigned to terrible schools with little opportunity for the types of coursework and experiences that lead to success. The system we have isn’t inherently good just because it’s the system we have.

Neal McCluskey (20:57)
We probably needed a chapter on the history of taxation to answer this directly. My suspicion is that for a lot of our history we didn’t have a lot of income tax or other taxes, and drawing on the English tradition, we probably funded things at the community level with property taxes—very local and democratically controlled.
It’s not until the industrial era, with consolidation, that communities stopped running their own schools. My guess is that’s the history of a lot of this property-tax and local-tax funding. But things have obviously changed.
My colleague Colleen Hroncich always points out: it might have made sense to have local public schools when nobody had a car and most people walked places. You couldn’t travel 10 or 20 miles every morning to drop your kid off. That doesn’t make sense now—we have modern transportation—so we don’t have to be shackled to the school a mile or two away.

Susan Pendergrass (22:04)
See you next time. I also think that starting in the 1950s—partly because of Brown v. Board—states and then the federal government started tinkering with the distribution of tax dollars to districts to give more money to poorer districts and less to wealthier districts. That’s been going on with funding formulas. I’m not sure any of them have had an impact on poor kids or reducing achievement gaps, but they thought that moving levers at the state and federal level would get a different outcome.
In my opinion, wealthier districts with higher property tax bases and more local funding aren’t really impacted by those. Now they say, you can move kids around—but not from us—because we’re not part of that system where you move money around. We’re happy with what we’ve got. If you can afford to live here, fine; but they want to be left out of it.

James Shuls (23:10)
Sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to weigh in on that last point, because—reason to listen to the podcast and get the book—this is not in the book, but Virgil Blum had some correspondence with Milton Friedman back in the ’50s and ’60s. They weren’t closely associated; they were operating in different circles. But Blum sent Friedman something he had written and asked for feedback. Friedman responded.
One thing he said was, when it comes to the voucher idea, he thought it should start at the higher education level, not K–12. Then he said it should be at the level where the taxation or the money is supplied. So in K–12, that probably means vouchers should come from the local community, not from the state or the federal government.
So to your point: we had a system that relied more on local tax dollars, and Friedman was saying the vouchers should be local. But we’ve shifted over time to a system that provides a lot more money from the state and federal government than it used to. If you look across the country, every school choice program is a state system—very rarely do you have a district creating a voucher system. It almost always comes at the state level. Even Friedman was wrong from time to time.

Susan Pendergrass (24:44)
On that note, I know you have a chapter on this, but what about this explosion of school choice? Now it feels unstoppable. We have more than a dozen states with universal-ish programs. At least five states have truly universal school choice systems. Why now? Why has it picked up steam so fast after barely making progress through the ’90s and early 2000s?

Neal McCluskey (25:17)
Jason Bedrick has a particular take on it—which I think is probably right—but I think it has deeper roots. Generally, the idea is people are unhappy and increasingly unhappy with how they’re being served by public schools.
My theory—and I think a lot of people hold this—is that COVID made people realize that in a public school system, if a powerful minority or majority wants X and you want Y, someone loses. Many parents who wanted in-person school—generally well-heeled and used to getting what they want—suddenly couldn’t get it. They realized the system didn’t work for them even if they liked it in theory.
Anecdotally, in rich places like Montclair, New Jersey, people were at each other’s throats because many wanted mutually exclusive things. Then you had ideological battles over vaccination and mask requirements. Many say that virtual school let parents see what their kids were learning, and they didn’t like it—books like Gender Queer, how African American history is taught, etc. We haven’t shown concretely that anger was because of peeking into the classroom via Zoom, but it certainly coincided. People were angry.
Jason argues that, yes, people were unhappy, but it wasn’t really COVID; it was the strategy of reaching out to red-state parents in environments where you could get school choice, saying: public schools are teaching stuff you don’t like; you don’t want your kids trapped in that. All the big school-choice gains were in red states—the red-state strategy worked. Now the future is moving into purple and blue states. I think that’s right too, but the underlying driver is people realizing one system can’t fit everyone.

James Shuls (28:32)
I’ll weigh in here too. Friedman made the free-market case for school choice in the ’50s, and that case continued to today—choice, competition, rising tides lift boats. You also had the progressive case in the ’70s and ’80s—students shouldn’t be trapped in failing schools; create programs to help the most disadvantaged. Those arguments kept creating small, targeted programs, but not a wider audience.
A third element—cultural, right-leaning values—added a new coalition. It layered on top of the free-market and progressive cases. I wouldn’t say the movement is completely going to the right; it’s making arguments that appeal to those individuals.
If you go to a rural Missouri voter and say “choice and competition,” with one local public high school and one elementary school, that doesn’t land. If you say the most disadvantaged students in St. Louis and Kansas City need choice, the rural voter may not care. But if you weigh in on some conservative values, you reach a new audience. Maybe that’s part of what’s happened.

Susan Pendergrass (30:24)
Just a bigger tent. It’s clear we’ve only scratched the surface of your book—this is only a 30-minute podcast and there’s so much more in there. A lot of it is so intriguing—going back to the history of this country and realizing the system we have now is relatively new compared to the various systems we’ve had.
Parents don’t really care what the name is on the outside of the school. They care about how their kids come home at the end of the day—how much they appear to be learning. They want them challenged; they want them safe. That’s universal. Whatever system gets them there, they don’t care what it’s called or what it looks like. If they thought they’d get it out of a uniform system and now they don’t…
There’s so much in this book. You picked a lot of great authors—12 leading education scholars. When will folks be able to buy this book and read it themselves, and where?

Neal McCluskey (31:37)
It comes out November 11th. I think it’s available online—online bookstores everywhere—as well as the Cato website, Cato.org.

Susan Pendergrass (31:43)
And can folks reach out to you guys if they have any comments or questions?

Neal McCluskey (31:53)
As long as it’s nice stuff, they can reach out to me.

Susan Pendergrass (31:55)
I can’t promise them.

James Shuls (31:55)
The nice stuff can reach out to me; the negative comments go to Neal.

Susan Pendergrass (32:00)
Well, it’s great. Thank you so much for coming on and talking about it. It’s a fantastic book, and I highly recommend folks get it and read it themselves.

James Shuls (32:09)
Thank you.

Neal McCluskey (32:09)
Great, thanks.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Long Fight for Educational Freedom with Neal McCluskey and James Shuls appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Managing this problem in the current system that is dominated by monopolies is difficult. But what if market forces could be infused into our current system to help address new demand?

An Introduction to Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE)

One potential policy solution that could complement Missouri’s current system is consumer regulated electricity (CRE). While still a developing idea, CRE is worth considering as Missouri navigates an uncertain and potentially very costly energy future.

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to specifically meet new demand growth from large consumers. In order for a CRE entity to operate appropriately, it would need to be free from restrictions placed by the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). That means CREs would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and only serve new industrial and large commercial customers.

It should be noted that these CRE entities would still be subject to federal regulations, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear projects. These entities would still need to meet federal safety standards.

Considering the Benefits of CRE in Missouri

Travis Fisher of the CATO Institute argues that these private grids—partly free of the massive regulatory red tape for utilities—could be developed more quickly, infusing needed competition and innovation into the energy sector. As “private energy islands” for new, large energy consumers, CREs could potentially relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising industrial demand, the market could provide that solution.

This idea aligns with growing momentum in the private sector to pair small modular reactors with corporations (Google, Microsoft, Meta) urgently seeking energy sources tailored to their needs. CRE could allow the free market to guide this practice, and potentially, more quickly match demand with supply as companies would not be subject to current MPSC regulations that limit competition. This could be a boon for economic development in Missouri.

In theory, CRE would not tear down Missouri’s existing framework, but rather, complement it and allow private developers to target growing energy demand from the largest consumers, which are causing the most concern about reliability.

How Could We Potentially Bring this to Missouri?

Bringing CRE to the Show-Me State would likely require a modification of state statute to declare that CRE entities—if they are not connected to existing infrastructure and only serve large, industrial customers—are not subject to state regulation. New Hampshire is one state considering this concept. While further study is needed, CRE is a compelling idea that our lawmakers ought to consider.

The post Weighing Consumer Regulated Electricity to Meet Energy Demand Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

RSVP for This Complimentary Event Here

Thursday, April 10, 2025

12:00 noon

Washington University in St. Louis Law School

Anheuser-Busch Hall, Room 305

One Brookings Drive

St. Louis, MO 63130

About the Book – Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites

Law schools used to teach students how to think critically, advance logical arguments, and respect oppo­nents. Now those students cannot tolerate disagreement and reject the validity of the law itself. Rioting Ivy Leaguers are the same people who will soon:

• Be America’s judges, DAs, and prosecutors
• File and fight constitutional lawsuits
• Advise Fortune 500 companies
• Hire other left-wing diversity candidates to staff law firms and government offices
• Run for higher office with an agenda of only enforcing laws that suit left-wing whims

Ilya Shapiro will discuss how we got here and what we can do about it. The problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty—it’s institu­tional weakness.

About the Speaker

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Previously he was executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, and before that a vice president of the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

Read full bio here.

This event is brought to you by: Show-Me Institute, WashULaw Federalist Society, Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, and Show-Me Opportunity.

The post Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites with Ilya Shapiro on April 10 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Elections and inaugurations are a time for reflection and a recommitment to principles. As Missouri prepares for the new administration of Mike Kehoe, it’s worthwhile to consider the performance of his predecessors—especially on issues relating to fiscal management of taxpayer resources.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian-minded think tank based in Washington, DC, rates the fiscal performance of governors. The good news is that Governor Mike Parson is not the worst governor in the United States, but he’s the worst one who claims to care about limited government.

Cato has issued its report every two years since 1992. The report methodology, available online here, issues a letter grade based on each governor’s success at restraining spending and tax increases. Parson earned a D grade in 2024. Author Chris Edwards wrote, “Parson has been a tax reformer, but he has dropped the ball on spending control. The general fund budget has jumped from $10.5 billion in 2022 to an expected $15.6 billion in 2025, a 49 percent increase in just three years.”

The D grade placed Parson 40th of the 48 governors rated. Florida governor Ron DeSantis was ranked 19th and Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin came in 15th. Parson was closer to Minnesota governor and recent vice-presidential caudate Tim Walz, who came in last. Of Missouri’s neighbors, governors of Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas each earned an A grade, ranking 1st, 2nd and 4th respectively. Even Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker and California’s Gavin Newsom outperformed Parson, placing 32nd and 35th respectively.

If one uses Republican party identification to denote a preference for small government and low taxes—and that is arguable these days—Parson’s 40th-place ranking stands out even more. It made him the worst-scoring Republican in the nation. And 2024’s score is not a fluke; Parson scored a D in 2022 and a C in 2020.

Parson doesn’t just compare poorly to other current governors; he scored poorly compared to past Missouri governors. Parson’s letter grades surpass only those of Mel Carnahan (scoring D, D and F) and Robert Holden (F). Parson even seems to score worse than Jay Nixon, whose scores were B, C, D, and D. (If you’re wondering, Matt Blunt was the best scoring governor since 1992, earning Missouri’s only A in 2006 and a B in 2008.)

Note that the report’s methodology changed for the 2008 report but has remained the same since. Previous iterations relied on many more variables, but the outcomes are unlikely to have been much different.

Missouri’s total spending has practically doubled in the last five years, including not just the general fund, but other dedicated state funds and federal money. That total spending jumped from $27 billion in 2019 after Parson’s first year in office to a little more than $50 billion for 2025. It now costs three times as much to run Missouri as it did in the Carnahan and Holden administrations!

Parson’s profligacy stems from the decisions he’s made since the federal government’s COVID relief funds flooded Missouri’s budget with billions of dollars in one-time cash. States were given considerable discretion on how to use much of the relief funding, not to mention the state tax dollars the federal cash freed up for other uses. Unfortunately, Parson, with the help of Missouri’s General Assembly, fell victim to the allure of so-called free money.

Today, Missouri’s budget is littered with what were once temporary initiatives that never ended and now receive permanent funding. Or, perhaps worse, formerly federal obligations that are now borne by state taxpayers.

Key among these includes Parson’s decision to use state funds to maintain the higher childcare subsidies the federal government subsidized during the COVID pandemic, now costing state taxpayers at least $70 million annually. Parson also failed to meaningfully manage Medicaid spending. Missouri’s lackadaisical approach to checking program recipient eligibility, after the federal government lifted its COVID-era ban on the practice, has likely cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars thus far.

In addition, Parson increased state employee pay by 7.5% plus an additional 3.2% cost of living increase last year. These raises were paid for with a temporary influx of state funds, but because the increased pay was not made commensurate with employee reductions, the higher salaries will require new permanent funding sources and will increase the obligations of the already underfunded state pension system.

Governor-elect Kehoe has a difficult job ahead of him administering government and working to attract more families and employers to the Show-Me State. Unfortunately, his predecessor has done him—and the people of Missouri—a great disservice by failing to properly manage taxpayer funds.

The post Missouri Must Do Better at Controlling Spending appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The report advocates for a substantial reduction in federal spending, emphasizing the elimination of programs that are redundant or fall within state jurisdiction. The goal of this new approach is to alleviate the economic burdens imposed by excessive federal regulations and expenditures.

Missouri needs to conduct a similar exercise. The state’s budget has expanded significantly, with general revenue spending increasing nearly 50% over the past three years. As my colleague Elias Tsapelas has pointed out, this led to a “D” grade for Governor Mike Parson in the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card, indicating a pressing need for more disciplined fiscal management.

These reports serve as critical reminders of the importance of efficient government operations. We need a leaner government that prioritizes essential functions and empowers states to manage their affairs more effectively.

The post Does Missouri Need a DOGE? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the report, “Parson has been a tax reformer, but he has dropped the ball on spending control.” To Parson’s credit, he’s signed multiple bills into law that have cut Missouri’s individual income tax rate. When Parson entered office, the rate was 5.9%, and next year the governor has already announced that it will be dropping again to 4.7%. This will mark the 5th time the rate has been lowered since 2018.

Working against Gov. Parson is his support of the state’s gas tax hike in 2021. During the debate about the gas tax hike, I wrote frequently about my concerns with the bill. I am generally supportive of user fees and gas taxes, but the 2021 bill had a lot of problems. After multiple attempts to convince Missouri voters to raise the gas tax, our elected officials decided they could do it without public support.

At the time, I questioned whether the move violated the state’s constitution. The Hancock Amendment purportedly prevents Missouri’s general assembly from raising taxes without a public vote. But the bill sidestepped the amendment with a convoluted rebate scheme and implementation over several years.

Nevertheless, the biggest mark against Gov. Parson by Cato was the state’s out of control spending, which is another topic I’ve been writing about for several years. Missouri’s budget has grown tremendously under the current governor’s watch, in both size and scope. For several years, it was easy to attribute much of the increase to the federal influx of COVID-19 relief money, but that money is drying up, and Missouri’s expected general revenue (where our state income and sales taxes go) spending is still up nearly 50% from just three years ago.

Though it shouldn’t need to be said, this cycle of perpetual spending increases is unsustainable. Not only is our government spending outpacing inflation, but it’s also outpacing our neighboring states. Gov. Parson’s grade was tied for the worst among Missouri and its bordering states (Kentucky also got a “D”), with the governors of Iowa, Nebraska, and Arkansas receiving exemplary “A” grades.

It should be unacceptable that the Show-Me State lags our neighbors, let alone much of the country, in the stewardship of state tax dollars. Going into 2025, Missouri will have a new governor, and a new chance to improve its fiscal policy grade. Let’s hope our elected officials  take advantage of the opportunity.

The post Missouri Nearly Fails Cato’s Test appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute and editor of the book The War on Prices: How Popular Misconceptions about Inflation, Prices, and Value Create Bad Policy. They discuss the effects of price controls, recent interventions in the economy, how to remind people about free market principals, and more.

Ryan Bourne occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato and is the author of the recent books Economics In One Virus, and The War on Prices. He has written on numerous economic issues, including fiscal policy, inequality, minimum wages, infrastructure spending, the cost of living and rent control.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The War on Prices with Ryan Bourne appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post September 6 Event – Corey DeAngelis: The Case for School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post A New Normal in the Housing Market with Mark A. Calabria appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Neal McCluskey is the director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom. He is the author of the book Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education and is coeditor of several volumes, including School Choice Myths: Setting the Record Straight on Education Freedom and Unprofitable Schooling: Examining Causes of, and Fixes for, America’s Broken Ivory Tower. McCluskey also maintains Cato’s Public Schooling Battle Map, an interactive database of values and identity‐​based conflicts in public schools, and oversees Cato’s Private Schooling Status Tracker.

The post Podcast: Canceling Student Debt with Neal McCluskey appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s why I don’t quite understand the logic of a handful of proposals being floated in the legislature this year that would adopt “compact” licensing legislation for doctors. A compact is an agreement between and among states that facilitates cooperation on a given issue and is often overseen by a third-party regulatory group. For instance, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (IMLC)—launched by the Federation of State Medical Boards to oversee interstate physician licensing—has been adopted in about half the states in the union.

If a state has no license reciprocity statute at all, it might make sense to join a compact. After all, access to two states’ resources is greater than access to one, and in the case of the IMLC, about half of the states is certainly greater than one state alone.

But if you’ve already opened the door to your residents accessing doctors from all FIFTY states, what incentive is there exactly for a state like Missouri to delegate any authority to an association of other states’ medical boards?

We touched on the idea of medical compacts in our 2016 paper on health care licensure reform “Demand Supply: Why Licensing Reform Matters to Improving American Health Care,” and we noted our concern about reinforcing a licensing system that is overly fixated on protecting the prerogatives of state-based medical boards. As Cato Institute adjunct scholar Shirley Svorny wrote about a similar proposal in Mississippi in 2016:

The [IMLC] compact may seem like a positive step to those who don’t have the time to look at it very closely. Surely, respected representatives of physician groups and the Federation of State Medical Boards will encourage Mississippi legislators to adopt the model legislation and join the compact. These groups are overselling the contribution the compact can make to improving access to telemedicine because they do not want federal licensing. (At the same time, the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure is seeking to squash private telemedicine providers, thus diminishing health care access even further.) [Emphasis mine]

Therein lies the issue. Compacts like the IMLC market that it makes it easier for doctors to go through the arduous process of licensing in multiple states, but the point of interstate license reciprocity is that it shouldn’t be an arduous process to begin with, and barely a “process” at all for doctors already licensed and in good standing in their home states. Throw in the self-interest of the Federation of State Medical Boards of establishing its own national umbrella organization to protect its turf from federal regulation, and you have all the reason in the world to question why Missouri would adopt the IMLC at all.

The future of licensure is fewer licenses, and to the extent a proposal works in the opposite direction and supports the status quo, policymakers and the public should be highly skeptical of whether such proposals are more useful to the public—or whether they’re more useful to the interest groups that would control the proposed system.

The post A New “License Compact”? Why? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While starting your career with $25,000 plus in student loan debt can create challenges, these are somewhat offset by the higher earnings a college degree holder can expect. Yet, once again, student loan debt forgiveness is being floated as an economic policy. Let’s be clear: This relief is directed at the one in five Missourians who can expect significantly higher earnings over their lifetimes. Everyone else is left with nothing except picking up the tab. What about car loans? What about credit card debt?

This is a textbook example of a regressive tax; relief for higher earners at the expense of lower earners. Expensive government giveaways create bad precedent. They incentivize bad behaviors. And, like it or not, they have to be paid for at some point. Sorry to be a Grinch, but don’t ask Santa to forgive your student loans.

For more on this topic, click here to listen to our podcast with the Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey:

The post What About the other 80 Percent of Missourians? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This week we have a new batch of health care perspectives. Yesterday we brought the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies Michael Cannon onto the podcast and asked him many of the same questions we posed to Stuart, and I think our listeners will be intrigued at how markedly different Michael’s views are. Click here for that podcast, and be sure to subscribe to the channel to be notified of this content every time we add something new.

Subscribing is especially relevant now, because tomorrow we will welcome the Manhattan Institute’s Chris Pope to the program and will release that podcast shortly thereafter. Like Stuart and Michael, we’ll ask Chris many of the same questions so that our listeners can easily compare the different perspectives emanating from the market movement on issues like Medicaid, private insurance, and state-based health care reforms. Stay tuned and smash that subscribe button.

The post Cato’s Michael Cannon Visits the Podcast appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our conversation also highlights that even within the market movement there remains a great deal of disagreement about the best way to reform our health care system. Mr. Butler was an early supporter of an “individual mandate” that required the purchase of health insurance, a position he now has largely rejected but does distinguish from the mandate as passed in the Affordable Care Act.

But the main reason we invited Mr. Butler on the program was to talk about his “Medicare Advantage for All” proposal, which he recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Mr. Butler explains what he means by “Medicare Advantage for All” in the podcast, but to be plain (and perhaps unsurprisingly), I disagree with the idea. I don’t think American patients are well served by the government “designing” a health care system that relies more and more on third-party, government-financed and government-controlled coverage for the vast majority of our health services. Proponents of free market-reforms should, I think, focus most of their efforts on expanding supply to meet public demand for health services, and we’ve certainly talked about those options at length and for some time.

In the podcast, we also talk about Medicaid expansion and proposals for changing how Medicaid is administered. As a general matter, I think Mr. Butler is more optimistic about the prospects of the federal government delegating control more definitively to states to control costs and manage the Medicaid program. I’m not so optimistic. In light of the federal government’s Lucyball treatment of state waiver proposals in both Republican and Democratic administrations, I’m not nearly as hopeful as Mr. Butler when it comes to believing states will be allowed to innovate in the program. All of that said, Mr. Butler provides an important perspective that is already part of a larger debate on the future of American health care.

Mr. Butler’s perspective may not be your philosophical cup of tea, but if it isn’t, rest assured that you’ll have plenty of other flavors to digest in the weeks ahead. In the next few days, we’ll be sitting down with Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute and Christopher Pope of the Manhattan Institute to talk about the future of health care in this country, with more guests planned. We hope these podcasts are informative, and we invite your feedback and ideas.

The post Agreeing and Disagreeing on Health Care Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Latest Episode of the Show-Me Institute Podcast appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We celebrated National School Choice Week on the SMI podcast with Corey DeAngelis. In this episode, Corey and Dr. Susan Pendergrass discuss the moral case for school choice, educational freedom in rural areas, and more.

Corey DeAngelis is the director of school choice at the Reason Foundation. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

The post The Latest Episode of the Show-Me Institute Podcast appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some 38 million people, nearly one in eight, live in poverty in today’s America as liberals and conservatives spar predictably over solutions – government assistance versus pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Researcher and writer Michael Tanner wants to draw from both sides.

Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a National Review online columnist, explores the issue in a discussion of his book The Inclusive Economy. His remedy is not more government intervention in spending or redistribution but rather a series of actions that address the racism, gender discrimination, and economic dislocation feeding poverty. They range from criminal justice reform to greater educational flexibility and the elimination of savings barriers for the poor.

We’re hosting this event in both St. Louis and Kansas City.

To RSVP for St. Louis, click here

To RSVP for Kansas City, click here

The post Free Lecture: Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner on How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why is there such a difference between the two? Charles Silver and David Hyman, authors of Overcharged: Why Americans Pay Too Much for Health Care, argue that it is because of the free market.

Traditional providers, like hospitals and clinics, are expensive and inconvenient for the consumer because their pricing is primarily based on what insurers will pay. In comparison, retail providers, like the clinic found in your grocery store, have to price their services in order to attract customers and strive for convenience. The two offer many of the same services but have completely different ways of doing business.

Retail providers are becoming an increasingly disruptive challenger of traditional providers. This should not be surprising—when providers are able to compete the results typically are lower-priced and more attractive options for the consumer. Just as internet shopping is disrupting brick-and-mortar businesses, retail medicine is disrupting traditional medicine, an industry that is used to being insulated from competition.

A great example of this is the way retail medicine is transforming audiology. While traditional audiologists charge steep prices for hearing aids and hearing checks (with additional charges for things like testing, warranties, and damage coverage, which can often make up 70 percent of the total price of a hearing aid), retailers are improving services while lowering costs. Costco Hearing Aid Centers offer similar services to that of audiologists without the additional charges.

Silver and Hyman write:

As more retailers enter the field, prices will become easier to compare and competition will intensify. Bargain-hungry consumers will look for better deals, but they will be interested in quality too . . . With pressure on both quality and price, retail offerings are bound to improve. (pg. 325)

Competitive pricing offered by the retail sector also allows people to avoid markups that come with using third-party payers. While most retail providers take insurance, patients pay out-of-pocket one-third of the time. In contrast, patients who visit primary care doctors pay out-of-pocket only ten percent of the time. Silver and Hyman view this as an important factor in the success of retail providers:

When we pay for health care the same way we pay for other services—by spending our own money instead of an insurer’s—good things happen: prices fall and quality improves as providers compete for business. (pg. 320)

Competition provides good things indeed. Want to learn more about market solutions for health care problems? Join us in St. Louis or Kansas City to learn more from Cato Institute scholars Charles Silver and David Hyman as they discuss why the American health care system is so dysfunctional and costly.

The post Health Care Desperately Needs Competition-Retail Medicine Provides It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Silver and Hyman reveal the key flaws in America’s health care system, which replaces consumer choice with government control and third-party payment, driving up the cost of health care. Prices will fall, quality will improve, and medicine will become more patient-friendly only when consumers take charge. As Overcharged explains, when health care providers are subjected to the same competitive forces that shape other industries, they will either deliver better services more cheaply or risk being replaced by someone who will.

Overcharged is getting the attention of top free marketeers and conservative influencers. George F. Will, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and author raves that “Silver and Hyman frighten us with the facts and point to ways the biggest player in the health care game—the government—can stop making matters worse.” Show-Me Institute has also noticed the usefulness of Silver and Hyman’s free-market solutions to the national health care problem. We have invited the authors to Missouri to discuss their book. Details for the event are attached. We hope to see you there!

Get Tickets: https://showmeinstitute.org/overcharged-why-americans-pay-too-much-healthcare

Spread the Word: https://www.facebook.com/events/264480817839154/

The post Why is American Health Care So Expensive? Because You’ve Been Overcharged appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From the email:

It is with great sadness that Remote Area Medical announces the passing of our Founder and President, Stan Brock. Mr. Brock passed away today in Knoxville, Tennessee at the age of 82. Since he began RAM in 1985, Mr. Brock has been a tireless advocate for those in need, and through his leadership, RAM has provided free care to more than 740,000 individuals.

Without Mr. Brock, RAM would not have been able to prevent pain and alleviate suffering for so many people. While Mr. Brock’s death is a great loss to the organization, RAM will continue championing his legacy and caring for those in need. Mr. Brock built a strong organization led by a dedicated 12-member Board of Directors, 34 staff members, and tens of thousands of volunteers and donors. Together, they will continue to fulfill the mission set by Mr. Brock so many years ago in the jungle of Guyana.

I met Stan for the first time at a Cato Institute conference some years ago, and I was struck by not only the quality of the organization itself, but by the effervescent attitude that Brock brought to providing high quality care, free of charge, to the nation’s poorest and most at-risk individuals. He was a force of nature who was not shy about offering help in a crisis.

But while his personality was larger than life, he always struck me as a humble man intent on finding ways to serve. I join thousands of others mourning his loss but am thankful that RAM, an organization he founded and led for so long, will continue doing the good work he started.

For those seeking more information about RAM, this 60 Minutes segment from 2008 summarizes it well.

The post Rest in Peace, Stan Brock appeared first on Show-Me Institute.