Below are some new directives that could be relevant to our state’s energy future.

Expediting Nuclear Construction at Federal Sites

One order calls for the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors at both military installations and Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, with timelines that call for completion of the projects near the end of President Trump’s term. To support these goals, the Secretaries of Energy and Defense are required to collaborate with the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality to apply existing and establish new exclusions to certain requirements from the onerous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

If next-generation reactors are brought online, then this could trigger a broader wave of nuclear construction across the country, as another order requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to “establish an expedited pathway to approve reactor designs that the DoD or DOE have tested and demonstrated.”

Essentially, it seems the administration is trying to lighten the load of nuclear regulation for the DoD and DOE, and if they succeed with these new reactors, then utilities and developers could follow in their footsteps.

Reevaluating Longstanding Regulation and Radiation Standards

One of the primary barriers to new nuclear development has been construction costs. Many of these costs have stemmed from the adoption of NEPA and the incident at Three-Mile Island (TMI) creating new, stringent regulations.

One study notes that for reactors already under construction when the accident at TMI occurred, median costs were almost three times higher and plants took almost twice as long to complete (not including costs of interest, delays, etc.) than plants that received their operating licenses before TMI. NEPA also had a similar, yet smaller, effect on construction costs and timelines.

To address these issues, another order calls for sweeping reform of the NRC’s operations and regulations. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is directed to help reorganize the NRC in order to better support innovation and expedite licensing.

Reform is also targeted at the longstanding radiation standards established in the 1970s. To oversimplify, these standards assume there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure, even those below levels that naturally occur in the environment. Essentially, if a nuclear developer can reasonably lower its levels of radiation exposure, it should, regardless of cost or relative risk. These policies have contributed to rising costs and a lack of predictability in both the licensing and construction process. The new executive orders direct the NRC to consider adopting a fixed and predictable exposure threshold, which should improve the environment for financial investment in nuclear.

These are just some of the key changes that are occurring in nuclear energy. If Missouri is to take part in the industry’s growing resurgence, we should be paying close attention to these developments. One way to do this is by establishing a Missouri nuclear advisory council. Such a council could bring experts together to present critical information for new development, assess emerging opportunities, and identify areas for improvement within the complex and rapidly changing nuclear landscape.

Listed are all four executive orders, each issued on May 23, 2025:

(1) Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security

(2) Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base

(3) Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(4) Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy

The post What Could New Executive Orders on Nuclear Mean for Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’m often asked if school choice is an effective policy. In other words—do states that let parents easily choose from a number of publicly funded options for their children do better than those that don’t? We need NAEP to know the answer. Also, folks want to know if Missouri is improving or getting worse when it comes to educating our students. Well, the state has changed its own test several times in the last decade, so the only way we can know is to look at NAEP scores.

It’s difficult to achieve accountability in a vacuum. Gutting something in the name of cutting costs can be costly in itself. Missourians should hope that NAEP, federal education data collection, and the federal role in researching what works in education get rebuilt quickly and thoughtfully.

The post Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So here is my contribution to the effort. Just tell St. Louis’s Bi-State Development Agency (also known as Metro) “no” on its application for around $700 million in federal funds for the ludicrous Green Line (formerly known as the North-South Line) proposal. Like Nancy Reagan said to Arnold on Diff’rent Strokes, “Just say no.”

The new leadership in the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) has instituted major changes in how the DOT is going to make decisions. This doesn’t look good for the Green Line, as the St. Louis Business Journal wrote about this week. The new DOT guidelines state that, among many other things, the DOT isn’t funding projects for local political purposes or social justice reasons. The new DOT leadership is focused on moving people and goods, and actually moving people is one thing the Green Line isn’t going to do. Metro’s own estimates—which based on history are probably inflated—claim that the Green Line will have only 5,000 boardings (so, about 2,500 people) per day. That is for a billion-dollar project. That’s absurd.

Whether you call it the “Green Line” or the “North-South Route,” I call it an inevitable failure and a huge waste of tax dollars. Even if you support MetroLink, there is no reasonable argument for the Green Line project. The federal government ought to reject this plan and many other similar, though not quite as bad, applications from around the country.

You’re welcome, Elon.

The post Hey Elon, Here Are Some Cost Savings for You in St. Louis . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What’s Happening in Jefferson City?

Get the inside scoop on the Missouri legislative session and policies that could directly impact the lives of Missourians at the Show-Me Institute’s Insider’s Hour! Join CEO Brenda Talent, Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy Elias Tsapelas, and Senior Fellow Patrick Tuohey for a discussion on tax and education policy and the latest efforts to improve government efficiency.

Wednesday, March 26

Carriage Club

5301 State Line Road

Kansas City, MO 64112

Doors open: 4:30 p.m.

Discussion and Q&A: 5:15 – 6:00 p.m.

Ticket Price: $20.00 (includes light snacks and beverages)

Get your Tickets Here

The post March 26: Insider’s Hour in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While the governor’s announcement didn’t precisely outline what he had in mind for Show-Me DOGE (department of government efficiency) or the timeline for implementing it, there’s reason to believe such an endeavor would be worthwhile for Missouri. Given the numerous examples of waste found by the federal DOGE effort thus far, and the fact that Missouri’s budget has nearly doubled in the past five years, it’s likely that a closer look at our state finances would be able to uncover significant savings.

Last month, my colleague Aaron Hedlund and I published a guide for establishing a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE). Our guide explained Missouri’s recent runaway spending growth, discussed the benefits of the executive branch leading the charge of finding inefficiencies and cost savings, and outlined key principles that would increase the likelihood of success for any DOGE-type effort.

The ideas from our guide were informed by the work of then-California Governor Ronald Reagan back in 1967 that used private funding and non-government experts to provide an unbiased outside perspective on California’s government. All told, Reagan’s effort was able to find more than 2,000 areas for reform in short order, and if all were implemented, would have saved taxpayers more than $500 million, which adjusted for inflation would amount to about $4.2 billion today. Unfortunately, only about half of Reagan’s recommendations were ultimately implemented.

Reagan’s experience makes it clear that buy-in from both the legislative and executive branches of Missouri’s government will be necessary for success. The good news is that both chambers of Missouri’s general assembly have already established their own committees on government efficiency and have begun working diligently.

It’s long past time for a serious effort in Jefferson City to rein in the state government’s excess, and it’s great news that so many of our elected officials have stated their interest in taking up the task. Missouri’s general assembly has already started its work. Now it’s the governor’s turn to follow suit and seize the opportunity to rightsize our state’s government.

The post Where’s Show-Me DOGE? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If Missouri’s elected officials are serious about addressing our state government’s unsustainable growth, they should look at past efforts undertaken across the country to see what might work. Perhaps the most successful state-based cost-cutting initiative in history was then–California Governor Ronald Reagan’s 1967 executive order creating the “Governor’s Survey on Efficiency and Cost Control”. (The text of that order is available here.)

Reagan’s blueprint outlined some some key principles that any Missouri initiative should consider:

Governor Created

• The Governor is the elected official best situated to coordinate an effort that examines all parts of Missouri government and to start implementing solutions. He can ensure that all executive branch officials cooperate in providing information and executing reforms.

Goal-Oriented

• To help ensure success, the initiative needs to start with a clear mission, a top-level objective, stretch goals, and a commitment from everyone involved (inside and outside government) to reach those goals.
• Much of the data needed to inform decisions will not be immediately available. Rooting out inefficiency will require targeted requests or establishing new metrics to get the information necessary to achieve the initiative’s goals.

Led by Non-Government Experts

• Reagan understood that getting a handle on government growth required innovation, creativity, and outside-the-box thinking that could only come from those outside of government. A Missouri initiative should seek insights from business executives, nonprofit experts, former government officials, and financial consultants with prior public-sector knowledge or experience successfully turning around companies.

Privately Funded

• Efforts to find cost savings in government shouldn’t be dependent on government funding for functioning. Reagan’s efficiency initiatives at both the state and federal level were entirely funded by private sources.

Pre-Specified Timelines

• Time is of the essence for Missouri when it comes to cutting costs. Ensuring the work is completed in a thorough and expedient fashion will require deadlines, perhaps with the option to extend them based upon meeting preapproved metrics.

Commitment to Implementing Solutions

• One of the biggest hindrances to Reagan’s cost-cutting efforts was a lack of legislative commitment to implementing the survey’s recommendations. In fact, only about one third of the recommended cost savings could be realized without any legislation being passed. Going into the efficiency exercise with a commitment from legislative leaders will be key for the initiative’s lasting success.

All told, Reagan’s citizen-led commission of more than 200 private-sector leaders was able to recommend, in short order, more than 2,000 reforms to improve California’s government operations and significantly cut costs. These recommendations included long-term savings estimates for California taxpayers of more than $500 million, which if adjusted for inflation would amount to about $4.2 billion today.

A similar result for Missouri today would be a much needed step in the right direction. It’s long past time for a serious effort in Jefferson City to rein in the state government’s excess, and taking a page out of Reagan’s book by turning to the private sector for meaningful solutions might be the most promising path forward for achieving long-term success.

Following the Reagan and DOGE frameworks, here are some specific examples of what a Missouri initiative could look like:

Creation

• Establish by executive order a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE)

Objective

• Mission: The Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE) would conduct a comprehensive review of Missouri’s government. This review would include all services, programs, spending, regulations, and administrative practices. The goal would be to determine how Missouri’s government can be improved, as Governor Reagan specified in his original executive order, to be “the most efficient, expeditious, and economical” in the country.
• Pre-Specified Timelines: This review, along with actionable recommendations, should be completed by no later than December 31, 2025.
• Insights from Business (performance metrics): Given that Missouri’s budget is approximately twice its pre-COVID size, federal COVID relief for states is ending, and state tax revenues are down, a reasonable goal would be to return Missouri to its fiscal year 2019 cost trajectory unless a cost–benefit analysis by MOGE clearly justifies an alternative savings target. In dollar terms, this would amount to an approximate inflation-adjusted reduction of $2 billion in general funds.

Organizational Structure

• Led by Nongovernment Experts: The governor could appoint two highly respected leaders from outside of government who have a proven track record of delivering transformational change to large organizations to lead MOGE. In addition, to help ensure the initiative’s success, MOGE leadership should be allowed to select any additional staff or members they deem necessary to conduct the review.
• Privately Funded: The Governor or his allies could fundraise, as Reagan did, to fund MOGE. Ensuring that all funds used to conduct the work of MOGE come from private rather than public sources removes any undue leverage that government could have over MOGE and its policy recommendations.

Commitment to Implementation

• Agency Cooperation: The Governor could order all government agencies to give full and timely cooperation to any MOGE requests for access to data or other information that MOGE deems necessary to conduct its work, except for any instances expressly prohibited by law.
• Citizen Participation: MOGE leadership should commit to publishing intermediate findings and recommendations, formally submitting progress reports to Missouri’s General Assembly, and creating a website or holding public hearings to solicit input from members of the public who in many cases have pertinent first-hand knowledge of government inefficiencies and needed services that MOGE’s internal audit of agencies may not fully uncover.
• Legislation: Fostering input and cooperation from Missouri’s General Assembly will be essential to achieving MOGE’s specified goals. To that end, the Governor should seek a commitment from legislative leaders both to cooperate with the MOGE efforts and to advance the legislative initiatives recommended to reduce the cost and increase the productivity of state government.
• Transparency: MOGE leadership should make all final recommendations public with supporting analysis and make its leadership available for public hearings and information sessions to explain its findings and methodology.
• Accountability: After MOGE issues its recommendations, the executive branch should be required to respond to every agency recommendation by either implementing it in full or detailing why it is not doing so.

The post Establishing a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE) 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.

• Nuclear War
• Total Surrender
• Recommended State Department policy

The understanding of the joke is that whatever policy or ideas elected officials want to enact, it is the government employees—the bureaucrats—who have to carry it out. Too often, the bureaucrats carry it out in a manner that benefits them, not the elected officials or the public. (I care more about the latter.)

The City of St. Louis is experiencing a problem like that right now, with its efforts to combine its three 911 systems into one. Consolidating 911 centers should be one of the low-hanging fruits for service sharing among local governments. There are numerous examples of it benefitting communities in Missouri. Unfortunately, while many efforts have succeeded, a few have been stalled due to resistance from local bureaucrats.

The problems in St. Louis are all the more confusing because this effort is entirely within the same city government. In theory, it should be easier to implement service sharing in one government rather than sharing 911 services across different governments (which isn’t really that hard, either.) But, shockingly, the various city employee unions have thus far been able to stall the reform efforts. The mayor’s plans to consolidate and improve the 911 system have been blocked, thus far, by the unions representing the dispatchers who are currently within different departments. From the article:

One union represents police dispatchers, and another represents EMS and fire dispatchers. The unions have demanded bargaining over any dispatcher cross-training. Uncertainty about which union would represent a combined dispatcher position slowed attempts by Mayor Tishaura Jones and her former public safety director, Dan Isom, to allow dispatchers to handle all types of emergency calls.

The unions complained Jones and Isom’s plans for consolidation were made without consulting them and that the changes in job duties were clearly something that should be covered in contract negotiations. [emphasis mine]

Missouri attempted major public-sector union reforms a few years ago. While some reforms were passed into law, a lawsuit unfortunately led to the reforms being overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court.

St. Louis has public sector unions delaying improvements to a system that would improve the city’s currently terrible 911 system and spend tax dollars more efficiently. But hey, fiefdoms have to be protected, right?

FDR was right about public sector unions. They shouldn’t exist.

The post Looking For Bureaucratic Efficiencies in All the Wrong Places appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That pushback didn’t materialize, though, because not only would jobs not be lost, but the workers at Crossroads would be employed at a nearby facility. Specifically, when I heard it mentioned during debate on the Senate floor that Crossroads was across the street from the facility it would be consolidated with—the Western Missouri Correctional Center (WMCC)—at first I thought that was an exaggeration. “Across the street?” Really?

But lo and behold, Missouri has had two prisons operating across the street from each other for about 20 years now:

Why it took so long to consolidate the prisons, I’m not sure. Because Crossroads is a maximum-security prison, security will have to be fortified in at least part of WMCC, to the tune of about $3 million. Perhaps that was the reason. But that $3 million is a small price to pay for even larger savings, and from a good governance perspective, it sure looks like bringing these facilities together is the right call. Missourinet elaborated on the reasoning for consolidation:

The department has been battling to fill hundreds of correctional officer job vacancies. [State Department of Corrections Director Anne] Precythe says the reorganization plan will create a fully-functioning, safe environment, versus trying to “limp along” with two half-staffed, half-full institutions.

The estimated $20 million savings from closing CRCC is slated to give department employees, minus executive staff, a one percent pay raise for two years of continued service. If Parson’s proposed three percent state worker pay increase happens, then corrections workers would get another raise. Precythe has touted the pay boost as the largest in the department’s history.

This consolidation may have been in the works for a while, but whatever its genesis, it’s an elegant solution to saving taxpayer money and reorienting, if ever so slightly, the state’s criminal justice strategy. If the state can build fewer prisons and push potential inmates back into being contributing members of society, Missourians on the whole will be that much better off.

The post Prison Consolidation a Smart Step Toward Better Government appeared first on Show-Me Institute.