Susan Pendergrass speaks with Cory Koedel, director of education policy at the Show-Me Institute, about Missouri education policy following the 2026 legislative session. They discuss the governor’s A to F letter grade executive order, why literacy legislation failed to pass, leadership turmoil at DESE, Show-Me’s latest Report on the effects of open enrollment, the case for expanding charter schools in Missouri, and more.

The post Missouri’s Stalled Education Reforms with Cory Koedel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Show-Me Institute analysts have written often about housing in these pages. Missouri doesn’t face the same affordability crisis as coastal markets, but that doesn’t mean policymakers are powerless to further reduce costs.

A recent executive order from President Trump aims to lower housing costs by reducing federal regulatory barriers. The order directs federal agencies to review environmental rules, permitting processes, and other regulations that can delay projects or raise costs.

This isn’t a new insight. A 2016 report from the Obama administration warned that regulatory barriers—especially zoning and land-use restrictions—have made it harder for housing markets to respond to growing demand.

The Trump order addresses part of that problem. But the most consequential barriers to new housing are found at the municipal level. Zoning determines where housing can be built—and how much. Minimum lot sizes, parking mandates, height limits, and single-family zoning can sharply restrict supply. When zoning allows only a small number of homes on large parcels of land, the cost of each unit inevitably rises.

Federal action also played a role in shaping these systems. Throughout the twentieth century, federal housing programs promoted local zoning and land-use regulation as tools for stabilizing property values and guiding development. Those policies encouraged the spread of zoning frameworks that remain common today.

The administration’s order stops short of addressing local land-use restrictions directly. Addressing federal rules may help at the margins, but without local reforms, many communities will continue to limit the amount of housing that can be built.

Supporters of strict zoning sometimes argue that land-use decisions should remain entirely local. Local authority is important, but it does not eliminate the broader consequences of housing shortages, and it should not be used in a way that violates individual property rights. When cities restrict construction, as Kansas City did with rigid energy code standards, the effects ripple across regions through higher rents, longer commutes, and constrained labor markets.

If policymakers in Kansas City, St. Louis, or anywhere else want to make housing more affordable, they should start with the rules that determine whether housing can be built at all.

The post Trump Executive Order Targets Some Housing Regulation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is a much-needed improvement to school accountability in Missouri. Parents and community members will finally have access to clear information about how their local schools are performing.

Following the governor’s address, I wanted to re-up my post about school report cards from last May, which helps to explain why the letter-grade requirement is sorely needed and how it improves upon our current school report card system.

It is printed in full below.

———

Information Overload and Missouri School Report Cards

Have you ever started reading the warning label on an over-the-counter drug like aspirin or ibuprofen? Ever finished one? Probably not.

Drug warning labels are classic examples of information overload—so packed with details that they become practically useless. Unfortunately, the school report cards produced by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) suffer from the same problem.

In theory, these report cards should help parents and community members quickly understand how their local schools are performing. When well-designed, they can promote transparency and inform decision-making. But if a school report card is not organized and does not emphasize the most important information, it functions like a drug warning label. It can include a lot of detail but be of little practical value.

If you’re curious to see this for yourself, here is a link to the school report cards made available by DESE. Choose a district, then a school, and you can scroll through a vast amount of information. However, after you’ve taken the time to look through it all, you may realize you haven’t learned very much. DESE’s report cards may be comprehensive, but they fail to deliver what busy families need most: clear, accessible information about school quality.

Now, contrast the Missouri report cards with this report card for Briarmeadow Charter School in Houston, produced by the Texas Education Agency. At the very top, letter grades in four categories are displayed prominently:

• Overall Rating: A

• Student Achievement: A

• School Progress: A
• Closing the Gap: A

With just a glance, you know where this school stands.

Texas is not alone in this approach. States such as Florida, Illinois, and Louisiana also use summary performance indicators on their school report cards to give the public a clear picture of school quality. Unlike Missouri, these states are courageous enough to rate schools based on performance, and most importantly, publicly identify schools that are failing to educate their students.

It’s no coincidence that students in states with strong transparency and accountability policies, including clear and informative school report cards, consistently outperform Missouri students academically. These policies are key drivers of school improvement, and without them Missouri is only likely to fall further behind. School report cards that are informative about actual school performance are a simple way to get our state moving in the right direction.

The post Meaningful School Report Cards are on the Way appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These days, though, I have come to love St. Louis too. It is a big city with a small-town feel. I go to an amazing church, and there is always something new to do or see.

Growing up in East Tennessee, I know firsthand how much that region has been defined by nuclear innovation, a tradition that continues today. Recently, Oklo Inc. announced that it plans to build a $1.68 billion nuclear recycling facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which is a stone’s throw away from my hometown. This project joins a wave of planned nuclear investments in the region, including a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment facility and the planned construction of a new small modular reactor (SMR).

While I am excited for East Tennessee, I also want Missouri to grow and thrive. Leaders here have recognized the importance of nuclear power, with Governor Kehoe stating that we need to build new nuclear at “business speed.” If Missouri wants to attract the same kind of investment Tennessee has, we should follow its example, starting with the creation of a nuclear advisory council.

What Could a Nuclear Advisory Council Look Like?

Just as Missouri should take note of Tennessee’s zero-income-tax advantage, we should also learn from its policies on nuclear energy.

In my recent report, Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, I detail how the formation of a nuclear advisory council—modeled after Tennessee’s—could help fortify our grid and attract needed investment to our state. A council would bring together the brightest minds to provide accessible information, engage with stakeholders, and foster key partnerships at no cost to taxpayers.

Our state already has unique assets that position us well for nuclear development, and a council could advise how to best use these strengths. It could also flag weaknesses in regulation, workforce development, or siting. Further, a council could help identify opportunities for utilities or even independent off-grid electricity providers if our state allows it.

Tennessee’s council, created by an executive order from Governor Bill Lee, has already helped signal resolve to interested developers and foster a more nuclear-friendly environment. Missouri has the ability to do the same.

Creating a nuclear advisory committee is a simple first step. Hopefully, another big nuclear investment next door can motivate Missouri to follow in Tennessee’s footsteps (and maybe we can also start making all iced tea sweet by default, please).

Interested in this idea? Read a more in-depth analysis in my recent report:

Connecting Nuclear’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future

Check out these other related articles:

Forming a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council

Missouri’s Nuclear Opportunity with Avery Frank

What Could New Executive Orders on Nuclear Mean for Missouri?

The post Tennessee Lands Another Nuclear Project appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

While I will avoid any spoilers, the new movie, Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning, has an eerie resemblance to current events. The seventh and eighth films in the franchise revolve around a rogue artificial intelligence (AI) entity taking over cyberspace, with different nations racing against the clock to capture this entity and dominate the rest of the globe. The plot today may be different, but the emerging battle for AI-supremacy seems similar.

Recently, President Trump issued four executive orders aimed at unleashing nuclear energy to establish America’s “energy dominance” and maintain national security amid a potential global AI arms race. These orders could lead to the repeal or reform of burdensome regulations that have constrained the American nuclear industry in past decades. Did I expect national security to be a key driver of nuclear energy reform? Not exactly, but this is not an unprecedented scenario.

From the Battlefield to the Home Front

At the height of World War II, nations began working to apply atomic physics to wartime technology. This led to America achieving the world’s first self-sustaining nuclear reaction under the stands of Stagg Field in Chicago. While nuclear technology’s first use was in the atom bomb, its debut as an energy source came soon after with the launch of the USS Nautilus in 1954.

Since then, the technology has had a prominent role in both military and civilian affairs. Nuclear reactors are used to power submarines and aircraft carriers, and 19 percent of the United States’ electricity generation comes from nuclear power plants. National security had a role in its origin story—and now, it may be a factor in the nuclear industry’s resurgence as well.

An Opportunity for Missouri

To win an AI arms race, speed and time are of the essence. Missouri could position itself as a strategic partner by finding ways to more quickly connect new nuclear power to energy-intensive AI data centers.

One policy that could shorten the time of construction of nuclear power plants and also protect Missouri consumers from price hikes is consumer regulated electricity (CRE).

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (encompassing both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to 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 CRE systems would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and serve only new industrial and large commercial customers—like AI data centers.

CRE could not only attract investment but also relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising electricity demand (driven by large consumers), CRE could provide a targeted solution. New Hampshire passed a CRE measure this year, and Missouri may benefit from evaluating how its statutes could be amended to allow for such innovation.

By connecting it directly with national security, the Trump administration has made the development of nuclear-energy infrastructure an urgent priority. The mission for Missouri—if our policymakers choose to accept it—is to position the state to take part in the revitalization of nuclear power and reap the accompanying economic benefits. Adopting CRE is one important way in which Missouri could help meet the nation’s needs while benefiting in the process.

The post Mission Impossible and Nuclear Energy: President Trump’s New Executive Orders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Positive trends in regulation, attitudes toward nuclear power, and technology have fueled a resurgence in American nuclear power. The good news for Missouri: our state has a strong history with nuclear power and engineering. With real national momentum, Missouri has an opportunity to leverage our existing strengths to benefit from this resurgence.

A Simple First Step: Forming a Nuclear Advisory Council

A straightforward step would be forming a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council to inform comprehensive strategies for guiding nuclear development. Tennessee’s recent experience offers a replicable model.

In 2023, Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee established a nuclear advisory council through executive order to inform legislative actions for addressing regulatory, education, and workforce barriers, as well as strategies for financing, waste storage practices, and opportunities Tennessee should pursue with federal partners and agencies. For example, the council recommended amending a regulatory statute to classify nuclear energy production facilities as Certified Green Energy Production Facilities, leveling the playing field with renewables.

Tennessee’s council serves as a model of collaboration and expertise, with membership that includes:

• Directors of interested state departments: Environment and Conservation, Economic Development, and Emergency Management
• Officials from the state legislature, congressional delegation, and local government
• Experts from higher education, utilities, workforce development, the energy production sector, and the nuclear industry
• Representation from the regional national laboratory
• Additional members as determined necessary by the governor (Tennessee opted to include more experts and scientists).

Missouri could create a similar council through executive order, establishing a platform for collaboration among the state’s brightest minds.

Potential Focus Areas for the Council

While Tennessee’s council had a partial focus on economic development, Missouri’s council could prioritize identifying best practices and potential legislative solutions without interfering in market outcomes.

To provide one example, the council could identify and evaluate suitable locations for new advanced nuclear facilities. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that repurposing coal plants for advanced nuclear reactors can reduce construction costs by up to 35%. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has already identified retired and retiring coal plants in Missouri as promising sites for new reactors. The council could assess these opportunities and recommend actionable steps.

The Potential for Missouri

Missouri has the talent, the track record, and the need to build new, advanced nuclear facilities. A nuclear advisory council could bring these elements together to inform best practices for new nuclear development in our state, catalyzing investment, attracting high-paying jobs, and securing a reliable energy supply for decades.

The post Forming a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council 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.

As I’ve written in the past, telemedicine has been an important part of Missouri’s response to COVID-19, and unfortunately, our state is still dealing with the coronavirus. Prior to the pandemic, state rules and regulations made accessing health care providers remotely more difficult than it needed to be. Telemedicine has become an increasingly popular option among providers and patients alike in the 21 months since these restrictions were lifted.

The growth of telemedicine over the past two years has been staggering. Recently, the chief medical information officer for BJC Medical Group testified in Jefferson City that more than 190,000 patients used its telemedicine services in 2020, up from only 4,000 in 2019. That’s a 4,750% increase in one year! Given telemedicine’s rapid growth, our elected officials need to ensure that access to these services can continue.

Of course, the best way to protect access to telemedicine would be for Missouri’s legislature to remove the currently waived regulations permanently. And as we head into the 2022 legislative session, I’m hopeful this will finally be the year our elected officials do just that. But until then, an executive order is the only way to preserve access to telemedicine.

The post Extend Telemedicine Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The governor’s move extended the regulatory waivers on various telemedicine restrictions that have been in place since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Over the past 18 months, I’ve written repeatedly about the importance of keeping these waivers in place, which were set to expire on August 31st. But while the extension was a wise decision, it also raises an important question: if the waived regulations were burdensome enough to warrant their continued suspension, why should they return once COVID-19 has been defeated?

Of course, the past year and a half has been unprecedented, but there are still valuable lessons that can be learned from the experience. What began as an effort to help Missouri’s hospitals and clinics from becoming overwhelmed has now grown into one of the most popular ways to receive non-emergent care.

Prior to the pandemic, telemedicine was a growing but sparsely used option. This was due in large part to various laws and regulations that made accessing providers remotely far too difficult. Regulations limited who could provide services, where those services could be delivered and received, and how services could be paid for. Two of the most egregious examples: a prohibition on telemedicine providers that weren’t physicians already licensed in Missouri, and a requirement that a provider must have physically seen a patient in person before they could treat them remotely.

Fortunately, responding to COVID-19 required our government to quickly reconsider the ways in which the status quo was stifling health care access. With cases of COVID-19 rising and serious concerns about Missouri’s hospitals having adequate capacity to treat those infected, allowing Missourians with other health care needs to stay at home and avoid contracting the virus by virtually interacting with their providers made a lot of sense. But it should be just as easy to access health care services outside of a global pandemic as well.

Missouri has come a long way over the past 18 months, as the state’s legislature has adopted license reciprocity to allow out-of-state providers to work in our state. But the coronavirus is still here and access to health care will remain a serious concern long after the virus is gone. For now, the remaining telemedicine restrictions are only held at bay by the governor’s executive order. Going into next year’s legislative session, it’s time for the legislature to finally take action and remove the barriers to telemedicine permanently.

The post Telemedicine Waiver Extended appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The lawsuit challenges the authority of the Biden administration to set the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) through executive order and direct all federal agencies to use this value in their evaluation and issuance of regulations. The SCC is an attempt to place an economic value on the damage that each ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions causes to society. The damage comes from things such as health impacts, climate impacts, and the expected impact of future environmental changes on the economy over many decades. The SCC is used in cost–benefit analyses of a wide range of environmental and energy policies, ranging from regulations on air conditioners and microwaves to new laws on electricity generation.

The new administration set the SCC at $51 per metric ton of CO2, in contrast to the prior administration’s value of $7 per ton of CO2. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to evaluate the economic consequences of CO2 emissions for society as a whole, the SCC has shortcomings as a policy tool.

Here’s how a simple cost–benefit analysis using the SCC would work. Suppose a particular policy would reduce 10 tons of CO2 and costs $200 to implement. If the SCC is $51 per ton, this program would provide $510 (51 times 10) worth of societal benefits. $510 of benefits is greater than a $200 cost, meaning the policy would be in theory beneficial and a cost-effective way to reduce CO2 emissions. If the SCC is $7 per ton, this program would provide $70 of societal benefits, and it would not be worth the $200 cost.

The SCC is an attempt to place a value in today’s dollars on costs that may not occur, if at all, until far into the future. The calculation of this present value of potential future damages is done in the reverse manner to how one uses interest compounding to project the future value of current investments in a savings account. In this case, though, the “interest rate” in present value calculations is called a discount rate.

Calculating the present value of future potential damages is very sensitive to the chosen discount rate, with relatively modest changes to the discount rate (say, from 3 to 5 percent) producing drastically different estimates of the present value. These changes can be so large as to mean the difference between concluding that additional CO2 emissions would result in catastrophic environmental damages or that society would be significantly worse off implementing emissions reduction policies. Even if two SCC models have the exact same scientific predictions about future climate impacts, slightly different discount rates can produce wildly divergent cost–benefit assessments about environmental policies and the damage of CO2.

Recent academic literature on the SCC also reveals uncertainty regarding the economic impacts of climate change. How humanity adapts to a changing climate is an uncertain area of environmental research. Moreover, unforeseen technological breakthroughs can quickly change environmental projections, such as how fracking turned the United States into a world leader in emissions reductions over the last 15 years by replacing coal usage with natural gas.

In sum, calculating the SCC is subject to policy, legal, and value judgments in addition to scientific considerations, and all of these layers can have significant economic and practical consequences.

Missouri’s lawsuit raises the important question of which branch of government should determine the official SCC, as well as the appropriate procedures that should be followed in evaluating energy and environmental policies and regulations that affect everyday life.

The post Why is Missouri Suing the President Over the Environment? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Show-Me Institute researchers have spoken favorably of these regulatory waivers. These waivers have allowed us to better respond to the COVID-19 crisis and have reduced the burden on scores of workers and businesses during these trying times.

The question that I’ve been asking for months comes back to mind: If we don’t need these regulations for the rest of the year—which would bring us to about 9 months without these regulations—do we need them at all? Extending these regulatory waivers is a great first step, but lawmakers should take the leap and make these waivers permanent.

The post A Small Step Forward, But Let’s Take the Leap appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is less surprising is that the governor of Kansas, who embarked on a highly publicized economic development truce with the governor of Missouri, is critical of the additional Waddell and Reed incentives. The Kansas governor is quoted in The Kansas City Star as saying:

My executive order limiting the use of state incentives was premised in part on Missouri local units of government bringing their property tax incentives to a level playing field with Kansas. Without that action, a true ceasefire cannot occur.

There always was less to the border war truce than people wanted to admit. The agreement was vague and full of loopholes, and I wrote as much in the Kansas City Business Journal in August. No piece of legislation or executive order is as important as a leader’s resolve, and without the ability to say no to incentives, the truce is meaningless.

The post Waddell & Reed and the Border War appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The executive order calls for agencies to pinpoint “at least two” current regulations to be repealed for each new proposed regulation. And it says the net incremental cost for fiscal 2017 should “be no greater than zero,” meaning the cost of new regulations should be offset by existing rules that will be rescinded.

House Speaker Paul Ryan applauded the order in a statement Monday afternoon, noting that it builds on House Republicans’ “Better Way” agenda and comes as the lower chamber is set to repeal a number of Obama era regulations this week.

“The explosion of federal regulations has hamstrung small business growth and crippled our economy,” he said. “President Trump’s executive order helps bring the nation’s regulatory regime into the 21st century by putting regulators on a budget, and addressing the costs agencies can impose each year.”

After the President’s announcement, my colleague Mike McShane reminded me that, in fact, he has talked about precisely the same kind of regulatory reforms in the past. In his case, the context was education. From his US News and World Report piece from last year:

Our Tory compatriots across the pond offer a way forward. In 2010, the Conservative government of the United Kingdom implemented what they called “one in, one out” (later revised to “one in, two out“) that required government to remove a regulation of equivalent compliance cost for every new regulation that they proposed. Want to require a new form to be submitted to the Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills tracking how businesses recruit new employees? Lovely, not a bother at all. You simply must find another form that takes the same amount of effort or another requirement that takes the same amount of time and eliminate it.

But the regulatory push doesn’t end there, of course. Newly inaugurated governor Eric Greitens has established his own regulatory beach head to fight from, and while it may not be “one in, two out” quite yet, it’s reasonable to believe something similar is on the horizon. That regulatory freeze is important because it halts business as usual in the state bureaucracy and offers an opportunity for a clear-eyed reassessment of what the state is doing well, and doing wrong, in its rulemaking and regulatory processes.

Expect more about good-government regulatory reforms as this year’s session proceeds, but it is refreshing to see that our state and federal governments may soon be getting smaller, one rule at a time.

The post Regulatory Reform Emerges as Major Issue, Nationally and in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why doesn’t Missouri follow suit? In our state, government workers, such as police and firefighters, are often required to pay for union activity, whether or not they want to be a member of a union. Many police and firefighters in this situation gladly accept representation by their union and would be happy to pay voluntarily. However, the government should not force workers to pay for services they don’t want.

Sometimes workers end up paying for two unions at the same time. In Saint Louis, the St. Louis Police Officers Association (SLPOA) has mostly represented white police officers, while the Ethical Society of Police has historically acted for African-American police. Recently, SLPOA won a union contract that allowed it to force payments from all rank-and-file officers. This action forced members of the Ethical Society to choose between leaving the employee association that they wanted to represent them or paying dues to two unions at once.

Illinois’ new order is a serious gain for liberty. Missouri could enact similar reforms. Indeed, doing so would protect the rights of police and firefighters who do not want to be forced into paying for the services of a group that they haven’t voted for and don’t want as representatives. For those government workers who protect us, it’s the least we can do.

The post Illinois Makes Union Fees Voluntary for Government Workers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.