Missouri’s education savings account program, MOScholars, which facilitates school choice in Missouri with student scholarships, got a decisive win in court this week. This is not a surprising outcome, but it’s worthy of celebration regardless.

The lawsuit against MOScholars was brought primarily by the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA)—i.e., the teacher’s union—against the State of Missouri. The MNEA argued that the $50 million state appropriation to support student scholarships with MOScholars, passed during the 2025 legislative session, violates the state constitution.

The court dismissed the case, offering several reasons. Most importantly, it ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The plaintiffs claimed harm to public schools, but MOScholars funding comes from general state revenue—not funds allocated to public schools—and the court found that any alleged harm was speculative. The court also noted that the plaintiffs made several other procedural missteps.

The ruling went on to note that even on its merits, the plaintiffs’ case would lose. The legislature has broad authority to appropriate funds, the court said, and nothing in Missouri law prohibits funding a program like MOScholars. In short, the program is legally valid.

Again, this outcome is not surprising, but it’s still nice. The lawsuit was a desperate move by the MNEA to keep a stranglehold on all public education dollars. It failed, as it should have. Onward!

The post MOScholars Wins in Court appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Neglecting a problem doesn’t make it go away, or cheaper to fix. Missouri is learning that lesson with regard to its IT systems right now.

As I’ve written before, many of Missouri’s government computer systems are critically out of date. COVID relief funds helped jumpstart long-needed modernization efforts, but the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill last July means new federal requirements will soon depend on those upgrades.

Missouri’s Department of Social Services (DSS) has been tasked with integrating its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid eligibility systems while preparing for new community engagement requirements. This integration has been needed for years, but the new federal rules make it urgent. The goal is straightforward: simplify how benefits are administered while reducing costly errors. If Missouri cannot bring those error rates down, the state will be responsible for a larger share of program costs.

Some officials have warned that meeting the new requirements could force the department to shift resources away from other modernization work. There is no doubt funding plays a role. Modernizing large government IT systems can be expensive. But in this case, stronger systems are exactly what will make complying with new federal mandates possible.

There are reasons to worry about how this effort will go. This is not the first time DSS has faced a difficult administrative task, and the last major one did not go smoothly. When federal pandemic rules suspended Medicaid eligibility reviews, states had time to prepare for the return of normal operations. Missouri did not use that window to get ahead or fully modernize its systems. When eligibility reviews resumed and the state had to reassess hundreds of thousands of enrollees, Missouri struggled immensely.

More recently, Missouri’s experience with large IT modernization efforts across state government offers another warning. Lawmakers were told a few weeks ago that completing upgrades to the state’s financial management system will cost more than $250 million. This is a project that is already significantly behind schedule and over budget. It should be noted that Missouri’s difficulty with modernization is partly the result of how long these systems were allowed to fall behind. It‘s not surprising that the longer upgrades are delayed, the harder and more expensive they become.

The challenge Missouri faces now is that many of the policies it must implement depend on the very systems still awaiting modernization. Community engagement requirements require technology capable of tracking employment data. More frequent eligibility renewals require information that can move accurately between programs. Lower error rates require systems that can catch mistakes before they turn into federal penalties.

As lawmakers finalize Missouri’s budget in the weeks ahead, this issue should remain front of mind. Modernizing the systems that run the state’s safety net is not a project the state can afford to ignore any longer.

There’s no getting around the fact that Missouri will ultimately have to upgrade these systems. The only real question now is whether the state does it in time to avoid more costly mistakes and federal penalties.

The post Cost of Delaying Safety-Net Modernization appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Governor Kehoe reinforced his support for MOScholars in his recent State of the State address. Building on the $50 million state investment approved during the 2025 legislative session, the governor is calling for an additional $10 million this year, bringing total funding to $60 million. These public funds will be combined with contributions generated through state tax credits to expand school choice opportunities for families across Missouri. Although MOScholars remains small relative to the size of Missouri’s K–12 student population, this proposed increase is a clear positive step toward a richer and more robust school choice landscape.

The governor also announced that Missouri will opt into a new federal tax credit program designed to operate much like MOScholars, but funded through federal tax credits. Under this program, taxpayers may redirect up to $1,700 of their federal tax liability to support school choice in Missouri. If widely used, the federal credit could significantly expand the pool of available funding—possibly enough to generate meaningful competition within the state’s education system.

These developments provide real cause for optimism about the future direction of education policy in Missouri.

The post Kehoe Continues to Prioritize MOScholars in his State of the State Address appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Early Literacy Reform Model Policy Packet includes:

• An infographic with key facts about Missouri’s reading crisis
• Frequently asked questions for policymakers
• Full model policy language for early literacy reforms
• A detailed policy brief with research and state comparisons
• Contact information for policy experts

Read the full Early Literacy Reform in Missouri Model Policy Packet here.

The post Missouri’s Reading Crisis: 42% of Fourth-Graders Can Barely Read appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Longtime readers of the Show-Me Institute blog won’t be surprised by this admission, but hearing the governor finally acknowledge our state’s spending problem hopefully signals a coming course correction. This stands in stark contrast to Missouri’s lawmakers in recent years, who have largely ignored how out of control state government spending has become, despite all the data to the contrary.

Prior to state Fiscal Year (FY) 2026, which began on July 1, Governor Kehoe signed a $50.8 billion spending plan, which was about $2 billion less than what the general assembly sent him. It should be noted, and lauded, that the governor applied some fiscal sanity by vetoing more than 200 spending items. But it’s also important to keep perspective on our state’s current financial mess and how much work fixing it will require.

It’s easy to forget that as recently as FY 2019, Missouri’s government only spent a little more than $27 billion in total compared to the $50 billion for 2025. What’s changed? Missouri’s spending has exploded on almost everything: welfare, education, transportation—you name it, and spending on it probably increased.

In 2019, Missouri’s budget included a little more than $9 billion in general revenue funds (primarily state sales and income tax collections) and nearly $9.6 billion from the federal government. Today, our state plans to spend more than $15.6 billion in general revenue and $24.5 billion in federal funds. If you compare this to the state’s estimates for general revenue collections in the coming year of $15.3 billion, you can see that even after the governor’s vetoes, Missouri’s government is still expecting to spend $300 million more than it projects to bring in. That doesn’t even account for the high likelihood of supplemental funding requests later in the year, and that the state’s supply of federal funding is projected to fall by the billions.

Missouri taxpayers are stuck with a government spending far beyond its means. As recently as 2023, Missouri had nearly $8 billion in general revenue funds set aside that could have been saved for times of need, but instead the state has spent exorbitantly, whittling away at the surplus. Today, those excess funds have been almost entirely depleted. Governor Kehoe recently noted that without his actions to reduce spending, the state was expecting a billion-dollar shortfall going into the next fiscal year.

It’s hard to look at what’s happened with Missouri’s budget over the past five years and view it as anything but a squandered opportunity. Our elected officials managed to take historic tax revenue growth, unprecedented federal investment, and an $8 billion cash reserve and turn all that into a billion-dollar hole in the budget right as the state’s revenue forecasts are taking a turn for the worse. Going into next year, Missouri’s tax collections are projected to decline and there will be no more excess federal dollars to prop up the state’s unsustainable spending. It should go without saying that it is imperative that Missouri’s lawmakers finally get serious about getting the state’s finances back on track.

There’s no longer any dispute about whether Missouri’s finances are a problem. The better question is whether it’s too late to stop the bleeding. Perhaps the most important task for our state’s elected officials over the next year will be finding a solution that’s better than something akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

The post Missouri’s Squandered Opportunity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Back in May, when the concepts for the bill were still being discussed, I wrote about several of the proposals that I thought might be included. As a jumping-off point for a more in-depth discussion of the many reforms included in the OBBB, I thought it would be helpful to first compare what made it across the finish line to the ideas I discussed in my earlier post.

• Rein in financing gimmicks: As I’ve discussed at length, states have recently been drastically increasing their reliance on Medicaid provider taxes in response to rising healthcare costs. The OBBB freezes state provider tax rates where they are today, prohibits states from adopting new ones, and begins lowering the maximum allowable rate from 6% to 3.5% over a period of years (excluding those for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities). Missouri’s current rate for its hospital provider tax is 4.2%, so this change could have an effect on the state’s budget in several years once the OBBB is fully implemented.
• Work requirements: Instead of offering states the opportunity to try work requirements for their respective Medicaid programs, as has been proposed in the past, the OBBB goes one step further by requiring states that have adopted expansion to establish “community engagement requirements” for their able-bodied enrollees. These requirements largely exempt populations that aren’t considered working-age able-bodied adults, such as pregnant women and parents with dependents under the age of 14.
• Reduce “enhanced” federal match: Decreasing the federal government’s skewed payment structure for the Medicaid expansion population was one of my only expected reforms that didn’t make it across the finish line. While this change was excluded, the OBBB does eliminate the temporary increase in federal payment share that has existed for several years, which was an effort to entice states to adopt expansion. It also reduces the federal payment rate for states that cover illegal immigrants under their Medicaid programs.

All told, the OBBB includes at least a dozen additional healthcare changes that will impact Missouri in one way or another that I haven’t mentioned above. It’s also important to keep in mind that much of the OBBB will not go into effect immediately and will be implemented in phases over the next decade. For many of the changes included in the bill, it’s far too early to confidently predict the effect they may have on Missourians or the state’s budget.

Over the coming weeks and months, I’ll dive deeper into some of these provisions as more information related to Missouri comes to light. Time will tell whether Missouri’s government is ready or capable of successfully implementing the reforms on the horizon.

The post Medicaid Reform Incoming appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Congress is expected to debate a budget reconciliation package later this spring that primarily extends tax cuts passed in 2018 but also may include some federal Medicaid spending reforms. Here are a few ideas that have been discussed (keep in mind this is a non-exhaustive list, and all details are subject to change):

• Reduce “enhanced” federal match: As I explained in earlier parts of this series, the federal government is currently paying 90% of all Medicaid costs for able-bodied adults in the expansion population but only 65% for everyone else (aged, blind, disabled, etc.). Congress is considering reducing its expansion share to something closer to what is paid for the traditional population.
• Rein in financing gimmicks: In recent years, states have ramped up their use of Medicaid financing gimmicks to help pay for rising healthcare costs. Missouri is more reliant on provider taxes than almost any other state in the country. Congress is considering changing this arrangement to reduce the amount of money states can earn with these gimmicks.
• Work requirements: Show-Me Institute researchers have been writing about the potential of implementing Medicaid work requirements for more than a decade. But the federal government has rarely allowed them, and after a few court cases several years ago, it was determined that congressional action was needed for them to move forward. While it’s unclear who would be included in the requirements, how exactly they’d work, or whether they would be possible in Missouri, it’s certainly worth watching what Congress decides to do on this topic.

In the coming weeks and months, I’ll be keeping a close eye on whether Congress follows through with any of these reforms. It’s never too early to begin thinking about, if enacted, what they could mean for Missouri. There’s no doubt that the federal government reducing its spending on Medicaid could have an enormous impact on our state’s budget. But as with most things, the devil will be in the details. It will be particularly interesting to see if the federal government affords states any additional flexibility to deal with potential Medicaid changes.

In the next post of this series, I’ll discuss some of the steps Missouri’s lawmakers can take today to reform Medicaid and prepare for any opportunities in the future that could help get the state’s program back on a sustainable fiscal track.

The post Medicaid’s Check-Up: Part 5 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri voters approved Medicaid expansion as a constitutional amendment in August of 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to legal challenges and various technical issues, expansion-eligible Missourians didn’t begin joining the program until October of 2021. As I stated in part one of this series, because of COVID’s impact on the program as well as the federal rules accompanying the increased funding, it’s been nearly impossible until now to fully analyze the rollout of Medicaid expansion.

Before voters weighed in on the measure, expansion supporters made several claims about how the policy would impact Missouri. At the time, I wrote repeatedly about three of their key claims with which I disagreed. First, they estimated that fewer than 250,000 people would enroll within the first year. Second, they said the expansion enrollees would be “newly eligible” for the program, which is something the federal government requires as a condition of receiving extra federal funding. And third, they said the expansion wouldn’t cost state taxpayers any money. In fact, they argued it would save money. Unfortunately, none of these projections came true.

As I also mentioned in part one of this series, prior to the pandemic, Missouri’s Medicaid enrollment was around 850,000, with about 520,000 of those being kids. Within one year of expansion being implemented (October 2022), Missouri’s Medicaid enrollment had ballooned to 1.4 million with 288,000 adults in the “newly eligible” expansion population. Today, with COVID safely in the state’s rearview mirror, program enrollment is still nearing 1.3 million total with 340,000 adults enrolled as a result of the expansion of eligibility requirements. The only Medicaid eligibility category that has seen a decline in recent years is that of people with disabilities—but that is a topic I’ll discuss in greater detail in the next post in this series.

To quickly summarize the impact of expansion thus far, enrollment has exceeded projections by around 35 percent, and current program costs are approximately 75 percent ($7.8 billion) higher than they were in 2019. The prediction that Medicaid expansion would be costless relied on Missouri being able to shift a significant portion of its costs to the federal government, which would in turn have saved state taxpayers money. Thus far, this has not been the case as Missouri taxpayers’ contribution to the state’s Medicaid program has grown by 74 percent ($1.6 billion) over the same period.

While hindsight is 20/20, it’s fair to say that the current problems with Missouri’s Medicaid program were predictable four years ago. Further, there’s no longer any reason to think today’s data represent anything other than the new normal for the program. It’s time to accept that Missouri voters were sold a bill of goods on Medicaid expansion, and it’s incumbent on our state’s elected officials to explore whatever actions are possible in the coming years to fix the problems that expansion has created.

The post Medicaid’s Checkup: Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Download the document here. 

The post 10 Ideas to Get Missouri’s Budget Back on Track appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I don’t mean Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), or the Distinguished Budget Award that seemingly every city under the sun gets.

I mean an audit. The type of audit that gives people nightmares and, presumably, makes them more careful in their accounting and reporting out of fear.

In recent years, we have seen plenty of examples of failed accounting procedures in local government. There have been outright thefts, failures to competitively bid contracts, plenty of conflicts of interest and cronyism, and much more. I don’t think that politicians and bureaucrats in Missouri are less honest than in other states, but I do think that the huge number of small municipalities and other special taxing districts in our state gives them more opportunities for varying degrees of corruption.

We have seen local auditors who totally failed to do their jobs. Seriously, check out these links to the St. Louis County auditor’s page and be amazed at how few audits the office has actually performed over the past decade.

There is a bill in Jefferson City that expands the ability of the state auditor to preemptively begin audits of local governments when there is evidence of problems. Currently, the auditor needs to be invited by local officials or receive a petition from citizens. The former isn’t always done by local officials—for obvious reasons—and the latter can be time consuming and difficult.

This proposal, which is now on the governor’s desk, is an excellent one. It would benefit the taxpayers of our state.

Would it make local officials and bureaucrats nervous? I certainly hope so.

The post The Type of Audit We Can All Agree On appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why stop at 4.5%? As the state’s general revenue grows, shouldn’t tax rates be adjusted accordingly so that the total size of government doesn’t also grow? By eliminating the limit of three reductions to the income tax rate from the law, Missouri can set forth a fiscally responsible glide path to eliminating the income tax entirely, using current law to facilitate this autopilot tax reform. Letting taxes drop as revenues rise is an appropriate and efficient way of achieving this end.

We have talked at length and for years about how destructive income taxes are to growth and why they should be phased out and ended in Missouri. Accelerating that stepdown is worthwhile, but not stopping that stepdown is just as important, given the current law. Policymakers should remove the floor and let the individual income tax rate continue to fall if government revenue keeps rising.

The post Why Don’t We Remove the Floor from Missouri’s Income Tax Triggers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For years now, I have written about how Missouri’s spending habits will eventually prove unsustainable. As a quick reminder, Missouri has set a new record for the largest budget in state history in each of the past thirteen years. Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023 alone, the state’s total budget nearly doubled, and spending of state income and sales tax dollars grew by more than 42%. In other words, this isn’t a trend that can be explained away as solely a federally fueled phenomenon.

Of course, it is true that over the past few years Missouri has received an enormous influx of federal funds as part of the response to COVID-19 and the large infrastructure bill. But as it always does, the federal government will soon begin winding down its state aid, leaving Missouri’s lawmakers with the difficult task of deciding how to fill the holes that their federal counterparts left behind.

As I explained in my report last year, Saving Federalism¸ government spending typically only grows, and lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are a major reason why this is the case. The most common way the feds have kept perpetually growing spending has been through increased financial support during times of emergency.

During the 2008 recession, and again in recent years, the federal government has offered states generous funding to keep their budgets afloat and help them avoid the need for any service cuts. But at the same time, federal officials create or expand government programs that they have no intention of funding at the same level going forward, knowing full well how difficult it will be for states to pick up more of the bill or scale back the program once the emergency is over. This is exactly what Missouri’s government will begin experiencing in 2024.

As next year’s budget requests for the state’s executive departments show, state taxpayers will need to chip in hundreds of millions of additional dollars to continue funding the services expanded by the federal government’s initiatives. Two of the most expensive examples include further extending Medicaid coverage to individuals who likely don’t qualify for the program, and continuing rate increases with state taxpayer dollars for federally subsidized child care that go beyond what the federal government will cover. To be clear, these are dollars that would otherwise be used to fund Missouri’s—not Washington, D.C.’s—spending priorities.

Making matters worse is that reports indicate that state tax collections are down compared to last year, meaning that Missourians can less afford this added expense than in years past. Going into the 2024 legislative session, it’s clear that reining in the budget should be one of our lawmaker’s top priorities. The first step should be rejecting funding for any effort to make temporary federal programs permanent.

The post Growing, Growing, Gone appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When a new tax credit program is approved, it provides a real tax incentive for some favored business (e.g.. film, construction, manufacturing, agriculture, etc.), while also promising future benefits to the state. For those approving the credits (lawmakers), one perk is that the cost of doling out the incentive doesn’t have to be included in the state’s yearly spending plan (because they aren’t technically expenditures). Even better, since the promised return from the state’s investment is in the future, there’s no real way to measure whether the credits fulfill their end of the bargain. In other words, there’s basically no transparency on the cost or benefit side of the tax credit equation.

Are there good reasons why our government should treat spending tax dollars today as fundamentally different from agreeing not to collect them? Economically, they’re the same. For taxpayers, there’s little difference except that spending is subject to Missouri’s balanced budget requirement, which means that that our government can’t agree to spend more than will be brought in via tax revenues. Economic development tax credits have no such limitation.

While there may be some practical reasons for keeping tax credits out of the state’s budget, I can’t imagine that including them would be too difficult, because it’s already how a few agricultural tax credits are treated. Ultimately, it seems to me that when economic times are tough, it would be a good idea for lawmakers to have as many options as possible. Being able to weigh the benefits of subsidizing, for example, movie production via tax credit, against other spending priorities such as education and health care would be a positive move for our state.

Going into 2024, if lawmakers are serious about reining in the state’s out of control spending, shining a brighter light on where each state tax dollar is going (whether spent or foregone) would be a great place to start. Real transparency would mean that Missouri’s economic development tax credits can no longer hide their true trade-offs in the dark.

The post Tax Credit Trade-offs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 1983, the Reagan administration released the results of a nationwide evaluation of America’s education system in a report titled A Nation at Risk. The findings were frightening—so much so, the report stated, that “if an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” A “rising tide of mediocrity” was declared a threat to America’s future.

It’s been 40 years since the report was issued and, in the following decades, Missouri’s education system has struggled to keep its head above that rising tide.

It’s time for our leaders to act.

The post A State at Risk: Education in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unsurprisingly, this document found its way onto my desk with a request that I—a Policy Intern of two months—was basically bred for: fact checking. And fact check I did.

My first challenge was that the governor’s office didn’t “show its work” by citing sources for its claims. A Google search allowed me to infer where some of the rankings came from, but others were harder to verify.

Indeed, I found several online sources that issued rankings that were similar but not identical to the governor’s claims.  Here, for example, Missouri is listed as sixth in cost of living, not third. Some were further off the mark; here not only is Missouri not number two for “low cost of doing business,” we’re not even on the list. And with some claims, I was completely lost. What does it even mean to be “third for apprenticeships?” Is it referring to the number of current apprenticeships? Completed apprenticeships? Apprenticeship applicants? What organization even collects that data?

After consulting longtime staff members here at the Institute, I learned a Sunshine request was probably my best way forward. Sunshine requests legally require Missouri government employees and officials to provide the requested information, provided that they actually have it. Send a request to the correct official—requests tend to bounce around like a customer service call—and if all goes well they will send back the correct records. In some cases, however, you’ll be told that the information does not exist or that there will be a charge for the collection of the information you requested.

So, I typed up a Sunshine request and went to the Governor’s website in search of a contact email to send my letter to. Instead of an email, I saw only this at the bottom of the page:

It’s 2023. Where is the email address? After browsing the website to some length, I concluded that if an email contact point existed for Sunshine law purposes, it was very well hidden. And without an email address, I had to fax it.

Dear reader: if you’re under the age of 35 there’s a good chance you have never had to send a fax before and may not even know what a fax machine is. In short, think of text messaging, but with printers.

While awaiting a response, I pondered the situation. If the Sunshine law didn’t exist, I would have been hunting snipes in my quest for the truth. Yet I felt disheartened by the need to use a Sunshine request. Not every Missourian knows how to do a Sunshine request, or even that they exist—I certainly didn’t before my time at the Institute. It is good practice in any field to cite your sources. Are governments exempt from that expectation? Citizens of Missouri value government transparency and accountability and our governor should respect that value: Show-Me your work.

Several days after I sent the fax, I received a reply. Part two of this blog discusses the response I received from the governor’s office.

The post Just the Fax, Ma’am: Dubious “Rankings” Press Release Emphasizes Importance of Transparency (part 1) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Wanting to do something to address higher property assessments and taxes should not mean doing the wrong thing, though, and doing the wrong thing is where we are headed. Giving one population group a tax or assessment freeze, as state law allows counties to do this year and which many are considering, is wrong for reasons you can read here. A more comprehensive limit on the rise in assessed valuations or taxes, similar to what California famously did with Prop 13 in 1978, is also the wrong thing to do. Proposition 13 has certainly had its intended effect of making it easier for California residents to stay in their own homes. However, it has also reduced mobility, dramatically increased alternative taxes, limited homeownership opportunities, and caused substantial tax disparities among similar properties receiving similar services. This is not what we need for Missouri.

The easiest way to address that—for local governments to voluntarily roll their tax rates back more than legally required (as St. Charles County did in 2022)—is unlikely to happen in most places and especially unlikely for school districts, which make up the bulk of your tax bill. So, what else can we do about property taxes and assessments?

There are things people and government can do in the short term to make the overall process better. Right now, people should be pressuring their local officials to roll tax rates back, especially the Kansas City school district which is the only taxing body in the state exempt from rate rollbacks. Removing that constitutional exemption for KCSD should also be a high priority. That would involve amending the state constitution, but it should be a high priority to get that on the ballot in the next legislative session.

While we are addressing short-term impacts and constitutional changes, adding personal property to the tax rate rollback requirements should absolutely be done. In 2021 and 2022, many local governments enjoyed a windfall from increased used car values. That is not how the system is supposed to work.

Finally, did you know that a few counties require certificates of value to be filed with the assessor when property is sold but most do not? We should require them statewide to help make assessments more accurate, especially in rural areas.

In my next post, I’ll discuss what we can do in the long run to make our property tax and assessment system better.

The post So, What Exactly Should Missouri Do about Property Taxes and Assessments? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But I think this raises a broader concern. Rockwell (not Lew) was right. The surveillance state has arrived quietly in Missouri, which I guess is appropriate when you think about it. After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. The surveillance state appears to be here in various forms, including license plate readers on public roads and intricate video systems on private property.

Numerous facts and beliefs can all be true at once:

• I am highly troubled by a government surveillance system tracking our movements.
• I am well aware that there is no inherent right to privacy on public roadways or in other public places.
• There is clearly no right to privacy on other people’s property, except for certain spaces, e.g. a bathroom.
• Private surveillance systems vary from simple ones that most people, including me, are fine with, to much more complex systems that I find highly troubling (even if they are legal).
• The creation of a comprehensive surveillance system by government has harmful effects on the community even if you trust that the government is only using the system for certain purposes that strike many as legitimate, such as apprehending suspected criminals.
• Finally, if you do trust the government to only use surveillance systems in appropriate ways, I have a camera system on Pluto to sell you for an unbeatable price. Act now!

Citizens have a right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion and, yes, I count continual surveillance by technology as an intrusion. I would hope that local officials would think twice (or more) about installing these systems in their communities. I also think that the state legislature should consider limits on their usage. I may not have a right to privacy when out in public, but the government also should have no right to track my movements as I go about my life. I am surprised many local officials don’t seem to agree with that.

The post The Surveillance State Comes to Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This is a good time to remind people that the City of St. Louis is the opposite case—city government continues to do everything wrong when it comes to the earnings tax. Efforts are underway in Jefferson City to clarify that St. Louis and (presumably) Kansas City cannot tax remote work—as St. Louis continues to do unapologetically—and instead must institute a reasonable process to refund earnings taxes withheld for work nonresidents perform outside of the cities.

What should such a process entail? First, I think employer statements indicating the percentage of time a nonresident has worked outside city limits during a year should be treated as prima facia evidence of that fact. Obviously, there should be penalties for fraudulent filings. Beyond that, if a refund is denied there should be an impartial hearing process by the collector of revenue available at the city level if taxpayers request one. If after such an administrative hearing, the refund is still denied, then taxpayers should have the right (but not the requirement) to file a lawsuit in circuit court. In court, the judge should not be required to assume the city’s prior denial is correct. In other words, taxpayers should have the right to a trial de novo on the merits of their refund claims. Finally, people making claims should be able to recoup court costs and lawyer fees if they are victorious. Since the average amount of a refund claim for any one person would be relatively small, I think few cases would go this far, but cities should be financially responsible if they improperly deny people their legitimate refunds.

Kansas City was not, then was, and now is not again denying legitimate refunds. Kansas City has a fair process posted online. The government of the City of St. Louis has been abusing the process all along and is finally being told by courts it needs to give refunds. Because of the city’s obstinance, it is also necessary to clarify that class action suits are authorized in these instances, as filing a suit against St. Louis for a few hundred dollars is not something most people are going to do, which is exactly what city officials appear to be counting on. The abuse of taxpayers in the City of St. Louis needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.

The post The Earnings Tax Changes We Need appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These questions and others are addressed in this report, which also presents a program-by-program account of how education dollars are spent in the state. To read the full report, click here.

The post State and Federal Funding for Public Education in Missouri: 2023 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.