It’s an issue we don’t talk a great deal about, but it’s one that we’ve had a clear and long-standing stance on. Back in 2012, my colleague Michael Rathbone wrote about the problems with a proposal that would have further limited vertical integration of alcohol distribution in the state, and in 2013, my colleague David Stokes testified on the matter before the Missouri Legislature. It was logical, then, that we would have a stance on litigation that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on yesterday, and for which we submitted an amicus brief in collaboration with the Washington Legal Foundation in 2018.

The case, Missouri Broadcasters Association v. Dorothy Taylor, centered on a very specific aspect of Missouri’s three-tier law that prevents producers and distributors from providing certain advertising materials to retailers. Although there are many policy problems with the three-tier law, the First Amendment issue here is particularly egregious. Even though commercial speech has historically been subject to greater regulation, courts are generally reticent to impose or enforce content restrictions and burdens on commercial speakers. And as our amicus brief notes, these content impositions are substantial:

In § 311.070.1, Missouri prohibits alcohol manufacturers and distributors from “directly or indirectly, loan[ing], giv[ing] away or furnish[ing] equipment, money, credit or property of any kind” to “retail dealers.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 311.070.1. This blanket ban prohibits manufacturers and distributors from giving any advertising-related support to retailers. In § 311.070.4(10), however, Missouri allows manufacturers and distributors to advertise on behalf of retailers, so long as the advertisement (1) excludes any mention of retail price, (2) lists “two or more unaffiliated retailers,” (3) does so only once, and (4) displays the retailers’ names inconspicuously. Mo. Rev. Stat. 4 § 311.070.4(10). But this “exception” is just an unconstitutional condition on exercising First Amendment rights.

And yesterday, the court of appeals agreed. Readers can find the ruling and our full amicus brief attached at the bottom of this page. We may have more to say on this matter in the future, but for now, suffice it to say that we are pleased with this outcome and hope that policymakers will, separately, consider doing more to dismantle Missouri’s antiquated alcohol regulatory regime in the future.

The post Raise a Toast: Missouri Three-Tier Speech Prohibition Struck Down appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That doesn’t mean that nothing should be done on taxes this year. In fact, a bill that would reform the state’s corporate income tax, sponsored by Sen. Andrew Koenig, has emerged from the Senate and is now before the House for consideration. The bill, Senate Bill 674, represents good policy pursued on a revenue-neutral basis, and while the legislation could be imagined as a “side car” to comprehensive tax reform plans, the bill itself is a strong standalone measure that would drastically reduce the state’s corporate income tax rate.

Cutting the corporate income tax is a cause near and dear to my heart and, with my colleague Michael Rathbone, it was the subject of one of my first essays at the Institute in 2012. That essay dove deeply into the importance of corporate income tax reform and some ways to achieve it, drawing on the broad academic consensus about the economic destructiveness of income taxes. To quote researcher Jens Arnold of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,

[a] stronger reliance on income taxes seems to be associated with significantly lower levels of GDP per capita than the use of taxes on consumption and property. Within income taxes, those on corporate income seem to be associated with lower levels of GDP per capita than personal income taxes. In fact, corporate income taxes appear to be the least attractive choice from the perspective of raising GDP per capita. [emphasis mine]

That’s why SB 674, even on its own, is important. Thus, the concern here—and a concern shared by the Washington D.C.–based Tax Foundation—is not policy-specific, since the bill is a good one, but procedural. If SB 674 is amended in the House, chances are good that the bill would simply die as the legislative session comes to a close, since the Senate would have to reconsider it and time is obviously running out.

I think most reformers would want to see reform come all at once, and in truth, there is no reason why over the last two years that couldn’t have happened on tax reform. But there is something to be said for methodical incrementalism, and I hope that serious consideration will be given to the subject of corporate income tax reform on its own terms as a springboard to larger reforms, passed this year or in the near future.

After two years of missed opportunities, it would be excruciating to see another opportunity for reform vanish at the end of this legislative session. I hope the House doesn’t let this happen.

The post Incremental Tax Reform: Don’t Let the Perfect Be The Enemy of the Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When Michael Rathbone and I released our report, “Betting on the Big Returns: How Missouri Teacher Pension Plans Have Shifted to Riskier Assets,” in 2015, we stated that pension plans should be more transparent about funding possibilities. We wrote:

To improve transparency, lawmakers could require pension plans to forecast assets using multiple assumptions on investment returns. What would the funding ratio for each of these plans be if returns are 4 percent or 6 percent instead of 8 percent? This is something policymakers should know as it would allow them to choose the best way to structure contributions so that downside is minimized and that these plans can be adjusted to adapt to any unexpected downturns that may occur.

The report is exactly what we called for. It illustrates how the forecasts of the health of the system will be affected by varying contribution rates and investment return assumptions. Here and in a follow-up post I will present some of the findings from the KCPSRS report.

The main takeaway is that the system could be in serious trouble within the next two decades. Currently, the system is 64% funded with $349 million in unfunded liabilities. Next year, the plan expects to pay out $85 million in benefit payments. In contrast, the system will only collect $33 million in pension contributions. This is because the participants in the plan are trending older and older. Today, more than three-fourths of the members of KCPSRS are retirees:

The tables below present projections for the funded ratio over 10 and 20 years under different scenarios that take into account various rates of return and contribution rates. Currently, active members of KSPSRS and their employers each pay 9 percent of salary into the system for a contribution rate of 18 percent.

The best-case scenario within 10 years is that the system will improve to an 86% funded ratio. If the plan doesn’t make any changes to contribution rates and receives the expected rate of return of 7.75 percent (the actuarially assumed rate), the funded ratio will drop to 53%. In 20 years, the funded ratio could continue to drop to less than 40 percent.

But here’s the real kicker, the authors write that “The probability of insolvency is 2% at the 10 year horizon and increases substantially to 42% at the twenty year horizon.” You read that right. Within 20 years there is a real possibility that the KCPSRS could be insolvent. We hear all the time that these defined-benefit plans are great for retirees. Well, not if they are bankrupt.

In my next post, I’ll discuss how the system may address the issue of unfunded liabilities.

The post Kansas City Teacher Pension Faces Possibility of Insolvency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In his remarks, Cozad compared Kansas City to Indianapolis. According to a case study written by The Show-Me Institute’s Michael Rathbone, Indianapolis is similar to Kansas City in education, median household income and poverty levels. Indianapolis has about twice the population of Kansas City and is just a little larger than Kansas City in total city area. (The study also compared us to Tulsa, Denver, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. Louis, and Louisville.)

Despite the larger population and larger geographical area than Kansas City, Indianapolis appears to be run much more efficiently. Their total government spending per capita is much lower than Kansas City’s, $1.411 to our $2,354. They spend much less on city administration per capita and less for about every other category the paper examined, including public safety, public services, culture and recreation and capital outlays. The Mayor’s own Citizen’s Commission on Municipal Revenue reported in 2012 that Kansas City has a higher number of employees per capita than most other cities it considered.

If Kansas City leaders were able to bring total spending per capita ($2,354.05) just halfway down to what Indianapolis pays ($1,411.64), it would save us $220 million each year, almost exactly the amount the earnings tax provides. They don’t have to match Indianapolis—or the even more efficiently run Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Omaha or Louisville—just get us hallway there.

Even if Kansas City just lowered its per capita city administration spending from its current $210.59 down to the level of Omaha ($109.57) the city would save $46 million per year. We’d save $78 million per year if we reduced it to what Indianapolis spends ($43.47).

Instead, our leaders prefer to dig in their heels and offer only scare tactics about cutting public safety spending. Don't taxpayers deserve better?

The post The Cost of Inefficiency in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The problem our home inspection revealed was below the surface. It wasn’t causing any noticeable problems today. Down the road, however, it could have caused a fire, resulting in irreparable harm.

Recently, Michael Rathbone and I performed an inspection of our own—not on a home, but on Missouri’s teacher pension systems. Similar to my home inspection, we found something troubling just below the surface. Missouri’s teacher pension systems have shifted to riskier assets. This shift has not caused any noticeable problems as of today; and like my reversed polarity, may not ever cause any harm. Of course, an increase in risky assets also increases the possibility that the house could burn down.

Imagine if upon receiving my home inspection, I had yelled at the inspector, “You just hate houses!” As ridiculous as that might seem, that is exactly the reaction Michael and I have received. In response to a recent op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader, in which we called for increased transparency so that the problem could be monitored, we were vilified. One pensioner even claimed that we dislike public education. The author of the response to our op-ed then went on to list several facts that were not germane to the point we made.

Somehow it seems our message has been lost. Therefore, I want to reiterate the point of our paper, “Betting on the Big Returns: How Missouri’s Teacher Pension Plans Have Shifted to Riskier Assets,” one more time. Missouri’s pension investments are becoming more risky. In other words, the house isn’t on fire, but it is becoming more flammable. It would be wise to monitor the investments more closely and plan for these increased risks. 

The post The House Isn’t On Fire, but It Is at Greater Risk appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Most recently, Michael Rathbone and I pointed out that Missouri’s teacher pension systems have shifted to riskier assets. From this study, we concluded that lawmakers “should be aware that these pension plan returns are based on increasingly risky assets and acknowledge that fact when planning for the future.” In particular, we suggested that the plans should forecast assets based on various expected rates of return.

On August 7, PSRS Executive Director M. Steve Yoakum issued a three-page response to the paper. Mr. Yoakum claims that our study “provides a limited and somewhat biased view of PSRS/PEERS and the Systems investment strategy,” but in the rest of his response he acknowledges several of the points we made.

Mr. Yoakum acknowledges the shift away from fixed-income investments and toward higher-risk investments, and goes on to justify this shift by citing lower returns on the former and greater opportunities “in other areas of the investment universe.” This is essentially the point we were making: equities and alternative investments have historically delivered higher returns than fixed-income investments, but they also carry greater risk.

Our paper states that current teacher and school district contributions do not cover the existing obligations, meaning that pension plans must rely on investment returns in order to meet their obligations to members. Mr. Yoakum’s response: “Only if we exclude income from investments is this true.” It is difficult to describe this as anything but a restatement of our point.

We stated, and Mr. Yoakum’s response acknowledges, that public employee pension systems have moved toward riskier assets than they held in the past. Much of Mr. Yoakum’s response is devoted to explaining this change—which is important— but the point of our paper was not to question the reasons behind the shift. Our goals were instead to document this trend and to endorse the recommendations of the Pew report that we cited repeatedly in our own study, namely that “Government sponsors can demand better reporting of future expected costs and the associated downside risks, and then use this information to make decisions about ways to deal with poor outcomes, should they occur.”

We remain committed to these recommendations, and we stand behind every word in our study. 

The post SMI Responds to PSRS on Teacher Pension Fund Risk appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Following my remarks, Councilwoman Cindy Circo asked me about a chart they had been shown by a previous speaker. The chart, which I had not seen in the hearing, showed worker productivity and real minimum wage tracking with each other until about 1970, when worker productivity jumped and minimum wage stayed flat. Councilwoman Circo asked what might have explained that change.

After some research, I was able to speak to the chart to which Councilwoman Circo referred. Here is the email I sent:

Dear Councilwoman Circo and City Council:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee as a Whole today regarding the minimum wage. You may find an electronic copy of Michael Rathbone’s testimony here: https://showmeinstitute.org/publications/testimony/red-tape/1298-on-the-enactment-of-a-living-wage-in-kansas-city.html.

Furthermore, a 2012 study that is the source for my claim that only 13% of minimum wage earners live in households at or below the poverty level is here: https://showmeinstitute.org/document-repository/doc_download/356-full-policy-study-pdf.html.

You asked about a slide that showed worker wages and worker productivity parting ways about 1970. While I was not in the hearing at the time that was presented, I believe it is from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), published in March 2012. A copy of a memo from CEPR that discusses the graph is here: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage1-2012-03.pdf.

My colleague Michael Rathbone has written about that memo and the attention it received from U.S. Senator Warren. He writes:

“The study… talks about average productivity. Average workers do not earn the minimum wage. This study does not track changes in the productivity of workers who make at or below the minimum wage. Isn’t it possible that the largest increases in productivity have been among more skilled employees who already earn above the minimum wage?”

A copy of his post on the memo is here: /2013/03/the-22-an-hour-question.html.

In short, because CEPR did not separate out minimum wage workers from others, the data is not very helpful. It is entirely possible, for example, that the increase in worker productivity shown the their chart after 1970 is the result of the introduction of computer technology used by white collar workers. These workers would not have made minimum wage.

Michael’s post is also helpful because it links to Christine Romer’s piece in The New York Times in which she indicates that minimum wage increases are not the best way to address poverty.

I hope this addresses your question. If you or any of your colleagues have additional questions, I will do my best to address them or find someone who can.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Regards, Patrick Tuohey

The post Show-Me Testimony on Minimum Wage appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As first appearing in the Columbia Missourian:

“Beware the Greeks bearing gifts” is one of the better-known sayings in classical literature, a reference to the Trojan Horse of antiquity. Its meaning: When someone offers a gift that looks too good to be true, be careful. It may be filled with hidden menace. This is the case today with Senate Bill 419 (SB 419), a bill before the Missouri General Assembly that would expand—and supposedly “reform”—Medicaid.

The text of the proposal pays lip service to a cadre of good market reforms: health savings accounts, private option insurance plans, and setting new standards for maximizing cost-sharing obligations, to name a few. But all of that is just eye candy. Nothing in the language of the bill guarantees that any reforms will actually occur. SB 419 supporters (incorrectly) portray the plan as a “block grant” that would provide the state with maximum flexibility to craft a “Missouri solution” to Medicaid’s cost and quality problems. The bill, however, actually calls for Missouri to request a waiver from the federal government—so that it actually can be allowed to receive funds as a block grant. The difference between a waiver and a block grant is not simply an issue of semantics. Block grants are financial aid packages the federal government awards to states. These grants can be applied to general areas of social welfare instead of specific programs. Block grants sound good, and they generally are good because they maximize state flexibility. SB 419, however, isn’t a block grant. Missouri does not have the power to block grant Medicaid funds from the federal government, hence the need for the waiver.

Even if the federal government approved a waiver today that included all of the market reforms we could dream up, the federal government could simply deny the waiver’s renewal in the future—leaving the state with the Medicaid expansion of SB 419 but none of the reform. Take Florida for example. It’s being coerced into Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion after the federal government revoked their waiver agreement, which actually predated the Affordable Care Act. SB 419’s suggested reforms may not last even if approved, but the costly expansion it puts into motion might very well remain, tucked neatly inside Troy’s—that is, Missouri’s—doors.

Moreover, there is no reason for “reform legislation” to concentrate power for future eligibility determinations for the Medicaid program in a 10-person committee—as SB 419 inexplicably does—rather than with the general assembly, as is the case today. Is it really a ”reform” to make future Medicaid expansions achievable through a small cadre, rather than through all of the elected members of the general assembly? Is that who we want making multibillion-dollar state commitments with the metaphorical credit cards of our kids and grandkids?

In fact, the bill’s subtle legislative craftsmanship not only cloaks the cost of the plan in the garb of conditional and ultimately temporary reform, but it also shifts decision-making power so that legislation won’t even have to be passed to make expansions in the future. That should worry us all.

Medicaid really does need to be reformed, both for beneficiaries and taxpayers, and to be clear, many of the ideas articulated, but not guaranteed, by SB 419 are quite good. But Missourians need to be very cautious before embracing a plan that purports to “fix” Medicaid’s problems when it is simply more likely to exacerbate them. Better to leave a wooden horse outside the door.

Michael Rathbone is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Beware Medicaid Expansion, Even If It Is Billed as Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These days there are a lot of calls to make people pay their “fair share,” and no, we are not referring to the 1 percent. We are talking about smokers. The argument for raising the tax on cigarettes is straightforward—smoking is harmful to individuals, and though smoking is an individual decision, it impacts each of us. We all bear the brunt of additional health care costs incurred by smokers. These are what economists call negative externalities. They are, in theory, why smokers should be taxed more for their behavior—to offset their costs to society. Most proposals to raise the cigarette tax, however, seek to tax smokers to pay for unrelated programs, such as education.

For example, Erin Brower of Raise Your Hand for Kids is seeking to put a 50 cent increase on the ballot to fund early childhood programs. Missouri Treasurer Clint Zweifel has proposed an increase to fund college scholarships, an idea Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster supports. In a recent special to the Joplin Globe, Koster called for a 73 cent per pack increase. These are certainly not the first calls for increasing the tax. In the past 15 years, tobacco tax increases have appeared two times on the ballot. Each time Missouri voters have had the opportunity to tax smokers more, they have failed to do so. Why?

First, Missourians are leery of using “sin” taxes to fund other programs, especially education. This was the same tactic used to legalize gambling in Missouri. Lawmakers said the revenue from gambling would go to education. They did not tell voters, however, that the money would supplant not supplement existing funds to education. There are fears that the same would happen with proposals to raise tobacco taxes.

Second, using tobacco taxes to fund other programs simply does not make economic sense. Missouri’s lowest-in-the-nation tobacco taxes help draw in an untold number of shoppers across state lines, especially in Kansas City and along the Illinois border. These shoppers make it a point to buy their cigarettes in Missouri, thus creating sales for our local businesses and generating tax revenue for the state. Raising the tobacco tax would deter these shoppers.

Tobacco taxes also have the negative distinction of being one of the most regressive taxes. Smokers tend to be from lower-income households. At the same time, middle-income families would benefit from many of the programs created from increased tobacco taxes, such as college scholarships. Thus, if Zweifel and Koster’s proposal was implemented, low-income families would be subsidizing the college education of middle-income families. What is the “fair share” for smokers to pay for a middle-class student’s college education?

The truth of the matter is that smokers are an easy group to target. Few, except for other smokers, are sympathetic to their plight. At the same time, we all support better educational opportunities for Missouri students. Therefore, taxing smokers is a relatively easy way to raise taxes to fund educational programs.

If lawmakers are seriously concerned about the negative externalities causes by smokers, they should direct tobacco tax revenue directly back to smoking prevention programs and the Medicaid costs for smokers. That is the only logically and economically consistent use of the tax revenue.

James V. Shuls, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri–St. Louis and a fellow at the Show-Me Institute, where Michael Rathbone is a policy researcher.

The post Taxing Smokers Does Not Show Support of Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Our earlier analysis used information provided by Atlas Van Lines and United Van Lines. These moving companies track outbound and inbound moves for all states. Calculating the ratio of outbound moves to total moves provides a rough gauge of whether more households are relocating into or out of a state.

Both companies recently published their findings for 2014. The table below reports the ratio of outbound to total moves for Missouri and its neighboring states. The evidence from Atlas Van Lines shows that more households moved out of Missouri (55.5 percent of total moves) than in. United Van Line’s 2014 National Movers Study also finds that outbound moves exceeded inbound moves.

Here are two aspects about these numbers. First, they prolong a trend that began several years ago: more households moving out of Missouri than moving in. Second, in 2014 Missouri’s percent of outbound moves exceeded that of most neighboring states. The Atlas report found that the percent of outbound moves was lower in six states relative to Missouri. Five states had relatively fewer outbound moves than Missouri, according to the United study.

“Relying on data sources as varied as moving companies to the Census Bureau and the IRS,” Rathbone and I noted, “our evidence reveals that, especially since 2007, more of Missouri’s residents have relocated out of the state than others have moved in.” Updating the moving company figures does not alter that conclusion.

The post Still Movin’ On Out appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! Public Dollars for the Edward Jones Dome? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! Missouri businesses on the Dole appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This November, many Columbia residents will be concerned about whether the football Tigers will finish off their SEC schedule in a winning fashion. They might not give much thought to the looming decision of whether to increase their own property taxes by 30 cents per $100 of assessed value over the next five years. If passed, after the fifth year the average Columbia homeowner would see an $88 increase in their property taxes. The money from this tax increase would further fund public safety.

Public safety is clearly a major public good, and it should have sufficient funds to deliver adequate services to the residents of Columbia. However, there are good reasons to believe that a 73 percent increase in property taxes, not 4 percent as one proponent has claimed, is not necessary at this time. Below are some pros and cons to this proposed tax increase.

PRO:

Proponents of the tax increase correctly state that the number of police officers per 1,000 residents has declined over the past several years. Coupled with this decrease in the ratio of police to residents, the inflation-adjusted budget for the police department has declined as well. This means that a decreasing number of police have fewer financial resources while serving an increasing population.

CON:

These decreases in funding and personnel, detractors argue, have not led to an increase in crime. According to the FBI, in Columbia total crime per 100,000 residents has declined slightly since 2009. There has been a much larger drop in violent crime since 2009. More officers might make crime decrease even further, but that is no guarantee. Many cities in Missouri have more police per 1,000 residents and more crime as well.

PRO:

Columbia has fewer firefighters than comparable Midwest towns. Also, firefighter response times are increasing as more Columbia residents have moved farther away from fire stations.

CON:

With the exception of 2012, the number of fires in Columbia has been on a steady decline. This decrease in the number of fires is coupled to a budget that continues to increase, even when adjusted for inflation.

There are other options for Columbia residents to consider if the November measure fails. For instance, the city could look at the fire expense reimbursement it receives for services performed for the three colleges in town. According to the Columbia budget, these reimbursements are projected to decline in the next few years. Columbia can renegotiate with these colleges in order to get higher reimbursements.

Columbia could privatize its water and electric utilities. The sale of these utilities not only would bring in immediate money, but it also would expand the property tax base, which would generate more funds for the police and fire departments.

Voters in Columbia have a lot to think about when considering whether to raise property taxes this November. There are reasonable points for and against this proposal. Whether the tax increase passes or fails, there still are other methods for raising revenue in the city. City residents should not think their only option going forward is to increase taxes or cut back on public safety services.

Michael Rathbone is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Please Convince Me: The Pros and Cons to Raising Property Taxes in Columbia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! Give Tax Cuts A Chance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! Missouri’s Economy is Lagging Behind appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! Missouri’s 2014 Budget appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This presentation covers three main points: what caused the Great Depression; what caused it to go on for so long; and how did we finally get out of it.

Many believe that the cause was the stock market crash of 1929, which caused the Great Depression and a laissez-faire approach toward the crisis, ultimately making things worse. However, that is incorrect. In fact, while the crash started the crisis, it was a series of well-intentioned but poorly thought-out government actions that turned a sharp recession into a depression.

This presentation details how, in fact, President Roosevelt built upon the policies of President Hoover to combat the Depression. However, these policies did not get the country out of the Depression. In reality, it took a combination of events, including World War II, to actually end the Depression and restore strong economic growth. After watching this presentation, you will have a better understanding of that era in American history and the effects of public policy on the economy.

Download the slide show

The post Why Was The Depression So Great? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! Michael Rathbone on Education Funding appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Yesterday on the Show-Me Daily blog, my colleague Michael Rathbone pointed out that “there is no correlation between how much a school district is ‘underfunded’ and its actual performance.” In other words, districts that are more underfunded do just as well as districts that are nearly fully funded.

In the table below, I present all of the districts that scored a 100 percent and a 70 percent or below on the 2013 Missouri School Improvement Program Annual Performance Report (MSIP 5). Next to each district’s MSIP 5 score, I present the amount each district is underfunded per student as reported by the Missouri Budget Project. As you can see, in many cases, schools that are doing very well are relatively more “underfunded” than our lowest-performing schools.

So, are Missouri schools “underfunded”? It depends on what definition you use. They are underfunded when using the definition that the Missouri Budget Project uses, but they may not be if underfunded means “adequately” funded. Maybe we need to start rethinking how we fund education, not just how much.

Level of “Underfunding” in Missouri’s Best- and Worst-Performing Schools

The post Are Missouri Schools Underfunded? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Michael Rathbone on Stadium Sweetheart Deals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.