MOScholars isn’t a hypothetical policy experiment anymore—it is a rapidly scaling alternative for families across our state. In just four years, student participation has gone from just over 1,300 students to nearly 6,500. The state treasurer’s office reported a massive surge in applications early this spring, indicating that even more families would like to participate in the program this fall.

It is likely that the number of scholarships will expand even further in the near future. Governor Kehoe recently announced that Missouri will opt into a new federal tax credit program, allowing any U.S. taxpayer to redirect up to $1,700 of their federal liability toward school choice initiatives in any participating state, including Missouri.

When we fund students rather than systems, we create an environment where every child has a path to success. The legislature’s decision to back the growing demand for MOScholars with a $60 million commitment shows that parental empowerment is no longer a fringe priority. Now, the focus must shift to ensuring this funding flows transparently, efficiently, and directly into the hands of the parents who know their children’s needs best.

The post The $10 Million Budget Boost for MOScholars Is a Win for Missouri Families appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

During his State of the State address in January, Governor Mike Kehoe indicated Missouri is opting into the federal government’s new school choice tax credit program. The program resembles Missouri’s MOScholars program. Taxpayers can receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit for donations up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship-granting organization, or SGO, in Missouri. The SGO then distributes scholarships to families in Missouri seeking alternatives to their residentially assigned public schools.

For many families, the scholarships will be used to pay private school tuition. But the potential is broader. At least two public school districts in Missouri already participate in MOScholars, allowing nonresident students to use scholarships to pay transfer tuition; a similar arrangement may be possible under the federal program. Funds could also support homeschooling expenses, tutoring, after-school programs, or enrollment in a microschool (the latter is a fast-growing but loosely defined sector and there is no clear consensus on what defines a microschool). The eligibility criteria are still unsettled.

Non-traditional providers are pushing for few guardrails and minimal regulation, while others argue for stronger oversight and quality controls.

I have mixed feelings. The real value of this program is its potential to expand Missouri’s education marketplace. Competition improves quality in virtually every sector of the economy, and education is no exception. But markets don’t work well when consumers have poor information, so I’d like quality controls and transparency so parents can make informed choices. Here’s the tension: expanding choice and imposing quality controls can work against each other. To illustrate, consider a heavily regulated system in which schools that accept the tax-credit payments must administer standardized tests, publicly report results, and disclose detailed information about their curricula and finances. This level of transparency would reassure policymakers, but the problem is that we cannot force private providers to participate.

And if we make it too difficult (and too costly) to participate, which schools are the most likely to opt out? The answer: the ones that already have plenty of customers without this new program—likely the best schools. And if the best schools opt out, it undermines the value of the education marketplace we’re trying to build in the first place. (This is a complicated problem. See here for a deeper discussion in the context of research that finds negative effects of a voucher program on student achievement in Louisiana.)

I don’t have all the answers, but I hope Missouri lawmakers think carefully about how to strike the right balance, particularly if the federal government gives states meaningful discretion in implementation, which I expect it will. I’d favor a middle-of-the-road approach that requires participating schools to provide straightforward, low-cost information, but without overly burdensome regulations or reporting requirements. I want the best education providers to open their doors to more Missouri students; I don’t want to scare them away.

The post The Dicey Details of the Federal Government’s New School Choice Tax Credit Program appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal reports, high-tax states continue to bleed residents and income. Between 2022 and 2023, California lost a net $11.9 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI), New York $9.9 billion, and Illinois $6 billion. Higher earners with income over $200,000 drove much of this exodus. In Massachusetts, they accounted for 70% of outflows, doubling the 2019 share.

Meanwhile, no-income-tax states saw the largest gains. Florida added $20.6 billion in AGI, Texas $5.5 billion, and Tennessee $2.8 billion. Even non-income tax states with more frigid climes saw significant inflows, including Wyoming and South Dakota. In short, states without income taxes dominated the top destinations for both people and wealth.

Missouri, with its current 4.7% top individual income tax rate, sits in the middle of the pack. While we are not a major loser like California or New York, we are far from the magnet status of Florida or Tennessee. Drawing upon IRS migration data, past Show-Me Institute reports have shown that Missouri has consistently lost more people and more income than it gained. This has been particularly the case among working-age and higher-earning households seeking better economic climates.

These national migration patterns emerge at a pivotal moment for Missouri. State lawmakers recently approved HJRs 173 and 174, a proposed constitutional amendment backed by Governor Mike Kehoe that would ask voters to authorize the gradual phaseout of the state’s individual income tax. If approved, the general assembly would begin reducing the tax as revenues grow and would have the authority to speed up the process while modernizing Missouri’s outdated sales tax code.

Eliminating the income tax would align Missouri with proven winners in the migration data, making our state far more attractive to high earners, businesses, and young professionals—key drivers of growth. Moreover, we sit right next door to Illinois, which, while losing top earners at a breakneck pace, is also ranked the least friendly state for middle-class earners according to one report.

The pattern is clear. People and capital continue to flow to states with lower tax burdens and pro-growth policies. Missouri has the chance to join those states. By modernizing our tax code now, we can shut off the outflow of the past and build a more prosperous future.

The post Missouri’s Opportunity to Attract Talent: Latest IRS Data on “Voting with Their Feet” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri House Speaker Jonathan Patterson suggested to Fox4 news in Kansas City that Missouri’s contribution to a Royals stadium could reach around $700 to $900 million. Patterson said:

“I think if you look at the numbers, and there was an audit in 2023, the teams generate almost $60 million, and so if you take half of that, then it would be $30 million, then times 30 years, it could be that number. I think those are good estimates that you’re working with.”

That number is way off.

In 2025, during a special legislative session, the House and Senate passed, and the governor signed, Senate Bill (SB) 3, the Show-Me Sports Investment Act. While the bill does not specify a bonding formula, it does set limits: that state spending “shall be no greater than . . . baseline year state tax revenues,” that appropriations may “not exceed thirty years” and that “the net bond proceeds . . . shall not exceed fifty percent of the total costs of the project.” In setting those boundaries, the bill also limits revenue to that “derived directly from the facility.”

Patterson’s estimate of stadium revenue is from a 2023 Jackson County Sports Complex audit, which reports $55 million in tax revenue generated by both teams (the Chiefs and the Royals). But that figure includes all tax revenue collected by state, county, and local jurisdictions. Of that $55 million, only $34,929,233 went to the state—which is what SB 3 covers.

But SB 3 further limits potential support for the Royals to revenue generated only at Kauffman Stadium. Let’s assume half that number, $17 million, is from the Royals’ Kauffman Stadium,* which aligns with estimates provided by Governor Mike Kehoe. If that entire amount were bonded at 6% interest over 30 years, Missouri would be able to give the Royals $234 million.

Another news outlet assumed a 4.5% interest rate over 30 years and concluded the state would be able to give the Royals about $274 million.

Either way, it’s a far cry from $900 million.

There is a lot more to learn about this deal, but SB 3 provides real constraints on what can be counted and borrowed against. Based on the legislation, the 2023 Jackson County audit, and different interest rates, Missouri could contribute roughly $234 to $274 million toward a downtown ballpark. That’s a lot, but only a small portion of what many believe to be a nearly $2 billion project.

*Note: Although the Royals play more games at their stadium than the Chiefs, Arrowhead Stadium has a larger capacity and also hosts concerts for musicians such as Taylor Swift.

The post By the Numbers: What Missouri Might Give the Royals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We’ve written a lot at the Show-Me Institute lately about A–F letter grades for public schools. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will soon begin assigning these grades to all schools and districts under an executive order from Governor Kehoe. Legislation to codify the order may follow, depending on how the 2026 session unfolds.

A central component of these letter grades is student growth. Growth measures how much students learn over the course of a year, based on state assessments. To estimate growth, the state uses a statistical model to generate a “predicted” level of progress for each student. Schools and districts are then evaluated based on how their students perform relative to those predictions. In simple terms, high-growth schools are those where students consistently outperform expectations. You can read more about the Missouri Growth Model here.

I’ve studied academic growth extensively and believe it is the most accurate indicator of school effectiveness we have. No other measure comes close.

New evidence in support of this view comes from a study by researchers at MIT. The study compares test-score growth to a popular alternative for evaluating school quality: schoolwide surveys. The authors assess how well growth-based and survey-based measures predict important student outcomes, including high school graduation, graduating with distinction, and college enrollment and persistence.

The MIT study was conducted in New York City, where the district administers surveys to students, families, teachers, and staff. The surveys are designed to capture school climate across several domains: rigorous instruction, teacher collaboration, supportive environments, and trust. School surveys are intuitively appealing, especially for those who are skeptical of standardized tests. But how do they stack up to growth when it comes to identifying schools that produce strong outcomes for students?

The answer: not very well. The surveys are a little better at predicting high school graduation, but much worse at predicting more meaningful and differentiated outcomes including graduating high school with an advanced diploma, enrolling in college, and persistence in college. The authors conclude: “From the point of view of parents seeking to boost their children’s odds of going to college, test information is most valuable.”

The research evidence on the value of student growth as an indicator of school quality is overwhelming. This is just the newest study to add to the list. School surveys are nice, but when it comes to identifying effective schools, objectively measured growth is far superior.

The post Test-Score Growth Is the Best Metric We Have for Understanding School Performance appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In Governor Kehoe’s State of the State address, he declared that Missouri is “all-in” on nuclear energy. But the question of how the governor plans to turn this statement into a reality remains.

Part of being “all-in” could include allowing the creation of private electricity grids (often referred to as consumer-regulated electricity (CRE)), to bolster the development of next-generation nuclear technology.

Free-Market Principles and the Future of Energy

Private electricity grids could be key to opening the energy sector up to testing and innovation—something that is difficult on a ratepayer-supported grid.

Due to mountains of regulation, public fear, and high costs, there has been little recent experience in constructing nuclear power plants, as only seven of the 94 operating reactors in the United States were built after 1990. While continued regulatory reforms are absolutely imperative, opening the sector to specialists to gain expertise would be significant.

Specialists will be needed to rapidly deploy any new technology like small-modular reactors (SMRs). However, it is expensive to build new technology (as SMRs would be), since there are likely to be unforeseen challenges. These first-of-a-kind (FOAK) costs usually come down with experience and repetition, but asking regulated utilities to handle it would likely be slow and expensive. Further, it simply may not be a risk that ratepayers are willing to accept.

With CRE, different types of private developers could meet different needs for large projects separated from the grid supported by ratepayers.

Consider an example. CRE would allow a private electricity developer that specializes in SMRs for data centers to partner with a data center developer to meet its desire for clean nuclear energy. This is a very lucrative market—there are significant incentives to specialize in meeting this demand, and this kind of pairing allows each party to do what it does best.

New deployments with less red tape would help test new technologies more quickly and identify areas to improve efficiency—which could reduce build time and lower costs in the long run.

There is a lot of uncertainty in today’s energy sector. There is also the opportunity and the need to innovate. Hopefully, Missouri can use the free market, rather than solely rely on government planning, to help usher in the next generation of nuclear technology.

The post Opening the Nuclear Sector Up to Innovation in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Missouri House of Representatives recently passed a bill requiring that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) assign A–F letter grades to schools and districts statewide. The bill now heads to the Senate, which is also considering its own version.

The legislation is meant to build on and improve Governor Kehoe’s executive order from January. Unfortunately, it does not improve on the executive order; in fact, the version that emerged from the House is much worse.

The main problem with the House bill is that it has veered off topic. Governor Kehoe’s short and simple executive order mandates letter grades based on academic performance. This is what we need. The House bill adds language that would create new school climate ratings based on surveys of teachers, parents, and students, which would also go on the report card.

This is problematic for three reasons:

Most importantly, it will distract us from academic outcomes. Academics are where our schools are struggling, and until we focus on them, the situation is not going to improve. This is illustrated most easily with data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, which is widely viewed as providing the most credible test data in the country. Here are charts showing changes over time in Missouri’s national rank on NAEP, in 4th- and 8th-grade reading, since about the turn of the century:

Our 4th-grade reading results are especially bleak—we rank 38th out of the 50 states as of 2024, whereas two decades earlier we ranked in the low twenties. Today, an alarming 42 percent of our 4th graders score Below Basic on NAEP.

Making matters worse, our ranking decline since about 2015 is in the context of generally declining test scores nationwide. Our scores are declining faster than the rest of a declining nation.

Governor Kehoe was correct to focus on academic outcomes, and the focus should stay that way.

Unlike data on academic achievement, which we already collect, survey data for this new school-climate requirement do not exist. It is difficult to develop and implement a high-quality survey with a high response rate. Have our lawmakers considered how we would get these surveys done?

As one of several concrete technical issues, consider the survey response rate. We cannot make parents fill out surveys. So, what if they don’t? What if we end up with schools and districts where fewer than 10 percent of parents fill out a survey (which is very possible)? Are we going to hold a school with a 10-percent parent response rate accountable for negative survey results? If the results look good, are we going to give the school a high rating?

Even if we ignore the first two issues, do we really want to compel DESE to undertake this work? We hear a lot of grumbling around the capitol about how DESE has gotten too big. This is how that happens. Developing and administering surveys to Missouri’s more than 800,000 students and their parents, and 70,000 teachers, across thousands of schools and hundreds of districts would require more administrative expansion. That is far outside the low-cost, straightforward scope of the original report card plan.

Governor Kehoe issued a clear and simple executive order on school and district report cards in January, which properly emphasizes academic performance. The order is fundamentally sound. There’s always room for improvement, but the legislation that came out of the House has moved this effort in the wrong direction. We hope our lawmakers can get it back on track.

The post Legislation on A–F Report Cards for Schools and Districts Has Gone Sideways appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Columbia Missourian.

Missouri, like many states, mandates that a certain share of electricity come from renewable energy sources. Those sources typically include solar, wind, and biomass—but in many states, including Missouri, they exclude nuclear energy.

A productive debate could be had about whether state government should issue any such mandates. But in the meantime, legislators in Jefferson City have introduced several bills using different approaches, each of which would broaden Missouri’s existing standard to include nuclear energy.

Governor Kehoe discussed the issue in his recent State of the State Address, recognizing the long-standing mismatch between policy and reality.

What Is Missouri’s Current Policy?

Missouri’s current renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandates that no less than 15 percent of each electric utility’s sales come from generated or purchased renewable energy resources (such as solar, wind, biomass, small hydropower, and other non-nuclear sources certified by the state as a renewable). Many other states have adopted similar standards.

Justifications for RPSs vary. Some view them primarily as a tool to improve air quality or limit greenhouse gases. Others argue that portfolio standards help newer energy technologies compete with established fossil fuels or ensure a diverse and resilient mix of energy sources. In any case, if Missouri is going to have an RPS, nuclear energy should be included.

Is Nuclear Energy Clean?

If Missouri’s RPS exists in order to protect the environment, nuclear energy’s exclusion is unreasonable.

Nuclear energy is a zero (or near-zero) emissions energy source, in terms of both criteria pollutants (those that affect air quality) and greenhouse gases.

Further, to produce the same level of electricity, solar farms need 31 times more land than nuclear plants, while onshore wind farms need 173 times more land. In terms of total direct and indirect land use, nuclear is by far the most efficient.

What About Nuclear Waste?

This concern is common but often misguided. Nuclear energy does produce waste, but the waste is compact, carefully managed, and tightly regulated. Much of what is labeled “waste” still contains usable energy. In fact, only about four percent of nuclear fuel is truly unusable after each use, and the United States could reduce nuclear waste in terms of both volume and radioactivity if the industry recycled used fuel. While existing American nuclear power plants are not well equipped to use spent fuel, new advanced reactor designs are increasingly capable of using it to generate electricity.

Regardless, the presence of safely stored waste should not prevent nuclear energy from being included in an updated portfolio.

Government Interference in the Energy Market

Past arguments have held that subsidies level the playing field for renewable energy. Yet, while solar and wind have expanded rapidly in recent years, only seven nuclear plants have been constructed in the U.S. since 1990. Factors such as regulatory burden have also contributed to nuclear energy’s stagnation, but government interference has played a role. Subsidies, tax-credits, and mandates have actually significantly distorted the market in favor of renewables.

The lion’s share of the more than $80 billion in federal support for renewables came through tax expenditures—driven overwhelmingly by the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar projects, which is claimed when a project begins operation, and the production tax credit (PTC) for wind generation. State RPSs create guaranteed demand for these resources, while federal tax policy lowers the cost of supplying them—effectively a double incentive.

This is not to argue that nuclear energy should be subsidized to a similar degree. However, including nuclear energy in Missouri’s RPS would at least make existing policy more even-handed. Nuclear energy meets growing electricity demand cleanly and reliably. The Missouri Legislature should update the state’s RPS to recognize this fact.

The post Missouri Should Update Its Renewable Portfolio Standard to Include Nuclear Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Shortly before the end of last year, the auditor’s office released a report urging lawmakers to take “immediate action” to curb the trend of deficit spending before more drastic cuts become necessary. For longtime readers of the Show-Me Institute blog, this assessment will sound familiar. The report reinforces concerns that have been visible in Missouri’s budget data for more than half a decade.

Reviewing recent revenue and spending trends helps illustrate the problem. Between 2020 and 2025, Missouri’s general revenue collections increased by 45.8 percent, largely driven by income and sales tax growth. Over the same period, general revenue expenditures increased by 53.4 percent. That spending growth more than doubled the rate of inflation, which rose 24.5 percent during those years. Even strong revenue growth was not enough to keep pace.

This imbalance was made possible by a temporary windfall. Although Missouri operates under a constitutional balanced budget requirement, lawmakers were able to commit to higher spending because of a large influx of federal COVID relief funds, combined with stronger-than-expected tax collections. That surge produced a record general revenue balance of nearly $6 billion in 2023. Rather than treating those conditions as temporary, the state locked in higher ongoing spending through pay raises and program expansions, among other things. Since then, the surplus has been largely exhausted.

Looking ahead, fiscal pressures are likely to get worse. Governor Kehoe’s recent budget recommendations project a decline in expected revenues this fiscal year and only minimal growth in Fiscal Year 2027. The outlook deteriorates further when you consider the chance of an economic downturn. Using the worst three-year revenue decline Missouri experienced between 2003 and 2025, the auditor estimates the general revenue fund would be depleted by 2027. Under that scenario, the state would face a deficit exceeding $3.8 billion. And while Missouri’s Budget Reserve Fund (rainy day fund) holds approximately $950 million, as I’ve written before, constitutional restrictions sharply limit its usefulness in addressing an ongoing budget shortfall.

As the general assembly begins working on next year’s budget, the auditor’s report should remain front of mind. There’s still time to rein in the state’s out-of-control spending if Missouri’s lawmakers are willing to start making the tough decisions that right-sizing government entails. The question is no longer whether adjustment is needed, but instead how long until fiscal disaster strikes.

The post The Auditor Confirms Missouri’s Budget Problem appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When Governor Kehoe signed the FY 2026 budget into law last June, after vetoing more than $2 billion in spending approved by the legislature, the total came to nearly $51 billion, with $15.4 billion coming from state general revenues. Given that Missouri’s budget totaled barely $27 billion less than a decade ago, it may seem hard to believe that a $51 billion budget could still understate the cost of state government. Nevertheless, the budget left out more than $1 billion in anticipated Medicaid spending.

This is not a matter of miscounting or bad estimates. While projecting costs more than a year in advance is never perfect, what is happening here is more straightforward. State lawmakers are knowingly approving budgets that do not include enough funding to last the full fiscal year. Missouri’s budget director acknowledged as much when he testified before the House Budget Committee this past week.

Although the issue likely extends beyond Medicaid, the program provides the clearest illustration of the problem. For the vast majority of enrollees, Medicaid costs the state a predictable monthly payment to a managed care provider (essentially a health insurance company). Enrollment today is roughly the same as it was one year ago. Yet the supplemental funding request for FY 2026—the amount needed to carry the budget through June 30—exceeds $3.2 billion, with more than $1 billion devoted to Medicaid alone. That increase far outpaces any reasonable measure of inflation and reflects a budget that did not include a full year of known costs.

This is not a new pattern. When I wrote about Missouri’s budget mirage last year, the legislature was facing a nearly $2 billion supplemental request, with Medicaid again serving as a significant driver. In practical terms, the $51 billion budget approved last year is now expected to end closer to $54 billion in total spending. With the governor’s FY 2027 budget recommendations totaling $54.5 billion, including $16.3 billion from general revenue, taxpayers are left to wonder how closely that figure will track reality.

Much has been said about the need to rein in Missouri’s out-of-control spending. But a necessary first step in rightsizing state government is being clear about how much it costs in the first place. Systematically underfunding known obligations and backfilling them later makes it difficult for taxpayers to understand the true size of the budget and the choices policymakers are making. Perhaps more importantly, an understated baseline makes it harder for lawmakers to evaluate new spending proposals or identify meaningful savings because they aren’t aware of the true cost of their existing commitments.

As legislators begin work on next year’s budget, the best place for them to start is with transparency.

The post The Budget Mirage Reappears appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new task force is modeled similarly to Tennessee’s nuclear advisory council, which I have written about extensively. This nuclear-focused group will identify strengths to leverage, highlight regulatory and practical reforms worth considering, and serve as a touch point for potential partnerships both nationally and internationally.

After forming its nuclear advisory council in 2023, Tennessee saw notable success in attracting nuclear supply-chain and research investment, as well as a new small modular reactor (SMR) project. With a similar structure now in place, I am hopeful Missouri can achieve comparable success in bringing new nuclear investment to the state.

Missouri’s Advanced Nuclear Task Force Makeup

The task force is structured much like Tennessee’s; it is composed of different stakeholders from government, higher education, and the energy sector.

The task force is currently not a permanent body, and is required to submit an annual report to the governor and the Missouri Senate and House energy committees with a list of barriers to nuclear energy deployment and actional recommendations. It is set to dissolve after the submission of its third annual report, unless it is extended or dissolved beforehand.

What the Task Force Is Charged with Doing

As outlined in the executive order, the task force will help facilitate actionable next steps and reforms for nuclear power in Missouri.

Just as importantly, it will also be tasked with identifying public–private partnership opportunities and advising the governor on regulatory, technological, and economic developments in the nuclear sector.

With significant momentum and change in nuclear energy (trust me, I had to update my recent report on nuclear energy many times), the task force will be useful in helping Missouri policymakers remain informed and competitive.

One Suggestion in Implementation

While the executive order does not explicitly require national or international experts, the governor is granted latitude to appoint additional members. That flexibility should be used. Expertise in areas such as nuclear engineering, mechanical and civil engineering, and environmental law could meaningfully strengthen the group’s work.

Hopes for the Future

Missouri has taken a meaningful step toward nuclear investment and development. If the task force is used as intended, I am hopeful that Missouri can succeed the same way Tennessee has.

The post Missouri Forms an Advanced Nuclear Task Force appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to break down Governor Mike Kehoe’s State of the State address, including what we know so far about his plan to eliminate Missouri’s income tax, proposals to modernize Missouri’s tax system, and the need to rein in state spending. They also discuss open enrollment legislation, the new Missouri Advanced Nuclear Task Force and AI strategy executive order, the push to privatize downtown St. Louis convention center operations, what the Dome’s history says about stadium subsidies, Kansas City’s stadium debate, what they are watching in Jefferson City, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post 2026 Missouri State of the State | Roundtable 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.

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.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute policy analyst Avery Frank about his new report, Connecting Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future. They discuss why electricity demand is rising again, why major companies are turning back to nuclear, and how Missouri can position itself to benefit. From data centers and AI to regulatory hurdles and smart policy steps like a state nuclear advisory council, Avery explains how Missouri could play a leading role in America’s nuclear resurgence.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 The Resurgence of Nuclear Energy
03:37 Challenges and Historical Context
07:30 Missouri’s Nuclear Potential
12:06 Future of Nuclear Energy and Policy
16:09 Conclusion and Future Outlook

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
This morning we’re joined on the podcast by Avery Frank, policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute. You’ve got a paper out, and I’m really looking forward to talking to you about it because I have a lot of questions. You’ve done a lot of research and analysis around nuclear energy, and I see a lot in the media these days about the resurgence of nuclear energy.

Number one, why does nuclear energy seem to be back, bigger and better than ever? And secondly—well, I’ll start with that. Why is nuclear energy back in the news so much?

Avery Frank (00:34)

Nuclear power surged in the United States during the Cold War. Electricity demand was soaring—it kept going up and up. Nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and powerful. Just in Missouri, we have one nuclear power plant and it supplies 14% of the entire state’s electricity. So when you need a lot of electricity, nuclear power is something you can turn to.

Since 2007, electricity demand has pretty much flatlined as we’ve become more efficient. But with data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric manufacturing, electricity demand is back on the rise, looking similar to Cold War–era growth. Just data centers by themselves are supposed to go from 3% of U.S. electricity demand today to 8–12% by 2030. That’s a huge jump.

Susan Pendergrass (01:56)
Well, if it’s so great, why did it go away? I remember Three Mile Island, and I saw the movie about Chernobyl. When it gets bad, it gets really bad. Why did nuclear go away so hard if it’s such a great, clean, reliable source of energy?

Avery Frank (02:26)
I’d say it went away for three key reasons: public fear, regulation, and regulatory attitude. Most of the time, public fear from events like Three Mile Island drove increased regulation.

Two key events stand out. First, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) *correction* in 1970. That was a huge blow for the nuclear industry. Construction costs went up 25% and projects took two years longer. Then came Three Mile Island in 1979. It was mitigated by safeguards, but public fear skyrocketed. Costs afterwards were three times higher and construction took twice as long. That was the big turning point.

Susan Pendergrass (03:54)
Then if it’s that expensive, why is it coming back?

Avery Frank (04:14)
Companies are turning to nuclear out of desperation. They need a lot of power, as I mentioned with data centers, but they also have clean climate pledges. They can’t really do it with solar or wind. They’re kind of backed into a corner.

Susan Pendergrass (04:20)
Why not solar or wind?

Avery Frank (04:39)
Solar and wind are intermittent resources. Nuclear plants run consistently. Data centers can’t have outages—you need steady, reliable power. That’s what nuclear does best.

Susan Pendergrass (05:08)
Does it generate a lot of nuclear waste?

Avery Frank (05:15)
In the U.S. we use a once-through cycle. We refine uranium, put it in a plant, then seal it up forever. Other countries like France and Japan recycle their fuel. About 96% of spent fuel is still reusable, but the U.S. stopped recycling in the 1970s. If we restarted, we could reduce waste significantly, which already isn’t that large to begin with.

Susan Pendergrass (06:09)
So what could Missouri be doing right now to take advantage of this moment?

Avery Frank (06:32)
Timing is key. Missouri already has advantages: intellectual capital, infrastructure, the Missouri University Research Reactor, and Missouri S&T producing top nuclear engineers. We also have retiring coal plants that could be retrofitted into advanced nuclear plants, cutting costs by up to 35%.

Federal reforms like the ADVANCE Act are making things easier, but Missouri could act too. For example, we could form a Nuclear Advisory Council, like Tennessee did, to identify strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations. That’s attracted significant investment there.

Susan Pendergrass (08:14)
What about public-private partnerships?

Avery Frank (08:37)
That’s a great point. We believe the free market can play a big role, just like it did in space travel. One idea is Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE), where private developers build small modular reactors for large customers like data centers on their own dime, outside the regulated grid. That takes the burden off ratepayers while meeting rising demand.

Susan Pendergrass (10:26)
Because I assume energy demand forecasts keep being revised up, right?

Avery Frank (11:03)
Exactly, and they’re hard to predict. What if AI suddenly uses less power? Then Missouri could be stuck with excess nuclear capacity. Letting the free market take some of that risk makes sense.

Susan Pendergrass (11:39)
What about the last Missouri legislative session?

Avery Frank (12:06)
Senate Bill 4 passed. It was a big utility bill that allowed “construction work in progress,” meaning utilities can charge ratepayers during construction, not just when a plant comes online. It’s unclear if it applies to nuclear, but it could. I’ve suggested treating it more like a bond, so consumers who shoulder the risk also see some reward, like lower rates or refunds.

Susan Pendergrass (13:44)
Any other signs that Missouri welcomes nuclear investment?

Avery Frank (13:47)
Yes. I attended the Missouri Nuclear Energy Summit in Columbia. Governor Kehoe was there and said we need to develop nuclear at business speed, not bureaucratic speed. That shows real resolve. Legislators are supportive too. Missouri has the advantages and infrastructure—we just need the right regulatory environment.

If Missouri created a Nuclear Advisory Council, like Tennessee, it could attract significant investment and expertise. Energy availability is now one of the top factors for companies deciding where to locate. If Missouri can offer abundant, reliable, clean energy, we’ll be far more competitive.

Susan Pendergrass (16:20)
That’s awesome. You have a paper out on this, available at showmeinstitute.org. Thanks for coming on and explaining it to us.

Avery Frank (16:32)
Awesome, thank you for the interview, Susan.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Missouri’s Nuclear Opportunity with Avery Frank 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.

St. Louis has a reputation for being a violent city. Crime issues have helped push people out in droves and deterred newcomers from settling in the area. St. Louis City’s population has decreased by over 30% since the 1980s, and the number of vacant downtown buildings has increased substantially. The Wall Street Journal went as far as to call downtown a “real estate nightmare.”

Although St. Louis continues to rank among the most dangerous cities in the country, efforts have been made to solve the ongoing crime problem, beginning with the replacement of former St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner in 2023. Gardner exacerbated the crime issue in several ways, including having an exclusion list of police officers who were not allowed to bring cases to her office and creating a massive backlog of more than 6,700 cases that awaited charging decisions. The current St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Gabe Gore, has since cleared all cases in the backlog.

More recent efforts include House Bill (HB) 495, signed by Governor Mike Kehoe into law in March. This legislation transfers control of the St. Louis Police Department to a state-appointed board. The governor has already made five interim appointments to the six-person board (the mayor is the sixth member of the board). In addition, a $45 million 911 dispatch center broke ground last year in St. Louis with the goal of improving response times. In St. Louis, only half of the 911 calls in 2022 were answered within the national standard of 10 seconds.

It is unclear whether these efforts will have positive impacts on public safety in St. Louis, but what is clear is that violent crime in the city is down. It was down 7.8% in 2024 compared to 2023. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) reported homicides were down 6.3 % in 2024. It is worth noting that crime is down across the country, so this may be part of a larger trend.

The fact that St. Louis has lower violent crime and homicide rates is a positive sign, but time will tell if the city can sustain this success and lose the moniker of being one of the nation’s most dangerous cities.

The post St. Louis’s Improving Crime Data appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

His response to a laundry list of budget items that were earmarked for a particular school district was:

Given the State’s historic investments in education this year, it is incumbent upon local school districts to prioritize the use of their resources for this type of programming as they deem appropriate and necessary.

In other words, the Foundation Formula is intended to make sure that all districts have and are able to spend an amount that is “adequate” for the successful education of their students. The Foundation Formula funds should cover repairing an outdoor track in the Houston R-1 school district, not earmarks.

Some programs, such as the St. Louis reading literacy program or Kansas City for K-12 career literacy resources, were vetoed entirely because the budget contains “multiple other areas of funding for similar programs.”

Increases for programs such as the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Scholarships or the Workforce Diploma Program were removed. Perhaps the governor wants to see evaluations of the impact of these programs first.

All in all, the governor, along with his staff, appears to have finally taken a close look at the education items in the budget before signing it. Perhaps the next fiscal year, when the governor is involved from the beginning, will usher in a new era of responsibility and accountability for the spending of our hard-earned dollars.

The post Credit Where Credit Is Due appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Senate Bill (SB) 79 will (if Governor Kehoe signs it), among other things, expand the definition of “telehealth” or telemedicine to include audio-only and audiovisual services. On its face, SB 79 may not seem like the biggest or most impactful change, but it addresses a major problem with Missouri’s telemedicine laws that has been needlessly restricting access to care for years.

A few months ago, I wrote about several ways in which healthcare access for Missouri residents could be improved, and abandoning the requirement for video in cases where it isn’t medically necessary was one of the policies I highlighted. There are still large parts of Missouri without reliable broadband internet access, and not everyone has a phone or computer capable of transmitting video. Further, not every medical treatment requires a visual examination (for example, mental health services). Given our state’s well-documented shortage of healthcare providers, any effort to improve healthcare access without sacrificing safety or quality of care is welcome.

It’s easy to forget that back during the COVID-19 pandemic, Missouri ranked among the national leaders in telemedicine access. Various laws and regulations were waived for emergency response purposes, allowing patients to access their providers virtually with more ease than ever before. In turn, telemedicine grew tremendously in both functionality and popularity, among patients and providers alike—until the emergency ended and many of the unnecessary regulatory burdens telemedicine previously faced were allowed to return.

After several years of telemedicine reform nearly reaching but failing to cross the finish line, SB 79’s passage feels like a long time coming. As states across the country continue improving their licensing laws to expand healthcare supply and account for changing technology, Missouri could no longer afford to keep reform on hold. And while the bill doesn’t address all of the areas in which I think Missouri’s telemedicine laws could be improved, it does represent a small, important step in the right direction.

Going into next year, there is still plenty of work to be done to improve Missourian’s access to care. Hopefully, SB 79 is a signal that our lawmakers are dialing up more expansive healthcare reforms for 2026.

The post Missouri Finally Dials in Telemedicine Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.