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.

The post Senate Joint Resolution 111 and Property Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Regulations Concerning Autonomous Vehicles: Senate Bill 1050 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.

The post Property Tax Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There wasn’t anything new in the testimony. It included romantic nostalgia for bygone players and the pride we have in our teams, claims about all the economic impacts that these subsidies will drive, and, of course, fears that the teams will leave if we don’t give them what they want.

Toward the end of the supporters’ testimony, Wes Rogers, a Kansas City councilmember and former state legislator, rose to speak in favor. His remarks included the following:

I make my living selling and leasing commercial dishwashers to restaurants. Already, no matter where the Royals and Chiefs go, Kansas is kicking our butt. I install more dishwashers in the state of Kansas than I do in the state of Missouri, period. And there’s a whole bunch of reasons for that I’m happy to talk about later. But I promise you this, if we put this stadium or the Chiefs stadium in Kansas, my guys are going to be to Kansas more than they are to Missouri and that’s going to continue. And so we can say this doesn’t have an economic impact. I know it does because I’m paying 20 guys to go to Kansas instead of Missouri to work and that number is going to increase.

This is odd testimony in favor of subsidies as a source of economic development because the Chiefs and Royals already have stadia in Missouri. Yet (despite this?) he argues “Kansas is kicking our butt,” and he is seeing more business on the Kansas side. Redirecting taxpayer dollars toward new or refurbished facilities won’t change that.

I suspect Rogers knows that the real reasons for Kansas outperforming Missouri are the “whole bunch of reasons” he alludes to. For example, the high tax rate and low level of services Kansas City provides—in large part because of taxpayer-funded subsidies, such as those for sports teams, being such a huge drain on city coffers.

Earlier in his testimony, Rogers offered, “I’m actually reading economic studies about baseball, which I’ve never done before.” This is good news, but if the statement above is a reflection of his grasp of the material so far, he needs to do more reading—and rereading.

The post The Miseducation of Kansas City Councilman Wes Rogers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri taxpayers don’t have to look too far to find an example of the last time so-called budgetary savings were illusory—we can look at this year’s budget. When the FY 2025 budget was passed last May, our state’s elected officials celebrated their “conservative” budget. They said it was the first budget in a decade that was smaller than the previous year’s, which I noted at the time didn’t amount to much. It was true that the budget they initially passed did call for less spending than years prior, but in the months since, we’ve discovered that claims of budget cutting didn’t hold up.

When the budget passed last May, I explained that the totals were likely misleading, and the general assembly’s recent approval of a supplemental funding bill all but confirms it. To finish out the year, Missouri’s government needs nearly $2 billion extra dollars, with almost $400 million of that total coming from general revenue (state income and sales tax dollars).

As the above table shows, once you take into account all the funds that are truly needed for the year, this year’s budget exceeds last year’s by more than $700 million. What’s worse is that the general revenue portion is similarly higher than last year. This is problematic because not only is Missouri on track to spend more than the state projects to bring in (which was the case even before this extra spending was added), revenue collections are now behind where they were one year ago.

In other words, Missouri is in worse fiscal shape today than it was last year, and despite efforts to make it seem as though spending was being reined in, we’re once again on a path to spend more this year than ever before. As Missouri’s Senate begins its work on the state’s FY 2026 budget, it should be clear that taking real steps to rightsize state government is essential. Taxpayers should keep a close eye on the budget negotiations in the coming weeks. Legislators may try to sell Missourians on a bill of goods again.

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

The Missouri Senate debated this week whether we should just throw out the MSIP part. Students would still take the MAP tests, but only to meet federal requirements and get federal dollars. Supporters claim that outcomes will dramatically improve because every teacher, freed from the pressure of MAP scores, will thrive and innovate. Of course, that’s not true across the board. We have quite a few districts that need more oversight, not less.

Rather than take an accountability system with almost no teeth and toss it aside, we should be working on building a better one. It is still true that you can’t fix what you don’t measure. We need test scores to tell us if students can read and do math. We need to know how well schools are serving their students. Publicly funded systems should be held accountable to taxpayers.

We are on version six of MSIP. The state board of education recently determined that the results of MSIP 6 are not reliable enough to use without a rolling three-year average. If it is a broken accountability system—which it seems to be—let’s fix it.

The post Don’t Throw It Out—Fix It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In February 2025, Saint Louis University (SLU) released an update on likely Missouri voters’ views on education policy, including open enrollment (the polling was conducted in 2024). The results showed broad support for open enrollment, including bipartisan approval and a preference for a universal model. SLU surveyed 900 likely Missouri voters and used both demographic and voting history data in an attempt to create a representative Missouri sample. One of the more interesting findings was the bipartisan agreement on open enrollment. Recent votes on open enrollment in the legislature have been split along party lines.

Figure 1 displays the general support for open enrollment among likely Missouri voters. Figures 2 and 3 indicate that the majority of likely Missouri voters prefer that an open enrollment policy be universal (meaning districts must accept students if they have seats) and let students transfer out. This suggests that a universal policy is not an “extreme” position, but one that is well aligned with public opinion. It is worth wondering whether carveouts and “compromises” that would restrict open enrollment reflect the priorities of students and families or those of other education stakeholders.

Figure 1: General Measure of Support for Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “Do you support or oppose the following policies . . . allow students to enroll in public schools outside of the school district where they live?”

Figure 2: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring Out with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may limit the number of students who transfer out of their district.”

Figure 3: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring in with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may opt out of having students transfer into their district.”

Universal Open Enrollment for Missouri Families

Different versions of open enrollment bills have circulated around Jefferson City, with the House passing a voluntary version (HB 711) and the Senate weighing a universal version (Senate Bill (SB) 215). A good open enrollment policy is a universal policy, and SB 215 would provide students with greater access to public schools that serve them best. Open enrollment is a pro-student, pro-family, and pro-public school policy. The research supports it, the public supports it, and Missouri students would benefit from a robust open enrollment environment.

Want to Learn More?

Susan Pendergrass and I address the most common objections to open enrollment in our recent paper, Open Enrollment: Erasing Seven Myths in Missouri. Read the full report here.

The post Attitudes on Open Enrollment in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the start of the 2025 Missouri legislative session. They cover budgetary reform, the need for a Missouri Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the creation of a recession preparedness fund, open enrollment policies, statewide school choice, improvements to Missouri’s school report cards, tax reform, telemedicine, healthcare regulations, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The 2025 Missouri Legislative Session Begins appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For months, I’ve been expressing concerns about this budget. After years of record-breaking spending growth, the well of exorbitant federal funds will soon be drying up, and state tax revenues are expected to decline or remain stagnant. Not to be deterred, in January, Governor Parson laid out his plan that recommended more of the same, including spending more than the state expects to bring in. Over the next few months, the House of Representatives worked to pare that plan back, ultimately finding some (but not enough) savings.

Over the past month, the Senate had been working on its version of the budget, but to no avail. Due to an apparent combination of time constraints and chamber dysfunction, the spending plan didn’t see the Senate floor until the day before Missouri’s constitution requires it be passed. The result of this delay was a budget that almost no one had seen in advance, yet still had to be approved by both legislative chambers over a matter of hours. All this had to happen without anyone making any changes.

The problems with this process should be obvious. Instead of each chamber having its own version of the budget to compare against the governor’s, and a conference committee process to reconcile differences, the compromises were made outside of the public eye. Instead of taxpayers being able to see how each chamber prioritizes spending, the lack of conference meant that there was no avenue for input from citizens on the final product. And instead of lawmakers having several days, if not weeks, to examine the proposed budget and suggest amendments, they were stuck with a take-it-or-leave-it offer.

Unsurprisingly, the approved budget looks like it leaves much to be desired. As Missouri’s legislators are fond of saying, passing the budget is the general assembly’s sole constitutional responsibility. Given the gravity of the assignment, it’s incredibly disheartening that the process played out the way it did. Over the next few weeks, I’ll continue unpacking the spending decisions of our elected officials. At this point, what’s clear is that Missouri desperately needs more budget transparency, and what happened this year should never be allowed to happen again.

The post No Way to Budget appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To be fair, if the House budget becomes law, it will be Missouri’s first budget in more than a decade that is smaller than the previous year’s budget. Not only is the House budget smaller than last year’s, it’s also approximately $2 billion smaller than what Governor Parson recommended for next year, which represents a small step in the right direction.

It should be noted that the budget process will now move to the Missouri Senate—the chamber more accepting of higher spending in recent years. It’s therefore still too early to tell if the state’s streak of record-breaking budgets is coming to an end.

The recent budget negotiations in Jefferson City also served as a reminder of how much things have changed for Missouri financially over the past several years.

• Missouri’s total budget has nearly doubled since Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, growing from a little more than $27 billion to $53 billion this year (FY 2024).
• General Revenues (mostly state income and sales tax collections) have increased by significantly less, going from approximately $10 billion to more than $13 billion over the same period.
• The biggest driver of budget growth has been the temporary influx of federal funds associated with the federal COVID-19 pandemic relief and infrastructure packages.
• The federal share of Missouri’s budget has grown from around 30% to closer to 50%.
• While Missouri (much like the rest of the country) has dealt with record-breaking inflation in recent years, state spending growth has outstripped the increase in prices, and has even grown faster than the state’s population and economy.
• Going into next year, the state will lose access to the billions of temporary federal dollars, all while state general revenues are expected to remain relatively flat or decline.

Keep in mind that the extraordinary state spending growth in recent years occurred even though Missouri’s constitution includes a balanced budget requirement—the requirement does not apply to federal funds.

There are myriad reasons to think the road ahead will be a tough one, and cutting spending will be a mandatory part of the equation. That’s why I’m happy lawmakers in the House took the measures they did to start turning the tide on state spending, even though I wish they’d gone further. I’m also looking forward to the Senate debating its spending plan in the coming weeks, with the hopes that members of the Senate also share the House’s view that spending should be reined in.

But with so many important spending decisions left to be made, and such dark clouds ahead in Missouri’s financial future, state taxpayers should join me in waiting until the budget makes it across the finish line before considering whether to celebrate any savings.

The post Harsh Budgeting Truths appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This bill proposes some needed reforms that will improve the educational landscape for our students, families, and teachers. Students and families would have greater access to the schools that best suit their needs.

However, there are still a number of changes that could make SB 727 stronger. Below are links and summaries to three detailed breakdowns of different policies contained in the bill.

The Missouri Senate Moves on Education Choice

Click here for the full article

• Eligibility for the MO Scholars program is dramatically expanded with SB 727.
  • Eligibility for MO Scholars is expanded outside Missouri’s 10 largest communities.
  • The low-income restriction line has been raised from 200% of the free or reduced-price lunch boundary to 300% (a yearly income of roughly $166,000 for a family of four).
• However, unlike the other states that have passed similar legislation, Missouri still would not provide any public funding for the scholarships under SB 727.
  • Funds still must be raised from scholarships through donations by individuals or corporations.
  • Missouri should provide public funding for the MO Scholars program
• Charter school expansion to Columbia is a good start, and hopefully more cities will be eligible in later years.

Now Is Not the Time to Tinker

Click here for the full article

• Missouri does not need to tinker around the margins of the current state foundation formula—we need to build a new one.
• SB 727 changes how students are counted for the state aid formula, from all attendance to half attendance and half enrollment. The bill acknowledges the chronic absenteeism crisis, but waters down the incentive to fix it.
• Even with the change, districts can still use the highest number of students from the past three .
• Missouri cannot redeem this funding formula with tinkering—we need to go back to the drawing board and mimic a student-oriented system like the system in Tennessee.

How Will the Four-Day School Week Progress in Light of SB 727

Click here for the full article

• SB 727 creates a new voting procedure for parents to have a say in switching to a four-day school week (4dsw), but this only applies to the largest Missouri communities.
  • Only around 100 of the 553 school districts and charters will be subject to this new voting process. Smaller communities are excluded—they should not be.
  • Without open enrollment or greater educational choice policies, there will still be numerous families trapped in a 4dsw district despite preferring a different schedule.
• SB 727 re-establishes instructional day minimums in Missouri, but again, this only applies to the largest Missouri communities.
  • Large school districts will be required to have 169 instructional days if they operate on a five-day school week, and 142 days if they use a four-day school week.
  • Most districts and charters in the state—80 percent—are not subject to this requirement.
  • The threshold for this requirement is still rather low; most states require 180 instructional days.
• An aid bonus is provided for districts that have 169 instructional days. This provision appears to be an attempt to diminish the use of a 4dsw. However, this would probably be unsuccessful.
• A 1% aid bonus would equate to an average of $24,000 for districts that used a 4dsw in 2022–2023; a 2% bonus equals an average of $48,000.
  • This would be equivalent to around 0.6% of a 4dsw district’s total expenses, which is not a huge sum to incentivize a major schedule change.
• If the goal of this provision is to diminish the use of the 4dsw, it will probably be ineffective. Could money instead be spent on another program, such as providing public funding for the ESA program?
• For many small school districts in Missouri, it does not appear that SB 727 would create any significant incentive to reverse the trend of moving to a 4dsw.

The suggested changes outlined above could serve to make SB 727 stronger and improve the educational environment for students, parents, and teachers in Missouri.

The post Our Thoughts on SB 727 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My colleagues and I will delve into the various reforms in the days and weeks ahead, but here the focus will be on the new procedures and requirements relating to the four-day school week (4dsw).

First, this bill would establish a new voting procedure for larger districts that want to use a 4dsw schedule.

Under the new procedures in the bill, the district school board must pass the measure to implement a 4dsw. Then, the school board–approved proposal will go to a vote by the public. The vote would take place at the next date available for public elections. If a majority of votes are in favor, the 4dsw will be established.

However, this provision is limited, as this requirement only applies to school districts located wholly or partially in a county with a charter form of government, or located wholly or partially in a city with more than 30,000 inhabitants.

Essentially, this provision would be limited to school districts in or partially in St. Louis, Kansas City, Jefferson County, Clay County, St. Charles County, St. Joseph, Springfield, Columbia, Joplin, Jefferson City, and Cape Girardeau. According to my analysis of the bill language, only around 100 school districts and charter schools (about 20% of districts and charters) will be subject to this voting provision.

This voting measure would likely better represent parental preferences, but why are smaller communities excluded from this new policy? Additionally, without open enrollment or greater educational choice policies in Missouri, there will still be numerous families trapped in a 4dsw district despite preferring a different schedule.

This bill also includes reforms regarding the minimum number of school days for districts. Back in 2018, SB 743 changed instructional time requirements in Missouri. At that time, public schools were required to be in session a minimum of 174 days and 1,044 hours a year—but with SB 743, the requirement became only 1,044 hours with no required number of days. Following this change (which took effect in the 2019–20 school year), the number of 4dsw districts in Missouri shot up from 34 to 62, and has since increased to 173 in 2023–2024, according to my own calculations.

SB 727 would re-establish a minimum number of required days in a school year (the 1,044 hour minimum will also remain in place):

• 169 days for five-day school week districts
• 142 days for four-day school week districts

This provision is also limited. The minimum number of days requirement, as with the voting provision, will only apply to school districts in the larger cities and counties mentioned above. Of those roughly 100 districts, only five use a 4dsw, and all already meet the 142-day minimum requirement. In fact, around 87% of all 4dsw districts in 2022–2023 had 142 or more instructional days. (It should be noted that the 169-day limit for 5dsw districts is still rather low—over 30 states have a minimum of 180 days or more. Not a single district or charter school in Missouri reached 180 instructional days in 2022–2023, outside of two charter Pre-K programs.)

While smaller districts may not be subject to the minimum day requirement, SB 727 has a separate provision that incentivizes creating more school days in a different way.

The bill states that any district that provided 169 school days or more will be remitted an amount equal to 1% of its annual state aid entitlement for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, and 2% for 2028 and onward. All monies from this additional aid must be used exclusively to increase teacher salaries. If a district does not meet the 169-day minimum, it is not punished, but it does not receive the extra money. This provision appears to be an attempt to incentivize a five-day school week schedule.

In a recently published literature review that I authored with James Shuls, we noted that districts justify their move to a 4dsw based on district finances or teacher retention and recruitment. Using numbers from the 2022–2023 school year and assumptions based on what the SB 727 fiscal note includes, I found that a 1% aid bonus would equate to an average of around $24,000 for districts that used a 4dsw in the 2022–2023 school year and a 2% aid bonus would equate to an average of around $48,000. On average, a 2% aid bonus for 4dsw districts would be equivalent to around 0.6% of a 4dsw district’s total expenses—not a huge sum to incentivize a major schedule change.

(For 5dsw districts, the average 2% aid bonus is around $173,000—equating to an average 0.5% of their expenses. It should also be noted that these calculations are based on 532 of the 553 districts and charters).

In 2022–2023, around 466 school districts and charters did not have 169 instructional days or more. About 30 districts and charters had 168 days of instruction, and about 110 districts and charters had 164 to 167 days of instruction. SB 727 will most likely move all of these districts to 169 days and incentivize other 5dsw districts to increase instructional days. If the goal of this part of the bill is to increase the number of days most Missouri students are in school, SB 727 could accomplish this.

However, if the goal of this part of the bill is to begin moving the 173 4dsw districts back to a 5dsw, this provision will probably be ineffective. It is too little money for too big a change, and many districts may argue that the savings they receive from using a 4dsw is higher than the aid they could receive. The fiscal note for this bill estimates that the state could end up paying districts $75 million via these bonuses. If there’s extra money lying around, wouldn’t it be better to spend it on something else, such as increasing funding for the ESA program?

With talks of more districts potentially moving to a 4dsw in the 2024–2025 school year, it will be interesting to see if the 4dsw will continue to rapidly grow in Missouri. For now, it does not appear that SB 727 creates any significant incentive to buck that trend.

The post How Will the Four-day School Week Progress in Light of SB 727? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Senate Bill 727, which passed out of the Senate last week by a vote of 19 to 10, dramatically increases the number of children eligible to receive a scholarship under MO Scholars, an education savings account program established two years ago. Gone are the restrictions that scholarships can only go to students in Missouri’s 10 largest communities. And the low-income restriction line has been raised from 200 percent of the free or reduced-price lunch boundary to 300 percent (a yearly income of roughly $166,000 for a family of four).

The reason I can only describe the expansion as “somewhat” is because, unlike the raft of states that have passed similar school choice legislation in the last few years, the bill doesn’t provide any public funding for the scholarships. The six approved scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) must still raise the funds for the scholarships through donations from individuals or corporations.

The bill also—finally—allows charter schools to open outside of St. Louis and Kansas City, a policy goal that Show-Me Institute analysts have been talking about for years. Granted,  only Boone County was added to the list, bringing in Columbia, but it’s a start. It may take years for a charter school to actually materialize in Boone County, but at least it may soon be possible.

As I anticipated, getting this bill through the Senate required some sweeteners for school choice opponents. These included raising minimum teacher salaries and changing how we count students for the foundation formula (more on that in a coming post). Too bad the negotiators didn’t get public funding for the scholarships with this trade-off. For now, we’ll wait to see what happens to the bill as it moves through the House.

The post The Missouri Senate Moves on Education Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Institute for Justice has identified nine occupations for which Missouri requires a license that are not subject to licensing in at least 15 states. For example, Missouri is one of 22 states that requires a license to work as a sign-language interpreter. Acquiring the license entails $442 in fees, 60 credit hours of education, and two exams. Under current statute, if a sign-language interpreter with three years or more of experience from a state that doesn’t require licensing moved to Missouri, they would have to spend the time and money to acquire a license before they could work here.

SB 817 would not waive licensing requirements for these sign-language interpreters, but it would provide access to a temporary license (if an individual has already worked for three years in the relevant field) while they satisfy Missouri licensing requirements.

Oversight bodies can still require that applicants take license-related exams and charge fees. The goal of this bill does not appear to be reducing licensing requirements, but allowing people who move to Missouri to work during the process of acquiring a license.

I think this bill would improve the status quo. However, I still do not think those who are experienced in their field need to waste time and resources fulfilling licensing requirements. SB 817 has language that says:

Upon expiration [of the temporary license], the individual shall be required to apply for a permanent license in accordance with the license requirements for the occupation . . .

SB 817 has some good qualities, as it makes it easier for people to work in our state. However, we are still left with the question of why Missouri imposes licensing requirements at all when other states do not. Moreover, if a person has three years of work experience in a field, why is Missouri requiring that they jump through additional hoops? Absent a showing of a real health or welfare concern, it looks as if Missouri is just protecting revenue streams to special interests. Shouldn’t lawmakers consider changing this bill to waive these extra bureaucratic hoops and encourage more people to come to work in Missouri?

The post Temporary Licenses for Out-of-state Workers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state legislature in Missouri is again considering legislation to dramatically expand the authority to institute land banks to municipalities across the state (the state legislature must approve all new land banks in Missouri).

The state legislature should reject this legislation. If such legislation is enacted, counties and municipalities should reject the establishment of land banks. 

On January 17, Show-Me Institute Director of Municipal Policy David Stokes submits testimony to the Missouri Senate Emerging Issues Committee regarding expansion of Missouri’s land bank program. Click here to read the full testimony.

The post Land Banks: A Bad Idea Back for the 2024 Session appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But even the best-laid plans can go awry, so how optimistic are legislators that items important to taxpayers will get across the finish line this year? As an article in the Missouri Independent emphasizes, it depends on who you ask:

“I mean, I think we’ll get things done,” said Senate Majority Leader Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican. “Will we get everything done that we want to do? No, we never do. But I’m an optimist.”

Democrats and Republicans share many of the same goals, O’Laughlin said, and progress can be made if people are willing to sit down and talk about how to reach those goals.

The Missouri House has generally been effective in advancing good legislation in the last few years, often only to be stifled in the Senate. The real question for whether 2024 will be “successful” hinges on how the Missouri Senate, now in an election year, handles its business. Will the majority party see itself often split, with leadership joining with the minority party to pass or stop legislation as it did in 2023? Will the majority party use Previous Question motions to scuttle filibusters from all quarters to pass its priorities? Will we see a mix of the two? Or will the chamber mostly be mired in dysfunction and nothing really gets done (again)?

How the factions in the Senate align will play an enormous role in what actually gets done in 2024. With a handful of exceptions, the last few years have been littered with missed opportunities, primarily because the Senate has alternated between watering down important measures or not passing them at all. So 2024 is a Yoda moment of sorts, especially for Missouri’s outgoing senators; lawmakers have entered “do or do not, there is no try” territory if they want to build a legacy before they leave the legislature for good. Giving lip service to good legislation isn’t going to cut it this time around.

What’s ultimately done (or not) remains to be seen, and we at the Show-Me Institute will keep you posted as the session progresses. But I hope that all Missouri legislators will set aside their squabbling and make decisions that keep the good- and limited-government promises made to their constituents. If they do, 2024 could be a banner year for the state, but if they don’t, well, this year will look a lot like last year. And that would be unfortunate.

The post As Legislature Returns, Whose Priorities Will Take Priority? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

MDC director Sara Parker Pauley said in the statement that, in the past 20 years, permit prices have remained stagnant despite costs for goods and services drastically increasing.

“In early 2003, the price of a resident firearms deer permit was $17 and the cost of a gallon of unleaded gas was $1.42,” said Pauley. “Jump ahead two decades to May 2023 when the cost of a resident firearms deer permit is still $17 while the cost of a gallon of gas is about $3.30. That cost increase really adds up considering MDC purchased nearly 908,000 gallons of gas in 2022 to run vehicles and equipment.”

Pauley added that, on average, most resident hunting and fishing permit prices would be adjusted by roughly $1. [Emphasis mine]

That seems like a pretty reasonable fee for the service provided by the state, which facilitates (among other things) fish hatcheries and shooting ranges. And the concept of a fee is consistent with my general principle that the folks who enjoy a government service should be the ones to pay for it, like a gas tax for building and maintaining roads.

But it’s also worth keeping in mind that conservation in Missouri also receives funding from a dedicated sales tax. The fact that hunting and fishing permitting costs haven’t risen in two decades is probably less a testament to MDC fiscal management and more a result of the department more or less swimming in money.

The MDC has so much money, in fact, that there was even talk on the floor of the Senate this year of abolishing the fees entirely in light of the department’s budgetary largesse. (As expected of most things in the Senate, nothing came of that conversation, but it did waste about 15 minutes of floor time. So there’s that.)

My stance on hunting regulations was probably best captured in my 2016 letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Keep government out of the way of deer hunters,” wherein I extolled the importance of sportsmen (and women) in controlling wild animal populations and ensuring barriers to their entry into that market, like fees, were as low as possible. Fortunately, Missouri’s permit costs are not extravagant and promise not to become extravagant in the future if recent reports are to be believed. But it’s probably a good idea for legislators to reexamine how the MDC is funded in general—with either a fee or a sales tax, but maybe not both.

The post Hunting and Fishing Fees May Be Going up in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The bill would cut the top rate on personal income taxes, cut the corporate income tax rate in half and exempt Social Security payments from taxation. State Rep. Dirk Deaton, R-Noel, said the bill would promote economic growth, noting that future tax cuts included in the bill only take effect when triggered by revenue growth.

“This is really just limiting the growth of government,” Deaton said. . . .

The bill would accelerate a tax cut approved in September that will reduce state revenues by almost $800 million annually when fully implemented. The corporate tax cut would be the second in less than five years.

House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, made a corporate tax cut a top priority for the chamber as the session opened.

For the individual income tax, the rate would drop from 4.95% to 4.5% immediately, eventually dropping to 4.05% after a series of triggers. The corporate income tax would drop from 4% to 2%, and then to 0% after a series of triggers. The exemption for all social security income would be immediate.

I’ve pushed for reductions and eliminations of the individual and corporate income taxes for years, so it should come as no surprise that this plan is music to my ears. Income taxes are the most destructive taxes from the perspective of growth, and among them, corporate income taxes are the most destructive of them all. Reducing both with the intent of eventual elimination is sound policy.

Further, while the targeted social security carve out is understandable, eliminating taxation for certain groups of people can make the overall objective of reducing and eliminating a tax for everyone more difficult over time, with fewer and fewer people carrying the cost of government. This concern applies to an even greater degree to corporate handouts like economic development tax credits, such as the one for film studios being debated this session. Fortunately, economic development tax credits aren’t involved in this bill, at least not yet.

Thankfully, the scope of HB 816 and 606’s “targeted” tax policy is limited; the bulk is solid in principle and practice. We’ll keep you posted on the bill’s progress.

The post Tax Cut and Reform Package Passes the House appeared first on Show-Me Institute.