For those who aren’t aware, PPP was created by Congress to give forgivable loans to businesses and nonprofits affected by the coronavirus. As governments across the country shut down schools and businesses, Congress realized that it needed to provide support or businesses would go under, costing millions of jobs and carving deep scars into the American economy.

The first part of the story is important. Government shut these businesses and schools down. PPP was not a “bailout,” rewarding businesses that had acted poorly or were floundering. Businesses and schools had little say in whether or not they would be able to serve customers and did not deserve to be harmed as a result.

Lots of schools took PPP loans. This shouldn’t surprise us. As Dean Johnson, leader of the Crossroad Academies charter schools in Kansas City told The Kansas City Star, “I understand the economic realities, but one way or another we need to be able to meet our expenses, and if we’re trying to provide a more complex learning model what we certainly can’t be doing is laying off staff.”

But here is where the Star’s PPP story went off the rails. Rather than examining the effects of the coronavirus on local schools and their budgets, the author decided to pit charter and private schools against the Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS), making the case that it was unfair that charter and private schools could get PPP support while KCPS couldn’t. The article PPP-shamed them. It includes the predictable jabs at Rockhurst High School’s tuition ($15,000 for the upcoming year), and a quote from the local teachers union leader taking a dig at Betsy DeVos.

Like great Kansas City jazz, it’s the notes that it didn’t play that are the most revealing.

First, it left out the fact that KCPS receives more public funding than local charter schools, and even more per pupil than most private schools. According to the state of Missouri, KCPS spent $15,137 per student in 2019. Seems like an important detail to put in the story. KCPS is hardly in penury. It is certainly not “underfunded.”

Second, as Mayor Quinton Lucas pointed out on Twitter, in Clay County, federal CARES Act dollars were allocated to support the North Kansas City and Liberty public school districts. Jackson county could do the same for KCPS but hasn’t. Maybe someone should ask them why not.

Third, the article fails to mention that if private and charter schools were to close due to the economic effects of the coronavirus (as more than 100 private schools already have), it would be terrible for KCPS. State and local governments are already reeling from decreased tax revenue due to depressed economic activity; flooding schools with hundreds or thousands of new students would put tremendous strain on KCPS or any other public school district. If public school advocates could see beyond their immediate, narrow interests they would understand that charter schools and private schools are doing them a favor.

The disappointing thing about the Star’s article is that if it were not framed as adversarial, but as a system of schools wrestling with a shared problem, we might be better able to find solutions. Judging from the social media reaction, most readers walked away from the story angry at private and charter schools, not interested in how to help all children in Kansas City get a good education in the time of the coronavirus. That’s a shame.

The post The Star PPP-Shames Kansas City Private and Charter Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

State and local government

Missouri has received roughly $2.096 billion for state and local government relief. $521 million of that must be distributed to counties and cities with populations under 500,000 within ten days of Jefferson City receiving the funds. St. Louis County has also received roughly $173.5 million and Jackson County $122 million. The money is to be used for non-budgeted coronavirus-related expenses.

Community health centers

Twenty-nine community health centers have received a total of $29.8 million for testing, treatment, and continuing primary care.

Education

Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has filed the appropriate paperwork to receive $208.4 million from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund. Further, the governor has announced that $54.6 million from the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund will also arrive to assist with K-12 and higher education, as well as $117 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help provide school lunches. Senator Roy Blunt has announced that Missouri will receive $206 million for colleges and universities, half of which will be immediately available for institutional and student use, as well as $66.5 million through the Child Care and Development Block Grant for early childhood education needs.

Transportation

The Missouri Department of Transportation has received $61.7 million from the CARES Act to be used for operating expenses and capital assistance for 30 rural agencies. Additionally, Missouri has received $152.4 million to be used for revenue assistance at 75 airports across the state.

Housing

$57.7 million in Community Development Block Grants are reported as being available to a combination of 16 Missouri cities, counties, and state government by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This money is supposed to be used as block grants, emergency solution grants, and housing opportunities for persons with AIDS. The Missouri Department of Economic Development has announced that it will receive $13.6 million of that total.

Unemployment

The Missouri Division of Employment Security has used more than $66 million in federal funds to provide additional unemployment compensation, although more compensation will be distributed once the state determines how to process workers in the “gig” economy.

Emergency management

Missouri can apply for roughly $1.86 million to assist with emergency management procedures ranging from data collection and sharing to response plan development. A 50 percent match in state funding for the program is needed to receive funding.

Public safety

The cities of Joplin and St. Joseph have received funds to assist with public safety expenses for a combined total of $170,000. Overall, $5.5 million is available for 28 Missouri county and city agencies and $11.6 million for state agencies, should they choose to apply for these funds.

Small business loans

Over 46,000 Missouri businesses have received loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, totaling slightly more than $7.5 billion.

Summary

Received: $10.201 billion

Expected: $710.2 million

Available through application: $18.79 million

If you add these sums together you get $10.918 billion. This is what we know so far. More dollars may arrive in the future, boosting the totals for many—if not all—categories.

The post Federal Stimulus Money in Missouri: What We Know So Far appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: Senate Bill 701, Paycheck Protection, and Collective Bargaining Agreements appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Right to work.

Right to work ends forced unionism and lets workers decide whether joining a union best serves their interests. This means that being a member of a union cannot be a requirement for employment, and gives employees the final decision about whether they want to give money to a union that may or may not have their best interests at heart.

In 2017, Missouri passed Right to Work, but in 2018, the state will hold a referendum on that law.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

THE OPPORTUNITY: If the state’s Right to Work law is put into full effect, Missouri will join the majority of American states that already have right to work laws, finally placing Missouri employers and employees on a level playing field with other states.

KEY POINTS

• Missouri will be better able compete with neighboring right-to-work states in attracting businesses.
• Existing unions will be more responsive to the concerns of members, thanks to the credible threat of members leaving the organization.
• Employees will have greater control over their representation in negotiations with their employer.
• Employers will have greater flexibility in managing their businesses and making their operations more successful.
• Private employers are the focus, but similar laws in the public sector, like paycheck protection, should be pursued by policymakers as well.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Op-Ed: Rise of the Roosevelt Law: Is Reform in Government Unions Coming to Missouri?

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Right to Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It was indeed a busy session. When it ended on May 13, people on both sides of the aisle congratulated themselves on the good work they had done.

But there was a disconsolate creature that wandered back and forth between the Senate and House chambers that nobody seemed to notice.

This was the elephant that everyone chose to ignore: the Show-Me State’s far-below-normal economic growth going back more than a decade.

From 2001 to 2014, Missouri’s annual output of goods and services grew at an annual inflation-adjusted rate of just 0.85%, compared to the national median for all state of 1.57%. In average real GDP growth, Missouri ranked 45th among the 50 states.

With average economic growth over that time, state GDP would be 10.4% higher than it is today, and median household income would be up 9.8%, or $4,739—at $53,102.

Before adjourning on Friday, May 13, our lawmakers sent a total of 139 bills to the governor, compared to 130 in 2015 and 190 in 2014.

Without arguing the merits of any of these bills, I would point out that none of them was directly related to anything that would spur economic growth . . . and few were even tangentially related to that issue.

That sets this session of the legislature apart from the previous two sessions.

Two years ago, the Missouri Legislature took at least one step in the right direction when it overrode Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto and passed the first reduction in Missouri income tax rates in 93 years (albeit a small reduction that will not begin to take effect until 2017).

A year ago, the legislature passed a bill that would have made Missouri the 26th “right to work” state, meaning that workers would no longer be required to join a union or pay union dues to qualify for many private and public sector jobs. Nixon vetoed the bill, and its supporters were unable to override the veto.

This year, the would-be champions of greater freedom in the workplace passed a watered-down “paycheck protection” bill to allow workers to opt out of the campaign contributions and expenditures of most government labor unions (excluding fire and police unions). Again, Nixon vetoed the bill. On the last day of the session, the effort to override the veto failed by a single vote.

In any event, the “protection” offered to workers under the so-called paycheck protection bill was highly dubious. As it was written, the bill did not require government unions to make financial information publicly available, and it would have painted a bullseye on the back of any union member who dared to request union financials as a basis for opting out of some portion of dues.

I am hoping that in the next session of the Missouri Legislature, we will see much more of a pro-growth agenda—with a concentration on cutting taxes, reducing regulation and red tape, and doing more to secure greater freedom in the workplace.

The post The Missing Element in the 2016 Legislative Session appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

kicked off debate Thursday with a speech listing off a “litany of issues with unions,” including several run-ins that … involved racist comments by union members.

The senator promised to continue supporting “rank and file” union members, but added that “labor unions can’t expect carte blanche support anymore.”

The senator has a point here. The interests of the African American community and union leaders are not always aligned, and the rights of minorities are sometimes sacrificed for the good of the politically stronger labor movement.

Ironically, labor reforms such as paycheck protection are about protecting the rights of a minority from the will of a majority. Paycheck protection allows a worker to opt out of the campaign contributions and expenditures of a government labor union. Paycheck protection recognizes the fact that not everyone has the same political views as their union and that this difference of opinion should be respected.

The other labor reforms we’ve discussed, transparency and union elections, are also aimed at protecting a minority from the majority. Financial transparency would allow workers and taxpayers to see how government unions spend taxpayer-funded union dues. Union elections would give workers the chance to de-unionize their workplace every few years. All of these reforms make unions more responsive to all of their constituents, not just the majority. And all of these reforms lead to greater worker freedom.

The next time our elected officials want to take a stand on protecting minority rights, they might consider endorsing public policies that actually protect minority rights.

The post Did the Missouri Senate Sacrifice the Rights of Minorities for Union Executives? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Paycheck Protection: This First Amendment-supporting reform passed the Missouri legislature by veto-proof majorities earlier this year. Unionized government employees should not have to underwrite political speech that they don't support. Paycheck Protection flips the equation around, allowing employees to instead opt-in to a union's politics, or keep their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed the bill last week; fortunately, we can expect the House and Senate to return to the legislation in the next few weeks to try to override that veto. The reform is one of a raft of government union accountability measures that are long overdue in Missouri.
• Ethics reform: Ethics legislation has already cleared both chambers that would limit elected officials' ability to act as paid political consultants, but a number of other good bills remain on the table that have a solid shot of passage. Among the most important bills that I hope will build some momentum as the session continues is a bill that would enforce a "cooling off period" between the time a legislator leaves office and the time he or she becomes a lobbyist. Effectively a non-compete agreement, this cooling off period would help to ensure that taxpayers have the undivided loyalties of their elected officials while those officials are in office. 
• Tax reform: While Kansas City and St. Louis decide whether to end their earnings taxes themselves in a few weeks, the legislature has continued to debate whether to cut taxes statewide, as well. One proposal would extend the income tax cut passed in 2014, reducing the top rate to 5% over a period of years. That would be a modest cut, but it would be an important one that would signal the state was open for business. The legislative chambers may also debate whether to phase out the state's earnings taxes directly, but it is unclear whether the House and Senate will make those reforms a priority this year.
• Tax incentive reform: We've talked for years about the problems that are created when governments cut special tax breaks for cronies, and a number of bills in the legislature would make progress on the tax incentive fronts at both the state and local levels. One bill in particular would reform tax increment financing decisions in the St. Louis area by, among other things, changing what development projects can receive if a county TIF commission rejects a TIF proposal.
• Obamacare's Medicaid expansion: While it was a live issue as late as last year, it appears Obamacare's Medicaid expansion is going nowhere in Missouri in 2016. That's appropriate; Medicaid is a broken program, and rather than double-down on this broken status quo, state and national leaders should focus instead on reforming it.

The post At Session’s Midpoint, Reforms Loom Large On Legislative Agenda appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

However, I would like to raise an issue with the language of the bill. The bill includes a financial disclosure provision that appears to require some government unions (fire and police unions are excluded) to make the same sorts of financial disclosures the private sector unions already have to make. As the bill is currently written, these financial disclosures lack teeth.

• For one, a worker has to request the union’s financials in order to access them. This could paint a target on the back of any whistleblower who wanted to report irregularities in the way union executives are recording their finances.
• Secondly, the financial information doesn’t have to be reported to any government agency or made publicly available. Private sector unions have had to make public financial filings with the government for decades. Why should public sector unions be less transparent than private sector unions? And shouldn’t the public have a right to know how government unions are spending taxpayer funded dues?
• Finally, the bill is written in such a way that government union executives can shred their financial documents after five years. Who benefits from this?

Make no mistake: requiring unions to make their financial information available to their members is a good idea. But the financial disclosure provisions in the paycheck protection bill need to be changed, if they are to be worth anything.

***

To underscore the need for financial disclosures, I have included a link (below) showing a list of dozens of federal embezzlement charges brought against the Communication Workers of America (CWA) executives over the past few years. CWA represents some of Missouri’s state employees, and its leadership is vehemently opposed to having to make meaningful financial filings.

https://www.unionfacts.com/olmscrime/Communications_Workers_of_America/embezzlement_charges

The post Financial Disclosure Provision in Paycheck Protection Bill is Toothless appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last year’s paycheck protection bill would have required government unions (such as teachers unions and unions representing state employees) to obtain permission from employees before using dues or fees for political activity. The bill would have required unions to seek permission from employees only once each year; however, for that school teacher or social worker who opposes the politics of union bosses as a matter of conscience, such protection can make a big difference.

Consider the story of Terry Bowman, who started an organization dedicated to providing a voice to union members who feel silenced and marginalized by the union political establishment. Or Andrew Palmer, a public school teacher who started Conservative Teachers of America to provide an alternative perspective on public education. Both of these men bucked the mainstream opinion of their workplaces in order to make sure their voices were heard. This can be hard to do, but it’s a lot easier when the law protects people who swim against the current.

The post Missouri Paycheck Protection Is Back for 2016 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, Medicaid expansion. To reiterate, Missouri should not expand this expensive, broken health care program. “Medicaid Transformation” is not the same thing as “Medicaid reform.” Transformation is just expansion rebranded.

Second, Right to Try. The bill would allow terminally ill patients greater flexibility to seek experimental medications, making this bill the latest in a string of proposed reforms — including last year’s Volunteer Health Services Act and this year’s hemp oil bill — emphasizing greater access in care and treatment. I testified in favor of the law in both the House and Senate, and while several states are considering the law this year, Missouri could end up being the first in the nation to pass it.

Third, paycheck protection. Paycheck protection would allow public employees in unions to, by default, keep more of their money rather than have it automatically siphoned off for a union’s political activities. It’s a common sense approach to a thorny free speech problem, which I’ve testified about before. If it goes to voters, you’ll hear much more about this topic from me in the weeks ahead, but the Senate will have to vote on it first.

There are other issues which are also lingering in the legislature, including tax credit reform and voter ID. I support both. TIF reform and the transportation tax are also big issues, and I would direct you to David Stokes’ and Joe Miller’s excellent work on those topics respectively. The school transfer issue is still very much alive, and of course there’s Tesla versus the car dealers, which you can read more about here and here.

It’s been a long session, but it’s not over yet. Stay tuned to Show-Me Daily as the week goes on for updates on these issues.

The post Thoughts on Medicaid, Right to Try, and Paycheck Protection As Legislative Session Wraps Up appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Shouldn’t unions have to compete for their political dollars and donations like any other interest group? I think so. That’s why “paycheck protection” reforms are so important: they allow employees to opt in to paying for a union’s politics, rather than forcing them to opt out. The presumption, in other words, is that the employee’s political dollars are first and foremost the employee’s, not the union’s. That modest reform would re-balance the power of dues collection in favor of public employees rather than defaulting in favor of public unions.

The good news is that Missouri’s legislature passed a law last year that would have rectified the problem. The bad news is it was vetoed, and that veto wasn’t overridden during the special session.

But the (other) good news? Variations of that legislation are currently circulating in the Missouri House. HB 1093 and HB 1617 address the issue directly, requiring a separate consent form for dues to be collected and used for union political purposes. HB 1093 is particularly good in requiring an accounting of dues to ensure that dues earmarked for representation are not spent on politics. Without that verification mechanism, it would be difficult to determine whether the law is being followed and whether employees’ free speech rights are being upheld.

I will keep an eye on both of these bills; stay tuned.

The post Paycheck Protection Bills Return To The Missouri Legislature appeared first on Show-Me Institute.