Let’s say this is an April election. What happens in the initial petition process is not that the City Council just sits around and twiddles its thumbs, right? We can pass ordinances just like broadly the public can through an initiative petition process. All of these words I’m saying is, no, this will not thwart development of Kansas City Royals stadium.

We’ve actually thought about all of this. We’re going to get the necessary deals done expeditiously to make sure that the Royals can be prepared to open the stadium by opening day of 2030. That requires, I think, dirt moving really by the end of this year at least on the demolition process or very early in 2027. And if you’re looking at it, it takes about 30 days to the election authorities anyway to get the election certified. So, you know, this is not a threat to that.

He made similar comments to The Beacon. It seemed weird to me that, once a petition has been validated, a legislative body like the council could just rush through all sorts of things before the vote, and then tell petitioners, “Hey, sorry. You’re too late.” I’m not alone in thinking this; Dave Helling wrote something similar on the Kansas City Stack.

And, if one cares about the Missouri Supreme Court, the court thinks similar conduct at the state level is weird, too. The Supreme Court didn’t just find it weird—it found it unconstitutional!

In February 2015, the court ruled in Earth Island Inst. v. Union Elec. Co. that the state legislature cannot tweak things to effectively eviscerate a pending vote. They wrote:

The only issue is whether the legislature may negate in advance an initiative petition that has been approved for circulation but prior to the time it is adopted by the people at an election.  It may not.  If a proposed initiative is adopted by the people at an election, then a statute enacted by the legislature during the interim between the initiative’s approval for circulation and its passage is impliedly repealed to the extent of any conflict between the two measures.

It would seem that if such a petition can repeal “a statute enacted by the legislature during the interim between the initiative’s approval for circulation and its passage,” then won’t it repeal a contract or financial agreement enacted by a city council in the same circumstance?

That same decision cited an earlier 1922 Missouri Supreme Court case, State ex rel. Drain v. Becker:

There, while the proposed referendum was pending but before it had been voted on by the people, the legislature purported to repeal the legislation that was the subject of the referendum and to enact a new statute that retained the essential terms of the former legislation. It then argued that this new statute could take effect, regardless of what the people voted on the matter referred, because it was later adopted and was not itself subject to the referendum.

This Court properly rejected this attempt at an end run around the referendum. It held that, once the right of referendum has been invoked, the legislature “is divested of all power in regard to the matter referred until the action of the people has been exercised by a vote upon same.”

That last sentence is the kicker. The court has held that, pending a vote of the people, the legislative body is powerless on that particular matter. So yes, Mayor Lucas, the council may be twiddling its thumbs while the petition process plays out.

The real impact of the petition, however, may not be on the council. I can easily imagine an attorney for a builder, lender, or investor advising their client to steer clear of the project until the petition matter is resolved either by a vote of the people or by months or years of litigation. What company wants to find itself attached to a financing package that voters may yet reject? And the city would be foolish to sign contracts that it may not be able to live up to because of the results of a vote.

It would not surprise me if, despite his dismissive language now, Lucas and the current council vote to put the petition on the ballot themselves, arguing that any delay will just add to the cost of the project. They’ll count on the Royals and their supporters to fund another political campaign. The question then becomes: Are John Sherman and the Royals ownership willing to risk another election defeat?

The post No, Kansas City Cannot Rush Royals Financing to Beat a Petition Vote appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen to the segment: 

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

On June 5, Patrick Tuohey, senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, guest-hosted Mundo in the Morning on KCMO Talk Radio, where Terrence Wise of the Missouri Workers Center announced the organization had collected over 4,500 signatures, more than double the roughly 2,000 required, to force a public vote on any taxpayer subsidy of the proposed downtown Royals ballpark. The city clerk has 10 days to validate the signatures, after which the city council has 60 days to act, with a public vote expected in November.

Listen to the full show here. 

The post Kansas City Voters May Get a Say on the Royals Downtown Stadium appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Proponents present this as an extension of that tax and not a new tax.

They are wrong. It is a new tax.

First, think of this logically. If the county legislature did not act—or if the voters reject the measure—the current sales tax would expire on September 30, 2031. The legislature is seeking voter approval exactly because this is a new legislative action to impose a new tax.

Second, let’s examine the original tax approved by voters in 2006. The legislation does not contemplate an extension. It does not set up any mechanism by which the tax could be extended. It simply imposes the tax and states that it will expire after 25 years.

Third, the legislative language Jackson County voters are being asked to approve this time around would sunset the existing tax (the original tax would end—the two taxes would not run concurrently) and explicitly states this is a new tax. Per Section 2: “Subject to the approval of the voters of the County, the new levy will begin upon the date first imposed and continue for a term of 40 years . . . ” (emphasis added)

Even the title of the ordinance confirms that we are being asked to impose a new tax:

AN ORDINANCE submitting to the qualified voters of Jackson County, Missouri, at a special election to be held on April 2, 2024, a question authorizing Jackson County to impose a countywide sales tax of three-eighths of one percent for a period of forty years for the purpose of retaining the Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs sports teams in Jackson County, Missouri. (emphasis added)

Perhaps supporters of the measure believe that voters are more likely to extend a tax than they are to vote on a new tax. But that is a political concern. Their claim is campaign messaging, not the facts of the measure on the ballot.

Journalists covering this issue should resist parroting talking points and stick to the basic facts: Jackson County residents are being asked to impose a new levy on themselves. It’s that simple.

The post Let’s Be Honest about the New Stadium Tax in Jackson County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Comments on Increasing the Minimum Wage in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past few years, my colleagues and I have written a lot about Medicaid expansion and the problems it presents for Missouri. Before voters approved the Medicaid expansion ballot measure in 2020, I wrote repeatedly about how costly expanding eligibility would be for our state, despite the ballot language suggesting the measure could somehow save money. In addition, I discussed how administratively difficult it would be to grow an already oversized program, and what that could mean for other state funding priorities.

After expansion passed, there was a long legal battle about whether the ballot initiative required the legislature to fund Medicaid expansion. In short, some legislators argued that since the expansion initiative failed to include a way to pay for the costs incurred by expansion, it was their prerogative to decide whether to pay for expansion at all (because the constitution gives the legislature exclusive authority to approve all state spending). The state supreme court disagreed and ruled that the legislature was required to find the money necessary to cover the cost of expansion. Administering the state’s largest program is more difficult than just writing a check, so the legislature now appears ready to ask voters for additional input on how they think Medicaid should be run—thus a new ballot initiative.

So far, the legislative effort is focused on three separate Medicaid issues. First, should Missouri impose work requirements for able-bodied enrollees in the expansion population? Second, should Missouri continue paying medical bills for individuals who live outside of our state boundaries? And third, should the legislature have the flexibility to decide how much money can be spent on Medicaid expansion annually, or does the program really have a “blank check”?

Since Medicaid is a partnership with the federal government, it’s not clear how easy each of these changes would be to implement, as they’d likely require federal approval as well. But I do believe additional flexibility would represent a major step forward for Missouri’s Medicaid program. And as far as I know, Missouri voters have never weighed in on these three issues before, so it will be interesting to see if they agree.

The post Another Crack at Expansion? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Zoning can be a complicated issue for people who believe in limited government and market-based policies. There is the conflict between the rights of people to organize their community how they want it, the rights of people to develop their own property as they see fit, and the issue of how local governments will prioritize those rights.

Usually, any discussion of reducing or ending zoning immediately leads to nightmare scenarios of a chemical plant opening up right next door to your house. (This actually happens in rural areas with concentrated animal feeding operations, but that is another issue.) But what if the concerns and questions are about much smaller changes to zoning?

The City of Webster Groves is undergoing such a debate right now. Recently, the city council passed changes to the city’s zoning code that will increase housing and development options in parts of the city. In short, the city will allow more small, multi-family homes (i.e., duplexes) in parts of the city previously reserved for single-family zoning. The stated reason for the change was to provide greater housing options that might allow people from different backgrounds to move into Webster Groves. However, a group of residents opposed to the changes has collected enough signatures to put that ordinance change up for a referendum on the ballot on August 3. Those residents, like many suburban residents in our country, prefer single-family zoning for their communities. Needless to say, the upcoming vote has stoked a great deal of interest in Webster Groves. I don’t think the town has been this riled up since the premier of Sixteen in Webster Groves 55 years ago.

The debate over allowing more duplex housing could be academic enough, with good arguments on both sides, but from discussions with residents, letters-to-the-editor, and more, it is pretty clear this debate is closely related to issues of public housing as well. Two years ago, Webster Groves added “source-of-income” to the anti-discrimination rules of its housing ordinances. That means that a landlord in Webster Groves can’t refuse to rent to a person or family who will use a federally funded Section 8 housing voucher to pay the rent. This goes far beyond Obamacare simply requiring everyone to buy health insurance; this law says that a landlord is now compelled to participate in a welfare program whether they want to or not. Bake the cake, landlord! (Keep in mind that Section 8 is a federal program, and there is no federal requirement that landlords accept it). Taken in combination, it is not unreasonable for some people in Webster Groves to think that this rezoning is a first step towards much greater use of multifamily housing and Section 8 vouchers in their city.

Should a community ban the use of the camel because it occasionally sticks its nose under the tent? I guess it depends on what you think about the tent. If your community is based on one-tent per family per lot and you and your neighbors like the community you have built that way, changes in zoning to allow for more tents per lot can be concerning. But if you think tent prices are too high and people need more options, then a simple allowance for two smaller tents on a parcel instead of just one makes sense. (And make sure that camel is not a nonconforming pet under the animal code.)

The rubber will meet the road in debates about equality in housing policy when people—including suburban liberals who claim to passionately support more diversity and inclusion—are forced to consider changes that could affect their own home values and community makeup. I don’t claim to know what the people of Webster Groves should do in the long run. (Though they should definitely use another referendum to get rid of the terrible “source-of-income” rule). However, people have a right to create and abide by zoning laws that maintain the type of community they want to live in, even if not everyone would make that same choice. It is going to be very interesting to see debates play out like this across Missouri’s suburban communities in the coming years.

The post Webster Groves Addresses Hard Issues in Zoning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Six members of the House recently sent a letter to the governor stating their belief that the bill will violate Missouri’s constitution, specifically the Hancock Amendment. The provision in question limits the amount the general assembly can raise taxes in a given year without first being approved by a public vote. (See here for more information about the amendment).

If signed into law, SB 262 would raise the state’s gas tax by 2.5 cents per gallon for each of the next five years, for a total increase of 12.5 cents by 2027. But there’s a catch: residents can get a refund for the additional gas taxes paid due to this bill. The fiscal note for the bill estimates that once fully implemented in FY 2027, it could exceed the Hancock Amendment cap, which for this year is $111.8 million. Depending on how the bill’s fiscal impact is calculated and the number of refunds claimed, it is possible that in the years prior to 2027, the tax collected could also exceed the Hancock limits.

While there’s certainly more to the story regarding whether the legislature violated the Hancock Amendment, the gas tax bill becoming law certainly opens the door for a variety of questions and potential court challenges. The Hancock concerns are explained in more detail here, but here are a few of the major questions at hand:

• How much revenue will the gas tax hike raise?
• How many Missourians will take advantage of the available refund option?
• How will Hancock Amendment compliance be determined?
• How will the other bills signed into law by Governor Parson impact this calculation?

One way to avoid all this potential mess is to send the gas tax question to voters. In fact, a referendum petition has been filed that would accomplish just this, but it has yet to receive approval for circulation by the secretary of state. If the petition were to succeed, the Hancock Amendment concerns would be avoided because taxes approved by voters are not subject to the amendment.

Missouri may soon be raising the state’s gas tax, but there are a lot of questions to be answered before we know for sure. In the meantime, keep enjoying the second-lowest gas tax in the country.

The post What’s Happening with the Gas Tax? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The MNEA’s ballot initiatives are about protecting the status quo monopoly on public education in Missouri. If passed, the initiatives would dramatically increase the potential budget for K–12  education in the state and remove the education budget from the constitutional protection given to taxpayers—that taxes cannot be raised without a statewide vote of approval.

During the required public comment period for the initiatives, analysts at the Show-Me Institute and concerned groups in the state submitted evidence of the potential disaster that could result from any one of these initiatives being passed. If the petitions passed into law, the annual cost could easily be in the billions and the state would have no choice but to either take money from other programs or raise taxes. Fortunately, the secretary of state drafted ballot language that includes these estimated costs and implications.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that spending more on education while allowing the public education establishment to keep its stranglehold on the delivery of that education will improve outcomes. We’ve been doing that for at least twenty years and our education metrics are only declining in relation to other states. We can be smarter and more innovative in the design and delivery of K–12  education in this state. We just need to be open to ideas that come from sources other than the protectors of the ineffective status quo. Hopefully, the MNEA agrees and will drop its effort.

The post Some Possible Good News 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.

What’s really fascinating, though, is that while the vote that created the district is rarely, if ever, criticized by streetcar supporters for the weakness of its mandate, many of those same supporters had already dismissed the larger and more recent vote just hours after the counts were completed. Local blogger Kevin Collison gave some voice to the frustrations of streetcar backers, tweeting that “#KC should do whatever it takes to challenge this anti-streetcar petition, pivotal moment for future of urban core.” He may be referring to the Council’s option to override the public vote’s results. Other supporters, like Jon Stephens of T-Bones handout fame, bemoaned turnout as a symptom of a broken petition system, even though the streetcar owes its existence to the calculatedly miniscule turnout in an election brought about . . . by a petition!

Streetcar supporters say they want Kansas City “left alone” by the state and others so that locals can control the city’s fate. But if that’s the case, I have a few questions for them:

1. Why were 460 votes enough to launch the streetcar project?
2. Why weren’t 30,000 votes enough to circumscribe it?
3. Why should the 13 votes of the Kansas City Council be enough to override those 30,000?

Streetcar supporters would do well for themselves to stop playing games with the public as they pursue this project.

The post Running the Numbers on the KC Streetcar appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We here at the Show-Me Institute were very interested in Amendment 3 because the issue was so complex and multifaceted. From the funding mechanism (cigarette taxes) to the policy it would support (early childhood education) there was more to the question than met the eye.

Now the people of Missouri have spoken, and by a 60% to 40% margin (as of this moment), they soundly rejected Amendment 3.

There is much parsing of this election to be done, but I do want to offer a couple of quick reactions:

• Missouri does not like cigarette taxes. Not only did Amendment 3 fail, but so did Proposition A, a much smaller cigarette tax (by a 55% to 45% margin). These initiatives are just two in a long line of cigarette taxes that the state has voted down. At 17 cents, Missouri has one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation, and it appears we want to keep it that way.
• Voters can read between the lines. At first glance, it looked like Amendment 3 would win in a walk. According to Ballotpedia, the first polling on this issue back in July had the issue winning 53% to 29%. As more and more information came out and voters became more informed about the issue, that support eroded and eventually became opposition.
• Ideas matter.  Not all of the campaign finance numbers are in, but according to Ballotpedia numbers, the “Yes” campaign outspent the “No” campaign by a wide margin, $12.8 million to $5.7 million. But it was to no avail. In the end, the arguments matter more than the spending, and the proposal failed.

I don’t think we need to close the door on pre-K, though my colleague Emily Runge’s piece earlier this week has definitely caused me to temper enthusiasm for it (which I didn’t have a great deal of to begin with). We do need to think long and hard about how we structure it and pay for it.  As we argued in 20 for 2020, a voucher-based system that puts students and parents in charge is the best way to structure pre-K if we’re going to do it, and we should be skeptical of any plan that does otherwise.

The post Amendment 3 Falls, Hard appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The results were a mixed bag, with six issues passing and five failing. Here are the results:

Chillicothe R-II 37¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED

Columbia 65¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED

Laclede 49¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED

Niangua 93¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED

Maplewood-Richmond Heights 50¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED

Marshfield R-I 50¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED

Mexico 40¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED

Newburg R-II 96¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED

Ft. Zumwalt R-II 48¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED

Saint Louis City 75¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED

West Plains R-VII 95¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED

We also followed two other ballot issues. Here are the results from those:

Hickman Mills “No Tax Increase” Bond: PASSED

Ladue 38¢ per $100 in assessed value debt levy increase: PASSED

(I’ll check back on the results in the coming days to see if there are any changes.)

So what do we make of all of this?  A few thoughts:

1. It appears that the largest of the tax levies (93¢ in Niangua, 95¢ in West Plains, and 96¢ in Newburg) failed. Those levies meant hundreds of additional dollars in taxation for property owners. Folks were clearly skeptical that so much money was necessary. 
2. Urban and suburban districts’ measures fared better than those in rural areas. St. Louis, Columbia, and Maplewood-Richmond Heights’ levies all passed, as did the measures in Hickman Mills and Ladue.
3. Saint Louis was able to simultaneously pass the earnings tax and a school tax levy. I think there is every reason to be concerned that this may continue to push people out of the city as they are asked to pay more and more to a city that hollows out its tax base via TIF and a school system that routinely fails to make the grade.

We’re going to stay on top of these tax levy issues. Be on the lookout for another round of analysis before the next slate of elections in November.

The post Tax Levy Election Results appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Any real estate, now or hereafter owned by the City of Olivette or any agency or instrumentality of the City, which is principally used or held out for use as a public park, shall not be sold, leased, given away or otherwise disposed of, and shall be used only as a public park, nor shall any structure be built in any such park to accommodate activities not customarily associated with park use or outdoor recreation, unless such sale, lease, disposal, gift or structure is approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting thereon.

To say this language is broad is like saying the Great Wall of China is long. True, but it is also kind of an understatement.

I get why people would be in favor of this measure. They want to have a say in case the city wants to do something drastic, like sell a public park. However, the problem with this amendment covers more than just selling a park. If passed it would require the city to seek voter approval if the city wanted to lease park management to private operators for a whole assortment of activities.

For example, if Olivette wanted to let a private operator open a restaurant on park grounds, like Saint Louis does for the Boathouse in Forest Park, then it would have to be approved by the voters. If Olivette wanted to let a private company open an ice rink in one of their parks, like Saint Louis does with Steinberg Skating Rink, then it would have to go to the voters. There are other successful examples of  private groups operating recreational services,  like Saint Louis does with the golf courses in Forest Park. Olivette residents won’t have to worry about golf courses, but they just go to show that if Proposition 1 is passed then any lease or contract will have to go to the voters.

The ultimate decision on whether to adopt the charter amendment is up to the residents of Olivette. I believe that voters should have a direct say if, for instance, a city decides to sell their municipal parks. However, I also think that city officials should have more leeway when it comes to leasing the park or contracting for services.

The post Some Thoughts on the Proposed Olivette Charter Amendment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Show-Me Now! MODOT Speed Bump: Sales Tax Defeated appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In complete unofficial returns, 12,066 voters supported the tax, roughly 16 percent of those casting ballots, while 64,486, or 84 percent, opposed it.

The early returns were so decisive that supporters conceded defeat long before the final votes were announced.

“It was an effort very much worth fighting,” a somber Russ Welsh, past chairman of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, told a crowd of about 50 supporters gathered at Union Station.

While voters did not agree with the funding mechanism, he and others said the campaign had been successful in educating the public about the promises of translational research.

Kansas City residents already live under an enormous sales tax burden — a burden so heavy that some local districts already feature a sales tax well in excess of 10 percent. The research tax would have exacerbated sales tax problems in Jackson County.

This was the right move for Jackson County residents. Let’s just hope that the Kansas City area has reached its peak sales tax and will start lightening the region’s tax burdens going forward, rather than piling on more.

The post Wow: Jackson County Voters Say No To Research Tax By Five-To-One Margin appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At their core, the solutions so often pushed ahead for both issues — like capping loan interest rates and raising the wage floor — share a common problem of policy. First, payday lending exists in large part because its customers cannot get credit anyplace else; payday loans are very, very expensive, but if the alternative is having your gas or electric flipped off for lack of money, it is an option many of the working poor would want to remain available. Cap payday interest rates, which are basically set to account for the risk of default, and you will have fewer payday loans, which leads to other, potentially more difficult, problems for the lenders’ former customers. One way or another, those bills have to get paid. Payday loans serve that need and risk, for a price.

Raising the minimum wage presents a similar problem. By raising the floor for what workers must get paid, employers are incentivized to hire only the most skilled labor. In fact, studies show that raising the minimum wage harms the very people it is supposed to help — those on the bottom rung of the pay scale. As David Neumark wrote for the Show-Me Institute in 2006:

When a minimum wage goes up, the higher wages don’t always go to the workers who need them most. Minimum wage laws create winners and losers — the winners see their wages and incomes rise, while the losers are unable to find jobs or to work as many hours as they would like. If the winners were mostly unskilled workers in poor families, a minimum wage increase might be worthwhile. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

Put more succinctly, raising the minimum wage makes it more difficult for low-skilled workers to find employment. While raising the wage sounds on the surface like compassion, in practice, it oftentimes means anything but.

These are serious issues that deserve serious debate from both sides of the issue. For now anyway, it appears public votes will have to wait.

The post It’s Official: Payday Lending, Minimum Wage Initiatives Off November Ballot appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although the case raised many issues, the most interesting was the government’s cost estimate that will accompany the ballot title in November. Here, the voters must be especially diligent in their research if they want to make an informed decision. The estimate suggests that “increased state and local government wage and benefit costs resulting from this proposal will exceed $1 million annually.” This summary, which was highly contested throughout the court hearings, is technically correct — the cost will exceed $1 million — but it does not give an accurate picture of the probable cost, which may be closer to $16 million annually. How can that be? To arrive at the conclusion that the cost to the state would “exceed $1 million annually,” the auditor sent requests to 25 local public employers (such as Linn State Technical College and the City of Columbia) requesting an estimate of how much the wage increase would cost them annually. The auditor landed on the $1 million total because only seven entities responded with an actual estimate. Just seven of the hundreds of public employers in Missouri were counted to come up with this fiscal note summary. Because the auditor cannot force entities to respond with such estimates, it would not be prudent to blame that office. That being said, voters should know that the estimate they will see this November does not provide even a close estimate of the cost. In fact, the expert witness for those challenging the initiative suggested the true cost would exceed at least $16 million annually.

Remember the old adage, buyers beware? Here, it is voters beware.

The language you will see in the voting booth may suggest that Missourians will get a lot of change for a little price, when the reality is quite different.

For more information about the effects of the minimum wage, check out other Show-Me Institute publications on the subject.

The post Minimum Wage Initiative Cost Estimate May Mislead Voters appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Good: The Legislature will submit to voters a referendum that would block the governor from unilaterally implementing ObamaCare. I have written about this in the past and had researched last September what the governor could do unilaterally. I expect Missourians will add an exclamation point to the state’s opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) with the referendum, not unlike Missourians did with Proposition C in 2010. If passed, the referendum will deny the governor the ability to impose an ObamaCare health insurance exchange in Missouri.

Moreover, Missouri senators defeated what would have been an extension of the expensive and burdensome kindergarten optometrist mandate, an issue which I testified against. An unnecessary and inefficient imposition on Missouri’s families, the bill’s failure was the right thing for Missourians and Missouri families. This is an all-too-rare example of removing licensing-related rules and regulations in Missouri. I hope we have more of this in the future.

The Bad: In this case, really bad legislation. A bill that would have declared ObamaCare “unconstitutional” and applied criminal penalties to federal officials who would implement portions of the law in the state never made it to a vote on the floor of the Senate. Re-litigating the centuries-old notions of state interposition is neither necessary nor helpful to combating ObamaCare. The bill’s unceremonious end was warranted.

The Sad: Late last week I worried here that a bill allowing volunteer health organizations access to medically underserved Missourians would die due to a small potatoes dispute in one of the bill’s sections. To be clear, both the House and the Senate passed nearly identical versions of the bill. And yet, it died. It is a shame, bordering on shameful  that the chambers could not reconcile their differences.

The post Health Care Scorecard: The Good, The Bad, And The Downright Sad appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The process was not without its share of drama, of course. The hearing for the bill before the House Committee was held at the end of March, leaving the bill with little margin for error to get the required votes done before the legislature adjourns. But whatever the reason for the delay, the committee deserves credit for getting the job done. On to the full House.

The post A Note Of Praise To The House Health Insurance Committee appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The issue is not going away forever. The supporters are continuing their effort to cap interest rates. I admire the desire to protect borrowers from abusive lending, but there is a better way than capping interest rates.

Interest rate caps at this rate will not only prevent high interest rates; they will eliminate payday loan shops in the state. Consequently, payday borrowers will probably not be able to acquire credit.  A better way to help borrowers is to make cheaper credit available. Do something similar to what this group is doing, and donate money to banks to offset losses from high-risk, short-term loans — thereby bringing down the interest rate.

For an excellent, succinct analysis of payday loan shops and regulations, click here. For more detailed commentary on the topic, see here and here.

The post Short-Term Lending Regulations Can Do More Harm Than Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.