Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to break down the final week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. They discuss the constitutional amendment heading to voters that would begin the process of eliminating Missouri’s state income tax, where property tax reform efforts stand heading into the final days, the early literacy bill’s uncertain path through the Senate, the legislature’s approach to A through F school report cards, what the state budget does and does not get right, the Ferguson city council’s rejection of a major data center tax subsidy, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Zach Lawhorn (00:00): Welcome to the Show-Me Institute podcast. I’m Zach Lawhorn from Show-Me Opportunity. Today I’m joined by Avery Frank, Elias Tsapelas, and David Stokes from the Show-Me Institute. It is the last week of the 2026 Missouri legislative session. Today we’re going to go through what has crossed the finish line, mostly what has not crossed the finish line, and see what these guys think about the possibility of that happening here in the home stretch. Elias, we’ll begin with something that has crossed the finish line, and that is the start of a discussion about phasing out Missouri’s state income tax. Legislation did pass. It goes to the governor, and he gets to decide when it goes on the ballot. So what do we know right now, what passed, and what are Missouri voters going to be asked sometime in the fall?

Elias Tsapelas (00:50): By May 22nd, the governor needs to decide whether this constitutional amendment will go on the August or November ballot. What it says, essentially, is to Missouri voters: do you want to start the process of getting rid of Missouri’s income tax? It comes with three main components. The first piece is the legislature will be required to enact legislation that would get rid of the state’s income tax based on revenue growth. Once that income tax is gone, it cannot be reinstituted. Previous versions of this bill had some details lined out about how the income tax rate would be cut based on revenue growth, but in later versions this was stripped back to just the legislature will decide this later. The other two pieces say you will also be authorizing the legislature to expand the state sales tax base, meaning the things the state sales tax applies to. This could also involve changing the rate, because right now Missouri’s constitution does not allow the state legislature to expand the sales tax to anything that was not taxed in 2015. But this does come with a guardrail: if the legislature does change the state sales tax, it has to be done in a revenue neutral fashion. So expanding the sales tax base or raising the rate to bring in additional tax revenues has to go towards lowering the state income tax. That gives the legislature the authority to change how much revenue comes in, which would speed up the process for getting rid of the income tax. The last piece is a component for local governments. If the state changes the number of things that the sales tax applies to, this would also increase revenues to local governments. Those additional revenues would have to go towards a list of other taxes that would be lowered. In places like St. Louis and Kansas City, that would go towards lowering the earnings tax. For other local governments, they get to choose whether it goes towards lowering the sales tax, property tax, personal property taxes, or real property taxes. The key piece being revenue neutral. This is not going to be a windfall for anyone. It is basically the start of a discussion, because they don’t say what the rate might need to go to, what the sales tax could be expanded to, or what revenues would trigger income tax elimination or cuts. This is just the start of the discussion, giving the legislature the authority to keep moving in the direction we started around 2014.

Zach Lawhorn (03:57): Taking those a piece at a time: the first one, if it passes and the income tax is eliminated at some point, it cannot come back. That seems pretty straightforward. The next two seem like responses to opposition that we hear on a regular basis. The first being the revenue triggers, which seem designed to prevent what we often hear about with Kansas, where they cut the income tax without cutting spending, leading to revenue shortfalls. And the expansion of the sales tax base seems like protection against having to raise the sales tax rate on goods. Do I have that right?

Elias Tsapelas (04:40): Yes. The revenue trigger piece is basically what Missouri has been doing for a while, waiting to see how much revenue we have before lowering the income tax by that amount. We’ve been doing that for over a decade now and have lowered the top individual income tax rate from 6% to 4.7%. We’re just continuing down that path to be sure we don’t create some enormous budget hole. Now, when you look at the sales tax, Missouri has a very complicated, out-of-date sales tax system. The state sales tax rate is 4.225%, but when you go to the store you’re paying something significantly higher, largely due to local governments and a lot of special taxing districts. Missouri also has a lot of sales tax exemptions. Missouri really needs a full look at its entire sales tax system. But economically, when thinking about switching a state from being primarily funded by income taxes to something closer to sales taxes, the best way to fund a state is to tax as broad a base as possible so you can have the lowest rate possible. You want to be taxing final consumption, not business inputs. As we start the idea of transferring to more of a consumption tax in Missouri, the goal is to make sure it doesn’t become a tax increase for some people while things change elsewhere. It’s trying to keep it level the whole way, and at least right now it seems like a pretty neutral proposal going forward.

Zach Lawhorn (06:24): David, for people who don’t think about taxes as a corresponding tax system, can you explain the idea of local governments rolling back certain taxes and how people might experience that on their property tax bills or personal property tax bills?

David Stokes (06:44): It’s trickier than you might think, but it’s vital that it be done right. If you expand the sales tax base at the state level, as Elias discussed, you don’t want local governments to start collecting significantly more sales tax revenue for no reason. At the state level we’ll do something good with that and phase out the income tax, but at the local government level we don’t want just more revenue with nothing to spend it on. You need tax relief for citizens, which is why they’re going to require rollbacks. They’ve given local governments some options in how you roll that rate back, which is a good thing, but they need to give them a few more options. For example, they said you could roll back property taxes, real property taxes, personal property taxes, or sales taxes. A few things that need to be considered: many municipalities don’t have a property tax, so they won’t be able to roll back the property tax. And it’s trickier to roll back sales taxes than you might think. Unlike property taxes and income taxes, which can be reduced in small increments, sales taxes have to be done in set increments. You can’t go from a 1% sales tax to a 0.92% sales tax. It’s just not allowed and would be incredibly difficult for retailers to implement. So local governments need even more flexibility in how they roll back taxes. I would say the utility tax, which just about every county imposes, is a great option to add to the choice mix for rollbacks. These are the sales taxes that can be placed on utilities, which unlike other sales taxes can be rolled back in small increments. That’s a very good option. The biggest challenge of all, though, is the special taxing districts that Elias mentioned earlier, such as transportation development districts and community improvement districts. These usually only have sales taxes and nothing else. You have to address what they do if their sales tax collections go up 30% and they have no legal way to roll it back by that same amount. So we need to adjust that. I would also hope that part of this whole deal would be a substantial cap on how these special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs operate in the first place, to really restrict their continued expansion in Missouri, which has been very harmful. Those are just a few ideas out of many in how local governments are going to have to address this.

Zach Lawhorn (09:59): Finally, Elias, as you said, it’ll be on the ballot sometime in the fall. But between now and either August or November, people interested in this topic are going to see a lot of data, modeling, estimates, and projections. We want to be honest about what we can know and what we cannot know. With the legislation that has passed now, what should people keep in mind when they see some of these estimates or models or projections this summer?

Elias Tsapelas (10:39): The first thing is, if you see anything claiming this is going to generate a tremendous budget shortfall or major harm to local governments, this thing is set up to be revenue neutral. This is not something that is going to create enormous holes. Most of the time, estimates that reach that conclusion assume this would work in an entirely different way than what is allowed. So that is something you don’t necessarily need to worry about. What people are more reasonably worried about is: if you empower the legislature to expand or raise the sales tax, how is that going to impact everyone? Missouri’s state and local combined sales tax rates are relatively high already. The state’s portion is pretty low, but combined it’s relatively high. So what the state decides to do in terms of how much it expands the sales tax base, whether that involves more services versus goods, will impact different people differently, in different parts of the state and at different income levels. Anything right now that says this is definitely going to be bad for X person, we just can’t know that, because there’s not enough information out there. Everyone should keep an open mind and also recognize that the reason for this amendment and this proposal is that Missouri’s economy is falling behind. We are falling behind our neighbors in terms of tax competitiveness, and the only way to change that is to improve Missouri’s tax standing. Our sales tax system is incredibly broken, so this is something that is going to need to be fixed. At least right now we are at the point of asking: do we want to go down this path? Let’s hope the legislature does a good job. We’ll be shining a light on whatever they do, but we can’t know some of the things that people are warning about right now.

Zach Lawhorn (12:50): David, after the legislature got the income tax bills out the door, they shifted to talking about property taxes, which is something we hear a lot about. People want property tax reform. With only a few days left in the session, where do those efforts stand and what are your thoughts?

David Stokes (13:11): Unlike a lot of the property tax changes of the past few years, I actually like the property tax changes being proposed this year. At least one property tax bill is in conference committee being debated between the House and Senate right now. Another major bill has passed out of the Senate but hasn’t made it through the House yet. I’m told there are going to have to be some compromises on both sides to get a bill across the finish line, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The biggest change this year, which seems very much in the weeds but is significant, would take the way property taxes are imposed in St. Louis County and apply it to the rest of the state. St. Louis County has different tax rates for all the different types of property: residential, agricultural, commercial, and personal property, which includes your car, boat, farm equipment, livestock, and the like. Those rates adjust differently as assessments go up and down each year. This approach was originally intended to be extended to the rest of the state about 20 years ago when they did it in St. Louis County, but the following year they came back and said the rest of the state didn’t have to do it. It’s a good idea. It might sound strange to some people, but a good example of why it would be beneficial came from stories in the St. Louis Business Journal about the real decline in commercial property values in the city of St. Louis over the past year. Because they set one tax rate measured under one unified property value, residential homeowners in St. Louis end up making up with their taxes for the decline in commercial property. In St. Louis County, with the siloed tax rates, if commercial property goes down, the commercial property tax rate will go up to offset that instead of passing it on to homeowners. In rural Missouri, which has so much agricultural property, this would allow agricultural property tax rates to increase to fund goods in rural areas without as dramatically impacting commercial and residential property. I think this is a good idea and I hope it passes. There are also some good amendments that would put taxpayer protections in place to avoid the temptation of local officials to target commercial property with these new different tax rates. It’s in the weeds, but I think these are good changes this year.

Zach Lawhorn (16:24): That sounds like the other side of the coin from what’s happened in Jackson County, where over the last few years people have been very upset that their assessments have gone up by more than 20% and residential homeowners have seen gigantic leaps in their property taxes. Is this kind of like having to turn one knob one way and another knob the other way?

David Stokes (16:55): Sort of. The tricky part is that the situation in Jackson County for the past 10 years has been so bad, it’s hard to compare it to other counties. It’s been uniquely horrible for the people of Jackson County. But it does start with one basic truth: 15 to 20 years ago, Jackson County was under-assessed. The assessor was ordered to increase the valuations because they were improperly low, and probably artificially and intentionally low. The right approach would have been to raise those assessed valuations to more accurate totals while lowering the rates at the same time to avoid crushing people with higher taxes. But Jackson County’s taxing entities have not really done that, starting with the Kansas City 33 school district, a very large school district in Kansas City, which is the only taxing body in Missouri exempt from rolling back rates as values increase. So you’ve seen these giant increases within that school district and they don’t even have to roll back rates. They just get to keep their same rates, as they have frequently over the past 10 years. So people are getting walloped. And then you throw in the fact that the Kansas City Assessor’s Office has done a terrible job managing the process year after year, not hitting deadlines for notifying people about changes and not properly running the appeals process. It’s just been a terrible system in Jackson County, and almost uniquely so.

Zach Lawhorn (18:30): All right. Before we have Elias read the budget line by line, Avery, I want to get an update on the education items here in the last week of the session. Early literacy, the reading bill, we’ve been talking about it all session long. How’s it looking?

Avery Frank (18:47): When it first passed out of the House before spring break, 131 to 10, I was genuinely excited. It wasn’t necessarily that it passed so early; it was that it passed with such little resistance and such bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. Teaching our students how to read, giving every student the best chance to become a confident, capable reader, that seems like common sense and a goal that everyone wants to work toward to help our state improve and perhaps become the next Mississippi. It looked that way before spring break, but the Senate version of the early literacy bill got filibustered and set aside. The House bill has made it through the process and is on the informal calendar for third reading, so it could be taken up at any time. If it does pass the Senate, I anticipate it would easily pass the House again. But that is the problem with a lot of education legislation: can it pass the Senate? There have been different concerns about the early literacy bills. Some people are concerned that the MAP test, or the Missouri Assessment Program, which we use to test all of our students, is not a good measure and we shouldn’t be basing anything on it. Some are concerned with third-grade retention and whether it actually helps, looking at states like Mississippi and noting that while fourth-grade scores are great, eighth-grade scores have only improved a little. Those are the main pushbacks we’re seeing. I would still say this is something we really need to do. The early literacy bill is built on two different pillars. The first is a mandatory third-grade retention policy. Missouri already tests all K through third-grade students with a reading screener to see how they’re doing with reading. What this bill would do is set a passing score for those screeners. If students don’t meet that score, they would be retained in third grade, because reading is such a foundational skill. If you don’t know how to read, that’s something worth holding back for, to make sure students get it down before moving on for the rest of their educational career. Students would still have the opportunity to retake the screener, and there would be good-cause exemptions for students with disabilities, for students who have been held back previously, and for English language learners. The second main pillar is reforming our teacher preparation programs. In 2023, the National Council on Teacher Quality conducted a survey of all of our universities and teacher preparation programs and found that half of them received an F in teaching the science of reading, which is the best evidence-based way to teach students to read. The early literacy bill would align our teacher prep programs with those best practices. If they don’t do it, they can’t certify teachers. You can see how there could be pushback and reason why people would filibuster or not want it to come to the floor. That’s where it stands right now. I’m hoping people set aside their objections and recognize that this is a great first step to get Missouri back on track. Our reading scores have been really poor, especially after the pandemic. They continue to decrease and have not bounced back at all. They’re lower now than they were the first year after the pandemic, and we have to turn things around. These early literacy bills, I hope people see the common sense in them.

Zach Lawhorn (22:30): It’s not even the perfect being the enemy of the good. It’s just people being afraid to push back against the status quo. Missouri has fallen back in reading test scores, and other states, most notably Mississippi, have found ways to improve. I don’t think it’s helpful to frame this as some kind of radical moonshot. In the final days of the session, the urgency cannot be overstated. The other thing we’ve talked about a lot this session is A through F report cards, a transparency measure. Governor Kehoe issued an executive order before the session started. What’s the status of the legislature trying to adhere to the governor’s executive order?

Avery Frank (23:19): The legislature has tried to legislate its own way into how the executive order gets implemented, because DESE, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, could implement it in their own way. The legislature wants to determine how things are going to be scored instead of letting DESE make that decision. There’s been a lot of back and forth, and a lot of different interested parties. Not to get too in the weeds, but some districts really want academic achievement, their base score on the Missouri Assessment Program, to be weighed the most heavily because that would give them the highest score. Some want growth to be weighed the most heavily for the same reason. Some want basically no grades and a lot more qualitative information. There are a lot of different factors. The best vehicle for A through F report cards right now looks like Senate Bill 1351, which continues the long legacy of education omnibus bills used in recent years in Missouri. It combines the report card, limits on screen time for young students, and a couple of other things. I’m not sure if that’s going to make it past, to be honest. People are still concerned about whether the Missouri Assessment Program is something they want to base all of this on. Personally, I think the executive order is better than the legislation as it currently stands. They got rid of one aspect I liked as a researcher: in Governor Kehoe’s executive order, there was a penalty if districts didn’t report their data properly. In the current legislation, Senate Bill 1351, if districts don’t report sufficient data, it’s just written as an aside, basically saying they have to note on their report card that there is not sufficient data, and then they’re not included in the ranking as much. I don’t like that. It gives districts, especially poorly performing ones, an incentive not to report their data so they can have this qualifier on all of their report cards. I also don’t like it because, from all the education research I’ve been doing, we really do have a data reporting problem and we need to be a lot better about transparency. I hope we get some good report cards, because right now at the Show-Me Institute we do our best with the data we have, but we have to work with unsuppressed data, meaning we don’t have data that could potentially identify certain students. So there are some districts we have no data on because they’re so small. But DESE and the state have the best data possible. They could make a really good report card even better than we could, because they have better data than we do. That’s why I’m really hoping we get a good report card, because it would be very helpful for all the parents, legislators, and researchers across the state to see which districts are doing well and learn from them, and which ones are doing poorly and need more support.

Zach Lawhorn (26:42): Let’s talk about the budget. Elias, the legislature passed the budget a little early this year. They beat the deadline by a couple of days, right?

Elias Tsapelas (26:53): They finished early, which is a little bit different than the last few years.

Zach Lawhorn (26:56): Are we spending more or less money than last year?

Elias Tsapelas (27:01): Spending less, but I’m not throwing them a party. There’s just a lot less federal money going around. There was a lot of COVID money in recent years, and Missouri hasn’t spent all of it. The current budget this year is about $54 billion. What the legislature passed is a little bit less than $50 billion, depending on whether you count different construction items. But there was a lot of federal money in that total. At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a budget that is still going to spend more general revenue, where our income and sales tax dollars go. It’s still going to spend more than we expect to bring in. So we’re still going to exhaust all of our surplus that we built up over those years. There were some positive things that happened this year, but ultimately part of how they got the budget done early was by spending just a little bit more, so they left some of the good on the table.

Zach Lawhorn (28:20): So we’re spending the surplus, as you’ve been warning about for several years, the federal money is drying up, and to circle back to the opening segment, I think part of the trust the legislature is going to have to build this summer is demonstrating we’re getting spending under control. You said you’re not throwing them a party. But is this reduction, whatever the reason, directionally good enough for the legislature to say they’re working on the spending side of things, or is it just not good enough?

Elias Tsapelas (29:00): I think I’ll know a lot more going into next year, because there were a lot better discussions this year, especially looking at spending incentives. As was mentioned, DESE is going to have a new funding formula, or at least the governor has a task force working on one. The way education is funded for K through 12 is going to change. There was also a big fight this year about how to fund higher education. What seemed to me like a common sense idea, essentially having the legislature fund colleges based on how many students are enrolled, turned out to be considered too radical and was pushed off for the future. But there’s talk of coming back with a performance funding measure going forward. There’s also some movement on changing how the state does its IT work. There are a lot of IT changes coming, including things affecting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Missouri has a very bad track record with IT. Part of this budget moves some IT resources over to the Department of Social Services to support getting things going there, because most IT for the state of Missouri is currently consolidated in the Office of Administration. While that can seem efficient because every state department doesn’t need its own IT department, it also makes it a lot harder to hold people accountable. There has been a big issue recently with the state’s accounting software, where a contract is millions of dollars behind schedule and not working. The budget tries to get at that too, and it raises this major incentive question: are the people in charge of implementing new IT going to do their best at something that will ultimately try to eliminate their job? I think the legislature is finally starting to deal with that. Ultimately, if we go down the path of a more efficient government and a better tax system, that may mean fewer state employees, and that is something that hasn’t come up much but I think the legislature is finally starting to look at. Pushing toward better funding models, a better state workforce, all those type of things, is moving in the right direction as opposed to how it has been, where the budget just grows larger every year. They’re looking in the right direction. I would have liked to see more, but I think we’ll know a lot more in the next year, especially because the federal COVID funding will essentially be gone.

Zach Lawhorn (32:12): Our final topic, partly so we can put it in the title of the episode for clicks, but also because it seems like every week there’s a story from across the country or across the state about data centers and communities pushing back for a lot of reasons. The most recent one was Ferguson in the St. Louis area. David, can you catch us up on what was on the table for this data center in Ferguson and what happened?

David Stokes (32:40): The vote that the Ferguson city council took last week was strictly on a tax subsidy, I believe about $1.8 billion in tax abatements and various subsidies for the project. It was not a vote on approving the data center itself. This was a commercially zoned area, so it didn’t need any permission to put a data center there, and that’s a good thing. But the city nonetheless rejected the tax subsidy, which I thought was the right call. These data centers are very profitable and important, and I’m certainly not anti-data center. But the demand that they get enormous subsidies everywhere they seem to be going is improper. Festus was right to approve the data center operation there, but I think very much wrong to approve the enormous tax subsidy the city granted, which I believe was about a half a billion dollars. Avery can correct me if I’m wrong on that exact number. I like what Ferguson did, and I hope the data center moves into the old Emerson complex there nonetheless. We need data centers. Data centers produce so much tax revenue that they can generate their own tax cuts, and I don’t mean a special subsidy for the data center itself. I mean they go into a city or a small area, generate so much revenue, and you can cut taxes for everybody in that community, including the data center itself. I think that’s the road to follow, and hopefully that’s what we’ll have in Missouri. I also think we need to change the way data centers are taxed in an upcoming legislative session, taxing them a little more like utilities to reduce the incentive for one city or county to hand out a big subsidy and instead spread those tax benefits around a little more.

Zach Lawhorn (34:46): Avery, are you heartened by this rejection? Because as David said, we need the data centers, but we really want to avoid this new layer of corporate welfare that could pop up everywhere. So how do you feel about it?

Avery Frank (35:00): I’m actually very excited by the rejection in Ferguson. I’ve talked to a lot of people on both sides of the data center debate, those who have gone to the meetings and stayed up until 3 a.m. and protested, and those who want them. When I look at this Ferguson project specifically, the numbers David was talking about involved granting up to 15 years of tax abatements on real estate, personal property, and sales tax for a data center project. When I see something like that, it gets at what David was talking about. The only true significant benefit of a data center is the tax revenue it could bring. It doesn’t bring a lot of jobs. It takes a lot of electricity and a lot of water. It generates noise. It already makes a lot of people upset, and there are concerns about housing values and everything else. So if you’re not getting any tax revenue, there really is no strong incentive to have a data center project. That Emerson complex in Ferguson had thousands of employees. A data center does not take very many employees at all. So when you have people coming up and saying this data center project won’t succeed unless we get all these tax subsidies, I say that’s fine and I hope you don’t build a data center there, because the tax revenue is really the only benefit you’re getting from it. One of the bigger things is just something about Missouri in general. I’m from Tennessee and there are a lot of concerns there about having too much growth. Missouri sometimes feels like the opposite of Tennessee. We’re so desperate for growth that we’re willing to hand out a bunch of money. We don’t have enough pride. This Emerson complex is a good building and a good place. Ferguson has a STEM high school that produces very high test scores and graduates people who can work in the tech industry or an engineering industry. We shouldn’t waste a good building and a good workforce on a project that’s going to get all these tax subsidies and not bring a lot of jobs. The same thing happened over in Independence, where they gave out billions in subsidies for a data center project. Whenever I see that, I think we have to have a little bit of pride in Missouri. We can’t just be giving out all this money to get anyone to come. We have a good parcel of land, a good workforce, a lot of water, and a central location in the country. We can attract good projects, data centers or not, without giving out a bunch of subsidies. We need to understand what the benefits and costs of a data center are and what data center developers are actually looking for. They have a lot of money already. If you give them a good workforce, a place to build, and community support, I think they’ll come, even without a bunch of money.

Elias Tsapelas (38:28): I was really hoping this was the discussion we were going to have this year in Missouri’s legislature, because it started off so well with the discussion of how to get rid of the income tax and everything that goes with that. Talking about the income tax is really about how you make your state more desirable and how you grow faster. But Missouri for so long has just said: we want this industry or this type of business, so let’s give it an economic development tax credit. Let’s give out a billion dollars worth of those. Let’s give out sales tax exemptions. As far as I know, data centers in Missouri already get state and local sales tax exemptions. We just give those out. If we’re really going to start thinking about how to make the state the most desirable place, how to grow the fastest and be the most desirable for families and businesses, that’s really more about making the tax climate the best for everyone, not constantly picking winners and losers. Unfortunately, the budget didn’t see as many cuts as I had hoped. As we go into the last few days of the legislature, there are plenty of tax credit bills waiting to pass. The film tax credit is back and there’s talk of extending the sunset on it. There are other tax credits. We’re still going down that path. There are still more sales tax exemptions being considered. Missouri just needs to decide what direction we want to go, because ultimately if we do get rid of the income tax, a lot of these economic development incentives don’t even really work anymore. You have to look at different things. You have to look at what is really the criteria for families and businesses. States across the country are dealing with these issues, changing their economic conditions, their tax policy, and people are moving there. We know people are leaving Missouri. We know income is leaving Missouri. We need to change things. The status quo is not going to work going forward, and I was hoping that would have sunk in a little bit more this year than it did.

Zach Lawhorn (40:37): We will leave it there this week. We’ll talk to everyone again after the session ends over the next few days and see how everything turned out. As always, plenty more at showmeinstitute.org. David, Avery, and Elias, thank you very much.

The post Missouri’s 2026 Legislative Session Final Week appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Neglecting a problem doesn’t make it go away, or cheaper to fix. Missouri is learning that lesson with regard to its IT systems right now.

As I’ve written before, many of Missouri’s government computer systems are critically out of date. COVID relief funds helped jumpstart long-needed modernization efforts, but the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill last July means new federal requirements will soon depend on those upgrades.

Missouri’s Department of Social Services (DSS) has been tasked with integrating its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid eligibility systems while preparing for new community engagement requirements. This integration has been needed for years, but the new federal rules make it urgent. The goal is straightforward: simplify how benefits are administered while reducing costly errors. If Missouri cannot bring those error rates down, the state will be responsible for a larger share of program costs.

Some officials have warned that meeting the new requirements could force the department to shift resources away from other modernization work. There is no doubt funding plays a role. Modernizing large government IT systems can be expensive. But in this case, stronger systems are exactly what will make complying with new federal mandates possible.

There are reasons to worry about how this effort will go. This is not the first time DSS has faced a difficult administrative task, and the last major one did not go smoothly. When federal pandemic rules suspended Medicaid eligibility reviews, states had time to prepare for the return of normal operations. Missouri did not use that window to get ahead or fully modernize its systems. When eligibility reviews resumed and the state had to reassess hundreds of thousands of enrollees, Missouri struggled immensely.

More recently, Missouri’s experience with large IT modernization efforts across state government offers another warning. Lawmakers were told a few weeks ago that completing upgrades to the state’s financial management system will cost more than $250 million. This is a project that is already significantly behind schedule and over budget. It should be noted that Missouri’s difficulty with modernization is partly the result of how long these systems were allowed to fall behind. It‘s not surprising that the longer upgrades are delayed, the harder and more expensive they become.

The challenge Missouri faces now is that many of the policies it must implement depend on the very systems still awaiting modernization. Community engagement requirements require technology capable of tracking employment data. More frequent eligibility renewals require information that can move accurately between programs. Lower error rates require systems that can catch mistakes before they turn into federal penalties.

As lawmakers finalize Missouri’s budget in the weeks ahead, this issue should remain front of mind. Modernizing the systems that run the state’s safety net is not a project the state can afford to ignore any longer.

There’s no getting around the fact that Missouri will ultimately have to upgrade these systems. The only real question now is whether the state does it in time to avoid more costly mistakes and federal penalties.

The post Cost of Delaying Safety-Net Modernization appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past several months, I’ve written about the many changes coming to Missouri’s welfare programs as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). One of the most impactful changes involves the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In short, if Missouri doesn’t get its SNAP payment error rate below 6%, state taxpayers will start paying for a portion of the program’s benefit costs (the federal government currently covers 100% of benefits), which could potentially increase the state taxpayer cost to $400 million per year. A similar change is coming to Medicaid.

Despite accounting for roughly one fifth of total U.S. healthcare spending, Medicaid has until now lacked stringent federal accountability for payment errors. Just last year, more than $31 billion in improper payments were made across the program according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The OBBB requires HHS to reduce state Medicaid matching payments (more here on how Medicaid is financed) starting in 2030 when improper payment rates exceed 3% of total Medicaid expenditures.

Missouri should be particularly concerned about this change. In 2022, when the state’s Medicaid program was last audited by the federal government, its improper payment rate was 4.2%, which already exceeded the new 3% threshold. And there’s little reason to believe things have improved since then. Just last month, I wrote about the recent state audit showing that Missouri lacks systems to check enrollees against death records and that thousands of recipients went years without having their eligibility verified.

The financial implications for Missouri could be substantial. With more than one in five Missourians now on the program and Medicaid already consuming a massive portion of the state budget, even a small reduction in federal matching payments could force state taxpayers to cover millions more in costs.

The good news is that Missouri has more time to address this than it does for SNAP. The bad news? Given the state’s track record on technology modernization and the sheer volume of problems that need fixing, there’s plenty of reason for skepticism about whether Missouri will rise to the challenge.

While the OBBB’s focus on program integrity might be a nuisance for state bureaucrats, there’s no doubt that a corrective measure is long overdue. Taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened with millions (or perhaps billions) in new Medicaid costs because our state can’t get its improper payments under control.

The post Medicaid’s Wake-Up Call appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As many Missouri businesses struggle to find workers, the state’s welfare programs are fostering government dependency.

The Solution

Seize the opportunity provided by the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to reform Missouri’s welfare programs.

Key Facts

• Recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) offers Missouri new opportunities to reform the state’s welfare programs.
• More than 1 in 5 Missourians are enrolled in government-sponsored health coverage through Medicaid.
• Estimates suggest that upwards of 20% of welfare enrollees may actually be ineligible to receive services.
• Missouri should take advantage of the new flexibility granted to states as the many provisions of the OBBB are implemented in the coming years, focusing on encouraging work and making the programs more efficient.

New Opportunities

After decades of creeping growth in government dependence, Missouri now has a golden opportunity to finally enact meaningful welfare reform. Following the recent federal passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), states will be tasked over the next several years with implementing the bill’s many provisions that relate to welfare programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Drastically changing Missouri’s welfare programs will require significant, much-needed computer system upgrades. According to a recent report from the Missouri State Auditor’s Office, the state’s Medicaid agency continues to struggle with determining recipient eligibility. As a result, individuals who are ineligible to receive benefits have remained enrolled in the program for up to 10 years in some cases. State taxpayers have also been footing the bill for benefits for dead recipients due to a lack of sufficient system controls.

As Missouri is upgrading the state’s information systems as required by the OBBB, there’s no better time to address the existing eligibility system issues and take the extra step to further reform the state’s welfare programs to make them work better for program recipients and taxpayers alike.

Continuing Growth

As government spending has grown in recent years, so too has enrollment in Missouri’s various welfare programs. Today, Medicaid is Missouri’s largest government-run program, with more than 1.2 million Missourians—approximately one fifth of Missouri’s population—enrolled. This total represents an increase in enrollment of approximately 50% since the beginning of 2020. Medicaid is not the only program growing in size. Approximately 660,000 Missourians are enrolled in SNAP, otherwise known as food stamps. Estimates suggest that upwards of 20% of all welfare enrollees may not be legally eligible to receive services or are receiving benefits in excess of the amount to which they’re entitled.

Change Incentives to Change Outcomes

Welfare programs shouldn’t encourage dependency, but far too often they end up trapping recipients on government support. After years without enforcing the SNAP or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) work requirements, the OBBB requires Missouri to implement “community engagement requirements” for able-bodied SNAP and Medicaid recipients starting in 2027. Missouri should ensure these new requirements are more than just a new bureaucratic hurdle recipients need to clear and are instead offering those who need temporary assistance a clear path back to the workforce.

Welfare Program Enrollment

Following the surge in program enrollment during the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 1.2 million Missourians remain enrolled in Medicaid and more than 660,000 are on SNAP (food stamps).

Reform Can’t Wait

Whether Missouri’s government is ready or not, as a result of the OBBB, substantial changes are coming to the Show-Me State’s welfare programs over the next several years. While many of the bill’s reforms focus on improving program integrity and establish new state requirements with firm deadlines for compliance, some reforms provide states considerable flexibility in how they’re implemented. In these cases, Missouri should take advantage of this newfound flexibility to tailor the reforms to best meet the needs of Missourians, with a focus on maximizing efficiency, minimizing waste, and encouraging work for recipients who are capable.

Policy Recommendations

• Take advantage of newly provided flexibility to meaningfully reform welfare programs in a manner consistent with the goals of the recently passed OBBB.
• Continue upgrading state information systems to encourage greater accountability by minimizing waste, fraud, and abuse.
• Dutifully implement provisions of the OBBB to maximize program integrity while ensuring that productive work is encouraged.

The post Welfare Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss local ballot measures in Missouri, including new hotel taxes in Springfield and Jefferson City, municipal use and gas taxes, how the ongoing federal shutdown could jeopardize food stamp benefits for hundreds of thousands of Missourians and what the federal Rural Health Transformation Fund means for reform, and emerging ideas in energy policy such as consumer regulated electricity and the debate over data center development in Missouri.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Election Season Insights
04:57 Convention Center Controversies
09:09 Understanding Use Taxes
13:32 State Budget and SNAP Challenges
16:12 Rural Health Transformation Fund
21:59 Energy Prices and Consumer Regulation
27:21 Data Centers: Economic Growth vs. Local Concerns

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Election Day Preview, SNAP Shortfalls, and Missouri’s Data Center Debate | Roundtable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss: the cancellation of the St. Louis MetroLink Green Line and what bus rapid transit could mean for the city, major changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under the One Big Beautiful Bill, and Missouri’s worsening reading crisis and how other states have improved with reforms like third grade retention.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Cancellation of the Green Line Project
08:12 Changes to the SNAP Program
17:18 Reading Retention and Educational Reforms
26:10 Property Tax Reassessments in Platte County

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post MetroLink Line Canceled, SNAP Reform, and Missouri’s Reading Crisis | Roundtable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At the center of the issue is what’s called the “Thrifty Food Plan,” which is the formula the USDA uses to set SNAP benefits every year. In short, the formula is designed to determine the cost of a basic but nutritious diet, given the USDA’s dietary guidelines. For decades, the Thrifty Food Plan was adjusted yearly to account for the increased costs families saw in their grocery bills. But in 2021, the formula was changed to boost benefits by around 21%, far exceeding inflation.

The precise way the formula was adjusted is complicated and goes beyond the scope of this post, but suffice it to say that both the foods included in the calculation and their cost were changed to increase national SNAP expenditures by roughly $200 billion over ten years, all without an act of Congress. Historically, major changes to the Thrifty Food Plan beyond inflationary cost increases have been the result of legislation. Such a significant change without explicit approval led many to call for its immediate reversal, arguing the move violated federal law and years of precedent.

After several years of higher SNAP spending, the OBBB finally addresses the issue created in 2021. The law now ties Thrifty Food Plan increases to inflation and specifies how often the foods included in the calculation can be re-evaluated. While this may not seem like some groundbreaking change, it’s an important step to protect against future bureaucratic attempts to expand welfare benefits without congressional approval, and could ultimately save Missouri taxpayers money.

As I wrote recently, in an effort to improve SNAP’s program integrity, the OBBB will soon start putting states on the hook for a portion of benefit costs if they can’t get their payment error rates under control. Keep in mind that until the OBBB is fully implemented, the federal government covers 100% of all SNAP benefits. Meanwhile, states have overpaid recipients nearly 10% of the time. By changing the incentives, states now have a reason to lower their error rates, which should reduce wasteful spending. The Thrifty Food Plan change will also help states (maybe including Missouri) that become responsible for a portion of benefit costs (because their payment error rates are too high) from being subject to unanticipated large program cost increases in future years.

The Thrifty Food Plan changes will help rein in the administrative state and encourage states to be better stewards of taxpayer money. Missouri’s policymakers and taxpayers should welcome the return of thrift to SNAP.

The post More SNAP Changes: Restoring Thrift appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For Missouri, perhaps the biggest change will be the cost of SNAP going up. Unlike Medicaid, the federal government has historically paid for 100% of the SNAP benefit, with states only on the hook for 50% of its administrative costs. The OBBB increases the share of administrative costs borne by states to 75%, and has the potential to start charging states for some program benefit costs as well.

There’s a noticeable focus in the OBBB on improving program integrity in America’s welfare programs. With Medicaid, the focus was on checking program recipients’ eligibility more frequently. For SNAP, the focus is on reducing state payment error rates. Last year, the national rate of overpayment for SNAP (awarding benefits to people who don’t qualify or offering more benefits than the recipient was eligible for) approached 10%, with Missouri not much behind at 8.16%. Perhaps the most surprising thing about the payment errors is that they’re almost entirely overpayments. The error rate for underpayments barely exceeds 1%.

To be clear, there could be myriad reasons for the errors, but it shouldn’t be controversial to say that the government needs to do better. One possible explanation is that states tend toward overpayments because they aren’t responsible for the cost. The OBBB tries to address this misaligned incentive by requiring states to get their error rates below 6% by 2028; states that fail to meet this goal will need to start paying for a portion of the cost, with the share scaling by how far away the state is from the 6% goal.

All told, the SNAP changes contained in the OBBB could have a greater impact on Missouri’s budget than the changes to Medicaid. According to the Tax Foundation, these new costs could reach up to $400 million per year for Missouri if the state isn’t able to sufficiently reduce its payment error rate. It’s important to remember that the only guaranteed increase in cost for states is the higher share required for administrative services. If Missouri can find efficiencies in how it administers the program, the state’s cost might not need to go up much at all.

In the coming weeks, I’ll explain more about the OBBB’s changes to SNAP (no, these aren’t all of them), but these are the two that could have the largest impact on Missouri’s budget. Now that the federal government has finally gotten around to tackling the many broken incentives in America’s welfare system, it’s time for Missouri to step up and follow through on enacting comprehensive reform.

The post SNAP Back to Reality appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass is joined again by Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, for Part II of their conversation on the sweeping federal legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” They unpack what the bill means for Missouri taxpayers, including changes to the standard deduction, tips and overtime, education savings accounts, and higher education policy. They also dig into the bill’s broader fiscal impact, from the growing federal deficit to the implementation challenges facing state governments.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Exploring the One Big Beautiful Bill
04:58 Tax Implications for Missourians
10:20 New Savings Accounts for Children
12:07 Changes in Higher Education
18:09 Federal Deficit and Debt Concerns

Listen to Part I Here

Episode Transcript: One Big Beautiful Bill Breakdown, Part II with Elias Tsapelas 

(Download Here)

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
So I guess it turns out that the One Big Beautiful Bill was too big for us to talk about in one podcast. Elias, thanks for coming back. I realized after we stopped recording that there’s so much in there we didn’t even discuss. We barely even really got into it. So let’s talk about more of the One Big Beautiful Bill because it’s huge—hundreds, at least hundreds of pages long. And I can’t believe the people who voted on it read it through carefully. Now, as you’re going through it and learning things, I’d love for you to explain some of it to me.

Starting with—how does the no tax on tips and overtime work? I’ve heard a lot about this. I know it was a campaign promise. So is it true that if you’re waiting tables now and you get a few hundred bucks a night in tips, you don’t have to pay tax on it now?

Elias Tsapelas (00:51)
In theory, yes. Now, it’s not clear if it’s going to be something that impacts Missouri tax liability. It sort of impacts the federal tax code a little differently than the increased standard deduction and some of the other changes. So it might change some federal tax liability, but unless Missouri’s legislature changes some stuff, it’s not going to immediately impact Missouri taxes.

Susan Pendergrass (01:16)
But why—do you have to itemize to do it?

Elias Tsapelas (01:19)
No. Basically, Missouri has rolling conformity with the federal government. Missouri takes its gross income from the federal government, and the tax on tips and overtime piece isn’t going to impact the gross income calculation. So it may or may not become an issue in Missouri.

There’s also a big open question here about how much income tip workers are actually claiming, and how much that will change if you say it’s not taxed—because if they weren’t declaring it before, we don’t really know what the change will be.

Susan Pendergrass (02:05)
Yeah, so if you walk home with a wad of cash, you’re not necessarily going to add it up and write it down and claim it.

Elias Tsapelas (02:09)
It still might not be worth declaring all of it. But if Missouri brings it into the state income tax code, it could cost quite a bit of money. There are quite a few tax provisions here—especially on corporate tax—where we really don’t know how much it’s going to cost, but it’s probably going to be significant. There’s full expensing, depreciation, all kinds of things that are going to change both federal and Missouri tax liability. And then there was the standard deduction change we mentioned last time.

Susan Pendergrass (02:47)
Okay. So one thing that does impact Missourians is our tax credit scholarship program, where you can donate to a scholarship-granting organization like the Archdiocese of St. Louis, and they give out scholarships. Right now, you can get a Missouri state income tax credit for that—up to half of how much you owe the state. And now there’s a new program where you can take a federal credit of up to $1,700 for donating to these organizations.

You can’t get credits for both on the same donation, but you could donate up to half your tax liability and get the Missouri credit, and then separately donate $1,700 and get the federal credit. I know there’s a lot of rulemaking still to come, and I also know this program doesn’t start until January 2027. So it won’t affect people’s returns until April 2028. But—how do you think that’s going to work? Do you have any idea based on what you’ve read?

Elias Tsapelas (03:54)
Well, Missouri has to opt in first, right? I think the first step is getting the rules out and seeing which states opt in. I would assume Missouri will. The hope is that this becomes something more people understand and take advantage of.

In Missouri, even though we have tons of tax credits that people do use, it takes a while to build it into tax preparation tools like TurboTax. So you kind of have to know what’s going on. Maybe once the federal piece is in place—and there are also changes to the child tax credit—that’ll help.

Susan Pendergrass (04:24)
Spread the word. How’s that changing?

Elias Tsapelas (04:51)
Some of the temporary provisions from the 2017 bill are now made permanent. One of the things the One Big Beautiful Bill does is take temporary changes and make them permanent. We’ll see in a few years how many of these stay.

Susan Pendergrass (05:10)
So the child tax credit is now permanent?

Elias Tsapelas (05:13)
Yes. The changes made in 2017 are now permanent. It’s higher now, and there’s more of it that’s refundable. There’s still an income threshold to get the maximum amount. I think there are going to be a lot of tax credit changes. The bill also got rid of a lot of renewable tax credits. So there are a lot of changes to tax policy for both businesses and individuals. I think people will need to start thinking about their Missouri taxes a little differently, at least for the next few years.

Susan Pendergrass (05:59)
Another piece is the savings accounts for children—kind of like IRAs for kids. I’ve read that anyone born after January 1, 2024, or maybe anyone currently under age 18, is eligible. The IRS has to open the accounts, and you need a Social Security number. For kids born between January 1, 2024, and 2026, the government deposits the first $1,000.

Elias Tsapelas (06:52)
Yeah. What I was trying to figure out is how these differ from 529 plans. I think these will be harder to withdraw from. They do come with tax benefits for employers and others contributing, but taxes will have to be paid when the money comes out.

Susan Pendergrass (07:25)
Yes—capital gains. With 529s, the money goes in pre-tax and comes out tax-free if used for education. These accounts are less flexible. You can take money out for education, a house, or a business, but otherwise there’s an early withdrawal penalty plus capital gains. It feels gimmicky, since the government only deposits $1,000 until 2028 when the program expires.

But for many low-income kids, this could be their only savings. It’s meant to help those who wouldn’t have a 529. They were originally going to be called “Invest in America Accounts,” but they’re now called “Trump Accounts.”

Elias Tsapelas (08:50)
I’m curious to see if the $1,000 is the only money ever deposited into these accounts for most people. It may not be worth putting in more, but even with tax obligations, it’s still free money.

Susan Pendergrass (09:27)
Right. You turn 18 and have $10,000—it’s not nothing. But some worry that a future Democratic president with control of Congress could expand the program—like depositing $500 annually for anyone under 18. It starts to look like a form of universal basic income. But I suspect it’ll go away—it feels gimmicky.

Elias Tsapelas (10:16)
I’m curious if the government will make it easier to use for college or similar expenses. There are a lot of higher education changes in the bill too. As someone with student loans, I’m getting emails every day about them.

Susan Pendergrass (10:33)
Yeah. So tell me—what are the changes to higher ed?

Elias Tsapelas (10:43)
Well…

Susan Pendergrass (10:46)
I’ve heard it might hurt community colleges, but I don’t know why. Do you?

Elias Tsapelas (10:49)
There are new caps on loan amounts and some income-based repayment plans are being eliminated. For example, the SAVE repayment plan created by the Biden administration has been tied up in court. Interest collection is resuming, but payments aren’t due yet. Borrowers need to switch plans, but the old ones are gone. The new plan tries to prevent negative amortization, but it’s still unclear how well that will work.

Grad students will be able to borrow less. The government wants loans repaid more quickly. After five years of paused payments, there’s a huge administrative burden now to unwind all of this.

Susan Pendergrass (12:11)
I know—since the pandemic.

Elias Tsapelas (12:17)
Exactly. There’s going to be a big process for certifying income and re-establishing payments. Colleges are nervous—lower borrowing limits could change students’ decisions. And I don’t know if the federal government is prepared to roll all of this out smoothly. I still need to re-set my auto-withdrawal.

Susan Pendergrass (12:56)
Yeah. It feels like we have to wait six months or a year to see what actually happens. Even the work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid were pushed out beyond the midterms. So while people are celebrating or panicking, a lot of this is still TBD.

Elias Tsapelas (13:26)
Yeah. And when people talk about “cuts,” especially to Medicaid, they’re mostly referring to ten-year projections. But a lot of the actual cuts are back-loaded. The benefits hit first—then the cuts. And some of those cuts may never happen. There’s also a big expansion of health savings accounts. People with bronze marketplace plans or direct primary care arrangements could use them, but rules still need to be written.

Susan Pendergrass (14:38)
I read there might be fewer subsidies, maybe higher premiums?

Elias Tsapelas (14:44)
Depends. There’s going to be a bill later this year to debate extending the enhanced COVID-era subsidies. But those subsidies created a kind of shadow market—shady dealers signing people up for plans they didn’t even know they had. About 2 million people were enrolled in multiple subsidized marketplace plans last year. So now there’s a push to reintroduce some “skin in the game.” But we’ll see what ends up mattering or going into effect.

Susan Pendergrass (16:04)
And our senator is already trying to undo parts of the bill he voted for.

Elias Tsapelas (16:08)
Yeah, especially the provider tax piece. That would help rein in spending, but the cuts don’t go into effect for several years—giving time for backtracking. If none of the pay-fors happen and only the expensive parts do, this bill just becomes even more costly.

Susan Pendergrass (17:08)
What does this bill, even optimistically, do to the federal deficit?

Elias Tsapelas (17:15)
I still need to see estimates, but we’re looking at adding at least $4 trillion to the deficit. Possibly more, depending on what’s made permanent.

Susan Pendergrass (17:53)
I thought Republicans cared about balanced budgets. This feels irresponsible. What do you think?

Elias Tsapelas (18:08)
It’s a lot easier to say you’re for fiscal responsibility than to actually do it. With Medicaid, people say cut waste—but cutting funding means cutting payments to hospitals, doctors, and nurses. And those tax cuts were always going to be extended. Every person taking the standard deduction is getting a bigger deduction. That costs money.

The real long-term budget problems are in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—none of which were addressed. So someone will have to get back to those eventually.

Susan Pendergrass (19:48)
Yeah. Social Security’s trust fund is going to run dry soon—maybe within 10 years. The numbers are so big, it starts to feel imaginary. People can’t wrap their heads around what it would take to have a balanced budget. Both parties just keep giving stuff away, so you’d be foolish to sit on the sidelines.

Elias Tsapelas (20:24)
Yeah—it’s just different groups they’re giving to. This bill was very expensive. And I think future efforts will make it even more so by eliminating what little cost savings exist.

Susan Pendergrass (21:03)
The SALT deduction, for example—capped at $10,000 in 2017, now up to $40,000. That’s a $30,000 swing. For Californians, that’s huge.

Elias Tsapelas (21:27)
Yeah, and the benefit mostly goes to higher-income people. Even in Missouri, some homeowners might benefit—but it mostly helps the coasts. And it gives high-tax states more room to raise taxes, since the federal deduction cushions the blow.

Susan Pendergrass (22:19)
Exactly. Crazy stuff. Well, I think we’ve covered a lot. I won’t make you come back again, but there’s so much detail—it’s not really what either side thinks it is.

Elias Tsapelas (22:45)
I agree. Especially with Medicaid and SNAP. And states will carry a big burden implementing this. Some will do it well, some will fight every piece. There’s going to be a lot of news as this all rolls out.

Susan Pendergrass (23:46)
Totally. Not directly related, but recently I’ve met people surprised by the real ID requirement. It’s been around for 10–15 years, and Missouri resisted it. Some states just don’t want to jump into federal programs.

Elias Tsapelas (24:04)
Yeah—I’ve seen signs about it at TSA forever. Always “effective in 3 months,” then postponed. But it finally happened.

Susan Pendergrass (24:11)
Right. And this summer, people are finally getting real IDs. Missouri was one of the last to implement it. So I don’t expect the state to jump on many of these changes either. But there’s still plenty of time to talk about it all again.

Elias Tsapelas (24:28)
Yes.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post One Big Beautiful Bill Breakdown, Part II with Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass is joined by Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, to break down the sweeping new federal legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” They discuss what it really means for Medicaid recipients, food stamp programs, state budgets, and Missouri taxpayers.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
06:44 Medicaid: Changes and Implications
11:23 SNAP Benefits: New Regulations and Effects
14:18 Tax Implications for Missourians
19:09 Future of Medicaid and State Budgets

Episode Transcript: Understanding the One Big Beautiful Bill with Elias Tsapelas (Download Here) 

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Okay, here we go. You ready? Elias Tsapelas, we are going to talk about IT—the big IT—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. I don’t feel like I understand it. I suspect there’s a lot of people reading the news that don’t understand it, but you seem to understand a lot of it. So thanks for coming to talk to us about it today.

Elias Tsapelas (00:19)
No problem. I think there’s a lot of misconceptions, especially about what’s happening with the welfare programs in the bill. So I’m happy to dive into those.

Susan Pendergrass (00:27)
Yes, yeah. I’ve definitely seen claims that this is going to basically strip health care from millions and millions of people and that kids will be hungry. And I don’t want to minimize that. But we had Brian Blase on the podcast, and I thought I had an understanding of it that didn’t exactly line up with that narrative. So let’s just start there. People are saying that tens of millions of people are going to lose health insurance under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Explain that to me.

Elias Tsapelas (01:01)
Well, the first thing people need to understand about Medicaid is that it’s gotten tremendously more expensive in recent years. The Biden administration made a lot of changes during COVID—changes to how the program works and its future trajectory. Even after the One Big Beautiful Bill goes into effect, we’re basically just putting the program’s costs back on the trajectory it was on in 2021. This isn’t going back to the Stone Age—it’s more like going back five years.

A lot of this stems from efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. And while there’s certainly some of that, what many people don’t realize is that most states, including Missouri, now contract with private health plans to cover people on Medicaid—particularly the Medicaid expansion population, which consists of healthy adults.

Susan Pendergrass (02:11)
Okay, so let’s just pretend we know nothing. Medicaid is a program that covers health insurance costs for low-income and disabled individuals?

Elias Tsapelas (02:24)
Yes. About 50% of kids in Missouri are on Medicaid. The program covers around two-thirds of all nursing home costs and over a third of all births in the state.

Susan Pendergrass (02:34)
So low-income pregnant women can get Medicaid coverage, and their children can as well. Who exactly is in the “expansion population”?

Elias Tsapelas (02:47)
Good question. And just to clarify—yes, Medicaid also covers a lot of very disabled individuals who private health insurance wouldn’t. But the expansion population refers to healthy adults making up to 138% of the federal poverty limit. These are not permanently disabled people. They’re generally able to work.

Before 2021, someone like me—unmarried and childless—couldn’t qualify for Medicaid in Missouri, even if I lost my job. Medicaid expansion changed that, and with it came a lot of problematic incentives. One issue is that states are paying health plans monthly for enrollees, but there isn’t always a process to verify whether those people are still eligible.

Susan Pendergrass (04:53)
Let me just stop you there. So the state is paying monthly premiums for people who might not even know they’re on Medicaid? And they might have a job now and no longer qualify, but the state hasn’t gone back to check?

Elias Tsapelas (05:40)
Exactly. Ideally, people would notify the government when they get a job, but most don’t, and the IT systems don’t really catch that. Previously, states just paid the bills as they came in. If someone didn’t go to the doctor, there was no cost. Now we’re paying premiums whether they use care or not, which adds up quickly.

Susan Pendergrass (06:40)
So what’s in the One Big Beautiful Bill? Are states required to recertify people?

Elias Tsapelas (06:45)
Yes. One big provision is that states must check eligibility at least twice per year. The Congressional Budget Office projects significant enrollment losses just from checking more often. That’s raised concerns about red tape, but the goal is to ensure people who are no longer eligible aren’t still receiving coverage.

Susan Pendergrass (07:13)
Can Missouri do that? Do we have the systems in place?

Elias Tsapelas (07:20)
I’d like to think so, but I’m not sure. During COVID, states weren’t allowed to check eligibility at all for over three years. Missouri spent an entire year catching up when that ended. Right now, about 1.2 million people are on Medicaid in Missouri, including 350,000 in the expansion group. So yes, it would mean more IT strain.

Another major part of the bill is requiring “community engagement” or work requirements for the able-bodied expansion group.

Susan Pendergrass (08:24)
So that’s people under 65 who aren’t disabled? How do they know who’s supposed to work?

Elias Tsapelas (08:32)
There are carve-outs—new moms, parents with kids under 14, people over 65, etc. The idea is to target people who could be in the workforce. There are also alternative ways to meet the requirements, like volunteering. And it’s worth noting: the SNAP program (food stamps) has had work requirements since the 1990s.

Susan Pendergrass (10:25)
Then why are people saying this will “kick people off”?

Elias Tsapelas (10:33)
Because people will have to meet work or volunteer requirements, and the state will recertify them more often. The question is: how many people will get caught in red tape? That depends on how well states implement the changes. Most of the bill’s provisions are phased in over time to allow states to adapt.

Susan Pendergrass (11:34)
Let’s talk about SNAP benefits. People are saying this will take food away from families. What’s actually changing?

Elias Tsapelas (11:46)
The federal government will now penalize states with high error rates in SNAP administration. Missouri’s overpayment error rate is about 10%, and some states are worse—Alaska’s is nearly 25%. Under the bill, if your error rate is over 6% for two years, the state will have to start covering some of the cost. So Missouri may have to pay a portion of benefits if it doesn’t improve.

Susan Pendergrass (14:06)
How does the bill impact taxes for Missourians?

Elias Tsapelas (14:14)
The standard deduction is going up—by $750 for single filers and up to $6,000 more for seniors. There’s also a new deduction for car loan interest and temporary exemptions for taxes on tips and overtime. Since Missouri’s tax code follows the federal code, that could mean less state revenue, too.

Susan Pendergrass (15:41)
So what will this cost Missouri?

Elias Tsapelas (15:46)
It depends. If we reduce our SNAP error rate, the cost isn’t too bad. But a bigger issue is the provider tax cap dropping from 6% to 3.5% over a few years. Missouri is at 4.2% now, so we’ll need to lower it. That tax generates about $1.5 billion per year for hospitals.

Susan Pendergrass (17:09)
How does the rural hospital fund come into play?

Elias Tsapelas (17:24)
The bill creates a $50 billion Rural Hospital Fund to be distributed over five years. States will get a portion based on how rural they are. The hope is this fund offsets the provider tax losses—at least through 2030. But after that, the fund ends. So there’s concern about what happens long-term.

Susan Pendergrass (19:18)
Senator Josh Hawley mentioned he supports the bill but hopes to fix the provider tax issue in five years.

Elias Tsapelas (19:29)
That seems to be the thinking—pass it now and revisit the unpopular parts later. A lot of the tax and spending changes are temporary, which is partly how they got the bill to comply with budget rules.

Susan Pendergrass (20:30)
This reflects what voters asked for—smaller government and more state responsibility. It reminds me of the Department of Education cuts. Missouri will have to decide which programs to keep and how to fund them. But I was surprised the expansion of the MOScholars tax credit program made it in.

Elias Tsapelas (22:35)
Yes, Medicaid will continue to dominate the state budget if we don’t address it. Every year it’s, “How much more is Medicaid going to cost?” Then we build the rest of the budget around that. This bill will force Missouri lawmakers to reevaluate some of those assumptions and perhaps reconsider whether managed care is working.

Susan Pendergrass (25:02)
That’s going to be interesting to watch. Thanks for breaking it down, Elias. This bill is being talked about a lot, but I think a lot of people are still unsure what it really does.

Elias Tsapelas (25:16)
No problem. I think we’re all looking forward to seeing what happens next.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Understanding the One Big Beautiful Bill with Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a UBI program, lower-income people are guaranteed an amount of money from the government. (In theory, that “guaranteed income” would apply to everyone, but so far most programs around the country have just been enacted for lower-income people.) UBI programs are different from the myriad other welfare programs in that there are generally no rules on how the money is spent and the requirements for admission into the program are easier. Compare this to food stamps and Section 8 housing vouchers, which obviously can only be spent on food and rent, respectively, and the general complexity of many other welfare programs.

Two studies have been released recently that actually tried to properly account for the success or failure of UBI programs in Denver, Texas, and Illinois. The results aren’t pretty. In Denver, the UBI program was focused on finding housing for the homeless. However, there was almost no difference in results between the groups that received significant sums of money and the control group that only received $50 per month. The control group did just as well at finding housing as the other two groups over the course of a year. While supporters of the program are trying to paint it as a success, the fact is that many homeless people eventually find housing, and the UBI payments made no difference in the results.

In Texas and Illinois, a UBI program gave some people $1,000 a month and a control group $50 per month. After the period of the program, the control group—who received less money—had a higher employment rate and were in better financial position:

The study, which began during the COVID-19 pandemic when unemployment was high, found that employment rates fell in the second and third years among recipients compared with the control group. On average, incomes rose significantly for all groups, though slightly higher for the control group. Incomes for recipients of the $1,000 rose from just under $30,000 to $45,710, while incomes for the control group started at a similar level but grew higher, to $50,970.

People responded to receiving free money by working less, which is exactly what you might expect. It’s also exactly the wrong way to help address poverty. The pilot program in St. Louis should be ended. The Missouri Constitution prohibits gifts to private individuals, and that is exactly what a UBI program is. But this would be a bad idea even aside from the legal issues. UBI programs just don’t work.

The post Universal Basic Income Programs Are Guaranteed Failures appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past few months, I’ve talked a lot about Missouri resuming its Medicaid eligibility redetermination process. In short, during a three-year pause on eligibility checks, Missouri experienced enormous Medicaid enrollment and cost growth. Today, more than 20% of all enrollees are likely ineligible for the program, either because they make too much money, have coverage from their employer, or have moved out of state. This means that Missouri is wasting upwards of $120 million each month footing the bill for health coverage for people who aren’t qualified to receive it.

Missouri’s Medicaid agency is now two months into processing redeterminations and enrollment has finally started dropping, albeit slowly. Recent reports from both national and local news outlets are attributing the enrollment decline to “paperwork issues.” In my opinion, this characterization is incredibly misleading.

States classify anyone who fails to respond to a renewal application as being removed from the program for “procedure reasons.” This is being referred to as “paperwork issues” by some. This is in contrast to the other classification of individuals removed from the program—those who were “determined ineligible.” The problem is that if the state never hears back from an enrollee after repeated attempts to confirm their eligibility, they can only be removed from the program for “procedure reasons” because there wasn’t enough information to determine their eligibility one way or another. Calling all failures to respond to the state Medicaid eligibility checks “paperwork issues” misses a key point.

Someone who knows they no longer qualify for coverage is incredibly unlikely to go through the effort of filling out and returning the Medicaid renewal application. For years, individuals on essentially every welfare program (including Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [food stamps], and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) have been required to inform the state when something changes that would make them ineligible for services, but they rarely do. Recently, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 5 million Medicaid enrollees nationally are currently enrolled in private health coverage, meaning states are losing billions providing coverage to individuals for whom it’s completely unnecessary.

Most Medicaid rules are biased toward recipients maintaining continuous coverage, which may sometimes be a good thing, but for many people, Medicaid is a resource they only need temporarily. No one is saying that eligible Medicaid enrollees should be removed from the program, but even if that does happen, they’re still effectively covered because the federal government will cover up to three prior months of health costs once they’re determined to be eligible again.

Removing Medicaid recipients who don’t provide evidence of eligibility is a necessary act of fiscal prudence—an act of prudence that, prior to three years ago, was standard, federally mandated operating procedure.

There’s no getting around the fact that more state tax dollars being spent on ineligible Medicaid enrollees means less money for other state spending priorities, such as education and infrastructure. If Missouri’s elected officials ever want a chance at reining in Medicaid’s runaway spending, scrutinizing the program’s rolls must remain part of the equation, and occasional drops in enrollment must be normalized as simply par for the course.

The post Problems with Paperwork appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For years, I’ve been complaining about Missouri’s IT systems and have been begging for improved data quality. Back in 2020, due to insufficient computer systems, pandemic unemployment benefits couldn’t be tied to recipient incomes, which led to the federal government paying many individuals more to stay home than to go back to work.

More recently, I’ve written about Missouri’s sluggish start to the post-pandemic Medicaid eligibility redetermination process. States often struggle to keep up-to-date income or address information on Medicaid and other welfare program recipients, which is why there are frequent checks to see whether those enrolled in these costly programs are still eligible to receive services. But for the last three years, many recipients maintained coverage because the state didn’t know that they no longer qualified, or weren’t allowed to remove them even if they did. It’s easy to see how poor data in such cases can quickly result in serious government waste.

These data limitations are a big reason why I wrote that the recently signed “benefit cliff” legislation is a bad idea. While it may sound good to slowly reduce welfare benefits as recipient incomes increase to avoid an abrupt loss of services, the government implementing something like that requires far better data than what is available. Missouri doesn’t keep real-time income data on program recipients, and often only checks earnings once per year. Even if a program tries to offer a welfare off-ramp, if eligibility is only checked once per year, all you have is another cliff.

All this to say, accountability in government spending is incredibly important, and it’s unfortunate that Missouri has fallen so far behind. But it’s also a good thing that the federal government wants to know that the summer food stamp benefits are actually making it to kids who need them—regardless of whether Missouri could get its act together to comply with the program’s requirements.

For a while now, the costs for Missouri’s insufficient computer systems were primarily borne by state taxpayers via bloated programs. But now that our state is missing out on millions of available federal funds aimed at benefiting children, it is my hope the issue of improving IT is something everyone can agree on. Let’s hope Missouri’s legislature listens and takes action next year.

The post Data’s Double-Edged Sword appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Welfare programs shouldn’t encourage dependency, but far too often they end up trapping recipients on government support. This year, two state lawmakers filed bills aimed at addressing the work disincentives that currently accompany welfare benefits. In theory, these bills sound like good ideas. Unfortunately, the approaches chosen by lawmakers for these bills have some glaring flaws.

Here are some examples:

Good Idea: Ensure welfare recipients aren’t discouraged from seeking work or career advancement.

Wrong Approach: The bills create new transitional benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs that stack on top of the program’s already existing transitional benefit programs. The result is a new layer of costly complexity on top of an already overly complex system.

Additionally, the new transitional benefit would scale benefits based on the recipient’s income. While this may sound like a good idea, the government does not collect real-time income earned by recipients, and checking income is not an easy administrative process. In reality, this change will mean more people are enrolled in state welfare programs longer.

Good Idea: Simplify income reporting to reduce burdensome bureaucracy.

Wrong Approach: The bills require applications for Missouri’s welfare programs to fit onto one page. The problem is, as the state’s department of social services reports, “a one-page form would not capture all of the information federally required to determine eligibility for these programs. FSD would need to follow up with each applicant to obtain the required information to determine eligibility.”

In other words, one page is not enough space to gather the information sufficient to comply with federal law. This increases the likelihood that more individuals will be enrolled in welfare programs than are eligible to receive benefits, only for state authorities to discover this problem after significant tax dollars are improperly spent.

Good Idea: Focus on federally funded programs that states have the flexibility to reform.

Wrong Approach: Since SNAP and TANF are federal programs, the federal government also gets a say in whether they will pay for whatever reforms Missouri enacts. But the reforms for TANF and SNAP outlined in the bill’s fiscal notes will very likely not be approved by the federal government. No other state has anything similar to what is being proposed here. So, if enacted, these reforms and new benefits would be paid for by state taxpayers. All told, the fiscal note estimates the bill would cost more than $200 million per year in new state tax dollars.

Given all of these concerns, it’s safe to say that without significant changes, I think these bills would move Missouri in the wrong direction. They would grow the welfare state, worsen program integrity, and significantly increase costs.

Since there are a number of welfare reforms that could have been proposed that encourage work, improve program accountability, and responsibly spend taxpayer dollars, it is mystifying why such reforms have not been pursued. With less than two weeks remaining in the legislative session, it’s unlikely we will see revisions to the current bills that truly reform the system. Improving Missouri’s welfare state is a difficult but worthy task. Instead of moving forward with bills that could do more harm than good, I hope lawmakers will choose to learn from this years’ experience and carry this important conversation into 2024 with reforms that actually accomplish what they say they want to accomplish.

The post Right Idea, Wrong Approach appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Welfare programs often create perverse incentives regarding work; recipients don’t look for jobs due to the risk of reaching a level of income that would cause them to lose access to the welfare program. Because of this problem, welfare programs can exacerbate the poverty problem they are intended to fix.

Politicians have floated the idea of a universal basic income (UBI) many times as an antidote to the incentive problems welfare programs tend to create. Andrew Yang made it a prominent plank in his 2020 presidential campaign, promising to give out $1,000 per month to every American adult if elected. Since UBI offers every single person (rich and poor alike) a certain amount of money per month, no strings attached, its proponents argue that it wouldn’t create an incentive against working.

Some free-market economists have argued that the replacement of welfare programs with UBI could reduce the bureaucratic power of government—the state would have less of a say over how people choose to live or spend their money. Charles Murray emphasized replacement as a key feature of UBI implementation:

The first rule is that the basic guaranteed income has to replace everything else — it’s not an add-on. So there’s no more food stamps; there’s no more Medicaid; you just go down the whole list. None of that’s left. The government gives money; other human needs are dealt with by other human beings in the neighborhood, in the community, in the organizations.

For UBI to serve as a tool that helps low-income individuals while increasing government transparency and decreasing state paternalism, it must be accompanied by a complete overhaul of how the welfare state currently functions.

The proposal put forward by the City of St. Louis disregards all of the wisdom stated above. First, the incentive problem that UBI tries to address is mostly ignored in the guaranteed basic income (GBI) program. Recipients of the “free” money must fall at or below a certain mark of the poverty level, which could create an incentive against working. Second, the proposed GBI program would not replace other social welfare programs. A spokesman for Mayor Jones expressed that one of the administration’s priorities is to ensure that the GBI program does not force its recipients off other government benefits, such as food stamps, for fear that it “might leave residents worse off.” In other words, Mayor Jones is not looking to reform the current welfare programs in St. Louis—she is hoping to establish another one.

Additionally, this proposal does not address concerns about the future sustainability of such a program. Mayor Jones proposes using money the city received from the federal government in pandemic aid to pay for the program. Once the $5 million is handed out, how does the city plan to keep funding this program?

If the mayor really wants to help low-income individuals, how about using the $5 million to improve the bus system that has seen massive service cuts in recent years? The reductions in bus lines have negatively affected many low-income individuals who rely on buses to get around St. Louis.

In any case, countless problems accompany the program Mayor Jones proposes. As tends to be the case in public policy, closer attention to incentives and to future financial viability could help the City of St. Louis craft proposals that would better serve the poor of St. Louis.

The post Welfare Reform or Welfare Expansion? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, there’s the question of what makes housing “affordable.” Academic research on housing (and this report) typically defines “affordable” as housing where the resident spends less than 30% of their income on rent and utilities. This is a key point, because instead of affordability being solely measured by the price of housing, it is also dependent on the income of the people who live there.

Tying affordability to resident income also helps researchers explain how a region can be affordable for some but not all income groups, which is exactly what the report shows for St. Louis. For the wealthiest in the region, finding an affordable place to live is easy—St. Louis earns an “A” grade for this demographic. There’s also sufficient affordable housing for those making around and somewhat below the area’s median income (AMI). The same cannot be said for those making less than 30% of the AMI, which represents a family of three making less than $23,000 per year in total.

One problem with tying affordability to income is that it’s yet another imperfect measure for gaining insight into what residents find affordable, especially for those with lower incomes. For example, if you don’t have a car or another means of transportation, housing that’s miles away from your place of work that costs 30% of your income is likely not affordable once you account for daily commute costs. Or, if your income is low enough to qualify for other government programs (food stamps, housing vouchers, etc.) paying more than 30% of your monthly income may still be affordable for you despite what the income guidelines suggest.

So, what does it mean for a region to have an affordability problem? According to the report, you have to look at the number of people earning different incomes and compare that to the number of housing options that would be affordable for them. For example, the wealthiest St. Louisans have an enormous surplus of affordable housing options. But the poorest (<30% AMI) face a shortage of approximately 35,000 units, which is why St. Louis received an “F” for this group. To put this in context, affordable housing for the family described above would mean a 2–3-bedroom residence that costs (with utilities) less than $560 per month, which is understandably hard to find. Given the limitations of the income figures provided above, it’s hard to tell whether this estimated shortage is under or overestimating the housing affordability situation in St. Louis.

Perhaps the toughest question is what should be done given all this information. At the very least, before our elected officials start talking about solutions, they should get a better grip on the extent of the problem.

The post Does St. Louis Have a Housing Problem? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But that is not good enough for certain Missouri cities that won’t be content until we are all forced onto the dole.

Maplewood is the latest city to consider passing a “source-of-income” law compelling landlords who operate in that city to accept Section 8 housing vouchers as payment. It would be illegal to decline to rent to people in the program, even though it is a federal program and federal law allows landlords to choose to participate or not. The City of St. Louis, Clayton, and Webster Groves are the three cities in Missouri that currently have these laws. Kansas City has considered it, but thankfully not passed it.

Cities cannot, and should not, be able to tell doctors within their boundaries that they must take Medicaid patients. Cities should not be able to force grocery stores to take food stamps. Clearly, most grocery stores choose to, just like many landlords choose to participate in the Section 8 program, and many doctors and hospitals serve Medicaid patients. I can’t find any examples in Missouri of cities that compel food stamp acceptance, but feel free to share with me if there are (so I can go oppose it). For food stamps, the debate is more about what you can buy with the program, not where you can buy it.

You might — believe it or not — as a landlord, store owner, unemployed person, disabled person, or anything else, choose not to accept a government welfare check or join in a certain program. You have, and should continue to have, that right. Cities with “source-of-income” rules are basically like Marcellus Wallace telling the Harley-Davidson riding, sword-wielding watch-enthusiast/boxer Butch Coolidge what he should do with his sense of pride.

The fact that Marcellus is a mobster just makes the analogy more delicious. These “source-of-income” rules are relatively new to Missouri. But new or not, they are wrong. The state should not compel anyone to participate in a welfare program if they don’t choose to, and this includes landlords. Maplewood should reject this proposal (which has not yet been introduced as a bill). If cities continue to adopt such laws, the state legislature needs to step in and prevent it like they did in Texas.

The post You Will Accept This Welfare Check Whether You Want It or Not appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While other unemployment statistics seem to be trending positively, 15 percent of men who should otherwise be working (according to historical standards) now “seem to have left the labor force permanently,” no longer even bothering to look for work. The consequences of these numbers go beyond their effect on national economic output; they threaten the national spirit.  The saying, “idle hands are the devil’s workshop” is backed by data, including a huge drop in happiness associated with unemployment. Research also links joblessness and disability with America’s deadly opioid epidemic.

Glaeser asserts that a governmental “war on work” is driving this problem.  He points to a series of programs incentivizing joblessness such as food stamps and housing voucher payments.

To solve this crisis, Glaeser argues that we must educate, reform social services, empower entrepreneurs, and even subsidize incentivize employment. That is an ambitious—but promising—agenda for ending the war on work before it consumes a generation of Americans.

I hope you can come hear him lay out that agenda on Wednesday, May 9 at St. Louis University. The lecture will begin at 6:00 p.m.

The post Edward Glaeser to Discuss War on Work in St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While DSS retains final authority, the contractor will evaluate recipients’ eligibility more often than DSS has previously. SB 607  requires the contractor to evaluate welfare eligibility based on “income, resources, and assets”  at least quarterly and “identify on a monthly basis any program participants who have died, moved out of state, or have been incarcerated longer than 90 days.” SB 607 is patterned after a law Illinois adopted that, once implemented, has removed 120,000 people thus far who should not have been on the welfare rolls.

Currently, DSS only determines eligibility annually. Thus someone could move to another state between eligibility checks and could continue receiving benefits for up to a year. As of 2014, Missouri had a large percentage of the adult population on welfare compared to other states, ranking twelfth in participation rates (see the chart above).

Supporters believe this measure could save taxpayers as much as $25 million by 2019. Maybe we should use the money we will save to experiment with successful welfare-to-work programs that other states have implemented. 

The post Making Strides toward Welfare Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In other words: we could have spent less on the program, but … we won’t.

That episode should have been the first clue of what the Missouri Legislature and the governor have in store for their constituents in 2014: big-time government spending. We are two months away from the next legislative session, but right on schedule, we are already seeing news percolate that Jefferson City bureaucrats are expecting even more money to be dumped into the fiscal sinkhole that is Missouri government. [Emphasis mine.]

In a subtle shift from years past, some Missouri budget officials now are openly talking about the potential to spend more – as opposed to emphasizing the need to pare back.

“Revenue is certainly looking better,” said Linda Luebbering, the budget director for Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. “We don’t have as much of that hole to fill up as we have other years. Hopefully there will be some room to do a few more things” in the next budget.

Sad and predictable. For once, it would be nice to see state officials in Jefferson City plan to spend less of your money, not more.

The post It Begins: Missouri Officials Already Planning To Spend More Of Your Money In 2014 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.