Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Bloated Bureaucracy and Failing Kids The Case for School Choice with Christopher Talgo appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a writer, there are moments when someone else articulates an idea so well that rewriting it in my own words would be unnecessary. A recent op-ed in The Hill did exactly that, clearly laying out the energy challenges facing the United States:

The U.S. electricity sector is a slow-moving maze of regulations, shaped by decade-long transmission approvals, time-intensive interconnection studies for new generators and large new customers, and overlapping layers of state, regional and federal bureaucracy. . . . The regulatory thicket surrounding the electricity industry was tolerable when the pace of change was slow. However, with the rise of AI and renewed growth from manufacturing and electrification, we can no longer endure a sclerotic grid.

In addition to reforming our rigid, reluctant-to-adapt grid, there are questions about whether average ratepayers should be on the hook for increased electricity demand being driven by a few large customers.

In the midst of all of these concerns, there is a U.S. Senate bill that could help fix the problem: S.3585 – DATA Act of 2026. The bill was recently referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

I have written about consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) for Missouri, which would reduce the number of state-level regulations that off-grid CRE utilities (CREUs) would face. (You can click here if you’re interested in what a CRE policy might look like in practice.) However, even if it were allowed in Missouri, there would still be many federal-level regulations that would diminish the benefits of the new practice.

That is where the DATA Act becomes so vital. The act would exempt certain new CREUs from specific federal regulations that apply to the broader grid. If our state and federal governments approve CRE, there would be a pathway for large electricity users like data centers and aluminum plants to more quickly generate their own electricity without impacting the rates of average Missourians. That would be a win for all of us.

All of this suggests that the DATA Act of 2026 is something to watch in Washington, D.C. But Missouri should not wait until the federal government makes its move. We should be proactive and allow CREs in our state, creating a pathway to address modern energy challenges that would become even more viable if federal reforms under the DATA Act follow.

The post Keep an Eye on the DATA Act in Washington, D.C. appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Public Education at a Crossroads with Aaron Smith appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Funding Open Enrollment in Missouri with Aaron Smith appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post SMI Podcast – Better Charity with James Whitford appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Kansas City region is unlike many in the United States in that the metropolitan area is divided almost exactly in half by the state line. The older and more urban part of region, Kansas City, sits in Missouri. The newer and more suburban post-war developments rest in Kansas. So the traditional urban-suburban economic wars seen across the country have an additional component: state interests. According to the Hall Family Foundation, the two states spent $335 million in the past decade trading employers only to see Kansas win a slight 1,200 net gain of jobs.

While the state action is welcome, the truce deal does not include all the various localities on either side of the state border. Cities may continue to offer incentives or other financial packages to lure existing businesses into their domain. While Kansas City, Missouri has pledged to honor the agreement, smaller suburban communities on the Kansas side have not. As demonstrated by the USDA’s recent announcement that it has chosen a site on the Missouri side to relocate some of its workforce, the two states will continue to fight an expensive war among themselves to bring jobs from afar. The Kansas City Area Development Council—a private non-profit which seeks to attract jobs to the region—still operates as a double-dealing promoter in the regional jobs Fight Club, collecting dues from both sides of state line and then repeatedly pitting them against each other.

Many of the individuals and organizations who profited handsomely from the years of combat have come out in favor of the deal. Sort of. The CEO of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce—a chamber whose portfolio includes both sides of the state line—recently told a local radio host, “I think it forms a new way to think about how we’re going to grow Kansas City where we really are looking to grow it in a net new way, not just moving companies from one side of the city to the other.” But moving companies and jobs from one side of the city to the other is exactly the economic development policy the Chamber has championed in the past and will likely champion in the future (e.g. a downtown baseball stadium for the Kansas City Royals).

Part of the problem seems to be that the folks who run such economic development programs are able to use questionable data in order to proclaim job growth and presumably justify their own budgets. For example, Waddell & Reed, a financial services firm originally located in Missouri but that crossed state line years ago in exchange for such incentives, started its incentives negotiations to return to Missouri just before the Border War truce was announced. In exchange for $62 million in Missouri incentives, it will move 1,000 jobs from Kansas. A spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Economic Development heralded the move as good for the region, apparently unaware the jobs were already well within the region. One can be confident they will claim those jobs and new in their reporting documents.

Perhaps most notable of all is that the truce lacks precise language to describe exactly what it is prohibiting. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly’s executive order seems to restrict incentives to projects that create “net new” jobs. But that term is not defined. Could a growing Missouri firm already planning to make a few new hires take that plan to Kansas and seek incentives — using those “net new jobs” as leverage? How will Kansas assess whether those “net new jobs” were due to the incentives themselves?

Knowing the degree to which job creation or private investment is due to incentives has been a point of contention all along. Policymakers and developers point to all the new property development as proof of efficacy, but the vast majority of the economic research literature indicates that such development likely would have happened anyway, and that the return on investment of public dollars is small if anything at all. Private companies have learned how to game the system through a combination of over-promising, threats of relation, and fanciful accounting.

It is heartening to learn that other regions may be examining the Missouri/Kansas deal to see if it might work for them; the goals are laudable. But if policymakers are serious about ending these types of economic development incentive wars, all levels of government in the region need to be a party to it and the terms must be precisely defined. The allure of ribbon cuttings and claiming to be job creators is too great to leave to vague promises.

The post Skepticism Is Warranted on Missouri/Kansas Border War Truce appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to Reid Wilson at The Hill,

The incentive package passed by Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature, during a special session last August, will offer the company $1.5 billion to offset payroll costs and another $1.35 billion for capital expenditures. The state will give Foxconn $150 million in sales tax exemptions on construction materials, and it plans to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on road improvements near the new factory.

The town of Mount Pleasant, where the factory will be located, will offer $763 million to help pay for the project, and Racine County gave the company $50 million to acquire the land.

In total, Wisconsin, Racine County and Mount Pleasant gave the company nearly $4.8 billion in tax breaks, incentives and taxpayer dollars for improvements. If Foxconn delivers all 13,000 jobs it has promised, that works out to about $370,000 per job.

This is reminiscent of a similar deal for Carrier manufacturing plant for Indiana, of which my colleague Patrick Ishmael wrote in 2016,

I certainly hope the Carrier “deal” doesn’t presage future deals the President Elect will be cutting over the next four years. The reason is straightforward. In return for not following through on its threat to move, Carrier will receive $700,000 per year from the state of Indiana, for at least 10 years. If that kind of cronyistic deal sounds familiar to you, it should; the Carrier agreement is like many of the “deals” to “save or create jobs” that have been made, and that we have criticized for years, here in Missouri.

Across the country, those hungry for increased economic activity seem to understand that taxes are too high to spur development. Whether it is Foxconn in Wisconsin, Carrier in Indiana, Boeing in Missouri, or Amazon everywhere, legislatures are bending over backwards to give special treatment to those they deem worthy. Better public policy demands that government stop picking winners and instead lower taxes for everyone.

The post Wisconsin’s Foxconn Deal is Bad Public Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of the biggest problems in Kansas City (as with other metropolitan areas) is that the city’s affairs have been so poorly managed for a very long time through regular rounds of bad “public investments.” It’s not that Kansas City needs more money—it receives plenty through various taxes—but that the city spends and invests that money so poorly, chasing glitz while letting basic services languish. Throwing more federal dollars at failed initiatives won’t retroactively salvage these projects.

Here’s some background. Kansas City is the 29th-largest metropolitan area in the United States. Like many Midwestern cities, our population growth hasn’t kept up with that of cities in other regions.

Unlike many cities (but similar to Washington, DC, where I grew up), our metro region is divided right down the middle by State Line Road. Half our population resides in Kansas, with the entire city proper and the urban core in Missouri.

Also like many urban cities over the past few decades, our city leaders have chosen to bet our future on large development projects. In our downtown we spent—and continue to spend—millions to prop up a large entertainment district whose revenue has yet to meet rosy projections. We have diverted taxpayer dollars to subsidize luxury apartment buildings and world headquarters for wealthy international corporations. We have committed millions more to build a convention hotel downtown despite the unpleasant experiences of our sister cities in Missouri and across the country with similarly ambitious—but ultimately disappointing—investments.

The assessed value of property in Kansas City has been largely flat since 2007, but because of tax diversions to developers, the amount we actually collected in taxes in 2015 was $200 million less than it would have been without those giveaways.

City leaders are eager to spend over a billion dollars to tear down and rebuild our international airport despite its widespread popularity as a convenient and efficient place to travel to and from. And we have the honor of having just finished one of the country’s most expensive streetcar systems for over $46 million per mile, and advocates now want to expand it at an even higher cost.

Kansas City bears the scars of all this misspending. While we suffer through a spike in homicides, our police department has fewer officers than it did in 2011. Embarrassed by a recent documentary on the plight of the urban core, city leaders issued bonds to demolish 800 dangerous buildings—the majority of which were city-owned. City leaders now contemplate a billion-dollar bond to fund badly needed infrastructure repairs due to years of neglect.

Yet Kansas City’s taxes are high. We have a combined sales tax in many neighborhoods of 10% or higher. The Tax Foundation listed Kansas City as having the 15th-highest sales tax in the country. A 2013 Brookings Institution study found that our county and the surrounding counties have well-above-average property taxes paid and taxes paid relative to home value. And of course, Kansas City also charges a 1% earnings tax on those who live or work within city limits.

Mayor James is correct to say that “we clearly cannot afford the status quo.” But his solution is to seek more government funds to bail out decades of bad investments and decision making in Kansas City and elsewhere. If cities like Kansas City, Chicago, Detroit, Newark, and Stockton are allowed to throw good money after bad, none of us will be any better off. America’s new agenda for cities must start with those cities, and it must involve a serious effort to right the wrongs of the past and return to sound management. The solution is not federal bailouts but better management of the money that cities are already collecting.

The post A New Agenda for Cities Must Come from Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“You can’t have the same quality healthcare that you had before, despite what the president said,” Hansen said. “Now what’s going to happen is everybody is going to have to go to private for-profit insurance companies. We just don’t think that’s right. … We just want to keep what we already have and what we bought at tremendous cost.”

Hansen’s union wants to be able to keep its current health plan rather than accept a plan the government wants to force on them. I agree with that, because everyone should have the choice to get a health plan — for-profit or not — that is tailored to their own needs, and to not have forced upon them a plan tailored first and foremost to some government mandate. Rest assured, Hansen’s union won’t be the last group to have a change of heart on the ACA. Stay tuned for more.

The post Another Union Comes Out Against The Affordable Care Act appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I have always done my own taxes, even when I had a small business in the ’90s, but that will end in 2010 because my wife and I decided to go with an accountant for the first time. Our taxes are not particularly complicated, but they are not particularly easy, either, and that is as much detail as I’ll bore you with. I always liked fighting through the details as a matter of pride, but now the benefits of that hard work are losing out to the time costs as the returns get more complicated.

More disturbing in the article is this ugly nugget:

The IRS this month announced it will be scrutinizing the tax preparer industry. Shulman said the IRS is looking to set “a minimal level of competence in the preparer community.”

Terrific. Now we get federal licensing rules for one more profession. That will raise the costs of using H & R Block, etc. I’ll admit that this is one field where more people doing their own work (as in their own tax preparation) might bring the great side benefit of leading more people to be upset about the tax code, but I still don’t want that benefit caused by higher costs imposed by the IRS.

The simple fact is that a lot of people can and should be doing their own taxes. If you have one job where taxes are withheld, you can work through it without too many headaches. The head of the IRS should be one of those people.

The post IRS Commissioners Should Have to Do Their Own Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Brown & Crouppen was started by two gents named Ron Brown (not to be confused with Don Brown at the entrance to The Hill) and Terry Crouppen. Now, for years, personal injury lawyers and used car salesmen have had local commercials in St. Louis that play 23 hours a day on all the local channels. Watching so many Brown & Crouppen commericals during Saturday morning cartoons on channel 11 is probably what drove me to choose a career path in law.

But there is a new Missouri law threatening these media gems from reaching our TVs, radios, and mailboxes. What I don’t understand about the new law is the harm, if any, that these ads are causing.

Lawmakers claim these ads influence individuals too much in their decisions when choosing an attorney. But there should not be a law restricting what lawyers can advertise because individuals do not put enough effort into their searches for the proper attorney. When you pick a lawyer from an infomercial, what exactly are you expecting? Atticus Finch? No. You should be expecting exactly what the commerical promises: a lawyer with a firm who specializes in whatever area of law they say, whether it be personal injury or family law.

Part of the proposed law would require any disclaimer to be read at the same pace as the phone number. Why should lawyers alone be forced to expand their disclaimers? Surely, if lawyers have to read their disclaimers slowly, then every other disclaimer should be slowed down as well. Why should Terry Crouppen be barred from advertising his services in the manner he wishes? He’s a Missouri business owner just like Ted Drewes, even if he doesn’t “put a little wiggle in it.”

The post The Choice of a Lawyer Is an Important Decision and Should Not Be Based Solely Upon This Blog appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With the election still fresh in all of our minds, politics was the topic of discussion — more specifically, Proposition M. At some point, right around Eager and I-64, the two were surprised to hear that I was not shedding tears for the half-cent sales tax’s failure to pass.

While I tried to defend my position, noting how Metro has a poor history of managing funds, the possible reallocation of crime, and, of course, how just because you throw tax money at something doesn’t mean the problem will be solved. But, to my brother and sister-in-law, they saw no possible downside to public transportation.

There are always externalities, whether they are positive or negative. Yes, public transportation does lower carbon emissions and can lower our dependence on foreign oil, but I bet shop owners in the Galleria would say those benefits do not justify the costs of increased shoplifting.

Are there ways around this negative externality? Sure. The Galleria has already put into effect an age limit and curfew for young shoppers. Anyone younger than 16 is required to be accompanied by a parent after 3 p.m. How about on the Metro side? Is the honor system truly cost effective? I rode the MetroLink twice a day this summer for three months, and not once was I asked for a ticket. In fact, the first time I was asked for a ticket was this Monday. New York and Chicago have turnstiles and gates for their public trains. Would increased security in St. Louis be too big of a hurdle?

I see three occurrences that might result from adding new security infrastructure. First, people who need to ride the MetroLink and already buy tickets would continue to do so with little or no effect on their commutes. Second, people who frequent the Metro on a semi-regular basis, who sometimes buy a ticket and sometimes do not, will find only a minimal increase to their MetroLink costs. Third, individuals who often abuse the honor system — constituting a majority of the free rider problem — will either finally pay for their passes or use a different form of transportation. Either way, the only real cost Metro would incur is the initial installation of turnstiles and gates, and whatever maintenance and upkeep costs they require.

While Ben and Jenna are devoted to keeping public transportation cheap and available, I hope I can convince them that there are alternatives to a tax hike that might achieve the same end. I agree that any cuts in line service would be devastating to some people, but it is not up to the taxpayers to dig Metro out of trouble they put themselves in. Apparently, judging by the election results, a majority of people agree with me.

The post MetroLink Conversations on the Road appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total…Meanwhile, Levin’s tally far exceeded Clinton’s take: 45 earmarks worth about $210 million.

The only two senators who did not request projects: Missouri’s own Sen. Claire McCaskill and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Both of the senators  have sponsored earmark-disclosure language as part of the bill’s markup. Luckily there are some senators that understand the problems of pork-barrel spending and the drain it is on the U.S. treasury. Good job, Sen. McCaskill, for refusing to include more pork projects that take money out of the pocket of Missouri taxpayers.

The post No Pork for Claire appeared first on Show-Me Institute.