Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, about Missouri’s education leadership shake-up and what comes next. They discuss how to find the right commissioner of education, why outside reformers tend to succeed where insiders struggle, what the dismantling of the US Department of Education means for state accountability systems, why public complacency about poor academic outcomes persists, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Thank you so much, Andy Smarick, for joining once again on the Show-Me Institute Podcast. We love having you on and I appreciate you taking the time. You’re a busy man, so it’s really wonderful to have you back.

Andy Smarick (00:06):
I love being here. It’s a treat. Thank you for having me. I always like talking to you, but also anytime I get to talk about state-level education policy, it’s a treat.

Susan Pendergrass (00:19):
Well, I know that you have experience serving on a couple of state boards, both K-12 and higher ed. Just to bring you up to speed on what’s happening in Missouri: we have a relatively new governor, about a year in, and we had a state board of education where people stayed in expired seats, rubber-stamped decisions, and were very complacent, I feel comfortable saying. Our governor shook up that group and appointed new people who came in and said, what do you mean we don’t have bylaws? It was like, this is bananas. At the same time, the governor issued an executive order requiring letter grades on schools and districts, new school report cards. I don’t know exactly how everything went down, but our Commissioner of Education resigned, our Deputy Commissioner resigned, and our president of the state board of education resigned, all in about one week. So we are now straightening things out and there is a new board president. But this new, relatively new board now has the task of finding a commissioner. The way things have happened in Missouri is we always get a new commissioner from the ranks of the state education agency, maybe from the legislature, always from Missouri. Just a real this-is-how-we’ve-done-it mentality. And we have not been big reformers. No Chiefs for Change in Missouri. Like a lot of states, our reading scores for young kids are tanking, forty percent below basic for third and fourth graders. We have a state accountability system called the Missouri School Improvement Plan in which 516 of our 520 districts are fully accredited and about four are provisionally accredited, none unaccredited. So we have this meaningless accountability system where every district is fully accredited, even St. Louis, which I can’t even go into. So here we are, and I want to know a few things from you. Number one, if you were on the Board of Education in Missouri, how would you go about finding a new commissioner? What would you look for? And then later I want to get into what’s happening at the national level. We are not doing well academically, we have never had a bold reformer in charge, we keep doing the same thing and getting the same result. What would you do if you were in their spot?

Andy Smarick (02:59):
So in education, I’m going to wind up to this answer, so just bear with me for a second. Conservative can mean two different things. One is the traditional conservative view, which is to preserve, to stand athwart big, swift, dramatic, perpetual change. You’re trying to keep things the way they are because there’s a lot of wisdom that has gone into it and people are accustomed to it. In education, there’s also this other right-of-center conservative view, which is we have to be much more open to choice, competition, accountability metrics, and so on. And it seems that Missouri has been one of those very red states that has tended to believe in the first kind of conservatism: protect our traditional school districts, protect the hierarchies we have, protect the tradition of you grow up as a professional, as a teacher, then a superintendent, then maybe go to the state education agency. A lot of people believe that’s the way to do it.

There probably is an ethic among a lot of people to keep it that way. The only way you get out of that is if there’s a recognition among leadership that we can’t continue to preserve the status quo, that we have to change some things. That is a big step for a place that has elevated the idea of preserving for a very long time. If they get to that step, then they have to do the very tough things, which is start to pull out the Jenga pieces of that conservatism. The most important one is having board leadership and having a state superintendent who come from outside the state, and then having a board chair or board president who is not going to just do what the staff of the state education agency says or what the district superintendents say. We saw this work quite well about fifteen or twenty years ago. There was a big movement nationwide in educational reform led at the state level, and a number of states chose out-of-state superintendents and commissioners of education who did a terrific job of shaking things up and advancing a bunch of important proposals. The downside is a lot of them were so brash and so young, and I have to say so cocky, that they made unnecessary waves and kicked a lot of people in the shins in the states where they landed. So my view is a place like Missouri should pick someone from out of state for a state chief, someone with a long track record of success, but someone who isn’t so green as to think he or she knows everything. Someone with enough humility and enough time on task to know what they don’t know, and who can come in and be bold enough to make some changes, but not think that everyone in the state is a dummy who needs to be ignored. That’s how I would think about it. And if you have a board chair and board membership who get all of this, it makes things a whole lot easier. But that might be the hardest part of all. Who is your board president? Who are the board majority going to be? They have to be the ones with the backbone.

Susan Pendergrass (05:57):
Yeah. I feel like we’ve had people come in and say, well, I’m only the commissioner, it’s not my fault that the kids don’t read. And then people say, well, we’re a local control state, so it’s really the local guys’ fault that the kids can’t read. Then the legislators are like, well, who’s supposed to be making sure the kids can read? And technically, kind of they are, but them plus the board, and there’s just fingers pointing every different direction with nobody really taking responsibility. If we had the capacity for hard things, we would not have all of our districts be fully accredited. There’s even pushback on the letter grade idea because folks will say, well, then the teachers in those F schools feel bad and the parents feel bad and the kids who go there feel bad. I’ve seen some states change it to colors or something where nobody feels bad. I’ve also heard folks say it’s racist because a lot of the D and F schools enroll large percentages of students of color. So there are just all of these reasons to resist. It’s going to happen because there’s an executive order, but I feel like we’re going to have a hard time finding somebody who’s willing to do those things.

Andy Smarick (07:17):
Well, your state, like every other state, has a state constitution that makes the state ultimately responsible for education. Your state, like others, has both tradition and some laws that give a number of powers to local districts. The weird thing, and I’ve seen this in a lot of different states, is the state government ends up in a very weird position. The state can get sued and state leaders can get criticized if kids aren’t learning, because the state actually has constitutional authority to make sure kids are learning. But as a matter of practice, and often of state statutes, a lot of this power is delegated to districts. States then try to recapture some of that power through the accreditation system. It’s the way the state can say, okay, districts, you have the power to do these things, but we’re going to hold you accountable for results and we’re going to accredit you or not. And then it turns out it’s virtually impossible to take away the accreditation of these districts because of legislative pushback, and the state typically doesn’t have the capacity to run a district if it does take away accreditation. It just becomes a complete hot mess. That’s why you need state leadership who has some experience but also some backbone to say, this is how we’re going to thread the needle of state authority, state responsibility, local control, and still making sure that kids learn. This is not easy, other states have gone through it, but it isn’t the kind of thing that someone who has lived in Missouri all their life and grown up professionally there can do easily. It’s going to be hard for that person to get out of that box. Having someone from the outside who can start to do some bold things, including hiring smart, tough lawyers, having board leadership who’s going to stick by it. But I just want to emphasize this point: every state I ever talk to begins by saying, well, you know, we’re a local control state, our districts have all the power. Everybody says that. Go back to your state constitution. The state is the one that’s going to be responsible. And if the state has the backbone, it can do a whole lot. But whether it has the backbone is the operative phrase.

Susan Pendergrass (09:41):
Yeah. So about seven years ago we developed our own school report cards with letter grades, called MOSchoolRankings. I’ll just plug it. It was with GPAs, and this year for the first time I just took the GPAs and converted them to letter grades because folks found GPAs tricky. I put up the methodology. I took all the data from our state education agency, DESE, and just tried to make it a map you can zoom in and out on, easier to navigate. And my thinking is you have to do these things, make sure you say how you do it, and then people can argue with you and debate whether it’s right or wrong or good or bad. And many people have. A lot of people don’t like that the average is a C. I’m open to discussing why the average should be anything other than a C, but you have to at some point just make the move and then be confident enough in what you did that you can defend it and change it if people point out flaws. But this is where I think we struggle at DESE. They struggle to just put that out there because they worry about every negative outcome and consequence. And it’s like, yeah, but at some point to not do it is worse than to do it.

Andy Smarick (11:10):
For sure. And I’ve gotten to the point of realizing that if you have been in a system at different ranks for thirty or thirty-five years, all of your friends, your reputation, your pension, your income, everything about your identity is wrapped up with that system. Expecting these folks to suddenly turn the corner and say, you know, we’ve messed up, tens of thousands of kids are not learning right now today in classrooms, and we have to start holding the adults accountable for that, including teachers and principals and local school board members and local superintendents, and we have to be courageous about it. That’s asking a lot of people who are of, by, and for the system. It can be a whole lot easier if you just get someone from the outside with the courage to do it.

Susan Pendergrass (11:54):
Yeah. So can you think of an example of a state that has done this well?

Andy Smarick (12:02):
Definitely during the late No Child Left Behind era and then the Race to the Top era, a number of states found people from outside. Tennessee was famous for this. Arne Duncan ended up going to a couple of different places, including Rhode Island. New Jersey ended up picking Chris Cerf. There was a movement where probably ten or fifteen states did this quite well. My state, Maryland, brought in the superintendent of Mississippi after Mississippi had had so many gains, so she could carry some of those especially reading reforms to our state. This is not uncommon. Texas did something like this for a while. Louisiana became very famous during the John White era for doing this. But in all of these cases it began often with a governor, and then some members of a state legislature who said, we just can’t keep doing things the way we’ve done in the past. We have to do things differently. Once the governor says something like that, he or she can appoint people to the Board of Education who will do things differently, and the legislature, at least his or her party, will start to fall in line, and the media then starts to understand how serious it is. It is hard to do this without the governor leaning forward and giving the blessing to the bureaucracy to do things differently. So the question for you is, is your governor going to spend any political capital on this and say things are messed up and we have to do things differently?

Susan Pendergrass (13:29):
I don’t know. I hope so. But I haven’t seen evidence of that. I suspect, though I could be wrong, that they’re looking more internally than externally. However, I just want to add one wrinkle to this context that we’ve been thinking a lot about at the Show-Me Institute. If you’re following the US Department of Education, I believe you used to work there. Is that right?

Andy Smarick (13:54):
Yes, back in the day.

Susan Pendergrass (13:55):
Last week they moved the Office of Special Education over to the Department of Health and Human Services. They moved the Office of Civil Rights over to the Department of Justice. The building where the Department of Education used to be is now vacated. All those people are over at an old Department of Energy building. It’s a significantly reduced staff. Without touching the Every Student Succeeds Act, they are effectively dismantling most of the structure over there, at a time when the current president said that sending education back to the states was one of his priorities. I’m particularly concerned that at a time when Missouri has this vacuum, we could be looking at the apron strings being cut, states being told to sink or swim from the federal perspective. You don’t have to maintain the accountability systems. The Secretary is encouraging states to submit requests to waive parts of the law. I don’t really know exactly where it’s headed, but that concerns me. Do you think they’re going to let off the gas on mandated accountability systems in exchange for flexibility?

Andy Smarick (15:15):
Such a good question. To begin with just some editorializing: it is astonishing that Congress has allowed this to happen. In general I’m a big fan of decentralizing education power to the states, but that they’ve been able to administratively dismantle a department without Congress doing anything about it is just shocking to me. Even members of the Republican Party twenty years ago, let alone forty or sixty years ago, who jealously guarded the prerogatives of the legislative branch to create departments and fund departments, would have been appalled at this. There would have been unanimous consent to stop this from happening. So that says a lot that Congress has just sort of excused itself from the discussion. It has been remarkable the extent to which that building where we used to work, and the thousands of people there, is just empty, and they are handing off all the tasks to other places. I don’t know how this is legal, but I guess they’re figuring out a way to do it.

Now, the people who are leading this from inside genuinely believe that education will be better off if Uncle Sam isn’t meddling in it so much. That requires a theory of action, or at least a theory, that the reason why things are bad is that Uncle Sam is causing them to be bad, as though if Uncle Sam backs up there’s going to be a sunnier future ahead. Or it requires believing that it is just morally wrong for Uncle Sam to get involved, and whether states sink or swim after he gets out, that’s up to them. That’s a theory, it’s an ideological approach, and they have the right to pursue it. Donald Trump was elected and he gets to hire who he wants to. But then, to your point, it starts to implicate the Every Student Succeeds Act, which still requires the federal government to do some things related to state accountability systems. And if you believe you have the power administratively to undo a cabinet department, I suspect you probably believe you have the power to ignore some federal accountability provisions and just allow states to do what they want. So we’re going to be left in this position of saying, all right, the federal government is getting out of the business of accountability, therefore the states need to do it well. And then anyone who cares about kids learning will ask, okay, are states going to do this well? And so I turn to you as a state leader. Is Missouri going to

Susan Pendergrass (17:23):
Yeah.

Andy Smarick (17:47):
kick butt and take names?

Susan Pendergrass (17:48):
I’m concerned. I mean, No Child Left Behind was difficult and a lot of people didn’t like it, but test scores went up. Strict accountability, test scores went up. As we backed off, the Race to the Top era with waivers, and then Every Student Succeeds, which allowed more waivers, states were able to lower a lot of bars. Some states raised bars, like you mentioned, Mississippi and Louisiana. Some states are doing a great job, especially with early literacy. Others are not. And so Missouri, I think of it like this: you have a college student and you’re paying all their bills. You’re writing the checks, ordering their textbooks, doing all that work. Then one day you say, you know what, instead of that, I’m going to give you $3,000 a month: you pay your rent, your utilities, get your own books. There are going to be kids who step up and do fine. And there are going to be a lot of kids who take that $3,000 and immediately go to Cancun. We know this. It kind of depends on what you’ve done with the kids so far. And I feel like we have lulled the states into a feeling of compliance. If we just tell you how we spend our Title I dollars, fill out this form, and report that our test scores keep going down, no one cares. There’s no stick. They don’t withhold the money. We just say our test scores this year are lower than last year, and they say, good to know, here’s your

Andy Smarick (19:14):
Yep.

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
check. So if that’s how you were raising your kids so far, why would you expect them to step up and become suddenly responsible?

Andy Smarick (19:31):
Okay, I have to admit that I have learned a hard lesson in my years doing education policy, which is that I was wrong that the political system of its own volition will always push for big action to make sure schools are great. I believed that if we had accountability systems showing that schools were underperforming, there would be a perpetual energy within the public to say we have to fix this, that it was just a matter of making the knowledge available and then everything else would take care of itself. It turns out it just doesn’t work that way. You need leaders at the top to constantly push and say, we are not doing well enough, we have to do dramatic things to make sure kids are going to be better off. Otherwise, No Child Left Behind is in place for a while and then people get sick of it. Or you have some interesting testing regimes and then there’s pushback to that, or just resistance to Uncle Sam in general. And people like the two of us say, but kids aren’t learning anything anymore. We are seeing a cratering of student learning since the peak of No Child Left Behind’s learning gains. This is horrible. Kids just aren’t learning anymore. The Andy of twenty years ago would have assumed the nation would revolt and say, how dare we do this to our schools and our kids, we have to do something differently. Instead, I don’t want to say it’s crickets, but there has not been a major wave of energy to change things again. The only way to do this is for governors or presidents to say this is not good enough and keep pushing. It is the ultimate dog that didn’t bark. The story is why something isn’t happening. If things are so bad in student learning, why is there not a dramatic energy within the public to do things differently? So maybe I look to you. In Missouri, are people just satisfied? Do they just not want the hassle?

Susan Pendergrass (21:28):
Why do you think? Yeah, they are like, we love our schools. All the time: we love our schools. We love, love, love our rural schools. It’s hard, kids show up with a lot of baggage, it’s just hard. But we love our schools. God forbid we have tiny districts getting below fifty kids. We love it. There isn’t an appetite to say, well, thirty-some percent of our rural high schools don’t offer calculus, and we don’t think we need it. It’s like, well, those kids are going to join a world where a lot of other kids had access to these things. It’s just, I don’t know the word. Complacency for sure. And it gets exhausting to continue to talk about it because it feels like

Andy Smarick (22:20):
Yeah. So this is why it can feel that way. And listen, if I were a state superintendent, based on the things I have learned, I would always begin a big reform movement by saying, first, all of the things you just said, but sincerely, because I believe this. I would say I love our public schools. I know how much they do for kids. I know that we love our teachers. I know that these schools are part of the community. I know that they help shape young people in ways beyond reading and math scores. I know that we love to go to these sports events. I know that we love to go to our fifth-grade graduation. This is an important strand in the fabric of our community. We love these schools, we love our teachers, we need to protect them, and we have to do better. What I found in that previous movement of big, dramatic out-of-state actors who came in and took over is they were awesome at the we-have-to-do-better part and absolutely lousy at the we-love-the-schools-and-teachers part. And that just caused a lot of anger. It was toxic in the long run. It is so important to a state to hear the we-love-our-schools message. That’s why they end up picking leaders, board presidents and superintendents who are of the system, who sincerely love their schools and say that. But they’re bad at the second part: we have to do things differently. The key to leadership right now is finding someone who can say both. We love these schools. We love public education in our communities. But Lord, our kids deserve a whole lot better than this. We have to do some things differently. That’s a rare leader.

Susan Pendergrass (24:00):
Yeah. Well, I think that’s a great place to end, because what else can you say? That’s awesome. That’s what we’re looking at. We’re going to find out soon, and not just Missouri. Many states have the same problems. I would love to have you come back again, Andy. We love having you.

Andy Smarick (24:16):
I love getting emails from you or Zach asking me to come on. I’m happy to give my bad opinions on anything.

Susan Pendergrass (24:23):
No, you have such a good, crystallized view of these things, and your experience on state boards is invaluable. I do appreciate it. Thank you for taking the time. I know you’re busy and hopefully you’ll come back soon.

Andy Smarick (24:40):
Whenever you call. Have a great summer.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Case for an Education Outsider in Missouri with Andy Smarick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well, you could try the hidden ball trick. Indiana’s Trine University softball team played this old ruse to perfection in advancing to the 2019 Women’s College World Series.

In a surprise pick-off move, Trine pitcher Kate Saupe turned and fired a bullet to second base. But the ball got away from the infielder and rolled into the outfield. So it seemed. Actually, the ball never left the pitcher’s glove. When the runner tried to advance, Saupe tagged her for the game-winning out.

In promoting the idea of a cost-free expansion of Missouri’s Medicaid program, the Missouri Budget Project, the Missouri Hospital Association, and others are using a similar (and equally spectacular) misdirection play to gain public support for a policy initiative that would be neither cheap nor free.

At $10.9 billion, Medicaid already accounts for 39.6 percent of Missouri’s 2019 budget. That’s more than education, prisons, public safety, or roads. It’s the most for any service funded in part or total by Missouri taxpayers.

So how can Missouri boost the number of Medicaid participants from 850,000 to more than a million people—and save money? It can’t. If we increase Medicaid enrollment more than quarter, there has to be a similar increase in costs—something on the order of $2 billion a year.

The hidden ball here is to treat the federal contribution in this joint state-federal program as “free money” —a manna-from-the-heavens gift from Uncle Sam to the Show-Me State. But the money is not free. Like the residents of other states, Missourians are on the hook for federal Medicaid obligations, no less than state Medicaid obligations. They pay the final bill either way—through state and federal taxes.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government set out to expand Medicaid to include people earning up to 138 percent of federally defined poverty level.

As originally written, this legislation would have required states to comply with the planned expansion of Medicaid or face the loss of all federal matching funds, split roughly on a $3-to-$2 basis between the federal government and the states. The Supreme Court struck down that part of the law in 2012. The Obama administration then agreed to a $9-to-$1 split in favor of the states if they opted to participate in the expansion. What had been a “gun to the head” (as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote) suddenly became a mouth-watering carrot.

Kansas recently became the 37th state to opt into Medicaid expansion. If Missouri were to follow suit, it would still need to put up 10 percent of the cost. Citing a Washington University study, Medicaid expansionists think they have found a way to make even that cost disappear. But this is just one more example of cost-shifting as opposed to cost reduction.

According to the study, Missouri could re-enroll existing recipients currently classified as permanently and total disabled (PTD) based on income, rather than disability. That would trigger the new $9-to-$1 federal match—meaning more federal funds for the same people.

But there is a problem: This maneuver appears to be against the law. So the federal Office of Inspector General said in a recent audit of New York State when it tried to do same thing.

Over the last two decades, Medicaid has been a rapidly rising cost at both the state and national levels. But it remains a deeply troubled program that is not succeeding in its basic mission of providing ready access to high-quality healthcare for low-income families and individuals.

When it comes to promoting needed change in healthcare, using feel-good, sleight-of-hand accounting to promote a false idea of something-for-nothing benefits is a step backward, not forward.

The post The Myth of “Free” Medicaid Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The USDA’s cost-benefit analysis found that shifting these two agencies to Kansas City would reduce costs by 11.3 percent, saving taxpayers roughly $300 million (in nominal terms) over the next 15 years. These savings stem primarily from the fact that Kansas City has dramatically cheaper real estate than D.C., as well as marginally lower cost of living. The USDA’s report noted that the median sale price of a home (a major factor in determining cost of living for employees) in Kansas City is $205,400, compared to $420,000 in D.C.

This isn’t a surprise to me; I moved to Kansas City from Washington, D.C. in 2005. Nor should it surprise anyone who read our paper on the competitive advantages of the Kansas City region, as the paper mentions low cost of living as a major advantage for Kansas City.

While we don’t know exactly were in the region the USDA will locate, it was disheartening to read in The Kansas City Star that $26 million in “unspecified” incentives were part of the deal. The authors reported:

Greg LeRoy, executive director of the watchdog group Good Jobs First, accused the USDA of engaging in an Amazon-style selection process that made states compete for the jobs with incentives.

“It’s outrageous that the USDA would run an auction. This is the extreme version of privatized behavior by the federal government. Uncle Sam has no business running auctions, dangling jobs on state and local taxpayers,” he said.

LeRoy said the final competition the USDA is setting up between Kansas and Missouri is reminiscent of how corporations set municipalities against each other after a region has been selected.

“This is classic site location consultant chicanery…This is an ugly, extreme version of Uncle Sam imitating Jeff Bezos. Yuck. If I were a Missouri or Kansas taxpayer, I would never stand for this. And as a federal taxpayer I’m cross-eyed.”

It’s a shame that the USDA encourages such behavior. It’s a shame that the Kansas City region plays ball, and it’s a shame that we’ll now fight among ourselves for the specific USDA location.

I discussed this topic with Pete Mundo this morning on KCMO Talk Radio. Click here to listen to the segment.

The post USDA Moves to Kansas City, Gets Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Witness an incredible turn of events:

We now hear the proudly progressive governors of California and New York howling in outrage at the removal of a substantial tax break for those at the highest level of income – the top 10 percent, and, especially, the top one percent.

Under the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that went into effect on Jan. 1, taxpayers may no longer count all of their state and local income tax payments, plus property taxes, as deductible expenses on their federal returns. The new law caps the deductibility of these state and local taxes (the so-called SALT deduction) at $10,000 per taxpayer. What follows is a rough calculation of how the cap will impact people at several different levels of income (focusing only on California, where local income taxes are not as important a factor as they are in New York, and disregarding property taxes).

Based on California income tax tables, a couple earning $150,000 in 2018 will owe $8,797 to the state of California – with the consolation of knowing that every cent will be deductible. The couple will save about $2,000 on their federal return.

A tipping point occurs at $164,000 in adjusted gross income. Exceeding that, a California couple filing jointly runs out of cap room and gets no further benefit from the SALT deduction.

The top one percent in California starts at about $500,000, according to the latest available data from the Internal Revenue Service. With that income, an entry-level couple in the one percent club will owe $41,347 to the state. Since all but $10,000 of the state tax is nondeductible under the new law, it has the effect of bumping up the adjusted gross income on their federal return by $31,347. Applying the top federal rate of 37 percent to that sum, the couple will owe an additional $11,598 to Uncle Sam.

The average income for families in the top one percent in California is $1.6 million, or more than three times the starting income. So how does the “average” ultra-rich family fare under the new tax regime? In 2018 it will owe $165,072 to the state – with a whopping $155,072 no longer counting as a deductible expense. Consequently, the family will take a hit of a little more than $57,000 in what it owes to Uncle Sam.

In a nutshell, the top one percent of filers in California are about to lose a huge tax break. No longer will they be able to reap one dollar in federal tax savings for every three or four dollars going to the state government.

No wonder the governors of the two states are worried. At 13.3 percent, California has the highest marginal income tax rate of all the states. New York State’s top rate is 8.82 percent, and that jumps to 12.7 percent in New York City. Each state garners nearly 50 percent of its total income tax revenues from the top one percent of earners.

Who has compensated for the outsized deductions that the highly paid denizens of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street have been able to claim on their federal returns due to exceptionally high state and local taxes?

Taxpayers in low-tax states and less affluent regions have done so. In the process, they have helped to subsidize the growth in public spending that has occurred in Sacramento, Albany, and New York City.

The situation will soon change. In early 2019, when people file their local, state, and federal tax returns for the 2018 tax year, the cross-subsidies, of a reverse Robin Hood nature, will largely disappear.

At the same time, taxpayers outside the top ten percent of filers will appreciate the positive impact of a near doubling in the standard deduction – to $12,000 for individuals and to $24,000 for couples. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., a married couple with two children and a combined adjusted income of $85,000 will reap a $2,254 tax savings in 2018 as a result of provisions in the new law.

So, what about the vociferous complaints coming from progressives, who say that the new law only serves to make the rich richer and does nothing to help working people?

But the tax tables tell an entirely different story.

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

Education Week has a detailed cheat sheet on the ins and outs of the bill, but the Associated Press’s summary cuts to the core of the issue, “The bill would return to the states the authority to decide how to use students' test performance in assessing teachers and schools, and it would end federal efforts to encourage academic standards such as Common Core.”

I want to underscore just how important this is. In education, as in most policy areas, federal involvement is a one-way ratchet. Federal influence in education has been on the rise since the days of Sputnik, accelerated by President Johnson as part of the War on Poverty, and brought to its apex by No Child Left Behind. This looks to be the first time that trend has been reversed.

The tide is turning because people across the country and across the political spectrum have realized that the federal government is in a terrible place to try and dictate education policy. We have 100,000 schools in 14,000 school districts spread all across our vast and diverse nation. Trying to centrally determine how to hold schools accountable is simply too great a challenge. Those decisions are much better made by individuals closer to children and the communities where they live.

The bill still has to pass the Senate and be signed by the President, but all indicators point to that happening relatively soon. If and when it does, Missouri will have much more control over its educational future, and the hard work of creating a world-class education system without Uncle Sam breathing down our neck can begin.

The post No Child Left Behind Has One Foot in the Grave appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the governor is selling the idea that Missouri and other states should take all the help they can get from Uncle Sam. Nixon treats the offer of billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury as “free money” — even though it is one more instance of expanding an entitlement today out of debt imposed upon our children and grandchildren tomorrow.

In his Jan. 28 State of the State address, Nixon spoke to the fear that Missouri would lose $5.7 billion in federal grants over the next three years if it does not step forward to claim the prize.

But that is hardly the worst thing that could happen — given widespread dissatisfaction with the rapid growth in spending that has already occurred in this program. We do not have to expand Medicaid. This would not put existing benefits at risk.

The far greater danger is that Missouri (and other states) will fail to stop their spendthrift uncle in Washington, D.C., from bankrupting the nation — and slamming the door on job and wealth creation for years to come.

It is time to reform Medicaid — not to expand it.

Even more than that, this is a time for the states to come to the aid of their country — in saying “no” to an overreaching federal government that is seemingly determined to spend not just to the absolute limit of its taxing power, but also to the absolute limit of its borrowing power.
Over the past four years, the federal debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to more than $16 trillion. Federal indebtedness now amounts to more than $50,000 for every man, woman, and child.
Anyone who does not think Medicaid is part of the problem should look at the numbers.

For more than a decade, Medicaid has been the fastest-growing part of state budgets across the nation. In Missouri, Medicaid expenditures increased from $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2000 to $8.2 billion in fiscal year 2012. Despite the increased outlays, which now amount to more than a third of the state’s total expenditures, it is increasingly difficult for patients to find doctors. And doctors say they have little incentive to stay in the program because of reduced reimbursement rates and administrative headaches.

Medicaid showcases the many problems that grow out of greater and greater reliance on government-mandated and government-controlled health care — in limiting competition and freedom of choice and undermining the bond between patient and doctor.

In his address to the legislature, Nixon glossed over such problems, suggesting that the Medicaid expansion (as a critical part of the Affordable Care Act) is a done deal — passed by Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

“The question before us is a narrow one,” Nixon claimed. “Will we bring the tax dollars that Missourians send to Washington back home to strengthen our Medicaid system here in Missouri? Or will we let the tax dollars Missourians send to Washington be spent in other states instead?”
There are two substantial problems with this line of reasoning.

First, the Supreme Court did not endorse the law in its entirety. As originally written, the law would have required each of the states to support the planned expansion of Medicaid . . . or face the loss of all federal matching funds. The Supreme Court struck down that part of the law — calling it “a gun to the head.” The Court ruled that the states must be free to opt out of the Medicaid expansion program if they wish.

Second, the real issue is not tax dollars that are (in Nixon’s word) being sent to Washington from Missouri and other states. It is the use of borrowed money (much of it coming from China, Saudi Arabia, and other such countries) that will pass the bill for today’s higher (and heedlessly wasteful) levels of government spending to our children and grandchildren.

Even without holding a “gun to the head” of each of the states, the federal government continues to dangle a large carrot in front of their noses — offering to pay more than 90 percent of new Medicaid costs through 2022. That compares with the usual split between the federal government and the states of about 60-to-40 in Medicaid funding.

It will take real courage for lawmakers in Missouri and other states to turn aside the poisoned chalice. But that is exactly what they must do.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes free-market solutions for Missouri public policy issues.

The post Jay Nixon Makes The Wrong Call On Medicaid appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A. take the money and run,
B. say thanks, but no thanks, or
C. call the police.

Confronted with the question of whether to accept a multi-billion dollar offer of “free money” from Uncle Sam to expand the state’s Medicaid program, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has advocated the take-the-money-and-run approach. He called it “the smart thing to do,” and “the right thing to do.”

According to Nixon, it would be “dumb” for Missouri, or any other state, to turn down a use-it-or-lose-it infusion of federal cash, and it would be “wrong” for state officials to wave aside money for extending health insurance to the uninsured. On the first point, the Obama administration has agreed to pay a very high share (90-plus percent) of new Medicaid costs in all states. And on the second, it acts as if cost were no object.

This is an unsound argument — and bad public policy. Let’s hope that most states reject it — as Missouri, with large Republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature, almost certainly will.

It is astounding that the administration is contemplating a major expansion in a troubled entitlement program when the nation faces the threat (with the so-called fiscal cliff) of a financial panic and another deep recession.

According to a new study from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, the loosened eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) will cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over the next decade.

For the past several years, the federal government has been borrowing about 40 cents out of every dollar it spends. That is like adding $400 of credit card debt for every $1,000 you spend. So where is the new money coming from to expand Medicaid coverage to a projected 17 million people?

Like a spendthrift who refuses to mend his ways, the Obama administration wants to go on spending money it does not have: If necessary, taking out new credit cards to pay off the old. This is the same tactic that has brought Greece and several other European nations to the brink of bankruptcy.

Instead of acting as enablers of fiscal profligacy, Missouri and other states should say “no” to the Medicaid expansion. They should also say “no” to the creation of state health insurance exchanges to implement ObamaCare. These exchanges would require the states to accept costly mandates and complicated rules restricting competition and choice in health care.

Finally, Medicaid should be reformed, not expanded.

Medicaid costs have been the fastest-growing part of state budgets for more than a decade. In Missouri, Medicaid expenditures jumped from $3.4 billion, or 22 percent, of the state’s total expenditures in fiscal 2000, to 36 percent, or $8.2 billion, in fiscal 2012. Despite the increased outlays, complaints are growing on the part of patients and doctors. Poor patients often have a hard time finding doctors. And doctors say they have little incentive to stay in the program because of reduced reimbursement rates and administrative headaches.

The states should explore better ways of providing catastrophic health insurance for those without coverage. And they should be smart enough to know that the offer of “free money” usually means a one-way ticket to financial ruin.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post It Is Time to Reform Medicaid, Not Expand It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This year’s Tax Freedom Day is two weeks earlier than 2007’s date, but the Tax Foundation cautions that we shouldn’t get too excited: Tax Freedom Day does not include the deficit. If Americans were required to pay for all government spending this year, they would be working until May 17 to pay all of their taxes. Unfortunately, someone will have to pay those taxes someday.

In the meantime, though, celebrate the fact that you are done working for Uncle Sam for the year.

The post Time to Celebrate! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A few weeks ago, the Show-Me Institute published a study by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “The Prognosis for National Health Insurance: A Missouri Perspective.” It is a thoughtful piece — 44 pages filled with important information. One of its foremost concepts deals with the “health care wedge.” In simple economic terms, the wedge is what separates the health care demander (patient) from the health care supplier (provider). In the past, this wedge was driven by insurance companies, and now the wedge is being driven forward by the government. As a result, neither the product end users (patients), nor the product suppliers (providers), have a good understanding of the costs. It is as though there is a third party present when doctor and patient meet. That third party happens to be the one that pays the bills, and that could be an insurance company or Uncle Sam. For a concise review of this problem’s history, see Milton Friedman’s 2001 summary.

One approach to correcting this has been suggested in the past: the concept of health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs are a type of consumer-driven health care funding mechanism that allows the patient to be much more involved in making health care decisions. Owners of such accounts must spend their own money, which they have accumulated in a pre-tax account, so their health care spending is characterized by frugal caution.

The problem is that HSAs require their owners to acquire and maintain a high level of health care knowledge and sophistication. Most people with HSAs search the Internet to analyze their problems, and arrive at their doctor’s office with a printout of therapeutic choices. In many cases, the doctor visits are designed to add another level of expert knowledge to that already possessed by the patient. In the modern world of Internet access, everyone ought to try to do that — after all, what can be more important than taking care of your own health? The problem is that many people do not have the time, inclination, or ability to pursue this type of self-informed care.

There is another way, a concept called a health care co-op. These types of cooperatives are health care plans in which the purchasers (the patients) are the owners. The organizations are self-governed, and the members elect the board to oversee the health plan management. In this manner, the co-op reduces the wedge mentioned earlier. Because the participating patients are the co-op owners, they have a better understanding of what is being spent. In such a situation, the co-op itself acts as the insurer for its members. Then, when the doctor and patient meet, there is no third party, because the patient is a co-owner of the insurance company.

Missouri has a long history of successful cooperative enterprises. There are, and have been, multiple rural cooperatives to help farmers market and distribute their produce. At present, the Missouri Electrical Cooperatives are the most well known, because they have earned nationwide respect for their community work. Similar organizations have been an important part of our state’s development, and some of this has been coordinated by the Missouri Institute of Cooperatives.

It may be time for residents of this state to think of utilizing a Missouri Health Care Cooperative. As indicated in the past, more than 245,000 Missourians without health care insurance have incomes greater than 200 percent above the federal poverty level. Rather than asking people to buy health care insurance, maybe those that can afford it should be invited to invest in a Missouri Health Care Cooperative. Then, not only would those purchasers have health care insurance, they would also share in the profit made by their insurer.

The post Could Missouri Be Helped with a Health Care Co-Op? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a world congested with government mandates, this bit of news is a breath of fresh air. Next thing you know, Uncle Sam will be letting us pick our own schools and decide whether or not we want ethanol in our gas tanks. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

The post The Free Market Is My Copilot appeared first on Show-Me Institute.