Susan Pendergrass speaks with Andrew G. Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, about the Social Security trustees’ latest report and what it means for the program’s future. They discuss the projected 2032 insolvency of the retirement trust fund, why the trustees’ birth rate assumptions may be too optimistic, the proposed Moreno-Warren plan to eliminate the payroll tax ceiling, the Cassidy-Kaine plan, and why pension experts oppose it, what would actually happen if the trust fund ran out, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
I feel fortunate to have grabbed some of your time. Andrew Biggs from the American Enterprise Institute, I appreciate you coming on to talk to us. Social security has been nothing but in the news recently, and you know more than anyone else. So thank you for taking the time.

Andrew Biggs (00:14):
That’s why I’m so cheerful. The more you know about Social Security, the happier you are. But thanks for having me, Susan. It has been busy. I’m really happy to be with you today.

Susan Pendergrass (00:16):
I’m in my sixties. I see something about Social Security running out of money and I pay attention. So just to bring us all up to speed: in the last week, there was a news flash that Social Security is going to run out of money sooner. What does it really mean?

Andrew Biggs (00:39):
Every year the Social Security trustees, which is mostly members of the cabinet, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Social Security Commissioner, and so on, come out with a report projecting the program’s financial health, both in the short term and the long term. That happens every year, and it’s been getting worse every year. In this year’s report, they projected that the retirement trust fund will go insolvent, or run out of money, in 2032. They also projected a significantly larger long-term funding gap in the years thereafter, and this is worth explaining.

When the trust fund runs out, it doesn’t mean there’s zero money to pay benefits. As long as we’re paying a trillion dollars a year in payroll taxes, there will be money to pay benefits. But when the trust fund runs out, it means benefits will be cut, and their projection is somewhere around 22%. The size of that long-term funding gap dictates how big the cuts are going to be in the years thereafter. The trustees lowered their projections for birth rates, and they found that the One Big Beautiful Bill has worsened Social Security’s finances. A variety of things made this long-term funding gap worse. It’s really hard to paint a happy picture. The trust fund can be running out in about six years, and the funding gap and the benefit cuts in years thereafter are going to be larger. It’s a sobering picture.

Susan Pendergrass (02:16):
I’m not trying to pile on, but I think I saw that they extended the time when they expect birth rates to bounce back. Is that true? Because I have not seen anything anywhere, and I’ve spoken to some demographers, to suggest birth rates are ever going to bounce back.

Andrew Biggs (02:35):
Here’s the interesting thing. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office or the US Census Bureau, right now the fertility rate is about 1.6 children per woman on average, and both the CBO and the Census project that’s going to remain pretty much steady, declining a little bit over coming decades. Social Security had a very different picture. As of last year, they thought the birth rate, which is 1.6 now, was going to immediately start rising and go back up to 1.9 children per woman in the next several decades. That makes Social Security’s finances better. More kids being born means more people paying into the system. What they did in this year’s report is moderate a bit on fertility. They said, okay, it’s not going to rise back to 1.9, it’ll rise back to 1.75. So they are still over-optimistic. I’ve talked to some demographers and economists who’ve really focused on the birth rate, and they described the trustees’ assumptions as, quote, fanciful, meaning they just weren’t plausible. Now they’re somewhat more plausible, but they still tend

Susan Pendergrass (03:32):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (03:48):
to be more optimistic than other agencies. And to me, frankly, this is a concern. You really want the people who are the scorekeepers, the umpires, to be playing it as straight as they possibly can. We know that these guesses are going to be wrong because this stuff is impossible to predict with certainty, but most demographers think the best guess is we’ll stay around 1.6 going forward. You’ve seen a decline, and a good predictor of birth rates is religiosity, the level of religious belief in a country. The US has typically been much more religious than Western Europe, and that’s played into fertility. There has been a big decline in religious belief, particularly among younger Americans, along with all the other pessimism you see among younger people. When people are pessimistic, they tend not to have a lot of kids. So the best guess is we’re going to stay about where we are.

I wrote something the other day saying the bad news in this trustees report is even worse than last year’s, but it could have been even worse. They project a long-term funding gap above 4.4 percent of payroll. What that means is if you took the 12.4% payroll tax today and raised it immediately and permanently by 4.4 percentage points, from 12.4 to 16.8, that would in theory keep the trust fund solvent for 75 years. But a better guess would be a funding gap of around 4.8 to 5 percent. This is real money. For years, people on the left have said, well, okay, we know Social Security has a solvency problem, but it’s a manageable issue. They were saying that when the funding gap was 2% of payroll. Now you’re looking at four to five percent. That’s a lot of money, at a time when a lot of other things are making claims on the budget. We have some difficult choices to make and we really have to start thinking hard about this.

Susan Pendergrass (06:09):
Okay, so what about this idea that’s been floated in the last week of getting rid of the payroll cap? First of all, explain the payroll cap, and then this idea of getting rid of it.

Andrew Biggs (06:17):
Sure. Social Security has a 12.4% payroll tax, half paid by you and half paid by your employer. That applies only to wages up to $184,500. That’s called the payroll tax ceiling, or the tax max. That dollar figure goes up every year, but this year it’s $184,000. You only pay taxes on those wages, and you also earn benefits only on those wages. People say, well, Bill Gates doesn’t pay more taxes than that. But he doesn’t earn any benefits either. So you’re capping both the taxes and the benefits.

To fast forward a little bit: there’s an op-ed in the Washington Post this week from Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts. They say it’s just common sense to eliminate that cap and tax all earnings for Social Security. The interesting thing is how uncommon that would actually be. Our payroll tax ceiling is $184,000. Almost every other country has a ceiling on their payroll taxes for their pension system, and in almost every other country that ceiling is lower. In Canada, you only pay taxes and earn benefits up to around $60,000 in earnings. In the UK it’s about $70,000. In Germany it’s about $70,000. We are already an outlier for how high up the income ladder we tax people. To eliminate the cap entirely is a big deal. It’s effectively a 12 percentage point increase in the top marginal tax rate. I pulled an example of somebody living in New York City. A high-income person already pays 37% in federal income taxes, plus regular Medicare taxes, the additional Medicare tax, state taxes, and city taxes. If you add another 12 percentage points on top of that, their marginal tax rate would be in the mid-60s. And that’s before we’ve fixed Medicare or done anything else. The federal budget is still broke, and you’ve taxed these people as high as you possibly can. So these things that look like common sense, why don’t we just tax everybody,

Susan Pendergrass (08:37):
Right, right.

Andrew Biggs (08:46):
look, there are reasons for that.

Susan Pendergrass (08:49):
And were they suggesting that if I make $300,000 and I pay my 6.2 percent, totaling 12.4 with my employer, on my entire salary, that my Social Security benefit one day would be higher? Are they talking about capping the benefit or just getting rid of the cap on contributions?

Andrew Biggs (09:06):
They haven’t been very specific. They say Social Security would continue to be an earned benefit, which kind of implies you would continue to earn benefits on the additional taxes you would pay. Let’s say if we uncap the payroll tax and base your taxes on your total earnings, you’d also base your benefits on your total earnings. What you get then is, okay, you’re getting all this money from people in the short term, but you have to pay them higher benefits in the long term. That offsets some of the savings. And this morning I was running some numbers looking back to the 1970s. We had a huge run-up in benefit levels from Social Security in the 1970s. The benefit formula we have today is not the one FDR invented. It really happened in the 1970s, where they jacked up benefits in a really foolish way, and then to help pay for it, they increased the payroll tax ceiling. Right now you pay taxes on earnings up to $180,000. If we had just kept the tax max from 1970 and indexed it to wages, it would have been only $95,000. So they essentially doubled the wages on which you pay Social Security taxes. But what happens is they also doubled the wages on which people earn benefits. I’ve highlighted the point that if you have a high-income

Susan Pendergrass (10:38):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (10:43):
couple retiring today, they could get almost $100,000 in total benefits, which is absurd. There’s no reason a government program should be paying anybody that amount. If you want that kind of income in retirement, you save more in your 401k. It’s better for you, better for the economy. But it was a result of this short-term step they took in the 70s. They said, hey, we raised benefits too high, let’s jack up the tax max. And they didn’t worry about the fact that in the future you’d have to pay benefits on that. Well, the future is today.

Susan Pendergrass (11:05):
Okay.

Andrew Biggs (11:13):
Now we’re broke again, we need extra money again, and these guys say, well let’s just jack up the tax max. But then you’ll pay extra benefits in the future. It becomes this chasing-your-tail kind of thing.

Susan Pendergrass (11:16):
Yeah. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (11:25):
And the problem when you do it is there’s no country on earth paying $100,000 a year from a social insurance program, except for us. And the reason we do is these stupid historical decisions. If you’ve got this high-income couple in the US retiring today, they can get almost $100,000 from Social Security. If they lived in Canada, they’d get like $35,000. And that’s perfectly fine. Nobody’s starving to death in Canada in retirement. They just save more on their own.

Susan Pendergrass (11:35):
I’ll say.

Andrew Biggs (11:55):
The irony is that we think of ourselves as a free-market, small-government country, and our Social Security program is enormous, primarily because we’re paying benefits to people that other countries say, yeah, we don’t need to pay benefits to these guys.

Susan Pendergrass (12:11):
And yet people say, I put my money in, I get my money out.

Andrew Biggs (12:14):
Yeah, and I understand it. When I say we shouldn’t be paying $100,000 a year to a high-income couple, you get the email saying, well, I paid in. And if you paid in, you feel you have this moral claim on benefits. The problem is Social Security is still broke. We still need higher taxes or lower benefits. The idea that you’re just going to get your full benefits with the taxes you paid doesn’t work because the system can’t afford to do it. So you have to make the choice: do I want to pay higher taxes or get lower benefits? I’ve got to pick my poison. Most high-income people would prefer to get lower benefits. They care more about their taxes than their benefits. But people are still living in this dream world where this system, which is $30 trillion in the hole, is somehow going to pay them everything they’ve been promised and just screw somebody else. Everybody thinks they’re the guy who’s going to get everything and somebody else is going to get screwed.

Susan Pendergrass (13:14):
Yeah. I definitely hear people saying today, maybe I should go ahead and take it early and then I’ll get grandfathered in and my benefits won’t get lowered.

Andrew Biggs (13:26):
It probably won’t make a difference. In general, the Social Security benefit formula works based on your birth cohort, the year in which you’re born, not really the year in which you claim benefits. And people who are going to do Social Security reform understand the incentives. They don’t want to make it easy for people to game the system. So Social Security reform will probably work itself out in such a way that

Susan Pendergrass (13:42):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (14:03):
you can’t get some big advantage by claiming early. I could think of some conceivable possibilities, but I still would not encourage people to claim early.

Susan Pendergrass (14:14):
Okay, I want to talk about two more things I read in the last week. One was a letter from Tim Kaine about his idea with Senator Cassidy. What’s that idea for fixing it?

Andrew Biggs (14:24):
The interesting thing is people say Social Security reform has to be bipartisan. So we have two bipartisan ideas. We have Moreno and Elizabeth Warren, a Republican and a Democrat. They’ve got one idea, eliminating the payroll tax ceiling.

Susan Pendergrass (14:39):
Third rail.

Andrew Biggs (14:49):
Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, they’ve got a bipartisan plan. And guess what? Their plan is also terrible. If there’s any lesson from this, it’s that bipartisan doesn’t mean good.

Susan Pendergrass (15:00):
Bipartisanly terrible.

Andrew Biggs (15:04):
Yeah. Look, ultimately Social Security reform is going to have to be bipartisan, given the way the political system works. On the other hand, there is some lesson that if both Republicans and Democrats can agree on something, it might be a terrible idea. With Cassidy and Kaine, they are explicitly, and Cassidy said this, solving a political problem. The political problem is that neither Republicans nor Democrats want to vote for either tax increases or benefit cuts. You’d think Democrats want to raise your taxes and Republicans want to cut your benefits. The reality is they don’t want to do either of those things because they realize both are politically unpopular, which is why we’ve gone 40 years literally doing nothing. So their solution is that we don’t have to make these difficult votes. Instead, the federal government will borrow about $2 trillion, invest that money

Susan Pendergrass (16:02):
Tough.

Andrew Biggs (16:04):
in stocks and private equity, high-risk, high-return stuff. Then they claim they’re going to hold this fund for 75 years so it can build up value. In the meantime, when Social Security’s trust fund runs out in 2032, the federal government will borrow against the assumed gains on this investment fund.

Susan Pendergrass (16:06):
Right. Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (16:29):
They say the borrowing will be at a lower rate because it’s the federal government. And they say after 75 years, all the gains in this investment fund will pay back all the borrowing and we’re all good. And let me count the ways there are problems with that. If you work at the state level,

Susan Pendergrass (16:45):
It’s just kicking the can.

Andrew Biggs (16:52):
state-based think tanks almost know more about this than federal people. A lot of underfunded state pension systems do things called pension obligation bonds. Their pension system is underfunded, they don’t want to raise contributions or cut benefits, so they borrow and invest in the stock market and hope it works. The pension obligation bond is the hallmark of a poorly funded, poorly run pension system. Think New Jersey, Illinois, things like that.

Susan Pendergrass (17:21):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:23):
There’s a national group of state budget officers that has come out and basically said as an institution, don’t do this. Borrowing for your pension is a bad idea. So it really is fitting for the times that the Cassidy-Kaine plan says, let’s take this worst idea from state and local government

Susan Pendergrass (17:45):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (17:47):
employee pensions, which has been condemned as bad practice, and put it on steroids and do that for Social Security. And what it really gets to is they just don’t understand the finances of it. And to be frank, they won’t listen. They have talked to every pension expert I know, and this Social Security world is pretty small. We all know each other on both sides. We may not agree on everything. Literally every pension expert I know says this is a terrible idea.

Susan Pendergrass (17:54):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (18:17):
But their political considerations are more important than policy, and that’s the problem with all of them.

Susan Pendergrass (18:24):
I mean, it feels free. They’re basically saying it’s like a timeshare. It just feels free right now. We just borrow the money. Okay, so

Andrew Biggs (18:31):
It’s been pointed out to them that if you can fund Social Security this way, you could fund the entire federal government this way and never collect any taxes. At one point Senator Cassidy was quoted in a newspaper article saying, well, yeah, sure, in theory you could. And I’m like, if something implies there’s a free money machine, maybe you need to question your assumptions.

Susan Pendergrass (18:38):
Sure. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (18:54):
I could give you a whole variety of reasons why this doesn’t work, but one macro point that’s come to me: I’ve been doing Social Security for a long time. I worked in the Bush administration in 2005 when they tried and failed to do Social Security reform. One of the problems we face today is that your elected officials understand Social Security policy much less well than they did 20 years ago. They just don’t understand how the system works. Going back to the Moreno-Warren idea of applying the payroll tax to all earnings,

Susan Pendergrass (19:22):
Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (19:37):
okay, you’re adding 12 percentage points to your top tax rate. There’s a reason Sweden and France and others don’t do this anymore. They used to have incredibly high tax rates. They don’t now. We would end up in many cases with a higher tax rate than most European countries. We have some philosophical dedication to small government and things like that. They don’t. And so if they’re not doing it,

Susan Pendergrass (19:43):
Yes. Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (20:02):
it’s because there’s a practical reason this isn’t a good idea. The same applies to wealth taxes. That’s been tried in Europe. They’re like, yeah, we’re not doing that anymore because it doesn’t work. But your average senator now

Susan Pendergrass (20:14):
It is happening around the country, the billionaire tax. What happens in 2032 if no one is either brave enough or smart enough to take this on in the next six years?

Andrew Biggs (20:17):
They’re just not aware of these policy issues, and that’s a real problem. It’s like having a guy fix your car who doesn’t know how to fix cars. 2032 is the date. If you have a recession, it might be 2031. It’s not certain, but it is certain it’s happening soon.

Susan Pendergrass (20:47):
Yeah. Okay.

Andrew Biggs (20:53):
There’s a literal reading of the law, which is that Social Security can’t pay out benefits it doesn’t have dedicated resources for. Once the trust fund runs out, the only dedicated resources are mostly the payroll tax, plus a little bit of money from income taxes levied on retirement benefits. And those were cut as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. So if the trust fund runs out, they’d have to rely on the money they have on hand, which implies around a 22% benefit cut.

A lot of times people assume that benefit cut has to be across the board. If you did it that way, you’d throw a lot of people into poverty. I did some work a year or so ago with a lawyer in DC named Kristen Shapiro, and what we found is that the legal precedent shows the executive branch, meaning the president working through the Social Security Commissioner, would have some discretion. What we found is you could maintain full benefits for about 50% of people, the poorest 50% of seniors, and then cap benefits above that. If you cap the maximum benefit at about $24,000 per year for a single person or $48,000 for a couple, that is enough to make Social Security solid without raising taxes. So the point is simply you have some discretion.

The reality is Congress isn’t going to allow big benefit cuts, for political reasons. On the other hand, are they willing to have the size of tax increases needed, all in one go, to keep Social Security paying full benefits? I don’t think they want that either. So the reality is probably they’re going to borrow a lot of the money. And that’s where you get to the issue of how much more borrowing the financial markets will swallow. We effectively borrow from the public to repay the Social Security Trust Fund, but there’s an end to that. You say, okay, 2032, we have to do something. We have to raise taxes or cut benefits. If in 2032 the stated policy of the federal government is, well, we’re just going to keep borrowing to pay Social Security even though we have no prospect of paying it back, you wouldn’t blame some big market players for saying, yeah, I’m out, because you don’t want to lend money at low interest rates to someone who says they can’t pay it back. Then you start getting a couple of things. One is more federal borrowing squeezes out capital in the rest of the economy, and so interest rates naturally rise.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18):
Right.

Andrew Biggs (23:31):
But then there’s a second element: if you’re afraid the federal government can’t pay you back, over and above that natural increase in the interest rate, you’d apply a risk premium to treasury debt. You’d say, look, Treasury is not this rock-solid investment anymore. It’s more like a junk bond, or like borrowing from Illinois, and you make them pay a premium. That’s going to drive up

Susan Pendergrass (23:43):
US government borrowing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:01):
interest rates, and that makes it tougher not just for the federal government but for everybody. If you want to buy a car or a house, all your interest rates rise. There’s also going to be real temptation to inflate away the debt. The federal government doesn’t want to default on its debt, but

Susan Pendergrass (24:24):
Yeah, yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:25):
historically the way you deal with this is inflation. Think about all the debt we took on during COVID, shoveling money out the door to everybody, and then we had massive inflation after it. A lot of those people who bought treasury debt didn’t get a good deal, because if you get 20% inflation on

Susan Pendergrass (24:34):
Absolutely. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (24:47):
a treasury bond with a nominal fixed interest rate, that’s a real problem. So inflation becomes increasingly tempting. You look at this scenario and you’re like, can’t anybody here play this game? Every other country is not going bankrupt. We just have to do what they do.

Susan Pendergrass (24:51):
Yeah, yeah. So could we, if we really got our heads around it and started today or next year, incrementally raise the 12.4%, or incrementally get people used to lower benefits after a certain income or wealth level?

Andrew Biggs (25:18):
Sure. Yes. The way I think about it, there are two ways people think about it: the wrong way and my way. The wrong way is, let’s just pick from this menu of options to make Social Security solvent. We can raise the payroll tax a bit, raise the retirement age a bit, cut cost-of-living adjustments a bit, raise the tax cap a bit, and do these things until the system is solvent.

Susan Pendergrass (25:34):
Yes. Yeah.

Andrew Biggs (25:54):
That’ll get you a solvent program, but it won’t be a program that particularly works very well or is good for the economy. A more effective way is to ask, what do we want this system to do? If you talk about Social Security reform, what you hear is that it’s a social insurance program, a safety net, an anti-poverty program. Okay, it has to do that. And that part is really very cheap, because we don’t literally have that many poor seniors, their benefits aren’t very high, and it’s not a problem to maintain benefits for low-income seniors. When you ask what Social Security should do, nobody is saying we need to be paying high-income seniors $100,000 a year. There’s no public purpose for it. Nobody thought it out in advance. It was simply an unintended consequence. So if you’ve got things that are really costing a lot of money and have no public purpose, and those people can save for retirement on their own, you start scaling that back. The distinction I’m making is between policy changes simply for the purposes of keeping Social Security solvent, and policy changes for the purpose of making Social Security do what it needs to do, the real public purpose, and not doing things that serve no public purpose. My point is the things I’m talking about are things you should do whether Social Security is insolvent or not.

I’ll give you an example: Australia’s retirement system. Australia is a lot like us, not particularly more conservative or liberal, just sort of normal. Their Social Security program essentially is targeted at eliminating poverty in old age. It’s actually a better safety net than Social Security provides, but the benefits decline down to zero once you get above the poverty level. And to help people above that level save for retirement, everybody is enrolled in a 401k-type account. What that says is, if everybody’s participating in retirement plans as they should, the government’s job becomes easier. Their Social Security system costs about two percent of GDP. Ours costs about six percent. It’s a third as costly, provides a better safety net, and it comes because they’re actually thinking about what they’re doing.

Susan Pendergrass (28:18):
Mm-hmm.

Andrew Biggs (28:26):
We’re literally not thinking about what we’re doing. There’s a saying in business: the worst reason to do something is because we’re already doing it. That is literally how Social Security policymaking works. Nobody knows why our benefit formula is what it is or why the tax max is what it is. It’s all just stuff we inherited from the 1970s from people who were not in any way thinking clearly about what they were doing. It was people in the 70s trying to win elections, and we end up with the bag.

Susan Pendergrass (28:52):
Speaking of 2005, there was an attempt to offload a small portion of people’s contributions into the market, right? That failed.

Andrew Biggs (29:09):
That was the Bush proposal. I was in the White House then, kind of in a number-cruncher role, so I knew that stuff pretty well. I did a lot of events with President Bush around the country. When we came up on the 20th anniversary of Bush’s proposal in 2025, I started thinking to myself, what if his plan had passed? What would have happened? So I built a model. Back then they were saying, okay, you’re going to have some reductions in traditional Social Security benefits for middle and high-income people, and then you’re going to have a personal account where you can invest part of your existing payroll tax in stocks and bonds. The total benefit you get at retirement is a combination of those two. People were speculating. Well, we don’t know what the stock market’s going to do. But 20 years later, we’ve got some data, so let’s just see what happened. The results were that for people

Susan Pendergrass (30:01):
Now we do.

Andrew Biggs (30:07):
retiring today, low and middle-income people would have had higher total benefits by a little bit. The very highest-income people, their benefits would be down by a couple percent because the cuts to their traditional benefits would be larger than the gains from their personal account. But even they would be fine; it’s not a big deal. Going forward, it looked like people would do a little bit better with the Bush plan than with the traditional system. But here’s the important thing: the traditional system is broke. We just talked about how it goes broke in 2032, with huge deficits. The Bush proposal wouldn’t have made Social Security totally solvent, but it would have addressed half or two-thirds of the long-term funding gap. So you’d get a system that would have paid you benefits around the same as, or maybe a little bit better than, Social Security, but would be in much more solid financial shape. Today the times are different, and I don’t think personal accounts are really viable. But the point is, if they had done something back then, everything could be easier today. But members of

Congress were just too afraid. Republicans were afraid of taking the political hit. For Democrats, it was too tempting to give the political hit. They knew they had to do something, but they couldn’t swallow hard and say, look, let’s just go in on this thing together. They didn’t want to give Bush the win because by that point Iraq was going badly and they really didn’t like him. So they beat him up. But the problem is Bush served his term and is happily retired in Texas. The people who really got screwed were the ones who depend on Social Security, because we didn’t fix it. And you just hope that’s not what we do again.

Susan Pendergrass (31:42):
Yeah. Somebody not us in 2045 could be having the same conversation, right? Like, if only in 2025 or 2026 we’d gotten serious. And I do think people mix up the trust fund with the whole program. A lot of people think all of Social Security is going to be bankrupt in six years, versus the reality that we’re still taking in a trillion dollars, we just need about 22% more than what we’re taking in.

Andrew Biggs (32:14):
Yeah. If you go back 20 or 25 years, there were all these arguments about whether the trust fund is real or fair or whatever. The trust fund is essentially IOUs written from one side of the government to the other. I thought at the time the trust fund is not real in an economic sense. It doesn’t make it easier for the government to pay Social Security benefits. It is a pledge that we will pay them, but it doesn’t make it easier to pay them. But here’s the interesting thing:

Susan Pendergrass (32:25):
Right. Al Gore. The lock box.

Andrew Biggs (32:50):
if having a trust fund doesn’t make it easier to pay benefits, then not having a trust fund doesn’t make it harder. The trust fund runs out, we still have taxes coming in, we can still pay 80% of what is owed. If we retarget that, you can maintain the safety net. It’s not like you’re totally insolvent or broke. All those long debates over whether the trust fund is real get resolved because the trust fund itself is gone in six years. So that doesn’t matter very much anymore. But I do hope that, as you said, we’re not in 2045 looking back on a solution of just borrowing $500 billion a year or whatever it’s going to be. People in 2045, when the federal government is bankrupt, the dollar is dropping, and all these financial crisis things we think only happen to other countries are happening to us, they would look back and say, I wish those people were more responsible. The Social Security problem, in a sense, if we went back 25 or 30 years ago, was a manageable problem. The real issue is not the demographics or the benefit growth or whatever. The real issue is just poor stewardship of this program by Congress and respective presidents. It is absolutely a governance problem. It is not a problem of economic or demographic fundamentals. All of that can be handled.

Susan Pendergrass (34:19):
Everyone wants to be Santa Claus, right? No one wants to be the Grinch.

Andrew Biggs (34:22):
It’s very true, but leadership is about giving people bad news. Good news kind of tells itself. Bad news has to be told and people have to be convinced that this is going to hurt, but we’ve got to do it. And we just didn’t have the willingness. President Clinton in the late nineties tried to do some stuff, but he didn’t deliver much bad news because we had surpluses. President Bush was willing to tell people, okay, look, you’re not going to get every penny you’ve been promised. Beyond that, the level of leadership has been very poor.

Susan Pendergrass (35:01):
Hasn’t been good. All right, well, next year when the trustees report comes out, come back and give us more bad news.

Andrew Biggs (35:09):
Yeah, until then, things are looking up. But no, it’s something people want to be aware of, and I think that’s the key thing.

Susan Pendergrass (35:13):
Well, I think one of the more important things you said is that no one understands it. People are upset and arguing over something they don’t understand the mechanics of. I do know people who think they have an account with their name on it that their Social Security taxes went into, and they’re just going to start taking the money out.

Andrew Biggs (35:23):
I have some bad news for that. Your taxes go into Social Security and go straight out the door to pay for your grandmother’s benefits. If you want to know where your taxes are, they’re in your grandmother’s bank account. So go ask her.

Susan Pendergrass (35:45):
That’s right. That’s right. All right, thank you so much. I really appreciate the time.

Andrew Biggs (35:51):
Thank you, Susan. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post The Social Security Crisis Is Worse Than You Think with Andrew G. Biggs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The newest demography newsletter from Saint Louis University delivers a jarring wake-up call that regional leaders can no longer afford to ignore. For years, the conversation around St. Louis has been one of stagnation, but the 2025 population estimates from the Census Bureau reveal we have shifted onto a much more dangerous track toward structural decline. While the national birth rate is falling, St. Louis has emerged as an epicenter of this trend, ranking first among the fifty largest metropolitan areas in the percentage decline of births since 2021 (9 percent). We are now in a state of demographic winter where deaths outnumber births, and unlike our neighbors, we do not have a steady stream of new residents moving in to offset the loss.

When we look at our peers in Indianapolis and Nashville, the contrast is stark. Indianapolis has seen a domestic migration gain of nearly 20,000 people since 2020, while Nashville has increased by 89,000. Meanwhile, St. Louis saw over 31,000 people leave for other parts of the country during that same period. St. Louis is heading into a period in which it will carry a much heavier demographic burden of older residents compared to these peer cities, which are successfully maintaining a younger and more sustainable age structure.

Both of these other regions have more childbirths annually than they did just five years ago. But this isn’t just by chance. Indianapolis has aggressively aligned its economic incentives with family needs, requiring companies that receive tax breaks to reinvest in childcare and neighborhood infrastructure. Indianapolis families can also choose between universally available private school vouchers, charter schools, or any traditional public school in the district. Nashville has used Tennessee’s lack of a state income tax to attract high-earning families and has focused on building the kind of walkable, tech-ready neighborhoods that remote-working parents prioritize. Both cities have created an environment where it is easier and more affordable to raise a family, which in turn fuels both natural growth and domestic migration numbers.

St. Louis is currently operating under the outdated assumption that we will always have 35,000 births a year to sustain our schools and workforce. The reality is that we have declined by over 7,000 births annually since 2011, and that number is still searching for a bottom. If we want to avoid a future of shrinking school districts and a hollowed-out economy, we have to stop treating these numbers as theoretical. We must move toward a strategy that makes St. Louis a destination for families again, rather than a place they leave behind.

The post A Wake-up Call for St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The school choice landscape in Missouri is improving, but most students are still limited to narrow district offerings.

The Solution

Fully commit to a modern school-choice landscape by requiring all school districts to participate in statewide interdistrict open enrollment, increase funding for the MOScholars program, and remove barriers to charter schools in any school district where demand exists.

Key Facts

• Because Missouri does not offer interdistrict school choice, students here are required to attend a school assigned to them based on their address, even if that school chronically underperforms academically or is persistently dangerous.
• As it is currently funded, the MOScholars program can provide scholarships for only about 20,000 of Missouri’s 880,000 public school students.
• Students have access to charter schools in just three of Missouri’s more than 500 school districts.

Interdistrict Choice

Under Kansas’s new interdistrict open enrollment law, every K-12 student can attend any public school in the state, regardless of where they live, as long as there are available seats in the desired school. School districts must participate in the program, and the Kansas Department of Education audits each district’s capacity annually to ensure compliance. Missouri students are largely denied this level of educational choice. In most cases, they are required to attend the school assigned to them based on their home address. In 2024, the Reason Foundation graded all states’ public school transfer and open enrollment laws, and Missouri received an “F.” There are many reasons why a family might want an alternative to their assigned school. The school could be too big or too small, a child may face bullying, or the school might not be able to meet the terms of an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Another issue that has come into focus of late is school safety—new federal guidance emphasizes that students who attend persistently dangerous schools must be provided with an opportunity to attend a safe public school.

Missouri students should be permitted to cross district lines to access any public school, and Missouri school districts should be required both to allow students to transfer out and to receive students from other districts when they have space. Information on available capacity should be posted on school and district web pages and monitored by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

Expanding the MOScholars Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program

MOScholars, Missouri’s private school choice program, provides scholarships for students with disabilities and for low- and middle-income families to attend private schools. These scholarships are distributed through education assistance organizations (EAOs), which receive funding from two sources: (1) $50 million in public funding appropriated during the 2025 legislative session, and (2) private donations, for which donors receive full state tax credits subject to certain limitations. The total value of tax credits is capped at $75 million annually.

The 2025 appropriation of public funding for MOScholars was a step in the right direction, but there is more to be done. If all available tax credits are used, the combined public and private funding would total $125 million— enough to provide scholarships for approximately 20,000 Missouri students. While this is great news for the students who receive funding, it accounts for only a small share of Missouri’s nearly 880,000 public school students.

Voter and parent support for school choice programs is widespread. In a survey of parents taken in June 2021, approximately 75% of parents responded that they somewhat or strongly support ESA programs like MOScholars. If the legislature is serious about supporting this program, it should continue to expand funding to reach more students.

Charter School Expansion

Flexibility, freedom from bureaucracy, and the opportunity to innovate make charter schools a valuable addition to any school district—including those in remote, rural areas. Research shows that on average, charter schools outperform traditional public schools in raising academic achievement and some charter schools deliver results that are substantially better.

In nearly every state, charter schools are available to families in every type of community. In 2022–23, there were 984 rural charter schools enrolling 394,400 public school students nationwide, including 119 schools in communities designated by the Census Bureau as “remote rural.” However, of the 43 states with charter schools, Missouri is the only one with none located in rural areas.

As of 2025, charter schools are currently available to Missouri families in just three out of more than 500 school districts (Kansas City, the City of St. Louis, and Normandy). The reason is simple: In Missouri, charter schools in accredited districts can only open with the approval of the local school board. This is effectively a ban on opening charter schools in most locales. Legislation passed in 2024 allows charter schools to open in Boone County without the sponsorship of a local school board. No charter schools are operating in Boone County yet—it takes a while to open a new school—but they should be soon.

This legislation is a step in the right direction, but the real solution is to eliminate the requirement for local board sponsorship and let the market decide where charters belong. Every Missouri family should have access to this form of school choice.

Policy Recommendations

• Allow students to choose schools outside their residentially zoned districts in order to access broader education options.
• Continue to increase public funding for the MOScholars ESA program.
• Remove restrictions on where charters can open and who must sponsor them.

The post Statewide School Choice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The story is similar to a piece published almost a year ago by Flatland, an online news source operated by Kansas City PBS that claims to be “committed to providing context” to the region’s challenges. The breathless piece was titled: “5 Companies Own 8,000 Kansas City Area Homes, Creating Intense Competition for Residents.” That claim comes from a 2023 study from the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), which states: “Nearly 14,000 single-family homes in the region are owned by 33 companies. Of these, five companies own nearly 8,000 homes.”

Okay. Is that a lot? How many single-family homes are there in the region? The MARC report doesn’t say. Flatland, despite its commitment to context, provides none. Neither does the Star.

I’ve reached out to MARC for these data, but while I’m waiting, I did some basic calculations. The Census estimates there are 969,534 housing units in the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area. Nationwide, about 74% of housing units are single-family residences. Data provided by the Greater Kansas City Regional Housing Partnership indicate there are 682,546 single-family homes in the region. If 14,000 are owned by institutional investors, that amounts to 2% of the market.

Are we being asked to believe that large firms and investors owning 2% of the housing market is “contributing to rising prices” or “creating intense competition?” Really?

The worst part is that, according to the Star, Missouri legislators are considering an effort to bar corporations from buying residential real estate.

While it may be ideologically satisfying to cast corporate landlords or institutional investors as the real enemy, it does nothing to actually solve the problem. The truth is that housing affordability is driven more by restrictive government regulations that impede the ability of the free market to meet demand. Zoning restrictions, burdensome regulations, neighborhood NIMBYism, and slow permitting and approval processes are the actual drivers of housing costs. Addressing those problems requires real policy work.

Using legislation to tinker with who is permitted to buy homes may feel like progress, but it is more likely to reinforce the problematic status quo in housing—too many rules and not enough houses.

The post Reporting on Housing Fails to Ask Basic Question appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This argument rests on two assumptions. First, it assumes that the beneficiaries of private school scholarship programs (ESAs and vouchers) tend to be those already in private schools. Second, this argument assumes those in private schools are “the rich.” Thus, by creating programs that use direct government subsidies or are funded by tax credits, school choice programs are “welfare for the rich.”

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument. Indeed, the argument is nothing more than a red herring.

As everyone is aware, “the rich” are allowed to send their children to public schools. They can do so without facing any financial penalties. The United States Census Bureau calculates Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) for each school district. This calculation estimates the number of students in each school district who fall below the poverty line. According to these SAIPE estimates, the Clayton, Kirkwood, Ladue, and Rockwood School Districts in Saint Louis County all have poverty estimates below three percent. Meanwhile, the nearby school districts of Riverview Gardens and Normandy have estimates above 35 percent. Yet, no one attempts to keep these wealthier school districts from receiving education funding because it is “welfare for the rich.”

A student from a rich family can attend any school district in Missouri and the district will receive funding for that student. But, if a parent, rich or poor, chooses to send their child to a private school, they lose that benefit. The issue is not that the family is rich, but that they have the audacity to choose a non-governmental school.

This is what makes the argument a red herring. It is a distraction from the real question—should families be denied educational benefits when they choose a non-public school?

Writing on this very issue in 1958, Father Virgil Blum lays the point out clearly: “It is fundamental that the state’s educational obligations are not to institutions and systems; its obligations are to children—the individual children of the state. Educational institutions and systems are but means to help the state carry out its educational obligations.”

Opponents of school choice will make any argument that seems to gain traction. Their fundamental objection, however, is against educational freedom. They simply do not believe individuals should be allowed to take their education dollars with them to the school of their choice.

The post Is School Choice “Welfare for the Rich”? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many people simply do not feel safe in St. Louis. As a city resident, I have incorporated several different habits while living in the city. To name two, I look both ways at every single green light and I ensure nothing of value is visible in my car. Auto thefts have been on the rise, and in particular, thefts of two brands (Hyundai and Kia) have soared from 273 to 3,958 in the past year in the City of St. Louis.

While there is a specific design flaw that has led to Kia and Hyundai thefts skyrocketing, the lack of punishment and deterrence might be contributing to rising vehicle crime in the city. From August 1 to August 13 in 2022, 462 cars were stolen or attempted stolen in the City of St. Louis. Yet despite the surge in auto thefts, only 1 person was charged in city courts for a crime related to auto theft during the same two week period. Whether this is due to lack of punishment or lack of law enforcement capacity to find the culprits, city residents are suffering all the same.

The lack of regard for traffic rules visible on a daily basis. For example, the day I wrote this piece, my coworker and I saw someone drive into oncoming traffic on Kingshighway Blvd, veer in front of someone turning left from the adjacent street, and blatantly run a red light. These everyday close calls can turn into fatal crashes. Despite a declining population, 230 people were killed in traffic crashes in the City of St. Louis City from 2020–2022 (with a 20 year record high of 81 in 2020) as compared to 128 from 2008–2010.

While there has been a national increase in traffic fatalities in recent years, it seems fair to wonder if local policy in St. Louis has exacerbated that trend. Even as reckless driving has seemed to increase, vehicle stops in the city have declined from their peak of 85,622 in 2009 to 45,124 in 2021. Similarly, traffic citations have decreased from 34,833 in 2009 to 17,763 in 2021. Again, whether this is due to a decision to not punish this type of crime or a lack of capacity to effectively patrol the streets, City of St. Louis residents suffer the consequences all the same.

The decline of a proud and historic city like St. Louis is a sad thing to witness. We are known as the Gateway to the West, yet sadly our streets right now more closely resemble the Wild West. If city leaders want to attract new residents and prevent current residents from leaving, they need to get a serious handle on the public safety issue, and they need to do it quickly.

The post How to Lose a City of St. Louis Guy in 10 Days appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As earlier posts in this series have explained, defining an affordable housing problem is complicated. So too, is solving one. Because the issue is so complex, the definitions and data used to characterize the issue are incredibly important. Over the next two posts, I’ll walk through an analysis that sheds light on the affordable housing situation in Kansas City, which can then serve as a jumping-off point for a discussion of potential solutions for the region.

Even though the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines “affordable housing” as a household spending no more than 30% of their income on housing, it is important to distinguish between situations where households exceed that threshold out of necessity because of a lack of sufficient options versus situations where they actively choose to spend more than 30% of their income on housing even when more affordable and still viable options are available.

Every household is free to choose where they want to live and pay what they feel they can afford to pay regardless of whether the government would view their choice as “affordable.” Conversely, there is nothing wrong with choosing to spend as little on housing as possible. The point is that while an aggregate story tells a tale, the personal stories of individual Kansas Citians shouldn’t be lost in our discussion.

For these reasons, this post focuses on estimating the potential demand for affordable housing–namely, the number of units needed at different cost points to accommodate Kansas City households if they were to spend no more than 30% of their income on housing. This analysis is primarily about households making less than the area’s median income (AMI), as the term is defined and published by HUD. In Kansas City, the AMI for a family of three is $78,000 per year.

To determine the potential demand for affordable housing, we need an estimate for the number of households in different income ranges, and then we can multiply each income range by 30% and divide by 12 to arrive at the monthly housing cost range that would be affordable to those households. The definition of income we use comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) and encompasses labor market earnings, self-employment income, interest and dividends, retirement income, and “any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office” but not other sources of government assistance such as Medicaid.

In principle, one could consider augmenting this measure to include non-cash benefits like Medicare for retirees, Medicaid, employer-provided health insurance and other such fringe benefits in the income measure for purposes of calculating the 30% affordability thresholds. But obtaining data on each of these items is quite difficult, and deviating from the widely used ACS definition would entail making judgment calls about the cash value that households attach to them.

For example, if a household receives $20,000 of income a year according to the ACS income definition, the 30% of income affordability threshold for the household would be $500 (= $20,000 x 30% x 1/12) in rent or mortgage payments. If the household also receives Medicaid benefits that cost the government $6,000 to provide—and if the household would have otherwise chosen to spend that same $6,000 itself absent Medicaid—then the household’s income effectively rises to $26,000, and one could argue that the affordability threshold should increase to $650 (= $26,000 x 30% x 1/12). However, if the household would not have spent a full $6,000 to obtain alternative health insurance in the absence of Medicaid, the cash equivalent value is less, and the affordability threshold would be between $500 and $650. Thus, you cannot assume that various government benefits are the equivalent of income.

You can see in the table below based on data from the ACS and compiled by HUD that there are approximately 820,000 households in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Additionally, the majority of those making less than the AMI are renters (which should make some intuitive sense).

The table below gives an idea of how much a family of three with various incomes below the AMI can pay for housing that is considered affordable using the 30% rule of thumb from HUD.

Taken together, we have an idea of how much housing could be needed in Kansas City, and at what price points. The next question is how those figures compare to the reported supply of housing in Kansas City, which will be the topic of the next post.

The post Part 6: Does Kansas City Have and Affordable Housing Problem? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The number of people who live in the city of St. Louis fell below 300,000 in 2021 and the metropolitan area also saw a decline in population as the region for the first time recorded more deaths than births. That puts it among just a handful of large urban areas hit by outmigration and a negative birth rate. . . .

As of July 1, the Census Bureau estimated that just 293,310 people resided in the region’s core city of St. Louis, down from the 301,578 people counted in the 2020 census.

St. Louis City had a population of more than 850,000 in the 1950 census. That means today’s population is about a third of what it once was. Deaths outpacing births for the first time in recorded history does not seem like great news, either.

Not all of this is the fault of the city’s leadership. Structural factors are certainly at play here; there are many reasons St. Louis’s population has been in precipitous freefall for more than half a century. And COVID deaths across the country did depress population gains. But that does not mean decline is inevitable.

As noted in the Post-Dispatch article, several peer cities in the Midwest, including Kansas City, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati, experienced population increases over this period. Those cities have many similarities to St. Louis. And St. Louis retains many key advantages, including its central location as a transportation hub and a low cost of living. To quote the late Charles Krauthammer: Decline is a choice.

So what now? A few quotes from the Post-Dispatch article hint at one possible way forward:

The numbers drew another call from the St. Louis metro’s new business and civic booster group for regional unity and a redoubling of efforts by area leaders to draw residents and focus on “inclusive economic growth.” . . .

“At the start of last year, we established Greater St. Louis Inc. out of the core belief that growth must be a top civic priority for the St. Louis metro,” said Greater St. Louis Inc. CEO Jason Hall. “These numbers tell us what we expected and underscore the urgency of focusing this metro on growth and more opportunities for all. Stagnation is the existential threat to everything we love about the place we call home.”

I’m not exactly certain what “inclusive growth” means—I would think that a region that has been hemorrhaging population since the Eisenhower administration should just be focusing on any growth, absent qualifiers. I am not mentioning this phrase just to be snarky, but instead because it is indicative of how St. Louis leaders have approached this problem.

Greater St. Louis, to much fanfare, introduced a plan at the end of 2020 (revised and improved in early 2021, but without significant changes) that was intended to fix what ailed the St. Louis region. Show-Me Institute analysts pointed out the inadequacies of that plan at the time. One of the major problems with the report is that it’s long on buzzwords and jargon like “inclusive growth” and short on actual concrete policy prescriptions or solutions.

I don’t want to belabor the shortcomings of this one report from two years ago. But that report illustrates how many civic leaders in the St. Louis region think, and it represents a well-trod path: Use taxpayer dollars to bribe companies to move here, use even more taxpayer dollars to pay for splashy but economically dubious projects like aquariums or soccer stadiums or trolleys, and bend to the whims and demands of social justice activists when making key decisions.

It’s not that hard to think of a better way to try and make St. Louis a more attractive place to live and work. St. Louis City still has an economically destructive earnings tax. The city also has massive problems with crime. The city could also focus on reducing regulations to improve its ease-of-doing-business rankings. The region as a whole could stop giving away tax subsidies at every available opportunity and use some of that money to fund critical public services or cut taxes.

It would be easy to keep listing examples of what the St. Louis region could or should be doing. But maybe the best argument for trying something else is a simple one: The old approach is what got St. Louis into its current atrophied state. If we keep trying the same things, why would anyone expect things to change?

The post Honey, I Shrunk the City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Between 2014 and 2019, ridership on St. Louis Metro buses and light-rail trains dropped by nearly 25 percent. Thanks to the pandemic, ridership in recent months has only been half what it was in 2019, and thanks to increased numbers of people working at home it may not ever return to 2019 levels.

This suggests that St. Louis doesn’t need to spend hundreds of millions—or billions—of dollars building new light-rail lines. Yet that is exactly what St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones wants to do, not because St. Louis needs it, but because federal funding might become available for it. That federal funding would depend on local matching funds, meaning St. Louis taxpayers would have to pay higher taxes for train rides few of them will take.

St. Louis’s light-rail record is unimpressive. In 2001, Metro opened the 17-mile MetroLink College extension, doubling the total number of miles in the system. Metro carried fewer bus and light-rail riders the year after opening this line than it had carried the year before. The same thing happened when it opened the 3.5-mile Shiloh-Scott extension in 2003. The 8-mile Shrewsbury-Lansdowne MetroLink extension gained some new riders, but all of those riders were lost after the 2008 financial crisis, and most never came back.

Overall, light rail has failed to boost the region’s transit ridership. In 1993, before the region’s first light-rail line opened, buses carried 40.3 million riders. Since then, Metro has spent around $2.5 billion building 45 miles of light-rail lines. In 2019, buses and light rail together carried 36.1 million riders, 11 percent fewer than before light rail.

Part of the problem is that light rail is functionally obsolete: just about anything light rail can do, buses can do better for far less money. Counting capital costs, Metro spent $12.80 per light-rail rider but only $8.30 per bus rider in 2019.

The current proposal to expand MetroLink with a new north–south corridor line through downtown fails on two key fronts. First, while transit advocates say spending more money on transit helps low-income people, the fact is that most low-income people do not take transit to work. Census Bureau survey data show that only 4.4 percent of St. Louis–area workers who earned less than $25,000 a year took transit to work in 2019. Meanwhile, the sales taxes used to support Metro buses and light rail are highly regressive, meaning the 95.6 percent of low-income people who aren’t dependent on transit are disproportionately paying taxes to support rides they aren’t taking.

Second, cities that have successful rail transit have a high concentration of jobs in a central business district, and St. Louis is not one of those cities. The percentage of regional jobs in downtown St. Louis has been declining for years. It is currently down to about 60,000 employees downtown, very few of whom take light rail to work. Expanding MetroLink on the proposed north–south route will be a very expensive attempt to take people who don’t use light rail for work to jobs in an area where they don’t work.

The places in downtown St. Louis that benefit from MetroLink (the stadiums, convention center, etc.) already have it. The money Metro wisely spent adding and improving stations at Cortex and Barnes Hospital cost a fraction of the amount of a new line and served an area where people of all incomes actually use MetroLink to go to work. (The Barnes/Central West End stop is the busiest stop in the system.)

Meanwhile, while we debate MetroLink’s further expansion, Metro’s bus system is “disintegrating,” says engineer Richard Bose at the pro-transit NextSTL website, because the agency can’t find enough drivers to keep it operating. Jones and other city and regional officials should devote their efforts toward helping Metro run the system it already has rather than trying to expand it. Federal and local funds spent on an effective bus system offer a better solution to address the needs of the people who live in North St. Louis County. Otherwise, people might get the idea that the real purpose of light-rail transit is not to move people, but to move dollars from taxpayers’ pockets into the hands of light-rail contractors.

The post MetroLink Light Rail is MetroWaste appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Anyway, when the average person reads that headline, what do you think they see? It is most likely that they would think that Missouri is second to last of all the 50 states in what it spends on education. That would be a perfectly reasonable reading of that particular arrangement of words. It would also be wrong.

The article covers a report released by the Missouri Auditor’s office that examined spending trends in Missouri and compared them to other states around the country. Did that report find that Missouri was second to last in the amount of money that it spends? It did not.

In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2020 Missouri was 27th in school spending in the United States, with $11,249 in current spending per pupil per year. Importantly, this is not adjusted for cost of living. Even without that, Missouri is right in the middle of the pack.

No, what the auditor’s report did was look at the percentage of student funding that comes from the state and then compared that to the percentage of funding that comes from the state in other systems around the country, using data from a report by the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers union.

Now, we can set aside for a moment relying on the NEA, which has an obvious vested interest in increasing school spending. But we can still ask what, if anything, we should do with this information. Show-Me Institute analysts have been arguing that Missouri’s funding formula is broken for years. Reforming the funding formula is part of the 2022 Missouri Blueprint. Updating the formula to accurately measure local property tax wealth and thus local effort would be a huge improvement, as would treating charter schools better and providing more flexibility to parents as to where their children can take their funding. That said, using contrived statistics packaged deceptively to make that point isn’t right.

How much we should spend on schools has become a terribly muddled question. When polled, 58 percent of Missourians say that we should be spending more on education. That is, until they are told how much we actually spend. Then it drops to 32 percent. (Interestingly, it drops to 31 percent among school parents.)

Reports like the one from the auditor’s office do not help educate Missourians as to how much we actually spend and how that money is being put to use. It makes the worthy cause of funding formula reform more difficult. And that is a shame.

The post Missouri Is 49th in a Meaningless Statistic! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The growth of the St. Louis MSA, which contains 7 counties in Missouri and 8 counties in Illinois, has been stagnant for years, driven in no small part by poor population growth in St. Louis City. While some lawmakers were pleasantly surprised that our 2020 numbers weren’t worse, I’m disappointed at what has become of a once booming and prosperous Midwestern region.

What is it that keeps St. Louis out of the race?

Maybe it’s the sales tax rates that can be over 11 percent. Or the earnings tax in St. Louis City. Perhaps it’s the poor public schools and lack of school choice. Or the crime. It’s likely a mix of all these things and more; anything that makes St. Louis a less attractive place to live, work, or start a business has negative effects on population growth. You would think that years of stagnant growth would inspire lawmakers to take steps in the right direction, but we’ve seen little change. Maybe this fall from the top 20 will finally light a fire under lawmakers.

The post We’re Not in Last Place—We’re Not Even in the Race appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is good news and bad news here.

The good news is that for the first time, many of these families decided to take their children’s education into their own hands. They recognized the limitations of the traditional school system and opted for something better. According to the Census Bureau, homeschooling is up substantially, including in populations not traditionally thought of as homeschoolers. Some recent research on families who homeschooled and who personalized their children’s learning during the pandemic showed the benefits that they saw for their children and for themselves. Insofar as the pandemic helped spur people to rethink education and usher in the year of educational choice, the long-term effects will trend positive.

The bad news is that many traditional public schools are going to struggle in the short and medium term. As children filter back into schools this fall, they will have had vastly different experiences during the past year. Some will have accelerated, with more attention from their parents and creative out-of-school learning opportunities. Some will have declined, with low-quality remote learning stunting their development and disconnecting them from learning. Some will be a mixed bag. Teachers are going to have to figure out how to teach to all these different students at the same time.

As noted, the largest declines in enrollment came in kindergarten, where parents appear to simply be holding back their students for a year until school can return to normalcy. That is going to create a bubble of students that will work its way through the education system for the next two decades. Will schools have to operate extra classes each year as these students progress from grade to grade? How about college applications, with all these students applying at once? And what happens when they all hit the workforce when they graduate? The echoes of the pandemic will reverberate for multiple school years.

The post Missouri K-12 Enrollment Declined 3 Percent this Year appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Although it’s a little trite, “the early bird gets the worm” is harmless enough as far as old sayings go. Still, living by those words is one thing, and governing by them—as Lake Ozark seems to be doing—is quite another.

Food truck operators want to set up business along The Strip in the city of Lake Ozark, but the Planning and Zoning Commission is prohibiting them from doing so. While identifying consumer desire for food truck options in this area, the Commission says that its intent is to protect brick-and-mortar businesses that are already there. As the daughter of a restaurant owner, I fully support brick-and-mortar businesses, but why is the Planning and Zoning Commission choosing to protect these businesses at the expense of others, namely food trucks? Why are we only allowing the early bird a chance at getting the worm?

The commission fears that food trucks would compete with existing businesses. That is not something that should be feared; it should be expected and encouraged. In the same way that existing businesses compete with one another, food trucks should compete with other restaurants—and may the best food and dining experience win! It’s through this competition that we end up with a collection of businesses that consumers really want. That’s how competition in the market should work; consumers, not commissioners, pick winners and losers. It shouldn’t be the early bird that gets the worm, but the best bird.

After the Great Recession, many were looking for cheaper, on-the-go food options, and a lot of culinary experts were unemployed, laying the groundwork for a surge of food trucks. (And it’s not a stretch to think that our current economic situation could increase the demand for food trucks even more.) From 2013 to 2018, the number of food truck establishments in the U.S. doubled, employing over 16,000 workers in 2018 and reporting sales of $1.2 billion in 2017 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. More options increase the chance that consumers find exactly what they are looking for at a price they are willing to pay. Additionally, more businesses mean more entrepreneurship and opportunities for workers.

Other cities have found ways for food trucks to operate that would be better options than an outright prohibition. For example, Clayton allows for food trucks to operate for city or private events provided that they follow specific guidelines. Branson prohibits food trucks from operating within 100 feet of a restaurant and also allows for food truck courts. While these examples still place regulatory burdens on the food trucks, they show that there are ways for brick-and-mortar restaurants and food trucks to coexist.

Existing businesses should not receive special treatment just because they already exist. We allow brick-and-mortar restaurants to compete with one another—is it really that dangerous to allow them to compete with food trucks? Lake Ozark says it’s working on an ordinance to lay the groundwork for food trucks operating in the area. I say, let all the birds go and see which one gets the worm.

WATCH: More From Show-Me on Food Trucks

The post Why Should the Early Bird Get the Worm? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past decade, Missouri’s population grew by only about 160,000 residents, or 2.8 percent. This growth badly trails the national rate of 7.4 percent and every neighboring state except for Illinois. In fact, only eleven states in the country experienced less population growth than Missouri. Missouri dropped one spot in total population rank, from 18th to 19th. This is a significant decline from the state’s high-water mark of 5th at the turn of the 20th century.

Census results are important because they have real-world implications for states. Aside from being a measure of a state’s relative desirability, these population totals determine the apportionment of representation in Congress over the next decade. After losing a seat following the 2010 census, Missouri’s population is still sufficient to maintain eight congressional districts for another ten years, but Illinois was not so lucky. Along with Missouri’s neighbor to the east, six other states will be losing a congressional seat: California, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. States gaining these lost seats will be Florida, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, which gets two additional seats.

While it can be difficult to fully understand what is driving the country’s population shifts, there appears to be a relationship with cumulative tax burdens. The state’s losing seats rank 1st, 8th, 10th, 18th, 23rd, and 26th in total tax burdens. On the other hand, the state’s gaining seats rank 11th, 21st, 32nd, 34th, 43rd, and 47th (Texas). While this isn’t the only factor in migration, people are indisputably moving from high-tax states to states with lower taxes.

State and local governments competing for residents via tax rates is not a new idea, and is something my colleagues have written about for years. Charlies Tiebout originally proposed the idea that people would “vote with their feet” by moving to communities with their preferred level of public services and taxes. If Missouri’s population growth continues to lag much of the country, there’s reason to believe the state’s taxes are contributing to the problem. Over the next decade, it should be a priority for Missouri’s elected officials to bring more people to the Show-Me State, or we could face the same fate as Illinois.

The post Missouri’s Population Growth Is Still Lagging appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of the most interesting questions the Census Bureau asked concerns homeschooling. Surveys from EdChoice and others have found huge bumps in the favorability of homeschooling during the pandemic, but have those opinions translated into parents actually taking the leap and homeschooling their children?

According to the Pulse Survey, yes. Yes they have. When asked in late April and early May of 2020, 5.4 percent of American families responded that they were homeschooling their children. By late September and early October, that number had more than doubled to 11.1 percent. And just to be sure, the Census Bureau made clear in its questioning that “homeschooling” meant homeschooling, not simply students working remotely while still enrolled in their traditional school.

The Census Bureau broke down the findings by state, and in Missouri the percentage of families homeschooling nearly doubled, from 5.9 percent in the spring of 2020 to 10.9 percent in the fall. That means that more than 1 in 10 Missouri school children were homeschooled at that time.

The survey also found fascinating trends related to race, with huge increases in homeschooling from Black families (from 3.3 percent in the spring of 2020 to 16.1 percent in the fall), and Hispanic families as well (from 6.2 percent in the spring of 2020 to 12.1 percent in the fall). In fact, expressed as a percentage of all families, homeschooling is now more popular among Black and Hispanic families than among White families, only 9.7 percent of whom were homeschooling in the fall of 2020.

If these trends hold, they represent a sea change in the educational landscape of Missouri and America writ large. We’ll be watching for later iterations of the survey to see if they do.

The post Homeschooling in Missouri Nearly Doubled in 2020 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many restaurants have ditched multi-use menus in favor of QR codes that allow you to access menus on your phone. Some even have dine-in customers order using new apps on their phones to reduce interactions between guests and staff. Most stores now have curbside or delivery options, gyms and restaurants are moving things outdoors, and socially-distanced concerts are the latest form of entertainment. There is also plenty of innovation in education, with pods facilitating or replacing virtual learning.

Not only are established businesses pivoting their operations, but new businesses are popping up to fill new demands created by the pandemic. According to the Census Bureau, business applications were up 77.4 percent in the third quarter of 2020 compared to the second quarter. Our new circumstances have created room for entrepreneurship; companies are making masks, creating fun backyards, or installing home-office setups.

There is no centralized, one-size-fits-all way for a business to survive a pandemic and economic shutdown, and there shouldn’t be. This is where the free market plays a vital role; businesses can experiment to find out what works best for them, and that could be totally different from the business next door. Unfortunately, not every business will make it through this economic downturn, but the freedom to innovate will help some survive. While we all try to get through these tough times, we can thank the free market for giving us these new options to enjoy (from a safe distance).

The post Free Markets in the Wake of the Pandemic appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to an analysis of Census data conducted by Aaron Renn for the Show-Me Institute, the Missouri portion of the region is falling behind in every measure: per capita income, college degree attainment, population growth, job growth, and well as personal income and GDP growth. Renn points out:

The Missouri portion of the metro area by itself would perform worse and be ranked lower on all the statistics above as compared to the Kansas City metro area as a whole. This is due to the superior performance of the Kansas portion of the region compared to the Missouri portion.

Show-Me Institute researchers have written for years about the many things Kansas City can do to make itself a more attractive place to live, work, and shop. Too often rosy regional stories have lulled local leaders into a false sense of success. Kansas City, Missouri isn’t succeeding. This report should spur leaders and activists to look seriously at our own performance and work to improve it.

The post Kansas City is Falling Behind the Region appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the new estimates, the city of St. Louis is getting close to dropping below 300,000 residents. The city’s 2019 population estimate is 300,576, down by over 2,800 from 2018. This isn’t a new occurrence, but rather a continuing trend—the city’s population has fallen by nearly 6% since 2010, shown in the graph below.  St. Louis County also lost population, dropping by 1,014 from 2018 to 2019.

Other areas of Missouri are not experiencing this same trend. Right outside of the St. Louis area, St. Charles passed the 400,000 mark, adding 3,242 people in 2019. Many other areas also experienced growth, including Clay, Greene, and Jackson counties.

Though we can’t know for certain why people are moving out of St. Louis, Show-Me Institute researchers have written on population trends before, and much of what has been said still holds true. Policies that promote success and freedom for people and businesses can attract residents while those that place onerous burdens can deter.

Things like an earnings tax on residents and workers, high sales taxes, and stringent business regulations can create an unwelcoming environment. Additionally, poor school performance, high crime rates, and failed public projects can make St. Louis an unattractive option.  If we want to reverse the trend, policymakers will need to address these issues. The sooner, the better.

The post Census Estimates Show St. Louis Population Falling . . . Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

These struck me as very large increases in such a short period of time. The last census report on biking to work was published in May 2019 and only includes data up to 2017. It indicated that only 0.6 percent of U.S. workers commute to work by bike. In Kansas City, the 2017 census data indicated that the number was 0.3 percent in the city and only 0.2 percent in the broader metro area. Where is the data that bike commuting has jumped 130 percent since 2016?

After Rogers stated those percentages, Shanin asked him what the numbers of commuters were [starts 3:39]. Rogers declined to answer, suggesting instead that viewers could do the math on their own. But they can’t from what Rogers provided; a percentage increase does not indicate the actual numbers. In fact, the high percentage increases may be a function of low actual bike commuting numbers. If two people in Kansas City biked to work in 2016, and three more joined them in 2018, that would represent a 150 percent increase—but it’s still hardly impressive.

Rogers has yet to respond to several requests for the data underlying his claim.

Incidentally, Rogers still has a blog post on BikeWalkKC that makes demonstrably false claims. In an April 1 (!) post titled, New Bike Plan Will Save Lives and Boost the Local Economy, he writes, “Economic Impact Analysis shows new bike master plan will save 36 lives every year, add $500 million to the regional economy, and create 12,000 jobs.” My colleague Kelvey Vander Hart addressed the claim about saving lives earlier this year.

But the jobs claim is just flatly wrong. The summary of findings upon which the Bike KC Master Plan claims are based states on page 6 that “this increase in economic activity leads to 12,600 additional jobs (measured in job years) over the period.” The period is 30 years, 2020 through 2050. Dividing 12,600 “job years” by 30 years gets 420 actual jobs. (Frankly even that seems high, but it’s not 12,600!)

Contorting data to justify dubious claims about job creation doesn’t help anyone. It only gives Kansas Citians even more reason to be skeptical as advocates ask taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for something in which some neighborhoods see little value.

The post Bike Walk KC’s Fuzzy Math and Incorrect Claims appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But while population loss in roughly half of Missouri’s counties sounds terrible, there’s more going on here.

A great deal has been written about the growth of big cities across the country, but news outlets are slowly picking up on a trend that shows small and middle-sized cities gaining steam with young people. Think cities like Waco, TX and Knoxville, TN as opposed to Austin, TX and Nashville, TN—cities that aren’t necessarily state population hubs but that play an important role in their regional economies.

In fact, it seems that young people’s attraction to big cities is often overstated. Research increasingly suggests they are equally drawn to the less-costly option of smaller cities and suburban areas. Census Bureau data show that suburban growth is outpacing large city growth, with large city growth tapering off.

How is this playing out in Missouri? While most rural counties and Saint Louis City saw population declines, many medium-sized cities—Springfield, Columbia, and Lee’s Summit to name a few—have seen population increases according to the Census Bureau. Since Missouri’s total population only grew by a small percent, most of this population change is attributed to intrastate migration.

So while it is true that rural populations are dipping, it’s at least in part because of regional population consolidation in cities not far from where residents formerly lived.

And when you think about it, this migration trend makes a lot of sense. Small and medium-sized cities provide many employment, entrepreneurial, and social opportunities that may not always be available in rural areas, and these cities are often more affordable and community centered than big cities. While this trend isn’t great for rural counties—that is, the political subdivisions themselves—it is good for the people moving toward better economic and social prospects. As farms in rural areas become more productive and require fewer laborers, having access to city resources and opportunities will be all the more important for these residents.

Unfortunately, Missouri has struggled with overall population growth in recent years. During that same July 2017 to July 2018 time period mentioned above, Missouri was 29^th in the nation in population growth, with a paltry 0.3% increase. This rate is consistent with the low population growth rates that we’ve seen for years. So, while this trend of intrastate migration is positive, we can’t forget that Missouri still struggles to attract new residents.

The post Many Missourians Are Moving . . . To Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.