Many communities are unsure how to respond to data-center proposals.

The upside is real. Data centers have multi-billion-dollar assessed valuations that can bring significant tax revenue, expand the tax base, and allow for lowering tax rates for everyone. Loudoun County, Virgina—part of “Data Center Alley” —is a clear example. There, data centers account for almost half of property tax revenues, enough to fund every county function outside the school system.

But there are costs, too. A single 100-megawatt data center can use 80,000 households’ worth of electricity and consume, on average, 2,600 households’ worth of water. Hyperscale facilities push that further, and can have power draws of 1,000 megawatts, which is comparable to the output of the Callaway Nuclear Energy Center, one of Missouri’s most powerful generators. That kind of load can seriously strain infrastructure.

Further complicating matters is the fact that technology can change quickly, especially when billions of dollars and national security interests are at stake. Computing power that once required hardware that filled warehouses can now fit in a pocket or be worn on a wrist. A decision that originally seemed reasonable when a proposal was first presented might not age well if the costs or benefits of a data center change as a result of technological advances.

Missouri has already taken some action to limit ratepayer costs resulting from new data centers by requiring large data centers to pay their share of costs for connecting to the grid, such as for transmission lines. But Ameren recently stated:

All Ameren customers, including residential customers, pay for expanding the grid through building new power plants through rate increases, and that may be needed to accommodate large-load customers.

This means that average ratepayers would likely pay for new power plants constructed to meet data center demand if Ameren or Evergy does indeed need new power plants. But this possibility is also in question based on how major technology companies implement their recently signed “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” with President Trump.

One promising state-level solution are private electricity grids, also called consumer regulated electricity (CRE). This could create a parallel path for energy generation, and help protect ratepayers from risk, accelerate capacity buildout and innovation for both data centers and power plants, and alleviate pressure on the government to meet every aspect of this complex challenge. New Hampshire became the first state to allow it, and the U.S. Congress is considering a federal CRE policy. Similar solutions can be implemented for water usage.

Locally, the most important thing communities can do is resist handing out large tax incentives. Beyond the digital services they support, the primary local benefit data centers provide is tax revenue. Unlike many other industries, data centers generally do not create large numbers of long-term jobs, generate substantial secondary development, or attract tourists.

If local governments heavily reduce tax collections through incentive packages, they ask residents to absorb many of the significant costs while receiving little benefit.

Besides, developers are scrambling to find suitable locations. We don’t need to bribe them to come here. At Missouri’s Nuclear Energy Summit at the University of Missouri, numerous development experts noted how electricity availability and speed-to-operation had moved to the very top of many industrial corporations’ priority lists. Communities with reliable electricity, water, and advantageous locations are already attractive. Reforms like CRE could make Missouri even more competitive while keeping risk on investors rather than ratepayers.

The better answer is patience. If communities resist handing out tax incentives, ensure additional revenues turn into broad tax cuts, and focus on removing barriers that could hinder timely development, then data centers could become a genuine opportunity rather than a threat.

The post How Missouri Communities Can Keep Data Centers from Raising Utility Bills appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Thomas C. Albus, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, about public safety and criminal justice reform in the St. Louis region. They discuss the limits of risk assessment tools in bail decisions, why the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County have such different homicide rates, the case for judicial discretion over algorithmic recommendations, the connection between education, social capital, and crime, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:02):
Thank you so much for joining us, Tom Albus, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Show-Me Institute, in the last year or so, we’ve been digging into the issues of public safety and criminal justice reform, because one of our goals is to make Missouri a growth state where people want to raise their families and businesses want to come and open. Clearly, if our cities are perceived as being a place where you can’t walk to your car at night and put your groceries away, then people won’t want to do that. We’ve been trying to understand what’s going on mostly in the St. Louis metropolitan area and have realized that a lot of the issue is a disconnect between what’s actually happening and people’s perceptions. People just perceive St. Louis as a dangerous city. I did a podcast recently with Doug Burris, and he had some encouraging things to say about our prison system. I appreciate you coming on and giving us another perspective, because the most important thing for me is to try to understand this.

Tom Albus (01:20):
Thank you very much for having me. Just so everyone understands, I know Doug Burris very well and think very highly of him. He ran the probation office here in federal court for many years. When I was an assistant US attorney, I was a line prosecutor for many years before I got this job, and immediately before that, I was a circuit judge in St. Louis County, so I was a judge in the state system compared to the federal system. Doug came and helped run the county justice center, and he’s a very innovative, thoughtful person. So I don’t mean to argue with him, but I listened to your podcast with Doug, and one of the things he was talking about was getting people off probation faster, which is fine. You might remember the example he used, the first-degree robber versus the grandmother who cashed her deceased husband’s Social Security check. Those shouldn’t be treated the same, and of course they’re not treated the same now. Alternative probation is a great option for somebody like that grandmother rather than sending her to prison. But bear in mind, if you explain to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public that this lady cashed $75,000 worth of Social Security checks, do you want to do anything to her? We probably don’t want to incarcerate that person, but the alternative would be probation with a requirement to pay the money back to the extent she can. So no one’s suggesting treating that person the same as a violent criminal, but people do need to have accountability.

Susan Pendergrass (03:13):
About this idea of applying a risk assessment when somebody’s arrested or convicted, so that we’re sure to lock up dangerous criminals and aren’t simply using building more prisons as our policy solution, what do you think is the more efficient use of government resources when it comes to making people feel safer?

Tom Albus (03:42):
You’re absolutely right. We use this risk assessment in St. Louis County. I didn’t learn any of this in law school, but I did feel like it was common sense: does this person have a prior conviction, that person is riskier to let out on bond before trial; is this person under a certain age, that person is riskier. Social scientists create these risk factors, and frankly, I think intuitively anybody, whether they have legal training or not, would apply something similar. They’re fine as far as they go, but when we were in St. Louis County, no matter how many priors the offender had, no matter how young they were, no matter how frequently they had priors, the recommendation was always, well, you’re going to let this person out on bond, and it was just a matter of how many accoutrements to the bond, how frequently they had to check in, and so on. There was no part of the risk assessment where it said this person should be detained before trial, which to me didn’t seem sensible. Some people need to be detained before trial. Another thing these risk assessments didn’t take into account was the strength of the evidence against the person. What if the person was found by police with the smoking gun over the body of the victim? Shouldn’t you take that into account? These risk factors don’t. A lot of times the risk assessment tools are being pushed by NGOs and foundations that, if you look at their website, say their goal is to get everybody out of prison. Again, this is social science, not chemistry. Everybody has a point of view that should be considered, but we have to consider the point of view of the groups pushing to reform how probation credit is counted or to add these risk assessments, because everybody in the criminal justice system has their own point of view.

Susan Pendergrass (05:58):
So what is the reality with the prison population in Missouri? Is it growing or declining?

Tom Albus (06:04):
I believe, and I’ll have to check these numbers, that the Missouri Department of Corrections population is roughly one-third less than it was ten years ago. I believe the United States Bureau of Prisons, the people in prison for federal crimes, is one-quarter less than it was ten years ago, between COVID, a different approach, and the First Step Act. Now, I know you’re very interested in educational policy. What if we had a one-third increase in fourth-grade reading scores in Missouri? Everybody would be pretty happy with that. So here we have these great statistics, but to the extent everything else is equal, if crime is the same and the prison population is down, everybody wants that. But is crime down, and is it down to a level we’re satisfied with?

Susan Pendergrass (07:04):
And is it? People are talking all over the place, including leadership in St. Louis, about how much crime is down. But when we’ve talked to people on the street or had public events, people don’t feel like crime is down. People still see panhandling and graffiti and public disorder. People still don’t want to park their car and walk to a baseball game downtown. Everyone knows you leave your car unlocked because you’re going to get smashed and grabbed anyway. There isn’t a perception that St. Louis feels safer.

Tom Albus (07:38):
Right, and it’s a complex situation regionally. The city of St. Louis, to its credit, has reduced homicides from the mid-200s in 2020 to about 140 in 2025. That’s 50 homicides per 100,000 people. The national average is in the high single digits, so it’s still very elevated in the city of St. Louis. Now you go across Skinker to St. Louis County, where I was a judge, and we’re sitting at roughly the national average in the high single digits. A trend you don’t hear much about is that’s a much elevated rate over the last 10 to 15 years in St. Louis County, maybe 2x or 3x higher than it was 10 to 15 years ago. Then you go across the Missouri River to St. Charles County, and they’re looking at about one murder per 100,000 people. So it’s a big difference as you proceed west on Highway 70, and one size doesn’t necessarily fit all.

Susan Pendergrass (08:50):
What’s been going on in St. Louis County that it’s gone up?

Tom Albus (08:56):
I don’t really know the source of it, but we are dealing with a lot more violent crime in St. Louis County than we did, say, twenty years ago. For example, even though we’ve got approximately four times more people living in St. Louis County than in St. Louis City, we only have about one-third as many homicides every year as the city. Yet we’ve got 200-plus people awaiting trial for homicide in St. Louis County. That’s really the focus of the prosecutor’s office, and rightly so, but they didn’t have the capacity twenty years ago to handle the rate of homicides they’re seeing now, and this backlog is a consequence of that, in my view.

Susan Pendergrass (09:48):
Plus clearance rates haven’t really improved. A lot of the crimes identified as murders aren’t getting solved.

Tom Albus (09:56):
If you look at it, the City of St. Louis Police Department would say their clearance rate has gone up quite a bit, and those are statistics the city updates every day on the police department’s website. At some points they’ve recorded a clearance rate of over 100 percent in the last year because they’re solving historical cases in addition to new cases as they come in. So they’ve gotten their clearance rate very high, and that’s important too, not only for how long you’re going to sentence someone, but because people need to understand that if you commit an offense you’re going to be called to account. Chief Tracy in the city is proud of his clearance rate going up, and he’s right to be.

Susan Pendergrass (10:39):
What are your thoughts on mandatory minimums when judges have discretion?

Tom Albus (10:46):
Mandatory minimums exist in state and federal crime. You could say someone is in prison for second-degree murder and subject to a mandatory minimum of ten years, that’s true, but I don’t think that’s what people are really thinking about when they raise this issue. There are very few people incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections who are there only because of a mandatory minimum that the judge would have preferred to sentence below but wasn’t able to. There was a lot of that when I first became an assistant US attorney 25 years ago with the crack cases, where you could get a five-year mandatory minimum for a very small amount of crack. That was passed by Congress in the Crime Act of 1994, and those ratios have since been changed by Congress. People will talk about nonviolent offenders, but a drug dealer, to me, is not a nonviolent offender. We’re not talking about crack as much anymore. We’re talking about fentanyl, and everybody knows what happens when you come into contact with fentanyl, roughly two hundred Americans a day die from fentanyl overdoses. I would consider that a violent crime, not to mention that firearms and violence often go along with drug dealing. The whole point of my visit with you is just to say these are not easy questions to answer. But if somebody came into your neighborhood and was dealing fentanyl to anybody who wanted it and had money to pay, I would be concerned. Maybe strictly speaking that’s not a violent crime, but it’s a very dangerous, antisocial crime.

Susan Pendergrass (12:42):
So you see these nonprofits and NGOs saying, let’s clear the prisons, let’s put more people on ankle monitors, let’s stop building these massive prisons, Arkansas is building a billion-dollar prison, and there are a lot of foundations saying we could be smarter about this. It sounds like you don’t completely align with that thinking.

Tom Albus (13:13):
Everybody should know where everyone is coming from. You probably recall about ten years ago, when Governor Parson first became governor, Missouri was in the same boat. They said they didn’t have a lot of money, certainly not enough to build new prisons, and Governor Parson said we’re just not going to go down that road. As I said, we were able to reduce our DOC population in Missouri substantially, by a third, and the need for those new prisons went away. Statistically speaking, we’re doing better in 2026 than we did in 2020, notwithstanding the fact that we have a third fewer people in prison. That’s a good thing. But if a foundation comes in and says, well, we have this risk assessment tool, and it’s just science, nothing to it other than science, I’d suggest everyone go to that foundation’s website and see what their mission statement says. This is social science, not physics or chemistry or biology. Everybody has their political point of view, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but we need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that it’s a no-brainer, that you just use this risk assessment, let everybody off probation, and everything gets better and cheaper, a win-win-win. I just don’t subscribe to that.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
I saw a case, not in Missouri, of a guy accused in a terrible case involving a child, whose risk assessment was very low, but the nature of the crime was terrible. He was let out and reoffended. I remember thinking the risk assessment didn’t do its job because it didn’t pick up on this particular person’s potential for criminality. In a world with finite resources, what do we do to make St. Louisans feel safer?

Tom Albus (15:31):
That’s what’s so thorny about it. When I was sitting as a judge, sometimes I’d think, what would my wife think, or my mother, or a friend, about this particular person, risk assessment tool aside. For example, if someone’s on bond for a felony and then arrested for a new felony, that gets them a point on their risk assessment. But I think a lot of Missourians would say, I don’t care if you get one point or ten points or thirty points, if we’ve already let you out on bond and you committed a new offense, that’s it, you’re not getting another chance. And then we get into, well, was it a violent crime? If he stole a car on Monday and then steals another car the following Monday, some people would say we just can’t accept that, it’s absurd. I think people are at least entitled to that opinion, even though it’s contrary to what is supposedly following the science.

Susan Pendergrass (16:32):
So do we put more discretion in the hands of judges?

Tom Albus (16:35):
Again, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting the judge can’t override the assessment. I overrode it all the time, and my colleagues did too, because that’s the role of the judge. One thing that came up, you may have followed, there was a juvenile assessment tool that was frequently followed, and the juvenile officer or judge was very reluctant to go against the risk assessment for the juvenile. That got the police up in arms, and there may have been some legislation around it. But the judge should always be able to go against the risk assessment. And as I mentioned earlier, what about a written confession? There’s no question the person did it. You’re presumed innocent at trial, but we can weigh the facts against the person in terms of setting the bond.

Susan Pendergrass (17:34):
Yeah, I think my biggest issue with the perception of public safety in St. Louis, when I lived right between Skinker and DeBaliviere, near Delmar, was just a lack of the rule of law around me. People ran stop signs and stoplights, and there were smash-and-grabs, and someone could commit a crime and get on the MetroLink and get away. We all kind of agree that the MetroLink stations feel really dangerous. We’ve all just accepted that we have to keep floodlights on the outside of our house. Living in the city of St. Louis, which I love, you just develop this tolerance for the fact that crime is going to happen around you and there’s nothing you can do about it. I didn’t feel like the police were really enforcing the small things, and people were getting away with big things too. I wonder what the fix is for that.

Tom Albus (18:40):
Right, and another thing being debated is that you need police officers, and we have perhaps fifty percent fewer police officers policing the city of St. Louis than we did ten years ago. That’s not a good thing. I am in favor of having police officers in the neighborhood. When I was an AUSA, I would go to neighborhood meetings and try to understand what was going on. I never heard anybody say we want fewer police in our neighborhood. I always heard people in every neighborhood saying we want more police, this corner’s a problem, please take care of it. It’s a challenge for the city of St. Louis, and I wish them nothing but the best in getting as many more police officers as they can.

Susan Pendergrass (19:28):
Yeah, and 911 is a bit of a problem too. People complain about not being able to get through. We have 28 different systems, and the city-county line makes it all very confusing. Talks of merging the two always seem to result in nothing, but as you just mentioned, the difference in the murder rate between one side of the line and the other, something needs to be done to fix that.

Tom Albus (20:01):
I always go by the murder rate, because those all get called in. There’s also a difference in how frequently a car break-in might get called in across different areas of our region, so you can’t necessarily rely on all statistics. But homicides get called in, and homicides are a good indicator of the overall safety of a community.

Susan Pendergrass (20:24):
So generally, if you could wave a magic wand, what would you do? Is there anything you would change within the probation, pretrial, and prison system?

Tom Albus (20:38):
No one likes to think about building more prisons because it’s very expensive and it’s kind of the last tool in the toolbox. But in the city of St. Louis, they took out of service and knocked down the medium-security institution known as the Workhouse. That’s not available anymore. So the only place state court judges in the city have to put offenders being detained pretrial is the Justice Center downtown, and that’s at capacity. I would want a lot more police officers, and I probably would want some more places to put the real repeat offenders, the antisocial people, certainly the violent people, so they are incapacitated and out of our community. People who commit Class A or Class B felonies, or new felonies while on probation, parole, or pretrial detention, they still get bond because we’re out of places to put these people. And as we all know, we’re talking about a very small percentage of our community committing these serious crimes. Then we could go back to people having more social capital in the community, people looking out for them, and not letting teenagers or young people be directionless. I see a lot of that when I sit in a courtroom in the city or county, people who just don’t have a plan for their lives and don’t have people in the courtroom supporting them. That’s what I would really change.

Susan Pendergrass (22:17):
Yeah. I mostly study education policy, and St. Louis Public Schools has a chronic absenteeism rate of about 55 percent. I don’t think they even know where those kids are. Until we fix some of those things and somebody’s keeping track of these teenagers, I don’t see their propensity for committing crime going down. I believe first you fix the education system, before they get to the criminal justice system, but unfortunately we don’t have that right now in St. Louis. Well, I appreciate you coming on and giving a different perspective. I’ve heard more than one person, not just Doug Burris, say that risk assessment is going to be the way to fix the problem, and it’s good to hear a different perspective that it comes with a lot of caveats, at minimum.

Tom Albus (23:09):
Right. There are a lot of good people working on this problem, but it’s just not a problem that has a silver bullet, that I’ve seen in 25 years.

Susan Pendergrass (23:18):
Good to know. Well, thank you so much, Tom. I really appreciate it.

Tom Albus (23:21):
Thank you very much, Susan. Thanks for having me.

Produced By Show-Me Opportunity

The post A U.S. Attorney’s Perspective on Criminal Justice Reform with Thomas C. Albus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

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.

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Doug Burris, retired Justice Services Director and Chief United States Probation Officer, about criminal justice reform in Missouri and St. Louis. They discuss Missouri’s risk-based approach to sentencing and supervision; why building more prisons may not reduce crime; low violent-crime clearance rates in St. Louis; the case for bail reform and expanded electronic monitoring; the Safer Supervision Act before Congress; and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00):
Welcome to the podcast, Doug Burris, who has been in and around criminal justice reform. I know you’ve been making a lot of pushes nationally, and you’ve worked within Missouri. What I want to talk about today is that in St. Louis city and county, folks are really celebrating this reduction in crime. Murders are down, and therefore we are on the verge of solving this issue. But it doesn’t feel that way to people who live there. I know you ran the county jail for a while and you’ve been closely involved in what’s going on there. What is your perspective on the St. Louis region in terms of where things stand today, in the middle of 2026, when it comes to criminal justice reform and identifying and clearing crimes?

Doug Burris (00:57):
Well, first of all, Susan, thank you for having me as a guest on your show. It’s greatly appreciated. I’m such a fan of the Show-Me Institute. To answer your question, there has been some progress, but I think what we have done is taken baby steps and we still need to walk and then run. There’s much work that needs to be done. I think the state of Missouri as a whole has been a great example of what can happen when criminal justice reform is done correctly. What was done with the Department of Corrections with prior work, including House Bill 1525, allowed for focusing on more high-risk cases and moving low-risk cases through the system quicker, getting them productive and out once they are. That’s what should be done more at the federal level, following what the state of Missouri did, and also at the local levels in the city of St. Louis. I think that’s exactly where we’re headed.

Susan Pendergrass (02:00):
So what did happen at the state level in Missouri? How did they shift their focus? It sounds kind of strange, but to make this system more effective and efficient, you need to find and lock up violent criminals, but people who are not violent criminals who commit a crime could be dealt with differently. What did Missouri do specifically?

Doug Burris (02:01):
Well, Missouri led the way for the rest of the country, as did Texas, where they implemented various reforms. One was making sentencing decisions and supervision decisions based on a risk level, where they had risk assessments that followed the science of criminal justice on who needs to be the most supervised and frankly the longest incarcerated, as opposed to the exact opposite. I’ll give two extremes of the situation. At the federal level, we have a grandmother who continues to cash her dead husband’s Social Security check, and that person ends up on federal supervision on the same caseload as a violent child predator. It’s really not necessary to have that woman on supervision when the real focus should be on the violent person. There is the Safer Supervision Act that’s before Congress right now, and we’re really hoping that gets passed so there will be more emphasis on supervising the people who are at highest risk, using risk assessments as a tool to determine that.

Susan Pendergrass (03:45):
And how long has Missouri been doing this? Do we know anything about how it has impacted the size of the prison population?

Doug Burris (03:53):
That’s a fantastic question. It’s been in play for about five years now. What has happened is the population of both the prisons in Missouri and the people on supervision has decreased, but the crime rates have not gone up. The same thing has held in Texas, which has done it for just a little bit longer than Missouri. So following the science really does work. And it’s at a considerable expense. It’s about thirty thousand dollars to house someone in a Missouri prison, and in a federal prison it’s over forty-two thousand dollars. It might be cheaper to send these people to college than to send them to jail or prison. And of course there might be more good done too, because there have been all kinds of studies showing that people who get an education or vocational training have drastically lower recidivism rates. That’s what we really need to be focusing on, and not the grandmother I talked about earlier.

Susan Pendergrass (04:58):
Well, it seems to me that a lot of states, including red states, are moving toward the idea of just building more and bigger prisons and locking everybody up, because if you want to show that you really care about crime, you demonstrate that you are ready to lock everybody up. But that’s not effective or efficient, right?

Doug Burris (05:21):
No, that’s exactly right. And unfortunately we’re seeing that in our neighboring state of Arkansas, where they’re constructing a new prison expected to cost one billion dollars to open the doors. One billion dollars. And then to operate it, if their annual rate of housing someone in prison equals Missouri’s, it will cost about a hundred million dollars a year to operate. And again, we’re going to have people in there who could be supervised in the community or given opportunities like drug treatment, job training, and education, things that will have people contributing to the tax base rather than taking from it.

Susan Pendergrass (06:03):
How do you convince people that a risk assessment is going to work when they want all the criminals off the streets?

Doug Burris (06:10):
Well, it’s twofold. One is we have to educate people that putting someone in prison is going to cost tens of thousands of dollars every year, and in the end they may come out more angry and less able to adapt to the community. The other thing is to follow the science. Look at what Missouri has done and what Texas has done, where they have lowered the prison population and crime has actually gone down. This is something other states should be following as well. We can’t keep everyone in prison forever. We just can’t afford it. And not only that, but it’s also inhumane. The cost would be astronomical if we start keeping people in prison for low-risk crimes that in some cases have no victims.

Susan Pendergrass (07:10):
A couple of things came up in the last legislative session. Governor Kehoe passed a violent crime clearance rate grant program, but the legislature hasn’t funded it. What are your thoughts on that?

Doug Burris (07:27):
When it comes to violent crime, I’m all in favor of keeping the most violent people in as long as possible and perhaps even for life. The question is where can we find ways to save money with those who aren’t violent? That’s what we really need to be focusing on. When you’re supervising a violent person but you also have nonviolent people on your caseload, it really just doesn’t make sense.

Susan Pendergrass (08:01):
Well, I was just thinking specifically about trying to direct some funds toward clearing crimes, because even though murders are down, clearance rates on murders are still pretty low in St. Louis, in the thirty to forty percent range. I would think that the same people who are interested in locking everybody up would like to clear more of these crimes. If you look at carjackings, most of those go unsolved. Maybe one in ten is cleared. While we focus on risk assessment, which is a great idea, there are other things we could be doing, like working harder to clear the crimes that are committed.

Doug Burris (08:39):
Absolutely. That makes complete and total sense, because when you’re talking about the worst of the worst, they don’t commit one crime and then never do it again. This is an excellent idea for putting resources toward making the community safer.

Susan Pendergrass (08:56):
Another thing that came up in the last legislative session was DNA testing people who are arrested, running their DNA and then disposing of it if they don’t match anything. I don’t think that went anywhere. I know there are a number of bills that have moved through trying to make Missouri a safer place. It wasn’t a really productive legislative session in 2026 in Jefferson City. A lot of things didn’t happen, but things are being attempted. What about St. Louis specifically? Having run the jail in the county, what do you think needs to be done there to improve residents’ feeling of safety?

Doug Burris (09:38):
I think more resources need to be directed at the court level, first of all, and at the investigative level like you talked about. But there are people in jail awaiting trial who have not been found guilty for three to five years. Can you imagine what it would be like to be in a place where you don’t see the sun for three to five years? You don’t feel the sun on your face or the hug of a loved one. I saw some of those cases where people were headed to trial and after three to five years the case just goes away. I think we need to really focus on giving the courts resources, and that includes both prosecutors and public defenders. Public defenders have some of the highest caseloads in the nation here in Missouri. If someone is innocent or can be dealt with quickly and given a path to become a productive citizen, that’s what we really should be focusing on.

Susan Pendergrass (10:37):
What about the bail system? Does that need reforming?

Doug Burris (10:41):
Yes, I really think so. That’s one of the things some other states have done that has shown incredible results: using a risk assessment at bail. The federal system does that currently, and I think it’s still underutilized. There are things that can be done with that risk assessment in terms of supervision strategies, but I think the judge needs to know the absolute risk of that person and what can be done to address it when making a decision on bail.

Susan Pendergrass (11:14):
Can’t we put more people on monitoring? I hate to suggest everyone gets an ankle monitor, but can’t we monitor more people while they’re awaiting trial rather than having to house and feed them?

Doug Burris (11:31):
Yes, absolutely. That’s an area that needs to be expanded. In the St. Louis County jail, for example, which is the largest jail in Missouri, there are three hundred people in custody right now who are low risk. We’re spending about a hundred and twenty dollars a day to keep them in jail, potentially for years. Low-risk people, if you follow the science, can typically be supervised in the community.

Susan Pendergrass (12:06):
So do you think that if we were to implement all of these reforms, do a risk assessment on every person charged, only lock up the violent criminals, and let people await their trial at home, that St. Louis would feel more safe or less safe?

Doug Burris (12:07):
Well, I think with proper supervision you’d have to do it right. You just can’t let everyone out. Utilizing the risk assessment would really be the key, because someone may be charged with a low-risk crime this time, but they could be on parole for a prior murder or rape or something along those lines. That’s why you really need to look at the risk assessment to determine the appropriate strategies for releasing people.

Susan Pendergrass (12:42):
Yeah. This just seems to be a growing sector of our economy and a growing slice of the budget pie. Missouri has budget problems. We’re putting so much money toward this idea of reducing crime, and for some reason people still just don’t want to walk to their car alone at night. I know there’s a lot of general public disorder in St. Louis, graffiti, homelessness, panhandlers, that also contribute to it. I wish I could understand a reasonable, cost-effective approach to

Doug Burris (13:26):
Yes.

Susan Pendergrass (13:37):
improving those conditions, because I know other cities have and I believe St. Louis can do it, but we have this reputation of being a crime-ridden city, and I think that’s so unfortunate.

Doug Burris (13:47):
Right. I completely agree with you. The truth is the answer isn’t to lock everybody up. The United States has the second highest rate of incarceration on the planet, only behind North Korea. The Department of Justice reports that if incarceration rates remain the same, one out of every fifteen adults in the United States will serve a prison term. One out of every fifteen. And that’s a prison term for a felony conviction, not a jail term for a DUI or a bad check. The costs are astronomical: thirty thousand dollars a year to house someone in a Missouri prison, paid for by the taxpayers. There have been proven strategies for getting people in and out of the criminal justice system. Ninety-three percent of those who remain employed on supervision successfully complete supervision. Those who remain unemployed throughout their supervision have a more than fifty percent failure rate. Getting people a decent job where they can care for others and find meaning is really one of the keys to lowering crime.

Susan Pendergrass (14:45):
Yeah. And there are public-private partnerships, and partnerships through religious organizations and other programs that have been shown to work, if we would free them up.

Doug Burris (15:13):
That is so true. Chuck Colson’s old organization, Prison Fellowship, is one of the best with the programs they offer in prisons and to people when they get out. It has proven, particularly in Iowa, to show drastic reductions in recidivism.

Susan Pendergrass (15:25):
Wow, that’s great. So I’m surprised to hear that Missouri has led the way on prison populations. I thought there was consideration about building a new prison, but I believe it’s not happening. Is that right?

Doug Burris (15:55):
Yes, that’s exactly right. Our prison population has actually decreased in the last few years.

Susan Pendergrass (16:03):
Wow, that’s really surprising to me. But good to hear. So what are you looking for the governor or the state legislature to do in the coming years?

Doug Burris (16:12):
I think they should build on the reforms that have already been proven to be successful. The one thing you mentioned that I think is frankly brilliant is the idea of working to close open violent crime cases, because on the violent cases, the chances are it’s not one crime they committed and then they go to work the next day and never commit another crime. I think that would be something fantastic for the state legislature to do.

Susan Pendergrass (16:37):
And at the federal level, what are you hoping to see done?

Doug Burris (16:46):
The Safer Supervision Act, as I mentioned before, is actually a bipartisan act, but it’s being led by the right right now. The conservatives are the ones who have introduced it into Congress. The Department of Justice is in favor of it. It would make the assessments we talked about more prominent, and it would also give people incentives to do things right, like getting a college education or a good-paying job and paying off restitution, where they can get off supervision earlier. That makes complete sense. But also, almost everyone convicted of a federal crime now is given supervision, like the grandmother I mentioned earlier who cashed her dead husband’s Social Security checks after he passed. This would allow for a more

Susan Pendergrass (17:33):
Mm-hmm.

Doug Burris (17:42):
thorough assessment at the time of sentencing, for the judge to not put people on supervision who don’t need it. That would clear up resources so more time could be spent on the people who really need to be supervised, as opposed to those who don’t.

Susan Pendergrass (18:01):
Yeah. A lot of the sentencing reform we hear about involves mandatory minimums, which force judges into incarcerating people whether they want to or not. I assume that’s not something you would support.

Doug Burris (18:16):
No. I worked in the federal system for twenty-three years and saw the damage that mandatory minimums have done. For instance, with crack cases, I saw a judge sentence someone who was selling five grams of crack. A gram is equal to about a sugar packet you put into your coffee, and five grams carried a mandatory five years. And then you would have people with no mandatory minimums who robbed a bank and did a shooting receive lower sentences than drug cases. Thankfully there were two reductions in the crack mandatory minimums, applied retroactively. Over 23,000 people had a resentencing, and when they were released, they did not offend at higher levels than those who served their full terms. That was money well saved. The judge has a better idea on sentencing someone when they have all the facts of the case before them, rather than relying on a statistical report done ten years prior that says, because he was convicted of this crime, he gets this sentence.

Susan Pendergrass (19:17):
Yeah. Right. Well, I’m relatively new to this area, but I think it’s all pretty fascinating. We struggle enough to get people to live in our cities, and if they don’t feel safe, that’s not going to help. I look forward to learning more about this area of policy and following more closely what Missouri and St. Louis specifically are doing. I would like to have you come back and talk about it again when there are real policies being considered, because it’s not going away and there’s a lot to learn.

Doug Burris (20:11):
Well, I appreciate it. I enjoyed my forty-year career in the criminal justice system, and hopefully I’ll be the only guy you’ve ever met who has been in more prisons than John Gotti.

Susan Pendergrass (20:16):
Hopefully. Thank you so much, Doug. I really appreciate it.

Doug Burris (20:27):
Thank you, Susan. It was a real honor.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Risk, Reform, and Public Safety in Missouri with Doug Burris appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When Congress created Opportunity Zones in 2017, the goal was simple: use tax incentives to steer private investment into distressed communities. Investors could defer or eliminate capital-gains taxes if they reinvested those gains in designated census tracts.

The hope was that these incentives would spur development and expand opportunity in struggling neighborhoods. But new research suggests the program may suffer from the same problems as Tax-Increment Financing (TIF).

In a recent paper from the National Bureau of Economics, “Understanding the Employment Effects of Opportunity Zones,” the authors examine employment outcomes through 2023. They find that jobs located within Opportunity Zones did increase modestly. But most of those gains appear to come from nearby communities rather than representing new economic activity. Sound familiar?

The authors estimate that job growth inside Opportunity Zones is largely offset by job losses in adjacent low-income tracts. Their overall conclusion is that the program mainly results in a “spatial reallocation of jobs and households” rather than broad economic gains.

The distribution of those jobs also matters. Most of the new positions in Opportunity Zones are filled by workers who live outside the zones—often in more affluent neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the economic circumstances of existing residents show little improvement. Employment among residents rises slightly, but median earnings and poverty rates do not change significantly.

These results should sound familiar to longtime readers of the Show-Me Institute. I’ve argued that programs like TIF often fail to generate new economic growth. Instead, they tend to shift development across neighborhoods or municipalities. Projects still get built, but just in a different place.

The evidence on Opportunity Zones suggests something similar may be happening at the federal level.

Investment incentives can influence where development occurs. But that does not necessarily mean they create new economic opportunities for the people policymakers mean to help.

TIF is TIF is TIF, even at the federal level.

The post Are Opportunity Zones Just Federal-Level TIF? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass is joined by Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, to explain what was actually at stake in the recent federal government shutdown. They break down the debate over extended Affordable Care Act subsidies, why health insurance costs keep rising, how COVID-era provisions distorted the marketplace, and what Congress may do next.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding the Government Shutdown
06:31 The Debate Over ACA Subsidies
09:10 Impact of the Affordable Care Act
13:24 Proposals for Health Care Reform
17:53 The Future of Health Care Costs

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Well, this is going to be a very timely and interesting conversation with the Show-Me Institute’s own Elias Tsapelas. You are the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy, two things that are front and center right now, but I really wanted to just have you on to talk about a little bit of stuff around the recent government shutdown.

And I just want to say upfront, if I understand this correctly, the federal government can’t pay its bills unless it’s got an approved budget to pay the bills, right? And the fiscal year runs October 1st to September 30th. And if you don’t have a new budget for the next year, you can’t pay your bills. So it’s up to the Senate, the House, and the President to agree on a budget. And this past September, as has happened before, they could not agree, and Democrats were holding out, and that caused the government to shut down. What were Democrats saying they were holding out for?

Elias Tsapelas (00:52)
Well, I guess I should start with just a little caveat that some of what the Democrats were saying they were holding out for was not precisely what was on the table. So no matter what happens, health care premiums are going to be going up, that’s just a fact, because health care costs are up. Health care costs are going up everywhere. Hospitals, Medicaid, we see it everywhere.

Susan Pendergrass (00:56)
You know, fix it up for me. Why?

Elias Tsapelas (01:20)
What they were holding out for were these extended or expanded ACA subsidies, Affordable Care Act subsidies. We’re talking about the marketplace here. This is typically for people making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty limit. For example, a couple of two: 100 percent of the federal poverty limit is about $21,000 per year, 400 percent is about $85,000 per year. That’s roughly the range you’re looking at.

Now, some small employers do purchase plans through the marketplace, but the big piece here is that the ACA provides subsidies for people. And the way it works, essentially, is that people pay a proportion of their income. If your income is 100 percent of the federal poverty limit, you’re going to pay roughly 2 percent of your income. Now, there are extended subsidies that change that calculation. But the point being, the law set out that if you make this amount of money, you’re only going to pay this much on health insurance, and the government is going to subsidize the rest. You are not sensitive to costs at all, because your costs are tied to your income.

Susan Pendergrass (02:54)
So, for example, if you earn $4,000 a month, theoretically, and I don’t know the numbers, the government would say you won’t pay any more than $300 in insurance premiums?

Elias Tsapelas (03:05)
Yep. And so that is a percentage that you pay scaled off how much income you have from that 100 to 400 percent. That is a core piece of how the Affordable Care Act worked, and everyone paid a portion based on the base subsidies.

Now, what the debate was about, or what Democrats were holding out for, was expanded subsidies, which came about during COVID as part of the American Rescue Plan, ARPA. And it did a couple things, but they were subsidies on top of regular subsidies. So this was not, “If this doesn’t happen, everyone is going to be paying unsubsidized plans.” This was an additional type of subsidy. These additional subsidies were set to expire at the end of the year, at the end of December. ARPA gave four years of subsidies.

Susan Pendergrass (04:04)
Because it was COVID related, temporary, and they said, “We’ll cover more of your premium through December 31, 2025.”

Elias Tsapelas (04:14)
Yes, I think part of the calculation was that people were going to like it so much that it would be hard to get rid of. And it’s certainly the case: if these subsidies go away, people will be paying more.

Susan Pendergrass (04:15)
Ahem.

Elias Tsapelas (04:27)
But that is not to say there would be no subsidies at all. These extended subsidies did a couple things. For people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, quick caveat: in Missouri, if you make under 138 percent, you’re on Medicaid, so you don’t pay anything, but in many states without Medicaid expansion, people go on the marketplace. What these expanded subsidies did is: if you made between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, you paid zero percent of your income. You got a plan for free.

You would still have some cost sharing, and the sliding scale up to 400 percent that the normal subsidies used was lowered, so people under regular subsidies who made 400 percent of the federal poverty limit were paying about 10 percent of their income. With the expanded subsidies, you’d only pay 8.5 percent, and the subsidies no longer stopped at 400 percent. They would go all the way up. You would never pay more than 8.5 percent of your income.

Susan Pendergrass (05:30)
Okay.

Elias Tsapelas (05:42)
But typically, people above 400 percent of the federal poverty limit don’t want to buy ACA plans because 8.5 percent of income is expensive. Still, a decent number of people were impacted. It costs a decent amount of money. The Congressional Budget Office says extending these expanded subsidies costs about $350 billion over 10 years. Very expensive. But there are a lot of issues here, which Republicans are pushing back on as they negotiate whether to extend these by the end of the year.

Susan Pendergrass (06:31)
So now we’re in this argument of whether we extend COVID subsidies or not. And like you said, Republicans seemed willing to say maybe a year, or maybe we’ll vote on it in December. Essentially the Democrats didn’t get any of what they asked for, right?

Elias Tsapelas (06:48)
Yeah. A key piece is that when Democrats passed this in ARPA, no Republicans voted for it. There’s a variety of reasons, but a big one is that it exacerbates problems with the Affordable Care Act. People buying health insurance are seeing higher prices, high deductibles, high copays, so people don’t want to buy it. These additional subsidies got more people into the market, but at a very expensive cost. And because people are not cost sensitive, their share is tied to their income, the subsidies scale regardless of what insurance companies charge. That creates unintended effects. There were allegations of fraud. And a larger discussion: if we’re going to spend $350 billion per 10 years, is there not a better way to get healthier people to buy health insurance? Is there a better way to help people?

And the people most impacted are those around 400 percent of the federal poverty limit, not very low income people. Higher income people. And often near retirement folks who aren’t working anymore but aren’t yet on Medicare. They need health insurance, they have health needs, and insurance gets very expensive. That was something the Affordable Care Act tried to deal with. But doubling down on continuously funding this subsidy system is something Republicans didn’t want to do.

Susan Pendergrass (09:10)
Yeah. So we had Brian Blase of Paragon on the podcast, and he absolutely did not want those COVID related subsidies extended. He claimed that the Affordable Care Act caused health related expenses to go up. Do you know how that works?

Elias Tsapelas (09:45)
There are a couple things going on. One big thing Brian talks about is likely enormous fraud from the expanded subsidies. Bloomberg had a good article about what happened in Florida. As soon as the federal government offered zero premium plans for people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, background: Florida hasn’t expanded Medicaid, so people enroll on the marketplace. What happened is that it became a business for insurance brokers to get people enrolled. Brokers make money off enrollments, and people don’t care if they aren’t paying premiums.

So you had an enormous increase in people supposedly making between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit. Census data suggests far fewer people actually make that income. Tons were getting health insurance for free, and many weren’t using it. You’d expect higher usage. There are reasons to think there was widespread fraud.

More broadly, ACA plans must cover many things people don’t need, which drives up costs. And the marketplace risk pool is heavily made up of sick people, fewer healthy people, which makes insurance expensive.

So the bigger discussion is: how do you get healthier people into the market? How do you offer plans people want? Republicans are taking a stand that doubling down on the ACA model, with subsidies disconnected from costs, won’t work long term.

Susan Pendergrass (13:24)
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but didn’t Senator Thune or somebody suggest just sending people $5,000?

Elias Tsapelas (13:30)
I don’t know if it was exactly that amount, but yes, there have been proposals essentially saying: maybe there will need to be a one year extension of subsidies because new plans start soon and it would be hard to roll out big changes in a month. But some ideas, from Senator Cassidy, Senator Thune, and others, propose approving the same amount of money but sending it directly to people instead of insurance companies. For many people, subsidies are worth over $30,000 a year. If people got $30,000, they might not spend it all on an ACA plan costing that much. They might buy a cheaper plan, use out of pocket spending, or seek non ACA compliant plans. There are ideas: HSAs, short term plans, specialized plans. A key piece is giving the money to people, not insurance companies, so someone has an incentive to reduce costs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:47)
Yeah. Well, the shutdown ended. Nothing really changed, right?

Elias Tsapelas (15:52)
Yeah. Congress will have to work a lot in the last month of the year. I’m a little disappointed. There were almost some very interesting budget related court cases that could have come from the shutdown. One argument was whether the government must fund food stamps, or SNAP, during a shutdown, whether they must give out money not appropriated. Some judges said yes. That raises major questions: can courts tell the executive branch to spend money Congress didn’t appropriate?

Susan Pendergrass (16:54)
I think they were told that they don’t, right, in the end?

Elias Tsapelas (16:59)
The Supreme Court basically said courts needed to wrestle with the issue. It got resolved before a final answer. We don’t know for now. Judges were on different sides. Democrats pushed back noting that in previous budgets, they fought to fund things, but the executive branch simply didn’t spend the money. There’s a lot of interesting stuff: can courts force funding, can the executive disregard congressional appropriations? I’m upset that didn’t get resolved. But the ACA issue is big enough that Congress has its hands full.

Susan Pendergrass (17:53)
Some folks said that because of the SNAP benefit question, we were just getting to the point where Americans were paying attention to the shutdown and then it ended. And what’s interesting is the amount of misinformation and hard to follow information. I saw headlines about someone’s insurance premiums going from $300 to $2,600. I don’t know if any of that was right, but it got a lot of play.

Elias Tsapelas (18:28)
I don’t think it was covered especially well in terms of what was being argued, because the government shut down far before these subsidies expired. There was a lot of muddying of the waters. Some people thought if subsidies weren’t extended, no one would have subsidies, even though the people most impacted would just go from paying 8.5 percent of income to 10 percent. Not nothing, but not catastrophic.

Health care costs are going up broadly. Medicare enrollees are getting renewal notices. Everything is going up. ARPA was designed to be temporary. If it were supposed to be permanent, Congress could have made it permanent. Whether Democrats thought it would be continued forever or just help temporarily is unclear. But if Congress comes up with something that makes health insurance better, I’m all for it. There are tough decisions. Congress has struggled with ACA reform for a decade.

Susan Pendergrass (20:20)
I think we know the answer to that. At the federal level, when they want to do big splashy things, ARPA, the ACA, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they make expenses short term to reduce the fiscal note, assuming someone will renew them later. Same thing with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. They assume future lawmakers will extend them. So it’s not unreasonable that ARPA had temporary provisions assuming they’d get extended. I guess not this time.

Elias Tsapelas (21:12)
People’s health care costs going up is a big issue. People won’t be happy regardless. But returning to issues that should have been addressed when the ACA passed is important. The marketplace is dysfunctional and too expensive. Hopefully Congress finds something better. And I don’t want to minimize issues for people close to retirement. That’s a big issue: people between 55 and 65, not on Medicare yet, often have significant health needs. If you tell a 60 year old who isn’t working that coverage is $40,000 a year, that won’t work.

Susan Pendergrass (21:53)
Yeah. That’s right.

Elias Tsapelas (22:23)
More options will be good. That is an important group that needs to be addressed.

Susan Pendergrass (23:07)
Well, thanks for explaining it so clearly and helping our listeners understand what was actually on the table. It’s a complicated topic, but we’ll watch it unfold over the next year, and hopefully you’ll come back and explain what’s happening as it unfolds.

Elias Tsapelas (23:23)
Hopefully something does happen, so there is something to explain. That would be the best case scenario.

Susan Pendergrass (23:25)
That’s right. All right, well, thanks so much, Elias. Really appreciate it.

Elias Tsapelas (23:31)
Thank you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post What the Government Shutdown Was Really About with Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxes are going down, right? That’s a good thing, right? My answers are “yes,” and a hesitant “maybe?”

I like low taxes, but I like low taxes evenly spread out for everyone. How we tax is almost as important as how much we tax. Whether they are income, property, or sales taxes, and whether they are at the national, state, or local government level, too often lately we are cutting taxes for some people in some instances for some things. These highly targeted cuts might work out overall, but often they are done because they make good politics, not good public policy. Taxes should be broadly based for several reasons, including fairness, certainty, and administrative ease. This is the opposite of what is happening.

Congress seems likely to pass changes to federal income tax rules that would exempt income from tips and overtime from taxation. This is absurd. The airport skycap who works a 50-hour week should be admired for his hard work, but his tax treatment should not be any different from that of the woman processing tickets behind the airline counter for 40 hours per week. This proposal treats things that are, essentially the same—regular, tipped, and overtime wages—as entirely different things for taxes. That’s a dangerous road to travel.

Staying in the same realm, one of the most hotly contested items in the ongoing federal tax debate is whether to raise the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Currently, the SALT cap is $10,000 per household. This means that you can deduct state income taxes, local property taxes, etc., up to $10,000 from your federal income taxes. Currently, congressmen from higher-tax states are fighting to significantly increase the SALT deduction cap. The latest number is $40,000. That means that high-tax states would be able to continue increasing taxes knowing that their taxpayers would in part be subsidized by other federal taxpayers. California (or any high-tax state) would get to keep the tax money, and Missouri taxpayers would get to subsidize California taxes. This is preposterous.

The same things are happening locally in Missouri. A few years ago, legislation was passed allowing counties to freeze the property taxes of senior citizens. Scores of counties in Missouri have since done so. As a result, the wealthiest sector of the population gets its property taxes frozen upon turning 62. Younger families working and raising kids will see their taxes continue to rise, and those taxes will almost certainly rise more than they otherwise would have without the senior tax freeze. This is insane.

Another example includes Missouri’s sales tax rules. The legislature passed a law removing sales taxes from diapers and feminine hygiene products. We can all sympathize with the aim here. But adding more products to the sales tax exemption list will increase pressure to raise sales tax rates (or institute entirely new sales taxes) on the other products that are still taxed. Your diapers will have cost less due to reduced taxes, but your infant’s clothes will cost a little more with the new sales taxes on them.

Each of these targeted tax changes will have unseen, harmful effects. High-tax states will continue to get away with tax increases if the SALT deduction is raised. More workers will see their pay come via high-pressure “tips” instead of typical wages. Seniors will avoid beneficial downsizing simply for tax purposes. As fewer goods are subject to regular sales taxes, new special taxing district sales taxes will be added onto everything else. These targeted taxes will likely succeed for purposes of short-term politics, but they are going to fail by any longer-term fiscal measure.

Is there anything going right with tax policy? Sure. Keeping the federal tax rates from rising by passing those parts of the “big, beautiful bill” will benefit everyone, although the entire plan needs further spending cuts. In Missouri, the state income tax rate has been steadily coming down for everyone over the past decade as revenue targets are hit. Finally, the sales tax base has been broadened by taxing online sales and legal marijuana in the past few years. All of those moves are consistent with good tax policy.

If you are a wealthy California homeowner over 62 who still works for tips on overtime while buying diapers online for your Missouri grandkids, you may benefit from all of these changes. But if you are like most people you will benefit from maybe one while being hurt by the others. Of course, the one you benefit from will be clear and obvious, while the multiple ways you are harmed will be small and harder to detect. You will think you’re a winner in this game of tax politics. But in reality, you won’t be, and neither will the government’s fiscal condition.

The post The Wrong Direction on Tax Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Congress is expected to debate a budget reconciliation package later this spring that primarily extends tax cuts passed in 2018 but also may include some federal Medicaid spending reforms. Here are a few ideas that have been discussed (keep in mind this is a non-exhaustive list, and all details are subject to change):

• Reduce “enhanced” federal match: As I explained in earlier parts of this series, the federal government is currently paying 90% of all Medicaid costs for able-bodied adults in the expansion population but only 65% for everyone else (aged, blind, disabled, etc.). Congress is considering reducing its expansion share to something closer to what is paid for the traditional population.
• Rein in financing gimmicks: In recent years, states have ramped up their use of Medicaid financing gimmicks to help pay for rising healthcare costs. Missouri is more reliant on provider taxes than almost any other state in the country. Congress is considering changing this arrangement to reduce the amount of money states can earn with these gimmicks.
• Work requirements: Show-Me Institute researchers have been writing about the potential of implementing Medicaid work requirements for more than a decade. But the federal government has rarely allowed them, and after a few court cases several years ago, it was determined that congressional action was needed for them to move forward. While it’s unclear who would be included in the requirements, how exactly they’d work, or whether they would be possible in Missouri, it’s certainly worth watching what Congress decides to do on this topic.

In the coming weeks and months, I’ll be keeping a close eye on whether Congress follows through with any of these reforms. It’s never too early to begin thinking about, if enacted, what they could mean for Missouri. There’s no doubt that the federal government reducing its spending on Medicaid could have an enormous impact on our state’s budget. But as with most things, the devil will be in the details. It will be particularly interesting to see if the federal government affords states any additional flexibility to deal with potential Medicaid changes.

In the next post of this series, I’ll discuss some of the steps Missouri’s lawmakers can take today to reform Medicaid and prepare for any opportunities in the future that could help get the state’s program back on a sustainable fiscal track.

The post Medicaid’s Check-Up: Part 5 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Somebody much smarter than I am is going to have to explain to me how sending this money to a private entity does not violate this section of Missouri’s constitution:

No county, city or other political corporation or subdivision of the state shall be authorized to lend its credit or grant public money or property to any private individual, association or corporation . . .

Stick with me here. This is county tax money being granted to a private business. Unless words no longer have meaning, this move by the council is legally dubious at best.

There has long been a fight about earmarks in the federal government. With earmarks, members of Congress can simply request that funding be added in for projects they wish, outside of the standard merit-based or competitive funds allocation process. This money for farms in north St. Louis County is an earmark, for all intents and purposes. Yes, it went through the legislative process, but it has not been subject to any of the other rules for how local governments spend money, such as competitive bidding.

Turning St. Louis County’s annual budget of more than a billion dollars into a grab bag of pet projects is the last thing we need for local government in Missouri.  I hope the county executive vetoes this bill and I hope his veto is sustained.

The post Earmarks Come to St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am not a lawyer, so I am going to keep this all very simple. As one legal blog explained it:

Under the Chevron doctrine, if Congress had not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.

This obviously puts a great deal of power into the hands of regulatory agencies. All they had to do in interpreting federal rules for regulatory purposes was not be insanely crazy, and courts would be required to defer to the agency’s judgement. These were glorious days for regulators. Unlike, say, now.

If you believe, like I do, that regulatory powers have expanded too far, then overturning Chevron was a strong move for individual liberty and is something to be celebrated.

But it is a federal case. We have our own regulatory issues in Missouri. That is why legislation has been introduced to apply these same changes to Missouri laws. As the summary of Senate Bill (SB) 221 explains:

This act modifies the standard for review for a state agency’s interpretation of statutes, rules, regulations, and other subregulatory documents. Specifically, a court or administrative hearing officer shall interpret the meaning and effect of such statutes, rules, regulations, and documents de novo, rather than de novo upon motion by a party if the action only involves the agency’s application of the law to the facts and does not involve administrative discretion. Further, after applying customary tools of interpretation, the court or officer shall exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty. [emphasis mine]

Right now, a state agency is suing a woman in St. Louis for practicing dentistry without a license. The question is whether installing tooth jewelry should require a dental license (which is, obviously, not easy to get). If Missouri’s Chevron legislation passes, the regulators in this instance would have to act more strictly under the law as written by the legislature and rely less on various interpretations of that law by the Missouri Dental Board, which, believe it or not, may be a bit biased. If this case goes to court, the judges will no longer have to just assume the dental board is correct.

I don’t know whether the person in question is practicing dentistry or not. I do know that a Missouri where the courts don’t automatically assume the regulatory agency is always correct is a freer Missouri, and that is something I want.

The post The Chevron Debate Comes to Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

So what does it do? It shuffles money around; adds unnecessary requirements and political agendas via its grants; and then passes the buck when it comes time to assess if any of that adds value. Here’s how it works: Congress appropriates funding for education; last year, it totaled nearly $80 billion. The department’s bureaucrats take in those billions, add strings and red tape, peel off a percentage to pay for themselves, and then send it down to state education agencies. Many of them do a version of the same and then send it to our schools. The schools must then pay first for administrators to manage all the requirements that have been added along the way. After all that, the money makes it to the classroom to help a student learn—maybe.

In other words, the Department of Education is functionally a middleman. And like most middlemen, it doesn’t add value. It merely adds cost and complexity.

DeVos concludes with a call to close the Department of Education. I encourage you to read her full piece. They are strong words coming from someone who once ran the agency.

The post Former Secretary of Education: “Shut Down the Department of Education” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recently, the White House unveiled its detailed framework for deploying nuclear energy, which emphasized the need for nuclear power in America’s future. This plan included an ambitious target to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050. While this specific plan may not survive the transition, the sentiment is likely to endure.

Bipartisan Support for Nuclear

Both sides of the aisle recognize the potential in an American nuclear resurgence, albeit with different motivations. Part of the reason the Biden administration supports nuclear energy is because of climate change. Ambitious emissions goals are difficult to achieve without nuclear energy. The previously mentioned report argues:

Expanding domestic nuclear energy production has a key role to play in helping to avoid the worst impacts of climate change by enabling the nation to achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas emission economy no later than 2050. Nuclear power delivers safe, clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.

The Trump administration’s support hinges largely on reliability, capacity, and energy security. Members of the first Trump administration have advocated for keeping plants open, investing in SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), and continuing to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The president-elect recently affirmed this stance:

Starting on day one, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refineries, new power plants, new reactors and we will slash the red tape. We will get the job done. We will create more electricity, also for these new industries that can only function with massive electricity.

Outside of the Oval Office, another notable example of nuclear momentum is the passage of the ADVANCE Act, which is designed to spur advanced nuclear construction and streamline regulations. This bill flew through Congress with an 88–2 vote in the Senate and a 393–13 vote in the House of Representatives before being signed by the president.

Bipartisan Action in Missouri

Nuclear energy is unique in that it is safe, powerful, and environmentally friendly. It is the most reliable energy source, and some claim it produces the lowest amount of greenhouse gas emissions over the lifecycle of the power plant. Public awareness of these benefits is increasing, as Bisconti Research found that favorability for nuclear energy increased from 49 percent in 1983 to 77 percent in 2024 among the U.S. public.

In the past, nuclear energy may have been viewed through a partisan lens, but today, it represents a solution to address some of our nation’s key concerns. This upcoming legislative session, lawmakers in Jefferson City should come together to craft meaningful policy that will help bring more nuclear power to the Show-Me State.

The post Nuclear Energy Is a Bipartisan Solution appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You can read my past thoughts on the bill here and here.

Here is a summary of the policy changes in the ADVANCE Act:

1. Narrows which regulatory costs nuclear energy licensees have to pay (read more here).
2. Establishes an award program for pioneers in the advanced nuclear industry.
3. Streamlines the process to convert “covered sites” (land formerly used for coal plants, factories, etc.,) into nuclear reactor sites.
4. Mandates the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to expedite the “combined license” process for applicants building at a site where a nuclear plant currently operates or has previously operated.
5. Seeks to increase manpower at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
6. Updates the mission statement of the NRC to be more supportive of nuclear energy.

While the federal government got something done, Missouri missed an opportunity this past session to repeal its own burdensome anti-nuclear regulations. One particular letdown was the failure to revise the construction-works-in-progress (CWIP) law. You can read specifics on that policy here.

In 2022, Ameren Missouri (the state’s primary utility) relied on coal for 66 percent of its electricity generation. By 2045, Ameren plans to bring that number to zero. Missouri could mimic Wyoming and turn one of these soon to be “covered” sites into an advanced nuclear reactor site. The ADVANCE Act, if signed, will expedite this process in the future—just in time for our energy transition.

Additionally, there have past efforts to add another unit to the Callaway Nuclear plant, Missouri’s one and only commercial nuclear reactor. The ADVANCE Act would allow “combined licenses” mentioned above, which would make more units at the Callaway Plant eligible for a faster review.

Isn’t it time to pass nuclear reform in Missouri? The federal government has made its move—now it’s Missouri’s turn to repeal anti-nuclear regulations such as the CWIP law and perhaps form a Missouri Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (similar to Tennessee’s). Missouri leaders ought to ensure nothing stands in the way of strengthening our grid with clean, reliable, and powerful nuclear energy.

The post Congress Moves to Advance Nuclear Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nuclear momentum is building at the federal level, and with the AAA gaining serious traction in Congress, shouldn’t Missouri position itself to take advantage of possible federal changes?

In Missouri, there appears to urgency in finding coal’s replacement. Nuclear energy could be the keystone piece in this future transition. So what can Missouri do?

While I have highlighted numerous state reforms in previous blog posts and testimonies, the most pressing issue is fixing a statute passed in the 1970s, seemingly at the behest of the anti-nuclear lobby. This statute prevents utilities from raising rates in order to help pay for construction works in progress (CWIP). Nuclear power plants are both extremely capital intensive and subject to extensive holdups in the regulatory process. These two factors make nuclear developments risky investments, and this absence of a financial backstop has been, and continues to be, a roadblock for further nuclear development in Missouri.

While there are many important topics being debated in Jefferson City, legislators should not forget about the importance of nuclear regulatory reform—especially as federal reform could be near. In the Missouri Legislature, House Bills 1435 and 1804 (which address the CWIP statute) have made little progress.

As coal power is being phased out, Missourians will need an energy source that will keep the lights on and the air clean. Nuclear power can check both these boxes—but power plants do not arise out of thin air, and they will not be built in Missouri if the regulatory environment here makes them infeasible or prevents them from being cost effective. Eliminating the longstanding CWIP statute through HB 1435 and HB 1804 would help utilities shoulder the upfront cost of plant construction so that they can work with both domestic and international nuclear developers to revive our state’s nuclear industry.

We should set a solid foundation in our state while the federal government works on its end. Missouri should not miss opportunities for nuclear development because we allowed bad state policies to remain in place.

The post Let’s Jump on the Nuclear Energy Bandwagon appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For years, I’ve written about Missouri’s reliance on Medicaid “provider taxes” and their role in paying for government-funded health care services. As costs have increased, states have become increasingly reliant on these extra taxes, because they help prop up Medicaid spending by essentially shifting some of the share paid with state tax dollars to the federal government. While this may sound appealing, Missouri’s expected spending on Medicaid has never been higher (nearly $17 billion this year). Provider taxes are a big reason for that, as they make up more than a quarter of all nonfederal Medicaid spending.

As the graphic below shows, provider taxes aren’t like normal taxes, because they essentially allow different health care providers to exploit the way Medicaid is financed and extract additional federal dollars to help keep their Medicaid rates higher. Beneficiaries of these taxes, (i.e. hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, and others) claim they’re one of the only taxes where everyone wins. Well, everyone except for federal taxpayers—which of course includes Missouri state taxpayers as well.

Joe Biden, when he was Vice President, called provider taxes a “scam.” Essentially every audit, congressional report, or presidential administration that looks at these things concludes that they should be seriously scaled back or ended for good. And if that ever happens, Missouri is in serious trouble. Our state is one of the most heavily reliant on this financing gimmick in the country.

Now, I wouldn’t hold my breath for any major federal changes to provider taxes because that would require Congress to make a concerted effort at deficit reduction. But the Biden administration’s new effort to look a little more closely at how states are spending these extra federal dollars warrants greater attention. Since 2002, Missouri has allowed the state’s hospitals to essentially manage its provider tax revenues themselves, with little transparency regarding how or where those funds are being spent. It’s possible a little sunlight might help find some opportunities for savings, or at least give Missouri the kick it needs to start weaning itself off this unsustainable funding source.

If health care costs are going to continue their upward trajectory and Medicaid is going to remain the state’s largest budget item, efforts to rein in spending and root out waste will be necessary and should be encouraged. It’s long past time someone gave a closer look at the provider tax “scam.” I just hope Missouri is ready for what the increased scrutiny might expose.

The post A “Scheme” Worth Looking Into appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Advanced nuclear reactors are pre-fabricated (constructed off-site, which allows them to maintain the efficiency of a production line), so when reactor designs are approved, the same design can be used in numerous projects. By contrast, traditional reactors are typically custom-designed on-site. Private entities have been competing to develop the best reactor designs. However, many of these private entities struggle to acquire the necessary cash to propose a potential reactor design to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC agents currently charge a billing rate of $290 per hour, with a review taking upwards of 18,000 hours, resulting in a typical review cost of $5,220,000! These costs place private developers in a difficult situation, as spending an immense amount of money on designing a reactor and paying regulators (who might reject the design) is a great risk. For example, Oklo Power (an American startup) submitted an application for a 1.5 MW microreactor, and had it denied after 22 months of review from the NRC.

The ADVANCE Act would shift responsibility for supervisory and nonsupervisory support costs, travel costs, training costs, and the administrative costs of  different government offices that provide logistical support to the NRC. These costs currently fall on the nuclear developer. In the current state of the bill, the federal government would compensate the NRC for these additional costs in connection with advanced nuclear reactors. Taxpayers should of course be wary of any proposal to subsidize private nuclear power providers, but in this case the money would be going to defray the expenses incurred by our government as the result of a truly burdensome set of federal regulations.

The ADVANCE Act could also expedite the conversion of brownfield sites (land formerly used for industry), particularly former (or closing) fossil fuel facility sites, into nuclear power sites. Pre-fabricated reactors are adaptable and well-suited to these sites; on the other hand, traditional nuclear plants need to be uniquely constructed to match the terrain where they will be located.

Lastly, the ADVANCE Act would provide additional funding (mainly to facilitate a new nuclear traineeship program) to the NRC in order to speed up the review process. In this industry, time truly is money, and costs soar when delays occur.

So the ADVANCE Act would make it easier to build out our nuclear capabilities. Why is that important? Increased nuclear power would help achieve three key goals: increasing power supply in the United States, increasing our country’s energy independence, and increasing the supply of reliable, emissions-free energy.

As a state-based think tank, we don’t often discuss bills in Congress. But if nuclear energy is going to make a resurgence in our country, reform at the federal level will be necessary. Whether the federal government passes this law or not, Missouri could capitalize on the bipartisan desire for clean, reliable nuclear energy and become a leader in the industry.

The post Oppenheimer Is Not the Only Interesting Thing in Nuclear this Summer appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why should we care about phonics instruction? Because it works.

There are typically two views when discussing early reading instruction: emphasis on phonics instruction involving daily lessons, and a “balanced literacy” approach which puts an emphasis on understanding meaning (three-cueing method) with occasional phonics sprinkled in. Numerous studies from independent researchers, the National Literacy Institute, and the Congressional-sponsored National Reading Panel have indicated that systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective in helping students learn to read than non-systematic (balanced literacy) or no phonics instruction. These results can be seen in schools that implement it, such as in Richmond or in our own backyard at KIPP Victory Academy—whose recent, explicit emphasis on phonics helped it obtain the highest English/language arts growth rate in the entire state from 2018–2021.

So why aren’t all schools using this method? Many teachers believe this approach is incredibly boring and drives the love of reading out of children. Additionally, it is hard for teachers to learn and teach; Missouri’s new phonics training program (LETRS) in Missouri takes 160 hours to complete. Finally, universities are simply not instructing future teachers to use this method effectively, or even hardly at all.

The NCTQ conducted a survey to evaluate which universities are implementing scientifically based reading instruction into their curriculum for future teachers—and the results are concerning. Per the survey, only 25 percent of higher education institutions nationally adequately address all five core components (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) of reading instruction. Missouri is no better, as nearly half of our participating* universities received an F on the NCQT’s report.

*Central Methodist University (F), Hannibal-LaGrange University (F), Lincoln University (B), Lindenwood University (B), Lindenwood University Graduate (D), Missouri Southern State University (F), Missouri Western State University (D), Northwest Missouri State University (F), Southeast Missouri State (F), University of Central Missouri (F), University of Missouri-Kansas City (A), University of Missouri-St. Louis (C), University of Missouri-St. Louis Graduate (C); all other Missouri universities declined to participate

Many universities in Missouri seem to be shying away from a strategy that can help teachers become better reading instructors. The LETRS program was a good start, but that law is primarily about identifying and addressing problems in early childhood reading, along with some additional professional development opportunities for existing teachers. We need Missouri universities to get on board and give teachers all the tools they need to effectively teach kids how to read right from the start.

The post The Science of Reading in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What is the debt ceiling, and what would have happened had we not raised it?

The debt ceiling (or debt limit) is a legal limit on how much money the U.S. government is authorized to borrow. Once the country reaches this limit, the Treasury is not permitted to issue more debt.

Can we simply not raise the debt limit?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal government will run a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion in 2023 alone, with spending amounting to $6.4 trillion and revenue coming in at $4.8 trillion. Of the $6.4 trillion in spending, $4 trillion is for mandatory programs that operate without Congress needing to regularly reauthorize them (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), $1.7 trillion is discretionary spending, and $660 billion goes to interest payments. Balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit in one fell swoop would require essentially zeroing out discretionary spending or making instant, draconian cuts to mandatory programs. Given the deep fiscal hole that the federal government has put the country in, there was no real alternative to raising the debt ceiling.

If both sides agreed that the debt ceiling had to be raised, what were the negotiations about?

Historically, occasions when the government has reached the debt ceiling have produced negotiated agreements that both raise the ceiling and limit spending, as was the case with the Budget Control Act of 2011 during the Obama-Biden Administration. However, this time around, the White House insisted for months that it would not negotiate on any spending reforms as part of raising the debt ceiling.

Given the unsustainable fiscal path that the United States is on, the White House was essentially sending the message that the only way to avert a debt crisis now (by raising the debt ceiling) was to cement the current spending trajectory in place—and thereby increase the chance of a debt crisis down the road. The House of Representatives disagreed with this false choice between a debt crisis today and a debt crisis later and instead passed the Limit, Save, and Grow Act, which simultaneously raised the debt ceiling and slowed the trajectory of spending, among other reforms. Passage of this bill forced the White House to the table, abandoning its no-negotiations stance on spending reforms.

What is contained in the debt ceiling deal?

The debt ceiling deal contains a number of elements. First, it raises the debt ceiling through the end of 2024 and it establishes spending caps for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 that limit the growth of spending to 1% with tough enforcement provisions during the appropriations process, which is when Congress formally makes detailed, program-level spending decisions. In addition, the bill prescribes a 1% cap on spending growth through 2029. By way of comparison, the CBO projected an 8.1% jump in discretionary spending between 2024 and 2025, followed by average annual increases of 2.8% through 2033.

Besides affecting topline spending, the debt ceiling bill rescinds certain COVID-19 and IRS funds, expands work requirements for food stamps and welfare, and implements energy-permitting reforms to reduce delays from excessive and unresponsive bureaucracy.

What is the overall effect?

The CBO projects $1.5 trillion lower spending growth (or in Washington, DC parlance: cuts) because of the deal. Without the deal, discretionary spending would have risen from $1.7 trillion in 2023 to $2.4 trillion in 2033, whereas now the projection is for $2.2 trillion in discretionary spending in 2033.

To give further perspective, the figure below plots three different projections for the path of discretionary spending as a percentage of the country’s annual economic output. The blue dots are CBO projections made in fall 2019 under the previous administration and before COVID-19. The orange dots are CBO projections from this May, but before the debt ceiling deal. The red arrow showing the upward shift from the blue dots to the orange dots represents the persistent increase in discretionary spending under the current administration’s policy plans. The gray set of dots represent discretionary spending under the debt ceiling deal, with the green arrow showing the reduction relative to what was slated to occur before the deal.

As the figure makes clear, the debt ceiling deal essentially takes discretionary spending halfway back to the path it was set to follow before COVID-19 and the change in administration.

Figure 1: Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. Source: Congressional Budget Office, Show-Me Institute calculations.

How should Missourians view this deal?

The United States faces a profound and troubling fiscal situation with its unsustainable spending levels, not to mention slow economic growth, declining productivity, and inflation that remains much too high. It is important to recognize that the country has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Federal revenues are currently above historical average, but the reason deficits are so large is that spending as a share of GDP is higher than it has ever been over the past century except during peak COVID-19 and World War II. The debt ceiling bill does not fully reverse the spending increases of the past two years, but it represents a step in the right direction, especially compared to the White House’s previous no-negotiations spending stance.

Taking a step back, whereas the debt ceiling debate focused on discretionary spending, the vast majority of federal spending goes to mandatory programs, chiefly entitlements. The CBO projects that, absent reforms, federal spending will rise from 23.7% of GDP in 2023 to over 30% by 2053, annual deficits will more than double to over 11% of GDP, and the national debt will balloon to almost 200% of GDP. In this scenario, interest payments on the debt would triple as a share of the economy and would represent the single largest spending item for the U.S. government. Even this scenario is rosy in that it assumes an infinite willingness among investors to buy U.S. debt regardless of how dire the fiscal picture becomes—a rather implausible assumption that America would be wise not to test.

Going forward, much work remains to be done to right-size government and revitalize economic growth so that Americans can enjoy a more prosperous future free from the risk of steep tax hikes, crippling inflation, debt crises, and adversarial foreign governments buying up large quantities of government debt. The debt ceiling deal is by no means a cure to the country’s current fiscal ills, but it’s one step in the right direction, and the starting point for a much-needed national conversation.

The post Debt Ceiling Deal Q&A appeared first on Show-Me Institute.