Occupy Saint Louis is in full effect, and my co-worker Patrick Ishmael and I dropped by last Friday for the group’s afternoon march. I can only claim superficial exposure to the pulse of this particular group at that particular time, because I was in the crowd but not of it, and I didn’t take the time to talk to anyone while I was there. Most of the signs I saw and chants I heard involved “jobs,” though there was also a call-and-response that got a lot of play: Call: “Whose streets?” Response: “Our streets!” I’m not really sure what that one meant.

I have been reading quite a bit about the protests going on in New York City, in the rest of the country (my cousin participated in Occupy Omaha, he’s the one in the suit near the center) and even around the world. The protests and the protesters are not totally united in their goals or their beliefs, but there are certain common threads that bind the movement and represent a shared objective. One of the most common complaints you’ll hear is anything along the lines of “get Wall Street out of Washington.” This is an expression of the idea that business and government should not have such cozy relationships. The word for this concept in popular usage is “corporatism,” and although the protesters may not realize that a free-market think tank represents an ally in their fight, we have published countless studies and commentaries asserting that government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

We oppose tax credits such as the Aerotropolis subsidy package, film tax credits, and other publicly-funded business incentives. Indeed, so strong is our stance against corporate welfare that it’s one of our six main policy areas.

The Occupy protests and the people calling themselves the 99% are fired up and out on the streets for a reason. H.L. Mencken said “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under,” but when left and right are aligned in opposition to pervasive policy that hurts all but a very few well-connected people, and when thousands take to the streets to voice their disillusion, there’s a glimmer of hope for real change to the status quo.

“Extreme Makeover,” indeed. After previously likening the project to a “developer’s relief act,” last Friday it appeared that the St. Louis Business Journal had reversed its position on “Aerotropolis,” hinting in a staff editorial that it supported having the legislature go into a special session to take up the project’s tax credits.

The editorial was in fact one of a battery of at least five neutral-to-positive stories that dealt directly or tangentially with Aerotropolis that week, a strange reversal by the Business Journal but coming only a week after Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay’s chief of staff, Jeff Rainford, wrote a letter to the paper in support of the project. (My response to Rainford’s letter appears here.) It’s of course one thing for the Business Journal to change its mind on such an enormous budgetary issue, and present a united front in its support; it’s another thing to do it all without substantial justification, which the publication unfortunately did not provide in any of its five stories touching on the subject.

Still more unfortunate is the manner in which the Business Journal mused that Aerotropolis could make it to the special session: by hitching it to the tragedy in Joplin (emphasis added):

The view from St. Louis looks directly at China. Those who represent Aerotropolis as Joplin’s lifeboat are just silly. We need to respect the severity of their plight and not tie it to anything but the survival of their community.

It would be great for lawmakers and the governor to brand this session the economic development moment for Missouri: investing in Joplin and supporting a China hub while reorganizing (read “shrinking”) tax credits.

That could make for a truly special session.

The Business Journal lectures that Aerotropolis supporters should “respect the severity” of Joplin’s tragedy, but then basically says that if proponents play their cards right, maybe — just maybe — there will be something in it for Saint Louis, too … just have to “brand” it right. Keep in mind that Joplin is set to get about $50 million from the state. Under the Business Journal’s plan, Saint Louis would receive more than seven times that amount in such a “truly special session.”

Sad? Yes. “Truly special”? No.

The path of devastation caused by the EF-5 tornado that ripped through Joplin does not lead all the way to Saint Louis, and it was wrong for the Business Journal to suggest that the tragedy should be lined up with unrelated pet projects, and the session “rebranded,” to benefit Aerotropolis.

The Business Journal was right the first time: Aerotropolis is a developer’s relief act. It’s sad that the newspaper and others would attempt to pair their project with genuine relief efforts.

Last week, Jeff Rainford, Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay’s chief of staff, wrote to the St. Louis Business Journal in opposition to the evaulation of the “Aerotropolis” bill that a few Show-Me Institute policy analysts have offered, suggesting that we have been “misstating the legislation and [supporters’] intention.” We have not, and I’d like to take this opportunity to unpack Rainford’s letter for a critical analysis.

Rainford asserts, in contradiction to the “China Hub” proposal’s own experts, that the “Big Idea” (as he calls it) is designed to “sustain 20 to 30 international cargo flights per week.” Thanks to a Sunshine law public records request of email records related to the China Hub, we know that the current $60 million tax credit proposal would require quote “volcanic demand” to reach just the 20-flight level. It’s more likely, documents reveal, that the credits would attract half that number. It is not clear whether Rainford was aware of this March reassessment.

Rainford says that the credits will result in “thousands of new jobs.” He does not justify his claim on any grounds whatsoever. Are these jobs saved and created? And what of the jobs at the warehouses already vacant in Saint Louis, encompassing 18 million square feet of unsubsidized real estate?

Rainford evokes imagined ownership of the Lambert–St. Louis International Airport by “a Wall Street hedge fund, Carl Icahn or the Chinese” as stark warnings against proposed privatization plans. Setting aside for the moment the stunning slam that Rainford levels at the very Chinese trading partners he wants to do business with, the idea that the airport under public management has been a success over the last few decades is a stunning delusion. Lambert’s flights have been reduced to a fraction from their highs only 20 years ago. In the private sector, that would spur a change in management. In the world of government bureaucrats, it apparently means throwing good money after bad, leaving the historic fundamentals unchanged.

Moreover, Rainford tells us that the bill’s supporters “are not gambling” by pushing the Aerotropolis legislation in its current form. He’s right. Gambling suggests that Missouri’s taxpayers might win by fronting the money for this exclusive group of developers. They won’t. The present bill — 85 percent of which is geared toward building unneeded warehouses, not even subsidizing flights, and 100 percent of which is funded by taxpayers — raises a couple of obvious but apparently overlooked questions. If this proposal is so dynamic and rich with potential profits, why haven’t private developers been pushing such a lucrative deal on their own? And why then are tax credits needed at all?

We certainly understand the desire to jump start the Saint Louis and Missouri economies, but we believe that public officials have taken off on a “flight of fancy” when it comes to the Aerotropolis bill.

Four years ago, in one of the first posts we ever did here at Show-Me Daily, I told you that the city of Kinloch did not need a full-time mayor. Well, it took a few years, but it appears that I was proven right about that!

Recently, Show-Me Institute Executive Director Brenda Talent wrote in an op-ed that “To better serve the public interest, the LRA should stop trying to pick winners and losers in the market for vacant land.” This made me wonder — why does the Saint Louis Land Reutilization Authority (LRA) accept some bids while rejecting others, and what are the costs to taxpayers of its current approach to landholding?

The two high-rises pictured above both entered the LRA’s inventory in the 1990s, vacant, awaiting redevelopment. Only one stands today.

At left is a picture of the Continental Building, located at 3615 Olive St. in the city’s Grand Center neighborhood. A 1978 National Register nomination notes, “Built in 1929 with William B. Ittner as architect, the Continental is the most sophisticated statement of art deco in St. Louis.” At right is a picture of the Regency Nursing Inn, which stood at 4560 West Pine Blvd. Built between 1964 and 1966 at a cost of $2.3 million, the convalescent home and medical office building opened for business in 1966. A leasing guide for the 15-story reinforced concrete building stated, “Because of the imposing character and dignity of the REGENCY, pride of tenancy as well as functional interior design will delight the most discerning.”

Although the Continental Building was “sophisticated” and the Regency Building merely “functional,” both ultimately fell into disuse and were subject to vandalism. The LRA assumed ownership of both buildings in the mid-1990s through the tax foreclosure process authorized by the 1971 Municipal Land Reutilization Law. Today, both properties are back in private hands after sales by the LRA, but only the Continental Building still stands. The Regency Building was demolished in 1998 at the behest of the LRA, at a cost of $263,940.

So, what gives? Does the LRA have a preference for art deco over mid-century modern? Or is there another explanation for the LRA’s decision to save one high-rise and demolish the other?

During the June 25, 1997, meeting of the LRA, the agency rejected a $10,000 offer by Roberts West Pine Development and Associates to purchase the Regency Building for rehabilitation as condominiums, deciding instead — in an executive session — to sell the property for $1 to West Pine Court LLC. Minutes from the meeting indicate that West Pine Court LLC had the support of the alderman, whereas Roberts West Pine Development did not.

Today, the site is home to low-rise, brick-faced townhouse condominiums, funded in part by the city’s first residential tax increment financing (TIF) project. To date, the developer has received more than $400,000 from this subsidy.

The Continental Building, too, stood vacant prior to its rehabilitation in 2001 by Owen Development. The residential conversion project received $5.8 million in state historic preservation tax credits and additional funds from the federal historic preservation tax credit. Minutes of the Jan. 26, 2000, meeting of the LRA reveal that the developer had “the enthusiastic support of the alderman” for the proposed rehabilitation of the building as apartments.

The LRA has wide statutory latitude to do anything it pleases, including rejecting high bidders and accepting low bids from the politically favored. As former Commissioner Howard Hayes said during the Oct. 25, 2000, LRA meeting, the agency has “an unspoken bond with 28 aldermen, because they speak for the people of St. Louis, they have been duly elected.”

Does the LRA’s “unspoken bond” entail listening to aldermen while harming taxpayers?

Consider the timeline of what happened here:

• The LRA rejects a $10,000 bid for the Regency Building, a mid-century modern skyscraper.
• The LRA accepts a $1 bid from a developer who simultaneously requested a TIF from the city.
• The LRA demolishes the building at a cost of $263,940.
• The LRA retains the art deco Continental Building in its inventory, pending its transfer to a developer for rehabilitation.
• As of 2010, taxpayers are out at least $400,000 on the West Pine townhouses and more than $5 million on the Continental Building.

At a bare minimum, the LRA should subject its parcels to competitive bidding. The fact that the LRA can raise costs to taxpayers with zero oversight and no accountability is reason enough for today’s Missouri policymakers to revisit and rethink the powers of this ill-conceived agency. In the 21st century, aldermen should not have the powers of land patronage.

“Violence is a tactic, and it’s to be used when it’s the appropriate tactic.”

That’s a quote from a video published Monday that captures two University of Missouri–St. Louis professors, identified as Judy Ancel and David Giljam, teaching a publicly funded course about labor negotiations. In the video, both Ancel and Giljam seem to advocate in favor of violence, physical intimidation, and industrial sabotage as tactics to be used during labor negotiations.

It’s a stunning video that I encourage you to watch for yourself. If these tapes accurately reflect what’s being taught in those classes, UMSL and UMKC — the two universities teaching the course — have a lot explaining to do. It appears that, at least as far as UMSL is concerned, they’re taking the matter very seriously.

Obviously, the public should not be funding, or be forced to fund, classes that advocate violent and illegal behavior against its citizens. Such instruction is precisely the opposite of what a publicly financed education is about.

But the episode raises another, arguably more important, concern: Is the University of Missouri system really in control of its labor negotiations program, or are labor unions effectively running the show on the taxpayers’ dime?

It’s an open question that needs to be explored, because if unions are essentially writing and teaching the curriculum for these classes and, not only that, violence is being advocated, it’s an outrageous exploitation of regular Missourians.

Unfortunately, there’s reason to believe that some collaboration is going on between the universities and organized labor. For those unfamiliar with the it, the Labor Tribune is a Saint Louis–based newspaper that markets itself as the “OFFICIAL VOICE OF THE AFL-CIO” in the city.

With 110 subscribing unions, the Labor Tribune is the only AFL-CIO endorsed newspaper in the bi-state metropolitan region.

Key word: “VOICE.”

Long before the videos were released, the Tribune promoted the courses that have now been caught on tape as part of a story about UMSL’s Labor Studies Certificate Program. The Tribune’s piece described the certificate program as follows:

The Labor Studies Certificate Program gives current and future union leaders, representatives and activists the background and skills needed to deal with the changing workplace and economy.

With a grounding in history, political science, law and economics, students have the opportunity to develop skills of analysis, leadership and organizing that will provide an equal footing with counterparts in the corporate and political world.

Completion of the program results in 18 credit hours toward a degree and a Certificate in Labor Studies.

Click to enlarge

But was that a news piece, or a press release? The words used in the article are essentially a copy-paste job of the words the university itself uses to describe the program:

The Labor Studies Certificate Program gives current and future union leaders, representatives, and activists the background and skills needed to deal with the changing workplace and economy. With a grounding in history, political science, law, and economics, students have the opportunity to develop skills of analysis, leadership, and organizing that will provide an equal footing with counterparts in the corporate and political world. Completion of the program earns 18 credit hours toward a degree and a Certificate in Labor Studies.

So the AFL-CIO’s “official” newspaper publishes a press release for a program for union “activists,” neutrally describing a program that actually promotes violence and industrial sabotage against Missourians — during, of all things, a recession. Adding insult to not-so-metaphorical injury, the endeavor is supported by Missouri tax dollars.

That’s a big, big problem.

Taxpayers deserve to be adequately assured that their tax dollars are not only being spent wisely, but that those tax dollars won’t be used by special interests as a cudgel — figuratively and literally — against them. Taxpayer-funded education should not be an arm, or a “VOICE,” of special interests, but a neutral arbiter enriching dialogue, not impoverishing it.

Ancel may want to teach a class on irony, too. Note the headline.

On Friday, Combest linked to several stories that involve less government in our state. First, the state Senate has approved a proposal to allow voters to decide on reducing our number of state reps. Granted, it is a lot easier for the Senate to do this than for the House itself to agree to reduce its numbers, but I believe this is the first time in decades that the proposal got through at least one of the chambers. (Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

Reducing our number of state reps will save money on legislative salaries and benefits. It will reduce the number of people who can introduce new laws to dictate how Missourians live their lives. For more information about why this change would benefit Missouri, check out these prior posts.

Affecting far fewer people — but equally exciting — is the upcoming meeting about the disincorporation of Saint George, a small suburb in Saint Louis County that has long been a speeding ticket revenue hotspot. A group of newly elected city leaders campaigned for the idea of disincorporation, and now the chickens get to come home and roost. I have long felt that disincorporation was an overlooked option for small Missouri towns and villages, especially in Saint Louis County towns like Saint George.

However, the article certainly makes it seem that the newly elected leadership has quickly started acting like politicians. They appear to have taken a liking to being in office instead of moving ahead with their campaign promises. If your real goal were to disincorporate the city, why would you appoint political allies to fill all the positions? I know that to the victor goes the spoils, but not if the city no longer exists:

[Mayor Carmen] Wilkerson nominated [Susan] Preis to be a full-time city clerk for about $40,000 a year with no benefits to replace Marilyn Schneider, who works part time and earns $14,000 with benefits.

City Treasurer Dave Pozzo was replaced with Cathy Heins. John Malec, the city’s attorney and prosecutor, resigned before the meeting and was replaced by Paul Martin, who had led Wilkerson’s steering committee to look at dissolving the city.

I hope they prove me wrong and are serious about returning to disincorporated status within the county.

Yesterday, Christine Harbin and I testified about the proposed “Aerotropolis” subsidy bill before the Missouri Senate Jobs, Economic Development and Local Government Committee. As readers of Show-Me Daily are aware, Christine and I have a number of questions and concerns about the proposed legislation, which would award $480 million in tax credits primarily to subsidize debt and the construction and operation of warehouses around Lambert–St. Louis International Airport. The idea, proponents say, is that this will enable the airport to build up infrastructure to encourage more international flights to and from Saint Louis. But, as is true with any project, there is the chance of failure. Is the cost of this proposed bundle of subsidies worth the chance of success?

(As you will see in the video of our testimony, which will be posted soon on Show-Me Daily, the committee members seemed aggravated by our presence and offended by the questions that Christine and I raised.)

Our testimony yesterday came down to a single concern: Why award $480 million in tax credits (and more) if tax credit programs in Missouri have a poor track record?

There are some indications that this particular proposal may be at greater risk of failure than other tax credit programs. It was proposed without any sort of study of the costs and benefits associated with this project. A closer read of the legislation also reveals many hidden costs above and beyond $480 million. There isn’t any protection for taxpayers if the hoped-for increase in air traffic does not materialize. Furthermore, part of the proposed legislative language takes care to account for other subsidies awarded in 2006, meaning that, at minimum, the area is already subsidized.

None of the facts Christine and I presented were disputed — the only argument was whether this proposal would cost taxpayers money. But tax credits are an actual cost to taxpaying Missourians, as we have explained before.

So, what safeguards do legislators say are in place for taxpayers? The line repeated during yesterday’s hearing was that the the tax credits won’t be awarded without an extensive review process, and that the award of taxpayer money will be spread out over a period of 15 years.

However, given human ingenuity, it certainly is possible that creative entities might find a way to receive more from the Aerotropolis subsidies than legislators think possible.

Just last week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that less than six months after Liberty Mutual was scheduled to receive $1.6 million in state tax credits, 45 employees were told that their positions had been eliminated. Those employees were invited to apply for new lower-paying positions.

From the Post-Dispatch:

Under the terms of the Missouri Quality Jobs program, Liberty Mutual will still qualify for the tax credits if, within 24 months of its agreement with the state, the insurer has added 100 “net new jobs” to its payroll at a salary equal to or exceeding the prevailing average wage in St. Louis County — $48,291.

The Liberty Mutual case illustrates that even the best-intentioned legislation can have unintended consequences.

Frankly, I appreciate that the Aerotropolis bill includes an attempt to slow the expenditure of tax credits, and proposes a review process. But hoping for an outcome does not guarantee it. It is almost impossible to account for every last detail. Giving away millions in taxpayer money each year certainly creates an incentive for recipients to meet state-imposed benchmarks with the least amount of effort.

The Show-Me Institute has been one of the leaders in urging Missouri’s attorney general, Chris Koster, to join the lawsuit against the health care reform bill, so we are pleased to note that he finally took action this morning. Better late than never. But regrettably, the amicus brief that Koster filed in the multistate lawsuit only goes halfway.

Although Koster says that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, he also says that it’s severable from the rest of the law. In other words, Koster believes that the federal health care law can remain in place even though the individual insurance mandate can be struck down.

Judge George Vinson went further in his ruling. He ruled that Congress does not have the power to force people to buy something that they don’t want, and therefore the entire law must be declared void.

I understand that many people object to the regulation because of the individual mandate. However, there are additional reasons to oppose this law in Missouri. With or without the individual mandate, the PPACA will raise the cost of health care in Missouri by increasing mandates to cover specific conditions and expanding the eligibility requirements for Medicaid. This component of policy will burden state budgets and threaten state sovereignty. In order to come up with the cash, Missouri will have to raise taxes, cut services, or both.

Koster’s decision to file an amicus brief may be partly due to the Show-Me Intitute’s prodding. Encouraging him to join the lawsuit is a topic that we’ve tracked closely. Show-Me Institute staff have released an open letter, an editorial, an “urgent call for action” via email, and several blog posts on the subject.

Last Friday’s St. Louis Business Journal reports that movies will soon return to downtown St. Louis more than eight years after Union Station 10 Cinema shut down in 2003. A $3 million movie theater — to open sometime “next year” — will grace the ground level of the parking garage formerly known as St. Louis Centre. The article states: “The new theater will have three screens, and moviegoers will be able to order gourmet food prepared by local chefs, beer and wine from touch pads at each seat.” It will also be taxpayer-funded, and therein lies the problem.

The vacancy rate for commercial space in downtown St. Louis is higher than 22 percent, yet the state of Missouri continues to fund the construction of new commercial buildings within walking distance of each other. In this particular case, the proposed use of the building (pictured below) as a movie theater raises its own questions. Why will this theater succeed where two others failed? And why is the government stepping in to pick up part of the tab for people to watch movies and eat popcorn? Where’s the sense in that?

The Parking Garage Formerly Known as St. Louis Centre, View to Northwest

Located at Sixth and Washington, the St. Louis Centre redevelopment combines public funding from a variety of sources, including federal New Markets Tax Credits, Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, and equity from the Missouri Development Finance Board. In total, the project to convert the former shopping mall into a parking garage with a ground floor movie theater will cost more than $30 million.

Stadium Cinema Grand Opening, 1967, 1967-68 Downtown St. Louis, Inc. Annual Report

Undoubtedly, some will herald the opening of a new downtown movie theater as a sign of great progress and excitement to come. For downtown observers, however, the prospect of yet another publicly subsidized movie theater recalls St. Louisan Yogi Berra’s saying, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” Consider this: Downtown St. Louis, Inc., celebrated the first theater to open on the ground level of a parking garage in 1967. The Stadium Cine at Chestnut and Broadway operated until May 1984, when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in a front-page article: “The last of the first-run movie houses in the city, the Stadium 1 and 2 Cine downtown, will close indefinitely after Sunday’s movies.” Today, the space is fully leased to other retail tenants.

Union Station 10 Movie Theater, View to Southwest

The same is not true of the next movie theater to open downtown after the Stadium Cine’s closure: The Union Station 10 Cinema — which opened in 1988, closed briefly between 1996 and 1998, and ceased operating in 2003 — stands vacant and available for use today. A leasing guide for the facility describes “The Theater at Union Station” as containing a “[l]arge glass vestibule, open lobby area and expansive ceilings” in addition to its “10 existing theaters, concession area and seating area.” How its vestibule differs from the shiny state-funded parking garage on Washington Avenue is anyone’s guess.

A July 10, 1988, column by St. Louis Post-Dispatch film critic Joe Pollack, “First-Run Movies Come Back To City,” offered a description of Union Station 10: “In the pattern of today’s movie houses, the new theater will have a luxurious look and, more important, big concession areas. It will house a delicatessen, an ice cream parlor, and a bar.” From available information sources, the only difference between it and the new, new downtown theater on Washington Avenue is that Union Station 10 had seven more screens but no touch pads for placing beer orders. Apparently, that’s the reason for taxpayers to subsidize another new facility.

We’ve seen this movie before — not once, but twice. I did not expect Missouri to fund a third. For taxpayers, this deal deserves two thumbs down.

The Missouri Democratic Party has announced that it will be launching an initiative petition to reduce the number of state representatives. The Missouri Record has hosted a debate about the proposal between former auditor Susan Montee (in favor of lowering the number), and former state Rep. Ed Emery (opposed). Ed is one of my favorite politicians, but this is one instance in which I agree with the Democrats.

I have been making this argument for a while, and I am excited that one of our two major parties will undertake a serious effort to reduce Missouri’s number of state reps.

Missouri has the fourth-highest number of state reps. I support lowering that number for several reasons. There is strong economic evidence that, in general, the more members in an elected body the more that body spends. It is called the “Law of 1/N.” There is evidence to support this theory at the national level, the state level, the county level, and the local level. However, the Law of 1/N has been found to have less of an effect on state Houses than on other types of political bodies. Nonetheless, common sense tells us that more legislators means more pet projects, more legislative horsetrading, more tightly defined benefits, and more easily diffused costs. Just because something appears to be a partial exception to the rule does not mean the rule should be completely ignored.

Second, I don’t like that many people to have the ability to make rules about my life. I don’t believe that having more reps makes it harder to pass new laws. I’d bet that if I went through the bills introduced by all 163 state reps, I would find that every one of them introduced a bill this year that I think is silly, useless, or worse — although I also think some of them are doing a number of good things this year.

It is human nature to want to act when given a role. For elected officials, that means offering laws to justify their salaries, etc. Too many people in office means too many new proposals and too many people with a say about my life. If Missouri’s legislature met less frequently, for shorter sessions, and received lower salaries (like New Hampshire’s state house), I might change my mind about the number.

Of course, one might wonder why the state’s Democrats are doing this now, because they could have done it at any time when they had several decades of total legislative power. Ultimately, though, I don’t really care. This is about going forward, not casting blame backward. I hope Missourians give this a close look.

For more information about these general public choice economic ideas and how they apply to Missouri, please read my policy study about government in Missouri.

Show-Me Institute scholars and analysts have been activily involved in debates about the earnings taxes in St. Louis and Kansas City these past two weeks. (We have NOT been involved in the politics of it, however — our job is to explain the economic effects of the tax.) Here is a brief rundown of our recent media appearances regarding the issue:

• An op-ed printed in the Kansas City Star.
• Commentary on KWMU 90.7 NPR in St. Louis.
• Debate on KWMU in which Dr. Howard Wall discussed his new essay documenting the economic harm of local earnings taxes.
• Our op-ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
• I have appeared on the air with Mark Reardon at KMOX, Darla Jaye at KMBZ, and Jamie Allman at 97.1 FM to discuss the issue.
• Further interviews and comments on the earnings tax will be airing today on KMOX, tonight on Fox 2 news, and Sunday morning on the Jaco Report.

I encourage everyone who votes on Tuesday to cast the most informed ballot you can. If Show-Me Institute research helps you decide either way, we are fulfilling our educational mission.