logo
Budget battle brewing over Gov. Mike Kehoe's school funding proposal

Budget battle brewing over Gov. Mike Kehoe's school funding proposal

Yahoo12-02-2025

Gov. Mike Kehoe, shown Jan. 28 delivering his State of the State Address, is getting resistance over his budget recommendation for school funding (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).
The debate over how much to spend on public schools could turn into the first big disagreement between Gov. Mike Kehoe and the GOP-dominated Missouri General Assembly.
Kehoe, a Republican who took office in January, refused to recommend a $300 million boost to public school funding in his first budget proposal. But education advocates in the legislature, and the State Board of Education, are defending the request and pushing for it to be funded as lawmakers rewrite Kehoe's $54 billion spending plan.
During a House Budget Committee hearing Monday, GOP state Rep. Ed Lewis spent a lot of time defending the law that generated the request. He did so, Lewis said in an interview, because the committee has many new members who need to learn that the question of how much money schools require is not just a question of how much lawmakers are willing to spend.
Of the 31 lawmakers on the committee, nine are new to the panel, including its vice chairman, state Rep. Bishop Davidson, a Republican from Republic.
'I am trying to do that because there are a lot of newbies, and the person who's sitting next to me has never been there, and now he's the vice chair and the chair of education appropriations,' said Lewis, a former educator from Moberly who chairs the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. 'I think it's my job to make sure that the things I've learned over the last four years are understood by some of those people that have never done this before.'
Gov. Mike Kehoe dips deeply into surplus as Missouri budget grows to nearly $54 billion
At one point in the hearing, Lewis told his colleagues that if they don't provide the money, the state Senate will when it gets the budget later this year.
'The question is, do we want to, as the House of Representatives, think we want to go beyond the governor's recommendation or leave that for the Senate to do?' Lewis said.
The budget committee is in the middle of hearings on department budgets. Any decisions on what will be in, and what will be out, of Kehoe's recommended budget will be made next month in markup sessions.
The foundation formula, as the public school funding mechanism is known, is costing taxpayers $3.8 billion in the current year.
The amount required to fund it is determined by a variety of factors, including the amount spent in districts that do well on state achievement tests and expected attendance.
To meet that obligation, lawmakers use money from the state lottery, casino taxes and the general revenue fund.
Kehoe agreed to fund changes to the formula included last year in a major education bill that will add $200 million to the total cost. What Kehoe doesn't want to fund is the new, higher basic spending requirement determined by annual evaluation under the Missouri School Improvement Program, or MSIP.
If lawmakers accept Kehoe's recommendation, it would be the first time since fiscal 2018 that the budget doesn't fully fund the formula.
'While we are committed to making good on the funding commitments passed by the legislature last year,' Kehoe said in his State of the State Address last month, 'this budget does not include the additional $300 million liability that was imposed by an administrative body.'
That 'administrative body' is the State Board of Education, which met Tuesday for the first time since Kehoe presented his budget proposal. Board President Charlie Shields, who helped write the foundation formula in 2005 when he was a state legislator, said he understands Kehoe's position even if he doesn't like it.
The state general revenue fund must provide the $300 million, if appropriated, and it is also being tapped for money to replace shortfalls in revenue from gambling on the lottery and in casinos. Kehoe's budget proposal increases general revenue spending for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education by $464 million, Shields noted.
'In my time, in both the legislature and on the State Board of Education, I have not seen those levels of increases in education funding,' Shields said in an interview.
He has not spoken to Kehoe about the budget proposal, Shields said, or Kehoe's call to rewrite the formula.
'We're cognizant that (the education department) sits within, you know, 14 other state departments, and there's limited resources,' Shields said. 'The legislature will make decisions about that, but I don't think we have any question of either defending or explaining why we put in the request that we did.'
Missouri has a substantial balance in the general revenue fund — $4.3 billion at the end of January — and Kehoe's budget projects a $2.6 billion surplus at the end of the fiscal year in June.
But state revenues are falling so far this fiscal year, and Kehoe wants a big income tax cut. That is putting pressure both on the governor and the legislature to limit new spending.
The key figure driving the increase for the foundation formula is called the State Adequacy Target, determined by the cost of education in districts that do well on the MSIP evaluation. Far fewer districts met the standards of the newly revised MSIP, and they tended to be districts with more property wealth and fewer students in poverty or having special needs.
Over the past two years, the adequacy target has increased from $6,375 per student to $7,145. But the figure was nearly static for nearly two decades prior to that, increasing from $6,117 in 2005 to $6,375 in 2020, where it remained for four years.
The reluctance to fund the higher target, which has increased 17% since it was created while inflation has increased prices by 65%, has drawn fire from Democrats.
'It's very concerning that when the foundation formula remained flat for year after year after year, as inflation was just climbing through the roof, we didn't have a problem with the formula,' state Rep. Kathy Steinhoff said when Kehoe unveiled his budget.
Steinhoff is a Columbia Democrat and former teacher.
'But now that the formula is starting to work and the student adequacy target is starting to gain and getting more money into our schools,' she said, 'now all of a sudden we're looking at it.'
If lawmakers don't include the $300 million for the increased adequacy target, the board of education can adjust it so spending matches the appropriated amount.
The education department didn't design the new MSIP evaluation to increase the cost of the formula, Kari Monsees, deputy commissioner of education, told the House Budget Committee on Monday.
'The office of quality schools had no inside baseball on what the impact would be of the MSIP criteria that were established,' Monsees said.
During the state board meeting, members said they want legislators to consider what the state needs, not how much it will cost.
'I would just, again, put in a plea to our legislators that if we want to have a high quality workforce for tomorrow, we have to invest today,' said Carol Halquist of Kansas City, vice president of the state board.
While he expects the money to get into the spending plan, Lewis said, politics may have a bigger role in the decision than anything else.
'Is there a reason that we aren't going to fund it other than just raw money?' Lewis said. 'By doing it right now, in his first year, kind of obligates you to continue to do that in future years.'
The question, Lewis acknowledged, could come down to whether lawmakers are ready to buck Kehoe so soon after his election.
'It's his first budget, right?' Lewis noted. 'Do you want to stomp on the first budget?'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities
Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities

The shaky detente in the social media strife between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is holding following a call between representatives for both sides Friday, according to two White House officials. 'He's stopped posting, but that doesn't mean he's happy,' one of the officials said about Trump's Truth Social hiatus with Musk. 'The future of their relationship is totally uncertain,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Both men have paused their war of words that included Musk suggesting the president be impeached and Trump threatening to cut off federal contracts for the billionaire's companies. But neither wanted to, according to the two officials familiar with the reaction of both men. A spokesperson for Musk did not return a message seeking comment. Trump was particularly peeved by Musk insinuating the president was tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files.' It's long been public that Trump and other prominent figures are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein, though Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. But Musk's boast that Trump couldn't have won without his support, including over a quarter-billion dollars in political contributions – is what really set the president spinning, the two officials continued. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X after taking credit from Trump's victory in November. The feud came as the president and Republican leaders tried to shoulder through a major package of domestic policy legislation, which could be the biggest legislative achievement of Trump's second term. Musk criticized the so-called megabill for having a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.' When reached for comment, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO, 'As President Trump has said himself, he is moving forward focused on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.' The relationship began to sour before the dueling social media posts erupted last week. Trump was upset about what he saw as Musk overselling DOGE's inability to make massive cuts in the federal bureaucracy. Then the White House pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman, the billionaire's pick to lead NASA, which was one of the final tethers in a tenuous alliance. White House personnel director Sergio Gor, who was behind that move, has had a long-simmering tension with the billionaire, according to both White House officials. Musk refused to work with Gor after a March Cabinet meeting where the president told his agency heads they were in charge of their departments — not Musk, who was in the room. That meeting happened after the Tesla founder set off a series of mass firings and warnings to government workers that in turn triggered lawsuits and criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While most lawmakers and Republican operatives agree that Trump ultimately has the upper hand should their feud reignite, there's never been an adversary quite like Musk: the world's richest man with an online megaphone to rival the presidential bully pulpit.

Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine
Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine

ANAHEIM — California Democrats have learned one lesson from last November's national loss to Republicans: Voters want to see them fight. Especially for the working class. Their next challenge is actually doing it. And California Democrats have a prime opportunity to do so in an upcoming budget fight in Sacramento. Part of Donald Trump's appeal is that voters at least feel that he's 'fighting' for them even if it is largely performative. (Exhibit A: Trump's tax plan gives a $300 tax break to families earning $50,000 and $90,000 to a filer making $1 million, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So the word 'fight' was omnipresent in every speech, often in profane ways, at the California Democratic Party's three-day convention that ended Sunday. Speaking of his Republican opponents, California Sen. Adam Schiff told attendees: 'We do not capitulate. We do not concede. California does not cower, not now, not ever. We say to bullies, 'You can go f— yourself.'' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee and a keynote convention speaker, told delegates Saturday, 'We gotta be honest. We're in this mess because some of it is our own doing.' Walz acknowledged that as half of the losing presidential ticket, he may be 'the last person to lecture on this topic, but I'm going to tell you, none of us can afford to shy away from having hard conversations about what it's going to take to win elections.' 'We didn't just lose the working class to just anybody. We lost to a grifter billionaire giving tax cuts to his grifter billionaire buddies. That last election was a primal scream on so many fronts: 'Do something! Do something! Stand up and make a difference.'' America is dubious that Democrats can do something. A CNN poll released Sunday found that 16% of respondents felt Democrats are the party that could 'get things done.' More than twice as many respondents (36%) felt that way about Republicans. 'If you ask people today what a Democrat is, they say it is 'a deer in the headlights,'' Walz said. 'We've got to find some goddamn guts to fight for working people. … Nobody votes for roadkill.' 'That means having the guts to break down the power structures that are there. We know who's strangling our politics.' Lorena Gonzalez, president of the 2.3 million-member California Labor Federation, warned that Democrats shouldn't become 'Republican lite' by adopting their positions. She invoked the Depression-era song written by Florence Patton Reece, 'Which Side Are You On?' 'Are you on the side of the billionaires and the tech bros and Elon Musk and the Republican Lites?' Gonzalez said. 'Or are you on the side of working people, men and women who make this state work, who continue to go to work every day, hardworking people. Are you on the side of unions?' Case in point: It sounds hollow to hear California Democrats rail on Trump and congressional Republicans for their budget that would cut health coverage for 8.6 million Americans (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) when California is considering cuts to its most vulnerable citizens to close a $12 billion budget deficit. Gov. Gavin Newsom's May revised budget proposal i ncluded cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which provides care to low-income elderly and disabled people. Those providers, who are predominantly women of color, earn about $17 an hour. The typical provider would lose about $20,000 in pay annually under the proposal, according to union leaders. These are the 500,000 workers who bathe, dress and take care of 850,000 frail Californians — our parents, children and siblings. Many providers are one paycheck away from homelessness, union organizers say. Such a pay cut 'would be devastating,' Cynthia Williams, an Orange County in-home provider since 2008, told me. If the cuts were passed, her family would likely have to move and use the local food bank even more. She cares for her disabled-veteran sister and her daughter, who is blind and disabled and has a gastric condition that requires her to have four or five small meals a day. 'So that (salary reduction) would cut down on what I would be able to do. Providing four or five meals a day would not be an option,' Williams told me. 'We don't need to keep milking the poor to give to the rich,' she said. 'We need to make sure that Democrats care for the people that are the most vulnerable.' Union leaders, whose members are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns, say they are watching how Democrats handle this proposed cut. At a rally Saturday outside the Anaheim Convention Center where Democrats were meeting, United Domestic Workers Executive Director Doug Moore directed a message 'to our Democratic lawmakers. This rally is not just a protest. It's a warning. 'Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities and the caregivers who support them is not leadership, it's shortsighted cowardice,' Moore told rallygoers. 'Every Democrat inside this convention hall, this is your moment. Your integrity matters now more than ever. You can't claim to stand for justice, equity, working families in your speeches, then turn around and vote for budget cuts that hurt the very people who make this state function. 'It is time for you to have the courage to stand with us — or else. We are watching. We are the people who got you in the office.' California Democrats are looking for ways to stave off those cuts. Behind closed doors, Senate Democrats are considering several plans that would raise revenue from wealthy corporations to plug the budget deficit. One idea is to tax large corporations that do business in California but do not provide adequate or affordable health coverage to their employees and pay their workers so little that they must rely on Medi-Cal. It would require employers to pay a tax for each worker; details on the proposal are still being crafted. Other Democrats in the Legislature are privately discussing a proposal that would close the 'water's edge loophole' that would require corporations to report all their worldwide profits, not just the profits they claim were earned in the U.S. This proposal could enable California to collect taxes on its rightful share (an estimated $3 billion) of those total profits. Now, the percentage of national sales that occur in the state is the percentage of profit subject to corporate tax in California. Twenty-eight states plus Washington, D.C., require a version of water's edge reporting, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Polic y, The short-term question: Will Gov. Newsom veto this because he is concerned about being tagged as someone who 'raised taxes' — even if it is on wealthy corporations — if he runs for president in 2028 when his term ends? The long-term question: Whose side are Democrats on?

GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever
GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever

If death and taxes are the only certainties, Joni Ernst is here to cut one and fast-track the other. 'We all are going to die," she said. You might think that's a line from a nihilistic French play. Or something a teenage goth said in Hot Topic. Or an epiphany from your stoner college roommate after he watched Interstellar at 3 a.m. But that was actually the Iowa Senator's God-honest response to concerns that slashing Medicaid to achieve President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would lead to more preventable deaths. The full exchange at a May 30 town hall included one audience member shouting at the stage, 'People will die!' And Ernst responding, 'People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake.' That's not a health care policy — that's a horoscope for the terminally screwed. As you can imagine, the internet didn't love it, because losing your health should not trigger the equivalent of a shrug emoji from someone elected to serve the public good. But rather than walking it back, Ernst leaned in, filming a mock apology in a graveyard because nothing says, 'I care about your future,' like filming next to people who don't have one. Opinion: Nurses are drowning while Braun ignores Indiana's health care crisis Ernst's comments aren't just philosophical musings. She's justifying policy choices that cause real harm. If passed, this bill would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, remove health coverage for up to 7.6 million Americans. That's not just 'we all die someday' territory. That's 'some people will die soon and needlessly.' What makes this even more galling is that the people pushing these cuts have access to high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. Congress gets the AAA, platinum, concierge-level government plan. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are told to try their luck with essential oils or YouTube acupuncture tutorials. Honestly, it felt more like performance art than policy: 'Sorry about your grandma getting kicked out of her assisted living facility. Please enjoy this scenic view of her future! LOL!' We're not asking you to defeat death, senator. Death is both inevitable and bipartisan. But there is a broad chasm between dying peacefully at 85 and dying in your 40's because your Medicaid plan disappeared and your GoFundMe didn't meet its goal. Fundamentally, governing is about priorities. A budget is a moral document. When a lawmaker tells you 'we're all going to die' in response to a policy choice, they're telling you 'I've made peace with your suffering as collateral damage.' And if a U.S. Senator can stand in a cemetery and joke about it, you have to wonder — who do our federal legislators think those graves are for? Opinion: Indiana DCS cut foster care in half — and now claims children are safer This isn't just about one comment or one bill. It's about a mindset that treats healthcare as a luxury rather than a right. If death is inevitable, then access to healthcare you can afford is what helps determine how long you have, how comfortably you live, and whether you get to watch your kids grow up. Healthcare isn't about escaping death. It's about dignity and quality of life while we are here. Ernst got one thing right: death will come for us all. But leadership, real leadership, is about helping people live as long and as well as they can before that day comes. You want to make jokes, Senator? Fine. But if your punchline is 'You're all going to die anyway,' don't be surprised when your constituents realize the joke's on them. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Joni Ernst films graveyard video after telling sick people "we all die" | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store