Transportation FundingMissourians for Tax Justice Report - November, 2007
Transportation Funding
Missourians for Tax Justice Report - November, 2007
MoDot History & Funding History Toll Roads
MoDot Responsibilities Privatization of Infrastructure
Funding Choices Environmental Concerns
Sales Tax Other State Funding Needs
Motor Fuel Tax
THE CURRENT SITUATION
The following information is taken from a Quincy Herald Whig article published August 1, 2007.
It reported on the “Transportation Funding Summit" meeting on July 31.
• The director of the Missouri Department of Transportation (Pete Rahn) and the chairmen of
the Senate and House Transportation committees (Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton; Rep. Neal St.
Onge, R-Ballwin) claim that Missouri's highway system will suffer a "cataclysmic" funding
shortfall in 2010 unless something changes.
• Rahn says the state's transportation budget will shrink from $1.2 billion this year to about
$600 million in fiscal 2010. And if Congress does not take action to fix a shortfall in the federal
highway fund, the state could find itself with only $250 million. Rahn says that at the $600
million level there will be only a bare bones program focused only on maintenance. The $250
million level would mean “the collapse of the highway system in the state,” according to Rahn.
• Sen. Stouffer has proposed a 1-cent sales tax that he says would provide $7 billion. During
the 10-year life of that tax, he proposes rehabilitating and expanding I-70 and I-44 with more
lanes. At least two lanes on each highway would be dedicated truck lanes.
• Rep. St. Onge has proposed a half-cent sales tax, combined with a 4-cent gasoline tax, a
6-cent diesel tax and a 2-cent sales tax on fuels. His mix of taxes would generate about twice
what Stouffer's plan would, and would sunset after six years. He says the money should go to
rehabilitate I-70, but also would send money to other programs, including public transportation
and river ports.
• Modern toll roads were discussed at this meeting as one possible solution.
• Rahn says there are three big factors that are converging to endanger the state's
transportation funding:
1) Billions of dollars in bonding that has taken place since Amendment 3 was approved in 2004
will be expended soon. It will be about 20 years before bonds are repaid and new projects can
be launched with that revenue stream.
2) Federal highway fund dollars are expected to fall behind the annual obligations to states
starting in fiscal 2010 or earlier.
3) Costs for asphalt, concrete, metals and a number of other construction materials have
climbed dramatically and is eroding the amount of work that can be done.
MTJ Comment: It is clear that the discussion of transportation funding is centered entirely on
highways. This follows the usual pattern of neglect of all other forms of public transportation.
MoDOT HISTORY & FUNDING HISTORY
The basic information below is from the MoDot Web Site.
Prior to 1907, highway improvements were left entirely to the counties and most counties
didn’t have trained, experienced engineers. In 1907 the state Legislature created the position
of state highway engineer who reported to the Board of Agriculture. In 1913 a State Highway
Department was created by the Legislature.
In 1916, Congress passed the federal highway act which made federal funds available to states
based on area, population and postal road mileage. In 1917, the Missouri Legislature passed a
law that enabled the state to receive federal funds. This law also created the State Road Fund
and a 4-member State Highway Board.
In 1920, a $60 million bond issue was passed “to get Missouri out of the mud.”
The state’s first fuel tax, 2-cents per gallon, was approved by the voters in 1924.
In 1928 Missouri became the first state to earmark and protect funds for highway purposes; in
1931, the State Highway Patrol was created. In 1937, an operator’s or chauffeur’s license was
required to drive a motor vehicle on any highway of the state.
In 1938, in a referendum election, the voters defeated the Legislature’s attempt to increase
the fuel tax from 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon. At the same time, an initiative proposal to
amend the Constitution to fix the fuel tax at 3 cents for 10 years is defeated.
In 1950, the voters again rejected an attempt to increase the motor fuel tax (from 2 cents to
4 cents per gallon).
1952 is a significant year: (1) The state took over responsibility for almost 12,000 miles of
county highways, and (2) an act is approved by the Legislature that increased the fuel tax to 3
cents per gallon. The increase became effective without voter approval. These two events are
without doubt connected.
In 1961, the Legislature passed a bill that temporarily raised the fuel tax from 3 cents to
5 cents per gallon. The bill also provided that a constitutional amendment be submitted to the
voters that would allow cities and counties to share in state motor fuel tax revenues. If the
amendment were not submitted within six months, or if it were rejected, the tax would revert
to 3 cents. Voters approved the amendment in March, 1962. This made the 5-cent per gallon
permanent. This act also created the County Aid Road Trust Program (CART). County officials
heavily supported the constitutional amendment (of course).
The fuel tax was increased to 7 cents per gallon by the Legislature in 1972.
In 1974, the Missouri State Department of Transportation was created, and in 1978 an
initiative petition to increase the fuel tax to 3 cents per gallon was defeated.
In 1979, the voters approved a constitutional amendment that changed the CART distribution
formula. Counties receive 10 instead of 5 percent, cities receive the same 15 percent,
and the state receives 75 instead of 80 percent. This was effective Jan. 1, 1980. The
amendment also merged the Missouri Highway Dept. and Transportation Dept., creating the
Missouri Highway and Transportation Department. The amendment also provided that one-half
of the motor vehicle sales tax would go to finance bridge construction. Of this half, 74% would
go to the state; 15% to cities; and 10% to the counties. The remaining 1% would go for
planning of other transportation modes.
In 1982, Proposition B, a constitutional amendment to raise the motor fuel tax by 4 cents is
defeated by the voters. In 1983, the clout of the “Big Trucks” was finally overcome and fees for
some classes of trucks were increased by the Legislature. In 1984, fees for motor vehicles and
truck classes that were not raised in 1983 were increased.
In 1987 a constitutional amendment to increase the motor fuel tax by 4 cents a gallon was
approved by the voters.
In 1992, a 6-cent per gallon increase in the motor fuel tax was passed by the Legislature.
This 6 cents was to be phased in over a 5-year period: 2 cents in 1992, 2 cents in 1994 and
2 cents in 1996.
Legislation was passed in 1996 that changed the name of the department to the Missouri
Department of Transportation. In 1998, “accountability legislation” was passed that requires
MoDOT to submit an annual report to the legislature by November 10. It also created the
position of MoDOT director.
The “15-Year Plan” for highway and bridge improvements was adopted by the Department in
1999. A lot of promises were made about these “improvements” but MoDOT failed to keep
them. Their website says: “The 15-Year-Plan is no longer used by MoDOT as the financial
blueprint for construction projects.”
In 2000, legislation was passed (effective May 30, 2000) that allowed MoDOT to issue $2.25
billion bond financing to accelerate highway improvements. Up to $250 million in bonds could
be issued in 2000 and up to $2 billion from 2001 through 2006. Projects funded by the first $250
million were required to come from MoDOT’s 5-Year Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program. MoDot was allowed to issue up to $500 million per year in bond financing through the
year 2006. MoDOT must submit a bond financing project list to the legislature for approval each
January.
Legislation was passed in 2002 that extended the 6-cents per gallon motor fuel tax which was
due to expire in 2008. The same year, Proposition B, an “omnibus transportation proposal”
that would have increased motor fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon and the general sales tax by
1/2 percent was defeated by voters by a 3-to-1 margin. Missourians for Tax Justice opposed
this ballot proposition. See the MTJ web site for more information regarding this proposition
and the reasons for opposition: http://webpages.charter.net/motaxjustice/NoonB.html
In November 2004 voters approved Amendment 3, placed on the ballot by an initiative funded
heavily by the road construction industry and backed by the state Chamber of Commerce and
Industry. This state constitutional amendment took all the revenue from the state's sales tax
on motor vehicles — half was used for a variety of state programs — and redirected the money
to road construction. It also limited the practice of funding certain state agencies from the
17-cent fuel tax and other highway-related fees and taxes (such as driver’s license and vehicle
registration fees). Missourians for Tax Justice opposed Amendment 3 and called it “the
Highway Robbery Amendment.”
In a report to state lawmakers in November, 2007, MoDOT claims vast improvements in the
state’s major roads after 2004 and credited Amendment 3 funds. MoDOT said “The legislation
specified that the money must be leveraged through the use of bonds to pay for an accelerated
highway construction program.”
MoDOT has responsibilities for five major transportation alternatives available to Missourians –
highways, aviation, waterways, transit and railroads. Those responsibilities include the total
operation of the 32,000 mile highway system, including highway location, design, construction
and maintenance.
Waterways, transit, aviation and railroads are established as units within the headquarters
office and report to a transportation director, who reports to the deputy chief engineer. These
units carry out the statewide planning for these “modes;” there are no counterparts in the
districts.
System Road Miles: Interstate – 1,181; Primary – 7,004; Supplementary – 24,155
Total: 32,340
Missourians have very little choice in their mode of travel in our state. Most travel is by private
automobile.
Intercity Bus Service is very limited. In Missouri, the impact is greatest in rural areas and
communities that are not along the interstate highway systems where bus service is
concentrated. In 2005, the number of Greyhound bus stops had declined to 39. A MoDOT study
found that most riders on buses operating in Missouri are interstate travelers. The majority of
Missouri riders are traveling from or into Missouri’s major cities, primarily St. Louis, Kansas City
and Springfield.
This study also found that certain population groups rely more heavily upon intercity bus travel
than others. Among the groups identified in the study are: people living in Amish settlements,
people of Hispanic origin, college students, military personnel, and persons recently released
from incarceration.
Intercity Train Service is limited to travel on Amtrak between St. Louis and Kansas City via
Jefferson City. Amtrak operates in Missouri under a contract with MoDOT, and is supported by
general revenue funds as well as dollars from the transportation fund. MoDOT asked Amtrak
for a study on extending service between St. Louis and Springfield, Mo. According to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, “the report found strategic merit to the proposed
route, including serving the state’s third largest metropolitan area, tourism potential, and
connections to Amtrak’s national rail service. However, it would also require an initial
significant capital investment and ongoing state operating support. The lack of a competitive
trip time versus that of automobiles and a lower than expected ridership projection were also
cited as concerns.”
The reliance on roads and highways and private cars is a critical ingredient in the issue of
transportation funding.
State legislative leaders involved with transportation are focused on road funding. They
propose sales taxes and fuel taxes dedicated to highways. Others advocate toll roads.
MTJ has a standing policy to oppose any increase in sales tax, at the state or local level. We
have consistently opposed the use of a regressive sales tax to fund transportation or “public
transit.” The primary reasons:
- There is already too heavy dependence on the regressive sales tax in our state tax
system.
- A sales tax increase would increase the already unfair tax burden of low and middle
income groups.
- There are sound, equitable alternatives to a general sales tax increase for funding public
transportation needs.
Use of a sales tax to fund highways violates the unwritten rule that users pay the costs for
roads and highways. Under present policy, Missouri roads are paid for by gasoline and other
fuel taxes, vehicle license fees and sales taxes collected on the purchase of cars and trucks.
Many people pay sales tax who never or seldom use state highways.
Sales tax is paid primarily by individuals and families. Businesses (who receive major benefits
from our transportation system) would contribute little. Trucks (which cause the greatest
damage to roads) would get a virtual free ride if a sales tax is used for funding.
The motor fuel tax is even more regressive than sales tax. With a percentage sales tax, the tax
is at least related to price. But this excise tax is applied on a per-unit basis. The low-income
person who must drive 30 miles to a minimum wage job has the same gasoline tax bill as the
much higher income person who drives the same distance to a $100 per hour job. This tax
takes a much larger chunk from the minimum wage worker than it does from the worker who
earns $200,000 annually.
At the Joint Transportation Committee meeting on July 31, 2007 a Texas state representative
(Mike Krusee) testified that a gas tax does not force the true users of roads to pay for new
highways “since the tax can hit a poor person driving an older car with poor gas mileage, who
drives almost entirely on city streets, just as hard as it could a suburban mom driving a newer
car who uses the brand-new, multi-million-dollar highway extension or interchange all the
time.” A proponent of toll roads, he argued that the people who actually use the new highways
should pay for them.
Use of the motor fuel tax for funding highways does conform to the tradition of taxing users,
though it is imperfect.
TOLL ROADS
Some of the information in this section is from Toll Roads in Missouri, a report by Stephen Witte,
February 2004, for the Missouri Legislative Academy. Stephen Witte is a staff attorney for the
Division of Research for the Missouri State Senate.
Missouri has never had a state-sponsored toll road system. State law allows local political
subdivisions to build toll bridges and toll roads under certain circumstances, but the Missouri
Department of Transportation does not have the authority to build toll roads on its own.
In 1967, Gov. Hearnes obtained passage of a bill that created the Missouri Turnpike Authority.
But in 1968, Pohl v. State Highway Commission, 431 SW 2d 99, the Missouri Supreme Court
ruled unconstitutional the state law that authorized toll roads. The Court held that the act was
unconstitutional because it allowed the highway commission to use state road funds to retire
obligations incurred by the toll authority. Since the state road fund was only to be used for the
purposes enumerated in the constitution, and toll roads were not one of the stated purposes,
the Court struck the Act down. The Court further found that the whole Act was unconstitutional
since using the state road fund to meet certain obligations of the toll authority was an
essential part of the legislation.
As a result of this court decision, a constitutional amendment would have to be passed giving
the Missouri Department of Transportation the authority to build and operate a toll road system
in Missouri. In 1970, a constitutional amendment was rejected by voters by nearly 71 percent.
In 1991, the General Assembly placed a constitutional amendment to authorize toll roads on
the 1992 ballot, but it also failed at the polls.
Resolutions to allow toll roads have been proposed by legislators in recent years, but none
have received enough support for submission to the voters. Senator Matt Bartle-R, Jackson
County, is presently a major proponent of toll roads.
Current discussion centers on converting some of the interstates (such as I-70, I-44) to toll
roads. Conversion of untolled interstates to toll roads requires the approval of the U. S.
Secretary of Transportation. According to the editor of Toll Roads News, there are two
programs under which that is allowed:
(1) value pricing program (VPPP)
(This may involve tolling that is targeted toward congestion relief and variable tolls.)
(2) Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program (ISRRP)
The Toll Roads in Missouri report says: “In 1987, Congress enacted a toll road pilot program in
which nine states were given the authority to pursue development and construction of toll roads
with up to 35 percent federal aid funds.
“In 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-
21 creates a pilot program under which a state may collect tolls on an interstate highway. The pilot
program contains a long list of requirements for using tolls on existing interstates. These
requirements include:
(1) no more than three national projects can be approved under the pilot program;
(2) projects selected for the program must be those that cannot be funded without tolls;
(3) the state must show that the interstate could not be maintained or improved ‘to meet current
or future needs’ from state apportionments and allocations;
(4) all tolls must be used only for debt service, reasonable rates of returns on private sector
investments (if any) and costs to improve and operate the toll facility;
(5) the local metropolitan planning organization must be notified of the plan to use tolls;
(6) the state must develop a management and finance plan for implementing tolls;
(7) the project must be audited on a regular basis; and
(8) no interstate maintenance funds can be used on the project.
“MoDot has chosen to widen the lanes on I-70 as the preferred strategy for improving the
interstate. Estimated construction costs for widening the highway are $2.5 billion to $3 billion.
Based on the high price tag for repairing I-70 and Missouri’s current revenue shortfalls,
Missouri might qualify under the federal pilot project by showing that its conventional funding
sources are not sufficient to maintain the interstate.”
Arkansas has attempted to take advantage of the federal toll road pilot project but its proposal
received a lot of opposition from the trucking industry, Witte reported. “As a result, the
measure was shelved. Other states have faced opposition from the trucking industry when the
issue of toll roads has arisen. For example, in Wisconsin, a policy study was issued which
stated that Wisconsin’s interstate system could be funded by using tolls. Shortly after its
release, both the media and the trucking industry attacked the report. As other state
experience has shown, not only must toll road projects be economically feasible, they must be
politically feasible.”
Advantages of Toll Roads:
1. Tolls force those who use the highway to pay for it, whereas those who do not use the
highway are not required to contribute. Supporters believe this is the fairest way to charge
motorists for their use of highways.
2. Toll roads generally charge heavy vehicles in a way that corresponds more closely than
motor fuel taxes with the degree of wear that they impose on the pavement. According to the
latest federal cost allocation study, the current highway fees “do a poor job reflecting costs at
the heavier weights.” For example, single-unit trucks over 23 tons pay only 20 percent of
the costs they impose, and certain combination trucks near the federal weight limit pay about
half the costs they impose. Toll roads could make heavier trucks pay their fair share by
imposing a toll, which corresponds with the costs they impose. The Pennsylvania and Ohio
turnpikes base their tolls for trucks on weight classes multiplied by the distance traveled by
the truck.
3. Toll roads also offer a way of capturing costs from out-of-state travelers who do not
necessarily purchase gasoline while traveling in the state. Since many of these drivers may
not purchase gasoline in this state, they are also not paying any gasoline taxes or other
similar user fees for driving on Missouri’s roads. Toll roads ensure that out-of-state drivers
pay for the highways they use.
4. If a tolling system is established that lets local residents use toll roads without charge for
short distance trips to their work or to shop, toll roads would offer a much more equitable
funding method for highway construction and maintenance.
When MTJ has opposed sales tax and motor fuel tax increases previously, we have joined
with others in offering toll roads as an alternative as long as local users were exempt from
tolls for short local trips.
Peter Samuel, editor of Toll Roads News told us in August, 2007 that “it is common to give
locals a break by having a discount on transponders. Another method is to locate tolling
points so long distance traffic pays tolls but the locals can do short trips without paying.
New Hampshire and West Virginia turnpikes and Delaware are examples of this. The trouble
is it reduces revenue and leads to lobbying to remove further toll points, but it can and is
done.”
5. Toll roads offer a reasonable and convenient way to use congestion pricing to encourage
people to car-pool or to drive at different times of the day, or to use a different form of
transportation (if it exists).
An article in the New York Times Business section in October, 2007 (What’s the Toll? It
Depends on the Time of Day), says: “The greater willingness of drivers and policy makers to
consider congestion pricing is a recognition that building more roads will never be a
solution to traffic problems.” Variations of congestion pricing are in effect today on stretches
of highway in Houston, Minneapolis, Denver and on California Route 91.
Disadvantages of Toll Roads:
1. The Toll Roads in Missouri report says, “One of the major objections to toll roads raised by
opponents is that drivers traveling toll roads are paying twice. In addition to the toll they
pay, they are paying motor fuel taxes, registration fees and other transportation-related
taxes.
“Some states, which have toll roads, address the motor fuel tax issue by rebating a certain
percentage of the fuel tax when the vehicle is being driven on a toll road. However, this
method might be too administratively complex and cumbersome for many motorists.”
2. Truckers can be expected to try to drive around toll roads. However, Missouri is the
center of the nation for east-west travel, and a detour would be expensive.
3. In the defeat of toll roads by Missouri voters in the past, the argument has been that it is a
nuisance to stop and start at toll booths to pay for a highway that has already been paid for.
The 2004 Toll Roads in Missouri report says: “Toll roads can only be a part of the solution to
Missouri’s highway transportation needs, under the best of circumstances. In addition, toll
roads cannot significantly contribute to the resolution of Missouri’s current transportation
needs because of the time required for voter approval, for the adoption of specific proposals,
and for the construction of those projects.”
Missouri has applied to the federal government to make Interstate 70 one of the pilot projects
in the United States for converting interstates to toll roads. Senator Bartle’s assistant says
they believe voters will defeat any proposal for a sales tax or fuel tax increase, and then toll
roads will be accepted as the best solution for renovation of our major highways.
PRIVATIZATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Privatize is defined by the dictionary as “transfer (a business, industry, or service) from public
to private ownership and control.”
Business Week ran an article May 7, 2007 titled Roads to Riches. Why investors are clamoring
to take over America’s highways, bridges and airports—and why the public should be nervous.
This article contains valuable information and warnings about this new investment area:
“In the past year, banks and private investment firms have fallen in love with public infrastructure.
They're smitten by the rich cash flows that roads, bridges, airports, parking garages, and shipping
ports generate—and the monopolistic advantages that keep those cash flows as steady as a beating
heart. Firms are so enamored, in fact, that they're beginning to consider infrastructure a brand new
asset class in itself.
“With state and local leaders scrambling for cash to solve short-term fiscal problems, the
conditions are ripe for an unprecedented burst of buying and selling. All told, some $100 billion
worth of public property could change hands in the next two years, up from less than $7 billion over
the past two years; a lease for the Pennsylvania Turnpike could go for more than $30 billion all by
itself. "There's a lot of value trapped in these assets," says Mark Florian, head of North American
infrastructure banking at Goldman, Sachs & Co.”
This article identifies the pitfalls of privatization. Learning about the experience of other states
and cities in leasing toll roads or considering that action should be required for Missouri lawmakers.
MTJ’s vice-chair, Barbara Ross, reported on the Joint Transportation Committee meeting held
July 31, 2007. She said that the main emphasis of this meeting was privatization and toll roads. She
said it was crystal clear that the federal government is pushing states in this direction all across the
country.
She said 300 to 400 people attended and highway construction and business interests
predominated. These sponsors for this “summit” were listed: MoDOT; HNTB; Fred Weber Inc.;
RCGA; MO Chamber of Commerce; Gamble and Schlemeier; Associated Industries; SITE;
Associated General Contractors; MO Asphalt Assoc.; MO Heavy Constructors Assoc.; TranSystems,
St. Louis; Associated General Contractors; Dump Truckers’ Assoc.; MO Cement Committee; Mo–Kansas Concrete Pipe Association; MO Public Transist; CHH2M Hill; Delich, Rothe, & Engineers; Farm Bureau; SemMaterials; Burns & McDonald Engineering; MO Hwy Users Assoc; AAA.
Speakers included: MoDOT Director Pete Rahn; USDOT Deputy Sec., David Horner; five road
construction industry people; a Georgia state transportation bureaucrat and a Texas House
Transportation Committee member.
She reported: “Not a word was uttered in support of conservation, development of mass transit,
or other alternative transportation options. ...Aside from the issues of conservation and investment
in improved mass transit, if we need more revenues to maintain and enhance the public
infrastructure, then it behooves us to confront the issue of fair and adequate taxes upfront and end
the madness of selling off our public infrastructure as a short-term fix to issues that will dramatically
and detrimentally affect the long-term public welfare.
Public accountability was a topic that was scarcely touched — How would private interests
be accountable to the public? she said.
We could find privatization of our infrastructure a top item on the agenda of our state’s leaders
in the not-too-distant future. To be better informed you may want to read the Business Week article.
It may be found on the Web at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18396534/
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS/CONSIDERATIONS
This section was prepared by Ginger Harris, MTJ member and chair of the Transportation and
Smart Growth Committee of the Eastern Missouri Group of the Missouri Chapter, Sierra Club
Missouri has larger, more immediate needs. For instance, Missouri could spend:
$1 billion to adequately fund Missouri’s public schools.
The Augenblick adequacy study found that Missouri’s school funding, in 2001, was at least
$900 million short of the amount needed to meet state and federal accountability measures.
Underfunding by the state has increased the financial burden of local school districts and the
district’s taxpayers. School districts across the state have filed suit, alleging that the State is in
violation of constitutional requirements to provide equitable and adequate funding for our
public schools. An appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court of the Circuit Court’s ruling is expected
soon.
$15 million to fulfill the requested services provided by the Missouri Housing Trust Fund (MHTF).
The MHTF is funded through a $3 fee on the recording of documents related to the purchase of
property. The fee is then used to provide grants and/or low interest loans to organizations that
provide housing assistance to low-income Missourians. Unfortunately, the funds collected are
not enough to meet the current need. In fact, for FY 2008, only about a quarter of the requested
needs can be met.
See examples of unmet needs at: http://www.semissourian.com/story/1291730.html
$3 million for a $20 monthly food stamp supplement for seniors with household incomes of less than $18,000.
These seniors’ federal food stamp allotment is a mere $10 per month —a figure that has not been increased since 1974.
See more information about the issue at:
http://www.masw.org/immediate%20issues/MASW%202007%20Policy%20Priorities%20B.pdf
$300 million to fully restore the detrimental Medicaid cuts of 2005.
According to the Missouri Catholic Conference, “A mother with two children can now make no
more than $3,504 annually (20.4% of the federal poverty level) to remain eligible for health
coverage,” as a result of the cuts.
Find more details at:
http://www.mocatholic.org/Legislative/2007Session/FloorLtrSB577MOHealthNet.htm
$44 million to enroll every uninsured Missouri child in “MOHealthNet Kids.”
More than 119,000 Missouri children currently do not have any form of health insurance.
http://www.mokids.org/pdfs/HEALTH_CARE_1.pdf
As of June of 2007, the number of children reported as recipients of benefits under the
MOHealthNet Kids program was 469,480 children.
(http://www.missouriprovote.org/Docs/EARN_State_of_working_MO_2007.pdf)
Missouri spends about $371 annually per child enrolled in the MOHealthNet Kids program.
http://www.dss.missouri.gov/mis/apprpsum/hlthcare08/dmsmancr.pdf
At $371 per child, it would cost just over $44 million to enroll every uninsured Missouri child.
People whose lives are in disarray because their basic needs are unmet or in jeopardy of being
unmet are more likely to turn to crime. According to the Missouri Highway Patrol-Uniform Crime
Reporting Program, violent crimes in Missouri rose last year for the first time in 5 years to a
ten year high. This of course leads to greater costs for law enforcement and corrections, in
addition to the harm caused to crime victims.
See the Crime in Missouri, 2006 Report at:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2006CrimeInMO.pdf