STLPR0%

Missouri Senate’s $48.8B budget restores higher education funding changes and cuts to child care 37%

By Sarah Kellogg38%

4/23/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Indoctrination, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.1% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,550 faulty-reasoning hits from 782 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.6% and a BS Rank of 37% (13,400 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.20% of the article peer group.

A reversal of a House plan to fund higher education and restoration of child care subsidies are some of the changes the Missouri Senate has made to the state operating budget. 
Senators on Wednesday approved the 12 budget bills that make up the operating budget. 
The total of these bills is now roughly $48.8 billion. 
That’s about $1.6 billion less than the House version of those same bills. 
The large difference in that reduction is mainly due to the moving of not quite $2 billion in federal dollars to a reappropriation bill that will be considered later. 
The operating budget for the upcoming fiscal year is now on its way back to the House, where a conference committee is likely to be asked to work out a compromise. 
One of the biggest changes the Senate made to the budget was reversing a new funding model for higher education institutions the House introduced this year that was largely based on enrollment. 
Critics of the plan say it created winners and losers among the state’s colleges and universities. 
Sen. 
Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City, spoke sternly against the House’s plan. 
“It was wrong and it was reckless for those institutions to have to go to their students and the students who are applying to go to their institution, and have to answer the question, ‘Are you going to be open next year?’” 
Nurrenbern said. 
That plan gave more funds to some institutions, like the University of Missouri system, which would have seen an additional $20 million. 
Meanwhile, other schools saw a cut, including Truman State University, which faced a more than a 50% cut of $27 million. 
Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, R-Shelbina, said Truman State, which is in her district, produces some of the best graduates of any university in the state. 
“I think they produce critical thinking individuals who are able to go into society and adapt to the ever-changing society that we have, and come out of it successfully,” O’Laughlin said. 
The Senate also kept over $80 million in funding for disability care programs that the House originally restored. 
The funding was cut in Gov. 
Mike Kehoe’s version of the budget. 
K-12 education still not fully funded 
Not included in the budget is money to fully fund the state’s K-12 foundation formula. 
The K-12 budget bill contains around $4.3 billion for the formula. 
That’s about $190 million short of full funding. 
Senate Democrats like Karla May, D-St. 
Louis, lamented the decision to not change the House’s education funding. 
“I think that we have a responsibility according to the law, to fully fund our education, and especially for our children,” May said. 
“And when you think about some of the things that we do in the chamber, I think everything else should come secondary to that.” 
Sen. 
Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, introduced an amendment that would have added the around $190 million required to fully fund the foundation formula this year. 
“I'm asking you now with this amendment to make it a priority this year, the last year that I'm in the Senate, that we tell those kids and we tell those teachers, and we tell those parents that we've got your back. 
And I would ask that you support me on this,” Hough said. 
Hough also argued that the state has enough money in its coffers for that spending for this fiscal year. 
Senate Appropriations Chair Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, contended it was wiser to not allocate that additional $190 million. 
“It's not a guarantee that I'll be back here next year, but hopefully I'm back here and looking at those decisions that we previously talked about, I believe it'd be better for the body not to support this,” Black said. 
A majority of senators voted down the amendment. 
An area of education funding that the Senate did increase is transportation money - by around $15 million. 
That one-time extra funding is coming from the Missouri State Capitol Commission Capitol Preservation Fund. 
The Senate also restored roughly $51 million in child care subsidies that the House cut from Kehoe’s proposal. 
Black said the Senate ended up creating a hybrid method that mostly paid those subsidies on enrollment rather than attendance. 
“If a child does miss, I think the days are 10 days, then there will be a reduction, and there'll be slight reduction overall, the Office of Childhood will come up with the math around that to make a slight reduction,” Black said. 
The Senate must still consider four more budget bills, including legislation that funds long-term projects. 
The deadline for the budget to be completed is May 8. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 2.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias5.5%This article: 15.2%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect15.2%This article: 7.3%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion7.3%This article: 10.2%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias4.0%This article: 11.3%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias11.3%This article: 21.1%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias21.1%This article: 10.1%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias10.1%This article: 3.7%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.1%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.1%This article: 3.1%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 5.1%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring5.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.7%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion18.7%This article: 2.9%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground2.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 5.4%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 12.7%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 16.8%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination16.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

782 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers50%attributed speech390writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Nurrenbern • 10 words • 100.0% coverageMaggie Nurrenbern • 42 words • 100.0% coverageMaggie Nurrenbern • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCindy O’Laughlin • 27 words • 100.0% coverageCindy O’Laughlin • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMike Kehoe • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKarla May • 11 words • 100.0% coverageKarla May • 23 words • 100.0% coverageKarla May • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageLincoln Hough • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLincoln Hough • 42 words • 100.0% coverageLincoln Hough • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLincoln Hough • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRusty Black • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRusty Black • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRusty Black • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRusty Black • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cindy O’Laughlin

100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words15% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+33.5 ptsWriter: 13.1%Cindy O’Laughlin: 46.6%46.6%Unattributed Quote-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Cindy O’Laughlin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.