Local Academy Produces Internationally Competitive Students

Two students from Thales Academy in Apex, Grace and George Zhou, have just been accepted at the Hong Kong International School (HKIS) in Hong Kong, China.   HKIS is ranked among the top 10 international schools in Hong Kong, and is also top-ranked in the OECD “Programme for International Student Assessment” (PISA).

The Zhou children will be relocating with their family to Hong Kong. Their mother Leah Zhou faced the challenge of finding the right school for her children there. According to Leah, sending her children to Thales was a solid decision. Both students excelled as a result of their preparation at Thales.  The school was also extremely helpful in assisting the Zhou family with transcripts, recommendations, and overall support from the faculty and staff.

Stories like this one reaffirm the benefits of innovative education and creative approaches to learning such as Thales has. Thales students outrank their peers nationwide and on average perform above their grade level. The academy fosters academic achievement, civic responsibility, and holds high standards of accountability, and the Zhou family has benefited from Thales’ approach to education.

Congratulations to the Zhou family, to Thales Academy and to Thales founder, Bob Luddy. We’re proud to have him as a member of the Civitas Institute Board of Directors.

SB 306 “Capital Punishments/Amendments” – You Will Never Live Long Enough to See Justice Done

House Judiciary Subcommittee B met Wednesday to discuss several bills but the one that caught most people’s attention was SB 306 “Capital Punishment/Amendments.” There are many people that were heard while the bill was only up for discussion today.

Jim O’Neill is the District Attorney for Forsyth County and he gave everyone a few points to think about and talks about a case that he has worked on and will continue to work on. In the video above he tells a victim, “you will never live long enough to see justice done.”

House Judiciary B will meet again next Wednesday to vote on the Bill.

Rapidly Growing Burden of State Retiree Benefits

For those paying attention to the cost of state government retirees, primarily the penion plan and health benefits, there is a section in the state budget that is especially instructive as to the growing burden such state retiree benefits is placing on taxpayers.

Specifically, in the Senate’s proposed budget bill, it is Section 35.15(b) that lets us know what the taxpayer contribution to retiree benefits will be.

SECTION 35.15.(b)

Effective July 1, 2013, the State’s employer contribution rates budgeted for retirement and related benefits as a percentage of covered salaries for the 2013-2015 fiscal biennium are (i) fourteen and sixty-eight hundredths percent (14.68%) – Teachers and State Employees;

Of course for teachers and state employees, the “employer contribution” comes from state agencies, i.e. taxpayer dollars. Of that 14.68%, 8.69 percent goes toward the pension plan, 5.4% goes toward retiree health plan benefits, the remaining amount goes to disability and death benefits.

With a General Fund “covered salaries” total of just under $10 billion, this means that roughly $1.5 billion taxpayer dollars in the coming fiscal year will go toward funding state retiree benefits, specifically about $870 million contributed to the pension fund and $540 million to state health plan coverage for retirees. And this doesn’t count several sub-groups of state retiree benefits like the UNC optional retirement program, judicial retirees and state law enforcement officers.

For sake of comparison, we can look at the FY 2011-12 budget, under Section 29.22(c). In that year, total taxpayer support amounted to 13.12% of covered salaries, with 7.44% of that going to the pension fund and 5.0% going to retiree health benefits.

So during that brief time, the taxpayer contribution will rise from 13.12% to 14.68% of covered payroll – marking an increase of 17% of the share of state payroll dedicated to funding retiree benefits in just two years.

While it is difficult to state this change in dollar terms as the state payroll will have changed during the last two years, it is likely the payroll has not changed  significantly (with a slight pay raise in last year’s budget to offset minor net decreases in personnel) so we can estimate the overall increase in taxpayer support for state retiree benefits will be roughly $156 million in two years – again not counting smaller sub-groups of retirees mentioned above.

I offer several suggestions of how to stem this rising tide of taxpayer-funded benefits in this series of articles.

 

 

Medicaid Blues

We will be hearing more about how Medicaid is draining money from the state, as in this news story.

Senate Republicans said Monday their two-year budget proposal demonstrates how Medicaid keeps siphoning away money from other priorities, …

The proposal for state government spending through mid-2015 sets aside $1.2 billion over those two years for additional costs of Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for 1.5 million poor and disabled North Carolina residents. ….The increase comprises nearly all of the 2.3 percent overall spending increase proposed in the $20.6 billion plan for next year, said Sen. Pete Brunstetter, one of the chamber’s chief budget-writers. ….  Brunstetter said higher-than-expected Medicaid costs this year also caused Republicans to scale back other initiatives and contributed to them offering no pay raises this coming year for teachers and state employees.

Stories about the Medicaid mess should be prefaced with some key facts:

1. Recent research, from a study of Oregon’s Medicaid expansion, shows that the program has virtually no effect on health.

As this Forbes writer shows, a closer look at that study shows that the result was even more damning. For instance, people in the study, obviously, knew they had been admitted to Medicaid. They benefited from the placebo effect.  Like taking a sugar pill, just knowing they were admitted to a special program can make people feel better. And the study showed that a good slice of these people reported better health — before they even started getting care under Medicaid.

In short, a large chunk of the billions spent on Medicaid is wasted.

2. The same writer, in a different forum, noted that the University of Virginia found “Medicaid patients were almost twice as likely to die as those with private insurance; their hospital stays were 42% longer, and cost 26% more. Compared to those without health insurance, Medicaid patients were 13% more likely to die, stayed in the hospital for 50% longer, and cost 20% more ….”

3. North Carolina has a “Cadillac” Medicaid plan, which in many ways overpays for services.

4. According to a state audit, NC spends far too much on administrative costs.

5. NC has chosen to fund services above and beyond what Washington demands. A Civitas report from a year ago indicated that each year NC Medicaid pays billions for services that the feds don’t mandate. That’s right: Congress spends money like a drunken sailor, but even they quailed at requiring states to pay for many health services. Tar Heel State lawmakers, however, in years past stepped up to spend even more money.

Bottom line: North Carolina spends profligately on medical care that in many cases is likely to be of dubious value.

Just remember all that as the health care spending debate drags on.

Vote on school voucher bill delayed

Supporters and opponents of school choice crowded into a fifth floor hearing room at the Legislative Office Building earlier today to hear speakers give brief remarks in support and against House Bill 944, Opportunity Scholarship Act.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Rob Bryan (R-Mecklenburg), Marcus Brandon (D-Guilford) Ed Hanes (D-Forsyth) and Brian Brown (R-Pitt) awards eligible students up to $4,200 to help defray the costs of attending a nonpublic school.

At today’s meeting, legislators received aHB 944 Bill Summary and new fiscal estimate, designed in large part to make the proposal more palatable to Committee members.  As might be expected, the new income threshold revises the fiscal note downward, considerably.  

Some of the major changes include requiring eligible students to reside in households whose income does not exceed the amount required for the student to qualify for the federal free or reduced price lunch program (185 percent of federal poverty guidelines). In addition, the new legislation also requires that 50 percent of the available scholarship funds be used for students who qualify for federal free or reduced lunch program. 

No Committee vote was taken today.  Despite strong support among the majority of house members, many school choice supporters are still wary that Committee leadership don’t support the bill. All indications are that next week’s vote will be close.