Buzz Brockway, VP of Policy, is in downtown Atlanta at the state Capitol building, and walks us through the the last day or sine die of the legislative session.
Our state lawmakers create policies that better the lives of Georgians. Learn more about active legislation and how it translates into everyday life for all of us.
Buzz Brockway, VP of Policy, is in downtown Atlanta at the state Capitol building, and walks us through the proposed changes to The Special Needs Scholarship, occupational licensing, a current protest, and more.
Our state lawmakers create policies that better the lives of Georgians. Learn more about active legislation and how it translates into everyday life for all of us.
The Georgia legislative session is halfway over, and already we’ve made some important progress in breaking down barriers to work and expanding opportunity for all Georgians.
We reached a key legislative mark on March 8: The crossover deadline. That means that any bill not passed by at least one chamber (either the Senate or the House) is likely dead for the remainder of the session.
The great news is that several key bills supported by the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) made the crossover deadline.
Watch Buzz Brockway, VP of Policy for GCO, from the state Capitol as he updates us on what legislation is moving forward, and what is over for the year.
Heading up that list is a measure that would expand the Georgia Special Needs Scholarship. This program helps students with individualized education plans (IEPs) attend a private school that is a better fit for their individual needs. On March 3, the state Senate passed a measure, Senate Bill 47, that opens the scholarship to preschoolers in addition to students with a wide range of special needs, just not those with an IEP.
We’re continuing to work with lawmakers on the House side to pass the bill and send it to Gov. Brian Kemp’s desk for his signature. We’re hopeful that 2021 will be the year this important measure becomes law in order to better serve families of special needs students who have disproportionately suffered during the pandemic.
We’re also seeing progress on occupational licensing reforms. Occupational licensing is needed in some industries and job categories, but the laws on the books today in many cases are an unnecessary roadblock to employment for workers.
Two bills on this issue made the crossover deadline. The first, Senate Bill 45, allows people who move to Georgia and hold an occupational license to immediately be granted a provisional license. This will allow these new Georgians to immediately go to work and support their families.
A second measure, Senate Bill 27, extends the time (up to two years) a retiring military member may count their military training toward requirements for an occupational license
Both bills are now pending in the House.
We’re pleased that two adoption-reform bills passed the House before the crossover deadline. House Bill 114 would increase the annual tax credit available for adopting a foster child from $2,000 to $6,000. And House Bill 154 would lower the minimum age to adopt from 25 to 21.
Foster and adoptive families play a crucial role in creating stable environments for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Anything we can do through policy reform to help these families should be a priority.
In an attempt to address the type of tragic vigilante violence that occurred in the Ahmaud Arbery case, lawmakers unanimously passed House Bill 479 on March 8. The measure overhauls Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law to generally prevent bystanders from attempting to arrest an individual suspected of a crime. GCO believes this is a crucial piece of legislation to prevent unnecessary tragedies and foster greater racial justice in our state.
Unfortunately, supporters of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) will likely have to wait another year before we see them become a reality. Although a measure (House Bill 60) to create ESAs passed the House Education Committee on Feb. 26, it never came up for a vote on the floor of the House.
ESAs are an important way to expand educational access and choice for Georgia students. They allow parents and kids—no matter their race, the circumstances of their birth, or their socioeconomic status—to have equal access to the funds needed for a great education. We’ll continue fighting for ESAs in the 2022 legislative session.
On a positive note, bills that would have legalized parimutuel horse-race betting and casino gambling in Georgia are now dead after failing to make crossover.
In a raw political move, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) removed the approval of Georgia’s Pathways to Coverage, labeling the program as “pending.”
Despite the fact that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is consuming the resources and attention of the Governor’s office and the Department of Community Health, CMS gave Georgia only 30 days to respond before the federal government might eviscerate the program. In its February 12 letter, CMS targeted the program’s work or other community engagement components and also threatened “review” of other provisions of the program.
This move by the new administration in Washington, D.C., appears to be unprecedented. Finally secured last fall, the approval was part of an administrative process, which included time for public comments, that took years to develop.
Pathways to Coverage serves non-disabled adults below the poverty line. It is a critical component of Georgia’s plan to reduce the number of uninsured and make healthcare coverage more affordable, without sacrificing quality of care or causing other serious drawbacks associated with a traditional Medicaid expansion. It is based on the idea of not keeping these adults below the poverty line but moving them above it.
The Success Sequence provides an outline of how to reverse the cycle of poverty in our communities. GCO uses this as a framework for much of our work.
Pathways to Coverage is really about helping people. Readers might want to check out my prior blog on this program as well as some of our published research on fixing the healthcare system.
The so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) has caused havoc for Georgians when it comes to healthcare coverage and costs. The rate of healthcare price increases did not abate but accelerated. As we reported before, our own data analysis confirmed other research by showing that for individual markets, “Georgians suffered average price increases of 70.7% for Bronze plans, 77.3% for Silver plans, and 70.4% for Gold plans” over five years.
We also found that prior to the ACA, the median cost for a health insurance plan on the individual market for a family of four was $5,386 per year. But within six years, the cost varied from $17,550 to $26,081, depending on the level of the plan.
The bulk of Georgia’s uninsured problem lies not below the poverty line, but above it. Therefore, Pathways to Coverage necessarily links to Georgia’s Reinsurance Program designed to drive down costs in the individual markets. The test of the demonstration project will be to see how well Georgia can move people out of poverty into situations where they have better opportunities and more resources for health coverage, such as coverage through affordable individual markets or, better yet, employer-based coverage.
America has one of the world’s best and most innovative healthcare systems, if you have insurance to afford it. By far, employer-based and private insurance provides the best coverage. Medicaid has among the worst healthcare outcomes, can trap families in poverty (as we and others have demonstrated), and can be an obstacle in moving to the much-better private coverage. Incentivizing people to improve their circumstances is an important strategy that this demonstration project hopes to prove.
The new administration in Washington might feel like they are doing the right thing by attempting to strongarm states like Georgia into Medicaid expansion. However, this action raises concerns.
First, the question of whether the federal government can mandate states to expand Medicaid was already settled in the negative by a seven-to-two U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Second, removing a critical component of this demonstration project will not likely accomplish expansion but, if followed through, will compromise the effectiveness of the project. Third, it goes against the whole purpose of demonstration projects.
Pathways to Coverage is an approved—and hopefully remains so—Section 1115 waiver to Medicaid rules, which is found in the Social Security Act. In enacting this section of the law, Congress acknowledged that a one-size-fits-all approach dictated by the federal government is not always the best way to solve our public policy challenges.
Congress acknowledged this principle again when it enacted Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act that allows states to come up with alternative plans in coordination with Section 1115 waivers. Georgia took advantage of both these provisions of law in developing its healthcare strategy.
Finally, demonstration projects allow states to experiment with what works best. Without experimentation, we hinder our ability to discover better ways to run public programs for the benefit of people.
The best overall resolution would be for CMS to reinstate the approval and allow the demonstration to move forward. CMS will monitor the project, of course, but it must let it play out to see if the project will demonstrate a better way. Georgia has a vested interest in making it work. If not, Georgia could choose to modify or abandon the project. Besides, the federal government will have the opportunity to review the results when the waiver comes up for renewal.
Failure to reinstate the approval will likely result in a legal struggle before the courts. Who knows how long such a legal process will take? Instead of using our resources and time to bicker before the courts, we should apply them to seek out the best ways to improve people’s lives.
*Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Georgia Center for Opportunity.
Coming off the contentious 2020 election, the issue of voting rights has been in the news lately. That is likely why, this year, there is a renewed push among some lawmakers in the Georgia legislature to reform voting-rights laws for those convicted of a felony.
This issue is central to our mission here at the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO). For well over a decade now, GCO has advocated for criminal justice reforms that help returning citizens create a new life—through joining the workforce, caring for their loved ones, and becoming productive members of society once again. Voting rights are part of that.
Here’s where Georgia law currently stands: Those with a felony on their record automatically have their voting rights restored once they complete their sentence, which includes serving all parole and probationary periods and paying all outstanding fines, fees, and restitution. They are also eligible to vote if they have First Offender status and that status has not been revoked.
Understanding the challenge of voting rights for felons
The goal of voting rights laws for those with a criminal record should be moving them in the quickest way possible to becoming positive, contributing members of society again. Once the individual has fully paid his or her debt to society, it makes perfect sense—and is in the best sense “just”—to reinstate their voting rights.
At the same time, there are good reasons for restricting felons from voting until the end of their sentences. Society has an obligation to prevent people who have demonstrated impaired ability to make good decisions from voting. That’s why we don’t let children or the mentally ill vote.
Felons have an added strike against them in that, in addition to poor judgment, they’ve also—in many cases—expressed contempt and disregard for the laws that govern us and shouldn’t be allowed to impose laws on the rest of us until they have shown their respect for and willingness to abide by the law.
A good place to begin
So, where should we begin with reforms to voting rights for felons? A great place is also the simplest and most non-controversial: There is strong evidence that even some felons who have fully paid their debt to society face challenges in having their voting rights restored.
For example, in 2019 a representative from the Georgia Justice Project testified before a state Senate committee that there is frequently misinformation within voter registration offices, and sometimes among volunteers, about whether someone ever convicted of a felony can vote. There are also challenges with felons proving they are officially “off paper” (i.e., they have completed their probation or parole) and are now legally eligible to vote.
Let’s begin here with clearing up misunderstandings around the law on voting rights for returning citizens and ensuring that all election-related officials are applying it correctly. A big step would be for election officials to be required to accept Certificates of Sentence Completion from the Department of Community Supervision as sufficient proof that a returning citizen should be added back to the voter rolls.
Work is important, too
A central goal of the Georgia Center for Opportunity is to help returning citizens reintegrate into society. Voting rights is one aspect of reintegration, but there are others—like finding stable employment—that are far more important to improving outcomes for returning citizens.
We know that work is a key way to reduce recidivism: Research has shown that if an ex-offender can keep a job for six months or more, their likelihood of ending up back in prison drops dramatically. It also improves the odds that a returning citizen will reconnect with loved ones, especially their children, another key to preventing recidivism.
GCO’s efforts through initiatives like Hiring Well, Doing Good are making progress here, and stories like Kevin’s are inspiring.
Finally, we have the definitive answer on a longstanding debate on whether empirical studies show that minimum wage laws negatively impact employment.
You may have heard conflicting summaries, perhaps from economists themselves, on the economic research on this important topic. Some summarize the research to say that indeed raising the threshold of minimum wage laws comes with a cost of lost jobs, especially for poorer individuals who tend to lack experience and job skills. Others summarize the research to suggest that no such evidence can be found or there might be even slight benefits. And, still, others claim that the evidence is mixed, and you can’t conclude anything.
Last month, David Neumark—an economic research associate at the University of California, Irvine, and Peter Shirley with the Joint Committee on Government and Finance for the West Virginia Legislature—released a study that answered the question.
In their National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, the researchers assembled what they believe to be the entire set of published empirical economic studies on the minimum wage in the United States since 1992. They did not include unpublished papers, simulations, or studies using methods considered to be less empirically rigorous.
Of the total 66 papers they identified and examined, they found that 79 percent of them showed a negative impact.
In summarizing the demographic groups most impacted by the minimum wage, the authors said the following:
There is strong and consistent evidence of negative employment effects for teens, young adults, the less-educated, and directly-affected (low-wage) workers, with the estimated elasticities generally larger for the less-educated than for teens and young adults, and larger still for directly-affected workers.
By the way, in case you don’t know, “elasticity” is simply an economic measurement of sensitivity. In this case, it refers to employment’s sensitivity to a change in the wage rate.
Some might want to spin the results to say that because 21 percent of the studies showed no adverse impact, we cannot conclude anything. Or, worse, they may argue that raising the minimum wage in this case may have some positive effects on employment.
However, this is what is known as cherry picking—a no-no when reviewing statistical evidence. We need to keep a few things in mind.
First, when reviewing statistical studies, there is always the chance you get false results. These are known in the profession as Type I or Type II errors, depending on whether you reject your null hypothesis when you shouldn’t have, or its opposite.
We have to look at the confidence level. (Not to be confused with the confidence interval or margin of error.) A 90 percent confidence level, which is usually the standard for national employment data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, means that 10 percent of the time, your results will be totally wrong. (That is, outside your margin of error.)
Because of these reasons, the science tells us to look at all valid studies—methodologically valid, that is—and go with the preponderance of the evidence. In this case, because 79 percent of the studies show negative impact, this is the conclusion we need to go with.
When it comes to empirical studies applied to economics, there is another consideration. The design of the study must be consistent with economic reasoning.
This is harder than it sounds. For minimum wage issues, economic reasoning says that negative impacts will occur only when price floors—minimum wages in this case—exceed the market equilibrium. Absent that condition, there would be no impact, but then also no point in establishing the price floor.
This adds a level of complication that, if anything, would increase the error rate. In this case, a 21 percent error rate would be consistent with what we should expect. By the way, this is also why it’s important to do multiple empirical studies to replicate the results. You can’t rely on just one study.
For advocates of the minimum wage, the empirical evidence will be disappointing. Take heart. There are better solutions out there.
The main reasons people support the idea of a minimum wage are to help wage earners keep up with inflation and to enable them to earn a decent living. In response, I suggest a three prong approach: attack inflation, promote economic growth, and improve education and job skills of the population, especially low-income workers.
Few people realize that inflation is government policy. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors has adopted an annual inflation target of 2 percent, and since the start of the pandemic the board eased its policies to allow inflation to exceed its target.
From my perspective, this inflation target is crazy. It’s a hidden tax that hits the poor the worst. My recommendation is to eliminate the inflation target with a new target so prices remain stable or decline slightly every year to match general gains in productivity.
Of course, economists are divided as ever when it comes to macro policies, and a host of them will cry that eliminating the inflation target is dangerous. They’re wrong, but I’ll save my rebuttal for another day.
“I suggest a three prong approach: attack inflation, promote economic growth, and improve education and job skills of the population, especially low-income workers.”
Conversely, when you have a recessionary time, like now, it is the worst time—not that there is any good time—to force businesses to pay their workers more when they can least afford it. Politicians take heed. Follow the science on this one.
There are countless stories of this in action. For example, the restaurant Boca Nova in Oakland, California, implemented dramatic changes to its pay structure after the city mandated a $12.25 minimum wage in 2015. In lieu of gratuity, the restaurant tacked 16 percent onto customers’ bills: 4 percent went directly to servers and the remaining 12 percent covered the cost of raising salaries for other workers. The results were that about 60 percent of the restaurant’s servers quit because the policy slashed their average hourly earnings by around half—from between $38 and $70 an hour to $22 to $28 an hour.
Finally, our public education systems have been failing us and our children, especially for students stuck in underperforming schools or lacking resources at home. The consequence is too many workers unable to secure higher wages in our current job market.
This last prong is where the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) really shines. It is actively promoting improved education and job training. And GCO is collaborating with other nonprofits to help place people in employment with a career ladder to improve their earning capacity over time.
