With stay-at-home ordinances in place, many Georgian’s are wondering what is next. GCO’s Vice President of Public Policy, Buzz Brockway, shares resources on how you should plan to vote by mail, stay healthy, and what we can expect next in response from government leadership.
What’s in the coronavirus stimulus bill and what does it mean for Georgia families and small businesses?
GCO’s Vice President of Public Policy, Buzz Brockway, went live on Facebook to answer that question and talk about what is next.
Family formation is a cornerstone step in the success sequence. It also is a difficult topic to address. We know family is important to upward mobility and opportunity, but how do we foster it? One initiative being discussed, even at a national level, is paid family leave.
Why Time Together Matters
Recently I took the family on a vacation. We slept in a hotel room with beds mere feet from each other, shared street-vendor meals, crammed into a small vehicle and drove hours together, and walked miles side-by-side for seven straight days.
When we came home, we were tired, smelly and done being with each other. Each child (and adult) immediately found their own room and spent some much needed alone time. Since then, however, we have spent more time hanging out and talking. Less time on our phones and more time just being together. But why?
Because even for an introvert like myself, connection with each other and the bonds of a family are strengthened by proximity.
Time Together Establishes Healthy Relational Bonds
These bonds are even more important at a young age. Time with our children, especially in their infancy, is important to establishing lifelong healthy attachments. These healthy relationships will be the basis for family formation in a child’s life.
That is why we are taking the lead on the discussion of paid family leave. Creating an open dialogue that outlines, not just the importance, but the manner in which we institute such a system is vital to the support of stronger families. The U.S. is one of the only first-world nations that has not addressed this issue at a policy level.
The issue is particularly impactful to the stability and formation for families in lower income areas. It is why Georgians and the Georgia Center for Opportunity must take the lead on guiding conversations on this.
Join us for our discussion on this important subject
next week at GA Tech!
We know that to avoid poverty, it is essential to get a high school diploma, maintain a steady job, and marry before having children (see research from the Brookings Institution and Harvard University on these points). Not only are they key to avoiding poverty, upward mobility and financial stability are closely tied to this family-education-work sequence, as well.
That is why our recent reports are so disturbing. They show that most of our welfare programs are systematically undermining two of the three keys to avoiding poverty and are doing so for some of the most vulnerable groups in our society.
In the first paper, Disincentives for Work and Marriage in Georgia’s Welfare System, we show that many of our welfare programs – alone or when combined –actually penalize earning more and create dramatic “welfare cliffs”.
For many parents on public assistance, receiving a raise or working longer hours can result in dramatic reductions in welfare benefits, often completely erasing what they gain by working more or receiving a raise. Even worse, there are times when earning more money through additional work or a pay raise can result in less income to the family because government benefits are reduced so much all at one time.
When families find themselves in this position, they are effectively locked into dependency, unable to work themselves into self-sufficiency without having to endure sometimes long, crippling periods of financial hardship.
To make matters worse, a similar set of perverse incentives exist when a parent on welfare decides to marry.
For many moms on public assistance for example, deciding to marry a boyfriend or the father of their children can mean that family income is dramatically reduced due to an immediate and steep loss of benefits. In many cases, the disincentives to marriage only go away if the potential husband is earning much more money than would be expected or likely under the circumstances. The result is that these moms must choose between forming a family (and the financial and relational stability it can bring in the long-term) or the short-term financial health of their families.
For a parent in this position, it is easy to see why many would simply choose to stay single and cohabit rather than marry. Unfortunately, research also shows that cohabiting couples struggle with relational instability in ways that married couples do not, so the welfare system ends up encouraging people to enter into relationships that are less likely to last and less likely to provide the stability that would allow them to escape poverty.
While the welfare system was not intentionally designed to work this way, it is unjust nonetheless. If it worked as it should, the system would encourage work and family formation at every turn – as the surest antidotes to poverty.
That is why in our next report, we will be setting out a suggested set of reforms that the state and federal governments can adopt to reform the system in a way that creates a sustainable safety-net that encourages the behaviors that we know are needed for individuals and families to escape and stay out of poverty. We will also be providing a plan for a how a state can implement these reforms on the ground if it chooses to take on reforming the system.
If you want to see how the welfare cliff works for different family types and in each of Georgia’s 159 counties, visit www.welfarecliff.org.
Republicans included a non-binding referendum question in yesterday’s Primary Election ballot asking if voters support school choice, and 75 percent of voters declared their support for the concept of education dollars following the student.
The question was direct, clear, and as comprehensive as limited space would allow:
“Should Georgia empower parents with the right to use the tax dollars allocated for the education of their children, allowing them the freedom to choose among public, private, virtual and home schools?”
While these primary ballot questions are non-binding, they are a very effective way for a party to test support for an issue among their actual primary voters, not the “likely voters” approximated in poll samples.
These primary voters are the voters who will be especially important to those hoping to succeed Governor Nathan Deal in 2018 (here’s looking at you, Casey Cagle!).
Again, seventy-five percent of Republican primary voters said “yes” to school choice at the ballot. This overwhelming level of support for the ballot question is even more interesting when we consider that:
- More voters voted for school choice than voted in the U.S. Senate race–the race at the very top of the ballot. The question was a “down ballot” question, where there there is usually a significant drop-off of votes from the votes cast at the top of the ticket.
- The Georgia Association of Educators, the de facto teacher’s union in the state, long feared by politicians, publicly opposed and lobbied against the measure.
- The question won a majority of support in every one of Georgia’s 159 counties–rural, urban, big, small, wealthy, poor–it didn’t matter. School choice won everywhere.
Will Georgia Republican elected officials start listening to these voters, or continue to ignore them?
In recent years, legislators have been somewhere between skittish and unenthusiastic (to put it kindly) about considering school choice legislation. No less than ten education choice bills were introduced in the last two-year legislative cycle and all but one was killed by leadership and committee chairmen, and none received a vote on the House or Senate floor.
Why? Largely out of a perception that teachers will be against it, Superintendents will be against it, school boards will be against it. But does the education establishment represent those they serve? Apparently not.
Now that the voters have spoken, clearly and specifically, how will legislators respond? Will they listen to the people who elected them? Legislators have the opportunity to make good policy good politics — they can give kids the educational opportunities they need and deserve, while giving primary voters what they support and demand.
How will these state leaders respond to their district voters’ support for real school choice?
- Lt. Governor (and 2018 Gubernatorial hopeful) Casey Cagle: Hall County–75%
- Speaker David Ralston: Fannin County–76%, Gilmer County–74%
- Rep. Brooks Coleman, Chairman of House Education Committee: Gwinnett County–77%
- Same goes for Senate President Pro Tem David Shafer, also of Gwinnett
- Senator Lindsey Tippins, Chairman of Senate Education Committee: Cobb County–72%
- Senate Majority Leader Bill Cowsert: Clarke County–74%
2017 could be a big year for education. The Governor plans to move forward with plans to update the funding formula, providing more resources and flexibility to school districts. Will the Governor and leaders of the legislature listen to the people and include school choice in those reforms? If not, if they once again cower in fear of the education establishment and teachers’ unions, they may just have their base to answer to.
James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, once said, “To the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced.” The results of stable families throughout the years have been the foundation of our country’s formation. Unfortunately today, as the economy is worsening, social and cultural norms are crumbling, and political parties are finding it more difficult to find common ground on multiple issues, many can point to the destruction of the family as the culprit.
Since society rests on a foundation that is rooted in healthy relationships, it is imperative that healthy families be championed. To reiterate this point, recently while speaking at the 2015 Conservative Policy Summit, hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America, Senator Mike Lee stated, “The family is the first and most important institution of our society – and the foundation of American exceptionalism.”
Evidence proves that children benefit from living in a stable home with both of their parents. Children that grow up in a two-parent household perform better than children who grow up in a single parent home. Children raised by a single parent are more likely to have lower educational achievement, increased drug use, and more emotional troubles.
One reason children benefit from living with their married parents is because of the greater financial stability. There is a strong correlation between marriage and financial well-being, and according to a 2012 study by the Heritage Foundation, “In Georgia, married couples with children are 78 percent less likely to be poor than non-married families with the same level of education.”
But, another important reason to promote healthy families is to provide the children with the nurturing that is needed from a mother and father in the same home. A report produced by Princeton University and Brookings Institution found that in addition to the link with child poverty, the increases in couples postponing marriage, cohabiting, divorcing, and having children outside of marriage “appear to be depriving children of such documented benefits of marriage as better physical and emotional health and greater socioeconomic attachment.”
A 2008 study estimated that American taxpayers pay $112 billion every year due to the social costs of family fragmentation. Georgia’s divorce rate of 11.4 percent in 2012 was higher than the marriage rate of 6.5 percent.
In order to combat these trends, Georgia Center for Opportunity is launching a Healthy Families Initiative. This community-based initiative focuses on finding ways to encourage healthy relationships, strong marriages, and stable families. Since many individuals lack the skills needed to have a lasting relationship, the initiative will emphasize relationship education. It will also include a public campaign to communicate the importance of marriage.
Family is the institution best suited to help individuals move from dependency to self-sufficiency, so by increasing the number of healthy and stable families, we’re also increasing the likelihood that individuals will succeed in living independent lives.
If you would like to learn more about how marriage impacts economic opportunity and what can be done to change the trends, you can join GCO on December 1st for a discussion with Dr. Brad Wilcox (Senior Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies and Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia).
We had an unusual experience last week, with President Obama participating in, of all things, a panel discussion on poverty with three leading public intellectuals, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Robert Putnam, and Arthur Brooks. The conversation ranged pretty widely, with a number of issues coming up, some of which didn’t get all that much attention. I know that there were some hot button moments, which received a good bit of radio and television air time, not to mention editorial and blogosphere commentary, but I’d rather take a deep breath and proceed just a bit more calmly.
Let me begin by observing that the President displayed flashes of the persona that made him at least somewhat appealing when he first appeared on the national scene. He at least said he wanted to get past the partisan divide where one side spoke only about economics and the other only about culture:
The stereotype is that you’ve got folks on the left who just want to pour more money into social programs, and don’t care anything about culture or parenting or family structures, and that’s one stereotype. And then you’ve got cold-hearted, free market, capitalist types who are reading Ayn Rand and…think everybody are moochers. And I think the truth is more complicated.
I think that there are those on the conservative spectrum who deeply care about the least of these, deeply care about the poor; exhibit that through their churches, through community groups, through philanthropic efforts, but are suspicious of what government can do. And then there are those on the left who I think are in the trenches every day and see how important parenting is and how important family structures are, and the connective tissue that holds communities together and recognize that that contributes to poverty when those structures fray, but also believe that government and resources can make a difference in creating an environment in which young people can succeed despite great odds.
And it seems to me that if coming out of this conversation we can have a both/and conversation rather than either/or conversation, then we’ll be making some progress.
I agree: let’s talk about poverty in terms both of the economic straits in which individuals and families find themselves and of the culture (embodied in the media, schools, and government programs, as well as in churches and other community institutions) that should, but doesn’t necessarily, encourage responsibility for oneself, for one’s partner(s), and for any and all children one brings into the world.
Here are some takeaways from the conversation. There was, in the first instance, a good bit of talk about the disparity of opportunities available to those at different ends of the economic spectrum. Robert Putnam set the tone here, alluding to evidence from his recent book that our poor kids get much less support and have much less to which to look forward than do their wealthy counterparts:
[Y]ou can see it in measures of family stability. You can see it in measures of the investments that parents are able to make in their kids, the investments of money and the investments of time. You can see it in the quality of schools kids go to. You can see it in the character of the social and community support that kids — rich kids and poor kids are getting from their communities.
The President responded to this opening by referring to an idealized portrait of community that Putnam draws in the book, one where, despite class differences, everyone shares in the same social and public institutions:
[W]hen I read Bob’s book, the first thing that strikes you is when he’s growing up in Ohio, he’s in a community where the banker is living in reasonable proximity to the janitor at the school. The janitor’s daughter may be going out with the banker’s son. There are a set of common institutions — they may attend the same church; they may be members of the same rotary club; they may be active at the same parks — and all the things that stitch them together. And that is all contributing to social mobility and to a sense of possibility and opportunity for all kids in that community.
Perhaps that was true in some ethnically and religiously homogeneous small towns and urban neighborhoods—Alan Ehrenhalt’s The Lost City is eloquent on this subject—but I have my doubts about it as a sweeping generalization. While, for example, private schools did not proliferate until the 1960s, they have long been available to Roman Catholics (as an alternative to the erstwhile weak-tea Protestantism of the public schools) and to the very wealthy (think Phillips Exeter, Andover, and Choate in the Northeast, as well as Westminster and Woodward here in Atlanta). And anyone who has lived in the South would know that there at least once was a socioeconomic pecking order among Protestant churches, with an enormous contrast between, say, the up-market Episcopalians and the down-market Primitive Baptists. (Indeed, if anything, the decline of the mainline churches and the rise of evangelicalism have served to counteract this phenomenon, so that a much broader socioeconomic spectrum is represented in the pews in many churches on any given Sunday).
Nevertheless, there are three ways community thus conceived can arguably promote social mobility. There are, first of all, the cultural norms of hard work and personal responsibility that can be shared across class boundaries. In this respect, so-called positive role models are not distant abstractions, but personal acquaintances. Peer pressure doesn’t come from (or only from) local gang members but—one hopes—from high-achieving classmates and neighbors. Second, the networks of opportunity readily available to the affluent become open to classmates and acquaintances who don’t have access to them on their own. Finally, because everyone participates in these public institutions, everyone cares about their continued vitality. Thus, for example, parents get involved in PTA’s, care about school board elections, and are active in promoting “investments” (one of the President’s favorite words) in public education. In the Georgetown conversation, we hear something about the last two considerations, but very little (and in any event not enough) about the first.
But if this talk about community isn’t simply to be a nostalgic reminiscence about or longing for something we’ve lost, it behooves us to ask what, practically, we can do to restore it (or preserve it where it still exists).
It would, for example, be impossible—not to say highly undesirable—to compel everyone to attend public schools. While I could imagine some political leaders succumbing to that temptation and trying to regulate private schools out of existence, to the degree that education remains primarily a state and local responsibility, I can’t imagine such a policy sweeping the nation. And even if—horror of horrors—private options were taken off the table, people have historically voted with their feet, exercising “school choice” by moving into a neighborhood whose public schools are attractive. Political efforts to negate the effects of private residential choices haven’t found favor with voters or, for that matter, with the Supreme Court.
This is where, I humbly submit, school choice programs that empower especially lower income people to place their children in better schools actually show some promise of making the aforementioned benefits of community available. Children can escape an essentially homogeneous peer culture that is inimical to achievement and move into schools where parents are involved and there are positive role models. Too bad the President and his party consistently oppose school choice, preferring all too often simply to demand more funding for public schools, as if government by itself can compensate for the social ills that inevitably accompany dysfunctional communities.
A similar statism is implicit in the President’s comments about the role of religion in dealing with the problem of poverty. Here’s what he said:
[W]hen I think about my own Christian faith and my obligations, it is important for me to do what I can myself — individually mentoring young people, or making charitable donations, or in some ways impacting whatever circles and influence I have. But I also think it’s important to have a voice in the larger debate. And I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on this in a more forceful fashion.
This may sound self-interested because there have been — these are areas where I agree with the evangelical community and faith-based groups, and then there are issues where we have had disagreements around reproductive issues, or same-sex marriage, or what have you. And so maybe it appears advantageous for me to want to focus on these issues of poverty, and not as much on these other issues….
There is great caring and great concern, but when it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you’re talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, that this is oftentimes viewed as a “nice to have” relative to an issue like abortion. That’s not across the board, but there sometimes has been that view, and certainly that’s how it’s perceived in our political circles.
While President Obama didn’t go as far as Robert Putnam in mischaracterizing the relative weight of religious emphasis on poverty as opposed to social issues, these remarks do imply that, in his view, social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage play a distractingly large role in the outward-looking role of all too many Christian churches. He does hedge and qualify his statement a bit, but the larger point is that, so far as “our political circles” are concerned, the church’s witness on poverty takes a back seat to its positions on abortion and same-sex marriage. As many have pointed out, this is simply mistaken, but it reveals something about what sorts of actions matter to the President. Furthermore, I’ve argued elsewhere that the President’s principal interest in faith-based groups seems to be mobilizing public support for government action, rather than encouraging their activity as an alternative or supplement to government. He doesn’t see—or at least doesn’t want to highlight—what churches and other faith-based organizations can do as actors in civil society, as possible alternatives to government action. We aren’t supposed to help ourselves or help one another but through the instrumentality of the government. The national conversation on poverty should largely be devoted to what government can do.
I’d like to conclude with a reflection on perhaps President Obama’s most solid contribution to the conversation:
[W]e can all stipulate that the best antipoverty program is a job, which confers not just income, but structure and dignity and a sense of connection to community. Which means we have to spend time thinking about the macro-economy, the broader economy as a whole.
He’s right in every facet of his statement. Having a job is not just about the income, but also about the self-discipline that comes from having to meet obligations to employers, customers, and clients and the dignity that comes from being able to take care of oneself and one’s family. And these relationships are the backbone of every community. I do not mean hereby to deprecate the institutions of civil society—churches, neighborhood associations, and so on—but they don’t prosper without the dignified contributions (both personal and financial) of more or less self-reliant individuals.
While it is clear that our economy hasn’t in recent years generated enough good jobs to lift our least fortunate brothers and sisters out of poverty, I found little in President Obama’s remarks that gave me much confidence that he held the key to success in this regard. We can’t redistribute our way to a better future, so a simple—almost demagogic—focus on inequality won’t do. As Arthur Brooks argued—frequently and effectively, in my view—there is no substitute for a dynamic and productive economy as a generator of wealth. And, as he also argued, ensuring that everyone benefits requires making hard choices that our political classes haven’t demonstrated their willingness to make.
Perhaps conversations like the one that took place last week will provide an opening for further, deeper exchanges of views and for genuinely productive policy-making. But I’m sad to say that I’m not holding my breath.
Given two rounds of severe winter weather and the rush to early primary elections, the 2013-2014 session of the Georgia General Assembly seemed to fly by. In case you were unable to keep up with the session, this edition of the Capitol Update offers a summary of some of the important legislation that survived to see the Governor’s desk, and some that did not.Legislative Recap
Bills sent to the Governor:
- HB 60: This bill allows land owners/lessees in places such as bars and churches the final decision as to whether properly licensed citizens may carry concealed firearms on their premises, and removes restrictions on non-secure government buildings and public housing. This bill replaced HB 875.
- HB 251: This bill prevents the sell of “e-cigarette” products to minors.
- HB 697: This bill allows for the HOPE scholarship fund to cover 100% of tuition for students who have maintained satisfactory academic progress at a Georgia technical college.
- HB 702: This bill allows for privately funded monuments containing the Ten Commandments, a portion of the Declaration of Independence, and a portion of the Georgia Constitution to be placed on the grounds of the State Capitol.
- HB 714: This bill prevents contracted workers with the state government-school janitors, bus drivers, etc.-from receiving unemployment benefits during summer breaks.
- HB 766: The “Work Based Learning Act” would permit schools – in collaboration with the Department of Labor and the Technical College System of Georgia – to award secondary credit for approved off campus work to students age 16 and over.
- HB 772: This bill requires that adult applicants for and recipients of food stamps or benefits under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) submit to drug testing if a state caseworker from the Department of Family and Children Services determines that there is a “reasonable suspicion” of drug abuse. Eligibility of children under both programs is not affected by this legislation.
- HB 990: This bill would require legislative approval for any future expansion of Medicaid in Georgia.
- HB 1080: This bill would allow for the placement of a privately funded monument dedicated to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to be placed on the grounds of the State Capitol.
- SB 98: Prevents coverage for abortions under qualified health plans offered within the state, including any exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. This bill was amended to allow for consideration of an abortion if the mother’s life is at stake.
- SB 281: This bill mandates that state employees and teachers be offered a high-deductible insurance option in the State Health Benefit Plan.
- SB 365: This bill focuses on lowering barriers to employment for those returning from prison. The legislation contains many of the recommendations from our Prisoner Reentry Working Group.
Bills that Failed:
- HB 707: This bill prevents the State Insurance Commissioner from enforcing provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), local and state agencies and governments from spending money attached to the ACA, and prevents the University of Georgia from operating the navigator program that assists people who are seeking coverage under the ACA.
- HB 885: This bill allows for the usage of medical cannabis derivatives for the treatment of patients who suffer from severe seizure disorders and encourages research on additional medical uses of cannabis. Despite many attempts at attaching this bill to other legislation, HB 885 was not passed.
- HB 886: This bill would require the governing body of Charter Schools to hold a minimum of two public hearings to review their budget before its adoption each year.
- HB 897: This bill would eliminate obsolete provisions, and update and clarify other provisions relating to elementary and secondary education. It is noteworthy that aspects of this legislation (Section 36) would directly impact the approval process for homeschooling. After Sen. Tippins and the Senate Education Committee drastically altered the content of this bill in relation to charter schools, the House and Senate leadership were engaged in a battle over the status of this bill.
- SB 167: This bill calls for the creation of an advisory council to review Common Core Standards and propose changes that are “in the best interest of students, their parents, teachers, and taxpayers.” Following this bill’s “unfavorable recommendation” by the House Education Committee, Sen. Ligon attempted to add this bill to HB 897. All three amendments that would have imported this bill into HB 897 failed on the Senate Floor.
- SB 350: This bill would begin a process of privatizing child welfare services through contracts with community-based providers. Following the favorable recommendation of a more watered-down version of this bill by the House Judiciary Committee, Sen. Unterman attempted to attach this bill to other legislation. Shortly before Sine Die, Gov. Deal appointed the “Child Welfare Reform Commission” to further study this issue.
- SB 397: This bill, known as Ava’s Law, mandates that state healthcare plans provide coverage children with autism. Following action in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, this bill was attached to HB 885-the Medical Marijuana Bill-and renamed the “Children’s Care Act.” Despite Sen. Unterman’s attempts to attach this bill to other legislation, SB 397 was caught in the battle between the House and the Senate and did not pass this year.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Thanks to Eric Cochling, our VP of Policy Advancement, Jamie Lord, our director of government affairs, and Jacob Stubbs, our legislative intern and John Jay Fellowship alumnus for their able contributions to this update.
This week GCO’s Eric Cochling spoke at a “2014 Legislative Roundup” event hosted by the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, their summary is included below:
Good enough on some levels but not good enough across-the-board.
That was their analysis of the 2014 General Assembly from Eric Cochling and Kyle Wingfield at our sold-out policy breakfast on Wednesday, March 26. Cochling is vice president of public policy at the Georgia Center for Opportunity and Wingfield is the conservative voice on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial pages.
“You saw a lot of excitement about certain ideas whether it was welfare reform or new school choice concepts coming through that made it through a chamber with vast majorities voting in favor of it but then it goes on to die in the other chamber,” Cochling said. “I would characterize the session as some positive things happened but many missed opportunities for a truly conservative policy movement forward.”
“Thirty-seven constitutional amendments were introduced and two will be on the ballot this fall,” Wingfield said. “Several would have been very good and would represent great progress for Georgia. They are not going to be there and the prospects of getting them on the ballot I would argue will only get worse in future years.”
Issues discussed in this YouTube video include criminal justice reform, federal balanced budget constitutional amendment initiatives, child welfare and foster care, transportation investment, tax credit scholarships and school choice, state income tax and pension reform, and Medicaid expansion and improved access to health care for all Georgians.
This content is courtesy of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, and can be seen in its original form HERE.
Should you have questions or comments about the content of this update, please email Brian Abernathy
Monday, March 3, marked “Crossover Day” at the Georgia State Capitol. On this day, a bill must crossover from the House to the Senate or vice-versa if it is to remain viable this session. Crossover Day typically goes until midnight and involves lots of lobbying, drama, and intensive floor debates. While the Senate finished their work early this year, the House stayed in session until 11:30. Below is a summary of some of the more newsworthy bills and their fate*:
*Please note that vote totals are indicated after the bill number. The first number is the total votes cast in favor of a bill (Y=yea), the second is the total votes cast against a bill (N=nay).
House Bills That Passed Crossover Day:
- HB 702: 138Y – 37N – This bill allows for privately funded monuments containing the Ten Commandments, a portion of the Declaration of Independence, and a portion of the Georgia Constitution to be placed on the grounds of the State Capitol.
- HB 707: 115Y – 59N – This bill prevents the State Insurance Commissioner from enforcing provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), local and state agencies and governments from spending money attached to the ACA, and prevents the University of Georgia from operating the navigator program that assists people who are seeking coverage under the ACA.
- HB 766: 163Y – 1N – The “Work Based Learning” Act would permit schools – in collaboration with the Department of Labor and the Technical College System of Georgia – to award secondary credit for approved off campus work to students age 16 and over.
- HB 772: 107Y – 66N – This bill requires that adult applicants for and recipients of food stamps or benefits under TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) submit to drug testing if a state caseworker from the Department of Family and Children Services determines that there is a “reasonable suspicion” of drug abuse. Eligibility of children under both programs is not affected by this legislation.
- HB 875: 119Y – 56N – This bill allows land owners/lessees the final decision as to whether properly licensed citizens may carry concealed firearms on their premises, potentially significantly expanding the places a licensed individual could carry a firearm to include churches, bars, and certain government buildings where security is not provided. It also allows for school boards to designate a school employee to be armed.
- HB 885: 171Y – 4N – This bill allows for the usage of medical cannabis derivatives for the treatment of patients who suffer from severe seizure disorders and encourages research on additional medical uses of cannabis.
- HB 886: 164Y – 3N – This bill would require the governing body of Charter Schools to hold a minimum of two public hearings to review their budget before its adoption each year.
- HB 897: 121Y – 51N – This bill would eliminate obsolete provisions, and update and clarify other provisions relating to elementary and secondary education. It is noteworthy that aspects of this legislation (section 36) would directly impact the approval process for homeschooling.
- HB 990: 118Y – 57N – This bill would require legislative approval for any future expansion of Medicaid in Georgia.
- HB 1080: 173Y – 3N – This bill would allow for the placement of a privately funded monument dedicated to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to be placed on the grounds of the State Capitol.
Senate Bills That Passed Crossover Day:
- SB 98: 35Y – 18N – Prevents coverage for abortions under qualified health plans offered within the state, including any exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act.
- SB 167: 34Y – 16N – This bill calls for the creation of an advisory council to review Common Core Standards and propose changes that are “in the best interest of students, their parents, teachers, and taxpayers.”
- SB 281: 40Y – 13N – This bill mandates that state employees and teachers be offered a high-deductible insurance option in the State Health Benefit Plan.
- SB 350: 31Y – 18N – This bill would begin a process of privatizing child welfare services through contracts with community-based providers.
- SB 365: 53Y – 0N – This bill focuses on lowering barriers to employment for those returning from prison. The legislation contains many of the recommendations from our Prisoner Reentry Working Group.
- SR 783: 38Y – 13N – This resolution allows voters the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to eliminate the state property tax levy through an amendment to the state constitution.
Bills That Did Not Crossover:
- HB 1023 & SB 377: While different bills, these pieces of legislation shared a common intent. If passed, they would have provided that there must be a “compelling state interest” for a state to burden the free exercise of religion. More specific details on this legislation are available on GCO’s blog.
- SB 404: This bill would deny the ability of non-legal immigrants who have been granted “deferred action” status or permission to temporarily work for humanitarian reasons the ability to receive a Georgia Driver’s License.
- HB 759: As GCO has already discussed, the Tax Credit Scholarship program in Georgia is in high demand. HB 759 would have increased the tax-credit cap to $100 million.
- SB 191 & HB 309 – Neither form of “Ava’s Law”, which would have required medical insurance coverage for treatment of Autism, made it through crossover day.
- HB 524 – This bill would have made it easier for adopted individuals to access their original birth certificates and the information about birth parents they contain.
Bills that are continuing to fight for implementation:
- HB 771 never saw a vote on the House Floor, but supporters are still working see its efforts attached to another piece of legislation this year. The bill would lift the statute of limitations related to civil damages brought by victims of childhood sexual abuse.
- Senate Resolution 7 would provide Georgians with an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment to separate the Georgia Ethics Commission from the office of the Governor.
- House Resolution 486 would permit local municipalities created after 2005 to form city school systems.
____________________________ Thanks to Eric Cochling, our VP of Policy Advancement, Jamie Lord, our director of government affairs, and Jacob Stubbs, our legislative intern and John Jay Fellowship alumnus for their able contributions to this update.