In the News RSS

States Can Save Taxpayers $609 Billion

lcaldwell — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:45:48 +0000

(From Wall Street Journal)

As the battle over Medicaid expansion rages in the states, supporters of expansion have dusted off an age-old favorite in making the case for taking federal dollars. They say: If our state doesn't take the money, those dollars will go to some other state instead.

Happily, in this instance that is not true. When a state declines to expand Medicaid coverage to more people, no other state will receive its share of funds and federal spending declines. Based on figures from the Congressional Budget Office and analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Washington was expected to spend roughly $950 billion expanding Medicaid between 2014 and 2022. Each state that declines to expand Medicaid relieves strain on the overall federal budget for this entitlement.

State governments generally don't have much of an impact on the federal budget. But there was a gift for fiscally conservative state lawmakers tucked into last summer's U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Congress cannot coerce states into expanding Medicaid by threatening to withhold federal dollars for a state's existing program. This ruling effectively gave state policy makers the unique opportunity to veto hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal spending.

Supporters of Medicaid expansion also say that one state opting out won't make a difference—that the amount of forgone money is a mere drop in the fiscal bucket. But states joining together to say no to Medicaid expansion will make a significant dent in the federal budget, and many already have.

Using figures compiled by Kaiser and our own research at the state level, the Goldwater Institute estimates that the federal tab for Medicaid expansion has been reduced by more than $424 billion in new federal spending over the next eight years thanks to the 18 states that have already opted out. If the 12 still-undecided states also decide to opt out, there will be an additional $185 billion in savings.

The more than $609 billion in total savings from these 30 states would represent over 50% of the expected federal spending on the Medicaid expansion. A drop in the bucket? That's more than seven times the $85 billion in 2013 sequester cuts and more than half the projected federal deficit for this fiscal year.

In addition to protecting the federal budget, states that decline to expand their Medicaid coverage will protect their own budgets as well. States such as Arizona that voluntarily expanded their Medicaid programs in the past have faced much higher costs than expected. In 2005 alone, the program originally was projected to cost Arizona $315 million, but the actual cost that year was over $1.3 billion.

The year 2005 wasn't an anomaly. Arizona's cost projections for the last expansion, from 2001 until the expansion was frozen in 2011, were off by over 400% each year. It is likely that the expansion proposed under the Affordable Care Act will have similar results for states that choose to expand their Medicaid programs, which Arizona may or may not do in the future.

It is highly unlikely that the federal government will keep its promise to pay for 90% of the cost of covering the health care of new enrollees. The Obama administration has already proposed cutting the funding available to states, including in its proposed budgets for 2011 and 2012.

States would be wise to remember that those who rely on assurances of federal dollars are often chasing fool's gold. A recent example is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, where Congress promised federal funding to the tune of 40% of program costs after 1982 but today funds only 17%.

State policy makers fed up with federal spending finally have a chance to do something about it. Although many governors regularly take to the airwaves to call out Washington for its fiscal profligacy, they will be complicit if they go along with the expansion of Medicaid.

Several governors who are usually proponents of fiscal responsibility—including New Jersey's Chris Christie, Florida's Rick Scott, Ohio's John Kasich and Michigan's Rick Snyder, among others—are ignoring the cliff on the horizon and stepping on the gas when they should be hitting the brake. With the country running a nearly trillion dollar annual deficit, it is time to make the hard decisions required to balance the books.

###

To read more about the Goldwater Institute's efforts to fight Medicaid expansion, please click here.

State governments generally don't have much of an impact on the federal budget. But there was a gift for fiscally conservative state lawmakers tucked into last summer's U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the court ruled that Congress cannot coerce states into expanding Medicaid by threatening to withhold federal dollars for a state's existing program. This ruling effectively gave state policy makers the unique opportunity to veto hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal spending.Wall Street JournalTuesday, April 30, 2013 - 16:35Wall Street Journal State Powers Government Accountability In the News Op-EdYesBy TopicsChristina Corieritrue

Standing on principle can be costly

lcaldwell — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:45:18 +0000

(From Arizona Capitol Times)

In the debate over Medicaid expansion, the ace up the sleeve of expansion advocates is federal largesse. The federal health care law requires states to eventually cover 10 percent of the cost of

expanding Medicaid eligibility; but for the next three years 100

percent of the cost is covered by the federal treasury.

A 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that if all states choose to expand their Medicaid programs it would cost them $80 billion over the next ten years, but they would receive $1 trillion from the federal government over the same period.

If these numbers are all you consider, refusing the federal money looks almost foolish. But there are other important numbers to keep in mind. Arizona can scarcely afford the Medicaid program we have on the books now. In fact, Arizona has had to cut back on previous Medicaid expansions that became far more expensive than anticipated. When the Medicaid expansion to childless adults up to 100 percent of the poverty level was proposed in 2000, the expansion’s 2008 cost was projected at $389 million. The actual cost to Arizona

taxpayers that year was over four times that at $1.6 billion.

Expansion supporters view the federal money as a gift horse. While it may not be completely free, since the states have to put up money of their own, it is simply too much money to turn down. Besides, they say, increased Medicaid coverage will reduce the use of emergency rooms and make up for much of hospitals’

uncompensated costs that we all pay for through increased insurance premiums.

Expansion opponents see the federal money as a Trojan horse. Viewed from a long-term perspective, our national government is already tremendously in debt. This debt will increase exponentially because of the Medicaid expansion. And it will push more national resources into health care, which is heavily subsidized by

taxpayers and already consumes a giant 18 percent of our GDP.

Simply put, the health care sector, including hospitals, is not hurting. The health care sector has never seen unemployment exceed 3 percent, even during the depths of the recession. Considering the widely-reported fact that hospital prices are wildly inflated and unrelated to actual costs, and that hospitals are expanding

all the time, you have to wonder how much money they are losing. I’ve never seen money-losing industries expand. Beyond that, the biggest users of emergency rooms are Medicaid recipients; expanding the program will only make this worse.

If nothing else, the Medicaid expansion makes state economies more dependent on the federal government. Our economies are increasingly based on the fragile foundation of federal choices, priorities, and funding. This is not a smart position to put the state in long-term.

Standing on principle can sometimes be costly. But here’s a principle worth remembering: If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. If you were approached by someone promising you nine dollars if you just put up one, you’d know something was fishy. You’d think it must be some sort of Ponzi scheme or an outright lie. This program expansion is a Ponzi scheme. The cost is being foisted onto future taxpayers not yet born. It’s also a lie. Federal money is not free.

In the debate over Medicaid expansion, the ace up the sleeve of expansion advocates is federal largesse. The federal health care law requires states to eventually cover 10 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid eligibility; but for the next three years 100 percent of the cost is covered by the federal treasury.http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/04/05/standing-on-principle-can-be-costly/Monday, April 15, 2013 (All day)Arizona Capitol Times In the NewsYesBy TopicsByron Schlomachfalse

With Vouchers, States Shift Aid for Schools to Families

pheitzinger — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:02:28 +0000

(Fernanda Santos and Motoko Rich, The New York Times)

PHOENIX — A growing number of lawmakers across the country are taking steps to redefine public education, shifting the debate from the classroom to the pocketbook. Instead of simply financing a traditional system of neighborhood schools, legislators and some governors are headed toward funneling public money directly to families, who would be free to choose the kind of schooling they believe is best for their children, be it public, charter, private, religious, online or at home.

On Tuesday, after a legal fight, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state’s voucher program as constitutional. This month, Gov. Robert Bentley of Alabama signed tax-credit legislation so that families can take their children out of failing public schools and enroll them in private schools, or at least in better-performing public schools.

In Arizona, which already has a tax-credit scholarship program, the Legislature has broadened eligibility for education savings accounts. And in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie, in an effort to circumvent a Legislature that has repeatedly defeated voucher bills, has inserted $2 million into his budget so low-income children can obtain private school vouchers.

Proponents say tax-credit and voucher programs offer families a way to escape failing public schools. But critics warn that by drawing money away from public schools, such programs weaken a system left vulnerable after years of crippling state budget cuts — while showing little evidence that students actually benefit.

“This movement is doing more than threaten the core of our traditional public school system,” said Timothy Ogle, executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association. “It’s pushing a national policy agenda embraced by conservatives across states that are receptive to conservative ideas.”

Currently, 17 states offer 33 programs that allow parents to use taxpayer money to send their children to private schools, according to the American Federation for Children, a nonprofit advocate for school vouchers and tax-credit scholarship programs that give individuals or corporations tax reductions if they donate to state-run scholarship funds.

To qualify, students generally must fit into certain categories, based on factors that include income and disability status. Georgia students do not need to meet any specific criteria to receive tax-credit scholarships. And under the income criteria set for Indiana’s voucher program, nearly two-thirds of the state’s families qualify.

The Arizona Legislature last May expanded the eligibility criteria for education savings accounts, which are private bank accounts into which the state deposits public money for certain students to use for private school tuition, books, tutoring and other educational services.

Open only to special-needs students at first, the program has been expanded to include children in failing schools, those whose parents are in active military duty and those who are being adopted. One in five public school students — roughly 220,000 children — will be eligible in the coming school year.

Some parents of modest means are surprised to discover that the education savings accounts put private school within reach. When Nydia Salazar first dreamed of attending St. Mary’s Catholic High School in Phoenix, for example, her mother, Maria Salazar, a medical receptionist, figured there was no way she could afford it. The family had always struggled financially, and Nydia, 14, had always attended public school.

But then Ms. Salazar, 37, a single mother who holds two side jobs to make ends meet, heard of a scholarship fund that would allow her to use public dollars to pay the tuition.

She is now trying to coax other parents into signing up for similar scholarships. “When I tell them about private school, they say I’m crazy,” she said. “They think that’s only for rich people.”

These state efforts come at a particularly challenging time for public schools. Their budgets suffered severely during the recession, and they are now facing pressure to conform to new curriculum standards and to evaluate teacher performance.

“We’re not providing adequately now,” said Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association. “Why would you take away” financing from public schools?

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that school vouchers did not violate the Constitution’s separation of church and state, even though many families use the public money to send their children to religious schools. Many states, however, still have constitutional clauses prohibiting the financing of religious institutions with public money, which is why some of the programs face legal challenges. Voucher opponents also have filed suits based on state constitutional guarantees of public education.

Beyond Indiana, the Supreme Court in Louisiana heard an appeal this month by a group of parents who are currently using vouchers and the Black Alliance for Educational Options, an advocacy group, after a lower court upheld a challenge to the state’s voucher program. They argued that children enrolled in failing public schools had the right to a high-quality education.

“What we’re dealing with is what public monopolies always give us, which is low quality at a very high price,” said Richard Komer, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm that represents the pro-voucher groups in Indiana and Louisiana. “The idea is to try and break that cycle, because what we’ve been doing in public education since the beginning of time is rewarding failure.”

Critics say schools that accept vouchers or tax credit scholarships often filter out students with special needs, and that families already sending their children to private school use the public programs to subsidize their tuition. It is also not clear that students who attend private schools using vouchers get better educations, as many do not have to take the annual standardized tests that public school students do. Research tracking students in voucher programs has also not shown clear improvements in performance.

“At the same exact time as accountability and transparency seem to be the total watchword for how are we spending these dollars in an austerity-ridden environment,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, “there’s absolutely no accountability with vouchers.”

Mr. Komer at the Institute for Justice called for a shift of focus. “We happen to take the view that parents know best,” he said, “and are the best accountability measure to make sure that things are done properly for their kids.”

In Arizona — which, over the past five years, cut more of its K-12 budget than any other state, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a policy research group based in Washington — charter schools are ubiquitous and school districts have open borders, so children are free to go to school wherever they want.

Dr. Ogle, of the Arizona School Boards Association, said, “The arguments that you need to have more options is superfluous.”

But the savings accounts have many powerful supporters, including Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer. Unlike vouchers, these accounts allow the money to follow the child from one school year to the next. (Scholarships total roughly $3,500 a year, or the state’s portion of school per-pupil funding.)

“It will be the end of schools that don’t perform, and that’s a blessing,” said Darcy A. Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute, which designed the program and led a robust lobbying campaign to pass it in the Legislature. “We’re not doing anyone any favors by keeping schools afloat that don’t teach children how to read.”

The school boards association and the state’s teachers union, among others, have challenged the savings accounts in court on the grounds that they violate a constitutional amendment banning spending public money on private schools. (Direct vouchers, begun in 2006, were deemed unconstitutional in 2009 for that reason.)

In January 2012, a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, upheld the savings accounts, though the plaintiffs appealed the ruling. Oral arguments were heard last month. A decision is pending.

A growing number of lawmakers across the country are taking steps to redefine public education, shifting the debate from the classroom to the pocketbook. Instead of simply financing a traditional system of neighborhood schools, legislators and some governors are headed toward funneling public money directly to families, who would be free to choose the kind of schooling they believe is best for their children, be it public, charter, private, religious, online or at home. The New York TimesWednesday, March 27, 2013 (All day)The New York Times Education Reform In the NewsYeseducation, savings, accounts, empowerment, scholarship, school, choice, fernanda, santos, motoko, rich, voucher, new, york, times,By Topicstrue

How About a Catalog of Which School Choice Options Are (and Are Not) Available?

pheitzinger — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:22:56 +0000

(J.D. Tuccille, Reason.com)

Many years ago, I worked for an Arizona-based school choice organization that is no more (not to worry; its work is being done, rather more effectively, by other organizations). Among the benefits of that job was becoming very familiar with the impressive education options available in our state. In fact, Arizona has among the widest menu of schools, non-schools and creative approaches for absorbing information in the country. Even homeschooling, which is barely tolerated in some states, is relatively painless and free of red tape. (Although charter schools and traditional public schools are increasingly bogged down in regulation here, as they are everywhere). But finding out about some of these options can be challenging, since there's no source for one-stop shopping. Enter the Goldwater Institute, which has published A Parent's Guide to School Choice to close the information gap.

The guide breaks Arizona education options out into six categories:

Open Enrollment: The ability to enroll in any public school in the state, regardless of district boundaries.
Private School Scholarships: Businesses and individuals can make tax-deductible donations to funds that pay private school tuition to those who meet the fund's criteria.
Empowerment Scholarship Accounts: Part of the state's per-pupil education funding is available to be used for tuition, tutoring and other education expenses.
Homeschool: Technically, you're supposed to file a notarized affidavit with the local school district, just to let them know you're homeschooling.
Online or "Virtual" Schools: Public or private, offering a full education or in as a complement to classroom work or homeschooling.
Charter Schools: Privately managed public schools offering a wide variety of curricula and approaches.

The Goldwater Institute is calling for the state to start publishing its own school choice catalog:

A school choice catalog could be produced by the state at no additional cost to the general fund. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Arizona receives almost $350 million every year to help children succeed through services like tutoring and increasing parent engagement (the funding source is known as Title I). The department’s production of an annually mailed school choice catalog would qualify for this funding as an effort to increase parent engagement in children’s education.

Frankly, though, I think a federally funded, state government-published, catalog will end up as a non-stop pissing contest over the proper presentation of each option and whether a certain phrasing disparages somebody's favorite choice ... And, to be honest, Arizona depends too much on federal funding already.

I think the school choice catalog is a great idea, and I'd rather see it remain in private hands — either with Goldwater or another private group that can use voluntarily raised funds to publish as it sees fit.

I'd also like to see similar catalogs published everywhere, so that families can more easily see what options are available to them, and what options are not. Catalogs published in states with minimal choice could even offer side-by-side comparisons to what's available elsewhere, so that people would know what they're missing.

That's probably not a feature that tax-funded catalogs are likely to offer anytime soon.

Arizona has among the widest menu of schools, non-schools and creative approaches for absorbing information in the country. But finding out about some of these options can be challenging, since there's no source for one-stop shopping. Enter the Goldwater Institute, which has published A Parent's Guide to School Choice to close the information gap.Reason.comTuesday, March 19, 2013 - 12:53Reason.com Education Reform In the NewsYesreason.com, J.D., Tuccille, ESA, Education, Empowerment, Savings,Scholarship, Accounts, school, choice, catalog, Parent's Guide,By Topicsfalse

Warming to a Balanced Budget Amendment at CPAC

pheitzinger — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:09:32 +0000

(Kevin Mooney, The American Spectator)

Will a balanced budget amendment advance the cause of limited government and constrain spending? This question was explored during a panel discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) yesterday moderated by Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (AFT). The short answer is yes, so long as that amendment is crafted in the right way with a proviso that requires a supermajority for raising taxes. That seemed to be consensus in the ballroom and the panelist made a strong case. This conservative has mixed feelings. Go back to the 1990s, and we did achieve a balanced budget by way of robust economic growth and much lower federal spending. This was done without changing the U.S. Constitution. As conservatives, shouldn’t we prioritize the repeal of damaging amendments instead of adding new ones? (I’d start with the 17^th Amendment, but there are others.)

Still, the panelists made a strong case.

Lou Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee, threw some sobering stats. If the Balanced Budget Amendment President Reagan supported in the early 1980s had prevailed over then-House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s recalcitrant Democratic majority, the nation would have saved $10 trillion in spending in the intervening years, and the debt held by the public now at $12.6 trillion would be less than $1 trillion. So it’s getting harder for me to resist the amendment.

Nick Dranias, a legal scholar with the Goldwater Institute, directly addressed the concerns I have over constitutional purity. Under Article 5 of the Constitution, once two-thirds of the states— 34 out of 50 — agree on an amendment, Congress must set a time and place for delegates of all 50 states to hold a convention. Three-quarters of the states — meaning 38 of them — must then approve the result. The founding fathers specifically put this provision in as a check against an oversized federal government.

Does this open the way to a “runaway convention”? That is one conservative concern I’ve heard. The answer I think is that the runaway convention is already in motion on Capitol Hill. We are where we are.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, correctly noted that conservatives have scored important victories on the tax front. Over 90 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate have signed his pledge to refrain from raising taxes. We do have a handful of squishes. “Republicans who raise taxes are like rat heads in a coke bottle, they damage the brand for everyone.” Still, the GOP at large maintains a strong anti-tax streak.

But regardless of how much new revenue the political class takes in, it can always spend more. Outside pressure is needed to force change; that’s why I’m warming to the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment.

G.O.P. In Arizona is Pushed to Expand Medicaid

rkramer — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:20:38 +0000

(By Fernanda Santos, New York Times)

They were working on an equally modest tally in the State House of Representatives, an unusual state of affairs for a staunchly conservative governor: her most reliable supporters on this issue are on the other side of the aisle, in the Legislature’s usually powerless Democratic minority.

“It is not often we agree with her,” said Representative Bruce Wheeler, the minority whip, “but we certainly do on this issue.”

Indeed, the governor has won respect in conservative circles for her outspoken criticism of President Obama and for her support of Arizona’s strict immigration legislation.

Last week, Ms. Brewer took her fight from conference rooms and the halls of the Senate and House to the steps of the State Capitol, surrounding herself with health care professionals in a public show of force before the Legislature, where the Medicaid bill she endorses will be unveiled on Tuesday.

In the meantime, a coalition of business leaders began running television advertisements promoting Ms. Brewer’s plan as a lifeline to hospitals, particularly in rural areas, where the number of Medicaid recipients is large, as is the number of uninsured seeking care in emergency rooms.

But in their push to win over Republicans, the governor’s advisers have found that they have no single persuasive argument, and at times, no chance at all for persuasion.

To make their case, they are pressing the idea that expanding Medicaid, the federal and state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people, is the best way to stabilize the state’s health care system, already buckling under the weight of caring for uninsured patients. They invoke the burden borne by the insured, whose high premiums cover, in part, the cost of treatment that goes unpaid. They remind legislators that to back the plan is to honor the choice of voters, who overwhelmingly passed ballot measures, in 1996 and 2000, expanding coverage for childless adults with incomes up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level.

For good measure, they warn of the perils of bad press just as the 2014 campaign season is getting started. If the state got hammered in 2010 for cutting Medicaid coverage for certain organ transplants, affecting 94 patients, the thinking goes, imagine the reaction if the expansion does not go through and thousands of childless adults are dropped from the rolls just days after Christmas. (The waiver that has allowed for their coverage expires on Jan. 1.)

“The legislative dance is just getting started,” said Chuck Coughlin, the governor’s former campaign manager and one of the lobbyists leading the effort.

It is a choreography that has fostered unlikely alliances and uncertain behind-closed-doors deals, in Arizona and in other states where Republican governors’ embrace of Medicaid expansion set off a backlash from Republican legislative majorities.

Committees are exploring other options in Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott faces increasing uncertainty over whether the expansion there will pass. In Ohio, Gov. John R. Kasich invoked dollars and God during his State of the State address, telling conservative legislators that the vulnerable should not be left behind.

For Ms. Brewer, getting the expansion approved has become a matter of personal pride, even if it has gone against her strong opposition to the Obama administration’s health care overhaul. She has thrown all of her political capital behind the effort, traveling across the state to sell her message and encouraging a Republican lawmaker, State Representative Heather Carter, who has generally been in line with the governor’s health policies, to nudge her colleagues in the Legislature.

“One of the things she has demonstrated is that she generally gets what she wants,” said her spokesman, Matthew Benson.

The battle has sometimes boiled down to semantics. For example, the state’s Medicaid director, Thomas Betlach, refuses to use the word expansion. “Restoration,” he said assertively during an interview, referring to the fact that the under the governor’s plan, the program would again apply to people who lost coverage when the recession hit and the state froze enrollment. (The expansion would stretch the coverage beyond the state’s income threshold to 133 percent of the poverty level, or $30,675 for a family of four.)

Ms. Brewer and her supporters call a fee that would be levied against hospitals to help offset the state’s share of the costs a “hospital assessment.” Opponents call it a “bed tax.”

Recently, 40 lobbyists, representing at least 110 groups pushing for the expansion, among them hospitals, health care associations and business organizations, huddled in the executive wing of the State Capitol to update the governor’s advisers on their progress and hone strategies. One of them reminded colleagues not to encourage enthusiastic Democrats to interfere; later, he said that in Arizona, using Democrats to win over Republicans can be disastrous.

The lobbyists have trained their focus on the Senate, whose president, Andy Biggs, a conservative Republican from a conservative district southeast of Phoenix, they hope to sway.

If enough Senate Republicans get behind the expansion, their thinking goes, House Republicans will follow. The House speaker, Andy Tobin, a Republican, has been carrying on his own offensive, meeting with freshman Democrats to try to dissuade them from voting for the expansion. And in an interview, State Representative John Kavanagh, chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a vociferous opponent of the governor’s plan, said that if the measure were to get a vote in the coming days, “it wouldn’t pass.”

“As more facts are revealed about the way it’s being funded, the bed tax and all,” he added, “more members of our caucus fall off.”

The Medicaid expansion is, by all accounts, the most contentious element of Ms. Brewer’s proposed budget, and the proposed hospital fee its sharpest thorn. In private, conservative groups like the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute have been weighing whether to sue the state, arguing that the assessment is a tax, which would require approval by a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, as prescribed in a ballot measure passed in 1992.

“They’ll never get two-thirds out of this chamber,” Mr. Kavanagh said.

The governor’s advisers seemed certain that the vote would not be necessary.

John Arnold, the state’s budget director, said the fee would be equal to the difference between what Arizona gets each year from the 1998 settlement with tobacco companies, which was struck as a means for most states to recover health care costs linked to tobacco use, and the state’s share of the Medicaid program. The amount is not fixed, he added, as settlement payments, federal contribution to the program and enrollment fluctuate.

Ms. Brewer has argued that expanding Medicaid would provide the state about $1.7 billion in federal financing, and that the state would be able to stop offering benefits to childless adults if federal reimbursement dropped below 80 percent.

In an interview, Darcy A. Olsen, the Goldwater Institute’s president, said: “This money doesn’t come free from Washington. Arizona taxpayers pay federal taxes, too.”

The governor has also emphasized Medicaid’s current cost (its cost per participant is $680 lower than the national average, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation) and managed-care system (it functions like an H.M.O.), which has helped reduce the number of emergency room visits and the length of hospital stays among participants. And Ms. Brewer has showed no signs of backing off.

“The governor is committed,” Mr. Benson, her spokesman, said. “People who follow politics in this state know that when she makes a decision, she digs in her heels.”

In the battle to get the Medicaid expansion being championed by Gov. Jan Brewer approved by the state’s legislators, her closest advisers are hanging their hopes on the number eight. That is how many of the 17 Republicans in the State Senate they believe they can get on their side.The New York TimesMonday, March 11, 2013 - 09:17The New York Times Government Spending In the NewsYesmedicaid, gop, arizona, brewer, governor, jan, expandBy Topicsfalse

Study: Transparency in collective bargaining could save taxpayers $50 billion

rkramer — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:14:06 +0000

(By Michal Conger, The Washington Examiner)

Lack of transparency laws allows public unions to push for sweet deals they wouldn’t get if their negotiations were conducted in the open, a new policy report from the Goldwater Institute finds.

In fact, the report notes, “States across the nation could save $50 billion—and Arizona in particular could save $550 million—every year in excessive pay to public employees simply by banning government union collective bargaining.”

Only seven states have laws requiring that public union collective bargaining take place in the open. As the study notes, “Meaningful transparency in collective bargaining is clearly the exception rather than the rule.”

Eleven states come down against transparency, with laws protecting secrecy in government union collective bargaining. These include Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.

But even where states don’t specifically prohibit open bargaining, transparency laws are frequently skirted to give unions the secrecy they demand, the study notes.

This secrecy is paying off for union members: In 2012, the report notes, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that state and local government employees made nearly 43 percent more per hour on average in total compensation than private-sector workers.

The Goldwater Institute evaluated each state’s laws and enforcement, and found that 41 states either protect secrecy outright, or fail to impose or enforce transparency laws.

Arizona is one of the worse offenders, according to the study.

The secrecy imposed on those negotiations is so all-encompassing that cities like Avondale, Chandler, and Maricopa even expressly prohibit anyone from sharing records of negotiations with elected officials and the news media…

It should be no wonder that the Goldwater Institute estimated that government union collective bargaining in Arizona increases the wages and benefits of government employees by $550 million per year.

Given the high cost to taxpayers, the Goldwater Institute advocates that states require government union collective bargaining be subject to the open-meeting laws that apply to other government negotiations.

“Secrecy in collective bargaining only really affords government employers one significant “benefit:” by maintaining secrecy in bargaining, government officials can avoid immediate political accountability for their positions and strategies,” the report says.

Lack of transparency laws allows public unions to push for sweet deals they wouldn’t get if their negotiations were conducted in the open, a new policy report from the Goldwater Institute finds. In fact, the report notes, “States across the nation could save $50 billion—and Arizona in particular could save $550 million—every year in excessive pay to public employees simply by banning government union collective bargaining.”The Washington ExaminerMonday, March 11, 2013 - 09:11The Washington Examiner Workplace Freedom In the NewsYescollective, bargainingBy Topicsfalse

The President and the Preschools

rkramer — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:29:29 +0000

(By Darcy Olsen, National Review Online)

A recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services of Head Start, a 40-year-old preschool program for low-income families, found that any gains made by children in the program had disappeared by third grade. This finding is supported by a mountain of earlier studies that show no long-term advantage in school performance for children who attend preschool.

The president repeated the oft-cited myth that “every dollar we invest in high-quality early-childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on, by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.” This estimate is based on the results of an intensive early-intervention program conducted on a handful of children in 1962. No preschool program before or since has shown such results. In an earnest desire to ensure that every child has love and education, enthusiasts have wildly oversold preschool’s s benefits.

Preparing a child for school requires what it always has, and it’s neither fancy nor costly. It’s what I and millions of other parents do every day: talk, read, sing, and play with our children.

Education Department data have shown that most children enter school with the building blocks for achievement — with or without preschool. A majority recognize numbers, letters, and shapes. Nearly all are in good health, enthusiastic, and creative, key precursors to achievement.

Our youngest Americans are also competitive internationally. In England, France, and Spain, over 90 percent of four-year-olds attend preschool versus just 74 percent of American four-year-olds. Yet American children outperform their European peers in reading, math, and science. It’s in the later years that American children fall behind.

To improve our country’s educational indicators — a laudable goal shared by Americans across the political spectrum — we should look to proven ways of improving education results, giving parents muscle through programs such as education savings accounts, charter schools, grants, and tax credits.

Wisconsin is home to the nation’s best-known school-choice program, which has cut the high-school dropout rate almost in half for participating students. Arizonans can choose from an abundance of charter schools, and test results show that charter students there learn more each year than their peers in traditional public schools.

Parents should get an “A” for a job well done with preschoolers — no help from Washington requested or required.

Darcy Olsen is president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced an initiative to make preschool universal, citing studies that purport to show academic benefits from earlier school enrollment. Unfortunately, this plan flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that preschool has no lasting impact on children’s future educational success.National Review OnlineFriday, February 15, 2013 - 08:00National Review Online Government Spending In the NewsYesdarcy, olsen, preschool, pre-k, universal, obama, educationBy TopicsDarcy Olsenfalse

Fish pedicure case goes to court

rkramer — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:40:43 +0000

Associated Press & Fox News

Cindy Vong opened a fish spa within her nail salon in the Phoenix suburb of Gilbert during October 2008 but was forced to close that fish spa segment of her business nearly a year later.

The closure was prompted by the state's Board of Cosmetology, which said the practice was illegal because the fish were a tool for skin exfoliation that couldn't be sanitized in between uses.

Vong said the practice poses no health risks, prompted no complaints from clients and that the treatments, which cost $30 for 20 minutes, were popular and profitable.

“There is not a single instance of harm attributable to fish spas in the entire world,” said Clint Bolick, a lawyer for the libertarian-leaning Goldwater Institute, who is pressing Vong's case in court.

Fish pedicures are popular in Asia and spread to some U.S. cities in recent years. But Texas, Washington, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have outlawed the practice because of health concerns.

Lawyers made brief opening statements Monday during the first day of Vong's two-day trial.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge George Foster Jr. will decide the case.

Attorneys representing the Board of Cosmetology pointed out that Vong signed an agreement to close the fish spa operation and said the fish pedicures are part of the practice of cosmetology and pose health risks. Vong's lawyers said she signed the agreement to bring the case to court.

Evan Hiller, an attorney for the board, said regulators properly applied the same rules to fish pedicures as they do to other facets of cosmetology, such as scissors that must be disinfected after a customer's haircut.

But Hiller said fish can't be disinfected and, thus, carry the risk of disease.

Vong said she spent $40,000 setting up her spa fish operation, including the purchase of tiny Garra Rufa fish from China. She lost that investment and had to fire employees after regulators forced her to close the spa fish operation. Vong isn't seeking monetary damages and instead wants a declaration that her constitutional rights were violated.

Her case was dismissed in May 2010. It was revived by a state appeals court that ruled fish pedicures fall under the board's regulation but also concluded the spa owner could continue to press claims that her due-process and equal protection rights were violated. Her lawsuit said Vong wants her right to pursue a legitimate business interest vindicated.

A civil trial began Monday in a case by an Arizona salon owner who is challenging an order from cosmetology regulators that forced her to stop offering pedicures that use fish to nibble the dead skin off people's feet.Fox NewsTuesday, January 15, 2013 (All day)Fox News Workplace Freedom In the NewsYesfox, news, spa, fish, cindy, vong, By Topicsfalse

Representative David Schweikert Highlights Tombstone Case

rkramer — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:36:06 +0000

On the same day that Goldwater Institute attorneys appeared before the Ninth Circuit in Tombstone v. United States, Representative David Schweikert (R-Ariz) highlighted the case on the House floor.

A devastating combination of wildfires and monsoons ravaged Tombstone's water supply in 2011, leaving only three of 25 springs in operation. Yet despite a declared state of emergency, the U.S. Forest Service still refuses to let the town repair its water lines, which originate in federal wilderness area, with anything besides horses and hand-tools, for fear of disturbing the emerging habitat of the Mexican Spotted Owl.

"This town is older than my state, [and its water rights are] older than my state, yet the Forest Service is restricting the town from 87 percent of its water supply," said Schweikert. "Is there an adult in the Forest Service who has a lick of sense?"

A clip of Schweikert's remarks can be viewed below.

Video courtesy of CSPAN

On the same day that Goldwater Institute attorneys appeared before the Ninth Circuit in Tombstone v. United States, Representative David Schweikert (R-Ariz) highlighted the case on the House floor.Monday, December 10, 2012 - 14:32State Powers In the NewsYesBy Topicsfalse