Views

State gets a pleasant April surprise

Details

Tuesday, 23 April 2024

Written by John Hood

I’ve never been more delighted to be mistaken.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column observing that, over the first eight months of the 2023-24 fiscal year, the state’s General Fund revenue was down slightly from what was collected during the first eight months of the previous fiscal year.
North Carolina faced no “fiscal emergency,” I wrote, but unless revenue collections were “bountiful” this spring, the General Assembly wouldn’t have lots of extra cash to work with during its short session.
Well, state economists have just released their consensus revenue forecast — and bountiful isn’t too strong a description. For the current fiscal year, they now expect $34.1 billion in General Fund revenues. That’s $413 million more than originally projected. As for the $34.4 billion now expected for FY 2024-25, that’s a full $1 billion more than the budgeted amount.
Why was this year’s “April surprise” so pleasant? Collections from the personal income tax finance about half our General Fund and typically drive our revenue trends. That’s true this time, as well, as income taxes are now expected to run 2.6% above the baseline this year and 4.2% next year. Sales taxes are also up, albeit more modestly.
Contrary to the expectations they formed last year, economists for the legislature’s Fiscal Research Division and the governor’s Office of State Budget and Management say our economy “demonstrated greater resilience and avoided a predicted period of stagnant growth, or ‘slowcession,’ in late 2023 and 2024. Instead, the April 2024 consensus forecast expects a ‘soft landing,’ with inflation easing toward the Federal Reserve’s 2% target even as the economy continues to grow at a modestly slower pace than in 2023.”
Could their new judgment be overly sanguine? Sure. Forecasting isn’t an exact science. But it’s now very likely the state will experience a surplus in General Fund revenue of about 1.2% for the fiscal year ending in June. And it is now reasonable for state legislators to assume something like a 3% overage when adjusting the General Fund budget for next year.
They’ll have more transportation dollars to work with, as well. Strong collections from the state tax on motor fuels will generate about $104 million more than projected this year for the Highway Fund and Highway Trust Fund, plus another $101 million next year.
Given the circumstances, you’d expect every state agency, local government, or private interest to line up at the Legislative Building, ready to pitch — and you’d be right!
As I have previously argued, some of these pitches ought to deliver results, as they are in the public interest and consistent with fundamental principles of fiscal conservatism. Lawmakers ought to raise pay for public employees, for example, with a particular emphasis on merit-based increases and hard-to-fill positions such as correction officers, lab technicians, and science teachers.
Also deserving consideration is the community college system’s Propel NC initiative, which would allocate more funds to high-demand fields such as advanced manufacturing, public safety, and allied health while instituting a three-year cycle for reevaluate spending based on job and salary data.
North Carolina is already in the process of phasing out its tax on corporate income and reducing its flat tax on personal income. That’s why next year’s revenue, while likely to exceed original projections, will rise just 0.7% over 2023-24.
Tax cuts are already baked in the cake, as it were. Still, the revenue revisions give lawmakers more fiscal space to tackle other tax-reform priorities while devoting additional funds to the Opportunity Scholarship program, which has attracted far more parents seeking educational alternatives for their children than currently funding can accommodate.
Under existing law, a portion of the General Fund revenue surpluses will flow automatically into state reserves and fund the construction and maintenance of public facilities. Prudence argues for devoting additional funds to high-priority infrastructure projects and to shrinking the unfunded liability in the state’s health plan.
There’s good news on revenues. Now, let’s keep delivering good policy.

Editor’s note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His latest books, Mountain Folk and Forest Folk, combine epic fantasy with early American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Fayetteville streets are becoming deadly raceways

Details

Tuesday, 16 April 2024

Written by Craig Stewart

Publisher’s Note:
I’m yielding my editorial space to publish a Letter to the Editor we received from a Fayetteville resident who addresses a major (and common) local safety concern that weighs heavily on the hearts and minds of thousands of Fayetteville residents. I applaud this writer for his bold initiative in attempting to bring his concerns to our city leaders.
It is my hope, that this letter will inspire and motivate others to get involved by voicing their opinions and sharing their experiences with elected officials. This is the ultimate way to effect change. Thank you for reading the Up & Coming Weekly community newspaper.
— Bill Bowman

I went to the April 3rd meeting of Fayetteville City’s Council Community Safety Committee to voice my complaints over speeders with their ear-piercing, unmuffled cars and motorcycles. I never knew we had such a committee until I was directed there by the 911 operator.
I came prepared with a speech and expected to see many more like-minded concerned citizens present, but I was the only non-committee member there. Maybe not too many people know about this resource. Interesting.
I was cordially greeted and asked the nature of my presence. I told them my intentions and gave the Chairman of the Committee, Council Member Mario Benavente, a copy of my presentation since I would not be allowed to present it. He said the first step for concerns like mine begins with my District Five representative, Lynne Greene.
He took my contact information, and I showed myself out. This is my speech to the committee:
Fayetteville police do not rule the streets. They are overwhelmed by speeders with their ear-piercing, unmuffled cars and motorcycles. The lack of police cars with radar is only part of the problem. In my opinion, the will to enforce the law is also lacking. (At this point, I was going to relate my personal experience.)
My wife and I were waiting to turn left from S. McPherson Church Road onto Raeford Road when a speeder ran through the red light just before I was about to turn.
I looked up and saw a police car sitting at the BP station facing the intersection. Both my wife and I said at the same time, "Look at that!". I made the turn, and my wife said, "You go over there to that policeman and ask him why he did not go after that car!"
I resisted, but she was insistent. So, I did.
I came up to his window, and he was very nice. He answered me, "I don't have radar."
He also said he was one of only two officers available for the entire area. This incident caused me to question the city's resolve to provide an adequate police force with proper equipment—end of story. My presentation continues.
South McPherson Church Road and the All-American Freeway serve these lawbreakers as their personal Indianapolis 500. Also, misfits draw doughnuts in intersections and parking lots, showing contempt for authorities and private property owners.
You should take it personally and direct more funds to the police force. Without safety and respect for the law, you cannot pursue other projects to improve the city—end of presentation.
The constant blaring of speeding, unmuffled cars, and motorcycles just got too much for me recently, which is why I called 911. This led me to the Community Safety Committee on where I received their meeting agenda and the minutes of their last meeting on March 6, 2024.
I then focused on one agenda item and two organizations I was not familiar with:
1. Driving Equality Laws Presentation Recap (agenda item)
2. Emancipate NC (organization)
3. Forward Justice (organization)
Upon reviewing the minutes, I noticed both Emancipate NC and Forward Justice made presentations to the committee, and received general approval with City Council Member Banks-McLaughlin saying there was "great dialogue between Fayetteville Police Chief Braden and Attorney Carpenter" of Forward Justice.
What is Emancipate NC, and who is Forward Justice? Emancipate NC has a website that states, "It is an organization founded on the knowledge that incarceration and structural racism is harmful.
It is an organization dedicated to shifting the narrative on racialized mass incarceration through community mobilization.” They maintain that the mainstream narrative that criminalizes Black and Brown people must be transformed.
The Forward Justice organization is a nonprofit center in Durham, NC, dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the South. This group challenges laws, policies, and practices that harm the most vulnerable in society- the Black, Brown, and poor populations, keeping them from full liberation.
You should Google these groups for yourself. They are anti-capitalist (Marxist), anti-police, and anti-law and order. They promote the ideas of systemic governmental racism and racial injustice.
So, why do these organizations have the ear and endorsement of our city council without public knowledge?
Does not the law read the same no matter what race you are? Is there a need for any organization to cheer on one race over another? Justice must be blind no matter what your situation is.
I went to the April 3rd meeting to complain and voice my concerns about noisy, speeding, and contemptible behavior on the roadways. I came away more troubled over what appears to be a bigger problem.
Craig Stewart
Fayetteville, NC 28314

Puh-lease have a baby?

Details

Tuesday, 16 April 2024

Written by Margaret Dickson

For generations, we worried about overpopulation around the world, but, increasingly, we are now more worried about too few babies arriving in the United States and in many other developed nations.
Let this statistic sink in.
Our nation’s birth rate has dropped an astounding 23 percent since the Great Recession. In less than a century we have transitioned from the unexpected and stunning Baby Boom following World War II to today’s average American mother having 1.6 children, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 needed to maintain population stability.
We are hardly alone.
Nations from Italy to Korea and all in between are in the same or a similar boat, with governments scrambling to entice young citizens into parenthood. Some offer incentives including 2.5-year maternity leaves (Austria), cash payments of $7000 (Russia), and a $30,000 loan which is forgiven if the couple has 3 children (Hungary). Public education campaigns around the baby shortage abound, including one in Denmark asking, “have you counted your eggs today?” Some nations, especially the more authoritarian ones, are restricting access to contraception and reproductive health care, and there is concern in some circles that the United States is moving in that direction as well.
Demographers say there are many reasons for declining birth rates, some positive and others not so much. Education levels have risen since the Baby Boom years, giving men and especially women more options for how to spend their lives as well as greater economic resources to make individual choices.
Many of child-bearing age delay parenthood and some never get there at all. In addition, many young people express concerns about bringing children into our current world of rapid climate change, rampant gun violence, and highly toxic politics. Minority women fear disparities in maternity care and higher pregnancy mortality rates. And, across the board, prospective parents understand the high cost of raising and educating children and understandably wonder whether they can afford to become parents.
I doubt that pleas from politicians and other policymakers for young people to start families ASAP make much difference at all, including promises of cash payments. Deciding to have children changes one’s life forever, and most of us do not care what our government thinks about this most personal decision.
What can we do to encourage young people to reproduce and replace us with new generations, most of whom will become productive, taxpaying adults?
The obvious answer is to make it easier to be a parent, a job that is intense for about two decades and continues even beyond that.
Paid parental leave is a no-brainer. Anyone who has had a baby knows that the adjustment takes not weeks but months and that families need income during that period. When it is time for parents to return to work, someone has to take care of the little one. Some families are fortunate enough to have a grandparent or other relative/friend willing and able to tackle that task for free or with small compensation.
Most families, though, need daycare services, now prohibitively expensive for millions, making affordable daycare a must. Instead of underfunding public education as North Carolina has done in recent years, parents want and need to know that high-quality public education is and will remain available to their children.
The bottom line is this: patriotic pleas for parenthood fall on deaf ears, even for people who might want children.
Smoothing the way for parenthood and supporting those who choose it will help more prospective parents think pink and blue.

No silver bullet for school woes

Details

Tuesday, 09 April 2024

Written by John Hood

Because of the tremendous benefits conferred by better education, it would be great if policymakers knew precisely what silver bullets to fire to eliminate obstacles to higher achievement.
But obstacles to achievement aren’t werewolves. They are complex and deeply rooted, not simple and fictional.
Unfortunately, far too many political discussions of education reform turn into debates about how best to cast silver bullets.
Some years ago, the magical ammunition of choice was the idea of making schools smaller. It attracted media attention, foundation funding, and political momentum. There was some early research support for the cause, which also seemed like common sense: smaller schools would be easier to manage and differentiate, allowing more innovation and individualized instruction.
Like so many other education-reform fads, however, policymakers let a few successful cases and a plausible theory displace critical thinking and patient evaluation. They didn’t look before they leaped. States and districts across the country hurried to break up existing schools and found new, smaller ones. The results proved to be mixed and, in many cases, disappointing.
It turns out that, yes, some students thrive in smaller schools. They feel safer and receive more attention. Some principals and teachers also do their best work in smaller schools.
But for other students and educators, the tradeoffs aren’t to their advantage. Smaller schools may lack the scale necessary to justify the high-level courses that challenge the gifted or the extracurricular programs that keep some students excited about school.
If policymakers had studied the issue more carefully, they wouldn’t have greeted the small-school movement with unrealistic expectations. Over the past quarter-century, scholars have published more than 100 peer-reviewed studies in academic journals exploring the relationship between school size and student performance.
In roughly a third, smaller schools were associated with higher achievement. In half, there was no statistically significant relationship between school size and outcomes. In the rest of the studies, smaller schools were linked to
lower student achievement.
Importantly, these findings do not suggest that there are no benefits to be had from smaller schools. They may be precisely what the doctor ordered for some students. But policymakers shouldn’t expect a general program of downsizing public schools to result in substantial improvements in efficiency or effectiveness. Other factors play a larger role in shaping student achievement.
And for small schools that do have a strong track record of success, size may be only part of a larger bundle of characteristics — a shared vision, a dynamic leader, rigorous curriculum, community support — that can’t easily be replicated.
Indeed, some of the studies finding benefits from small schools are really finding benefits from new, innovative schools — those that naturally begin their existence with small enrollments but then retain their effectiveness even as
they grow larger.
A 2013 study in the Journal of Urban Economics, for example, found that when New York City broke up existing high schools into smaller units, there wasn’t necessarily any effect on graduation rates or other outcome measures, whereas newly founded small schools did outperform other high schools in the city.
Policymakers out to improve education shouldn’t discard the silver bullet of small schools in search of a new silver bullet. They should abandon that search altogether and approach the problem differently.
After setting rigorous standards and ensuring that there will be independent assessments of student performance to provide critical information to parents, educators, and taxpayers, they should then largely get out of the way and let districts, schools, and educators make their own choices about operational matters.
It’s best to think about school reform as a process of discovery and replication, not one of social engineering and bureaucratic compliance.
Unlike small schools, school autonomy does offer consistent benefits. About two-thirds of peer-reviewed studies find a statistically significant link between the degree of school autonomy and student outcomes.
Some autonomous schools — be they public or private — choose to keep total enrollments low. Others don’t. As long as they get results, who cares?

Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His latest books, Mountain Folk and Forest Folk, combine epic fantasy with early American history (FolkloreCycle.com).