Randy Hicks on taking a bottom-up strategy to state policy reform | Overton Window Podcast

Randy Hicks on taking a bottom-up strategy to state policy reform | Overton Window Podcast

Randy Hicks on taking a bottom-up strategy to state policy reform | Overton Window Podcast

GCO’s CEO, Randy Hicks speaks with fellow think tank podcast, The Overton Window

Below is an excerpt from the Mackinac Center in Michigan. The Mackinac Center recently invited GCO’s CEO, Randy Hicks to discuss GCO’s take on State Policy Reform on their regular podcast,  The Overton Window.

Like many public policy advocates, the people at the Georgia Center for Opportunity research and write about public policy. What makes them different is that they try to bridge the gap between people working at the community level and the people working on state policy. I spoke with their president and CEO Randy Hicks about this for the Overton Window podcast.

 

“One of the things that sets us apart is that we actually spend a lot of time in the community working on those who we believe could be or are most affected by various public policies that we’re interested in,” Hicks says.

The dynamics between working on state policy and working at the community level are different, and state politics is not very conducive to collaboration.

 

Georgia Senate committee advances school-choice bill | The Center Square

Georgia Senate committee advances school-choice bill | The Center Square

In The News

Georgia Senate committee advances school-choice bill | The Center Square

The Georgia Senate Education and Youth Committee has advanced legislation that would allow Georgians to put taxpayer money toward the cost of private school tuition.

Senate Bill 601, the Georgia Educational Freedom Act, would create state-funded Promise Scholarships of up to $6,000 a year. Families of the roughly 1.7 million K-12 students in Georgia could use the money for private school tuition and other education expenses, such as tutoring and homeschool curriculum

“Promise Scholarships step far beyond a typical voucher by fully putting parents in the driver’s seat when it comes to their child’s education,” Buzz Brockway, vice president of public policy for The Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO), said in a statement after the Senate committee approved the bill Tuesday.

“The funds could be used for private-school tuition, but there is added flexibility depending on each family’s unique needs, extending to paying for things like tutoring, specialized therapies, or homeschool co-ops,” Brockway said. “Passing Promise Scholarships would put Georgia at the forefront nationally of giving all children the opportunity for a great education.”

Georgia Senate committee advances school-choice bill | The Center Square

Could guaranteed basic income replace the welfare system? | Daily Citizen News

In The News

Could guaranteed basic income replace the welfare system? | Daily Citizen News

Georgia is the latest state to experiment with something called a “guaranteed basic income.” It will be interesting to see if these pilot projects can avoid the same pitfalls as the welfare system they’re intended to supplement — and might be better off simply replacing.

The premise of the guaranteed basic income is that there should be a minimum level of income for all Americans. Those who fall short with what they earn from their job would receive a monthly supplement funded by taxpayers…

My friends at the Georgia Center for Opportunity have done as much work on this particular topic as anyone I know. They call the traps built by our system “welfare cliffs,” because of the sudden, sharp drop people experience when they take a small financial step forward.

Georgia Senate committee advances school-choice bill | The Center Square

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Appreciating Republican response to COVID | Independent Advocate

In The News

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Appreciating Republican response to COVID | Independent Advocate

All Iowans can appreciate the work done by the Republican government in the recovery from the pandemic.

As long ago as last September, Iowa had the third quickest rate of recovery from Covid-19 in the United States.

Last month, the Georgia Center for Opportunity measured the severity of the responses of the states to the pandemic and the effect the responses had on the economy and the pandemic.

 
Lockdowns Were a Failure. What We Do Next Doesn’t Have To Be | Real Clear Policy

Lockdowns Were a Failure. What We Do Next Doesn’t Have To Be | Real Clear Policy

In The News

Lockdowns Were a Failure. What We Do Next Doesn’t Have To Be | Real Clear Policy

There is new proof government-imposed shutdowns prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic have done more harm than good. A better choice would have been to keep the economy open so people stay connected to work and targeting resources to vulnerable populations.

A new meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins University underscores this truth, revealing that lockdowns in America and Europe during the first pandemic wave in spring 2020 only reduced the death rate by 0.2% on average. Researchers concluded that lockdowns “have had little to no public health effects” while imposing “enormous economic and social costs” and should be “rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

While businesses were shuttered, people were forced to stay home, and schools remained closed, the unintended social and economic consequences were clear: rising unemployment, learning loss among students, spiking rates of domestic violence, and a pandemic-level rise in drug abuse and overdoses. All of that social and economic devastation yielded a minimal impact on health-related suffering due to COVID-19.

The new research from Johns Hopkins mirrors our own findings in a recent nationwide study, which found that overreaction by states did substantial damage without much benefit in reducing the effects of the pandemic.

The research shows a statistical correlation between how severe state governmental actions were in shutting down their economies and negative impacts on employment more than a year after the pandemic began. This was the case even after controlling for a state’s dependence on tourism or agriculture, population density, and the prevalence of COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations.

Our research found no correlations between the severity of shutdowns imposed by state governments and the rate of reported COVID-19 hospitalizations or deaths. States like Hawaii, New York, California, and New Mexico that imposed harsher economic restrictions generally have greater job losses even today than those states that were less harsh, such as South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Utah.

For example, New York was 10.2% below its trajectory in October 2021 while Nebraska was just 2.4% below.

The bottom line is that while policymakers were likely working in good faith to do their best in a challenging situation, it’s crucial we learn from these past mistakes so that we don’t repeat them. And make no mistake about it — those mistakes have driven untold amounts of human suffering during the past two years.

The worst part is that the government-imposed shutdowns created even more barriers for people who were already struggling. Every American was impacted, of course. These interventions created challenges and burdens for the middle and upper classes, but for our poorest communities they were outright damaging.

Protecting the rights and opportunities of workers to earn a living is obvious. Equally important are the psychological benefits that come with the dignity of work. And there are socio-economic benefits from work that positively impact everyone, such as building social capital and gaining skills, which are especially important for those in marginalized communities who were most impacted by the shutdowns.

As the states look for a long-term strategy to deal with the pandemic, it is paramount that they consider the empirical evidence and not impose burdensome restrictions — such as business closures, stay-at-home orders, school closures, gathering restrictions, and capacity limits — on economic activity that have proven to do more harm than good.

Instead, policies need to be crafted more carefully to expand opportunities for the poor and preserve jobs in an open economy in which entrepreneurs can solve problems while taking measures when necessary to protect vulnerable populations.

These are the policies that should have been done all along to avoid the severity of the shutdown recession and the effects on lives and livelihoods thereafter. Let’s not make another mistake when so many are already suffering.

This Article Originally Appeared in Real Clear Policy 

Georgia Senate committee advances school-choice bill | The Center Square

Media blasted for ignoring study on harmful government lockdowns | The Johnston County Report

In The News

Media blasted for ignoring study on harmful government lockdowns | The Johnston County Report

A new meta-analysis from Johns Hopkins University shows that government-mandated lockdowns in America and Europe during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic only reduced the death rate by 0.2%, on average. Researchers concluded that lockdowns “have had little to no public health effects” while imposing “enormous economic and social costs” and should be “rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Meanwhile, another faculty member at Johns Hopkins is blasting his own university and the media broadly for ignoring or downplaying the study…

The working paper comes on the heels of other research questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns in saving lives compared to the social and economic toll. A working paper from the Georgia Center for Opportunity found no correlations between the severity of government-imposed shutdowns and reported rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations or deaths. But states that imposed more stringent lockdowns — such as New York and California — continue to experience negative economic effects compared to less severe states, such as Utah.