North State Journal for Sunday, July 10, 2016
A7
Guest Opinion | RICHARD VINROOT
Charter schools: a good decision and wise investment for North Carolina Other 4%
Asian 3%
Asian 3%
Here’s how Congress can save Medicare
Hispanic 8%
Hispanic 17%
The more than 150 charter schools in N.C. have managed to compete effectively with larger school systems with similar groups of students.
Other 6%
Traditional Schools Black 26%
Charter Schools
Black 26% White 50%
A
ccording to recent data verified by the N.C. Department of Public Instruction, the demographic makeup of the children in our state’s traditional public school systems and public charter schools is almost identical. Except for the percentages of Hispanic students — who constitute 17 percent of the children in our public school systems and 8 percent in our charter schools — the two systems look much the same. In their overall academic performance, however, the students who attended charter schools outperformed those attending school system schools on End of Grade (EOG) tests in 2014-15 by more than 10 percentage points (66.6 percent for charter students versus 56.2 percent for school system students). Moreover, except for one category (academically or intellectually gifted students, where school system students out-scored charter school students by onehalf of one percentage point), charter school students also out-performed school system students in all of the other demographic sub-groups. This is a significant accomplishment by the more than 150 charter schools in North Carolina that have managed to compete effectively with the larger
White 57%
school systems of our state with similar groups of students. The charter schools have done so at considerably less cost to our taxpayers. They have done it a) without the benefit of any capital funding, and b) with only 73 percent of “local current expense funding” provided to the students in our district school systems). Certainly no one should argue that one system is better than the other — and I am not suggesting that. However, I do believe that it is fair to conclude at this time that charter schools in North Carolina are working very well for all of our students, at a reduced cost to our taxpayers, and should be applauded for their success. It appears to me that the N.C. General Assembly’s 1996 decision to implement school choice in our state through the creation of charter schools constituted good public policy, for which we should be very grateful. Richard Vinroot is a former mayor of Charlotte and Republican candidate for governor. He is a lawyer with the firm Robinson Bradshaw and lives in Charlotte.
Female
Charter Schools 67.9%
Traditional Schools 58.3%
Male
65.3%
54.1%
American Indian
44.9%
41.2%
Asian
89.3%
76.8%
Black
46.8%
37.0%
Hispanic
58.6%
44.9%
Multi-racial
67.2%
56.5%
White
75.1%
68.5%
AIG
95.5%
96.0%
Economically disadvantaged
49.9%
41.5%
English learner
31.2%
22.2%
Migrant
75.0%
35.1%
Students with disabilities
30.9%
20.6%
Students proficient on End of Grade exams, 20142015 academic year.
Columnist | MICHAEL MUNGER
Repubexit? resumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is notorious for P interpreting events in ways that make him look good.
Trump may actually be right that Brexit has similarities to what is going on in the United States. But perhaps not in the way he thinks.
His first reaction to the Orlando massacre was a tweet that said: “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism…” His reactions to Brexit, the decision by Britain to exit the European Union, have also been solipsisms: “Many people are equating BREXIT, and what is going on in Great Britain, with what is happening in the U.S. …Good timing, I was here for BREXIT.” But Trump may actually be right in the case of Brexit: people might equate what’s going on in Great Britain with what is happening in the U.S. We might call it “Repubexit:” people leaving Republican Party because of Trump. Of course, it may just be self-serving of me to expect this. My own Repubexit was in 2003. I had been a Republican since about 1982, and became a “Reagan Revolutionary,” working at the Federal Trade Commission as an economist. We were going to change the world, cutting taxes, eliminating regulations, and decentralizing power. Now, “we” (the Republicans) haven’t actually done many of those things, but hey, it’s hard, right? I was willing to make excuses. Then, within one week in March 2003 two things happened that, in different ways, I couldn’t excuse. The first was that George W. Bush performed elective surgery on the world map, invading Iraq. The second was that I had dinner at an elegant restaurant in Durham with a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. The senator was a Republican, and later ran for president. There weren’t many other Republican professors at Duke, and so I was asked to host him that night. The senator talked pretty much non-stop about how 1) we had to shrink government, and 2) how he was sponsoring several bills that would expand government, increase spending, and centralize federal control over many areas. That did it and I quit. Will this election cause a much more widespread Repubexit? Will Republicans vote with their feet, or their ballots, abandoning the GOP? I’m obviously biased, but it looks like it might happen. Humorist P.J. O’Rourke, who had managed to remain a Republican through a lot of trials and betrayals, said he’s voting for Clinton. Not that he’s a Clinton fan, mind you. But as P.J. put it, “I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises… It’s the second-worst thing that can happen to this country,
Robert Moffit
MADELINE GRAY | NORTH STATE JOURNAL
but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” More recently, George Will stepped up and announced his Repubexit. He switched his registration to “unaffiliated,” and said that “This is not my party,” in a considered response to the apparent clinching of the Republican nomination by Trump. So, Trump may actually be right that Brexit has similarities to what “is going on in the United States.” But perhaps not in the way he thinks. On the other hand — and of course this is the hope of the Trump campaign — the loss of traditional Republicans may be more than made up by Trump’s populist appeal to unhappy Democrats. In the last week of June, four polls came out measuring the views of North Carolinians. The race is tied, at about 44 percent each, with many in the undecided category. If losing the George Will wing of the party is hurting Trump, it’s not showing up in the polls. We may get new partisan alignments, along with a new president. Michael Munger is a professor and director of the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program at Duke University.
hen will Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund run out of money? W A new report from the Medicare Trustees
says it will be exhausted in 2028 — two years earlier than projected last year. Using slightly different assumptions, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the trust fund would be insolvent by 2026. No matter how you slice it, the fund meets neither short-term nor long-term standards of “financial adequacy” (the trustees’ term). But the Trust Fund’s precarious financial state is merely the symptom of the growth of Medicare spending and financial burdens on seniors and taxpayers. Over the next 10 years, Medicare spending will jump from $648 billion to $1.2 trillion. During the next four years, it will grow faster than workers’ wages, the general economy and all other health spending. Medicare will eat up larger portions of the federal budget, and account for an ever growing chunk of the nation’s gross domestic product. The main driver is, of course, the accelerating enrollment of 77 million baby boomers. In 2015, the general revenues required just to support Medicare Part B (the part that pays doctors) amounted to 13.5 percent of all personal and business income taxes. That share will climb to 16 percent by 2020, and reach 21.4 percent by 2030. That same year, the trustees project general revenues will account for 48 percent of all Medicare funding. As the trustees warn, “Growth in general revenue financing as a share of GDP adds significantly to federal budget pressures.” How to cope with Medicare spending growth is at the heart of the debate between President Obama and his critics. Obamacare was intended, in part, to slow Medicare spending increases by authorizing big Medicare payment cuts. What does the ACA do to Medicare? According to the Medicare Trustees, “By 2040 simulations suggest that approximately half of hospitals, 70 percent of skilled nursing facilities, and 90 percent of home health agencies would have negative total facility margins, raising the possibility of access and quality of care issues for Medicare beneficiaries.” Medicare hospital payment today is only 61 percent of private payment, but under the ACA it could eventually decline to just 40 percent of private payment. For doctors, Congress changed Medicare payment formula in 2015, but the trustees say the 2015 change will also eventually result in much lower reimbursement than previous law, further aggravating problems of access to care for future seniors. Then there’s the long-term challenge: the promised benefits to seniors that are not paid for. The technical term for this debt is Medicare’s unfunded obligation. The Medicare Trustees project long-term unfunded obligations at $32.4 trillion, up from last year’s estimate of $28 trillion. If current law changes (meaning, among other things, that Congress overturns the physician payment cuts slated to take effect in the future), the Medicare actuary posts the total bill at $43.5 trillion. So, America’s dilemma is this: if Obamacare succeeds in driving down Medicare payments, then medical professionals get lower reimbursement and patients face reduced access to care. If Obamacare fails to curb Medicare spending, costs continue to climb, taxpayers and seniors are stuck with bigger bills, and working families face hideous debt. In their latest report the trustees plead, once again, for Congress and the executive to address Medicare’s problems with a “sense of urgency.” Reform legislation, they say, is needed sooner rather than later. As a first step, Congress could make changes to modernize Medicare. It could generate substantial savings by expanding the “means testing” of Medicare premiums from 6 percent to 10 percent of the total Medicare population; gradually raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 68; and simplifying the traditional program by combining Parts A and B, rationalizing the cost sharing and adding a catastrophic benefit. From there, Congress could expand the defined contribution financing system (“premium support”) to the entire Medicare program. The Medicare drug program is the best model for that financing arrangement. Intense competition among plans and providers has proven savings, while stimulating innovation in medical delivery and better patient care. Americans don’t have to settle for today’s dysfunctional Medicare status quo or tomorrow’s gloomy Medicare future. But lawmakers must act sooner rather than later. Robert E. Moffit, PhD. is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former senior official of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Personnel Management.