Commentary, NC Budget and Tax Center

Legislature considering changes to Medicaid that would pose a huge danger to mothers and infants

Early next week the North Carolina General Assembly is expected to release a budget that may include taking health coverage away from people who do not meet work requirements. Faced with unrealistic work hour quotas, these proposals will mean that many adults, such as new moms, will lose essential health coverage. Loss of coverage, and the decline in health that will result, will make employment and employment prospects more difficult and will push women and their families further into poverty. While it remains to be seen if CMS would approve such a harsh proposal, its potential impact would be felt throughout North Carolina.

These requirements would likely require new mothers to return to work 60 days after birth, at which time pregnancy Medicaid expires. In reality, many mothers do end up working; data show that 62% of parents on Medicaid work. Rushing new moms into the workforce is bad for infant health, and poor maternal-infant bonding is known to have lasting effects. Research shows that mothers’ early return to work has negative impacts on the duration of breastfeeding, infant vaccinations, and regular checkups, and may diminish maternal-infant bonding as a result of less time spent together and increased maternal stress. Studies show that children are more likely to receive the care they need if their parents have insurance coverage, suggesting that the health of low-income infants and children would decline as a result of work requirements for parents.

A rigid work requirement for moms and parents with low-income fails to account for the cost and difficulty of finding child care and job market realities.

And in the case of North Carolina, such a policy would create a cliff for many families where increasing work hours and income will push them into the coverage gap. For example, a single mother with two children who works 23 hours per week at minimum wage, earning only $667 per month, would be ineligible for Medicaid because their income is too high. With high-quality child care costing a median $832 per month per infant in our state in 2017, North Carolina mothers and families are already forced to make tough decisions about returning to work.

To protect maternal and child health in North Carolina, policymakers should be closing the coverage gap not pushing more people into it without the prospect of accessing the tools to live healthy and financially secure lives.

Suzy Khachaturyan is a MSW/MPH Intern, Budget and Tax Center

Courts & the Law, Defending Democracy, News

Cooper nominates special Superior Court judges for confirmation

Gov. Roy Cooper nominated three people this week to special Superior Court judgeships.

He submitted the names of Chief District Court Judge J. Stanley Carmical, Bryan Beatty and Chief District Court Judge Athena Brooks to the General Assembly for confirmation.

Carmical currently serves Robeson County and Brooks serves Henderson, Polk and Transylvania counties. Beatty has served as a Commissioner for the North Carolina Utilities Commission for nearly a decade and was previously secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety and Director of the State Bureau of Investigation.

“These nominees bring extensive experience in our justice system to these new roles and are highly qualified to serve as Special Superior Court judges,” Cooper said in a news release. “I’m grateful for these individuals’ willingness to assume this important responsibility for the State of North Carolina.”

Special Superior Court judges are not required to live in the district they hold court (they can be sent to anywhere in the state) and they are appointed by the governor to five-year terms. Some special Superior Court judges are also appointed to hear business court cases.

The judges have the same power and authority as a regular Superior Court judge. Their starting salary is also the same, $132,584, according to the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts.

By state statute, the General Assembly must confirm the special Superior Court nominees by joint resolution of both chambers.

Education, News, Trump Administration

Secretary Betsy DeVos touches off controversy again, says schools can report undocumented students

President Trump and U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is under the microscope again.

This time, some are criticizing the wealthy GOP booster after she told members of Congress this week that local schools and communities should decide whether to report undocumented students and families to federal immigration authorities.

DeVos, who was selected for the top education post last year by President Donald Trump, has angered public school advocates before, over topics like teacher strikes, school choice funding, and a remarkably uncomfortable interview with 60 Minutes.

From ABC News:

The head of the Education Department shifted the responsibility of reporting undocumented students to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to principals and teachers when she said on Tuesday, “it’s a local community decision.”

“I think that is — that is a school decision,” DeVos said during her testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee after Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., pressed her on the issue of undocumented students. “It’s a local community decision and again I refer to the fact that we have laws and we also are compassionate and I urge this body to do its job and address and clarify where there is confusion around this.”

Espaillat immediately rebuked the secretary’s statement, stressing that immigration policies are defined and executed by the federal government, not by communities.

“Let me just remind Madam Chair that immigration law is federal law,” he said. “It’s not a local law. It’s not governed by a municipality.”

“You cannot have immigration law for one state be different for another state and it applies to everybody across the country,” he added.

This is not the first time the secretary has faced controversy.

During her tenure at the Department of Education, she has faced criticism for comments she’s made on school safety, black history, and other matters.

In March, she said arming teachers “should be an option for states and communities to consider” during an interview after a visit to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

In her highly contentious confirmation hearing, DeVos stirred up vehement objections to her nomination after hedging on an answer about guns and ultimately conceding that guns might be needed in schools in states like Wyoming to defend against “potential grizzlies.”

Her most recent comments are drawing considerable backlash from civil rights groups.

“Let’s be clear: Any school that reports a child to ICE would violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has made clear that every child in America has a right to a basic education, regardless of immigration status. Secretary DeVos is once again wrong,” Lorella Praeli, director of immigration policy and campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

During the heated exchange with Espaillat, DeVos referenced a Supreme Court decision that ruled that all children — regardless of their immigration status — are entitled to a free public education.

“This was a Supreme Court decision rendered many years ago and so there are undocumented children in K-12 education today that we support and we give education to on a daily basis.”

Critics pointed to that same 1982 decision, Plyler v. Doe, as they sought to poke holes in her testimony.

“The Court determined in 1982 that the Constitution requires all public schools to provide a free public education, from Kindergarten to 12th grade, to every child, regardless of immigration status,” Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said. “Any public school or school district that denies an education to any undocumented child – whether by refusing to enroll, by limiting access to the programs and benefits provided to other students, or by reporting a child to ICE – has violated the United States Constitution.”

Uncategorized

The Week’s Top Five on NC Policy Watch

1. Democrats: Berger-Moore budget process may quash debate, amendments

When N.C. House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger addressed reporters last week, they boasted that negotiations on the state’s estimated $24 billion budget were “far ahead” of years past.

According to top Democrats who spoke to Policy Watch this week, that may be because Republican lawmakers are considering a maneuver that would dramatically limit debate on the privately negotiated spending plan in the coming days.

State House Democratic Leader Darren Jackson says members of his party believe the GOP may pack the entire budget bill—negotiated by House and Senate leadership behind closed doors—into a conference committee report either late this week or early next week. While such a tactic is not unheard of at the General Assembly, this would be an unprecedented move with respect to the state budget according to several longtime lawmakers and legislative staffers.

Because a conference report is considered the final product of House and Senate negotiations on an already-filed bill, General Assembly procedures would provide only for a “yea” or “nay” v ote with no allowance for amendments.[Read more…]

Bonus read: Ten education policies to watch closely in the 2018 legislative session

2. Coincidence or collusion? NC Oil and Gas Commission receives curious requests to frack.

3. Legislators seek background checks, fingerprinting for election workers

4. NC officials order dozens of campaigns to forfeit illegal PAC contributions from pharma giant

5. One simple, moral and business-friendly step NC lawmakers could take to boost the economy

NC Budget and Tax Center, Trump Administration

Trump administration turning its back on refugees, a moral and economic failure

The Trump administration is following through on its threat to bar America’s doors against people fleeing violence and persecution. Trump’s cruel words are matched with devastating deeds, snuffing out America’s light of liberty in many corners of the world.

A new report from the Fiscal Policy Institute shows how dramatically refugee resettlement has declined on Trump’s watch and provides compelling evidence that we are turning away the very people that have long made America the economic power of the world.

Beyond documenting how dramatically the Trump administration has reversed America’s history offering safe harbor to people facing persecution the world-over, the report shows that these policies will hurt the U.S. economy.

The report’s authors interviewed business owners about their experiences hiring and working with people who arrived in the United States as refugees, and the results show that Trump’s policies are cutting businesses off from precisely the kind of dedicated employees that proprietors love to find. For example:

  • Refugees tend to be more loyal employees: Most business owners reported that, once hired, refugees tend to stay in their jobs longer than other workers. As any employer will tell you, replacing good employees is expensive and challenging, so having reliable refugees as part of a workforce can be an enormous plus.
  • Successful refugee hiring can help employers find more reliable workers: Once companies figure out how to successfully support refugees as they become employees, these businesses often find it easier to recruit more people from refugee communities. Just as with retention, finding skilled and dedicated employees efficiently can be an enormous boon for businesses.

Turning our back on people facing war and torment is wrong, and this moral failing will come with economic ramifications now and into the future.