Washington Policy Blog

Washington State's eligibility for federal Race to the Top education grants

  This week the federal government released its rules and scoring system for states competing for a portion of federal Race to the Top funds. Today's Seattle Times front page article discusses Washington's  education policies which are likely to prevent Washington from winning these funds.  These include a ban  charter schools and a ban on the state takeover of persistently failing schools.

The Seattle Times article also reveals that, in order to qualify for these funds, the state will be attempting to describe its National Board Certification for teachers as a performance pay system.  This program does not involve evaluating the individual performance of teachers for their effectiveness in the classroom.  Rather, National Board Certification gives bonuses to teachers willing to take another set of classes and/or willing to work in inner-city classrooms. 

Here is the Executive Summary of the regulations, which explains the Department of Education's point system for scoring applications from the states. Here is that point system: 
  

Speaker Pelosi Dodges Question on Fairness of Jail for People Who Don't Buy Health Insurance

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) was in Seattle recently to talk about health care reform.  Since pending legislation imposes harsh penalties on people who don't buy health insurance, KOMO reporter Shomari Stone asked Speaker Pelosi if she thinks that's fair. In spite of repeated asks from Stone, Pelosi doesn't answer the question directly.  It appears KOMO chose not to air the footage but you can watch the exchange below.

I suppose the upside is that once in jail, your health care is free.

Small businesses rank top policy priorities

Small business owners, legislators, and policymakers from all over Washington gathered in SeaTac this past Tuesday to discuss the state's business climate at WPC's 2009 Statewide Small Business Conference. During several interactive issue breakout sessions, business owners suggested and discussed solutions to improve the climate for small businesses in Washington. This was the fourth statewide small business conference hosted by WPC since 2003.

The result is a list of priority solutions, selected by small business owners, for solving the major problems with the state's business climate. The top recommendations from each breakout session are below.

Health Care
1) Reform medical malpractice laws
2) Allow individuals and businesses to purchase health insurance across state lines
3) Focus on increasing the patient's role in health care decisions

Workers' Compensation Reform
1) End the state monopoly: WA should join 90% of the country and open the system to private competition
2) Provide a compromise and release option
3) Enact better, more aggressive claims management

Technology
1) Adopt a market-based approach to dealing with the Net Neutrality issue
2) Solicit and incorporate more small business input on the Net Neutrality issue
3) Exempt small businesses from the digital goods tax legislation

Environmental Regulations
1) Don't add or expand federal regulations to existing or new state regulations
2) Encourage market-based solutions for stormwater and other regulations
3) Simplify environmental regulations, make more objective and apply cost/benefit analyses

Unemployment Insurance Reform
1) Eliminate the liberal construction of cases
2) Freeze the voluntary quit option
3) Keep UI benefits the same over the next calendar year

Regulatory Reform
1) Sunset rules after a certain number of years
2) Support better legislative oversight and accountability of major agency rule-making
3) Put apprenticeship programs in Technical and Community colleges

Competitiveness Issues
1) Reduce the overall tax burden on businesses
2) Adopt an hourly wage rate for low-skill, new workers
3) Do not enact an employer gag rule

Tax Issues
1) Level the playing field with respect to gaming, cigarettes, etc.
2) Do not increase taxes
3) Continue with thorough performance audits of government agencies

Washington Policy Center will publish a detailed analysis of the conference results in a report prior to the 2010 Legislative Session.

Oregon's Green Job Experience: Much Green, Few Jobs

With jobs high on the agenda for the public, environmental activists have made the creation of "green jobs" a central talking point in their campaign to justify government expenditures and environmental regulation. Politicians have jumped on this message as well. For instance, WPC was attacked by Dow Constantine in the recent King County Executive race because, he claimed, we "oppose green jobs."

Of course what we oppose are policies that kill two jobs for every one created in a politically favored industry. That is the path to higher unemployment and reduced prosperity. By way of contrast we favor innovation tax cuts that strengthen job growth, green or otherwise, while promoting energy efficient technologies.

Now, there is more evidence from the other side of the Columbia that the strategy favored by environmental activists and "green" politicians is costly and ineffective.

Writing about Oregon's effort to create green jobs, the Longview Daily News today highlights the costs of their government subsidies:

No state has been a more vigorous advocate of green economy — or, as it turns out, invested more in attracting renewable energy companies — than Oregon. ... [The Oregonian] reported that the state’s Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) cost taxpayers $68 million in 2007-09 — more than 40 times what legislators had been told it would cost. And that’s only for starters. The cost of BETC subsidies for green projects is estimated to climb to $167 in 2009-11, and to $243 million in 2011-13.

We've seen this before with Cash for Clunkers and other programs. Programs that offer free government money end up finding many takers. The problem is that the results are not in line with the costs. The Oregonian highlighted some costly failures:

Among them was the Clatskanie ethanol plant which eventually went bankrupt and ceased operations. It received $12 million in tax subsidies and a $20 million energy loan from the state. Another wasteful example cited in the report was a wind energy project that was handed tax credits totaling $40 million. [The Oregonian] found that this project will generate less electricity than projects that received credits totaling around $4 million.

The question is, have these projects generated jobs? Oregon's unemployment rate is currently 11.5 percent. More than 1.3 percent higher than the national average and 2.2 percent higher than Washington's rate.

Given the poor results from these subsidies, imagine what could be done with that funding that would truly make a difference.

The results are worthy of Linda Richman: "green" jobs are neither green, nor jobs...discuss.

Seattle opposes PSRC's preferred Transportation 2040 alternative

During the PSRC's Transportation Policy Board (TPB) meeting this morning, the city of Seattle expressed opposition to the Transportation 2040 plan and asked for an extra year to work out their issues. The prepared statement was read by a city representative and signed by Mayor Greg Nickels and all nine councilmembers.

Despite Seattle's protest, the TPB voted to move the preferred alternative forward and directed staff to prepare an EIS.

Another interesting factoid (and probably Seattle's reason for opposition) is the preferred Transportation 2040 alternative does not achieve the state's targets for reducing emissions or reducing how much people drive, even with PSRC's assumption of more than 160 miles of light rail.

This finding is similar to the conclusions of a new TRB study called Driving and the Built Environment, The Effect of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use and CO2 Emissions. The authors conclude that densities across an entire metropolitan area would need to double to reduce VMT and CO2 emissions by 1 percent to 11 percent by 2050.

While the direct and indirect costs of doubling a city's density are probably unquantifiable, it's not hard to imagine how expensive and onerous the regulations would have to become to artificially manipulate where people live; and all for only a 1-11 percent reduction over forty years.

Vanpools could reduce VMT by between 4 percent to 9 percent for very little costs and with no social engineering, no loss of mobility and without forcing compact development.

UPDATE: here is the video of the TPB meeting.

Is Plug-in Worth a Plug Nickel?

A major part of Washington's strategy to reduce CO2 emissions is the promotion of plug-in hybrid vehicles that would run on battery power for many trips but would use a gas-powered engine when needed. It is argued that these vehicles will significantly reduce carbon emissions. A study that came across my screen today calls this into doubt.

A study advocating hydrogen vehicles includes the graph below. Of course hydrogen vehicles come out looking good. There are many problems with hydrogen vehicles that cannot be captured in this graph, notably that the cost of vehicles is high and the refelling infrastructure is nonexistent.

What interested me most is the comparison between the projections of carbon emissions between gasoline-powered hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Plug-in hybrids emit only four percent less CO2 than regular hybrids. This is a remarkably small return on investment of the state's money to build plug in stations across the state. For instance, diesel hybrids are projected to emit less CO2 than plug-in hybrids.

These numbers are national and the numbers for Washington are likely to be different because so much of our energy is carbon-free hydro and nuclear. We should remember, however, that going to plug-ins would increase demand for energy and we aren't likely to build many new dams or even nuclear power any time soon.

Plug-ins are one of those technologies politicians have latched onto in an effort to demonstrate "greenness" to the public. As is common, however, what is politically popular isn't always environmentally friendly and spending money on inferior technologies misses opportunities to make real improvements in energy efficiency.

 

Supreme Court says school funding allocation meets constitution’s ample provision requirement

In a landmark ruling today, Washington’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the legislature’s method of funding public schools is constitutional under the “ample provision” requirement of the state constitution.

The ruling bolsters the research findings of Washington Policy Center showing that public schools receive ample funding, as the constitution requires.

• Washington taxpayers are generous, providing $9 billion a year to educate about one million students.
• Per student funding is $10,274 a year, the highest level in state history.
• The average teacher salary is $72,000 in pay and benefits for a nine-month work year.  The average salary for other workers is about $42,000.
• With the trend toward smaller families, there are proportionately fewer children in school today than in the past, with more taxpayers than ever paying into the system.
• Local voters approve most supplemental levies, and the legislature recently enacted rules making it easier for school levies to pass.

Much of this generous funding, however, is diverted by central district offices long before it has a chance to help children in class.

• Only 59 cents of every education dollar reaches the classroom.
• School principals control only 5% of their budget.
• The majority of school district employees are not classroom teachers.
• One third of public high school students fail to graduate.

At the same time, private schools in Washington often spend less money per student, pay their teacher less, and produce better learning outcomes for children.  The key difference is that state law authorizes private school principals to control nearly 100% of their budget, pay bonuses to retain the best teachers, fire poor-performing teachers, and hire any qualified applicant as a classroom teacher.  Giving public school principals the same authority would lead to better use of the ample funding school districts receive and would provide improved learning opportunities for all students.

Washington State a laggard in educational innovation

According to the Leaders and Laggards report from the Center for American Progress, Washington ranks  37th in the nation in educational innovation.  Washington earned the following grades:

D in School Management

C in School Finance

B in Staffing:  Hiring and Evalution

D in Staffing: Removing Ineffective Teachers

B in Data

B in Pipeline to Postsecondary

D in Technology

PSRC Transportation 2040 plan underestimates vanpool potential

Currently, the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) update to its long-range plan, Transportation  2040, estimates vanpools will grow to about 4,300 by 2040. This is great news.

But our vanpool research shows with some marketing and operational changes, there could be nearly 12,000 vanpools by 2030! This equals about 192,000 trips per day. This means vanpools have the potential to carry 20 percent more riders for $20 billion less than Sound Transit’s light rail expansion. The impact on reducing CO2 emissions and SOV use is also more significant than any other transit mode, and vanpools do not require social engineering or forcing compact development.

I've met with PSRC staff and plan to present these findings to the Transportation Policy Board. I think the numbers are compelling enough for PSRC to reexamine their vanpool strategies.

10 year update on smart growth: it doesn't work

From Ken Orski (I don't see this linked on his website yet, but I'm sure it will be shortly)

In a revealing article that should be required reading for smart growth advocates everywhere, Gerrit-Jan Knaap, executive director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, offers a sobering appraisal of Maryland’s smart growth policy. Writing in the current issue of the Journal of the American Planning Association, he concludes that there is little evidence after a full decade, that Maryland's smart growth laws have had any effect on residential development patterns. Ironically, the Smart Growth Center, was founded by the University of Maryland (and supported by former Governor Parris N. Glendening) to advance research and spread awareness about the very same policy whose effectiveness the Center is now questioning.