The Greenville News
May 11, 2014
Trade has transformed South Carolina’s economy.
A powerhouse corridor stretching from manufacturers in the Upstate to our thriving Charleston port produced a record high $26.1 billion in merchandise exports last year, according to a new report from the state Department of Commerce. This export wave continues to build with recent billion-dollar investment announcements from Toray Industries and BMW.
But in order for our already-thriving export economy to reach its full potential, Congress needs to give the president the ability to open new markets to South Carolina goods. To do this, he’ll need the same Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that lawmakers have granted to every administration since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Trade has deep roots in our state. Since the country’s earliest days, South Carolina’s products, ports and people have made us a vital commercial hub. Today, this commitment to trade is paying more dividends than ever.
International trade supports roughly 545,000 state jobs, a number that has been growing in recent years. Between 2004 and 2011 — a period that includes the Great Recession — trade-based jobs in South Carolina grew more quickly than overall state employment.
Many of these jobs are the direct result of our flourishing export economy. South Carolina goods and services are sold in nearly 200 countries around the world.
Foreign investment is another way in which state workers have reaped the benefits of trade. A recent analysis by IBM-Plant Location International named South Carolina the national leader in attracting jobs through foreign investment. All told, foreign companies based in countries from Germany to Japan to Switzerland employ more than 100,000 South Carolinians.
Imports have also been an important driver of growth and job creation in the Palmetto State. At present, foreign-made raw materials, inputs and component products account for more than 60 percent of U.S. imports. By allowing firms to keep operating costs down, these affordable goods and services help state businesses remain globally competitive which, in turn, protects the jobs of workers here at home.
Foreign-made products also provide South Carolina families with lower prices and greater product choice for their hard-earned dollar. In fact, taken together, policies that reduce barriers to trade and increase foreign investment save the average South Carolina family of four an estimated $10,000 a year.
And yet, some in Congress are slowing new trade negotiations by refusing to renew Trade Promotion Authority. While there’s no one solution to ensure free and fair trade, TPA represents an import tool in America’s trade toolbox.
TPA has been essential to trade negotiations since the 1930s. The authority officially lapsed in 2007, and unless Congress passes legislation renewing TPA, America will be hard pressed to complete two major trade pacts currently in the works.
Among other things, TPA allows pending trade agreements to receive a straight up-or-down vote from Congress. This gives U.S. negotiators the ability to reassure potential trading partners that narrowly parochial interests can’t be added to derail a deal once the details have been hammered out.
At the same time, TPA protects Congress’ ability to shape trade pacts through mandatory consultations with the administration and ultimately to vote down any deal it doesn’t believe to be a net win for America’s national interests.
Which raises yet another key consideration: strong alliances formed through the exchange of goods are one of America’s best weapons to promote stability and our national interest. In a volatile and increasingly interconnected world, countries that trade are far more likely to negotiate than fight. Make no mistake: Hostile nations such as China and Russia have demonstrated that they are ready to fill any trade vacuum that we leave.
With two historic trade deals on the horizon, it’s time for Congress to pass a standalone renewal of TPA. America’s interests and future South Carolina jobs are on the line.
Ellen Weaver is president & CEO of Palmetto Policy Forum.
Showing posts with label Press Clip. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Press Clip. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Private school choice will help, not hurt public education
 |
Columbia, SC — I appreciated Cindi Scoppe’s column in support of Sen. Paul Thurmond’s efforts to streamline our process for dealing with ineffective teachers (“The cost of one bad teacher,” April 23). Teacher quality is the No. 1 in-school factor affecting student learning, and this is an important step toward our shared goal of strengthening public education in South Carolina.
What puzzles me is her argument that passing this reform is a way to beat back private-school choice. An Urban Institute study of Florida — which has some of the oldest and largest private-choice programs in the country — found that these programs contributed to increased performance in public schools, an idea borne out by the incredible gains that Florida’s most disadvantaged students have made in math and reading.
Opponents of private-school choice like to use the word “voucher” as a dog-whistle to indicate opposition to public education. But even that word is a relic. There are so many different kinds of education choice beyond vouchers: public charter schools and online education, public magnet schools, home schools — and yes, private schools, both religious and secular. Education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships … and who knows what will be the innovation of the future. The unifying theme? The idea that all parents should have the ability to choose a high-quality option for the unique needs of their child … and that a ZIP Code should not determine a student’s destiny.
I am a native South Carolinian and a graduate of public education. I have no nefarious “out-of-state agenda” to dismantle S.C. public schools. Rather, I hope we can have a reasonable, informed discussion about what “public education” actually means. Is it merely a system into which we pump more and more taxpayer dollars regardless of outcomes, or is it a well-educated student who is prepared for success as a productive citizen of our great state?
This is not some abstract battle of ideology, as opponents of private choice would have you believe. It’s about the very real future of our children: Will we continue to do the same thing and expect better results, or will we have a conversation informed by real data on proven policies that show the positive effects of more choices — both public and private — on public education?
Ellen Weaver
President & CEO
Palmetto Policy Forum
Published on May 8, 2014 in The State newspaper
Friday, February 28, 2014
Common Core debate could plant seeds for reform
The Stateby Dr. Oran Smith
Columbia, SC — Only two years ago, a lopsided majority of Americans had never heard of Common Core State Standards, and those who had either thought they were straight from Beelzebub or the greatest thing since Jadeveon Clowney.
If a recent legislative hearing on the matter is any indication, that polarization still exists, and the warring camps are getting larger and louder.
One moment in that two-hour hearing was especially memorable. As a Common Core supporter was explaining how South Carolina came to be involved with the standards, she described the signing of a contract related to their implementation. The presenter paused when asked the date of the contract, and as if on cue, at least 10 opponents shouted “June 9, 2010.”
Here was a group of citizens who had done their homework — an impressive display of democracy, no matter what one thinks of Common Core.
Can we build on that?
After the hearing, I concluded that John Hill of the Alabama Policy Institute had it right when he wrote: “Although both sides of the Common Core debate make arguments worth consideration, both the potential benefits and pitfalls related to Common Core have been the subject of exaggeration and error.”
This is why Palmetto Policy Forum recently released a paper we believe cuts through the Common Core fog, outlining an eight-point plan to return unquestioned control of education standards to S.C. parents.
This heated debate begs the question: Are education standards the reason so many of our students are falling behind academically and graduating from high school unprepared for college, technical college or the workforce? The answer to that question is a resounding no. While Common Core presents a host of problems, the bold reforms to reverse our lagging education outcomes lie elsewhere.
Among these reforms are a laser-like focus on early reading and an end to social promotion for those falling further and further behind; more choices for parents that let taxpayer funds follow the child to any school public or private; full funding for good public charter schools; education governance that is democratically accountable to those it serves; teacher evaluations that treat teachers like professionals and reward excellence in the classroom; and alternative paths to certification that cut through red tape to get real-world experience off of the sidelines and into our classrooms.
In the struggle between most urgent and most important, fixing Common Core could very well be more urgent. But accountability to parents and the wide-ranging reforms our students need are more important.
What we need is to turn the passion stirred over Common Core into something much more significant.
Common Core has serious problems, and it is imperative that we address them. But there is no reason to re-enact the brinksmanship of “Dr. Strangelove.”
Let’s address Common Core and move on, focusing our energy on the fundamental challenges facing education in South Carolina. This is not a time for mutual destruction. The future of our children hangs in the balance.
Dr. Smith is senior fellow at Palmetto Policy Forum.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Guest Opinion: School Choice Unites & Empowers
 |
| By Ellen Weaver |
Liberal Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and conservative Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton. What agenda could possibly unite these political odd couples?
Support for the rapidly expanding world of education options.
Each of these leaders is part of a bipartisan groundswell of advocates for evidence-based school choice programs, both public and private. Far more than “vouchers,” school choice in its truest form includes as many options as the needs of children are unique: high-quality traditional schools; public charters, magnet or virtual schools; open enrollment between traditional school districts; private school scholarship and tax credit programs; Education Savings Accounts; home schooling and more.
Based on a monopolistic model of learning designed for a heavily agrarian economy, the structure of our current public education system has remained largely unchanged since the 19th century. While this system still works for some, it is failing to equip far too many of our children with the basic skills they need in the fast-paced economy of the future.
The facts are unforgiving: America leads the world in education spending yet lags in academic achievement, falling behind more than a dozen other industrialized countries in math and literacy.
Our research shows that right here in South Carolina, fewer than half of our low-income students can read at “Basic or Better” levels by the end of 3rd grade, the pivotal point when they transition from learning to read to reading to learn. Over the last decade, our students with special needs have lost more ground in reading and math than students from any other state in the country. We are currently leaving far too many of our children behind and robbing them of opportunity to succeed in school and ultimately life.
The good news: the power to change all this is in our hands. Around the country, innovating states and bold policy leaders are showing the way as they empower more and more parents with customized choices for their child’s education. These choices take many forms, including strong, accountable public charter and online schools and private tax credit scholarships for students with special needs or who come from families which otherwise could not afford to access high-quality options. Or newer ideas like Education Savings Accounts that create maximum flexibility for parents to buy textbooks, hire a tutor, enroll their children in online classes, pay private school tuition, or even save for future college expenses.
What are the results where these options are being tried? Study after study has shown that expanded education choice has increased high school graduation and college attendance, boosted scores in critical core subjects like reading and math, and led to parents who are satisfied that their children are enjoying high-quality education in a safe environment.
Over the last decade, Florida became one of the lead policy innovators, enacting robust school choice programs, which have contributed to students most in need of a helping hand making the greatest strides in achievement. In fact, Florida’s low-income students now outscore the entire student population of South Carolina on 4th grade reading. And the Sunshine State’s minority students — once lagging well behind their peers in the Palmetto State — have leapfrogged ahead. All this while spending less money per student than we do in South Carolina.
But the best news: a rising tide lifts all boats. Students in traditional public schools are thriving as never before, debunking the myth that more school choices damage public education. The inescapable truth is that where education choice grows, education and student achievement flourish everywhere.
To quote former Gov. Jeb Bush who led Florida’s education transformation, it’s time for us to “fundamentally rethink how we define public education, paying for results wherever they occur rather than paying a single provider regardless of results.”
Despite our challenges, this is an exciting time for education in South Carolina. New conversations are happening between businesses, education leaders and local communities about how to create the education system of the future. And right here in the Palmetto State, parents have more options now than they have ever had, including a brand new tax credit scholarship program for our students with special needs.
But our work is far from done. School choice is changing lives across the country and provides a clear road map forward to address the education needs of South Carolina students.
We have just celebrated National School Choice Week. I hope you’ll join this growing, bipartisan movement of students, parents, educators and community leaders. Working together, we can empower parents with new choices and inspire students with the hope that their ZIP code does not determine their destiny.
Ellen Weaver is President & CEO of Palmetto Policy Forum. For more information go to www.palmettopolicy.org.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
For Pension Funds, Higher Fees Don't Mean Higher Returns, Study Finds
Originally published in the Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2013
Report on State Pension Funds Adds Fuel to Debate on Active Investment Managers
By MICHAEL CORKERY
Public-employee pension plans paying the highest investment fees aren't generating the highest returns, according to a new study by a pair of Maryland think tanks.
In fact, just the opposite may be true, says the Maryland Public Policy Institute and Maryland Tax Education Foundation.
On average, 10 states paying the most money-management fees had lower investment returns between June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2012 than 10 states paying the fewest fees.
In recent years, many pensions have been willing to live with the high fees charged by alternative investment managers, such as hedge funds, in hopes that these firms can deliver high returns with less risk than stocks.
The report could add fuel to the growing debate over whether pensions should be moving away from higher-cost, active-investment managers and toward lower-cost, passive investments such as indexes.
The report calculates investment fees as percentage of a pension fund's total assets.
"Many states are spending millions of dollars a year in Wall Street fees and they seem to be getting very little in return," says Jeff Hooke, a co-author of the study and chairman of Maryland Tax Education Foundation, a conservative-leaning group.
The 10 state pension funds paying the most fees had a median five-year annualized return of 1.34%. The 10 state funds paying the least in fees reported a 2.38% return for the five year period.
The study ranks fees and investment returns at the largest pension funds in 35 states with fiscal years ending June 30, 2012.
The study examined fees for statewide pension funds covering a range of workers. In some states, the study looked at the largest pension plan, such as teachers' funds. South Carolina Retirement System paid the most fees in the study, totaling 1.3% of total pension assets. The Teacher Retirement System of Georgia paid the least in fees, totaling 0.09% of total assets, according to the study.
South Carolina's five-year return rate was about 1.5% while Georgia's returns were about 2.9%, the report says.
In a statement, South Carolina chief investment officer Hershel Harper said "there is no one common practice in reporting investment fees paid.''
"We understand practices vary widely, making any 'apples to apples' comparison of standard financial statement investment management fees nearly impossible," Mr. Harper said. South Carolina has a relatively large allocation to alternative investments.
A spokesman for the Georgia teachers' pension couldn't be reached.
The study grew out of the Maryland think tanks' scrutiny of the pension plan of their home state, says Mr. Hooke, a managing director at Focus, an investment banking firm in Washington, D.C. Maryland's investment fees totaled 0.64%, the third highest in the study.
Mr. Hooke says in a similar study last year, his group missed some fees paid by certain states, but those oversights have been corrected this year.
Some pension plans have been demanding lower fees from hedge funds and private-equity firms. One plan in Montgomery County, Pa. has moved nearly all of its money into index funds to lower costs.
By MICHAEL CORKERY
Public-employee pension plans paying the highest investment fees aren't generating the highest returns, according to a new study by a pair of Maryland think tanks.
In fact, just the opposite may be true, says the Maryland Public Policy Institute and Maryland Tax Education Foundation.
On average, 10 states paying the most money-management fees had lower investment returns between June 30, 2007 and June 30, 2012 than 10 states paying the fewest fees.
In recent years, many pensions have been willing to live with the high fees charged by alternative investment managers, such as hedge funds, in hopes that these firms can deliver high returns with less risk than stocks.
The report could add fuel to the growing debate over whether pensions should be moving away from higher-cost, active-investment managers and toward lower-cost, passive investments such as indexes.
The report calculates investment fees as percentage of a pension fund's total assets.
"Many states are spending millions of dollars a year in Wall Street fees and they seem to be getting very little in return," says Jeff Hooke, a co-author of the study and chairman of Maryland Tax Education Foundation, a conservative-leaning group.
The 10 state pension funds paying the most fees had a median five-year annualized return of 1.34%. The 10 state funds paying the least in fees reported a 2.38% return for the five year period.
The study ranks fees and investment returns at the largest pension funds in 35 states with fiscal years ending June 30, 2012.
The study examined fees for statewide pension funds covering a range of workers. In some states, the study looked at the largest pension plan, such as teachers' funds. South Carolina Retirement System paid the most fees in the study, totaling 1.3% of total pension assets. The Teacher Retirement System of Georgia paid the least in fees, totaling 0.09% of total assets, according to the study.
South Carolina's five-year return rate was about 1.5% while Georgia's returns were about 2.9%, the report says.
In a statement, South Carolina chief investment officer Hershel Harper said "there is no one common practice in reporting investment fees paid.''
"We understand practices vary widely, making any 'apples to apples' comparison of standard financial statement investment management fees nearly impossible," Mr. Harper said. South Carolina has a relatively large allocation to alternative investments.
A spokesman for the Georgia teachers' pension couldn't be reached.
The study grew out of the Maryland think tanks' scrutiny of the pension plan of their home state, says Mr. Hooke, a managing director at Focus, an investment banking firm in Washington, D.C. Maryland's investment fees totaled 0.64%, the third highest in the study.
Mr. Hooke says in a similar study last year, his group missed some fees paid by certain states, but those oversights have been corrected this year.
Some pension plans have been demanding lower fees from hedge funds and private-equity firms. One plan in Montgomery County, Pa. has moved nearly all of its money into index funds to lower costs.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
"Why are Florida schools moving forward and ours falling behind?"
By Tara Servatius
Charleston City Paper
They pack their families like lemmings into 1,400 square-foot houses situated on postage stamps in Mt. Pleasant and tell themselves they are doing it for their kids' education. They pay $150 a month for flood insurance on those homes to attend the highest scoring schools in the region.
Charleston City Paper
They pack their families like lemmings into 1,400 square-foot houses situated on postage stamps in Mt. Pleasant and tell themselves they are doing it for their kids' education. They pay $150 a month for flood insurance on those homes to attend the highest scoring schools in the region.
Other parents choose the soul-crushing commute route. They move out to the nether regions of Dorchester County and then drive an hour each way to work through rush hour. All this to put their kids in the small handful of Dorchester Two public schools with test scores as high as those at the best public schools in Mt. Pleasant. Day in and day out they grind away, telling themselves they're doing it for their kids' education.
I know, because I am one of those parents.
"The Intellectual Case for Competitive Federalism"
By Veronique de Rugy
The Corner - National Review Online
I have argued for several years that fiscal federalism is bad shape. Economist tend to like federalism because it promotes interstate competition. When states can differentiate themselves on the basis of taxes, spending and regulation, or even social policies,
Americans get more leeway in deciding the rules under which they want to live. If you don’t like the level of taxes or the policies in your state, you can vote with your feet and move to another jurisdiction. In theory, this competition for residents helps keep lawmakers in check, giving them an incentive to keep taxes and other intrusions modest.
The Corner - National Review Online
I have argued for several years that fiscal federalism is bad shape. Economist tend to like federalism because it promotes interstate competition. When states can differentiate themselves on the basis of taxes, spending and regulation, or even social policies,
Americans get more leeway in deciding the rules under which they want to live. If you don’t like the level of taxes or the policies in your state, you can vote with your feet and move to another jurisdiction. In theory, this competition for residents helps keep lawmakers in check, giving them an incentive to keep taxes and other intrusions modest.
"Medicaid expansion wrong for SC "
The State
OpEd by Jim DeMint
‘For every problem,” H.L. Mencken wrote, “there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Enter Obamacare and one of the main ways that it purports to reduce the number of uninsured: putting more people on Medicaid.
S.C. legislators are being pressured to do just that. The House has rejected the idea, and Gov. Nikki Haley has vowed to veto it, but it’s not dead. And if they ultimately sign on to the idea, they’ll find they’ve made a costly mistake and created a long-term fiscal problem.
OpEd by Jim DeMint
‘For every problem,” H.L. Mencken wrote, “there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Enter Obamacare and one of the main ways that it purports to reduce the number of uninsured: putting more people on Medicaid.
S.C. legislators are being pressured to do just that. The House has rejected the idea, and Gov. Nikki Haley has vowed to veto it, but it’s not dead. And if they ultimately sign on to the idea, they’ll find they’ve made a costly mistake and created a long-term fiscal problem.
"We can learn a lot from Florida"
South Carolina’s education superintendent says he wants this state to be more like Florida when it comes to education.
During an interview on Charleston affiliate WTMA, Superintendent Mick Zais referenced a recent study by the new South Carolina conservative think tank Palmetto Policy Forum, founded by former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, who is now president of the Heritage Foundation.
“The difference between high poverty kids who are learning and being successful and high poverty schools where kids are not learning anything is not the demographics of the students or the education level of the parents, it’s the competence of the adults in the system,” says Zais.
“The difference between high poverty kids who are learning and being successful and high poverty schools where kids are not learning anything is not the demographics of the students or the education level of the parents, it’s the competence of the adults in the system,” says Zais.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)