Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation: California Gov. Newsom's Veto Saves Taxpayers Billions, Preserves Previous Pension Reforms
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
California Gov. Newsom's veto saves taxpayers billions, preserves previous pension reforms
Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected AB 1383, which would've increased pension benefits for police and firefighters at a high cost to taxpayers.
Zachary Christensen
Managing Director
October 16, 2026
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed Assembly Bill 1383 (AB 1383) and Assembly Bill 1054 (AB 1054), which sought to grant the state's best-paid police and firefighters unfunded enhancements to their pension benefits. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * California Gov. Newsom's veto saves taxpayers billions, preserves previous pension reforms Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected AB 1383, which would've increased pension benefits for police and firefighters at a high cost to taxpayers. Zachary Christensen Managing Director October 16, 2026 California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed Assembly Bill 1383 (AB 1383) and Assembly Bill 1054 (AB 1054), which sought to grant the state's best-paid police and firefighters unfunded enhancements to their pension benefits.
In letters to the California legislature, Gov. Newsom cited concerns about the additional risks and costs the bills would impose on local governments and emphasized the importance of staying the course on the landmark Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), passed in 2012.
Newsom's veto is a wise, decisive response to extensive analyses and warnings from Reason Foundation, other fiscally minded interest groups, and local government leadership. While AB 1383 and AB 1054 garnered near-unanimous support in the state legislature, these vetoes were vital for a state still decades away from fully funding public pension promises already made to retirees and workers.
Although this effort to repeat the state's past mistakes by granting costly pension benefit increases to the state's best-paid government workers fell short, government employee unions and interest groups will likely continue to wield their heavy political influence on future proposals of this sort. With Gov. Newsom leaving office next year, other California lawmakers must continue to protect pension reforms like PEPRA and avoid adding to the state's gargantuan $257 billion pension funding debt.
PEPRA's impact so far
Thanks to a massive unfunded pension benefit increase that was granted to all California public employees and retirees in 1999, the state found itself in a perilous pension funding quagmire after major investment losses during the Great Recession. In two short years, the state's public pensions went from fully funded to $245 billion in debt by 2009. Facing projections of pension system insolvency, lawmakers had to act, and to their credit, they passed a package in PEPRA.
The most pivotal aspect of seeing pension reform through, however, is time. Even under the most optimistic of outlooks, PEPRA was always going to take multiple decades to fully realize its goal of bringing the state's pensions back to solvency and full funding.
The reforms' progress is evident in the gradual improvement of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), whose funding rose from 61% in 2009 (meaning it held just 61 cents to every dollar owed to its members) to 85% funded in 2026.
Despite the progress, this trajectory, and the system's own actuarial reports, indicate that CalPERS is still 10 to 20 years away from meeting PEPRA's original aim.
Given the long path ahead for California's pensions, it is concerning that lawmakers appear ready to prematurely unwind reforms and grant costly benefit increases.
A legislative threat to PEPRA
Since its passage in 2012, California has seen several attempts to chip away at PEPRA by crossing the prudent limits set in the reforms, but none generated as much support as AB 1383 and AB 1054. Before Gov. Newsom vetoed them, the bills had strong support among Democrats and Republicans, with unanimous support in the Senate and only two opposing votes in the Assembly.
Despite the fact that the bills would enhance the pensions of only the state's best-paid and longest-serving employees, the bills were sold by their sponsors to address perceived recruitment and retention challenges facing the state's first responders.
In truth, AB 1383 would have lowered the retirement age of police and firefighters from 57 to 55. It would also have made significant adjustments to PEPRA's limits on the level of compensation that could apply to the pension benefit formula and created a new, higher tier of benefits that employees could use to bargain with participating employers.
AB 1054 would have established a new deferred retirement option plan (DROP) for first responders, creating new, unpredictable costs.
These changes would have significantly undermined several of PEPRA's prudent cost-saving limits and would have opened the floodgates--as the state did in 1999--for granting unfunded benefit sweeteners with unforeseeable costs. The heavy burden of additional costs would have fallen on employers of public safety employees, mostly local governments, which would ultimately have been shouldered by the state's already stretched taxpayers.
The defense of PEPRA
Drawing on more than a decade of pension reform work across the country, Reason Foundation understood how crucial this moment was for the nation's largest system of government employee retirement plans.
To address the stated impetus of the bills, Reason Foundation conducted robust analyses showing that the state's turnover of public workers was much lower than the national average and had not changed notably over the last seven years.
An additional analysis of national Census Bureau survey data showed that, contrary to the bills' proponents' assertions, the median tenure of California's public safety workers had doubled since the 1980s and stood well above the national average for first responders.
These findings undermine claims that a staffing crisis exists, certainly not enough to justify adding high costs to an already underfunded pension system.
To advise on the state's history with pension policy and the potential costs of AB 1383, Reason Foundation released the CalPERS Monitor website. This actuarial analysis included the only forward-looking perspective to account for the potential costs that could arise under recession scenarios, which was the main source of California's current pension funding woes. According to Reason's projections, AB 1383 could have added $9.3 to $14.5 billion in new costs over 30 years, depending on investment outcomes.
Reason's analysis on the individual components of these costs also became a crucial feature of discussion on the bill. According to more detailed modeling of AB 1383, the bulk of new costs (86%) that the bill would generate would come from allowing higher salaries to apply to the pension formula. This meant that most of the proposed new costs would go toward granting richer benefits for employees already making more than $160,000 annually.
Alarmed by Reason's findings, California's fiscally minded organizations and several local government officials pushed back hard against AB 1383. In response to the backlash, the bill's sponsor accepted two amendments: the first an attempt to distance the legislation from the disastrous retroactive benefit-gifting spree of 1999, and the second to directly reduce the aforementioned benefit boost for higher earners. By Reason's estimate, the latter amendment would have reduced AB 1383's 30-year cost by $2.7 billion.
The veto that stymied the reform rollback
Passing with near-unanimous support, AB 1383 and AB 1054 reached Newsom's desk in early September. He responded decisively, justifying his vetoes by stating that the bills would "partially reverse some of PEPRA's reforms and significantly increase state and local government costs" and create "significant long-term fiscal and administrative pressures on departments." Newsom also said the bills would be seen as special treatment for public safety workers, putting them ahead of the state's other government employees.
What is next for PEPRA?
This is likely not the end of efforts to undermine PEPRA by granting pension boosts to government employees. Public safety union leadership has already said it intends to continue this push. Any future efforts will go through a different governor, but policymakers should assume the next governor, like Newsom, will also want to preserve the state's fiscal health and its pensions.
Lawmakers in this latest legislative process unfortunately overlooked the perspectives of local city and county governments, which would have borne the brunt of Sacramento's decision. While state senators in the Capitol echoed talking points from public safety unions, several city and county managers testified against AB 1383, urging lawmakers not to impose more costs on their annual budgets.
Many of California's policymakers seemed to overlook that cities and counties can already adjust compensation to meet their unique needs. If a city's police or fire department faces recruitment challenges, it already has the tools to attract new applicants, including higher salaries. Forcing, by edict, a public pension benefit enhancement on the entire state ignores that each local government faces its own unique challenges and already has the wherewithal to identify and enact appropriate policy.
The bipartisan coalition of lawmakers that enacted the reforms in PEPRA still has a long road ahead before it reaches the goal of fully funding California's pensions. The good news is that PEPRA's reforms are clearly working, but today's policymakers must honor those sacrifices and stay the course.
Lawmakers must remember that, while there has been some progress, CalPERS is still $179 billion short of funding the retirement promises made to its public employees. Now is not the time to give in to pressure from politically influential unions and employee groups to increase pension benefits, which would undermine PEPRA's success and impose high costs on taxpayers and local governments.
* * *
Zachary Christensen is a managing director of Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/california-gov-newsoms-veto-saves-taxpayers-billions-preserves-previous-pension-reforms/
* * *
California Gov. Newsom's veto saves taxpayers billions, preserves previous pension reforms
Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected AB 1383, which would've increased pension benefits for police and firefighters at a high cost to taxpayers.
Zachary Christensen
Managing Director
October 16, 2026
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed Assembly Bill 1383 (AB 1383) and Assembly Bill 1054 (AB 1054), which sought to grant the state's best-paid police and firefighters unfunded enhancements to their pension benefits. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 17 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * California Gov. Newsom's veto saves taxpayers billions, preserves previous pension reforms Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected AB 1383, which would've increased pension benefits for police and firefighters at a high cost to taxpayers. Zachary Christensen Managing Director October 16, 2026 California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently vetoed Assembly Bill 1383 (AB 1383) and Assembly Bill 1054 (AB 1054), which sought to grant the state's best-paid police and firefighters unfunded enhancements to their pension benefits.
In letters to the California legislature, Gov. Newsom cited concerns about the additional risks and costs the bills would impose on local governments and emphasized the importance of staying the course on the landmark Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), passed in 2012.
Newsom's veto is a wise, decisive response to extensive analyses and warnings from Reason Foundation, other fiscally minded interest groups, and local government leadership. While AB 1383 and AB 1054 garnered near-unanimous support in the state legislature, these vetoes were vital for a state still decades away from fully funding public pension promises already made to retirees and workers.
Although this effort to repeat the state's past mistakes by granting costly pension benefit increases to the state's best-paid government workers fell short, government employee unions and interest groups will likely continue to wield their heavy political influence on future proposals of this sort. With Gov. Newsom leaving office next year, other California lawmakers must continue to protect pension reforms like PEPRA and avoid adding to the state's gargantuan $257 billion pension funding debt.
PEPRA's impact so far
Thanks to a massive unfunded pension benefit increase that was granted to all California public employees and retirees in 1999, the state found itself in a perilous pension funding quagmire after major investment losses during the Great Recession. In two short years, the state's public pensions went from fully funded to $245 billion in debt by 2009. Facing projections of pension system insolvency, lawmakers had to act, and to their credit, they passed a package in PEPRA.
The most pivotal aspect of seeing pension reform through, however, is time. Even under the most optimistic of outlooks, PEPRA was always going to take multiple decades to fully realize its goal of bringing the state's pensions back to solvency and full funding.
The reforms' progress is evident in the gradual improvement of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), whose funding rose from 61% in 2009 (meaning it held just 61 cents to every dollar owed to its members) to 85% funded in 2026.
Despite the progress, this trajectory, and the system's own actuarial reports, indicate that CalPERS is still 10 to 20 years away from meeting PEPRA's original aim.
Given the long path ahead for California's pensions, it is concerning that lawmakers appear ready to prematurely unwind reforms and grant costly benefit increases.
A legislative threat to PEPRA
Since its passage in 2012, California has seen several attempts to chip away at PEPRA by crossing the prudent limits set in the reforms, but none generated as much support as AB 1383 and AB 1054. Before Gov. Newsom vetoed them, the bills had strong support among Democrats and Republicans, with unanimous support in the Senate and only two opposing votes in the Assembly.
Despite the fact that the bills would enhance the pensions of only the state's best-paid and longest-serving employees, the bills were sold by their sponsors to address perceived recruitment and retention challenges facing the state's first responders.
In truth, AB 1383 would have lowered the retirement age of police and firefighters from 57 to 55. It would also have made significant adjustments to PEPRA's limits on the level of compensation that could apply to the pension benefit formula and created a new, higher tier of benefits that employees could use to bargain with participating employers.
AB 1054 would have established a new deferred retirement option plan (DROP) for first responders, creating new, unpredictable costs.
These changes would have significantly undermined several of PEPRA's prudent cost-saving limits and would have opened the floodgates--as the state did in 1999--for granting unfunded benefit sweeteners with unforeseeable costs. The heavy burden of additional costs would have fallen on employers of public safety employees, mostly local governments, which would ultimately have been shouldered by the state's already stretched taxpayers.
The defense of PEPRA
Drawing on more than a decade of pension reform work across the country, Reason Foundation understood how crucial this moment was for the nation's largest system of government employee retirement plans.
To address the stated impetus of the bills, Reason Foundation conducted robust analyses showing that the state's turnover of public workers was much lower than the national average and had not changed notably over the last seven years.
An additional analysis of national Census Bureau survey data showed that, contrary to the bills' proponents' assertions, the median tenure of California's public safety workers had doubled since the 1980s and stood well above the national average for first responders.
These findings undermine claims that a staffing crisis exists, certainly not enough to justify adding high costs to an already underfunded pension system.
To advise on the state's history with pension policy and the potential costs of AB 1383, Reason Foundation released the CalPERS Monitor website. This actuarial analysis included the only forward-looking perspective to account for the potential costs that could arise under recession scenarios, which was the main source of California's current pension funding woes. According to Reason's projections, AB 1383 could have added $9.3 to $14.5 billion in new costs over 30 years, depending on investment outcomes.
Reason's analysis on the individual components of these costs also became a crucial feature of discussion on the bill. According to more detailed modeling of AB 1383, the bulk of new costs (86%) that the bill would generate would come from allowing higher salaries to apply to the pension formula. This meant that most of the proposed new costs would go toward granting richer benefits for employees already making more than $160,000 annually.
Alarmed by Reason's findings, California's fiscally minded organizations and several local government officials pushed back hard against AB 1383. In response to the backlash, the bill's sponsor accepted two amendments: the first an attempt to distance the legislation from the disastrous retroactive benefit-gifting spree of 1999, and the second to directly reduce the aforementioned benefit boost for higher earners. By Reason's estimate, the latter amendment would have reduced AB 1383's 30-year cost by $2.7 billion.
The veto that stymied the reform rollback
Passing with near-unanimous support, AB 1383 and AB 1054 reached Newsom's desk in early September. He responded decisively, justifying his vetoes by stating that the bills would "partially reverse some of PEPRA's reforms and significantly increase state and local government costs" and create "significant long-term fiscal and administrative pressures on departments." Newsom also said the bills would be seen as special treatment for public safety workers, putting them ahead of the state's other government employees.
What is next for PEPRA?
This is likely not the end of efforts to undermine PEPRA by granting pension boosts to government employees. Public safety union leadership has already said it intends to continue this push. Any future efforts will go through a different governor, but policymakers should assume the next governor, like Newsom, will also want to preserve the state's fiscal health and its pensions.
Lawmakers in this latest legislative process unfortunately overlooked the perspectives of local city and county governments, which would have borne the brunt of Sacramento's decision. While state senators in the Capitol echoed talking points from public safety unions, several city and county managers testified against AB 1383, urging lawmakers not to impose more costs on their annual budgets.
Many of California's policymakers seemed to overlook that cities and counties can already adjust compensation to meet their unique needs. If a city's police or fire department faces recruitment challenges, it already has the tools to attract new applicants, including higher salaries. Forcing, by edict, a public pension benefit enhancement on the entire state ignores that each local government faces its own unique challenges and already has the wherewithal to identify and enact appropriate policy.
The bipartisan coalition of lawmakers that enacted the reforms in PEPRA still has a long road ahead before it reaches the goal of fully funding California's pensions. The good news is that PEPRA's reforms are clearly working, but today's policymakers must honor those sacrifices and stay the course.
Lawmakers must remember that, while there has been some progress, CalPERS is still $179 billion short of funding the retirement promises made to its public employees. Now is not the time to give in to pressure from politically influential unions and employee groups to increase pension benefits, which would undermine PEPRA's success and impose high costs on taxpayers and local governments.
* * *
Zachary Christensen is a managing director of Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/california-gov-newsoms-veto-saves-taxpayers-billions-preserves-previous-pension-reforms/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Why Can Nothing Be Built in Britain?
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 17 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
October 16, 2026
Why Can Nothing Be Built in Britain?
Mani Basharzad
Creating more ways to say no leads to fewer ways to say yes.
-
A public company in the UK was building a high-speed railway when it suddenly faced a regulation that few could have predicted: a pound sterling100 million ($132 million) bat tunnel. The railway passed through Sheephouse Wood, an area inhabited by rare Bechstein's bats. To comply with environmental regulations that protect the bats from colliding with high-speed ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 17 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * October 16, 2026 Why Can Nothing Be Built in Britain? Mani Basharzad Creating more ways to say no leads to fewer ways to say yes. - A public company in the UK was building a high-speed railway when it suddenly faced a regulation that few could have predicted: a pound sterling100 million ($132 million) bat tunnel. The railway passed through Sheephouse Wood, an area inhabited by rare Bechstein's bats. To comply with environmental regulations that protect the bats from colliding with high-speedtrains, the company had to build a roughly one-kilometer covered structure alongside the railway. This structure has since become widely known in the UK as the "bat tunnel."
If you think this is just one case, let me tell you about the fish disco. EDF Energy was developing a new nuclear power station in Somerset, which draws cooling water from the Severn Estuary. The project faced regulatory requirements to reduce the number of fish being drawn into and killed by its cooling-water intake pipes. EDF agreed to three measures: specially designed low-velocity intake heads, a fish recovery-and-return system, and an acoustic fish deterrent--underwater speakers that make noise to steer fish away, nicknamed the "fish disco." The acoustic deterrent alone reportedly costs about $66 million, while EDF says the full fish-protection package costs more than $926 million.
The problem with the UK is that it has become a vetocracy. Francis Fukuyama, the famous author of The End of History, explored this problem in his often-overlooked book Political Order and Political Decay. The concept helps explain part of the productivity puzzle in the Western world. Vetocracy means "rule by veto": a political system with so many points at which organized minorities, courts, agencies, legislators, or interest groups can block action that the majority struggles to govern.
At first glance, this might seem necessary to protect democracy from majority rule and dictatorship. The separation of powers, independent courts, and an independent judiciary are essential safeguards. As Montesquieu famously wrote, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty." But vetocracy is not simply about separating powers and protecting minority rights from the majority; it is about paralyzing democratic institutions and preventing the government from functioning.
Take the British example. Businesses want a new high-speed railway, the company wants to invest in it, and even the government supports it. Yet an independent regulatory body, Natural England, can act as a veto player, imposing additional requirements and costs. And that is the key distinction Fukuyama discusses: the difference between constraints and capacity. Constraints are necessary because they protect our liberties from government overreach. But we also need government capacity: the ability to build things without being buried under thousands of regulations and a maze of supposed "independent actors" empowered by the state to obstruct or reverse policies.
This has contributed to the problem of quangocracy. In the UK, there are more than 400 quangos, independent organizations set up by the government to carry out certain initiatives, which the TaxPayers' Alliance has estimated cost the government around pound sterling400 billion ($528 billion). The problem with quangos is that they can be protected from both market forces, such as profit and loss, and the electoral accountability of democratic government. As Fukuyama's argument helps explain, this can create the conditions for a populist backlash. Voters do not get the policies they want, and when institutions become paralyzed, they may turn to a populist strongman promising to "get things done."
This has created a regulatory burden that has paralyzed building in the UK. Britain has not built a major new conventional reservoir in three decades. Housing is another example. Research by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that Britain has just 446 homes per 1,000 people, the second worst rate in Europe. Why? Because everyone can become a veto player when you want to build something in Britain. Residents of Chelsea, one of London's most affluent areas, have even opposed the expansion of a cancer hospital because it could "harm property prices."
These are the visible costs of regulation: the cancer hospital that cannot be expanded, the house that could help a young person get on the housing ladder, or the nuclear power station that could help bring down energy costs.
But the more serious costs are the ones unseen: the products that fail to come to fruition as a result of regulation. As the Austrian school economist Per Bylund has argued in his book The Seen, the Unseen, and the Unrealized: How Regulations Affect Our Everyday Lives, the problem with regulation is that it limits the possibilities of what could happen. It is not just about the direct financial cost of compliance. It is about the choices that disappear, the investments that never happen, and the economic freedom that is gradually eroded. The real cost of regulation is not only what we can see, but also what we never get to see because it was never built in the first place.
Vetocracy is a product of an overextended state: one that wants to be the dominant actor in the economy and micromanage every aspect of economic life. Sooner or later, it discovers that governing is not as easy as it looks. The barriers originally created by the state in the name of better governance can make effective governance almost impossible. A vetocracy is a democracy that has accumulated so many opportunities to say no that it has lost the practical ability to say yes.
* * *
Mani Basharzad
Mani Basharzad is a Research Associate at the Institute of Economic Affairs and an Asia Freedom Fellow at the London School of Economics. His work has been published by the New York Post, National Review, The Spectator, and Daily Express.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/why-can-nothing-be-built-in-britain/
* * *
October 16, 2026
Why Can Nothing Be Built in Britain?
Mani Basharzad
Creating more ways to say no leads to fewer ways to say yes.
-
A public company in the UK was building a high-speed railway when it suddenly faced a regulation that few could have predicted: a pound sterling100 million ($132 million) bat tunnel. The railway passed through Sheephouse Wood, an area inhabited by rare Bechstein's bats. To comply with environmental regulations that protect the bats from colliding with high-speed ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 17 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * October 16, 2026 Why Can Nothing Be Built in Britain? Mani Basharzad Creating more ways to say no leads to fewer ways to say yes. - A public company in the UK was building a high-speed railway when it suddenly faced a regulation that few could have predicted: a pound sterling100 million ($132 million) bat tunnel. The railway passed through Sheephouse Wood, an area inhabited by rare Bechstein's bats. To comply with environmental regulations that protect the bats from colliding with high-speedtrains, the company had to build a roughly one-kilometer covered structure alongside the railway. This structure has since become widely known in the UK as the "bat tunnel."
If you think this is just one case, let me tell you about the fish disco. EDF Energy was developing a new nuclear power station in Somerset, which draws cooling water from the Severn Estuary. The project faced regulatory requirements to reduce the number of fish being drawn into and killed by its cooling-water intake pipes. EDF agreed to three measures: specially designed low-velocity intake heads, a fish recovery-and-return system, and an acoustic fish deterrent--underwater speakers that make noise to steer fish away, nicknamed the "fish disco." The acoustic deterrent alone reportedly costs about $66 million, while EDF says the full fish-protection package costs more than $926 million.
The problem with the UK is that it has become a vetocracy. Francis Fukuyama, the famous author of The End of History, explored this problem in his often-overlooked book Political Order and Political Decay. The concept helps explain part of the productivity puzzle in the Western world. Vetocracy means "rule by veto": a political system with so many points at which organized minorities, courts, agencies, legislators, or interest groups can block action that the majority struggles to govern.
At first glance, this might seem necessary to protect democracy from majority rule and dictatorship. The separation of powers, independent courts, and an independent judiciary are essential safeguards. As Montesquieu famously wrote, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty." But vetocracy is not simply about separating powers and protecting minority rights from the majority; it is about paralyzing democratic institutions and preventing the government from functioning.
Take the British example. Businesses want a new high-speed railway, the company wants to invest in it, and even the government supports it. Yet an independent regulatory body, Natural England, can act as a veto player, imposing additional requirements and costs. And that is the key distinction Fukuyama discusses: the difference between constraints and capacity. Constraints are necessary because they protect our liberties from government overreach. But we also need government capacity: the ability to build things without being buried under thousands of regulations and a maze of supposed "independent actors" empowered by the state to obstruct or reverse policies.
This has contributed to the problem of quangocracy. In the UK, there are more than 400 quangos, independent organizations set up by the government to carry out certain initiatives, which the TaxPayers' Alliance has estimated cost the government around pound sterling400 billion ($528 billion). The problem with quangos is that they can be protected from both market forces, such as profit and loss, and the electoral accountability of democratic government. As Fukuyama's argument helps explain, this can create the conditions for a populist backlash. Voters do not get the policies they want, and when institutions become paralyzed, they may turn to a populist strongman promising to "get things done."
This has created a regulatory burden that has paralyzed building in the UK. Britain has not built a major new conventional reservoir in three decades. Housing is another example. Research by the Centre for Policy Studies shows that Britain has just 446 homes per 1,000 people, the second worst rate in Europe. Why? Because everyone can become a veto player when you want to build something in Britain. Residents of Chelsea, one of London's most affluent areas, have even opposed the expansion of a cancer hospital because it could "harm property prices."
These are the visible costs of regulation: the cancer hospital that cannot be expanded, the house that could help a young person get on the housing ladder, or the nuclear power station that could help bring down energy costs.
But the more serious costs are the ones unseen: the products that fail to come to fruition as a result of regulation. As the Austrian school economist Per Bylund has argued in his book The Seen, the Unseen, and the Unrealized: How Regulations Affect Our Everyday Lives, the problem with regulation is that it limits the possibilities of what could happen. It is not just about the direct financial cost of compliance. It is about the choices that disappear, the investments that never happen, and the economic freedom that is gradually eroded. The real cost of regulation is not only what we can see, but also what we never get to see because it was never built in the first place.
Vetocracy is a product of an overextended state: one that wants to be the dominant actor in the economy and micromanage every aspect of economic life. Sooner or later, it discovers that governing is not as easy as it looks. The barriers originally created by the state in the name of better governance can make effective governance almost impossible. A vetocracy is a democracy that has accumulated so many opportunities to say no that it has lost the practical ability to say yes.
* * *
Mani Basharzad
Mani Basharzad is a Research Associate at the Institute of Economic Affairs and an Asia Freedom Fellow at the London School of Economics. His work has been published by the New York Post, National Review, The Spectator, and Daily Express.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/why-can-nothing-be-built-in-britain/
Two new governors appointed to Wellcome board
LONDON, England, Oct. 16 -- Wellcome, a charitable foundation, posted the following news release:
* * *
Two new governors appointed to Wellcome board
*
Professor Dame Molly Stevens and Dr Jean-Philippe Vert join Wellcome's Board of governors this autumn.
4-minute read
4-minute read
Wellcome has made two new additions to its board this month, delivering additional expertise in nanoscience and machine learning to its governance body.
Professor Dame Molly Stevens is John Black Professor of Bionanoscience as well as Deputy Director of the Kavli Institute for Nanoscience Discovery at the University ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Oct. 16 -- Wellcome, a charitable foundation, posted the following news release: * * * Two new governors appointed to Wellcome board * Professor Dame Molly Stevens and Dr Jean-Philippe Vert join Wellcome's Board of governors this autumn. 4-minute read 4-minute read Wellcome has made two new additions to its board this month, delivering additional expertise in nanoscience and machine learning to its governance body. Professor Dame Molly Stevens is John Black Professor of Bionanoscience as well as Deputy Director of the Kavli Institute for Nanoscience Discovery at the Universityof Oxford.
She is also part-time Professor of Biomedical Materials and Regenerative Medicine at both Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and the Institute of Biomedical Engineering at Imperial College London.
As well as being a widely respected science communicator, Professor Dame Stevens is a Fellow of eight UK societies and has earned more than 40 honours and awards across her career so far.
Dr Jean-Philippe Vert is co-founder and CEO of Bioptimus, the AI-powered biomedical drug discovery platform working to refine a universal World Model of Biology.
He is also Professor (on leave) at PSL University, Paris, and Adjunct Professor at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences. He served as Chief Science Officer at Owkin, the AI biotech unicorn and for four years was Research Lead at Google Brain, the company's dedicated machine learning research arm.
In these roles at Wellcome, Dr Vert and Professor Stevens will draw on their professional expertise to help guide the organisation as it seeks to fulfil its vision of a healthier future for everyone. Wellcome's Board of Governors is responsible for ensuring that the organisation fulfils its mission by focusing on the right long-term strategies, and by operating according to the spirit of its values, beliefs and culture.
Professor Stevens said:
"There are huge opportunities emerging from the way different fields are coming together, and I'm particularly interested in how we can turn that creativity and discovery into things that genuinely improve people's lives across the world. One of the many things that I find exciting about Wellcome is that it has the scale and independence to take a long view, while staying focused on some of the most important challenges in human health."
Dr Vert said:
"Wellcome is one of the pillars leading science-driven progress in health for all, in the middle of what is a challenging environment. Geopolitical changes that impact international collaborations, erosion of trust in science in many societies and opportunities with AI have made me believe there is urgency to act and I'm joining the Wellcome board to bring my little contribution. I'm particularly excited by the mission to make sure that the expected progress triggered by AI does not only benefit the happy few."
Julia Gillard, Chair of Wellcome, said:
"JP and Molly both operate at the cutting edge of life science and they're going to bring real insight and guidance to the work of Wellcome. It's important that we have the brightest and best as Governors and they both fit that bill. It is a privilege to be joined by such talented individuals who are keen to shape and support Wellcome's work. My thanks to everyone who applied for these vacancies."
Departing the board at the end of January 2027 will be Stephen Lovegrove. Stephen steps down as a governor after three years, with the thanks and gratitude of Wellcome.
Julia Gillard said:
"Stephen's contribution during his time on the board has allowed us to think more broadly about Wellcome's role in the wider world. His experience as National Security Advisor helped us better contextualise the role life sciences have to play in global security, and his leadership of our Audit and Risk Committee has been greatly appreciated. I'd like to thank him publicly for the time and expertise he has given us."
Notes to editors
Dr Vert and Professor Stevens will start work as Wellcome governors on 23 October.
The two new Board roles were advertised earlier this year, with Fiona Powrie, the deputy chair of Wellcome's Board of Governors, leading the appointment process.
About Wellcome
Wellcome supports science to solve the urgent health challenges facing everyone. We support discovery research into life, health and wellbeing, and we're taking on three worldwide health challenges: mental health, infectious disease and climate and health.
***
Original text here: https://wellcome.org/insights/articles/two-new-governors-appointed-wellcome-board
* * *
Two new governors appointed to Wellcome board
*
Professor Dame Molly Stevens and Dr Jean-Philippe Vert join Wellcome's Board of governors this autumn.
4-minute read
4-minute read
Wellcome has made two new additions to its board this month, delivering additional expertise in nanoscience and machine learning to its governance body.
Professor Dame Molly Stevens is John Black Professor of Bionanoscience as well as Deputy Director of the Kavli Institute for Nanoscience Discovery at the University ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Oct. 16 -- Wellcome, a charitable foundation, posted the following news release: * * * Two new governors appointed to Wellcome board * Professor Dame Molly Stevens and Dr Jean-Philippe Vert join Wellcome's Board of governors this autumn. 4-minute read 4-minute read Wellcome has made two new additions to its board this month, delivering additional expertise in nanoscience and machine learning to its governance body. Professor Dame Molly Stevens is John Black Professor of Bionanoscience as well as Deputy Director of the Kavli Institute for Nanoscience Discovery at the Universityof Oxford.
She is also part-time Professor of Biomedical Materials and Regenerative Medicine at both Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and the Institute of Biomedical Engineering at Imperial College London.
As well as being a widely respected science communicator, Professor Dame Stevens is a Fellow of eight UK societies and has earned more than 40 honours and awards across her career so far.
Dr Jean-Philippe Vert is co-founder and CEO of Bioptimus, the AI-powered biomedical drug discovery platform working to refine a universal World Model of Biology.
He is also Professor (on leave) at PSL University, Paris, and Adjunct Professor at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences. He served as Chief Science Officer at Owkin, the AI biotech unicorn and for four years was Research Lead at Google Brain, the company's dedicated machine learning research arm.
In these roles at Wellcome, Dr Vert and Professor Stevens will draw on their professional expertise to help guide the organisation as it seeks to fulfil its vision of a healthier future for everyone. Wellcome's Board of Governors is responsible for ensuring that the organisation fulfils its mission by focusing on the right long-term strategies, and by operating according to the spirit of its values, beliefs and culture.
Professor Stevens said:
"There are huge opportunities emerging from the way different fields are coming together, and I'm particularly interested in how we can turn that creativity and discovery into things that genuinely improve people's lives across the world. One of the many things that I find exciting about Wellcome is that it has the scale and independence to take a long view, while staying focused on some of the most important challenges in human health."
Dr Vert said:
"Wellcome is one of the pillars leading science-driven progress in health for all, in the middle of what is a challenging environment. Geopolitical changes that impact international collaborations, erosion of trust in science in many societies and opportunities with AI have made me believe there is urgency to act and I'm joining the Wellcome board to bring my little contribution. I'm particularly excited by the mission to make sure that the expected progress triggered by AI does not only benefit the happy few."
Julia Gillard, Chair of Wellcome, said:
"JP and Molly both operate at the cutting edge of life science and they're going to bring real insight and guidance to the work of Wellcome. It's important that we have the brightest and best as Governors and they both fit that bill. It is a privilege to be joined by such talented individuals who are keen to shape and support Wellcome's work. My thanks to everyone who applied for these vacancies."
Departing the board at the end of January 2027 will be Stephen Lovegrove. Stephen steps down as a governor after three years, with the thanks and gratitude of Wellcome.
Julia Gillard said:
"Stephen's contribution during his time on the board has allowed us to think more broadly about Wellcome's role in the wider world. His experience as National Security Advisor helped us better contextualise the role life sciences have to play in global security, and his leadership of our Audit and Risk Committee has been greatly appreciated. I'd like to thank him publicly for the time and expertise he has given us."
Notes to editors
Dr Vert and Professor Stevens will start work as Wellcome governors on 23 October.
The two new Board roles were advertised earlier this year, with Fiona Powrie, the deputy chair of Wellcome's Board of Governors, leading the appointment process.
About Wellcome
Wellcome supports science to solve the urgent health challenges facing everyone. We support discovery research into life, health and wellbeing, and we're taking on three worldwide health challenges: mental health, infectious disease and climate and health.
***
Original text here: https://wellcome.org/insights/articles/two-new-governors-appointed-wellcome-board
Reason Foundation: Kratom Use by Students Does Not Mean Kratom Caused Deaths at Ole Miss
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 16 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Kratom use by students does not mean kratom caused deaths at Ole Miss
Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might.
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
October 15, 2026
University officials have urged the public to avoid speculating about the circumstances that led to the deaths of two students at the University of Mississippi, or "Ole Miss," following news that both potentially used kratom products prior to their deaths. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 16 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Kratom use by students does not mean kratom caused deaths at Ole Miss Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might. Michelle Minton Managing Director October 15, 2026 University officials have urged the public to avoid speculating about the circumstances that led to the deaths of two students at the University of Mississippi, or "Ole Miss," following news that both potentially used kratom products prior to their deaths.Some media outlets have linked the deaths to kratom use anyway, adding to the pressure on local and federal lawmakers to ban all kratom products. Tragic as these deaths are, the use of kratom by these students does not mean that kratom caused their deaths and policymakers should not rashly institute prohibitions that are unlikely to prevent deaths like this in the future.
Aidan Hamilton, 18, and Robert Strang, 20, were found dead on Sept. 21, reportedly with similar packages of kratom products nearby. It is not yet clear exactly what these products contained, whether either had been using those products when they died, or what else they may have taken. Autopsy and post-mortem toxicology reports have not yet been made public.
Based on the packaging, these products likely contained at least mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI) and dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine, known as MGM-15. Both have been classified as controlled substances since August 2026 when the Drug Enforcement Agency moved to temporarily list these and other derivatives of kratom under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
These are not the traditional preparations of kratom, the colloquial name given to a variety of products derived from the leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree. In Southeast Asia, where kratom trees grow, people typically chew kratom leaves or brew them into a tea that can alleviate pain, boost energy, or help alleviate opioid cravings and withdrawal. With traditional preparations, users primarily ingest mitragynine--the plant's most abundant alkaloid. Some of that mitragynine is then converted by the liver into its more potent metabolite, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH)--a minor alkaloid found in only trace amounts in the plant itself--which is believed to produce most of the plant's pain-relieving effects.
Since gaining popularity in Europe and the U.S., kratom manufacturers have learned how to isolate the alkaloids in kratom extracts, allowing manufacturers to add an unlimited amount of those minor alkaloids, like 7-OH, into gummies, shots, capsules, or tablets to create more potent "concentrated" products. While traditional kratom preparations have been used for generations in Southeast Asian countries with few adverse events reported, concentrated kratom products have received significant media and regulatory attention in the U.S. due to several high-profile incidents of adverse effects. Most, but not all, of these incidents can be traced to poor manufacturing processes, such as contamination with salmonella or heavy metals, or to illicit suppliers who have laced kratom products with other substances, like opioids.
Even aside from poor manufacturing processes or intentional adulteration, these products still carry risk. For example, the evidence is clear that mixing kratom with other substances is a bad idea. While lower doses of kratom leaves can be stimulating, higher doses cause sedation. Taking kratom alongside other depressants, like alcohol, cold medicine, or a range of prescription medications, may compound that sedative effect.
Mixing kratom with other medications can lead to another potentially dangerous side effect. Many of kratom's alkaloids have been shown to bind to and inhibit the liver enzymes needed to metabolize many common prescriptions and over-the-counter medications. This is similar to how grapefruit juice can alter medication metabolism and why labels on many medications caution against mixing that medication with grapefruit juice. Combining kratom with such medications can lead to a toxic build-up of the medication because the body cannot clear it from the bloodstream quickly enough.
According to statements made by their roommates, both students were regular users of other drugs. Hamilton was supposedly a frequent cannabis user while Strang was reportedly a daily user of "whippets," or nitrous oxide, and had consumed a "Xanax bar" in the hours leading up to his death. The possible use of Xanax--a central nervous system depressant--alongside kratom is especially concerning, as kratom is known to inhibit the precise enzyme the body uses to metabolize that medication.
Despite these risks, deaths linked to kratom remain exceedingly rate in the U.S., even for concentrated products. Moreover, nearly all those deaths involve the use of additional substances. Since 2019, federal officials have identified just 85 overdose cases related to concentrated 7-OH products, 55 of which were fatal, with many involving the co-ingestion of opioids. Similarly, when researchers examined all fatal overdoses between 2016 and 2017--more than 127,000 deaths--they identified only 152 where post-mortem toxicology found kratom in their systems. Of these, only in seven cases was kratom the only substance found in their system. Nearly all people who have died while using kratom had also consumed far more dangerous substances like heroin or cocaine.
This is not to say that kratom is safe or that it played no role in the deaths at Ole Miss. The death of two students is tragic and deserves a thorough investigation. But that investigation must answer whether the specific kratom products involved caused their deaths, not simply whether the students used them. That question cannot be answered until toxicology and autopsy reports are made public and the products they used have been analyzed. What we know so far seems to paint a more complex picture.
Both students allegedly used other substances, with claims that one had been using depressants with known kratom interactions. The product involved--reportedly the same brand purchased by both students--was illicitly purchased, raising questions about its quality and ingredients, and overdoses involving kratom rarely involve kratom alone.
It is likely that toxicology reports will show that one or both of the students were using kratom at the time of their deaths. This will undoubtedly lead to demands for a total prohibition on kratom products, as Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has already called for following the deaths. But, while the rush to blame kratom is understandable, this urge is not evidence-based and won't prevent tragedies like this in the future.
There are currently an estimated five million adults who use kratom in the U.S. Surveys indicate that a substantial portion of them use kratomto wean themselves off opioids. Outlawing all kratom products will not eliminate this demand. Instead, some kratom consumers will return to opioids or turn to illicit suppliers of kratom--suppliers with no incentive to comply with regulations or age restrictions. In addition to putting those adults at even greater risk, the proliferation of illicit kratom dealers may perversely increase youth access to those products and whatever else illicit dealers may be selling.
The better solution is to regulate kratom products to ensure they are produced through safe manufacturing processes for adults and kept away from youth. Mississippi already restricts sales of kratom products to those 21 years or older. It was already against the law in Mississippi for Hamilton and Strang to have purchased kratom. Mississippi law also limits the allowable concentrations of alkaloids, like 7-OH, and bans synthesized alkaloids, functionally outlawing concentrated kratom products.
Whether or not the students' deaths were caused in whole or part by kratom, no retailer should have sold them any type of kratom due to their age. The suspected products involved should not have been sold to anyone based on their ingredients, which are prohibited under both Mississippi and federal law. Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/kratom-use-by-students-does-not-mean-kratom-caused-deaths-at-ole-miss/
* * *
Kratom use by students does not mean kratom caused deaths at Ole Miss
Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might.
Michelle Minton
Managing Director
October 15, 2026
University officials have urged the public to avoid speculating about the circumstances that led to the deaths of two students at the University of Mississippi, or "Ole Miss," following news that both potentially used kratom products prior to their deaths. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 16 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Kratom use by students does not mean kratom caused deaths at Ole Miss Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might. Michelle Minton Managing Director October 15, 2026 University officials have urged the public to avoid speculating about the circumstances that led to the deaths of two students at the University of Mississippi, or "Ole Miss," following news that both potentially used kratom products prior to their deaths.Some media outlets have linked the deaths to kratom use anyway, adding to the pressure on local and federal lawmakers to ban all kratom products. Tragic as these deaths are, the use of kratom by these students does not mean that kratom caused their deaths and policymakers should not rashly institute prohibitions that are unlikely to prevent deaths like this in the future.
Aidan Hamilton, 18, and Robert Strang, 20, were found dead on Sept. 21, reportedly with similar packages of kratom products nearby. It is not yet clear exactly what these products contained, whether either had been using those products when they died, or what else they may have taken. Autopsy and post-mortem toxicology reports have not yet been made public.
Based on the packaging, these products likely contained at least mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI) and dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine, known as MGM-15. Both have been classified as controlled substances since August 2026 when the Drug Enforcement Agency moved to temporarily list these and other derivatives of kratom under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
These are not the traditional preparations of kratom, the colloquial name given to a variety of products derived from the leaves of the Mitragyna speciosa tree. In Southeast Asia, where kratom trees grow, people typically chew kratom leaves or brew them into a tea that can alleviate pain, boost energy, or help alleviate opioid cravings and withdrawal. With traditional preparations, users primarily ingest mitragynine--the plant's most abundant alkaloid. Some of that mitragynine is then converted by the liver into its more potent metabolite, 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH)--a minor alkaloid found in only trace amounts in the plant itself--which is believed to produce most of the plant's pain-relieving effects.
Since gaining popularity in Europe and the U.S., kratom manufacturers have learned how to isolate the alkaloids in kratom extracts, allowing manufacturers to add an unlimited amount of those minor alkaloids, like 7-OH, into gummies, shots, capsules, or tablets to create more potent "concentrated" products. While traditional kratom preparations have been used for generations in Southeast Asian countries with few adverse events reported, concentrated kratom products have received significant media and regulatory attention in the U.S. due to several high-profile incidents of adverse effects. Most, but not all, of these incidents can be traced to poor manufacturing processes, such as contamination with salmonella or heavy metals, or to illicit suppliers who have laced kratom products with other substances, like opioids.
Even aside from poor manufacturing processes or intentional adulteration, these products still carry risk. For example, the evidence is clear that mixing kratom with other substances is a bad idea. While lower doses of kratom leaves can be stimulating, higher doses cause sedation. Taking kratom alongside other depressants, like alcohol, cold medicine, or a range of prescription medications, may compound that sedative effect.
Mixing kratom with other medications can lead to another potentially dangerous side effect. Many of kratom's alkaloids have been shown to bind to and inhibit the liver enzymes needed to metabolize many common prescriptions and over-the-counter medications. This is similar to how grapefruit juice can alter medication metabolism and why labels on many medications caution against mixing that medication with grapefruit juice. Combining kratom with such medications can lead to a toxic build-up of the medication because the body cannot clear it from the bloodstream quickly enough.
According to statements made by their roommates, both students were regular users of other drugs. Hamilton was supposedly a frequent cannabis user while Strang was reportedly a daily user of "whippets," or nitrous oxide, and had consumed a "Xanax bar" in the hours leading up to his death. The possible use of Xanax--a central nervous system depressant--alongside kratom is especially concerning, as kratom is known to inhibit the precise enzyme the body uses to metabolize that medication.
Despite these risks, deaths linked to kratom remain exceedingly rate in the U.S., even for concentrated products. Moreover, nearly all those deaths involve the use of additional substances. Since 2019, federal officials have identified just 85 overdose cases related to concentrated 7-OH products, 55 of which were fatal, with many involving the co-ingestion of opioids. Similarly, when researchers examined all fatal overdoses between 2016 and 2017--more than 127,000 deaths--they identified only 152 where post-mortem toxicology found kratom in their systems. Of these, only in seven cases was kratom the only substance found in their system. Nearly all people who have died while using kratom had also consumed far more dangerous substances like heroin or cocaine.
This is not to say that kratom is safe or that it played no role in the deaths at Ole Miss. The death of two students is tragic and deserves a thorough investigation. But that investigation must answer whether the specific kratom products involved caused their deaths, not simply whether the students used them. That question cannot be answered until toxicology and autopsy reports are made public and the products they used have been analyzed. What we know so far seems to paint a more complex picture.
Both students allegedly used other substances, with claims that one had been using depressants with known kratom interactions. The product involved--reportedly the same brand purchased by both students--was illicitly purchased, raising questions about its quality and ingredients, and overdoses involving kratom rarely involve kratom alone.
It is likely that toxicology reports will show that one or both of the students were using kratom at the time of their deaths. This will undoubtedly lead to demands for a total prohibition on kratom products, as Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has already called for following the deaths. But, while the rush to blame kratom is understandable, this urge is not evidence-based and won't prevent tragedies like this in the future.
There are currently an estimated five million adults who use kratom in the U.S. Surveys indicate that a substantial portion of them use kratomto wean themselves off opioids. Outlawing all kratom products will not eliminate this demand. Instead, some kratom consumers will return to opioids or turn to illicit suppliers of kratom--suppliers with no incentive to comply with regulations or age restrictions. In addition to putting those adults at even greater risk, the proliferation of illicit kratom dealers may perversely increase youth access to those products and whatever else illicit dealers may be selling.
The better solution is to regulate kratom products to ensure they are produced through safe manufacturing processes for adults and kept away from youth. Mississippi already restricts sales of kratom products to those 21 years or older. It was already against the law in Mississippi for Hamilton and Strang to have purchased kratom. Mississippi law also limits the allowable concentrations of alkaloids, like 7-OH, and bans synthesized alkaloids, functionally outlawing concentrated kratom products.
Whether or not the students' deaths were caused in whole or part by kratom, no retailer should have sold them any type of kratom due to their age. The suspected products involved should not have been sold to anyone based on their ingredients, which are prohibited under both Mississippi and federal law. Outlawing more products will not prevent deaths like those at Ole Miss. But regulating them and enforcing those rules might.
* * *
Michelle Minton is the managing director of drug policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/kratom-use-by-students-does-not-mean-kratom-caused-deaths-at-ole-miss/
How Do Georgia Constitutional Amendments Work?
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 16 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
How Do Georgia Constitutional Amendments Work?
*
When Georgians go to the polls on November 3, they'll vote on three proposed changes to the state constitution. Most voters know what a law is. Fewer know how the constitution gets changed, or why the final decision lies with voters. Here's a quick guide.
Q: What is a constitutional amendment?
A: It's a change to Georgia's constitution, the state's top-level rulebook. Every law the General Assembly passes has to fit inside the constitution. ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 16 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release: * * * How Do Georgia Constitutional Amendments Work? * When Georgians go to the polls on November 3, they'll vote on three proposed changes to the state constitution. Most voters know what a law is. Fewer know how the constitution gets changed, or why the final decision lies with voters. Here's a quick guide. Q: What is a constitutional amendment? A: It's a change to Georgia's constitution, the state's top-level rulebook. Every law the General Assembly passes has to fit inside the constitution.Amending it takes two steps: lawmakers propose the change, and voters decide whether to adopt it.
Q: Is this direct democracy, like a citizen initiative?
A: In some states, such as California and Florida, citizens can gather signatures to put their own proposals on the ballot. Georgia uses legislative referrals rather than citizens' initiatives. Only the legislature can place an amendment on the ballot, and voters decide whether it passes.
Q: How does an amendment get on the ballot?
A: It follows these steps:
* A legislator introduces a resolution, not a regular bill.
* Two-thirds of the members of each chamber must vote yes on a recorded roll-call vote. That's at least 120 of 180 House members and 38 of 56 senators.
* The governor's approval is not required. The constitution says the governor cannot veto a proposed amendment.
* The amendment goes on the ballot at the next general election in an even-numbered year.
* If a simple majority of voters say yes, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Q: Is that all it takes?
A: No. Many amendments only give permission. For example, an amendment might say the legislature "may" create a fund. The details still have to be written into an ordinary law, called enabling legislation. That bill requires a simple majority of each chamber and goes through the ordinary legislative process, including review by the governor.
Q: How can voters learn what they're voting on?
A: A: The Attorney General, the Legislative Counsel and the Secretary of State prepare plain-language summaries. These are published in newspapers in the weeks before the election, and the full text is available at every county probate court. The Secretary of State also posts the summaries online. On the ballot itself, voters see only a short yes-or-no question, so it pays to read up ahead of time.
Q: Why amend the constitution instead of just passing a law?
A: A law can't override the constitution. If the constitution forbids something, or puts a decision out of lawmakers' reach, the only way forward is an amendment. Georgia's constitution is far more detailed than the U.S. Constitution. It covers taxes, budgets, schools, courts and local government in fine detail. Common reasons for amending it include:
* The constitution forbids it. Georgia's constitution generally bars "earmarking," which means locking a tax or fee into a single use. Existing exceptions allow some dedicated state funds, but a proposal that falls outside those exceptions requires an amendment.
* A court struck down a law. In 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a state law creating state charter schools violated the constitution's provision on local control of schools. Lawmakers responded with a 2012 amendment to allow the state to approve charter schools, which voters approved 58.6% to 41.4%.
* The constitution is very precise about it. The constitution includes specific numbers, like acreage caps for certain tax breaks. Changing them takes an amendment.
* Lawmakers want it to last. A future legislature can repeal a law with a simple majority. An amendment can only be undone by another amendment, which takes two-thirds of the legislature and a statewide vote. For example, in 2014 voters approved an amendment barring lawmakers from raising the income tax rate above 6%. The top rate was already 6%, so nothing changed at the time, but it made a future tax hike much harder.
Q: Haven't Georgians always voted on lots of amendments?
A: Yes, and it used to be more common. By the mid-1970s, Georgia's constitution was the longest in the nation, with more than 800 amendments. Many were local amendments that applied to just one county, city or school district. Changing a local rule often meant amending the state constitution.
A 1976 revision under Gov. George Busbee reorganized the document but changed little. A full rewrite followed: lLawmakers approved a new constitution in 1981, voters ratified it on November 2, 1982, and it took effect July 1, 1983. Its biggest reform was banning new local amendments. Local matters are now handled by ordinary local laws or local home-rule ordinances.
Q: How often has the current constitution been amended?
A: The 1983 constitution had been amended 93 times through 2024. Most amendments pass, since a proposal that wins two-thirds of both chambers usually has support from both parties. But voters do say no. In 2016, they rejected Gov. Nathan Deal's Opportunity School District amendment, which would have allowed a state takeover of chronically failing schools, 60% to 40%.
Q: What's on the ballot this year?
A: Three amendments:
* Amendment 1 would raise the cap on farm and timber land eligible for conservation-use property tax treatment from 2,000 to 4,000 acres.
* Amendment 2 would require probate judges statewide to be elected in nonpartisan races.
* Amendment 3 would allow the legislature to create a dedicated Next Generation 9-1-1 Fund.
We take a closer look at each one in separate posts.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/how-do-georgia-constitutional-amendments-work/
* * *
How Do Georgia Constitutional Amendments Work?
*
When Georgians go to the polls on November 3, they'll vote on three proposed changes to the state constitution. Most voters know what a law is. Fewer know how the constitution gets changed, or why the final decision lies with voters. Here's a quick guide.
Q: What is a constitutional amendment?
A: It's a change to Georgia's constitution, the state's top-level rulebook. Every law the General Assembly passes has to fit inside the constitution. ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 16 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release: * * * How Do Georgia Constitutional Amendments Work? * When Georgians go to the polls on November 3, they'll vote on three proposed changes to the state constitution. Most voters know what a law is. Fewer know how the constitution gets changed, or why the final decision lies with voters. Here's a quick guide. Q: What is a constitutional amendment? A: It's a change to Georgia's constitution, the state's top-level rulebook. Every law the General Assembly passes has to fit inside the constitution.Amending it takes two steps: lawmakers propose the change, and voters decide whether to adopt it.
Q: Is this direct democracy, like a citizen initiative?
A: In some states, such as California and Florida, citizens can gather signatures to put their own proposals on the ballot. Georgia uses legislative referrals rather than citizens' initiatives. Only the legislature can place an amendment on the ballot, and voters decide whether it passes.
Q: How does an amendment get on the ballot?
A: It follows these steps:
* A legislator introduces a resolution, not a regular bill.
* Two-thirds of the members of each chamber must vote yes on a recorded roll-call vote. That's at least 120 of 180 House members and 38 of 56 senators.
* The governor's approval is not required. The constitution says the governor cannot veto a proposed amendment.
* The amendment goes on the ballot at the next general election in an even-numbered year.
* If a simple majority of voters say yes, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
Q: Is that all it takes?
A: No. Many amendments only give permission. For example, an amendment might say the legislature "may" create a fund. The details still have to be written into an ordinary law, called enabling legislation. That bill requires a simple majority of each chamber and goes through the ordinary legislative process, including review by the governor.
Q: How can voters learn what they're voting on?
A: A: The Attorney General, the Legislative Counsel and the Secretary of State prepare plain-language summaries. These are published in newspapers in the weeks before the election, and the full text is available at every county probate court. The Secretary of State also posts the summaries online. On the ballot itself, voters see only a short yes-or-no question, so it pays to read up ahead of time.
Q: Why amend the constitution instead of just passing a law?
A: A law can't override the constitution. If the constitution forbids something, or puts a decision out of lawmakers' reach, the only way forward is an amendment. Georgia's constitution is far more detailed than the U.S. Constitution. It covers taxes, budgets, schools, courts and local government in fine detail. Common reasons for amending it include:
* The constitution forbids it. Georgia's constitution generally bars "earmarking," which means locking a tax or fee into a single use. Existing exceptions allow some dedicated state funds, but a proposal that falls outside those exceptions requires an amendment.
* A court struck down a law. In 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a state law creating state charter schools violated the constitution's provision on local control of schools. Lawmakers responded with a 2012 amendment to allow the state to approve charter schools, which voters approved 58.6% to 41.4%.
* The constitution is very precise about it. The constitution includes specific numbers, like acreage caps for certain tax breaks. Changing them takes an amendment.
* Lawmakers want it to last. A future legislature can repeal a law with a simple majority. An amendment can only be undone by another amendment, which takes two-thirds of the legislature and a statewide vote. For example, in 2014 voters approved an amendment barring lawmakers from raising the income tax rate above 6%. The top rate was already 6%, so nothing changed at the time, but it made a future tax hike much harder.
Q: Haven't Georgians always voted on lots of amendments?
A: Yes, and it used to be more common. By the mid-1970s, Georgia's constitution was the longest in the nation, with more than 800 amendments. Many were local amendments that applied to just one county, city or school district. Changing a local rule often meant amending the state constitution.
A 1976 revision under Gov. George Busbee reorganized the document but changed little. A full rewrite followed: lLawmakers approved a new constitution in 1981, voters ratified it on November 2, 1982, and it took effect July 1, 1983. Its biggest reform was banning new local amendments. Local matters are now handled by ordinary local laws or local home-rule ordinances.
Q: How often has the current constitution been amended?
A: The 1983 constitution had been amended 93 times through 2024. Most amendments pass, since a proposal that wins two-thirds of both chambers usually has support from both parties. But voters do say no. In 2016, they rejected Gov. Nathan Deal's Opportunity School District amendment, which would have allowed a state takeover of chronically failing schools, 60% to 40%.
Q: What's on the ballot this year?
A: Three amendments:
* Amendment 1 would raise the cap on farm and timber land eligible for conservation-use property tax treatment from 2,000 to 4,000 acres.
* Amendment 2 would require probate judges statewide to be elected in nonpartisan races.
* Amendment 3 would allow the legislature to create a dedicated Next Generation 9-1-1 Fund.
We take a closer look at each one in separate posts.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/how-do-georgia-constitutional-amendments-work/
Boston Indicators Brief Explores Sharp Drop in Massachusetts Overdose Deaths, Warns Funding and Eligibility Cuts Could Reverse Trend
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Oct. 16 (TNSrep) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Boston Indicators brief explores sharp drop in Massachusetts overdose deaths, warns funding and eligibility cuts could reverse trend
October 15, 2026
Boston - New research from Boston Indicators, the research center at the Boston Foundation, explores the notable drop in opioid overdose deaths in 2025, but suggests that the recent decline could reverse in the face of federal funding cuts to addiction-related treatments, programs and services. The new research brief, Declining Opioid Overdose ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Oct. 16 (TNSrep) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Boston Indicators brief explores sharp drop in Massachusetts overdose deaths, warns funding and eligibility cuts could reverse trend October 15, 2026 Boston - New research from Boston Indicators, the research center at the Boston Foundation, explores the notable drop in opioid overdose deaths in 2025, but suggests that the recent decline could reverse in the face of federal funding cuts to addiction-related treatments, programs and services. The new research brief, Declining Opioid OverdoseDeaths in Massachusetts: Drivers, Risks, and What Comes Next, shows that Massachusetts' opioid overdose rates, which have been among the highest in the nation in recent years, have fallen by nearly 60 percent since peaking in 2022.
Read the full brief (https://www.bostonindicators.org/article-pages/2026/october/declining-opioid-overdose-deaths)
The brief notes that the sharp decline has been broad-based across racial, ethnic, and age groups, with death rates falling by 56 percent for Whites, 57 percent for Latinos, 68 percent for Blacks, and 73 percent for AAPI residents, just since 2022.
"We are still witnessing too many overdose deaths in the state, but the new data are encouraging after a decade that featured historically high overdose death rates," said Luc Schuster, Executive Director of Boston Indicators. "We must also be aware that some of the biggest drivers of the decline, including the wider availability of overdose treatments and programs, require constant investment and vigilance to continue this important trend."
The brief highlights three possible driving factors behind the recent sharp decline noted in a Massachusetts Department of Public Health report: changes in the drug supply and improved monitoring; a reduction in the pool of people at risk of fatal overdose; and expanded access to harm reduction and treatment, especially the expanded availability of naloxone to reverse dangerous overdoses.
Whether those driving factors and the recent decline can be maintained depends largely on sustaining investments in public health that the Trump administration has threatened to cut. Changes in Medicaid eligibility and new Medicaid work requirements under the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, for example, could lead to thousands of Medicaid-enrolled adults in Massachusetts diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) losing health coverage through inability to keep up with eligibility requirements or difficulty meeting new work requirements. If that loss of Medicaid leads to losing medication for managing OUD, research shows that people are six times more likely to die in the four weeks after they stop treatment.
Proposed cuts to federal agencies that administer substance abuse and mental health grants and other funding also weaken the ability to allocate resources to where they are most needed, and prohibitions on federal funds being used on substance test kits and other harm reduction supplies also have safety impacts. The Trump administration has also moved to cut funding and staff for government agencies in charge of data collection and overdose surveillance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/october/boston-indicators-opioid-brief-release
* * *
Boston Indicators brief explores sharp drop in Massachusetts overdose deaths, warns funding and eligibility cuts could reverse trend
October 15, 2026
Boston - New research from Boston Indicators, the research center at the Boston Foundation, explores the notable drop in opioid overdose deaths in 2025, but suggests that the recent decline could reverse in the face of federal funding cuts to addiction-related treatments, programs and services. The new research brief, Declining Opioid Overdose ... Show Full Article BOSTON, Massachusetts, Oct. 16 (TNSrep) -- The Boston Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Boston Indicators brief explores sharp drop in Massachusetts overdose deaths, warns funding and eligibility cuts could reverse trend October 15, 2026 Boston - New research from Boston Indicators, the research center at the Boston Foundation, explores the notable drop in opioid overdose deaths in 2025, but suggests that the recent decline could reverse in the face of federal funding cuts to addiction-related treatments, programs and services. The new research brief, Declining Opioid OverdoseDeaths in Massachusetts: Drivers, Risks, and What Comes Next, shows that Massachusetts' opioid overdose rates, which have been among the highest in the nation in recent years, have fallen by nearly 60 percent since peaking in 2022.
Read the full brief (https://www.bostonindicators.org/article-pages/2026/october/declining-opioid-overdose-deaths)
The brief notes that the sharp decline has been broad-based across racial, ethnic, and age groups, with death rates falling by 56 percent for Whites, 57 percent for Latinos, 68 percent for Blacks, and 73 percent for AAPI residents, just since 2022.
"We are still witnessing too many overdose deaths in the state, but the new data are encouraging after a decade that featured historically high overdose death rates," said Luc Schuster, Executive Director of Boston Indicators. "We must also be aware that some of the biggest drivers of the decline, including the wider availability of overdose treatments and programs, require constant investment and vigilance to continue this important trend."
The brief highlights three possible driving factors behind the recent sharp decline noted in a Massachusetts Department of Public Health report: changes in the drug supply and improved monitoring; a reduction in the pool of people at risk of fatal overdose; and expanded access to harm reduction and treatment, especially the expanded availability of naloxone to reverse dangerous overdoses.
Whether those driving factors and the recent decline can be maintained depends largely on sustaining investments in public health that the Trump administration has threatened to cut. Changes in Medicaid eligibility and new Medicaid work requirements under the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, for example, could lead to thousands of Medicaid-enrolled adults in Massachusetts diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) losing health coverage through inability to keep up with eligibility requirements or difficulty meeting new work requirements. If that loss of Medicaid leads to losing medication for managing OUD, research shows that people are six times more likely to die in the four weeks after they stop treatment.
Proposed cuts to federal agencies that administer substance abuse and mental health grants and other funding also weaken the ability to allocate resources to where they are most needed, and prohibitions on federal funds being used on substance test kits and other harm reduction supplies also have safety impacts. The Trump administration has also moved to cut funding and staff for government agencies in charge of data collection and overdose surveillance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-releases/2026/october/boston-indicators-opioid-brief-release
Amendment 1: Raising the Conservation Use Acreage Cap
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 16 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Amendment 1: Raising the Conservation Use Acreage Cap
*
Q: What does Amendment 1 do?
A: It raises the limit on how much land a single owner can qualify as "bona fide conservation use property" from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres. That category covers working agricultural and timber land.
Q: What exactly will the ballot say?
A: "Shall the Constitution of Georgia, for the purpose of protecting family farmland, be amended so as to increase the maximum acreage to qualify for assessment and ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 16 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Amendment 1: Raising the Conservation Use Acreage Cap * Q: What does Amendment 1 do? A: It raises the limit on how much land a single owner can qualify as "bona fide conservation use property" from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres. That category covers working agricultural and timber land. Q: What exactly will the ballot say? A: "Shall the Constitution of Georgia, for the purpose of protecting family farmland, be amended so as to increase the maximum acreage to qualify for assessment andtaxation as a bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres?"
Q: What is conservation use property?
A: Normally, property is taxed on its fair market value, meaning what it would sell for. Land in the conservation use program is taxed on its current use instead. The value is set by a formula based on how the land is used, its ability to produce crops or timber. For farmland near growing suburbs, as an example, that can mean a much lower tax bill than one based on what a developer might pay.
Q: What's the catch for landowners?
A: Owners have to sign a covenant, a binding promise to keep the land in qualifying use. If they break it within 10 years, they must pay back the tax savings and may face other penalties. Amendment 1 doesn't change any of those rules. It only changes the acreage cap.
Q: Why does this need a constitutional amendment?
A: The 2,000-acre limit is written directly into Georgia's constitution, in the article on taxation (Article VII, Section I, Paragraph III). The legislature can't change the constitution by passing a regular law. Changing that limit requires a constitutional amendment approved by voters..
Q: Who would benefit?
A: Owners of qualifying agricultural and timber land larger than 2,000 acres. Under the current cap, acreage above 2,000 cannot receive conservation use treatment under this program. If Amendment 1 passes, they could apply for it on up to 4,000 acres, as long as the land qualifies and they sign the covenant. Supporters say this helps keep larger family farms and timber tracts in production instead of selling off land for development.
Q: Are there any downsides?
A: If more acreage gets the lower assessment, the counties and school districts that tax that land would collect less from it. That could shift some of the tax burden to other property owners or require budget adjustments. The resolution includes no estimate of how much land would newly qualify or how much revenue would be affected.
Q: Does it change anything else?
A: No. The separate five-acre limit for "residential transitional property" stays the same, as do the covenant and penalty rules.
Q: How did lawmakers vote?
A: The proposal, House Resolution 32, passed the House 168-5 on March 3, 2025, and the Senate 50-1 on March 18, 2025. Rep. Chuck Efstration was the lead author, and Sen. Sam Watson carried it in the Senate.
Lawmakers also passed House Bill 90 to implement the higher limit beginning January 1, 2027, if voters approve the amendment.
Q: What does a yes or no vote mean?
* Yes: The cap rises to 4,000 acres per owner.
* No: The cap stays at 2,000 acres.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/amendment-1-raising-the-conservation-use-acreage-cap/
* * *
Amendment 1: Raising the Conservation Use Acreage Cap
*
Q: What does Amendment 1 do?
A: It raises the limit on how much land a single owner can qualify as "bona fide conservation use property" from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres. That category covers working agricultural and timber land.
Q: What exactly will the ballot say?
A: "Shall the Constitution of Georgia, for the purpose of protecting family farmland, be amended so as to increase the maximum acreage to qualify for assessment and ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 16 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Amendment 1: Raising the Conservation Use Acreage Cap * Q: What does Amendment 1 do? A: It raises the limit on how much land a single owner can qualify as "bona fide conservation use property" from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres. That category covers working agricultural and timber land. Q: What exactly will the ballot say? A: "Shall the Constitution of Georgia, for the purpose of protecting family farmland, be amended so as to increase the maximum acreage to qualify for assessment andtaxation as a bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres?"
Q: What is conservation use property?
A: Normally, property is taxed on its fair market value, meaning what it would sell for. Land in the conservation use program is taxed on its current use instead. The value is set by a formula based on how the land is used, its ability to produce crops or timber. For farmland near growing suburbs, as an example, that can mean a much lower tax bill than one based on what a developer might pay.
Q: What's the catch for landowners?
A: Owners have to sign a covenant, a binding promise to keep the land in qualifying use. If they break it within 10 years, they must pay back the tax savings and may face other penalties. Amendment 1 doesn't change any of those rules. It only changes the acreage cap.
Q: Why does this need a constitutional amendment?
A: The 2,000-acre limit is written directly into Georgia's constitution, in the article on taxation (Article VII, Section I, Paragraph III). The legislature can't change the constitution by passing a regular law. Changing that limit requires a constitutional amendment approved by voters..
Q: Who would benefit?
A: Owners of qualifying agricultural and timber land larger than 2,000 acres. Under the current cap, acreage above 2,000 cannot receive conservation use treatment under this program. If Amendment 1 passes, they could apply for it on up to 4,000 acres, as long as the land qualifies and they sign the covenant. Supporters say this helps keep larger family farms and timber tracts in production instead of selling off land for development.
Q: Are there any downsides?
A: If more acreage gets the lower assessment, the counties and school districts that tax that land would collect less from it. That could shift some of the tax burden to other property owners or require budget adjustments. The resolution includes no estimate of how much land would newly qualify or how much revenue would be affected.
Q: Does it change anything else?
A: No. The separate five-acre limit for "residential transitional property" stays the same, as do the covenant and penalty rules.
Q: How did lawmakers vote?
A: The proposal, House Resolution 32, passed the House 168-5 on March 3, 2025, and the Senate 50-1 on March 18, 2025. Rep. Chuck Efstration was the lead author, and Sen. Sam Watson carried it in the Senate.
Lawmakers also passed House Bill 90 to implement the higher limit beginning January 1, 2027, if voters approve the amendment.
Q: What does a yes or no vote mean?
* Yes: The cap rises to 4,000 acres per owner.
* No: The cap stays at 2,000 acres.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/amendment-1-raising-the-conservation-use-acreage-cap/