FRANKFORT, Ky. — Defined benefit pensions are a major factor for recruiting and retaining new teachers in the Commonwealth, and according to new research by the National Institute on Retirement Security, more than 96% of teachers say whittling away pensions would drastically affect the state's ability to attract new teachers to the profession.

Laura Adams is a fourth-generation teacher in Henry County. She said finding new recruits for open teaching positions at her school has been a challenge.

"It has just dried up. We just do not have people going into the profession, because they perceive that it's under attack,” Adams said. “They perceive that their retirement may not be there for them, and so they don't even want to start. And that is really unfortunate because I have a 6-year-old daughter. I'm truly worried about who is going to teach her when she's in high school."

The study also found 74% of teachers in the Commonwealth would be better off in retirement with a defined benefit pension compared with a 401(K).

Brent McKim is president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association. He said the 6,000 teachers he represents are worried about their future and that of their newly hired colleagues.

"They know that that will make a difference in whether or not the newly hired teacher in their building is high-quality or not,” McKim said.

Some studies have indicated that few teachers stay in the profession long enough to qualify for a defined benefit pension. But the National Institute on Retirement Security report found in Kentucky, more than 60% of teachers work in the school system for 20 years or more - long enough to earn their retirement income.

Adams said people outside of the profession may think teachers are getting a handout in the form of a pension. But she said that's a damaging misconception.

"Of course, I know, and all the other teachers I work with know, we put 13% of our paychecks into the system every month. So, it really is something that we're vested in,” Adams said. “And I think a lot of politicians have maximized that misconception."

She added that shifting to a 401(k) plan would likely increase turnover among experienced teachers, and put more pressure on already strained staff.


get more stories like this via email

Medical debt has long been a burden for many Americans, with millions struggling to pay off their healthcare bills. In the Buckeye State, however, a new program is offering relief to some residents.

Alexandria Delikat-Hinze, an Ohioan, recently experienced the impact firsthand when her medical debt was unexpectedly cleared.

"This program can be absolutely life-changing," she said, "and having your medical debt cleared can truly have a domino effect in your life and change so many things."

Delikat-Hinze, who accumulated $25,000 in medical debt during graduate school, benefited from a partnership between RIP Medical Debt and local governments in Lucas County and Toledo. Using $800,000 in federal COVID relief funds, the program canceled millions of Ohio residents' medical debt.

Critics, however, have raised concerns about its sustainability, relying heavily on federal funding and not addressing the root causes of high medical costs.

While the program has garnered praise, it isn't available statewide, leaving many Ohioans still struggling with their medical bills. Delikat-Hinze noted that such initiatives could potentially benefit more people if expanded to other counties and states.

"The one thing that makes me sad, though, is knowing that it's not happening statewide," she said. "I was just so lucky to be in the right place at the right time to be able to qualify for this that everyone should be able to qualify for."

As talks about medical debt relief grow, Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed a plan to erase debt for millions, reflecting increased attention to the issue.

Research shows 15 million Americans have medical debt impacting their credit scores. Programs such as the one in Lucas County help some but leave many others in Ohio still in need.


get more stories like this via email

The election is less than six weeks away and Washingtonians will be deciding on a slate of initiatives, including one measure affecting funding in support of children.

If passed, Initiative 2109 would repeal a 7% tax on capital gains for assets worth more than $262,000. The repeal has support from hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who said it is a slippery slope toward a state income tax, which the state does not have.

Gabriela Quintana, senior policy associate for the Economic Opportunity Institute, said fewer than 4,000 people in the state pay the tax.

"It's a very privileged move to be able to fund these initiatives for your own needs and to not think about the impact this will have on a huge majority in Washington state," Quintana contended.

Last year, the tax pulled in about $786 million. The first $500 million collected from it goes toward schools, early learning and child care. Any additional money collected goes toward school construction.

Justin Fox-Bailey, president of the Snohomish Education Association, said the vast majority of Washingtonians who do not pay the capital gains tax will be affected if Initiative 2109 passes, especially kids.

"They're going to feel it in their communities when we give a tax cut to these millionaires and billionaires and you don't have the same access to child care, your kid's school isn't getting updated, public services are being cut or reduced," Fox-Bailey pointed out.

Washington has historically had one of the most regressive tax systems in the country and a recent report found the lowest-income 20% pay more than three times as much of their income as the top 1%.

Quintana argued the capital gains tax is vital for the state.

"We all need to play a role, including the wealthy individuals," Quintana asserted. "Repealing it will only really hurt families and children."

Ballots start going out on Oct. 18.

Congress has one week from today to reauthorize a sweeping policy playing a big role in shaping the nation's food production system, and Wisconsin agricultural voices are paying close attention.

The Farm Bill is supposed to be renegotiated every five years. A temporary extension was approved one year ago, amid big differences about where to prioritize aid, including subsidies typically helping industrial-level farms.

Chuck Anderas, associate policy director at the Wisconsin-based Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said as the issues get sorted out, organizations like his hope lawmakers do not lose sight of the need to adequately fund conservation programs to benefit small farms.

"To neglect that is basically just picking winners and losers within the agricultural economy," Anderas contended.

Advocates are concerned about proposed language which would essentially spread conservation funding to "climate-smart" practices skeptics say only benefit big farms. The Farm Bill also covers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. House Republicans have proposed formula changes hunger-relief advocates say would amount to a $30 billion cut. GOP leaders dispute the claim, saying they would lower costs without cutting anyone's benefits.

According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, Wisconsin has seen more than 20 weather-related disasters -- each resulting in at least one-billion dollars in damage -- in the past five years, four times the totals from the 1980s and 90s.

Anderas argued stronger and effective climate resiliency aid in the Farm Bill means participating producers can mitigate some of the damage.

"Even if you are skeptical about climate change, these practices infiltrate more water and hold more water in the soil and make a huge difference on the amount of water coming off of farm fields," Anderas outlined.

He added it protects natural resources, as well as infrastructure in farming communities, with local governments not having to spend as much on fixing washed-out roads and bridges.

With the current focus on the November election, analysts said it is likely Congress will approve another temporary extension of the current Farm Bill, rather than agree on a new one.