Today the Mississippi Senate and House appear to have reached a compromise deal on income tax cuts.
Commenting on the news, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, Douglas Carswell said:
“This tax cut is great news for Mississippi. With the cost of living rising, exempting every Mississippi worker from paying income tax on the first $18,000 earned is welcome.”
“It is good that some of our state’s $1.2 billion surplus is being used to give taxpayers back some of their own money. However, this package is more modest than we would like to have seen.
“This is a good first step but it is not full income tax elimination. Under this proposal, in 2026 the legislature will still need to agree further reductions.”
“There is a danger that the Mississippi government will not tax to get the money it needs, but finds a need for the money it gets”.
“While this a step forward towards eventual income tax elimination, Mississippi still needs bold, game-changing policy changes if our state is not to continue to rank 50th out of 50 states by many metrics”.
This weekend, as the 2022 session is wrapping up, the Mississippi Senate Rules committee made the unusual move of passing a suspension resolution (SCR 588) to bring a failed bill back to life. The bill is SB 2033, sponsored by three Republicans and eleven Democrats. The bill seeks to expand Medicaid to able-bodied women for up to a year after either an abortion or the birth of a child.
While some have framed the proposal as a way to help pregnant women, there is little evidence such a proposal would actually help women. Under SB 2033, Medicaid coverage for women would be covered for 12 months instead of the current 2 months required by federal law. This proposal has been sold as a “pro-life” bill because it expands taxpayer-subsidized insurance to women. This logic is deeply flawed, and, frankly, insulting to the pro-life movement. In addition, there is little evidence that this bill will reduce either maternal mortality or infant mortality in Mississippi.
Expanding Postpartum Medicaid Coverage is Not Pro-life
Expanding Medicaid to able-bodied adults is not pro-life. There are several reasons for this.
In the first place, it is important to note that Mississippi Medicaid actually covers abortion in limited, but morally questionable, cases. Federal law requires Mississippi Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases of rape and incest. In addition, Mississippi has opted to allow for Medicaid coverage of abortions in cases of "fetal impairment," which could include chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome. This policy potentially conflicts with the state's Life Equality Act passed in 2020, which explicitly prohibits abortions on the basis of a genetic abnormality.
Therefore, any expansion of Medicaid in the state to women of child-bearing age must be understood as an expansion of state-funded abortion within these parameters. This is especially true for the current proposal to expand postpartum Medicaid, which of course exclusively applies to women of child-bearing age.
Furthermore, postpartum Medicaid expansion creates the potential for a perverse incentive that could ultimately lead to women having more frequent abortions.
Under federal law (42 C.F.R. § 440.210(a)(2)(i)-(ii)), postpartum Medicaid coverage applies as follows:
"For women who, while pregnant, applied for, were eligible for, and received Medicaid services under the plan, all services under the plan that are pregnancy-related for an extended postpartum period. The postpartum period begins on the last day of pregnancy and extends through the end of the month in which the 60-day period following termination of pregnancy ends."
On the surface, it might seem that postpartum coverage applies to women who carry their baby to birth, but federal law defines the period as beginning “following termination.” That seems to include abortion and involuntary miscarriage.
If a woman ends a pregnancy through abortion, she would theoretically be eligible for postpartum Medicaid for 12 months after she ended the pregnancy, just in the same way as a woman who had naturally miscarried or carried her baby to full term.
Theoretically, this means that a woman could have an abortion every 12 months and stay on Medicaid indefinitely. This is all the more possible insofar as SB 2033 does not require any ongoing eligibility checks.
More problematic is that Medicaid is a major source of funding for Planned Parenthood. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, government funding for Planned Parenthood, including Medicaid, is almost $1.7 million per day.
The Hattiesburg Planned Parenthood accepts Medicaid. Included among the services they offer are “abortion referrals,” “the morning-after pill” and “LGBTQ services.”
Mississippi also covers “family planning” for one year after a pregnant woman enrolls in Medicaid. This family planning waiver is incredibly generous in terms of the categories covered: women and men earning up to 194 percent of the federal poverty level ($55,236 for a family of four) and including individuals aged 13 to 44. It is presumed that Planned Parenthood is a major provider of services under this waiver in Mississippi.
Expanding Medicaid postpartum from 2 months to 12 months, however, will benefit Planned Parenthood even more, as women who have just had a baby are more likely to use contraception to space out childbirth. Indeed, the average time between births in the United States is about 26 months. Expanding postpartum coverage to 12 months, at a minimum, allows women who are not eligible for family planning services to access these services – again, to the benefit of providers like Planned Parenthood.
Medicaid Already Covers Parents and Caretakers of Children
The most misleading aspect of this attempt to expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults is the failure to disclose that Medicaid already covers the parents of children on Medicaid!
"Parents or caretakers must have children under age 18 living in the home, who are deprived of the support of one or both parents due to the disability of a parent, the death or continued absence of a parent or have parent(s) who are unemployed or have very low income."
This means that parents who are unemployed, single or who have very low income are already eligible for Medicaid. Who, then, does this Medicaid expansion cover?
Women who are NOT single parents.
Women who are NOT unemployed.
Women who are older than age 18.
Women who earn less than $55,236 for a family of four.
This hardly sounds like the vulnerable population Mississippi taxpayers are being led to think will benefit from this Medicaid expansion.
In addition, it’s worth pointing out that while the federal government covers about 85 percent of the costs of Medicaid coverage, women that enroll on the Obamacare exchange are covered at 100 percent. And, under the Biden administration, eligibility categories for Obamacare have increased expansively.
An additional concern is that every expansion of Medicaid actually increases costs for those on private insurance. Thus, while expanding Medicaid to 12 months for postpartum women might seem like an idea that would lower healthcare costs, it actually has the potential to increase costs for everyone else.
Maternal and Infant Mortality Claims Need Further Study
Many of the arguments for postpartum Medicaid expansion are based upon claims that Mississippi has among the highest rates of postpartum mortality. Some have claimed that the reason for these statistics simply must be a lack of government health care.
Many of the advocates for postpartum Medicaid expansion have referenced a report produced by the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, claiming that the report demonstrates the need for postpartum Medicaid expansion. These committees are funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and, predictably, always arrive at the same conclusion: expand Medicaid.
The claims that are being drawn from the Mississippi report require additional study, to say the least.
A careful reading of the data in the report reveals that many of the deaths listed in the report have little or nothing to do with pregnancy. For example, there are a total of 136 deaths listed in the report from 2013 to 2016. Many of these deaths were unrelated to pregnancy and largely unpreventable from a health insurance perspective. This includes motor vehicle accidents (24 percent), homicide (7 percent), fire (3 percent), and other causes that had little to do with pregnancy.
Even more to the point, Mississippi’s report acknowledges the following:
"The majority of maternal deaths occurred in the postpartum period including 37% occurring after 6 weeks and involve women insured by state Medicaid (p. 23)."
In other words, the majority of maternal deaths involved women ALREADY on Medicaid. It is beyond dispute that Medicaid health outcomes are not very good – in fact, worse than the uninsured, who tend to pay cash for healthcare (see, for instance, J. Taylor: “Medicaid: A Government Monopoly that Hurts the Poor” (2018)). But if even the Maternal Mortality Review Committee is acknowledging that the majority of maternal deaths involve women on Medicaid, it seems obvious that expanding Medicaid to postpartum women is a bad idea. Indeed, it may be Medicaid that is the problem.
Big Tech has had a wave of complaints leveled against it in recent years, and perhaps rightly so. From assertions of censorship, to excessive digital control, the companies have come under increasing scrutiny. In light of these tensions, some have called for Big Tech companies to be broken up all together, using a policy lever known as antitrust. But is this the best approach?
Many of the grievances against Big Tech carry a lot of weight. Yet, at the same time, Big Tech companies have achieved their large market shares by offering services that have benefitted consumers. Using the power of emerging technologies, consumers have been able to grow their businesses, connect with friends, and engage with society.
This brings in the question of whether or not antitrust is the best way to address the Big Tech challenges. Is an antitrust breakup of Big Tech companies the answer? Isn't there an ever-slight possibility that Big Government solutions could turn out to be worse than the problems with Big Tech itself?
What is antitrust?
In order to understand this debate, it is crucial to define antitrust. At the foundation, antitrust is a collection of laws that seek to ensure competition in the open market. How these laws are interpreted and applied has been a hinge point of the debate.
When antitrust was first instituted in the early 1900s, it was meant to break up the industrial monopolization practices that affected market competition, especially in the oil, rail, and steel sectors. Many of the companies engaged in practices that deliberately sought to corner the market, and then they would charge consumers higher prices for lower quality.
Initially, a company's size and market dominance were often key factors in whether it could be broken up. However, as antitrust law developed, the "Consumer Welfare Standard" became the key litmus test. Under this standard, antitrust action to break up a company can only occur if a company engages in monopolization practices that actually harm consumer welfare.
The danger of government not using the consumer welfare test for antitrust
Contrasted with this consumer welfare test is when the government simply goes after "big" companies if they have a large market share. This carries the presumption that if a company outperforms most competitors, it must be engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Such actions go against the purpose of antitrust. After all, antitrust is meant to help consumers, not competitors.
Thus, if antitrust is indiscriminately used as a cudgel to hit large technology companies without having a consumer-grounded reason, this sets a dangerous precedent. In a capitalistic society, companies exist to serve customers and generate capital. Companies growing to be large and serving millions of consumers is a trophy of free-market success. This should be celebrated, not punished.
The Big Tech issue is complex
Yet we return to the question of how to address bad actors within the companies collectively known by many as Big Tech. The issues are complex, and like most complex issues, a broad and heavy-handed government bureaucracy is not the answer.
Rather, specific issues within the Big Tech context should be addressed within the confines of that specific issue. This is critical. While blanket approaches to solving problems may carry political weight, a broad expansion of government power is dangerous. In the words of Ronald Reagan: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
In most cases, companies that provide poor services will decline because consumers will not support them with their spending money. The forces of consumer choice have the ability to damage bad actors and poor-performing companies far more than a policymaker ever could. Whether it likes or not, every company is ultimately accountable to the market.
However, this is not to say that policymakers should abdicate their responsibility to address the public policy questions surrounding Big Tech. Rather, they should consider these issues with calculated precision.
If the issue is far-reaching social media censorship, then policymakers should carefully consider that specific issue. If the issue is algorithmic election interference, then policymakers should specifically consider that issue as well. Contrasted with addressing these specific questions, a broad application of antitrust just to "cut down tech companies to size" is not the solution.
Free market growth should not be jeopardized
An antitrust policy that seeks to break up a company because of its size and market share is tantamount to punishing the success it achieved through consumer choice. Rather than using the paradigm that "big is bad," antitrust policy should stick to the consumer welfare standard that takes this consumer choice into account.
We’ve won! Governor Tate Reeves today signed our bill to combat Critical Race theory into law!
Critical Race theory is an extremist ideology. It maintains that the United States is founded on racial supremacy and oppression. Rather than treating each of us as an individual, it invites us to re-racialize every aspect of our lives.
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy’s report on Critical Race theory, published in October, presented clear evidence that Critical Race theory is being promoted in Mississippi schools and universities.
We also published model legislation as part of that report – model legislation which today becomes law.
Contrary to some of the claims that have been made, our bill does not ban the teaching of history. Nor does it undermine the teaching of the history of the Civil Rights movement.
Our bill seeks to ensure that public schools and universities do not “compel students to personally affirm” that “any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Those that oppose this bill need to explain what part of that they find objectionable? Do opponents of the bill really want to allow teachers to compel students to believe in the inherent superiority of fellow Americans?
Mississippi has taken a lead in confronting this ideology. We are certain other US states will now follow our lead.
What does the new tax cut mean for you? Use our tool below to see how you and your family will fare under the new tax plan that was recently signed by the Governor. 1. Enter your county (double-click in the cell, for this step and the following steps) 2. Enter your income 3. Enter your weekly grocery bill 4. Enter your marital status
*For best results, please view on a desktop computer
Components of original House bill (latest House plan noted in red):
Effective Jan. 1, 2023, increase the combined total of the personal exemption and the standard deduction from the current $8,300 to $40,000 for individuals, and for married couples from $16,600 to $80,000. After 2023, these amounts would potentially increase annually, based on the growth in government revenue, until all income is exempt from state income tax. (New plan: $25,000 for individuals, $50,000 for married couples)
Increase the general sales tax and use tax rates from 7.0% to 8.5% effective July 1 of this year. (New plan: no increase in sales or use tax)
Reduce the sales tax rate on groceries (non-prepared food) from 7.0% to 5.5% effective July 1 of this year; then reduce it by a quarter-of-one-percent each July 1 for the next six years, to the final rate of 4%. (New plan: Reduce tax on groceries by ¼ of one percent each year for 12 years, still resulting in final rate of 4%.) Because cities receive from the state a portion of the sales tax derived from sales in their cities, the state would reimburse cities for the reduction in revenue from the decrease in the grocery tax.
Cut the “cost of a car tag” (which is really the cost of ad valorem tax on automobiles) by 50% to the taxpayer. However, because that tax is a local tax, the state would reimburse local governments to make up their lost revenue from this mandated cut in ad valorem taxes. This would be funded by a third (a half-percent) of the 1.5% increase in the general sales tax. (New plan: Since this would have been paid for with part of the sales tax increase, and since the sales tax increase has been deleted, this cut in the “cost of a car tag” has also been deleted.)
Components of Original Senate bill (latest Senate plan noted in red):
Eliminate, over four years, the 4% income tax bracket, which is now assessed on taxable income of $5,001-$10,000. This would, in the fourth year, be a $200 tax cut (4% x $5,000). (New plan: instead of beginning in 2023, this phase-out would begin in 2027)
Cut sales tax on groceries from current 7% to 5% immediately (no phase in) (New plan: same)
Eliminate the state fee attached to car tags ($5 or so per tag) (New plan: deleted)
One-time rebate of 5% of last year’s tax liability, with a minimum of $100 and maximum of $1,000. Most people will receive $100-$200. (New plan: same)
New plan (no similar provision in original): Phase down the current 5% income tax rate to 4.6% over four years, 0.1% per year, beginning in 2023."
Only a few weeks ago, Joe Biden and other Western leaders gathered in Glasgow, Scotland to outcompete each other with bold commitment to eliminate the use of hydrocarbon fuels.
How silly and self-indulgent that looks today.
Pulling the plug on the Keystone pipeline, as Biden did, looks ridiculous when gas prices start to soar. Legislating to ban the sale of internal combustion engines, as Britain began to do, looks really dumb when you might have to start rationing gas / petrol for cars.
When Britain and Europe set targets to eliminate the use of oil, coal and gas, what they ended up doing was to simply offshore their production. Having banned fracking across much of Europe, European governments are now desperate to get their hands on liquified natural gas from the United States, produced by …. well …. fracking.
Germany might have invested heavily in renewable energy. But since solar and wind power are unreliable, you need a great deal of storage capacity – something Germany does not have. To make up the short fall, Germany has had to depend on supplies from Russia. Turns out that isn’t really reliable either.
Despite having been energy idiotic for years, it looks as if Western leaders might at last have woken up to reality. Hydrocarbon fuels are, and will remain, for the foreseeable future the cheapest source of energy.
Reducing dependency on hydrocarbon fuels comes at a price – and it might now prove to be an economic and geopolitical price we are unwilling to pay.
To his credit, the new German Chancellor has made some dramatic changes in policy. Without wanting to admit it, it looks as if British ministers are about to backtrack on fracking.
With gas prices soaring across the US, expect to see Joe Biden allow new oil and gas exploration.
A cheap and plentiful energy supply underpins our prosperity. The sooner we ditch the eco indulgences the better.
It was wonderful to speak to the Kiwanis in Hattiesburg today!
If you would like us to provide a speaker, do please get in touch here.
New figures show that the amount of revenue that Mississippi state received in February was 31 percent higher than what was expected. Overall, for this financial year, Mississippi state revenues are a whopping $768 million over what was projected.
With so much extra cash in the state government’s coffers, the argument against eliminating the income tax is looking ridiculous.
Ever since the House passed a bill in favor of income tax elimination, those opposed to income tax elimination have argued that Mississippi cannot afford it. The danger, we keep being told, is that eliminating the income tax is risky. We could, they claim, end up like Kansas, a state that eliminated the income tax only to discover that they ran out of money.
The fact that Mississippi now has a massive budget surplus makes such claims look less and less credible.
With such a massive surplus the choice is clear; should we leave the cash surplus in the hands of politicians to spend on their pet projects, or should we allow every Mississippi worker to keep more of their own earnings?
Would you be happy to see your tax dollars used to force students in Mississippi to affirm that some sexes or races and ethnicities were inherently superior to others? Of course not.
Since when did it become controversial to want to prevent young Mississippian being indoctrinated into believing in such things?
Several decades ago, Dr Martin Luther King dreamt of an America in which people were judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Today in Mississippi an extremist ideology, critical race theory, is being promoted which undermines Dr King’s ideal.
Critical race theory maintains that the United States is founded on racial supremacy and oppression. Rather than treating each of us as an individual, it invites us to re-racialize every aspect of our lives.
Rather like Marxism, which divided society between the bourgeoisie oppressors and the proletariat oppressed, critical race theory divides society between identity categories of white and black.
“But there’s no evidence that these ideas are being promoted in our state!” some insist. Wrong.
In a detailed report we published in October, and sent to every member of the state legislature, we presented clear evidence that critical race theory is being promoted here in Mississippi. The Mississippi Department of Education promotes the use, by teachers, of teaching resources provided by organizations that promote critical race theory. There are a myriad of college courses that promote critical race theory, too.
Having established the critical race theory is being promoted, our report presented a solution, including draft model legislation. Contrary to what some have claimed, the legislation we proposed does not violate free speech. Nor does it undermine the teaching of the history of the Civil Rights movement.
Our bill seeks to ensure that public schools and universities do not “compel students to personally affirm” that “any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior”.
Those that oppose this bill need to explain what part of that they find objectionable? Do opponents of the bill really want to allow teachers to compel students to believe in the inherent superiority of fellow Americans?
