close

The Christmas season represents a major source of cultural optimism that encourages people to spend more freely, sparking quick and, at times, unsustainable economic vitality. While this usually provides a boom, economic circumstances aggravated by government actions could mean a leaner holiday for thousands of Americans.   

Due to current economic hardships like inflation, the consumer price index reported that the price for goods and services have increased 6.2 percent over the last year (that number increased by 0.9 in the last month alone). Things are getting more expensive and under normal circumstances, people would be much less likely to consume more expensive items beyond what they need to buy out of necessity. Additionally, supply chain problems have led to a shortage of items one can buy. Meanwhile, the federal government of 2021 had a consistent pattern of policies that discouraged labor participation and increased monetary inflation.

However, despite economic challenges, consumer spending still occurs. This should not be surprising as the Christmas season generally represents a period in which people are not as concerned about the price tag. The data shows that even though holiday spending is less than previous years, people are still spending more than they typically do in other parts of the year.

This should be encouraged. Regardless of what economic theory you hold, consumer demand and spending are an essential part of boosting the economy. Even in the supply-side framework, cutting taxes for businesses to create jobs only works if those businesses have a demand for their product. The biggest problem that stands in the way is if companies can keep up with the demand when they themselves are running into a supply shortage. The ultimate solution to this is having the government come alongside businesses and help them make it easier to make goods by cutting red tape.

Mississippi is far from avoiding this problem during the Christmas season. Gas, food, and other consumer products are rising making it more difficult to travel and celebrate. Cultural optimism certainly helps with the state’s ability to maintain the economy. However, the true and sustainable solution to promote a healthy economy is by continuing to promote the free exchange of goods and services. Mississippi has already taken a step in testing this by creating a tax free holiday in the month of July. However, it can take further steps in promoting free market principles this holiday season by simply allowing companies to operate freely and becoming a help, rather than a hinderance, to them.

Ultimately, both businesses and consumers should be free to pursue what is most prudent for their interests. One of the greatest myths people believe regarding the economy is that simply because the nation is entering into economic hardships does not mean that government intervention is warranted.

This Christmas season may exhibit a time in which people will sacrifice, spend, and travel less, but that conclusion must be made by the consumers themselves, rather than government policymakers. As we enter the Christmas season, the choices of the people, rather than the government’s central planners and regulators, should be at the forefront.

While noble in making the federal government mostly harmless, the Articles of Confederation (the country’s first governing document) approved only one legislative chamber, relied on voluntary tax support, and had no common currency or central military, among other issues. To effectively run a country consisting of independent states, there needed to be some common procedure. As more and more states became interested in amending the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia, PA on May 25, 1787. It was quickly agreed that simple changes would not work. Instead, the entire document needed to be replaced. This meeting became the Constitutional Convention.

The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included an executive branch, a representative legislature, and a federal judiciary. The document was remarkable, but deeply flawed. The main issue being that it did not include a specific declaration of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. The absence of a "bill of rights" turned out to be an obstacle for ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved.

Recently freed from a monarchy, the American people wanted guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech and religion, nor upon their right from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to… and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” In 1791 the United States Bill of Rights became the Constitution's first ten amendments and the law of the land.

This said, it must be noted that it, no matter the language, did not include everyone. For instance, women and property-less men were second-class citizens, unable even to vote. Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system and governed by treaties. Slavery was legal and the slaves had no access to the rule of law. But, as the preamble to the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…” The key words here are, “in order to form a more perfect union.”

The US will never be perfect, but we must always strive to be, and we have made great progress in doing so. Jefferson once wrote to Lafayette, “We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather-bed.” He was correct, but through civil rights, innovation, individualism, and economic liberalism, this American experiment has prevailed. We have become an example to other nations and are the “shining city upon a hill” – and we will continue this course. Additional amendments were later added to extend its protection of rights to all people, regardless of race or gender, and to keep state and local governments from violating the people’s rights. The Bill of Rights is the perfect example of believing in your fellow man.

This Bill of Rights Day, we should be grateful and celebrate our basic liberties reiterated in the text of the same name. It has proven to be one of the most influential documents in contemporary history, codifying the theory of natural rights, which holds that humans are granted certain liberties by God, God alone, and that no one should have the power to infringe them.

It is a basic economic principle that when taxpayer dollars are injected into a sector of the economy, there is an imbalance in the free-market forces of competition and supply that help keep prices low and quality high. This shows true as the growing government has contributed to the problem of increased costs for health and higher-education.

In order to understand the context of rising education and healthcare costs, it is important first to consider the extent of these rising costs. Rather than being isolated incidences, higher education and healthcare have seen a consistent pattern of cost increase.

The American Enterprise Institute looked at the history of costs for multiple sectors using the Consumer Price Index from 2000 to 2020. The analysis attempted to consider the top cost increases in light of inflation and other factors. The report found that while overall inflation led to a 60 percent increase in costs, college tuition and fees increased by over 170 percent. Meanwhile, hospital costs increased by over 200 percent.

The increases in higher education costs tie directly into the amount of government funding that has flowed into the higher education system. According to U.S. News and World Report, the average in-state tuition at national universities was $5,775 in 2002 (adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars). In 2021, the average in-state tuition was estimated at $11,631. So, in simple terms, college tuition has more than doubled.

Such increases are not isolated to the last 20 years either. Over 30 years ago, in 1987, some were already sounding the alarm that expanded government involvement in higher education brought about in the 1970s was causing tuition increases. Many universities jumped at the chance for more government dollars through grants and “subsidized” loans. Such circumstances eventually led the Federal Reserve to conclude in 2017 that every dollar of student aid would ultimately lead to an average tuition increase of 60 cents. This trend has continued to hold true. While college tuition slightly decreased in the wake of Covid, the long-term increased student and government debt and higher long-term tuition costs will likely be felt for years to come.

The same principle of harmful government intervention applies to much of the government’s health care funding as well. In 1970, the average American had $1,848 (in 2019 dollars, adjusted for inflation) in annual healthcare costs. By 2019, the annual healthcare cost per person had risen to $11,582. This reflects a six-fold increase. Granted, the factors that tie into healthcare costs and increases are complex and numerous. But a review of the impact of government healthcare spending demonstrates a real impact that affected Americans across the country.

For instance, according to the Heritage Foundation, the Affordable Care Act more than doubled the cost of health insurance in the individual market from 2013-2019. This was no less true in Mississippi. Average monthly premiums increased by 149 percent, from $214 to $532, reflecting an annual increase of $3,816. Citizens could be using such funds to put in savings, invest in the economy, or simply increase their quality of life. Instead, they have to put that income towards healthcare.

While the advocates of big government often make politically driven promises of “free” education and “free” healthcare, history and current experience continue to undermine such claims. Sure, some may perceive the government paying for higher education and healthcare as a way to help citizens save money. But the increases in cost caused by these “free” programs make the government’s “free” money a little better than just a high-interest loan -only in this case, payback comes in the form of higher costs for everyone.

Free market economics and common-sense mathematics reject the concept of government inflating healthcare and education by its false promises of “free” funding. If someone gave Johnny $10,000 to use towards his college or healthcare, and it caused all the hospitals and schools to raise their costs by at least $10,000 in response, then that wouldn’t truly be “free money.” Yet somehow, the lessons of this basic scenario are discounted if the giver’s name happens to be Uncle Sam and, worse, if the “giver” got the funds by taxation from others rather than his own benevolence. As demonstrated by healthcare and higher education, this scenario has played out in the real world.

Government funds always carry a price tag that usually begins and ends with the wallets of the taxpayers. As Americans watch the increase in healthcare and education costs, they might do well to recall that the promises of “free” money from gushing politicians have seldom stood the test of time. Rather than going back to the failed model of redistributing wealth, government policy should return to the free-market principles that have a track record of prosperity.  

It's time to give Mississippi a boost and get our state growing. Abolishing the state income tax would do that, giving every Mississippi worker a pay raise and ensuring they have more money to spend on their priorities and families.

Right now, Mississippi’s budget has a stonking surplus of almost $1 billion – We can afford to Axe the Tax! Rather than wait for politicians to figure out ways of spending the surplus, let’s give taxpayers something back by allowing workers to keep more of what they earn.

Ronald Reagan once said, “Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.” If we don’t abolish the state income tax, state officials will soon find a need to spend that surplus.

As Mississippi’s leading free market advocacy organization, we have launched the Axe the Tax campaign to make the case for change. We are highlighting to hundreds of thousands of Mississippians the argument in favor of abolishing the income tax:

We believe that there is common ground for an agreement to abolish the state income tax, using a combination of the budget surplus, and future growth in tax revenues to scrap the tax. And we will be popularizing the case for change in 2022!

Mississippi has a challenge in front of them as it continues to address the economic problems that face our nation.  One factor that needs to be addressed in this complex issue is the number of regulations within the state. As an underlying cause of these regulatory excesses, the state has dozens of regulatory boards and agencies, with many barely even cataloged by the state government itself.

The number of regulatory boards has become bloated to the point that it is hard to keep track of what board oversees what regulation. To date, there is not even a comprehensive list of all the agencies, boards, and commissions that exist within the state.

Ultimately this reflects on government inefficiency and excessive control of the economy. Given the right context and purpose, regulations can serve as a helpful tool in ensuring fair and open competition.  Now, however, regulations are often used as a political weapon to stomp out competition and economic progress. The proliferation of new rules, boards, and agencies is commonplace. In fact, this is so much the case that the legislature has no standardized system in place to notify stakeholders in government and the populace when a board is created or repealed.

Having so many regulatory boards has practical consequences. In 2018, the George Mason Mercatus Center and the MCPP reported a snapshot of Mississippi’s current regulatory scheme.  We found that Mississippi’s Administrative Code is far more expansive in terms of regulations than it needs to be.  In fact, it totals 117,558 restrictions, is comprised of 9.3 million words, and if you sat down and read it, it would take 13 weeks to read!

This does not necessarily mean regulations do not have their place.  Regulations are, after all, enumerated powers given to state legislatures as a tool to govern.  However, such power must come with limits.  For one, overregulation stifles innovation and economic growth, a necessary component to society, especially during these times.  As Broughel notes, such a system of regulations, over time, has a detrimental impact on the economy.  In fact, if a cap on regulations was established and the state simply kept that number for a couple of years, the economy could grow substantially.

On another note, overregulation places a greater burden on the government to ensure that various provisions are met.  When a government grows, it becomes harder to manage it efficiently.  The net result is an economy that is snuffled out by too much oversight and a government that is overwhelmed with too many rules and regulators to keep track of.

If Mississippi desires to become a top state that provides incentives for families and businesses to come and settle there, the state has to get a handle on its regulatory schemes.  In previous legislative sessions, policies have been proposed to do just that.  However, there have not been enough significant policy reforms that would manage this problem effectively.  As we move into the next legislative session, it should be a top priority to lessen the state government's hold on the economy by diminishing the extensive nature of its state regulations. While the government uses regulations as a context to insist that the people are accountable to its authority, how can the people themselves hold the government accountable if the state itself does not even know how many regulators there are? Rather than having a system that lacks accountability and burdens its people, the Magnolia State needs a regulatory overhaul. Meaningful reforms would ensure that every regulation serves a legitimate purpose and that every regulatory authority has transparency before the people it serves. It’s time for Mississippi to move forward.

The drone market has expanded exponentially in recent years, and it's no secret that the amount of drones in the sky has grown with it. As drones increase, potentially conflicting interests between property owners and drone operators could escalate. However, sound public policy could help alleviate these conflicts.

By their very nature, drones frequently fly over property boundaries for a variety of purposes. This makes them not too dissimilar to a plane in some ways. However, the differences between drones and their larger counterparts is the height above the ground that many fly, and the capacity of drones to be a nuisance to property owners in some instances. While the Federal Aviation Administration has generally held that crewed planes cannot fly below 500 feet, many drones fly at heights that are far lower.

This is where the issue of air property rights comes in, and with it, the need to achieve a balance between property rights and economic freedom for drone operators. While the issue of low altitude drone flights and property rights is complex, a basic starting point would be for the state to clarify the rights of property owners and drone operators.

The state of Mississippi does not currently have any provisions that address the issue of drones and property rights. Instead, the state only refers to property rights in the traditional context of physical property. Not only can this leave drone operators with an ambiguous understanding of the property boundaries, but it is also unclear for property owners as well. This leads to confusion.

For instance, it is a federal crime to destroy a drone (such as with a firearm), since the FAA considers it the same as shooting down a plane. Yet, the state-level air property law uncertainty can get especially complex when considered in light of the Mississippi trespassing law. State policy gives property owners the right to confront intrusions on their physical property and even destroy blatant intrusions in some cases. This can lead to mistaken notions that property owners can destroy drones flying over their property.

In order to clear up this ambiguity, state lawmakers should consider the concept of defining air property rights. Air property rights have been statutorily defined in several states, with the explicit purpose of providing clarity for drone operators and property owners.

While there is some level of debate on how far above the ground a drone can fly before it becomes an infringing nuisance on property rights, some have suggested a range between 200 and 300 feet as the upper boundary of air rights. In this way, drones would not be forced into manned aircraft space (typically above 500 feet) in order to respect such air property rights. At the same time, property owners and drone operators could have a mutual understanding of where their rights are. Both parties would be aware of their lines and legal rights, which they could mutually use to their advantage in a legal context.

Mississippi state-level policy needs an air property statute that is workable for drone operators and property owners. Modern technological questions need to be addressed in a relevant way that does not rely on ambiguous physical trespass laws. Mississippi needs drone policies that accommodate the principles of free-market growth and individual property rights. A statutory definition of air property rights could be a key step in achieving that fine balance.

It is clear that the United States is facing a significant crisis in relation to inflation. This problem has existed for a variety of reasons that cannot be boiled down to one or two issues. Instead, this problem has multiple influencing factors and variables. Despite these elements, central planners have continued to make predictions that are often proven wrong.

The factors that have pushed inflation upward will likely linger into 2022, especially if the Omicron variant comes into play. In his recent remarks to Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell noted that despite its prior predictions of limited inflation, the Federal Reserve no longer viewed the recent inflation growth as “transitory.” Instead, the Fed is now considering raising interest rates to mitigate the increasing growth of inflation as the prospects of its long-term effects continue to expand.

In response to this crisis, various states are seeking political action, trying to mitigate the negative effects of this inflation. While some try to open up the free market, trying to provide some organic solution to the problem through tax cuts, others policymakers try to provide an artificial solution through monetary policy. While the former actively seeks to resolve the issue, the latter denies the true problem at hand.

In November, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker expressed the nature of the current economy and the problems with President Biden’s efforts to fix it. The reality is that the inflation problem is far worse than experts had predicted. Prices of goods have risen by 6.2 percent, the greatest margin since 1990. Gas prices are being driven through the roof (nearly 50 percent), placing a great burden on Mississippi agriculture, a critical element of the state’s economy. As a whole, Mississippi has suffered from the effects of inflation, and the reality is that this simply could not be reflected in the predictions of experts.

Senator Wicker’s remarks demonstrate the very reason why monetary policy often does not work. Artificial solutions to economic problems often assume that economic phenomena can be accurately predicted and centrally planned. Various government policies like setting tax rates, printing currency, economic regulations, and government spending merely serve as a manipulative tool to change how the economy works, but they are useless if people cannot predict and prescribe what the economy needs in the near future.

Unfortunately, the inflation crisis rose at a rapid pace, making it nearly impossible to predict. Perhaps the better option is to simply let the free market take its course than sweat over what is the best way to approach monetary policy.

Is concerning is that such policies of government involvement, are often lazy in nature, putting more of an emphasis on the government simply “buying out” the economy rather than establishing good monetary policy. The Heritage Foundation examined the nature of the economy within the Covid-19 context. It explained that while appearing to be helpful and compassionate in a crisis, government spending only postpones the inevitable. It appears that the nation is now reaping what it has sown in its zealous attempt to “protect” the United States economy.

Mississippi faces a hard road ahead, and as much as it is tempting to step in and solve for a wavering economy, it is all the more critical to let free market solutions simply take their course. As useful as studies and expert predictions can be, the whole economy cannot rely on them entirely. After all, no one can predict the future – not even the “experts.”

Like never before, the compilation of information has increased exponentially with every passing year. In recent years, more personal information has been cataloged than perhaps all of the prior centuries combined. Despite the privacy importance of this data, many policymakers have done very little to protect this data from the eye of Big Brother.

Fundamentally, most consumer electronic data reside under the electronic access of companies (such as in a cloud). While some of the data is under the sole control of individuals, most of the data is stored by companies that utilize the data in various ways. In cases of government surveillance, these companies may be all but forced to turn over their user data, without a warrant in some cases.

This brings up the fundamental question of data innovations and protection from the eye of big government. It is important to consider why data privacy is important for consumers. Rather than just simply being “users” within a broad tech ecosystem, these are individuals with their own personal lives. In light of this increased use of consumer data, there is a need for protection from government itself. There are several reasons for this.

Fundamentally, it is important to note that without the proper safeguards, every technological advancement in data collection and usage is a potential tool in the hands of government. We see this in the surveillance state of communist China. As innovation increases, the different levels of available information increase as well. While technological data collection was more limited in former days, even fingerprints and retinal scan data have become commonly harvested in the wake of new biometric technologies.

In order to grasp how new technology can be improperly used by government without proper safeguards, an example from history demonstrates how the government can “innovate” to get electronic data about citizens. Rather than it being a trend that has started in the last generation or so, using private sector technology holdings as a doorway to surveillance goes back to prior centuries. In the 1800s, government agents developed the ability to tap into privately owned telegraph wires and listen in on conversations. By the Civil War, telegraph tapping was being used for military intelligence.

Such “new” technology for government surveillance that enabled listening in on real-time communication across long distances was a massive breakthrough. The difference is especially demonstrated when compared with the “surveillance” of the Founders’ day that involved British agents manually sifting through the mail bags attached to a saddle.

Despite the massive growth in government surveillance capabilities with the advent of the telegraph, it is important to note that Samuel Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, was not a government agent. Government surveillance innovators simply harnessed his technology. In fact, the vast majority of telegraph companies were owned and operated by private companies. While the technologies being used are different, this concept of using technology and data housed within the private sector as a means of government surveillance has not gone away.   

Fast forward to the 21st century, and the telegraph has long fallen out of use. We live in a day when the free market has developed smartphones, facial recognition, fingerprint scanners, drones, location tracking, doorbell cameras, artificial intelligence, and a host of other technologies. Yet, the danger of the government indiscriminately using these new technologies to expand surveillance on its citizens has only increased.

Despite the danger of government being too indiscriminate, many companies that harvest or store user data have a history of providing government with user data, sometimes without even having a search warrant. One report that reviewed the number of law enforcement requests for data from several large technology companies found that 85 percent of the requests were granted.

In order to remedy this, some states are looking to implement proactive safeguards. Utah has passed legislation prohibiting the government from accessing data stored by a technology company unless a search warrant is issued. This provides a key balance, ensuring that new technology provides a platform for technological advancement, not an entry point for government intrusion.

Personal information might be kept on parchment paper written on with quill and ink, or it could be stored in complex data silos hosted in a digital cloud. Regardless of the technology being used, public policy should protect the freedom of Americans by protecting their data. The protection of personal information from undue government intrusion is a timeless part of the American ideal. In order to ensure that no technology becomes a “Trojan horse” to threaten this ideal, policies should be instituted that pro-actively ensure that the government cannot strong-arm technology companies into turning over user data without accountability.

When government overreach and excessive regulation occur, minorities often bear an extra burden. While Mississippi has a myriad of overbearing regulations, excessive healthcare regulations are potentially the most damaging. Indeed, Mississippi’s burdensome healthcare regulations have contributed to certain minorities having healthcare gaps.

According to the United States Census Bureau, 41 percent of those in the Mississippi population are a minority, consisting mostly of African Americans. This is one of the highest minority percentages in the country. 

Ultimately, the state of Mississippi has a crisis of healthcare access that goes across all ethnicities. However, due to the geographic nature of healthcare access problems, healthcare access challenges in certain areas with a higher percentage of African Americans can lead to heightened challenges for the minority population as a whole.

There are several contributing factors to the reduced minority healthcare access in Mississippi. While the regulatory excesses on healthcare in the state have several variations, perhaps the most burdensome is the state’s Certificate of Need (CON) laws. Under CON laws, new healthcare providers must get permission from the state before beginning operations in a specific region. Additionally, the laws allow existing providers in the region to give input on whether not the new provider is needed.

While CON laws are problematic no matter where they are, these laws' effects on healthcare access are especially strong in rural areas. Fundamentally, rural health care systems are generally more sensitive to bad health care policy than their urban counterparts, and CON laws have an especially strong effect. According to research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, CON laws reduce the number of healthcare providers, increase the cost of healthcare in rural areas, and ultimately lead to lower health outcomes.

Mississippi has the highest percentage of rural African Americans in the country. Thirty-eight percent of the rural population is black. When placed in the context of CON laws, it is worth noting that the state has among the worst health outcomes for blacks in the country. In many states, the majority of the black population is urban-based and experiences a lesser impact than CON laws' effects on blacks in rural areas. Meanwhile, African Americans in Mississippi bear the heightened effect of CON laws on rural areas.  

Additionally, the inherent concept behind CON laws places minorities at a disadvantage. CON laws grant approval for a new healthcare provider to open up only if the state determines that the population at large needs a particular healthcare service. However, the central planners behind CON implementation often fail to account for other factors, such as the positive benefits of increased competition for minorities.  

To illustrate this, it is helpful to look at a study conducted by Rutgers University. In the wake of CON repeals in New Jersey, the study found that certain cardiovascular procedures saw an increase in “utilization overall and did so more rapidly for blacks.” This was due to the fact that increased competition from new providers led to more providers working with minority populations that were outside of their traditional patients.

CON regulations on healthcare provider expansion might help protect incumbent providers from new competition, but they do little to help everyday Mississippians. If Mississippi wants to see the void of healthcare providers in the state filled, a key step is to remove this red tape that inhibits its citizens, rural areas, and minority communities. Government control and central planning of the health sector is a recipe for deprivation, it’s time for Mississippi to turn the tide.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram