Mississippi currently stands as one of the cheapest areas to buy a house. In fact, the state ranks 2nd in the United States in cheap housing at a median value of $144,074 per a typical single-family home. However, that home value only increases at a rate of 9.8%, one of the lowest in the nation.
The state government has instituted policies to make the price higher than it should be while keeping the increase in value at a lower rate. One such policy that has affected the prices of housing is the policy towards lumber. Currently, lumber costs are up, and the demand is high. Mississippi currently has plenty of it to make newer houses. The problem is that production cannot keep up with the demand, and it certainly does not help when the Mississippi government places too much of a burden through regulations and bureaucratic control. Mississippi has, in the past, relaxed these regulations in order to ease the burden. It should do so again.
Perhaps the biggest factor in housing costs, however, is the need to build the Mississippi economy. The housing market is often seen as the indicator of a thriving state economy. This is because people are more willing to move into the state in which business is booming. Due to competition, if the economy is thriving and more people want to live in Mississippi, the prices will find its way to an appropriate level. In other words, if Mississippi wants cheap, quality housing, building the economy and letting the market fluctuate naturally is the best way to go.
When considering policy in this context, thinking about the big picture is often the most effective. Edmund Burke often asserts that policy change needs have a specific justification. Simply throwing things at the wall to see what sticks will bring about unforeseen consequences, ones that are often not welcome. If Mississippi sees a thriving market such as the one it sees currently in real estate, it is best to step back and let the natural benefits of the free market take hold. Increasing taxes or implementing regulations will only stifle the process and either plateau or decrease the market's progress.
You know you’ve seriously annoyed progressives when you get singled out for a hit piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper by one of their New York-based columnists. According to Arwa Mahdawi writing in today’s Guardian, I am a “toxic politician” whom the UK was able to "successfully export."
What was it that prompted Miss Mahdawi, whom I don’t believe I have had the pleasure of meeting, to launch such a highly personal attack on a private citizen in a national newspaper? (Besides Brexit, of course).
Her tirade seems to have been prompted by the fact that I had the temerity to point out that the United States is more prosperous and innovative that Europe.
Well let’s consider the facts, for a moment. Here is a table showing how the richest countries in Europe compare the US states in terms of GDP per capita. Germany, Europe’s richest country, ranks below Oklahoma, the 38th richest state in America.
The UK is poorer that Arkansas and West Virginia. Even my own state, Mississippi, ranks above Italy and Spain. If you break the UK down by regions, Mississippi is more prosperous than much of the UK outside of London and the south east.
According to Miss Mahdawi, the US can’t be more successful because she lives in New York, where she “pays way more” for her “mobile phone plan and internet than she would for comparable services in the UK or anywhere in Europe.
Apparently the relative cost of her New York phone bill proves the Europe is better than America. Or something.
Perhaps if Guardian columnists made a little more effort to try to understand what those they write hit pieces on actually thought, they might recognize that free marketers favor more free markets.
But if they did that, then they might be forced to acknowledge that one of the reasons why certain sectors of the US economy have become cartels, without enough consumer choice and competition, is precisely because America is currently led by an administration that seeks to expand the role of government and make America more European. Much easier to make childish insults.
The interesting question to ask is why so many of Europe’s elite feel the need to lash out at anyone that suggests that the American model works better that the European.
In the UK, it is constantly implied the America’s health care system is vastly inferior. Really? Five years after diagnosis, only 56% of English cancer patients survive, compared to 65% of American patients. Poorer Americans in poor states often have healthier outcomes that many in Britain.
But again, these facts are overlooked. Anyone with the temerity to mention them gets vilified (“toxic”). And the many shortcomings in the US system are cited as evidence that nothing good ever happens stateside.
When Europe’s elites talk about America, often what they say – or won’t say – tells us more about them, than anything happening over here. The reality is that by most measures the United States gives ordinary citizens far better life chances than the European Union is able to provide for her people.
Deep down Europe’s elites know this. And they fear that their own citizens know it, too. So they constantly put America down in order to maintain their own status across the pond.
Mississippi’s regulatory code is a massive body of laws with thousands of pages and about 8.9 million words. Unsurprisingly, such a large amount of rules has immense potential to burden Mississippians, inhibit economic growth, and continually increase the size of the government.
While it can be easy to get lost in the specifics of potential reforms, one basic proposal could help to simplify the deregulation process and put the state on a path to better and better reforms. This proposal would require that for every new regulation implemented by the state government, there would have to be two regulations removed.
While this is a seemingly simple proposal, the federal government applied this rule to federal regulations in the Trump Administration starting January of 2017. In turn, the federal government saw a relatively low amount of new regulations in the Trump administration. In January of 2021, President Biden repealed the rule. Thus, although the rule is no longer in effect on the federal level, states still have the opportunity to apply the rule in a state context.
Such prior success on the federal level suggests that an effective approach to deregulation is to recognize that business regulations do not occur in a vacuum. If a company does not have to deal with one specific regulation but faces burdens and obstacles from other regulations, the company may be in just as bad a position as it was before. Thus, while incremental deregulation is effective in some circumstances, the true way to see economic prosperity from deregulation is to implement broader reforms that do not just apply to a specific line of legal code.
Furthermore, while regulatory burdens can substantially affect businesses of all sizes, it is also important to note the particular burden that a strong regulatory environment can have in the Mississippi context. With a large percentage of small businesses, the weight of even one or two additional regulations could be just enough to tip the scales against many such businesses in the state. At the same time, having a regulatory model that proactively removes burdensome regulations could spell the difference between stagnation and growth for businesses across the state.
Using a one-in-two-out model, Mississippi could see a reduction in the total amount of regulatory burdens imposed on Mississippians. While the state has been effective at repealing many of the burdensome regulations, such a policy would help place a statutory cap on the amount of regulations. This is significant so that the state does not find itself incrementally growing the regulatory burden with every passing year of lawmaking.
The legislature should continue to take the lead on removing the regulatory burden in the state. While specific repeals of certain regulations can be an effective method of cutting down red tape, broader deregulation policies could make a real difference in the Magnolia State.
If there is anything we must learn from the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal, it is that throwing policy at a wall to see what “sticks” is never a good idea. This is especially true when those policies involve trillions of dollars.
When FDR put forth his plan to save the nation, the problem in his approach was that policy did not have an indicated, narrowly defined purpose and cost the nation greatly. Coming out of the Covid pandemic, we are facing a similar situation with Biden’s Build Back Better strategy, which would ultimately cost $3.5 trillion despite the president’s insistence that it will cost nothing. Biden believes this because his assumption is that the money will be returned when we “invest in America” in areas such as climate and providing a social safety net for families and small businesses. The irony is that some in his own party do not agree as such a bill will likely add to the already daunting inflation rate.
The reality is that virtually none of the solutions that Biden offers in this strategy is actually free. A study from the University of Pennsylvania confirms this. In fact, the national debt is said to increase by 25 percent over 30 years if Biden’s plan comes into effect.
Mississippi should not follow suit in this approach of governance. As tempting as it is just to throw money or ideas at the wall to try to fix a problem. Good policy must have a specific purpose and not operate on assumptions that “we will just make our money back.” That may be a byproduct, but it is a substantial risk that taxpayers often cannot afford if it falls through. Prudence is key.
This is why the narrative that the government is going to “invest in America” is so dangerous. For one, the government is not an investor as if it has generated its own money. The government only has money because the people have been forced to give it money. The second problem is that “investing in America” is so vague and broad that it boils down to just flowery rhetoric, yet it is treated as some profound justification for large spending. This was FDR’s strategy and it ultimately led to several lawsuits in which the Supreme Court granted relief and put back the nation several years back in recovering from the Great Depression.
Throwing money at a wall to see what sticks might help if you have unlimited resources and no consequences; however, neither President Biden nor the Mississippi government has this luxury. If effective and positive change is to occur, we must depart from this “investing in America” narrative and support the American economy by making government smaller, not bigger.
Last week’s elections in Virginia were no earthquake. Glenn Youngkin, the newly elected Republican Governor, squeaked home by the narrowest of margins. The swing from blue to red was a modest 5 percent.
Yet last week’s election could just turn out to be one of the most significant elections in America for a generation. Why?
Virginia offers the wider conservative movement a route map back towards electoral success – if (big if) they have the good sense to follow it.
It is easy when living in a state like Mississippi to assume that the Republican party is well entrenched. The reality across much of America, however, is that the conservative movement which dominated American politics when Ronald Reagan was in the White House, has suffered defeat and retreat ever since.
The last time that a Republican candidate won a popular majority in a U.S. Presidential election, for example, was back in 2004. Republican candidates have only managed to win the popular vote in two of the past nine Presidential elections.
It is not just that Republican candidates have not done so well. Even more ominously, not every Republican candidate has been …. how might I put this delicately? …. conservative.
Over the past couple of decades, states like Virginia, which at one time tended to lean conservative, appeared to have shifted decisively to the left. Until last week, that is.
Despite having failed to win a state-wide election for twelve years, last week conservative candidates in Virginia were elected not only Governor, but Lt Governor and Attorney General, too.
The Virginia result was a victory for school choice conservatism. With parents denied any real power in the public education system, moms and dads in Virginia felt anxious about some of the things their kids were being taught – such as Critical Race Theory.
Youngkin repeatedly made the issue of whether parents should be allowed a say in their child’s education the center piece in his campaign. Youngkin also calmly but firmly insisted that Critical Race Theory is wrong.
And guess what? It turns out that giving people school choice is wildly popular and that millions of ordinary Americans are not that keen on having their kids indoctrinated into believing that their country is intrinsically racists either.
Here in Mississippi, we recently published a report on Critical Race Theory in our state. It shows how conservatives might offer something similar here, too.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Virginia result was the record support that the conservative side got from both Hispanic and African America voters. It turns out that opposing a divisive anti-American ideology has a broad appeal. Again, Magnolia conservatives should take note.
One final observation about Virginia. The conservative side in the election did something that too often conservatives are loathe to do; they tried to understand and listen to their audience before trying to persuade them.
Too many of those that work in public policy presume that arguments that excite them appeal to everyone else. They don’t. In order to win in Virginia, conservative strategists used messages and messengers that resonated with the folk they needed to win over.
Instead of school choice, they talked about school freedom. Instead of attacking obstructive teacher unions, they made it clear that they wanted a better deal for teachers – if not necessarily union bosses. It takes more than a bumper sticker to win over hearts and minds. A new conservative movement that understood this, while offering real school freedom and an alternative to critical race theory, could be unstoppable.
The individual states that make up our nation are at a crossroads. The recent wave of federal funding to states across the country has triggered questions about the extent of federal involvement and the impact of federal funding on state sovereignty and public policy.
From the specific Covid grants issued by Congress, to the bureaucratic matching system for federal programs such as Medicaid, nearly every federal dollar has something attached to it that carries the will of Washington into the states. While not all of these dollars are a precursor to bad federal policy being imposed on the states, an increasingly leftist federal government is tying more and more strings to these dollars. States need a strategy to press against such actions.
This expansion of federal control using federal money has been pushed in multiple sectors. In healthcare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has imposed a vaccinee mandate on hospitals that receive federal funding through Medicaid and Medicare. In the education sector, the Department of Education has asserted an increasingly leftist agenda through its programs, while openly asserting on its own website that “any state that does not want to abide by a federal program's requirements can simply choose not to accept the federal funds associated with that program.”
Thus, we see that while the federal government has increasingly asserted its power over the states, much of the state sovereignty issues are ultimately questions of what dollars the state will accept. The beauty of American federalism is the ability of the states to stand against federal overreach by simply refusing federal funds or agreeing to take them only under certain terms.
Such a stance has been effective in recent months. In April 2021, the Department of Education announced its intention to prioritize the teaching of Critical Race Theory as it awarded civics and history education grants to the state education systems. In response, the state of South Dakota went so far as to directly reject all federal dollars tied to such federal civics and history grant programs. In an earlier response, 20 states had voiced their opposition and the federal government largely backed down after the pushback.
This success presents an important strategy that states can use to press against the whims of Washington. This strategy is twofold -with defensive and offensive elements. As a defense, states should not enroll or expand their involvement in any federal funding program that locks the state in and subjects it to whatever future terms the federal government may impose. On the offensive side, states should directly reject any effort by the federal government to impose damaging policies that are “sugarcoated” with optional federal dollars.
Until states collectively recognize their ability and duty to refuse funds that will impose bad policies on their citizens, the federal government will likely continue down a path of brazen overreach. Conservative state legislatures should reclaim “the power of the purse.” They should consciously reject any attempt by the federal government to wrongly manipulate public policy using the power of federal dollars. The future of these United States depends on it.
In 2020, the Mississippi legislature passed a bill that included a provision to implement a digital driver’s license program that allows citizens to keep a copy of their license on their smartphones. The program is expected to roll out soon. However, there are still some unanswered questions that could pose a threat to individual liberty if not addressed.
In the first place, there must be an understanding of how most digital license programs work. The text of the bill, HB1371, specifies that the Department of Public Safety “shall develop and implement a driver's license or driving permit in electronic format as an additional option for license or permit holders. Acceptable electronic formats include display of electronic images on a cellular phone or any other type of electronic device.”
For most of the states that have implemented a digital license, the license is stored via encryption on a government-sanctioned smartphone app. Mississippi’s program development has followed this model. When the digital license is requested by law enforcement, store clerks, or others, they can scan the smartphone to verify the license's authenticity. After authenticity has been verified via cryptography, the driver’s license information is shared with the individual requesting it.
At first glance, this concept of a digital driver’s license might seem to be a fairly straightforward advancement for the digital age. To a certain degree, this is true. There is nothing inherently wrong with implementing a digital license option in addition to the traditional plastic driver’s license. However, digital licenses bring a level of complexity that is not quite there for physical licenses, and this complexity must be properly addressed.
In the first place, it is important to consider the potential threats to individual liberty that can occur if a digital license program is poorly designed and does not have the proper protections in place for citizens. There are several essential issues to consider.
For instance, consider the circumstances where a driver’s license might be requested. Such examples might include traffic stops, certain purchases, and entrance into restricted buildings. Under traditional circumstances, the physical card would be presented, and there is no centralized reporting structure that logs when and where the license is used. However, in the context of a digital license, this could change.
If the digital license app was programmed to report to the DMV as it was used, such data could be compiled to track citizens' actions. Depending on how the app is designed, this data could include the date, time, location, and the circumstances of the digital license being presented.
Instead of having such a system, any digital license should have authentication protocols that can operate offline without reporting the license usage details to the DMV. This is essential to prevent a digital license from being a tool of systematic state government surveillance.
In addition, there have been plans made in Mississippi to eventually expand the proposed digital driver’s license app by allowing citizens to also include additional state-issued documents such as hunting licenses, real estate licenses, and concealed carry permits. This brings in the question of how much data centralization could eventually be placed into the digital license app.
While the concept of a voluntary centralized digital wallet for government-issued licenses is one thing, there is a potential slippery slope. Already, some in the state have proposed including non-licensing information, such as Covid vaccination cards. At this time, officials have insisted that the option to include other documents in the digital wallet in addition to a standard driver’s license would be strictly voluntary. However, it is important to maintain in the future that the digital ease of adding additional information to a digital wallet should never lead to even more data being requested or digital wallets becoming mandatory.
These are complicated matters that require careful thought and analysis. Yet, despite all of these complexities, the state has had a relatively low amount of public communications on the eventual parameters for the digital license program. For something as fundamental as license identification protocols, and something as complex as mobile app technology, the state should be entirely transparent on the final procedures for development and implementation.
It is essential so that the personal liberty of Mississippians is never compromised for the sake of digital technology. The concept of license digitization comes as no surprise in an increasingly digital world. But the proper guardrails must be in place to ensure that such digitalization is never a precursor for the erosion of individual liberties.
Last September, Toyota, one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of cars with respect to magnitude, announced that the company was going to take a three-week production break. This was due to the company’s slowdown in auto manufacturing across the globe. Workers were allowed to take unpaid leave, work at the plant at various jobs, or take paid time off. This was part of a larger issue that the company is facing as it is cutting global production by 40 percent due to a worldwide shortage of computer chips and vehicle supply parts.
Situations like this often arise when supply chains are not properly handled. California, for example, has become a very weak center for business in this respect. Meanwhile, states such as Texas and Florida have open ports and have invited shipping companies to bring their cargo.
What is the difference? One of the possible reasons is that California policies creates unnecessary barriers to efficiency. For example, California has adopted a law called AB5. This law recategorized truck drivers so that they could not operate as independent contractors working for several companies. In addition, environmental regulations have inhibited the expansion of storage facilities, leading to even more logistical challenges.
It is these kinds of environmental and labor policies that lead to deficiencies in the supply chain. While supplies in Toyota have rebounded and the company plans to make up for lost time, it goes to show how much of an impact a shortage of supplies can have on a given company.
Covid has certainly been a factor in these issues; however, the government cannot use Covid as an excuse for bad policy. On the federal level especially, government has taken prescriptive action for things that do not ultimately help the problem. Anti-contractor legislation, EPA truck emission regulations, and even Biden’s vaccine mandate have all contributed to the nation’s supply chain issues.
Mississippi should seek to counteract these policies as it builds an economy of free-market principles. While they seem justified, government regulations all too often stifle the growth necessary to have a self-sustaining economy. The state legislature should commit to examining the apparent deficiencies in the supply chain system and explore ways to alleviate the burden on private companies that aid the state economy. Giving up government control is the most effective way to manage supply chains.
We did it! The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) just stopped the Biden Administration’s private employer vaccine mandate in its tracks. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted the mandate, finding that there is "cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."
MJI represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group (GCRG) in the lawsuit challenging the mandate. GCRG is the corporate family that owns several Mississippi restaurants, including Half Shell Oyster House and the Rack House. GCRG, which is already struggling with staffing shortages in its restaurants, challenged the mandate in court because it will encourage even more of its employees to quit their jobs and could even make it difficult to keep many of its restaurants open.
Private employers in Louisiana and Texas have also joined the suit, as well as the Attorneys General of those states. The State of Mississippi is represented by Attorney General Lynn Fitch.
The federal vaccine mandate for private employers requires companies with over 100 employees to force their employees to be vaccinated, or be subject to weekly testing (at the employee’s expense) and constant mask wearing – on pain of losing their job.
While this halt to the federal vaccine mandate is only a temporary measure, it is a crucial first round victory. It signals that the courts understand the serious and myriad legal problems with this mandate, and are willing to hold the federal government to its constitutionally limited role.
If you don’t own a business that is subject to the federal vaccine mandate, or work for one that is, should you care about the legal fight to put a stop to it? Absolutely, for several reasons.
It’s never a good idea to let the federal government infringe on people’s personal liberties to force them to do what the government thinks is best for them. Not only does that make us less free, it often backfires. Encouraging voluntary vaccination is the best approach to foster greater participation and trust.
Additionally, if we stay quiet when the federal government exceed its constitutionally authorized power just because it doesn’t personally affect us, we have no way stop the federal government from overreaching when what it’s doing does personally affect us.
And finally, the federal vaccine mandate will affect all of us, whether or not it applies to our businesses or employers. The labor market is as tight as most businesses have ever seen it. The supply chain is riddled with delays. The last thing the economy needs is any more major disruptions, like thousands more employees quitting their jobs over incredibly intrusive medical mandates.
Gulf Coast Restaurant Group encourages its employees to get vaccinated. It even offers a $100 reward to every employee who does. While GCRG is proud of its efforts to encourage employee vaccination, it is equally proud to stand up for the rights of Mississippi businesses to operate without burdensome and unconstitutional federal regulations that prevent them from retaining their employees and adequately serving their customers. And MJI is proud to represent them in that fight.
With your continued support, we hope to keep fighting for Mississippians’ constitutional rights for many more years to come.
In Liberty,
Aaron Rice
Director, Mississippi Justice Institute