The Mississippi legislature is currently reviewing a proposal to remove the state income tax. At the same time, the state’s finances are in good shape, with a healthy emergency fund and high revenues. Meanwhile, many Mississippians are struggling from the pandemic economy, feeling the impacts of inflation, and watching the federal government continue to increase taxes and spending.
A common objection to repealing the state income tax is that the state government’s revenue and budget could be damaged. While such an argument might work seemingly well in a federal context with bloated budgets, Mississippi’s government has a fairly responsible budget that is the fruit of conservative spending policies.
To start, a key indicator state’s fiscal health is the status of it rainy day fund. In Mississippi, the state’s rainy day fund has seen exceptional growth over the last several years. In 2013, the state had $86 million in the rainy-day fund. In 2021, the rainy-day fund had $558 million. That is an increase of 640 percent in just eight years. The current funds are enough to run the entire state government for 36 days.
In addition, the state is seeing higher than expected revenue collections, which are an additional indicator of financial stability. In October 2021, the Legislative Budget Office reported a 16.42 percent increase above the general fund estimates for this fiscal year.
This brings in a key question. One of the key purposes of true fiscal responsibility is so that the people will have less burdens from excessive government debt, taxes, and spending. Yet, what use is it for the people if the government follows a responsible budget and keeps the same tax burden on the people? Sure, such policies will certainly fill the state coffers, but they leave the state’s people with less income and less freedom.
Shifting the focus from state government to the actual citizens of Mississippi, it is important to note the present need for financial relief through a smaller tax burden. Thus, while the state of Mississippi has surplus revenues that are continually growing, a recent study from Forbes found that 40 percent of individual Americans with emergency savings prior to March 2020 dipped into those savings during Covid. Seventy-three percent of those individuals used more than half of their emergency fund. Americans are in a time of financial challenge -and having to pay federal and state income taxes isn’t helping them either.
Combined with all of these state-level fiscal factors is the recent financial influence of the federal government on the state budget and individual Mississippians. The state government has received millions of dollars in federal funding to its great financial benefit. Meanwhile, citizens have had to deal with the direct effects of federal spending and inflation on their wallets and shopping carts. The state should address this discrepancy by creating a tax environment with no state income tax that adds to the burdens coming from Washington.
Looking to 2022, the state government will have a large degree of leverage as it can use federal funding for long-term projects that require large amounts of funds, such as roads and bridges. Even if all of the federal funds were only utilized for special, long-term projects and the funds played no role in the routine operations of state government, these federal funds could remove some fiscal pressure from state revenues. This removes even more pressure from the state’s own revenue funding and provides flexibility for the income tax repeal.
In light of these facts, it has become clear that now is the time to repeal the state income tax. A truly conservative government will lower taxes whenever it can responsibly do so, and it is now or never for Mississippi. If state leaders cannot execute a plan to eliminate the state income tax in 2022, a better time may never come. With state government funds in a stable position, and the citizens recovering from financial challenges, it’s time for Mississippi to “Axe the Tax.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Justice Institute and its client, Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, have halted the Biden administration's unconstitutional vaccine mandate for private employers.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on Saturday, temporarily blocked enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) mandate pending further review by the court, finding that there is "cause to believe that there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."
The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group – the corporate family of restaurants such as Half Shell Oyster House and the Rackhouse – in the litigation challenging the vaccine mandate for private employers. Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, like many other businesses, is already struggling with labor shortages and believes that the vaccine mandate will lead to further staffing reductions and harm to its business and customers.
"We are grateful that the court recognized the serious constitutional concerns raised by this mandate and has stayed its enforcement pending further review,” said MJI Director, Aaron Rice. “We will continue fighting to put a permanent stop to this unprecedented federal overreach."
"We are delighted to hear this news from the court,” said Kevin Fish, Vice President of Gulf Coast Restaurant Group. “We know that hard-working Mississippians who were worried about potentially losing their jobs can take a huge sigh of relief."
Attorney General Lynn Fitch represents the State of Mississippi in the lawsuit. "I encourage everyone to consider vaccination, but the decision is yours and the President should not force anyone to vaccinate for fear of losing their jobs, especially not on the cusp of the holidays," said Fitch. "I appreciate Gulf Coast Restaurant Group and the Mississippi Justice Institute standing with me on behalf of the 84 million American workers who will be impacted by this mandate."
This temporary stay represents a major initial victory in the challenge to the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers. MJI and Gulf Coast Restaurant Group look forward to continuing the fight in court.
Please direct all media inquiries to Stone Clanton, [email protected].
Imagine if you were required to shop for groceries in a particular store because of where you happened to live? What if folk living in on zip code had to use a particular branch of Kroger’s, and not any other?
Such a system would be absurd, yet this is pretty much how the public education system is run in Mississippi – and across much of America.
Unless a family is able to afford to move to a particular zip code, or afford to go private, moms and dads have little choice over where to educate their kids. In fact, most families in America have more choice when it comes to where they buy groceries than they do over their children’s education.
Without parent power, moms and dads anxious about some of the things that their children are being taught – such as Critical Race Theory – have found themselves powerless to do much about it.
This week’s election results in Virginia suggest that this could be about to change. The Virginia contest saw conservatives unequivocally committed to school choice and parent power win state-wide contests for the first time in twelve years.
Not only does it turn out that school freedom – when properly presented – is wildly popular. It turns out that millions of ordinary Americans are not that keen on having their kids indoctrinated into believing that their country is intrinsically racists either.
The conservative movement is at a pivotal moment. We have an extraordinary opportunity to achieve fundamental change in the America education system – but if we are to seize this chance, we need to take a new approach.
For as long as anyone can remember, school choice in many states has been synonymous with Charter Schools. Here in Mississippi, for example, we have long tended to put all the school choice eggs into the Charter School basket. And it has not got us very far at all.
Paid for with public money, but run independently, Charter Schools are wonderful. They are a brilliant way of giving lots of kids opportunities that previously only rich people had. Charter schools have an extraordinary record elevating education standards and ensuring young Americans from every background get a great start in life.
The trouble is is that there just aren’t enough of them. To date, here in Mississippi there are a mere seven.
Clearly there is not a shortage of demand for Charter Schools. Those that I have visited here in Mississippi are buzzing with enthusiastic teachers, cheerful students and supportive parents. Demand for places at Charter Schools exceeds the places available.
Nor is there a shortage of people wanting to set up Charter Schools. In June this year it was announced that new applications had come in for a batch of new schools across our state.
The problem is that none of these applications got approved. When the Charter Schools Authorizer Board met recently, they failed to approve any new applications.
To be fair to the Board, too, the legislation we have in our state does not mandate the Board to incubate would-be applicants to get them over the line. But surely the Board could be a little more proactive? The Board needs a more can-do approach - and Mississippi needs a greater sense of urgency about the need for change.
Right now, anyone wanting to create a Charter School not only needs approval from the Authorizer Board. Unless they are located in a failing school district, they have to have permission from their local school board, too. Why?
How can it possibly be right to give the local education bureaucracy the power to prevent moms and dads having more choices for their kids? If your local school board really does a good job, why are they afraid of allowing families an alternative?
We would not tolerate it if companies were granted the power to ban competition and force customers to use only their services. So why are we prepared to allow school boards to do precisely this using our tax dollars?
School choice advocates need policy responses that address all of these problems. Charter schools have a critical role to play in making school choice a reality. But we also need to do more that focus on supply-side reform. We need a demand-side revolution – and Virginia suggests that the demand for real change in public education is there.
Rather than just Charter Schools, we need to advocate for a comprehensive school freedom program, including open enrolment. Most vital of all, we need to frame the debate about school freedom in a way that ensures that it resonates with millions of ordinary Americans concerned about the way in which ultra-left wing ideologues have invaded their children’s classrooms.
If we present school freedom as a way of ensuring that every American child has not just a good education, but a broad and balanced one, our movement will become unstoppable.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Justice Institute – a non-profit Constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy – filed suit today to challenge the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private employers.
The mandate, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), requires private companies with more than 100 employees to ensure that all of their workers are either fully vaccinated by January 4th, 2022, or subject to weekly testing and mask-wearing. OSHA says "fully vaccinated" means that the employee has received two doses of Moderna or Pfizer's vaccine, or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson's vaccine. The companies are subject to fines well over $13,000 per day for each employee that does not comply.
The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, a corporate family of restaurants including Half Shell Oyster House and the Rackhouse. Attorney General Lynn Fitch represents the State of Mississippi in the suit. The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of states, including Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Utah, as well as private employers in several of those states.
“The Mississippi Justice Institute is proud to represent Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, and to partner with Attorney General Lynn Fitch to challenge this extraordinary federal overreach,” said MJI Director, Aaron Rice. “While we and our client are grateful for the development of the COVID vaccines, we cannot stand by while the federal government brazenly exceeds its constitutional authority and infringes on the individual liberties of Mississippi businesses and workers.”
"While I am personally pro-vaccination, I completely disagree with this policy,” said Kevin Fish, Vice President of Gulf Coast Restaurant Group. “It is completely arbitrary. This policy will place an unfair and unreasonable burden upon my staff simply because of the number of employees I have."
In addition to turning employers into federal vaccine enforcers, the regulation will also result in many leaving the workforce entirely. This would accelerate a trend that has devastated the nation’s economic growth in the wake of pandemic.
"The federal government has no business forcing Mississippi workers to get vaccinated or forcing Mississippi businesses to fire their employees,” said Rice. “This is still a free country. In America, we have presidents, not kings."
The lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Please direct all media inquiries to to Stone Clanton, [email protected]
Agriculture continues to be a token flagship of the Mississippi economy. However, a specific kind of farming continues to grow within the state that has cause for attention. This area of farming is aquaculture, the process of producing farm-raised fish in a water environment.
Over the last couple of years, Mississippi’s aquaculture has grown greatly. According to the most recent data from 2017, the Mississippi aquaculture industry hosts 205 catfish farms, valued at $219.7 million. Mississippi has risen to one of the top producers of aquacultural farming products, so much so that the rest of the country consumes much of what Mississippi produces, bringing in $230.7 million in sales.
This growth is very timely as global demand for seafood and aquacultural products is expected to grow by 70% over the next thirty years thus increasing demand and providing business and jobs. Not only that, but an increase in productivity in aquaculture means an increase in general agricultural business as well. According to a study by the Food and Water Watch, this additional economic benefit comes from the broader agricultural sector producing the food and materials necessary to sustain aquaculture enterprises.
The aquaculture industry is clearly a vital element of the rising Mississippi economy and the state should look to competitive growth as other states expand aquaculture as well. For instance, the New England states have taken advantage of this opportunity and are now generating $150 million annually. The state of Washington also benefits from this, generating $270 million annually.
Expanding this opportunity and taking advantage of this growth would be an excellent area for legislative attention in Mississippi. This is especially true considering that American aquaculture farms have barely scratched the surface of what total demand is necessary to exhaust the industry (America only meets 5 to 7 percent of the current demand for seafood).
Furthermore, when farmers see that one can succeed in aquaculture, new technologies like computer-controlled oxygen monitoring systems have emerged. This enables farmers to monitor and control the oxygen levels in farming ponds. People find something they want to pursue. They find solutions to making that pursuit easier through innovation. That innovation in turn, inspires others to participate. The cycle goes on and on.
This is another perfect opportunity for legislators to make positive changes in Mississippi communities. Fewer regulations and more motivations to participate in markets like these provide opportunities for innovation and growth in the economy. It is a faulty assumption to presume that government needs to compel or even incentivize individuals for growth to occur. The reality is that neither of those things are needed. For growth to occur, as it has in aquaculture, individuals should be able to pursue their interests without fear of undue government interference. If interference is apparent, growth may actually take a downturn. State leaders would do well to further recognize the growth of the aquaculture industry and encourage its free market expansion.
As the world continues to grow in innovation and technology, it continues to shrink in scale. What would be accomplished in weeks or even months a couple of decades ago can sometimes be achieved in a matter of hours. Trade is no exception to this.
Due to innovation in the transportation industry, it is becoming easier and easier for states to benefit from producing and consuming goods from across the globe. Mississippi would do well to continue this trend as it engages in issues of international relevance.
Mississippi has historically benefitted significantly from international trade and investments. For example, in 2013, Mississippi exported $13.2 billion in goods and $2.2 billion in services across 193 countries. As a direct result of this growth, the Mississippi trade sector saw a 154 percent increase in jobs (from 8.6 percent to 21.8 percent). One of the essential elements for this growth came from the existence of free trade agreements which promoted an increase in growth in trade by 469 percent in just ten years (from 2003 to 2013).
Today, while trade is still part of the economy, Mississippi’s export value has slightly dropped. While explaining the reasons behind this decrease are beyond the scope of this article, Mississippi can certainly do more in promoting its engagement in international trade. Today, it ranks 30th in the United States in exports and 28th in the United States in imports.
The Mississippi legislature should keep in mind several key exports that play a role in Mississippi’s international trade scheme: oil & mineral fuels, precision instruments, motor vehicles & parts, industrial machinery, and electrical machinery. These five goods total approximately $8 billion in exported capital and creates and sustains vital parts of the economy.
One way this can be achieved is by promoting Mississippi’s goods across the globe by educating businesses on how to engage in international trade. This can be a daunting task, especially in a small to medium business context. However, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce has found success in this area as it has brought $16.7 billion into the state economy by providing support for exporters engaging in international trade. Agriculture is one of the state’s top industries, but imagine if that same engagement occurred on every other major export in the state. Economic growth would certainly be in the future.
Another area that can promote international trade growth is simply decreasing regulation and trade barriers. As mentioned previously, the existence of free trade agreements, minimizing or eliminating the existence of such barriers, played a substantial role in promoting significant growth.
International trade agreements are a little more complicated than a simple “no regulation” principle (it should often operate on a standard of mutual advantage as well). Yet, the idea still stands that governments should encourage companies to engage in trade without penalizing them at same time through high tariffs and regulatory duties.
The greatest element of these free trade agreements is that they encourage competition and innovation -the very things that have placed America in such a strong international trade position to begin with. Mississippi should proactively seek to engage in more international trade and replicate the success the state has seen in the past.
Tesla is now worth over $1 trillion. Not only is Tesla the first car company in the world valued at over $1 trillion, but Tesla is now worth more than twice the combined total of Toyota and Volkswagen.
Not bad for a car company that was only founded in 2003.
Tesla joins a string of companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet, worth over a $ trillion (Facebook is not far behind, valued at a mere $914bn.).
What is so striking about these firms isn’t just their astronomical value. It’s the fact that they are all relatively new companies. Microsoft and Apple were founded in the mid 1970s. Amazon and Alphabet in the 1990s.
What also stands out is that they are all American.
The largest companies in Europe today – Volkswagen, BP, Shell – were big companies a generation ago. Many of the largest firms in America hardly existed a few decades ago. New, too, is the underlying technology and economic activity on which they are built.
Perhaps any European reflecting on this should ask themselves where their Teslas and Apples are? Or perhaps, more important, ponder what their versions of Bill Gates or Elon Musk are up to? Working in local government, no doubt.
It seems extraordinary that any American politician should want to make their country more European.
What about Japan? I cannot think of a single significant consumer innovation to have come out of Japan since the Sony Walkman. Japan, which in the 1970s and 80s seemed so promising as a center of innovation and technological advance, has stagnated. Perhaps having an economy dominated by zombie companies, weighed down by debt but sustained by cheap credit, isn’t a recipe for success after all.
America has been the epicenter of innovation precisely because Microsoft, then Apple, were able to compete with IBM. Tesla with General Motors. Dozens of start-ups against AT&T. In Japan and Europe, the equivalents of IBM, GMs and AT&T were able to keep out the competition.
For America the lesson is clear; avoid becoming more European or more Japanese. Keep taxes and regulation low. Make sure that however economically important they might be, no big business is able to rig the market through the rule book.
Retirement is one of the critical financial elements in the lives of thousands of Mississippi. With many Mississippians being employed by the state and local governments, the status of the state’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is extremely important.
According to numbers provided by PER, approximately 13 percent of the total workforce members in the state are active members of the PERS system. This equates to approximately 150,000 Mississippians. Additionally, the system has approximately 112,000 retirees. According to the United States Census Bureau, 488,000 Mississippians are over 65 years of age, and about 11 percent of them are PERS retirees. In all, about 1 in 10 Mississippians are either active members or retirees under PERS. Despite the importance that PERS carries for so many Mississippians, it has not done very well.
The structure of the Public Employee Retirement System is based on a system of Defined Benefit Plans. Under this structure, government employees have a defined percentage of their income directed to the PER system (currently 9 percent). The government entity the employee works for also contributes to the fund via a match that is calculated as a percentage of the employee’s income (currently 17.4). In return, PERS invests the funds and guarantees that the employee will receive defined retirement pension benefits, even if the funds do not provide a good return on investment.
From a limited viewpoint, it may appear that PERS is doing relatively well with its investment returns. The fund saw a 32 percent increase in investment value from June 2020 to June 2021. However, it is important to note that the stock market was in a rebound from the historic effects of 2020 Covid. Thus while the fund saw large increases in 2021, annual investment returns in 2020 were only 3 percent. Furthermore, these increases are not enough to fully address the systemic issues that have caused a gap between the fund’s obligations and actual investment returns.
According to PERS 2020 fiscal year report, the fund had assets with a market value of $28.4 billion and total liabilities of $47.4 billion. This means that the investments were only supporting 61 percent of the total retirement liabilities. According to a recent report issued by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the state retirement system is the 15th most underfunded in the nation on a per capita basis. The state also has the highest amount in the country for unfunded liabilities as a percentage of GDP.
Although the policy issues surrounding the system are extremely complex, some fundamental reforms could be made to help address the level of underfunded liabilities. In addition, the state should also consider reforms that will provide government employees with greater retirement flexibility.
In the first place, it is important to consider the issues surrounding the assumed rate of return utilized by PER. In states across the country, an increasing amount of retirees and major market fluctuations such as the 2008 Crisis and the Covid impact in 2020 have shown many of the assumed rates of return to be higher than the actual annual averages. In light of this, some have called for PER administrators to lower the assumed rate of return to better account for the element of investment risk.
This alternative model that directly factors in risk is known as “risk-adjusted discounting.” Indeed, most of the retirement systems in states across the country have been all but forced to lower their assumed rates of return due to volatile market conditions. However, best practices have these changes implemented in the assumed rate of return without being forced to do so by the market.
Furthermore, rather than centralizing all pension investments into one centralized state agency, Mississippi should consider implementing reforms that would allow government employees more freedom with their retirement contributions.
Some states, such as Utah and Michigan, allow their government employees to opt to allocate funds to a 401(k) style Defined Contribution Plan. This gives state employees flexibility on what they would like to invest in for retirement if they choose to opt out of the standard Defined Benefit Plan. While 401(k) type plans do not have the same guaranteed return, employees have the benefits of greater growth potential, more portability, and the ability to have more personal responsibility over their retirement future.
Fiscal responsibility, good government, and sound public policy are important in ensuring that the public retirement system can best serve government employees. By implementing balanced reforms, the state could see a healthier retirement system that can serve its employees for years into the future.
In 2019, the Mississippi legislature passed the Broadband Enabling Act. This legislation gave Electric Power Associations (EPAs) the legal permission to use their existing infrastructure to bring broadband service to their ratepayers. While this has seen some success in expanding broadband access in the state, some key accountability reforms could cause better outcomes.
To grasp how broadband services are being brought to citizens via the EPAs, it is important to understand how they are structured. Most of the EPAs in Mississippi were founded in the 1930s and 1940s to bring electricity to rural areas. These entities are non-profit organizations operating under the direction of elected board members. They are also known as “electric cooperatives” or “electric co-ops.” They have a monopoly over their service areas, and the costs of operation determine the electricity rates that members pay.
This provides the context for the broadband rollouts authorized by the Broadband Enabling Act. Before the Act, EPAs were not permitted by law to operate as broadband service providers for their members. In the wake of the law’s passage, several of the state’s EPAs began conducting feasibility studies to determine the cost of broadband integration and the effects of such integration on electricity rates.
Upon review of the cost, some of the EPAs opted not to integrate broadband operations directly within their organizations, many due to cost concerns. Instead, some EPAs opted to enter into collaborative agreements with private sector internet service providers that permitted the use of electrical infrastructure for broadband deployment.
However, some EPAs did decide to become internet service providers for those in their services areas. The funding for these operations has been provided through a combination of federal, state, and local grants, along with the revenues generated from the electricity rates themselves.
Because individuals within an EPA’s service territory are subject to potential rate increases because of broadband network operation costs, accountability is important. Unlike a typical free-market context in which there is the element of consumer choice, electricity is different. In Mississippi, the government permits consumers to acquire electricity only from the entity that has been granted that particular service territory.
Thus, in the case of EPAs operating as electricity providers and internet service providers, mismanagement of the EPA’s broadband program can lead to increased costs for electrical consumers if a broadband program cannot sufficiently pay for itself.
This establishes the necessity that EPAs are accountable in the way they finance these broadband operations. While EPAs are required to regularly report to the state’s Public Service Commission regarding the legal compliance and financial records of electrical operations, the law is less clear on the extent of oversight for broadband services. Broadband service is not quite the same.
The Broadband Enabling Act does require an annual compliance audit for broadband-offering EPAs. However, financial and performance audits are not currently required by law. This presents potential issues for the citizens in the service territories of these electrical cooperatives. An EPA might be technically in compliance with the law, but that does not fully account for the finances of the broadband program that could ultimately lead to higher rates for those in the service territory.
In order to see a more financially sustainable future for the citizens who live in service territories under EPAs providing broadband, the state should consider enacting broadband financial auditing policies that will ensure more accountability. Such reforms would help ensure that mismanagement does not lead to electrical consumers paying for unreasonable utility bill increases because of EPA broadband buildouts. Broadband growth has immense potential for Mississippians, and the state should ensure that this growth through EPAs does not lead to unreasonable increases when it’s time to pay the electric bill.