close

Despite being a fairly conservative state, Mississippi still spends a large amount of its state budget on welfare and entitlement programs. Many of the programs themselves have structural problems on a policy level. Yet, many have also managed to cheat the programs themselves and exacerbate the problems that systemically arise from welfare and entitlement systems.

In order to grasp the importance of accountability and verification with the use of state welfare dollars, it is vital to grasp the scale of welfare and entitlement spending in the state. The state budget allocates much of its budget to welfare and/or entitlement programs such as Medicaid, TANF, Division of Community Services, and others. There are really two main types of fraudulent activity that contribute to the waste of taxpayer dollars in this system.

The first is the more blatant type of fraud in which an individual utilizes the money in these programs without having ever qualified for them in the first place. This is the case with many of the recent high-profile scandals in the state in which millions of dollars were directly stolen from these programs. This is also the case when individuals submit fraudulent documents that allow them to “qualify” for state resources that they would not qualify for legitimately.

The second type of fraud is if an individual initially qualifies for a program and then attempts to hide a change in circumstances, such as an income increase.  For most programs, state law requires individuals to notify the government if a change in circumstances has made them ineligible for the program. Such fraud goes against the allegedly temporary basis that these programs are designed for.

Both types of fraud have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars over the years. The systems themselves already have to deal with the challenges of managing the funds, and fraud adds an additional layer of complexity. In order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being consumed by fraud, the state should take proactive measures that require more verification and accountability protocols for the use of these funds.

The state already has access to several levels of verification, including driver’s licenses, state income tax returns, unemployment records, and others. Rather than having vague rules that vary from agency to agency and have numerous administrative loopholes, the state should consider inter-agency identity and income verification procedures that fill in the gaps. In some cases, even a basic cross-reference of welfare applications with state income tax returns could provide documented proof.

Instead of having policies that allow fraud to slip through frequently, state leaders should consider leveraging every available tool to verify that state welfare dollars are not lining the pockets of fraudsters. This is a critical step to help cut down on the waste of funds that digs right into taxpayers' pocketbooks.

The conversation of race and social justice often becomes inextricably linked with the conversation of diversity. Despite this questionable emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the consistency of such an emphasis on diversity could be measured against other metrics that emphasize merit and actual viewpoint diversity.

The irony is that despite the emphasis on diversity and the desire to promote an atmosphere of acceptance, companies and agencies are quite selective in the metrics and categories of diversity that are evaluated and prioritized. They are required by law to practice equal employment practices. However, this simply means that they cannot refuse to hire an individual based on characteristics protected by law (including race, gender, and religion).

Beyond that, employers can prefer some diversity characteristics over others. This is why race and gender are always evaluated in corporate responsibility reports and almost never political affiliations or religions. In other words, America is pursuing diversity, the question still remains however, what kind of diversity?

The evidence is clear that diversity in the workforce is beneficial in providing innovative solutions. However, despite the present emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the data suggests that diversity benefits primarily come from diversity of thought rather than the amount of pigment in one’s skin.

People who think differently approach problems differently. Therefore, people proposing the same exact solutions to a problem will be less likely if the group consists of people from different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view. Companies and agencies that incorporate a diversity strategy are 1.7 times more likely to find innovative solutions to their respective problems. Companies that diversify their workforce see 1.4 times more revenue. Decision-making is two times faster in diverse teams. The obvious reason for these types of statistics is that diversity of thought provides an atmosphere in which group-think is minimized.

This is why viewpoint diversity, such as political or religious diversity, are important in assessing government and corporate pursuits of diversity as a whole. Without these metrics, government and corporate elites have the opportunity to dictate not only how diverse their teams should be, but also what groups they desire to leave out or minimize based on religious or political viewpoints. Not only does this not promote true diversity but it strays dangerously close to promoting social group-think of one particular ideology.

People often advertise that diversity as a concept means that when someone comes into work, they should bring their whole selves. Pat Gelsinger, CEO of Intel, said something quite interesting in that part of one’s whole self should be one’s religion, and that needs to be on the diversity radar: “If I can’t express my Christian faith in the workplace, [it’s] not a diverse workplace.” Promoting these ideals are required to ultimately promote true diversity. The problem is that the dominant view of diversity is defined by simply increasing minority representation. This is only one part of the puzzle of diversity and is short-sighted in scope to promote some alternative agenda. It is critical to cultivate an environment both inside government operations and in the corporate world to approach diversity in a way that dissuades the use of mechanical quotas: treating diversity as a quantity rather than a quality. Government policies that mandate such an approach to diversity discourage true diversity by viewing individuals in categories, rather than viewing them as individuals.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Jackson, MS): One of America’s largest conservative think tanks is partnering with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy to debate Critical Race Theory.

On Tuesday, November 9, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy will host Mike Gonzalez, a Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and America’s leading expert on Critical Race Theory, at an event in Jackson.

“As the leading conservative advocacy organization in the state, we are delighted to be partnering with the leading conservative think tank in the United States,” said Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

“Critical Race Theory is deeply divisive and risks reversing many of the advances made in America since the Civil Rights era,” Carswell added.  

“Our recent report on Critical Race Theory revealed that this ideology is being advanced in our education system, perhaps most aggressively in public universities. While the education establishment often seeks to deny that they are pushing this radical, progressive agenda, we uncovered incontrovertible evidence that they are.”

Author of The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free and, most recently, BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution, Mr. Gonzalez has crisscrossed the country, advising lawmakers and citizens alike on what we need to do to safeguard America from this Left-Wing dogma.

At the seminar, Mr. Gonzalez will present the audience a number of resources and evidence on Critical Race Theory to:



For more information or to request an interview with Mississippi Center For Public Policy President & CEO Douglas Carswell, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].

Why is Bitcoin worth as much as it is? For the same reason that anything is worth what it is.

The price of Bitcoin reflects the extent to which people want it relative to the amount of it out there. With the total supply of Bitcoin fixed, the massive rise in the price of the world’s first cryptocurrency – from a few cents to over $50,000 in a few years - is a reflection of soaring demand.

The fact that one Bitcoin is worth tens of thousands of dollars, however, seems to offend some folk. Why is it, they want to know, that a piece of software code should be worth so much?

There are no shortage of those that have compared the Bitcoin boom today with the 17th century Tulip bubble in Holland. Tulip mania saw vast sums invested in tulip bulbs, which ultimately proved to be more or less worthless.

Bitcoin, the skeptics often point out, has little utility. It’s just a piece of code – you can’t use it for anything. So why are so many people pouring so much money into it? Its not even a very effective method of payment, given that the value of Bitcoin is so volatile.

But surely many of the same things could also be said about gold?

Gold, too, has limited utility. Beside jewelry and a little electronics, you can’t really do a lot with it.

Nor is gold, even in coin form, a very good way to pay for things.

Not so long ago, the economist John Maynard Keynes dismissed gold as a ‘barbarous relic’. It was, according to this Cambridge-educated technocrat, absurdly old fashioned that a base metal should serve as a reserve currency.

Twenty years ago, British finance minister Gordon Brown, thought something similar when he ordered the Bank of England to sell off its gold reserves.

But, of course, what Keynes called a relic retained its value long after he had passed on. When Brown began to sell off Britain’s gold reserves, he did so for $275 per ounce. Gold today is worth over $1,700 per ounce.

Gold, like Bitcoin, is not valuable because it does something. It is valuable because lots of people want it, and there isn't much of it about. That is all.

With neo-Keynesians running many of the world’s central banks, I suspect that demand for an alternative to their paper fiat currencies will only increase.

As the country continues to return to normal from the Covid pandemic, issues of public policy arise and call for the attention of lawmakers to address. School policy has become one of those issues.

John Kristof of EdChoice has released a report that offers insight into the opinions and attitudes of a nationally representative sample of parents regarding schooling and its relation with Covid currently.

For one, the data suggests that parents are becoming more comfortable with sending their kids back to school for in-person learning. According to the report, 63 percent of parents polled showed that they were either “very comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable” with sending their kids back to school in person. Moreover, that number has risen from the previous month by 6 points.

Two possible explanations can come from this. Either parents see that the Covid situation is improving and, therefore, are becoming more comfortable, or they see no change and are gradually becoming more comfortable with sending their kids anyway. While the former is more likely, either option demonstrates that government simply cannot stick with the status quo. Something has to change to promote the education of children. Therefore, this issue ought to be a top issue for state legislatures.

Additionally, the data shows that parents view government institutions as the worst entities to respond to the pandemic. Even state governments rank similarly with national institutions such as the federal government, media, and national corporations. A third of those polled found state government as an obstacle rather than an aid to an individual’s way of life.

As things gradually return back to normal, people as a whole may become impatient with the government education system's inability to get closer to normal as well. Unfortunately, government is often an obstacle to meaningful change, so the default should allow more individuals and their families to make their own choices. This promotes true educational freedom.

It is important to note that the slight increase in support of mandatory masks does not necessarily provide a direct correlation with support for government mask mandates in schools. As time moves on and children continue to remain either out of school or in some Covid-related alternative, parents are gradually going to show support for any requirement for in-school learn as their desire to return to in-school learning increases.

 The prospect of masks protecting children at school is inconclusive at best, and some have suggested that they do more harm than good. However, if parents are given a choice between in-school learning with masks or some temporary solution that they think can no longer work, they will likely show support for masks. However, it is possible that such support is given as a concession rather than a preference.

The greatest takeaway from this report is that children have been severely affected by the pandemic. If a child was required to quarantine from school, most had to be quarantined from school multiple times. The average number of quarantines per child was about 2.54. This is a massive disruption to the development and education of the child.

Ultimately, as it approaches K-12 education policy, the state should adopt a philosophy of freedom and choice for families. Seventy-four percent of parents support school choice programs such as Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs). Additionally, parents desire to expand and promote programs such as school vouchers and charter schools to open up options for students as we exit the pandemic. These programs should be expanded to promote more options for families. Government often has a track record of inhibiting freedom. School choice reforms are an opportunity to change this trajectory and provide educational opportunities to families in the state.

Certifications and training are a key part of occupational regulations. Amid the pandemic, many occupational licensing authorities have allowed applicants to take required education courses online instead of exclusively in-person. While online courses are a good step in the right direction, additional technologies could also carry potential.

Many occupational licensing structures require individuals to take certain courses to get certified and then take additional continuing education courses. In the not-so-distant past, applicants would have to take required education and certification courses at the physical places and time determined by government authorities. In addition to the licensing fees and other burdens, such courses often required individuals to set aside time away from their usual course of business for travel. Sometimes they had to drive many hours to attend a class or take a test.

This can change in the context of online courses and certification. While some licensing, certification, and continuing education generally still occur in an in-person context, there has been an expansion in online courses, particularly after the pandemic. Facing the pandemic reality that many individuals would not be able to meet continuing education and/or licensing requirements without online accommodations, several regulatory boards were all but forced to allow for online integration.  

These advances suggest that additional technologies could also carry the potential for occupational licensing reform. For instance, virtual reality (VR) headsets are already being used in a variety of extremely technical contexts, with a great degree of success. The military has used VR to prepare soldiers for the battlefield. The medical sector has used VR training for emergency scenario simulation. Industrial and manufacturing sectors have incorporated VR into technical training, and first responders have utilized it for emergency preparedness.

These technologies, such as online learning and VR have expanding adoption, and there has been real-world success -including in some high-intensity fields. It would make sense for government regulatory agencies to incorporate such technologies as an option in their approval processes. Of course, not all applicants would prefer to use such technologies for their licensing or continuing education requirements, and legacy options should remain available. Yet, having new technologies also approved as an acceptable option for occupational certification and education could encourage occupational participation from tech-savvy citizens -especially the younger generation. Mississippi and other states would do well to consider incorporating emerging technologies into its regulatory licensing systems. New technologies are continually proving their value for training and certification. Occupational licensing is already a big enough burden. The government should make every effort to incorporate effective technologies so that its citizens have greater flexibility in their occupational certification and education.

“Flatten the curve” is a phrase that Americans who lived through the COVID-19 pandemic will never forget. Its arrival in our collective lexicon marked the moment that our daily lives were dramatically changed for months on end. As COVID patients overwhelmed our hospitals, the goal was to lessen the strain by slowing transmission of the virus to levels that hospitals could handle. Those efforts were not enough, so we were forced to face the virus without enough hospital beds and medical personal to treat the sickest among us. 

As we appear to be pulling out of the most recent Delta variant, it’s worth asking: why did it take so little to overwhelm Mississippi’s healthcare system to begin with?   

Like most public policy issues, there isn’t just one answer to that question. But there is one answer that stands out as the most obvious and easily fixable one: our state’s “Certificate of Need” (CON) laws.   

After all of the efforts to conserve and increase the number of hospital beds – going so far as to set up temporary tent hospitals – would you believe that Mississippi went into the pandemic with a policy of intentionally limiting the number of hospital beds in our state? Shockingly, we did. 

Even more shocking are the problems that CON laws were originally designed to solve: a facepalm-worthy fear of too much investment in the healthcare sector. The idea was that competition might lead health care businesses to build too many facilities, and that those facilities would be too large and too fancy, and then patients would receive subpar care and be overcharged for that care to cover the extravagance. Never mind that in every other industry competition increases quality, lowers prices, and spurs innovation.  

Just describing the way that CON laws actually work makes it easy to see what is really behind them: protecting established businesses from competition with newcomers. First, a would-be healthcare startup (or even an existing hospital that just wants to add more hospital beds or medical equipment) must complete an application to try to prove to the state government that there is a need for the new facility, beds, equipment, or services.  The fees for filing that application can be as high as $25,000, while the cost of paying the lawyers and consultants needed far exceed that amount. The application can take months to complete and years to go through the approval process. 

Once the application has been filed, the applicant’s competitors get to take them to court in an effort to prove that the new facility, beds, equipment, or services are not needed, and that the current market participants have patients taken care of just fine, thank you very much.   

After all of that time, money, and effort, the application can easily be denied, making all of it a waste. It’s not exactly a business-friendly system, to say the least.   

So how did having CON laws work out for Mississippi during the pandemic? According to the Reason Foundation, states with CON laws have exceeded 70 percent of their ICU capacity for an average of 14.99 days per month during the pandemic, while states without CON laws have done so for only 8.65 days per month. Cutting the length of our hospital bed shortages nearly in half during the pandemic likely would have saved lives and spared us from a lot of economic pain.   

Mississippi’s CON laws made the pandemic more difficult, but they will continue to lower the quality of our health care, increase the cost of health care, and reduce our access to care well beyond the pandemic. This legislative session, Mississippi should join the twelve other states that have repealed their CON laws and be done with it.   

Aaron Rice is the Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, a nonprofit, constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. 

Recent months have seen an economy that is continually struggling with supply chain driven shortages. As the world grapples with these challenges, the evidence suggests that much of these shortages are because of central economic planning based on Covid-driven public policy.

In the complex world of the pandemic, Americans have been inundated with information on the possible causes. Fires in key factories, natural disasters, and the like have been propounded as contributing factors in combination with the “effects” of the Covid pandemic. Yet, the question must be asked how much of these factors are attributable to the effects of people actually falling ill. While the tragedy of these cases is very real, the pandemic's effects have been grossly aggravated by central government planning that determined “essential” and “non-essential” businesses.  

Lessons from the Soviet Union Show that Central Planning Leads to Shortages

In order to understand how central government planning causes chronic supply chain shortages, it is helpful to heed the lessons of the Soviet Union. While the concept of shortages is relatively new to Americans, the Soviet Union saw consistent shortages, primarily for consumer goods. Long lines had many Soviet citizens waiting for simple items ranging from clothing to toilet paper. Shortages were so common, that when Soviet Parliament member Boris Yeltsin visited Houston in 1989, he was astonished by how well the grocery stores shelves were stocked, almost convinced that it all must have been staged just for his visit.

There was a reason that a shortage of consumer goods was a way of life in the Soviet Union. Using the Socialist economic model, the Soviet government engaged in centralized economic planning that prioritized certain sectors over others. The Soviets did this via 5-year plans that gave specific priority on outputs for certain sectors. While the plans were made to look good for paper and propaganda, such plans failed to account for unexpected circumstances and were determined by the minds of bureaucrats instead of being informed by the market.

Supply Chains Have Had Disruptions Before, Without Such Widespread Impact

In 2021, a casual read of the headlines could lead one to believe that many of the economic disruptions brought about by Covid just so happened to occur along with other unprecedented supply chain disruptions occurred that were unrelated to Covid. Yet, it is important to note that factory fires, hurricanes, labor shortages, blockages of shipping canals, geopolitical instability, and other factors are not new. These challenges have consistently occurred over the course of modern history.

While the effects of such challenges do have a real impact, the ability of the supply chain to respond to these challenges is the real test of strength. In former days, supply chain shortages in the free world were usually short-term and relatively isolated to specific sectors.

The laws of supply and demand were generally able to alleviate the pressures. As the demand for certain products went up, the cost went up as well.  In turn, these additional revenues helped alleviate supply chain challenges. Lower then return as the supply chain system adjusted to the new demand. But as the lessons from the Soviet Union demonstrate, this can only happen when a free market is permitted to operate and respond quickly to unexpected challenges.

 “Disaster Socialism” is a Prelude to Supply Chain Disaster

With Covid, many at the highest levels of government decided that the circumstances justified central economic planning based upon a model that many admittingly called “disaster socialism.” “Disaster socialism” is the idea that the free market cannot operate properly in a time of disaster and that government must implement economic controls. Under this application of “disaster socialism” certain businesses found themselves being labeled as either “essential” or “non-essential.” Meanwhile, the federal government did a massive welfare expansion program and moved America forward towards a more thorough economic reset.

Initially, the long-term effects of such policies were not as easily detected. The government simply pumped out money and mailed out stimulus checks to keep the economy afloat. But it wasn’t long before the realities of this arbitrary central planning began to take effect, particularly on the supply chain.  

The Model of Covid Central Planning

The federal, state, and local governments adopted a two-pronged model of central economic planning during Covid. While not all jurisdictions applied this model in the same way, the basic tenets were the same. This economic planning model employed:

  1. Simultaneous ban on the operations of certain businesses that were arbitrarily deemed “non-essential.”
  2. Pouring federal funds into the economy through unprecedented government spending.

In the area of sector-specific planning, governments determined what elements of the economy would operate based on their priorities. For instance, if a state government could determine that liquor stores should be open (note, a large source of tax revenue) while restaurants should be closed.

While state governments were primarily responsible for lockdowns and the closure of “non-essential businesses,” the federal government stepped in. It provided the additional element of central planning that called for an influx of funds in the economy. This was accomplished through massive spending plans.

The primary effects of such spending plans brought about inflation combined with a decrease in active workforce participation. Regardless of whether or not they had been directly labeled as a “essential” or “non-essential,” all businesses now had to grapple with the consequences of inflated prices and a labor shortage.

The Effects of Central Planning on the Supply Chain

All of these factors come full circle back to the principle of supply and demand and its impact on the supply chain. The logistics sector has now been hit by the same collateral effects of central planning that other sectors have been impacted by. Furthermore, the logistics sector had to deal with additional challenges due to government restrictions on movement and a lack of raw materials.  

As the demand for products increases to at or above pre-pandemic levels, the logistics sector has to deal with that demand while still attempting to address the backlog brought about by the effects of lockdowns and a decreased workforce. Like the failed socialism and central planning of the Soviet Union, the American economy is seeing what happens when those in power attempt to orchestrate the economy.

Yet there is a contrast to such failure, in 1776, the economist Adam Smith referred to the forces of the free market as an “invisible hand” that brings about the best outcomes for the economy and consumers. Such a belief in the free market has driven America forward. The whims of central government planning have failed the test of history. To see an effective supply chain in the future, America would do well to return to the free market principles of its past.   

Mississippi currently levies specific taxes on timber, gas, and oil extraction within the state. These taxes are known as severance taxes. While these taxes are a small part of the overall state tax structure, the small and unpredictable revenues suggest that these taxes should potentially be reformed or repealed.

The amount of revenue from severance taxes has been on the decline. According to the Mississippi Revenue Annual Report (FY 2020), severance tax revenue was well over $80 million in 2012.  However, that number took a steep decline between 2014 and 2015.  Now, severance revenue is at its lowest point: a little over $20 million. 

In 2020, the severance tax comprised a mere 0.5 percent of the total state tax revenue. When this much fluctuation occurs, and the tax makes up such a small portion of the state revenue, the question should be asked whether or not this tax merits being in place at all.

Mississippi’s severance tax rate rests at 6 percent and is evaluated based on the gas and oil’s value at the time.  On the other hand, Georgia’s rate is based on volume and collects 3 cents per barrel of oil or 1 cent per 1,000 cubic feet of gas.  Meanwhile, Pennsylvania, the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, does not have a severance tax and instead charges a well fee that is allocated to various local and state entities. In 2014, Elizabeth Stelle from the Commonwealth Foundation in Pennsylvania warned readers that a severance tax would harm local landowners, schools, and business owners for the sake of meeting the state’s “chronic budget shortfalls.” 

How does this compare to other states?  Thirty-four states have a severance tax and sixteen states have elected not to impose them. Comparing the rates and effects can be difficult in this respect as nearly all of these severance tax systems are constructed in many different ways and are designed by varying tax methodologies. 

It also important to note that severance taxes are among the most unpredictable form of tax revenue. With this in mind, the question must be asked whether or not the state can really justify having the tax when the revenues are small and unpredictable. The tax carries very little value from a budgetary angle since the expected revenues cannot be predicted easily.

For instance, as the value for natural gas has decreased, the tax revenues have decreased. According to the Mississippi Department of Revenue, between 2008 to 2017, the value of natural gas has decreased in value by 24 percent. This substantial decrease led to a decline in the total amount of revenue collected from the tax. If the state had budgetary funds dependent on the taxable value of natural gas, the funds would see negative effects from the decrease in natural gas value. A better model is to base state budget projections on revenues with greater predictability.  

Furthermore, while the severance tax impact on the total general fund is small, that does not isolate the taxpayers from its effects. The current tax rate of six percent on the total proceeds of fossil fuels and varying percentage rates for timber could actually have a real impact on the state's timber and fossil fuel industry. Both fossil fuels and timber are in competitive markets. A lower tax on these commodities could help Mississippians in the industry have a better market advantage.  

Of course, that raises further questions as to why the value has decreased so steeply in such a relatively short amount of time.  A popular answer is that renewable energy is taking the place of energies that traditionally contributed to severance tax revenue.  As the oil and natural gas industry seeks to find new business models to keep up with new technologies and cultural preferences, the government should not overburden the industry with taxes that have relatively low value to the state.

As a general rule, taxes do not solve problems.  In fact, problems are often solved when taxes are eliminated.  If states like Mississippi are worried about the decline of the oil and gas industry and the reduction of government revenue from it, perhaps a viable option is to simply decrease or eliminate the tax and let Reaganite economics take its course.  If severance tax revenue continues in the direction the trend is pointing, there may not be much to lose anyways.

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