close

In recent years, the education system has become increasingly centralized. As the federal government has continually expanded its role in education, and academic organizations have consolidated their influence, there has also been an increasingly radical push to remove even parents themselves out of the equation.

It is interesting to note that the increasing centralization of education has directly increased with the radicalization of educational priorities and agendas. Ironically this is despite the fact that many individual parents are far less likely to embrace the latest radical proposals from the Left, such as Critical Race Theory and transgender bathrooms.

However, those within the high ranks of the education establishment often buy into such priorities. According to research, many of those in high academia have gone increasingly even further to the Left. Thus, the more education is centralized, the greater the ability of the Left to advance ideologies that would not be democratically approved by the majority of parents.

These factors of polarization and radicalization have challenged much of the status quo in the education establishment. This is true both for the administrators within the system and the parents themselves.

The National School Boards Association sent a letter requesting federal law enforcement investigate certain parents who were opposed to certain policies as “domestic terrorists.” This ultimately led to the Mississippi School Boards Association announcing that it would break from the national organization.

Meanwhile, parents across the state and country are responding as well. On the one hand, parental rights and education policy have become one of the biggest hot-button issues at the ballot box. At the same time, “families have explored and adopted different approaches to schooling on an unforeseen scale.”  

Such factors shed light on a growing recognition that Washington's academic elites and education bureaucrats have overstepped their boundaries. The nature of this republic is the ability of the people to civilly push back against overreaches, whether they do it as an organization or as individuals.

This points back to the truth that an increasingly top-down structure for education is not the answer for true growth and educational excellence. Truly American education was built on the foundation that strong families, faith, limited government, and personal responsibility are the true foundation for educating the next generation. Long before the centralized educational structures of today were instituted, America still had an educated populace, that not only sustained itself – but thrived.

Perhaps the time has come that some in the American ethos are having a fundamental return back to an educational vision that seeks to preserve the things that made the nation great.  The survival of the American republic depends upon future generations that are grounded in the principles of freedom and liberty. Rather than handing this over to big office buildings in Washington and the academic elites, the success of the “American experiment” proves that individual education freedom and choice are the true avenues to make this happen.

Robbery occurs when one party uses intimidation, force, or threats of force to steal from another party. Most would agree that stealing is immoral, even if what was stolen was “for the greater good.” The same should be considered when talking of income taxes.

Americans first encountered an income tax in 1861 to pay for Civil War costs, demanding 3% on incomes above $800. It was replaced a year later and again in 1864 with even more progressive rates, but the acts were ultimately allowed to expire and mainly viewed as emergency measures for wartime situations.

Congress then readdressed tax laws, eventually passing the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, making it the first peace-time income tax. A 2% flat tax on incomes over $4,000 was to make up for revenue that would be lost by ongoing tariff reductions.

The Supreme Court ruled the tax unconstitutional on grounds of the 10th Amendment because it was not apportioned correctly amongst each state’s population, as then required with direct taxes. A shift from the individual rights of the Founders to the collective rights of the Progressives was a watershed transition in American thought at the turn of the 20th Century, which made the Court’s decision unpopular.

Proponents of a nationwide annual income tax argued it would force the so-called “robber barons” to pay taxes – It wasn’t supposed to provide a mechanism for Washington to reach into most Americans’ pockets. For example, the highest rate in the proposed legislation, greater than $500,000 (equivalent to $13,854,040 today), was only 7%. The average income for a single individual around the time was only $800 (equivalent to $22,166 today), plus there was an individual $3,000 exemption. So, yes, the initial rates, despite being progressive, appeared not all that burdensome. And it is easy to understand the frustration of the average American with monopolies and other forms of cronyism, but the collecting of taxes based off of one’s income would prove to be dangerous. The Federal Income Tax was finally solidified with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (Mississippi was the fifth state to do so in 1910), allowing Congress to levy one without apportioning it upon the states’ populations.

Fast forward to 2021, and the highest rate on the bracket starts at an income of over $523,600 for a single filer, and they’re taxed at 37%, meaning they would have $329,868 left. The average income today, for a single Mississippian is $45,081 (the lowest in the nation) and is taxed at 22%, leaving them $35,163 and not taking into account the state’s income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and any other levies. This goes to show that if you give the federal government an inch, it will take a mile, and often for the worse.

While there is plenty of room for an argument criticizing the harsh economic and fiscal implications income taxes have, a much simpler one is how immoral they are.

Just the thought of taxing someone based on how hard they work and how much they earn is depraved and selfish in nature. People have a right to the fruits of their labor. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, including taxation, and contribute the same as every other citizen for the upkeep of the society in which they live. The inherent idea that you must give up a determined amount of money to a government based on your income – or face severe consequences – is ludicrous. To quote Dr. Ron Paul: “If you concede the principle of the income tax, you concede the principle that the government owns your wages and permits you to keep a certain percentage of it.” The income tax, for the lack of a better word, is theft. Theft, as we should have learned as children, is wrong.

In taking someone’s income, the government then adds it to its funds for different programs, deeming itself a wiser steward of finances than who they took it from. The government believes that it can put someone’s money to better use than the original owner ever could and shows it is not truly concerned with the individuals’ specific needs, but only the general populace. The government has no interest in you or your loved ones’ prerogatives – Just y’all’s money.

While Mississippi can’t do much to fix its past sin of ratifying the 16th Amendment, what it can do is lessen the burden on workers by repealing its own income tax. It is the least it can do.

The Magnolia State’s income tax is a graduated one, with the first $2,000 of taxable income not taxed at all, the next $3,000 taxed at 3%, the next $5,000 at 4%, and anything over $10,000 is at 5%. This means that a worker earning over $10,000 will therefore be paying $1 in state income taxes out of every $20 they earn over $10,000. According to the Governor’s executive budget recommendations, an individual with a taxable income of $40,000 would be $1,850 better off if the income tax was eliminated. This leaves the individual more of their money and gives them the choice to spend it on their priorities.

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is making the case for the abolition of the state income tax, and you can read more about it here.

As America prepares to celebrate a day of Thanksgiving, it is important to look back and consider the lessons of our forefathers. All the way back to its humble beginnings at Plymouth Rock, the American legacy has shined as an example of what freedom and liberty can accomplish.

But in recent years, socialism has been on the rise in America. According to Pew Research, 42 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism. In addition, the nation has seen increasingly socialistic policies based on the concepts of big government and high taxation. In light of such circumstances, it is important to consider another episode when socialism was in America – and the failure of such socialism.

This story of socialism in America happened with none other than the Pilgrims themselves. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower, their voyage was financed by a group of investors called the Merchant Adventurers. As a means to pay back the investors, the Pilgrims initially set up a socialistic economy, with a portion of the communal proceeds going back to the investors. However, this system proved to be a failure from the start.

William Bradford, the second governor of Plymouth Colony, described what happened: “The failure of this experiment... [proves] the emptiness of the theory that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in a community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.”

To replace this failed approach, the Pilgrims instituted a system of private ownership, with each family having a farm to call their own. This led to the bountiful successes that culminated in long-term prosperity. Such a failure of socialism, when compared to capitalism, comes as little surprise. The basic principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility will always be more successful than the principles of coercion and a lack of private property.

From Plymouth Rock, all the way to the Soviet Union, socialism has an unbroken record of failure. The successful “American experiment” rejected socialism from its very start, and an embrace of socialism would ultimately spell its end. For the legacy of the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers to continue, the lessons of history must be heeded and followed. As families gather across the nation to thank God for the blessings of the year and look back on America’s legacy, it is important to ensure that future generations will be able to reap the blessings of freedom. As the rise of socialism seeks to undermine the country's future, a return to America’s foundation just might start by looking back to the lessons of Plymouth Rock.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Center for Public Policy today released a policy paper reiterating the case for abolishing the state income tax.

"It's time to give Mississippi a boost and get our state growing," said Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. “Abolishing the state income tax would give every Mississippi worker a pay raise. It would mean they had more money to spend on their priorities and families.”

“With Mississippi’s budget in a record $ 1 billion surplus, now is the time to do it” he went on to explain. “Let’s not wait for politicians to figure out new ways to spend that surplus. Let’s use it to allow workers to keep more of their own earnings.”

MCPP's "Axe the Tax” campaign is set to popularize the argument in favor of giving Mississippi a tax break through the abolishment of the state income tax. The report highlights many key points of the argument, including:


While it failed to pass in the 2021 legislative session, it is likely the issue of income tax abolition will be featured prominently in the 2022 session. MCPP hopes to see cooperation between state leaders ahead of this and offers these recommendations to see a successful process:

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy believes repealing the Mississippi income tax would be both a moral and economic good, leading to higher incomes, competitiveness, and prosperity for all Mississippians.

You can read the FULL REPORT HERE.

For media inquiries, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].

In the quest to expand broadband, some have suggested the implementation of government-owned broadband networks as a way to expand internet access. However, before such proposals are adopted, it is important to consider the key problems with government-owned networks.

In the first place, it is important to define what a government-owned network is (GON). GONs are broadband networks that are owned by a state or local government entity. The government entity usually also handles the operation of the network. Advocates of such networks claim that they help fill in the gaps in private sector service, but it is important to test such claims against the actual track record of the networks.  

Mississippi has not seen a widespread implementation of GONs. But the effect of potential future implementation should be considered in light of the experiences of other states. According to a study conducted by the Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance, GONs have a consistent track record of costing more than expected to build and maintain.

Such networks consistently do not reach their targeted populations effectively, with many of them only reaching as little as 40 percent of the targeted households. On top of this, many municipalities have incurred millions of dollars in debt that the broadband networks themselves have not been able to pay for. This has led to higher taxes in some places as municipalities try to recoup their losses.  

These facts point back to the principle that government entities interfering in the market by shifting taxpayer funds is an ineffective strategy for broadband. Not only are such programs prone to the problems mentioned above, but there is also the systemic issue with the fact that such government intrusion disincentivizes private sector broadband investment.

While a government network pulls from the flow of taxpayer dollars and lacks real competition, private sector companies have to deal with real challenges in a competitive market. In this way, government broadband has an unfair advantage over private-sector broadband companies. This stagnates private sector broadband investment in these areas and makes the broadband infrastructure expansion the exclusive domain of central government planners. Such centralized planning has a consistent track record of faulty projections and an inability to meet the demands of the market.  

In order to prevent such failures, Mississippi should do as other states have done and restrict the formation of government-owned networks. Particularly in the wake of new broadband funding coming into the state, leaders should ensure that government entities do not use the funding to create such networks that will put them into debt and crowd out the private sector.

Mississippi needs real solutions to broadband expansion. While municipal broadband advocates often insist that government-owned networks are a pathway to expansion, empirical evidence and free market principles suggest otherwise. Rather than bring false “solutions” to the broadband gap, Mississippi should pursue free-market models that reject the poor track record of government-owned networks.  

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.

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