Mississippi’s defense industry is in a position for growth. However, as the industry grows, it is important to consider the landscape of this sector and consider the key public policy reforms that can help it move forward.
According to the Department of Defense, Mississippi has the 10th highest defense spending as a percentage of state GDP. This works out to about 5.3 percent of the state’s total GDP. Some of the top entities to be awarded this spending include Huntington Ingalls, Olin Corporation, Seemann Composites, and Mississippi State University.
While the defense industry is unique in that it services a very specific market, the industry does not operate in a vacuum. Much of the defense industry is directly affected by the policies of the states they operate in. Like other industries, the defense industry is subject to regulatory policies, labor laws, business filing requirements, taxes, environmental regulations, and many other elements.
Thus, it is important for public policy to directly recognize the economic importance of the nation’s military-industrial complex. But at the same time, one of the most significant ways that states can support the development of the defense industry is to pass industry-agnostic policies that encourage free-market productivity and growth. Lower taxes, a lower regulatory burden, and a friendly business climate all contribute to the development of states so that they are better prepared to encourage defense companies to come to their states.
Currently, California has the highest level of total defense spending, followed closely by Texas. But the amount of companies willing to stay in California’s high tax and regulation environment is shrinking. The defense sector is no exception. One glaring example is Lockheed Martin, which has the highest amount of defense spending of any company in the nation. The company’s Fleet Ballistic Missile Headquarters, formerly based in Sunnyvale, California, moved to Titusville, Florida. On a smaller level but still significant level, Mississippi has also seen some defense sector migration from California. OceanAreo, an underwater drone development company with work in the defense and commercial sectors, recently announced its relocation from San Diego to Gulfport.
Mississippi has made many great strides in creating a friendlier business climate, but much work remains to be done. According to the Fraser Institute, Mississippi still ranks 41st for economic freedom. While states larger populations and financial investments might have more reasons for companies to relocate to them, Mississippi does not always have that same negotiating power. If the state wants to get more competitive and see defense industry growth, economic freedom reforms through lower taxes and regulatory reform are key ingredients to creating that environment.
The defense industry is the economic foundation for America’s defense of liberty against its enemies. Mississippi has an opportunity to see the growth of this sector in the state, but in order to see stronger growth in the sector that helps defend liberty, the state should start by expanding its own economic liberty. That’s the American way.
The housing market is booming. Median prices are reaching a record high, and economists are suggesting that these trends are not looking to cool off anytime soon. But some government real estate policies are still in need of reform.
Many might guess that real estate commission rates paid to agents might fluctuate with the increase in housing prices, especially in a free-market competition system. However, amidst this housing boom, the rates of commission fees for real estate agents rarely fluctuate below 6 percent. Many may consider this to be not much of an issue. However, a closer look at the government policies instituted to maintain this system goes against the very notion of a competitive free market.
The real issue is that various states throughout the United States have passed what are called “anti-rebate” laws that essentially create a system in which a pre-determined percentage is placed for a commission when services like real estate are offered. Even if a real estate agent or broker wanted to give a buyer or seller a rebate for the brokerage commission, such laws would prohibit them from doing so.
If free-market principles are truly the aim of good policy, anti-rebate laws need to be removed, or at the very least, strongly reformed. The Cato Institute has conducted substantial research on this issue, finding that the practice of government “steering” the real estate market is, in effect, a tax on mobility: “It penalizes a worker who wants to move for a better job or parents who want to relocate to build a better life for their family.” The system stands against those who desire to relocate, purchase a home, find better lives, and, in essence, the American dream.
This problem has also seen legal ramifications as various companies have either filed lawsuits against these laws or supported these legal claims. For example, the Consumer Federation of America and the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group have supported REX’s lawsuit against anti-rebate laws arguing that they stifle competition and ultimately harms consumers that are seeking to sell their homes. In REX’s lawsuit, in particular, an online brokerage firm that had a 2-3 percent commission fee, challenged Oregon’s policy that banned the firm from refunding commissions back to the buyer when they exceeded the desired amount.
While the outcome of cases like these is still to be determined, the seriousness of the issue in protecting the interests of companies and consumers cannot be overestimated. The Department of Justice has spoken to this issue in recent years and highlighted the anti-competitive nature of anti-rebate laws.
Mississippi is not exempt from this issue. According to Mississippi’s real estate regulations, no individual can receive a rebate for the commission costs of buying or selling a home. This stands against everything a free-market system is supposed to accomplish and only aids in the government’s incessant compulsion to control such markets.
Mississippi needs to return to a simpler economic scheme of allowing competition to dictate the rates and prices of the marketplace. The beauty of the free-market system is that problems often fix themselves when given enough time. Unfortunately, Mississippi has not given the free market any opportunity to do so in this area. It would be beneficial to at least give the free market a fighting chance.
The primary purpose of a business is to generate capital through the production of goods and/or services. But big businesses have also become increasingly involved in the political and ideological battles of the day. Some have supported the foundational principles the nation was founded on, while others have chosen the path of "political correctness."
In recent years, there has been a reaction among some that big business itself poses a threat to the values and priorities of the common man. While some big businesses have caused a great deal of harm, big business itself is not the real problem. In fact, a large portion of Americans provide for themselves through employment at these large companies. The problem is when big businesses embrace bad ideologies.
On the fundamental level, the larger a business is, the greater its capacity is for good or for evil. This goes both ways. For instance, American industrial companies were so successful in their production for the World War II war effort that they became known as "the arsenal of democracy.” On the other hand, several big businesses in Germany used government-sanctioned forced labor. They justified it with the Nazi logic of "German superiority.”
While many may gasp at such complicity with evil, these German companies simply did the same thing that many companies do today. They bought into the “politically correct” ideology of their time and context. In the Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, this was the Nazi ideology of racism and world conquest. These companies then used their strength to generate profits in bad faith through forced labor. On the other hand, the American companies used their economic position in the market to rally behind the American ideals of liberty and patriotism while producing honest profits for their companies. The contrast is striking.
America is no longer at war with an evil foreign power set on taking over the world. Yet, the threat of certain ideologies in corporate America is more real than ever. History teaches us the immense danger of large corporations simply going along with whatever ideology of the day happens to be in fashion. But these lessons have not been learned by all.
While the politically correct corporations of today are not embracing the ideology of Nazism, many of them have embraced other evils that are popular in our day. Companies have supported the breakdown of society through critical race theory. Some have used their dominant market share to censor certain views that go against the orthodoxy of the Left. While others have leveraged their political and cultural clout to campaign against the rights of unborn children, contribute to the breakdown of the family, and support the election of political leaders that will expand government and oppose freedom.
Many of tomorrow's business executives are indoctrinated in schools and colleges with the tenants of the Left’s orthodoxy. So we should not be surprised when the companies they lead become more concerned about being “woke” than producing quality products. When a large company contributes to the breakdown of the nation, the fault does not lie in the size of the business. The fault lies with the decision of the company to mix “political correctness” with its profits.
Bad ideologies are damaging no matter where they are found, not just in big business. These ideologies have infiltrated into America’s government, media, corporate world, public opinion, and universities. To protect the nation from the dangerous consequences of such ideologies, America needs hearts and minds that are grounded in the principles it was founded on. This is the true key to victory against the assault on the nation’s founding ideals.
There is only one moment that has been forever seared into the collective memory of living Americans: the horrific terrorist attacks on our homeland twenty years ago on September 11, 2001.
We all know exactly where we were that day. We remember the feelings of confusion as the initial reports came in. The horror of watching fellow Americans jump to their deaths and the towers collapse. The anger at realizing that we were watching an intentional attack. The fear of what would come next. The acts of heroism we witnessed. The unity that followed. The resolve to prevail. The vows to never forget.
If we had known on September 11th that America would not suffer another terrorist attack during the next twenty years, we would have been relieved and even overjoyed. It’s easy to forget that now. Sometime during the past ten or fifteen years, the fear of another major terrorist attack receded. It wasn’t something that average Americans worried about at all. But twenty years ago, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the single biggest fear gripping America was the fear of another large-scale terrorist attack.
We saw daily warnings and color-coded terrorist threat advisories on our televisions. We worried about how easy it would be for a lone terrorist to detonate a dirty bomb in a crowded metropolitan area. We worried that attacks on our infrastructure could cripple us. We worried about becoming the next victim of terrorism anytime we boarded planes, trains, or even buses. We worried that every crowded sporting event might become a massacre.
For the past two decades, none of that has come to pass. Instead, thousands of our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters fought the enemy overseas and prevented the fight from coming here. While most Americans returned to their normal lives after the shock of 9/11 wore off, our veterans paid the cost for that normalcy for the next two decades. Nearly 2,500 American veterans were killed in Afghanistan. Hundreds more were injured, and countless others still carry the hidden wounds of war.
Unlike many of America’s past wars, the war in Afghanistan was not supported by a military draft. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought in Afghanistan were part of an all-volunteer force. Many of those veterans dropped their life plans and enlisted in the military after 9/11 specifically so they could join the fight to defend our nation, our values, and our way of life. They did this even though nobody asked them to and despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of their colleagues and peers did not.
Americans are blessed to have a unique generation of volunteer veterans in our families, communities, and workplaces. As we mark the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and take stock of the past two decades, we should be sure to honor their sacrifices.
Aaron Rice is an Iraq War veteran and a Purple Heart recipient. He is also the director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, a nonprofit, constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
Mississippi has been in a precarious constitutional problem for the last couple of months as it has tried to deal with ballot Initiative 65, an initiative that would allow the use of medical marijuana in the state. The initiative was passed by a wide margin. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court shot down the initiative due to a discrepancy in the Mississippi State Constitution.
During the 1990s, Mississippi passed Section 273, an amendment to the state constitution that establishes the ballot initiative process. The process requires that a certain number of signatures be gathered from each of the five districts in the state. The problem is that Mississippi no longer has those five districts. Due to the 2000 Census, Mississippi now has four districts, and the state legislature never passed anything to resolve the matter. Thus, when the issue came around as to the legality of the ballot initiative, the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegitimate. This did not happen on account of the people of Mississippi. Rather, it was a legislative oversight. This was a massive omission in Mississippi’s legal and democratic framework.
Many may ask, what’s the big deal? It’s not even a difference in the number of signatures but the number of districts. There ultimately is no mathematical difference when we analyze the situation. The nature of laws is that there is no room for exception, and if there is a bad law in place (or worse, a vague law), proper procedure must be in place in order to remedy it. The problem is that for the last 20+ years, the state legislature has neglected to do its job and come to a resolution regarding the nature of ballot resolutions, and due to their hesitancy, unintended consequences have arisen.
However, the situation may be even more sinister. The very nature of the legislature and supreme court keeping a technically erroneous ballot initiative system gives them the extra power to strike down any ballot initiative they dislike. And yet, who are the ones responsible for fixing the problem? The very people that have that power: the legislature. Regardless of personal views of marijuana usage, Mississippi's government should not portray itself as being accountable through ballot initiative and yet keep a technicality on the books that renders the process ineffective.
Last month, lawmakers claimed that they are soon to be resolving the issue with medical marijuana. However, what continues to be the discussion is how to resolve the problem with ballot initiatives and Mississippi’s constitutional discrepancy. Mississippi needs to decide if they want to be a ballot initiative state or not. Right now, it is simply in a state of limbo, acting like it is a ballot initiative state when in reality, it is not. Accountability needs to be in place at some level. Mississippi needs decisive action to settle on what that looks like.
Jimmy Carter’s presidency is starting to look not so bad after all.
The 39th US President’s four years in the Oval Office were not a happy time for America. Abroad, the United States was humiliated by a series of foreign policy debacles. At home, energy costs and inflation soared. Things got so bad under Carter people started to believe in America’s inevitable decline.
Japan, they said in the late 1970s, was going to overtake America economically. The Soviets were supposed to prevail around the world. America had lost her sense of direction, and her enemies were emboldened.
Something very similar is happening right now.
Whether you agree with the US withdrawal from Afghanistan or not, it is hard to imagine a worse way of handling it than the Biden administration managed last week. Artificial deadlines for the US departure were announced. Precious few plans for an orderly evacuation were made. Tons of US taxpayer military equipment was left for the Taliban.
A recent arrival in the United States, over the past seven months I have often found it hard to find any objective news or analysis about the Biden administration. Mainstream journalists seem so partisan that what they tell us often says more about their own personal preferences than it does about the achievements of this administration.
Last week that changed. Not even the most partisan apologist for this administration could ignore the images of the disaster unfolding in Kabul.
If Washington’s politicians are so inept at extricating the US from Afghanistan, what about their judgment on everything else? What confidence can we have, for example, in the billion-dollar boondoggle Biden & co have conjured up known as the Green New Deal?
Having spent eye wateringly large amounts of money, the government has caused inflation. This inflationary effect, officials insist, is only transitory. Really? How can we have confidence that an administration unable to see two weeks ahead in Afghanistan knows what lies on the economic horizon in the months and years ahead?
Wealth taxes, the radical progressives insist, are essential. Only by redistributing America’s wealth, Washington insiders say, can they provide us with the public services we want. I am not sure I would trust this lot to run a bath, let alone to know what public services people in Mississippi want.
At times like this, it is easy to give in to despair. Federal officials seem so hopeless and those that preside over public policy seem so inept, it is easy to become despondent. But remember this; no one ever won by betting against America.
If we feel that the American Republic is under pressure at home and abroad, imagine what it must have felt like in the 1940s or the late 1970s? Then the challenges America faced must have seemed overwhelming. Yet the United States came through.
America will find a way through these challenges. Foreign policy drift will be replaced by resolve. High tax and spend policies will pave the way for a return to good economic housekeeping.
The key to reviving America’s standing in the world and overcoming the legion of domestic problems created by big government intervention is to stay true to America’s Founding ideals.
America is unlike any other country in the world because she is, and she remains, an experiment in self-government. Under the US Constitution, government remains limited, power is constrained. Those that make public policy are held accountable to the people.
Provided the United States stays true to those principles, this period will pass. It will be morning in America again.
This opinion piece by Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, originally appeared in the Northside Sun
Drones are rapidly emerging as one of the top technologies for growth. While in former days, drones were primarily used in only certain scenarios, their applications have grown, the technology is less expensive, and people of this country are ready to get behind it. But how does Mississippi's public policy fare in the race to get drones in the sky?
According to a report produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Mississippi ranks almost at the bottom for drone readiness (48th). The report measured several factors and found that Mississippi does not have an environment that is as conducive to drone industry growth as it could be. While the drone industry itself in Mississippi has many growth opportunities and is continuing to expand, state policy has not gotten up to speed with the development of this emerging technology.
Mississippi has the potential to lead the nation in many kinds of drone uses. Such uses would include agricultural surveying, rural delivery, emergency rescue, health care, and many uses that are yet to be discovered. Nevertheless, despite the potential that drones carry, state law is unprepared to facilitate the drone industry fully.
Meanwhile, other states have seized the initiative to encourage the development of drones. Nevada for instance, has a drone task force that is comprised of leaders across state government, business leaders, and research institutions. Rather than serving as a regulatory agency, the task force provides a centralized point for state leaders to produce drone policy recommendations that are informed by the people of the state. Unfortunately, Mississippi has no such task force. This leaves the lingering questions about drone usage to multiple agencies, and no long-term vision is put forth for drone growth in the state.
Another significant matter in the utilization of drones is the question of property rights. While all states have clearly defined statutes on what constitutes trespassing on physical property, there is a degree of ambiguity regarding the air above someone’s property. To address this, some states have enacted laws that specify whether or not a drone or aircraft is being a nuisance and violating the rights of a property owner below.
By having such laws, these states are protecting property owners from drone usage that may lower their property values and interfere with the use of the property. At the same time, such statutory definitions of “air rights” also protect drone operators from frivolous lawsuits. In this way, property owners can have legal recourse against actual drone-use abuses, while at the same time drone operators can have a statutory definition as a protection against frivolous claims.
Despite the benefit of such a policy, Mississippi has no statutory definition of “air rights,” and as such, the state leaves it to the sole discretion of the courts to decide if a drone is violating property rights. By leaving this question with no statutory definition, the state has the door open for potential conflict between drone operators and property owners.
Finally, the state of Mississippi has very little clarity regarding the use of drones above public right-of-way. While the Federal Aviation Administration generally has jurisdiction over airspace itself, state and local law sometimes intersects with FAA jurisdiction at lower altitudes (generally below 200 feet). By statutorily outlining drone operations at low altitudes above certain roads and other public rights-of-way, the state could create a network of “drone highways.” This would provide clear guidelines that would facilitate drone operations by providing areas with clearly defined drone policies. This removes the regulatory complexity that can occur when operators go through multiple legal jurisdictions in the state and have to make route adjustments.
Mississippi has the potential to see significant growth in its drone industry. By providing sound public policy reforms that support drone operators and property owners, Mississippi will have a framework that promotes free-market growth of the drone industry. Drones carry big potential for the Magnolia State. Public policy should encourage this potential so that even the sky is not the limit.
The United States has once again seen a rise of COVID-19 cases, especially given the surge after the new Delta variant of the virus. Unfortunately, after over a year of learning about this pandemic and attempting to find solutions to it, certain policies are not making the situation any better.
Granted, mask requirements are becoming less stringent, and the vaccine does appear to aid in the numbers. However, the healthcare system throughout the country is still swamped with cases. Just a couple of days ago, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that patients occupy 77.3 percent of all ICU beds, 28 percent of which are comprised of confirmed COVID-19 patients, and this number is growing higher. Mississippi is not an exception to this. In the same report, it is listed as being at least 90 percent full.
These numbers do represent all cases at hospitals and not just those confirmed with the COVID-19 virus. However, this does present a problem with the healthcare system as a whole, as it no longer knows how to divide its resources between COVID-19 cases and other medical issues. As Hannah Cox from the Foundation for Economic Education demonstrates, much of this problem is a result of unnecessary government policy that does nothing but restrict people’s access to the care they need.
For example, the government has instituted a policy referred to as Certificate of Need. In essence, this policy restricts smaller hospitals from adding additional beds and space unless they petition it to a governing board. The problem is that larger competitors get to come in and virtually push out any opportunity for such hospitals to be granted this request. As a result, larger competitors stay at the top. Consumers pay more for services and have fewer options for affordable quality healthcare. Additionally, no wonder hospitals are quickly reaching beyond capacity given that more people need care and there is no opportunity for expansion. Ironically, many of the states that have these laws are having problems with capacity, and a movement has already begun requiring the reform of these laws.
Another example that has contributed to the potential healthcare backlog is the policy of some hospitals that nurses either get vaccinated or be terminated from employment. Regardless of one’s individual views on the vaccine’s benefits, this sort of treatment of our pandemic heroes has left a bad taste in the healthcare workers’ mouths. Unfortunately, many healthcare workers are strongly considering leaving.
The situation once again confirms that overreaching policies are not the path to recovery from Covid. A free-thinking people are the ones with the real ability to solve our nation’s problems. The more bureaucrats and legislators that understand that, the better we will be when facing a national crisis.
Perhaps there is no function of government that citizens use more than the road system. Unfortunately, much of Mississippi’s roadway system is in poor condition. As state leaders grapple with proposals to restore the roads and repair the bridges, it is essential that funding is prioritized towards repairs and maintenance on existing roadways rather than expansion projects.
In the construction and operation of highways, there is a need for the state to balance the cost of capital improvements (such as building a new overpass bridge or adding a lane) with the costs of maintenance. There is a balance between meeting the growing highway needs of the state and maintaining existing infrastructure. In light of this, it is the priorities that determine whether funding is going to be allocated to a maintenance project or an expansion project. Several key factors play into determining what the priorities are.
The Congressional Budget Office conducted a review of the United States infrastructure spending from 1956 to 2017. This review determined that state and local governments had spent $15 trillion on transportation and water infrastructure during this time period. According to the CBO report, state and local governments across the nation have spent $6 trillion on initial capital investments. The remaining $9 trillion went to operation and maintenance costs. On a practical level, this means that for every $1.00 spent on capital infrastructure investment, states saw $1.50 in maintenance costs.
This data also suggests that every dollar of capital investment carries an additional price tag that Mississippi should account for when allocating infrastructure funds. Without funds being set aside exclusively for maintenance costs, proposals to increase taxes may later follow if most of the federal and state money ends up being spent on capital improvements. Furthermore, the cost of delayed maintenance also has an effect on citizens’ vehicles. In fact, poorly maintained roads cost Mississippi motorists $1.5 billion a year, at approximately $747 per driver.
Mississippi has made the mistake of going above its initial budget on infrastructure before. This led to funds being diverted from maintenance on existing roads. In 1987, the state legislature passed a bold vision for highway expansion in the state called the Four-Lane Highway Program. The legislation specified a several-year plan to expand and improve the state highway system through a series of road construction projects. The initial budget for the program was $1.6 billion, with plans to spend it in three phases from 1987-2001. The actual cost of these three phases later increased to $2.2 billion in 1994. The 1994 legislature also expanded the original project to include a fourth phase, which raised the total estimated project cost to $3.6 billion.
Additionally, a report from the state legislature’s PEER Committee produced in 2000 found that the project completion estimates had increased again. This time, the project budget request had increased to $5 billion. The committee concluded that the drastic cost increases had been due to inaccurate cost estimates in the original plans. These inaccurate cost estimates did not properly account for the costs of bridges, the inflation rate, and some other factors.
PEER also found in the report that in the midst of trying to meet the additional costs, the Mississippi Department of Transportation diverted federal funds that could have been used on the maintenance of existing roads towards the expansion projects. By prioritizing the expansion projects over the maintenance of existing roads, MDOT had neglected to maintain many of the existing roads and incurred the additional repair costs that come with delayed maintenance.
Despite the initial target year of 2001, it was not until 11 years later in 2012 that MDOT reported all of the road projects in the initial proposal as complete, with the exception of a highway in the Port Gibson area that has not yet been completed. These circumstances are a strong reminder of the importance of properly allocating highway funds.
Mississippi may be in a better administrative position than it was in the 1980s and 1990s to deliver effectively planned highway projects. A report by the Office of the State Auditor found that MDOT has relatively efficient project procedures and processes. Despite the administrative improvements, it remains vital that the state has a highway upgrade and maintenance agenda that does not overextend the state budget by building highways that deplete funding for the maintenance of existing highways.
These highway funding questions could be confronting Mississippi soon. An infrastructure bill for $1.2 trillion recently passed the United States Senate with implications for higher taxes and more wasteful deficits. In the wake of this Senate passage, a flood of federal funding could be coming to the Mississippi if the bill passes the House of Representatives. According to the White House, Mississippi stands to receive approximately $3.5 billion in highway funding under the bill’s current form. This opens up the possibility for new projects that could go over budget and take away from maintenance funding if improperly planned.
If an influx of federal highway funding comes to Mississippi, state leaders would be responsible for ensuring that the federal funds don’t cause the state to overextend its highway budget. This federal funding would come from irresponsible federal spending that would already hurt Mississippi taxpayers by raising inflation and increasing the national debt. In light of this, the legislature should take great care to ensure that the state properly balances these funds between improvement projects and maintenance projects. That way, the state doesn’t have to make a choice to either divert funds between projects, leave existing roads in disrepair, or raise taxes on the taxpayers.
Quality roads and bridges are essential for the economy to grow and for the people of the state to expand and prosper. Rather than the problematic practice of expansion at the expense of maintenance, the state highway system should be grounded in a system that balances taxpayer resources. Mississippi needs dependable roads. Sound funding allocation practices are an important step to reach that need.