close

In the wake of bad government policies, it can be fairly easy to focus on the “big picture” effects of arbitrary regulations, high taxes, reckless spending, and runaway inflation. When the cost of such proposals is billions and even trillions of dollars, the impact on the individual common man can get lost in the noise. 

It is critical to recognize the macro-effects of these bad policies, but just how much is being taken from Americans’ wallets and shopping carts?

Perhaps there is nothing more economically significant to working Americans than the cost of the goods they need to purchase for themselves and their families. The rising cost of consumer goods is a direct result of shortsighted government policies with effects that are ultimately felt by Americans at the grocery store, in the hardware store, and on the internet. While the issues are complex and impact a variety of sectors, some basic building blocks contribute to the rising cost of consumer goods that hurts hard-working Americans. 

Rising taxes are one of the key elements that cut into the affordability of consumer goods. While income taxes are a direct form of taxation that the government uses as a means to take from Americans’ incomes, other rising taxes ultimately increase the cost of what Americans are able to buy at the grocery store.

One of the key taxes that raises the cost of consumer goods is the increase in corporate tax rates. As President Biden has introduced tax reforms to raise taxes, he has insisted that the tax increases would only affect those who make over $400,000 a year. But the tax reforms also include measures to raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. 

According to a study conducted by the Cato Institute, increases in the corporate tax rate directly lead to an increase in retail prices as businesses attempt to offset their losses by passing it on to consumers. 

As if higher taxes are not enough, runaway government spending ultimately leads to inflation. Inflation causes the value of the dollar to go down and causes the price of consumer goods to go up. Thus, as the dollar has less purchasing power, the buying power of an individual is compromised. In fact, in the wake of unprecedented government spending, inflation has directly contributed to an increase in the consumer price index of more than 5 percent. 

Finally, expanded government regulations contribute to an increased cost in the price of consumer goods. As regulations increase, so too does the cost of production for businesses. 

In turn, the cost of goods goes up as businesses pass on the cost of these regulatory burdens to consumers. The cost of regulations on consumer goods disproportionately impacts lower-income families. This occurs because many of the consumer goods that have the highest price increases from regulations (such as electricity and health care) make up a higher percentage of lower-income family incomes than other goods that are not burdened as much by excessive regulation.

Rising corporate taxes, inflation, and increased regulation; all of these elements increase the cost of consumer goods for Americans. The nation is already reeling from the effects of a global pandemic, expanded income taxes, and a government in Washington that is all but disconnected from the interests of its people. 

While the politicians and bureaucrats of big government pour billions and trillions into the government machine, the citizens who make up this great nation's very fiber are working to provide for themselves and their families. A return to sound public policies of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and the success of the free market is critical for the cost of consumer goods to not be manipulated by further blunders.

“People overestimate what they can accomplish in one legislative session and underestimate what they can accomplish in ten.” 

In this series, we are conducting a review of the incredible record Mississippi lawmakers have compiled over the past 10 years. The list provided here is not comprehensive, and we feature only the policies we like: some of which were initiated by MCPP (marked by an *asterisk* below).

So far, we have covered:

10 Years of Regulatory Reform Achievements

10 Years of Social Welfare Achievements

10 Years of Religious Liberty Achievements

10 Years of Second Amendment Achievements

10 Years of Pro-life Achievements

10 Years of Healthcare Achievements

10 Years of Education Achievements

In this final part of the series, I will be reviewing the budgetary and tax achievements advanced by the Mississippi Legislature. 

Budget

Several highlights are worth mentioning as we consider Mississippi’s budgeting efforts over the past 10 years. To begin with, the state held down bond debt: perhaps mostly thanks to Governor Tate Reeves, who as Lt. governor was a fiscal hawk. The state also did a reasonably good job in maintaining its Rainy Day Fund. Most notable was Mississippi’s emergence as a leader in performance-based budgeting. This type of budgeting tries to measure the relation between the amount spent and the results: in other words, the bang for the buck. 

The proper implementation of performance-based budgeting requires a cultural shift and not just the tweaking or cutting of agency budgets. Implementation is very important, and results can be elusive. This was suggested even as far back as 2003 in a report by then-auditor Phil Bryant.

In 2014, the Legislature made a substantive attempt at instituting performance-based budgeting with HB 677, sponsored by Rep. Becky Currie. That law empowered the Legislative Budget Office (LBO) to require select agencies to inventory agency programs and activities. As I commented in 2014 about this law: “Performance-based budgeting promises to make agencies more accountable and efficient by introducing objective standards that measure successful outcomes, rather than just inputs. The evidence for performance-based budgeting is somewhat mixed, but more budget transparency is a good start. The next step would be to review agency fine/fee collections, with any eye toward lowering and eliminating these hidden taxes.”

This next step, in fact, was accomplished in 2015 and 2016 with a legislative package known as “Financial Ready.” These reforms, passed as part of an expansion of performance-based budgeting efforts, required an identification of all sources of revenue for each agency, including fine/fee revenue and federal funding.*

Also, in 2015, thanks to the leadership of Senator Joey Fillingane and Rep. Greg Snowden, Mississippi became a founding member of the Compact for a Balanced Budget (SB 2389). This Article V effort to amend the U.S. Constitution features a pre-ratified amendment to force the federal government to operate with a balanced budget. The compact was reaffirmed in 2021 with the passage of HB 1326, again thanks to the leadership of Senator Fillingane.*

Finally, we will add that MCPP was a leader in encouraging and facilitating transparency for state spending. Thanks to our website, seethespending.org, taxpayers were able to access millions of government financial records so as to better hold state and local officials accountable. (One reporter called the effort “a near-miraculous step forward in state and county government transparency.”) See The Spending was happily made obsolete once the state decided to post spending records online at transparency.mississippi.gov. (We’re still waiting for them to catch up to the level of detail featured at See The Spending, though.)

Taxes

In 2012, the Legislature significantly expanded the inventory tax credit with a bill (SB 2934) sponsored by Senator Joey Fillingane. Mississippi is one of only nine states that impose this tax, which is assessed regardless of whether a business earns a profit. Total repeal of the tax is made problematic because it is actually a property (ad valorem) tax levied by localities on business inventories. 

In 2015, thanks largely to the efforts of Speaker Philip Gunn, the Legislature came close to eliminating the state’s personal income tax. The measure (HB 1629) would have delivered a $1.5 billion tax cut for Mississippians. It died after being amended by the Senate.  

The next year, however, the Senate essentially got its way with the passage of the 

Taxpayer Pay Raise Act. Sponsored by Senator Joey Fillingane, the law enacted the largest tax cut in Mississippi history. The measure (SB 2858) reduced taxes by more than $400 million over 12 years, beginning in 2017. The law cut the personal income tax and taxes on self-employment. It also phased out the franchise tax, a burdensome tax on investment that few states impose anymore.* 

In 2021, Speaker Gunn again introduced legislation to essentially eliminate the state income tax. The Mississippi Tax Freedom Act of 2021 (HB 1439) would have eventually eliminated the individual income tax and reduced the grocery sales tax in exchange for raising various sales taxes. After passing the House, the measure was not taken up by the Senate.

It seems likely Mississippians will see another tax cut before statewide general elections in 2023. Whether this entails an elimination of the personal income tax remains to be seen. 

That said, Mississippi’s overall tax burden has risen over the past 10 years, as compared to other states. In FY2011, Mississippi’s state and local tax burden was 8.4 percent, 40th lowestin the nation. For calendar year 2019 (latest data available), it was 9.5 percent, 33rd highest in the nation. In terms of overall taxes paid, as a percentage of national income, Mississippi is falling behind other states. With states like North Carolina and Arizona slashing taxes and attracting new residents and investment, Mississippi is going to have to significantly cut taxes again in order to remain competitive.

In recent years, the Department of Defense has increasingly emphasized the need for defense technology developments and innovations from the private sector for the United States to maintain its military advantages. From a public policy perspective, few issues impact the private sector as much as the regulatory burden. With the private sector playing a growing role in national defense technologies, it is essential to consider the impact that such regulations have on private-sector research and development for technology.  

In the context of defense, innovation is not simply a matter of improving a consumer’s quality of life or economic outputs. The extent of innovation can ultimately mean the difference between victory and defeat. History demonstrates the role of the private sector in the development of technologies that are then utilized for military purposes. History also shows the tragic results on the battlefield that will occur if the private sector of an enemy nation is able to create superior technology and innovations.

For instance, it was the Wright Brothers who invented the airplane in 1903. Just six years later, in 1909, innovations and improvements encouraged the United States military to purchase the world’s first military aircraft from the Wright Brothers to be used for aerial scouting.  By the beginning of World War I in 1914, further innovations were built on the Wright Brothers' concept of a working flying machine. The planes were then used for fighter missions, bombing raids, and other military activities.

Lagging behind in the race to innovate the airplane had real consequences for the Allies in World War I. An innovation introduced in the German Army Air Service’s Fokker Eindecker fighter aircraft enabled them to achieve total air superiority for several months during a period in 1915-1916. This relatively simple innovation developed by a private sector airplane manufacturer in Germany used a timing mechanism that allowed a machine gun to fire in-between the propeller blades. Unfortunately, after the Allies began to have four losses for every aerial victory, Allied pilots got the nickname "Fokker Fodder." These losses continued until the Allies were able to study a captured Eindecker and replicate the technology.  

World War I and the Wright Brothers are in the distant past, but the strategic significance of private sector innovation is more critical than ever. The American regulatory environment compares relatively well against the regulatory boundaries for technology development compared to some other nations. However, America will have to work hard to maintain its place at the top as other countries reform their regulatory policies and use the results to develop military technology.

Ironically, despite being a totalitarian regime, China has recently introduced a plan to spur on “private sector” research and development in order for the nation to become more economically and militarily competitive. With a goal to become among the most technologically innovative nations in the world by 2035, China has introduced policies to lower regulations on banking, research, venture capital, and development. This should serve as a significant consideration for the United States as China continues to emerge as a growing security threat.   

In light of the significance of private sector innovation for national defense and international competitiveness, policy makers should pursue measures that lower the regulatory burden so that the private sector can more easily develop and innovate technology for defense use. Instead of using antiquated regulatory models to regulate cutting-edge technologies, regulatory frameworks should be implemented that are designed with innovation in mind, such as regulatory sandboxes.

The stakes are too high for American regulatory policy to justify hindering technological research, development, and innovation. The lessons of history and the importance of America’s international competitiveness are essential to preserving a strong national security.

On March 3, 2020, New York’s legislature authorized Governor Cuomo to unilaterally suspend any law or issue any directive that was necessary to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Importantly, that authorization expired a year later, on April 30, 2021. Law-abiding gun owners in New York should probably be thankful for that expiration clause, since Governor Cuomo has since become the first Governor in the nation to declare a “gun violence disaster emergency” in the state on July 6, 2021.

Because the broad COVID-19 emergency authorization has expired, Governor Cuomo is relying instead on a more limited state law that allows him to temporarily suspend other laws, if doing so would help him address a disaster declared by the state. Importantly, this authority comes with more limits than the COVID-19 authorization. While the Governor may temporarily suspend laws, he may not issue directives. Additionally, the suspension of any laws must be more targeted to safeguard the health and welfare of the public, and impose less of a deviation from existing law than was required under the COVID-19 authorization.

Perhaps these limitations are why Governor Cuomo’s executive order does not impose any new restrictions on gun owners in the state. Rather, the executive order suspends certain restrictions in the state’s finance laws in order to allow the Governor to direct money towards community efforts to reduce gun violence, and to enter into contracts and other written agreements meant to address gun violence.

Funding freed up under the executive order will be used to fund a variety of efforts. These efforts include community activity and summer jobs programs for at-risk youths, programs to track and provide resources to emerging gun violence hot spots, and a new state police unit to stop guns coming in from other states that are illegal under New York law. There are also initiatives meant to strengthen relationships between police and the communities they serve.

While Governor Cuomo is clearly proud of the boldness of his executive order, which he described as “the first-in-the-nation gun violence disaster emergency," it does not come anywhere close to the brazen willingness to flout clearly established law that was exhibited by a gun-related executive order issued by Jackson Mayor Lumumba on April 25, 2020.

Mayor Lumumba’s order purported to “suspend” the right to openly carry a firearm in the City of Jackson, despite the fact that the Mississippi Constitution explicitly protects the right to open carry, and declares that the right to openly carry cannot even be regulated in our state. While the executive order invoked the COVID-19 pandemic as its justification, it did not claim that the order would reduce the transmission of COVID-19 or that gun violence that had occurred during the pandemic was caused by people exercising their right to openly carry firearms.

MCPP’s legal arm, the Mississippi Justice Institute, filed a lawsuit against Mayor Lumumba two days after he issued the executive order. The lawsuit argued that Mayor Lumumba’s order violated the Mississippi Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and various state laws. Six weeks later, a federal court entered an order which permanently banned the City of Jackson or any of its officials from ever again issuing an order restricting the right to openly carry firearms, and provided for contempt of court proceedings against any city officials who violate the court order.

Regardless of the differences between the executive orders in New York and Jackson, one thing is clear: our executive branch officials need to stop governing by emergency. Routine public policy issues should not be decided unilaterally by dressing them up as “emergencies.” Whether emergency powers are invoked to build a border wall that Congress will not fund, or to ban guns in a state committed to gun rights, those actions erode the Rule of Law and eliminate the normal give and take that is supposed to occur in a democratic republic made up of a diverse people with many different priorities, beliefs, and values.

Even if those lofty ideals were not enough, practical concerns should dictate the same response. If we cheer on government officials who exceed their legitimate power to pursue our preferred policy outcomes, we have no recourse when other officials similarly abuse their powers for ends we disapprove of. The only way to prevent such abuses is to limit government power, no matter who is currently in charge.

Some claim that we are too polarized to govern effectively using our normal democratic processes, but our country has been through worse. We experienced deep divisions during the eras of the Founding, Reconstruction, McCarthyism, Civil Rights, and the Vietnam War, just to name a few. That we are experiencing deep divisions again today is no reason to throw away our precious inheritance of constitutionally limited government.

Communications Specialist

Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Jackson. MS

https://talentmarket.org/commsmcpp/

Located in Jackson, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) is Mississippi’s free market think tank, advocating for the principles of limited government, liberty, and America’s Founding ideals for three decades. To learn more about the MCPP’s thirty-year efforts of advocating for freedom, look at our website: www.mspolicy.org

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is looking to hire a Communications Specialist with a flair for producing engaging content across a variety of mediums and continuing to expand our audience. MCPP is looking to significantly step up its digital campaigning and output. The successful candidate will be key to making this happen. They will be conscientious, and able to focus on detail and work independently. Reporting to the Director of Communications, the role is based in our Jackson office, and the applicant would be expected to work from the office during normal office hours. 

Key Responsibilities

More important than any specific experience is a willingness to learn and be part of a fun, enthusiastic team.

Qualifications

To Apply

Qualified candidates should submit the following application materials as one PDF:

Applications should be submitted to Talent Market via this link: talentmarket.org/apply-for-your-dream-job/.

There is no application deadline for this position. Applications are accepted on a rolling basis.  This job will remain posted on our site until it is filled.

Questions can be directed to Katy Gambella, Network Engagement Manager of Talent Market, who is assisting with the search: [email protected].

While we thank all applicants in advance for their interest in this position, we are only able to contact those to whom we can offer an interview. Only direct applications will be considered. No phone calls, please.

Talent Market is a nonprofit entity dedicated to promoting liberty by helping free-market nonprofits identify talent for critical roles. We provide free consulting and recruiting services to free-market think tanks, policy organizations, research centers, and capacity-building institutions dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government and free enterprise.

What should free market conservatives think about immigration?

A very recent arrival in America, I believe that immigration can be a tremendous force for good. Ever since Scottish immigrant, Alexander Graham Bell, founded AT&T in the late nineteenth century, recent arrivals to the United States have been innovative and entrepreneurial.

But is the system of immigration we have today working?

Along the southern US border, immigration seems to have become a free-for-all. If news reports are to be believed, anyone arriving seems to be allowed to remain.

Yet at the same time, people with perfectly valid visas from Europe and Asia are prevented from coming to America because of tough Covid restrictions.  

It makes a mockery of the immigration system to bar entry to those that play by the rules but allow in those who don’t even pretend to play by them.

It is often said that many of America’s Fortune 500 firms were founded by immigrants – or the children of immigrants. I wonder how many of them would have been allowed in under the current chaotic system.

Ronald Reagan, one of America’s greatest ever presidents, talked of how immigrants ‘continuously renew and enrich our nation’. Today’s immigrants, he recognized, were tomorrow’s Americans.

Immigration has been a source of strength to America because recent arrivals have bought into a common narrative about what it means to be an American. Important though fixing the southern border is, we need to ensure that everyone growing up in the United States today is taught what makes America so exceptional; the Constitution, the Founding Ideals and a shared sense of the Republic’s past.

Some may often get a sense of uneasiness when considering the future, especially within the context of employment.  People seldom truly know what the future holds. Generally, whenever there is a hint of “new” technology making life easier, there may come a sense of worry that someone may have to lose their job.

However, nothing can be further from the truth, and while our society does continue to progress into a more autonomous state, the opportunity for jobs is still very much alive.  In fact, studies have shown that there is quite often a positive effect between technological innovation and employment opportunities.

In Mississippi, several innovations have the potential to grow the economy substantially.  In pursuance of scientific advances, Adranos, Inc., a company originating from Alabama, is making a corporate investment as part of its relocation close to the Stennis Space Center. While the initial job count is only in its beginnings, it can only increase as this company continues to settle in and develop their rocket motor technology.

The Ingalls Shipbuilding company, America’s largest military shipbuilding company, also continues to grow the Mississippi economy and provide additional jobs.  In fact, they are projected to provide over 3,000 jobs as they are “steadily adding new team members to the growing workforce.”  This likely due to an increase in efficiency as the company finds new ways to organizing their business through new technological systems.

Mississippi companies have observed these opportunities and have sought to capitalize upon it.  For example, C Spire, a Mississippi-based company, has sought to create opportunities for education and training in areas of STEM seeking to create a technological movement within the state.  This includes ensuring that schools have sufficient internet, people have the resources to learn coding, and IoT innovations and telehealth are expanded to provide quality care for pervasive health issues in Mississippi.

The best response to all of these opportunities is to allow them to grow. This can be done by embracing the technological advances that remain evident throughout the state.  Government should keep these lanes of innovation open as the people of Mississippi embrace the innovations that will progress the economy into further prosperity.

America is a living proof of the success of capitalism versus the failure of big government. Despite the nation’s solid beginnings and subsequent success, recent efforts in the federal government are attempting to raise taxes, increase spending, and expand the national debt to ourselves and our posterity.  

The nation started out as a fledgling colony and went on to become the greatest economic powerhouse in the world. America's foundations in limited government and free enterprise played that critical role for the nation to have the start it needed to rise as the leader of the world economy.

The factors that drove the American colonists to seek independence were numerous, but perhaps the best known is the issue of taxation. As the British Empire attempted to impose taxes on the colonists without representation, this led to a chain of events that eventually culminated in the colonist successful efforts to independence and the founding of the United States of America.

The story of America’s path to success is grounded in the determination and grit of the Founders to create a nation that would be a place of prosperity for themselves and their posterity. The culmination of this vision did not happen through the power plays of big government bureaucrats and heavy taxes to redistribute wealth, but through the power of the free market working to generate capital and success.

The concept of federal taxes imposed directly on American citizens was rarely utilized in America's early years, all the way up until the Civil War. Instead, the federal government collected revenue through tariffs and excise taxes. These relatively limited tax policies were based on the Founders’ understanding that money is used best in the hands of citizens, not the government. In the words of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, “[taxes] should not be so exercised as to impede or discourage the lawful and useful industry and exertions of individuals."

In accordance with the Founder’s principles of limited government and just taxation, annual federal spending of taxpayer dollars in America’s early days only constituted about 3 percent of its total GDP. However, in more recent years, yearly federal spending has run far from the moderation of the early years and now comprises more than 45 percent of the total GDP.

The Washington D.C. mantra of “tax and spend” is out of touch with the roadmap the Founders set forth when they wrote the Constitution. Far from the balance of the Founders, federal leaders are proposing even more taxes, more debt, and more spending, all while promoting the expansion of government programs and handouts.

The preservation of the American republic is dependent on the foundational truths that brought America to greatness. A return to the principles of limited government, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility are critical to safeguarding the prosperity of the nation for many more years to come.

The United States has a highly developed internet infrastructure with incredible successes to its credit. But problematic policy changes being considered in Washington may jeopardize that success. In recent months there have been calls from many to restore net neutrality.

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is a policy that internet service providers (ISPs) have to give all internet content providers equal access and use of the ISP’s networks, and for no extra cost. Because of this policy, ISPs could not impose any additional charges on a content provider, regardless of how much data the content provider uses in a network.

For instance, a video streaming company might use a large amount of data on an ISP’s system when users accessed the service. Net neutrality would prohibit the ISP from making the video streaming service pay for the extra data that they used. Instead, net neutrality would force the ISP to spread out the data usage costs to the rest of its users.

Net neutrality does not just increase the cost of the internet for the average consumer. Net neutrality also lowers the incentive for ISPs to expand broadband service if there is no competition to host content provider data.

Former FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai removed Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2018. Pai reasoned that net neutrality forced ISPs to charge consumers more to equalize their operating costs across the board. Following the repeal of net neutrality, there was an increase in broadband investment as ISPs moved to make deals with content providers that would prioritize speed and efficiency for those high-usage content providers.

There have been incredible free-market successes in the wake of repealing net neutrality in America. Yet, there are renewed demands from some for the federal government to reinstate net neutrality. Indeed, the Biden administration is considering the reinstatement of net neutrality.  While such a move might be popular with certain groups in Washington, state and federal policymakers would do well to consider the negative implications that net neutrality could have on the strength of America’s broadband networks.

The failure of net neutrality in Europe is glaring evidence of how problematic the policy is. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, there were concerns in Europe that the under-built broadband networks could not handle the uptick in internet usage. This network failure is largely due to the European Union’s net neutrality policies that had discouraged investment in broadband development prior to the pandemic.

The inadequate broadband infrastructure led to pleas from European policymakers that content providers limit the data they were pushing through the internet networks. Meanwhile, due to the higher investments in broadband development, the robust broadband infrastructure in the United States responded quite well during the pandemic compared to its European counterparts.  

The success of American broadband comes as little surprise to proponents of the free market competition as the driving force in broadband developments and innovations. As it claims to use the free market as the justification for social media content moderation, Big Tech often insists that companies have the right to decide which entities they will host on their services.

But there appears to be a double standard for many of them regarding the net neutrality issue as these companies themselves feel threatened by the ISPs. The Big Tech companies have a huge market share of internet content. In 2019, just six content providers accounted for 43 percent of all internet traffic. The content providers also can control the content on their massive platforms. Yet, these content providers insist that the ability of ISPs to determine the flow of data on their networks poses a threat to the freedom of the internet.

For instance, Twitter stated with dismay that without net neutrality, “ISPs would even be able to block content they don’t like.” Yet, Twitter and other Big Tech companies have given strong support for other policies, like Section 230, that allow social media companies to moderate, block, or remove certain content from their sites.

Despite the protests of some Big Tech companies, a market without net neutrality has the potential for increased innovation and competition. By allowing for the market to determine which ISPs will prosper as they offer the most attractive services to consumers, there is a real potential for the cycle of competition and innovation to continue. While net neutrality treats the internet simply as a means of broadcasting data in an unsystematic way, a free-market perspective views the internet as a dynamic marketplace commodity that continually responds to supply and demand patterns.

Despite the claims that net neutrality keeps the internet open and accessible, the record shows that net neutrality actually threatens the efficiency of the internet as it erodes the incentives to develop and grow internet infrastructure. Bad policies have harmful consequences. A step back to the failure of net neutrality is a step backward from the success of America’s internet infrastructure.   

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