Pre-K expansion has been one of the Left’s priorities for years, with many, such as former president Barrack Obama, being key advocates.
Studies from some organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute, have found such government pre-K expansion programs to have little evidence of a large positive impact when children enter kindergarten. But many have persisted with the idea that the government is the best-equipped party to direct people’s lives at the earliest age possible.
Pre-K expansion is on the horizon in Mississippi as well. On December 10, 2020, the University of Mississippi Center for Excellence in Literacy Instruction and Mississippi Campaign for Grade-Level Reading offered a virtual, statewide viewing of a new documentary called, Starting at Zero.
This documentary focuses on the potential effectiveness of early, state-controlled pre-K programs. In addition, it entertains the question of whether there is a worthwhile return on investment on children participating in Head Start programs as early as possible, even “starting at zero.” This is a film that advocates for state-priorities to be in the lives of children from birth, featuring left-leaning leaders from across the country such as Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam.
Unfortunately, the documentary also includes leaders with conservative reputations. But just because a strong conservative leader supports a policy, it does not always mean that the policy itself is conservative.
In early 2020, the Mississippi Legislature PEER Committee issued a report that found that the state’s pre-K programs had little positive effect on the ultimate learning outcomes of children after pre-K. Despite these findings, former Governor Phil Bryant voiced his support in the documentary for this program of government involvement in children’s lives that starts at the earliest possible age.
Following the documentary showing, Ole Miss held a panel entertaining the merits of the documentary for Mississippi's education policy. On the panel were various state leaders and representatives of this movement to expand government oversight starting at birth: Willa Kammerer, the director of Starting at Zero; Tonya Ware, project director of ReadyNation in Mississippi; Rachel Canter, Executive Director of Mississippi First; Dr. Carey Wright, State Superintendent of Education in Mississippi; Jason Dean, chairman of the Mississippi Board of Education; Nita Thompson, Executive Director of the Mississippi Head Start Association; and Holly Spivey, Head Start Collaboration Director and Education Policy Advisor for Governor Tate Reeves.
The primary focus of the discussion centered around the potential return on investment early childhood programming gives to the economic infrastructure of the State of Mississippi. However, the means of this return appear not to be sufficient through means of private childcare.
Instead, the panelists advocated State-sanctioned and State-funded child programming. This theme is revisited throughout the event as the panelists suggest that it is necessary for the government to partner with families and take an active role in the child-rearing process.
The panel exhibited significant interest in pursuing child education and oversight at even earlier ages. In the December 2020 meeting, Dr. Carey Wright commented that $7.8 million has already been applied to these early learning programs through grants and government funding.
That amount has since more than doubled to $16 million. Wright called for the State to prioritize and give more funding to MDE to use in these programs. She further noted that the goal for the Mississippi Board of Education is to ensure that every child has access to early childhood programming.
Dr. Jason Dean suggested that such programs offer the perfect opportunity for the State to teach young children the “soft skills” needed for acceptable social interaction. He further contended that the State must break down the walls between economic, academic, and social issues and start treating these aspects of child development as really different sides of the same coin. “I think we all agree on the policy. I think we need to come up with the plan, especially a funding plan,” Dean said.
Holly Spivey and Nita Thompson commented about their desired picture for those children from birth to 3 years of age. Thompson mentioned the desire for every element and level of child education to work towards the same goal(this goal was left somewhat ambiguous). She additionally equates this issue not only as an economic matter but as a healthcare matter as well, making sure that there is government-funded healthcare for all children to participate in this education programming and meet government healthcare priorities as well.
Despite Governor Reeves’ conservative stance on most policy issues, Spivey indicated that Reeves has a strong interest in expanding government’s involvement in the lives of children at an earlier age, based on her knowledge as his education policy advisor.
State leaders have exhibited interest and support for these kinds of policies to expand government oversight into the lives of young children, even by mandatory force in some cases. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if traditional values will be overridden by the novel concept of starting pre-K at age zero.
The Ole Miss panel meeting can be viewed at the following link: https://youtu.be/2K1WZ5AgMu8
The Mississippi space industry constitutes a growing role in the state economy with implications across a wide range of areas. The industry brings employment, infrastructure development, and technological innovations that increase the ability of the state and the nation to be internationally competitive in a growing sector.
When understanding the space industry, it is essential to note the private sector shift that has taken place in recent years. Government-funded programs are no longer the sole actor in this enterprise. Instead, private enterprise has entered the picture as a growing contributor to progress in space. It is important not to impede this change in the space industry landscape but to encourage this development as a new and capable form of revenue and job growth.
The state of Mississippi shows great promise in this area. In particular, the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County is projected to be the “home to a modern, sustainable propulsion test enterprise by 2025 [and will provide] world-class test services to NASA, other government agencies, and commercial customers.”
In 2020 alone, it served as a major contributor to the Gulf Coast economies, contributing more than $1 billion to Hancock and Pearl River counties and St. Tammany Parish in Louisiana. Indeed, in 2021 Stennis Space Center conducted the hot fire rocket test for the Artemis I space mission, the first of several missions to space that will eventually culminate with Americans on the moon again.
Inside the center, the E Test Complex provides opportunities for private sector companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Relative Space to test engines and help innovate this industry to unimaginable heights. It has been such a resource for companies in the space industry that companies have expanded the space center dramatically.
Relativity, announced that they would be further expanding the Stennis Space Center through a $2.4 million investment. This is on top of their $59 million investment that has been reported to have created 190 jobs for locals.
On both a state and federal level, there seems to be increased attention on continuing this growth. In 2019, former Governor Phil Bryant started the Space Initiative, which seeks to attract more space companies like Relativity to Mississippi. He also announced the Mississippi National Guard Space Directorate formation, which is supposed to attract U.S. Department of Defense federal investments through President Trump’s Space Force. Both of these initiatives show promise in furthering innovation developments in the Mississippi space industry.
Mississippi would also do well from federal legislation such as Senator Wicker and Senator Hyde-Smith’s bill, the Licensing Innovations and Future Technologies in Space Act. Such legislation would significantly grow the space opportunities in South Mississippi by directing the Department of Transportation to build a facility in which federal employees can receive training on the process of licensing commercial space launch and reentry activities.
As an important free-market development, it is important to continue to allow growth in this area. The space industry is a continually expanding area of the American economy, both in the private and public spheres. The Mississippi government would do well to work for cooperation with the space industry as it brings matters of regulatory reform and economic freedom to the state.
US Senators have blocked the passage of a bill that would have fundamentally overhauled America’s election process.
As I noted in a video a few days ago, the bill, dubbed the “For the People Act,” is anything but for the people. This radical legislation would have dramatically altered how elections are run in our country. Frankly, it boils down to a federal takeover of the election system that we’ve preserved in this nation for the last 200 years.
The bill lost by only one vote, showcasing the intense divide that currently exists in the US Senate.
Here are some of the worst parts of this (now dead) bill:
- It authorizes the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofits when these groups apply for tax-exempt status. This would make room for political targeting via taxation. Imagine the chilling effect on speech that would occur if the IRS was constantly staring down non-profits and threatening punishment if the wrong thing is said or the wrong idea is advanced.
-It would eliminate state voter ID laws that verify the identity of voters and strengthen election security. The vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum continue to support voter ID laws.
-It pushes a one-size fits all redistricting model on every state. The bill would strip voters of their ability to decide how districts are drawn.
-It would force the public to fund candidates running for Congress. Nobody should be forced to fund political campaigns involuntarily.
-It would limit the capacity for states to clean their voter rolls. This bill would have made it even harder to clean up these lists. This makes it more likely that folks who have died, moved away, are ineligible, are noncitizens, or are registered multiple times will be left on voter lists. Why would any official want to make it more difficult for states to have accurate voter lists?
-The bill would have automatically registered any individual who has an interaction with a state agency such as the DMV. To be clear, this does not refer just to eligible citizens. It would have registered every individual no matter if they’re simply a resident or even if they should not be voting. There is absolutely no sensible reason to register those who should not be voting.
-It would require that all states allow for absentee ballots on demand. Furthermore, it allows for ballot harvesting, a process by which campaign officials and other political actors can work to collect absentee ballots. This practice has been widely criticized by folks across the political aisle.
-It would force states to allow for online registration and unaccountable same day registration without oversight.
-Finally, it dramatically restricts the free speech rights of candidates, citizens, and nonprofits by enacting a range of new regulations.
Thankfully, the bill is dead. This is thanks, in part, to the “No” votes of both Senator Roger Wicker and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith.
The bill will undoubtedly be reintroduced again. However, its death strikes a major blow at efforts to centralize election control and remake Mississippi’s election laws in the vein of New York or California’s systems.
"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty." -Winston Churchill
America is at a crossroads regarding its economy and identity. This all comes in the wake of a government that has expanded spending to record levels and a nation that is recovering from government-imposed lockdowns.
As states begin opening back up, the circumstances have created an ideological and economic policy vacuum as various factions clammer to define "the new normal."
Although many would have frowned upon the idea of the government giving out money on such a large scale, the recent events of the past year have further normalized the idea of government handouts to the populace. Despite assertations from many that such programs were only to be utilized during the pandemic, the nature of government has moved these programs closer to a position of permanence.
In the words of Milton Friedman: "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Indeed, efforts are underway even now to make such handouts the codified law of the land, with many in Washington advocating for an expansion of the welfare state to the extent that the nation has not seen since Lyndon Johnson's disastrous "Great Society."
Yet the question must be asked, what is the real economic benefit of the government handouts that the Left has continually attempted to advance? Although the shortsighted proposals of some promise at least temporary advantages, it is critical to consider whether or not these moves have long-term benefits for the economy. Time and time again, the government has shown itself to be a poor distributor of other people's money.
Handouts stagnate economic growth because there is no exchange of goods or services when the money goes from the taxpayer to the government to the welfare recipient. Under free-market circumstances, economic transactions are voluntary exchanges that occur so that all parties get something of value. When there are more transactions, more economic activity occurs. On the other hand, the government gets the money it uses for the welfare state either by borrowing it on the taxpayers' credit or using force to enact taxation.
For instance, when the government uses one dollar for these entitlement programs, it transfers that dollar from the producer to the recipient by force. This transfer guts the value that could have been put into the economy if the recipient had worked for that dollar. Taking the money that taxpayers earned through their own labor and transferring it to handout recipients that did not work for it disregards the value of the taxpayer's labor.
Yet, the damages from the redistributive entitlement programs do not just end with the disregard of taxpayer labor. Such programs also lower the productivity of the workforce as workers are incentivized not to work. This creates a consuming cycle as the businesses that are dependent upon employees cannot find a labor force to operate the business.
When these places of employment are forced to close their doors because they can't find employees, there are fewer available employment opportunities. Government welfare programs are then further grounded into society to address all of the resulting unemployed. Through a cycle of government dependence and poverty brought about by entitlement programs, communities that were once thriving can be decimated as the whirlpool of government welfare programs consumes the economy.
Finally, government handouts are more than just a problematic economic element. There is perhaps no more destructive force to destroy the motivation and work ethic of a workforce than the sedative of government handouts. When a government doles out the entitlement dollars to the citizens, it sends a message that the nanny state will provide some or all of their income.
The American economy and work ethic are legendary as the world's greatest engine for free enterprise, industry, and innovation. To protect this incredible success, there must be a recognition that destructive consequences come from policy proposals to grow redistributive entitlement programs.
A path of socialist programs is a path to ruin for America. Public policy should prioritize an economic environment where citizens can genuinely experience the value of their own labor and thrive in the success of the free market system.
Regulatory sandboxes are a unique solution to prevent government regulations from smothering new technologies and innovations. The programs allow innovative companies to be temporarily exempt from prohibitive regulations until the state can establish an objectively informed regulatory framework for the innovation.
These programs have been adopted in select states as a unique way to encourage business growth and innovation. Although the programs have come in many forms, policymakers have implemented sandboxes across several different sectors.
In a day of big technology companies, regulatory sandboxes provide a regulatory development platform for all companies so that even small innovators with less political and financial capital can have an established framework to present their new innovations to regulators.
This report highlights innovative legislation and policy ideas that would advance such regulatory reform proposals around the nation:
Financial Technology
The financial technology sector was one of the first sectors to utilize the regulatory sandbox model. This type, known as a “FinTech” regulatory sandbox, has become the most widespread type so far and has seen success across several states.
Financial services are rapidly evolving. These sandboxes provide a regulatory framework for companies to develop innovations that increase access to capital, enable unique financial transaction models, and develop tools to build finance into new technology.
Arizona (2018), Nevada (2019), Utah (2019), Wyoming (2019), Florida (2020), West Virginia (2020)
Bills Introduced:
Illinois (2019), South Carolina (2019), Texas (2019), Connecticut (2021), Louisiana (2021), New York (2021), North Carolina (2021), North Dakota (2021), Oklahoma (2021)
Blockchain
Blockchain is an emerging technology that has quickly been thrust to the forefront of technological development. Using a highly sophisticated record-keeping system, it has applications for a myriad of industries ranging from banking to logistics.
In order to encourage the growth of this technology, the states of Wyoming and Utah both implemented regulatory sandboxes that included blockchain technology. Wyoming and Utah both opted to include blockchain under the umbrella of their FinTech sandboxes.
However, although many proposed bills have placed blockchain under FinTech, other legislation (e.g., Rhode Island) has opted to specify an entirely separate sandbox for blockchain. This specification is based on the understanding that blockchain has more applications than solely the financial sector.
Passed into Law:
Utah (2019), Wyoming (2019), Hawaii (2020)
Bills Introduced:
South Carolina (2019), Idaho (2021), Louisiana (2021), North Carolina (2021), North Dakota (2021), Rhode Island (2021)
Insurance Technology
Insurance is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic industry. Using insurance sandboxes, innovative businesses have the opportunity to provide insurance services that might be outside of the status quo. By having the ability to offer innovative insurance, companies can explore ways that would help them better serve their customers.
Passed into Law:
Kentucky (2019), Vermont (2019), Utah (2020), South Dakota (2021), West Virginia (2021)
Bills Introduced:
New Hampshire (2020), Louisiana (2021), North Carolina (2021)
Legal Services
The state of Utah’s Supreme Court first implemented a legal services sandbox in 2020. Over the last year, the program has seen great success, being utilized by non-profits, non-traditional legal services, and the use of technology for legal services.
According to a recent report, these innovators have provided legal services to hundreds of individuals, and there has not been a single complaint from consumers or entities. In 2020, California also introduced a legal sandbox through its bar association.
Implemented:
Utah (established in 2020 by administrative order of the Utah Supreme Court)
California (established in 2020 by the state bar association)
Agriculture Technology
Agricultural technology has immense potential as a catalyst to grow the industry, increase profitability, and increase efficiency. Self-driving tractors, drone crop analysis, DNA soil sampling, and other innovations will be part of this dynamic transition. In recognition of this, the state of Mississippi was the first state to propose a regulatory sandbox to promote agricultural innovation.
Bills Introduced:
Mississippi (2021)
Digital Medical Technology
Digital medical technologies carry the immense potential to provide health care services by harnessing the power of technologies such as telehealth, mobile apps, artificial intelligence, and wearable devices to deliver higher quality services. The state of Wyoming passed a law implementing the nation’s first and only digital medical technology sandbox.
Passed into Law:
Wyoming (2019)
Energy Technology
Energy technology is one of the fastest-growing sectors in the country. As worldwide energy demand continues to rise, the need to integrate innovative technologies into the energy sector has increased. In recognition of this, Mississippi was the first state to have an energy technology sandbox introduced in the Legislature.
Bills Introduced:
Mississippi (2021)
Property Technology
The innovative applications for technology in the property sector are immense. Some key technologies being used include satellite mapping and surveying, virtual reality, blockchain, and artificial intelligence analysis of market conditions.
In 2019, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill that established a property technology sandbox. This is the only such program in the nation, making Arizona the friendliest state in the nation for property technology innovators.
Passed into Law:
Arizona (2019)
General Sandbox
In order to facilitate innovative technology developments, regardless of industry, some states have looked at the prospect of general regulatory sandboxes. The general sandbox program provides a more comprehensive innovation environment that frees up businesses to explore multiple innovations across different sectors.
In 2021, after the success of its multiple industry-specific sandboxes, Utah was the first state to establish a general sandbox program. This program came after passage of the state’s several industry-specific sandboxes. This has immense economic potential for Utah as innovative start-ups look to open up in Utah. Other state legislatures have introduced general sandboxes.
Passed into Law:
Utah (2021)
Bills Introduced:
Mississippi (2021), Tennessee (2021)
***For Immediate Release***
(Baton Rouge, LA/Jackson, MS): The Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation, a division of the Pelican Institute, and the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, have released a comprehensive joint report on the status of broadband internet access in Mississippi and Louisiana.
The report can be read in its entirety here.
The state-based technology centers seek to provide information to policymakers and the general public on removing barriers to broadband deployment and being proactive to get the two states more digitally connected.
In a day of telework, remote learning, telemedicine, and increasing digital connectivity, there is a growing need for fast and reliable internet service. As policymakers work to address the questions surrounding broadband coverage, speed, cost, and infrastructure development, the report aims to provide a comprehensive point of reference.
Eric Peterson, Director of the Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation, noted: "In order to close the digital divide, lawmakers must be armed with the information necessary to overcome the challenges of broadband implementation. Lawmakers need to be informed on what areas lack access and what issues cause lower adoption rates. By understanding the causes of problems in broadband deployment, lawmakers will be able to make great strides in closing the digital divide."
The report emphasizes data-driven public policy as a driving force behind successful broadband deployment. Matthew Nicaud, Tech Policy Specialist for the Mississippi Technology Institute, noted: “Broadband deployment has extensive implications on the state infrastructure, economy, budget, education, tech innovation, and business growth. By providing data about the current status of broadband deployment, we hope to provide policy recommendations that are fiscally responsible and economically successful.”
The report was produced as a joint initiative by the technology divisions of the Pelican Institute and the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
For more information on the report or to request an interview, please reach out to Hunter Estes, [email protected], at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy or Ryan Roberts, [email protected] at the Pelican Institute.
***End***
Many Mississippians feel cheated. Having voted overwhelmingly to approve a medical marijuana initiative last November, our state supreme court has now annulled this citizen-led decision.
Worse, by declaring our state’s initiative process ‘unworkable and inoperable’, our supreme court has in effect struck down the only system of direct democracy we had in the Magnolia state.
Irrespective of how you feel about medical marijuana, something has gone badly wrong when 70 percent of people vote for something in good faith, but then have their decision reversed.
The problem isn’t our judges, however, but the process for triggering initiatives in the first place. Under our state constitution (Section 273) a popular vote can take place to amend the constitution only if enough signatures are collected across each of the state’s five congressional districts.
The trouble is that our state only has four congressional districts, not five. Mississippi has only had four congressional districts since 2002, when we lost our fifth congressional seat. Our law makers somehow never got around to updating the rules. Responsibility for where we are today must rest with the legislature.
Five years ago, I was helping lead Vote Leave, the official campaign that won the Brexit vote in Britain. Brexit is one of the greatest examples of ordinary folk being able to vote to achieve real change. It shows us why citizen-led initiatives are essential.
Having won the Brexit vote, all sorts of attempts were made to try to overturn the decision of the people. I know what it is like to have direct democracy opposed by those that don’t want change.
There may now need to be a special session of the legislature to address the specific issue of medical marijuana. Serious thought also needs to be given as to how we fix our system of initiative.
Besides ensuring that there is a workable process in place to allow signatures to be gathered, here are three further suggestions on how to strengthen our system of direct democracy:
Initiatives should change state law, not just the state constitution. The initiative process that we have allows citizens to vote to change the state constitution. It ought instead to allow the public to vote to change ordinary state law.
The state constitution is supposed to set out the basic rules under which those wanting to shape and influence public policy operate. It is unwise to try to determine public policy by perennially seeking to incorporate amendments into the constitution itself.
Why? There is a risk that our constitution could become a hodge podge of competing claims. Far from empowering ordinary people, it easy to envisage how judges would be left to trying to untangle the inevitable incoherence. That’s hardly people power.
More importantly, good public policy emerges when new ideas can be implemented and then improved upon, being modified or even reversed if they don’t work. Using constitutional amendments to achieve specific public policy outcomes is the equivalent of engraving change in tablets of stone. It puts things beyond the reach of further democratic scrutiny. Allowing citizens to vote to change state law, itself subject to normal electoral cycles, would be much healthier for democracy.
Direct democracy should be direct. Curiously, the system of direct democracy in our state is actually rather indirect. Once enough signatures have been gathered to allow an initiative to take place, the legislature has considerable leeway to in effect doctor the question before it is put to the people.
Reform should not only allow popular votes to approve new laws – as happens in many other states across America. People should be able to vote on the question, not a doctored version of it designed to favor the outcomes politicians might prefer.
Tax neutral? It is easy to argue that voters should be generous with someone else’s money. But it is also profoundly dangerous. Initiatives should not become a device that allows people to vote to pass on the bill for something to their neighbors, or indeed to the next generation of Mississippi taxpayers.
Plenty of other states in America allow citizens a right of initiative yet insist that any proposals are tax neutral. We should consider doing so too.
The failure of our legislature to update the rules on initiative over almost two decades demonstrates that politics is too important to be left to politicians. Reform is needed to ensure that Mississippi has a right of initiative that actually works.
My Father passed away from Alzheimer’s disease this past December. Alzheimer’s is a cruel disease and watching my Dad suffer from it was especially difficult for my entire family.
Before entering a long-term care facility, my Dad received physical therapy in his home as his physical state declined. The visits did little to help, however. My Mother complained that the therapists were so overbooked that they could not schedule nearly as many visits as the doctor had requested. When they did visit, they rarely stayed for more than a few minutes.
My Mother didn’t know it at the time, but the home health agency that provided my Dad’s in-home physical therapy had little incentive to provide time-intensive, quality care. They had a monopoly on home health patients in the area they serviced. They would keep my Dad as a patient whether my Mother was happy with their services or not.
Home health services enable the elderly to receive care in their homes rather than being institutionalized in nursing homes. And the role of home-based care is about to become more important than ever.
The number of Americans over the age of 75 is expected to nearly double over the next twenty years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This aging population is expected to place massive burdens on our healthcare system, especially the long-term care industry.
To address this looming crisis, President Biden has proposed spending an additional $400 billion in Medicaid funds on in-home long-term care services. Home-based care can be more cost-effective than nursing home care, and older Americans overwhelmingly prefer to receive care in their own home.
President Biden is right to look for solutions to the problems with long-term care. But a one-time cash infusion for Medicaid home health services would do nothing to change the real problems in the long-term care industry.
Thankfully, Mississippi does not have to wait for solutions from Washington D.C. There are steps we can take right now that would make a real difference in the quality, accessibility, and affordability of the care that our parents and grandparents receive.
The most obvious reform would be to end the monopolies enjoyed by home health agencies like the one that treated my Father. Those monopolies are created by Mississippi’s certificate of need (CON) laws.
CON laws push more seniors into nursing homes by limiting the availability of home health services. Certificate of need laws require anyone wanting to start a healthcare facility to first prove that there is an unmet need for those services in the community. Mississippi is one of only 14 states that impose CON requirements on home health agencies.
Research shows that certificate of need laws serve to limit competition and prevent the expansion of the home health industry. A 2016 paper concluded that CON laws “act as a direct impediment of expansion of home- and community-based care” and “provide nursing homes with some degree of market power that does not allow the market to respond freely to price changes or federal policies.” Other research indicates that certificate of need requirements decrease the quality of care provided by home health agencies.
If our CON law wasn’t bad enough, Mississippi is also the only state in the nation that has imposed a complete ban on the opening of any new home health agencies in the state for the past 40 years. Instead, the state has chosen to allow existing home health agencies to have monopolies in their service areas.
The Mississippi Justice Institute has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to end Mississippi’s 40-year ban on new home health agencies, as well as the state’s home health CON program. But state lawmakers should not wait for that litigation to conclude before taking the initiative to end these senseless policies.
Our parents and grandparents deserve a healthcare system that can adequately care for them. Monopolies that reduce the supply of care available to them, while driving up the price and decreasing the quality of their care should have no place in Mississippi.
The whole point of the American Dream and our free-market system in America is that people from all walks of life have the opportunity to dictate the direction of their own lives.
The entrepreneur is perhaps the most quintessential example of this sentiment. If someone has an innovative and marketable idea that helps people live better lives, America is supposed to be structured so that he can build off that idea.
However, despite this concept of entrepreneurship being inseparable from the American ethos, small businesses are continually struggling to enter the marketplace in an environment that favors big businesses that can weather the regulations and red tape much easier. This creates what some have called an economic "kill zone" for small businesses as they attempt to grow.
Some may suggest that this is a justification for the further institution of government regulation to ensure a "free" and competitive system. However, the solution may rather be the opposite: eliminating and reforming regulations that have hindered startups and small businesses from gaining the capital required to succeed.
Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, small businesses and startups have struggled with gaining enough capital to find a footing with their respective business plans. Although the pandemic has widespread effects that have been felt by businesses of all sizes, for many larger corporations it has been merely a speed bump.
However, the pandemic exasperated the problems that small businesses already face. In the wake of government-imposed lockdowns and their collateral effects, unforeseen obstacles have left many of them crippled. This is especially true regarding the issue of raising capital.
As an issue compounded by the pandemic, the inability to obtain sufficient credit from banks was already one of the biggest problems small businesses face. Since the financial crisis in the late 2000s, government policy has imposed regulations that seek to protect the economy from poor financial investments.
However, as time progresses, large corporations benefit from low-interest loans, while small businesses and startups are left dependent on government assistance programs.
Regulations may seem like the answer, but they often have the effect of bringing about unintended consequences. Just last year, the NFIB Research Center conducted a study asking small businesses what the 75 most important issues that they faced were.
The first three issues were health insurance, finding and retaining good employees, and taxes, respectively. The fourth biggest issue was unreasonable government regulations that leave them effectively crippled in needless expenses and red tape. While these regulations may appear to be placed to protect our economic system, the reality is that regulations often harm the economy they are supposed to protect.
Some may suggest that the Covid pandemic has helped businesses push the reset button on the government regulation problem by forcing them to move to alternative business platforms such as the internet and by benefiting from government assistance.
However, any sort of solution that is specific to the pandemic can only be temporary at best and leaves entrepreneurs reliant on the government at worst. In order to move ahead on promoting entrepreneurship, public policy should not perceive regulations as the tool to promote freedom.
If the goal is for startups to get the credit and capital they need, policies should permit lenders to take the calculated risk, without the government dictating how it is supposed to operate on every level. If small businesses are to benefit from a free market, then it needs to be free!
Josiah Dalke is a Research Intern with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. He is a Washington State native seeking a government degree at Patrick Henry College.