Some have propounded that America is the epitome of a capitalist nation. With the largest GDP globally and generations of hard-working individuals behind it, the country has become the center of world financial markets. On the fundamental level, the country has free-market economics, a principle that is grounded in the very Constitution itself.
One might think that with such a background of incredible success, the government would not want to enact policies that would go against this foundation of free-market economics. However, this is not always the case. Rather than leave a working system to continue to work, many in the government have continually tried to resize a shoe that already fit.
Over the past several years, many Americans have become increasingly apprehensive of the encroaching power of government. As the federal government has assumed an arbitrary prerogative to interfere in the private sector at will, financial markets have become extremely sensitive to the fact that the government has expanded its intrusion into free markets.
For instance, in recent weeks, investors have been uncertain about the direction of the Federal Reserve as President Biden considers leadership changes that would be in line with his policy priorities of big government expansion and spending. The concerns of investors are not unfounded. The recent administration has increasingly embraced the policies of Keynesian economics that often prioritize government control of the economy as a key to market success.
To recognize the effects of such a posture of government control towards the private sector, one need not look any further than the nation of China. In an attempt to rein in control of financial institutions, the Chinese government banned financial institutions from trading in cryptocurrency.
This led to an 11 percent drop in the value of Bitcoin in less than 2 hours. Many have grappled with this recent spectacular decrease in the value of cryptocurrency. These are ultimately the shockwaves of government overreach being felt. This is all despite the fact that the Chinese government has no direct policy jurisdiction over the American economy.
If the Chinese domestic policies of economic interference and government control can have such a rippling effect on even the American economy, how much more danger is there when American investors have an ever-encroaching government of their own to deal with? Indeed, the United States federal government itself is proposing even more regulations for cryptocurrency that have made many investors uneasy in an already fluctuating market.
Despite the grand plans and agendas of economic bureaucrats and regulators, such plans beg the question of whether or not government oversight has a consistent track record of bringing about prosperity. If America wants a more prosperous economy, is a conglomerate of government bureaucracies really the way to achieve it? The success of free economies suggest otherwise.
“The advantage of a free market is that it allows millions of decision-makers to respond individually to freely determined prices, allocating resources - labor, capital and human ingenuity - in a manner that can't be mimicked by a central plan, however brilliant the central planner.” -F. A. Hayek
“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 put together 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). (Or, in the case of the many accomplishments below, nearly all of which were initiated by MCPP.)
So far, we have covered:
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 installment, we will be looking at legislative accomplishments aimed at cutting red tape to make it easier to start a business, obtain a good job, and lead a good life in Mississippi. These are the highpoints over the past 10 years:
In 2013, MCPP worked closely with Senator Angela Hill to pass the state’s first cottage food law (SB 2553). This reform unleashed a culinary revolution of small entrepreneurs baking cakes and cookies and making pickles and other homemade goods. The law exempted small entrepreneurs from onerous regulations better suited to largescale providers. In 2020, we successfully expanded the law, with a bill (HB 326) sponsored by Rep. Casey Eure.*
In 2015 and 2016, we led the way in passing a legislative package known as “Financial Ready.” These reforms, passed as part of separate bills related to performance-based budgeting, require state agencies to identify their dependency on federal grants and quantify the fiscal and other compliance costs associated with these grants. Mississippi was the second state in the country to enact Financial Ready.*
Also in 2015, MCPP launched the effort to combat the Obama administration’s arguably unconstitutional Clean Power Plan. In addition to collaborating with state policymakers to voice their objections as part of the federal rulemaking process, we worked on various bills to provide for more transparency and accountability for the plan. In the end, lawmakers passed a resolution declaring Mississippi’s opposition to this federal attempt to take over state electrical grids (SCR 637).*
In 2017, MCPP was proud to work with Americans for Prosperity (MS-AFP) to help pass a law (HB 1425) that requires the state to actively review new regulations issued by occupational licensing boards. AFP led the way in this effort, and we assisted with messaging support and other expertise. The law implements a structure to provide “active supervision” over occupational licensing boards so that they “use the least restrictive regulation necessary to protect consumers from present, significant and substantiated harms that threaten public health and safety.” In 2020, Rep. Jerry Turner strengthened the review process so as to apply to existing (and not just new) regulations (HB 1104).
In 2019, the Legislature made it easier for certain Mississippi residents with a criminal record to obtain an occupational license. Known as “Fresh Start,” the law strikes a balance between protecting public safety while helping ex-offenders reintegrate into their families and communities by getting good-paying jobs. According to the Institute for Justice, following the passage of Fresh Start, “Mississippi now has some of the best laws in the country for ex-offenders seeking licenses.” Fresh Start was sponsored by Rep. Mark Baker and Senator John Polk (SB 2781) and was a priority for MCPP.*
Also, in 2019, Mississippi became the first state in the nation to pass a comprehensive law to protect the privacy of those who give to the causes and charities they hold dear. This law has sparked a movement of states committed to protecting free speech and the freedom of association from government agencies seeking to weaponize and politicize charitable giving. This legislation (HB 1205) was sponsored by Rep. Jerry Turner and Rep. Mark Baker and was a priority for MCPP.*
In 2020, the Legislature again turned toward eliminating burdensome occupational licensing requirements. Sponsored by Senator Chuck Younger and championed by Rep. Steve Hopkins, the Military Family Freedom Act (SB 2117) makes it easier for military personnel and their families to obtain a Mississippi occupational license by recognizing existing credentials and experience earned in other states. Arguably the best law of its kind in the country, this reform put Mississippi on the map as a destination state for military families seeking to live and work here.*
In 2021, thanks to the leadership of our legal center, the Mississippi Justice Institute, the Legislature altogether eliminated occupational licensing requirements for select practitioners in the cosmetology field. This law (HB 1312) was sponsored by Rep. Jerry Turner.*
Finally, in 2021, building upon our success with the Military Family Freedom Act, lawmakers made it easier for anyone who has earned an occupational license in another state to obtain a license in Mississippi. Authored by Rep. Becky Currie, this legislation (HB 1263) was a priority for MCPP and the result of years of hard work to make it easier for qualified professionals to move to Mississippi and work in their chosen field.*
One of the dangers of an ever-evolving technological landscape is that people can often get lost in the technical weeds without looking to the practical benefit.
Such is the case when it comes to technological advances in agriculture, especially in regards to government regulation and control.
The state of Mississippi is ripe with opportunities to advance agricultural technology further. AutoProbe, for example, is a rising technology in the state that uses robotics to help gather uniform soil samples and analyze them. This enables farmers to work the land more efficiently and helps with greater crop yields.
Furthermore, farmers use drone technology to make strategic agricultural decisions from information gathered from the air. But not only does this technology enable an aerial view of farms, but drones also help find patterns of defoliation, small canopies, and color changes in crops. All of these factors impact the final crop significantly, and drones can more quickly and efficiently determine this information.
Finally, smart-monitoring technology helps farmers conserve resources and energy to most effectively produce food for consumption. Combines that would take three times as long to harvest a crop can now be done quickly and efficiently thanks to the ability to monitor rain and radar simply from one’s phone. This is even easier to accomplish with hands-free satellite guidance.
Despite these immense benefits, some policies have proved to be a boundary to the prosperity that comes from common-sense policies that allow innovative farmers to be the most effective. The problem is that many state and federal regulations on agriculture are overzealous in the mitigation of safety risks -often to the detriment of agricultural efficiency and innovation.
Take the state of California, for example. According to the California Code of Regulations, an operator must accompany all self-propelled equipment when in motion. This means that regardless of whether the machinery in question needs an operator, an operator is still required to legally handle it, depleting the purpose of the machinery being “autonomous.”
Such a policy may be put in place for the sake of safety but does not consider the practical effects as it dissuades farmers from investing in more efficient, automatic machinery. After all, why would a farmer purchase expensive autonomous machinery over manually operated machinery if regulations remove the practical benefits of automation? It simply does not stand to reason, which is perhaps why not many states have adopted the same policy.
However, unreasonable boundaries to the use of technology in agriculture do not stop with autonomous machinery. Although there may often be freedom to produce certain agricultural products using technological innovation, there have been technology restrictions on how farmers can sell those same products. The regulatory boundaries follow farmers even if they try to use certain technologies to sell what they produce.
For instance, many states, including Mississippi, have “cottage food laws” that prohibit farmers and others from using the internet to sell processed agricultural products, such as pickled products, dried fruits and vegetables, jellies, and many other goods.
This effectively stops the use of mobile apps and other technologies that would allow farmers to use the internet to sell such products to potential customers. By limiting such agricultural activities to in-person sales, there is a government-imposed boundary on farmers trying to take advantage of even basic internet technology to sell their products.
The key to moving agricultural technology policy forward in Mississippi is finding solutions to policy problems, expanding technology horizons, and giving farmers the chance to press ahead without being legally restricted to outdated methods.
Innovation has always been the key to American economic success. Giving our agriculture system the edge it needs to succeed has to be of the highest priority when legislators gather to find solutions.
Mississippi farmers should have the freedom to use technological innovation as a way to work their farms as efficiently as possible as they seek to provide a livelihood for their families. Public policy should take proactive steps to provide safeguards against technology regulations so that they have the full liberty to do just that.
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.
In the wake of the new presidential administration, government spending has increased to never-before-seen levels. Despite the economic downturn brought about by COVID-19, the federal spending budget has only expanded.
Much of the spending has been propounded in the name of economic recovery from Covid. As if the government were a group of benevolent humanitarians, it makes bold promises of help and recovery from the economic downturn -while spending other people’s money and then taking the credit for it.
In the words of Henry Hazlitt, “The government has nothing to give to anybody that it doesn’t first take from someone else.” In line with this simple truth, the very same federal government proclaiming that it will “build back better” has put forth a tax agenda that threatens the jobs and industry that actually bring real prosperity.
The higher taxes that are necessary to pay for such a budget are bad enough, but there is more to such a budget than meets the eye. One need not be an economic analyst to recognize that something is amiss in the American economy.
A simple glance at the rising prices across all sorts of sectors has left consumers with a much higher bill at the gas pump, the grocery store, and the car lot. Companies across the country are warning that prices will continue to rise as a result of inflation. While the government is able to meet its spending goals, it is the taxpayer that ultimately foots the bill for the inflation that results.
To put this in perspective, recall the fact that this inflation is occurring in addition to the high taxes. As if the high taxes themselves weren’t enough to satisfy the federal government’s insatiable appetite to spend other people’s money, they tax the citizens and lower the value of the citizens’ incomes by printing more money and lowering the value of the dollar.
While taxes might be “the front door” for the government to put more of the citizens’ incomes into it its aggressive spending agendas, inflation is the result of such policies. It is “the back door” that government uses to make the citizens foot the bill if their tax money can’t even fund the runaway spending proposals.
The enormous federal spending threatens the economic well-being of Americans by increasing their tax burden and then additionally lowering the value of their hard-earned dollars. Ronald Reagan’s quip about government spending stands true: "We could say they spend like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors, because the sailors are spending their own money."
With new COVID cases remaining persistently low and multiple vaccines available to all adults, Mississippi appears to have fully returned to “normal.”
Employers navigating this return have adopted a wide range of policies, from requiring masks for non-vaccinated employees to requiring most employees to get vaccinated. Are these policies legal?
Yes, with very few exceptions.
First, remember that Mississippi is an “at will” employment state. That means an employee can quit his or her job for any reason or no reason at all. Likewise, an employer can fire an employee for any reason (as long as it would not violate discrimination laws covering protected classes) or no reason at all.
This means that employers have a very wide scope in setting the rules that employees must follow. After all, it’s their business. And if an employee doesn’t like the employer’s policies (like a mask or vaccine policy), they can quit the job if they so choose.
Some employees mistakenly believe that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prevents their employer from asking about their vaccine status. HIPAA prevents certain covered entities which have sensitive patient health information from sharing it with others without the patient’s consent. It does not prevent employers – or anyone else for that matter – from asking anyone about their health information.
Some of this confusion may stem from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prevents employers from asking job candidates if they have a disability before making a job offer and requires employers to maintain the confidentiality of any employee medical information obtained after hiring. But nothing in the ADA prevents an employer from asking employees about their vaccine status during a pandemic or requiring vaccinations for employees.
The ADA does require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees who cannot get vaccinated due to a disability or sincerely held religious belief. However, such an accommodation is not required if it would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.
Another source of confusion seems to be a section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which prevents the government from mandating vaccines that have only received an emergency use authorization from the FDA. But that law does not prevent private employers from requiring their employees to receive such vaccines as a condition of employment.
The best advice for employees is to ignore any claims they see on social media regarding their employer’s rights or responsibilities. If an employer adopts policies that concern you, talk to them about your concerns. If a compromise cannot be reached, and if the issue is important enough to you, then it’s ultimately up to you to decide if you want to continue your employment relationship. It’s a free country after all.
Students who are falling behind in school – in particular, those who are at below grade level – are at greater risk of dropping out of high school. This can have detrimental lifelong impacts, as well as negative economic consequences for dropouts and society at large.
*This report can be read in its entirety here.*
This issue is much more important in this era of COVID-19, as many more children are falling behind grade level. Policymakers should therefore pay attention to state remedial education programs and consider whether current resources, both state and federal, are being used to the best advantage for kids who are falling behind.
The Achievement Gap Has Gotten Bigger
Research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic by the consulting firm McKinsey found that minority and low-income students are at much greater risk of falling behind because of school closures and disruptions. They found that:
- Black students may fall behind by an additional 10.3 months;
- Hispanic students may fall behind by an additional 9.2 months;
- Low-income students may fall behind by an additional year.
Achievement gaps between groups of students were very large and stubbornly persistent for decades heading into the COVID-19 pandemic. And, from March 2020 to June 2021, McKinsey estimates that these achievement gaps will grow by another 15 to 20 percent.
McKinsey forecasts that the learning loss from COVID-19 “may translate into long-term harm for individuals and society.” They estimate that the decline in student achievement will have a national cost in upcoming years of $110 billion in annual earnings for students, higher crime and incarceration rates, and other negative social outcomes.
Other recent studies are arriving at very similar conclusions.
New Solutions Are Needed
Given the decades-long failure of existing remediation programs and the acute learning losses due to the pandemic, it is time to try something new to help students who are falling behind.
The research consensus on remediation programs for public school students is that they have performed poorly for decades. Federal and state funding for remediation programs have increased significantly over time. For example, federal Title I-A funding increased by 81 percent between 1980 and 2017 in real (inflation-adjusted) terms.[1] Despite this large increase in funding, Title I has not boosted student achievement (Brookings report: Dynarksi and Kainz, 2015) and been poorly targeted to the students most in need (Hamilton Project, Gordon, 2016). Further, achievement gaps between groups of students have been stubbornly persistent for decades (Hanushek, et al., 2020).
Students who fall behind grade level and remain behind for a period of years often end up as high school dropouts. The economic consequences of dropping out of high school are severe: lower lifetime earnings, more poverty, increased use of government welfare programs, reduced generation of tax revenue, higher rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births, higher incarceration rates, more drug use, lower life expectancy, etc.
Given the expensive and absolute failure of federal remediation programs, it is clearly left up to the states to do something about helping students who are behind grade level.
[1]Congressional Research Service, 2017. Title I-A grants are to be used to “provide supplementary educational and related services to low achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families.”
*To continue reading this report in its entirety, click here.*
Interest in cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, has seen an increase over the last several years. People throughout the globe continue to be intrigued by the concept of a currency that has no physical backing but rather one that is fixed in cyberspace.
This has led to a new playing field that is rapidly working into the mainstream financial system. However, as this new system of currency is becoming less theoretical and more concrete in practice, there is an increasing risk for government control and centralization.
There are currently two primary approaches to digital currency: cryptocurrency and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Cryptocurrency is a specific kind of digital currency that holds to the principle of value through scarcity. Rather than having a fluctuating base value like paper currency, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies operate in a constrained system (in Bitcoin, for example, there will only ever be 21 million tokens) to establish a base value. Governing bodies do not determine this value, but it instead lives on distributed ledgers or blockchains.
CBDCs, in comparison, operate based on government oversight and centralization of resources through a central bank. This system is newer than other digital currency systems and has grown out of the potential shortcomings of the cryptocurrency system.
For example, some have argued that having a centralized and controlled digital currency system would best allow for tracking transactions between parties and maintaining a country’s capital controls. In other words, by treating CBDCs like cash, the value of the currency can fluctuate based on its variable supply. This makes it easier for the central banking system to regulate how the digital currency operates within the system, allowing for more financial control by the central government.
While the Mississippi legislature has not passed detailed legislation concerning digital currency, state and federal governments across the country have taken a particular interest in this area over the last several days.
For example, U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has advocated that greater regulation be placed over cryptocurrency (if not establishing a federal CBDC) to mitigate potential risks to financial stability. This announcement came after last week’s discovery that Bitcoin’s worth had dropped nearly 30 percent after China had established new regulations upon the sector and has wavered in value since.
Many interpret these new findings as a justification to increase the government’s involvement with digital currency. However, the danger of CBDCs is that they undercut the free market principle of competition within the context of various methods of currency.
Additionally, cryptocurrency, as it stands, provides a private option that prevents the problem of inflation that we see with government-centralized currency. The mere concern of financial instability is insufficient to justify centralization. After all, as Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore notes, “nearly every recession and depression of the last century can be traced to government mistakes, not necessarily private ones.”
As this new system continues to develop, it is all the more crucial to keep in mind the dangers of centralization and the giving up of financial control to the government.
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.
In the wake of a series of high-profile cyberattacks, the world has had to respond to concerns about security issues surrounding critical vulnerabilities.
The attacks have hit multiple sectors with far-reaching implications. CNA Financial, a major commercial insurance firm, was recently hit by a massive ransomware attack, crippling its operations until a ransom was paid. In a separate incident, ransomware infected Colonial Pipeline, a fuel pipeline supplying a large portion of the eastern United States, leading to fuel shortages and economic disruption. In an additional instance, hackers attacked the Irish Department of Health, and the system has yet to be restored.
It has become apparent that in a day of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, mobile apps, and automated industry, the economy and society are tied directly into the cyber world across every sector. Consequently, cybersecurity has become more important than ever as criminal actors work harder and harder to exploit the vulnerabilities of a digitally connected world.
Cybersecurity advancements are ultimately a question of who can innovate faster—the good actors versus the bad actors. On the one hand, bad actors exploit security vulnerabilities by using innovative methods to compromise security. On the other hand, cybersecurity developers have the task of trying to stay one step ahead of the cybercriminals. These innovations require aggressive and dynamic steps to beat the hackers at their own game.
However, cybercriminals have an advantage over their cybersecurity counterparts that can often be overlooked. When they run their criminal operations, it is needless to say that they do not generally subject themselves to government policies that might burden legitimate businesses, such as paying high taxes and complying with business regulations. This gives cybercriminals an advantage.
Much of this discussion is similar to the problems with restricting law-abiding citizens from gun ownership. If the law-abiding citizens are restricted from what guns they can defend themselves with, criminals will naturally just violate those same gun laws in order to arm themselves for criminal acts.
In the same way, it is important to note that many of these cybercriminals are members of sophisticated criminal organizations that freely leverage their illegal operating practices to get an edge over their cybersecurity counterparts. While cybersecurity firms are dealing with burdensome policy hurdles such as high taxes, long regulatory approvals, and red tape, cybercriminals can operate with reckless abandon as long they are able to evade law enforcement.
In the wake of cybersecurity compromises, it is easy for government policy to try to intervene and quickly provide short-term proposals for long-term problems by demanding that companies meet certain cybersecurity standards.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that such standards will likely be able to solve the problem fully. Regulations cannot provide a lasting solution to the dynamic world of cybersecurity. Even those companies that may be fully “government compliant” can still be vastly compromised on the cybersecurity level if they are just trying to meet minimum government standards.
While there have been many calls for expanded government involvement in cybersecurity, the vast nature of the problem gives the government a very low chance of being able to fill the gap on its own.
From a public policy perspective, it is vital to look at the bigger picture. State and national policies should be implemented to encourage innovation itself through regulatory reforms like regulatory sandboxes.
From the business policy angle, policies should be enacted that make it easier for start-ups to launch than before -including start-up cybersecurity firms. This not only lowers the policy burdens placed on cybersecurity firms and expands the amount of economic growth. It catalyzes the variation that is essential to maintain a cybersecurity ecosystem that can quickly evolve and respond to emerging threats.
New companies bring new innovations and ideas to the table. This adds to the arsenal of available security tools.
Implementing policies that promote a business-friendly environment has true potential for greater growth and advancement that carries promises of a more secure cyber-ecosystem. While regulations, tax burdens, and other barriers to tech start-ups may have been overlooked as an issue that affects the United States' ability to have strong cybersecurity, the top-down effects can be felt across every sector.
When market forces are permitted to work freely, the free society will continually develop stronger means to protect itself. This is no less true in the cybersecurity sector. An unhindered free market has the real capability to bring even more strength into the cybersecurity sector and lead the fight to out-innovate malicious cybercriminals.
What a mess! Last week Mississippi’s Supreme Court overturned the medical marijuana initiative that voters had overwhelmingly approved in November last year.
The ruling renders a democratic decision 1.3 million Mississippians helped make null and void. Worse, the state Supreme Court ruled that the entire initiative process itself is ‘unworkable and inoperable’, meaning that we no longer have any meaningful form of direct democracy in the Magnolia state.
Irrespective of our own personal views about medical marijuana, I hope we can all agree that something has gone badly wrong when 70 percent of voters can vote for something, as they did for medical marijuana, but have their choice ignored.
What went wrong?
The problem is the process for triggering the initiative vote. Our state constitution (Section 273) allows a popular vote to take place to amend the constitution if enough signatures are collected across each of the state’s five congressional districts.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? Making sure that support for an initiative comes from across the state is perfectly sensible. But there is one small flaw; our state only has four congressional districts, not five. Mississippi has only had four since 2002, when we lost our fifth congressional seat – and our law makers never got around to updating the rules.
We should not blame the state supreme court for this fiasco. They only interpret what the rules say. Responsibility lies with our legislature, which over almost two decades failed to act to update the rule book.
Before coming to Mississippi, I co-founded Vote Leave, the official campaign that won the Brexit vote in Britain. The Brexit vote is a powerful example of how ordinary folk can achieve real change. It shows why citizen-led initiatives are essential.
After a clear majority voted for Brexit, all kinds of efforts were made to try to overturn the result. I know what it is like to have direct democracy opposed by those that don’t want change. Today many Mississippians who voted last fall for initiative 65 will feel cheated.
While there needs to be a special session of the legislature to address the issue of medical marijuana, lawmakers should take their time when it comes to fixing the initiative process. It's something we need to study, hold hearings on and address in 2022.
Mississippians only gained a right of initiative in the 1990s. It now turns out that that right never actually existed for most of that time after all. Our law makers need to get this right.
Obviously there must be a workable process for gathering signatures to trigger initiatives. But we should take this opportunity to ask if other improvements are needed to ensure that we have a system of direct democracy that actually works.
Is it, for example, healthy that popular votes are aimed at achieving amendments to the state constitution, rather than statutes? Our state constitution sets out the basic rules by which the political game is played. Rather than continually aiming to change those, might it be preferable if popular voters changed statutory law?
Under the current set of rules, when an initiative looks likely, our lawmakers have – in effect – an opportunity to try to doctor the question. Should we make it harder for this to happen?
Last, but not least, should we insist – as some other states do – that initiatives are tax neutral, in order to avoid a situation in which Mississippians are encouraged to vote to be generous with someone else’s money?
Far from undermining the argument for giving people the power of initiative, the failure of our lawmakers to act over the past two decades shows precisely why citizen-led initiatives are essential. We cannot simply leave politics to politicians.
This post was originally published in the Clarion Ledger and can be read here.