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.
“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 what Mississippi lawmakers have accomplished 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 Religious Liberty Achievements
10 Years of Second Amendment Achievements
10 Years of Pro-life Achievements
10-Years of Health care Achievements
10 Years of Education Achievements
In this installment, we will be looking at legislative accomplishments regarding social welfare. We will focus on only two laws: but they are each, in their own right, very significant accomplishments. The first is the 2017 HOPE Act. The second is the 2019 Children’s Promise Act. MCPP led the way in getting these policies passed and has, also, assisted with the ongoing implementation of these programs.
The Hope Act*
In 2015, Rep. Chris Brown, Rep. Jason White, and Senator Josh Harkins partnered together to strengthen Mississippi’s welfare system by rooting out fraud and abuse. One of those bills (HB 740) passed the House, but died in the Senate. In 2016, Senator Kevin Blackwell joined the effort and an even stronger bill almost passed both chambers. Finally, in 2017, Mississippi passed what some observers still consider the gold standard for recent state welfare reform efforts: The HOPE Act (HB 1090). According to one independent review, the HOPE Act moved “Mississippi to the forefront of states in overall benefits integrity and the move from reliance on benefit programs to employment.”
Even higher praise came from the law’s critics, with The Nation commenting: “The legislation reads like a compilation of all-time favorites from a Republican wish list.”
The HOPE Act contains multiple commonsense reforms. One such policy entails verifying whether people on Food Stamps (SNAP) live in Mississippi, are in prison, or, even, whether they are still alive. Another reform is the restoration of federal income and asset tests, thus insuring that millionaires and others stay off welfare. In addition, the law instituted a third-party eligibility auditing system estimated to save state and federal taxpayers millions of dollars.
In November 2019, the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) undertook an analysis of just one of the reforms in the HOPE Act: a codification of the federally mandated (but often ignored or “waived”) requirement that able-bodied adults without children work, train or volunteer in order to receive Food Stamps.
The results were astonishing.
Prior to the reform, notes FGA, “Just two percent of able-bodied, childless enrollees were engaged in full-time employment. A staggering 85 percent of these able-bodied adults were not working at all.”
After Mississippi reinstituted the SNAP work requirement, able-bodied adult enrollment declined by 50 percent within 3 months, decreasing by 72 percent after almost two years. This reduction in welfare dependency resulted in $93 million in taxpayer savings a year.
Even more encouraging, former welfare recipients obtained employment in more than 700 different industries, with incomes more than doubling.
Again, these advances are from just one of the reforms in the HOPE Act. It is certainly a popular achievement worth celebrating and one MCPP is proud to have played a leading role in helping pass.
The Children’s Promise Act*
Another very important and popular policy victory championed by MCPP is the Children’s Promise Act.
Foster care in Mississippi, as in other states, has struggled under the weight of broken families, drug addiction and human trafficking. The problems the foster care system faces are too complex for government to handle alone. The idea behind the Children’s Promise Act is to generate better outcomes by encouraging the state and the private sector to work together. This is encouraged by offering a tax credit for donations made to nonprofits working with the Department of Child Protection Services (DPS).
The National Council of Nonprofits estimates that every $1 in tax breaks for nonprofit donors saves government $5. A tax break for foster care nonprofits is thus a great way to save the state money. More important, by inviting new donors to support foster care nonprofits, the state is also inviting new eyes, hands, and hearts to take a fresh look at how we can help foster kids, children in poverty, and children with special needs.
The initial iteration of the Children’s Promise Act was passed in 2018. That law (HB 1566), sponsored by Rep. Roun McNeal, contained two different personal income tax credits aimed at helping children with special needs, as well as children in foster care. The law also increased the state tax credit for families hoping to adopt.
The first tax credit in HB 1566 was an $800 credit for donations to diverse organizations (QCOs) that assist low-income families and children with special needs. The second tax credit was a $1,000 credit for donations to organizations (QFCCOs) that specifically work with children in foster care. The law also doubled the state’s existing adoption tax credit from $2,500 to $5,000.
In 2019, MCPP worked with our coalition partners to take the 2018 law and transform it into the Children’s Promise Act (HB 1613), sponsored by Rep. Mark Baker.
This law expanded and improved upon the initial framework laid down in 2018 and significantly increased the amount of money available to help nonprofits in Mississippi. The law contains five different tax credits:
- The original $800 personal income tax credit for donations to nonprofits helping low-income families and children with special needs;
- The original $1,000 personal income tax credit for foster care nonprofits;
- A continuation of the $5,000 adoption tax credit;
- A business tax credit for donations made to foster care nonprofits;
- A business tax credit for donations made to educational service nonprofits.
In 2020, the Legislature again expanded the Children’s Promise Act, doubling the cumulative business tax credit from $5 million to $10 million and providing additional funding stability for the program.
Along with Arizona, Mississippi has been a pioneer in using tax policy to strengthen the state’s foster care and social welfare systems. We were the first state, in particular, to enact a business tax credit to generate largescale donations to foster care nonprofits.
MCPP is proud to have played a leading role in helping pass and implement the Children’s Promise Act and encourages our readers to take advantage of these individual and business tax credits that are doing so much good.
I’m Matthew Nicaud, the Tech Policy Specialist at MCPP, and your host for the Tech Talks interview series. In our Tech Talks, we engage with tech leaders, policy makers, and entrepreneurs to discuss the tech world in the Magnolia state and promote public thought on key tech issues.
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Senator Angela Hill. We discussed a variety of engaging issues related to innovation and the promotion of free market policies. Senator Hill serves as the Chair of the County Affairs Committee and the Vice-chair of the Accountability, Efficiency, Transparency Committee.
Senator Hill recently introduced two bills, SB2976, and SB2975. These bills would create platforms for innovation. Known as a “regulatory sandbox,” these platforms would allow innovators to introduce their innovations to the market without being suppressed by heavy-handed regulations.
These bills would be among the first of their kind in Mississippi and would lay a pathway for innovators to increase opportunity in the state. We recently interviewed Senator Hill to discuss these bills and how they would impact innovation in Mississippi.
Senator Angela Hill: Innovation is a critical part of maintaining a competitive economy and expanding opportunities. An economy that stagnates will decline. If the state government regulates innovators so much that they can’t even grow and test their ideas, then there is little opportunity for growth. Measured deregulation is an economic development issue as much as it is a regulatory issue. Instead of setting up more state programs, the state should get out of the way and let hard-working Mississippians generate prosperity in an open economy.
By definition, innovation is new and disruptive to the status quo in a positive way. New innovations often allow for new job opportunities, solve problems, lead to greater efficiency, and generate business growth. This is incredibly beneficial from an economic perspective. Despite all these benefits, regulators sometimes misunderstand innovators. This can lead to companies being forced to fulfill complex and burdensome regulations that stifle innovation.
For instance, Vizaline is a prime example of the state of Mississippi stifling innovation through an overzealous regulatory board that brings suits against private companies in a crony protectionist fashion. Vizaline uses publicly available land descriptions to create a geospatial rendering of property parcels through computer software. After years of litigation, the suit against Vizaline cost state taxpayers and this innovative company a lot of money. Additionally, this same board unsuccessfully sued another company prior to Vizaline, and the taxpayer was on the hook for this large bill too.
The board eventually conceded the case and changed the regulations in favor of Vizaline. Vizaline now operates in multiple states across the Southeast, yet it is troubling that the legal battle had to happen in their home state of Mississippi. This speaks volumes about why we desperately need regulatory reform in this state. We have plenty of anti-competitive statutes on the books that we need to get rid of as well as a sound check on these burdensome regulatory boards. The regulatory sandbox is a step in the right direction. We need more small business innovators to be welcomed, not hindered. Government just needs to get out of the way of innovation.
There should be safeguards in place that allow Mississippi innovators to develop their innovations and build more successful businesses. To that end, I am advocating for practical solutions that lower the regulatory burden in our state. These practical solutions address the issue through policies such as regulatory repeal, occupational licensing reforms, and regulatory sandboxes.
Matthew: What is a regulatory sandbox?
Senator Hill: It is the key solution I am using to be proactive in making Mississippi innovation-friendly. A “regulatory sandbox” program grants a waiver to the program participants, allowing them to be exempt from any unnecessary regulatory requirements while developing an innovation. I introduced two bills that put this proposal forward.
The first bill was SB2975. This bill had a particular focus on allowing for innovation in the energy sector. This would include energy management software systems, energy trading via blockchain, energy efficiency development, and other energy innovations. Although energy sandboxes have been allowed under limited circumstances in other states, Mississippi would be one of the first states to implement a regulatory platform that accommodates energy innovators actively.
The second bill was SB2976. This bill takes a broader approach and allows any innovator from any industry to be exempt from unnecessary regulations over a specified period of time during the innovation development. This would be groundbreaking legislation. A similar measure was just successfully implemented in Utah, and it received a robustly positive response from entrepreneurs in the state. There are so many Mississippi innovators that have ideas to bring to the table. We should make it easy for them to put their ideas to work by not smothering them with regulations.
Matthew: How would regulatory sandboxes benefit everyday Mississippians?
Senator Hill: Regulatory sandboxes would help by encouraging innovation to happen right here in our home state. The people of this state want to see new businesses and ideas happening in their own communities and not just in faraway corporate offices. By having regulatory sandboxes, we are providing a platform for everyday Mississippians to have a chance at pursuing their bright ideas.
Another thing to consider is the small business angle. According to the Small Business Administration, 99 percent of Mississippi businesses are small businesses. When you look at innovation development from a small business owner's perspective, many don’t have the resources necessary to meet complex regulatory requirements. Sure, big companies can often afford to meet all the excessive regulatory requirements that it takes to get their innovations approved. But even big businesses are leaving states like California that make it difficult for their innovators. In order for innovation to expand in Mississippi, state policy has to protect innovators from unnecessary regulatory obstacles.
Matthew: Could regulatory sandboxes potentially make Mississippi more economically competitive with other states?
Senator Hill: Absolutely. Regulatory sandbox programs have been successful in several states across the country and around the world. States with regulatory sandboxes have seen a consistent track record of growth and development across multiple economic sectors. For instance, several states have instituted regulatory sandboxes in the financial technology sector. They have seen companies coming to do business because of that freedom to explore technology concepts without the burden of unnecessary regulation. Other successful regulatory sandboxes that have allowed for innovation include insurance, energy, and legal services. The model has been extremely popular with start-up companies that don’t have the amount of capital it would take to meet complex regulatory requirements.
When businesses consider whether they want to come to our state (or stay in our state), many will look at how friendly we are to innovation. Other states are welcoming them with open arms. Why should Mississippi be left behind? By allowing innovators to set up shop in our state, Mississippi has the potential to tremendously grow as businesses bring their talent to the state and build our economy with their skills. This is a commonsense policy. Let’s forge ahead to make Mississippi a destination for the best and brightest innovators by removing regulatory boundaries.
You can learn more about the Mississippi Technology Institute here: https://mspolicy.org/mississippi-tech-institute/
Prohibition was ended decades ago, yet it continues to leave a lasting legacy on the state of Mississippi.
Whether you prefer beer, liquor, wine, or no alcohol at all, most folks can agree that Mississippi retains a range of laws that unfairly hamper the free market when it comes to the alcohol industry.
A range of bills seeking to open the market and expand consumer options were introduced in the legislature this year. Here is a recap of what passed and what failed:
Delivery of Alcohol from Local Liquor Stores: (Success) One can now successfully order alcohol from local liquor stores. Using Drizzly, PostMates, UberEats, or any other delivery app that provides options for the purchase of alcohol, a new permit allows for individuals to bring alcohol right to your front door.
Direct Shipment of Alcohol from Out-of-State: (Failure) While you can successfully order alcohol and have it sent to your door via an app, don’t try to order wine or liquor from out of state. Mississippi continues to bar its citizens from enjoying alcoholic beverages from other parts of the country. If you think it’s a bit unreasonable that you can have alcohol sent to your door through an app but can’t have it delivered from another state, then we’re on the same page.
Distillery Sales Expansion: (Failure) This bill would have expanded the ability of distilleries to sell drinks on their premises. The adjusted permit would have empowered distilleries to more effectively compete by selling their products on site for consumption.
Ending State Prohibition: (Failure) Mississippi is technically still a “dry” state. However, policy allows for counties to have a vote and opt to become “wet” and allow for the sale of alcohol. This process is extremely burdensome and restrictive. This legislation would have switched the procedure and made Mississippi open to the sale of alcohol unless a county otherwise voted to be “dry.”
Removal of State Monopoly on Distribution: (Failure) An attempt was made to remove the state entirely from its monopoly over the distribution of alcohol. Unfortunately, this bill failed. You may have noticed chronic shortages and limited supplies at your local liquor store. This problem largely rests with the consistently delayed, backed up, and slow distribution system.
All of Mississippi’s liquor runs through one warehouse. The warehouse represents central planning at its finest. Local stores have difficulty getting more niche drinks and orders are constantly delayed. Why our state continues its failed attempt to compete with the market by crowding out all other potential distributors continues to astound me.
The bill would have ended the state’s monopoly over distribution and created a range of permits for private businesses to step into the gap and take advantage of the new economic opportunities which are currently being stifled by the government.
This would be a win, not only for the free market and those who oppose government centralized planning but also for small businesses and consumers. Liquor stores should face less delays and back-ups and also have a wider array of options as to what they would like to stock. Consumers are more likely to see their preferred drink on the shelves and also gain access to the larger variety of drinks that could be available.
Sale of Wine at Grocery Stores: (Failure) Unfortunately a bill that would have expanded the ability for grocery stores to sell wine failed. It is likely that this continued prohibition on the sale of wine is incentivizing some businesses from entering the state market entirely.
Authorization of Microbreweries: (Success) This newly passed legislation changes the state code to allow for the authorization of microbreweries. This is a win for the free market, especially since recent statistics show that Mississippi is last in the nation for microbreweries per capita.
When it comes to alcohol, Mississippi has a long way to go in order to end its command-and-control system and establish truly free market policies. While this year’s legislative session has brought about some success regarding microbreweries and alcohol delivery, true alcohol freedom remains elusive. Hopefully, next year, we will be able to raise a glass and cheer a wider set of policy successes.
Every session has its share of infighting and ups and downs.
The 2021 session was no exception, as we saw two major issues gum up the process. (Stay Calm: Democracy is supposed to work this way.) Led by Speaker Philip Gunn, the House passed a major income tax reform bill. When the Senate declined to seriously consider this initiative, the House found itself less than enthusiastic about the Senate bills that had crossed over for the House’s deliberation. In turn, the Senate soon found itself feeling the same way about anything the House was working on.
For its part, Senate leadership was pushing a bill to provide a statutory substitute for the recently passed medical marijuana constitutional amendment, in the off chance the initiative should be struck down by the Mississippi Supreme Court. This bill passed the Senate, but failed in spectacular fashion on the House floor. With Initiative 65, indeed, having been struck down by the court, the Senate’s efforts seem prescient, to say the least.
In the end, the two chambers agreed on enough good (and bad) ideas to keep the wheels of democratic government turning. These are our own personal highlights of the 2021 session:
Protecting Women’s Sports and Title IX. … MCPP led the way in getting the Fairness Act (SB 2536) passed. We initiated this effort last year, working with Senator Angela Hill, and were gratified to see it signed by Gov. Tate Reeves. Mississippi is the second state in the country to enact such protections for female athletes, in spite of stiff opposition from the radical left and woke corporate oligarchs.
Making Mississippi a Destination State for New Residents … MCPP also led the way in getting passed a law (HB 1263) that makes it easier for new residents to obtain a Mississippi occupational license. This legislation builds on the best-in-the-nation Military Family Freedom Act we worked on last year. That law makes it easier for military spouses and dependents to work in Mississippi. The 2021 law, sponsored by Rep. Becky Currie, expands similar opportunities to all new Mississippi residents. We are the eighth state in the country to pass this innovative reform.
Holding off Medicaid Expansion … Mississippi is one of the last states to resist Obamacare by not expanding Medicaid. In spite of strong financial incentives out of Washington, D.C., state leaders, especially the Governor and Speaker Gunn, are standing firm. Medicaid is an expensive, horrible insurance program, as I detail here and here. As an aside, it’s also not much of an option for the “working poor” because it serves as an incentive not to work at all. According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, the majority of able-bodied adults on Medicaid, the population targeted for expansion, are not working at all.
Blocking Welfare Expansion … The HOPE Act, championed by MCPP in 2017, is still the best welfare-to-work law in the country. The Biden administration, however, is encouraging states to pursue policies aimed at expanding welfare participation as much as possible. (For instance, see here.) After one such bill that would have weakened the HOPE Act passed out of committee in the Senate, we got to work and made sure this bad policy died.
Securing Economic Liberty for Mississippi Entrepreneurs (HB 1312) … This law allows individuals in select fields of cosmetology to practice their profession without acquiring thousands of hours of training. Lawsuits filed by the Mississippi Justice Institute were the catalyst for this reform.
Encouraging States to Balance the Federal Budget … In 2015, thanks to the leadership of House Pro Temp Rep. Greg Snowden and Senator Joey Fillingane, Mississippi became a founding member of the Compact for a Balanced Budget. The Article V compact would force the federal government, not only to craft a budget, but to actually balance it. The compact was scheduled to sunset in 2021, but Mississippi renewed it with the passage of HB 1326. MCPP was the force behind getting the compact passed into law several years ago.
(Almost) Expanding Healthcare Access via Telemedicine … Although a bill to advance telemedicine stumbled at the finish line, MCPP made significant strides in educating lawmakers about this issue. We have a good foundation to pass reforms in 2022.
(Stay Tuned for) Eliminating the State Income Tax … Speaker Philip Gunn’s bill to eliminate the income tax failed to pass in 2021, but the stage has been set for hearings and a study over the summer. I’ll go out on a limb and predict that we’ll see a major tax cut before the next statewide elections in 2023.
The health of the free market in Mississippi, including the technical sector, is highly influenced by the education and ability of our state workforce.
Sustainable economic development cannot be driven sufficiently by the government picking winners and losers. True economic development is grounded in a skilled population that can generate real monetary value through smart, productive work.
Thankfully, many Mississippi leaders have an applied understanding of the real value of education to encourage sustainable economic growth. For example, in order to encourage lasting economic development in growing technical sectors, the Mississippi Economic Council (MEC) has established the Mississippi Scholars Tech Master Program for high school students.
The program combines a practical emphasis on career education and community service with an academic focus on mathematics and science. This reflects a well-directed market element in education that helps prepare individual students to succeed and provide for themselves.
The program has seen great success, with participants from all 82 counties. According to MEC Senior Vice President for Foundations, Vickie Powell, there have been over 68,000 graduates since its founding.
This success has been largely made possible through MEC’s partnerships with local school districts. These partnerships give students the chance to pursue unique opportunities, with many districts even providing scholarships for the participants. In a recent interview with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, MEC president Scott Waller noted: “The program gives students the opportunity to gain skills that will fill the jobs that are currently available. We felt like this was important to meet the needs of the workforce.”
On the other hand, economic development pursued through government interference in the free market creates an economic atmosphere that only has the limited scope of government priorities. An economic development agenda based on redistributing taxpayer dollars does not have long-term sustainability.
This coincides with several studies that have noted the anemic effects of redistributive economic development policies. In one such study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, the researchers noted that “the standard justifications given for incentive policy by state and local officials, politicians, and many academics are, at best, poorly supported by the evidence.”
Economic development policies for technology and other sectors must be driven by a perspective that prioritizes long-term success over short-term results. Rather than focusing on government priorities and corporate welfare, economic development should have a free-market driven focus grounded in the development of individual skills and productivity. This is the American way, and it carries with it the paradigm for greater success, innovation, and growth in the tech sector. Hats off to MEC for helping Mississippi students follow this model.
(JACKSON, MS) – The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will hear arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. The case considers whether Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is constitutional.
In 2018, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) played a key role in drafting the law and educating lawmakers about the important role the legislation would play in both protecting women’s health and protecting the lives of unborn children.
This commonsense law strikes the right balance for Mississippi by protecting the health of women considering abortion and in protecting the lives of the unborn. It protects women from serious and significant risks and protects the life of the unborn child with a beating heart who can move, hear, taste, see, and feel pain.
Dr. Jameson Taylor, Senior Vice President for Policy, comments: “Roe v. Wade is old case law based on old science. Here in Mississippi, we have sought to update our abortion laws so that they meet the commonsense standard that limits abortion after the first trimester. We are thankful the Supreme Court is listening to states who believe it’s time to take a second look at what the science is saying.”
Continues Dr. Taylor: “The scientific evidence confirms that the risk of a mother dying from an abortion skyrockets after the first trimester. That’s why a majority of Mississippi voters and lawmakers strongly agree our state laws should protect women and not put them at greater risk of death or injury from later-term abortions. Nearly every other country in the world follows the same standard and does not permit abortion after the first trimester because it is much more dangerous for women and an obvious violation of human rights.”
The risk of a mother dying from an abortion increases more than 2,100 percent between 8-weeks and 18-weeks of pregnancy, according to the scientific literature. Maternal mortality increases by 38 percent with every week after 8-weeks gestation.
“The whole point of state regulation of abortion is to protect maternal health and to uphold the state’s general interest in protecting life,” concludes Dr. Taylor. “Instead of basing abortion law on a so-called viability standard, it’s time for the court to put women’s health and safety front and center. Late-term second and third trimester abortions are dangerous for women. That’s why the viability standard completely misses the mark in terms of protecting women.”
This legislation brings Mississippi into standing with most of the rest of the world. 92 percent of other nations limit abortion after the first trimester. The U.S. is one of only four countries that permit abortion-on-demand throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. We find company on this issue with North Korea and China.
For more information or to request an interview with Dr. Taylor, please contact Communications Director, Hunter Estes, at [email protected].