Opening the door to new technologies in Mississippi is going to take a new way of thinking about regulation. The old approach of regulating first and asking questions later is not going to work. That is why states, like Utah and Wyoming, are opening the door wide to innovation by applying a regulatory soft-touch to new business ideas, like blockchain.
One idea, passed by the Utah Legislature this year, is the concept of a regulatory sandbox. This idea has gained traction in different forms already in Mississippi. In 2017, a bill to create a regulatory-lite zone, sponsored by Rep. Greg Snowden, passed the House. Subsequently, Speaker Philip Gunn introduced bills aimed at using red-tape reduction as an economic development tool.
This session, Rep. Dan Eubanks has been blazing his own trail. Rep. Eubanks introduced two bills – HB 1454 and HB 1455 – that would create a new program to allow companies to test innovative concepts without being smothered by regulation. Borrowing from Utah, the bills create a regulatory “sandbox,” which would encourage innovators to develop technologies and business concepts.
This vision of a regulatory sandbox champions one of the Mississippi Technology Institute’s key aspirations for innovation. MTI recently had the opportunity to discuss this legislation with Rep. Eubanks. MTI’s Tech Specialist Matthew Nicaud conducted the interview.
Matthew: What is the purpose of the two sandbox bills you introduced?
Rep. Eubanks: The bills create a special program called a “regulatory sandbox”: one creates a general sandbox, the other creates a sandbox just for Farm Tech. The idea of a sandbox allows innovative businesses to be exempt from all non-essential regulations in a specific sector, such as energy or agriculture. What this does is create an environment where innovators can grow their business ideas without being burdened by unnecessary regulations. It also gives regulators a platform to understand innovation and develop appropriately informed regulations. This prevents the regulatory agencies from making vague and arbitrary rules that hinder new ideas. Really, what the sandbox does is encourage dialogue between businesses and regulators so that they can better understand how to work together.
Matthew: Why is innovation an important tool to encourage prosperity in Mississippi?
Rep. Eubanks: Innovation creates a platform for the development of new tools and business models. Mississippians can use these new ideas to generate capital, grow businesses, and provide for their families. The people of our state have the drive and the vision to unleash prosperity. By using the creative avenues that come about from innovation, Mississippi citizens have the potential to further prosper and grow.
Matthew: With technology advancing at such a rapid pace, how would these bills create a friendly environment for technological innovation?
Rep. Eubanks: Ultimately it is people, not the government, who will continue to create the innovations that drive our economy. History has shown us that the free market is the greatest engine for innovation. I believe that the best thing for the government to do is step aside. We should let the innovators put their great ideas out into the market. Innovation moves at a very fast pace, and it doesn’t wait around for regulators. So, Mississippi has a responsibility to create an environment where innovation can be explored without regulations impeding the progress. Creating a “sandbox” environment does just that. It protects innovators from heavy-handed and misinformed regulations. It is an important step in the right direction.
Matthew: Has there been innovative success in other states that implemented regulatory sandboxes?
Rep. Eubanks: The state of Utah has created regulatory sandboxes and has seen much success. The state has seen innovations in multiple industries ranging from insurance to legal service technologies. In addition, other states have created sandboxes for the testing and development of financial technologies. This has not only facilitated greater access to capital, but it also has allowed for the further application of innovative financial technologies such as mobile banking and blockchain. Mississippi has a special opportunity to be a place of innovation for several of its largest industries, such as agriculture and manufacturing. There is so much potential if we can be an early adapter in this area.
Matthew: What can be done to move the sandbox concept forward?
Rep. Eubanks: The creation of a regulatory sandbox program will need to be accomplished through legislation. For a bill to advance through the process, it will need the support of our state leaders. This is a practical way for the legislature to encourage economic development through the power of free-market innovation. The goal to encourage innovation is something I believe we can all agree on. Implementing a regulatory sandbox program is an excellent step toward this goal.
Rep. Dan Eubanks represents DeSoto County, Mississippi (District 25).
A coalition of groups from around the nation, that include the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, have joined together in common cause against new overreach by DC politicians. The group is signaling their opposition to new policy that could limit states’ ability to cut taxes.
The recent “American Rescue Plan Act” serves more as a slush fund for fiscally mismanaged states and localities than as a serious attempt to help those struggling with recovering from the economic consequences of COVID-19 and government-imposed shutdowns.
The Act includes $350 billion in State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. These funds come in addition to the hundreds of billions in federal assistance to state and local units of government through the CARES Act and other legislative actions taken by Congress in 2020.
Furthermore, Congress has decided to spend this massive amount of money although total state and local revenues actually increased in 2020, and many states have even seen their surpluses expand.
However, the Act goes a step further than just recklessly spending taxpayer dollars. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal noted that the new law bars states from using the influx of new funding to reduce state taxes directly or indirectly through 2024. This language is vague and no clarifications about it have emerged from the Department of Treasury so far.
The ambiguous language has many rightly concerned that any efforts at the state level to reduce the tax burden of its citizens could be stymied by the federal government.
Recognizing this vast federal overreach, a coalition of concerned leaders has signed onto a new letter to signal their opposition to the unprecedented move. The campaign was organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
The letter notes, in part:
“Using federal coercion to artificially elevate state tax burdens at a time when small businesses and hardworking American taxpayers need real tax relief is nonsensical. Our groups have spent decades working with state policymakers and watching them achieve more economically competitive business climates through pro-growth tax and economic reforms. Having the federal government use “the power of the purse” in an attempt to curtail the use of competitive federalism is incredibly damaging to our American system of government.”
It continues, “[w]e will work to protect the fundamental principle of federalism and allow states to continue their progress in pursuing economic gains as the 'laboratories of democracy.' Restricting states from providing pro-growth net tax relief tips the scales of federalism inexorably toward central planning and micromanagement by the federal government.”
You can read the letter in its entirety here. It was signed by MCPP President Douglas Carswell.
This entirely new level of dramatic fiscal recklessness and federal overreach demands opposition. The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is standing for federalism and the ability of states to conduct and control their own tax policy without new limitations.
The US House of Representatives passed a $1.9 Trillion bill, dramatically increasing the US budget deficit. Presented as a COVID-19 relief measure, little of the money will be spent on tackling the virus. Instead, it will hose federal funds at every vested interest imaginable.
This massive injection of money will undoubtedly generate more economic activity short term. But it will not mean sustainable growth and will carry long term negative consequences.
According to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model every $1 of spending in this bill will only lift output by around 20 cents.
So economically illiterate is this measure, even economists that normally favor stimulus spending admit that this is not the way to do it. US federal debt as a percentage of output is now close to the level it was at the end of World War II.
Is there any principled idea behind what this bill is up to, or is this simply a product of political opportunism?
The most favorable explanation is that progressives believe that there is hidden slack in the economy, and that added demand will create its own supply.
I believe what we will see instead is inflation, and a weakening of the US economy’s ability to generate wealth in the long term. That means lower living standards, higher taxes, a devalued dollar, and debt.
What can we do about it? Our job here at the MCPP is to help set out the alternative. America is going to need a roadmap to recovery based on the principles of free markets and limited government.
As some test to destruction the idea that government is able to spend its way to prosperity, millions of Americans need to know that we have an alternative. State by state, in Mississippi and beyond, we need a national movement that develops that alternative. The future prosperity and happiness of our children, and their children, depends upon it.
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
House Passes Major Occupational Licensing Reform Bill Championed by MCPP
Contact: Hunter Estes, [email protected]
The Mississippi House has just passed HB1263 which makes it easier for people to move to Mississippi to work. The bill removes a bureaucratic barrier that keeps skilled newcomers from being able to earn a living. HB1263 now moves onto Governor Reeves for consideration.
Authored by Representative Becky Currie, this bill would allow people who already have a license in another state to more easily get one when they settle in the Magnolia state. We interviewed Rep. Currie about the importance of the bill here.
The House voted to pass the bill by a vote of 115-1.
Today’s bill is part of a wider move to make Mississippi more business friendly and open to entrepreneurs.
“We are incredibly thankful to Representative Becky Currie, Senator Angela Hill, Senator Kevin Blackwell, Senator John Polk, Speaker Philip Gunn, and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann for their work on this bill,” noted Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, which has been driving the calls for reform.
“We spend millions of dollars trying to recruit companies to come here, but this bill is a simple, effective way to create more jobs right here in Mississippi. For too long, people have been moving out of state to work. This helps reverse that by making it easier for folks to come here and continue the pursuit of the American dream.”
Data recently released by the Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index shows that Mississippi is the 41st most costly state in the Union in terms of acquiring an occupational license.
“It is especially important that this bill passed, and that high barriers to work opportunities don’t hold back folks that want to come here to work,” Carswell explained.
Already, Arizona, Montana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Utah, Iowa and Idaho have passed this reform, which is also being introduced in multiple state legislatures this year.
MCPP President’s Douglas Carswell is available for media interviews. Please email [email protected] for requests.
***ENDS***
Famed economist Arthur Laffer endorsed HB1439, the Mississippi Tax Freedom Act, legislation introduced by Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn that seeks to eliminate the income tax.
Laffer’s work played a foundational role in defining the economic policies that led to tremendous growth under the Reagan administration in the 1980s. His preeminent and lasting work is known as the Laffer Curve. This theory notes that, through taxation, government gains revenue until, at a certain point, the taxation discourages growth to the point that the government actually takes in less revenue.
In 2019, Laffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Donald Trump for his accomplishments in and contributions to the study of economics.
In a press release sent out by Speaker Philip Gunn, Laffer stated:
“For decades, I’ve worked with state legislators to eliminate the tax that is the single greatest threat to state economic growth and prosperity—the income tax. My hat goes off to Mississippi Speaker of the House Philip Gunn and his colleagues for their bold plan to make Mississippi more prosperous through income tax elimination and fiscal discipline. America is watching. Mississippi has a once in a generation opportunity to re-position itself for economic growth.”
“I am very pleased to have Dr. Laffer’s support for HB1439,” noted Speaker Gunn. “Dr. Laffer’s leadership was a key inspiration for President Reagan’s transformative tax cuts, which set off an unprecedented boom in the American economy. There is no bigger name in tax reform circles nationally than Dr. Laffer. His support demonstrates the strength of HB1439. It is a credit to the hard work of Chairman Trey Lamar, Speaker Pro Tem Jason White, and our House members. As Dr. Laffer said, this is a once in a generation opportunity. I urge Lt. Governor Hosemann and our Senate to work with the House to bring transformative tax reform to Mississippi this session.”
A recent study by Dr. Joshua R. Hendrickson and Dr. Ronald Mau, economists at the University of Mississippi, showcased that the proposal would likely increase gross domestic product in the state by at least $371 million. This growth is in addition to the personal savings that individual taxpayers would experience because of the plan.
Our Senior Vice President for Policy, Dr. Jameson Taylor, interviewed Hendrickson and Mau to discuss their findings. You can read the full interview here.
HB1439 now awaits consideration in the Senate.
What tax plan is best for the people of Mississippi? What kinds of taxes are best for job growth and the economy? Why is tax policy important, in the first place?
Dr. Jameson Taylor recently interviewed two Mississippi economists for the answers. Dr. Joshua R. Hendrickson and Dr. Ronald Mau have studied the real-life effects of the Mississippi Tax Freedom Act (HB 1439) and produced a timely report on how the Tax Freedom Act would grow Mississippi’s economy.
Dr. Hendrickson holds a Ph.D. from Wayne State University and is an associate professor of economics at the University of Mississippi. Dr. Mau holds a Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame and is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Mississippi.
Dr. Taylor: It seems like the income tax is not something most people think about. People see this money taken out of their paycheck, but don’t realize it’s actually part of their tax bill from the state and federal government. Why is tax policy important for the average Mississippian?
Drs. Hendrickson and Mau: Tax policy is important to the average Mississippian because it affects how much money they really bring home in their paycheck. It also affects the costs of the things that they buy. In addition to other taxes in the economy, these income and consumption taxes reduce household resources available to save or spend.
On a more macro level, tax policy is important because it affects economic activity in the state, a key measure being the total amount invested in the state. When investment income is taxed, investment returns are lower, and investment resources may flow elsewhere. Tax policy can also affect whether businesses want to locate here or workers want to live here.
Dr. Taylor: Tax policy differs quite a bit from state to state. Nine states essentially have no income tax. Five states have no state sales tax. Mississippi is in the middle of the pack in terms of its overall tax burden. How much does tax policy affect where people choose to move?
Drs. Hendrickson and Mau: Tax policy is important. While tax policy might not always be the most important determinant of where a firm or a particular person decides to move, it does matter at the margin. In other words, when a particular person or company is choosing between moving to one state or another, the taxes that one has to pay in each of those states will play a role in that decision.
Dr. Taylor: The Tax Freedom Act essentially eliminates the income tax in exchange for raising the sales tax, excepting a cut to the grocery sales tax. What does the research show is the best way to levy taxes and what are the tradeoffs between taxing income and taxing consumption/sales?
Drs. Hendrickson and Mau: In general, research shows that a consumption-based tax system is preferred to an income-based tax system on efficiency grounds. People have no doubt heard the phrase, “when you tax something, you get less of it.” This is what economists mean by inefficiency. The tax prevents economic activity that would have taken place without the tax.
All taxes create distortions in economic activity, but not all taxes create the same magnitude of inefficiency. When designing a tax system, one would like to generate as much revenue as possible with the smallest distortions possible.
Consumption-based tax systems are preferred to income-based tax systems because the former create fewer distortions—income taxes not only tax labor income but also tax income that comes from savings. A tax on savings income lowers the after-tax rate of return on savings. Due to the nature of compound interest, the costs of taxation increase with the duration of savings.
Think about why people save. They might save to buy a new car, to have money for a rainy day, or for their retirement. Thus, we can think of savings as a way to pay for future consumption. Since the cost of taxation increases with the duration of savings, taxing income from savings is like having a tax on future consumption where the tax rate is higher every subsequent year in the future.
As we said, the goal of tax policy is to raise as much revenue as possible while also trying to minimize the distortions in economic activity that come from taxes. A higher and higher tax rate on future consumption not only creates a distortion, but the distortion gets larger with time. People not only have the incentive to save less, but they have an incentive to save for shorter durations of time.
A consumption-based tax system also creates distortions. However, in contrast to a tax on income, a consumption-based tax system taxes consumption in each period equally. As a result, you get fewer distortions.
Dr. Taylor: Your study finds that the Mississippi Tax Freedom Act (HB 1439) would increase incomes and economic activity in Mississippi. Why is this the case? How would it affect incomes in Mississippi?
Drs. Hendrickson and Mau: Our analysis really highlights the benefits of a more efficient tax system. When it comes to tax reform, what policymakers would like to do is increase economic activity without reducing the amount of tax revenue that they bring in. Of course, that is not easy to do. When you eliminate a particular tax, you eliminate the distortions and increase economic activity. However, you also lose the revenue that tax generates. To make up for that lost revenue, you have to create a new tax or increase another existing tax. Doing so generates revenue but also creates new or bigger distortions. For tax reform to be successful by the terms we just described, the new tax regime would have to be more efficient than the existing regime.
Our analysis shows that eliminating the income tax and replacing the revenue with a higher sales tax increases economic efficiency. This is because the distortions of the sales tax are smaller than the distortions from the income tax. The reason is what we described in answer to the last question. Income taxes tend to discourage savings and investment. As a result, shifting away from the income tax provides greater incentives to save and invest. This is where the economic benefits come in. This increase in investment leads to more production, higher marginal productivity of workers, and higher labor income. Furthermore, as a sign that a more efficient tax system drives this, we find that consumption would increase, despite a higher sales tax. This demonstrates that the economic effects of eliminating inefficiencies more than offset the cost of the tax increases.
This morning, Gov. Tate Reeves signed the Fairness Act (SB2536) into law. The law will require that public schools, universities, and community colleges designate sports teams as either male, female, or coed, as based on biological sex.
The law was sponsored by state Sen. Angela Hill (R-Picayune) and it had 21 cosponsors in the Senate.
Recent polling revealed that the legislation has wide support across political demographics. The poll sought approval for a state law that prohibits biological males from competing on female-only teams. In sum, 79 percent of registered Mississippi voters support such legislation. 87 percent of Republicans support the legislation, along with 83 percent of Independents and 65 percent of Democrats.
“Mississippians are breathing a sigh of relief now that Governor Reeves has signed this bill into law and established protections for the rights of girls and women who engage in competitive athletics,” stated MCPP Executive Vice President, Lesley Davis.
Davis gave a powerful defense of female sports in her piece here.
She continued, “Unlike what is happening in other states, our girls’ and women’s records will not be shattered by biological males competing against females. Women deserve to compete on a level playing field. Allowing males to compete in women’s sports destroys fair competition and women’s athletic opportunities.”
She continued, “Mississippi owes a debt of gratitude to those who stepped up and supported this legislation. We are especially grateful to Senator Angela Hill for authoring this law. We are also thankful to Governor Reeves for signing it, and for the work of Senator Rita Potts Parks, Senator John Polk, and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann. We also thank Speaker Philip Gunn, Rep. Becky Currie, Rep. Stacey Hobgood-Wilkes, and Rep. C. Scott Bounds for their support in the House. Mississippi’s female athletes and future female athletes thank you.”
The issue is becoming increasingly topical around the nation as female athletes have had to compete in athletic events with biological males in certain states. Such competition puts scholarship opportunities, awards, and recognition for female athletes up in the air.
Three high school girls who run track in Connecticut filed a lawsuit last year challenging a policy of allowing male athletes to compete against girls. The three — Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell — have been beaten consistently in track meets by a pair of transgender athletes born as males.
The lawsuit says the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s rules allowing transgender athletes to compete with girls poses a threat to Title IX because of physiological differences between men and women after puberty. Boys and men have more muscle mass and larger lungs and hearts and thus have the capacity to run faster and jump farther than most girls and women.
MCPP’s Dr. Jameson Taylor interviewed Selina Soule and shared her perspective on joining the lawsuit and the need to defend female sports. Read the interview here.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds. The law, passed in 1972, has led to a massive growth in the number of athletic opportunities for women. The NCCA currently allows member schools to set their own policies in this area, with the condition that a biological male competing on a women’s team must undergo at least one year of testosterone suppression. Several studies suggest, however, that even after a year of such treatment biological males enjoy a physical advantage over their biologically female peers.
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
Senate Passes HB 1263, Occupational Licensing Reform Bill Championed by MCPP
Contact: Hunter Estes, [email protected]
The Mississippi Senate has just passed HB 1263 which makes it easier for people to move to Mississippi to work. The bill removes a bureaucratic barrier that keeps skilled newcomers from being able to earn a living.
Authored by Representative Becky Currie, this bill would allow people who already have a license in another state to more easily get one when they settle in the Magnolia state.
The Senate passed HB 1263 by a vote of 51-1.
Today’s bill is part of a wider move to make Mississippi more business friendly and open to entrepreneurials.
“We are incredibly thankful to Representative Becky Currie, Senator Angela Hill, Senator Kevin Blackwell, Senator John Polk, and Lt. Governor Delbert Hosemann for their work on this bill,” noted Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, which has been helping to drive the calls for reform.
“We spend millions of dollars trying to recruit companies to come here, but this bill is a simple, effective way to create more jobs right here in Mississippi. For too long, people have been moving out of state to work. This helps reverse that by making it easier for folks to come here and continue the pursuit of the American dream.”
Data recently released by the Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index shows that Mississippi is the 41st most costly state in the Union in terms of occupational licensing costs.
“It is especially important that this bill passed, and that high barriers to work opportunities don’t hold back folks that want to come here to work,” Carswell explained.
Already, Arizona, Montana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Utah, Iowa and Idaho have passed this reform, which is also being introduced in multiple state legislatures this year.
MCPP President’s Douglas Carswell is available for media interviews. Please email [email protected] for requests.
***ENDS***
Over the past year, everything shut down—almost everything. Abortion was deemed essential, and Mississippi’s sole abortion facility remained open. Any time abortion is available in Mississippi, the Center for Pregnancy Choices Metro Area remains even more available with free resources.
With abortions averaging sixty per week in our Fondren community, we know there is an urgent demand for the needs that come from unexpected pregnancies. For every woman who has searched for abortion out of fear and uncertainty and instead found hope and life-changing support from a community that cares, CPC Metro Area is essential.
We have the freedom to do so in Mississippi. Yet, these free and confidential services, unfortunately, are being threatened.
For over 32 years, CPC Metro Area has offered free material, emotional, and spiritual support to women facing pregnancy decisions. Their staff walks women through pregnancy tests, offers options counseling for parenting, adoption, and abortion, and gives women the opportunity to have free sonograms. Materially, they offer free diapers, clothes, prenatal vitamins, and other parenting supplies at our clinics.
Their local partner churches host single mothers’ support groups, throw baby showers and establish long-term communities for young families. They are committed to facing unplanned pregnancies alongside women. They maintain relationships with them from their first call to long after a child is born.
For women who do choose abortion, they offer confidential abortion recovery groups. While they are a life-affirming ministry, they offer hope to women wherever they are without judgment or condemnation. Jackson’s CPC locations are the largest pregnancy medical clinics in the state, with one of their two clinic locations 100 yards from Jackson’s abortion facility. They represent a variety of resources offered by nearly 40 pregnancy centers spread across the state.
So why would anyone want to threaten its existence in our community?
The newly established Biden administration has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as head of the U.S Health and Human Services. In 2018, the same Becerra challenged pregnancy centers in a landmark Supreme Court case, NIFLA v Becerra. Thankfully, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, representing pregnancy centers, won at the Supreme Court. The potential HHS leader has already established a strong desire to stifle the speech and existence of pregnancy centers and their free services.
In the name of “choice,” Becerra appears dead-set on removing the choices of parenting or adoption support from our local communities.
Women continue to face unexpected pregnancies but with the added financial, emotional, and medical hardships we all have faced in the last year. They continue to find pregnancy centers online for help. CPC Metro Area is funded by local churches and individuals, divorced from any government agency backing, yet this administration seems adamant about limiting their services.
Service-oriented nonprofit costs have increased and many anticipate increasing needs in 2021. This free-market approach exceeds the normal state agency rates of success at a much lower cost. We need them to remain in our city and throughout our state.
This is the practical response to the demand for abortion in Mississppi.
Whether seasons of elections, policy changes, social movements, or pandemics hit the borders of Mississippi, CPC Metro Area will fight to be here. If you would like to join hundreds of Mississippians interested in saving lives today, learn more about their upcoming LifeWalk here.
Our response as Mississippians is clear—we must focus on practical solutions today rather than place our hope in politicians’ plans for tomorrow. Make your voice heard to keep free speech and freedom of association for abortion alternatives in our community.