close

I’m Matthew Nicaud, the Tech Policy Analyst 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.

For this edition of Tech Talks, I recently had the privilege to talk with Tim Mask. Tim is an advocate for economic tech development in Mississippi and the CEO of Maris, West, & Baker marketing firm in Jackson, MS. In our conversation, we explore key questions. How can Mississippi grow its tech economy? What are the challenges? Where has the state made headway?

Let’s hear from Tim Mask….

I was born here, and I've made a career here. Socially and economically, I also am the owner of a company. The prosperity of my company depends on the economy of our state doing well and particularly organizations and businesses that are largely either service or knowledge-based type companies. But it's not just for the well-being of my company, it is for the well-being of myself and my family. And then for those people that work for this company, the state needs to do well, the state needs to do well in certain sectors. And that's really where my passion in this lies.

I'm a strong advocate of free markets. I have seen where public-private partnerships can and do work particularly in being able to provide  some aid to entrepreneurial endeavors. And that's probably even more important in a state like ours, where we have less available investment in venture capital than a lot of other places. This goes into part of the reason that some of our entrepreneurs ended up leaving for other places that have more ready access to venture capital. So the idea is that in some instances, the government is able to “prime the pump," and then the private sector uses that to take it from there.

I'm not for zero government participation in the start-up culture and economic development. But I also think that the private sector can, in most cases, do things better and more efficiently than the public sector can.

I think we lose a lot of potential when we're losing talent, particularly the kind of talent that we've traditionally been losing. There's also the component of talent attraction. You can argue the numbers from different aspects, but I've always said that you can't argue against the fact that talent attraction policies play a huge role in this.

I think Mississippi generally has a good business operating environment. And I think most of the research and the studies show that. So, it’s not that we don’t have a good business operating environment. We look at Silicon Valley, Austin, or the Research Triangle in North Carolina, and what these tech hubs have in common is a really strong research university component. With this is an almost ferocious tech transfer effort. This means getting that theoretical technology and development that goes through the research university system, into a practical form and out into the private sector.

We have some good research universities in Mississippi. In the past, they tended to work more in silos outside of the economic development community. This is changing pretty rapidly, but it hasn’t been that great from a tech transfer standpoint. But I think we are now seeing the research universities cooperating more amongst themselves. And you're seeing that economic development community at the state level work closer with those research universities. So these efforts are not disjointed anymore. I think that is a very encouraging development that we are recently seeing in the state.

I would say the biggest issue is access to venture capital. It is mostly a venture capital issue. I'm generalizing here, but there are “five guys” that everybody goes to in Mississippi when they want an angel investment or when they’re seeking some start-up money. There are five guys. They're all guys, and they're getting increasingly older. These guys can only fund so many ventures, and this lack of available funding makes it difficult for start-ups to get off the ground. There is also the lack of a strong unifying network of Mississippi incubators and accelerators, which is a contributing barrier for entrepreneurs.

I think the flag was an issue, and I think we did what we needed do there. I think it was overdue, and I think it was necessary. I think that removed one of the biggest barriers, maybe the biggest one.

I don't want to say that some of the other policies aren't ever looked at by the tech community, but I also don't want to say that these policies make a meaningful difference. I think some companies may look at these conservative social policies, particularly certain industries such as the entertainment industry. Some of these things are issues for some industries but are not an issue for others. But generally speaking, I don't think that these things are a real barrier for venture capital coming into the state. And we're not necessarily trying to attract entrepreneurs to the state. I don't know if that makes a lot of sense. We're trying to retain entrepreneurs in the state. I think that is where our focus should be.

When you want more of something, incentivize it, when you want less of something, tax it. So, it's all well and good to attract a paper mill. There is a model for doing that, and it may or may not work out, depending on the deal. But when you talk about incentivizing people, you are incentivizing the skills that those people bring to the table versus just incentivizing the industry. It is a whole lot cheaper to incentivize a person than it is to incentivize industry, such as a plant.

Also, you've probably got good jobs at that plant, but a plant that employed 3,000 people 25 years ago now probably employs 300 and may soon employ 30 because of automation. That's been going on for half a century.

Additionally, most jobs at that plant are going to top out at a certain pay rate. That puts a ceiling on us. But I think it's an artificial ceiling. It doesn't have to be there. When you talk about people-incentivized economic development, you are talking about investing in individuals instead of industries. It is a lot cheaper to invest in individuals than it is to invest in whole industries. This leads to less overall investment in the incentives -which is good for the taxpayer. You are talking about not putting a ceiling on the earning potential of individuals who are staying in the state or who you are attracting to the state. This investment in a knowledge-based economy, is a formula to raise the state's per capita income, which should be the goal of every economic development program. Bringing industry to the state is not the goal.  Bringing in talent to the state is not the goal. These things are just means to the end. The goal is to raise the per capita income of the citizens of the state.

As a state with only about 3 million people, it’s not going to take much to start moving the needle of higher per capita income. Especially when we talk about underserved communities, it's not going to take that much to get this ball rolling. And then when it does, you have a snowball effect, because you are bringing in business here. You are retaining the type of individuals and entrepreneurs here that then spin off other ventures, other products, and other companies. So when you get that cycle going, it is the same model that has seen so much success in places like Silicon Valley.

I'd say making sure that our entire economic development ecosystem has a unified game plan. For the most part, we should be moving in the same direction, from the very top down to the local level through Chambers of Commerce. That doesn't mean all areas of the state are going to be trying to do the same exact things, but its a cluster approach that strategically moves us all to a targeted goal. That's what we're starting to see now. So it's extremely encouraging.

Charles “Butch” Slaughter is a physical therapist and owner of a clinic in Jackson, Mississippi, who would like to start a home health business to reach new patients who want or need to receive house calls. But Slaughter can’t offer this service because of a nearly 40-year-old law that makes it illegal to start new home health agencies in the state.

Even if this ban didn’t exist, he still might not be able to provide in-home services, since his competitors could use Mississippi’s Certificate of Needs laws to force him to battle them in court over whether the community really needs a new home health agency.

Today, the Mississippi Justice Institute (“MJI”), a non-profit constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, has filed a federal lawsuit over these unconstitutional laws on behalf of Slaughter.

”The ban on new home health agencies is an absurd law that serves absolutely no purpose other than preventing legitimate competition and creating an oligopoly for existing providers,” said MJI Director Aaron Rice. “The CON laws are just as bad, and essentially serve as a competitor’s veto for powerful industry insiders.” 

“Patients have been increasingly seeking in-home physical therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Slaughter. “I can’t believe it is illegal for me to start a home health business to help more patients. Other companies are already doing this, but it’s illegal for anyone else to do it. It makes no sense.” 

Mississippi’s law requires many healthcare providers to apply for and receive a certificate of need from the Department of Health before opening, expanding, relocating, changing ownership, or acquiring major medical equipment. This a difficult and expensive process, during which existing competitors can protest that there is no “need” for a new healthcare facility. Getting this certificate has nothing to do with proving that the new facility will be safe, sanitary, or high quality. Rather, applicants must convince the government that opening a new health care facility will not financially hurt competing health care businesses.

Additionally, in 1981, Mississippi enacted a ban on the issuance of new certificates of need for home health agencies. This means that for almost four decades, the only way to enter the home health market has been to purchase a previously issued certificate of need from the owner of an existing home health agency who is seeking to sell the agency along with its certificate of need. If there are no previously issued certificates of need for sale in the desired service area, then healthcare entrepreneurs simply cannot provide home health services.

CON laws are a failed public policy that was originally intended to drive down health care costs. After experience showed that they actually had the opposite effect, some states abandoned them. But they remain on the books in 35 states, including Mississippi, because existing providers who benefit from them lobby furiously to keep them in place. Currently, Mississippi is one of only 16 states that require a CON to open a home health agency, and one of only two states that has a complete ban on new home health agencies.

Numerous studies have shown that CON laws do not live up to their original goals, but instead decrease access to healthcare, increase costs for consumers, and limit competition. In 2016, the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice issued a joint statement, concluding, “CON laws, when first enacted, had the laudable goals of reducing healthcare costs and improving access to care. However, after considerable experience, it is now apparent that CON laws can prevent the efficient functioning of healthcare markets in several ways that may undermine those goals. First, CON laws create barriers to entry and expansion, limit consumer choice, and stifle innovation. Second, incumbent firms seeking to thwart or delay entry or expansion by new or existing competitors may use CON laws to achieve that end. Third, CON laws can deny consumers the benefit of an effective remedy following the consummation of an anticompetitive merger. Finally, the evidence to date does not suggest that CON laws have generally succeeded in controlling costs or improving quality.”

“The government cannot pass laws merely to protect businesses from legitimate competition,” said MJI volunteer attorney Seth Robbins. “Healthcare costs are out of control.  We need more competition in the healthcare industry and less government intervention and protectionism. We’re proud to stand with Mr. Slaughter in his fight against these senseless government policies.”

“Mississippi should be encouraging entrepreneurs, not outlawing them,” said Rice. “We look forward to vindicating Mr. Slaughter’s constitutional right to earn a living, and seeing him get back to growing his business”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi. 

In November, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Tennesee may prohibit eugenic abortions of preborn children based on race, sex, or genetic abnormality. This summer, Governor Bill Lee signed an omnibus pro-life bill with a variety of additions to abortion law.  Several abortion advocacy groups immediately filed emergency lawsuits, and District Judge William Campbell temporarily blocked the restrictions from taking effect.

Among the several conditions Governor Lee signed into law, not every limitation is active. Some restrictions will still be challenged in court. However, a ban on discriminatory abortions on the basis of race, sex, and genetic abnormality is now active law. Mississippi celebrates our neighbors to the North joining us in correcting this discriminatory practice. 

Mississippi passed The Life Equality Act (HB 1295) this summer, making Mississippi one of the nation’s leaders in the protection of life. This bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Crawford (R- Pass Christian), and the Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Jenifer Branning (R- Philadelphia) — two powerful female voices for the most vulnerable in our state. 

The bill's first step was made possible by Rep. Nick Bain's ( R-Corinth) leadership during the House committee vote. Sen. Brice Wiggins (R- Pascagoula) led the Senate committee vote, advocated for boldly by Sen. Joey Filingane (R-Sumrall) before the Judiciary B committee. Sen. Jeremey England (R- Ocean Springs) took to social media for this critical piece of legislation, “I believe it is of the utmost importance that our laws are applied equally and that they provide equal protection of our God-given rights.”

The Mississippi House Members who co-sponsored the bill alongside Rep. Crawford were Rep. Brady Williamson, Rep. Steve Hopkins, Rep. Stacey Hobgood-Wilkes, Rep. Lester Carpenter, Rep. William Tracy Arnold, Rep. Dana Criswell, Rep. Donnie Scoggin, Rep. Dana McLean, Rep. Chris Brown (20th), Rep. Dan Eubanks, Rep. Shane Barnett, Rep. Jansen Owen, Rep. Gene Newman, and Rep. Randy Boyd. 

The law signed into effect by Governor Tate Reeves prevents abortions from taking place because of diagnoses like Down Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis. Even in non-fatal cases, as many as 67 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted in the United States. Respectively, an estimated 95 percent of babies given a prenatal diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis are aborted. Increasingly, evidence displays the presence of abortions taking place when families prefer male babies to female. Just as devastating, pregnancy decisions are sometimes made on the basis of the race of the child. This bill makes a strong stand against the taking of a preborn life due to prejudice. Mississippi has made it illegal for abortionists to knowingly carry out discriminatory abortion, with criminal penalties. 

What does this mean for Mississippi?

With more states joining the movement to end discriminatory abortions each year, many legal experts anticipate these limitations soon moving to the US Supreme Court. This will be a groundbreaking case to follow because it may set the precedent on states’ abilities to restrict abortion before the age of viability when there is a proven state interest in providing protection to minority groups. This case, in turn, could call into question previous rulings across the courts of America. Tennessee and Mississippi will be strong allies calling to question—do states have the right to protect those being discriminated against, whether in the womb or outside of it?

It’s a question I hear a lot. Conservatives usually support sweeping tax cuts and lower regulations for corporations, so many people are confused as to why these businesses seem to oppose conservative politicians. Progressives often get riled at the mere thought of the question; after all, so much of left wing ideology is devoted to limiting the power of business interests.

And yet, corporations at least seem to be liberal. Big businesses regularly host diversity seminars, publicize their support for LGBT acceptance movements, and, as of recently, some have started openly supporting race-based affirmative action and backing left-wing social movements such as Black Lives Matter. There is no equivalent outreach to conservative movements from big business. So, are large corporations truly “progressive”? Have the CEOs of America’s largest companies become committed supporters of social justice and the redistribution of wealth?

No, of course not. When we see big businesses in America show support for traditionally liberal causes, it is all a cost-benefit calculation. Supporting liberal social causes—particularly identity politics—is the most reliable way to attract young, urban customers with little risk to their bottom line.

This summer, McDonald’s tweeted its support for the Black Lives Matter movement and “social justice.” Yet, the McDonald’s branch in Azerbaijan has tweeted support for the suppression of ethnic Armenians in their disputed homeland. Google fired an employee for expressing conservative-leaning views on gender roles—after he was asked for his opinion on the issue. Yet, Google has enthusiastically aided China, an authoritarian dictatorship, in creating a censored search engine.

Examples like this show us that, when practical, countless corporations will abandon liberal principles to aid their bottom line. The defining interests of corporations continues to be making money, so this should not be too surprising.

But why does big business support progressive causes in the first place?

Corporations want consumers. They want talented employees. But a sufficiently large corporation wants cultural relevance as well; they want the trendsetters and the well-connected to both buy from them and work for them. Corporate America has calculated that that cultural relevance is centered in coastal, liberal, and urban areas. They have calculated that the “cool” people live in big cities, not the rest of America. And in response, they publicize support for causes that they believe to be more popular in those areas rather than in the Bible Belt or Middle America.

Arguably more important is to look at the issues that big business entities are not supporting: $15 minimum wages, increased taxes on the wealthy, etc.; corporations remain silent on issues that could actually lose them money. But identity politics, increased immigration, and LGBT acceptance all offer perceived potential monetary, social, and cultural gains, so naturally those just happened to be the issues that many corporations engage with and promote.

In a warped sense, big business is killing two birds with one stone. Not only do they ignore progressive policies that could hurt their profits, but by indulging in liberal causes that do them no harm—identity politics in particular—they could very well be distracting young liberals and leftists from opposing big business or seeking action on bottom line-threatening policies in the first place.

A liberal focused on gay marriage is less likely to be a liberal focused on regulating big business. A socialist focused on “people of color” is a socialist not focused on the working class as a whole. In an ironic twist, corporations acting “liberal” might end up hurting the radical left more than anyone else. So let us not be surprised when we find out that when businesses extoll liberal views, it is still just a business decision.

Ty Usey is a senior at Jackson Preparatory School.  He is interested in economics, engineering, and he participates in cross country, chess team, and quiz bowl.

In a year that’s potentially on pace for the highest homicide rate in Jackson history, police and city officials have sought a new ally in the fight on crime: your doorbell.

Jackson has been launched into the heart of an intense civil liberties debate over the discussion of a new program which would allow Jackson city officials to tap into private residential and business doorbell cameras.

Jackson residents can now register for the program, giving police a variety of access options to their personal cameras including alarm-triggered live feeds, 24/7 streams, and more.

In a discussion with WLBT, Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba noted, “[w]hat we’ll be able to do is get a location, draw a circle around it and pull up every camera within a certain radius. If someone is running out of a building, we can follow and trace them.”

Mayor Lumumba further noted, “[u]litmately, what will happen is residents and businesses will be able to sign a waiver, if they want their camera to be accessed from the Real Time Crime Center. It would save (Jackson) from having to buy a camera for every place across the city.”

The Jackson City Council approved a 45-day trial for the program, but not all Council members are supportive. Councilman De’Keither Stamps questioned whether the technology could be abused and stated, “I don’t believe the government should be tapping into my Ring, I don’t believe we should be sponsoring this.”

Jackson will be partnering with Jackson-based technology company, PILEUM, and Georgia-based cloud service provider, FUSUS, in order to allow Jackson police to collect and access the videos.

What do you think? Would you sign up for the program/allow your device to be used by police?

Engage with us on Facebook and Twitter to discuss further!

Here at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, we believe that with its hard-working people, cutting-edge research centers, and low cost of living, Mississippi is a state with immense potential to make a substantial national impact on the rapidly emerging tech economy.

Considering the potential for technological expansion in our state, we are pleased to launch the Tech Talks interview series. In our Tech Talks, we will have engaging discussions with individuals from across the state who are making an impact on the advancement of technological prosperity in Mississippi through their initiative and innovation. We will hear their insights, stories, and expertise on a variety of important issues for tech innovation in Mississippi, ranging from regulatory reform to advancements in tech-driven solutions. We look forward to seeing the Tech Talks series as a place to showcase the past successes and future objectives that are driving the tech conversation in our state.

The series will be led by Matthew Nicaud, Mississippi Center for Public Policy’s new Tech Policy Analyst. His work will focus on engaging with tech policy from a free market-oriented perspective and working with policy and community leaders to advance public discussion on these issues.

Using these opportunities to interact with some of the best and brightest in our state, MCPP looks forward to further exploring the tech landscape and starting the conversation on tech policy issues. With the understanding that economic liberty leads to economic prosperity, we are excited to hear from pioneering tech leaders, policy makers, and entrepreneurs on how Mississippi can encourage tech advancements and reach new heights.

We invite you to join us as we showcase the Mississippi leaders that are making a difference in tech and promoting prosperity in our state!

Visit the Tech Talks homepage at:

Tech Talks Series

Every year, the 2,700 pregnancy resource centers in America serve women in the midst of an unexpected pregnancy. They offer medical, material, emotional, and spiritual resources for women and men facing a decision about their pregnancy. These centers walk with women and their families from the first pregnancy test to long after the baby’s birth. 

Last month’s release of Charlotte Lozier Institute’s Pregnancy Center Services Report revealed stunning findings about these local non-profits. 

Nationwide in 2019, pregnancy centers served local communities with: 

In Mississippi, we have nearly 40 pregnancy centers dispersed throughout the state. 

These centers offer their services completely free to their communities. They are loosely banded together with national network partners like Heartbeat International and CareNet. This decentralized movement of free service clinics and centers include the assistance of nearly 69,000 staff and volunteers, with 78 percent of them being volunteers. Over 10,000 of these staff and volunteers are licensed medical workers.

It is estimated that pregnancy resource centers saved American taxpayers $270 million in 2019.

The vast majority of pregnancy centers receive no government funding whatsoever. Despite not having the support of government agencies and grants, pregnancy centers are extremely efficient at distributing goods and services according to the needs of their cities and counties. 

One of The CPC Metro Area’s two clinics can be found 100 yards from the state’s last abortion facility in Jackson. Inside, you can find a sonogram machine donated by an evangelical non-profit. This allows women considering abortion to view their child on a big screen, funded by local donors, for free. 

The waiting room and counseling rooms are filled with donated brand new furniture, the hallways lined with art donated by local artists. 

The clinic is kept cool and warm by a donated HVAC system. 

Medical and administrative staff and supplies are solely funded by churches and individuals from the greater metro area. 

The free prenatal vitamins are covered by a local pharmacist. 

The sonograms reviewed by radiologists who donate their time and expertise. 

An OBGYN compassionately offers expertise as a medical director. 

The single moms’ support groups are hosted by some of the nearly 100 local church partners, and baby and maternity supplies rush in so quickly, storage can barely be maintained. 

Even the Center’s websites, graphic design, and video production is given as free talent and time from local professionals. This is just one of the three dozen PRCs Mississippians support by their own accord. 

When left to coordinate needs with resources freely, it’s amazing what this spontaneous assortment of non-profit centers can accomplish. 

Jones County Junior College has agreed to revise their free speech policies on campus after a lawsuit was filed by a former student.

Michael Brown, who is now a student at the University of Southern Mississippi, was stopped twice by campus police for trying to inform students about the political club he was involved with, Young Americans for Liberty, without prior authorization from the school’s administration, Along with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, he filed suit in October 2019 challenging the policies. 

Brown was stopped by campus officials over an inflatable beach ball, known as a “free speech ball,” upon which students could write messages of their choice and again in the spring for polling students about marijuana legalization. 

An administrator told YAL that they weren’t permitted on campus since they hadn’t sought permission from the college.

According to Brown, he and another student held up a sign polling students on marijuana. Campus police took him and another student to their office after telling a friend, who wasn’t a student, to leave. Campus officers later escorted the friend off campus.  

The Department of Justice even became involved with what is known as a statement of interest. 

The DOJ statement compared the school’s regulations regarding public speech from their handbook to the tyrannical state of Oceania in George Orwell’s “1984.” The statement also says the college has an obligation to comply with the First Amendment. 

Previously, the regulations required at least three days’ notice to administrators before “gathering for any purpose.” The student handbook also puts even more restrictions on college-connected student organizations, which must schedule their events through the vice president of student affairs. The school administration also reserved the right, according to the handbook, to not schedule a speaker or an activity.

The statement says that these restrictions operate as a prior restraint on student speech and contain no exception for individuals or small groups, and grant school officials unbridled discretion to determine about what students may speak.

As part of the settlement, JCJC has reversed course and agreed to implement a policy allowing students to express themselves without permission. The policy also adopts language from the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” at the University of Chicago (better known as the “Chicago Statement”). The college also agreed to pay $40,000 for attorneys’ fees and damages.

Last year, the legislature debated the FORUM Act, which would expressly permit all forms of peaceful assembly, protests, speeches and guest speakers, distribution of literature, carrying signs, and circulating petitions. 

Schools would not be able to create specific “free speech zones” and they may not deny a religious, political, or ideological student organization any benefit or privilege available to any other student organization, or otherwise discriminate against such an organization, based on the expression of the organization.

House Bill 1200 passed the House, but died in the Senate. 

Perhaps if the law was on the books, JCJC could have saved $40,000. 

One year after the Mississippi Justice Institute filed a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, the city council has repealed their buffer zone ordinance that restricted free speech around abortion clinics. 

Last October, MJI and members of Sidewalk Advocates for Life – Jackson, Mississippi launched a constitutional challenge to Jackson’s prohibition on pro-life counseling and other free speech outside the state’s only abortion facility. 

"We are pleased that the city of Jackson has decided to do the right thing and end this unconstitutional restriction on free expression," said Aaron Rice, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute. "This is a major victory for free speech for Jackson and the state of Mississippi.

The old ordinance banned individuals who are near health facilities from approaching within eight feet of any person without consent, for the purpose of engaging in various forms of speech such as counseling, education, or distributing leaflets; bans people from congregating or demonstrating within 15 feet of the abortion facility, and bans any amplified sound. Violations of the ordinance could have result in fines of up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail.

"Sometimes, the law ends up being what it should be, and this is such a time," said Andy Taggart, a founding partner in Taggart, Rimes & Graham who served as pro bono co-counsel. "The city of Jackson has rescinded an ordinance that should have never been the law to begin with, and, at least for now, things are set right."

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