close

Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) announced today that Aaron Rice has been named the new Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI).

Founded in 2016, MJI serves as the legal arm of MCPP, representing Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Rice replaces Shadrack White, who was recently appointed State Auditor of Mississippi by Gov. Phil Bryant.

“Simply put, there may not be a more important public policy initiative than what the Mississippi Justice Institute does every day to allow ordinary Mississippians to pursue their own version of happiness and prosperity,” Jon Pritchett, the President and CEO of Mississippi Center for Public Policy said. “When normal citizens experience barriers on the road to prosperity, it is often a barrier placed there by government. Aaron Rice is the kind of person who has never let any obstacle stand in his way. This is why I’m delighted that Aaron is leading our efforts.”

“Aaron Rice is a skilled litigator who will continue MJI's mission of pursuing cases that will foster economic liberty and personal freedom in Mississippi,” Mike Dawkins, Chairman of the Board of MCPP, said. “Aaron has a vision for the types of cases MJI should pursue and for how we can multiply our efforts through his recruitment and management of volunteer lawyers.”

“I am thrilled to have the opportunity to lead MJI,” Aaron said.  “To fight every day for the constitutional rights of Mississippians is a dream come true for me. Constitutional rights may sound like an old issue that was settled a long time ago, but every day, the lives of ordinary Mississippians are affected because the government has ignored their rights.  We want to put an end to that, and empower Mississippians to live freer, more prosperous lives.”

MJI’s activities include direct litigation on behalf of individuals, intervening in cases important to public policy, participating in regulatory and rule making proceedings, and filing amicus, or “friend of the Court,” briefs to offer unique perspectives on significant legal matters in Mississippi and Federal courts.

In a short period of time, MJI has built a reputation as an organization who will fight for Mississippians, whether it is entrepreneurs hoping to start a business, parents looking for a better educational option for their children, or taxpayers wanting to hold government accountable.

“I've known Aaron for over a decade and worked with him in the past,” Shadrack White, State Auditor and former Director of MJI, said. “I can say without hesitation that he is a brilliant lawyer and, more importantly, a man of deep conviction, courage, and character. MJI is in good hands. I look forward to seeing the work he will do on behalf of Mississippians in his new position.”

Aaron is native of Hattiesburg. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Aaron felt called to serve his country. He joined the Marine Corps and was deployed to Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines; the battalion would go on to suffer the highest number of casualties of any in the Iraq war. Aaron received the Purple Heart for sustaining combat injuries that resulted in the loss of his left leg below the knee.

Upon returning home, Aaron earned a degree in political science from Mississippi State University and was awarded the national Truman Scholarship to pursue his graduate studies. He earned his law degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law, where he focused his studies on constitutional law.

Prior to joining the Mississippi Justice Institute, Aaron built his career as a litigation attorney at Butler Snow, a nationally recognized law firm in Mississippi. Aaron is a Fellow of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) National Trial College at Harvard Law School, and a Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Trial Academy at Stanford Law School.

“My vision is for MJI to fight for ordinary Mississippians who want to do simple things every American has the right to do,” Aaron said. “Things like earning an honest living, keeping what rightfully belongs to them, sending their kids to a good school, and speaking freely about business or politics.

“If we are successful, every government body in Mississippi will know: if you overstep your bounds, we will find out about it, and we will stop you.  Every Mississippian will know: if the government is unnecessarily standing in your way, you can fight back, and we can help.”

Aaron is a Deacon at Madison Heights Church, PCA. He and his wife, Kelly, live in Madison with their four children, Clark, Griffin, Ramsey, and Miles.

We don’t want government telling us what to put in our mouths any more than we want them to tell us what can come out of our mouths. And the federal government has no legal authority to prevent state governments from changing their laws to remove state-level penalties for medical marijuana use. As a conservative state with a love for individual liberty and for federalism, this should be an easy decision, especially if we take the time to review the facts. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming.

Polling demonstrates that citizens are ahead of politicians and legislators across the county on this issue, with anywhere from as low as 65 percent to as high as 94 percent of Americans supporting the legalization of medical marijuana. And it spans all ages and party affiliations. A vast majority of Americans recognize the legitimate medical benefits of marijuana, as well as a large number of medical organizations. It is less harmful and poses fewer negative side effects than most prescription drugs – especially opiate-based painkillers – and patients often find it to be a more effective treatment.

Licensed medical doctors, already heavily regulated by the state, should be allowed to recommend solutions to deal with debilitating medical conditions, no matter the derivative of such solutions. If marijuana can provide relief to those suffering from terrible illnesses like cancer and HIV/AIDS, it is unconscionable to criminalize patients for using it. People who would benefit from medical marijuana should have right to use it legally. Legal prohibitions on commonly accepted behavior has never produced positive results. It’s bad public policy.

Medical marijuana is not the same as recreational marijuana and to try to conflate the two is an insult to the citizens of Mississippi and comes at the expense of patients who should be free to choose a legal option to opiate-based painkillers, with the guidance of their doctor. Rather than trying to turn this issue into a “law and order” one and attempting to convince us that patients suffering from debilitating illnesses and the doctors caring for them are criminals, our politicians should focus on removing this unnecessary barrier. The federal government put the barrier in place and 31 other states have rightly removed it. There is no legitimate reason for Mississippi not to do the same.

This is not a “crackpot” or “fringe” issue. The American Medical Association, The Institute of Medicine, and the American College of Physicians have all acknowledged the potential benefits of medical marijuana and the New England Journal of Medicine reported 76 percent of surveyed physicians would recommend it to a patient. Other legitimate health organizations supporting it include; American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine, and the Epilepsy Foundation.

Government is already regulating the healthcare industry at an unprecedented level. The federal government has grown into an unwieldy and unresponsive beast – increasing its paternalism over us all. Is all of this really required? Is it even legitimate? Mississippi can join the other states who value federalism and respect the rights of patients and licensed doctors to decide what is best.

For liberty-minded conservatives, this should be an easy decision.

This column appeared in the Clarion Ledger on August 6, 2018. 

The Trump administration has expanded options for families struggling to find affordable health coverage.

The departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury issued a new rule allowing individuals or families to utilize short-term, limited duration plans of up to 12 months, with potential for extensions up to 36 months. The Obama administration restricted these plans to three months without the option for renewal in 2016.

Short-term, limited-duration insurance is not required to comply with federal market requirements. It is largely used for those who are transitioning between different coverage options, such as those who would otherwise have a lapse in coverage when starting or transitioning to a new job, but can also be used by families without access to subsidized Obamacare plans because they make a little too much to qualify for a subsidy.

But they can’t afford the cost of health insurance.

These plans will be significantly more affordable. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the average monthly premium for an individual with a short-term plan was $124, compared to $393 for an unsubsidized plan in the exchange.

A recent report found that the number of people enrolling in the individual markets without subsidies declined by 20 percent, while premiums rose by 21 percent.

The Affordable Care Act is not working for too many Americans and it is becoming too expensive. This is a step to finding alternative healthcare coverage options for middle class citizens who are caught in the gap between not having employer-provided benefits and not qualifying for ACA subsidies.

Any steps towards a more market-based approach where we start to introduce competition, choice, and price rationale to the healthcare system is welcomed.

The Family First Initiative Summit, hosted by Governor Phil Bryant, First Lady Deborah Bryant and Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Dawn Beam, was recently held to bring together leaders across the state to work together to address the problems created by multigenerational family breakdown. In welcoming attendees, Gov. Bryant affirmed that Mississippi is already being recognized as a leader among states in reunifying families and helping children in crisis.

Part of the solution is an innovative public-private partnership between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Families First for Mississippi, a Mississippi-based nonprofit. The aim of the partnership is to provide wraparound services – whether it be job training or family counseling – that helps families get back on their feet. The goal of the summit was to create a network to expand these services and help Mississippi families. As Dr. John Damon, CEO of the Mississippi-based nonprofit Canopy Children’s Solutions put it, “If families get just a little bit of help, they can make it.”

Longtime supporters will know that MCPP has played a significant policy role in helping strengthen Mississippi families, overseeing passage of a gold-standard welfare-to-work reform and, this past session, helping pass a tax credit for donations to nonprofits who work with children in crisis, children with special needs, and low-income families. We are proud to continue to partner with the Governor and the First Lady in creating a Better Mississippi.

In Janus vs. AFSCME, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of Mark Janus, a government worker in Illinois.

In the ruling, the Court restored First Amendment rights for Janus and all public sector workers. No longer will public sector employees be required to fund political agendas they disagree with. You can enjoy freedom of speech and association, even if you work for the government.

In addition, the way government unions will extract fees from members has changed. The union will now need public sector employees to “affirmatively consent,” or opt-in to pay dues, rather than being required to opt-out, something that unions often made very difficult.

The full impact of Janus on unions will be determined in the future. It is almost guaranteed that they will lose members, and therefore dues, because of the ruling. And by extension, political clout. In “closed-shop” states, those that are not right-to-work, the way the system generally worked was unions helped elect friendly politicians and those same politicians would choose to raise taxes or cut other programs before they would suggest cuts to pay or benefits for government workers. Not exactly a model for fiscal responsibility.

Unions have generally put on a positive front after Janus. But the question has long been, what will they do? Will they moderate in an effort to hold on to members who are not liberal Democrats? After all, only half of all teachers voted for Hillary Clinton. If recent conventions from America’s largest teachers’ unions tell us anything, the problem appears to be that the unions are actually not liberal enough.

The National Education Association (NEA), of which the Mississippi Association of Educators (MAE) is an affiliate, racked up these accomplishments at their recent convention:

All business items are available for viewing here.

As for the nation’s other large teachers union, the American Federation for Teachers, they also got in on the fun of letting anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren know they are not welcomed. Or at the very least, they do not have a voice.

In fact, Warren spoke at the convention. Along with her fellow senator, Bernie Sanders. The only person who could top Warren and Sanders was Hillary Clinton, and she was there as well. Among the issues AFT is demanding:

This is a crucial time for all government unions, including teachers unions. But they have made it perfectly clear what they are all about;and who is welcomed in their camps. Teachers unions may sounds nice because we all know teachers and we have all been impacted by teachers, but there is a world of difference between what teachers are doing in the classroom and what is coming out of the headquarters of AFT or NEA.

Not only do teachers unions stand against every student-centered education reform measure, they are fully aligned with far left ideology, whether it has anything to do with education or not.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has spoken and individuals no longer have to pay for and be part of speech they disagree with as a condition of employment.

Want to learn more? Get your copy of Promoting Prosperity in Mississippiby making a donation of just $30. Simply click on the button below and we will get your copy in the mail.

[give_form id="5278"]

Attorney General Jim Hood has filed a lawsuit against student loan lender Navient alleging “widespread abuses across all aspects of its student loan business.”

Just last month the attorney general of California filed a similar suit. Prior to that, a handful of other states had taken related action against the student loan management corporation formerly known as Sallie Mae. With some $1.5 trillion in student loan debt nationwide, expect to see more states getting involved in the lawsuits.

The lawsuits may or may not be successful, but they simply deflect blame. Neither Navient, nor any other student loan provider, is responsible for students not being able to pay back their loans.

For a few decades now, the belief that every child must attend college has been pushed on students from the moment they enter kindergarten. If you want to be successful, you need a college degree. Any degree will do, just get a college degree the message went.

And for students who were unable to pay for the rising cost of a college education, the government was there to help. By guaranteeing student loans, lenders are at no risk when students take on a loan; just the taxpayers. No 18-year-old, without any collateral, can walk into a bank today and ask for a $100,000 loan so he or she could get a degree in…something. But that is what taxpayers guarantee every day with student loans. At very low interest rates.

As a result, colleges annually raised their tuition, fees, and other expenses, just because they could. When you are receiving student loans, it is as if you don’t see the money. It just passes through like monopoly money and you often don’t realize how expensive everything is. Or how much it has gone up year-over-year.

Colleges can do this because there is no incentive to do otherwise. They gain nothing by lowering their prices. The government has created an incentive to raise tuition without any fear of repercussions. And colleges and universities, for the most part, are only growing.

Unfortunately, student loans are just another area where the government gets involved with noble intentions. This time it was to help people pay for college. But as a result of government involvement, college became a lot more expensive and a college degree lost value.

Of course, part of the reason a college degree may not have value is because of the degree you receive. It seems all too often that those who complain the loudest about their student loans, while asking the government (i.e., taxpayers) to forgive their loans, are those who have degrees in fields that have no application in the marketplace.

Education is valuable. But it is only valuable if your degree prepares you for a career field. And if somebody else actually cares about that field. Too many degrees simply prepare students to be professional baristas at Starbucks.

In a free market society, personal responsibility is imperative. That means you need to decide if college is or isn’t right for you. And don’t just do what the world says. Maybe you’d be better off in trade school. Maybe you start out in community college for two years, where tuition will be nearly free. These are choices everyone should make before enrolling in college.

But in the end, each individual is responsible for his or her actions. And that includes signing your name on student loans. Because lenders aren’t going to stop giving out student loans as long as the government is guaranteeing those loans.

Bob Franco grew up in Vicksburg and never really thought about leaving the state of Mississippi. It was all he knew. One of six children, the family didn’t travel much outside of Vicksburg.

After graduating from St. Aloysius, he moved to Oxford to attend Ole Miss. He then went to work for a couple different companies in the state before a new opportunity took him to New Orleans. And then eventually to Ohio as he worked his way to become the vice president of the $1 billion roofing division of Owens Corning. He would then go on to work for two different private equity firms in Ohio and Kentucky after Owens.

For a small-town kid with humble beginnings, he did pretty well for himself and had a successful career by any measure. And when Bob made the decision to retire, or semi-retire, he made the decision to come back to Mississippi after being away for more than three decades.

Bob didn’t plan to move to Louisiana or Ohio or Kentucky. It is where the opportunity took him. And where he could be as successful as he wanted to be. And as he looks back, and looks at his home state today, are the prospects any better a generation or so later? Has that much really changed?

Where are we starting?

Unfortunately, the current data, across many measures, paints a bleak picture. Mississippi has the lowest per capita personal income in the nation at just over $36,000. Our neighbors are doing better. Arkansas and Alabama enjoy incomes that are 10 percent higher while Louisiana and Tennessee have 20 percent higher personal incomes.

Figure 1: Per capita income in Mississippi and neighboring states

And these numbers are not simply impacted by one area of one state. Those living on the Tennessee side of the Mississippi/ Tennessee border have personal incomes that are, on average, $6,000 higher than those on the Mississippi side.

Over the past 15 years, per capita income, after adjusting for inflation, has grown at a rate of just 1.1 percent in Mississippi. In two separate 15 year periods prior to 2001, the growth rates were 2.1 percent and 1.9 percent. ‘Just one percent’ is not insignificant, and, unfortunately, Mississippi has not kept up.

But what explains these numbers? And what can be done?

Economic freedom in Mississippi

During the same time that Mississippi was experiencing minimal growth, other states in middle of the country were prospering. They did so because of sound policies that emphasized economic freedom and limited government.

Mississippi has the fifth largest government share of state economic activity. Is this just because of our reliance on federal funds? No. When just state and local spending is calculated, Mississippi actually moves up to fourth. This is a state problem, not a federal one. Many incorrectly believe that Mississippi’s problems are rooted in our government spending too little. The data shows that is not the case. It would, indeed, be very difficult to spend more.

When the government grows, the state has increased ownership and the private sector shrinks. And economic freedom wanes.

According to the most recent Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of North America report, which measures government spending, taxes, and labor market freedom, Mississippi was ranked 45th among the 50 states. And unfortunately that ranking is only moving in the wrong direction. In the mid-1990s, Mississippi was on par with the national average. And our per capita income was growing. But since then, the rest of the country has become freer, while Mississippi has become less free.

Figure 2: Economic freedom, Mississippi and U.S. average

Do these rankings matter? A review of the top five and bottom five states in terms of economic freedom shows the freer states are more prosperous, have higher per capita incomes, more entrepreneurial activity, and lower poverty rates. (The information in the graphic below intentionally uses pre-recession data.)

Figure 3: Economic performance measures

Economic freedom is centered around free markets and voluntary exchange, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. It is not supposed to be managed, orchestrated, and predicted by the public sector.

Government incentives, often in the name of economic development and being ‘business-friendly,’ attempt to lure businesses to the state through financial benefits, such as site preparation, infrastructure, job training, or special tax breaks. The only reason these incentives are necessary is because of higher taxes or policies that burden businesses. Instead of special incentives for a few, Mississippi should work to provide a favorable climate for every business. And let the market decide where a business locates or expands.

Adopting market based policies

CNBC’s 2018 “Top States for Business” rankings painted an all too familiar picture for Mississippi. Mississippi was ranked 49th, a one spot drop from 2017. And the various business ratings generally correlate with freedom ratings. The more freedom, the more business friendly a state is. And the more the individuals in the state prosper.

Market based policies work. And state leaders have attempted to improve the economic climate of Mississippi, most notably through tax and regulatory reform. That is significant and they should be applauded. Yet at the same time, this past year the legislature attempted to make it more difficult to become a real estate broker, a measure backed by the Realtors Association. There was no impending threat to homebuyers via rogue brokers; rather it was an attempt to stifle competition. While the bill sailed through the legislature, it was rightly vetoed by Governor Phil Bryant.

There is still much work to do. The instincts are not always in the right directions. But there are reforms the state could adopt, including:

It can be done

Bob Franco is no different than many others who grew up in Mississippi only to search for opportunity elsewhere. But policy reforms can change everything. We can create more opportunity and see more people moving in than moving out. We have the blueprint. A blueprint based on sound evidence of what states have done to grow over the past couple decades. The blueprint is freedom and free markets, supported by a limited but effective government.

Moving briskly with the right policies, Mississippi leaders can cast a vision for a better future that increase incomes and improves quality of life. And it can be done within a generation.

A survey of Tennessee’s voluntary state funded preschool program found statistically significant negative results for children who enrolled in the program compared to those that did not.

There have been numerous studies on early childhood education in the past that proponents will likely point to in an attempt to discredit this survey. But this is the first randomized control test, or “gold standard” study. Because the program was oversubscribed, researchers were able to randomize the sample and provide a control group.

As we have often seen, this study showed some positive effects on student achievement at the end of preschool, but those gains have dissipated as the children enter elementary school. Specifically, by third grade, the survey found statistically-significant adverse actions on student math and science achievement and no significant effects on reading achievement.

These results don’t mix with the popular narrative of the day: that preschool is a wonderful thing, it is popular, and we would be better off if every parent began enrolling their child in a program at three years old. And because parents aren’t doing this, that is why their children may struggle when they hit kindergarten. That is the message from many politicians and the media.

Mississippi is headed in that direction

Mississippi began its journey into state funded preschool five years ago. Proponents celebrated that we were “finally” doing something. At the time, Mississippi Center for Public Policy was one of the few groups willing to speak out against such a program. As is often the case, legislators push a program because it sounds good or feels right without looking at the unintended consequences.

Mississippi has many wonderful private preschool providers. Many are run by churches, others by private schools or some other private enterprise. But they are competing with one another. They compete for students and the tuition needed to stay in business. That is healthy.

And parents can then choose the best program- for their family. That decision may be based on curriculum, or some other factor that is important to them such as whether the program is three days or five days or if it is a half day or full day. And it will usually involve talking with friends or scouring Facebook or other websites for reviews.

Beyond that, preschool isn’t necessarily the preferred early childhood education format for every family. Data shows it’s not and we see parents becoming very flexible for their children. If one parent can’t stay at home full time, many parents adjust their schedule so one parent can always be at home. Or they start working from home. Or they have relatives or friends watch their child. Again, there are options that families are taking advantage of.

Parents still offer the best childcare

For those who are fans of regulations, you will like the Tennessee program. The state mandates the minimum length of daily instructional time and the maximum size of a classroom. All teachers need a state license and each school has to choose among a set of approved curricula. So, very much like elementary and secondary school. And the results weren’t that much different.

What children need are involved parents. This has not changed, and will not change. Family is the building block of society and parents are responsible for raising their children. Children who stayed at home in Tennessee were better off than children who were enrolled in the program.

The debate today is similar to any time large government programs were born and expanded. In the 1960s, there was a perception that families and churches aren’t meeting all the needs for those in poverty, so the assumption is that government must step in. That’s the wrong step to take.

Yes, poverty programs solved some short-term problems, but they created the long-term perception that government was going to take care of people, inadvertently leading to more single-parent families. And the poverty rate remains virtually unchanged.

There is a belief that if something is wrong then only government can solve it. And as time passes, the government program only becomes larger and the private or non-profit sector shrinks before it disappears. We then begin living under the impression that this is government’s responsibility, regardless of how poorly government is functioning.

A parent friendly solution

Many parents like the idea of state funded early childhood education because it would remove a financial burden. That is understandable, but the state can do that without usurping the role of the private sector, and the family. And moving children from a good setting to a free, but poor, setting.

The federal government offers tax credits to help with childcare costs, and the state could do something similar. Rather than investing tax dollars in programs at state approved preschools, that same money could be returned to families for their child’s needs via tax credits. Families would be helped, the private sector would flourish, and government would not be expanded.

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