close

Bills that would allow the Occupational Licensing Review Commission to review existing regulations are moving in both chambers. 

Mississippi’s Occupational Licensing Review Commission, adopted in 2016, is a positive step toward scaling back the regulatory arm of the state, but is limited to new regulations only. This would give the Commission – which is made up of the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state – the ability to review existing regulations and to act upon it if it does not:

Today, Mississippi has more than 117,000 regulations, which numerous empirical studies show to have a detrimental effect on economic growth. Mississippi also licenses 66 low-and-middle income occupations. According to a recent report from the Institute for Justice, Mississippi has lost 13,000 jobs because of occupational licensing and the state has suffered an economic value loss of $37 million.

Senate Bill 2790, authored by Sen. John Polk, would give the OLRC the ability to review the substance of any regulation cleared the Senate and is on the calendar in the House. A similar bill, House Bill 1104, authored by Rep. Jerry Turner, has now passed the Senate, after clearing the House earlier in the session. That bill originally only gave the OLRC the ability to look at regulations adopted since 2012, but the Senate changed the language to allow the Commission to review any regulations.

It will be returned to the House for concurrence or conference, where the two chambers would hash out differences before agreeing to a final bill.

This is a good step, but more needs to be done to rein in Mississippi's regulatory burden. This includes:

House Bill 1212, sponsored by state Rep. Jason White, would prohibit a real estate broker from hiring salespersons until they have had their license for 36 months.

Right now, a real estate salesperson needs 12 months of experience working under a broker to earn their broker’s license. Under HB 1212, they could still do that, but would not be able to hire any salespersons for three years.

This isn’t the first time that this bill has made an appearance in the Mississippi legislature. In 2018, HB 1246 was passed by the legislature, but vetoed by then-Gov. Phil Bryant.

In his veto message, Bryant said the bill would be an over-burdensome law and a barrier to entry for potential brokers. He also said two more years of experience will not necessarily guarantee that a real estate salesperson will be better prepared to become a broker.

On both counts, Bryant is correct. Passage of this bill would make it harder to become a broker, which eliminates competition for existing licensees. Two more years of experience also won’t guarantee that a broker is more knowledgeable.

There isn’t some need for this. This is simply an attempt by current license holders to use the government to fend off new competition. 

MCPP has reviewed this legislation and finds that it violates our principles and therefore should be opposed. 

Read HB 1212.

Track the status of this and all bills in our legislative tracker.

While a bill that would begin a small regulatory reduction appears dead in the Senate, a new report shows Mississippi is the most regulated state in the South. 

This is according to a new brief authored by James Broughel and Kofi Ampaabeng from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. On a population-adjusted basis, Mississippi has a regulatory rate of 0.039, meaning regulations per person. Louisiana has the second most at 0.035, followed by Kentucky with 0.029. 

Louisiana isn’t that surprising. In terms of the total number of regulations, they have the second most in the South with 163,000. Florida has the most at 171,000, yet adjusted for population, that dips to 0.008. A fraction of Mississippi’s regulatory burden. 

Why is this helpful? It paints a better picture of Mississippi’s regulatory burden (though not actually better). One could argue that in terms of raw number of regulations, we’re middle of the pack nationwide – or not that bad. But as the brief outlines, there are reasons that more populous states might tend to have more regulations than less populous states.

“For example, more populous states might have more industries, so some forms of regulation may not be necessary in less populous states,” the authors note. “It is also possible that more populous states have denser population than less populated states, and when more people are congregated in smaller areas, certain externalities or other market failures could be more prevalent, thereby necessitating more regulation. 

“Finally, some scholars have posited that there are fixed costs associated with regulating and that larger populations will be able to absorb these fixed costs more easily by spreading them across a greater number of people. Therefore, more populous states could be expected to have more regulation because it is relatively cheaper for them to impose regulation than less populous states.”

What does this matter? Regulatory growth has a detrimental effect on economic growth.

Regulatory growth has a detrimental effect on economic growth. We now have a history of empirical data on the relationship between regulations and economic growth. A 2013 study in the Journal of Economic Growth estimates that federal regulations have slowed the U.S. growth rate by 2 percentage points a year, going back to 1949. A recent study by the Mercatus Center estimates that federal regulations have slowed growth by 0.8 percent since 1980. If we had imposed a cap on regulations in 1980, the economy would be $4 trillion larger, or about $13,000 per person. Real numbers, and real money, indeed. 

On the international side, researchers at the World Bank have estimated that countries with a lighter regulatory touch grow 2.3 percentage points faster than countries with the most burdensome regulations. And yet another study, this published by the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that heavy regulation leads to more corruption, larger unofficial economies, and less competition, with no improvement in public or private goods. 

For those hoping for reform, House Bill 1422, which passed the House, would have created a pilot program for regulatory reduction. The way the bill works is the Mississippi Departments of Health, Transportation, Agriculture and Commerce, and Information Technology Services would have review its existing regulations, accept written comments from the public for 60 days following the review and conduct at least two public hearings for citizens and businesses to identify any rule or regulation that is burdensome.

The review would have to be conducted within 120 days of HB 1422 becoming law. Each of the agencies covered in the pilot program would have to reduce their regulations by:

This bill needs to clear Accountability, Efficiency, Transparency committee in the Senate today or it’s dead. 

As people began staying in during the coronavirus pandemic, food trucks soon became a popular option in neighborhoods across the state.

Whether it was because restaurant dining halls were closed, people were nervous about going out, or the fact that many festivals where food trucks tend to congregate being cancelled, all of a sudden we realized what a great benefit food trucks provide. And food trucks were happy to fill that hole.

Food trucks are a fixture in booming cities across America and can be found in many locales up and down Mississippi. That is as long as local governments stay out of the way. Which they mostly have. Though protectionist tendencies are hard to break. 

Food trucks already follow the same health and safety guidelines set by the Department of Health as brick-and-mortar restaurants, but some don’t like the idea of competition from colorful trucks that tend to draw a crowd. For more than a year, the city of Tupelo debated food truck regulations. In the end, Tupelo did the right thing and never followed through on early regulatory proposals such as what streets you could be located or how far you must be from a brick-and-mortar restaurant. 

Why did Tupelo need the proposed regulations? Were people who visited food trucks becoming ill? Did they hate their food? Hardly. 

Tupelo Councilman Willie Jennings said, in proposing the regulations at the time, “I just want to make sure the established businesses are protected.” Another councilman, Markel Whittington, said brick-and-mortar restaurants have requested food truck regulations. While he didn’t feel food trucks posed a “threat” to those restaurants, he believed it was appropriate for government to act “on behalf of select business interests.” Hint: It’s not.

Councilman Mike Bryan lobbied for brick-and-mortar restaurant protections, such as a ban on major roads. “I feel like it is not fair to brick-and-mortar businesses to allow food trucks to park in front of their business,” Bryan said. Another councilman, Buddy Palmer, also indicated his support for a ban. “I will always be pro-downtown businesses over food trucks,” Palmer said. “I am for brick-and-mortar businesses much more than I am for food trucks.” Or you could just support new business coming to your city and letting consumers decide?

In Columbus, it wasn’t the government but the proprietor of a local CJ’s Pizza that called the owners of the shopping center where his restaurant is located and had a food truck removed from the parking lot. After all, it was too close to his establishment. “If you think you're gonna park a food truck right next to my restaurant in the same parking lot and poach my customers then think again,” the rant read on Facebook.

This isn’t how business works. You can’t just run your competition out of town. You provide better food, better service, or a better price, preferably all three. And then the competition closes shop because they can’t survive. 

Food trucks are examples of entrepreneurs responding to market signals. In so doing, they are contributing to the local economy by serving a customer niche. Brick-and-mortar restaurant entrepreneurs can do the same, and many have. All of these entrepreneurs, new and old, are creating unique options and working to build a more diverse and appealing food marketplace in Tupelo, Columbus, or wherever they are located. In turn, this attracts more consumers to the downtown – creating a bigger, healthier and more prosperous local economy.

In a properly functioning economy in America, the success of a food company should be based on how good the food and service is; not on how well connected it is to the political class. In a system of capitalism, competitors respond to consumer trends with innovations and improved offerings, not by seeking government help to build a moat around their businesses. We should be encouraging entrepreneurs and risk-takers, not creating hurdles out of a misplaced sense of obligation to protect existing businesses.

It is not the role of government to protect any business, brick-and-mortar or otherwise, from competition. The free enterprise system operates correctly when consumer choice, not political blessing, is the basis of choosing the winners and losers. As we’ve seen during the pandemic, needless regulations only get in the way of consumer choice. That might be healthcare regulations restricting your access to telemedicine. Or your ability to choose what you would like to eat. 

House Bill 1422, sponsored by Rep. Randy Boyd, would create a pilot program to reduce state regulations.

The way the bill works is the Mississippi Departments of Health, Transportation, Agriculture and Commerce, and Information Technology Services would have review its existing regulations, accept written comments from the public for 60 days following the review and conduct at least two public hearings for citizens and businesses to identify any rule or regulation that is burdensome.

The review would have to be conducted within 120 days of HB 1422 becoming law. Each of the agencies covered in the pilot program would have to reduce their regulations by:

According to the bill, if one of the agencies hasn’t reduced its regulations by 30 percent by February 1, 2023, the House Appropriations and Senate Finance committees would conduct a budgetary audit to determine the obstacles preventing the agency from reducing its regulations by 30 percent.

The Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER) would also have to conduct a review of the regulatory reduction efforts of the agencies involved in the pilot program and make a report to the legislature.

There’s plenty to cut. According to a study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, wading through Mississippi’s morass of regulations would take 13 weeks to absorb its 9.3 million words and 117,558 restrictions.

This bill is a good start at untangling the Gordian knot of Mississippi regulations, which choke businesses with compliance costs which are later passed on to consumers.

MCPP has reviewed this legislation and finds that it is aligned with our principles and therefore should be supported. 

Read HB 1422.

Track the status of this bill and all bills in our legislative tracker. 

House Bill 326, sponsored by Rep. Casey Eure, would raise the cap on annual sales for those in the cottage food industry to $35,000 and expressly permit operators to advertise on social media. 

Currently, cottage food operators are capped at $20,000. This is the third lowest cap in the country, and only serves to discourage an individual from earning additional income. Neighboring Arkansas and Tennessee have no cap. 

Also, the Department of Health had interpreted vague language in the current law that restricts internet sales to mean an individual could not share pictures on social media. Soon, cottage food operators began to receive notices from the department. They have since said they’ve stopped that practice, but the uncertainty remains. This will clarify for cottage food operators that they can, indeed, share images of food they make on social media. 

An identical bill passed the House last year , but died in the Senate without a vote. 

There has not been evidence to suggest that lightly regulated states pose a threat to public health as some like to indicate. The limitations really just serve to limit competition for established businesses. By eliminating restrictions in Mississippi, we can give consumers new options, grow the economy, and encourage entrepreneurship. 

MCPP has reviewed this legislation and finds that it is aligned with our principles and therefore should be supported. 

Read the bill here.  

Track the status of this bill and all bills in our legislative tracker. 

Senate Bill 2117, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Younger, and House Bill 1510, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hopkins, would require the state to recognize an occupational license from another state for military families.

These bills would require occupational licensing boards to issue licenses to military spouses who have obtained a similar license in another state. This would make it easier for military families to work when they move to Mississippi. 

MCPP has reviewed this legislation and finds that it is aligned with our principles and therefore should be supported. 

Read SB 2117 and HB 1510.

Track the status of this bill and all bills in our legislative tracker. 

On March 12, the Senate overwhelmingly killed a bill to permit direct shipment of wine in Mississippi. This vote didn’t age well. 

The bill would have made Mississippi the 44th state in the country to allow consumers to purchase wine and have it shipped directly to their house. Currently in Mississippi, a control state, you are limited to what the state has in stock, limiting your freedom to choose the wine you prefer. 

Read more about our recommendations for reforming alcohol regulations in The High Road to Freedom

If ABC doesn’t have it available, you don’t have the option without jumping through traditional government hoops. All to acquire a bottle of wine, something that’s been legal at the national level for 90 years. 

But on deadline day, the bill came to the floor and was defeated 32-13. Just thirteen Republicans voted for the bill. A majority of Republicans voted no, as did the entire Democratic caucus. 

Just a few days later, the legislature went home, schools were closed, and a large chunk of the state was shut down because of the coronavirus pandemic. Mississippians were staying in, and using technology to work from home, order groceries, and have food from their favorite restaurant delivered to their front door. 

Almost overnight, we realized how important technology was, how it impacts virtually every area of our life, and how limitations generally come from government, not the lack of entrepreneurs. A glaring example, the inability to have alcohol delivered to your house in Mississippi. 

If you wanted wine delivered to your house from a winery in California, or if you just wanted something from a local liquor store to be delivered via an app like Drizly, you are out of luck. After the direct shipment vote in the Senate failed, it looked like alcohol freedom was never coming to Mississippi. But the pandemic changed things. Soon, the Department of Revenue was repealing regulations. 

DOR began allowing liquor stores to take orders online or over the phone, while providing curbside delivery rather than having to enter the retail establishment. Then as restaurants were forced to close their dining halls, DOR allowed customers to purchase a sealed bottle of wine with their to-go order. And finally, DOR began allowing residents of Leisure and Recreation Districts to order a mixed drink with their to-go order and take it home. All of these small changes were previously illegal, as ridiculous as that sounds.  

All of a sudden, regulations that many of us have been saying were unnecessary as they simply limit consumer freedom were being lifted during an emergency so consumers could have more freedoms. We hear about “health and safety” often when listening to proponents of regulations, but we can safely write that during an actual health crisis, alcohol prohibitions don’t contribute to our health or safety. 

If you didn’t want to go into a crowded store, it was quite the opposite. One could argue the prohibition on alcohol delivery makes us less safe. Or if you’re having a party at your house (while following social distancing guidelines, of course), you could also argue that it’s safer to have a new bottle of wine delivered rather than someone taking their chances on the road. 

We know current prohibitions don’t stem from health and safety concerns, but from the protectionist tendencies that are built by the current government policies. It’s not inherently safer to purchase alcohol from a liquor store than a grocery store, but liquor stores have an obvious financial incentive, created by the government, to maintain their monopoly. At the same time, there are plenty of limitations on what liquor stores can sell that also serve no purpose. 

But this is all overshadowed by the fact that all alcohol runs through a state warehouse, not a traditional distributor. And guess what would happen if we allowed Walmart or Kroger to sell wine? We wouldn’t have enough room at the warehouse and taxpayers would have to fund a bigger facility. Or so we are told. 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel any safer by having the state handle alcohol. Nor are our roads safer because you can't buy alcohol from a grocery store or on Sundays (or Christmas Day).

Rather, we need to back away from overburdensome regulations and prohibition-inspired laws. While this will just be a footnote from the pandemic, when it comes to alcohol policy, we’ve learned to ease off protectionist monopolies and trust consumers and technology to allow the market to work.   

The cottage food industry is a popular and growing slice of Mississippi’s economy. But as is usually the case, the state has not kept up with consumer demands in new markets and current laws are holding entrepreneurs in Mississippi back.

Of course, we are using the word “new” loosely. People have been selling food they make at home longer than we’ve had stores or restaurants. Still, it was just in the past few years that Mississippi “legalized” the industry. 

But in a world where the economy has changed, where millions are out of work, and where we’re still a little unsure about going back to the office, home-based businesses like cottage food operations stand to grow even faster. If government allows the market to work. 

The Mississippi cottage food law has an annual sales cap of $20,000. Most operators don’t approach the cap, but why is it there? This is the third lowest cap among states with a cap, something the majority of states, including Arkansas and Tennessee, do not even have. All the cap does is restrict an entrepreneur’s ability to earn a living, which then negatively impacts the state’s tax base. If a single mom can sell $100,000 worth of goodies she bakes in her kitchen while trying to homeschool her child during the pandemic, she should be able to.

The state has already said it is okay for her to make up to $20,000 in her kitchen, why can’t she make more? If “health and safety” is the concern, as established restaurants and bakeries would like to claim, it doesn’t matter whether they are making $5 a year or $10,000 a month.

But, of course, we know there’s no real health concern. There has not been evidence to suggest that the lack of comprehensive regulations pose a threat to public health as some indicate. Consumers know what they are purchasing, where they are purchasing it from, and that it does not come from a government-inspected kitchen. They willingly accept the so-called risk. 

And as we know, today’s technology makes it easy to find high-quality food, read reviews from happy (or unhappy) customers, and make knowledgeable decisions. Online reviews and apps are doing the job of a government inspector. The free market is the most effective regulator. Instead of needing the cookie police, we know an individual who sells an awful-tasting cookie or cake won’t remain in business long. 

The other unnecessary regulation on cottage food operators is a prohibition on internet sales. Initially, the Department of Health interpreted this to mean that you couldn’t even post a picture of the food you just made on Facebook or Instagram. We clearly had a lot of outlaws on the streets in Mississippi. 

They even went so far as to send cease and desist letters to home bakers who dared to post pictures on social media. They’ve said that’s no longer their practice, but the vague law remains. Cottage food operators are also currently prohibiting from selling to restaurants and retail stores.  

Fortunately, the legislature has shown an interest in expanding and updating the current law. While we don’t know exactly what bills the legislature will be tackling for the remainder of this session, the House passed a bill, House Bill 326, that would remove the internet prohibition and expand the cap to $35,000. While there is no reason for a cap other than protectionism, this is a step in the right direction. That bill passed the House unanimously and awaits action in the Senate. 

By eliminating the current restrictions on the cottage food industry in Mississippi, we can give consumers new options, grow the economy, and encourage entrepreneurship. Barriers to economic liberty have long existed in Mississippi, but this is something we should be interested in removing, especially during the current times. 

We need to embolden small business growth, even the smallest of businesses. Freeing home-based businesses like cottage food operators is the right thing to do. 

This column appeared in the Starkville Daily News on May 19, 2020.

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