“Flatten the curve” is a phrase that Americans who lived through the COVID-19 pandemic will never forget. Its arrival in our collective lexicon marked the moment that our daily lives were dramatically changed for months on end. As COVID patients overwhelmed our hospitals, the goal was to lessen the strain by slowing transmission of the virus to levels that hospitals could handle. Those efforts were not enough, so we were forced to face the virus without enough hospital beds and medical personal to treat the sickest among us.
As we appear to be pulling out of the most recent Delta variant, it’s worth asking: why did it take so little to overwhelm Mississippi’s healthcare system to begin with?
Like most public policy issues, there isn’t just one answer to that question. But there is one answer that stands out as the most obvious and easily fixable one: our state’s “Certificate of Need” (CON) laws.
After all of the efforts to conserve and increase the number of hospital beds – going so far as to set up temporary tent hospitals – would you believe that Mississippi went into the pandemic with a policy of intentionally limiting the number of hospital beds in our state? Shockingly, we did.
Even more shocking are the problems that CON laws were originally designed to solve: a facepalm-worthy fear of too much investment in the healthcare sector. The idea was that competition might lead health care businesses to build too many facilities, and that those facilities would be too large and too fancy, and then patients would receive subpar care and be overcharged for that care to cover the extravagance. Never mind that in every other industry competition increases quality, lowers prices, and spurs innovation.
Just describing the way that CON laws actually work makes it easy to see what is really behind them: protecting established businesses from competition with newcomers. First, a would-be healthcare startup (or even an existing hospital that just wants to add more hospital beds or medical equipment) must complete an application to try to prove to the state government that there is a need for the new facility, beds, equipment, or services. The fees for filing that application can be as high as $25,000, while the cost of paying the lawyers and consultants needed far exceed that amount. The application can take months to complete and years to go through the approval process.
Once the application has been filed, the applicant’s competitors get to take them to court in an effort to prove that the new facility, beds, equipment, or services are not needed, and that the current market participants have patients taken care of just fine, thank you very much.
After all of that time, money, and effort, the application can easily be denied, making all of it a waste. It’s not exactly a business-friendly system, to say the least.
So how did having CON laws work out for Mississippi during the pandemic? According to the Reason Foundation, states with CON laws have exceeded 70 percent of their ICU capacity for an average of 14.99 days per month during the pandemic, while states without CON laws have done so for only 8.65 days per month. Cutting the length of our hospital bed shortages nearly in half during the pandemic likely would have saved lives and spared us from a lot of economic pain.
Mississippi’s CON laws made the pandemic more difficult, but they will continue to lower the quality of our health care, increase the cost of health care, and reduce our access to care well beyond the pandemic. This legislative session, Mississippi should join the twelve other states that have repealed their CON laws and be done with it.
Aaron Rice is the Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, a nonprofit, constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
Recent months have seen an economy that is continually struggling with supply chain driven shortages. As the world grapples with these challenges, the evidence suggests that much of these shortages are because of central economic planning based on Covid-driven public policy.
In the complex world of the pandemic, Americans have been inundated with information on the possible causes. Fires in key factories, natural disasters, and the like have been propounded as contributing factors in combination with the “effects” of the Covid pandemic. Yet, the question must be asked how much of these factors are attributable to the effects of people actually falling ill. While the tragedy of these cases is very real, the pandemic's effects have been grossly aggravated by central government planning that determined “essential” and “non-essential” businesses.
Lessons from the Soviet Union Show that Central Planning Leads to Shortages
In order to understand how central government planning causes chronic supply chain shortages, it is helpful to heed the lessons of the Soviet Union. While the concept of shortages is relatively new to Americans, the Soviet Union saw consistent shortages, primarily for consumer goods. Long lines had many Soviet citizens waiting for simple items ranging from clothing to toilet paper. Shortages were so common, that when Soviet Parliament member Boris Yeltsin visited Houston in 1989, he was astonished by how well the grocery stores shelves were stocked, almost convinced that it all must have been staged just for his visit.
There was a reason that a shortage of consumer goods was a way of life in the Soviet Union. Using the Socialist economic model, the Soviet government engaged in centralized economic planning that prioritized certain sectors over others. The Soviets did this via 5-year plans that gave specific priority on outputs for certain sectors. While the plans were made to look good for paper and propaganda, such plans failed to account for unexpected circumstances and were determined by the minds of bureaucrats instead of being informed by the market.
Supply Chains Have Had Disruptions Before, Without Such Widespread Impact
In 2021, a casual read of the headlines could lead one to believe that many of the economic disruptions brought about by Covid just so happened to occur along with other unprecedented supply chain disruptions occurred that were unrelated to Covid. Yet, it is important to note that factory fires, hurricanes, labor shortages, blockages of shipping canals, geopolitical instability, and other factors are not new. These challenges have consistently occurred over the course of modern history.
While the effects of such challenges do have a real impact, the ability of the supply chain to respond to these challenges is the real test of strength. In former days, supply chain shortages in the free world were usually short-term and relatively isolated to specific sectors.
The laws of supply and demand were generally able to alleviate the pressures. As the demand for certain products went up, the cost went up as well. In turn, these additional revenues helped alleviate supply chain challenges. Lower then return as the supply chain system adjusted to the new demand. But as the lessons from the Soviet Union demonstrate, this can only happen when a free market is permitted to operate and respond quickly to unexpected challenges.
“Disaster Socialism” is a Prelude to Supply Chain Disaster
With Covid, many at the highest levels of government decided that the circumstances justified central economic planning based upon a model that many admittingly called “disaster socialism.” “Disaster socialism” is the idea that the free market cannot operate properly in a time of disaster and that government must implement economic controls. Under this application of “disaster socialism” certain businesses found themselves being labeled as either “essential” or “non-essential.” Meanwhile, the federal government did a massive welfare expansion program and moved America forward towards a more thorough economic reset.
Initially, the long-term effects of such policies were not as easily detected. The government simply pumped out money and mailed out stimulus checks to keep the economy afloat. But it wasn’t long before the realities of this arbitrary central planning began to take effect, particularly on the supply chain.
The Model of Covid Central Planning
The federal, state, and local governments adopted a two-pronged model of central economic planning during Covid. While not all jurisdictions applied this model in the same way, the basic tenets were the same. This economic planning model employed:
- Simultaneous ban on the operations of certain businesses that were arbitrarily deemed “non-essential.”
- Pouring federal funds into the economy through unprecedented government spending.
In the area of sector-specific planning, governments determined what elements of the economy would operate based on their priorities. For instance, if a state government could determine that liquor stores should be open (note, a large source of tax revenue) while restaurants should be closed.
While state governments were primarily responsible for lockdowns and the closure of “non-essential businesses,” the federal government stepped in. It provided the additional element of central planning that called for an influx of funds in the economy. This was accomplished through massive spending plans.
The primary effects of such spending plans brought about inflation combined with a decrease in active workforce participation. Regardless of whether or not they had been directly labeled as a “essential” or “non-essential,” all businesses now had to grapple with the consequences of inflated prices and a labor shortage.
The Effects of Central Planning on the Supply Chain
All of these factors come full circle back to the principle of supply and demand and its impact on the supply chain. The logistics sector has now been hit by the same collateral effects of central planning that other sectors have been impacted by. Furthermore, the logistics sector had to deal with additional challenges due to government restrictions on movement and a lack of raw materials.
As the demand for products increases to at or above pre-pandemic levels, the logistics sector has to deal with that demand while still attempting to address the backlog brought about by the effects of lockdowns and a decreased workforce. Like the failed socialism and central planning of the Soviet Union, the American economy is seeing what happens when those in power attempt to orchestrate the economy.
Yet there is a contrast to such failure, in 1776, the economist Adam Smith referred to the forces of the free market as an “invisible hand” that brings about the best outcomes for the economy and consumers. Such a belief in the free market has driven America forward. The whims of central government planning have failed the test of history. To see an effective supply chain in the future, America would do well to return to the free market principles of its past.
The Chinese government recently clamped down on cryptocurrencies. Owning or brokering Bitcoin is now frowned upon, and mining digital money has been outlawed all together.
This isn’t the first time that China has acted to keep out digital innovation. For years, China has blocked her citizens from using many of the social media platforms and search engines – Facebook, Google, Twitter – that are ubiquitous elsewhere.
The actions of the Chinese government might impact these digital innovations in the short terms. But in the longer term, the behavior of the Chinese government does more to hinder China.
Following the move against cryptocurrency, the price of Bitcoin plunged. But, as of writing this, Bitcoin has bounced back. China might have developed her own indigenous alternative to Google and Facebook. Like all state approved monopolies, China’s clunky social media giants might not find it as necessary to innovate.
China has a long history of keeping innovation out. Whatever effect this might have had on the outside world, it ensured China fell behind. I suspect we are seeing the start of something similar today.
From the late 1970s until about 2015, China seemed to have escaped her authoritarian trap. Under Deng Xiaoping, Chinese rulers placed limits on their own authority. The politburo stopped trying to run everything, turning a blind eye when farmers gradually abandoned collectivized farming. China began to grow.
For three fleeting decades, maritime provinces were given more autonomy and special economic zones allowed to decide their own rules. After 1997, with Hong Kong once again Chinese, there were even two distinctive legal systems. Chinese output soared.
But under President Xi many of these reforms have been reversed. Hong Kong’s autonomy has been treated as an affront and eradicated. Deng’s term limits have been cast aside. Officials in Beijing have become increasingly interventionist and authoritarian.
This same mindset has now been applied to cryptocurrencies. Rather than let crypto develop, the Chinese state seems determined to nationalize the innovation, introducing a state digital ledger, and banning the non-state alternatives.
In the manner of a Medieval monarch, China’s government is becoming increasingly hostile towards its own entrepreneurs, as Jack Ma and co have discovered. As often happens when you attack the wealth creators, you begin to get less wealth creation.
For as long as anyone can remember, we have been told that China is the coming power. China would, it was often said, eclipse America and the West. I doubt it.
China seems to me to be in a trap of her own making. Far from being the Chinese century, I suspect future historians writing about the early twenty first century will note how China under Xi cut herself off from outside innovation and fell behind.
China might not be the rising power we once imagined. I am not sure that that makes her any less dangerous. Wannabe great powers that aren’t quite as powerful as they would like to be are often far more threatening to the international order than those that actually are.
Many across the state have advocated for the expansion of Medicaid with assertions that the state will “come out better” with expansion than without it. Despite these assertations, it is important to remember that while the federal government provides a match to state funds, it is ultimately the state that foots the bill.
Medicaid is a joint state and federally funded program initially created to provide government health care for limited portion of the population. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, better known as “ObamaCare” the states were given the option to further expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs and have that expansion “matched” by the federal government.
Mississippi has wisely opted not to expand Medicaid. The federal government matches Medicaid expansion, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the state to pay a portion of the costs of the program. Time and time again, Medicaid expansion is pitched as “free money” from the coffers of Washington, but this money is not free.
In the midst of the debates surrounding matching rates, federal funding, and expansion enrollment projections, many often forget Medicaid expansion's influence on increasing private health insurance costs. This would only be heightened in the event of Medicaid expansion.
Since Medicaid reimbursement rates are often much lower than private-sector rates, many doctors then pass on the extra costs by charging even more for private sector insurance. These extra costs lead to higher premiums for private health insurance. In turn, more individuals leave private health insurance and go to “cheaper” government programs like Medicaid. This cycle repeats, and the more people that leave private health insurance, the more expensive it becomes as doctors try to recuperate costs through the private sector. This coincides with an analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation on an Ohio Medicaid expansion proposal.
Many new Medicaid enrollees would also find that doctors are less likely to accept Medicaid than the private coverage the enrollee might have had. In a study done by the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), the data concluded that as little as 66 percent of doctors accepted Medicaid in many states.
Thus, rather than expanding healthcare access, Medicaid expansion could actually cut down healthcare access as more and more individuals are forced to move to coverage that is not as widely accepted as private insurance. Despite this lower-quality health insurance, many individuals would have little choice in their leaving private health insurance due to the inflated premiums that would be influenced by Medicaid expansion in the first place.
When considering the question of Medicaid expansion, state leaders should take more into account than just the raw numbers that determine how much “free money” would come to Mississippi through Medicaid. Even if the Mississippi government “came out better” on a short-term basis, the long-term effects of government expansion ultimately interfere with the private sector and increase the cost of health insurance.
The housing market is booming. Median prices are reaching a record high, and economists are suggesting that these trends are not looking to cool off anytime soon. But some government real estate policies are still in need of reform.
Many might guess that real estate commission rates paid to agents might fluctuate with the increase in housing prices, especially in a free-market competition system. However, amidst this housing boom, the rates of commission fees for real estate agents rarely fluctuate below 6 percent. Many may consider this to be not much of an issue. However, a closer look at the government policies instituted to maintain this system goes against the very notion of a competitive free market.
The real issue is that various states throughout the United States have passed what are called “anti-rebate” laws that essentially create a system in which a pre-determined percentage is placed for a commission when services like real estate are offered. Even if a real estate agent or broker wanted to give a buyer or seller a rebate for the brokerage commission, such laws would prohibit them from doing so.
If free-market principles are truly the aim of good policy, anti-rebate laws need to be removed, or at the very least, strongly reformed. The Cato Institute has conducted substantial research on this issue, finding that the practice of government “steering” the real estate market is, in effect, a tax on mobility: “It penalizes a worker who wants to move for a better job or parents who want to relocate to build a better life for their family.” The system stands against those who desire to relocate, purchase a home, find better lives, and, in essence, the American dream.
This problem has also seen legal ramifications as various companies have either filed lawsuits against these laws or supported these legal claims. For example, the Consumer Federation of America and the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group have supported REX’s lawsuit against anti-rebate laws arguing that they stifle competition and ultimately harms consumers that are seeking to sell their homes. In REX’s lawsuit, in particular, an online brokerage firm that had a 2-3 percent commission fee, challenged Oregon’s policy that banned the firm from refunding commissions back to the buyer when they exceeded the desired amount.
While the outcome of cases like these is still to be determined, the seriousness of the issue in protecting the interests of companies and consumers cannot be overestimated. The Department of Justice has spoken to this issue in recent years and highlighted the anti-competitive nature of anti-rebate laws.
Mississippi is not exempt from this issue. According to Mississippi’s real estate regulations, no individual can receive a rebate for the commission costs of buying or selling a home. This stands against everything a free-market system is supposed to accomplish and only aids in the government’s incessant compulsion to control such markets.
Mississippi needs to return to a simpler economic scheme of allowing competition to dictate the rates and prices of the marketplace. The beauty of the free-market system is that problems often fix themselves when given enough time. Unfortunately, Mississippi has not given the free market any opportunity to do so in this area. It would be beneficial to at least give the free market a fighting chance.
The primary purpose of a business is to generate capital through the production of goods and/or services. But big businesses have also become increasingly involved in the political and ideological battles of the day. Some have supported the foundational principles the nation was founded on, while others have chosen the path of "political correctness."
In recent years, there has been a reaction among some that big business itself poses a threat to the values and priorities of the common man. While some big businesses have caused a great deal of harm, big business itself is not the real problem. In fact, a large portion of Americans provide for themselves through employment at these large companies. The problem is when big businesses embrace bad ideologies.
On the fundamental level, the larger a business is, the greater its capacity is for good or for evil. This goes both ways. For instance, American industrial companies were so successful in their production for the World War II war effort that they became known as "the arsenal of democracy.” On the other hand, several big businesses in Germany used government-sanctioned forced labor. They justified it with the Nazi logic of "German superiority.”
While many may gasp at such complicity with evil, these German companies simply did the same thing that many companies do today. They bought into the “politically correct” ideology of their time and context. In the Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, this was the Nazi ideology of racism and world conquest. These companies then used their strength to generate profits in bad faith through forced labor. On the other hand, the American companies used their economic position in the market to rally behind the American ideals of liberty and patriotism while producing honest profits for their companies. The contrast is striking.
America is no longer at war with an evil foreign power set on taking over the world. Yet, the threat of certain ideologies in corporate America is more real than ever. History teaches us the immense danger of large corporations simply going along with whatever ideology of the day happens to be in fashion. But these lessons have not been learned by all.
While the politically correct corporations of today are not embracing the ideology of Nazism, many of them have embraced other evils that are popular in our day. Companies have supported the breakdown of society through critical race theory. Some have used their dominant market share to censor certain views that go against the orthodoxy of the Left. While others have leveraged their political and cultural clout to campaign against the rights of unborn children, contribute to the breakdown of the family, and support the election of political leaders that will expand government and oppose freedom.
Many of tomorrow's business executives are indoctrinated in schools and colleges with the tenants of the Left’s orthodoxy. So we should not be surprised when the companies they lead become more concerned about being “woke” than producing quality products. When a large company contributes to the breakdown of the nation, the fault does not lie in the size of the business. The fault lies with the decision of the company to mix “political correctness” with its profits.
Bad ideologies are damaging no matter where they are found, not just in big business. These ideologies have infiltrated into America’s government, media, corporate world, public opinion, and universities. To protect the nation from the dangerous consequences of such ideologies, America needs hearts and minds that are grounded in the principles it was founded on. This is the true key to victory against the assault on the nation’s founding ideals.
The technology sector carries some of the highest-paying salaries in the market. Technology workers bring immense potential to state economies with their high-value skills and abilities to drastically increase productivity. Mississippi is in a position to attract tech sector workers and jobs.
Software developers, network engineers, data scientists, web developers, and other tech workers bring unique skills that are becoming more and more critical to the modern economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, tech workers produce approximately 18 percent of the United States GDP.
Areas with these high-income tech workers stand to benefit from their incomes. More money in the economy leads to more spending, saving, and investment in a state. Many might think such technology jobs have the highest salary potential almost exclusively in big technology hubs such as Silicon Valley and New York City.
However, the data suggests otherwise. According to Visual Capitalist, Mississippi ranks among the top ten states in the country regarding the income difference between tech workers and workers in other sectors. This places tech workers as some of the most in-demand earners in the state.
While some areas may offer numerically higher tech salaries than Mississippi, their higher cost of living makes it less attractive to live in these areas. To put this in perspective, the average tech salary in Mississippi is $71,720. While California’s tech workers have an average salary of $116,820, the raw numbers themselves don’t tell the whole story. The average tech salaries in Mississippi are indeed numerically lower than in states like California that have more urban centers. But many factors may actually put Mississippi tech workers in a better financial position than their counterparts in California or New York.
Much of the salary differences are due to the higher cost of living in many states compared to Mississippi. For instance, a dollar in Mississippi has 33 percent more purchasing power than a dollar in California, based on data from the Tax Foundation. In fact, a dollar in Mississippi has more purchasing power than anywhere else in the country. This gives the state a competitive advantage as a place of residence for tech workers seeking a lower cost of living.
Furthermore, in the wake of expanded opportunities for remote work, many tech workers now have the option to earn high-paying salaries from companies based in tech hubs like Silicon Valley while avoiding the high cost of living. Workers are doing this by having their actual residence in lower-cost states.
When such workers come to Mississippi, they bring their knowledge and abilities to Mississippi. While some may continue to work remotely for out-of-state companies, evidence suggest that many also use their skills to start their own startups and create more tech jobs in the state.
Tech job listings in tech hubs like New York and San Fransico have not seen drastic increases. On the other hand, many cities with traditionally smaller tech ecosystems have increased their tech job listings as new startups come about from the Silicon Valley exodus. In the second quarter of 2021, several such cities saw tech job listing increases. This would include Richmond (68 percent increase), Salt Lake City (33 percent), San Antonio (32 percent), Cincinnati (29 percent), and others. Exceptional tech startup growth has happened in the cities of other states. So why can’t we see the same thing happen in Mississippi?
As the state continues to look for avenues to attract talent, the tech sector's future in Mississippi carries the dynamic potential for new startups and high-paying jobs to grow the economy. The state could see a real increase in tech-driven growth by enacting policies that lower taxes, promote safer streets, lower regulation, and promote prosperity. In the friendly competition among states to attract tech talent, Mississippi should rise to challenge and take these steps to make the state a more attractive place for the free market. Tech sector growth will be sure to follow.
Mississippi is ripe with economic opportunity. With abundant natural resources, two deepwater ports, a low cost of living, and a central location to much of the nation, there is ample potential for growth.
Before the 2000s, Mississippi ranked 14th in economic growth at 2.1 percent. However, this growth has slowed. How can Mississippi get back on track?
Private sector growth carries the greatest potential for state economies, with private-sector job growth being one of the key measurements for economic growth. But in Mississippi, state and federal government have taken the helm as the top sectors in the state. Altogether a poor job has been done in cultivating an environment that promotes economic growth.
The Clarion Ledger reports that in Mississippi, federal, state, and local government spending amounts to 55 percent of the economy. This is the fifth-highest percentage in the nation. This is not an environment that breeds growth. To get Mississippi back on the map economically, limited government and free-market capitalist principles should take the forefront by reducing the government’s size and spending.
According to a study conducted by the Legatum Institute, Mississippi has failed to achieve satisfactory standards of prosperity, especially when compared to other states throughout the United States.
Mississippi has consistently ranked in the ten lowest states over the last ten years in terms of economic quality. This is considering factors such as financial stability, productivity and competitiveness, dynamism, and labor force engagement.
Mississippi’s economic situation has caught national attention as the US News and World Report has similarly ranked it and neighboring states at the lowest in the United States. Many local economies have experienced no growth as employment opportunities, and major industries have dwindled in size. In addition, limited educational resources have made the possibility of innovation stagnant.
The Daily Journal estimates that 19.6 percent (nearly one out of every five residents) of the Mississippi population live below the poverty line. This is the highest poverty rate in the country.
But there is an exciting tomorrow for Mississippi if the right steps are taken. The near future of the state is promising as it leaves the world of Covid. The state’s gross domestic product is expected to rise by 2.8% this year. Such growth has not been seen since before the Great Recession; however, it is expected to plateau within the next few years.
This does not need to be the case. If policy makers want to change the trajectory of their state, it might be time to harness this economic momentum and give the opportunity for economic growth back to the citizens of the state.
Economic growth can only occur if government refrains from drowning it. If the state wants more available capital, encouraging the private sector to grow through tax cuts and regulatory reform, could effectively lower poverty levels -this just might be a better strategy than expanding the government sector.
At the Mississippi Justice Institute, one of our foundational causes is litigating to free workers from excessive licensing laws that make it exceedingly difficult for ordinary people to use their talents and earn an honest living.
We’re focused on this issue because we believe that there is inherent dignity in work; that opportunity is vital to a vibrant society; and that pursuing one’s calling is at the very heart of the American Dream.
Occupational licenses were originally intended for professions in which a mistake could pose serious health and safety risks to the public, like EMTs or school bus drivers. But they have also crept into many professions that pose no risk to the public, like florists and interior decorators.
In the 1950s, only one out of twenty people required a government permission slip to do their job. Today, that number has skyrocketed to nearly one in three. And most of those licenses are for working class jobs.
What has led to this explosion in occupational licensing? Counterintuitively, practitioners of various occupations lobby the government to impose regulations on them. In exchange, they gain a sense of legitimacy, monopoly use of a title, and expensive and time-consuming barriers to entry into their professions which keep many would-be competitors at bay.
The posterchild for licensing creep is the beauty industry. Because of the need for sanitation in any profession which involves touching customers, and because the work sometimes entails the use of sharp implements, chemicals, or heated appliances, practitioners of the profession claim that their work is dangerous and needs to be licensed and regulated. But the potential dangers are often wildly exaggerated by industry insiders and used to justify licensing burdens that are vastly disproportionate to the actual risks involved.
The excessive and costly training that results from this scaremongering can make it virtually impossible for workers of modest means and young people to break into the beauty industry. A new report by the Institute for Justice shows that the average beauty school program costs $16,000 and takes about a year to complete.
Beauty school students borrow an average of $7,100 in federal student loans, which is $600 higher than the average student. After all of that, beauty school graduates can expect to earn just $26,000 a year on average, less than restaurant cooks, janitors or concierges – none of whom are required by law to attend costly schools before working.
This type of excessive licensing has implications far beyond the beauty industry. Recent research indicates that excessive licensing laws cost our country an estimated 2.85 million jobs per year and over $200 billion annually in increased consumer costs.
Perhaps that is why reforming occupational licensing laws has become one of the few remaining bipartisan issues. In 2015, the Obama administration issued a report encouraging states to roll back unnecessary occupational licenses. In late 2020, former President Trump followed suit, issuing an executive order that similarly encouraged states to enact licensing reforms and outlined several principles for reform. And on July 9, 2021, President Biden joined the club, issuing a new executive order encouraging the Federal Trade Commission to ban unnecessary licensing restrictions.
When President Obama, President Trump, and President Biden all agree that licensing creep is strangling the American Dream, it’s a pretty safe bet that they’re right. Mississippi is making progress in this area, but we need to continue working to eliminate anticompetitive licensing laws and let Mississippians shape their own destinies.