close

Drones are rapidly emerging as one of the top technologies for growth. While in former days, drones were primarily used in only certain scenarios, their applications have grown, the technology is less expensive, and people of this country are ready to get behind it. But how does Mississippi's public policy fare in the race to get drones in the sky?

According to a report produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Mississippi ranks almost at the bottom for drone readiness (48th). The report measured several factors and found that Mississippi does not have an environment that is as conducive to drone industry growth as it could be. While the drone industry itself in Mississippi has many growth opportunities and is continuing to expand, state policy has not gotten up to speed with the development of this emerging technology.

Mississippi has the potential to lead the nation in many kinds of drone uses. Such uses would include agricultural surveying, rural delivery, emergency rescue, health care, and many uses that are yet to be discovered. Nevertheless, despite the potential that drones carry, state law is unprepared to facilitate the drone industry fully.

Meanwhile, other states have seized the initiative to encourage the development of drones. Nevada for instance, has a drone task force that is comprised of leaders across state government, business leaders, and research institutions. Rather than serving as a regulatory agency, the task force provides a centralized point for state leaders to produce drone policy recommendations that are informed by the people of the state. Unfortunately, Mississippi has no such task force. This leaves the lingering questions about drone usage to multiple agencies, and no long-term vision is put forth for drone growth in the state.

Another significant matter in the utilization of drones is the question of property rights. While all states have clearly defined statutes on what constitutes trespassing on physical property, there is a degree of ambiguity regarding the air above someone’s property. To address this, some states have enacted laws that specify whether or not a drone or aircraft is being a nuisance and violating the rights of a property owner below.

By having such laws, these states are protecting property owners from drone usage that may lower their property values and interfere with the use of the property. At the same time, such statutory definitions of “air rights” also protect drone operators from frivolous lawsuits. In this way, property owners can have legal recourse against actual drone-use abuses, while at the same time drone operators can have a statutory definition as a protection against frivolous claims.

Despite the benefit of such a policy, Mississippi has no statutory definition of “air rights,” and as such, the state leaves it to the sole discretion of the courts to decide if a drone is violating property rights. By leaving this question with no statutory definition, the state has the door open for potential conflict between drone operators and property owners.

Finally, the state of Mississippi has very little clarity regarding the use of drones above public right-of-way. While the Federal Aviation Administration generally has jurisdiction over airspace itself, state and local law sometimes intersects with FAA jurisdiction at lower altitudes (generally below 200 feet). By statutorily outlining drone operations at low altitudes above certain roads and other public rights-of-way, the state could create a network of “drone highways.” This would provide clear guidelines that would facilitate drone operations by providing areas with clearly defined drone policies. This removes the regulatory complexity that can occur when operators go through multiple legal jurisdictions in the state and have to make route adjustments.

Mississippi has the potential to see significant growth in its drone industry. By providing sound public policy reforms that support drone operators and property owners, Mississippi will have a framework that promotes free-market growth of the drone industry.  Drones carry big potential for the Magnolia State. Public policy should encourage this potential so that even the sky is not the limit.

The United States has once again seen a rise of COVID-19 cases, especially given the surge after the new Delta variant of the virus. Unfortunately, after over a year of learning about this pandemic and attempting to find solutions to it, certain policies are not making the situation any better. 

Granted, mask requirements are becoming less stringent, and the vaccine does appear to aid in the numbers.  However, the healthcare system throughout the country is still swamped with cases.  Just a couple of days ago, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that patients occupy 77.3 percent of all ICU beds, 28 percent of which are comprised of confirmed COVID-19 patients, and this number is growing higher.  Mississippi is not an exception to this. In the same report, it is listed as being at least 90 percent full.

These numbers do represent all cases at hospitals and not just those confirmed with the COVID-19 virus.  However, this does present a problem with the healthcare system as a whole, as it no longer knows how to divide its resources between COVID-19 cases and other medical issues.  As Hannah Cox from the Foundation for Economic Education demonstrates, much of this problem is a result of unnecessary government policy that does nothing but restrict people’s access to the care they need.

For example, the government has instituted a policy referred to as Certificate of Need. In essence, this policy restricts smaller hospitals from adding additional beds and space unless they petition it to a governing board.  The problem is that larger competitors get to come in and virtually push out any opportunity for such hospitals to be granted this request.  As a result, larger competitors stay at the top. Consumers pay more for services and have fewer options for affordable quality healthcare.  Additionally, no wonder hospitals are quickly reaching beyond capacity given that more people need care and there is no opportunity for expansion.  Ironically, many of the states that have these laws are having problems with capacity, and a movement has already begun requiring the reform of these laws.

Another example that has contributed to the potential healthcare backlog is the policy of some hospitals that nurses either get vaccinated or be terminated from employment. Regardless of one’s individual views on the vaccine’s benefits, this sort of treatment of our pandemic heroes has left a bad taste in the healthcare workers’ mouths.  Unfortunately, many healthcare workers are strongly considering leaving.

The situation once again confirms that overreaching policies are not the path to recovery from Covid. A free-thinking people are the ones with the real ability to solve our nation’s problems. The more bureaucrats and legislators that understand that, the better we will be when facing a national crisis.

Perhaps there is no function of government that citizens use more than the road system. Unfortunately, much of Mississippi’s roadway system is in poor condition. As state leaders grapple with proposals to restore the roads and repair the bridges, it is essential that funding is prioritized towards repairs and maintenance on existing roadways rather than expansion projects.

In the construction and operation of highways, there is a need for the state to balance the cost of capital improvements (such as building a new overpass bridge or adding a lane) with the costs of maintenance. There is a balance between meeting the growing highway needs of the state and maintaining existing infrastructure. In light of this, it is the priorities that determine whether funding is going to be allocated to a maintenance project or an expansion project. Several key factors play into determining what the priorities are.

The Congressional Budget Office conducted a review of the United States infrastructure spending from 1956 to 2017. This review determined that state and local governments had spent $15 trillion on transportation and water infrastructure during this time period. According to the CBO report, state and local governments across the nation have spent $6 trillion on initial capital investments. The remaining $9 trillion went to operation and maintenance costs. On a practical level, this means that for every $1.00 spent on capital infrastructure investment, states saw $1.50 in maintenance costs.

This data also suggests that every dollar of capital investment carries an additional price tag that Mississippi should account for when allocating infrastructure funds. Without funds being set aside exclusively for maintenance costs, proposals to increase taxes may later follow if most of the federal and state money ends up being spent on capital improvements. Furthermore, the cost of delayed maintenance also has an effect on citizens’ vehicles. In fact, poorly maintained roads cost Mississippi motorists $1.5 billion a year, at approximately $747 per driver.

Mississippi has made the mistake of going above its initial budget on infrastructure before. This led to funds being diverted from maintenance on existing roads. In 1987, the state legislature passed a bold vision for highway expansion in the state called the Four-Lane Highway Program. The legislation specified a several-year plan to expand and improve the state highway system through a series of road construction projects. The initial budget for the program was $1.6 billion, with plans to spend it in three phases from 1987-2001. The actual cost of these three phases later increased to $2.2 billion in 1994. The 1994 legislature also expanded the original project to include a fourth phase, which raised the total estimated project cost to $3.6 billion.  

Additionally, a report from the state legislature’s PEER Committee produced in 2000 found that the project completion estimates had increased again. This time, the project budget request had increased to $5 billion. The committee concluded that the drastic cost increases had been due to inaccurate cost estimates in the original plans. These inaccurate cost estimates did not properly account for the costs of bridges, the inflation rate, and some other factors.

PEER also found in the report that in the midst of trying to meet the additional costs, the Mississippi Department of Transportation diverted federal funds that could have been used on the maintenance of existing roads towards the expansion projects. By prioritizing the expansion projects over the maintenance of existing roads, MDOT had neglected to maintain many of the existing roads and incurred the additional repair costs that come with delayed maintenance.

Despite the initial target year of 2001, it was not until 11 years later in 2012 that MDOT reported all of the road projects in the initial proposal as complete, with the exception of a highway in the Port Gibson area that has not yet been completed. These circumstances are a strong reminder of the importance of properly allocating highway funds.

Mississippi may be in a better administrative position than it was in the 1980s and 1990s to deliver effectively planned highway projects. A report by the Office of the State Auditor found that MDOT has relatively efficient project procedures and processes. Despite the administrative improvements, it remains vital that the state has a highway upgrade and maintenance agenda that does not overextend the state budget by building highways that deplete funding for the maintenance of existing highways.

These highway funding questions could be confronting Mississippi soon. An infrastructure bill for $1.2 trillion recently passed the United States Senate with implications for higher taxes and more wasteful deficits. In the wake of this Senate passage, a flood of federal funding could be coming to the Mississippi if the bill passes the House of Representatives. According to the White House, Mississippi stands to receive approximately $3.5 billion in highway funding under the bill’s current form. This opens up the possibility for new projects that could go over budget and take away from maintenance funding if improperly planned.

If an influx of federal highway funding comes to Mississippi, state leaders would be responsible for ensuring that the federal funds don’t cause the state to overextend its highway budget. This federal funding would come from irresponsible federal spending that would already hurt Mississippi taxpayers by raising inflation and increasing the national debt. In light of this, the legislature should take great care to ensure that the state properly balances these funds between improvement projects and maintenance projects. That way, the state doesn’t have to make a choice to either divert funds between projects, leave existing roads in disrepair, or raise taxes on the taxpayers.

Quality roads and bridges are essential for the economy to grow and for the people of the state to expand and prosper. Rather than the problematic practice of expansion at the expense of maintenance, the state highway system should be grounded in a system that balances taxpayer resources. Mississippi needs dependable roads. Sound funding allocation practices are an important step to reach that need.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s revised version of eviction moratorium, lifting a stay on a lower court ruling against the moratorium and holding in a 6-3 opinion that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lacked the legal authority to enact the moratorium.

This outcome was widely expected among legal commentators. In fact, it was expected by President Biden himself. That was because the revised moratorium was virtually identical to the original version first adopted by the Trump Administration. A majority of justices had already signaled they believed that the original moratorium was unconstitutional.

However, the Court (ill-advisedly) did not strike it down at the time because it was about to expire anyway. (As our friend Ilya Shapiro said at the time: “What’s a little Constitution between friends?”). Rather, the Court went out of its way to hint that the eviction moratorium should not be extended without Congressional authorization, because if it were, the Court would be forced to strike it down.

Once the original eviction moratorium expired, President Biden resisted extending it, saying that he did not have the power to do so. But after intense political pressure, he relented and allowed the CDC to enact a new moratorium with slight tweaks to give the pretense that the new and improved moratorium might actually survive judicial review.

Even as it was enacted, President Biden admitted that “the bulk of constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster.” He even confessed that his real reason for enacting it was because “by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while we’re getting that $45 billion out to people who are, in fact, behind on rent and don’t have the money.”

This type of conduct by a President of the United States – who is charged with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution – is dangerous and inexcusable.  The constitutionality of government action is not a game to be played deftly and under false pretenses. It is a bedrock expectation in our free nation. For a President to openly flout the Constitution, no matter how good his intentions may be, severely undermines our democratic institutions and the Rule of Law.

So why was the eviction moratorium unconstitutional? Primarily because it violates the Constitution’s required separation of powers between the three branches of government. It is the job of Congress to pass laws. It is the job of executive branch agencies, such as the CDC, to enforce those laws – not to create them. For any enforcement action the CDC takes, it must have the authority to do so from some provision of legislation duly passed by Congress.

But that’s not what happened here. Rather than enforcing an eviction moratorium that was passed by Congress, the CDC enacted its own moratorium. When asked what congressionally-approved authority it had to do so, the CDC pointed to a provision of the Public Health Service Act, which allows the CDC to enact regulations to prevent the interstate spread of communicable diseases. The CDC argued that the moratorium would accomplish this goal by preventing potentially infected persons from being evicted, moving to new states, and thus spreading COVID across state lines.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court was not convinced. As the Court pointed out, the very legislation the CDC pointed to makes clear that Congress intended to authorize the CDC to take measures directly targeted at preventing the interstate spread of diseases by identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself. Congress provided examples of such measures: inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of contaminated animals and articles. To argue that the CDC could use this limited grant of authority to enact any regulations it wished, no matter how broad and sweeping, so long as it theoretically may have some indirect effect on the spread of a disease, would be to grant the CDC near-dictatorial power during any pandemic.

This is no small matter. While some may believe that it doesn’t matter which branch of government takes the lead on issues like an eviction moratorium, that view could not be more wrong. Congress is made up of elected officials accountable to their constituents. When its members vote on legislation affecting the rights of millions of Americans, they do so at their own peril. They know that if they abuse that power, they might be looking for a new job. In contrast, executive branch agencies are made up of unelected political appointees and bureaucrats with no similar need to worry about the consequences of abusing their power.

Moreover, even if Congress had delegated such breathtaking power to the CDC, there is good reason to believe that legislation would also be unconstitutional. Even Congress may not have the authority to inflict such serious infringements on property rights (especially without compensation) based solely on some indirect, theoretical benefit that may come in the form of reduced disease transmission.

Nobody wants to see anyone evicted from their home under any circumstances. But the right to exclude is a basic property right. It is fundamental to encouraging Americans to invest in property. If landlords (most of whom are working-class people just like their tenants) knew that at any moment, for any reason, the government could force them to allow squatters on their property, what reasonable person would invest in and provide rental properties to their communities to begin with?

Rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to evictions, we should leave those decisions to individual Americans and the relevant laws of their states. Some landlords may be willing to wait and let their renters catch up. Others may not be in the financial position to do so. But it’s not the government’s job to decide who can and should bear each and every financial burden caused by the pandemic.

More importantly, Americans should expect their Presidents to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law regardless of which party they belong to or how good their intentions may be. Opposing the abuse of power only when the other side does it can only lead to a vicious cycle of never-ending assaults on our democratic institutions.

When a government can solve a problem, the best entity to solve it is almost always the elected legislature. This is because they are the officials voted in to enact laws and policies that result in better governing. For in their accountability to the people, these legislators are generally the most in touch with the will of the people.

The problem with many public policy solutions on the state and federal levels is that they adhere to a model that treats policy like a big empty box.  When a problem arises, and a policy solution is warranted, some legislatures will fill that box only to a certain point with only general rules and regulatory schemes about how money should be spent.  The rest of the box is given to agencies and public officials to be filled at their discretion.  While this may work for a time, giving officials and agencies this kind of unchecked legislative power plays with fire and eventually breeds corruption.  Mississippi only confirms this theory.

This is especially true when government utilizes taxpayer funds. This money is highly vulnerable if it goes without legislative stewardship.  Legislators need to take back their own responsibility to govern. There should be a commitment to producing public policies that rely on constructive deliberation in the legislative chambers rather than the whims of unchecked government agencies and bureaucrats.

Yet somehow, many government leaders take the old saying, “money makes the world go round,” to heart when considering political solutions to problems.  While it is true in a certain economic context, this idea is taken to a fault when taxpayer funds are thrown into places with little direction or trajectory for where they are supposed to go.  Good policy dictates where these funds will go and what they will be used for. Leaders shouldn’t simply be throwing money at a problem by raising salaries and funding bureaucratic appropriation.

Mississippi, unfortunately, has taken this philosophy in a variety of contexts, which is notably seen through MCPP’s Fat Cat Report, in which it is found that some education superintendents and other public officials have among the highest salaries in the country. This is all despite the fact that Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country.  A recent examination of Mississippi’s welfare system discovered similar findings.

The question for those living in Mississippi is the same question that President Reagan built his campaign upon: are you better off now than you were a couple of years before?  It is an important question to consider.  As the government continues to grow and tells us that the same growth is necessary to keep the country functioning well, it would be best to remember that government works for the people.  Ironically, despite the government claiming that it must get bigger, there never seems to be a point at which it is big enough.  People in power will always take the opportunity to get more bloated if the people do not remain vigilant.

When Americans see images of the fall of Saigon which marked the end of the Vietnam War, several descriptions immediately come to mind: failure, quagmire and (fairly or not) defeat. Vietnam veterans fought bravely and do not deserve to be remembered in this way, but that is the reality of the legacy created by the indecisiveness and failures of the civilian political leaders who oversaw the war.

Our Afghanistan veterans deserve a more honorable and dignified ending to their war. They too fought bravely. They put their lives on the line for their country. They sacrificed their friends, their bodies, and their spirits for our country and the people of Afghanistan. We should have been able to learn from Vietnam and ensure that we leave a better legacy for them.

Our veterans do not deserve to be remembered this way. Fairly or not, the images coming out of Afghanistan will go into the history books and will shape the way we remember this war. We have seen scenes of desperate Afghan citizens pleading with the American military to help them leave the country; of fear and uncertainty gripping stranded American citizens, our allies, and our friends; and of violence, unrest, and chaos.

It is a stain on America and the Afghanistan War. Our veterans, our stranded American citizens, our friends and allies, and the Afghan people deserve better. We owe that to them at a bare minimum.

We knew this was coming. We had plenty of time to prepare for an orderly and safe withdrawal. That we would leave Afghanistan on this note is shocking and inexcusable.

Many veterans already struggle with thoughts of hopelessness and despair. The events of this week have caused many more to struggle with anger and grief. When friends of yours don’t come home, you want that to mean something. Veterans can’t help but attempt the impossible task of weighing the sacrifices made against the wartime accomplishments. Some decide the sacrifice was too great. Others hope that the accomplishments were enough to justify the sacrifice. But all must carry that burden and face their own uncertainties.

As we watch the events in Afghanistan with heavy hearts and deep concern for what lies ahead, we should also make sure our veterans know that they will not be remembered for these disgraceful scenes. We are proud of them. They fought bravely and served their country honorably. They made the world a better place and gave hope and resolve to the Afghan people to strive for a better way of life.

They kept America safe by fighting the enemy overseas and stopping the fight from coming here. They prevented terrorist attacks on the American homeland by destroying and degrading terrorist networks. They brought to justice those responsible for the horrific attacks of Sept. 11. For all of that, Americans are grateful.

We should also remember that the war in Afghanistan was a just war. In fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was the most clearly justified act of war that America has taken since our entrance into World War II following the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Civilians were attacked and killed on American soil on Sept. 11. The Taliban was harboring and sponsoring the terrorists responsible for that attack. We even gave the Taliban the opportunity to turn over those terrorists and avoid war. But they refused and America defended itself. We were right to do so.

That doesn’t mean we all have to support staying in Afghanistan for the past 20 years, or nation building, or so-called “forever wars.” But we should remember the reasons we sent our young men and women to fight in Afghanistan in the first place and we should honor them for answering the call. The best way to do that right now is to ensure a safe and orderly evacuation of Americans, our friends and our allies.

This opinion piece by Aaron Rice, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, originally appeared in the Clarion Ledger.

The City of Jackson took over a year to provide public records to WLBT, a local news outlet that requested the records under Mississippi’s public records laws. Those laws require public records to be provided within seven business days. The city’s egregious delay will cost it and its residents in a big way. Last week, the state’s Ethics Commission ordered Jackson to pay more than $170,000 in legal fees to WLBT – the largest fee award ever levied against a government entity by the commission.

WLBT filed an ethics complaint against the city in October 2019, after the city failed to respond or responded exceedingly late to seven requests for public records to the Jackson Police Department for crime statistics, emails, memos, and related documents.

The city failed to respond to five of the seven requests. For the other requests, the city took excessively long to provide the requested records. For example, the city took nearly 600 days to produce a portion of the phone and text logs WLBT requested from JPD Chief James Davis.

Even after the ethics complaint was filed, the city still did not produce any additional records for 10 months.

The ethics complaint resulted in a hearing before the Mississippi Ethics Commission in November 2020. Nine witnesses appeared before the commission, mostly current and former city employees. On August 6, 2021, the Ethics Commission voted unanimously to approve a final order against the city of Jackson. The order requires the city to pay $170,397.50 to reimburse WLBT’s legal expenses and also fined the city an additional $900 for nine separate violations of state law.

The order also mandates that Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba take several measures to ensure the city does not violate the Public Records Act in the future, such as designating public records officers for the city and each of its 10 departments. Those officers must also undergo at least two hours of training on the Public Records Act each year from a curriculum approved by the commission’s executive director, Tom Hood.

Additionally, the city will be required to post weekly reports on Jackson’s website showing all pending requests for public records to promote transparency.

“The commission and its hearing officers have given the city more than enough warnings and guidance, more than enough chances to comply. Yet the city and its elected officials and, therefore, its employees, have continued to ignore the law and persistently failed to meet legal obligations with no reasonable explanation,” Hood wrote.

The Public Records Act provides a fine of up to $100 per violation, and also allows the Ethics Commission to impose reasonable expenses against government entities who have Complaints filed against them.

A frustration often expressed by advocates of government transparency is that the Ethics Commission rarely imposes significant costs against violators, and the $100 fine, by itself, amounts to a meaningless slap on the wrist.

For that reason, while it’s unfortunate that Jackson’s taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the city administration’s deliberate indifference to state law, last week’s historic fee award is welcome news for those who believe that government must be honest, transparent, and accountable to its citizens, and should face real consequences when it fails to do so.

The Centers for Disease Control recently announced a moratorium on evictions across most of the United States, in light of Covid. This order places restrictions on evictions in areas with high or moderate levels of Covid infections.

This move has been applauded by some as a way to stabilize housing and help those who are struggling financially due to Covid. But the evidence speaks directly to the contrary. The government imposing its control over rental properties is highly problematic, with repercussions for both tenants and property owners.

A policy that forces property owners to provide temporary housing without recourse during Covid is not too dissimilar from the government handing out checks that are encouraging people not to work. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the median rent in the United States is $909 a month, slightly lower than the median mortgage of $975. Consider the following statistics:

While some might view these facts as good news for tenants, it ultimately leads to bad outcomes. Indeed, without having the recourse of eviction in the event of non-payment, many landlords are raising their approval criteria. On this factor alone, it will likely be harder for the tenants who didn’t pay rent during the moratorium to get approved by future landlords if they chose to go to a different rental home post-pandemic. 

Thus, a ban on evictions for the failure to pay rent is ultimately just another piece of the puzzle that encourages Americans not to work and causes collateral effects as well. The only difference is that instead of the federal government using taxpayer dollars to write checks, property owners are forced to foot the bill until the moratorium is over and they can get their rent payments back.

This places many property owners at great financial risk if rental properties are not bringing in income. Approximately half of all rental units are owned by small investors, referred to by HUD as “mom and pop landlords.” The average rental property owner receives 31 percent of their annual income from their rental properties. With so many small business owners already struggling, such a dip in income has led to even more financial hardship, leading to increased debt and even rental property foreclosure.

Government interference in the economy has a consistent track record of generally causing more problems than it solves. The government’s recent move hurts tenants and property owners in untold ways. Only time will tell what the major repercussions will be from such government overreach.

(Jackson, MS): Mississippi has some of the highest paid public officials in America, despite being the poorest state, according to a new report out today. 

Published by the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the Fat Cat Report offers a summary of the top 50 highest paid public officials in the state along with further data analysis.

The report reveals:

The Fat Cat report compares what top public officials make to the salaries of average nurses, State Troopers, and workers across the Magnolia state.  

“Mississippi taxpayers have a right to know how much their top public officials earn,” explained Douglas Carswell, CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. Clearly some officials produce value for the money they are paid. But many don’t.”

“How much should public officials be paid, and who should decide? The key is public accountability.”

“Our report suggests that officials appointed by boards tend to have the most inflated taxpayer-funded salaries. Officials that are either elected, or in close proximity to taxpayers, generally have lower salaries.”

“This suggests to me that direct accountability to the taxpayers is the best way of ensuring that public officials give taxpayers value for money, and our report makes some suggestions on what we could do to ensure that Mississippi taxpayers don’t get taken for a ride.”

Read the report in full HERE.

For more information or to request an interview with Mississippi Center for Public Policy CEO Douglas Carswell, please reach out to Hunter Estes, [email protected].

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