Mississippi Center for Public Policy CEO Douglas Carswell appeared on Fox News’ The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton to discuss our major new investigative report.

You can watch the full interview and discussion of the report here:

The report has a range of interesting findings, including:

• Dozens of public officials in Mississippi are paid more than the State Governor ($122,160 per year), who does not even rank in the top fifty highest paid officials.
• Mississippi’s State Superintendent for Public Education earns $300,000 per year, making them one of the highest paid State Superintendents in America.
• Almost half the highest paid public officials listed are education bureaucrats.
• 61 State District Superintendents make more that the State Governor.  
• Of the 24 School District Superintendents that feature on our list of the top highest paid public officials in Mississippi, the average salary is $175,000 – more than the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court earns.  The average annual salary of these 24 Superintendents is the approximate equivalent to:
• 5 teachers 
• 4 registered nurses
• 4 State Troopers
• 4 – 5 average Mississippian workers incomes

You can read the full report here: https://mspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Fat-Cat-Report-2021-Final.pdf

There is little debate that America’s infrastructure plays a critical role in the economy. Roads, bridges, shipping facilities, airports, the energy grid, and other vital industrial elements all play a crucial part in the ability of the nation to produce and deliver goods and services in the most efficient way possible. 

Despite this importance, some in Washington have asserted that Americans must also pay for unrelated energy policy proposals if they want better infrastructure. 

Amid negotiations for a massive infrastructure improvement package, political leadership on the Left has insisted that the infrastructure bill include provisions to implement President Biden’s energy policy agenda. One such proposal in this agenda is a call to expand federal energy regulations through the reduction of carbon-based fuels.  

A key stated goal is to reduce carbon and other greenhouse emissions to approximately half by 2030. An additional proposed mandate is that the nation’s electrical grid completely transitions away from carbon-based fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil by 2035. In light of the high cost of transitioning from carbon fuels, such federal mandates would be detrimental to the state of Mississippi. The state’s economy and citizens are highly dependent on affordable energy.

From the economic angle, it is important to note that Mississippi has the 2nd highest level of energy expenditures per dollar of GDP. This means that Mississippi’s economy needs more energy than most other states to produce its economic outputs. Mississippi also has the 8th highest amount of carbon output per dollar of GDP. This carbon output makes sense. Many of Mississippi’s top industries, such as agriculture and manufacturing, have very high energy consumption and utilize affordable carbon fuels such as natural gas and coal. 

These economic factors would cause Mississippi’s economy to be disproportionally affected if the federal government mandates a reduction in the use of carbon-based energy fuels. Meanwhile, other states with less energy-intensive sectors (such as finance and administration) would be less affected. Thus, Mississippi would be in a competitively disadvantaged position at the hands of a federal carbon-reduction policy.

On top of the macroeconomic effects of more expensive energy, raising the cost of energy by requiring more costly fuels with a lower carbon output could be devasting for some Mississippians on an individual level. According to the Energy Information Administration, the state of Mississippi ranks among the highest in the nation for its consumption of energy per person.  

As a predominately rural state with many in poverty, Mississippi’s energy consumption per person is an important factor to note. A study found that the rural poor spend a high percentage of their income on heating and cooling their homes since many rural homes are not as well-insulated as their suburban and urban counterparts. An additional study found that when energy costs go up, many of the poor reduce their heating and cooling to save money, with resulting health issues and the accompanying medical expenses. 

Mississippi and its citizens should be able to utilize the most affordable and efficient energy sources without the heavy hand of federal overreach. Instead of using infrastructure negotiations as an opportunity to impose unprecedented restrictions on carbon-sourced energy, leaders in Washington should focus on the nation's infrastructure needs.   

Debates about environmental stewardship and conservation have been a key fixture of public debate for decades.

With calls to preserve the natural environment, many have advocated for the expansion of government-owned property as the primary way to protect the environment and increase its quality. However, it is worth considering potential conservation alternatives that do not require putting more property in the hands of the state. 

The traditional approach for many conservation initiatives has been for the government to purchase property from the private sector and then allocate that land for conservation purposes. This approach has been reasonably effective in many cases. However, it is important to consider the strong potential for conservation on privately held lands.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, approximately 93 percent of Mississippi land is under private jurisdiction. This places Mississippi among the highest in the country for the amount of land that is privately managed. As a state with so many natural resources and natural beauty, the opportunities for conservation and stewardship abound. 

With so many private landowners, there is considerable potential behind the concept of incentivizing private land conservation using the state funds that are already allocated for conservation anyway. Such a model not only respects private property, but it also gives money back to taxpayers by supporting conservation efforts on their privately held lands. 

There are several opportunities for the state to spend its appropriated conservation funds as effectively as possible. Mississippi could see the realization of private land conservation efforts in different contexts. Drawing largely from the state’s primary land uses found in cropland and forestry, there are a plethora of ways that private landowners can utilize their property in Mississippi for conservation efforts.

In agriculture, the opportunity for farmers to utilize specific sectors of their property for conservation carries enormous potential. For instance, while a lowland sector of a farm could be risky for crops due to flooding concerns, such land could carry great potential for waterfowl conservation. 

With the allocation of the state’s conservation funds, farmers could establish a waterfowl habitat. The same goes for good cropland as well. In the advent of new technologies, it has even become possible for farmers to determine which sectors of their cropland have the greatest potential for conservation. 

In forestry, conservation efforts on private land have obvious potential to create habitats for wildlife within timberland. In Mississippi, 77 percent of all timberland is privately owned, equating to approximately 15.1 million acres. 

Given that many timberlands cover vast areas and are ecosystems in their own right, policies that directed conservation funds to these private lands would greatly expand the potential for conservation funds to be used as effectively as possible. 

Mississippi is a beautiful state, and its natural beauty should be preserved for future generations. By allocating conservation funds to private landowners, the state could continue to protect Mississippi’s natural habitats. Ninety-three percent of Mississippi’s land is in the hands of private citizens. The state should ensure that the funds it appropriates for conservation can be directed back to taxpayers’ property worth conserving and not just government property.

In the wake of Covid-19, the economy reeled from the devastating effects of lockdowns, logistical shortages, layoffs, and business closures. However, as the dust is starting to clear and the economy is getting stronger, it is important to consider how Mississippi can increase its recovery rate for jobs, employment, and economic growth. 

Mississippi led the way as one of the first states to begin lifting the economic restrictions brought about by the pandemic. Mississippi was also one of the first states to proactively encourage people to get back to work by rejectingadditional federal unemployment benefits. Despite growth, Mississippi jobs are still recovering. State leaders should implement recovery-minded policies that support economic growth and help the state come back even stronger than before. 

The policies that would give Mississippi an economic boost have numerous implications and reach across almost every sector in the state. Yet, these relatively unsophisticated policies could really lead to lasting growth for the state. 

On the fundamental level, policymakers should take actions that will stop the state government from taking money right out of the citizens’ wallets through an income tax. The state income tax should be abolished. As so many rebuild what they lost during the economic devastation of Covid, Mississippians need every dollar they can get. While the federal government in Washington is printing more money and inflating the dollar to fund direct payments, state leaders in Mississippi have the opportunity to make a meaningful difference by just leaving Mississippian’s incomes alone.

Further, policymakers in Mississippi can help the citizens of the state by removing burdensome regulations on businesses. This can be done through widespread regulatory rollbacks, as well as through innovative programs like regulatory sandboxes. In 2020, Mississippi had the nation’s highest increase in new business applications as thousands of new entrepreneurs worked to support themselves and their families during Covid. By lowering excessive regulations and pursuing economic freedom, Mississippi will create an environment that helps these entrepreneurs stay in business for the long term as they navigate the challenges that face new businesses. 

There is little debate that policies to expand economic growth are more important than ever in the wake of Covid. But Mississippi needs action to get this economic growth moving. By cutting back taxes, lowering regulations, and putting faith in the success of free-market principles, Mississippi just might have a chance to coming back from the pandemic stronger than ever before. 

“People overestimate what they can accomplish in one legislative session and underestimate what they can accomplish in ten.” 

In this series, we are conducting a review of the incredible record Mississippi lawmakers have compiled over the past 10 years. The list provided here is not comprehensive, and we feature only the policies we like: some of which were initiated by MCPP (marked by an *asterisk* below).

So far, we have covered:

10 Years of Regulatory Reform Achievements

10 Years of Social Welfare Achievements

10 Years of Religious Liberty Achievements

10 Years of Second Amendment Achievements

10 Years of Pro-life Achievements

10 Years of Healthcare Achievements

10 Years of Education Achievements

In this final part of the series, I will be reviewing the budgetary and tax achievements advanced by the Mississippi Legislature. 

Budget

Several highlights are worth mentioning as we consider Mississippi’s budgeting efforts over the past 10 years. To begin with, the state held down bond debt: perhaps mostly thanks to Governor Tate Reeves, who as Lt. governor was a fiscal hawk. The state also did a reasonably good job in maintaining its Rainy Day Fund. Most notable was Mississippi’s emergence as a leader in performance-based budgeting. This type of budgeting tries to measure the relation between the amount spent and the results: in other words, the bang for the buck. 

The proper implementation of performance-based budgeting requires a cultural shift and not just the tweaking or cutting of agency budgets. Implementation is very important, and results can be elusive. This was suggested even as far back as 2003 in a report by then-auditor Phil Bryant.

In 2014, the Legislature made a substantive attempt at instituting performance-based budgeting with HB 677, sponsored by Rep. Becky Currie. That law empowered the Legislative Budget Office (LBO) to require select agencies to inventory agency programs and activities. As I commented in 2014 about this law: “Performance-based budgeting promises to make agencies more accountable and efficient by introducing objective standards that measure successful outcomes, rather than just inputs. The evidence for performance-based budgeting is somewhat mixed, but more budget transparency is a good start. The next step would be to review agency fine/fee collections, with any eye toward lowering and eliminating these hidden taxes.”

This next step, in fact, was accomplished in 2015 and 2016 with a legislative package known as “Financial Ready.” These reforms, passed as part of an expansion of performance-based budgeting efforts, required an identification of all sources of revenue for each agency, including fine/fee revenue and federal funding.*

Also, in 2015, thanks to the leadership of Senator Joey Fillingane and Rep. Greg Snowden, Mississippi became a founding member of the Compact for a Balanced Budget (SB 2389). This Article V effort to amend the U.S. Constitution features a pre-ratified amendment to force the federal government to operate with a balanced budget. The compact was reaffirmed in 2021 with the passage of HB 1326, again thanks to the leadership of Senator Fillingane.*

Finally, we will add that MCPP was a leader in encouraging and facilitating transparency for state spending. Thanks to our website, seethespending.org, taxpayers were able to access millions of government financial records so as to better hold state and local officials accountable. (One reporter called the effort “a near-miraculous step forward in state and county government transparency.”) See The Spending was happily made obsolete once the state decided to post spending records online at transparency.mississippi.gov. (We’re still waiting for them to catch up to the level of detail featured at See The Spending, though.)

Taxes

In 2012, the Legislature significantly expanded the inventory tax credit with a bill (SB 2934) sponsored by Senator Joey Fillingane. Mississippi is one of only nine states that impose this tax, which is assessed regardless of whether a business earns a profit. Total repeal of the tax is made problematic because it is actually a property (ad valorem) tax levied by localities on business inventories. 

In 2015, thanks largely to the efforts of Speaker Philip Gunn, the Legislature came close to eliminating the state’s personal income tax. The measure (HB 1629) would have delivered a $1.5 billion tax cut for Mississippians. It died after being amended by the Senate.  

The next year, however, the Senate essentially got its way with the passage of the 

Taxpayer Pay Raise Act. Sponsored by Senator Joey Fillingane, the law enacted the largest tax cut in Mississippi history. The measure (SB 2858) reduced taxes by more than $400 million over 12 years, beginning in 2017. The law cut the personal income tax and taxes on self-employment. It also phased out the franchise tax, a burdensome tax on investment that few states impose anymore.* 

In 2021, Speaker Gunn again introduced legislation to essentially eliminate the state income tax. The Mississippi Tax Freedom Act of 2021 (HB 1439) would have eventually eliminated the individual income tax and reduced the grocery sales tax in exchange for raising various sales taxes. After passing the House, the measure was not taken up by the Senate.

It seems likely Mississippians will see another tax cut before statewide general elections in 2023. Whether this entails an elimination of the personal income tax remains to be seen. 

That said, Mississippi’s overall tax burden has risen over the past 10 years, as compared to other states. In FY2011, Mississippi’s state and local tax burden was 8.4 percent, 40^th lowestin the nation. For calendar year 2019 (latest data available), it was 9.5 percent, 33^rd highest in the nation. In terms of overall taxes paid, as a percentage of national income, Mississippi is falling behind other states. With states like North Carolina and Arizona slashing taxes and attracting new residents and investment, Mississippi is going to have to significantly cut taxes again in order to remain competitive.

US Senators have blocked the passage of a bill that would have fundamentally overhauled America’s election process.

As I noted in a video a few days ago, the bill, dubbed the “For the People Act,” is anything but for the people. This radical legislation would have dramatically altered how elections are run in our country. Frankly, it boils down to a federal takeover of the election system that we’ve preserved in this nation for the last 200 years.

The bill lost by only one vote, showcasing the intense divide that currently exists in the US Senate.

Here are some of the worst parts of this (now dead) bill:

- It authorizes the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofits when these groups apply for tax-exempt status. This would make room for political targeting via taxation. Imagine the chilling effect on speech that would occur if the IRS was constantly staring down non-profits and threatening punishment if the wrong thing is said or the wrong idea is advanced.

-It would eliminate state voter ID laws that verify the identity of voters and strengthen election security. The vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum continue to support voter ID laws.

-It pushes a one-size fits all redistricting model on every state. The bill would strip voters of their ability to decide how districts are drawn. 

-It would force the public to fund candidates running for Congress. Nobody should be forced to fund political campaigns involuntarily.

-It would limit the capacity for states to clean their voter rolls. This bill would have made it even harder to clean up these lists. This makes it more likely that folks who have died, moved away, are ineligible, are noncitizens, or are registered multiple times will be left on voter lists. Why would any official want to make it more difficult for states to have accurate voter lists?

-The bill would have automatically registered any individual who has an interaction with a state agency such as the DMV. To be clear, this does not refer just to eligible citizens. It would have registered every individual no matter if they’re simply a resident or even if they should not be voting. There is absolutely no sensible reason to register those who should not be voting.

-It would require that all states allow for absentee ballots on demand. Furthermore, it allows for ballot harvesting, a process by which campaign officials and other political actors can work to collect absentee ballots. This practice has been widely criticized by folks across the political aisle.

-It would force states to allow for online registration and unaccountable same day registration without oversight.

-Finally, it dramatically restricts the free speech rights of candidates, citizens, and nonprofits by enacting a range of new regulations.

Thankfully, the bill is dead. This is thanks, in part, to the “No” votes of both Senator Roger Wicker and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith.

The bill will undoubtedly be reintroduced again. However, its death strikes a major blow at efforts to centralize election control and remake Mississippi’s election laws in the vein of New York or California’s systems.

"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty." -Winston Churchill

America is at a crossroads regarding its economy and identity. This all comes in the wake of a government that has expanded spending to record levels and a nation that is recovering from government-imposed lockdowns. 

As states begin opening back up, the circumstances have created an ideological and economic policy vacuum as various factions clammer to define "the new normal." 

Although many would have frowned upon the idea of the government giving out money on such a large scale, the recent events of the past year have further normalized the idea of government handouts to the populace. Despite assertations from many that such programs were only to be utilized during the pandemic, the nature of government has moved these programs closer to a position of permanence. 

In the words of Milton Friedman: "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Indeed, efforts are underway even now to make such handouts the codified law of the land, with many in Washington advocating for an expansion of the welfare state to the extent that the nation has not seen since Lyndon Johnson's disastrous "Great Society."

Yet the question must be asked, what is the real economic benefit of the government handouts that the Left has continually attempted to advance? Although the shortsighted proposals of some promise at least temporary advantages, it is critical to consider whether or not these moves have long-term benefits for the economy. Time and time again, the government has shown itself to be a poor distributor of other people's money. 

Handouts stagnate economic growth because there is no exchange of goods or services when the money goes from the taxpayer to the government to the welfare recipient. Under free-market circumstances, economic transactions are voluntary exchanges that occur so that all parties get something of value. When there are more transactions, more economic activity occurs. On the other hand, the government gets the money it uses for the welfare state either by borrowing it on the taxpayers' credit or using force to enact taxation.

For instance, when the government uses one dollar for these entitlement programs, it transfers that dollar from the producer to the recipient by force. This transfer guts the value that could have been put into the economy if the recipient had worked for that dollar. Taking the money that taxpayers earned through their own labor and transferring it to handout recipients that did not work for it disregards the value of the taxpayer's labor.  

Yet, the damages from the redistributive entitlement programs do not just end with the disregard of taxpayer labor. Such programs also lower the productivity of the workforce as workers are incentivized not to work. This creates a consuming cycle as the businesses that are dependent upon employees cannot find a labor force to operate the business. 

When these places of employment are forced to close their doors because they can't find employees, there are fewer available employment opportunities. Government welfare programs are then further grounded into society to address all of the resulting unemployed. Through a cycle of government dependence and poverty brought about by entitlement programs, communities that were once thriving can be decimated as the whirlpool of government welfare programs consumes the economy. 

Finally, government handouts are more than just a problematic economic element. There is perhaps no more destructive force to destroy the motivation and work ethic of a workforce than the sedative of government handouts. When a government doles out the entitlement dollars to the citizens, it sends a message that the nanny state will provide some or all of their income.  

The American economy and work ethic are legendary as the world's greatest engine for free enterprise, industry, and innovation. To protect this incredible success, there must be a recognition that destructive consequences come from policy proposals to grow redistributive entitlement programs. 

A path of socialist programs is a path to ruin for America. Public policy should prioritize an economic environment where citizens can genuinely experience the value of their own labor and thrive in the success of the free market system.

***For Immediate Release***

(Baton Rouge, LA/Jackson, MS): The Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation, a division of the Pelican Institute, and the Mississippi Technology Institute, a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, have released a comprehensive joint report on the status of broadband internet access in Mississippi and Louisiana.

The report can be read in its entirety here.

The state-based technology centers seek to provide information to policymakers and the general public on removing barriers to broadband deployment and being proactive to get the two states more digitally connected.

In a day of telework, remote learning, telemedicine, and increasing digital connectivity, there is a growing need for fast and reliable internet service. As policymakers work to address the questions surrounding broadband coverage, speed, cost, and infrastructure development, the report aims to provide a comprehensive point of reference.

Eric Peterson, Director of the Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation, noted: "In order to close the digital divide, lawmakers must be armed with the information necessary to overcome the challenges of broadband implementation. Lawmakers need to be informed on what areas lack access and what issues cause lower adoption rates. By understanding the causes of problems in broadband deployment, lawmakers will be able to make great strides in closing the digital divide."

The report emphasizes data-driven public policy as a driving force behind successful broadband deployment. Matthew Nicaud, Tech Policy Specialist for the Mississippi Technology Institute, noted: “Broadband deployment has extensive implications on the state infrastructure, economy, budget, education, tech innovation, and business growth. By providing data about the current status of broadband deployment, we hope to provide policy recommendations that are fiscally responsible and economically successful.”

The report was produced as a joint initiative by the technology divisions of the Pelican Institute and the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

For more information on the report or to request an interview, please reach out to Hunter Estes, [email protected], at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy or Ryan Roberts, [email protected] at the Pelican Institute.

***End***

Many Mississippians feel cheated. Having voted overwhelmingly to approve a medical marijuana initiative last November, our state supreme court has now annulled this citizen-led decision.

Worse, by declaring our state’s initiative process ‘unworkable and inoperable’, our supreme court has in effect struck down the only system of direct democracy we had in the Magnolia state.

Irrespective of how you feel about medical marijuana, something has gone badly wrong when 70 percent of people vote for something in good faith, but then have their decision reversed.

The problem isn’t our judges, however, but the process for triggering initiatives in the first place. Under our state constitution (Section 273) a popular vote can take place to amend the constitution only if enough signatures are collected across each of the state’s five congressional districts.

The trouble is that our state only has four congressional districts, not five.  Mississippi has only had four congressional districts since 2002, when we lost our fifth congressional seat.  Our law makers somehow never got around to updating the rules.  Responsibility for where we are today must rest with the legislature.

Five years ago, I was helping lead Vote Leave, the official campaign that won the Brexit vote in Britain.  Brexit is one of the greatest examples of ordinary folk being able to vote to achieve real change.  It shows us why citizen-led initiatives are essential.

Having won the Brexit vote, all sorts of attempts were made to try to overturn the decision of the people. I know what it is like to have direct democracy opposed by those that don’t want change.

There may now need to be a special session of the legislature to address the specific issue of medical marijuana.  Serious thought also needs to be given as to how we fix our system of initiative.

Besides ensuring that there is a workable process in place to allow signatures to be gathered, here are three further suggestions on how to strengthen our system of direct democracy:

Initiatives should change state law, not just the state constitution. The initiative process that we have allows citizens to vote to change the state constitution.  It ought instead to allow the public to vote to change ordinary state law.

The state constitution is supposed to set out the basic rules under which those wanting to shape and influence public policy operate.  It is unwise to try to determine public policy by perennially seeking to incorporate amendments into the constitution itself.

Why?  There is a risk that our constitution could become a hodge podge of competing claims.  Far from empowering ordinary people, it easy to envisage how judges would be left to trying to untangle the inevitable incoherence.  That’s hardly people power.

More importantly, good public policy emerges when new ideas can be implemented and then improved upon, being modified or even reversed if they don’t work.  Using constitutional amendments to achieve specific public policy outcomes is the equivalent of engraving change in tablets of stone. It puts things beyond the reach of further democratic scrutiny.  Allowing citizens to vote to change state law, itself subject to normal electoral cycles, would be much healthier for democracy.

Direct democracy should be direct. Curiously, the system of direct democracy in our state is actually rather indirect. Once enough signatures have been gathered to allow an initiative to take place, the legislature has considerable leeway to in effect doctor the question before it is put to the people.

Reform should not only allow popular votes to approve new laws – as happens in many other states across America.  People should be able to vote on the question, not a doctored version of it designed to favor the outcomes politicians might prefer.

Tax neutral? It is easy to argue that voters should be generous with someone else’s money.  But it is also profoundly dangerous.  Initiatives should not become a device that allows people to vote to pass on the bill for something to their neighbors, or indeed to the next generation of Mississippi taxpayers.

Plenty of other states in America allow citizens a right of initiative yet insist that any proposals are tax neutral.  We should consider doing so too.

The failure of our legislature to update the rules on initiative over almost two decades demonstrates that politics is too important to be left to politicians. Reform is needed to ensure that Mississippi has a right of initiative that actually works.