After a confirmation process that sucked up most of the energy in and around Washington D.C. and the Twittersphere, Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as an associate justice on the Supreme Court today. He deserves to be on the Court. In the end, justice prevailed.

What he had to endure was absurd and likely sets a disturbing precedent in America

It was a wild ride that few could have expected, but we probably should have. Like it or not, this is the new norm.

When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump in June, Democrats immediately announced their opposition to the D.C. Court of Appeals judge. Rallies were instantly held and fundraising solicitations from Democratic lawmakers started flying. The name wasn't important. His record did not matter. He had to be stopped.

But there was just one problem – Democrats were in the minority and lacked the votes to block Kavanaugh. This was going to take something more than protestors or speeches.

Fresh off an upset in last year’s Alabama Senate race thanks to decades-old sexual assault allegations against Republican candidate Roy Moore, with the “me-too” moment still on the mind of many, Democrats unleashed what they believed would derail the nomination.

After three days of confirmation hearings, Christine Blasey Ford came forward to allege that she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in the 1980s. With an actual name, and no longer just anonymous rumors, the tone changed. But Kavanaugh and the Republicans did not retreat. Rather, they were emboldened to fight what they saw as an unfair – and untrue – allegation. Most Republicans continued to push on even as we were being told we must trust the accuser, regardless of the allegation, regardless of the many inconsistencies, regardless if she remembered the specifics, regardless if there was nobody to corroborate her accusation.

So on the last Thursday in September we were glued to a testimony that included Ford and Kavanaugh. Ford went first. The immediate reaction? She is credible, she is real, she is compelling. Kavanaugh is toast. Until he spoke. Once again, he didn’t retreat. Rather, he maintained his innocence and we were left with evidence that was no stronger than it was the day before.

In a move that surprised many, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), often dubbed the quintessential establishment Republican by conservatives, a man despised by the grassroots, and an original "Never-Trumper," rose to the occasion and delivered fiery remarks that conservatives will not soon forget. He denounced the process and chastised his Democratic colleagues for the circus show and urged every Republican to stand strong in support of Kavanaugh.

After Senator Graham’s charged plea, the stories began to change. Ford’s allegations were no longer about evidence or fact-finding. At that moment, the confirmation process transitioned into a theater of the absurd. Attorney Michael Avenatti claimed that a client used to regularly attend “gang rape” parties at which Kavanaugh was present. Therefore, by extension, he must have been involved. Why Avenatti’s female client would continue to attend such parties is a fairly obvious question. After actual reporting was conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC, no one could confirm the woman’s claims. But only after most in the media – and most on Twitter – told us it was true.

Then there was the claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a party. Even though the individual who made the claim admitted to drinking heavily at the time and confessed to memory “gaps.” And she didn’t know for sure if it was actually Kavanaugh. This shouldn’t have been a story, but it was. Apparently when you are consumed with denying a seat on the Supreme Court to your political enemies, there is no time for investigation. Objective journalism was regressed to mere political advocacy. The ends justify the means.

So what was left for the left?

The claims became more outlandish. The New York Times penned an article detailing an event where Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a bar while a student at Yale. Did Kavanaugh sexually assault someone in the bathroom? Did he punch someone? Close, he threw ice on another patron according to the police report. Oh, and the author of the “story” previously posted her opposition to Kavanaugh on Twitter. The ends justify the means.

And then we started to hear about Kavanaugh’s anger, his temper, his drinking – and the most incriminating – his use of slang terms! With every hour and day, the collective opposition became more desperate…and far less credible. In one of the most predictable Saturday Night Live skits of all time, Matt Damon satirized the hearings with his portrayal of Kavanaugh.

Temperament seemed to be the final sticking point for opponents after an FBI probe found nothing concerning these allegations. That too lacked any credibility. After all, this man had been a federal judge for more than a decade and it never was an issue. It only became an issue, in the eyes of the opponents who ran out of other attacks, when Kavanaugh was defending himself amid these abuse claims. Had to understand why.

That was the reason Mike Espy, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Mississippi, gave in announcing his opposition yesterday had he been a Senator. David Baria, running in the other Senate race, has made similar comments. Both Mississippi Senators, Roger Wicker and Cindy Hyde-Smith, supported Kavanaugh.

Why did it come to this? Why were none of these accusations present at the time Kavanaugh was nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals? After all, that is not an insignificant job. Because the Democrats had no way to stop Kavanaugh in terms of votes. Just like they couldn’t force Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to act on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. Based on votes, Democrats could not stop McConnell and Republicans from advancing Kavanaugh’s nomination. It was going to take something more, something extraordinary.

With the goal of prolonging the process in hopes that Democrats win a majority in the Senate in November so they can block Supreme Court nominations, Democrats decided to engage in a type of political warfare not seen since the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork.

When the allegations from Ford first surfaced after his confirmation hearings, many probably thought Kavanaugh would withdraw his nomination, presumably with the nudging of Trump or McConnell. But he didn’t. And Trump and McConnell stayed on mission. For the first time in a very long time, conservatives were able to see Republicans return fire with fire. The loudest “Never Trump” Republicans speaking in unison with Trump’s strongest supporters. It was rare air indeed.

The party in control, continuously unwilling to live up to campaign promises to repeal Obamacare or cut spending, finally fought back and won.

Few things are more important to the left than the Supreme Court. What the left has not been able to achieve legislatively, it has often won via the courts. It has become a super-legislature of sorts, dictating policy for the country – a far different version of the republic than what our founders envisioned.

But perhaps as Kavanaugh is seated on the Supreme Court, we will slowly be able to move back to that vision of less government, an empowered citizenry, and a balance of powers. Limiting the power of the judiciary would be a big win. Just expect to see people protesting outside the Court, every hour of every day, over…something.

Because the political theater is only going to get worse. With each loss to Trump, someone that the left does not believe is a legitimate president, the left will only become more enraged. They will only sharpen their claws. And the attacks will become more prevalent and more absurd. And, if past history is any indication, the attacks will come with most of the nation’s media carrying the left’s water, no matter how nonsensical and unsubstantiated their claims may be.

Yes, we have entered a time when there is very little difference between what is in the New York Times and what is on the Babylon Bee.

Graduating from high school, obtaining employment, and getting married before having children is still the best path out of poverty.

A recent essay in the New York Times tells the story of a life in poverty. This same story could be told of countless individuals in Mississippi.

Unfortunately, something that could be productive for a larger discussion misses that mark. Under the headline, “Americans want to believe jobs are the solution to poverty. They’re not,” we learn about the struggles of Vanessa Solivan, a home health aide in New Jersey.

Vanessa is a single-mom with three children. As a home health aide, she makes between $10 and $14 per hour. She works part-time, between 20 and 30 hours a week. If we took the average of both those numbers, 25 hours a week at $12 an hour, Vanessa would make a little more than $15,000 a year. Even with the Earned Income Tax Credit, before other welfare programs, she would only be bringing in about $20,000 per year.

No one would argue that is not enough to live on, particularly with three kids. Though, Vanessa’s story isn’t quite aligned with the headline.

Full-time jobs, and a two-parent household, are the solution to poverty; not single-parents with part-time jobs

Why is Vanessa only working part-time? She wants to work more hours but can’t. Several years ago, during the Obamacare debate, Republicans rightly were arguing that these new requirements will only encourage employers to prefer part-time workers. We often talk about the law of unintended consequences when it comes to government policy, but this was a consequence you didn’t need a public policy degree in order to predict. But policy makers just chose to ignore it. Or they blamed business owners for the terrible sin of “worrying about their bottom line.”

If Vanessa were working full-time, her income would be closer to $30,000, roughly a third more income to make her household budget a little more manageable.

While there is certainly nobility in working in healthcare, if Vanessa had a better K-12 education than most who grow up in poverty, could she have been better prepared for a more sustainable career path? Perhaps if she had had access to a voucher, tax credit scholarship, or a charter school, her career would have gone in a different direction and she would have a higher income today. But alas, to most on the left, the path to better public education outcomes will only come from spending more money, despite decades of evidence to the contrary

And what about the fathers of Vanessa’s three children? One is dead from a gunshot wound after spending time in prison. The others provide occasional support, but nothing of substance. Unfortunately, this is a story that is very common in America today. Since the 1960s, when our country adopted most welfare programs in the name of a “Great Society,” out-of-wedlock birth rates have gone from about 5 percent to over 40 percent. In Mississippi, it’s 53 percent.

And disastrous results have followed

According to newly released Census data, only 17 percent of the lowest fifth income earners, those who make less than $25,000, are married. Conversely, 76 percent of the highest fifth, those with an income above $125,000, are married.

Now, if Vanessa had followed what conservatives refer to as the “success sequence,” and obtained employment and got married before having children, the New York Times writer would have had quite a different story. Even if we assume she is working the same job, and her husband enjoyed a comparable salary, the couple would be making about $48,000 per year working full-time.

The underlying message in a story like this from the New York Times is that the economy does not work for everyone. Jobs aren’t the answer. No one is dismissing the plight of those who struggle. But simply providing more welfare benefits will not move Vanessa, or others like her, off this generational cycle of poverty.

Rather, it starts with smart policy, like the Hope Act that Mississippi adopted in 2017, modeled after 1990s era “welfare-to-work” reforms. The new law requires able-bodied individuals without dependents to obtain employment or job training to continue receiving food stamps. And the path up the economic ladder includes the work of churches, non-profits, and the private sector reaching out and providing a helping hand in ways that only they can.

Those who start out in poverty certainly start out further behind. But we know there are paths to a better future. The problem is that the government, unfortunately, is usually more of a barricade than a guiding light on that path to more prosperity and opportunity.

This column appeared in the Madison County Journal on September 20, 2018. 

The first public charter school opened in Mississippi more than two decades after our nation’s first charter school welcomed students in Minnesota. Today, five years after state legislators finally allowed charter schools to operate in our state, it is safe to say that charter approvals continue at the same snail’s pace.

The Mississippi Charter Authorizer Board recently voted to allow a new school, Ambition Prep, to open in West Jackson next year. It was the only school to be greenlighted by the state in this cycle, though two other proposals were tabled for consideration in October.

In 2018, 16 different operators proposed opening a total of 17 schools across the state from the Coast to Jackson to the Delta. The prior two years, 18 operators filed similar letters of intent to begin the charter school application process.

But when Ambition Prep opens it will be just the sixth charter school in the state, with all but one in Jackson.

Educational entrepreneurs are interested in opening schools. And parents are interested in options. Despite the small footprint, 15-20 percent of public school students in Jackson who attend a grade that is also served by a charter school are enrolled in charter schools. And that number will only increase.

Yet in light of the slow-growing sector, limited enrollment, and swelling wait lists, we wonder whose opinion matters more when it comes to educational choice – government or parents’?

Our charter law emphasizes a rigorous application process and “high quality” schools. Yet this bottleneck has created much greater pressure for early charter schools and a less dynamic and attractive environment for new operators to enter. The restriction of charter applications to D and F-rated districts most recently left the authorizer board torn between rejecting or approving an application faster than they would like to, in the event the district’s grade changes and invalidates the nearly successful proposal.

In advance of the release of school grades, state superintendent Carey Wright cautioned against judging charter schools too quickly, since they face unique start-up and environmental challenges along with the added pressure of serving students far behind academically. But the law makes this reasonable approach difficult: schools have a very narrow timeframe in which to meet certain state-determined guidelines or be shut down.

A different approach

Many years ago, Arizona took a different approach to charters than Mississippi. In Arizona, charters have a 15-year window rather than just a 5-year window to stay in business, as they do here. But most schools take far fewer than 15 years to prove their worth. And instead of the state stepping in to close poor-performing schools, parents do.

Over the past five years, more than 200 charters schools have opened in the Grand Canyon State. In the same five years, 100 other schools have closed. The average charter school that closes in Arizona is open just four years and has an average of 62 students in its final year. Parents don’t wait for the state to say if a charter is or isn’t meeting government benchmarks. They make a determination themselves. The charter sector grows according to demand, not top-down controls, ensuring that parents can make decisions about their child’s education without delay, rather than waiting for years to have a school or seat open up. Families also have many schools to choose from if one is not the right fit.

The data shows us that choice produces better student outcomes than tight government regulations.

In 2017, National Assessment of Education Progress, or NAEP, scores showed Arizona charters again performing as high as or better than traditionally top-performing states like Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey. Arizona did this while spending half of what those states spend and educating a high-minority student population.

Schools like Jackson Academy, Jackson Prep, St. Andrew’s, St Joe’s, MRA, Hartfield, and others compete for students every day. They sell themselves on why consumers, parents, should send their children to their school. And parents make decisions on where to enroll their children based on a host of reasons, ranging from academics to athletics, from values to extracurricular activities. This has created a robust private school market in the area. Why shouldn’t public schools of choice work similarly?

We’re glad leaders in Mississippi are working to create more public education options for those who want them. But the slow pace of opening charters, and the limitations on where they can be located or who can attend, is not leading to a responsive charter marketplace anytime soon. In these early stages of development, Mississippi has the opportunity to learn from other states and decide if parent demand and satisfaction should play a greater role in the charter approval process.

After all, what’s working for Arizona just might work here too.

This column appeared in The Northside Sun on September 20, 2018. 

Calling for a more limited government is not just a conservative talking point, it is a principle that encourages freedom and prosperity. And it’s backed up by scientific data.

There are eight states where government controls more than half of the economy. Mississippi is one of them.

According to the Fraser Institute, government spending- federal, state, and local- accounts for 55 percent of the economy in Mississippi (as outlined in Promoting Prosperity in Mississippi). This leaves less than half of the state’s economic resources for the private sector. New Hampshire is the freest state, with just 31 percent of the economy controlled by the government. Live Free or Die indeed.

This ranking gave Mississippi the fifth largest government, behind Alaska, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Kentucky. Looking at our neighbors, government controlled between 47-50 percent of the economies in Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana. It is 43 percent in Tennessee.

For those that might blame federal spending, if we look at just state and local spending, Mississippi would actually move up to the fourth highest share of government control. So the federal government isn’t to blame.

Government is growing in Mississippi

Interestingly, it has not always been this way. Throughout the 1990s, government control of the economy in Mississippi ranged from about 40-45 percent.

It sat at around 45 percent at the turn of the century. And has been trending in the wrong direction since that time.

Does this matter?

Mississippi has an outsized government. It is larger than our peers. But do we need it? After all, Mississippi is a poor state and largely rural.

Regardless of the size of the state, it is problematic when resources must be dedicated to political favor seeking and lobbying rather than private sector activities. The shift is from entrepreneurship and toward lobbying. That may benefit an individual or a single company, but it does not benefit the economy.

And we have data to show the correlation between economic freedom, which includes personal choice, voluntary exchange, free enterprise, and property rights, and prosperity.

When looking at the Economic Freedom of North America index and per capita income, we see a direct and clear trend. The freer the state, the greater the income.

Those who live in states with the highest per capita income live in the freest states. The poorest states rely on the government. It is not by accident.

People vote with their feet

Beyond the data and freedom indexes from the likes of Fraser, Cato, or Heritage, can you make the argument that people like the high regulation, union friendly status of states like California or New York? After all, Manhattan and San Francisco (minus the used needles and feces on the streets) are highly desirable places to live. And as a result, their cost-of-living is among the highest in the country.

And while those locations might be desirable, net migration tells a different story. We can throw out the data, the policy wonks, and the studies and we still have this graphic.

We are free to live where we’d like in this country. And people are moving to the states that do well on the various measures of economic freedom. As a result, they are moving out of states that do not.

Do people intentionally look at these reports and determine that is where they are going to live? No, probably not. Rather, they are moving to the states with opportunity, with growth, and where the cost-of-living is reasonable. (Hint: states with less burdensome regulations.)

Here is the net migration between 2016 and 2017 among the five freest and five least free states, according to the Economic Freedom of North America index.

The numbers speak for themselves. If we want to increase prosperity and attract new residents to the state, it starts with enacting policies that encourage and promote the principles of economic freedom.

A new report shows taxpayer funded film incentives continue to perform poorly nationwide.

The report, Calling Cut on Film Incentives, was recently released by the Beacon Center of Tennessee and focuses on the poor investment for taxpayers in the Volunteer State. While there has never been an official ROI calculation from the state of Tennessee, the report looked at three key points:

• 40 percent of the subsidized projects made less at the box office then they received in subsidies
• Several of the subsidized projects only spent a small share of their budget in state
• Many programs hold the state, i.e. taxpayers, hostage and threaten to move if they do not receive additional subsidies, similar to sports teams and corporations

A similar story in Mississippi

Mississippi has a similar experience with film incentives. A 2015 PEER report shows taxpayers receive just 49 cents for every dollar invested in the incentives. For those looking at a bright side, we are actually “doing better” than many other states.

This includes our neighbors in Louisiana, who recover only 14 cents on the dollar. They also have one of the most generous programs in the country; it was unlimited until lawmakers capped it a couple years ago. (Other reports show the Pelican State recovering 23 cents on the dollar, either way a terrible investment.)

Good for production, not the economy

Beyond Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana, film incentives are universally a poor investment throughout the country. Numerous studies have been conducted on film incentives. All sobering for those worried about taxpayers. Here is a review of the return per tax dollar given, from 2008 through 2013. In these third-party studies, covering 12 different states, there was not a program that returned 50 cents on the dollar (never mind actually made money).

Source: John Locke Foundation

Since this chart was published, studies on similar programs in Florida, Virginia, and West Virginia have shown similar results. No program had a positive ROI.

If an individual was investing their own money, they would never make any of these deals. But is has been said, and proven, many times that no one spends their own money more carefully than that person.

A move in the right direction

Mississippi lawmakers have begun to scale back on the “handouts to Hollywood.” Last year, lawmakers chose not to extend the non-resident payroll portion of the incentives program. This previously allowed for a rebate on payroll paid to cast and crew members who are not Mississippi residents.

But we still have two incentives on the books. One is the Mississippi Investment Rebate, which offers a 25 percent rebate on purchases from state vendors and companies. The other is the Resident Payroll Rebate, which offers a 30 percent cash rebate on payroll paid to resident cast and crew members.

And old habits die hard. The House voted to bring back the incentives this past session. The bill didn't make it through the Senate and that incentive is still dead.

Mississippi is moving in the right direction and they are joined by other states. While all but six states had film incentives a decade ago, the number is now up to 19. Mississippi can be number 20 by removing the incentives currently on the books.

Just because other people are doing it

One of the common prescribed reasons for why need film incentives is because it’s “good” for the state to have movies filmed here. As is often the case in government, we focus on the inputs. How many films are made here? What movie star was in Mississippi? That is nice, but the focus should be on outcomes.

The other common argument is that other states are doing it. That is the point the Beacon Center made about producers holding the state hostage and threatening to move. Producers in Mississippi have raised the same point. And I am sure they have in every other state where film incentives are threatened.

However, simply because another state is wasting money does not mean Mississippi should join them.

Corporate welfare is never a good idea. It’s an even worse idea when you know we are losing money and you want to continue with or resurrect such a program. Our goal should be to have the most competitive business climate in the country. The tax breaks that a few chosen industries or companies receive should be made available to all. When we do that we will remove the need for taxpayer funded incentives.

Tiger Woods is taking heat from the media for just wanting to play golf and not taking their bait.

USA Today columnist Christine Brennan was highly critical of Tiger Woods earlier this week for his refusal to weigh in on the politics of the day.

Brennan, along with several reporters at Tiger’s press conference following a recent tournament, seemed upset because he would not opine on the subject of Donald Trump and race relations, particularly “as a man of color.”

It’s as if every athlete now has an obligation to share personal views on every subject.

The constitutional right to free speech gives Tiger the right to say nothing at all. Perhaps he has a different view or a less popular one. Perhaps he voted for Trump. Maybe he didn’t vote at all. Regardless, he is not required to provide his views on politics or society.

Woods has said that to expect him to have a say on everything having to do with blackness in America because his father was black is disrespectful to his Asian mother. Because his mother is Asian, is Tiger compelled to weigh in on trade relations and Harvard’s admission policies?

Maybe Tiger just wants to talk about golf. Maybe golf fans just want hear him discuss golf. Rather than criticize Tiger for refusing to weigh in on political matters, he should be thanked for having the discipline and the good sense to let everyone enjoy the sports they like.

The USGA, PGA, LPGA, and their fans appear to understand golf is a sport, not a political weapon. Why doesn’t the rest of the sports world?If we are in the mood for political commentary, we can switch the channel to any number of networks that dedicate 24 hours every day to the subject.

It seems the governing bodies of golf understand something fundamental: The sports industry relies on fans, spectators, viewers, and players. Without attendees and viewers, the business models fall apart. Like any healthy business, the customer is at the center.

The NBA and NCAA’s boycott of North Carolina over the transgender bathroom bill and the NFL’s handling of the national anthem issue are recent examples of leagues alienating fans by involving themselves in politics.

With this is mind, why would a sports league attempt to use its sport as a weapon for politics? Sports fans come from all political persuasions. Why jeopardize your relationship with the customer over political issues?

We’ve been asking that question of ESPN, NBA, NFL, NCAA, and other sports organizations of late. Using the resources of a sports organization or the resources of a media company to advance an agenda seems a flawed strategy, and there is data emerging to support this.

In nearly every measured television market, center right-viewers are leaving ESPN. Deep Root, a TV data service, analyzed 43 markets across the US and compared 2015 audiences with 2016 audiences. In 36 of the 43 markets, ESPN viewership had become more liberal—between 5 percent and 27 percent more liberalin 2016 than in 2015.

In other words, center-right viewers left the network.

Those of us who want our sports delivered free of political commentary salute Tiger Woods and the sport of golf. Now please have a talk with your organizational cohorts at the NFL, NBA, and NCAA. We sports consumers/fans would like to have our sports back.

Sports have always been a common denominator in our culture. Regardless of race, age, sex, education, or political affiliation, sport is a unifier. That needs to be respected.

With all of the balkanization that exists in the other parts of our lives, let’s leave sports alone. We’ve already surrendered higher education, arts, music, media, and filmmaking to progressives. They can’t have sports, too.

The first – and hopefully last – special session of 2018 is now over.

The Legislature passed three bills: a $200 million infrastructure bill; a lottery bill; and a bill to distribute BP settlement money throughout the state. We reviewed the infrastructure bill earlier in the week, and it has been signed into law by the governor.

The lottery bill did not pass without drama. In fact, the most interesting part of session was that it almost did not pass at all. On Monday night, the House stunned many observers by rejecting the lottery conference report. After “sleeping on it,” several members changed their vote the next morning. The initial vote on the conference report was 53 for and 61 against. The do-over vote was 58 for and 54 against. Up until the end of the special session members who had voted “No” during the do-over were switching their vote to “Yes.”

Mississippi's path to a lottery

Once Gov. Phil Bryant came out in favor of the lottery, lawmakers began to feel it was inevitable. Long gone are the days when Gov. Ray Mabus (D) lost his re-election bid partly because of his support for the lottery. As Jake McGraw over at Rethink Mississippi details, the lottery was unconstitutional in Mississippi between 1868 and 1992. (Public opinion about lotteries seems to ebb and flow as ebbs and flows the controversy and corruption lotteries tend to facilitate.)

In 1992, voters cleared the way by amending the state constitution to allow for a lottery, but it took another 26 years before the lottery actually became law in Mississippi. One might wonder at this delay, but there is something to be said – said by James Madison, in fact – that public opinion often benefits from guidance, refinement – and delay. This refinement – owing to the divided form of government we all enjoy – is what distinguishes representative democracy from the tumult of purely majoritarian rule.

Mississippi becomes the 45th state to legalize the lottery, and our citizens will presumably no longer be crossing the state line to buy tickets in Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee. This phenomenon – that people are buying lottery tickets in other states – was one of the primary motivations to pass a lottery here. It is interesting, however, that the two states immune to this argument – Alaska and Hawaii – do not have lotteries. Just maybe these folks believe it’s bad policy.

BP money

Before going home on Wednesday, lawmakers were also forced to decide how to distribute $750 million in BP settlement funds – gotten from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Bickering over how to divvy up the windfall has preoccupied the Legislature for at least the past two sessions. The Senate bill proposed sending 75 percent of the money to the coast and 25 percent to the rest of the state. The House agreed, fending off several amendments and letting everyone go home Wednesday afternoon. Legislative leadership clearly wanted to avoid sending the bill to conference, where it would have become even more of a “Christmas tree.”

It has been reported that the 75 percent in settlement money will go to six counties: Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Pearl River, Stone and George. The bill does not exactly say this. Rather, it stipulates the money will be used for programs and projects in the Gulf Coast region “as defined in the federal RESTORE Act, or twenty-five miles from the northern boundaries of the three coastal counties.” ... So which is it? The RESTORE Act’s definition of the “Gulf Coast region” goes well beyond six counties. Which definition governs how the money is to be used? The language is a bit confusing (but I ain’t a lawyer, only a Ph.D.). This confusion could spawn more squabbling – if not a lawsuit or two.

Several years ago, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made headlines when he attempted to ban soft drinks over 16 ounces. After several years of legal challenges, New York City exhausted their appeals and people in the city were free to drink from a 17 ounce cup. 

Despite that setback, the nanny state is alive and well, particularly in large metropolitan cities and coastal states. But take heart, these rules and regulations are for your own good. At least that is what we often hear.  

Lawmakers are particularly concerned that you don’t know how to parent, especially when it comes to educating your child. While many states, Mississippi included, have parent-friendly homeschool laws, others make it a little more difficult to educate your own child in your own house.  

In Pennsylvania, you must meet educational qualifications to homeschool, file a notarized affidavit, which includes evidence of immunization and an outline of proposed objectives by subject area, meet the required number of days or hours of instruction, including the required subjects, maintain a portfolio, which includes work samples and standardized testing, and then have your child evaluated each year with a certification that must be submitted to the local school superintendent.  

Before children reach school age, we have seen parents seek out new options for preschool, including cooperatives. Here, parents volunteer in the classroom and help run the school, helping to lower the costs of a traditional preschool. Now that this is working well for families, Virginia is looking to require 30 hours of training for parents before they help with activities such as sweeping the floors and passing out snacks.  

After all, are those snacks healthy?

The government is here to help you decide

The city of Baltimore recently banned restaurants from including soft drinks or other sugary drinks on kids’ menus. Now, milk, 100 percent fruit juices, water, and flavored or sparkling water without added sweeteners are what the city of Baltimore will allow you to purchase. Not to be outdone, California is now interested in protecting your children from your bad parenting. A proposed law will require restaurants to serve only water or flavored milk to children, sorry fruit juices.  

But don’t ask for a straw with your milk or water when you are in California. Numerous municipalities have enacted bans, but Santa Barbara is taking the war on straws to the next level. In the coastal city, outlaws who use straws can be fined up to $1,000 and sent to prison for six months. To be fair, cutting down on waste in a good thing. But let’s not pat ourselves on the back for making up some statistics you received from a nine-year old and then passing laws that will do absolutely nothing for the environment.  

Just make sure that milk isn’t raw. Nineteen states, including Mississippi, ban the sale of raw milk, though Mississippi does allow the sale of raw goat milk. But California takes it a step further. They actually deploy “food confiscation teams” to raid the homes of people who purchased bootleg milk. And don’t think about calling nondairy milk, milk.

Regulating competition in the name of consumer protection

The Food and Drug Administration is considering regulatory action that will prohibit almond milk and soy milk from calling their products milk. All because you and I are unaware that Almond milk does not come from a cow. This move is being cheered by the dairy industry, which is looking to use political favor to stifle competition. Sound familiar?

This is what we have seen from the taxi industry in response to Uber and Lyft or the hotel industry in response to Airbnb. Incumbents seek protection from government when a disruptor enters their industry, rather than making changes in products or services in the free-market. They do this because the allocation of resources towards government has worked in far too many places – thus encouraging unnecessary and often silly rules and regulations. 

What is next?

And while we can’t have straws or sugary drinks, at least we still have balloons. For now. The anti-balloon movement appears ready to build on the anti-straw movement and do away with the common practice of releasing balloons. Even though, as the AP admitted, balloons are a “very small part of environmental pollution.” 

Thirty-two years ago President Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” Over the years and decades, we have seen our government continue to grow, giving government regulators more power every day. And as we do that, we continue to lose just a little bit more of our freedoms and liberties.  

Be very cautious next time you hear a politician sell you on a promise that what he or she is doing is for your own good. 

There is a common assumption that we often hear about Mississippi government. It is that the government is too small and we have reduced taxes too much. Therefore, revenues are down, and we have less money to spend on key government responsibilities, and that is the reason we trail much of the country in various rankings.

This makes for an easy soundbite, and at first glance it might appear to make sense. But of Mississippi’s many problems, the size of government is not one of them. Indeed, we have relied too much on government to grow the economy rather than enact market based policies that have allowed other states to prosper.

As Mississippi was experiencing minimal growth for more than two decades, other states in the middle of the country were prospering. They grew because of policies that emphasized economic freedom and limited government.

Mississippi has the fifth largest government share of state economic activity, and that is due to state and local spending, not federal funds. While there is a large contingent who would want to see the government spend more, it would actually be pretty difficult.

When the government grows, the state has increased ownership and the private sector shrinks. And economic freedom, which is based on free markets and voluntary exchange, individual liberty, and personal responsibility, wanes.

According to the most recent Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of North America report, which measures government spending, taxes, and labor market freedom, Mississippi was ranked 45th among the 50 states. Similarly, Cato Institute’s Freedom in the Fifty States, which measures economic and personal freedom, placed Mississippi 40th in their most recent rankings.

What is the correlation between economic freedom and prosperity? The freer states are more prosperous, have higher per capita incomes, more entrepreneurial activity, and lower poverty rates. We have the model. We need to just look at what similar states have done for economic growth. And it is important to know the difference between the reality of economic growth and the practice of economic development; those can be very different things.

Government incentives, often in the name of economic development and being ‘business-friendly,’ attempt to lure businesses to the state through financial benefits, such as site preparation, infrastructure, job training, or special tax breaks. The only reason these incentives are necessary is because of higher taxes or policies that burden businesses. Instead of special incentives for a few, Mississippi should work to provide a favorable climate for every business. And let the market decide where a business locates or expands. An economic development officer can sell low taxes and low regulatory burdens to a company looking for a great location like Mississippi. What’s more, the data shows us that such policies allow existing businesses already in our state to expand and grow from a small employer to a large employer without getting any incentives from the taxpayers. That’s economic growth.

Being business friendly isn’t based on who can seek the most favors, it is based on how free your state is.

To their credit, state leaders have attempted to improve the economic climate of Mississippi, most notably through tax and regulatory reform. In 2017, the legislature adopted a new law that will require all new licensing regulations to be approved before they take effect, ensuring new attempts to stifle competition will be reviewed before they are finalized.

And the Taxpayer Pay Raise Act in 2016 will eliminate the 3 percent income tax bracket, allow self-employed individuals to deduct half of their federal self-employment taxes, and remove the franchise tax on property and capital when fully implemented. Even though Mississippi’s overall tax burden is still above the national average, this will move Mississippi closer to a flatter income tax and make our business climate more competitive.

These reforms weren’t easy, but showed forward thinking to align us closer with neighboring states. Making the case for spending more money on your favorite government program is not what is needed to prosper. We need to think much bigger than that. If we want to do better than the bottom ten in categories like per capita income, it starts with doing better in categories like business friendliness, regulatory practices, and tax rates.