In recent years, the education system has become increasingly centralized. As the federal government has continually expanded its role in education, and academic organizations have consolidated their influence, there has also been an increasingly radical push to remove even parents themselves out of the equation.
It is interesting to note that the increasing centralization of education has directly increased with the radicalization of educational priorities and agendas. Ironically this is despite the fact that many individual parents are far less likely to embrace the latest radical proposals from the Left, such as Critical Race Theory and transgender bathrooms.
However, those within the high ranks of the education establishment often buy into such priorities. According to research, many of those in high academia have gone increasingly even further to the Left. Thus, the more education is centralized, the greater the ability of the Left to advance ideologies that would not be democratically approved by the majority of parents.
These factors of polarization and radicalization have challenged much of the status quo in the education establishment. This is true both for the administrators within the system and the parents themselves.
The National School Boards Association sent a letter requesting federal law enforcement investigate certain parents who were opposed to certain policies as “domestic terrorists.” This ultimately led to the Mississippi School Boards Association announcing that it would break from the national organization.
Meanwhile, parents across the state and country are responding as well. On the one hand, parental rights and education policy have become one of the biggest hot-button issues at the ballot box. At the same time, “families have explored and adopted different approaches to schooling on an unforeseen scale.”
Such factors shed light on a growing recognition that Washington's academic elites and education bureaucrats have overstepped their boundaries. The nature of this republic is the ability of the people to civilly push back against overreaches, whether they do it as an organization or as individuals.
This points back to the truth that an increasingly top-down structure for education is not the answer for true growth and educational excellence. Truly American education was built on the foundation that strong families, faith, limited government, and personal responsibility are the true foundation for educating the next generation. Long before the centralized educational structures of today were instituted, America still had an educated populace, that not only sustained itself – but thrived.
Perhaps the time has come that some in the American ethos are having a fundamental return back to an educational vision that seeks to preserve the things that made the nation great. The survival of the American republic depends upon future generations that are grounded in the principles of freedom and liberty. Rather than handing this over to big office buildings in Washington and the academic elites, the success of the “American experiment” proves that individual education freedom and choice are the true avenues to make this happen.
Robbery occurs when one party uses intimidation, force, or threats of force to steal from another party. Most would agree that stealing is immoral, even if what was stolen was “for the greater good.” The same should be considered when talking of income taxes.
Americans first encountered an income tax in 1861 to pay for Civil War costs, demanding 3% on incomes above $800. It was replaced a year later and again in 1864 with even more progressive rates, but the acts were ultimately allowed to expire and mainly viewed as emergency measures for wartime situations.
Congress then readdressed tax laws, eventually passing the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, making it the first peace-time income tax. A 2% flat tax on incomes over $4,000 was to make up for revenue that would be lost by ongoing tariff reductions.
The Supreme Court ruled the tax unconstitutional on grounds of the 10th Amendment because it was not apportioned correctly amongst each state’s population, as then required with direct taxes. A shift from the individual rights of the Founders to the collective rights of the Progressives was a watershed transition in American thought at the turn of the 20th Century, which made the Court’s decision unpopular.
Proponents of a nationwide annual income tax argued it would force the so-called “robber barons” to pay taxes – It wasn’t supposed to provide a mechanism for Washington to reach into most Americans’ pockets. For example, the highest rate in the proposed legislation, greater than $500,000 (equivalent to $13,854,040 today), was only 7%. The average income for a single individual around the time was only $800 (equivalent to $22,166 today), plus there was an individual $3,000 exemption. So, yes, the initial rates, despite being progressive, appeared not all that burdensome. And it is easy to understand the frustration of the average American with monopolies and other forms of cronyism, but the collecting of taxes based off of one’s income would prove to be dangerous. The Federal Income Tax was finally solidified with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (Mississippi was the fifth state to do so in 1910), allowing Congress to levy one without apportioning it upon the states’ populations.
Fast forward to 2021, and the highest rate on the bracket starts at an income of over $523,600 for a single filer, and they’re taxed at 37%, meaning they would have $329,868 left. The average income today, for a single Mississippian is $45,081 (the lowest in the nation) and is taxed at 22%, leaving them $35,163 and not taking into account the state’s income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and any other levies. This goes to show that if you give the federal government an inch, it will take a mile, and often for the worse.
While there is plenty of room for an argument criticizing the harsh economic and fiscal implications income taxes have, a much simpler one is how immoral they are.
Just the thought of taxing someone based on how hard they work and how much they earn is depraved and selfish in nature. People have a right to the fruits of their labor. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, including taxation, and contribute the same as every other citizen for the upkeep of the society in which they live. The inherent idea that you must give up a determined amount of money to a government based on your income – or face severe consequences – is ludicrous. To quote Dr. Ron Paul: “If you concede the principle of the income tax, you concede the principle that the government owns your wages and permits you to keep a certain percentage of it.” The income tax, for the lack of a better word, is theft. Theft, as we should have learned as children, is wrong.
In taking someone’s income, the government then adds it to its funds for different programs, deeming itself a wiser steward of finances than who they took it from. The government believes that it can put someone’s money to better use than the original owner ever could and shows it is not truly concerned with the individuals’ specific needs, but only the general populace. The government has no interest in you or your loved ones’ prerogatives – Just y’all’s money.
While Mississippi can’t do much to fix its past sin of ratifying the 16th Amendment, what it can do is lessen the burden on workers by repealing its own income tax. It is the least it can do.
The Magnolia State’s income tax is a graduated one, with the first $2,000 of taxable income not taxed at all, the next $3,000 taxed at 3%, the next $5,000 at 4%, and anything over $10,000 is at 5%. This means that a worker earning over $10,000 will therefore be paying $1 in state income taxes out of every $20 they earn over $10,000. According to the Governor’s executive budget recommendations, an individual with a taxable income of $40,000 would be $1,850 better off if the income tax was eliminated. This leaves the individual more of their money and gives them the choice to spend it on their priorities.
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is making the case for the abolition of the state income tax, and you can read more about it here.
As America prepares to celebrate a day of Thanksgiving, it is important to look back and consider the lessons of our forefathers. All the way back to its humble beginnings at Plymouth Rock, the American legacy has shined as an example of what freedom and liberty can accomplish.
But in recent years, socialism has been on the rise in America. According to Pew Research, 42 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism. In addition, the nation has seen increasingly socialistic policies based on the concepts of big government and high taxation. In light of such circumstances, it is important to consider another episode when socialism was in America – and the failure of such socialism.
This story of socialism in America happened with none other than the Pilgrims themselves. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower, their voyage was financed by a group of investors called the Merchant Adventurers. As a means to pay back the investors, the Pilgrims initially set up a socialistic economy, with a portion of the communal proceeds going back to the investors. However, this system proved to be a failure from the start.
William Bradford, the second governor of Plymouth Colony, described what happened: “The failure of this experiment... [proves] the emptiness of the theory that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in a community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.”
To replace this failed approach, the Pilgrims instituted a system of private ownership, with each family having a farm to call their own. This led to the bountiful successes that culminated in long-term prosperity. Such a failure of socialism, when compared to capitalism, comes as little surprise. The basic principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility will always be more successful than the principles of coercion and a lack of private property.
From Plymouth Rock, all the way to the Soviet Union, socialism has an unbroken record of failure. The successful “American experiment” rejected socialism from its very start, and an embrace of socialism would ultimately spell its end. For the legacy of the Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers to continue, the lessons of history must be heeded and followed. As families gather across the nation to thank God for the blessings of the year and look back on America’s legacy, it is important to ensure that future generations will be able to reap the blessings of freedom. As the rise of socialism seeks to undermine the country's future, a return to America’s foundation just might start by looking back to the lessons of Plymouth Rock.
You know you’ve seriously annoyed progressives when you get singled out for a hit piece in the UK’s Guardian newspaper by one of their New York-based columnists. According to Arwa Mahdawi writing in today’s Guardian, I am a “toxic politician” whom the UK was able to "successfully export."
What was it that prompted Miss Mahdawi, whom I don’t believe I have had the pleasure of meeting, to launch such a highly personal attack on a private citizen in a national newspaper? (Besides Brexit, of course).
Her tirade seems to have been prompted by the fact that I had the temerity to point out that the United States is more prosperous and innovative that Europe.
Well let’s consider the facts, for a moment. Here is a table showing how the richest countries in Europe compare the US states in terms of GDP per capita. Germany, Europe’s richest country, ranks below Oklahoma, the 38th richest state in America.
The UK is poorer that Arkansas and West Virginia. Even my own state, Mississippi, ranks above Italy and Spain. If you break the UK down by regions, Mississippi is more prosperous than much of the UK outside of London and the south east.
According to Miss Mahdawi, the US can’t be more successful because she lives in New York, where she “pays way more” for her “mobile phone plan and internet than she would for comparable services in the UK or anywhere in Europe.
Apparently the relative cost of her New York phone bill proves the Europe is better than America. Or something.
Perhaps if Guardian columnists made a little more effort to try to understand what those they write hit pieces on actually thought, they might recognize that free marketers favor more free markets.
But if they did that, then they might be forced to acknowledge that one of the reasons why certain sectors of the US economy have become cartels, without enough consumer choice and competition, is precisely because America is currently led by an administration that seeks to expand the role of government and make America more European. Much easier to make childish insults.
The interesting question to ask is why so many of Europe’s elite feel the need to lash out at anyone that suggests that the American model works better that the European.
In the UK, it is constantly implied the America’s health care system is vastly inferior. Really? Five years after diagnosis, only 56% of English cancer patients survive, compared to 65% of American patients. Poorer Americans in poor states often have healthier outcomes that many in Britain.
But again, these facts are overlooked. Anyone with the temerity to mention them gets vilified (“toxic”). And the many shortcomings in the US system are cited as evidence that nothing good ever happens stateside.
When Europe’s elites talk about America, often what they say – or won’t say – tells us more about them, than anything happening over here. The reality is that by most measures the United States gives ordinary citizens far better life chances than the European Union is able to provide for her people.
Deep down Europe’s elites know this. And they fear that their own citizens know it, too. So they constantly put America down in order to maintain their own status across the pond.
Last week’s elections in Virginia were no earthquake. Glenn Youngkin, the newly elected Republican Governor, squeaked home by the narrowest of margins. The swing from blue to red was a modest 5 percent.
Yet last week’s election could just turn out to be one of the most significant elections in America for a generation. Why?
Virginia offers the wider conservative movement a route map back towards electoral success – if (big if) they have the good sense to follow it.
It is easy when living in a state like Mississippi to assume that the Republican party is well entrenched. The reality across much of America, however, is that the conservative movement which dominated American politics when Ronald Reagan was in the White House, has suffered defeat and retreat ever since.
The last time that a Republican candidate won a popular majority in a U.S. Presidential election, for example, was back in 2004. Republican candidates have only managed to win the popular vote in two of the past nine Presidential elections.
It is not just that Republican candidates have not done so well. Even more ominously, not every Republican candidate has been …. how might I put this delicately? …. conservative.
Over the past couple of decades, states like Virginia, which at one time tended to lean conservative, appeared to have shifted decisively to the left. Until last week, that is.
Despite having failed to win a state-wide election for twelve years, last week conservative candidates in Virginia were elected not only Governor, but Lt Governor and Attorney General, too.
The Virginia result was a victory for school choice conservatism. With parents denied any real power in the public education system, moms and dads in Virginia felt anxious about some of the things their kids were being taught – such as Critical Race Theory.
Youngkin repeatedly made the issue of whether parents should be allowed a say in their child’s education the center piece in his campaign. Youngkin also calmly but firmly insisted that Critical Race Theory is wrong.
And guess what? It turns out that giving people school choice is wildly popular and that millions of ordinary Americans are not that keen on having their kids indoctrinated into believing that their country is intrinsically racists either.
Here in Mississippi, we recently published a report on Critical Race Theory in our state. It shows how conservatives might offer something similar here, too.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Virginia result was the record support that the conservative side got from both Hispanic and African America voters. It turns out that opposing a divisive anti-American ideology has a broad appeal. Again, Magnolia conservatives should take note.
One final observation about Virginia. The conservative side in the election did something that too often conservatives are loathe to do; they tried to understand and listen to their audience before trying to persuade them.
Too many of those that work in public policy presume that arguments that excite them appeal to everyone else. They don’t. In order to win in Virginia, conservative strategists used messages and messengers that resonated with the folk they needed to win over.
Instead of school choice, they talked about school freedom. Instead of attacking obstructive teacher unions, they made it clear that they wanted a better deal for teachers – if not necessarily union bosses. It takes more than a bumper sticker to win over hearts and minds. A new conservative movement that understood this, while offering real school freedom and an alternative to critical race theory, could be unstoppable.
The individual states that make up our nation are at a crossroads. The recent wave of federal funding to states across the country has triggered questions about the extent of federal involvement and the impact of federal funding on state sovereignty and public policy.
From the specific Covid grants issued by Congress, to the bureaucratic matching system for federal programs such as Medicaid, nearly every federal dollar has something attached to it that carries the will of Washington into the states. While not all of these dollars are a precursor to bad federal policy being imposed on the states, an increasingly leftist federal government is tying more and more strings to these dollars. States need a strategy to press against such actions.
This expansion of federal control using federal money has been pushed in multiple sectors. In healthcare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has imposed a vaccinee mandate on hospitals that receive federal funding through Medicaid and Medicare. In the education sector, the Department of Education has asserted an increasingly leftist agenda through its programs, while openly asserting on its own website that “any state that does not want to abide by a federal program's requirements can simply choose not to accept the federal funds associated with that program.”
Thus, we see that while the federal government has increasingly asserted its power over the states, much of the state sovereignty issues are ultimately questions of what dollars the state will accept. The beauty of American federalism is the ability of the states to stand against federal overreach by simply refusing federal funds or agreeing to take them only under certain terms.
Such a stance has been effective in recent months. In April 2021, the Department of Education announced its intention to prioritize the teaching of Critical Race Theory as it awarded civics and history education grants to the state education systems. In response, the state of South Dakota went so far as to directly reject all federal dollars tied to such federal civics and history grant programs. In an earlier response, 20 states had voiced their opposition and the federal government largely backed down after the pushback.
This success presents an important strategy that states can use to press against the whims of Washington. This strategy is twofold -with defensive and offensive elements. As a defense, states should not enroll or expand their involvement in any federal funding program that locks the state in and subjects it to whatever future terms the federal government may impose. On the offensive side, states should directly reject any effort by the federal government to impose damaging policies that are “sugarcoated” with optional federal dollars.
Until states collectively recognize their ability and duty to refuse funds that will impose bad policies on their citizens, the federal government will likely continue down a path of brazen overreach. Conservative state legislatures should reclaim “the power of the purse.” They should consciously reject any attempt by the federal government to wrongly manipulate public policy using the power of federal dollars. The future of these United States depends on it.
We did it! The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) just stopped the Biden Administration’s private employer vaccine mandate in its tracks. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted the mandate, finding that there is "cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."
MJI represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group (GCRG) in the lawsuit challenging the mandate. GCRG is the corporate family that owns several Mississippi restaurants, including Half Shell Oyster House and the Rack House. GCRG, which is already struggling with staffing shortages in its restaurants, challenged the mandate in court because it will encourage even more of its employees to quit their jobs and could even make it difficult to keep many of its restaurants open.
Private employers in Louisiana and Texas have also joined the suit, as well as the Attorneys General of those states. The State of Mississippi is represented by Attorney General Lynn Fitch.
The federal vaccine mandate for private employers requires companies with over 100 employees to force their employees to be vaccinated, or be subject to weekly testing (at the employee’s expense) and constant mask wearing – on pain of losing their job.
While this halt to the federal vaccine mandate is only a temporary measure, it is a crucial first round victory. It signals that the courts understand the serious and myriad legal problems with this mandate, and are willing to hold the federal government to its constitutionally limited role.
If you don’t own a business that is subject to the federal vaccine mandate, or work for one that is, should you care about the legal fight to put a stop to it? Absolutely, for several reasons.
It’s never a good idea to let the federal government infringe on people’s personal liberties to force them to do what the government thinks is best for them. Not only does that make us less free, it often backfires. Encouraging voluntary vaccination is the best approach to foster greater participation and trust.
Additionally, if we stay quiet when the federal government exceed its constitutionally authorized power just because it doesn’t personally affect us, we have no way stop the federal government from overreaching when what it’s doing does personally affect us.
And finally, the federal vaccine mandate will affect all of us, whether or not it applies to our businesses or employers. The labor market is as tight as most businesses have ever seen it. The supply chain is riddled with delays. The last thing the economy needs is any more major disruptions, like thousands more employees quitting their jobs over incredibly intrusive medical mandates.
Gulf Coast Restaurant Group encourages its employees to get vaccinated. It even offers a $100 reward to every employee who does. While GCRG is proud of its efforts to encourage employee vaccination, it is equally proud to stand up for the rights of Mississippi businesses to operate without burdensome and unconstitutional federal regulations that prevent them from retaining their employees and adequately serving their customers. And MJI is proud to represent them in that fight.
With your continued support, we hope to keep fighting for Mississippians’ constitutional rights for many more years to come.
In Liberty,
Aaron Rice
Director, Mississippi Justice Institute
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Justice Institute and its client, Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, have halted the Biden administration's unconstitutional vaccine mandate for private employers.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on Saturday, temporarily blocked enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) mandate pending further review by the court, finding that there is "cause to believe that there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."
The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group – the corporate family of restaurants such as Half Shell Oyster House and the Rackhouse – in the litigation challenging the vaccine mandate for private employers. Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, like many other businesses, is already struggling with labor shortages and believes that the vaccine mandate will lead to further staffing reductions and harm to its business and customers.
"We are grateful that the court recognized the serious constitutional concerns raised by this mandate and has stayed its enforcement pending further review,” said MJI Director, Aaron Rice. “We will continue fighting to put a permanent stop to this unprecedented federal overreach."
"We are delighted to hear this news from the court,” said Kevin Fish, Vice President of Gulf Coast Restaurant Group. “We know that hard-working Mississippians who were worried about potentially losing their jobs can take a huge sigh of relief."
Attorney General Lynn Fitch represents the State of Mississippi in the lawsuit. "I encourage everyone to consider vaccination, but the decision is yours and the President should not force anyone to vaccinate for fear of losing their jobs, especially not on the cusp of the holidays," said Fitch. "I appreciate Gulf Coast Restaurant Group and the Mississippi Justice Institute standing with me on behalf of the 84 million American workers who will be impacted by this mandate."
This temporary stay represents a major initial victory in the challenge to the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers. MJI and Gulf Coast Restaurant Group look forward to continuing the fight in court.
Please direct all media inquiries to Stone Clanton, [email protected].
Imagine if you were required to shop for groceries in a particular store because of where you happened to live? What if folk living in on zip code had to use a particular branch of Kroger’s, and not any other?
Such a system would be absurd, yet this is pretty much how the public education system is run in Mississippi – and across much of America.
Unless a family is able to afford to move to a particular zip code, or afford to go private, moms and dads have little choice over where to educate their kids. In fact, most families in America have more choice when it comes to where they buy groceries than they do over their children’s education.
Without parent power, moms and dads anxious about some of the things that their children are being taught – such as Critical Race Theory – have found themselves powerless to do much about it.
This week’s election results in Virginia suggest that this could be about to change. The Virginia contest saw conservatives unequivocally committed to school choice and parent power win state-wide contests for the first time in twelve years.
Not only does it turn out that school freedom – when properly presented – is wildly popular. It turns out that millions of ordinary Americans are not that keen on having their kids indoctrinated into believing that their country is intrinsically racists either.
The conservative movement is at a pivotal moment. We have an extraordinary opportunity to achieve fundamental change in the America education system – but if we are to seize this chance, we need to take a new approach.
For as long as anyone can remember, school choice in many states has been synonymous with Charter Schools. Here in Mississippi, for example, we have long tended to put all the school choice eggs into the Charter School basket. And it has not got us very far at all.
Paid for with public money, but run independently, Charter Schools are wonderful. They are a brilliant way of giving lots of kids opportunities that previously only rich people had. Charter schools have an extraordinary record elevating education standards and ensuring young Americans from every background get a great start in life.
The trouble is is that there just aren’t enough of them. To date, here in Mississippi there are a mere seven.
Clearly there is not a shortage of demand for Charter Schools. Those that I have visited here in Mississippi are buzzing with enthusiastic teachers, cheerful students and supportive parents. Demand for places at Charter Schools exceeds the places available.
Nor is there a shortage of people wanting to set up Charter Schools. In June this year it was announced that new applications had come in for a batch of new schools across our state.
The problem is that none of these applications got approved. When the Charter Schools Authorizer Board met recently, they failed to approve any new applications.
To be fair to the Board, too, the legislation we have in our state does not mandate the Board to incubate would-be applicants to get them over the line. But surely the Board could be a little more proactive? The Board needs a more can-do approach - and Mississippi needs a greater sense of urgency about the need for change.
Right now, anyone wanting to create a Charter School not only needs approval from the Authorizer Board. Unless they are located in a failing school district, they have to have permission from their local school board, too. Why?
How can it possibly be right to give the local education bureaucracy the power to prevent moms and dads having more choices for their kids? If your local school board really does a good job, why are they afraid of allowing families an alternative?
We would not tolerate it if companies were granted the power to ban competition and force customers to use only their services. So why are we prepared to allow school boards to do precisely this using our tax dollars?
School choice advocates need policy responses that address all of these problems. Charter schools have a critical role to play in making school choice a reality. But we also need to do more that focus on supply-side reform. We need a demand-side revolution – and Virginia suggests that the demand for real change in public education is there.
Rather than just Charter Schools, we need to advocate for a comprehensive school freedom program, including open enrolment. Most vital of all, we need to frame the debate about school freedom in a way that ensures that it resonates with millions of ordinary Americans concerned about the way in which ultra-left wing ideologues have invaded their children’s classrooms.
If we present school freedom as a way of ensuring that every American child has not just a good education, but a broad and balanced one, our movement will become unstoppable.