There is only one moment that has been forever seared into the collective memory of living Americans: the horrific terrorist attacks on our homeland twenty years ago on September 11, 2001.
We all know exactly where we were that day. We remember the feelings of confusion as the initial reports came in. The horror of watching fellow Americans jump to their deaths and the towers collapse. The anger at realizing that we were watching an intentional attack. The fear of what would come next. The acts of heroism we witnessed. The unity that followed. The resolve to prevail. The vows to never forget.
If we had known on September 11th that America would not suffer another terrorist attack during the next twenty years, we would have been relieved and even overjoyed. It’s easy to forget that now. Sometime during the past ten or fifteen years, the fear of another major terrorist attack receded. It wasn’t something that average Americans worried about at all. But twenty years ago, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the single biggest fear gripping America was the fear of another large-scale terrorist attack.
We saw daily warnings and color-coded terrorist threat advisories on our televisions. We worried about how easy it would be for a lone terrorist to detonate a dirty bomb in a crowded metropolitan area. We worried that attacks on our infrastructure could cripple us. We worried about becoming the next victim of terrorism anytime we boarded planes, trains, or even buses. We worried that every crowded sporting event might become a massacre.
For the past two decades, none of that has come to pass. Instead, thousands of our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters fought the enemy overseas and prevented the fight from coming here. While most Americans returned to their normal lives after the shock of 9/11 wore off, our veterans paid the cost for that normalcy for the next two decades. Nearly 2,500 American veterans were killed in Afghanistan. Hundreds more were injured, and countless others still carry the hidden wounds of war.
Unlike many of America’s past wars, the war in Afghanistan was not supported by a military draft. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought in Afghanistan were part of an all-volunteer force. Many of those veterans dropped their life plans and enlisted in the military after 9/11 specifically so they could join the fight to defend our nation, our values, and our way of life. They did this even though nobody asked them to and despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of their colleagues and peers did not.
Americans are blessed to have a unique generation of volunteer veterans in our families, communities, and workplaces. As we mark the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and take stock of the past two decades, we should be sure to honor their sacrifices.
Aaron Rice is an Iraq War veteran and a Purple Heart recipient. He is also the director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, a nonprofit, constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
The Centers for Disease Control recently announced a moratorium on evictions across most of the United States, in light of Covid. This order places restrictions on evictions in areas with high or moderate levels of Covid infections.
This move has been applauded by some as a way to stabilize housing and help those who are struggling financially due to Covid. But the evidence speaks directly to the contrary. The government imposing its control over rental properties is highly problematic, with repercussions for both tenants and property owners.
A policy that forces property owners to provide temporary housing without recourse during Covid is not too dissimilar from the government handing out checks that are encouraging people not to work. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the median rent in the United States is $909 a month, slightly lower than the median mortgage of $975. Consider the following statistics:
- The average monthly state unemployment benefit is approximately $1,380 per individual.
- For states that have not opted out of the additional federal unemployment benefits (Mississippi has opted out), the additional $300 in federal benefits brings this number up to $1,680 a month.
- Approximately 53 percent of American households are dual income, which means that those two individuals would both be eligible for unemployment benefits if unemployed. This leads to monthly unemployment benefits for these households to approximately $3,360.
- Combine such numbers with CDC-mandated prohibition on evictions. The median rental payment is $909 a month.
- This arrangement will play out all the way until the eviction moratorium ends. Only then, will the tenant have to pay the past due rent.
While some might view these facts as good news for tenants, it ultimately leads to bad outcomes. Indeed, without having the recourse of eviction in the event of non-payment, many landlords are raising their approval criteria. On this factor alone, it will likely be harder for the tenants who didn’t pay rent during the moratorium to get approved by future landlords if they chose to go to a different rental home post-pandemic.
Thus, a ban on evictions for the failure to pay rent is ultimately just another piece of the puzzle that encourages Americans not to work and causes collateral effects as well. The only difference is that instead of the federal government using taxpayer dollars to write checks, property owners are forced to foot the bill until the moratorium is over and they can get their rent payments back.
This places many property owners at great financial risk if rental properties are not bringing in income. Approximately half of all rental units are owned by small investors, referred to by HUD as “mom and pop landlords.” The average rental property owner receives 31 percent of their annual income from their rental properties. With so many small business owners already struggling, such a dip in income has led to even more financial hardship, leading to increased debt and even rental property foreclosure.
Government interference in the economy has a consistent track record of generally causing more problems than it solves. The government’s recent move hurts tenants and property owners in untold ways. Only time will tell what the major repercussions will be from such government overreach.
The United States has a highly developed internet infrastructure with incredible successes to its credit. But problematic policy changes being considered in Washington may jeopardize that success. In recent months there have been calls from many to restore net neutrality.
What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is a policy that internet service providers (ISPs) have to give all internet content providers equal access and use of the ISP’s networks, and for no extra cost. Because of this policy, ISPs could not impose any additional charges on a content provider, regardless of how much data the content provider uses in a network.
For instance, a video streaming company might use a large amount of data on an ISP’s system when users accessed the service. Net neutrality would prohibit the ISP from making the video streaming service pay for the extra data that they used. Instead, net neutrality would force the ISP to spread out the data usage costs to the rest of its users.
Net neutrality does not just increase the cost of the internet for the average consumer. Net neutrality also lowers the incentive for ISPs to expand broadband service if there is no competition to host content provider data.
Former FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai removed Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2018. Pai reasoned that net neutrality forced ISPs to charge consumers more to equalize their operating costs across the board. Following the repeal of net neutrality, there was an increase in broadband investment as ISPs moved to make deals with content providers that would prioritize speed and efficiency for those high-usage content providers.
There have been incredible free-market successes in the wake of repealing net neutrality in America. Yet, there are renewed demands from some for the federal government to reinstate net neutrality. Indeed, the Biden administration is considering the reinstatement of net neutrality. While such a move might be popular with certain groups in Washington, state and federal policymakers would do well to consider the negative implications that net neutrality could have on the strength of America’s broadband networks.
The failure of net neutrality in Europe is glaring evidence of how problematic the policy is. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, there were concerns in Europe that the under-built broadband networks could not handle the uptick in internet usage. This network failure is largely due to the European Union’s net neutrality policies that had discouraged investment in broadband development prior to the pandemic.
The inadequate broadband infrastructure led to pleas from European policymakers that content providers limit the data they were pushing through the internet networks. Meanwhile, due to the higher investments in broadband development, the robust broadband infrastructure in the United States responded quite well during the pandemic compared to its European counterparts.
The success of American broadband comes as little surprise to proponents of the free market competition as the driving force in broadband developments and innovations. As it claims to use the free market as the justification for social media content moderation, Big Tech often insists that companies have the right to decide which entities they will host on their services.
But there appears to be a double standard for many of them regarding the net neutrality issue as these companies themselves feel threatened by the ISPs. The Big Tech companies have a huge market share of internet content. In 2019, just six content providers accounted for 43 percent of all internet traffic. The content providers also can control the content on their massive platforms. Yet, these content providers insist that the ability of ISPs to determine the flow of data on their networks poses a threat to the freedom of the internet.
For instance, Twitter stated with dismay that without net neutrality, “ISPs would even be able to block content they don’t like.” Yet, Twitter and other Big Tech companies have given strong support for other policies, like Section 230, that allow social media companies to moderate, block, or remove certain content from their sites.
Despite the protests of some Big Tech companies, a market without net neutrality has the potential for increased innovation and competition. By allowing for the market to determine which ISPs will prosper as they offer the most attractive services to consumers, there is a real potential for the cycle of competition and innovation to continue. While net neutrality treats the internet simply as a means of broadcasting data in an unsystematic way, a free-market perspective views the internet as a dynamic marketplace commodity that continually responds to supply and demand patterns.
Despite the claims that net neutrality keeps the internet open and accessible, the record shows that net neutrality actually threatens the efficiency of the internet as it erodes the incentives to develop and grow internet infrastructure. Bad policies have harmful consequences. A step back to the failure of net neutrality is a step backward from the success of America’s internet infrastructure.
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
Contact: Hunter Estes, [email protected]
Breaking: House Votes to Pass Fairness Act, Protect Female Sports, Sending Bill to Governor’s Desk
Senate Bill 2536 would require public school, university, and community college teams to be designated as either male, female, or coed, as based on biological sex.
The House passed the bill 81-28.
MCPP President Douglas Carswell stated, “Mississippi owes a debt of gratitude to those in the House who stepped up and supported this legislation. We are especially grateful to Speaker Philip Gunn for his strong leadership as well as Rep. Becky Currie for championing the bill and Rep. Randy Boyd for leading the bill out of committee. We are also thankful to Sen. Angela Hill for sponsoring the bill in the Senate. Mississippi’s female athletes and future female athletes thank you.”
Polling of registered Mississippi voters shows that 79 percent support such legislation. The poll revealed that a state law to prohibit biological males from competing on female-only teams has broad support across political demographics: 87 percent of Republicans support the legislation, along with 83 percent of Independents and 65 percent of Democrats.
“Mississippians are breathing a sigh of relief now that Mississippi’s senators have voted overwhelmingly to protect the rights of girls and women who engage in competitive athletics,” stated MCPP Executive Vice President, Lesley Davis.
She continued, “Unlike what is happening in other states, our girls’ and women’s’ records will not be shattered by biological males competing against females. Women deserve to compete on a level playing field. Allowing males to compete in women’s sports destroys fair competition and women’s athletic opportunities.”
Three high school girls who ran track in Connecticut filed a lawsuit last year challenging a policy of allowing male athletes to compete against girls. The three — Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell — have been beaten consistently in track meets by a pair of transgender athletes born as males.
The lawsuit says the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s rules allowing transgender athletes to compete with girls pose a threat to Title IX because of physiological differences between men and women after puberty. Boys and men have more muscle mass and larger lungs and hearts and thus have the capacity to run faster and jump farther than most girls and women.
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy’s Dr. Jameson Taylor interviewed one of the athletes, Selina Soule, who shared her experiences and reasons for challenging the policy.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds. The law, passed in 1972, has led to a massive growth in the number of athletic opportunities for women. The NCCA currently allows member schools to set their own policies in this area, with the condition that a biological male competing on a women’s team must undergo at least one year of testosterone suppression. Several studies suggest, however, that even after a year of such treatment biological males enjoy a physical advantage over their biologically female peers.
The bill was sponsored by state Sen. Angela Hill (R-Picayune) and has 21 cosponsors.
MCPP’s Executive Vice President for Public Policy, Lesley Davis, is available for comments or interviews. Please contact Hunter Estes ([email protected]) with all requests.
***END***
A bill in the Mississippi legislature would require sports teams at the state’s public schools, universities, and community colleges to be designated only for one biological sex.
Senate Bill 2536 would require any public school, university, or community college team to be either designated for those of one biological sex or the other (in addition to an exception for co-ed teams).
The legislation also has a clause that would allow any student who reports a violation of the law and is retaliated against by the school or other athletic association to have the right to injunctive relief and damages.
Another would allow a student whose bodily privacy was violated to have the same rights.
The bill is sponsored by state Sen. Angela Hill (R-Picayune).
Recent polling suggests that 79% of all Mississippians support such legislation. The same poll also revealed that the bill has broad support across political demographics. 87% of Republicans support the legislation along with 83% of Independents and 65% of Democrats.
While there have not been any cases of those born as males competing against girls in Mississippi, the issue has become a nationwide one as 16 states allow transgender high school athletes to compete without restrictions.
Three high school girls who run track in Connecticut filed a lawsuit last year to challenge Connecticut’s policy of allowing male athletes to compete with girls in sports. They are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.
The three — Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell — have been beaten consistently in track meets by a pair of transgender athletes born as males.
The lawsuit says the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s rules allowing transgender athletes to compete with girls poses a threat to Title IX because of physiological differences between men and women after puberty. Boys and men have more muscle mass and thus have the capacity to run faster and jump farther than most girls and women.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds. The law, which was passed in 1972, has led to a massive growth in the number of number of athletic opportunities for women. According to the NCAA, the number of female athletes in in 1982 was 74,239. By 2019, that number grew to 221,042, an increase of 197 percent.
Mississippi is one of only ten states that has no policies toward male athletes competing against females.
Mississippi has more than 118,000 regulations in the administrative code, making it the most regulated state in the South per capita.
At the same time, we've also had among the slowest growing economies and a shrinking population. The opposite of what our neighbors with lighter regulatory burdens are experiencing.
So tell us what you think. Is our regulatory burden a problem? Should we work to reduce it?
When legislators return in January, they will have a full slate of issues to tackle.
What would you like to see members work on? Select the issues below you would like to see the legislature work on, or add your own.
Mississippi law restricts your ability to purchase raw cow milk. And you can go to jail for selling raw milk.
Thirteen states allow the sale of raw milk in retail stores, 14 states allow the sale only on the farm it is produced, and eight allow raw milk to be obtained through a cow-share agreement. Mississippi is one of three states that allow the sale of raw goat milk directly from consumers, just not raw cow milk.
Should that change?
If you move to Mississippi, the state doesn't automatically recognize your occupational license from another state- whether that's a teacher, a hairdresser, or one of dozens of other professions we license.
This is the story of Dana Presley. This is the story of Wendy Swart.
If you've learned the skill in another state and have practiced without any infractions, you should be able to work in Mississippi.
We need more people working. Not less.
This reform will be a top priority for MCPP in 2021.
Can we count on your support and engagement as we build the case for occupational licensing reform next year?