*First appeared in the May 7 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
“Every small business is one lawsuit away from bankruptcy,” proclaimed then-gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour on the 2003 campaign trail. Promising “more and better jobs” by eliminating Mississippi’s position as a judicial hellhole, Barbour’s message of tort reform resonated with voters.
In 2003, I of course had no idea what a tort was. A dessert, maybe? It sounded delicious. Desserts weren’t often in need of “reform,” so I did some digging. Here’s what I found.
Jackpot justice had developed a niche in Mississippi. Our legal climate was scaring off potential employers and threatening the livelihood of existing businesses. As more lawsuits were filed, fewer doctors stayed in the state. Medical facilities were shuttering their doors due to rising insurance costs. In the Delta, one hospital even closed its emergency room because the county government couldn’t pay its medical liability bills.
Frivolous lawsuits had given Mississippi’s economic and healthcare climate a black-eye at a time when the state could least afford it. In 2003, the state was in debt, and jobs were being lost at an alarming pace. Without aggressive action to reform the state’s civil justice laws, Mississippi’s future hung in the balance.
These were the high stakes of the governor’s race in 2003, so in looking back it’s easy to understand why voters were passionate about the issue. Gov. Barbour kept his promise and successfully convinced the Legislature to pass what the Wall Street Journal called “the most comprehensive tort reform law in the nation.”
This year marks the ten-year anniversary of the Tort Reform Law of 2004, which is probably a good time for all you non-attorneys to ask: What does tort reform really have to do with me?
I’ve hinted at the broader implications of lawsuit abuse. Of particular interest to Mississippians, especially in the days of Obamacare, is the impact of lawsuit abuse on our healthcare system. Without appropriate laws in place, doctors and hospitals couldn’t afford to stay in Mississippi. Former state senator Neely Carlton told a group Monday that, prior to tort reform’s passage, more than 500 Mississippi doctors had let their licenses expire in one year and that at least seven Mississippi counties didn’t have a single OB/GYN.
After the new laws were passed, however, insurance rates dropped, new insurance companies entered the market, and the largest health insurance writer in the state began writing new policies. The comprehensive tort reform law ended the healthcare crisis caused by lawsuit abuse.
In a post-recession environment where job growth still lags, the economic impact of civil justice reform can’t be overlooked. Prior to tort reform, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked Mississippi 50th for its unfair legal climate several years in a row. Businesses not only had to weigh the impact of the “lawsuit abuse tax” (costs of hiring lawyers to defend against frivolous lawsuits), they also had to factor in the nuisance value of settling out of court with people filing these lawsuits.
Mississippians for Economic Progress previously estimated that lawsuit abuse had cost Mississippi about 10,000 jobs and another $1,000 per household in economic impact.
Tort reform stopped the hemorrhaging. Businesses begin to view Mississippi as a viable place to do business. Toyota, which has created thousands of jobs in northeast Mississippi, said it would not have considered locating in Mississippi without tort reform. Other major companies have located or expanded operations here in Mississippi. (GE Aviation expanded operations to include a plant in Ellisville. I’m not saying tort reform was the primary cause, but it certainly didn’t hurt.)
Legal issues remain hugely important to job creation. The 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index, a collaboration between Deloitte and the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, studied more than 550 CEOs and senior manufacturing leaders. They found that legal and regulatory concerns were the fifth highest drivers of competitiveness, outranking other factors such as physical infrastructure, energy costs, or even government investment.
Mississippi has enjoyed a pro-growth, business friendly legal environment since the passage of tort reform. Leaders would be unwise to deviate from the proven results of these laws.
But don’t take my word for it. Actual experts on the issue will gather in Jackson to commemorate the ten-year anniversary of the law during the “Mississippi Tort Reform: Ten Years After” conference on May 14. The conference will highlight successes of the law, as well as future risks. Anyone interested in attending the event can register online – simply google the name of the event or visit the Mississippi Economic Council’s website and look under “What’s Happening” (www.msmec.com).
"MISSISSIPPI TORT REFORM: TEN YEARS AFTER" - FREE TO ATTEND. REGISTER HERE.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Ukraine situation tests American resolve
*First appeared in the April 30 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
Over the weekend, I watched a documentary about Eva Mozes Kor, an Auschwitz death camp survivor on a one-woman mission to unconditionally forgive her Nazi captors and, in particular, the psychotic geneticist Dr. Josef Mengele who experimented on her and her twin sister.
Unbeknownst to me, this past Sunday also marked the annual Israeli memorial for the 6 million Jews killed in Nazi death camps during World War II. This year, Holocaust Remembrance Day came on the heels of an eerie hoax, which consisted of leaflets being passed out in eastern Ukraine saying Jews must register with pro-Russian separatists, pay a fee, and declare property holdings.
While the leaflets have now been declared fakes, you can imagine my shock upon reading headlines about anti-Semitic pamphlets being distributed in eastern Ukraine. It caught my attention then and keeps my attention now.
Hoax or not, the leaflets evoked strong responses from leaders across the world. Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the papers, saying they were “not just intolerable” but “grotesque.” Another spokesman for the White House called these reports “chilling, outrageous, and must be universally condemned.” I agree. These actions must be condemned, the perpetrators must be found out, and they must be dealt with properly. There should be no leniency when it comes to the distribution of such pamphlets in a part of the world where tensions are already at a boiling point.
Beyond the anti-Semitic hoax, the showdown between Russia and Ukraine continues to play out on the world stage in a production that appears to cast Russian President Vladimir Putin as leading man. President Obama’s role as co-lead hasn’t yet materialized, and all signs point to a man intent on playing a supporting role.
Monday, the President and European officials announced sanctions on Russian government officials and businesses in an effort to put economic pressure on Putin so he’ll cease military activities in Ukraine. According to the Wall Street Journal, their actions were “expected more than a week ago” and “fell significantly short of the expansive sanctions of Kiev’s government and many members of Congress have been demanding.” The Moscow stock market actually jumped on Monday as investors “found the latest sanctions to be less severe than anticipated.”
The so-called sanctions didn’t target broad sectors of Russia’s economy, such as energy, banking, or military. Apparently too many members of the European Union have economies more closely linked to Russia’s than the U.S. Others feared that such drastic measures would erode efforts at achieving peace through diplomatic solutions. Because of these concerns, the U.S. didn’t take more severe actions, White House officials told multiple newspapers this week.
More than a few public voices have openly questioned whether the United States President is taking concrete actions to control the situation in Ukraine, and why the U.S. – not the E.U. – isn’t guiding strategy decisions.
In an editorial, Newt Gingrich reminded Americans this year is “the centennial of the First World War. One-hundred years ago this month, in April 1914, no one thought there would be a war. But war began, triggered by events in Easter Europe…It came as an enormous shock, in retrospect almost like the Titanic hitting an iceberg.”
Of Obama’s actions, Gingrich (he wrote the column prior to this week’s announcement) opined the Obama administration is doing too little in this very difficult situation, which presents an enormous danger. “The world will become less safe as we show weakness to our allies,” and America’s weakness is being driven by clumsy, wandering decisions on how to deal with a dispute that, in Gingrich’s words, could “land us in a war no one intends.”
“We need a national debate on what our policy is going to be,” Gingrich urges the President, and then we need to engage our European allies on what our policy is going to be.
No doubt President Obama has had similar thoughts. But he cannot operate in the vacuum of public policy; he must also take into consideration public opinion. Even Gingrich admits the American people are tired of wars. To borrow a quote from Neville Chamberlain: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Without question, President Obama is in a difficult position. At best, he’s simply caught in the middle of escalating tensions between a power-hungry Putin and an American alliance that cannot defend itself against without our help. At worst, Obama’s reluctance to take stronger actions has emboldened Putin as he seeks to “reconstitute the Soviet empire.” Anti-Semitic hoaxes that remind the world of the monstrosities of an out-of-control German leader add fuel to the already blazing fire.
The President doesn’t have an easy path before him. But he must take the right steps to prevent further escalations. Mistakes at this juncture won’t easily be made right.
Over the weekend, I watched a documentary about Eva Mozes Kor, an Auschwitz death camp survivor on a one-woman mission to unconditionally forgive her Nazi captors and, in particular, the psychotic geneticist Dr. Josef Mengele who experimented on her and her twin sister.
Unbeknownst to me, this past Sunday also marked the annual Israeli memorial for the 6 million Jews killed in Nazi death camps during World War II. This year, Holocaust Remembrance Day came on the heels of an eerie hoax, which consisted of leaflets being passed out in eastern Ukraine saying Jews must register with pro-Russian separatists, pay a fee, and declare property holdings.
While the leaflets have now been declared fakes, you can imagine my shock upon reading headlines about anti-Semitic pamphlets being distributed in eastern Ukraine. It caught my attention then and keeps my attention now.
Hoax or not, the leaflets evoked strong responses from leaders across the world. Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the papers, saying they were “not just intolerable” but “grotesque.” Another spokesman for the White House called these reports “chilling, outrageous, and must be universally condemned.” I agree. These actions must be condemned, the perpetrators must be found out, and they must be dealt with properly. There should be no leniency when it comes to the distribution of such pamphlets in a part of the world where tensions are already at a boiling point.
Beyond the anti-Semitic hoax, the showdown between Russia and Ukraine continues to play out on the world stage in a production that appears to cast Russian President Vladimir Putin as leading man. President Obama’s role as co-lead hasn’t yet materialized, and all signs point to a man intent on playing a supporting role.
Monday, the President and European officials announced sanctions on Russian government officials and businesses in an effort to put economic pressure on Putin so he’ll cease military activities in Ukraine. According to the Wall Street Journal, their actions were “expected more than a week ago” and “fell significantly short of the expansive sanctions of Kiev’s government and many members of Congress have been demanding.” The Moscow stock market actually jumped on Monday as investors “found the latest sanctions to be less severe than anticipated.”
The so-called sanctions didn’t target broad sectors of Russia’s economy, such as energy, banking, or military. Apparently too many members of the European Union have economies more closely linked to Russia’s than the U.S. Others feared that such drastic measures would erode efforts at achieving peace through diplomatic solutions. Because of these concerns, the U.S. didn’t take more severe actions, White House officials told multiple newspapers this week.
More than a few public voices have openly questioned whether the United States President is taking concrete actions to control the situation in Ukraine, and why the U.S. – not the E.U. – isn’t guiding strategy decisions.
In an editorial, Newt Gingrich reminded Americans this year is “the centennial of the First World War. One-hundred years ago this month, in April 1914, no one thought there would be a war. But war began, triggered by events in Easter Europe…It came as an enormous shock, in retrospect almost like the Titanic hitting an iceberg.”
Of Obama’s actions, Gingrich (he wrote the column prior to this week’s announcement) opined the Obama administration is doing too little in this very difficult situation, which presents an enormous danger. “The world will become less safe as we show weakness to our allies,” and America’s weakness is being driven by clumsy, wandering decisions on how to deal with a dispute that, in Gingrich’s words, could “land us in a war no one intends.”
“We need a national debate on what our policy is going to be,” Gingrich urges the President, and then we need to engage our European allies on what our policy is going to be.
No doubt President Obama has had similar thoughts. But he cannot operate in the vacuum of public policy; he must also take into consideration public opinion. Even Gingrich admits the American people are tired of wars. To borrow a quote from Neville Chamberlain: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Without question, President Obama is in a difficult position. At best, he’s simply caught in the middle of escalating tensions between a power-hungry Putin and an American alliance that cannot defend itself against without our help. At worst, Obama’s reluctance to take stronger actions has emboldened Putin as he seeks to “reconstitute the Soviet empire.” Anti-Semitic hoaxes that remind the world of the monstrosities of an out-of-control German leader add fuel to the already blazing fire.
The President doesn’t have an easy path before him. But he must take the right steps to prevent further escalations. Mistakes at this juncture won’t easily be made right.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Curb stores and women in the workplace
*First appeared in the April 23 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
This week I considered writing about the changing face of convenience store customers after reading an insightful study on the issue. Did you know that there are a few major themes that determine whether a person visits a convenience (or, as my family and I call them, “curb”) stores?
See if these themes resonate with your own experience: “Differentiators” (like cleanliness and safety, speed and ease, friendliness, and fuel price); “essentials” (like brand trust, paying at the pump for fuel, and item pricing); and “delighters” (like low prices and deals, loyalty programs, and the availability of coffee).
But I digress. This column will focus on the completely unrelated topic of women in the workplace.
Now before you groan, let’s remember two things: I am a woman. I am in the workplace.
About half of you are interested in this topic; the other half of you who will quit reading about now. (Sorry, guys, but I did try to lull you in with that curb store stuff.)
I’ve always said and more recently began to believe that if you want something done effectively and efficiently, give it to a woman. Yet a woman’s aptitude for getting things done hasn’t always translated into workplace success.
There are various reasons for that, but I’d rather focus on what’s next for women…not what has happened up ‘til now.
Looking ahead, major think-tank and business strategy firms believe women’s natural abilities may mean more of them in leadership positions in the 21st century. According to BCG Perspectives, leaders who will thrive in the 21st century world will be able to navigate global uncertainty and chart a clear course; empathize and achieve influence and authority through networking; self-correct through unlearning outmoded success models; and win by delivering sustainable success to company and stakeholders.
This “new adaptive leadership model seems well aligned to some of the skills that women typically possess – [such as] the ability to influence multiple stakeholders, be they employees, investors, suppliers or regulatory bodies.”
One important new development in the foreseeable corporate culture is the need for leaders to engage stakeholders across diverse groups. It’ll be more important to listen and empathize; that is, to see the world through the “stakeholders’ eyes and connect their purpose to…business objectives.”
BCG Perspectives makes a great point in the following statement: “There is a lot of training available for leaders on how to make people listen, be it presentations or pitches, but real communication is about dedicating a large proportion of time listening to others. It is only through listening and engaging that a genuine connection occurs between two people who each have their own objection.”
That struck me as especially poignant: We all instinctively know that women are better listeners than men. And that’s good news for my gender. I wonder if any guys are listening?
If I had to bet, I’d say no.
The evolving face of the 21st century workplace may undergo a makeover in the figurative (and nearly literal?) sense. Women of the world, unite!
This week I considered writing about the changing face of convenience store customers after reading an insightful study on the issue. Did you know that there are a few major themes that determine whether a person visits a convenience (or, as my family and I call them, “curb”) stores?
See if these themes resonate with your own experience: “Differentiators” (like cleanliness and safety, speed and ease, friendliness, and fuel price); “essentials” (like brand trust, paying at the pump for fuel, and item pricing); and “delighters” (like low prices and deals, loyalty programs, and the availability of coffee).
But I digress. This column will focus on the completely unrelated topic of women in the workplace.
Now before you groan, let’s remember two things: I am a woman. I am in the workplace.
About half of you are interested in this topic; the other half of you who will quit reading about now. (Sorry, guys, but I did try to lull you in with that curb store stuff.)
I’ve always said and more recently began to believe that if you want something done effectively and efficiently, give it to a woman. Yet a woman’s aptitude for getting things done hasn’t always translated into workplace success.
There are various reasons for that, but I’d rather focus on what’s next for women…not what has happened up ‘til now.
Looking ahead, major think-tank and business strategy firms believe women’s natural abilities may mean more of them in leadership positions in the 21st century. According to BCG Perspectives, leaders who will thrive in the 21st century world will be able to navigate global uncertainty and chart a clear course; empathize and achieve influence and authority through networking; self-correct through unlearning outmoded success models; and win by delivering sustainable success to company and stakeholders.
This “new adaptive leadership model seems well aligned to some of the skills that women typically possess – [such as] the ability to influence multiple stakeholders, be they employees, investors, suppliers or regulatory bodies.”
One important new development in the foreseeable corporate culture is the need for leaders to engage stakeholders across diverse groups. It’ll be more important to listen and empathize; that is, to see the world through the “stakeholders’ eyes and connect their purpose to…business objectives.”
BCG Perspectives makes a great point in the following statement: “There is a lot of training available for leaders on how to make people listen, be it presentations or pitches, but real communication is about dedicating a large proportion of time listening to others. It is only through listening and engaging that a genuine connection occurs between two people who each have their own objection.”
That struck me as especially poignant: We all instinctively know that women are better listeners than men. And that’s good news for my gender. I wonder if any guys are listening?
If I had to bet, I’d say no.
The evolving face of the 21st century workplace may undergo a makeover in the figurative (and nearly literal?) sense. Women of the world, unite!
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Tea Party, MSGOP share conservative vision despite public narrative
*First appeared in the April 16 edition of the Laurel Chronicle newspaper.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you already know the primary race for U.S. Senate between long-time incumbent Thad Cochran and Jones County native state Senator Chris McDaniel is pretty…heated, for lack of a better word.
In my mind, the real casualty of this primary battle isn’t either candidate, but rather the future of the conservative movement in Mississippi. If you believe the talking heads, the Twitter trolls, the “lame-stream” media, the Facebook status-sharers, then you believe there’s a war raging between “establishment” Republicans and Tea Partiers.
To that I say, poppycock.
We’ve seen this scenario play out across the country, where newly formed political groups (such as Tea Party factions and others) unilaterally decide “their” candidate is the most conservative and best choice for office. If you don’t support our guy, they’ve said, then you must be “establishment.” These groups have in large part been egged on by national organizations with access to experienced lawyers, ruthless campaign operatives, and individuals with deep pockets (think: green).
Seems like this strategy has finally come home to roost, so to speak, right here in Mississippi.
This week the Mississippi Tea Party called on Mississippi Republican Chairman Joe Nosef to “stay out of the Mississippi U.S. Senate Primary or resign.” Wowzers!
The Tea Party is offended the MSGOP chairman said Chris McDaniel ought to clear up as fast as possible the rumor that he was participating in an event with a vendor selling “white pride” paraphernalia.
Nosef went further, saying running for the “United States Senate is a very important thing and as a party we need to always be careful and focused and serious about what our views are and what our interests are.”
This is reasonable advice to me. It actually sounds like something my father might say: Address rumors head on; tell people the whole story; and then go on about your rat-killin’. People are going to believe what they’re going to believe.
The Tea Party’s next complaint against Nosef was his recent appearance on the Paul Gallo radio show. During the show, Nosef said “primaries are always going to get dirty” and that he was bothered by the motives of out-of-state groups involved in Mississippi’s Senate race (many of these groups were involved in states where the Republican nominee ultimately lost the general election).
My paraphrasing of his comments: When Republicans lose general elections, they also lose the ability to impact policy-making.
In my opinion, this is a bad thing for conservatives. We can’t enact conservative legislation without first winning elections.
I’m not sure why the Mississippi Tea Party didn’t like Nosef’s comments which were, once again, very practical in nature. I daresay his comments are exactly what the chairman of the Republican Party ought to be saying: Let’s win elections. Let’s enact conservative policies. Let’s be smart about both of those things by working together, not against one another.
And that’s really what worries me. The Mississippi Tea Party and related groups are organized by conservative Mississippians who believe in the conservative principles of the Republican Party. I’m a big tent ideologue and tend to believe we all fall somewhere in that tent.
Yet all of this talk of “establishment” versus “Tea Party” versus “libertarian” versus so-on and so-forth isn’t helping the conservative cause. The Democrats won’t need to divide and conquer if we voluntarily divide ourselves.
If the conservative movement is to survive – and thrive – then we mustn’t let out-of-state groups dictate our in-state relationships, nor rush to judgment when party officials like Chairman Nosef offer up common-sense advice to Republican candidates.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you already know the primary race for U.S. Senate between long-time incumbent Thad Cochran and Jones County native state Senator Chris McDaniel is pretty…heated, for lack of a better word.
In my mind, the real casualty of this primary battle isn’t either candidate, but rather the future of the conservative movement in Mississippi. If you believe the talking heads, the Twitter trolls, the “lame-stream” media, the Facebook status-sharers, then you believe there’s a war raging between “establishment” Republicans and Tea Partiers.
To that I say, poppycock.
We’ve seen this scenario play out across the country, where newly formed political groups (such as Tea Party factions and others) unilaterally decide “their” candidate is the most conservative and best choice for office. If you don’t support our guy, they’ve said, then you must be “establishment.” These groups have in large part been egged on by national organizations with access to experienced lawyers, ruthless campaign operatives, and individuals with deep pockets (think: green).
Seems like this strategy has finally come home to roost, so to speak, right here in Mississippi.
This week the Mississippi Tea Party called on Mississippi Republican Chairman Joe Nosef to “stay out of the Mississippi U.S. Senate Primary or resign.” Wowzers!
The Tea Party is offended the MSGOP chairman said Chris McDaniel ought to clear up as fast as possible the rumor that he was participating in an event with a vendor selling “white pride” paraphernalia.
Nosef went further, saying running for the “United States Senate is a very important thing and as a party we need to always be careful and focused and serious about what our views are and what our interests are.”
This is reasonable advice to me. It actually sounds like something my father might say: Address rumors head on; tell people the whole story; and then go on about your rat-killin’. People are going to believe what they’re going to believe.
The Tea Party’s next complaint against Nosef was his recent appearance on the Paul Gallo radio show. During the show, Nosef said “primaries are always going to get dirty” and that he was bothered by the motives of out-of-state groups involved in Mississippi’s Senate race (many of these groups were involved in states where the Republican nominee ultimately lost the general election).
My paraphrasing of his comments: When Republicans lose general elections, they also lose the ability to impact policy-making.
In my opinion, this is a bad thing for conservatives. We can’t enact conservative legislation without first winning elections.
I’m not sure why the Mississippi Tea Party didn’t like Nosef’s comments which were, once again, very practical in nature. I daresay his comments are exactly what the chairman of the Republican Party ought to be saying: Let’s win elections. Let’s enact conservative policies. Let’s be smart about both of those things by working together, not against one another.
And that’s really what worries me. The Mississippi Tea Party and related groups are organized by conservative Mississippians who believe in the conservative principles of the Republican Party. I’m a big tent ideologue and tend to believe we all fall somewhere in that tent.
Yet all of this talk of “establishment” versus “Tea Party” versus “libertarian” versus so-on and so-forth isn’t helping the conservative cause. The Democrats won’t need to divide and conquer if we voluntarily divide ourselves.
If the conservative movement is to survive – and thrive – then we mustn’t let out-of-state groups dictate our in-state relationships, nor rush to judgment when party officials like Chairman Nosef offer up common-sense advice to Republican candidates.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Religion, politics, and the Declaration of Independence
*First appeared in the April 9 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
My parents always taught me that proper Southern girls never discuss politics or religion at the dinner table. That's just bad manners, they said. In light of their teaching, I hope this column doesn't offend any of your reading sensibilities.
It's difficult discussing religion and politics with any sort of tact, and I assume writing about it is no exception. I'll do my best not to disappoint, overstate, dramatize, or otherwise offend readers in this piece.
Recently, sociologists from the University of California, Berkeley, and Duke University analyzed data on religious attitudes as part of the General Social Survey (a highly regarded biannual poll conducted by an independent research institute at the University of Chicago).
The analysis found that religious affiliation in the U.S. is at its lowest point since it began being tracked sometime in the 1930s. In 2012, one in five Americans claimed they had no religious preference. This is a dramatic shift from 1990 when all but eight percent of Americans polled identified with an organized faith. In 1972, just five percent polled claimed no religion.
This trend of disavowing religious affiliation is troubling, Governor Haley Barbour told a crowd of legislators and politicos at the Legislative Capitol Prayer Luncheon organized by Senate Finance Chairman Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall). "It's bad for the nation," the former governor told the roughly fifty people in attendance.
While encouraging leaders to be strong in their faith, Governor Barbour also warned lawmakers not to exclude colleagues who don't share their beliefs. He said leaders who had deep-rooted spirituality are often better equipped to deal with the challenges that accompany leadership positions, since they know what they believe and why they believe it.
But those without a faith-based point of view may lack an inner moral compass to help them navigate difficult legislative fronts, like dealing with programs to help the poor, discussing the state's role in regulating abortion, or the morality of the death penalty.
I'm mostly paraphrasing the Governor's comments, but they resonated with me due to the broader implications of a society's decline in religious affiliation. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, but I fear this particular trend may sow seeds of cultural instability that future generations will reap.
My Christian faith has shaped my worldview; it is the basis for what I believe to be right and wrong, the basis for my ideas on the merits of work and charity, the basis for my ideas on how others should be treated. Absent my Christian background, I assume I would rely on ambiguous, socially-acceptable ideals to form my system of beliefs.
That's worrisome, from both a public policy and cultural stability standpoint. As a Christian, I know that murder is wrong (sinful). But what happens if I a) don't prescribe to Christianity or any religion in which murder is wrong and b) live in a society that accepts murder as a fact of life with no moral quality? Does this mean murder is suddenly acceptable and that laws should be changed to reflect this new level of societal acceptance?
Granted, this may be an extreme example. I'm not someone who believes America or her states are about to legalize murder. But my point is this: I believe the laws of our nation and state are better written when determined by legislators who understand our rights come from a higher power, not the government. A decline in religious affiliation undermines this truly American belief that all men "are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
My parents always taught me that proper Southern girls never discuss politics or religion at the dinner table. That's just bad manners, they said. In light of their teaching, I hope this column doesn't offend any of your reading sensibilities.
It's difficult discussing religion and politics with any sort of tact, and I assume writing about it is no exception. I'll do my best not to disappoint, overstate, dramatize, or otherwise offend readers in this piece.
Recently, sociologists from the University of California, Berkeley, and Duke University analyzed data on religious attitudes as part of the General Social Survey (a highly regarded biannual poll conducted by an independent research institute at the University of Chicago).
The analysis found that religious affiliation in the U.S. is at its lowest point since it began being tracked sometime in the 1930s. In 2012, one in five Americans claimed they had no religious preference. This is a dramatic shift from 1990 when all but eight percent of Americans polled identified with an organized faith. In 1972, just five percent polled claimed no religion.
This trend of disavowing religious affiliation is troubling, Governor Haley Barbour told a crowd of legislators and politicos at the Legislative Capitol Prayer Luncheon organized by Senate Finance Chairman Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall). "It's bad for the nation," the former governor told the roughly fifty people in attendance.
While encouraging leaders to be strong in their faith, Governor Barbour also warned lawmakers not to exclude colleagues who don't share their beliefs. He said leaders who had deep-rooted spirituality are often better equipped to deal with the challenges that accompany leadership positions, since they know what they believe and why they believe it.
But those without a faith-based point of view may lack an inner moral compass to help them navigate difficult legislative fronts, like dealing with programs to help the poor, discussing the state's role in regulating abortion, or the morality of the death penalty.
I'm mostly paraphrasing the Governor's comments, but they resonated with me due to the broader implications of a society's decline in religious affiliation. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, but I fear this particular trend may sow seeds of cultural instability that future generations will reap.
My Christian faith has shaped my worldview; it is the basis for what I believe to be right and wrong, the basis for my ideas on the merits of work and charity, the basis for my ideas on how others should be treated. Absent my Christian background, I assume I would rely on ambiguous, socially-acceptable ideals to form my system of beliefs.
That's worrisome, from both a public policy and cultural stability standpoint. As a Christian, I know that murder is wrong (sinful). But what happens if I a) don't prescribe to Christianity or any religion in which murder is wrong and b) live in a society that accepts murder as a fact of life with no moral quality? Does this mean murder is suddenly acceptable and that laws should be changed to reflect this new level of societal acceptance?
Granted, this may be an extreme example. I'm not someone who believes America or her states are about to legalize murder. But my point is this: I believe the laws of our nation and state are better written when determined by legislators who understand our rights come from a higher power, not the government. A decline in religious affiliation undermines this truly American belief that all men "are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Monday, March 24, 2014
The Tax Foundation ranks the states
*From the March 26 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
As we approach that dreaded day – April 15 – I thought it appropriate to highlight findings from the recently released “Facts & Figures: How Does Your State Compare?” by the Tax Foundation. The Foundation began publishing this handy guide of state tax ranks in 1941 in order to “give a broader perspective…dissipate predilections and prejudices…and to meet the challenge presented by the broad problems of public finance.”
As a nonpartisan educational organization, the Tax Foundation is a fantastic resource on taxes. I’ve even thought about donating money to the group, which I guess is super nerdy. (Hey, we’ve all got our causes.)
Tax Foundation research is guided by the following principles of sound tax policy: Simplicity, transparency, neutrality, stability, no retroactivity, and broad based/low tax rates. In other words, these are the principles to which policymakers should adhere in order to develop tax structures that generate sufficient revenue while encouraging economic growth and treating taxpayers fairly.
Here are some of Mississippi’s facts and figures as highlighted in the publication.
March 29th is our “tax freedom day,” which represents how long Mississippians have to work into the year before they have earned enough money to pay all federal, state, and local taxes for the year.
Mississippi ranks in the top twenty states on the competitive business tax climate index, which takes into account corporate income, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance, and property taxes. Our state has the 17th most competitive business tax climate in the nation, with the 5th most favorable tax in the nation on unemployment insurance.
Important to any discussion on taxes is the makeup of how state and local governments get their revenues. In Mississippi, 27.5 percent of tax revenues are generated through property taxes; 32 percent through general sales taxes; 15.1 percent through individual income taxes; 3.8 percent through corporate income taxes; and 21.7 percent through other taxes such as excise or severance taxes.
In Fiscal Year 2011, Mississippi collected $504 in individual income taxes per capita. When accounting for local tax collections, this figure falls to $470 per capita.
While our seven percent general sales tax rate ranks second highest (tied with Indiana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Tennessee), our average local tax rate is virtually zero (Mississippi doesn’t typically allow the levying of local sales taxes, although the City of Jackson is a notable example otherwise). Our combined rank on sales taxes is 20th in the nation.
All in all, I guess Mississippi ranks pretty middle-of-the-road when it comes to taxes. We excel in some areas yet lack a competitive tax structure in others. We could do a better job adhering to the principles outlined by the Tax Foundation, and that’s something to keep in mind.
As local and state government revenues increase with an improving economy, policymakers should govern with an eye toward reforming our tax structure to become even more competitive with surrounding states. The 2014 Facts & Figures guide by the Tax Foundation would be a good place to start those discussions.
As we approach that dreaded day – April 15 – I thought it appropriate to highlight findings from the recently released “Facts & Figures: How Does Your State Compare?” by the Tax Foundation. The Foundation began publishing this handy guide of state tax ranks in 1941 in order to “give a broader perspective…dissipate predilections and prejudices…and to meet the challenge presented by the broad problems of public finance.”
As a nonpartisan educational organization, the Tax Foundation is a fantastic resource on taxes. I’ve even thought about donating money to the group, which I guess is super nerdy. (Hey, we’ve all got our causes.)
Tax Foundation research is guided by the following principles of sound tax policy: Simplicity, transparency, neutrality, stability, no retroactivity, and broad based/low tax rates. In other words, these are the principles to which policymakers should adhere in order to develop tax structures that generate sufficient revenue while encouraging economic growth and treating taxpayers fairly.
Here are some of Mississippi’s facts and figures as highlighted in the publication.
March 29th is our “tax freedom day,” which represents how long Mississippians have to work into the year before they have earned enough money to pay all federal, state, and local taxes for the year.
Mississippi ranks in the top twenty states on the competitive business tax climate index, which takes into account corporate income, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance, and property taxes. Our state has the 17th most competitive business tax climate in the nation, with the 5th most favorable tax in the nation on unemployment insurance.
Important to any discussion on taxes is the makeup of how state and local governments get their revenues. In Mississippi, 27.5 percent of tax revenues are generated through property taxes; 32 percent through general sales taxes; 15.1 percent through individual income taxes; 3.8 percent through corporate income taxes; and 21.7 percent through other taxes such as excise or severance taxes.
In Fiscal Year 2011, Mississippi collected $504 in individual income taxes per capita. When accounting for local tax collections, this figure falls to $470 per capita.
While our seven percent general sales tax rate ranks second highest (tied with Indiana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Tennessee), our average local tax rate is virtually zero (Mississippi doesn’t typically allow the levying of local sales taxes, although the City of Jackson is a notable example otherwise). Our combined rank on sales taxes is 20th in the nation.
All in all, I guess Mississippi ranks pretty middle-of-the-road when it comes to taxes. We excel in some areas yet lack a competitive tax structure in others. We could do a better job adhering to the principles outlined by the Tax Foundation, and that’s something to keep in mind.
As local and state government revenues increase with an improving economy, policymakers should govern with an eye toward reforming our tax structure to become even more competitive with surrounding states. The 2014 Facts & Figures guide by the Tax Foundation would be a good place to start those discussions.
In a world of seriousness, a breath (er, brief?) of fresh air
*First appeared in the March 19, 2014 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
Every once in a blue moon, something comes around that’s simply worth sharing as is. This column highlights one of those instances where I inform you, with limited commentary, about a very funny (yet incredibly important) issue.
The Cato Institute recently filed an amicus brief regarding Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a case involving an Ohio state law that prohibits false statements in elections.
As described on Cato’s blog: “Believe it or not, it’s illegal in Ohio to lie about politicians, for politicians to lie about other politicians, or for politicians to lie about themselves. That is, it violates an election law – this isn’t anything related to slander or libel, which has higher standards of proof for public figures – to make ‘false statements’ in campaign-related contexts.”
Because of a scuffle-turned-lawsuit between a pro-life advocacy group (the Susan B. Anthony List) and a then-Rep. Steven Driehaus, the constitutionality of this unique Ohio law has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
And that’s where it gets interesting. Did I mention “legendary satirist” and Ohio-native P.J. O’Rourke joins Cato as a fellow amicus on the brief?
A brief bio on O’Rourke: He was born and raised in Toledo and has been “writing funny things” since the 1960s on topics as varied as wars, riots, politics, cars, etiquette, economics, and, now, free speech issues.
To the question presented before the Supreme Court – “Can a state government criminalize political statements that are less than 100% truthful?” – O’Rourke has quite the response.
But don’t take my word for it. Here are the opening lines:
“I am not a crook.”
“Read my lips: no new taxes!”
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
“Mission accomplished.”
“If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”
“While George Washington may have been incapable of telling a lie, his successors have not had this same integrity. The campaign promise (and its subsequent violation), as well as disparaging statements about one’s opponent (whether true, mostly true, mostly not true, or entirely fantastic), are cornerstones of American democracy. Indeed, mocking and satire are as old as America.”
The brief continues its discussion of “truthiness” in similar fashion, asking where we would be, after all, “without the knowledge that Democrats are pinko-communist flag-burners who want to tax churches and use the money to fund abortions so they can use the fetal stem cells to create pot-smoking lesbian ATF agents who will steal all the guns and invite the UN to take over America? Voters have to decide whether we’d be better off electing Republicans, those hateful, assault-weapon-wielding maniacs who believe that George Washington and Jesus Christ incorporated the nation after a Gettysburg reenactment and that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it isn’t administered quickly enough to secular-humanist professors of Chicano studies.”
On a more serious note, if you can call it that, the brief explains that laws like the one in Ohio criminalize “false” speech and do nothing to replace “truthiness, satire, and snark with high-minded ideas and ‘just the facts.’ Instead, they chill speech such that spin becomes silence.” More importantly, it continues, Ohio’s ban of “lies and damn lies” is incompatible with the protections offered by the First Amendment.
Speech that is inflammatory and insulting is more likely to produce a response from candidates, “thus making the back-and-forth of politics a self-correcting marketplace of ideas – except, of course, when candidates can tattle to the government, which then takes away their toys speech.”
In its argument that Ohio’s law ultimately weakens the vibrancy of political discourse, the brief suggests hopes that these laws will stop the lies, insults, and truthiness are “Pollyannish” at best.
Not only do these hopes “stand in the face of all political history, [they disregard] the facts that, in politics, truths are felt as much as they are known.” When a Republican, for example, calls Obama a socialist, he is “feeling a truth more than thinking one.”
You get the idea. The brief in its entirety is worth the read, not only for its humor but also its very good points about the role of satire in political discourse.
Said differently, the First Amendment protects all speech, but, even in its absence, “no government agency could do a better job policing political honesty than the myriad personalities and entities who expose charlatans, mock liars, lambaste arrogance, and unmask truthiness for a living.”
Well said, guys. Very well said.
Every once in a blue moon, something comes around that’s simply worth sharing as is. This column highlights one of those instances where I inform you, with limited commentary, about a very funny (yet incredibly important) issue.
The Cato Institute recently filed an amicus brief regarding Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, a case involving an Ohio state law that prohibits false statements in elections.
As described on Cato’s blog: “Believe it or not, it’s illegal in Ohio to lie about politicians, for politicians to lie about other politicians, or for politicians to lie about themselves. That is, it violates an election law – this isn’t anything related to slander or libel, which has higher standards of proof for public figures – to make ‘false statements’ in campaign-related contexts.”
Because of a scuffle-turned-lawsuit between a pro-life advocacy group (the Susan B. Anthony List) and a then-Rep. Steven Driehaus, the constitutionality of this unique Ohio law has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
And that’s where it gets interesting. Did I mention “legendary satirist” and Ohio-native P.J. O’Rourke joins Cato as a fellow amicus on the brief?
A brief bio on O’Rourke: He was born and raised in Toledo and has been “writing funny things” since the 1960s on topics as varied as wars, riots, politics, cars, etiquette, economics, and, now, free speech issues.
To the question presented before the Supreme Court – “Can a state government criminalize political statements that are less than 100% truthful?” – O’Rourke has quite the response.
But don’t take my word for it. Here are the opening lines:
“I am not a crook.”
“Read my lips: no new taxes!”
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
“Mission accomplished.”
“If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.”
“While George Washington may have been incapable of telling a lie, his successors have not had this same integrity. The campaign promise (and its subsequent violation), as well as disparaging statements about one’s opponent (whether true, mostly true, mostly not true, or entirely fantastic), are cornerstones of American democracy. Indeed, mocking and satire are as old as America.”
The brief continues its discussion of “truthiness” in similar fashion, asking where we would be, after all, “without the knowledge that Democrats are pinko-communist flag-burners who want to tax churches and use the money to fund abortions so they can use the fetal stem cells to create pot-smoking lesbian ATF agents who will steal all the guns and invite the UN to take over America? Voters have to decide whether we’d be better off electing Republicans, those hateful, assault-weapon-wielding maniacs who believe that George Washington and Jesus Christ incorporated the nation after a Gettysburg reenactment and that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is that it isn’t administered quickly enough to secular-humanist professors of Chicano studies.”
On a more serious note, if you can call it that, the brief explains that laws like the one in Ohio criminalize “false” speech and do nothing to replace “truthiness, satire, and snark with high-minded ideas and ‘just the facts.’ Instead, they chill speech such that spin becomes silence.” More importantly, it continues, Ohio’s ban of “lies and damn lies” is incompatible with the protections offered by the First Amendment.
Speech that is inflammatory and insulting is more likely to produce a response from candidates, “thus making the back-and-forth of politics a self-correcting marketplace of ideas – except, of course, when candidates can tattle to the government, which then takes away their toys speech.”
In its argument that Ohio’s law ultimately weakens the vibrancy of political discourse, the brief suggests hopes that these laws will stop the lies, insults, and truthiness are “Pollyannish” at best.
Not only do these hopes “stand in the face of all political history, [they disregard] the facts that, in politics, truths are felt as much as they are known.” When a Republican, for example, calls Obama a socialist, he is “feeling a truth more than thinking one.”
You get the idea. The brief in its entirety is worth the read, not only for its humor but also its very good points about the role of satire in political discourse.
Said differently, the First Amendment protects all speech, but, even in its absence, “no government agency could do a better job policing political honesty than the myriad personalities and entities who expose charlatans, mock liars, lambaste arrogance, and unmask truthiness for a living.”
Well said, guys. Very well said.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Meet the Millennials
*First appeared in the March 12, 2014 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
Lately I’ve been experiencing what can only be described as onset adulthood. Over the weekend, I began a sentence with the phrase “kids these days.” I had a Sunday conversation about retirement planning. I am responsible for a living, breathing 110-pound dog named Sadie which, I imagine, is sort of like having a kid.
So anyway, as I grapple with the phenomenon of adult living, I happen upon a recent study about Millennials (that’s the name for my generation). Ranging from 18 to 33, Millennials are “forging a distinctive path into adulthood.”
That’s not how I usually frame my foray into maturity, but I’ll go with it.
Turns out, I’m not so unlike most people in my generation. We are, according to the Pew Research Center report, linked by social media, distrustful of people, in no rush to marry, and optimistic about the future.
Millennials are “digital natives,” or the only generation for which new technologies (twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) are not something to which we’ve had to adapt.
To this, I say: Speak for yourself, pollsters. I’ve definitely had to adjust to the digital age. Sure, I mostly grew up with computers in my life, but AOL Instant Messenger – “AIM” – is a far cry from today’s digital interactions.
Nevertheless, the report noted that Millennials have “taken the lead in seizing on the new platforms of the digital era – the internet, mobile technology, social media – to construct personalized networks for friends, colleagues and affinity groups.” Fifty-five percent of Millennials have posted a “selfie” on social media, yet other generations struggle to define what a selfie is.
Our reliance on technology is a double-edged sword: It opens a world of endless possibilities but may lead to debilitating personal relationships. At least ninety percent of my generation agrees that people share too much information about themselves online. Perhaps there is hope for us, yet!
I’m in no rush to marry (sorry, Mom), and neither are my fellow Millennials. We’ve “been keeping [our] distance from another core institution of society – marriage.” Only about a quarter – or 26 percent – of us are married already. Compare that to other generations when they were our age: 36 percent of Generation X, 48 percent of Baby Boomers, and 65 percent of members of the Silent Generation were hitched. At 29 for men and 27 for women, the median age at first marriage is now the highest in modern history.
What the Pew Research Center found is that 69 percent of Millennials would like to marry but lack what they “deem to be a necessary prerequisite – a solid economic foundation.” That’s understandable, considering Millennials are the first in the modern era to have higher levels of student loan debt, poverty and unemployment, and lower levels of wealth and personal income than our two immediately preceding generations.
Interestingly, older members of my generation (ages 26 to 33) are the best-educated cohort of young adults in history, which would seeming lead to financial security (since educational attainment is highly correlated with economic success). But the opposite is true: About two-thirds of recent bachelor’s degree recipients have outstanding student loans (average debt of about $27,000). Just twenty years ago, only half of “recent graduates had college debt, and the average was $15,000.”
Millennials have emerged into adulthood with low levels of social trust. Just 19 percent of us believe most people can be trusted, compared to, say, 40 percent of Baby Boomers. A glance at my twitter profile informs one that I’m “an occasional conspiracy theorist.”
Despite more financial burdens, slower journeys to married life, and greater distrust of society, Millennials are – somewhat surprisingly – more upbeat than older adults about America’s future. Almost half of Millennials believe our country’s best days are ahead. A more focused look shows Millennials are the nation’s most “stubborn economic optimists,” with more than 80 percent say they currently have or will have enough money to live the lives they want.
(In a dose of realism, the report notes that Generation Xers were equally as confident when they were as young as Millennials; thus, some “of this optimism…may simply reflect the timeless confidence of youth.”)
All this makes me wonder: What will America look like when governed by the generation that trusts little, owes much, marries later, and texts often?
To paraphrase an old Van Halen lyric, time will tell if we Millennials stand the test of time.
Lately I’ve been experiencing what can only be described as onset adulthood. Over the weekend, I began a sentence with the phrase “kids these days.” I had a Sunday conversation about retirement planning. I am responsible for a living, breathing 110-pound dog named Sadie which, I imagine, is sort of like having a kid.
So anyway, as I grapple with the phenomenon of adult living, I happen upon a recent study about Millennials (that’s the name for my generation). Ranging from 18 to 33, Millennials are “forging a distinctive path into adulthood.”
That’s not how I usually frame my foray into maturity, but I’ll go with it.
Turns out, I’m not so unlike most people in my generation. We are, according to the Pew Research Center report, linked by social media, distrustful of people, in no rush to marry, and optimistic about the future.
Millennials are “digital natives,” or the only generation for which new technologies (twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) are not something to which we’ve had to adapt.
To this, I say: Speak for yourself, pollsters. I’ve definitely had to adjust to the digital age. Sure, I mostly grew up with computers in my life, but AOL Instant Messenger – “AIM” – is a far cry from today’s digital interactions.
Nevertheless, the report noted that Millennials have “taken the lead in seizing on the new platforms of the digital era – the internet, mobile technology, social media – to construct personalized networks for friends, colleagues and affinity groups.” Fifty-five percent of Millennials have posted a “selfie” on social media, yet other generations struggle to define what a selfie is.
Our reliance on technology is a double-edged sword: It opens a world of endless possibilities but may lead to debilitating personal relationships. At least ninety percent of my generation agrees that people share too much information about themselves online. Perhaps there is hope for us, yet!
I’m in no rush to marry (sorry, Mom), and neither are my fellow Millennials. We’ve “been keeping [our] distance from another core institution of society – marriage.” Only about a quarter – or 26 percent – of us are married already. Compare that to other generations when they were our age: 36 percent of Generation X, 48 percent of Baby Boomers, and 65 percent of members of the Silent Generation were hitched. At 29 for men and 27 for women, the median age at first marriage is now the highest in modern history.
What the Pew Research Center found is that 69 percent of Millennials would like to marry but lack what they “deem to be a necessary prerequisite – a solid economic foundation.” That’s understandable, considering Millennials are the first in the modern era to have higher levels of student loan debt, poverty and unemployment, and lower levels of wealth and personal income than our two immediately preceding generations.
Interestingly, older members of my generation (ages 26 to 33) are the best-educated cohort of young adults in history, which would seeming lead to financial security (since educational attainment is highly correlated with economic success). But the opposite is true: About two-thirds of recent bachelor’s degree recipients have outstanding student loans (average debt of about $27,000). Just twenty years ago, only half of “recent graduates had college debt, and the average was $15,000.”
Millennials have emerged into adulthood with low levels of social trust. Just 19 percent of us believe most people can be trusted, compared to, say, 40 percent of Baby Boomers. A glance at my twitter profile informs one that I’m “an occasional conspiracy theorist.”
Despite more financial burdens, slower journeys to married life, and greater distrust of society, Millennials are – somewhat surprisingly – more upbeat than older adults about America’s future. Almost half of Millennials believe our country’s best days are ahead. A more focused look shows Millennials are the nation’s most “stubborn economic optimists,” with more than 80 percent say they currently have or will have enough money to live the lives they want.
(In a dose of realism, the report notes that Generation Xers were equally as confident when they were as young as Millennials; thus, some “of this optimism…may simply reflect the timeless confidence of youth.”)
All this makes me wonder: What will America look like when governed by the generation that trusts little, owes much, marries later, and texts often?
To paraphrase an old Van Halen lyric, time will tell if we Millennials stand the test of time.
The Free State mentality: Something in the water?
*First appeared in the March 5, 2014 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
Growing up in Jones County, one becomes accustomed to references to the “Free State.” In fact, I always found the idea of a “Free State of Jones” rather appealing, indicative of a people fiercely independent yet bound by a strong sense of community.
Others might dismiss this notion as a naïve view of our rocky history or simply a face-value acceptance of overblown folklore. But, just maybe there’s something to this idea that Jones Countians suffer from some sort of predisposition to make waves – whether better or worse.
But first: What is the Free State?
That itself is a source of controversy. Legend has it that an “armed band of Confederate deserters battled Confederate cavalry in the Piney Woods region of Jones County, Mississippi. Calling themselves the Knight Company after their captain, Newton Knight, they set up headquarters in the swamps of the Leaf River, where…they declared the Free State of Jones.”
According to some accounts, Newt (I never heard him called “Newton” growing up) Knight was a complex figure who refused to fight a rich-man’s war. Some accounts say his insurrection was based solely on civil rights and an opposition to slavery; others say he was a coward who deserted his Confederate soldiers. Some say he simply didn’t want to fight over cotton.
Whether he actually tried to establish an independent state, and for what purpose, remains a point of contention.
In fact, the most recent work on this issue provided the New York Times with a bit of fodder in its book review of “The State of Jones” by Washington Post reporter and Harvard historian John Stauffer. Jenkins and Stauffer apparently ruffled the feathers of another author, Victoria Bynum (a Texas State history professor and author of “The Free State of Jones”), who claimed the duo’s latest take was “a good read but inaccurate and unjustifiably politicized.”
“There’s the rub,” explained the New York Times. “Jenkins and Stauffer create a lively narrative, but is it factual – or fictionalized?”
(My favorite component of the Times review was its highlighting of Bynum’s critique of the new book...in a heated online forum exchange. The internet wins again!)
In the 21st century, Jones Countians continue the historical trend of making waves. Take, for example, Rep. Omeria Scott’s legislative proposal that would have required merchants who sell ammunition to keep detailed records open for public inspection at any time. These records include names, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and even social security numbers.
The amendment failed, but not without first causing backlash from folks in Jackson and elsewhere.
Well-known writer Bobby Harrison of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal has Jones County roots (near the Shady Grove area, I think). He’s a genuinely nice guy but often irks conservatives with columns that tend to favor more left-leaning policies.
Rickey Cole (I’ve written about him in this space before) is executive director of the Mississippi Democrats, a group that continues to raise the political stakes. While I’m sure Rickey is a fine fellow, his public statements and emails indicate an aggressive spirit.
“Sixty-seven years is long enough” proclaimed Rickey in one email to supporters, urging supporters to elect a Mississippi Democrat to the U.S. Senate. He has called Gov. Phil Bryant “aloof” in an email titled “Outrageous Incompetence.” You get the idea.
Even Jones County native and state senator Chris McDaniel has raised more than a few eyebrows by waging a primary challenge against incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Thad Cochran…despite telling crowds in October that Cochran is a man he “grew up” admiring and respecting.
I’m not sure about the legitimacy of the Free State tale, but I do know this: People from Jones County have a provocative spirit. Maybe we inherit Free State mentalities from our parents, or maybe it’s just something in the Bogue Homa waters.
Growing up in Jones County, one becomes accustomed to references to the “Free State.” In fact, I always found the idea of a “Free State of Jones” rather appealing, indicative of a people fiercely independent yet bound by a strong sense of community.
Others might dismiss this notion as a naïve view of our rocky history or simply a face-value acceptance of overblown folklore. But, just maybe there’s something to this idea that Jones Countians suffer from some sort of predisposition to make waves – whether better or worse.
But first: What is the Free State?
That itself is a source of controversy. Legend has it that an “armed band of Confederate deserters battled Confederate cavalry in the Piney Woods region of Jones County, Mississippi. Calling themselves the Knight Company after their captain, Newton Knight, they set up headquarters in the swamps of the Leaf River, where…they declared the Free State of Jones.”
According to some accounts, Newt (I never heard him called “Newton” growing up) Knight was a complex figure who refused to fight a rich-man’s war. Some accounts say his insurrection was based solely on civil rights and an opposition to slavery; others say he was a coward who deserted his Confederate soldiers. Some say he simply didn’t want to fight over cotton.
Whether he actually tried to establish an independent state, and for what purpose, remains a point of contention.
In fact, the most recent work on this issue provided the New York Times with a bit of fodder in its book review of “The State of Jones” by Washington Post reporter and Harvard historian John Stauffer. Jenkins and Stauffer apparently ruffled the feathers of another author, Victoria Bynum (a Texas State history professor and author of “The Free State of Jones”), who claimed the duo’s latest take was “a good read but inaccurate and unjustifiably politicized.”
“There’s the rub,” explained the New York Times. “Jenkins and Stauffer create a lively narrative, but is it factual – or fictionalized?”
(My favorite component of the Times review was its highlighting of Bynum’s critique of the new book...in a heated online forum exchange. The internet wins again!)
In the 21st century, Jones Countians continue the historical trend of making waves. Take, for example, Rep. Omeria Scott’s legislative proposal that would have required merchants who sell ammunition to keep detailed records open for public inspection at any time. These records include names, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and even social security numbers.
The amendment failed, but not without first causing backlash from folks in Jackson and elsewhere.
Well-known writer Bobby Harrison of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal has Jones County roots (near the Shady Grove area, I think). He’s a genuinely nice guy but often irks conservatives with columns that tend to favor more left-leaning policies.
Rickey Cole (I’ve written about him in this space before) is executive director of the Mississippi Democrats, a group that continues to raise the political stakes. While I’m sure Rickey is a fine fellow, his public statements and emails indicate an aggressive spirit.
“Sixty-seven years is long enough” proclaimed Rickey in one email to supporters, urging supporters to elect a Mississippi Democrat to the U.S. Senate. He has called Gov. Phil Bryant “aloof” in an email titled “Outrageous Incompetence.” You get the idea.
Even Jones County native and state senator Chris McDaniel has raised more than a few eyebrows by waging a primary challenge against incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Thad Cochran…despite telling crowds in October that Cochran is a man he “grew up” admiring and respecting.
I’m not sure about the legitimacy of the Free State tale, but I do know this: People from Jones County have a provocative spirit. Maybe we inherit Free State mentalities from our parents, or maybe it’s just something in the Bogue Homa waters.
Pay raises popular among Obama, Democrats
*First appeared in the February 26, 2014 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
Pay raises. That’s a popular phrase these days. Just this week, the Washington Post reports President Obama will propose a one percent pay raise for federal employees and members of the military for the Fiscal Year 2015 budget he’ll announce next week.
Obama is trying to put an “end to austerity” in the budgeting process by increasing government wages. Never mind the fact that’s not happening in the private sector, where employees have seen their wages drop by 0.2 percent during Obama’s presidency.
These pay raises come on the heels of pay hikes implemented under the current chief executive, such as the one that went into effect December 2013 via an Obama executive order.
An administration official explained the most recent proposal, saying it reflected the “tight budget constraints we continue to face, while also recognizing the critical role these civilian employees play in our country…It also recognizes the sacrifices they have already made through prior pay freezes, reductions in awards, and furloughs due to sequestration last year.”
I don’t disagree. Indeed, federal employees have been furloughed, have seen pay freezes, or experienced some combination thereof. But it’s worth noting the root cause of these budgetary restraints: A flailing economy which produced insufficient revenue to pay government workers. (And, very likely, a bloated federal government that should have been right-sized years ago. But I digress.)
The economy isn’t helped by the spend-money-we-don’t-have mentality of the Obama administration, and neither are government workers. (It’s ironic, in an Alanis Morrisette kind of way.)
In some ways, the budget proposal to pay workers more actually jeopardizes the government’s ability to do so. Why?
Because we haven’t gotten our fiscal house in order but continue to spend, spend, spend. This President and his Democrat counterparts spend money with simply no regard for its long-term implications.
Under the leadership (or spending-ship?) of Obama, the federal debt has risen astronomically. During his first term, the nation’s debt rose 83.5 percent. Now in his second term, Obama has seen to it that federal debt has nearly doubled under his watch.
Yet instead of trimming costs, he proposes we spend more money to “end the age of austerity.” I’ve heard more than once that spending money is the enemy of controlling spending. This is a textbook example.
But pay raises aren’t limited to national level Democrats; nay, the Mississippi Democrats are singing from the same hymnal. Just last week, Democrats in the Mississippi House of Representatives attempted (unsuccessfully) to add across-the-board pay raises for state employees to appropriation bills.
I guess they endorse Obama’s fiscal management policies. After all, he’s done such a great job balancing the federal budget (oh wait – it’s taken two terms as President to even get a budget, right?) and decreasing national debt (ummm, see above).
But Mississippians are smarter than to fall for those Democrat beliefs that we ought to pay government workers more than private sector employees. Mississippians understand the importance of a balanced budget and reducing debt by refusing to swipe the state’s credit card for every pet project.
They understand we need less, not more, Obama style policies in the Magnolia State.
Pay raises. That’s a popular phrase these days. Just this week, the Washington Post reports President Obama will propose a one percent pay raise for federal employees and members of the military for the Fiscal Year 2015 budget he’ll announce next week.
Obama is trying to put an “end to austerity” in the budgeting process by increasing government wages. Never mind the fact that’s not happening in the private sector, where employees have seen their wages drop by 0.2 percent during Obama’s presidency.
These pay raises come on the heels of pay hikes implemented under the current chief executive, such as the one that went into effect December 2013 via an Obama executive order.
An administration official explained the most recent proposal, saying it reflected the “tight budget constraints we continue to face, while also recognizing the critical role these civilian employees play in our country…It also recognizes the sacrifices they have already made through prior pay freezes, reductions in awards, and furloughs due to sequestration last year.”
I don’t disagree. Indeed, federal employees have been furloughed, have seen pay freezes, or experienced some combination thereof. But it’s worth noting the root cause of these budgetary restraints: A flailing economy which produced insufficient revenue to pay government workers. (And, very likely, a bloated federal government that should have been right-sized years ago. But I digress.)
The economy isn’t helped by the spend-money-we-don’t-have mentality of the Obama administration, and neither are government workers. (It’s ironic, in an Alanis Morrisette kind of way.)
In some ways, the budget proposal to pay workers more actually jeopardizes the government’s ability to do so. Why?
Because we haven’t gotten our fiscal house in order but continue to spend, spend, spend. This President and his Democrat counterparts spend money with simply no regard for its long-term implications.
Under the leadership (or spending-ship?) of Obama, the federal debt has risen astronomically. During his first term, the nation’s debt rose 83.5 percent. Now in his second term, Obama has seen to it that federal debt has nearly doubled under his watch.
Yet instead of trimming costs, he proposes we spend more money to “end the age of austerity.” I’ve heard more than once that spending money is the enemy of controlling spending. This is a textbook example.
But pay raises aren’t limited to national level Democrats; nay, the Mississippi Democrats are singing from the same hymnal. Just last week, Democrats in the Mississippi House of Representatives attempted (unsuccessfully) to add across-the-board pay raises for state employees to appropriation bills.
I guess they endorse Obama’s fiscal management policies. After all, he’s done such a great job balancing the federal budget (oh wait – it’s taken two terms as President to even get a budget, right?) and decreasing national debt (ummm, see above).
But Mississippians are smarter than to fall for those Democrat beliefs that we ought to pay government workers more than private sector employees. Mississippians understand the importance of a balanced budget and reducing debt by refusing to swipe the state’s credit card for every pet project.
They understand we need less, not more, Obama style policies in the Magnolia State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)