*First appeared in the October 31 edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
This week I attended a workforce development conference hosted by the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and St. Louis, the Mississippi Manufacturers Association, and other statewide partners. The event reminded us that, as MMA president and CEO Jay Moon said, workforce development remains a critical element of successful economic development.
Here are a few more observations from the event.
Panelists at the conference included representation from multiple states and a mix of the public and private sector, and conference attendees represented business and industry; education; and workforce agency stakeholders.
Throughout the day, much discussion centered around “soft” skills. That’s industry speak for things parents used to teach their kids – how to dress for work, how to have a good attitude, punctuality, and motivation to do a good job. Believe it or not, states are spending millions of dollars each year to teach workers these types of skills. Employers are clamoring to find workers who exhibit “conscientiousness” (as one panelist put it). To paraphrase another speaker, employers want a motivated workforce even more than a trained workforce.
As I’ve said before, when the family unit fails our kids, the government tends to step in. Ideally, parents – not training providers – would teach their children these very basic life skills.
Nicole Smith, senior economist at Georgetown University, raised the issue about Mississippi’s “brain drain,” noting our state is a net exporter of college graduates. In essence, we are training young workers to go somewhere else. This is particularly troubling in a state that already suffers from a historically low labor force participation rate (the number of people who are either working or looking for a job). This measure certainly won’t improve if our future workers catch the next train out of town.
Representatives from the construction and defense industries stressed that workforce policy should embrace all career and education pathways – both those which require a four-year degree and those that require a technical degree or certification. The earning potential of non-university careers was explored, with economist Smith noting that a bachelor’s degree in education typically pays much less than a two-year certification in an engineering-related field. (Students: Y’all take that to heart.)
Mike Beatty, president and CEO of the Great Promise Partnership, discussed a Georgia dual enrollment program targeting at-risk youth. The public-private partnership combines traditional classroom education with a job working about 20 hours a week as long the student maintains certain grades and behavior requirements. This program provides real-life work experience – such as those soft skills I mentioned earlier – and demonstrates the value and reward of hard work. It has helped turn the tides for at least 600 Georgia teens since the program’s inception and could be a model for similar Mississippi efforts.
Mark Henry, head of Mississippi’s workforce agency (the Department of Employment Security), is currently serving as president of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. In this role, he is advocating Congress give states maximum flexibility on federal workforce dollars. Amen to that, brother.
Conference attendees broke into small groups, with each group producing a single idea for further study by Mississippi workforce officials. These ideas ran the gamut: Emphasizing the value of work to youth; developing a single workforce development brand for the state; renewing our focus on entrepreneurship; understanding and overcoming the barriers faced by felons re-entering the workforce; unifying the education system; and developing workforce academies and ensuring courses taught by community and junior colleges meet employer needs.
These topics aren’t new, but they continue to be challenges faced by Mississippi as we look to improve our workforce delivery system. I suspect these issues will continue, at least in the foreseeable future, to dominate discussions on how to move Mississippi forward, since successful workforce development breeds successful economic development.
Economic development is, after all, the art of attracting new business and industry to a city, county, state, or region. While competitive tax structures, financial incentives, and other bells and whistles are important, a company won’t locate its next facility in an area without qualified workers.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Has American innovation peaked?
*First appeared in the Oct. 24 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
A few weeks back, I received an email from the Atlanta Fed outlining several news articles and presentations that interest those of us who nerd out (yes, that’s the technical terminology) on economic trends. I don’t always read these emails, but one sentence caught my eye. At three words, it was a question highlighted in bold that asked, quite simply, “Has innovation peaked?”
I felt a slight panic but a greater curiosity. Has innovation reached its pinnacle? Is 2013 the year in which we just call it quits? Will we never have another Da Vinci? Is Apple the best it gets?
I opted to read further about this thought-provoking topic, which led me to a presentation by Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University’s Departments of Economics and History. The presentation, entitled “Technology Then and Now: Why the Technopessimists are Wrong,” provided some context for the question at hand.
(And, if the title is any indication, innovation isn’t dead. We’re obviously still making up words – “technopessimist” – much like Shakespeare and Mark Twain. Good job, humanity!)
The presentation begins grimly: “A new wave of technopessimism is upon us.” (It should be noted that Mokyr is talking specifically about American innovation in his presentation.) According to Mokyr, we’re seeing this technopessimism play out in three different schools of thoughts. There is one school that believes most of the low-hanging technological fruits have been picked and that future inventions won’t impact humanity in a significant way.
How depressing.
A second school believes that while there are many things we can invent, Americans simply won’t because we are getting “too risk-averse, too complacent, too regulated, and our institutions are turning anti-innovative and sclerotic.” Like ancient Rome; we are, according to this line of thinking, a once-dynamic world now in decline.
Yikes. This is even worse than the first point.
The third school of thought believes that brave new technology will come but at a price. That price is the elimination of our jobs and the marginalization of mankind. Essentially our technological innovation will pave the pathway to fulfilling the prophesized dystopia we read about in high school required reading.
But friends, fear not; for there is hope, according to Mokyr. From a technological point of view, the rate of change will accelerate – not decline – over the next decades due to the increase in “useful knowledge” and something called “artificial revelation” (observations through instruments that allow us to see things that would otherwise be invisible).
In a nutshell, Mokyr subscribes to the belief that science and technology are equally dependent on each other; that is, technology fills the elemental gaps in our understanding of the world. We are not “hard-wired to see microbes, to watch the moons of Jupiter, to store terabytes of information in our brains…tools and machines we build do this for us.”
The main implication, Mokyr contends, is that there is a positive feedback loop between technology and science, and it’s only getting stronger. Which means that science will “expand at ever faster rates” and that technology itself will likely do the same. For Mokyr, it is “hard to see this dynamic system ever settling down on an equilibrium.”
That’s great news, America. But it’s only part of the reason Mokyr thinks the best is yet to come.
Mokyr’s “techno-optimism” is based on the unprecedented access to useful knowledge. The people driving innovation – the inventor, the engineer, the chemist, the physician – need access to best practices and lessons learned about what can and cannot be done. Old school “search engines” included encyclopedias, followed by textbooks with indexes, and then libraries which developed cataloguing systems to make scientific information findable.
Compare these methods to today’s access: By virtue of technological innovations, particularly the World Wide Web, “copying, storing, transmitting, and searching vast amounts of information…is fast, easy, and practically free.” The issue of access is hugely important because, first and foremost, an inventor must be sure he or she is not reinventing the wheel – and thanks to today’s technology, that is an easy question to answer.
Given the rapid development of access to technology and better scientific instruments, it is hard to imagine a world that doesn’t include an ever-accelerating rate of technological progress. Alongside this progress, warns Mokyr, comes “creative destruction” in that what we gain as consumers or citizens, we may actually lose as workers.
The workforce will change, just as it always has. The factory setting is being phased out and replaced by a “work where it suits you” economy. Robotics will be everywhere, including taking jobs previously held by humans, but new technologies will also create demand for workers to perform new tasks created. So not all is lost.
While I’m not in complete agreement with some of Mokyr’s ideas, I do agree with his theory that technology drives science; science drives innovation; and, gosh darnit, the human spirit drives all these things. Innovation has not peaked; it is not to be a relic of the past, and of this I am quite sure.
A few weeks back, I received an email from the Atlanta Fed outlining several news articles and presentations that interest those of us who nerd out (yes, that’s the technical terminology) on economic trends. I don’t always read these emails, but one sentence caught my eye. At three words, it was a question highlighted in bold that asked, quite simply, “Has innovation peaked?”
I felt a slight panic but a greater curiosity. Has innovation reached its pinnacle? Is 2013 the year in which we just call it quits? Will we never have another Da Vinci? Is Apple the best it gets?
I opted to read further about this thought-provoking topic, which led me to a presentation by Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University’s Departments of Economics and History. The presentation, entitled “Technology Then and Now: Why the Technopessimists are Wrong,” provided some context for the question at hand.
(And, if the title is any indication, innovation isn’t dead. We’re obviously still making up words – “technopessimist” – much like Shakespeare and Mark Twain. Good job, humanity!)
The presentation begins grimly: “A new wave of technopessimism is upon us.” (It should be noted that Mokyr is talking specifically about American innovation in his presentation.) According to Mokyr, we’re seeing this technopessimism play out in three different schools of thoughts. There is one school that believes most of the low-hanging technological fruits have been picked and that future inventions won’t impact humanity in a significant way.
How depressing.
A second school believes that while there are many things we can invent, Americans simply won’t because we are getting “too risk-averse, too complacent, too regulated, and our institutions are turning anti-innovative and sclerotic.” Like ancient Rome; we are, according to this line of thinking, a once-dynamic world now in decline.
Yikes. This is even worse than the first point.
The third school of thought believes that brave new technology will come but at a price. That price is the elimination of our jobs and the marginalization of mankind. Essentially our technological innovation will pave the pathway to fulfilling the prophesized dystopia we read about in high school required reading.
But friends, fear not; for there is hope, according to Mokyr. From a technological point of view, the rate of change will accelerate – not decline – over the next decades due to the increase in “useful knowledge” and something called “artificial revelation” (observations through instruments that allow us to see things that would otherwise be invisible).
In a nutshell, Mokyr subscribes to the belief that science and technology are equally dependent on each other; that is, technology fills the elemental gaps in our understanding of the world. We are not “hard-wired to see microbes, to watch the moons of Jupiter, to store terabytes of information in our brains…tools and machines we build do this for us.”
The main implication, Mokyr contends, is that there is a positive feedback loop between technology and science, and it’s only getting stronger. Which means that science will “expand at ever faster rates” and that technology itself will likely do the same. For Mokyr, it is “hard to see this dynamic system ever settling down on an equilibrium.”
That’s great news, America. But it’s only part of the reason Mokyr thinks the best is yet to come.
Mokyr’s “techno-optimism” is based on the unprecedented access to useful knowledge. The people driving innovation – the inventor, the engineer, the chemist, the physician – need access to best practices and lessons learned about what can and cannot be done. Old school “search engines” included encyclopedias, followed by textbooks with indexes, and then libraries which developed cataloguing systems to make scientific information findable.
Compare these methods to today’s access: By virtue of technological innovations, particularly the World Wide Web, “copying, storing, transmitting, and searching vast amounts of information…is fast, easy, and practically free.” The issue of access is hugely important because, first and foremost, an inventor must be sure he or she is not reinventing the wheel – and thanks to today’s technology, that is an easy question to answer.
Given the rapid development of access to technology and better scientific instruments, it is hard to imagine a world that doesn’t include an ever-accelerating rate of technological progress. Alongside this progress, warns Mokyr, comes “creative destruction” in that what we gain as consumers or citizens, we may actually lose as workers.
The workforce will change, just as it always has. The factory setting is being phased out and replaced by a “work where it suits you” economy. Robotics will be everywhere, including taking jobs previously held by humans, but new technologies will also create demand for workers to perform new tasks created. So not all is lost.
While I’m not in complete agreement with some of Mokyr’s ideas, I do agree with his theory that technology drives science; science drives innovation; and, gosh darnit, the human spirit drives all these things. Innovation has not peaked; it is not to be a relic of the past, and of this I am quite sure.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
4-year degree not required to achieve American dream
*First appeared in the Oct. 17, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
A few years ago, I noticed a banner hanging from a fence at the high school near my house. It read something along the lines of, “University or bust.” Its purpose, I suppose, was to encourage high schoolers to attend college in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree.
It reminded me of my own high school experience, where the refrain from counselors and other authority figures was essentially the same: A four-year degree is your key to success.
And, well, maybe that is true for some students. But this belief – one that I think is misguided – has been too broadly applied, resulting in parents, teachers, counselors, and eventually students believing that their only chance for success is to attain a four-year degree.
In today’s economy, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I keep thinking about my own experience. While I chose the maybe-not-so-practical path of getting a French and political science bachelor’s degree, my brother decided a four-year university wasn’t in the cards. He got an associates degree from Jones County Junior College and, quite frankly, is the picture of the American dream.
Seriously, you guys – my brother has a fantastic house that’s almost paid for, a lovely wife, a few cats and a Great Dane, and he recently bought his second boat. A facility technician at AT&T (where he’s worked for nine years, though it was still BellSouth when he first began the job), Jonathan receives a competitive wage, full healthcare and pension benefits, and opportunities for regular and double overtime (cha-ching!).
Importantly, he did all this without having the so-called “key” to success (a bachelor’s degree). I will also point out that not only did he skip the four-year college track, he also avoided the excessive student loan debt that often accompanies higher educational pursuits.
So what led him to this role, you ask? For starters, you need to know my brother is the guy you want with you if you’re stranded on a desert island. He can wire anything; he can build anything; he can troubleshoot anything…which is probably why he scored the highest in his grade on that military exam they give you in high school. Jonathan has been able to translate his natural aptitude for doing and building into an electronics career where he troubleshoots and maintains electrical circuits.
That’s what America – and Mississippi – needs more of: People like my brother who recognize their natural skillsets and turn them into meaningful careers.
Of course, I’m not the only one who thinks like this. I’ve spoken to countless company reps from across industry sectors – from energy to manufacturing, construction to telecommunications – and they share a common goal: They need more skilled workers, not necessarily those with four-year degrees.
This is particularly relevant with the onset of “onshoring,” or the trend of manufacturers locating plants in the U.S. due to changing dynamics within global markets. Rising labor costs in developing countries, affordable domestic energy, access to low-cost American capital, American productivity, and supply chain complexity has been the recipe leading to the influx of manufacturing jobs stateside.
Some economists estimate that onshoring has created between 250,000 and 500,000 jobs in America over the last three years, and the trend is expected to continue. Major companies like Caterpillar, Ford, and Apple are making heavy investments in U.S. facilities. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt told the Harvard Business Review that outsourcing “is quickly becoming outdated as a business model for GE Appliances.”
Because it’s becoming more economically viable to manufacture in America, our workforce capacity must gear up to supply the needed labor for the new demand. States in the southeast, which typically enjoy lower costs of living, competitive tax environments, and a Right-to-Work policy, are especially attractive to companies looking to bring back jobs to domestic markets.
That means Mississippi is poised to benefit from the manufacturing renaissance, as long as we ensure that we have the skilled labor necessary to do the jobs coming back onshore.
We must change our thinking on education, with a dedicated effort to de-stigmatize workforce training. Not every student needs to go to a four-year university, and that’s okay. Some students have a strong aptitude for technical learning and will thrive in the workforce with a technical degree or certificate.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has previously estimated that in the ten year span leading up to 2014, more than 40 million jobs (roughly three-fourths of total openings) would be filled by workers without bachelor’s degrees.
In Mississippi alone, individuals who lack a bachelor’s degree but have some type of skills training – whether it’s welding, electronics, plumbing, or even healthcare – can get high-paying jobs with good benefits. This is especially true in Southeast Mississippi, which accounts for the most industrial employment in the state with some 58,347 industrial jobs according to Manufacturer News.
We’re at a critical juncture. The global dynamics have shifted and favor a return of job-creating companies to the U.S., particularly the Southeast. But will Mississippi’s workforce culture change with it, or will we continue pushing the misguided idea that all students need a four-year degree to succeed?
A few years ago, I noticed a banner hanging from a fence at the high school near my house. It read something along the lines of, “University or bust.” Its purpose, I suppose, was to encourage high schoolers to attend college in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree.
It reminded me of my own high school experience, where the refrain from counselors and other authority figures was essentially the same: A four-year degree is your key to success.
And, well, maybe that is true for some students. But this belief – one that I think is misguided – has been too broadly applied, resulting in parents, teachers, counselors, and eventually students believing that their only chance for success is to attain a four-year degree.
In today’s economy, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
I keep thinking about my own experience. While I chose the maybe-not-so-practical path of getting a French and political science bachelor’s degree, my brother decided a four-year university wasn’t in the cards. He got an associates degree from Jones County Junior College and, quite frankly, is the picture of the American dream.
Seriously, you guys – my brother has a fantastic house that’s almost paid for, a lovely wife, a few cats and a Great Dane, and he recently bought his second boat. A facility technician at AT&T (where he’s worked for nine years, though it was still BellSouth when he first began the job), Jonathan receives a competitive wage, full healthcare and pension benefits, and opportunities for regular and double overtime (cha-ching!).
Importantly, he did all this without having the so-called “key” to success (a bachelor’s degree). I will also point out that not only did he skip the four-year college track, he also avoided the excessive student loan debt that often accompanies higher educational pursuits.
So what led him to this role, you ask? For starters, you need to know my brother is the guy you want with you if you’re stranded on a desert island. He can wire anything; he can build anything; he can troubleshoot anything…which is probably why he scored the highest in his grade on that military exam they give you in high school. Jonathan has been able to translate his natural aptitude for doing and building into an electronics career where he troubleshoots and maintains electrical circuits.
That’s what America – and Mississippi – needs more of: People like my brother who recognize their natural skillsets and turn them into meaningful careers.
Of course, I’m not the only one who thinks like this. I’ve spoken to countless company reps from across industry sectors – from energy to manufacturing, construction to telecommunications – and they share a common goal: They need more skilled workers, not necessarily those with four-year degrees.
This is particularly relevant with the onset of “onshoring,” or the trend of manufacturers locating plants in the U.S. due to changing dynamics within global markets. Rising labor costs in developing countries, affordable domestic energy, access to low-cost American capital, American productivity, and supply chain complexity has been the recipe leading to the influx of manufacturing jobs stateside.
Some economists estimate that onshoring has created between 250,000 and 500,000 jobs in America over the last three years, and the trend is expected to continue. Major companies like Caterpillar, Ford, and Apple are making heavy investments in U.S. facilities. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt told the Harvard Business Review that outsourcing “is quickly becoming outdated as a business model for GE Appliances.”
Because it’s becoming more economically viable to manufacture in America, our workforce capacity must gear up to supply the needed labor for the new demand. States in the southeast, which typically enjoy lower costs of living, competitive tax environments, and a Right-to-Work policy, are especially attractive to companies looking to bring back jobs to domestic markets.
That means Mississippi is poised to benefit from the manufacturing renaissance, as long as we ensure that we have the skilled labor necessary to do the jobs coming back onshore.
We must change our thinking on education, with a dedicated effort to de-stigmatize workforce training. Not every student needs to go to a four-year university, and that’s okay. Some students have a strong aptitude for technical learning and will thrive in the workforce with a technical degree or certificate.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has previously estimated that in the ten year span leading up to 2014, more than 40 million jobs (roughly three-fourths of total openings) would be filled by workers without bachelor’s degrees.
In Mississippi alone, individuals who lack a bachelor’s degree but have some type of skills training – whether it’s welding, electronics, plumbing, or even healthcare – can get high-paying jobs with good benefits. This is especially true in Southeast Mississippi, which accounts for the most industrial employment in the state with some 58,347 industrial jobs according to Manufacturer News.
We’re at a critical juncture. The global dynamics have shifted and favor a return of job-creating companies to the U.S., particularly the Southeast. But will Mississippi’s workforce culture change with it, or will we continue pushing the misguided idea that all students need a four-year degree to succeed?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Jackson comes to Jones: Lt. Gov, Speaker visit the Free State
*First appeared in the Oct. 10, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
This week, Jones County will be visited by two of the state’s top officials: Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and Speaker of the House Philip Gunn.
By the time you read this column, Reeves will have already spoken to the Jones County Republican Women during their monthly meeting at Western Sizzlin’. Gunn, on the other hand, is scheduled to stop at Laurel’s Train Depot at 8 a.m. this morning as part of his “Mississippi Solutions: An Ideas Tour.”
I first met now-Lt. Gov. Reeves while on the campaign trail in 2003, during which time he and his affable wife Elee spent hours upon hours politicking at festivals, fish-fries, county fairs – you get the idea – to convince voters that Tate (as he introduces himself) was the best choice for treasurer. To stick with the treasurer motif, I’d say they got a pretty darn good return on their investment.
Tate was elected as the first Republican treasurer in the state’s history; just four years later, he would be re-elected with 61 percent of the vote – the highest percentage of any candidate running for statewide office. (In Jones County alone, Tate garnered more than 68%.) Mississippians got to know Tate and his work ethic, and they liked what they saw.
Today this same work ethic has translated into his becoming a legislative force as the state’s Lt. Gov., with successes under his belt including balancing the state’s budget while increasing funding for education; reducing taxpayers’ overall debt burden; implementing education reforms like school district consolidation and the creation of public charter schools; and steering passage of business-friendly tax initiatives like the practical elimination of the state’s inventory tax and the Attorney General “Sunshine Act.”
Last month, the Lt. Gov. announced he would host the Mississippi Education Symposium in Tupelo alongside former U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. William Bennett (you may recall my previous column on Dr. Bennett’s book, “Is College Worth It?”). While many reforms have been adopted, events like this make it clear that Reeves won’t rest on his educational laurels just yet.
Let’s switch to the leader of the other house – the people’s house, as they say – Speaker Philip Gunn (note: only one “L”). I first met Speaker Gunn when I ran around the Capitol trying to push the agenda of the Governor’s Office, and then-Rep. Gunn was nice enough to take my calls. Because he is, as is often said, one of the nicest guys on the Capitol grounds.
First elected to the House of Representatives in 2004, Gunn has the natural disposition of a leader. When Republicans held no leadership positions under Democrat Speaker Billy McCoy's regime, Gunn found himself at the helm of the House Republican Conference, a group which organized the Republicans for the first time in modern history.
Gunn is a devout Christian, and his faith has helped him overcome even those events that are unimaginable to most of us. When he was in college, Gunn’s parents and sister were killed by a drunk driver. But, as columnist Sid Salter once wrote, “rather than embittering him, [Gunn’s] life experiences seem to have forged a man who values family, friends and community.” I have certainly found that to be true.
Gunn has shown bipartisanship in making appointments, giving both Democrats and Republicans coveted chairmanships. Even his “Ideas Tour,” as described in an official press release, reflects this mentality: The Tour is a “non-partisan town hall style series of meetings…a forum for all Legislators, citizens and the press to attend.”
To date, Gunn’s legislative accomplishments include playing a key role in passing a child protection act, a new voter identification law, and passing a conservative budget that doesn’t raise taxes on Mississippians. In his first year as Speaker, the Legislature ended its work early, saving hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars.
Together, the Lt. Gov. and Speaker make a dynamic team, working side by side to pass conservative legislation in the best interests of Mississippians. While each man has his own unique manner of governing, we must not forget that legislative successes are shared between the two chambers. After all, in order to become law, bills must pass both the Senate under the watchful eye of Lt. Gov. Reeves and the House under the steady hand of Speaker Gunn. Jones Countians – and all Mississippians – should be proud of the work these two leaders have accomplished since assuming their leadership positions almost three years ago
This week, Jones County will be visited by two of the state’s top officials: Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and Speaker of the House Philip Gunn.
By the time you read this column, Reeves will have already spoken to the Jones County Republican Women during their monthly meeting at Western Sizzlin’. Gunn, on the other hand, is scheduled to stop at Laurel’s Train Depot at 8 a.m. this morning as part of his “Mississippi Solutions: An Ideas Tour.”
I first met now-Lt. Gov. Reeves while on the campaign trail in 2003, during which time he and his affable wife Elee spent hours upon hours politicking at festivals, fish-fries, county fairs – you get the idea – to convince voters that Tate (as he introduces himself) was the best choice for treasurer. To stick with the treasurer motif, I’d say they got a pretty darn good return on their investment.
Tate was elected as the first Republican treasurer in the state’s history; just four years later, he would be re-elected with 61 percent of the vote – the highest percentage of any candidate running for statewide office. (In Jones County alone, Tate garnered more than 68%.) Mississippians got to know Tate and his work ethic, and they liked what they saw.
Today this same work ethic has translated into his becoming a legislative force as the state’s Lt. Gov., with successes under his belt including balancing the state’s budget while increasing funding for education; reducing taxpayers’ overall debt burden; implementing education reforms like school district consolidation and the creation of public charter schools; and steering passage of business-friendly tax initiatives like the practical elimination of the state’s inventory tax and the Attorney General “Sunshine Act.”
Last month, the Lt. Gov. announced he would host the Mississippi Education Symposium in Tupelo alongside former U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. William Bennett (you may recall my previous column on Dr. Bennett’s book, “Is College Worth It?”). While many reforms have been adopted, events like this make it clear that Reeves won’t rest on his educational laurels just yet.
Let’s switch to the leader of the other house – the people’s house, as they say – Speaker Philip Gunn (note: only one “L”). I first met Speaker Gunn when I ran around the Capitol trying to push the agenda of the Governor’s Office, and then-Rep. Gunn was nice enough to take my calls. Because he is, as is often said, one of the nicest guys on the Capitol grounds.
First elected to the House of Representatives in 2004, Gunn has the natural disposition of a leader. When Republicans held no leadership positions under Democrat Speaker Billy McCoy's regime, Gunn found himself at the helm of the House Republican Conference, a group which organized the Republicans for the first time in modern history.
Gunn is a devout Christian, and his faith has helped him overcome even those events that are unimaginable to most of us. When he was in college, Gunn’s parents and sister were killed by a drunk driver. But, as columnist Sid Salter once wrote, “rather than embittering him, [Gunn’s] life experiences seem to have forged a man who values family, friends and community.” I have certainly found that to be true.
Gunn has shown bipartisanship in making appointments, giving both Democrats and Republicans coveted chairmanships. Even his “Ideas Tour,” as described in an official press release, reflects this mentality: The Tour is a “non-partisan town hall style series of meetings…a forum for all Legislators, citizens and the press to attend.”
To date, Gunn’s legislative accomplishments include playing a key role in passing a child protection act, a new voter identification law, and passing a conservative budget that doesn’t raise taxes on Mississippians. In his first year as Speaker, the Legislature ended its work early, saving hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars.
Together, the Lt. Gov. and Speaker make a dynamic team, working side by side to pass conservative legislation in the best interests of Mississippians. While each man has his own unique manner of governing, we must not forget that legislative successes are shared between the two chambers. After all, in order to become law, bills must pass both the Senate under the watchful eye of Lt. Gov. Reeves and the House under the steady hand of Speaker Gunn. Jones Countians – and all Mississippians – should be proud of the work these two leaders have accomplished since assuming their leadership positions almost three years ago
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Building the Party: E3 Vanguard works to draw minorities, women to the GOP
*First appeared in the Oct. 3, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle
There's a lot of talk about Republican in-fighting these days. From cable television to lunchtime chatter, I hear complaints (veiled as "observations") near weekly. Politicos question the validity of strategies embraced by certain Republicans. Activists, rightly agitated by the dismal state of affairs in a Democrat-led America, demand flashy demonstrations from politicians lest they be seen as "RINOs" (google that one). All the while, elected members of the Grand Ole Party try to balance on a teetering beam of staying true to Republican ideals and negotiating fair deals to govern effectively.
It isn't always pretty and can be a source of embarrassment for some Republicans. Not this one: I'm a Republican, and quite proud of it. I'm a Republican because I believe we stand for all the right things (no pun intended). There are lots of Republicans. Some I like; some I don't. Some are especially conservative while others gravitate toward the middle. But that's okay, because I think our party wouldn't be so grand if we were a homogenous sort.
Diversity is key to sustaining the Republican Party and, with it, ensuring that conservative ideas are pushed forward in future generations...which means internal disagreements should be pushed aside to focus on evangelizing to those currently outside our reach.
The folks over at E3 Vanguard are doing just that. A group of roughly 100 members, E3 Vanguard was founded last November to focus on, among other issues, growing the Republican Party by strategic outreach to the African American community. Its leadership committee includes president Nic Lott, Rita Wray, Veronica Naylor, and Lee Bush.
Their mission is to educate the electorate, particularly African Americans, by focusing on "individual responsibility, strengthening families, quality education, economic opportunity, civic duty and faith in God." These goals are aligned with the core principles of the Republican Party, which is why E3 considers serving as an outreach arm of the GOP as part of its core function.
"E3 Vanguard welcomes the opportunity to focus on minority outreach at a time when our great nation continues to grow in diversity. We recognize that Americans from all walks of life embrace the very principles and conservative values we uphold,” E3 Vanguard president Nic Lott told the Chronicle.
As Lott alludes, the group isn't solely focused on the black community but desires to expand the base of the GOP by recruiting individuals whose values and beliefs are consistent with the Party. This broader focus includes all persons of color, women, and youth.
To date, E3 Vanguard has made progress, adopting a comprehensive strategy which includes items like development of a program matching minority college students with Republican business and government leaders. I know firsthand how important internships can be in formation of political views and, ultimately, career choices.
About the group’s initial success, Lott remarked that the organization has had “a great first year.” The group’s long term mission, he says, is “informing the electorate, growing the base, and building partnerships in achieving our goals.”
So far, so good. The group’s kick-off event was keynoted by former Governor and Republican partybuilder Haley Barbour. Plans are in the works for a 2013 Fall Forum, "United We Stand," featuring speakers like Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and Speaker of the House Philip Gunn discussing issues like education, the economy, and healthcare.
E3 Vanguard enjoys a collaborative relationship with the Mississippi GOP and has met several times with Chairman Joe Nosef. While the group is in its early stages, it appears the GOP establishment has embraced E3's mission - an indication that party leaders share the goal of increasing diversity within party ranks.
Being a Republican doesn't mean having a large collection of elephants and a framed picture of Ronald Reagan. There is no requirement that you wear red, nor a mandate to listen to country music (which, by the way, is my least favorite of all the genres). What a Republican does believe, however, is in individual freedom, personal responsibility, free market economic policies, and a society that respects our God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That covers a whole lot of us, doesn't it?
There's a lot of talk about Republican in-fighting these days. From cable television to lunchtime chatter, I hear complaints (veiled as "observations") near weekly. Politicos question the validity of strategies embraced by certain Republicans. Activists, rightly agitated by the dismal state of affairs in a Democrat-led America, demand flashy demonstrations from politicians lest they be seen as "RINOs" (google that one). All the while, elected members of the Grand Ole Party try to balance on a teetering beam of staying true to Republican ideals and negotiating fair deals to govern effectively.
It isn't always pretty and can be a source of embarrassment for some Republicans. Not this one: I'm a Republican, and quite proud of it. I'm a Republican because I believe we stand for all the right things (no pun intended). There are lots of Republicans. Some I like; some I don't. Some are especially conservative while others gravitate toward the middle. But that's okay, because I think our party wouldn't be so grand if we were a homogenous sort.
Diversity is key to sustaining the Republican Party and, with it, ensuring that conservative ideas are pushed forward in future generations...which means internal disagreements should be pushed aside to focus on evangelizing to those currently outside our reach.
The folks over at E3 Vanguard are doing just that. A group of roughly 100 members, E3 Vanguard was founded last November to focus on, among other issues, growing the Republican Party by strategic outreach to the African American community. Its leadership committee includes president Nic Lott, Rita Wray, Veronica Naylor, and Lee Bush.
Their mission is to educate the electorate, particularly African Americans, by focusing on "individual responsibility, strengthening families, quality education, economic opportunity, civic duty and faith in God." These goals are aligned with the core principles of the Republican Party, which is why E3 considers serving as an outreach arm of the GOP as part of its core function.
"E3 Vanguard welcomes the opportunity to focus on minority outreach at a time when our great nation continues to grow in diversity. We recognize that Americans from all walks of life embrace the very principles and conservative values we uphold,” E3 Vanguard president Nic Lott told the Chronicle.
As Lott alludes, the group isn't solely focused on the black community but desires to expand the base of the GOP by recruiting individuals whose values and beliefs are consistent with the Party. This broader focus includes all persons of color, women, and youth.
To date, E3 Vanguard has made progress, adopting a comprehensive strategy which includes items like development of a program matching minority college students with Republican business and government leaders. I know firsthand how important internships can be in formation of political views and, ultimately, career choices.
About the group’s initial success, Lott remarked that the organization has had “a great first year.” The group’s long term mission, he says, is “informing the electorate, growing the base, and building partnerships in achieving our goals.”
So far, so good. The group’s kick-off event was keynoted by former Governor and Republican partybuilder Haley Barbour. Plans are in the works for a 2013 Fall Forum, "United We Stand," featuring speakers like Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and Speaker of the House Philip Gunn discussing issues like education, the economy, and healthcare.
E3 Vanguard enjoys a collaborative relationship with the Mississippi GOP and has met several times with Chairman Joe Nosef. While the group is in its early stages, it appears the GOP establishment has embraced E3's mission - an indication that party leaders share the goal of increasing diversity within party ranks.
Being a Republican doesn't mean having a large collection of elephants and a framed picture of Ronald Reagan. There is no requirement that you wear red, nor a mandate to listen to country music (which, by the way, is my least favorite of all the genres). What a Republican does believe, however, is in individual freedom, personal responsibility, free market economic policies, and a society that respects our God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That covers a whole lot of us, doesn't it?
Thursday, September 26, 2013
News delivery: Times, they are a-changin’
*First appeared in the Sept. 26, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
When I first sat down to pen this column, I admit that I was undecided as to the topic of this week’s piece. Looking to the news for a little inspiration, I began my casual contemplation with a mental overview of the week’s current events, which led to me flipping on the television to watch Sen. Ted Cruz’s filibuster.
Responding to a ping on my iPhone, I noticed a fellow politico had mentioned me in a tweet about the filibuster…so naturally I started scrolling through my Twitter feed (for those of you not on Twitter, your “feed” is basically the home page that shows all the activity of the people you “follow”). According to this social media outlet, there was – er, is? – a lot going on in Mississippi and the nation.
Sen. Cruz was giving an impassioned filibuster speech, which some on Twitter referred to as a “fauxlibuster” due to a procedural technicality. Delta-born Jim Henson, best known for his creation of The Muppets, would have celebrated his 77th birthday. The Book of Manning premiered on ESPN and was, according to my feed, a moving documentary about Mississippi’s First Family of Football. Election results were coming in for the supervisors’ races in Hinds County, and, perhaps more importantly, for the special election held in Hattiesburg to elect a new mayor. (At the time of this writing, absentee votes were still being counted and no new mayor of the Hub City has yet been declared.)
After only a few minutes of perusing my Twitter feed, it hit me: Technology has drastically changed the landscape of news delivery and, along with it, the way candidates and campaigns communicate with constituents.
I love Twitter and consider it my number one news source. In a matter of minutes, I am able to scroll through my feed and instantly get a sense of what’s going on in the global marketplace, the national political scene, and the neighborhood next to mine.
Facebook and Instagram provide similar opportunities, though I often think of these sites as more social-based than news-based. But that’s the beauty of social networks – each user gets to customize his or her experience.
Since “all politics is local,” campaigns and candidates have seized opportunities to connect with constituents at a more localized level. Political groups continue to focus on newspapers, radio, and television, but recognize the changing landscape of news delivery. If you can’t articulate a message in 140 characters or less, then you’re probably out of luck in the political communications realm.
Last night, Sen. Cruz read tweets from people across the nation who were following the filibuster and using the hashtag “MakeDCListen.” The Twitter platform allowed thousands of Americans who were, I assume, previously unconnected join together in opposition to Obamacare by tweeting. The power of social networks cannot be underestimated.
Obama for America (OFA) is often heralded as the first campaign to truly utilize the various social media platforms for mobilizing campaign efforts: volunteers, get-out-the-vote (GOTV), and messaging. Subsequently, there is an increasing awareness of the need to incorporate social media into marketing strategies, regardless of political leanings.
According to a 2013 Pew Center study, nearly 72 percent of online U.S. adults use social networking sites, a huge increase over the same study in 2005 that showed just 8 percent of adults used these sites. A stand-alone question about Twitter found that 18 percent of online adults are now Twitter users, roughly double the amount of online adults who said they used Twitter in 2010.
And if you assume that all social networkers are young people, consider that six out of ten internet users ages 50-64 participate in social networks, as do 43 percent of those older than 65.
(Of course, the young generation has the largest social media presence, at 89 percent of 18-29 year-olds active online.)
Social networking coupled with the emergence of 24-hour cable news channels means that even a small gaffe by a candidate or official can become a huge political liability. In a political environment driven by breaking news on Twitter and shrill cries from talking heads, rationality can often times go out the window.
The rise of social media as a political messaging tool can be a two-edged sword: It can effectively mobilize supporters, but can also lead to overreactions and the cheapening of political honesty.
For what it’s worth, I think social networks like Twitter provide citizens like me with access to information that, in other eras, would have been nearly impossible or simply too time consuming to find. To borrow a quote from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, technologies like his site and others have “revolutionized how people spread and consume information. We often talk about inventions like the printing press and the television – by simply making communication more efficient, they led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society. They gave more people a voice.”
In this era of boundless information, I can’t help but recall a throwback Dylan tune: “The order is rapidly fadin’, and the first now will later be last, oh the times, they are a-changin’.”
When I first sat down to pen this column, I admit that I was undecided as to the topic of this week’s piece. Looking to the news for a little inspiration, I began my casual contemplation with a mental overview of the week’s current events, which led to me flipping on the television to watch Sen. Ted Cruz’s filibuster.
Responding to a ping on my iPhone, I noticed a fellow politico had mentioned me in a tweet about the filibuster…so naturally I started scrolling through my Twitter feed (for those of you not on Twitter, your “feed” is basically the home page that shows all the activity of the people you “follow”). According to this social media outlet, there was – er, is? – a lot going on in Mississippi and the nation.
Sen. Cruz was giving an impassioned filibuster speech, which some on Twitter referred to as a “fauxlibuster” due to a procedural technicality. Delta-born Jim Henson, best known for his creation of The Muppets, would have celebrated his 77th birthday. The Book of Manning premiered on ESPN and was, according to my feed, a moving documentary about Mississippi’s First Family of Football. Election results were coming in for the supervisors’ races in Hinds County, and, perhaps more importantly, for the special election held in Hattiesburg to elect a new mayor. (At the time of this writing, absentee votes were still being counted and no new mayor of the Hub City has yet been declared.)
After only a few minutes of perusing my Twitter feed, it hit me: Technology has drastically changed the landscape of news delivery and, along with it, the way candidates and campaigns communicate with constituents.
I love Twitter and consider it my number one news source. In a matter of minutes, I am able to scroll through my feed and instantly get a sense of what’s going on in the global marketplace, the national political scene, and the neighborhood next to mine.
Facebook and Instagram provide similar opportunities, though I often think of these sites as more social-based than news-based. But that’s the beauty of social networks – each user gets to customize his or her experience.
Since “all politics is local,” campaigns and candidates have seized opportunities to connect with constituents at a more localized level. Political groups continue to focus on newspapers, radio, and television, but recognize the changing landscape of news delivery. If you can’t articulate a message in 140 characters or less, then you’re probably out of luck in the political communications realm.
Last night, Sen. Cruz read tweets from people across the nation who were following the filibuster and using the hashtag “MakeDCListen.” The Twitter platform allowed thousands of Americans who were, I assume, previously unconnected join together in opposition to Obamacare by tweeting. The power of social networks cannot be underestimated.
Obama for America (OFA) is often heralded as the first campaign to truly utilize the various social media platforms for mobilizing campaign efforts: volunteers, get-out-the-vote (GOTV), and messaging. Subsequently, there is an increasing awareness of the need to incorporate social media into marketing strategies, regardless of political leanings.
According to a 2013 Pew Center study, nearly 72 percent of online U.S. adults use social networking sites, a huge increase over the same study in 2005 that showed just 8 percent of adults used these sites. A stand-alone question about Twitter found that 18 percent of online adults are now Twitter users, roughly double the amount of online adults who said they used Twitter in 2010.
And if you assume that all social networkers are young people, consider that six out of ten internet users ages 50-64 participate in social networks, as do 43 percent of those older than 65.
(Of course, the young generation has the largest social media presence, at 89 percent of 18-29 year-olds active online.)
Social networking coupled with the emergence of 24-hour cable news channels means that even a small gaffe by a candidate or official can become a huge political liability. In a political environment driven by breaking news on Twitter and shrill cries from talking heads, rationality can often times go out the window.
The rise of social media as a political messaging tool can be a two-edged sword: It can effectively mobilize supporters, but can also lead to overreactions and the cheapening of political honesty.
For what it’s worth, I think social networks like Twitter provide citizens like me with access to information that, in other eras, would have been nearly impossible or simply too time consuming to find. To borrow a quote from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, technologies like his site and others have “revolutionized how people spread and consume information. We often talk about inventions like the printing press and the television – by simply making communication more efficient, they led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society. They gave more people a voice.”
In this era of boundless information, I can’t help but recall a throwback Dylan tune: “The order is rapidly fadin’, and the first now will later be last, oh the times, they are a-changin’.”
Thursday, September 19, 2013
More money for education should require less money for administration
*First appeared in the September 19, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
Legislative budget hearings are nearly complete. By the time you read this column, legislators will have already endured hours of hearings in which agencies ask for more of your tax dollars to pay for things like increased salaries and wireless radios.
Nonetheless, the biggest slice of the state's budgetary pie will go to education, specifically K-12. Within education, the largest line-item is the Mississippi Adequate Education Program, known by most as "MAEP." Around the State Capitol, MAEP has become something of a four-letter word (see what I did there?).
When the MAEP was adopted, it was heralded as a magic formula that would, based on district measures like student population and free or reduced lunches, spit out the amount of money needed to "adequately" fund schools. So then, what's the problem?
Some say the formula is bogus and should be revamped. Others note the Legislature rarely funds MAEP at its required amount. Some say we must ensure the accuracy of the data that's being used as part of the calculation, and yet another school of thought insists we keep the formula but recalculate it on a more regular basis.
On the MAEP spectrum, I think I fall into the category labeled "yes."
Yes, let's look at the formula and make changes if necessary. But let's not forget that study of education funding should run simultaneous to study of educational efficiencies. After all, the money we can save through efficiencies is money we can steer back to the classroom.
Recognizing the serious budget pressures faced by school districts, the Legislature has already taken steps to reduce administrative costs. Under the leadership of Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and Senate Education Chairman Gray Tollison, Clay County and West Point school districts were merged to achieve efficiency without reducing educational quality.
Clay County, a K-6 school that had its own school district and superintendent, spent $16,795.38 per student in 2011-2012 - the highest in the state. Its consolidation with West Point along with the other six administrative consolidations implemented by this Legislature will save taxpayers millions of dollars that can be re-directed to the classroom.
Mississippi ranks ninth per capita on administrative costs, which means we must do even more to reduce spending. An aggressive shared services strategy focused on areas like transportation, purchasing, and technology could result in dramatic savings.
A Deloitte study looked more comprehensively at the issue, finding that shifting a quarter of the nation's school district tax dollars spent on non-instructional operations to shared services would save up to $9 billion. That's significantly larger than Mississippi's general fund budget and the equivalent of 900 new schools or more than 150,000 new school teachers.
The report notes a Canadian example where two school boards shared bus transportation across district lines, saving $8 million in three years. New Jersey's Middlesex County municipalities have saved five percent on electricity for public buildings through aggregate natural gas purchases.
In Pennsylvania, two school districts entered into an agreement to share the services of a food service director. After the first year, the program netted a profit of $100,000 compared to the previous year which had a combined $20,000 loss. The combined volume had increased the districts' purchasing power, thus reducing food costs.
I took great interest in the report's note about the California Charter Schools Association, which created a Joint Powers Authority to save members money on mandatory costs, such as worker's compensation insurance. The typical charter school over $20,000 per year on this expenditure.
In addition, the CCSA created "CharterBuy" - a program that taps into charter schools' collective buying power to provide them with the best deals on supplies and equipment. The CharterBuy program has saved as much as 50 percent on expected costs in these areas.
Shared services isn't a new concept and has been embraced across the country by both the private and public sectors. With a top ten listing in administrative costs, Mississippi can't afford to focus on increasing education spending without an equally serious focus on reducing money spent outside the classroom.
Legislative budget hearings are nearly complete. By the time you read this column, legislators will have already endured hours of hearings in which agencies ask for more of your tax dollars to pay for things like increased salaries and wireless radios.
Nonetheless, the biggest slice of the state's budgetary pie will go to education, specifically K-12. Within education, the largest line-item is the Mississippi Adequate Education Program, known by most as "MAEP." Around the State Capitol, MAEP has become something of a four-letter word (see what I did there?).
When the MAEP was adopted, it was heralded as a magic formula that would, based on district measures like student population and free or reduced lunches, spit out the amount of money needed to "adequately" fund schools. So then, what's the problem?
Some say the formula is bogus and should be revamped. Others note the Legislature rarely funds MAEP at its required amount. Some say we must ensure the accuracy of the data that's being used as part of the calculation, and yet another school of thought insists we keep the formula but recalculate it on a more regular basis.
On the MAEP spectrum, I think I fall into the category labeled "yes."
Yes, let's look at the formula and make changes if necessary. But let's not forget that study of education funding should run simultaneous to study of educational efficiencies. After all, the money we can save through efficiencies is money we can steer back to the classroom.
Recognizing the serious budget pressures faced by school districts, the Legislature has already taken steps to reduce administrative costs. Under the leadership of Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and Senate Education Chairman Gray Tollison, Clay County and West Point school districts were merged to achieve efficiency without reducing educational quality.
Clay County, a K-6 school that had its own school district and superintendent, spent $16,795.38 per student in 2011-2012 - the highest in the state. Its consolidation with West Point along with the other six administrative consolidations implemented by this Legislature will save taxpayers millions of dollars that can be re-directed to the classroom.
Mississippi ranks ninth per capita on administrative costs, which means we must do even more to reduce spending. An aggressive shared services strategy focused on areas like transportation, purchasing, and technology could result in dramatic savings.
A Deloitte study looked more comprehensively at the issue, finding that shifting a quarter of the nation's school district tax dollars spent on non-instructional operations to shared services would save up to $9 billion. That's significantly larger than Mississippi's general fund budget and the equivalent of 900 new schools or more than 150,000 new school teachers.
The report notes a Canadian example where two school boards shared bus transportation across district lines, saving $8 million in three years. New Jersey's Middlesex County municipalities have saved five percent on electricity for public buildings through aggregate natural gas purchases.
In Pennsylvania, two school districts entered into an agreement to share the services of a food service director. After the first year, the program netted a profit of $100,000 compared to the previous year which had a combined $20,000 loss. The combined volume had increased the districts' purchasing power, thus reducing food costs.
I took great interest in the report's note about the California Charter Schools Association, which created a Joint Powers Authority to save members money on mandatory costs, such as worker's compensation insurance. The typical charter school over $20,000 per year on this expenditure.
In addition, the CCSA created "CharterBuy" - a program that taps into charter schools' collective buying power to provide them with the best deals on supplies and equipment. The CharterBuy program has saved as much as 50 percent on expected costs in these areas.
Shared services isn't a new concept and has been embraced across the country by both the private and public sectors. With a top ten listing in administrative costs, Mississippi can't afford to focus on increasing education spending without an equally serious focus on reducing money spent outside the classroom.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Budget hearings give glimpse of priorities, challenges faced by Legislature
*First appeared in the Sept. 12, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
It's almost that time again. You know, the thing that only comes once a year. I'm not talking about Christmas; I'm talking about legislative budget hearings.
Starting Monday of next week, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee - known as the JLBC - will meet with select state agencies and commissions to hear about their needs, wants, and everything in-between…as long as it relates to money, of course.
And frankly, what doesn’t cost money these days?
Budget hearings may not sound very exciting. The truth is, they’re not. Agency presentations are focused on current spending, projected expenses, and specific budgetary line-items. Not exactly riveting material. But the staff of the Legislative Budget Office (LBO, pronounced “elbow”); lobbyists; researchers; journalists; and just plain old budget hacks like me lap this stuff up.
Hearings start off with an aggressive schedule: First, as usual, there will be an update from the State Personnel Board's executive director who will give lawmakers a briefing on state government employee trends, including demographic breakdowns and salary information.
Following this presentation, members of the JLBC will hear from multiple agencies, including five of which are headed by statewide elected officials (Depts. of Agriculture and Commerce; Treasury; Secretary of State; Attorney General; and Insurance Commission). In times past, these presentations had the potential to get a little testy, as statewide elected officials are not only agency managers but subject to the whims of Mississippi's electorate.
I expect the usual suspects to garner the most attention during these hearings. Major budgets like the Dept. of Education, Institutions of Higher Learning (the agency representing universities), State Community College Board, and Medicaid typically receive the most scrutiny. Together, these agencies account for roughly 70 percent of the state’s general fund budget.
As with every budget hearing cycle, however, other “budgets du jour” exist. For example, the State Dept. of Transportation has the potential to get tense, given the recent calls for increased gasoline taxes and subsequent calls for increased accountability of MDOT spending. It will be interesting to see how much more taxpayer funding, if any, the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) is asking lawmakers to put into the pension plan. Another budget to watch is the Wireless Communication Commission, which was mandated by the Legislature to develop a long-term funding strategy.
Almost as a prelude to budget hearings, the Washington Post’s “GovBeat” blog this week featured a story on Mississippi’s Department of Revenue collecting a significant amount of back taxes – turning an extra $3.5 million appropriation from the Legislature into $80 million.
“By virtually any standard, a nearly 23-fold return on an investment in a year is really good. It’s so good, in fact, that it’s almost unbelievable. But in Mississippi that’s exactly what legislators got” when they gave DOR an extra $3.5 million to hire auditors and collection agents to target the state’s tax gap.
Of course, the increased revenue is attributable to more than additional manpower, but the new boots on the ground certainly helped those taxes find their way back to the state’s bank account.
Speaking of more money than we thought, I should remind you that Mississippi’s most recently completed fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2013) brought in millions more revenue than legislators expected. The current fiscal year which began in July (Fiscal Year 2014) is exceeding financial expectations, though it’s too early to tell if higher collections will continue.
As I’ve written before, higher-than-expected revenue is both a blessing (more money to spend on priorities) and a curse (more pressure to fund agencies and special interest projects) for state lawmakers.
While it’s unclear how legislative leaders will appropriate these extra dollars, one thing is certain: State agencies, lobbyists, special interest groups, and other capitol players will know just how much extra money there is to be spent, and they won’t take their eyes off the monetary prize (which kind of reminds you of that commercial featuring the eyes on the stack of dollars, right?).
The budget hearings only come once a year and officially mark the beginning of the new budget season. They truly are like Christmas to Mississippi’s budget nerds. Merry Hearings, y’all!
NOTE: For a full schedule of the budget hearings, visit www.lbo.ms.gov.
It's almost that time again. You know, the thing that only comes once a year. I'm not talking about Christmas; I'm talking about legislative budget hearings.
Starting Monday of next week, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee - known as the JLBC - will meet with select state agencies and commissions to hear about their needs, wants, and everything in-between…as long as it relates to money, of course.
And frankly, what doesn’t cost money these days?
Budget hearings may not sound very exciting. The truth is, they’re not. Agency presentations are focused on current spending, projected expenses, and specific budgetary line-items. Not exactly riveting material. But the staff of the Legislative Budget Office (LBO, pronounced “elbow”); lobbyists; researchers; journalists; and just plain old budget hacks like me lap this stuff up.
Hearings start off with an aggressive schedule: First, as usual, there will be an update from the State Personnel Board's executive director who will give lawmakers a briefing on state government employee trends, including demographic breakdowns and salary information.
Following this presentation, members of the JLBC will hear from multiple agencies, including five of which are headed by statewide elected officials (Depts. of Agriculture and Commerce; Treasury; Secretary of State; Attorney General; and Insurance Commission). In times past, these presentations had the potential to get a little testy, as statewide elected officials are not only agency managers but subject to the whims of Mississippi's electorate.
I expect the usual suspects to garner the most attention during these hearings. Major budgets like the Dept. of Education, Institutions of Higher Learning (the agency representing universities), State Community College Board, and Medicaid typically receive the most scrutiny. Together, these agencies account for roughly 70 percent of the state’s general fund budget.
As with every budget hearing cycle, however, other “budgets du jour” exist. For example, the State Dept. of Transportation has the potential to get tense, given the recent calls for increased gasoline taxes and subsequent calls for increased accountability of MDOT spending. It will be interesting to see how much more taxpayer funding, if any, the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) is asking lawmakers to put into the pension plan. Another budget to watch is the Wireless Communication Commission, which was mandated by the Legislature to develop a long-term funding strategy.
Almost as a prelude to budget hearings, the Washington Post’s “GovBeat” blog this week featured a story on Mississippi’s Department of Revenue collecting a significant amount of back taxes – turning an extra $3.5 million appropriation from the Legislature into $80 million.
“By virtually any standard, a nearly 23-fold return on an investment in a year is really good. It’s so good, in fact, that it’s almost unbelievable. But in Mississippi that’s exactly what legislators got” when they gave DOR an extra $3.5 million to hire auditors and collection agents to target the state’s tax gap.
Of course, the increased revenue is attributable to more than additional manpower, but the new boots on the ground certainly helped those taxes find their way back to the state’s bank account.
Speaking of more money than we thought, I should remind you that Mississippi’s most recently completed fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2013) brought in millions more revenue than legislators expected. The current fiscal year which began in July (Fiscal Year 2014) is exceeding financial expectations, though it’s too early to tell if higher collections will continue.
As I’ve written before, higher-than-expected revenue is both a blessing (more money to spend on priorities) and a curse (more pressure to fund agencies and special interest projects) for state lawmakers.
While it’s unclear how legislative leaders will appropriate these extra dollars, one thing is certain: State agencies, lobbyists, special interest groups, and other capitol players will know just how much extra money there is to be spent, and they won’t take their eyes off the monetary prize (which kind of reminds you of that commercial featuring the eyes on the stack of dollars, right?).
The budget hearings only come once a year and officially mark the beginning of the new budget season. They truly are like Christmas to Mississippi’s budget nerds. Merry Hearings, y’all!
NOTE: For a full schedule of the budget hearings, visit www.lbo.ms.gov.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
America: Is the world’s policeman on furlough?
*First appeared in the September 5, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
Lately, it seems that everyone has become a foreign policy expert. We all have strong opinions on Syria; we pretend to understand the geographic, religious, governmental, ethnic, and other complexities of Middle Eastern turmoil; we attempt to possess a strong handle on military strategy.
I'm just as guilty as the pretenders, as I have chosen to write a column on this very subject. However, rather than take a side, I'd like to look at the larger question that has plagued more than one President: What is America's role in the world?
Does the United States - the world's remaining "superpower" - have a responsibility to serve as the world's policeman? Or, should we temper our military efforts, engaging only in those conflicts which have a direct relationship to our economic, military, or other national interests?
President Obama is on a mission to answer this question - well, sort of. He believes that chemical weapons (sarin, specifically) were used by the Assad-led regime against the Syrian rebels. He has previously said chemical warfare was his "red line" that, once crossed, would guarantee American involvement in the Middle Eastern conflict. Now our Commander-In-Chief says that Congress must give him approval to act before he will direct any military action in Syria.
To be honest, the President hasn’t been especially decisive on the issue. His actions don’t reflect his words. In a joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, the President reiterated his belief that America must act, saying that failure to respond to the use of chemical weapons puts “America and Congress’s credibility on the line.” President Obama said our sincerity was at risk particularly because America gives "lip service" to the notion that international norms - such as the ban of chemical warfare - are important.
Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt agreed that "in the face of such barbarism, the international community cannot be silent" and that despite the hesitance of other countries, the United States has a larger responsibility to the world.
So, Americans are perceived to have a larger responsibility than others to act, according to both our President and the Swedish Prime Minister. But is this perception reality?
The President says we must act; that we have a great responsibility to act...yet he has stalled military action by seeking congressional approval – an unusual precedent set by the chief executive. For an executive to cede power back to Congress in this manner gives the appearance of weakness.
It reminds me of former President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy mantra, "peace through strength." The popular President who was successful in ending the Cold War said this about peacekeeping: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations."
Instead of embracing peace through strength, President Obama has been indecisive, sending mixed messages to our friends and our enemies both at home and abroad.
Further, President Obama drew the Biblical line in the sand at the use of chemical warfare yet, to date, no action has been taken. This has not only portrayed our leader as wavering and our nation as militarily tepid, but has also shown the world that its default global policeman is on furlough under the current administration.
Even our citizens are weary of our inherited role as peacekeeper, with nearly 59 percent opposing Syrian involvement according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll.
Does this indicate a change in attitudes, or is it simply a result of a war-fatigued nation? Will it be permanent, or will America regain its status as international law enforcer in future years?
Only time will tell how the current Syrian crisis plays out and how the United States will deal with this and future conflicts. While our nation may be moving away from its role as the world's policeman, I think it's important for our citizens and our leaders to remember America's unique role in global conflicts.
We are the beacon of hope; the protectorate of what is just and fair; we fight the good fight...or at least that is our global perception. But void of strength and absent a unified vision, we will be unable to maintain the respect, fear, and strategic allegiances that accompany the global policeman.
Remember former President Teddy Roosevelt's big stick policy - that is, "speak softly and carry a big stick." America can only afford to speak softly if we've got the big stick to defend ourselves – and are willing to use it. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether this President is willing to take that action.
Lately, it seems that everyone has become a foreign policy expert. We all have strong opinions on Syria; we pretend to understand the geographic, religious, governmental, ethnic, and other complexities of Middle Eastern turmoil; we attempt to possess a strong handle on military strategy.
I'm just as guilty as the pretenders, as I have chosen to write a column on this very subject. However, rather than take a side, I'd like to look at the larger question that has plagued more than one President: What is America's role in the world?
Does the United States - the world's remaining "superpower" - have a responsibility to serve as the world's policeman? Or, should we temper our military efforts, engaging only in those conflicts which have a direct relationship to our economic, military, or other national interests?
President Obama is on a mission to answer this question - well, sort of. He believes that chemical weapons (sarin, specifically) were used by the Assad-led regime against the Syrian rebels. He has previously said chemical warfare was his "red line" that, once crossed, would guarantee American involvement in the Middle Eastern conflict. Now our Commander-In-Chief says that Congress must give him approval to act before he will direct any military action in Syria.
To be honest, the President hasn’t been especially decisive on the issue. His actions don’t reflect his words. In a joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, the President reiterated his belief that America must act, saying that failure to respond to the use of chemical weapons puts “America and Congress’s credibility on the line.” President Obama said our sincerity was at risk particularly because America gives "lip service" to the notion that international norms - such as the ban of chemical warfare - are important.
Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt agreed that "in the face of such barbarism, the international community cannot be silent" and that despite the hesitance of other countries, the United States has a larger responsibility to the world.
So, Americans are perceived to have a larger responsibility than others to act, according to both our President and the Swedish Prime Minister. But is this perception reality?
The President says we must act; that we have a great responsibility to act...yet he has stalled military action by seeking congressional approval – an unusual precedent set by the chief executive. For an executive to cede power back to Congress in this manner gives the appearance of weakness.
It reminds me of former President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy mantra, "peace through strength." The popular President who was successful in ending the Cold War said this about peacekeeping: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations."
Instead of embracing peace through strength, President Obama has been indecisive, sending mixed messages to our friends and our enemies both at home and abroad.
Further, President Obama drew the Biblical line in the sand at the use of chemical warfare yet, to date, no action has been taken. This has not only portrayed our leader as wavering and our nation as militarily tepid, but has also shown the world that its default global policeman is on furlough under the current administration.
Even our citizens are weary of our inherited role as peacekeeper, with nearly 59 percent opposing Syrian involvement according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll.
Does this indicate a change in attitudes, or is it simply a result of a war-fatigued nation? Will it be permanent, or will America regain its status as international law enforcer in future years?
Only time will tell how the current Syrian crisis plays out and how the United States will deal with this and future conflicts. While our nation may be moving away from its role as the world's policeman, I think it's important for our citizens and our leaders to remember America's unique role in global conflicts.
We are the beacon of hope; the protectorate of what is just and fair; we fight the good fight...or at least that is our global perception. But void of strength and absent a unified vision, we will be unable to maintain the respect, fear, and strategic allegiances that accompany the global policeman.
Remember former President Teddy Roosevelt's big stick policy - that is, "speak softly and carry a big stick." America can only afford to speak softly if we've got the big stick to defend ourselves – and are willing to use it. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether this President is willing to take that action.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Miss. has much to be proud of on anniversary of civil rights speech, Hurricane Katrina
*First appeared in the August 29, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle
As I considered the subject matter for this week’s column, a couple of things struck me as particularly relevant. Fifty years ago this week, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech to a crowd of some 200,000 demonstrators in Washington, D.C. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
I also realized that Mississippi has another anniversary August 29, the date on which Hurricane Katrina wreaked “utter devastation” on the Mississippi Gulf Coast eight years ago. Like so many Mississippians, I remember Katrina - and the mind-numbing aftermath - like it was yesterday.
As my mind wandered, I began to find parallels between the two anniversaries.
In August 1963, our nation was in the midst of a freedom movement to make good on Rev. King's “promissory note,” that proverbial check from the United States to citizens of all races for justice and equality. The speech was especially relevant to Mississippi, which was at that time under the leadership of an outspoken segregationist governor (Gov. Ross Barnett).
As a friend of mine noted, we tend to vaguely recall the “I have a dream” portion of the speech but overlook (or simply don’t know) that in his remarks, Rev. King cited our beloved state - the one with two humpbacks and twice as many crooked letters - as a hotbed of racial injustice...and opportunity.
“I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice,” declared an authoritative Rev. King in his historic remarks.
What Rev. King - the man whose being is synonymous with the civil rights movement - saw in Mississippi was a place where hatred existed, but so did a great opportunity for healing.
Rev. King’s remarks were not “an end, but a beginning” of a sea change in public policy and opinion. His comments, coupled with the courage of others who fought for civil rights in the years prior, changed hearts and minds…though not immediately. A year after the speech, three civil rights workers (James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner) were slain in Neshoba County. Countless others were beaten, threatened, and even killed on their journey for justice. Yet progress prevailed at its slow, steady pace.
A 1963 Mississippi is not reflective of a 2013 Mississippi, a state which will celebrate the groundbreaking of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum in late October; a state which welcomed Freedom Riders in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of their equality rides with events across the state and a formal apology from former Gov. Haley Barbour; a state which has the highest number of African-American elected officials in the nation. We are a state shaped by our past, but not defined by it.
And so it is on this eighth anniversary of Katrina that Mississippians of all races have again shown the world we are not defined by circumstances. Hurricane Katrina devastated homes and families; it destroyed infrastructure and fundamentally changed life as we knew it, particularly along our Gulf Coast. It did not, however, weaken the resolve of our people.
This mega-storm – the largest natural disaster in American history – struck Mississippi, a state rife with poverty and a shameful history of racism. Some thought that of all the states, we were the least prepared to handle such a disaster.
But like Rev. King’s speech, Katrina cast a spotlight on Mississippi. And, like fifty years ago, we had a choice: We could live up to their low expectations or seize this opportunity to change the way the world viewed the Hospitality State.
Mississippians banded together and made our choice. Blacks and whites, rich and poor, rural and suburban; none of these things mattered. Neighbors helped neighbors, regardless of race or economic status. Hospitality was extended between families whose antecedents fifty years ago might have refused to share restrooms. Our shared history made us a strong people – strong enough to recover from the devastating impacts of Katrina.
One could argue that our shared struggles uniquely prepared us to deal with Hurricane Katrina, in that we as a state are accustomed to overcoming seemingly impossible odds. The storm that fundamentally changed Mississippi, fundamentally changed the way the world views us…in the same way our progress in race relations has changed the way we view ourselves.
William Faulkner’s often quoted as saying “to understand the world, you must first understand a place like Mississippi.” Rev. King understood Mississippi as a place of great trouble but of equally great opportunity, and he was right. Today, I couldn’t be prouder that the state I call home has, in the face of great adversity, seized opportunities to create a place where we have come to realize that our destiny is tied up with others; that our freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of others; and that, as the Rev. King said, “we cannot walk alone.”
As I considered the subject matter for this week’s column, a couple of things struck me as particularly relevant. Fifty years ago this week, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech to a crowd of some 200,000 demonstrators in Washington, D.C. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
I also realized that Mississippi has another anniversary August 29, the date on which Hurricane Katrina wreaked “utter devastation” on the Mississippi Gulf Coast eight years ago. Like so many Mississippians, I remember Katrina - and the mind-numbing aftermath - like it was yesterday.
As my mind wandered, I began to find parallels between the two anniversaries.
In August 1963, our nation was in the midst of a freedom movement to make good on Rev. King's “promissory note,” that proverbial check from the United States to citizens of all races for justice and equality. The speech was especially relevant to Mississippi, which was at that time under the leadership of an outspoken segregationist governor (Gov. Ross Barnett).
As a friend of mine noted, we tend to vaguely recall the “I have a dream” portion of the speech but overlook (or simply don’t know) that in his remarks, Rev. King cited our beloved state - the one with two humpbacks and twice as many crooked letters - as a hotbed of racial injustice...and opportunity.
“I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice,” declared an authoritative Rev. King in his historic remarks.
What Rev. King - the man whose being is synonymous with the civil rights movement - saw in Mississippi was a place where hatred existed, but so did a great opportunity for healing.
Rev. King’s remarks were not “an end, but a beginning” of a sea change in public policy and opinion. His comments, coupled with the courage of others who fought for civil rights in the years prior, changed hearts and minds…though not immediately. A year after the speech, three civil rights workers (James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner) were slain in Neshoba County. Countless others were beaten, threatened, and even killed on their journey for justice. Yet progress prevailed at its slow, steady pace.
A 1963 Mississippi is not reflective of a 2013 Mississippi, a state which will celebrate the groundbreaking of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum in late October; a state which welcomed Freedom Riders in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of their equality rides with events across the state and a formal apology from former Gov. Haley Barbour; a state which has the highest number of African-American elected officials in the nation. We are a state shaped by our past, but not defined by it.
And so it is on this eighth anniversary of Katrina that Mississippians of all races have again shown the world we are not defined by circumstances. Hurricane Katrina devastated homes and families; it destroyed infrastructure and fundamentally changed life as we knew it, particularly along our Gulf Coast. It did not, however, weaken the resolve of our people.
This mega-storm – the largest natural disaster in American history – struck Mississippi, a state rife with poverty and a shameful history of racism. Some thought that of all the states, we were the least prepared to handle such a disaster.
But like Rev. King’s speech, Katrina cast a spotlight on Mississippi. And, like fifty years ago, we had a choice: We could live up to their low expectations or seize this opportunity to change the way the world viewed the Hospitality State.
Mississippians banded together and made our choice. Blacks and whites, rich and poor, rural and suburban; none of these things mattered. Neighbors helped neighbors, regardless of race or economic status. Hospitality was extended between families whose antecedents fifty years ago might have refused to share restrooms. Our shared history made us a strong people – strong enough to recover from the devastating impacts of Katrina.
One could argue that our shared struggles uniquely prepared us to deal with Hurricane Katrina, in that we as a state are accustomed to overcoming seemingly impossible odds. The storm that fundamentally changed Mississippi, fundamentally changed the way the world views us…in the same way our progress in race relations has changed the way we view ourselves.
William Faulkner’s often quoted as saying “to understand the world, you must first understand a place like Mississippi.” Rev. King understood Mississippi as a place of great trouble but of equally great opportunity, and he was right. Today, I couldn’t be prouder that the state I call home has, in the face of great adversity, seized opportunities to create a place where we have come to realize that our destiny is tied up with others; that our freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of others; and that, as the Rev. King said, “we cannot walk alone.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)