*First appeared in the August 8, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
A few weeks ago, I set out on a mission to Jackson’s rare and used bookstore (for reference, google “Choctaw Books”) to find something truly unique. While I found something pretty special, I don’t know that I’d call it “unique.”
My purchase was the Report on a Survey of the Organization and Administration of State and County Government in Mississippi, a nearly 1,000-page bound report conducted by the Brookings Institution way back in 1932. (You may recognize this name, as Brookings was the first private organization devoted to the fact-based study of national public policy issues. Today, the organization is heralded as one of the foremost advocates for effective and efficient public service and government operations.)
In the early 30s, the Mississippi Legislature created a citizen-led Research Commission (which included Laurel-native Wallace B. Rogers) to conduct “expert investigation into, and study and analysis of all conditions of the state.” In turn, the Research Commission asked the Brookings Institution to study the state’s processes and make recommendations on reform.
I was reminded of all this last week when I read an editorial calling for state government to increase accountability, efficiency, and transparency. It’s a novel idea, but certainly not a new - nor a unique - one.
The editorial gave a few examples of areas that need reform, including the more than 200 agencies, boards, and commissions that are part of Mississippi's government largesse. Similarly, Brookings opined in 1932 that one of the chief defects in Mississippi's structure was the “scattering of related functions among many offices due to the creation of numerous independent boards and departments with little references to previously established offices...Mississippi finds itself possessed of a large number of more or less independent and uncorrelated agencies.”
Instead of consolidating boards and commissions, as Brookings recommended, eight decades later we’ve seen our boards and commissions grow by 150 percent than at the time the Brookings report was published.
Other recommendations from the 1932 report include converting elected positions, such as State Treasurer and Highway Commissioners, to gubernatorially-appointed positions requiring consent of the Senate.
Another novel, yet historically doomed, idea. Candidates, legislators, and lobbyists have been resistant to this concept.
Mississippians are used to voting on, well, everything. We may not know what the Treasurer does, but we sure as heck want to cast our vote for him or her. It gives us the feeling that "we're in control" but also drives up government costs. For example, our highway system is governed by three commissioners elected from their respective districts. This process can result in fragmented oversight and an apparent lack of accountability (which is likely why most every other state has transitioned to an appointed, not elected, highway commissioner system).
Of course, others have recommended major reforms as well. Especially with the onslaught of the recession, Gov. Barbour proposed major structural changes to the way government operates in order to reduce costs while increasing efficiencies. While some cost-cutting measures were adopted, most of these bold changes met great resistance in the Legislature.
They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different outcome. With that in mind, it seems those of us who believe government can be reformed have a touch of insanity.
But, I think there’s good reason to keep the reform mindset. Unlike when Gov. Barbour was in office, Republicans now have control of the Legislature and have promised real change. Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves appointed Sen. Nancy Collins to head up a newly-created Accountability, Efficiency, and Transparency committee to review creative reform ideas. The House of Representatives created a similar committee, and Gov. Bryant has voiced his support for government reforms.
So far, the Republican-led Legislature has made good on its promise, passing landmark legislation to consolidate certain struggling school districts and reduce the amount of vehicles owned by the state by prohibiting unnecessary car purchases. Together, these laws have saved taxpayer dollars while promoting efficiency.
Let’s hope our policymakers – legislators, agency heads, and government employees – heed the 1932 warning issued by the Brookings Institution that still applies today: “Mississippi can poorly afford to sanction worn-out methods, cumbersome organization, and diffusion of responsibility in its government simply because these conditions have prevailed for years.”
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Detroit bankruptcy ignites discussions on affordable government pensions
*First appeared in the August 1, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
News of Detroit filing for bankruptcy protections shook the financial and political worlds, but I felt their "surprise" at this revelation was hollow. After all, the Wall Street Journal re-affirmed what I had previously assumed: That Detroit's demise has been long-coming.
The Journal recounted that "nearly 70% of parks have been closed since 2008, and four in 10 street lights don't work. The city has cut its police force by 40% in a decade...Detroit residents pay the highest property and income taxes in the state...About 40% of revenues go toward retirement benefits and debt, much of which was issued in the last 10 years to finance pension contributions. Payments on $1.6 billion of pension-related certificates of participation consume nearly every dollar of property tax revenue."
How the Detroit fiasco plays out could have huge implications in how governments deal with unaffordable pension obligations. Forces like unions and creditors have driven governments to a borrow-tax-spend cycle at the expense of taxpayers. As the Journal notes, a Detroit "bankruptcy shows the party is over, as it may also soon be for many other cities."
Oakland, Cali. has the state's highest crime rate yet recently laid off upwards of 100 policemen to fund retirement benefits and pension-obligation bonds. On top of this, the city borrowed another $210 million to finance pensions, putting the municipality in even worse financial straits.
To make up for years of short-changing its retirement fund, Philadelphia, Penn. is currently spending about 20 percent of its budget on pensions. The Journal points out that Philly has raised sales, property, and business taxes, yet the city council is currently discussing using revenues from a one-percentage-point sales tax hike in 2009 intended for schools to finance pensions.
Former Obama White House Chief of Staff turned Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel declared recently that "the pension crisis is no longer around the corner; it has arrived at our schools" after the city's public schools announced 2,100 layoffs. Although Chicago (supposedly) is planning to transfer 30,000 retirees on Medicare and the Obamacare exchanges in 2017, all its savings will go toward pension payments which will triple in 2015. The Democrat mayor warned taxpayers that this could mean a 150% spike in property taxes.
According to groups like the Pew Center and Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, pension obligations run into the trillions of dollars (the last estimate I saw was roughly $3 trillion). This means that many governments "have more than likely promised their workers more than they can reasonably expect to deliver," according to the New York Times.
Clearly, pension obligations have the potential to bankrupt cities and states, both large and small. Mississippi, pay attention.
Our state retirement plan is in better condition than these examples, but the trends concern me. Although taxpayers have put significantly more money into the system, its funded status continues to decline. In 2003, the system had a funded status of 79 percent; today that number has dropped to 58 percent. Pension experts consider healthy plans to have a funded status of 80 percent or higher.
These numbers are particularly gloomy, since taxpayers have seen their contributions to the system increase more than 62 percent in the last decade. In Fiscal Year 2013, the state (taxpayers) contributed about $835 million to fund a portion of the retirement system; this level could jump above $900 million in Fiscal Year 2014. That's higher than state financial support for Medicaid!
I don't believe Mississippi's retirement system is on the verge of collapse, but there are warning signs within the system that should be addressed by policymakers, retirement board members, and taxpayers. The current plan is too costly (see above) and puts too large a fiscal burden on taxpayers who are trying to build their own non-government funded nest eggs. Small but important tweaks can be made now to ensure an affordable and sustainable future.
The Economist recently featured an insightful piece on pensions in America, writing that "it may take a financial crisis [like Detroit] for states and cities to face up to the scale of their pension shortfalls. When a crisis occurs, public-sector workers are more likely to accept the need to sacrifice."
In Mississippi, I hope we'd take actions to avoid a crisis rather than let pension obligations escalate to an unsustainable level.
News of Detroit filing for bankruptcy protections shook the financial and political worlds, but I felt their "surprise" at this revelation was hollow. After all, the Wall Street Journal re-affirmed what I had previously assumed: That Detroit's demise has been long-coming.
The Journal recounted that "nearly 70% of parks have been closed since 2008, and four in 10 street lights don't work. The city has cut its police force by 40% in a decade...Detroit residents pay the highest property and income taxes in the state...About 40% of revenues go toward retirement benefits and debt, much of which was issued in the last 10 years to finance pension contributions. Payments on $1.6 billion of pension-related certificates of participation consume nearly every dollar of property tax revenue."
How the Detroit fiasco plays out could have huge implications in how governments deal with unaffordable pension obligations. Forces like unions and creditors have driven governments to a borrow-tax-spend cycle at the expense of taxpayers. As the Journal notes, a Detroit "bankruptcy shows the party is over, as it may also soon be for many other cities."
Oakland, Cali. has the state's highest crime rate yet recently laid off upwards of 100 policemen to fund retirement benefits and pension-obligation bonds. On top of this, the city borrowed another $210 million to finance pensions, putting the municipality in even worse financial straits.
To make up for years of short-changing its retirement fund, Philadelphia, Penn. is currently spending about 20 percent of its budget on pensions. The Journal points out that Philly has raised sales, property, and business taxes, yet the city council is currently discussing using revenues from a one-percentage-point sales tax hike in 2009 intended for schools to finance pensions.
Former Obama White House Chief of Staff turned Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel declared recently that "the pension crisis is no longer around the corner; it has arrived at our schools" after the city's public schools announced 2,100 layoffs. Although Chicago (supposedly) is planning to transfer 30,000 retirees on Medicare and the Obamacare exchanges in 2017, all its savings will go toward pension payments which will triple in 2015. The Democrat mayor warned taxpayers that this could mean a 150% spike in property taxes.
According to groups like the Pew Center and Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, pension obligations run into the trillions of dollars (the last estimate I saw was roughly $3 trillion). This means that many governments "have more than likely promised their workers more than they can reasonably expect to deliver," according to the New York Times.
Clearly, pension obligations have the potential to bankrupt cities and states, both large and small. Mississippi, pay attention.
Our state retirement plan is in better condition than these examples, but the trends concern me. Although taxpayers have put significantly more money into the system, its funded status continues to decline. In 2003, the system had a funded status of 79 percent; today that number has dropped to 58 percent. Pension experts consider healthy plans to have a funded status of 80 percent or higher.
These numbers are particularly gloomy, since taxpayers have seen their contributions to the system increase more than 62 percent in the last decade. In Fiscal Year 2013, the state (taxpayers) contributed about $835 million to fund a portion of the retirement system; this level could jump above $900 million in Fiscal Year 2014. That's higher than state financial support for Medicaid!
I don't believe Mississippi's retirement system is on the verge of collapse, but there are warning signs within the system that should be addressed by policymakers, retirement board members, and taxpayers. The current plan is too costly (see above) and puts too large a fiscal burden on taxpayers who are trying to build their own non-government funded nest eggs. Small but important tweaks can be made now to ensure an affordable and sustainable future.
The Economist recently featured an insightful piece on pensions in America, writing that "it may take a financial crisis [like Detroit] for states and cities to face up to the scale of their pension shortfalls. When a crisis occurs, public-sector workers are more likely to accept the need to sacrifice."
In Mississippi, I hope we'd take actions to avoid a crisis rather than let pension obligations escalate to an unsustainable level.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Red dirt, political speeches, and cabin dwelling means it's Fair time again
First appeared in the July 25, 2013, of the Laurel Chronicle.
It's that time of year again - The Fair!
No, not the one with the corn dog stands where folks like my brother serve you fried meat on a stick, nor the kind of carnival where the laffy taffy is served up to people like my mother who love its taste but hate its can't-get-it-out-of-your-mouth chewiness.
I'm talking about THE Fair - the one where you're more likely to see a politician's face on a stick (being used to fan his or her political supporters) than fried meat. But hey, this fair has that too.
I'm talking about the Neshoba County Fair, of course, an event revered among the state's political class. The yearly trek to this Mississippi political mecca is made by nearly everyone who considers themselves to be even remotely politically inclined.
When I first dabbled my toe into the state's political waters (see: Barbour For Governor 2003), I had no idea what this supposed "fair" was. To use an old Haley Barbour phrase, I was just a pup back then.
My, how times have changed. These days, it's a rare year when you don't see me clearing my calendar to attend at least one day of the Fair.
The Fair is the hottest (both figuratively and literally) place to be in politics, especially during an election year. In attendance are the Who's Who of political operatives and their elected official bosses; in fact, I'd bet one of the requirements for making the "who's who" list is mandatory attendance. You simply can't be involved in Mississippi politics without a love of the Neshoba County Fair and its hot, steamy, and dusty fairgrounds.
While off-year fairs like this one are sure to be enjoyable, the election year fairs are not to be missed. Incumbent politicians and candidates flood the fairgrounds with campaign push cards, yard signs, and throngs of youngsters wearing "vote for my guy" t-shirts. Sometimes debates between candidates are held. Press conferences are scheduled on the front porches of fair cabins. If you're really lucky, you'll get to see a fight or two between rival campaign staffers who might have sipped a little too much from their red Dixie cups.
The Fair is where political legends are made - or, at the very least, where controversies take hold. At this gathering, politicians are expected to get their hands as dirty as your feet after a day's worth of trekking through the red clay. (Side note: If my years of experience is any indication, Neshoba County has more red clay per capita than any other county in this state, let alone nation.)
One of my favorite off-the-cuff comments is now a bit of Fair legend. It came from - who else? - former Governor Haley Barbour.
In his 2007 re-election campaign, Gov. Barbour was challenged by lawyer John Arthur Eaves, Jr., who was wealthy enough to finance his own campaign but not politically savvy enough to run an effective one. To make it for its lack of effectiveness, the Eaves campaign often made outrageous claims about Gov. Barbour's record in office, going so far as to liken the governor to Biblical "moneychangers in the temple." (I never fully understood that one.)
According to some news reports, the Eaves campaign allegedly told supporters that Eaves' new wife (from his second marriage) would "restore dignity to the governor's mansion."
By the time the Fair rolled around, well, let's just say the Barbour campaign had had enough of this slander, and the Governor's opening comments reflected this frustration. Here's the way it went down:
Governor Barbour, in typical fashion, opened his speech with something along the lines of "Hi, I'm Haley Barbour." He then brought former First Lady Marsha Barbour on stage, thanked her for their 35 years of marriage, and said the following: "That's right. I got my trophy wife the first time."
Bazinga!
The crowd went wild, as I recall, and I watched with both amusement and fascination. Admittedly, there were mixed reactions to this statement later. But it really brought back the flair - the thunder, if you will - of Fair speeches made by politicians from days gone by. Politics isn't for the faint of heart, and speeches at Neshoba aren't for those who are easily offended.
Now, I highly doubt we'll witness any real verbal jabs this year. I chuckled when I read a reporter's comment on Twitter a few days ago, in which she laments that "unless we can get a cage match" between politicians, the Fair "looks a little pale this year."
In case you go - and I highly recommend it - here are a few things to know. First, know your schedule (which can be found on neshobacountyfair.org). The political speaking lasts a couple of days, and you can catch folks like Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and State Auditor Stacey Pickering on Wednesday, July 31. Gov. Bryant along with Speaker Philip Gunn will be speaking the following day, along with a litany of other elected officials.
Second, make friends. Fair regulars all know each other (I'm not kidding), especially those who have cabins on the fairgrounds. Cabin dwellers have established Fair communities closer knit than their neighborhoods back home. Endeavor to make friends at the Fair because it's easy...and beneficial. You'll find kindred spirits in fellow fair-goers and, if you're lucky, free food and drink. After all, that is the Fair way.
Third, despite my gushing about Fair politics, this event really is for everyone, not just the politicos. The Fair's schedule includes arts and craft shows, horse races, a beauty pageant, concerts, and even an all-night gospel sing. Who can forget the traditional fair part - rides, lemonade stands, corn dog sellers, and cotton candy?
Whether your interest is political or you're simply looking to experience something uniquely Mississippi, the Neshoba County Fair is the place for you. It's political; it's relational; it's gustational; it is, quite simply, magical.
It's that time of year again - The Fair!
No, not the one with the corn dog stands where folks like my brother serve you fried meat on a stick, nor the kind of carnival where the laffy taffy is served up to people like my mother who love its taste but hate its can't-get-it-out-of-your-mouth chewiness.
I'm talking about THE Fair - the one where you're more likely to see a politician's face on a stick (being used to fan his or her political supporters) than fried meat. But hey, this fair has that too.
I'm talking about the Neshoba County Fair, of course, an event revered among the state's political class. The yearly trek to this Mississippi political mecca is made by nearly everyone who considers themselves to be even remotely politically inclined.
When I first dabbled my toe into the state's political waters (see: Barbour For Governor 2003), I had no idea what this supposed "fair" was. To use an old Haley Barbour phrase, I was just a pup back then.
My, how times have changed. These days, it's a rare year when you don't see me clearing my calendar to attend at least one day of the Fair.
The Fair is the hottest (both figuratively and literally) place to be in politics, especially during an election year. In attendance are the Who's Who of political operatives and their elected official bosses; in fact, I'd bet one of the requirements for making the "who's who" list is mandatory attendance. You simply can't be involved in Mississippi politics without a love of the Neshoba County Fair and its hot, steamy, and dusty fairgrounds.
While off-year fairs like this one are sure to be enjoyable, the election year fairs are not to be missed. Incumbent politicians and candidates flood the fairgrounds with campaign push cards, yard signs, and throngs of youngsters wearing "vote for my guy" t-shirts. Sometimes debates between candidates are held. Press conferences are scheduled on the front porches of fair cabins. If you're really lucky, you'll get to see a fight or two between rival campaign staffers who might have sipped a little too much from their red Dixie cups.
The Fair is where political legends are made - or, at the very least, where controversies take hold. At this gathering, politicians are expected to get their hands as dirty as your feet after a day's worth of trekking through the red clay. (Side note: If my years of experience is any indication, Neshoba County has more red clay per capita than any other county in this state, let alone nation.)
One of my favorite off-the-cuff comments is now a bit of Fair legend. It came from - who else? - former Governor Haley Barbour.
In his 2007 re-election campaign, Gov. Barbour was challenged by lawyer John Arthur Eaves, Jr., who was wealthy enough to finance his own campaign but not politically savvy enough to run an effective one. To make it for its lack of effectiveness, the Eaves campaign often made outrageous claims about Gov. Barbour's record in office, going so far as to liken the governor to Biblical "moneychangers in the temple." (I never fully understood that one.)
According to some news reports, the Eaves campaign allegedly told supporters that Eaves' new wife (from his second marriage) would "restore dignity to the governor's mansion."
By the time the Fair rolled around, well, let's just say the Barbour campaign had had enough of this slander, and the Governor's opening comments reflected this frustration. Here's the way it went down:
Governor Barbour, in typical fashion, opened his speech with something along the lines of "Hi, I'm Haley Barbour." He then brought former First Lady Marsha Barbour on stage, thanked her for their 35 years of marriage, and said the following: "That's right. I got my trophy wife the first time."
Bazinga!
The crowd went wild, as I recall, and I watched with both amusement and fascination. Admittedly, there were mixed reactions to this statement later. But it really brought back the flair - the thunder, if you will - of Fair speeches made by politicians from days gone by. Politics isn't for the faint of heart, and speeches at Neshoba aren't for those who are easily offended.
Now, I highly doubt we'll witness any real verbal jabs this year. I chuckled when I read a reporter's comment on Twitter a few days ago, in which she laments that "unless we can get a cage match" between politicians, the Fair "looks a little pale this year."
In case you go - and I highly recommend it - here are a few things to know. First, know your schedule (which can be found on neshobacountyfair.org). The political speaking lasts a couple of days, and you can catch folks like Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and State Auditor Stacey Pickering on Wednesday, July 31. Gov. Bryant along with Speaker Philip Gunn will be speaking the following day, along with a litany of other elected officials.
Second, make friends. Fair regulars all know each other (I'm not kidding), especially those who have cabins on the fairgrounds. Cabin dwellers have established Fair communities closer knit than their neighborhoods back home. Endeavor to make friends at the Fair because it's easy...and beneficial. You'll find kindred spirits in fellow fair-goers and, if you're lucky, free food and drink. After all, that is the Fair way.
Third, despite my gushing about Fair politics, this event really is for everyone, not just the politicos. The Fair's schedule includes arts and craft shows, horse races, a beauty pageant, concerts, and even an all-night gospel sing. Who can forget the traditional fair part - rides, lemonade stands, corn dog sellers, and cotton candy?
Whether your interest is political or you're simply looking to experience something uniquely Mississippi, the Neshoba County Fair is the place for you. It's political; it's relational; it's gustational; it is, quite simply, magical.
Big Brother needs Big Transparency
First appeared in the July 18, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
Last week in this column, I wrote about Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the National Security Agency (NSA) government spying story, with a particular focus on his personal story of success. Let’s continue that conversation, only this time we’ll focus on what really matters: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of…surveillance?
I must admit: Watching the news lately is like being inside a spy drama, except it’s not so easy to tell who the good guys and bad guys are. But this is no ordinary spy drama; indeed, it’s got elements of those futuristic novels we all read in high school (do they even teach those anymore?) that show a world where citizens’ actions are monitored, free thought is considered a crime, and everyone wears white jumpsuits.
I guess I wasn’t the only one who noticed these eerie similarities. Sales of the classic George Orwell novel, 1984, spiked after the NSA surveillance news broke, increasing more than 10,000% on Amazon.
Whoa.
Of course, that was precisely my reaction when I first heard about the NSA’s surveillance activities. To summarize what we all (think) we know by now: The NSA has been tracking phone calls, emails, photos, search histories, and other data in a sweeping program aimed at gathering data on potential threats to America’s national security. The information is being collected whether or not the citizen is suspected of any wrongdoing. The targets include folks like you, me, your grandmother, and the crazy cat lady next door.
A number of top internet companies, including Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, and others, are also involved in the program. The extent of their involvement has mostly been kept under wraps due to a gag order, although this week Microsoft was the latest company to ask Obama’s Department of Justice to lift the gag order.
"The Constitution itself is suffering, and it will take the personal involvement of [U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder] or the President to set things right,” wrote Brad Smith, general counsel and executive vice president at Microsoft. Companies like Google and Yahoo are asking for similar freedom to prove to consumers they made efforts to protect the privacy of user data. Turning over emails and other records to the government isn’t so great for company PR.
My concern is the continual creep of the government into my personal activities. The Wall Street Journal said it best when they observed: “Americans would worry less about the government spying on them if, for example, the Justice Department wasn't secretly spying on the Associated Press and Fox News. Or if the IRS wasn't targeting White House critics. Or if the Administration in general showed a higher regard for the law when it conflicts with its policy preferences."
Today, we know the government is watching us, which causes me a great deal of concern. But if you find yourself unconcerned or confused about these programs, then you’re not alone.
One poll from Time/ABT-SRBI conducted on the topic showed mixed results, with many respondents thinking the government’s surveillance efforts have gone too far. Another poll by ABC/Washington Post showed that Americans are split down the middle when it comes to collecting “telephone and Internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts." Importantly, roughly 90 percent of respondents said they have less privacy than previous generations when it comes to personal information.
The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute concluded that “most Americans seem willing to trade some privacy for security, but are unsure about the right combination.”
That seems like a fair observation. Americans are unclear as to how they feel because, I believe, they don’t have enough information to make a well-informed decision.
Consider one congressman who said that journalist Glenn Greenwald didn’t “have a clue” how the NSA program worked. In a tweeted response, Greenwald replied: “That’s why transparency is needed.”
I agree. We need more transparency from the President and his administration on this issue. We need to better understand how these programs operate. We need answers on why the NSA director's approach to citizens' data is "collect it all" as the Washington Post intimated this week. We need answers on how that's legal and not a violation of our constitutional rights. We need to understand why there are “secret courts” that make rulings on these issues. And so on and so forth.
I can't help but think of what our President said in the wake of this controversy: "You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience."
The unfortunate reality is that we're never going to have 100 percent of either. We can't ensure the nation's safety against all threats, nor can we expect to maintain full privacy in an increasing digital world. But what we can have is more transparency. If Big Brother keeps on growing, so too should Big Transparency. Your freedom depends on it.
Last week in this column, I wrote about Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the National Security Agency (NSA) government spying story, with a particular focus on his personal story of success. Let’s continue that conversation, only this time we’ll focus on what really matters: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of…surveillance?
I must admit: Watching the news lately is like being inside a spy drama, except it’s not so easy to tell who the good guys and bad guys are. But this is no ordinary spy drama; indeed, it’s got elements of those futuristic novels we all read in high school (do they even teach those anymore?) that show a world where citizens’ actions are monitored, free thought is considered a crime, and everyone wears white jumpsuits.
I guess I wasn’t the only one who noticed these eerie similarities. Sales of the classic George Orwell novel, 1984, spiked after the NSA surveillance news broke, increasing more than 10,000% on Amazon.
Whoa.
Of course, that was precisely my reaction when I first heard about the NSA’s surveillance activities. To summarize what we all (think) we know by now: The NSA has been tracking phone calls, emails, photos, search histories, and other data in a sweeping program aimed at gathering data on potential threats to America’s national security. The information is being collected whether or not the citizen is suspected of any wrongdoing. The targets include folks like you, me, your grandmother, and the crazy cat lady next door.
A number of top internet companies, including Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, and others, are also involved in the program. The extent of their involvement has mostly been kept under wraps due to a gag order, although this week Microsoft was the latest company to ask Obama’s Department of Justice to lift the gag order.
"The Constitution itself is suffering, and it will take the personal involvement of [U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder] or the President to set things right,” wrote Brad Smith, general counsel and executive vice president at Microsoft. Companies like Google and Yahoo are asking for similar freedom to prove to consumers they made efforts to protect the privacy of user data. Turning over emails and other records to the government isn’t so great for company PR.
My concern is the continual creep of the government into my personal activities. The Wall Street Journal said it best when they observed: “Americans would worry less about the government spying on them if, for example, the Justice Department wasn't secretly spying on the Associated Press and Fox News. Or if the IRS wasn't targeting White House critics. Or if the Administration in general showed a higher regard for the law when it conflicts with its policy preferences."
Today, we know the government is watching us, which causes me a great deal of concern. But if you find yourself unconcerned or confused about these programs, then you’re not alone.
One poll from Time/ABT-SRBI conducted on the topic showed mixed results, with many respondents thinking the government’s surveillance efforts have gone too far. Another poll by ABC/Washington Post showed that Americans are split down the middle when it comes to collecting “telephone and Internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts." Importantly, roughly 90 percent of respondents said they have less privacy than previous generations when it comes to personal information.
The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute concluded that “most Americans seem willing to trade some privacy for security, but are unsure about the right combination.”
That seems like a fair observation. Americans are unclear as to how they feel because, I believe, they don’t have enough information to make a well-informed decision.
Consider one congressman who said that journalist Glenn Greenwald didn’t “have a clue” how the NSA program worked. In a tweeted response, Greenwald replied: “That’s why transparency is needed.”
I agree. We need more transparency from the President and his administration on this issue. We need to better understand how these programs operate. We need answers on why the NSA director's approach to citizens' data is "collect it all" as the Washington Post intimated this week. We need answers on how that's legal and not a violation of our constitutional rights. We need to understand why there are “secret courts” that make rulings on these issues. And so on and so forth.
I can't help but think of what our President said in the wake of this controversy: "You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience."
The unfortunate reality is that we're never going to have 100 percent of either. We can't ensure the nation's safety against all threats, nor can we expect to maintain full privacy in an increasing digital world. But what we can have is more transparency. If Big Brother keeps on growing, so too should Big Transparency. Your freedom depends on it.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
On lawyers, government spying, and the NYC garment industry
*First appeared in the July 11, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle
When I read a bio on Glenn Greenwald, the columnist and lawyer who most recently achieved international fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective) for his role in revealing the government’s spying on law-abiding Americans, I couldn’t help but wonder: Did the New York garment industry lead to all of this?
Let me explain.
Greenwald’s bio, in short: He was a Constitutional and civil rights litigator and has authored several New York Times bestselling books. He formerly wrote for Salon and currently writes for that paper across the pond, The Guardian. By all accounts, he’s an eccentric yet highly capable individual who often finds himself at odds with both sides of the political aisle.
What really caught my eye was the high-powered law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz, where Greenwald began his litigation career. WLR&K is one of the most prestigious merger and acquisition firms in the nation where getting hired is a “small miracle.” Its website boldly declares: “We handle some of the largest, most complex and demanding transactions in the United States and around the world…We are thought leaders.”
To understand the culture of this law firm, we must go back – way back – to the New York garment industry…that is, if we give any credence to sociologist and author Malcolm Gladwell’s theory on success.
In his national bestseller Outliers, Gladwell argues that an individual’s success is not only tied to personal aptitude and drive, but also to external factors such as history, community, and opportunity. In one chapter, he focuses on how top law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz was founded through a combination of unlikely factors.
First, the partners were Jewish, meaning they weren’t considered hirable by the old-line Wall Street firms in the 50s. Often boxed out because of their “antecedents,” Jewish lawyers had to stick together and take whatever legal work the “respectable” corporate firms didn’t want. Turns out, what the old-line firms didn’t want was litigation work, particularly hostile corporate takeovers. That left only one option: firms like WLR&K.
Second, the partners enjoyed a bit of demographic luck, having been born during the “demographic trough” of the 1930s. The economic hardship of the Depression meant fewer families were having children, and the resulting generation was significantly smaller. This meant our four founding partners enjoyed smaller class sizes through grade school, which promoted their educational growth, and highly qualified teachers, since teaching was considered a high-status career in a post-Depression America.
Finally, the garment industry provided a way for New York Jewish families to make a living while honing business skills. Looking way, way back, European Jews had for centuries clustered in cities and took up urban trades and professions. The most prevalent of these lay in the clothing trade – a skill Jewish immigrants brought to the American land of opportunity.
From the late nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century, New York’s most economically vibrant industry was the garment trade, driven in large part by the Jewish communities. The industry provided a modest living and another benefit: It was, as Gladwell says, “explicitly entrepreneurial.” Jewish clothing makers were learning market research, manufacturing, and negotiation techniques.
You won’t be surprised to learn, then, that our founding partners grew up in households built on the garment industry: Wachtell’s dad was in the ladies’ undergarment business; Lipton’s father was a manger in a factory; Rosen’s father was a presser in Manhattan’s garment district; and Katz’s grandfather did sewing piecework out of his house. The entrepreneurial skills of the garment industry helped these young legal minds develop a wildly successful law practice.
Fast forward to 2013, when former WLR&K lawyer Glenn Greenwald drops a bombshell on the nation – nay, the world – by breaking the year’s most important story: The U.S. government is spying on citizens by collecting phone and internet records, emails, and other forms of communications…regardless of whether we Americans are suspected of any wrongdoing.
Greenwald broke the story because he gained the confidence of Edward Snowden, a former U.S. defense contractor who read Greenwald’s work and understood his passion for liberty. Snowden’s familiarity with Greenwald was made possible by outlets like Salon and The Guardian, which gave him a worldwide audience. These news outlets hired Greenwald after reading his blog entries on the legality of government spying – an area where Greenwald had gained expertise through litigating cases at a law firm he founded. Greenwald was able to found his own practice after learning the legal tricks of the trade at WLR&K, a firm which, as we’ve learned, owes its very existence in no small part to NYC’s garment industry.
As a real-life “outlier,” Greenwald’s life tracks nicely with Gladwell’s theory on success – the measure of which is subjective, of course. But I’m betting Greenwald’s gold standard is to have citizens call into question the proper role of the government in the areas of national security and preservation of personal liberties.
In that case, I guess I’m a Greenwald success story.
NOTE: Major h/t to Malcolm Gladwell, whose writing made this column possible. Read more about him. Or, read more about his book, Outliers.
When I read a bio on Glenn Greenwald, the columnist and lawyer who most recently achieved international fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective) for his role in revealing the government’s spying on law-abiding Americans, I couldn’t help but wonder: Did the New York garment industry lead to all of this?
Let me explain.
Greenwald’s bio, in short: He was a Constitutional and civil rights litigator and has authored several New York Times bestselling books. He formerly wrote for Salon and currently writes for that paper across the pond, The Guardian. By all accounts, he’s an eccentric yet highly capable individual who often finds himself at odds with both sides of the political aisle.
What really caught my eye was the high-powered law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz, where Greenwald began his litigation career. WLR&K is one of the most prestigious merger and acquisition firms in the nation where getting hired is a “small miracle.” Its website boldly declares: “We handle some of the largest, most complex and demanding transactions in the United States and around the world…We are thought leaders.”
To understand the culture of this law firm, we must go back – way back – to the New York garment industry…that is, if we give any credence to sociologist and author Malcolm Gladwell’s theory on success.
In his national bestseller Outliers, Gladwell argues that an individual’s success is not only tied to personal aptitude and drive, but also to external factors such as history, community, and opportunity. In one chapter, he focuses on how top law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz was founded through a combination of unlikely factors.
First, the partners were Jewish, meaning they weren’t considered hirable by the old-line Wall Street firms in the 50s. Often boxed out because of their “antecedents,” Jewish lawyers had to stick together and take whatever legal work the “respectable” corporate firms didn’t want. Turns out, what the old-line firms didn’t want was litigation work, particularly hostile corporate takeovers. That left only one option: firms like WLR&K.
Second, the partners enjoyed a bit of demographic luck, having been born during the “demographic trough” of the 1930s. The economic hardship of the Depression meant fewer families were having children, and the resulting generation was significantly smaller. This meant our four founding partners enjoyed smaller class sizes through grade school, which promoted their educational growth, and highly qualified teachers, since teaching was considered a high-status career in a post-Depression America.
Finally, the garment industry provided a way for New York Jewish families to make a living while honing business skills. Looking way, way back, European Jews had for centuries clustered in cities and took up urban trades and professions. The most prevalent of these lay in the clothing trade – a skill Jewish immigrants brought to the American land of opportunity.
From the late nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century, New York’s most economically vibrant industry was the garment trade, driven in large part by the Jewish communities. The industry provided a modest living and another benefit: It was, as Gladwell says, “explicitly entrepreneurial.” Jewish clothing makers were learning market research, manufacturing, and negotiation techniques.
You won’t be surprised to learn, then, that our founding partners grew up in households built on the garment industry: Wachtell’s dad was in the ladies’ undergarment business; Lipton’s father was a manger in a factory; Rosen’s father was a presser in Manhattan’s garment district; and Katz’s grandfather did sewing piecework out of his house. The entrepreneurial skills of the garment industry helped these young legal minds develop a wildly successful law practice.
Fast forward to 2013, when former WLR&K lawyer Glenn Greenwald drops a bombshell on the nation – nay, the world – by breaking the year’s most important story: The U.S. government is spying on citizens by collecting phone and internet records, emails, and other forms of communications…regardless of whether we Americans are suspected of any wrongdoing.
Greenwald broke the story because he gained the confidence of Edward Snowden, a former U.S. defense contractor who read Greenwald’s work and understood his passion for liberty. Snowden’s familiarity with Greenwald was made possible by outlets like Salon and The Guardian, which gave him a worldwide audience. These news outlets hired Greenwald after reading his blog entries on the legality of government spying – an area where Greenwald had gained expertise through litigating cases at a law firm he founded. Greenwald was able to found his own practice after learning the legal tricks of the trade at WLR&K, a firm which, as we’ve learned, owes its very existence in no small part to NYC’s garment industry.
As a real-life “outlier,” Greenwald’s life tracks nicely with Gladwell’s theory on success – the measure of which is subjective, of course. But I’m betting Greenwald’s gold standard is to have citizens call into question the proper role of the government in the areas of national security and preservation of personal liberties.
In that case, I guess I’m a Greenwald success story.
NOTE: Major h/t to Malcolm Gladwell, whose writing made this column possible. Read more about him. Or, read more about his book, Outliers.
Friday, July 5, 2013
From MDES to Medicaid, legislators no strangers to reauthorization fights
*First appeared in the Laurel Chronicle on July 4, 2013
The recent debate in Jackson on whether the state should expand its taxpayer-funded Medicaid program in accordance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA; also known as “Obamacare”) brought back certain legislative memories.
Call me crazy, but there seems to be a trend – both in the way D.C. promotes adoption of its policies under the current president and the way in which Mississippi legislators use repealers to their political advantage.
Consider the way in which Medicaid expansion is pitched to the states by President Obama. States can expand Medicaid eligibility and add thousands of beneficiaries to the rolls, but it won’t cost one cent…at least not yet. It’s the “expand now, pay later” scenario so popular with this administration. More on that later.
In the special session which ended this weekend, the Legislature reauthorized Medicaid so that it legally exists to provide health insurance to the state’s poor. (Sidebar: Generally speaking, state agencies and other programs have repeal dates, much like expiration dates, which must be acted on by the Legislature lest the programs shutdown.)
The reauthorization process didn’t come without controversy, however, as Democrats and Republicans fought over whether Mississippi should expand its Medicaid program. Ultimately, Republicans got their way, and the Legislature reauthorized the program without expanding it. Expansion may happen in the future, of course, but Republicans took the prudent approach in delaying major changes until more information about the ACA is known.
A look at yesteryear may shed light on why the most recent Medicaid reauthorization debate – and the threats about the program being shutdown - shouldn’t surprise anyone who follows the Obama Administration and Mississippi politics in general.
I’m reminded of another initiative the Administration and its allies tried to implement in Mississippi. A lesser known part of Obama’s famous stimulus package, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act gave states “free” money to expand unemployment programs. If states adopted certain policies, such as paying unemployment compensation to individuals who worked part-time, the federal government would pay for any additional costs– at least, temporarily. Sound familiar?
Since unemployment insurance was part of my policy portfolio, I spent a great deal of time working on this issue for former Gov. Barbour. His opposition to expanding the state’s unemployment program was shared by Republicans in the Legislature who recognized this regulation change would have created additional taxes on businesses once the stimulus money ran out.
Democrats disagreed and refused to reauthorize the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. While Democrats toted the water for the President’s liberal unemployment programs, the future of MDES, its employees, and others – such as unemployment insurance recipients and workforce trainees – was in jeopardy.
Ultimately, Gov. Barbour was able to negotiate a compromise to reauthorize the agency without expanding eligibility to part-time workers.
But, that wasn’t the first time Democrats used MDES as a pawn in legislative games. In fact, when MDES’s repealer came up in the 2008 session, Democrats refused to approve its reauthorization until Republicans agreed to increase the state’s unemployment benefits. The agency was eventually reauthorized in a special session Gov. Barbour called to deal with the issue.
In recent history, we’ve seen Democrats threaten the very existence of state agencies as a negotiation tactic to push the agenda they share with President Obama – even if it results in tax increases or additional costs to the state.
But to solely blame Democrats is a bit misleading, as both parties are guilty of using Machiavellian legislative tactics to achieve their goals, whether that’s actually making a policy change or simply raising the public’s awareness of an issue.
So, I guess my real point is this: The recent fight over Medicaid expansion is just one more example of current political trends in D.C. and Jackson.
The trend coming out of D.C. is Obama’s fondness for the “no money up front” pitch in which states can opt into expanded programs without additional costs…until a few years down the road, when the expanded programs (Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc.) are simply too established to repeal. It’s actually a clever strategy, when it works.
The trend coming out of Jackson is one that’s been going on since before I joined the motley crue of Magnolia State politicos, and it is simple: The Mississippi Legislature loves a repealer. Seriously, check nearly any law that establishes an agency or a new program, and there will be a section that calls for the abolishment of the program on a date certain…unless the Legislature acts.
In theory, this provides a strategic advantage for legislators who threaten to shut down the agency unless certain conditions are met. But in practice, as I’ve witnessed, shutting down a government program is the exception, not the rule…even if the headlines scream differently.
The recent debate in Jackson on whether the state should expand its taxpayer-funded Medicaid program in accordance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA; also known as “Obamacare”) brought back certain legislative memories.
Call me crazy, but there seems to be a trend – both in the way D.C. promotes adoption of its policies under the current president and the way in which Mississippi legislators use repealers to their political advantage.
Consider the way in which Medicaid expansion is pitched to the states by President Obama. States can expand Medicaid eligibility and add thousands of beneficiaries to the rolls, but it won’t cost one cent…at least not yet. It’s the “expand now, pay later” scenario so popular with this administration. More on that later.
In the special session which ended this weekend, the Legislature reauthorized Medicaid so that it legally exists to provide health insurance to the state’s poor. (Sidebar: Generally speaking, state agencies and other programs have repeal dates, much like expiration dates, which must be acted on by the Legislature lest the programs shutdown.)
The reauthorization process didn’t come without controversy, however, as Democrats and Republicans fought over whether Mississippi should expand its Medicaid program. Ultimately, Republicans got their way, and the Legislature reauthorized the program without expanding it. Expansion may happen in the future, of course, but Republicans took the prudent approach in delaying major changes until more information about the ACA is known.
A look at yesteryear may shed light on why the most recent Medicaid reauthorization debate – and the threats about the program being shutdown - shouldn’t surprise anyone who follows the Obama Administration and Mississippi politics in general.
I’m reminded of another initiative the Administration and its allies tried to implement in Mississippi. A lesser known part of Obama’s famous stimulus package, the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act gave states “free” money to expand unemployment programs. If states adopted certain policies, such as paying unemployment compensation to individuals who worked part-time, the federal government would pay for any additional costs– at least, temporarily. Sound familiar?
Since unemployment insurance was part of my policy portfolio, I spent a great deal of time working on this issue for former Gov. Barbour. His opposition to expanding the state’s unemployment program was shared by Republicans in the Legislature who recognized this regulation change would have created additional taxes on businesses once the stimulus money ran out.
Democrats disagreed and refused to reauthorize the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. While Democrats toted the water for the President’s liberal unemployment programs, the future of MDES, its employees, and others – such as unemployment insurance recipients and workforce trainees – was in jeopardy.
Ultimately, Gov. Barbour was able to negotiate a compromise to reauthorize the agency without expanding eligibility to part-time workers.
But, that wasn’t the first time Democrats used MDES as a pawn in legislative games. In fact, when MDES’s repealer came up in the 2008 session, Democrats refused to approve its reauthorization until Republicans agreed to increase the state’s unemployment benefits. The agency was eventually reauthorized in a special session Gov. Barbour called to deal with the issue.
In recent history, we’ve seen Democrats threaten the very existence of state agencies as a negotiation tactic to push the agenda they share with President Obama – even if it results in tax increases or additional costs to the state.
But to solely blame Democrats is a bit misleading, as both parties are guilty of using Machiavellian legislative tactics to achieve their goals, whether that’s actually making a policy change or simply raising the public’s awareness of an issue.
So, I guess my real point is this: The recent fight over Medicaid expansion is just one more example of current political trends in D.C. and Jackson.
The trend coming out of D.C. is Obama’s fondness for the “no money up front” pitch in which states can opt into expanded programs without additional costs…until a few years down the road, when the expanded programs (Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc.) are simply too established to repeal. It’s actually a clever strategy, when it works.
The trend coming out of Jackson is one that’s been going on since before I joined the motley crue of Magnolia State politicos, and it is simple: The Mississippi Legislature loves a repealer. Seriously, check nearly any law that establishes an agency or a new program, and there will be a section that calls for the abolishment of the program on a date certain…unless the Legislature acts.
In theory, this provides a strategic advantage for legislators who threaten to shut down the agency unless certain conditions are met. But in practice, as I’ve witnessed, shutting down a government program is the exception, not the rule…even if the headlines scream differently.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Budget surplus: Old “problem” in new economy
*First appeared in the Laurel Chronicle on June 27, 2013
About the same time the economy collapsed, I began working in earnest on the state’s budget as part of Gov. Barbour’s budget policy team. (Note: There was no correlation between my working on the budget & dwindling tax revenues.)
In 2007, Mississippi’s fiscal situation was beginning to crumble: After enjoying years of healthy revenue growth, Mississippi’s collections tanked alongside the rest of the states’.
To get a sense of the impending financial doom, read from Gov. Barbour’s executive budget recommendation for Fiscal Year 2009: “We have to recognize the national economy has been softening. Serious troubles in the financial markets have not only generated pessimism but also have caused a real credit crunch…This will require considerable budget discipline. It means we’ll have to tell some people ‘No;’ it means some good things won’t get funded or won’t get as much funding as some people would like.”
The week before the FY 2009 budget recommendation was published, the front page of the Wall Street Journal had proclaimed, “States prepare to tighten belts as growth in revenue slows.” And the State Economist at the time warned lawmakers that sales tax receipts for July through December 2007 (the first half of the FY 2008 fiscal year) had increased only one-tenth of one percent.
For comparison purposes, consider the following: Gov. Barbour had proposed to increase spending in FY 2008 (the year before the downturn) by 7.5 percent; in FY 2009, he proposed a cautionary 0.4 percent increase.
Although the Legislature and Governor approved a modest budget to prepare for the downturn, it wasn’t enough. Lower-than-expected revenues forced Gov. Barbour to trim spending by $200 million in FY 2009. The sluggish economy required the Governor to cut the following year’s budget five times, or a reduction of $466 million in FY 2010.
Since that time, budgetary caution has been the name of the spending game…until now, perhaps. Earlier this month, we learned the state was on its way to a budget surplus for the current fiscal year, which ends this weekend (June 30). The House Appropriations chairman told another newspaper the surplus would likely be a “substantial” amount around $300 million.
As a friend of mine would say, that’s a lot of skrilla (translation: money).
Just think – Gov. Barbour’s first round of cuts in FY 2010 was roughly $171.9 million. Fast-forward to FY 2013 when the state’s tax collections for May exceeded the estimate by the same amount.
We must remember that for the last five or so years, lawmakers have rightly weighed spending against anemic revenue growth to determine budgeting priorities. A budget surplus? Well, that’s a new one on the current class at the State Capitol.
Already, groups are laying claim to the money. The Parents’ Campaign, which lobbies for education funding, sent an email blast to its members asking them to contact their legislators: “Ask them to commit to using the surplus to fully fund the MAEP before it is spent on other things.” (MAEP is the formula used to determine how much money goes to schools.)
At their annual meeting two weeks ago, Mississippi supervisors talked about the need to find additional money for programs like healthcare implementation and homestead exemption. There’s a legislative task force aimed at finding additional revenue for our state’s highway infrastructure. No one can ignore the rising costs of programs like Medicaid and the state retirement system, both of which will gobble up additional revenue.
For a few years, the Capitol-types (lobbyists, state agencies, etc.) recognized they simply weren’t going to get as much money as they wanted – if they got any at all. Policymakers were open to considering cost-cutting reform measures because they had to be. Now, with a budget surplus on the horizon, that mindset will likely vanish. Legislators, especially those on the money committees, can expect a little extra attention during the coming session.
Legislators can use the surplus in three ways: 1) increase funding for priority areas, like education; 2) reduce taxes to spur growth; and 3) set aside money for a “rainy day.” A likely scenario includes some combination of these options.
Until a final budget is adopted, legislators should be prepared for an onslaught of new spending options. Emboldened by a revenue surplus, state agencies and lobbyists will fight tooth and nail for a larger piece of the budgetary pie. While some of the longer-serving lawmakers remember the pre-recessionary days when revenue wasn’t as tight, a large part of the current class isn’t used to this much money – or the pressures that come with it.
It’s an old problem, for sure, but the reality is that Mississippi isn’t in the clear yet. While our revenues may be higher than expected, our economic picture is still slow to brighten. According to the latest stats, the state’s unemployment rate was tied for the second-highest in the nation with close to 120,000 Mississippians unemployed. Getting people back to work will take time, and revenues won’t fully catch back up until the employment situation bounces back.
About the same time the economy collapsed, I began working in earnest on the state’s budget as part of Gov. Barbour’s budget policy team. (Note: There was no correlation between my working on the budget & dwindling tax revenues.)
In 2007, Mississippi’s fiscal situation was beginning to crumble: After enjoying years of healthy revenue growth, Mississippi’s collections tanked alongside the rest of the states’.
To get a sense of the impending financial doom, read from Gov. Barbour’s executive budget recommendation for Fiscal Year 2009: “We have to recognize the national economy has been softening. Serious troubles in the financial markets have not only generated pessimism but also have caused a real credit crunch…This will require considerable budget discipline. It means we’ll have to tell some people ‘No;’ it means some good things won’t get funded or won’t get as much funding as some people would like.”
The week before the FY 2009 budget recommendation was published, the front page of the Wall Street Journal had proclaimed, “States prepare to tighten belts as growth in revenue slows.” And the State Economist at the time warned lawmakers that sales tax receipts for July through December 2007 (the first half of the FY 2008 fiscal year) had increased only one-tenth of one percent.
For comparison purposes, consider the following: Gov. Barbour had proposed to increase spending in FY 2008 (the year before the downturn) by 7.5 percent; in FY 2009, he proposed a cautionary 0.4 percent increase.
Although the Legislature and Governor approved a modest budget to prepare for the downturn, it wasn’t enough. Lower-than-expected revenues forced Gov. Barbour to trim spending by $200 million in FY 2009. The sluggish economy required the Governor to cut the following year’s budget five times, or a reduction of $466 million in FY 2010.
Since that time, budgetary caution has been the name of the spending game…until now, perhaps. Earlier this month, we learned the state was on its way to a budget surplus for the current fiscal year, which ends this weekend (June 30). The House Appropriations chairman told another newspaper the surplus would likely be a “substantial” amount around $300 million.
As a friend of mine would say, that’s a lot of skrilla (translation: money).
Just think – Gov. Barbour’s first round of cuts in FY 2010 was roughly $171.9 million. Fast-forward to FY 2013 when the state’s tax collections for May exceeded the estimate by the same amount.
We must remember that for the last five or so years, lawmakers have rightly weighed spending against anemic revenue growth to determine budgeting priorities. A budget surplus? Well, that’s a new one on the current class at the State Capitol.
Already, groups are laying claim to the money. The Parents’ Campaign, which lobbies for education funding, sent an email blast to its members asking them to contact their legislators: “Ask them to commit to using the surplus to fully fund the MAEP before it is spent on other things.” (MAEP is the formula used to determine how much money goes to schools.)
At their annual meeting two weeks ago, Mississippi supervisors talked about the need to find additional money for programs like healthcare implementation and homestead exemption. There’s a legislative task force aimed at finding additional revenue for our state’s highway infrastructure. No one can ignore the rising costs of programs like Medicaid and the state retirement system, both of which will gobble up additional revenue.
For a few years, the Capitol-types (lobbyists, state agencies, etc.) recognized they simply weren’t going to get as much money as they wanted – if they got any at all. Policymakers were open to considering cost-cutting reform measures because they had to be. Now, with a budget surplus on the horizon, that mindset will likely vanish. Legislators, especially those on the money committees, can expect a little extra attention during the coming session.
Legislators can use the surplus in three ways: 1) increase funding for priority areas, like education; 2) reduce taxes to spur growth; and 3) set aside money for a “rainy day.” A likely scenario includes some combination of these options.
Until a final budget is adopted, legislators should be prepared for an onslaught of new spending options. Emboldened by a revenue surplus, state agencies and lobbyists will fight tooth and nail for a larger piece of the budgetary pie. While some of the longer-serving lawmakers remember the pre-recessionary days when revenue wasn’t as tight, a large part of the current class isn’t used to this much money – or the pressures that come with it.
It’s an old problem, for sure, but the reality is that Mississippi isn’t in the clear yet. While our revenues may be higher than expected, our economic picture is still slow to brighten. According to the latest stats, the state’s unemployment rate was tied for the second-highest in the nation with close to 120,000 Mississippians unemployed. Getting people back to work will take time, and revenues won’t fully catch back up until the employment situation bounces back.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Ballooning student debt, taxpayer-backed loans lead to one question: Is college really worth it?
*First appeared in the June 20, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle.
Start reading “Is College Worth It?” by David Wilezol and former U.S. Education Secretary Dr. William J. Bennett, and you’ll begin to wonder if attending college is the smart investment we’ve always assumed it is.
Consider the following: While college completion is considered an indicator of success, more than half of all college graduates in 2010-11 were unemployed or dramatically underemployed. Instead of a well-paying job, a college degree today is more likely to guarantee you a heavy debt load, as evidenced by the total student-loan debt in the U.S. recently surpassing $1 trillion (that's "trillion" with a capital T). The costs of college are skyrocketing at rates faster than inflation, thus increasing the gap between what the student or parent pays for college and their return on that investment.
The common thread among these issues is a long-held belief every child should attend college. I reject this theory since many students can learn skills that lead to good-paying jobs quicker and cheaper than getting a four-year degree.
"Is College Worth It?" details the struggles of many students who felt cheated after graduating college with massive amounts of debt. The Federal Reserve estimates the average debt load per student upon graduation is $23,300 – and it’s becoming problem for more than twenty-somethings. In fact, the same research shows the highest amount of per-borrower debt ($28,500) falls to individuals 30-39 years of age, followed closely by borrowers aged 40-49 ($26,000).
The price-tag to attend college has skyrocketed, with financial magazine Barron’s reporting last April that the cost of tuition at a four-year school had soared 300 percent – four times the rate of inflation – since 1990.
Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Bennett developed a theory that appears to hold true today: The “cost of college tuition will rise as long as the amount of money available in federal student-aid programs continues to increase with little or no accountability.”
As subsidies so often do, student aid has had the effect of shielding colleges from having to implement significant cost-cutting measures. Schools can raise tuition fees with a near assurance that federal financial aid will correspondingly increase. After all, the more students take out loans instead of paying out of their pocket, the less schools must be wary of rising costs. Under this model, there’s really no impetus for an institution to adopt transparency or accountability measures.
While the sluggish economy has necessarily resulted in state budget cuts to higher education, this reduction alone doesn’t account for the increased costs. Dr. Bennett would argue that states have realized colleges can afford to be less dependent on state funding, as they can capture student-loan dollars and become “self-funding entities.”
In Mississippi, we’ve seen tuition increases at both the community college and university level (even though state funding has been increased for both groups by nearly $54 million for the fiscal year beginning July 1). This week the Community and Junior College Board announced that 11 of its 15 institutions would raise tuition fees by an average of 6 percent, bringing tuition cost to roughly $2,377.
Supporting the Bennett hypothesis, the Associated Press reported the price of higher education tuition is rising faster than inflation - and people’s ability to pay. But most of the state’s community college students pay less than full price due to a combination of scholarships and, you guessed it, financial aid.
Dr. Bennett offers some innovative solutions to this growing problem. First, his mantra that “higher education is not underfunded; it is under-accountable” must factor into reforms. Colleges should have more skin in the game, an approach embraced by President Obama who “put colleges on notice” in a 2012 speech: “If [colleges] can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down.”
Dr. Bennett offers a sensible solution of tying more lending to academic persistence – meaning we’d recalibrate lending to students who are more likely to excel in the classroom and less likely to default on taxpayer-funded loans. He suggests making each college pay a fee for every one of its students who defaults on a student loan and limiting loans for living expenses.
His boldest idea is the development of private equity relationships between students and investors, in which an investor would receive a portion of the student’s future income in return for financing a portion of the student’s education. (I like this idea because it minimizes risks to taxpayers while incentivizing students to work hard.)
The co-authors cover countless other issues related to higher education in their work, and my column is a poor substitute for the book. I’ll close with this: If provoking serious thought on higher education was the goal of writing “Is College Worth It?,” I’d say the Bennett-Wilezol duo has accomplished what they set out to do.
Graphic from the Pew Center on the States
Start reading “Is College Worth It?” by David Wilezol and former U.S. Education Secretary Dr. William J. Bennett, and you’ll begin to wonder if attending college is the smart investment we’ve always assumed it is.
Consider the following: While college completion is considered an indicator of success, more than half of all college graduates in 2010-11 were unemployed or dramatically underemployed. Instead of a well-paying job, a college degree today is more likely to guarantee you a heavy debt load, as evidenced by the total student-loan debt in the U.S. recently surpassing $1 trillion (that's "trillion" with a capital T). The costs of college are skyrocketing at rates faster than inflation, thus increasing the gap between what the student or parent pays for college and their return on that investment.
The common thread among these issues is a long-held belief every child should attend college. I reject this theory since many students can learn skills that lead to good-paying jobs quicker and cheaper than getting a four-year degree.
"Is College Worth It?" details the struggles of many students who felt cheated after graduating college with massive amounts of debt. The Federal Reserve estimates the average debt load per student upon graduation is $23,300 – and it’s becoming problem for more than twenty-somethings. In fact, the same research shows the highest amount of per-borrower debt ($28,500) falls to individuals 30-39 years of age, followed closely by borrowers aged 40-49 ($26,000).
The price-tag to attend college has skyrocketed, with financial magazine Barron’s reporting last April that the cost of tuition at a four-year school had soared 300 percent – four times the rate of inflation – since 1990.
Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Bennett developed a theory that appears to hold true today: The “cost of college tuition will rise as long as the amount of money available in federal student-aid programs continues to increase with little or no accountability.”
As subsidies so often do, student aid has had the effect of shielding colleges from having to implement significant cost-cutting measures. Schools can raise tuition fees with a near assurance that federal financial aid will correspondingly increase. After all, the more students take out loans instead of paying out of their pocket, the less schools must be wary of rising costs. Under this model, there’s really no impetus for an institution to adopt transparency or accountability measures.
While the sluggish economy has necessarily resulted in state budget cuts to higher education, this reduction alone doesn’t account for the increased costs. Dr. Bennett would argue that states have realized colleges can afford to be less dependent on state funding, as they can capture student-loan dollars and become “self-funding entities.”
In Mississippi, we’ve seen tuition increases at both the community college and university level (even though state funding has been increased for both groups by nearly $54 million for the fiscal year beginning July 1). This week the Community and Junior College Board announced that 11 of its 15 institutions would raise tuition fees by an average of 6 percent, bringing tuition cost to roughly $2,377.
Supporting the Bennett hypothesis, the Associated Press reported the price of higher education tuition is rising faster than inflation - and people’s ability to pay. But most of the state’s community college students pay less than full price due to a combination of scholarships and, you guessed it, financial aid.
Dr. Bennett offers some innovative solutions to this growing problem. First, his mantra that “higher education is not underfunded; it is under-accountable” must factor into reforms. Colleges should have more skin in the game, an approach embraced by President Obama who “put colleges on notice” in a 2012 speech: “If [colleges] can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down.”
Dr. Bennett offers a sensible solution of tying more lending to academic persistence – meaning we’d recalibrate lending to students who are more likely to excel in the classroom and less likely to default on taxpayer-funded loans. He suggests making each college pay a fee for every one of its students who defaults on a student loan and limiting loans for living expenses.
His boldest idea is the development of private equity relationships between students and investors, in which an investor would receive a portion of the student’s future income in return for financing a portion of the student’s education. (I like this idea because it minimizes risks to taxpayers while incentivizing students to work hard.)
The co-authors cover countless other issues related to higher education in their work, and my column is a poor substitute for the book. I’ll close with this: If provoking serious thought on higher education was the goal of writing “Is College Worth It?,” I’d say the Bennett-Wilezol duo has accomplished what they set out to do.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Top political movers and playmakers have Jones County roots
*First appeared in Laurel Chronicle on June 13, 2013.
Growing up in Jones County, I often found myself cruising down Old Bay, watching plays at the Laurel Little Theatre, or enjoying a milkshake at the still-delicious P.D.I.’s. Early on in the Free State, I learned about how our neck of the woods contributed to a state, regional, and global impact – from companies like Sanderson Farms, the third largest poultry producer in the United States, to Howard Industries, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of distribution transformers.
What I didn’t realize, however, is that our county’s footprint went beyond these corporate giants. In fact, Jones Countians can also take pride in the Pine Belt’s impact on the state’s political class.
Rickey Cole, the head of the Mississippi Democratic Party, hails from Ovett. A candidate for state agriculture commissioner in 2007, Cole has been involved in more than 20 Democratic political campaigns since 1982. Splitting his time between Ovett, where he still helps manage the family farm, and Jackson, where he serves as a consultant with the Eaves law firm, Cole has a long history of Democratic activism across the state. His contributions to the Democratic Party haven’t gone unnoticed, as he is currently in his second term as chairman of the Democratic Party.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Mississippi Republican Party chairman Joe Nosef has Laurel roots as his wife, former Amy Wallace, grew up here. (Heard of Wallace Drugs? Of course you have. That’s the same family.) Years ago, Joe and I worked together as part of Governor Haley Barbour’s Office. We’d often discuss Laurel – its charming downtown and oak-lined historic district – since he had spent considerable time here with Amy. Although Nosef is a Clarksdale native, he embraced the uniqueness of our city beautiful and our Free State.
Speaking of Jones County Republicans, one of the state’s most well-known political families is from within our borders: The Pickerings. Located in the West Jones area, this family has produced household names in Mississippi politics. Let’s start with retired federal judge Charles Pickering, whose record of involvement in public service is lengthy. He has served in virtually all levels of government – from municipal to federal. A former municipal judge, Pickering also served in the Mississippi State Senate. In the 1970s, Pickering was chairman of the Mississippi Republican Party and was later appointed by the first President Bush to a federal judgeship.
His appointment in 2001 by President George W. Bush to serve on the Fifth Circuit would not come without controversy. Senate Democrats made national headlines when they chose to filibuster this Bush appointee on the grounds of his stance on abortion, as well as unsubstantiated claims that Pickering sympathized with racists. I should note that Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers (whose slaying occurred 50 years ago this week), openly supported Pickering’s nomination, along with other notable civil rights leaders. Ultimately, Pickering chose to withdraw his nomination, thus ending the filibuster debacle.
(Speaking of Judge Pickering, let’s not forget one of his former law partners, Carrol Gartin. You’ll probably recognize that name from the widely-used road in the city known as Carrol Gartin Boulevard. A Democrat, Gartin is a Laurel native who served three terms as Mississippi’s Lieutenant Governor during the 1950s and early 1960s.)
Judge Pickering’s son has also played on the national stage as a former member of the United States House of Representatives. Congressman Chip Pickering graduated from R.H. Watkins High School and attended college at both Ole Miss and Baylor University. He served as a member of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s staff before staging his own successful congressional campaign in 1997. In 2008, the Laurel native opted to return to Mississippi to pursue a career in the private sector.
Nephew to Judge Pickering is Stacey Pickering, whom most of Laurel knows as “neighbor” and the rest of the state knows as State Auditor. Prior to his election as State Auditor, Pickering served in the state senate, like his uncle before him. Pickering graduated from West Jones High School and attended both Jones County Junior College as well as Samford University. He earned a Master’s Degree from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Whitney, still live in Laurel with their four children.
From political party leaders to state senators; from federal judges to congressmen, Jones County natives have made a big impact on the state of Mississippi politics. So the next time you’re thinking about all the great things our county has to offer - from its charm to its corporate giants – I encourage you to consider the political side of our Free State.
Growing up in Jones County, I often found myself cruising down Old Bay, watching plays at the Laurel Little Theatre, or enjoying a milkshake at the still-delicious P.D.I.’s. Early on in the Free State, I learned about how our neck of the woods contributed to a state, regional, and global impact – from companies like Sanderson Farms, the third largest poultry producer in the United States, to Howard Industries, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of distribution transformers.
What I didn’t realize, however, is that our county’s footprint went beyond these corporate giants. In fact, Jones Countians can also take pride in the Pine Belt’s impact on the state’s political class.
Rickey Cole, the head of the Mississippi Democratic Party, hails from Ovett. A candidate for state agriculture commissioner in 2007, Cole has been involved in more than 20 Democratic political campaigns since 1982. Splitting his time between Ovett, where he still helps manage the family farm, and Jackson, where he serves as a consultant with the Eaves law firm, Cole has a long history of Democratic activism across the state. His contributions to the Democratic Party haven’t gone unnoticed, as he is currently in his second term as chairman of the Democratic Party.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Mississippi Republican Party chairman Joe Nosef has Laurel roots as his wife, former Amy Wallace, grew up here. (Heard of Wallace Drugs? Of course you have. That’s the same family.) Years ago, Joe and I worked together as part of Governor Haley Barbour’s Office. We’d often discuss Laurel – its charming downtown and oak-lined historic district – since he had spent considerable time here with Amy. Although Nosef is a Clarksdale native, he embraced the uniqueness of our city beautiful and our Free State.
Speaking of Jones County Republicans, one of the state’s most well-known political families is from within our borders: The Pickerings. Located in the West Jones area, this family has produced household names in Mississippi politics. Let’s start with retired federal judge Charles Pickering, whose record of involvement in public service is lengthy. He has served in virtually all levels of government – from municipal to federal. A former municipal judge, Pickering also served in the Mississippi State Senate. In the 1970s, Pickering was chairman of the Mississippi Republican Party and was later appointed by the first President Bush to a federal judgeship.
His appointment in 2001 by President George W. Bush to serve on the Fifth Circuit would not come without controversy. Senate Democrats made national headlines when they chose to filibuster this Bush appointee on the grounds of his stance on abortion, as well as unsubstantiated claims that Pickering sympathized with racists. I should note that Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers (whose slaying occurred 50 years ago this week), openly supported Pickering’s nomination, along with other notable civil rights leaders. Ultimately, Pickering chose to withdraw his nomination, thus ending the filibuster debacle.
(Speaking of Judge Pickering, let’s not forget one of his former law partners, Carrol Gartin. You’ll probably recognize that name from the widely-used road in the city known as Carrol Gartin Boulevard. A Democrat, Gartin is a Laurel native who served three terms as Mississippi’s Lieutenant Governor during the 1950s and early 1960s.)
Judge Pickering’s son has also played on the national stage as a former member of the United States House of Representatives. Congressman Chip Pickering graduated from R.H. Watkins High School and attended college at both Ole Miss and Baylor University. He served as a member of former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s staff before staging his own successful congressional campaign in 1997. In 2008, the Laurel native opted to return to Mississippi to pursue a career in the private sector.
Nephew to Judge Pickering is Stacey Pickering, whom most of Laurel knows as “neighbor” and the rest of the state knows as State Auditor. Prior to his election as State Auditor, Pickering served in the state senate, like his uncle before him. Pickering graduated from West Jones High School and attended both Jones County Junior College as well as Samford University. He earned a Master’s Degree from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He and his wife, Whitney, still live in Laurel with their four children.
From political party leaders to state senators; from federal judges to congressmen, Jones County natives have made a big impact on the state of Mississippi politics. So the next time you’re thinking about all the great things our county has to offer - from its charm to its corporate giants – I encourage you to consider the political side of our Free State.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Teen pregnancy rates dip, but out-of-wedlock births lead to larger economic challenges
*First appeared in the Laurel Chronicle on June 6, 2013.
About two weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control released another of its reports full of charts, numbers, and phrases like “data sources and methodology.” Got your attention? I didn’t think so, but stay with me.
This CDC report (“Declines in State Teen Birth Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin”) focused on teenage pregnancy, a topic all-too-familiar in this state. But the findings aren’t what you might think: Nationally, teenage births have seen a dramatic decline, with Mississippi following the trend. Over the five-year period (2007-2011), Mississippi’s teenage birth rate dropped from a whopping 70 percent (wow!) to 50 percent, or a decline of 28 percent. While 50 percent is still too high, the downward trend is encouraging. That’s the good news.
Although the 2011 data hasn’t been released yet, I thought it prudent to check on the trend of another measure: nonmarital, or out-of-wedlock, births. Over the past five years of available CDC data (2006-2010), out-of-wedlock births in this state have risen slightly, with more than one-half (54.8 percent) of all births falling in this category. That’s the bad news.
Why? Because the shift in the American family structure – specifically, the increase in out-of-wedlock births – has a dramatic and lasting impact on our economic growth. While I am most interested in monetary issues, I have come to realize it’s impossible (and impractical) to isolate economic policies from the over-arching issue of family structure. The two are inevitably linked. To put it simply: Families matter.
Illegitimacy typically leads to negative outcomes for both mother and child. This isn’t my opinion; it’s backed up by recent stats from the U.S. Census Bureau (yes, another government report). Out-of-wedlock births have increased since the 1940s, with dramatic upticks seen in recent years. According to the Census Bureau’s “Social and Economic Characteristics of Currently Unmarried Women with a Recent Birth,” individuals who have children outside of marriage are generally younger, have less education, and have lower income levels than married parents. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to be poor; even those kids who live in co-habiting households (where the mom and dad live together but are not married) have negative developmental and behavioral outcomes “due in part to family instability.”
In Mississippi, the out-of-wedlock birth rate is 54.8 percent according to the CDC. Broken down by race, we see that rate at 32.3 percent for whites; 56 percent for Hispanics; and 81.4 percent for blacks. Consider the known outcome of illegitimacy on poverty, income, and educational attainment. The African-American community is particularly hard hit.
Interestingly, the Census Bureau report notes that states with higher illegitimacy rates have, on average, correspondingly low levels of economic success: Lagging median incomes; elevated drop-out rates; low levels of higher educational attainment; and high levels of poverty. Mississippi checks the box in virtually every category.
Other considerations I’ve not mentioned include crime rates, which are closely linked to child rearing, and workforce development, including the readiness of an individual to join the workplace. Believe it or not, many employers today have problems finding workers with so-called “soft skills” – such as knowing what to wear in a work environment or punctuality. It makes sense, though, as these skills have traditionally been taught in the home setting.
So what do we do about it? First, we recognize we cannot legislate our way out of this complex problem. Lawmakers can pass laws that target dropout prevention; they can increase access to contraception or, contrarily, heavily regulate abortion clinics. Taxpayer funds can be used to teach “soft skills” to a modern labor force or to help impoverished communities attract economic development projects.
Given my background as a government policy wonk, I support innovative implementation of most of these ideas. But government is limited in that it can only target symptoms of a greater problem: A dramatically shifting American family structure.
Just as the problem of out-of-wedlock births begins in our communities, so should our response. Churches, civic groups, community organizations, parent-teacher associations, and others should take action. They should proactively target those within their reach, whether it’s high school students or a church youth group. Parents-to-be should be encouraged by their neighbors; honest dialogue should occur between friends who are considering marriage (or not). A special look should be given to those communities who are suffering most – such as the 80 percent of black children born outside of a marriage.
After all, when we fail to take personal responsibility, we fail as a community. In this failure, we create a void that is often filled by a government ill-equipped to impact real change. At the very least, we know the government will embrace its role as societal fixer – but usually through bureaucratic largesse that leads to increased spending and higher taxes…which brings us right back to economics, like I said.
About two weeks ago, the Centers for Disease Control released another of its reports full of charts, numbers, and phrases like “data sources and methodology.” Got your attention? I didn’t think so, but stay with me.
This CDC report (“Declines in State Teen Birth Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin”) focused on teenage pregnancy, a topic all-too-familiar in this state. But the findings aren’t what you might think: Nationally, teenage births have seen a dramatic decline, with Mississippi following the trend. Over the five-year period (2007-2011), Mississippi’s teenage birth rate dropped from a whopping 70 percent (wow!) to 50 percent, or a decline of 28 percent. While 50 percent is still too high, the downward trend is encouraging. That’s the good news.
Although the 2011 data hasn’t been released yet, I thought it prudent to check on the trend of another measure: nonmarital, or out-of-wedlock, births. Over the past five years of available CDC data (2006-2010), out-of-wedlock births in this state have risen slightly, with more than one-half (54.8 percent) of all births falling in this category. That’s the bad news.
Why? Because the shift in the American family structure – specifically, the increase in out-of-wedlock births – has a dramatic and lasting impact on our economic growth. While I am most interested in monetary issues, I have come to realize it’s impossible (and impractical) to isolate economic policies from the over-arching issue of family structure. The two are inevitably linked. To put it simply: Families matter.
Illegitimacy typically leads to negative outcomes for both mother and child. This isn’t my opinion; it’s backed up by recent stats from the U.S. Census Bureau (yes, another government report). Out-of-wedlock births have increased since the 1940s, with dramatic upticks seen in recent years. According to the Census Bureau’s “Social and Economic Characteristics of Currently Unmarried Women with a Recent Birth,” individuals who have children outside of marriage are generally younger, have less education, and have lower income levels than married parents. Children born out of wedlock are more likely to be poor; even those kids who live in co-habiting households (where the mom and dad live together but are not married) have negative developmental and behavioral outcomes “due in part to family instability.”
In Mississippi, the out-of-wedlock birth rate is 54.8 percent according to the CDC. Broken down by race, we see that rate at 32.3 percent for whites; 56 percent for Hispanics; and 81.4 percent for blacks. Consider the known outcome of illegitimacy on poverty, income, and educational attainment. The African-American community is particularly hard hit.
Interestingly, the Census Bureau report notes that states with higher illegitimacy rates have, on average, correspondingly low levels of economic success: Lagging median incomes; elevated drop-out rates; low levels of higher educational attainment; and high levels of poverty. Mississippi checks the box in virtually every category.
Other considerations I’ve not mentioned include crime rates, which are closely linked to child rearing, and workforce development, including the readiness of an individual to join the workplace. Believe it or not, many employers today have problems finding workers with so-called “soft skills” – such as knowing what to wear in a work environment or punctuality. It makes sense, though, as these skills have traditionally been taught in the home setting.
So what do we do about it? First, we recognize we cannot legislate our way out of this complex problem. Lawmakers can pass laws that target dropout prevention; they can increase access to contraception or, contrarily, heavily regulate abortion clinics. Taxpayer funds can be used to teach “soft skills” to a modern labor force or to help impoverished communities attract economic development projects.
Given my background as a government policy wonk, I support innovative implementation of most of these ideas. But government is limited in that it can only target symptoms of a greater problem: A dramatically shifting American family structure.
Just as the problem of out-of-wedlock births begins in our communities, so should our response. Churches, civic groups, community organizations, parent-teacher associations, and others should take action. They should proactively target those within their reach, whether it’s high school students or a church youth group. Parents-to-be should be encouraged by their neighbors; honest dialogue should occur between friends who are considering marriage (or not). A special look should be given to those communities who are suffering most – such as the 80 percent of black children born outside of a marriage.
After all, when we fail to take personal responsibility, we fail as a community. In this failure, we create a void that is often filled by a government ill-equipped to impact real change. At the very least, we know the government will embrace its role as societal fixer – but usually through bureaucratic largesse that leads to increased spending and higher taxes…which brings us right back to economics, like I said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)