Recent editorials from Mississippi newspapers:
___
Jan. 31
The Gazebo Gazette on local politics:
As the municipal election qualification deadline approaches, the list of candidates is rather small and generally incumbents are unopposed. In virtually every political poll of current times, it has become virtually impossible to beat an incumbent that has been there for more than one term unless the opponent has solid name recognition.
In the research done, advantages come from being an incumbent with greater name recognition and this generally attracts votes that would not be gained by a challenger or running in an open seat race. Additionally, the financial status generally works towards the incumbent; not necessarily from their income but organizations that would provide them capital if they favored a position.
The founding fathers never intended for members of Congress, nor state legislatures to use governmental positions to become wealthy and become long lasting. Early members of Congress were paid $6 a day and they normally met during spring or fall rather than winter and hot summers.
The fourth President of the United States; James Madison, was famous for writing Federalist No. 10 in an open defense of the United States Constitution and being against political parties. Madison spoke negatively about partisanship, forming alliances, and any faction worked against public interest.
So hearing all of the sides, the common question is why should I run for public office. There should be only reason anyone should ever run for office: THE LOVE OF THE COMMUNITY.
Every office is different and its handles opposite scenarios, where local city council, supervisors, state legislators, judges, members of Congress, etc. each may face local budgets, or state problems, and a few national issues.
Whether someone is successful or not, their community will always be there for them in the United States. The more attention paid to their community, accomplishing tasks generally follow.
Online: https://thegazebogazette.com/
___
Jan. 28
The Dispatch on transparency in political advertisements:
Since its founding, a major tenet of our nation’s judicial system is the right for those charged with a crime to face their accusers. The fairness of that right seems so obvious that we take it for granted. Yet there remain places in the world where no such right exists, primarily countries dominated by autocratic rule.
Few people would disagree that when someone is accused of something, it’s only fair that the person making the accusation reveals his identity. We cringe at anonymous accusations, and rightfully so, because it does not allow us to determine the accuser’s motives and credibility.
For similar reasons, we expect a certain amount of transparency in our political advertising. Accusations, wild claims and mudslinging are not uncommon during an election, and while court rulings have eroded them some in recent years, laws exist to help us understand who is paying to influence elections.
While the judicial system offers the possibility for sufficient consequences for a criminal act, unfortunately our political advertising disclosure laws lack teeth.
We’ve seen examples of this in our community over the past two municipal election cycles.
The Dispatch reported earlier this week on a billboard in Starkville which targets Mayor Lynn Spruill, who is seeking a second term. Seemingly in violation of Mississippi law, the ad does not include any disclaimer that it is a paid political ad. It also fails to identify the individual or group paying for the ad.
Asked about those violations, the owner of the billboard that features the ad seemed not at all concerned, probably for good reason. Many campaign laws have little deterrent power and are loosely regulated, if at all. They are like laws concerning spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking: They exist, but are rarely, if ever, enforced. We think that’s a mistake that can lead to wealthy individuals and groups unfairly influencing elections.
In Columbus in 2017, another billboard similarly caught the public’s attention. This one attacked the credibility of a mayoral candidate. Later that year, a group behind a series of radio ads intended to influence the possible sale of OCH hospital in Starkville also failed to make proper disclosures. The Dispatch reached out to the Attorney General’s office this week for an update on those two four-year-old complaints and still has not received information on the status of those complaints.
We have a right to know who is making accusations so that we can judge for ourselves the accusers’ credibility and make some inferences about their motives.
The public interest is not served when this information is withheld.
Online: https://cdispatch.com/
___
Jan. 27
The Greenwood Commonwealth on raising the minimum wage:
With Democrats now in charge of both Congress and the White House, there is more talk about raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour over a period of five years.
The minimum wage is definitely more likely to increase under Washington leadership that is exclusively Democratic. But there are some significant barriers to more than doubling the existing rate of $7.25, so a figure somewhere between them is more reasonable.
The first thing to say is that it’s probably time to raise the minimum wage, which has not gone up since 2009. But it also should be pointed out that during better economic times - before the coronavirus, for example - plenty of businesses that employed low-wage workers raised pay on their own because of greater competition for capable and dependable employees.
A 2020 report from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics said that only 1.9% of American workers paid by the hour earn the minimum wage or less. (The law allows restaurants to pay waiters far less than $7.25 but requires that rate when tips are included.)
There are more minimum-wage workers in Mississippi and Louisiana - 4.0% and 4.6%, respectively. It’s still a fairly small slice of the labor force, though it begs the question of how many workers aren’t counted because they’re paid just a little bit more than minimum wage.
If President Biden and congressional Democrats and Republicans put their heads together, they probably would come up with a plan to raise the minimum wage to about $10 per hour over three years. That’s a sizable increase, but far from the $15 rate that just seems like too much of a jump.
Advocates for lower-wage workers would protest, saying $10 an hour is not enough to live on. But lots of factors go into determining a living wage, and here’s one that people overlook most of the time: The number of hours worked in a week.
It’s safe to predict that most people working at or near the minimum wage are part-time employees. Businesses are pretty good at managing their labor costs, and one certainty of a government moonshot toward $15 per hour over five years is that employers will figure out how to get by with fewer people, or have each person on staff work a few less hours per week.
A big mistake with the Affordable Care Act cost low-wage employees a significant amount of money by unintentionally encouraging employers to reduce these workers’ hours. It used to be that employees working less than 40 hours a week were considered part-time. But the legislation, known as Obamacare, designated anyone averaging just 30 hours a week as full time in determining eligibility for certain benefits, most notably employer-sponsored health insurance coverage.
Businesses responded by reducing hours to keep people below that threshold. You can question the fairness of that decision, but from a minimum-wage employee’s viewpoint, losing several hours of work each week had to be painful.
The bottom line is that if the Democrats move too fast on the minimum wage, they will hurt many of the people they are trying to help. This is an opportunity for the president to show off his negotiating skills.
Online: https://www.gwcommonwealth.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.