This post was first published in Y'all Politics. Mr. Corder is the editor of the website.
The Mississippi Legislature is tasked with handling the business of the people, tackling issues of importance that will both improve the State and the lives of Mississippians. When they cannot come together, what’s left is the referendum process whereby the people move an issue forward the politicians refuse to embrace.
That is what occurred with medical marijuana. The
Legislature knew full well the will of the people was there to enact a
controlled medical marijuana program. It had been discussed for years
but was killed repeatedly. What resulted was a referendum that most
legislators did not prefer as it did not address taxation, zoning and
other public concerns in a conventional manner. Yet, the Legislature’s
failure to address the issue resulted in a ballot initiative that cut
them out of the process.
That very well may be what occurs with the Outdoor Stewardship Trust Fund idea if lawmakers cannot come together. As of this printing, conferees have not been appointed by the state Senate.
The Mississippi Outdoor Stewardship Coalition is an entity organized and composed of Delta Council, Delta Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, Foundation for Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, The Nature Conservancy of Mississippi, and Wildlife Mississippi.
The Coalition’s statewide polling data shows a baseline of 75% of Mississippians support a sales tax diversion for conservation funding derived from the sale of outdoor sporting goods.
The Mississippi House passed HB 1231 by a vote of 117-2 but the Senate removed “nongovernmental entities” and the steady source of funding from the bill, taking out the very language that allowed for private investment in conservation areas. Bill proponents argue that 90% of Mississippi’s lands are privately owned and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to move the needle from a conservation perspective only on public lands.
The referendum process is expensive and should not be a necessity in an unified government (particularly with a Republican supermajority) that shares the majority opinion of the people. It should be rare. The referendum process is cumbersome and filled with pitfalls, yet with enough money and popular will, it is a means to force the politicians’ hands.
Kingfish note: What referendum process? The bill to correct the Constitution died on the calendar.
22 comments:
“Jeapordy”? Oh, Christ, Kingfish, do correct the spelling before Alex Trebek leaps out of his grave and conks you on your head! Hint: transpose two of the vowels.
It is so amazing that there can be such a polarized thought process on this issue. This Bill passed overwhelmingly from the House. It get to the Senate and the Bill is gutted to the point that it does not resemble the Bill that they were presented. I think this can lay at the feet of our Lt Gov
He really fooled me. As SOS, he cam across as this folksy guy that all of us could identify with. NOW that he has the power of the OFFICE, his true colors show. Our Lt Gov has not changed, he is now showing what he always has been. Sadly, I voted for him. Senate, get on board and pass the Bill as it was intended.
Note to Delbert, Those folksy campaign ads ain't gonna work anymore.
Outdoor Stewardship Trust Fund is a very good idea ,but most of the general public couldn't care less.Marijuana was a topic of interest to practically every voter. It will take a lot of work by a few people to get it on the ballot.
To think that everything that some folks want to see done should be done by a referendum is idiotic. Just because the legislature this year has not come to an agreement over this bill that it should then be the subject of a referendum shows Corder's ineptitude of understanding the process.
Very few bills of this nature get passed in their first year of existence, especially when the proposal involves such a broad spectrum of issues - including the controversial ones like giving public dollars to private entities, and the diversion of taxes to a long-term commitment of projects.
Diverting the sales taxes from hunting/fishing to this project is nothing more than singling out a pet project of many to a guaranteed funding, no matter the economic conditions in future years. We already give a sales tax holiday to the sport (for which I am grateful, don't misunderstand) but to take this concept and fund it in perpetuity is not governing. Keep up diversions, and I&R and we won't need a legislature in the future (granted, that sounds like a good concept as well, but it won't work out on paper as great as keeping the 174 of them at home full-time.)
j-e-o-p-a-r-d-y Jeopardy
Why do I get the feeling that if several "prominent" individuals say this is a good idea, it's a really great idea for that exclusive hunting camp where they are a member.
Hosemann has always been a RINO.
Clearly as I have stated many times, the Mississippi Legislature needs to be overhauled. Or just basically every incumbent needs to be voted out of office. Both republican and democrat legislators believe their constituents are idiots who don’t have the nads to kick them to the curb. The debacle of proposition 65 and the failure of the legislature to fix the initiative process tells me the legislature believes WE work for them. Not the other way around. It’s a simple fix. When you go into the voting booth in 2022 everyone in Mississippi can send a message to the elites in Jackson. And that message (SEE YA and get the hell outta here)
Don’t trust Frank. Follow the money.
All I did was copy and paste.
My understanding is the Senate's position is the parks are in pretty bad shape and need all the funds they can get. After DMR and DHS, some aren't too crazy about diverting tax funds to private land.
11:24
Could not have said it better myself!
The very worst maintained state parks in our surrounding states look brand new when compared to what were once our best state parks.
We are always bombarded with frantic pundits screaming about teacher salaries in " surrounding states ".
Nothing against teachers, but let's throw a little money at our state parks.
It's econ 101.
The return on outdoor recreation expenditures is far more than the original investment.
BTW, I don't care if the original expense comes from private or public sector funds.
Nature Conservancy interim CEO, Sally Jewell. Obama Interior Secretary. An organization with 1.2 Billion in Revenue.
Ducks for Rich Folks Unlimited? CEO Establishment GOP Cong. Adam Putnam, who hated Trump and DeSantis, but fled to Memphis for a 500K DU job. DU funds, TWO billion dollars.
All these "conservation" groups have one factor in common: a senior leadership that aggressively cultivates ties to global corporations. Pays lavishly. And wines and dines with tax deductible "non" profit (LMAO) funds.
Of COURSE they want GubMint money to subsidize even more private land and give them tax breaks.
You honestly think these folks, even if they send their biggest back slappin' Good Ole Boy to blow smoke up rube Legislators behinds, have ANYTHING but Wall Street, Limousine Liberals, and Martha's Vineyard/Mississippi fake Good Ole Boys in mind?
US Tax Courts: Increasingly hostile environment for conservation easement shelters; .01% increase wealth vastly during pandemic.
Boys, we already have a Zoo owned by Emirate oil princes, a law set up for Australian/Texan billionaires to invest in Toll Roads, and over 2 Billion Dollars in US Ag Welfare subsidies over the last 20 years.
And YOU think this "private investment" shtick is not just a big tax dodge for Northeast Jerkson and Germantown and the out of towner "I'm Just A Mississippi Girl" (who owns a Caribbean island and jets) scheme??
Well, let me introduce you to some Houston energy boys, or road contract boys, or.....
The 5 star meals at the De Luxe Duck Club must have been sumptuous.
I agree with 1:13, something smells fishy about this.
There are too many prominent and wealthy hunting club owners supporting this legislation. So, if Gilbert is opposing, this puts him at odds with his prominent hunting club peers. Maybe there is something Gilbert knows that we do not. I am starting to think that maybe I am opposed to this too.
The Wildlife Department kommisars are all rich hunting club types.
And when did our sanctimonious republican leaders Tater and Gunn-er decide that they wanted more federal funding?
KF, you need to investigate where this trust money would go and to whom.
It is socialism for the rich. It takes taxpayer money and uses it on private land where only the wealthy will ever have any benefit from it.
The entire population of this state knows by now that if an employee of MDWFP is hawking something as valuable and the right thing to do....there's a shit sandwich smelling somewhere in Boston.
Their polished spokesman can take up a whole damned hour on Gallo or JT and the outcome will be the smell of that same shit sandwich.
MDWFP is NOT to be trusted. Period.
Diverting public tax dollars to benefit select (read: wealthy) private land owners? With allocation decisions made by a group of political appointees who are unaccountable to voters?
Smells like corruption. No wonder all of the usual characters are salivating at the thought of this free money - and running ads to promote the legislation that would generate it.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear Delbert Hosemann take a stand on diverting public funds in this way, and advocate this PUBLIC money be used solely for PUBLIC benefit. All those rich folks at those high dollar hunting camps in the delta can fund their own damn pet projects. After all, they're the only ones that will get to enjoy them.
For generations, the agency has been populated and run by 'good ole boys'. The only exception was when Amy Tuck (and her truck) put her brother in as second in command. The agency is nothing but every governor's plaything, especially if he fancies shooting clip-winged quail up at Louisville like the last one did.
Our state parks have turned to shit under this agency. Now they want to turn state money over to private individuals with no accountability.
10:34 - You have self identified as a land-owner who would definitely benefit. You sound more like a Biden-Camper who's only interested in self-fulfillment. What's In It For Me....is evident in your post.
Why not just use the money to buy land and open it to the public for hunting and recreation?
"Why not just use the money to buy land and open it to the public for hunting and recreation?"
1) That would contradict the entire unspoken mission statement of the agency.
2) Why buy more land when there's plenty owned by the state already?
The Agency-Homer (who appears on Supertalk regularly) is fond of saying (hold on - let me put on my Goober Pyle cap)..."The thang about a deer is he don't know when he crosses from public land to private land and vicie versie, yuck".
Post a Comment