The battle to become governor of the state of Mississippi has already become a bare-knuckled brawl. Tate Reeves, the GOP nominee, started running attack ads that associated Jim Hood with trial lawyers and “outside interests” from the time he was the presumptive Democratic nominee. Reeves’ latest salvo involves goading Hood into a quick debate.
Hood has recently released an Attorney General report that concluded Reeves used his political clout to direct state funds to improve a road to ease his commute. Reeves’ camp is predictably incensed that Hood is using his public office to attack a political rival.
Reeves’ platform follows in the same direction of other supply side politicians: cut taxes aggressively, depend on leaders of state agencies to identify the most important needs to fund, and rely on low taxes to increase consumer spending and government revenue. Hood’s approach involves addressing educational, health, and infrastructure needs that have been underfunded for the last several years. His plans will demand a reevaluation of taxation. If, as he proposes, we eliminate grocery taxes, we will have to increase taxes elsewhere.
I think that if Reeves wins and follows through with his plans to delegate funding decisions to the heads of state agencies, misuse of funds would be likely. The leaders of state agencies would likely want more money for their projects than what might be necessary, in order to promote their own agendas. They would likely disagree on projects to fund too, but they may agree on key issues such as infrastructure. This could go either way, the heads of the agencies might agree on the allocation of funds and it could be a streamlined process or they could argue and get nothing done.
Lowering taxes may help consumer spending, but people can only spend what they have (theoretically, in this scenario loans and credit cards do not exist). A better plan would be to lower corporate taxes, keep consumer taxes where they are at and fund infrastructure with those taxes. The state might want to legalize marijuana, and have a very steep tax on it strictly for school funding. Better infrastructure and better schools would attract businesses, thus providing more tax income.
If Hood wins and increases taxes, spending would likely decrease among the Mississippi population thus lowering state GDP. This could hurt the economy and land the state in even more debt as healthcare, education, and infrastructure are notoriously expensive.
I bet that Reeves wins and maintains Mississippi’s red status.
This time in 2016, the outcome of the election appeared to be open and shut – Hillary Clinton would secure the presidential election and send the reality-television star back to Manhattan and back out of the public eye. Now, that did not happen, as politics have a funny way of offering an October surprise – FBI Director James Comey revealed that a probe was being opening pertaining to Clinton’s mishandling of a private email server. While this turned out to be nothing just a few weeks later, it might have been just to enough to sew the seeds of distrust among the American people and gave validation to Trump’s rampant use of the term “Crooked” when referring to Mrs. Clinton.
I obviously want Jim Hood to win, and if Democrats are going to win in deep-red Mississippi, he is essentially their only chance in the foreseeable future. Tate Reeves has led our state down a dangerous and harmful path, and I believe that a Reeves victory would be disastrous for education, healthcare, and the working class. Nevertheless, it appears statistically true that Reeves has a much clearer path to the Governor’s Mansion, but so did Clinton in 2016. October changes everything, and at the end of the day, we don’t know what can sprout up between now and election day – the only thing that remains true is that if Tate Reeves becomes the next governor of Mississippi, the Republicans would have sealed the coffin of the Democratic Party in Mississippi.
I am republican, and let that influence my vote of course, yet I still find myself rooting for Hood in this election. I just don’t see how any person could support Reeves’ ambitions. We cannot just keep lowering taxes every year, that’s why our infrastructure is as bad as it is. People see “lower taxes” and think that it’s amazing, when, in the long run, it hurts them. Hopefully Hood wins this election so that our state can stop suffering as the worst/almost worst state in the nation.
This is an interesting topic, because the two main politicians in this race were seemingly neck and neck in the race, until Reeves won of course, and the ideals of Hood seem so much more appealing to me personally, than those of Reeves. Anyone who states that they need to incorporate more funding into education will certainly catch my eye, and Davan makes a great point stating that ” if Democrats are going to win in deep-red Mississippi, he is essentially their only chance in the foreseeable future. Tate Reeves has led our state down a dangerous and harmful path, and I believe that a Reeves victory would be disastrous for education, healthcare, and the working class”. I completely agree with this statement.