Despite all the debate in the Legislature over teacher pay raise bills and which one is the best, they are in reality remarkably similar.
This year, both the House and Senate put forth legislation that would increase salaries for public school teachers. Late on Tuesday, House leaders killed a Senate bill on a crucial deadline day, essentially forcing Senate leaders to pass a House bill to be used as the vehicle to provide Mississippi teachers a pay raise. Though the House bill is the vehicle that survived, either chamber’s plan could ultimately get signed into law.
The House bill costs nearly $220 million per year. The Senate bill costs about $230 million. Both bills provide $2,000 pay raises for teacher assistants.
A key difference is that the House bill is enacted in one year. The Senate proposal is phased in over two years, though, the bulk of the salary increase in the Senate bill is in the first year.
The Senate plan provides teacher assistants a salary increase of $1,000 in the first year and another $1,000 hike in the second year. The House plan provides teacher assistants the full $2,000 increase in the first year.
More than likely, the issue of teacher pay will be decided late in the session where House and Senate leaders meet in a conference committee to work out the differences. But for teachers or anyone else who want to compare what they would make under the House and Senate plans, the two following charts can provide some information. Click on the drop downs to see what teachers of various experience and education levels make under each plan.
Tuesday, March 1, was the deadline for committees in the House and Senate to pass out general law bills that originated in the other chamber — a major “killing deadline” that resulted in hundreds of bills dying with or without a committee vote.
The next major deadline for the Legislature is March 9, for the full chambers to take action on the other chamber’s general bills. Most spending and tax bills face later deadlines than general bills. Although bills might have died, there is a possibility some might be revived by inserting language through the amendment process into bills that remain alive.
The 2022 Mississippi legislative session began Jan. 4 and is scheduled to end on April 3.
Here’s a look at general bills that lived or died with Tuesday night’s deadline:
ALIVE
House Bill 530: Teacher pay raise. After a political game of cat-and-mouse, the House killed the Senate’s teacher pay bill on deadline and the Senate, after much fear and loathing, passed the House bill — amended with its own language — to keep a teacher raise alive. Either version would be the largest teacher pay raise in recent history, at more than $200 million.
HB 770 and SB 2451: Equal pay bills. Both bills survived the March 1 deadline. Mississippi is the last state to not provide state legal recourse for employees paid less for the same work based on sex. However, women’s equal pay groups have criticized both the House and Senate bills as having glaring flaws and called for them to be amended. The Senate also amended the House equal pay bill to keep a proposal to reform divorce laws alive.
SB 2113: Prohibiting teaching of critical race theory. This bill has divided lawmakers along racial and party lines. Supporters say it would prohibit the teaching of critical race theory in kindergarten through 12th grade schools and on the university level. State Department of Education officials have said critical race theory, which strives to explore the impact of racial discrimination on various aspects of society, is not being taught in the public schools. Some say the bill is so vague that it is not clear what the impact of the legislation would be.
HC 39: Reviving the state’s initiative process. This proposal would revive the process where citizens can bypass the legislative process and place issues on the ballot for voters to decide. The legislation is needed because the state Supreme Court ruled the initiative process invalid because of a technicality in May 2021.
HB 606: Creating an outdoor stewardship trust fund. This measure, a source of debate between House and Senate for two years, would create a conservation fund to use state dollars to draw down federal wildlife conservation grants — as many other states do. The Senate opposes the House’s plan to use diversion of sales taxes from sporting goods to fund it, and stripped that language and said the Legislature would fund it each year. Proponents of the measure say such a fund needs a steady stream of revenue.
SB 2164: Creating a standalone Department of Tourism. It would be its own department instead of a division within the Mississippi Development Authority. It would also create the Mississippi Department of Tourism Fund and divert a portion of sales tax revenue collected from restaurants and hotels there instead of to MDA.
SB 2273: Allowing employers to vouch for people on parole, The bill allows employs of people convicted of crimes to provide reports to probation officers to prevent the need for the employee to leave work to report to a probation officer.
HB 1029: Increasing broadband access. This bill provides grants for entities willing to expand broadband in rural areas.
HB 1367: Removing racist language from property deeds. This bill provides property owners an easy, inexpensive way to go to chancery court to remove old language found in property deeds that is no longer enforceable and offensive. Language, for instance, forbidding Black families from owning a piece of property can be found in deeds.
DEAD
SB 2643: Divorce law reform. This measure would have brought Mississippi a step closer to having a unilateral no-fault divorce like most other states. Mississippi’s antiquated divorce laws make getting a divorce difficult and expensive, often allows one spouse to delay a divorce for years and leads to spouses and children being trapped in bad family situations. The bill died in House committee without a vote. But the bill’s author, Sen. Brice Wiggins, said the divorce language was inserted into a House equal pay bill that is still alive.
SB 2634: TANF savings accounts. This bill would have provided matching money to help recipients of welfare benefits create savings accounts, and the savings would not affect their eligibility for TANF benefits. The goal of the program, similar to ones most other states have, is to help recipients become financially stable and get off TANF rolls.
SB 2504: Creating state parks division. This measure would have made a state parks division of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, with its own director. Advocates say the state’s dilapidated, ill-maintained parks have languished under MDWFP for years.
HB 630: Restoring right to vote. This bill would have clarified people whose felony conviction is expunged under existing law would be eligible to vote.
SB 2261: “Buddy’s Law.” This law, named after a dog who barely survived being severely burned and tortured by a 12-year-old in Mississippi. It would require children who torture dogs or cats to receive psychological evaluation, counseling and treatment.
The Sun Belt Conference announced the league’s 2022 football schedule Tuesday. As expected, Southern Miss is prominently featured, playing eight Sun Belt opponents.
But Conference USA released its ’22 football schedule two weeks ago, listing Southern Miss as a conference member playing eight CUSA foes.
Rick Cleveland
Here’s the deal: Will Hall, the Golden Eagles coach, expects to have, as he puts it, “night and day” more talent and depth next season than he had last year. He does not, however, have nearly enough depth to play 16 conference games in two different leagues, often playing two games on the same day in two different stadiums.
Something has to give. It will.
My guess: Southern Miss will play its first game as a new Sun Belt member at Troy on Oct. 8. Louisiana Tech, the team CUSA lists as Southern Miss’s opponent that day, will have to find someone else to play or will have an open date.
All this ultimately will be decided in the courts where Southern Miss – and Marshall and Old Dominion – apparently will have a strong home-court advantage. Marshall, located in Huntingdon, W.V., and Old Dominion, located in Norfolk, Va., are both leaving CUSA for Sun Belt. So it is that CUSA must litigate against the three schools in the courts in those schools’ respective states. Good luck with that.
As one lawyer put it, “That would be my worst nightmare as a litigator.”
Predictably, all three schools already have received favorable temporary restraining orders. All three have another court date scheduled in coming days. If there are no delays, USM’s next court date would be March 7 in Forrest County Circuit Court.
Said Bob Gholson, general counsel for Southern Miss, when asked about the case: “I can’t comment on an ongoing legal matter.”
Jeremy McClain, the school’s athletic director, says he can’t comment for the same reason.
Hall, the football coach, said this: “We’ve always thought we were going to play in the Sun Belt this next season. Look at the schedule and you’ll see why. We are now a part of one of the best, if not the best, group of five conferences in the country. We can’t wait to get started. We’re playing in a league with a bunch of teams in our area, games our fans can get to.”
Hall’s team will open with its four non-conference opponents: hosting Liberty and Hugh Freeze, playing at Miami (Fla.), hosting Northwestern (La.) State, and playing at Tulane. The league schedule includes road games against Troy, Texas State, Coastal Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe. Conference home games will be with Arkansas State, Louisiana, Georgia State and South Alabama.
In the Sun Belt, Southern Miss will fly to two conference football games, at most, a year (probably one in alternate years). That will be a huge savings from the much more spread out CUSA. Those savings will multiply in other sports such as basketball, baseball, softball and other spring sports. Long-time readers of this column know I’ve advocated for this move for years. It just makes sense.
Conference USA bylaws call for departing teams to give 14 months notice. Southern Miss, Marshall and Old Dominion all notified the league office last December (November in Marshall’s case) they would become Sun Belt members on July 1. They did so knowing that by leaving early they would forfeit their share of the conference proceeds for the current school year and the next. (Last year’s share was approximately $1.5 million). So USM will forfeit approximately $3 million for leaving early. CUSA wants the three departing schools to pay further damages.
The league wants those damages assessed and arbitrated in Dallas, where the conference office resides. The three departing schools want to mediate any additional damages in their home states. That’s where it now stands.
Seems to me CUSA is simply putting off the inevitable – and putting its remaining members in a bind as well. Now, if not long before now, is when schools usually make travel arrangements for the coming season.
This much is certain: The sooner Southern Miss can put CUSA in its rearview mirror, the better.
No state has ever eliminated a personal income tax as Mississippi House leaders have proposed. This would be an experiment — a multi-billion dollar bet — that would fundamentally change the way our state funds basic government services. This decision could alter Mississippi lives for generations to come.
Reputable economists and experts can’t seem to agree on what, exactly, this tax cut would do to Mississippi’s economy. No two studies show the same results, giving many Mississippians great pause about whether this idea is fully vetted and understood. Some of the state’s top elected Republicans and Democrats are openly questioning whether Mississippi can afford such a move.
For weeks, we at Mississippi Today have been on the front lines of this critical debate, asking tough but fair questions of the elected officials who are proposing the income tax cut and of the ones who oppose it.
If you haven’t read our thorough coverage, here are some highlights: We’ve covered the varying economic scoring of the tax cut proposals; the battle lines drawn by Republican lawmakers who disagree about how much the state can afford; the growing infighting between House and Senate Republican leaders; the projections that show low-income Mississippians would be on the hook to pay more if the plan passes; and perhaps most importantly, the models that show how the proposals could negatively affect the state’s ability to fund its current government services.
As journalists, we always seek the truth. We provide context and analysis to help Mississippians connect the dots and to better understand why their government leaders are making decisions. We strive to focus our reporting on the effects proposed policies will have on everyday Mississippians who just want a better life for themselves and their children.
It is our job to be the eyes and ears of the public, to ask questions of elected officials on behalf of their constituents — most of whom have no access to ask the questions themselves.
Above all else, we are Mississippians. We care deeply about the future of the state, and it is our responsibility to hold our leaders accountable for their actions. The only agenda we have is to find and tell the Mississippi truth.
Some of our recent reporting has been the target of attacks from partisan media pushing the House income tax elimination plan. This backlash from so-called “news organizations” further highlights the importance of our journalists’ role in asking: Is this tax cut really the right move for Mississippi?
The answer to that question could very well be “yes.” But as lawmakers continue working to answer it, we’ll keep pressing every chance we get as the 2022 legislative session enters its final days.
Mississippi’s rape and sexual battery statutes still contain language right out of the 1800s — about “ravishing” a “female previously of chaste character” — and still provide a spousal defense that can protect those who commit marital rape.
House Bill 1080 would have changed that and brought Mississippi’s laws into the 21st century. But it died without a vote on Tuesday’s deadline for the Senate to pass it out of committee.
“There are a handful of states that still have a spousal defense on the books, even though basically it’s illegal to rape anyone,” said Rep. Dana McLean, R-Columbus, author of the bill. “… It’s a shame that sometimes in Mississippi, we seem to be the last state in the Union to actually make something right.”
The bill would have clarified the definition and elements of rape and sexual assault, replacing passages such as “assault with the intent to forcibly ravish a female of previously chaste character.”
The bill passed the House by a vote of 119-1, with only Rep. Omeria Scott, D-Laurel, voting against it. But McLean said, “I got word that the leadership over in the Senate had a problem with removing the spousal defense for rape. It’s disheartening, very disheartening.”
Senate Judiciary B Chairman Joey Fillingane said he agreed with the bill’s intent — he even authored a similar one — but he said there were numerous bills in both chambers this session aimed at changing rape and assault laws.
“Any time there’s that many, that means it’s probably time to have hearings out of session and make some sweeping changes instead of with nine different bills,” Fillingane said. As for opposition to removing the spousal defense, Fillingane said, “That might have been a concern of some people, but that was not the overarching concern … I think people believe this is archaic language that doesn’t fit with 2022, and I agree with that.”
Fillingane said Mississippi’s legal code in general probably still has a lot of antiquated language that should be removed and rewritten.
The bill that died Tuesday would have deleted language in the law that said a person would not be guilty of rape or sexual battery if the alleged victim was the defendant’s legal spouse at the time of the offense and the couple is not separated and living apart. It would also change law that said a legal spouse may be found guilty of sexual battery if the spouse engaged in forcible penetration without the consent of the alleged victim.
“What about if a spouse was passed out, or drunk or on drugs?” McLean said. “Should that be OK, because she was not fighting him, or because she passed out?”
McLean said there were references to “a female” in the law that her bill changed to say person, “because men can be raped, too.” She said it also removed language such as, “It shall be presumed that the female was previously of chaste character and the burden of proof is on a defendant to prove she was not of chaste character.”
Although since the early 1990s every state recognizes marital rape as a crime, some including Mississippi still have laws on the books that either provide protection for the perpetrator or lesser penalties.
McLean said she believes a lot of prosecutors use the state’s sexual battery laws instead of the rape statute with harsher penalties because the latter’s language is so antiquated.
This measure, authored by Sen. Brice Wiggins, was the latest in a long-running, usually unsuccessful effort to update the state’s antiquated, misogynistic divorce laws that often trap spouses and children in bad, sometimes abusive and dangerous family situations.
Mississippi and South Dakota remain the only two states without a unilateral no-fault divorce ground. Mississippi’s divorce ground of “irreconcilable differences” requires mutual consent of spouses. This frequently makes getting a divorce in Mississippi difficult and expensive, and it often allows one spouse to delay a divorce for years, sometimes many years.
The bill passed the full Senate, but died in the House Judiciary A committee without a vote.
House leaders, for the second consecutive year on a key deadline day, killed a Senate bill, essentially forcing Senate leaders to pass a House bill to be used as the vehicle to provide Mississippi teachers a pay raise.
Leaders from both chambers argued their bill should be used for the pay raise.
For much of Tuesday, the final day to pass general bills from the other chamber out of committee, leadership from the two chambers played chicken on who would blink first and take the other chamber’s teacher pay bill.
“We have two Senate (teacher pay bills) in the House,” said Senate Education Chair Dennis DeBar, R-Leakesville, who held a series of meetings throughout the state last year on the issue of teacher pay. “It is the Senate’s No. 1 priority.”
Late Tuesday afternoon after passing the House bill to ensure a teacher pay raise remained alive during the 2022 session DeBar said, “The bottom line is the teachers are the winners here today. The way politics is played up here only lessens our ability to attract teachers … We need to resolve this issue and get on to other things.”
But House Education Chair Richard Bennett, R-Long Beach, countered: “Our priority was a teacher pay raise – it was our first bill — and their priority was medical marijuana as their first bill.
“It was our first bill we passed and sent to them early and quite frankly it should already be on the governor’s desk.”
After the House adjourned for the day without calling committee meetings to take up the Senate bill, the Senate leaders, instead of letting the all the teacher pay proposals die, opted to take up the House bill. Still, the Senate placed its language in the House bill.
In the end, nobody outside of the ornate Mississippi Capitol cares much whether the bill that will provide the largest pay increase for teachers since the early 2000s is a House bill or a Senate bill. Still, the song and dance routine illustrates the current level of divisiveness as leaders stare down each other over whether the Senate will take up Speaker Philip Gunn’s massive tax cut that will phase out roughly one third of the general fund revenue in the coming years.
A similar song and dance occurred last session when the House leaders killed a Senate pay raise bill, forcing the Senate to take up the House bill. The 2021 legislation provided teachers roughly a $1,000 per year raise.
In 2021 it was obvious to many that the House was trying to use the teacher pay plan as leverage to ensure the passage of Gunn’s tax cut proposal.
On whether he believes this year’s standoff was because of the income tax cut, Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who presides over the Senate, said, “You have to ask the House about that.”
Hosemann continued “Sen. DeBar reached out to the House, and I reached out to the House on this, and they adjourned and went home. Sen. DeBar showed excellent leadership in making sure that teachers don’t become pawns in some other game … He has shown the patience of Job.”
But Gunn said the House wanted it proposal passed because, “our bill is better on a number of factors.” He said it provides a bigger, more immediate raise.
The House plan would increase starting teacher pay from $37,000 a year to $43,125. This would put Mississippi above both the Southeastern average of $39,754 and the national average of $41,163. The Senate plan would increase starting pay to $40,000, but also would provide substantial increases at five-year intervals throughout a teacher’s career.
Both plans would cost about $220 million annually, though, the House plan would be enacted in one year while the Senate proposal would be phased in over two years. The Senate’s plan includes a year-two, $44 million across-the-board increase of $1,000 per teacher. The House plan includes a $2,000 increase for teacher assistants, who are not included in the original Senate plan.
“I’m not willing to pass a bill – when we’ve told teachers wait until next year, wait until next year – where there’s millions held back that they don’t get until the second year, an election year,” Bennett said. “… Teachers need all the money this year. We have the money and they don’t need to wait on it.”
Bennett added: “The way (the Senate’s) scale worked, we wouldn’t get to the Southeastern average or to the national average. With the House bill, we do.”
Both plans would “restructure” the teacher salary ladder that determines pay for teachers at various levels of experience and training. The House plan would provide more immediate increases ranging from $4,000 to $6,000. The Senate plan after two years would provide an average increase of $4,700, but would provide for larger bumps in pay at each five-year interval in a teacher’s career. On Tuesday, the Senate also added language providing for a $2,000 raise over two years for teacher assistants.
Mississippi’s teacher pay by several metrics is the lowest in the nation. Mississippi public education advocates spent much of Tuesday monitoring the game of one upmanship played by House and Senate leaders.
“We are certainly encourage by senators standing up and being leaders for the state,” Antonio Castanon Luna, executive director of the Mississippi Association of Educators, which membership he said includes 10% of the state’s classroom teachers. He said the pay raise will help teachers battle inflation and be able to remain in the classroom.
And the end of the day, he conceded it did not matter whether the pay raise was a Senate or House bill.
“To us it is about students having quality teachers,” he said.
Kelly Riley, executive director of the Mississippi Professional Educators, said, ““We were very frustrated today with the House letting the Senate’s two pay raise bills die. We are very appreciative of the statesmanship and leadership of the Senate. Today’s actions by the Senate, and the lack thereof by the House have sent a clear message to the state’s educators as to who truly prioritizes our state’s teachers and children.”
More than likely the final teacher pay plan will be hammered out by legislative leaders during the final days of the session and will include elements of the plans offered by both the Senate and House. But the final plan will be a House bill instead of a Senate bill.
That is important to some in the Capitol, but the end result for teachers is whether they receive a pay raise. And at the end of a chaotic Tuesday, their pay raise was still on track in the 2022 legislative session.
A bill titled “Critical race theory; prohibit” passed the House Universities and Colleges Committee Monday along racial lines with all African American representatives opposing the measure and all white House members supporting it.
Senate Bill 2113 passed 14-9 with no changes from how it passed the Senate earlier this session. All those who voted in favor of the bill were Republican. If it passes the House in the coming days with no changes, it will go straight to Gov. Tate Reeves for his signature.
“Why do we bring this egregious bill up when we all get along?” asked Rep. Greg Holloway, D-Hazlehurst. “We are all trying to work together.”
Instead of debating an issue that no one can identify as a problem in Mississippi, Holloway said, legislators could be working to solve issues actually impacting the state.
Both Reeves and House Speaker Philip Gunn have been vocal opponents of critical race theory, though, they have not been able to identify any instances of the college-level academic framework being taught in kindergarten through 12th grade schools.
Based on the discussion in the House Universities and Colleges Committee Monday, debate also will be contentious when the issue is brought up in the coming days on the House floor.
Critical race theory has been depicted by conservative media outlets and many Republican politicians as an effort in the public schools and universities to teach discrimination and to divide students by race. Supporters of critical race theory, which is generally taught as a college level class, say it is designed to address issues of institutional racism that still exists in society.
The text of the bill, as Rep. Joey Hood, R-Ackerman, who presented the bill to the committee pointed out, simply said no university, community college or public school “shall direct or compel students to affirm that any sex, race, ethnicity, religion or national origin is inherently superior or that individuals should be adversely treated based on such characteristics.”
But tying the bill to critical race theory is seen by many as an attempt to appease those who oppose discussions of past and current racial shortcomings of the state and nation. The governor has proposed providing funds to schools willing to teach “patriotic” history classes. The Legislature has balked at that recommendation.
Rep. Cheikh Taylor, D-Starkville, said “Critical race theory is…nothing to do with finger pointing or shaming. It has everything to do with searching out institutional racism” and trying to address it.
Rep. Lataisha Jackson, D-Como, questioned whether teachers might be afraid to broach the issue of racism because of the bill. Jackson said she fears, based on the bill, someone might try to penalize African American teachers who tried to address such subjects in their classroom.
While the title of the bill says the teaching of critical race theory is prohibited, Hood conceded that nowhere in the bill is critical race theory defined.
Taylor asked if he could offer an amendment to take out any reference to critical race theory in the legislation. Rep. Donnie Scoggin, Ellisville, who presided over the contentious hearing as vice chair of the committee, told Taylor he would “recommend” that no amendments be offered.
Scoggin said he made the recommendation to prevent additional “arguments” about the bill in the committee hearing.
“They can argue on the floor,” he said.
Taylor said the amendment would be offered on the floor.
Hood could not identify any critical race theory classes being taught in the public schools. When asked by legislators, he said more than once, “I will get back to you.”
Tuesday was the deadline to pass the bill out of committee. Gunn did not assign the bill to the Universities and Colleges Committee until late last week. Most other bills were assigned by the speaker much earlier in the process.
Most familiar with the legislative process assumed Gunn would assign the bill to the Education Committee.
Have questions about critical race theory? Join the conversation this Thursday:
Note: This analysis first published in Mississippi Today’s weekly legislative newsletter. Subscribe to our free newsletter for exclusive early access to weekly analyses.
Remember mid-January, when seemingly all legislative leaders could do was sing the praises of public school teachers as they proposed historic pay raises?
House and Senate leaders garnered broad praise from public education groups in January for passing proposals that would not only offer short-term raises, but increase the teacher pay scale in the long run.
But since then, lawmakers have largely focused their time and energy into cutting or eliminating the state’s income tax, which generates billions in revenue that helps pay those teacher salaries, among many other critical public services.
Teachers across the state are having trouble separating the teacher pay raise and income tax cut proposals.
“The song lawmakers have always sung was that we can’t fund MAEP (the state’s public education funding formula) because we don’t have the money. Now they’re pointing to all this extra money to justify cutting the income tax? It’s not adding up,” said Cagney Weaver, a national board certified teacher at Biloxi Upper Elementary. “I really do think there are good intentions in wanting to pay teachers more and we’ll see what happens with those bills. But why aren’t they talking more about how cutting the income tax could gut the state budget and keep them from paying us down the road?”
As bickering between House and Senate leaders over tax cut proposals continues to worsen, lawmakers face a critical deadline on March 1 to decide what to do with the teacher pay raise bills. And educators, watching closely this week, worry that teacher pay could potentially get caught in the middle of the tax cut fight.
“There’s such a long way to go before anything meaningful gets done for teachers,” Weaver said. “And what reason have lawmakers ever given us to feel optimistic about any of this?”
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn’t process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
One year ago today, House and Senate leaders were publicly fighting over a major tax cut proposal. They faced the first major deadline to handle bills originating in the opposite chamber, and because of the bickering, many bills died a quiet death without a vote or even debate. Among the legislation caught up in the fight: a pay raise for public school teachers.
Today, House and Senate leaders are publicly fighting over a major tax cut proposal. They face the first major deadline to handle bills originating in the opposite chamber, and because of the bickering, Capitol observers fear many bills will die a quiet death without a vote or even debate. Among the legislation caught up in the fight: a pay raise for public school teachers.
But for a last-second save last year by Senate leaders, the teacher pay raise would have died on deadline day because Speaker of the House Philip Gunn was upset with a lack of Senate support for his tax cut plan.
A lot of this session looks and feels the same as last year. Both chambers passed their own teacher pay raise bills once again — although this year’s proposals are much larger and would change the pay structure moving forward. The Senate plan would increase annual spending on teacher pay by $210 million, while the House plan would increase annual spending on teacher pay by $219 million. Either proposal, if passed, would represent one of the largest public school teacher salary investments in decades.
But as lawmakers in both chambers mull cutting or eliminating the state’s second-largest revenue source, are those investments sound ones that can be guaranteed long-term?
Gunn, like last year, is expending great political energy to completely eliminate the income tax cut, which could result in $1.5 billion less per year in collected revenue. Hosemann, in response to Gunn, introduced a much smaller income tax cut, but one that could still result in $317 million less per year in collected revenue.
Hosemann says Gunn’s plan is fiscally irresponsible in the long run, and Gunn says Hosemann’s plan doesn’t go far enough. The rancor among House and Senate leaders about their dueling tax cut proposals is growing by the hour.
That fighting has many Capitol observers fearing this deadline day will mean the death of many bills. Teachers worry about their pay raise bill, though it appears unlikely teacher pay will die this week. But it’s very possible lawmakers could opt to kill one of the two pending teacher pay proposals — a prospect that puts many educators on edge.
And even if the pay raise does survive this week, Mississippi teachers will remain anxious over the financial uncertainty of a looming tax cut. All of these thoughts and sentiments are just part of the long-standing feeling among so many public school teachers that lawmakers aren’t in their corner.
“If Mississippi cannot afford to fully fund public schools and pay teachers at the Southeastern average, we cannot afford an income tax cut. It’s that simple,” Nancy Loome of public education advocacy group The Parents’ Campaign wrote last week. “… Legislators are telling teachers that they can’t afford to bring teacher pay to the Southeastern average, telling parents that they can’t afford to fully fund their public schools, and telling children that they can’t afford to honor the Building Fund that would help to fix their schools’ moldy classrooms and broken bathrooms.”
As the Capitol grandstanding heats up, all teachers can do is wait to see if they’ll get the support they’ve requested for years.
“Every session is another letdown in some way,” Weaver said. “Our districts and schools do such a good job working with what we’ve got, but that’s not sustainable. The people in Jackson need to do better for us. It’s as simple as that.”
State Republicans have balked at expanding Medicaid, but are embracing legislation that would take advantage of the federal program to pay for healthcare for very sick incarcerated people — and likely create a money-making opportunity for nursing homes.
Senate Bill 2448, which passed the Senate with little opposition and is now with the House Medicaid Committee, would allow “medically frail” inmates to be paroled to “special care facilities.” These would be specially licensed nursing homes where Medicaid could help pay for their care.
Sponsor Sen. Brice Wiggins, R-Pascagoula, says his bill would reduce costs for the Mississippi Department of Corrections, which spends about $77 million annually on healthcare for people in its custody. Medicaid won’t pay for healthcare provided inside jails and prisons, so the state pays the full cost of care for very sick and elderly incarcerated people. Currently, only a small number of Mississippians are granted medical parole every year, according to the Department of Corrections — just three were released in 2021.
When Mississippi Today asked for an estimate of the savings, Wiggins said he didn’t have the number offhand but could get it later. He did not respond to subsequent phone calls and text messages.
Wiggins said he continues to oppose Medicaid expansion, which would save Mississippi an estimated net $200 million by 2027. He declined to explain why.
“I answered your question on the legislation, which is fair,” he said. “And then you jumped into Medicaid. I’m not discussing that.”
House Medicaid Committee Chair Rep. Joey Hood, R-Ackerman, did not respond to a request for comment.
Some prominent proponents of Medicaid expansion in Mississippi are skeptical of the bill.
“If what we’re doing is offloading and giving parole to inmates so they can then get off the state’s dime, and putting them on Medicaid, when we’re not allowing working Mississippians who pay taxes to have the same benefit of healthcare coverage as these inmates who have committed crimes against society, who haven’t paid taxes in years, that’s just wrong,” said Richard Roberson, vice president of state policy for the Mississippi Hospital Association.
To Roberson, the politics around SB 2448 are puzzling.
“Any time you see something unusual from the Capitol that seems a little out of sorts like this one does, where you have Republicans passing a bill to expand Medicaid to inmates, that seems inconsistent with the ‘no to Obamacare,’ ‘no to Medicaid expansion,’” he said. “That typically tells me that there’s something under the surface somewhere.”
Senate Bill 2448 defines “medically frail” inmates as those who are “a minimal threat to society” because of their medical condition, who can’t perform daily living activities on their own, and who may have limited mobility because of their condition. Sex offenders and people on death row would not be eligible.
MDOC does not currently use the term “medically frail” to categorize incarcerated people, so the Department could not immediately say how many people might be eligible for parole if SB 2448 became law.
If the bill were to pass, people could be paroled to “special care facilities” that offer services like other nursing homes, including recreation and spiritual activities as well as medical care.
“It reduces the cost to the state,” Wiggins said. “It places these inmates in a place to receive medical treatment. And it’s a win-win all around.”
One additional potential winner of the legislation: nursing facilities. By getting licensed as “special care facilities,” they could welcome new patients with guaranteed funding.
Wiggins said a number of facilities around the state are interested in becoming licensed for the purpose, though he did not say which ones.
In 2013, Connecticut became the first state to contract with a nursing facility to house people paroled from prisons with serious medical needs. The facility, 60 West, now houses about 40 people paroled from prison, out of a total of about 85 residents. Other residents are considered “hard to place” for other reasons, such as prior criminal history or registered sex offender status.
David Skoczulek, vice president of business development at iCare Health Network, which operates 60 West, said the facility is “a financially viable model” — that is, profitable for the operator.
Skoczulek said he was vaguely familiar with the Mississippi proposal because a year or two ago, his company was contacted by someone in Mississippi who wanted to pursue a similar project. He didn’t remember the specifics, but said the Mississippian had an existing property in mind and wanted advice from iCare on turning it into a facility that could care for paroled prisoners, or possibly to pursue a joint venture.
“They were interested in getting it pushed along in the legislature,” Skoczulek said.
Other states have also followed Connecticut’s example in expanding medical parole to send inmates to nursing homes. That’s the model Wiggins’ bill would emulate.
Skoczulek said iCare frequently provides information and advice to people in other states seeking to replicate the success of 60 West. The company also operates a similar facility in Massachusetts.
The Mississippi Health Care Association, the state’s largest organization of nursing homes, has not taken a position on the bill. The organization declined to comment for the story.
The Mississippi State Department of Health, which would be responsible for licensing the special care facilities, said it had not been contacted by any interested facilities. The agency also said it had not seen an analysis of the bill’s costs and savings.
After the 1970s, tough-on-crime policies and harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws led to an explosion in the number of incarcerated Americans. Now, those policies mean more people are growing old in prison.
According to a 2012 ACLU report, the number of incarcerated Americans over age 55 quadrupled from 1995 to 2010. By 2030, they could comprise a third of all prisoners. Providing healthcare for an older, sicker prisoner is expensive: In North Carolina, officials estimated the average cost of caring for someone over age 55 was four times that of someone under 55.
Mississippi currently incarcerates 507 people aged 65 or older, according to MDOC.
To save money, some states have expanded compassionate release policies to send people home, where Medicaid and Medicare can help pay for all of their care.
Mississippi also has a compassionate release policy. People who are 60 years or older or have a severe medical condition with no chance of recovery– a condition that is “incapacitating, totally disabling, and/or terminal in nature”– can qualify for early release.
But as in many states, Mississippi’s policy is little used. According to MDOC, 10 people were granted parole under the policy in 2019, followed by seven in 2020 and only three last year.
If saving money for the state’s prison system is the goal, there’s another measure that experts say would be even more effective: expanding Medicaid eligibility for all Mississippians.
In states that have expanded Medicaid coverage, incarcerated people are nearly always eligible because of their limited incomes. Medicaid won’t pay for healthcare provided inside jails and prisons, but it can reimburse states for care that takes place off-site and requires at least a 24-hour stay in a hospital or nursing facility.
If a healthy 35-year-old incarcerated in Kentucky gets appendicitis and requires a two-day hospital stay, for example, Medicaid can help pay for his care. That saved the state $16.4 million in 2014 and 2015, according to the Pew Charitable Trust.
In Mississippi, the state picks up the entire tab. MDOC spent $24 million on off-site care in fiscal year 2020.
Dan Mistak, acting president and director of Health Care Initiatives for Justice-Involved Populations at the non-profit Community Oriented Correctional Health Services, said SB 2448 would likely affect only a small number of incarcerated people, limiting the potential savings for Mississippi.
Not only would broader Medicaid expansion allow MDOC to get reimbursed by for a greater share of medical expenses, it could also help reduce the number of people who wind up in the criminal justice system, Mistak said. Expanding access to mental and behavioral health care and substance use treatment programs could mean fewer people sent to jails and prisons.
“What this legislator seems to be trying to do is patch this up at the very end of this, at the most expensive side, rather than go upstream and say how do we improve people’s health, and keep them out of prisons,” Mistak said.
Some states have found that paroling incarcerated people to nursing homes is not as simple as passing a law. In Colorado, officials have struggled to find nursing homes willing to accept medical parolees because of their criminal records.
And initially, Medicaid refused to reimburse Connecticut for parolees’ care at 60 West, citing the fact that some residents lived in a secure unit with no medical justification. But the federal government later certified 60 West for reimbursement.
If a facility resembles a prison, Medicaid won’t pay for a person’s care there.
“If I had you tour both nursing homes right now and didn’t tell you what the mission was, you would have no idea you were in anything other than a standard nursing home,” Skoczulek said. “There are no guards, no gates, no shackles, no lights out, no any of that stuff… We have to preserve resident rights.”
Wiggins, a former prosecutor, told Mississippi Today paroling “convicted felons” to medical facilities was better than paroling them to their homes to be with their families.
“They gotta serve their time,” he said. “And they would be considered an inmate.”
