Jackson Free Press

Investments in early childhood education and alternative energy can spur Mississippi's economy, Clarksdale attorney and 2011 candidate for governor Bill Luckett said during a speech at Koinonia Coffee House in Jackson this morning. Luckett, who announced his candidacy in September, was the featured speaker at the Friday Forum, a weekly series sponsored by west Jackson social entrepreneur Bill Cooley.

Luckett touted the economic-development promise of alternative energy sources, especially biofuels made from algae and other plant sources. "Mississippi is prime for getting into that business," Luckett said. "We've got plenty of that around here. We need to dedicate a full-fledged effort to get into that. It takes some tax-credit incentives."

The 61-year-old said that dissatisfaction with Mississippi's lack of progress led him to consider run for governor. "Why do we keep churning in the status quo of first in poverty and fiftieth in education?" Luckett asked. "We could change this if we all pulled together in the same direction."

Luckett was born in Texas but grew up in Clarksdale, graduating from Clarksdale High School. He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Virginia in 1970 and a law degree from the University of Mississippi in 1973. Luckett also spent eight years in the Mississippi National Guard.

During his 30-minute talk this morning, Luckett said Mississippi is ripe for tourism, but it needs to develop more attractions and market them better. Luckett cited one of his own business ventures, the Ground Zero Blues Club, which he co-founded in 2001 with actor Morgan Freeman, as an example of the state's untapped potential.

His "real passion," however, is improving the state's educational system, especially in terms of early childhood education. "We have got to find ways to start educating kids at two years old and three years old," Luckett said. "I shook my head walking out of some classes recently. I saw great participation, good teachers. I'm thinking, ‘Why are we 50th? What am I missing?' Then I realized that that eighth grade class I was seeing was at the level of a fifth-grade class. We're just starting too late."

"Education is one thing I'm going to tackle like fighting a bear," Luckett added.

Asked for his opinion of charter schools, which the Mississippi Legislature is currently considering, Luckett replied that he liked many of the reforms that charter schools implement, like longer school days and increased support services, but wouldn't endorse charter schools statewide. "Why don't we adopt the charter school concepts and put them into the whole public school system?" Luckett said.

Luckett has not held public office before but has served on the Democratic Executive Committees for Coahoma County and for the entire state.

In addition to defending a variety of corporate clients, including Kroger and Archer Daniels Midland, Luckett co-owns two Clarksdale businesses, Madidi Restaurant and the Ground Zero Blues Club, with Morgan Freeman. Freeman donated $250,000 to Luckett's political action committee, Progress for Mississippi, last year, according to 2009 campaign-finance reports. Progress for Mississippi raised $407,289 total last year, including $17,332 from ActBlue Mississippi, the Mississippi branch on a national online Democratic fundraising organization. Luckett himself contributed $25,000 to his war chest.

Asked if he thought he could win a statewide election as a Democrat, Luckett acknowledged that he faced a disadvantage because of his party affiliation. But Democratic principles and policies better serve most Mississippians, he argued.

"The Democrats in Mississippi haven't fared well," Luckett said. "I believe that Democrats have done far more for Mississippi than the Republicans have. Up in the Delta they say, ‘If you hope to live like a Republican, vote Democrat(ic).'"

Previous Commentsshow

The key quote in the article is when Luckett Notes that "Democratic principles and policies better serve most Mississippians". In a state as impoverished as Mississippi, the government needs to provide more social supports, not fewer. If the state keeps electing government leaders who don't serve the interests of the poor and working class majority, we will continue to see stats like "1st in poverty, 50th in education". This will persist mainly because the leadership has no real interest in changing those numbers, especially if it involves taking money and power away from the business (formerly referred to as the "landed" or "planter") elite who still run this state.

Renaldo Bryant

Mar 16 2010

Luckett touted the economic-development promise of alternative energy sources, especially biofuels made from algae and other plant sources. “Mississippi is prime for getting into that business,” Luckett said. “We’ve got plenty of that around here. We need to dedicate a full-fledged effort to get into that. It takes some tax-credit incentives.” I have been reading about algae as an alternative energy source - Mississippi could be well placed for this industry, especially if it were possible to re-purpose some of the catfish ponds and utilize them towards growth in this area.

Izzy

Mar 16 2010

[quote]If the state keeps electing government leaders who don't serve the interests of the poor and working class majority, we will continue to see stats like "1st in poverty, 50th in education".[/quote] Why should we elect leaders who serve the interests of any particular group of society?

Mark Geoffriau

Mar 16 2010

Mark, Do you think that there are elected officials that serve everyone, regardless of their relative position in society? Name a policy that does that? The working class and poor majority in MS need government leadership to be more sensitive to their needs, and not just the needs of the business elite. Barbour turning down down stimulus money that would help save needed social programs like medicare and employment insurance so as to not "raise taxes" definitely doesn't benefit the poor and working class masses as much as the programs he cut would. My point was that the government leadership in MS needs to be more responsive to the needs and values of more of the state's citizens. Continually electing people from the business elite in this state will not help to deliver much needed reforms and services that wuold empower a larger proportion and diversity of the citizenry in MS.

Renaldo Bryant

Mar 16 2010

I'm quite confident that 100% of elected officials (and the policies they endorse) do favor one segment of society over another, whether it's the intention of those officials or not. My question is why we should pursue a government (local or otherwise) that actively seeks to favor one group over another. If your contention is that Barbour's policies have been unfairly beneficial to "business elite" and unfairly detrimental to "the poor", then it would seem that the solution would be to pursue a governor who would not endorse policies exclusively beneficial nor detrimental to any particular group.

Mark Geoffriau

Mar 16 2010

Mark noted "...the solution would be to pursue a governor who would not endorse policies exclusively beneficial nor detrimental to any particular group". What policy would fit that bill? In education, for example, schools are open by law, but everything from curriculum choices, to teacher qualifications, to funding school lunch programs, someone would find contention with and could argue they benefit a particular group over another. The point that I am making is that in a democratic society, interests are seemingly in contention among varying groups in the social stratum. Especially in market based economies, democracies are always in danger of putting class interests ahead of common goals. If that is the reality, then the class that should benefit the most from a democratically elected government should be the class with the most people in it (in MS case poor and working class people), barring any Constitutional violations suffered by the minority class (which was the case in the Jim Crow era South, for example).

Renaldo Bryant

Mar 16 2010

I think before I can argue further, we need to distinguish between policies that happen to benefit a particular group, and policies designed to favor one group over another. For example, when a government is strict on property rights, it frequently benefits those on the lower end of the economic spectrum as their homes and businesses are not at risk from government seizure (purportedly for the benefit of society as a whole). However, property rights are not intended to favor the poor as a group -- it just happens to frequently play out that way. The reason for strict laws concerning property rights is that it's difficult to construct a stable society when private property (including real estate) is subject to government seizure. The basis of property rights laws is ultimately a matter of human rights which extend to all citizens. This brings me back to my original question: Why should we support governors (in the specific as well as general definition) who openly favor one segment of the population over another? That advertise their intention to use government power for the purpose of benefiting one group of citizens to the exclusion of the rest of the citizenry?

Mark Geoffriau

Mar 16 2010

Mark, you might be arguing with yourself. Who above said that elected officials should favor poor people over wealthy ones? This is what you quoted above before you started this line of argument: If the state keeps electing government leaders who don't serve the interests of the poor and working class majority, we will continue to see stats like "1st in poverty, 50th in education". That says nothing about favoring one group over the other. It is referring to *not* serving a particular group. I think you wrote the binary, either-or part in yourself and created your own logically fallacious tangent to your misreading of that statement.

DonnaLadd

Mar 16 2010

Mark Asks "Why should we support governors (in the specific as well as general definition) who openly favor one segment of the population over another? That advertise their intention to use government power for the purpose of benefiting one group of citizens to the exclusion of the rest of the citizenry?" You are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that state leadership should be more responsive to the values and needs of a more diverse and proportionate sector of the citizenry. The policies and practices should benefit more of the people than just the business elite, who are very few in the state. You are correct in that laws seem, on the surface, to benefit everyone, and their intent is to help insure that everyone's rights are protected. That's why I pointed toward specific policies and practices of state gov. leaders as the source of great concern for the poor and working class majority in MS. Your Example of Eminent Domain is a good one. The law itself points at protecting the rights of all property owners, but the application by specific leaders (policy and practice) can unjustly distribute resources. This is why the leadership (along with its policies and practices concerning the application of the laws) should be considered (along with the laws, if they prove to be unjust themselves) when considering the current condition of the community. I don’t think anyone believes that when they make a law, they are purposely supporting one group over and against another. I think that the proof is in the effects of the policies and practices. I’m sure Barbour could argue that cutting social programs and not raising taxes somehow benefits poor and working class Mississippians, that doesn’t mean that it actually does help more than keeping such programs. The point I am making is that what benefits poor and working class families would benefit more Mississipians than what benefits business elites, if the issue becomes and either/or scenario.

Renaldo Bryant

Mar 16 2010

[quote]I don’t think anyone believes that when they make a law, they are purposely supporting one group over and against another.[/quote] I find that surprising -- anyone familiar with modern American politics should recognize the rhetoric of the rich "pulling their weight" or the elite having a "social responsibility" or some such -- which usually takes the form of a disproportionately high tax rate, to be used to fund social programs for the poor. Certainly, when government uses coercive power to directly take money from one group of citizens to give, directly or indirectly, to another group of citizens, is that not a policy purposefully supporting and benefiting one group to the detriment of another group? And while you mention some social programs with rock solid confidence (and suggest that it'd be foolish to argue against their effectiveness), there is a view that does not believe that many of the well-intentioned social programs are actually effective at their stated purpose -- moreover, they sometimes worsen the problem they intended to solve. The numerous studies that have found that minimum wage laws all around the world increase unemployment rates and lengthen the time that individuals are unemployed spring to mind.

Mark Geoffriau

Mar 16 2010

Mark, It is interesting that you characterize government funded social programs as "coercive" and "ineffective in achieving their goals". I wonder do you look at things like tax incentives and such for private development, NAFTA and tax breaks for multinational corporations when they outsource jobs as "coercive"? All government subsidized by the way. While you tout those certain laws like the minimum wage law, are ineffective because they "prolong unemployment" I wonder what a community would look like without them, I guess sort of like the society depicted in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. Mind you, most of the social ills that government social programs are trying to mitigate against are born out of free market fundamentalism that is championed as “true democracy” by most business elites. Think about it, most of our social problems are born out of the widely disparate distribution of resources in this country, mainly the over concentration of wealth in the hands of a few business elites and the over concentration of poverty among the ranks of minorities (race, gender, religious, and ethnic). One of the more important functions of government social programs is to maintain some sense of social cohesion in the midst of such vast inequality, which probably does more to maintain the status quo than to disrupt the wealth of the elite, as you propose.

Renaldo Bryant

Mar 16 2010

[quote]It is interesting that you characterize government funded social programs as "coercive" and "ineffective in achieving their goals". I wonder do you look at things like tax incentives and such for private development, NAFTA and tax breaks for multinational corporations when they outsource jobs as "coercive"? All government subsidized by the way.[/quote] Do you disagree that tax collection is coercive? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens -- I'd say that the power to put you in jail is coercive. And for the record, I noted that many social programs are ineffective; that's a matter of practice, not principle. Regarding tax incentives for corporations and the like, I'd prefer that government just stay out of it and allow them to compete on the same terms everyone else is. [quote]While you tout those certain laws like the minimum wage law, are ineffective because they "prolong unemployment" I wonder what a community would look like without them, I guess sort of like the society depicted in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. Mind you, most of the social ills that government social programs are trying to mitigate against are born out of free market fundamentalism that is championed as “true democracy” by most business elites.[/quote] Do you have evidence to offer, or just the opinion that the "free market fundamentalism" has created "most of the social ills"? Minimum wage interferes with citizen's freedom to enter economic transactions as he sees fit. The least valuable workers in society are affected the most -- those with the least skills, experience, and education -- being priced out of jobs they are capable of doing. Government has legislated that it's preferable for those people to not have jobs at all, than to work for a wage they'd be willing to accept. [quote]Think about it, most of our social problems are born out of the widely disparate distribution of resources in this country, mainly the over concentration of wealth in the hands of a few business elites and the over concentration of poverty among the ranks of minorities (race, gender, religious, and ethnic). One of the more important functions of government social programs are to maintain some sense of social cohesion in the midst of such vast inequality, which probably does more to maintain the status quo than to disrupt the wealth of the elite, as you propose.[/quote] Wealth isn't a "resource" to be "distributed". It doesn't exist independently, as a thing unto itself, waiting to be divvied up in society. Wealth is created. What you are suggesting is taking the wealth from those who created it and giving it to those who didn't create it, so that those who have less wealth won't feel left out.

Mark Geoffriau

Mar 16 2010

Mark, It seems to me that you're touting some theoretical free-market utopia that doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. You say, for example: "Regarding tax incentives for corporations and the like, I'd prefer that government just stay out of it and allow them to compete on the same terms everyone else is." Yet tax incentives for businesses are part-and-parcel of what our government does—and has done since day one. Government subsidizes everything from the oil in your car to the food on your table to utilities, transportation, defense ... you name it. You're kidding yourself if you think your preferences are going to change that. You say: "Minimum wage interferes with citizen's freedom to enter economic transactions as he sees fit. The least valuable workers in society are affected the most -- those with the least skills, experience, and education -- being priced out of jobs they are capable of doing." Wow. Those are quite some statements. Right out of the Milton Freidman capitalism manifesto, I suspect. Minimum wage was established in this country to prevent businesses from exploiting workers. It does a half-ass job of it, mostly because corporate interests continually lobby against paying a living wage to workers. A full-time minimum wage job barely pay enough to put anyone above the poverty rate, which is, in itself, a joke. Government has not "legislated that it's preferable for those people to not have jobs at all, than to work for a wage they'd be willing to accept." That's malarky. Unemployment benefits, if that's what you're referring to, are comensurrate with your wages when you worked. If you made minimum wage and got laid off, you're not going to receive UB's equivalent. And all the food stamps, medicare, etc., aren't enough to pull anyone out of poverty. You say: "Wealth isn't a "resource" to be "distributed". It doesn't exist independently, as a thing unto itself, waiting to be divvied up in society. Wealth is created. What you are suggesting is taking the wealth from those who created it and giving it to those who didn't create it, so that those who have less wealth won't feel left out." Well, first, no one is talking about redistributing wealth. You're thinking is, again, far to binary to address the real issues. First of all, wealth is far too narrowly defined if you're only talking about money (capital, assets, etc.) The wealth of a thriving society must also include such things as the health of its citizens, the levels of education achieved, the quality of life (including security--a lack of crime, and lack of fear from frivolous prosecution, for example). When measuring wealth in those terms, America isn't doing such a great job. What Blackwatch has been saying is that there are huge inequities, over-concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and over-concentration of poverty among minorities of every ilk. Such inequalities cannot stand in a just society. No one is suggesting that we "take wealth (i.e. money) from those who created it," but to simply let businesses and individuals make as much profit as they can without giving anything back to the society is an imbalance of gargantuan proportions. What's missing in your entire argument is people. As a society, we seem to be more interested in keeping the have-nots in their place, so that the haves can have more. When we measure wealth only as money, we create this mess where our children can't read, where dealing drugs is more lucrative than a job, where one in 10 adults is in prison, and where 21 percent of Mississippians live in poverty. We spend more to keep people in prison than to educate them. We allow corporations to have the rights of individuals. We advocate spending over learning, and looks over health. Those are all signs of an impoverished society.

Ronni_Mott

Mar 16 2010

Ronni M has laid out an acceptable rebuttal, so I won't rehash many of the points already presented. But I will interrogate this notion of people creating wealth, or as Mark puts it: "Wealth isn't a "resource" to be "distributed". It doesn't exist independently, as a thing unto itself, waiting to be divvied up in society. Wealth is created." In capitalistic societies, resources are owned by private citizens. When I say resources, I am talking about things like mineral rights, timber rights, land, factories, tools, and labor (natural, mechanical, and human resources). What Mark is suggesting is that wealth is “created” when the people who own the capital turn a profit off of the labor and products produced by it. This, supposedly, creates a profit, “wealth” or a “surplus value” when the money generated in the sale of said product is "earned" by the capitalist. Understand, that the notions of human (labor) and natural resource ownership is a social contract, the people agree that there can be such a thing as ownership of land and that labor can be commoditized. People agree to it because it is generally accepted that people can do more with the natural resources if they have the profit motive behind them to create products out of resources. By no means does this equate to wealth only being possible, or "created" out of thin air by innovative capitalists. Wealth is a resource, when natural , human, and mechanical resources are meshed and a product is bought and sold with values that are social constructed, wealth is definitely a resource, and it is definitely distributed among sectors of the population disparately. The ownership of natural resources is a social contract between the individual and the people, or the "common-wealth" that notes that with this ownership comes a responsibility to help maintain our society. In other words, capitalist don’t have a right to pillage land for resources and exploit labor of the working class and not be accountable to give back to the society at large. The wealth that is "created" by this enterprise is no more independent of the community out of which it is conceived than it would be from the individual capitalist "owners" or "creator" of it. The problem with this compact is that the tendency of capitalist enterprise is to concentrate poverty and wealth, which Ronni points out, does not a just society make. This is why the Government must step in and regulate, for without government regulation, the system would implode on itself, with too few people having too much "wealth" and the masses not owning enough to maintain social cohesion. In a democracy, the people’s humanity must be valued over the people’s bank accounts. We cannot have a government that serves corporations more than it does the people. If the free market could sustain a society in and of itself, then why has every civilization that has existed with a market based economy needed more and more government regulation to sustain itself?

Renaldo Bryant

Mar 17 2010

[quote]Mark, It seems to me that you're touting some theoretical free-market utopia that doesn't exist anywhere on this planet. [...] You're kidding yourself if you think your preferences are going to change that.[/quote] No political, social, or economic system has ever been applied with perfect consistency nor to its fullest extent -- but that's merely an observation about the nature of human endeavors, not a legitimate argument against any particular system. And for the record, I don't see limited government/free market economics as the perfect answer -- I just find that it's the best at distributing power among a large group (thereby providing a check against the abuse of power by any one person or group) and raising the overall wealth of the society (which includes the poorest of the poor). [quote]Minimum wage was established in this country to prevent businesses from exploiting workers. [...] A full-time minimum wage job barely pay enough to put anyone above the poverty rate, which is, in itself, a joke.[/quote] What principle dictates that all workers must be paid a living wage? Over half of all workers in minimum wage positions are under the age of 23 (presumably, with incomplete or no education, and working for a personal or supplemental income) -- when you raise minimum wage, you price them out of those jobs. How is a worker accepting a job offer for a wage he wants "exploitation"? If his job skills are economically worth more than that job offer (in his own estimation), he is free to see other employment. [quote]Government has not "legislated that it's preferable for those people to not have jobs at all, than to work for a wage they'd be willing to accept." [...]And all the food stamps, medicare, etc., aren't enough to pull anyone out of poverty.[/quote] Actually, I was not referring to unemployment benefits (though, it's an interesting sidetrack). Rather, I was pointing out that the government, in forcing businesses to pay a minimum wage, has also (unintentionally) forced them to avoid hiring (or retaining employment) those workers whose skills and productivity fall below that minimum wage. Those people are the losers in this situation, but nobody on the left cares because they can write nice stories about those workers who are hired or retained at a higher rate. [quote]Well, first, no one is talking about redistributing wealth. You[r] thinking is, again, far to[o] binary to address the real issues.[/quote] If Blackwatch is discussing the unjust distribution of wealth and resources, and how to correct that current distribution, then I'd say it probably does involve redistribution, direct or indirect as it may be. [quote]First of all, wealth is far too narrowly defined if you're only talking about money (capital, assets, etc.) [...] America isn't doing such a great job.[/quote] Compared to whom, may I ask? Historically and globally, we've raised the average wealth and quality of life far beyond what's been achieved elsewhere. The social democracies of Western Europe put enormous tax strains on its citizenry, reducing their average buying power well below the average American citizen's. They do have the advantage of equal access to health care, if you find it preferable for everyone to have equal access to slow, inefficient health care, regardless of their own personal desire for more or less healthcare coverage compared to retaining their own income and the economic freedom that comes with it. Character limit got me -- con't in next post.

Mark Geoffriau

Mar 17 2010

Con't from above. [quote]What Blackwatch has been saying is that there are huge inequities, over-concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and over-concentration of poverty among minorities of every ilk. Such inequalities cannot stand in a just society. No one is suggesting that we "take wealth (i.e. money) from those who created it," but to simply let businesses and individuals make as much profit as they can without giving anything back to the society is an imbalance of gargantuan proportions.[/quote] They are giving back. They provide jobs, they create wealth that spreads to employees and investors, they create products and services for the public to purchase, they pay taxes. That's the nature of free market economic transactions -- both sides must find agreeable terms, or the transaction doesn't happen. Anything other than that is a third party, with less knowledge than either involved party, and with no accountability, no responsibility, and no stake in the outcome, dictating to those involved parties what kind of agreements they may or may not make. What you are suggesting is that corporations have some kind of "super-responsibility" compared to any other economic parties, but you haven't supported that claim. [quote]What's missing in your entire argument is people. As a society, we seem to be more interested in keeping the have-nots in their place, so that the haves can have more. When we measure wealth only as money, we create this mess where our children can't read, where dealing drugs is more lucrative than a job, where one in 10 adults is in prison, and where 21 percent of Mississippians live in poverty.[/quote] Indeed those are not good things. Simply listing them, and asserting that "we" are more interested in keeping the have-nots in their place, is not an argument. [quote]We spend more to keep people in prison than to educate them.[/quote] I'm sorry, but that line irks me no matter who says it. It's a nonsense comparison. It makes as much sense as comparing the taxes paid by corporations with the annual revenue of crabfishing boats in Alaska. If you want to make an interesting comparison, then compare the cost of the prison system with the cost of freeing all those currently incarcerated. Every nation that's done a study like this has found that despite the seemingly enormous costs of their prison system, it's a bargain compared to the material cost of releasing prisoners back into society -- and that's not counting the impossible-to-quantify moral and psychological effects of releasing the incarcerated. [quote]We allow corporations to have the rights of individuals. We advocate spending over learning, and looks over health. Those are all signs of an impoverished society.[/quote] Possibly. But recognizing that things are not perfect is not a positive argument for changing them directly through coercive government power (nor even an argument for attempting to change things at all). The trade-offs must always be taken into consideration, and the risk of losing the good things about our society in the process of attempting to fix the bad things (see the rising violent crime rates in the UK since they cracked down on citizen gun ownership and their courts began ruling against the right to self defense, as a quick and dirty example). Blackwatch, I see your post as well, but I'll have to respond separately in a little bit.

Mark Geoffriau

Mar 17 2010