|
Click below to watch the episode and read on for show notes: Today, I cover:
1) National: Shocking findings from the Fraser Institute's newest "Economic Freedom of the World Report," especially as it relates to the U.S. and Hong Kong, the Fed not raising interest rates, and the average 30-year mortgage rate reaching its highest since Nov. 2000; 2) States: My new co-authored report published by the Pelican Institute highlighting how Louisiana could become "the next big thing” with tax reform and responsible budgeting, and why Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) is under attack; and 3) Other: My recent articles on the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit against Google and Constitution Day. You can watch this TWE episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating! For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, please check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment.
0 Comments
Interview: Could The Biden Admin’s Antitrust Crusade Against Big Tech End Up Hurting Consumers?9/21/2023  President Joe Biden’s administration has targeted Big Tech with several antitrust enforcement actions that could significantly impact consumers, but while many conservatives support the efforts, others fear they may stifle innovation.
Under Biden, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is presently engaged in a lawsuit against Google, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took Meta to court, and there is a possibility of a forthcoming lawsuit against Amazon, all over alleged antitrust violations stemming from industry monopolies. Some conservatives say this enforcement will increase competition, but others say the increase in government intervention in business will harm consumers while also reducing innovation. “Generally, antitrust enforcement is intended to help consumers by deterring anticompetitive conduct that would lead to higher prices, lower quality service, and fewer choices for consumers,” Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth told the DCNF. “DOJ must explain to the judge how Google’s contracts for search engines harm consumers. Based on public information, I am not sure how DOJ makes that case.” The DOJ originally filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google under the Trump administration, in October 2020, alleging the company used unlawful practices to maintain a monopoly in the search and search advertising markets. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that Google has abused its dominant market position to force its search engine as the default on web browsers. “Google’s contracts ensure that rivals cannot match the search quality ad monetisation, especially on phones,” the DOJ alleges. “Through this feedback loop, this wheel has been turning for more than 12 years. It always turns to Google’s advantage.” Though the Biden administration did not initiate antitrust cases against Facebook and Google, since Biden took office his administration has expanded antitrust enforcement against tech companies, with the FTC under Biden appointee Lina Khan suing Microsoft over its Activision acquisition and refiling a lawsuit against Facebook. Biden has also made antitrust reform a key part of his economic platform, calling for passing “bipartisan legislation to strengthen antitrust enforcement and prevent big online platforms from giving their own products an unfair advantage” in his February State of the Union address. Some economists argue, however, that this strategy disincentivizes innovation by creating greater regulatory friction for companies looking to expand. Moreover, experts question whether large tech companies’ market positions actually hurts consumers, as many of their products, such as Facebook and Google search, are free to use and provide numerous benefits. There are also many other search engines that are available to use. “This administration has used [antitrust] to go after businesses based on subjective grounds,” Pelican Institute for Public Policy chief economist Vance Ginn told the DCNF. “The consequences … are a growing reliance on lawyers instead of expanding their businesses that people are choosing to use even with competitors in the search engine market. Doing so, the administration is making it more costly for new businesses to enter the market because of legal liability and dealing with a radical antitrust policy environment.” Google referred the DCNF to a blog post titled, “People use Google because it’s helpful,” highlighting the quality of its product and the fact that it is free of charge. (RELATED: DAVIS: Why Conservatives Must Support The DOJ Against Google). Despite these concerns, many Republicans and conservatives have joined with Biden in advocating for stronger antitrust enforcement and legislation targeting tech companies’ market dominance. Prominent GOP lawmakers including Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and Colorado Rep. Ken Buck all backed legislation intended to target major tech companies. Many conservatives also argue that stricter antitrust enforcement could ameliorate the problem of online censorship. “Big Tech has had a stranglehold on the online marketplace of ideas for far too long,” founder and President of the Internet Accountability Project Mike Davis told the DCNF. “Consumers, especially those on the right, have had their opinions and voices silenced by the speech censors of Big Tech. Breaking up those behemoths will not only allow for more freedom of expression online, but it would allow a new era of discourse to flourish. Competition is important for all Americans, not just conservatives. Antitrust should be a nonpartisan issue as American as apple pie.” Jake Denton, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center, asserts that government intervention is necessary to prevent this. “The unchecked growth of Big Tech monopolies has gone on for too long,” Denton told the DCNF. “Silicon Valley giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple have been steadily acquiring emerging startups and growing competitors, consolidating their control over the tech sector … It is no longer tenable for regulators or our lawmakers to remain on the sidelines.” The Biden administration has recently signaled its willingness to expand its crackdown on tech companies, with the FTC charging Amazon in June for allegedly having “duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in Amazon Prime,” according to its complaint. It also claims it takes at least six clicks to cancel a Prime membership. “Consumers could lose out on popular features like Google Maps being at the top of search results, Amazon’s Prime program, or iPhones that come ready to use with basic apps out of the box,” Cato Institute Technology Policy Research Fellow Jennifer Huddleston told the DCNF. “The shift towards a ‘big is bad’ mentality could penalize companies for developing features that make them more popular than competitors or otherwise improve their product” Huddleston told the DCNF. The White House referred the DCNF to speeches and studies conducted by the administration asserting that antitrust enforcement boosts economic activity and competition. The DOJ did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. The FTC declined to comment. Originally posted at Daily Caller.  PMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says Americans would be making a “huge mistake” if they believe narratives saying the U.S. economy is booming.
NTD spoke to Vance Ginn, the president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former Chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget, on some ideas to kickstart the economy. Ginn says he agrees with Dimon’s statement, citing increasing inflationary pressures and inflation-adjusted spending being basically flat. Watch my full interview on NTD News here. Click below to watch the episode and read on for show notes: We discuss:
1) The potential comeback of COVID shutdows and mask mandates, and why that would be fruitless for communities and public health; 2) How to reform the broken U.S. safety net system with the implementation of Empowerment Accounts, and how these differ from Universal Basic Income; and 3) How high property taxes in Texas are making home ownership unattainable for many or are driving seniors out of their homes, and how Texas could reasonably reduce property taxes until they are eliminated. Be sure to check out and subscribe to the "This Week in Bitcoin" podcast. You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating! For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and please subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment. Read the full paper here. Here's the original post by the Pelican Institute. Pelican Institute reform plan would flatten personal and corporate taxes, boost jobs in first year. Baton Rouge — As candidates for Louisiana governor debate the future of the state, a new poll shows Louisiana voters strongly support phasing out the state’s income tax while ushering in fiscal responsibility. Today, the Pelican Institute has released a new tax reform plan that would do just that—transform the state, make it more competitive, pave the way for more and better jobs, and launch Louisiana’s comeback. By a wide margin, 58% of Louisiana voters support phasing out the state income tax (only 20% oppose), and 66% want leaders to prioritize responsible budgeting and limiting the growth of state spending to bring fiscal stability to state government (only 9% oppose). Voters also strongly back education freedom; 62% support giving Louisiana parents the ability to use state funds to select the school of their choice for their child’s education (only 25% oppose). The poll, which was conducted by Cor Strategies in partnership with the Pelican Institute, can be seen here. In Louisiana’s Comeback: A Tax Reform for Our Brighter Future, the Pelican Institute identifies the state’s significant tax problems and proposes a path to set the state in a brighter direction, including flattening the personal and corporate income taxes to 3.5% rates, reducing the number of tax preferences, eliminating the corporate franchise tax and the inventory tax, and reforming the budget to limit the growth of spending, among other changes. “If we are to write Louisiana’s comeback story, we first have to get our fiscal house in order and fix our broken tax code that has, for far too long, landed Louisiana at the bottom of every good list and the top of every bad list,” said Daniel Erspamer, Chief Executive Officer of the Pelican Institute. “Louisiana families are suffering, and too many of our best and brightest are leaving the state to find opportunity elsewhere. It’s time to embrace a bold vision for tax reform proven to bring jobs and opportunity – not to mention our kids and grandkids – back to our state.” Louisiana suffers under a tax system that is brutally punishing for families and businesses. It is painfully progressive, thereby increasing tax rates as more income is earned—and that disincentivizes greater earnings, reduces productivity, and slows economic growth. Meanwhile, tax preferences create exemptions and deductions that make compliance costly, pick winners and losers, and narrow the tax base. That, in turn, requires an even higher tax rate to collect needed revenue for funding limited government. On top of that, Louisiana’s taxes on businesses are particularly burdensome, including a triple taxation on profit, investment, and inventory, that together stifle economic growth. The Pelican Institute’s tax plan solves these problems with a proposal that will kickstart the economy into immediate growth and increase the number of available jobs in the state in the first year. The plan is the latest part of the Pelican Institute’s Comeback Agenda released in March of this year, which lays out a series of policies critical to the state’s future, including tax and budget reform, guaranteeing universal education freedom, enhancing public safety, and reducing regulatory barriers to work. A two-page guide to the reform can be read below and a one-pager below that. Click below to watch the episode and read on for show notes: We discuss:
1) Why he believes an economic bust is coming based on lending activities and economic indicators, and where there's corruption in the banking industry; 2) How high home mortgage rates after low rates during the pandemic are restricting supply, and how this affects the housing market; and 3) How the U.S. can rebuild its waning creditworthiness by Congress balancing the budget and putting taxpayer dollars to better use, and his thoughts on the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. Dory’s bio:
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, please check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment.  The Biden Administration’s Justice Department took Google to a civil trial on Tuesday, beginning the department’s first major monopoly lawsuit since it took on Microsoft in 1998. What’s the allegation? Google supposedly violated U.S. antitrust laws. But it seems the main “violations” are that Google is good at what they do, consumers love their product and Microsoft is mad.
Jonathan Kantor at the Justice Department (and Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission) have pushed an endlessly fruitless crusade against “Big Tech.” Now, it has taken issue with Google’s methods of becoming the default browser on popular devices, which they’ve done through legal means that more savvy people might just call “marketing.” Products like iPhones and MacBooks make it easy for consumers to change their default browser to whatever they prefer. Most of them favor Google because they believe it’s a better search engine. Herein lies the real crux of the lawsuit. Antitrust laws were created to preserve competition. The original laws were rightly deemed too broad and vague, so a new guiding principle of the consumer welfare standard for enforcing these laws was implemented to consider whether consumers are better or worse off from the actions of businesses. In economics, consumer welfare is defined as the “value consumers get from a product less the price they paid.” That value varies from person to person, which is what makes free markets work. Consumers have the ability and the sovereignty to decide which product or service is best for them. To violate the consumer welfare standard would mean moving toward a monopoly. This is when a business has a large market share, or even the market share, such that they can raise prices of their goods or services regardless of quality. The outcome would reduce consumer welfare and, therefore, contribute to potential antitrust law violations. Found guilty, a business could be broken up into smaller parts, forced to sell off part of it or face penalties. In other words, it’s another hindrance to productive activities as targeted employers are forced to beef up on lawyers to deal with federal pushback instead of allocating those resources toward productive means that would help their employees and customers prosper. Despite what the DOJ claims, antitrust laws are rarely enforced to protect consumer welfare, and this case is no exception. Google is not only Americans’ preferred browser, but the company is consistently rated one of the best places to work. So, it seems most of its consumers find value in the product. If they don’t, they can use Bing, Firefox, DuckDuckGo or any other search engine that competes with Google and is readily accessible. So, if this case isn’t centered around consumer welfare or targeting monopolies, what is it really about? If the DOJ wins, which is highly unlikely, American competition and innovation will be stifled. This rent-seeking behavior may win votes with folks on the Left concerned with restricted competition and those on the right concerned about censoring on popular platforms like Google and Meta, but at what cost? Inhibiting free markets with increased regulations is far more likely to drive up prices and decrease consumer welfare than any part of “Big Tech.” This pursuit wastes taxpayers’ dollars that would be better spent elsewhere or, better yet, for the federal government to spend less so people have more money in their pockets to improve their own welfare. At a time when inflation remains too high, the labor market is cooling and Americans are suffering from a bleak economy, this lawsuit is a frustrating misuse of government resources. Moreover, government attempts like this to manipulate markets will always fail due to what economist Friedrich Hayek identified as the knowledge problem. He argued that information (knowledge) is decentralized, dispersed across society and not contained within departments of power. Central planners, in this case the DOJ (and FTC), do not have all the knowledge necessary to designate market competition, and they never will. Free market capitalism cannot be manipulated but must be allowed to work through spontaneous order. This lawsuit attacks free markets and, thereby, free people. Not monopolies or consumer welfare violations, and it’s abundantly clear that neither of those are real problems regarding Google. It’s time for the DOJ to accept defeat and focus on things that actually matter. Ganging up on Google amid all the problems Americans face today, while understanding legitimate concerns with some of Google’s actions, is out-of-touch, to say the least. Originally published at Daily Caller. Today, I cover: 1) National:
3) Other: My thoughts on the DOJ lawsuit against Google for violating antitrust laws and why I believe it's an attack on consumers and capitalism. You can watch this TWE episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, please check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment.  Americans say the economy is the most important problem facing the country. But major headlines covering the latest jobs report for August do their best to downplay this concern. The New York Times’ headline covering the news was, “August Jobs Report: U.S. Jobs Growth Forges On,” but the economic reality is far less cheerful.
Sure, the jobs report beat the consensus estimate by economists. But that high-level look at the data fails to address underlying issues keenly felt by many Americans that are apparent with more scrutiny. And these problems won’t be over unless policies out of D.C. substantially and quickly improve. Last month, 187,000 jobs were added, according to the payroll survey, compared with the anticipated 170,000. But the jobs added in the prior two months were revised lower by a cumulative 110,000 jobs, bringing the net jobs added in August to just 77,000. This extends an ongoing trend of downward revisions over the last several months. According to the household survey, the unemployment rate, a weak indicator of the labor market’s strength, jumped substantially from 3.5% to 3.8%. Coupled with news of slow wage growth of just 0.2% last month, there is growing concern among Americans trying to make ends meet. We know the higher unemployment rate isn’t from too few jobs available. The number of job openings has been nearly double that of those unemployed for a long time, though decreasing quickly. Instead, the higher rate suggests a sluggish economy in which there are more unemployed or ghost job openings from companies that do not intend to hire but want to gauge interest and competition. There is some good news. The labor force increased by 736,000, which raised the participation rate to 62.8% in August. This is the highest rate since February 2020, just before the shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. More people entering the labor force and higher participation rates appear promising. However, the increase in the labor force was a combination of 222,000 more people employed, with the other 514,000 people becoming unemployed. And diving deeper, 4.2 million more adults remain not in the labor force compared with February 2020. Many of these individuals have been unemployed for years, so obtaining employment could be difficult due to a lack of productivity signals in their resume on top of employers dealing with a stagnant economy. The rise in the unemployment rate, lackluster wage growth, and the possibility of unfilled job openings all point to a weak labor market. Add in ongoing stagflation, as too-high inflation continues, and Americans are rightly concerned about the future. Some blame the Federal Reserve for this weakness because of its fight to bring down inflation after creating it. However, Milton Friedman debunked this tradeoff between lower inflation and a higher unemployment rate decades ago. Specifically, there’s no long-run tradeoff between the two, so the Fed must focus on the single mandate of price stability instead. The Fed has been working to combat inflation by hiking its interest rate target to a multi-decade high of 5.5% and slowly reducing its bloated balance sheet. This is why you’ve seen car loan and mortgage rates soar to multi-decade highs. These higher rates significantly disrupt the new car and housing markets. But this is the resulting bust after the artificial post-pandemic “boom” as new money moves throughout the economy and manipulated interest rates create malinvestments. We felt the higher inflation rate last year from the Fed’s actions of close to 9%, and now it’s about one-third of that rate, but this remains about 50% higher than its 2% flexible average inflation target. The Fed has stated that it may raise interest rates further. And I believe that it will be forced to raise its target rate to about 6% before this hiking cycle is over. But just raising this rate won’t be enough to curb inflation for long if Congress’ deficit spending remains unchecked. This will force the Fed to monetize it to avoid putting more pressure on Congress to get their irresponsible fiscal house in order. President Biden and Democrats in Congress made this situation worse with the passage of the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which is likely to cost about four times the initial $300 billion estimate over a decade. Their wasteful spending, along with Republicans’ excessive spending before them, has led to a fiscal crisis, the most significant national threat. Congress will unlikely make the needed reforms to the primary drivers of the deficit of mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare because of rent-seeking in politics. This will likely result in the Fed not sufficiently cutting its balance sheet to stop inflation. Rather, the Fed will probably choose to increase its balance sheet, putting more inflationary pressure on the economy when that’s the last thing it needs. A vital measure of the economy known as real gross domestic output, the real average of gross domestic product and gross domestic income, has declined in three of the last six quarters. While I don’t want there to be a hard landing, this is the situation that central planners by Congress spending and taxing too much, President Biden regulating too much, and the Fed printing too much have left us. There will be efforts by the government to correct these government failures, but we shouldn’t double down on past mistakes. Let’s learn from these failures and remember the most recent lesson in the 1980s: President Reagan cutting regulations, Congress passing tax cuts (but spending too much), and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker cutting the balance sheet. Initially, the cuts to the Fed’s balance sheet contributed to soaring double-digit interest rates, and the economy suffered a double-dip recession. However, afterward, the economy was able to heal from the prior hindrances of past presidents, congressional members, and the Fed, resulting in a long period of economic prosperity, which is often called the Great Moderation. What we have today is an economy where the government is growing, and markets aren’t as much. This must be reversed. When workers, entrepreneurs, and employers are free to engage in voluntary transactions, competition thrives, innovation flourishes, and resources are allocated efficiently. Moreover, free markets promote consumer choice and personal freedom. When government interventions, such as wasteful spending, excessive regulations, and high taxes, are removed, markets can function more efficiently and respond dynamically to changing economic conditions. Striking the right balance between constitutionally limited government functions and preserving the freedom of markets is crucial for achieving a vibrant and prosperous economy. Rising unemployment, stagnant wages, and the specter of inflation require a multifaceted approach. Raising interest rates hasn’t been enough. The government must focus on responsible fiscal and monetary policies, including reducing government spending, addressing burdensome regulations and taxes, and substantially cutting the Fed’s balance sheet. Americans are still suffering, and there is no time to waste in aggressively assessing these measures that cause economic strain so that people can get back to flourishing instead of merely “making it.” Originally published at Econlib. Thank you for listening to the Let People Prosper Show podcast and for reading the newsletter for show notes and key economic insights. Click below to watch the episode and read on for show notes: We discuss:
1) How Medicaid evolved from its origins and throughout the pandemic, and need for reform; 2) How Obamacare continues to affect the health care industry, distort prices, and influence how employers provide health care coverage; and 3) How government intervention in health care alters the flow of supply and demand and what changes should be made to improve the system. Brian’s bio:
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, please check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment. Government Spending Is The Problem The late, great economist Milton Friedman said, " The real problem is government spending." This is true as spending comes before taxes or regulations. In fact, if people didn't form a government or politicians didn’t create new programs, then there would be no need for government spending and no need for taxes. And if there was no government spending nor taxes to fund spending then there would be no one to create or enforce regulations. While this might sound like a utopian paradise, there are essential limited roles for government outlined in constitutions and laws. Of course, most governments are doing much more than providing limited roles which preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is why I have long been working diligently to get a strong fiscal rule of a spending limit enacted in all states and at the federal level promptly under my calling to "let people prosper," as effectively limiting government supports more liberty and therefore more opportunities to flourish. Fortunately, there have been multiple state think tanks that have championed this sound budgeting approach through what they've called either the Responsible, Conservative, or Sustainable State Budget. When Did It Begin? I started this approach a decade ago with my colleagues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation with work on the Conservative Texas Budget which began in 2013. The approach is a fiscal rule based on an appropriations limit that covers as much of the budget as possible, ideally the entire budget, with a maximum based on the rate of population growth plus inflation and a supermajority (two-thirds) vote to exceed it. A version of this approach was started in Colorado with their taxpayer's bill of rights (TABOR), which was championed by key folks like Dr. Barry Poulson and others. (picture below is from a road sign in Texas)  Why Population Growth Plus Inflation? While there are other measures to use for the growth limit, this metric provides the best reasonable measure of the average taxpayer's ability to pay for government spending without excessively crowding out their productive activities. It is important to look at it from the taxpayer’s perspective rather than the appropriator’s view given taxpayers fund every dollar that appropriators redistribute from the private sector. Population growth plus inflation is also a stable metric reducing uncertainty for taxpayers (and appropriators) and essentially freezes inflation-adjusted per capita government spending over time. The research in this space is clear that the best fiscal rule is a spending limit using the rate of population growth plus inflation, not gross state product, personal income, or other growth rates. Given the high inflation rate more recently, it is wise to use the average growth rate of population growth plus inflation over a number of years to smooth out the increased volatility. And this rate should be a ceiling and not a target as governments should be appropriating less than this limit, ideally freezing or cutting government spending at all levels of government to provide more room for tax relief, less regulation, and more money in taxpayers' pockets. Overview of Conservative Texas Budget Approach Figure 1 shows how the growth in Texas’ biennial budget was cut by one-fourth after the creation of the Conservative Texas Budget in 2014 that first influenced the 2015 Legislature when crafting the 2016-17 budget along with changes in the state’s governor and lieutenant governor. And the 8.9% average growth rate of appropriations since then was been below the 9.5% biennial average rate of population growth plus inflation over the latter period, which this was drive substantially higher after the latest 2024-25 budget that is well above this key metric (before this biennial budget the growth rate was 5.2% compared with 9.4% in the rate of population growth plus inflation).  And this approach was mostly put into state law in Texas in 2021 with Senate Bill 1336, as the state already has a spending limit in the constitution. The bill improved the limit to cover all general revenue ("consolidated general revenue"), base the growth limit on the rate of population growth and inflation, and raise the vote to three-fifths of both chambers to exceed it. There are improvements that could be made to SB 1336, such as adding it to the constitution and improving the growth rate to population growth plus inflation instead of population growth times inflation calculated by (1+pop)*(1+inf). But this stronger limit is likely the strongest in the nation as historically the gold standard for a spending limit of the Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been watered down over the years. My Work On The Federal Budget In The White House From June 2019 to May 2020, I took a hiatus from state policy work to serve my country as the associate director for economic policy at the White House's Office of Management and Budget. There I learned much about the federal budget, the appropriations process, and the economic assumptions which are used to provide the upcoming 10-year budget projections. In the President's FY 2021 budget, we found $4.6 trillion in fiscal savings and I was able to include the need for a fiscal rule which rarely happens.  Work With Other States When I returned to the Texas Public Policy Foundation in May 2020, as I wanted to get back to a place with some sense of freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic and to be closer to family, I started an effort to work on this sound budgeting approach with other state think tanks. This contributed to me working with many fantastic people who are trying to restrain government spending in their states and the federal levels. My hope is that if we can get enough state think tanks to promote this budgeting approach, get this approach put into the state's constitution and statute, and use it to limit local government spending as well, there will be plenty of momentum to provide sustainable, substantial tax relief and eventually impose a fiscal rule of a spending limit on the federal budget. This is an uphill battle but I believe it is necessary to preserve liberty and provide more opportunities to let people prosper.  Responsible State Budget Efforts Across The Country Here are the states (in alphabetical order) and state think tanks which I'm working with in some capacity or will be soon along with information on how this process is going in that state, which I will update periodically, with the successful versus not successful budgeting attempts being 17-5.
If you're interested in doing this in your state, please reach out to me. P.S. Good write-up on this issue here by Dan Mitchell at International Liberty. LPP Bonus Episode | Why Tariffs, Immigration & Antitrust Laws can be HARMFUL w "The Immigration Guy"9/6/2023 In this bonus episode, we discuss: 1) How immigration helps the U.S. economy and the truth behind common immigration myths, such as fear that immigrants "steal jobs," 2) Why the tariffs against China didn't work, and the tyranny of excessive government spending; and 3) Dangers of antitrust laws, and the importance of letting markets work. Be sure to check out and subscribe to “The Immigration Guy” podcast.
You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating! For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and please subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment.  As the U.S. commemorates Labor Day, we should consider how many Americans aren’t actively participating in the workforce and what to do about it.
The labor force participation rate was 66% in 2007, declining to 63.3% in February 2020. Today, it’s even lower at 62.8%. Although there are many reasons for this trend, including Baby Boomers retiring, one glaring cause that will continue to exacerbate it with time is the flawed safety-net system. Labor Day was created to commemorate the many contributions of American workers, and rightly so. There’s an inspiring symbiotic relationship between the dignity individuals derive from working and the flourishing that the country experiences as a result. This is why it’s so concerning that the current structure of the many safety-net programs can disincentivize work-capable individuals from seeking, finding and keeping employment. Too often, these recipients become trapped in a cycle of government dependence. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have minimal work requirements. This can discourage users from seeking better-paying employment opportunities, especially if the increase in income reduces the payments from these programs, which is called a benefits cliff. With purchasing power decreased from ongoing inflation, dependence on these programs is growing. There’s a high cost of these programs on recipients and taxpayers funding it, with little to show for it. Anti-poverty efforts have cost taxpayers about $25 trillion (adjusted for inflation) since 1965 and more than $1 trillion annually. While the official poverty rate in America has barely changed since 1970, only six years after President Lyndon B. Johnson declared the “war on poverty,” other measures show substantial improvements in people’s livelihoods. But much of that is because of safety-net programs that boost people’s income at the expense of other taxpayers. Ideally, a flourishing civil society with strong families, communities, nonprofits, churches and other institutions in civil society would render government assistance irrelevant. But we’re a long way from that vision being attainable. Until then, these programs need key reforms, and implementing empowerment accounts (EAs) would help. EAs are designed to consolidate state-administered safety-net programs into a single account accessible through a debit card. While they initially focus on streamlining existing programs, their potential lies in gradually replacing most, if not all, other safety-net programs over time. EAs incorporate a work requirement for work-capable adults, complemented by skills training and education. Recipients would also have access to financial literacy education, community-based case management and opportunities to build savings while enrolled in the program, helping reduce the benefits cliff. An essential aspect of EAs is their adaptability. The account’s government contribution would depend on current income, assets and dependents. Unlike current safety-net programs with income thresholds that create benefit cliffs, empowerment accounts would use a time limit while offering more flexible income limits for up to a year. This approach ensures recipients are motivated to achieve self-sufficiency within a defined period. Community-based case management, provided by established non-profit organizations, would connect recipients with crucial resources and foster connections within local communities. EA’s structure of requiring participation from safety-net recipients would go beyond merely providing financial assistance to equipping them to sustain fiscal and employment stability. The result would not only mean taxpayer funds are more efficiently spent, but struggling individuals are equipped for independence, leading to a decreased poverty rate, higher labor force participation rate and a flourishing economy. Too often, the government promotes mediocrity by quickly “rescuing” people from their situation without showing them how to maintain stability. But all individuals deserve to experience the irreplaceable satisfaction that comes from earned self-sufficiency. While celebrating Labor Day, Americans should emphasize not lack of work but meaningful work that aligns with individual callings. By empowering individuals to regain their financial independence through encouraging labor force participation, we pave the way for holistic human flourishing. Implementing empowerment accounts would mark a pivotal step towards promoting prosperity and reducing dependency on government safety nets. Originally published by The Daily Caller. We discuss: 1) How antitrust laws harm capitalism, why free markets work better with less government interference, and how people misunderstand antitrust laws; 2) What people, especially younger generations, misunderstand about capitalism, what it is and isn't, and how most of us on either side of the political aisle have more in common than not; and 3) How Hannah believes the country could change for the better, and her fascinating background from being a singer/songwriter and interning for Taylor Swift's team to becoming a liberty warrior. Hannah’s bio:
You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating! For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, please check out my website (www.vanceginn.com) and subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment. Highlights
 Overview
Labor Market The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its U.S. jobs report for April 2023, which was another mixed report with some strengths but many weaknesses.
Economic Growth The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently released the second estimate for economic output for Q2:2023.
 Bottom Line
Recommendations:
|
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly