Originally posted to The Washington Examiner. 

Solar stocks plunged on Tuesday after the Senate released its version of what President Donald Trump has called the “big, beautiful bill.” While some anti-growth carveouts remain, one of its strongest reforms is how it begins to unwind former President Joe Biden’s green energy subsidies. This shift marks a long-overdue correction, ending an era where Washington picks winners and losers in the energy economy.

The market’s reaction was revealing. Overinflated by years of preferential treatment, many renewable companies are now adjusting to reality — one where their products compete on merit, not mandates. That’s a good thing.

Under Biden, energy policy was driven by top-down planning and heavy-handed regulation. The results? Higher prices, constrained supply, and a fragile grid. But under Trump, we’re seeing a reorientation: more energy abundance and a return to common-sense competition.

We don’t need Washington trying to engineer our energy future; we need it to get out of the way. Stripping tax favoritism, streamlining environmental permitting, and unleashing domestic production will lower prices and improve reliability. People in markets, not bureaucrats, should decide where capital flows.

This fact extends beyond energy. The Trump administration has wisely begun dismantling financial regulations that have weaponized the government against innovation and consumer choice. One key win: the executive order halting any advance on a Federal Reserve–issued central bank digital currency, which would have been a surveillance tool masquerading as modernization.

In another victory for freedom and innovation, the Securities and Exchange Commission dropped its lawsuit against Binance, signaling the end of an era in which cryptocurrency was treated more like a threat than a technology. The Biden administration’s hostility toward decentralized finance stifled innovation. Trump is helping reverse that trend, encouraging financial innovation and clarity.

Then there’s the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s dropped case against Zelle — a legally flimsy attempt to hold banks liable for fraud committed by third parties. Peer-to-peer payments aren’t inherently risky; bad actors are. The right approach is strengthening consumer education and fraud prevention, not punishing tech-enabled payment tools.

The Biden Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Visa’s debit card business was another case of political antitrust, targeting a company not for consumer harm but for being too successful. The sin? Having a 60% market share in a highly competitive industry with no hint of predatory behavior and no shortage of payment choices for consumers and businesses. 

Thankfully, a shift is underway. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater has emphasized a return to data-driven enforcement and sound economic reasoning in antitrust. That’s a necessary course correction from the ideologically driven activism of recent years.

Still, regulatory bloat remains. Trump should go further by reversing the Biden-era expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, which pressures banks to prioritize geography and politics over creditworthiness. That’s distortion, not inclusion. When credit is misallocated for political goals, financial stability and the people it’s supposed to help suffer.

Energy permitting is another frontier. Under current laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, critical infrastructure is delayed for years. We must accelerate approvals for pipelines, liquefied natural gas terminals, and power plants if we want a resilient energy grid and lower prices. Energy abundance should not be held hostage to outdated processes and red tape.

What ties all this together is a single, clear principle: Government should not control economic outcomes — it should set the rules of the game and then get out of the way. America doesn’t need a new round of industrial policy or neopopulist planning. We need a recommitment to classical liberalism, grounded in free-market economics, limited government, and individual freedom.

Industrial policy, whether from the left or right, assumes Washington knows better than markets. It doesn’t. The history of failed subsidies, protectionist trade wars, and crony corporatism proves it. If we want more innovation, investment, and opportunity, the best policy is humility: Let people prosper.

That starts by ending the “winners and losers” economy. No more special favors, mandates, or market manipulation. Just a level playing field where success is earned, not granted.

Originally posted at The Center Square. 

There are many domestic issues of sufficient magnitude to be honestly labelled crises. President Donald Trump has begun to address illegal immigration issues, the woke virus, and even the deep state. But the budget budget deficit and “entitlements” are still considered untouchable.

Health care has been a crisis for more than 60 years, increasingly unaffordable and even harder to get medical care. That is despite federal “fixes” such as Medicare, Medicaid, EMTALA, HIPAA, and ACA to name the more well known of a myriad of health care acts, executive orders, mandates, directives, rules, and regulations.

Washington’s solutions for health care have exacerbated the crisis. Wait times for primary care can now be as long as 132 days. Americans are dying while waiting in line for medical care – death by queue. In 2024, U.S. tax revenue collected was $5 trillion while total health care expenditures were $4.8 trillion, most of it from taxpayers. Average household medical expenses were $32,066.

Washington’s regulatory approach has consistently produced fixes-that-fail-or-backfire (archetype from systems thinking). The third-party payment structure disconnects patients from their money and usurps medical autonomy. Federal regulations divert half of all healthcare spending from paying for care to fund federal BURRDEN: bureaucracy, unnecessary rules and regulations, directives, enforcement, and noncompliance activities.

The lack of free market forces causes shortages, poor quality, slow service, and overspending, just what Americans experience today.

Health care must be fixed, or two things will happen: increasing numbers of Americans will die needlessly, and the U.S. will go broke.

A different approach has been suggested that involves unwinding the federal regulatory apparatus, reconnecting people with their physicians, and regaining control of personal health care spending. This plan, called the Empower Patients Initiative will immediately meet intense resistance from political realists who will shout the following.

• Health care is a right – that makes it a federal responsibility.
• Congress will never, ever go for EPI.
• We couldn’t possibly undo all those regulations.
• People can’t shop for health care like they do for a car.
• Think of all those people thrown out of work.
• Entitlements are the third rail: touching them is political suicide.
• Government health care works in countries like the U.K. and France.  So, we need total federal control, like single payer.

Medical doctors and economists, like us, don’t think like political realists. First, they seek out the etiology of sickness or the root cause of system failure, giving no credence to what is considered politically possible. Then, they “dissolve” the root cause, thereby curing the patient or system.

The root cause of our health care crisis is federal control. The cure is to return control to individuals, called we the patients. The Empower Patients Initiative does that.

EPI is a multi-step, multi-year plan that gradually restores financial control to Americans, reduces federal bureaucracy, saves taxpayers trillions of dollars, and achieves affordable, accessible health care for Americans.

Some of the EPI steps include:

1. Preparation: Campaign to educate and energize the public includes writings, videos and public service announcements. Books for the general audience are released in English and Spanish titled, Empower Patients – Two Doctors’ Cure for Healthcare.
2. Transfer current employer-sponsored contributions from insurance companies – average $23,968 in 2023 – to employee paychecks. Tax-free if placed in no-limit HSA.
3. No-limit HSA: New family medical spending account with no restrictions on health care spending or deposit limits.
4. Medicaid block grants: States know best how to serve their residents; fixed amount given annually by Washington.
5. Medical safety nets: States choose how to provide for the medically vulnerable; one size definitely does not fit all.
6. Deregulate insurance: Allow people to purchase whatever policies they want.
7. Medicare: Transfer funds to senior no-limit HSAs.
8. Radical reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy saves taxpayer dollars.

These actions will transfer financial and thus medical control from third parties – private insurance and the federal government – to individuals and reestablish free market forces. Consumers – we the patients – will be well-funded payers; with a powerful incentive to economize, spending will decline. Sellers – providers, care institutions, and insurance companies – will have to compete for patients’ dollars, driving prices down and greatly improving service.

While resistance to EPI will start with the political class, others will initially be skeptical.

Congress will vigorously oppose EPI as it takes away power and money from their control. It is up to the voters to put people into Congress who will prioritize patients first and adopt the EPI.

The public may initially object as EPI is a big change, and change makes people nervous. Hopefully, the preparation campaign, particularly the “Empower Patients” booklet, will resolve the misconceptions and false facts that plague healthcare.

Medical doctors are likely to resist, at least at first. They are socialized so as not to compete with each other and will be reluctant to advertise or market their services.

However, those who embrace EPI with its free-market principles will quickly experience the advantages: bureaucratic hassle gone, greater income, more time with their patients, and a return to professional satisfaction.

In the fable of the lady and the tiger, the man doesn’t know which door holds what. In health care today, there are two choices: federal control or EPI, but we know which one leads to death (by queue).

EPI may be unknown to many people, but anything is better than dead and broke, which is where health care is currently taking we the patients.

Originally posted at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

As Congress revives the misnamed Credit Card Competition Act and state legislatures push bills to regulate swipe fees, policymakers are quietly setting the stage for a major disruption in how Americans access credit. These proposals aim to cap interchange fees—those small charges behind every card swipe—but the consequences won’t be small.

Interchange fees may not make headlines, but they help keep the modern credit ecosystem running. On a typical $100 transaction, around $2 in interchange fees flows from merchants to the banks and networks that manage fraud protection, secure payments, and rewards programs. In return, consumers get safer transactions and access to credit, and merchants get more customers.

The bills in a few states, like Texas’s HB 4124, which died this year, aim to ban interchange fees on tax and tip portions of transactions. That might sound like a narrow carve-out. But it’s not. It’s a price control, and price controls are costly. Like a leak in the hull, they start small and quickly sink the ship.

I don’t come at this from theory. I grew up in a lower-income single-mom household in South Houston, Texas. My dad had epilepsy and received disability income. My mom dropped out in the tenth grade and worked hard to make ends meet. We didn’t qualify for most welfare, and credit cards were the fallback when times got tough. My mom didn’t use them for luxuries—she used them for groceries, utility bills, and school clothes. That access mattered.

Now imagine her in today’s regulatory environment, where policymakers treat credit like a vice rather than a necessity. The Credit Card Competition Act would force issuers to use multiple payment networks, undermining fraud security and disrupting rewards programs, like the Chase Southwest card I use for travel with my family. Meanwhile, proposals from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to cap credit card interest rates at 10% would cut off millions of higher-risk borrowers, disproportionately harming those with the fewest alternatives.

This all echoes the failed logic of the Durbin Amendment of 2010. That policy capped debit card fees and promised consumer savings. Instead, no-charge checking accounts were cut in half, debit rewards disappeared, and according to the Government Accountability Office, less than 2% of retailers passed on any savings. The real beneficiaries were the big-box stores, not everyday Americans.

Supporters claim they’re protecting consumers. But who are they really protecting when 22% of Americans are unbanked or underbanked, according to the Federal Reserve? When you price credit below its risk, lenders stop offering it. That leaves working families to turn to payday lenders or pawn shops—or worse, to go without.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve—the very institution regulators want to give more power over payment systems—has lost more than $200 billion in operating losses since 2022 due to its mismanagement of interest rate risk. And now it wants to fix the “problem” of interchange fees?

If lawmakers genuinely want to improve access and competition, they should focus on reducing barriers for smaller banks and fintech innovators, not micromanaging transaction fees or capping risk-based interest rates. These reforms would encourage real competition, protect consumers, and avoid the failed playbook of regulatory overreach.

Milton Friedman once warned that “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” We should heed that wisdom now more than ever.

The intention to lower swipe fees and protect consumers is good in a soundbite. However, the result will be fewer rewards, higher costs, and less access, especially for working Americans. That’s not financial protection. That’s economic sabotage.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

From Topeka to Washington, too many politicians are combining tax relief with bloated budgets—and it’s putting future prosperity at riskKansas’s recent fiscal trajectory offers a cautionary tale for federal policymakers.

While tax relief is essential for economic growth, pairing it with unchecked spending can lead to fiscal instability. The state’s experience underscores the importance of coupling tax reforms with disciplined budgeting—a lesson Washington should heed as it considers the so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (OBBB).

Kansas: The Perils of Overspending

Over the past decade, Kansas has seen both the promise and the peril of bold tax reform. In the early 2010s, the state attempted a major tax overhaul under then-Governor Sam Brownback, slashing income tax rates in hopes of spurring growth. However, the tax cuts were not paired with corresponding reductions in spending. Instead, state budgets continued to expand, and the resulting deficits sparked political backlash and fiscal instability.

Fast-forward to 2025, and Kansas again finds itself in a precarious fiscal position. The Legislature recently passed another tax relief package aimed at flattening income tax rates and reducing the property tax burden—moves that are pro-growth in theory. However, these reforms come alongside a surge in state spending. Our research at KPI shows that, for 2025 alone, the state budget is $8.7 billion larger than if spending had followed a responsible limit based on population growth plus inflation since 2005.

Spending per resident has soared to unsustainable levels, outpacing economic growth and increasing the burden on Kansas taxpayers. Kansas’s state government spending per resident was $5,428, placing it 23rd highest among the states. State and local tax collections per capita stood at $6,326 in 2022, ranking Kansas 24th nationally, well above no-income-tax states like Florida and Texas. This high tax burden helps explain why Kansas has seen a net outmigration of nearly 198,000 residents since 2000.

Forecasts show Kansas facing a $741 million deficit within four years. Assuming these projections are accurate, it is not because of the tax cuts but because of unsustainable spending growth. A decade after the first tax reform attempt, Kansas still grapples with the consequences of failing to control government expansion. The lesson is clear: even the best tax reforms can falter without fiscal discipline.

The Responsible Kansas Budget: A Blueprint for Reform

To address these challenges, Kansas needs to adopt KPI’s Responsible Kansas Budget (RKB). This simple yet powerful framework starts by demanding real cuts to inflated spending now—not just limiting future growth. Only then can state and local spending growth be effectively capped to population growth plus inflation, a measure of what taxpayers can sustainably afford.

By taking this two-step approach—cutting first, capping second—Kansas can reduce the government’s burden, avoid deficits, and create room for meaningful tax relief. This framework is a prerequisite for long-term stability.

The RKB also demands a shift toward performance-based budgeting. That means funding decisions should be based on outcomes, not historical inertia. Dedicated funds and earmarked programs currently dominate the Kansas budget, limiting lawmakers’ flexibility and reducing transparency. These automatic appropriations are a recipe for bloat and inefficiency.

A responsible budget should reflect real priorities, not legacy carveouts or special interests. And it should reject the fallacy of burden-shifting—replacing one tax with another—without actually reducing the total tax load on Kansans.

With a responsible budget and sound tax policy, Kansas could join the growing number of states advancing toward flatter and simpler tax systems. Over a dozen states have already adopted or are moving toward flat income taxes, and several—including Florida, Tennessee, and Texas—have eliminated income taxes entirely in favor of consumption-based models that encourage savings, investment, and growth.

Washington’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill”: Echoes of Kansas

At the federal level, the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) mirrors Kansas’s approach in its ambition and flaws. The bill includes several encouraging provisions:

• Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions,
• Eliminating federal taxes on tips and overtime pay,
• Making some Social Security income tax-free,
• Rolling back Biden-era green energy subsidies,
• Adding modest reforms to Medicaid and SNAP.

These are meaningful steps toward a more growth-oriented economy. However, the bill’s excessive spending without immediate cuts, numerous carveouts in the tax code, and a massive $4 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling undermine the positives. Rather than pursue a broad-based, neutral tax system, OBBB introduces more tax carveouts—targeted benefits for politically favored groups. This kind of special treatment is anti-growth, distorting economic decisions, and reducing fairness. Worse, the bill does little to reform the largest drivers of federal deficits: “entitlements.”

Medicaid Reforms: Necessary but Potentially Disruptive

Among the most important components of OBBB are the long-overdue reforms to Medicaid. These changes aim to rein in ballooning entitlement costs and require work among capable adults. For Kansas, however, this could initially create budgetary pressure if federal matching funds are reduced or enrollment drops more quickly than anticipated. However, short-term stress should not deter long-term reform. Kansas must begin to wean itself off the federal budget, in Medicaid and elsewhere, especially in programs where dependency has grown far beyond the original intent. Taxpayers in Kansas are being overtaxed to support an unsustainable federal system. Rather than fearing change, Kansas should seize the opportunity to modernize its Medicaid program, cut costs, and move toward a more state-driven and fiscally responsible healthcare model.

Tax Carveouts vs. Tax Reform

Whether in Topeka or D.C., the distinction between tax carveouts and true tax reform is critical. Carveouts are a form of cronyism: they reward lobbyists and special interests, not families and small businesses. They complicate the tax code, reduce transparency, and make it harder to achieve long-term economic growth. By contrast, real tax reform broadens the base and lowers the rate for all taxpayers. It removes distortions, encourages work and productivity, and treats taxpayers equitably. The federal government should follow the lead of states like Kansas (when done right), Arizona, and Iowa by simplifying the tax code and moving toward a broad-based consumption model, not patchwork exemptions. Simply shifting the burden from income to consumption taxes isn’t enough—real reform must actually reduce the total burden on taxpayers.

Why Spending Discipline Matters

No tax policy can succeed in the long run without spending control. When spending outpaces economic growth, the gap must be filled with higher taxes, borrowing, or inflation—all of which harm the private economy. We’ve seen this nationally, as federal spending exploded during COVID-19 and remained high even after the emergency passed. And let’s not ignore federal borrowing. With debt levels now nearing $37 trillion, future generations will bear the burden of today’s excesses. Every trillion in new debt erodes trust, crowds out private investment, and raises the specter of inflation.

In Kansas, the failure to reduce spending has led to budget shortfalls even in times of economic growth. That’s because the state government has locked itself into long-term obligations and special funds that leave little room for discretion. Every dollar funneled into a dedicated account is one less that can be used for tax relief or urgent needs. In Washington, the same problem plays out in the form of entitlement autopilot and defense contractor guarantees. Unless both levels of government prioritize spending restraint, tax relief will be short-lived and economic growth will stall.

As states and the federal government consider long-term reform, one of the most promising directions is a shift from taxing income to taxing consumption. Income taxes penalize productivity, savings, and investment—the very engines of economic growth. Consumption taxes, by contrast, are less distortionary and more transparent. A flat consumption tax, such as a final sales tax, aligns incentives and simplifies compliance. Texas and Florida have demonstrated the viability of no-income-tax models, relying instead on consumption-based revenue systems. Kansas should explore similar reforms by reducing reliance on income taxes and eliminating carve-outs that clutter the code. At the federal level, replacing income and payroll taxes with a broad-based consumption tax could boost growth, improve compliance, and reduce the tax gap. But that can only happen if spending is first brought under control to avoid just shifting the burden.

A Time for Courageous Leadership

The opportunity is clear: Kansas and Washington can implement sustainable, pro-growth tax reform. But doing so requires real courage. It means cutting unnecessary programs, resisting special interests, and saying no to budget gimmicks. It means adopting a responsible budget cap—like the RKB—and sticking to it. In Kansas, that starts with ending the use of dedicated funds to circumvent scrutiny. It means evaluating programs on performance and eliminating those that fail to deliver value. It means using surpluses for tax relief or debt reduction, not new spending obligations. It means getting Kelly Era spending surges under control. In Washington, it means pairing tax relief with real entitlement reform. It means capping spending growth and ending the practice of raising the debt ceiling without structural change.

Conclusion: The Path to Prosperity

Tax relief is not enough. Without spending discipline, it leads to deficits, debt, and future tax hikes. Kansas has seen this firsthand and must not repeat the mistakes of a decade ago. Washington is at risk of making the same errors now. The path to prosperity lies in cutting inflated spending now, capping future growth, enacting broad-based tax reform, and shrinking the government’s footprint. Only then can we ensure a truly free and prosperous future. Washington would be wise to follow.

​Today marks the conclusion of the 89th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature, and what a session it's been. Once renowned for its commitment to pro-freedom and pro-growth policies, Texas now grapples with decisions that challenge its conservative principles. This session has strayed from the fiscal conservatism Texans expect, from expanding corporate handouts to unprecedented spending. The people of Texas deserve better. It's time to return to the pro-growth policies that have enabled the state to thrive and lead the nation. On the federal front, the passage of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” in the House reveals a similar mix of commendable and concerning developments. How can we reconcile the benefits of tax cuts with the drawbacks of increased government spending?

In this episode, I delve into these significant legislative moves and assess their impact on the nation's economic health. Let's examine both the positive and negative aspects to gain a clear understanding of where things stand. 

You can catch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify.
Visit: VanceGinn.com
Subscribe: VanceGinn.Substack.com

(0:00) - Texas Legislature's 89th Session: A Mixed Bag
(6:22) - The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Texas Legislative Outcomes
(12:04) - Market Health Update: Overspending and Economic Consequences
(17:56) - Housing Market Challenges and Solutions