​States across the country are rethinking tax reform to stay competitive for residents and businesses. Many are exploring ways to phase out personal income, business franchise, and property taxes to attract workers, foster economic growth, and ensure property rights. But doing so requires careful planning to ensure stability and fiscal responsibility.

One of the most important decisions in this process is choosing the right mechanism to trigger tax cuts.

Two common approaches are revenue triggers and surplus triggers. While both have their merits, surplus triggers are far more reliable and sustainable. They base tax cuts on actual fiscal surpluses rather than optimistic revenue projections and address the core problem of government: spending.

Why Spending Limits and Surplus Triggers Make Sense
Tax reform doesn’t happen in isolation—it needs to be part of a broader strategy to limit government growth and promote fiscal discipline. This is where spending limits come into play. A spending limit ties annual increases in government spending to measurable factors like population growth and inflation. By keeping spending under control, surpluses naturally occur when revenues grow faster than the spending limit, creating the perfect opportunity for meaningful tax cuts.

Here’s why a surplus trigger, paired with a spending limit, is the best approach for phasing out taxes:

1. Stability Over Speculation
Revenue triggers rely on meeting specific revenue targets before tax cuts are implemented. While this sounds straightforward, it assumes continuous economic growth—a risky gamble. If revenues fall short due to economic downturns or other factors, tax cuts may be delayed or reversed, creating uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses.

Surplus triggers, on the other hand, only initiate tax cuts when there are genuine excess funds at the end of the year. This approach ensures that tax relief is stable, reliable, and based on real financial health rather than speculation.

2. Encouraging Fiscal Discipline
A surplus trigger works hand-in-hand with a spending limit, which naturally generates surpluses by controlling government expansion. This ensures that tax cuts are backed by actual savings, not temporary windfalls. Revenue triggers, by contrast, don’t address the root cause of fiscal instability—unrestrained spending. Without limits, even rising revenues can be outpaced by unchecked spending growth, leaving little room for tax relief.

By focusing on spending, surplus triggers encourage long-term fiscal discipline, making tax reform sustainable.

3. Reducing the Risk of Tax Reversals
Revenue-triggered tax cuts can be politically fragile. If revenue growth slows, lawmakers may feel pressured to raise taxes again, undermining the entire reform effort. Surplus triggers avoid this problem by tying tax reductions to actual fiscal conditions. This ensures that cuts are less likely to be reversed, providing certainty for taxpayers and businesses alike.

How Surplus Triggers Work in Practice
A surplus trigger takes the revenue collected above the spending limit at the end of each fiscal year and allocates it toward specific priorities. Here’s a practical example of how this can work:

• 90% of the surplus is directed to a Tax Relief Fund to reduce the income tax rate gradually over time. This fund can also act as a buffer to cover limited spending needs, if necessary. Any leftover funds can go toward paying down debt, further strengthening the state’s financial health.
• The remaining 10% (or less) is left in the general fund or a rainy day fund for unforeseen revenue shortfalls due to a recession, natural disaster, or other reasons. But the focus during those shortfalls should be reducing spending so more money remains for tax relief when people tend to be hurting the most.

By splitting surplus funds between tax relief and rainy day funds, states can provide immediate benefits while laying the groundwork for future prosperity.

Flexible, Sustainable Tax Reform
Unlike revenue triggers, surplus triggers don’t lock states into rigid tax cut schedules. Instead, they allow flexibility to adjust the pace of tax reductions based on actual surpluses. This makes a complete phase-out of the income tax achievable within a reasonable timeframe, such as a decade, while ensuring that essential services and fiscal stability are preserved.

When combined with a spending limit, surplus-triggered tax relief delivers significant economic benefits. Lower income taxes increase disposable income for families, encourage consumer spending, and attract businesses looking for a more favorable tax environment. Over time, the resulting economic growth broadens the tax base, generating additional revenue from sales and property taxes to offset the reduced reliance on income taxes.

Research shows that phased tax relief can drive billions in economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. It’s a strategy that not only improves the fiscal health of the state but also enhances the quality of life for residents.

The Bottom Line
Surplus triggers, paired with a spending limit, offer a sustainable and disciplined path to meaningful tax reform. They provide a reliable framework for reducing and eventually eliminating personal income taxes, ensuring that tax cuts are based on real fiscal health rather than speculative revenue growth. By focusing on spending restraint, states can achieve tax reform that is both responsible and transformative, paving the way for economic growth and competitiveness for years to come.

The choice is clear: surplus triggers are the smarter, more stable way to deliver lasting tax relief and fiscal stability.

Similar version originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. ​

As Texas faces rising property taxes and record-high government spending, it’s time to reassess the path toward long-term prosperity. Recent data illustrates Texas’ strengths and challenges. In August 2024, Texas maintained a 4.1% unemployment rate, while the state’s GDP grew by 3.5% in Q2 2024, outpacing national averages. However, the last legislative session resulted in unprecedented government spending increases, threatening Texas’ fiscal stability. 

The solution is clear: spending cuts, lower taxes, and imposing the strongest possible spending limits on state and local governments. This can be done by ending excessive spending of at least $30 billion, which is a 15% cut in state funds.

Corporate Welfare: A Drain on Taxpayers of $10 billion
New constitutionally-dedicated funds like the $5 billion to Texas Energy Loan Fund, $1 billion to Texas Water Fund, and $1.5 billion to Texas Broadband Infrastructure Fund create even more opportunities for contractors and financial firms to benefit at the taxpayer’s expense. Expanding these programs is already being discussed, adding to concerns about unchecked government spending. Not spending these funds and instead redirecting them toward broad-based tax relief would benefit all Texans, not just a select few private entities. Other corporate welfare programs like the Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) and Chapter 403, the newly revamped property tax abatement program that replaced the expired Chapter 313, continue to burden taxpayers. 

Overfunding the Government School System by $17 billion Annually
Texas is overfunding its monopoly government school system, spending billions of dollars annually on a system that lacks competition and efficiency. A transition to universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) would inject competition into the education sector, allowing parents to choose the best educational options for their children. Moving to universal ESAs could save the state an estimated $17 billion per year by allowing the state to spend $12,000 per 6.3 million school-age kids instead of $16,792 per 5.5 million enrolled at government schools. These savings could be used to eliminate school property taxes, providing meaningful relief for homeowners and fostering a more dynamic, competitive education system.

Medicaid Reform: Lowering Costs with HSAs for Savings of At Least $3 billion Annually
Healthcare spending, especially through Medicaid, is another area where Texas can find significant savings. Shifting Medicaid recipients to work requirements and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) would encourage more cost-effective healthcare decisions, saving the state at least $3 billion annually. These savings could then be applied toward property tax relief, allowing Texans to benefit from lower overall taxes while promoting personal responsibility in healthcare. 

Achieving Property Tax Elimination Through Fiscal Discipline
By combining savings from eliminating corporate welfare, passing school choice, and reforming Medicaid, Texas could save at least $30 billion per year. These funds could eliminate most, if not all, school district M&O property taxes, providing substantial relief for homeowners. It is also critical to enact the strongest possible constitutional spending limit, tying state and local government spending growth to a maximum of population growth plus inflation. But with record spending increases in the most recent legislative session, including the creation of the Texas Water Fund and Texas Broadband Fund, it’s crucial to cut government spending, pass Frozen Texas Budgets, and provide fiscal responsibility.

Securing Texas’ Economic Future
Texas is at a crossroads. While the state’s economy remains relatively strong, with low unemployment and impressive GDP growth, the rapid rise in government spending, corporate welfare, and property taxes pose significant risks to its long-term success. Texas can secure a prosperous future by embracing a strategy of lower taxes, spending restraint, and market-driven reforms. Eliminating corporate welfare, expanding school choice, and adopting Medicaid reform will unleash the opportunity to eliminate school district M&O property taxes, allowing Texans to keep more of their income and ensuring that the state remains a beacon of economic freedom.

​Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

Texas is at a critical point in addressing its housing affordability crisis. As the property tax burden on Texans is at historic highs, the State’s housing market faces serious challenges that drive up costs and limit access to affordable homes. Solving this crisis requires a bold approach to removing restrictive zoning laws, reforming property taxes, and pursuing paths that enable true homeownership.

Property Taxes are Soaring, Limiting Homeownership
Property taxes in Texas have risen sharply in recent decades. Data from Texas Comptroller shows that total property taxes in Texas have skyrocketed from nearly $19 billion in 1998 to over $81 billion in 2023—a staggering 328% increase over 25 years. Most of this growth comes from school districts and local governments, where spending has far outpaced population growth and inflation. Despite the recent relief push, property taxes remain an ever-growing burden, keeping many Texans from achieving affordable homeownership.

Restrictive Zoning Laws Inflate Housing Costs
Restrictive zoning policies are another roadblock to affordable housing. By limiting where and what types of homes can be built, these zoning restrictions constrain housing supply, causing prices to rise. Opening up zoning could allow developers to build more homes, increasing competition and reducing costs for prospective buyers and renters. Such zoning reforms would enable the Texas housing market to meet demand more effectively, driving down prices and making homeownership more attainable for all Texans.

The Case Against Rent Control and for Free-Market Solutions
Some advocate for rent control to address housing affordability, but this policy only exacerbates the problem. Rent control limits lead to reduced housing supply, lower property maintenance standards, and an overall decline in housing quality. Texas should adopt free-market solutions instead of price controls that distort the market. Reducing zoning restrictions and property taxes provides a far more sustainable approach, encouraging private investment and expanding housing options without compromising quality.

A Path to Property Tax Elimination
True homeownership means owning a home without a continuous tax burden. For Texans to experience this freedom, we need a serious commitment to eliminating property taxes. Here’s a practical approach:

1. Close Loopholes and Enforce Levy Limits: Many local governments exploit loopholes to bypass levy limits, defeating the purpose of voter-imposed controls. Enforcing a 0% threshold for property tax hikes without voter approval would prevent local entities from sidestepping taxpayers’ voices.
2. Limit State and Local Spending: Effective property tax reform requires disciplined spending control. Limiting state and local government spending, combined with strict fiscal caps, would prevent the spending growth that drives up property tax rates.
3. Use Surplus Revenues to Reduce Property Tax Rates: Texas can use budget surpluses to gradually phase out property taxes, with the state cutting school district maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rates and other local governments eliminating their property taxes. This surplus-driven approach would allow for a consistent reduction in property tax burdens until zero, without jeopardizing critical public services.

Learning from Other States
Several states are already exploring ways to move away from property tax dependence. For instance, North Dakota and Wyoming could soon eliminate property taxes, offering a potential model for Texas. By setting ambitious targets, these states show that property tax elimination isn’t just an idealistic vision—it’s a practical policy choice that puts residents on the path to true home ownership.

Political Courage is Key
Implementing these solutions requires political will and determination to prioritize Texans’ well-being over short-term spending interests. Texas lawmakers need to recognize that high property taxes are not just an inconvenience—they’re a barrier to affordable living, an obstacle to homeownership, and an economic drain that weakens communities. Texas can lead the nation in housing affordability and economic freedom by reducing zoning restrictions, enforcing strict levy limits, and working toward eliminating property taxes.

Conclusion: A Sustainable Solution to Housing Affordability
The housing affordability crisis in Texas won’t be solved overnight, but a commitment to sustainable, free-market reforms can provide real relief. By removing restrictive zoning, eliminating property taxes, and rejecting failed policies like rent control, Texas can make homeownership affordable and achievable for more people.
​
Now is the time to pursue policies that support true homeownership, economic freedom, and prosperity for Texans. Let’s choose a path that addresses the root causes of our housing crisis, unleashing the potential for a thriving, accessible housing market.

Chairman Bettencourt and members of the committee,

Thank you for holding this hearing. I am Dr. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting, Texan, and father who is concerned about Texas's housing affordability crisis. While the state can’t address general inflation and interest rates, as those have been failures of Washington, policymakers can tackle restrictive local zoning and high property taxes.

First, restrictive zoning regulations restrict the housing supply, driving up housing prices faster than many can afford. 

• Reducing these housing restrictions imposed by mostly local governments can increase the housing supply, helping lower prices. Less restrictive zoning isn’t just good policy; it’s essential for making Texas affordable. The high cost of rent control, zoning rules, and other government failures highlight the importance of free-market solutions.

Second, regarding the 11th most burdensome property taxes, achieving affordable housing means committing to eliminating them. ​

Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research.

​On November 5, North Dakota will vote on Measure 4, a ballot measure that could make it the first state to eliminate property taxes. This decision isn’t just a local concern; it’s a critical moment that could shape the future of property tax reform nationwide. 

If successful, the measure will challenge the notion that property taxes are a permanent fixture, forcing us to reconsider the tax model that has held American homeowners in a perpetual cycle of payments to the government. 

While Measure 4 opens a path toward exploring tax systems that foster true homeownership and economic freedom, there’s a significant caution. Without first eliminating personal income taxes and establishing a clear, structured plan to replace funding for essential government services, North Dakota could face fiscal and economic headwinds.

Property Taxes: An Endless Burden on Homeowners
Property taxes impose a recurring burden on homeowners, functioning as an annual wealth tax that rises yearly, driven by local government assessments and tax rates. Even once a mortgage is paid off, homeowners must continue to pay these taxes, making them permanent renters from the government. This system is particularly harmful to retirees, fixed-income earners, and families trying to keep up with rising housing costs. 

Property taxes create a compounding burden in Texas and elsewhere due to rising property values assessed by government appraisers and rates set by various taxing entities. This “double impact” on property taxes drives many taxpayers to the edge financially, even if they’ve lived in their homes for decades.

The reality is that property taxes are an economic anchor, tying property owners to the whims of government budgets and leaving little flexibility to opt out of escalating taxes. Appraisal limits, like those in California’s Proposition 13, attempt to keep assessments under control. Still, they result in an inequitable “lock-in” effect that penalizes new buyers with higher rates and discourages turnover. This system has also increased housing prices, making it harder for new buyers to enter the market while reducing the motivation for existing homeowners to downsize or relocate.

Why Eliminate Income Taxes First?
The best starting point for states looking to reform their tax systems is elimination of the income tax. Income taxes directly tax labor and productivity, discouraging work and reducing individual take-home pay. 

States that have avoided income taxes — like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee — have seen impressive economic growth and strong net migration rates due to their lower tax burdens and other factors. Florida and Tennessee, though not Texas, have managed to keep property taxes more reasonable by practicing better local spending restraint and avoiding the need to offset forgone income taxes with higher local taxes. This approach fully incentivizes labor and draws businesses and families seeking a more favorable tax environment.

Once income taxes are removed, states can focus on property taxes, which burden homeownership by taxing unrealized gains on property values, acting much like a wealth tax. Without income taxes, states can adopt more consumption-based models, particularly a flat final sales tax, that avoids taxing wealth or earnings directly and ties tax burdens to individuals’ activity in market. This sequence of reform — income tax elimination followed by property tax reduction — can lay a solid foundation for sustainable growth and homeowner stability.

How North Dakota and Texas Can Lead on Property Tax Reform
North Dakota has an opportunity to demonstrate that a state can operate without property taxes, but success requires spending control and careful planning. 
Although critics argue that the estimated $3.15 billion biennial revenue from property taxes funds vital services, North Dakota’s $11 billion reserve fund, and strong oil-driven revenue give it unique fiscal flexibility. The state would benefit, however, from placing spending limits tied to population growth and inflation, similar to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), to ensure that budget growth does not erode tax relief.

Texas, too, provides a relevant case study. Over the past decade, Texas lawmakers have allocated funds to reduce school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes, but excessive state and local government spending has minimized the relief’s impact. Despite a $32.7 billion surplus last year, only $12.7 billion was used for property tax relief, with most of the rest going toward increasing state spending, which increased by a record 32 percent. The result was minimal total property tax reduction because other local taxing entities raised their property taxes substantially.
Without strict state and local spending caps, even substantial surplus funds can fail to yield lasting tax relief.

The Cautionary Note for North Dakota’s Measure 4
While North Dakota’s vote on Measure 4 is a bold step, it comes with potential pitfalls. 

With a well-defined replacement plan for the revenue currently generated by property taxes, the state could avoid fiscal challenges that offset the intended benefits of property tax elimination. Measure 4 leaves it up to the state legislature to devise a revenue strategy. Essential services could suffer budget shortfalls, forcing the state into difficult cuts or prompting alternative tax increases.

Furthermore, the absence of a strategic plan could lead to ad hoc fiscal decisions, causing instability for residents and uncertainty in budgeting. To make property tax elimination feasible, North Dakota must adopt firm spending controls to match any revenue replacement strategy. By securing the proper fiscal framework, the state could avoid potential pitfalls and ensure that this ambitious tax reform strengthens, rather than destabilizes, its economic foundation.

Addressing Both State and Local Property Taxes
The most effective approach is to address property taxes at the state and local levels.
 
States should take the lead in eliminating school district property taxes, which often constitute a major portion of the overall property tax burden. In Texas, for example, school district taxes are “local” in name only, as state-level finance formulas heavily influence them. Once these are phased out at the state level, local governments should then work toward eliminating other types of property taxes, using surpluses and revenue growth to reduce rates to zero gradually.

By creating a model that addresses school district property taxes through state policy and the rest through local adjustments, states avoid funneling taxpayer dollars to local governments to subsidize shortfalls. Prioritizing true local control prevents the inefficient redistribution of funds from state coffers to local budgets.

Shifting to a Consumption-Based Tax Model
Replacing property taxes with a consumption-based tax, such as a broad-based final sales tax, would align the tax system more closely with individual spending power. Unlike property taxes, levied regardless of a homeowner’s choices, sales taxes are paid when residents choose to spend. This method introduces flexibility for taxpayers, who can control their tax contributions more directly rather than bearing a constant, unavoidable tax burden on their homes.
​
North Dakota could adopt a broader sales tax base or modest rate adjustments to offset lost property tax revenue while maintaining competitive tax rates. Tennessee and Florida offer strong examples of how states without income taxes have kept overall property tax burdens relatively low through spending restraints and controlled local budgets.

Originally published by Kansas Policy Institute.​

In a historic move toward greater accountability and transparency, the Kansas Legislature has taken the reins of the budget process by establishing the Special Committee on Legislative Budget. 

This change means lawmakers will no longer rely solely on the governor’s top-down budget proposal, which traditionally limited legislative review time and often led to rushed last-minute adjustments. 

Of course, there is no guarantee that these good intentions will lead to better decision-making. We need to look no further than Kansas’s years-old, toothless performance-based budgeting system to understand how noble intentions are often ignored in practice. Instead, this committee allows the Kansas Legislature to craft a budget that reflects the priorities of Kansas taxpayers by focusing on responsible spending and essential government functions.

House Speaker Dan Hawkins and Senate President Ty Masterson emphasized in a recent press release that the committee will enable legislators to “ensure that Kansas taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.” By taking control of the budget process, the Kansas Legislature can create a streamlined, transparent approach that funds only essential services. 
This will clarify that government spending should be limited, targeted, and driven by performance, ultimately benefiting taxpayers.

Shifting Toward Transparent, Efficient Budgeting
Under the previous model, Kansas lawmakers often had mere days to review the governor’s budget report, with a complete budget bill only arriving weeks later. This limited timeframe hindered careful analysis and frequently led to budget bills packed with provisos—conditions attached to budget items without proper legislative scrutiny. These last-minute additions diluted transparency and often introduced spending items that lacked accountability.

The Special Committee on Legislative Budget will allow lawmakers to begin budget reviews two months before the legislative session. This proactive, year-round approach enables them to assess agency budget requests through a performance-based lens, positioning Kansas to eliminate unnecessary spending while ensuring that every dollar spent delivers measurable value for Kansans.

The approach also follows recommendations from my recent testimony before the Legislature’s Special Committee on Budget Process and Development. In my testimony, I highlighted the need for a structured, legislative-led budgeting process to keep Kansas on a fiscally responsible path. By implementing early, thorough budget reviews, Kansas is moving toward a disciplined approach that can curb government growth and, over time, provide tax relief to residents.

Kansas’s new approach to budgeting draws on effective strategies from states like Texas, Colorado, and Florida, which have long upheld responsible budgeting through spending caps and efficiency audits. As noted in previous testimony, adopting a similar model that limits spending growth to economic conditions and rigorously reviews budget priorities can help Kansas curb unnecessary government expansion and pave the way for sustainable tax relief.

A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility in Kansas
The Kansas Legislature’s decision to create its budget through the Special Committee on Legislative Budget (hopefully) marks a new era of transparency, accountability, and fiscal discipline. With lawmakers leading the process, the state can ensure resources are allocated to core functions, wasteful spending is eliminated, and taxpayer dollars are carefully managed.

This structure creates a measurable framework for budgeting. For example, Kansas agencies must demonstrate how their spending requests deliver value for Kansans through performance-based budgeting. Programs that fail to meet standards can be reevaluated or restructured, while successful initiatives receive the necessary support to continue. Such a system incentivizes less government involvement in the economy.

In addition, this budget reform can open the door to tax relief over time. Kansas lawmakers are building a foundation for a leaner budget by focusing on limited, essential government functions. When spending is controlled and wasteful practices are eliminated, tax cuts become sustainable, benefiting Kansas residents and fostering a healthier economic environment.

Conclusion
​With the Special Committee on Legislative Budget, Kansas has taken an important step toward responsible budgeting, following the examples of fiscally disciplined states. This new approach prioritizes taxpayer interests and establishes a transparent and accountable system that Kansas citizens can trust. As the committee begins its work, Kansas will benefit from a budget that upholds the principles of limited government and financial stewardship. This will ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and pave the way for potential tax relief in the future.

Table 1 shows the results of the CBO’s projection of the total for mandatory outlays and our estimates for each growth cap scenario for the upcoming 10-year window. ​

​Overall, the only approach to a balanced budget by 2034 is the 1% growth cap, but faster economic growth would help the other two spending restraint approaches reach a balanced budget in about a decade. All three spending restraint approaches would improve the budget picture substantially compared with the CBO’s baseline budget. Also, we have kept the CBO’s projections for tax revenues or used the President’s latest estimates with faster economic growth, so our approach is very conservative. The results would most likely be substantially higher tax revenues by limiting government spending in the productive private sector and not hurting economic activity by raising taxes, as noted above, but rather providing pro-growth tax reform.

Fiscal Reform Initiatives and Their Outcomes
Various fiscal reform initiatives have been proposed and implemented over the years, with varying degrees of success. The most effective have combined spending restraint with pro-growth economic policies.
​
Sustainable Budgeting Practices
Adopting sustainable budgeting practices involves setting strict limits on spending growth and focusing on essential services. This approach helps to stabilize debt levels and create a more predictable fiscal environment. The federal government's enactment of a sustainable budget would assist these reforms. This would be a fiscal rule of spending limit similar to the Swiss debt brake or Colorado’s TABOR, whereby federal spending would be capped at no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation. Of course, federal spending should be much lower than this rate to correct for past excesses and bloated national debt. However, the spending limit will force Congress to reform mandatory programs and reduce the national debt. Had this spending limit been in place from 2004 to 2023, the federal debt would have increased by $700 billion instead of the actual increase of $20.2 trillion (Figure 3).

Because the CBO projects that spending on income security programs will decline in 2026 and 2027 and then increase again, its average growth rate is 1.1%. Hence, the primary savings from our approach is on Medicaid spending.

Discretionary Spending
Capping Medicaid and other safety net programs will help provide some fiscal relief but not much over time. We also consider our approach with discretionary spending, which is expected to be $1.7 trillion or about 27% of $6.4 trillion in total outlays in FY 2024.  Figure 6 shows what this looks like under these caps. ​

​Table 6 shows the results of the CBO’s projection of the total for discretionary outlays and our estimates for each growth cap scenario for the upcoming 10-year window.

The only scenario that reduces discretionary outlays compared with the CBO’s baseline is the 1% growth approach. Of course, this is less than 30% of total outlays, so major cuts would be needed to improve the unsustainable fiscal trajectory. 

Mandatory Spending
Capping discretionary spending alone will not solve the long-term fiscal problem. While we understand this will be politically challenging, evaluating what else must be done to provide a sustainable fiscal path is important. We consider our approach for mandatory outlays, which includes Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. The CBO expects mandatory outlays to be $3.8 trillion, or about 73% of $6.4 trillion in total outlays in FY 2024. Figure 7 shows what this looks like under these caps. ​

​Table 9 shows the results of the CBO’s projection of Medicare's total and our estimates for each growth cap scenario for the upcoming 10-year window.

​This week’s episode dives into key election-related issues that could significantly impact Social Security and the broader economy. With projections indicating that the Social Security Trust Fund could be depleted in six years under another Trump presidency, while a Harris presidency may maintain the status quo, voters must consider the fiscal implications of their candidates' policies. Topics covered include the impact of tax exemptions, tariff policies, and entitlement expansion, all of which threaten the solvency of the nation’s mandatory programs. 

Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.

Listen to my interview here.

​Write-up on my interview here:

​Young people are still trying to achieve the American dream of purchasing their first home but it's become increasingly more difficult in recent years.

It's not as easy today to buy a home. Many people are living in apartments or townhomes instead of houses and some may also have a roommate or two to save money in an era of higher costs for housing.

Texas-based Economist Vance Ginn calls it more of an American dream instead of the American dream because it's a different dream for everyone and young people are having to scale back their dreams of ending up in a bigger home.

"Folks who are just starting in their careers and trying to find a house have had to downsize those aspirations on how big of a house they can get," he said.

The high housing costs are a result of multiple things happening at the federal level but also at local levels too. Ginn said excessive government spending and the Federal Reserve printing too much money have been a recipe for this disaster.

"There's a lot of local zoning regulations and other things that are hindering the supply of new homes being built," said Ginn. "This has contributed to housing unaffordability across the country."

Former President Donald Trump has also said that government overspending as well as the mass amounts of illegal aliens coming into the country over the last four years have caused the demand for housing and prices to skyrocket. Ginn said that approach of deporting illegal aliens can help the situation but it doesn't fully address the supply issue.

Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed building around three million new homes over the next few years and providing up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to first-time buyers. Ginn said that would only increase the already high demand and the price of housing even more and the main focus should instead be on reducing inflation and federal spending.

"Cutting government spending and reducing the debt will contribute to less inflation so that people can afford things like housing and food," Ginn said.