Originally posted at ​Mackinac Center for Public Policy. 

Michigan lawmakers face a critical decision: continue a pattern of overspending or embrace fiscal restraint to secure a stronger, more prosperous future. With a history of unsustainable spending and missed opportunities, legislators should choose a responsible approach to budgeting that protects taxpayers and ensures economic stability.

Michigan’s Democratic majority inherited a $9 billion surplus in 2023 — a golden opportunity to strengthen public finances, pay down debts or return money to taxpayers. Instead, they squandered it. Legislators directed $4.7 billion to business subsidies and another $3 billion to district pork projects. These initiatives might benefit politically connected firms or legislators’ ambitions, but history shows they yield little value for Michigan residents. The state’s major business subsidy deals from 2000 to 2020 delivered only 9% of the promised jobs, even as Michigan’s economic growth lagged behind the rest of the country.

The failure doesn’t stop there. Lawmakers compounded their fiscal mismanagement by diverting $670 million from pension debt payments to fund other priorities. This reckless decision treated pensioners — people who earned secure retirement benefits — as creditors, deepening Michigan’s unfunded liabilities. These obligations already rank among the state’s largest financial challenges, and further neglect undermines long-term stability.

This profligate spending reveals why the state desperately needs a Sustainable Michigan Budget. Lawmakers must adopt a framework that limits annual spending growth to a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation—a proven model for fiscal responsibility embraced by states like Colorado, North Carolina, and others. For the upcoming budget, this means capping spending growth at 3.6%, ensuring expenditures align with the average taxpayer’s ability to pay while creating room for debt reduction and tax relief.

Contrary to common misconceptions, fiscal restraint empowers governments to do more. The state can plan strategically now and for the future. When lawmakers curb spending during revenue booms, they prepare for future downturns, allowing stable budgets even in lean times. Restraint also makes it possible to pay down debt, reducing liabilities like pension obligations that otherwise drain resources from essential services. Finally, fiscal discipline creates room for meaningful tax relief, boosting economic growth by allowing individuals and businesses to invest more in productive activities.

Michigan has an opportunity to learn from states that have embraced sustainable budgeting. In North Carolina, for example, spending growth has been tied to population growth plus inflation for years, fostering fiscal stability while enabling significant tax relief. Michigan can follow this path, using discipline today to build a stronger, more resilient economy tomorrow.

With Republicans now controlling the Michigan House of Representatives, hope exists for a shift toward sustainable fiscal practices. The state’s post-pandemic revenue surge and federal cash infusions have already been spent. However, revenues are projected to grow this year, providing lawmakers with the chance to correct the state’s course and avoid repeating past mistakes.

Will Michigan’s leaders seize this moment or squander it again? By continuing to overspend, they risk burdening taxpayers with unsustainable debts and jeopardizing the state’s economic future. But if they embrace sustainable budgeting, they can ensure that Michigan residents keep more of their hard-earned money and secure long-term prosperity for everyone.
​
Michigan deserves better than the reckless spending and short-term thinking that have defined its recent history. Lawmakers must chart a new course that prioritizes fiscal responsibility, respects taxpayers, and fosters economic freedom. The time for change is now.

Originally posted to DC Journal. 

President Trump’s latest moves include a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, and reciprocal tariffs on Canada and Mexico that could reach as high as 25 percent. These measures, justified as a way to “level the playing field,” will instead exacerbate price pressures that the Federal Reserve has struggled to contain.

According to the Tax Foundation, the proposed tariffs will shrink Canada’s and Mexico’s gross domestic product by 0.3 percent and China’s by 0.1 percent. They will also impose a $1 trillion tax hike on Americans, averaging more than $800 per U.S. household over the next decade.

The economic damage from these policies is staggering. The expanded steel and aluminum tariffs will raise taxes on Americans by an additional $53.7 billion — not by growing the economy but by squeezing businesses and consumers through higher costs. This will disproportionately hurt American manufacturers that rely on these materials, making their products more expensive domestically and less competitive globally.

We’ve seen this play out before: The 2018 steel tariffs caused more job losses in steel-consuming industries than the total number of steelworkers in the United States — an undeniable example of how protectionism backfires.

Tariffs don’t hurt just businesses; they also hit working-class Americans the hardest. The new trade war is projected to reduce after-tax incomes by 0.8 percent in 2025, with middle- and lower-income households bearing the brunt of rising consumer costs.

This doesn’t account for foreign retaliation, which is already in motion. China has announced counter-tariffs on $21.2 billion worth of U.S. exports, including liquefied natural gas, coal and large motor vehicles — industries that will see falling demand and potential job losses.

In reality, Trump’s tariffs are one of the most significant tax increases in modern history. If imposed, they will rank as the biggest tax hike since 1993 and the 18th largest since 1940. And for what? The justification that trade deficits hurt the U.S. economy is fundamentally flawed.

A trade deficit is not a sign of economic weakness — it reflects strong capital inflows and consumer purchasing power. Trying to “fix” it with tariffs only distorts markets and raises costs. The 2018-2019 trade war proved this: tariffs on $380 billion of goods led to higher prices, reduced employment, and a 0.2 percent decline in long-term GDP. This result is similar to the estimated drag on growth from an otherwise pro-growth agenda that I estimated during the first Trump White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Beyond the direct costs, these tariffs ignore the real causes of the decline in manufacturing in the United States.

Protectionists love to blame China for job losses. Still, the decline in Rust Belt manufacturing predates China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. Although manufacturing output has continued to hit record highs, employment has stagnated due to automation, technological advances and government-imposed costs. High wages, excessive state and local taxes, and overregulation made operating in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania too expensive long before globalization became an easy scapegoat.

The solution isn’t tariffs — it’s lowering business costs in America.

A more pressing issue that Trump’s tariffs ignore is the overvaluation of the U.S. dollar, which makes American exports more expensive abroad and increases reliance on cheap imports. Runaway government spending and deficits are major drivers of the strong dollar, making it harder for manufacturers to compete globally. Yet, instead of tackling the root problem — government spending — Trump is opting for tariffs that further distort trade without addressing the issue.

If policymakers want to strengthen American manufacturing, they should focus on reducing the federal budget deficit to prevent excessive borrowing from propping up the dollar. Cutting government spending would ease inflationary pressures, allow interest rates to stabilize, and remove artificial barriers that weaken U.S. exports.
That’s the right approach — not slapping tariffs on foreign goods that raise prices at home.

Republicans, traditionally the champions of free markets, are dangerously abusing economic nationalism. Protectionism is nothing more than big-government interference in the market, and it runs counter to conservative principles.

Free trade is a cornerstone of economic freedom, driving competition, innovation and lower prices. Conversely, tariffs stifle growth, increase government control and burden businesses with unnecessary costs.

​The way forward is clear: reduce government spending, lower the budget deficit, embrace free trade and let markets work. Tariffs are a failed policy; history has shown they do more harm than good.

​Education should empower parents and students, not protect bureaucratic systems. In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, Jenny Clark, founder of Love Your School, joins me to discuss education savings accounts (ESAs), universal school choice, and the fight for parental rights.

Jenny shares her journey as a mother and educator, how Arizona became a leader in education reform, and why families deserve flexible learning options that align with their children's needs and values. We also discuss misconceptions about ESAs, the challenges of government overreach, and the grassroots movement pushing for true education freedom.

For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. 
(0:00) - Introduction to School Choice and Education Empowerment
(2:02) - Jenny Clark’s Personal Journey and Education Mission
(6:49) - The Role of Economics in Education
(10:00) - Why Worldview Matters in School Choice
(12:23) - Love Your School: How It Helps Families
(18:21) - The Growth of ESAs in Arizona and Beyond
(31:39) - How School Choice Benefits Families and Students
(38:12)  - Policy Recommendations for Expanding ESAs

Originally published to X. 

The Texas House sells HB 2 and HB 3 as a package deal for education reform, calling them the "Texas Two-Step." But this so-called two-step is a misstep.

The package prioritizes billions more taxpayer money for a broken public education monopoly while substantially limiting school choice and property tax relief efforts. In fact, there would be twice as much with at least $8 billion for public education than the school choice amount of $1 billion and new property tax relief (not already required by existing law)of $3 billion…combined.

Ultimately, this would make improving education or eliminating school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes much harder, if not impossible. Therefore, HB 2 should die, and HB 3 needs improvements to ensure Texas delivers true education freedom.

But let’s consider these two bills' merits and how they fit in the broader policy picture.

HB 3 could be a big win for school choice. It would create the first education savings account (ESA) program in Texas history and one of the biggest in the country. It provides universal eligibility, meaning every student qualifies.

However, the first year's $1 billion funding would cover ESAs for fewer than 100,000 students, or just 1.5% of the state’s 6.3 million students statewide. In other words, 98.5% of students in Texas wouldn’t initially have access to an ESA. This is a conservative estimate, as the number of students covered could be substantially less due to an unknown number of students with special needs receiving up to $30,000 annually.

Families that apply but don’t receive initial funding would be placed on a tiered waitlist with an ordering based on students with special needs first, low-income families next, and then higher-income families as funding allows.

The bill includes an “escalator” for covering the students on the ESA waitlist over time but does not have an automatic appropriation. Therefore, future legislatures would need to allocate new funding to cover those on the waitlist, which could be a problem in reaching universal school choice soon, if at all, with this package deal.

With HB 2 dumping more than $8 billion into public education, it will be far more challenging, if not impossible, to garner enough support for additional ESA funding later. Instead of building on HB 3, the primarily taxpayer-funded education lobby will argue that Texas needs more taxpayer money for public education, making expansion politically challenging.

HB 2 worsens nearly all of Texas’ long-term education and tax priorities. It could provide across-the-board pay increases, whether some teachers or administrators deserve it or not, and some merit-based pay increases. Also, it could increase the basic allotment, which is the minimum funding for each student, with the actual spending per student nearly three times as high. These would be large ongoing expenditures paid by taxpayers.

Since 2011, Texas has already increased per-student funding by 48%, far outpacing inflation’s 35% rise. Yet student outcomes have declined sharply, with 8th-grade math proficiency dropping 40% over the same period.
The state has spent record amounts on public education, only to see the taxpayer-funded monopoly continue to fail students, frustrate parents, and burden taxpayers. Given this, one could argue that Texans are overfunding public education, as spending is record-high and outcomes are near-record lows. The state can’t keep repeating the same mistakes and expect a different result.

Some lawmakers believe they can buy-off the anti-school choice crowd by increasing public school funding alongside an ESA program. This is a fantasy. The teacher unions and public education lobby will never be satisfied, no matter how much money they receive. They perceive education freedom and choice as a threat to their taxpayer-funded monopoly.

Just look at what happened to Chairman Brad Buckley when he attended a recent Texas PTA event. Despite his efforts to substantially increase school funding with HB 2, he was heckled, yelled at, and berated simply for supporting school choice in HB 3. He stayed to listen to them, but when he understood they were unwilling to talk, he did the right thing and left.
This incident should send a clear message: no amount of funding will ever satisfy the anti-school choice crowd. They will always fight competition and demand more taxpayer money. This is what a monopoly mindset does.

HB 2 also directly undermines two of Texas’ biggest priorities.

First, it makes expanding universal school choice much harder. By tying HB 3 to massive increases in government school funding, school choice will always be fighting for budget scraps. Instead of establishing ESAs as the future of education funding, HB 2 traps Texas into the same broken system: government schools get billions of more taxpayer money while school choice programs have to beg for budget scraps each session.
Second, it severely hampers momentum toward eliminating school district M&O property taxes. These taxes are the largest burden on Texas families and small businesses, and the way to phase them out is through rate compression and spending restraint. But every new dollar spent on government schools makes reducing those property tax rates more difficult.

If Texas continues to spend billions on a bloated education bureaucracy, it will be nearly impossible to justify giving taxpayers relief through compression. That means higher property taxes for Texans and no path to eliminating school district M&O property taxes.

Instead of doubling down on a failing school finance model, Texas should modernize education funding entirely by transitioning to a universal ESA approach. This could save taxpayers $20 billion annually by moving to a $12,000 ESA per child, allowing parents to take control of their children’s education, and cutting school district M&O property taxes by two-thirds.
​
If Texas lawmakers truly want to deliver real education freedom and property tax relief, they must fund our children, not systems, and stop throwing more money at a failing public school monopoly. Texans deserve better than this broken "Texas Two-Step"—it’s time for a better step in the right direction.

​In this episode I discuss the recent momentum in the states to pass much-needed pro-growth reforms. You can watch the full video below or tune in on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.