 Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.
Navigating Economic Challenges: A Call for Pro-Growth Policies in America As we navigate the complexities of the U.S. economy, the recent data from March 2024 underscores a pivotal truth: we must return to free-market principles that foster abundant prosperity. Amidst current economic fluctuations, it’s crucial that American policy strongly pivots towards nurturing a market-driven economy. With its potential for innovation and efficiency, this approach challenges the status quo of governmental overreach and champions policies that propel, rather than impede, prosperity. This is a beacon of hope for a brighter economic future. Labor Market Dynamics: A Complex Outlook The labor market presents a complex picture. The latest data from March 2024 reveals an increase of 303,000 net nonfarm jobs, a significant portion of which 71,000 were in the government sector. This disproportionate job creation in the government sector, particularly in healthcare and education, is a cause for concern as it hampers productive private-sector activity, thereby impeding economic growth. Adding to the complexity of the labor market, household employment has seen a decline in four of the last six months, resulting in a net decrease of 84,000 jobs over that period. Despite the low unemployment rate of about 3.5%, the labor force participation rate remains subdued at 62.7%. This is a clear indication that many individuals are still not part of the labor force, artificially keeping the unemployment rate low and masking deeper economic issues. Moreover, part-time employment increased by 600,000 last month while full-time employment declined by 100,000, continuing an ongoing trend. These labor market data signal weaknesses, even as the headlines claim they are strong. Economic Growth and Inflationary Pressures Real GDP growth for the first quarter of 2024 was well below expectations at just a 1.6% annualized growth rate. When excluding government expenditures, the real private sector growth was a mere 1.4%, revealing the fragility of an economy buoyed by flawed government actions. This tepid growth underscores the limited effectiveness of fiscal “stimulus” absent of genuine market-driven expansions. Inflation continues as a significant concern, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for March 2024 rising by 3.5% year-over-year. This increase, alongside real average hourly earnings declining by about 4% since January 2021, exacerbates the economic pressures on American households. This situation advances the urgency for pro-growth policies to support sustainable economic growth. Charting a Pro-Growth Path for America The persistent high inflation suggests that this issue will likely endure longer than many anticipate. The Federal Reserve’s slow pace in reducing its bloated balance sheet implies that interest rates will remain elevated for an extended period, contributing to slower growth and stagflation until the bubble bursts and the recession hits. To effectively address these challenges, it is essential to advocate for reduced government spending, fewer regulations, and lower taxes. Implementing stringent monetary guidelines and adopting fiscal policies that align spending with economic benchmarks, such as population growth and inflation, would significantly stabilize and potentially reduce the national debt burden. The U.S. needs a fiscal rule like the Responsible American Budget (RAB) to control this fiscal and monetary crisis. This was recently released as part of Americans for Tax Reform’s Sustainable Budget Project and the Republican Study Committee’s Budget, highlighting this approach’s federal, state, and local benefits. If Congress had followed this approach from 2004 to 2023, instead of a $20.2 trillion national debt increase, it could have increased by just $700 billion for a $19.5 trillion improvement for taxpayers. To top this off, the Federal Reserve should follow a monetary rule so that the costly discretion stops creating booms and busts. Conclusion The current economic situation demands a firm shift towards policies that remove government intervention and support more economic growth. These strategies represent policy imperatives and moral obligations, unlocking the potential of the American economy and ensuring a prosperous future. Aligning policies with economic realities is crucial for fostering sustainable growth and prosperity, creating an environment where businesses can thrive, and individuals find more avenues out of poverty. By reducing the role of government and giving more space to the entrepreneurial spirit, we can ensure that our economy not only grows but does so in a way that benefits the broadest number of people. Let’s advocate for a return to policies that have proven time and again to be the bedrock of prosperous societies: those that trust the market, empower individuals, and reduce the coercive role of politicians and bureaucrats in economic affairs.
0 Comments
 Originally published by American Institute for Economic Research.
Imagine a small business owner navigating the complexities of trying to be profitable, as most small businesses close in the first two years, and to provide a reasonable work-life balance for their employees. Enter the “Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act,” proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders, which seeks to mandate a reduction from 40 to 32 hours at the same pay. While well-intentioned, this bill simplifies the nuanced balance of modern work environments and threatens the flexibility crucial to businesses and workers. The Act proposes to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Sanders suggests this change will fairly distribute productivity gains, decrease stress, and improve life quality. However, this sweeping reform would harm sectors where extended hours are essential due to operational demands or competitive pressures. It would also hurt the needs of workers and their families. Current data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the average workweek for full-time private sector employees is about 34 hours per week. This means employers and workers are already negotiating work arrangements that deviate from the traditional 40-hour workweek based on mutual needs and economic conditions. The BLS table below shows the different average weekly hours by major industry. In sectors like healthcare or manufacturing, where longer shifts are common, limiting hours might reduce employees’ earnings if they are willing to work more. With their thin profit margins, small businesses could face severe challenges, potentially leading to job cuts, reduced services, or even closures, especially in rural or disadvantaged areas. Only leisure and hospitality and other services industries have average hours at or below 32 hours. Those are typically lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs, with many working part-time for various reasons. This flexibility in the private sector allows employers to manage labor costs effectively and workers to adjust their schedules for optimal work-life balance. The proposed 32-hour workweek represents a significant opportunity cost, not only in economic terms but also in worker and employer liberty. America faces a worker shortage, with job openings exceeding the number of unemployed individuals. Reducing work hours could exacerbate this issue, particularly as many Americans juggle multiple or part-time jobs to make ends meet. This policy would add another layer of complexity and constraint in a market that requires more flexibility, not less. This act would disproportionately affect small businesses, which typically operate with tighter profit margins and may find the increased labor costs unsustainable. These businesses might be forced to reduce their workforce, cut back services, or, worst cases, shut down altogether. The impact on employment could be profound, especially in rural or economically disadvantaged areas where small businesses are often major employers. Compensatory flexibility, where businesses adjust other aspects of employment such as benefits or job duties to offset mandated costs, could mean that workers end up with less flexible schedules, reduced benefits, or increased job demands as employers strive to maintain profitability. Total earnings, including pay and benefits, are much higher than average weekly pay, so a government mandate like this would worsen the situation. Looking globally, countries like France have long experimented with reduced work hours (the 35-hour workweek). The results have been mixed, with some reports suggesting a negligible impact on employment and others indicating increased stress for workers who have to compress the same amount of work into fewer hours. These mixed outcomes underscore the risks of applying such policies universally without considering industry-specific and cultural contexts. These costs would further exacerbate the connection between people and work by many across the country. Work is also a moral issue, we bear responsibility to “be fruitful and multiply.” Moreover, work brings dignity, value, productivity, and the best path out of poverty. David Bahnsen’s latest book Full-Time Work and the Meaning of Life highlights these virtues of work and how government interventions in the labor market destroy many of its benefits. Rather than imposing hour restrictions or other government mandates, politicians at the federal, state, and local levels, as appropriate, should remove government barriers to work and let the market work. These policies that would benefit workers include reducing or eliminating most occupational licenses, reducing or eliminating minimum wages, and ending the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance. These pro-growth policies would allow for more dynamic labor market movements, and spending less and cutting taxes would leave workers with more earnings to support flexible work choices. Also, many companies are already voluntarily innovating with remote work, flexible hours, and four-day work weeks without government mandates. These changes are often driven by the competitive need to attract and retain the best workers and the recognition that happy, well-balanced employees are more productive. Improving work-life balance is commendable, but the “Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act” would hinder rather than help. By championing policies that limit government intervention thereby supporting work flexibility and innovation, we can foster a labor market that thrives and adapts organically, benefiting all sectors of the economy and ensuring that both employers and workers enjoy true freedom in crafting their work lives. Don’t miss my talk with guest Dr. Josh Rauh, Ormond Family Professor of Finance at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and former principal chief economist at the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors.
Key topics discussed include: - Which of the pandemic-related government programs worked? - What's up with excessive federal spending? - Is the Laffer curve still relevant? Please like, subscribe, and share this episode. Subscribe to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com for bi-weekly episodes and insights. For more content, visit vanceginn.com. In the 15-minute “This Week’s Economy” episode, I discuss the following (and more!):
- What will happen with TikTok because Congress passed a bill banning it? - How would increasing government create a more “justly ordered society”? - Why are red states leading the way in job creation? - What should Texas and other states do with “surplus” money? Please share, rate, and review this episode. Check out my Substack newsletter with show notes and more at vanceginn.substack.com or at vanceginn.com.  Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.
Texas on the Brink: A Call for Free-Market Revival Overview Texas stands at a crossroads. Renowned for its robust economy and job creation, the Lone Star State now confronts economic challenges that could define its future. Excessive government spending, burdensome property taxes, and federal missteps threaten the prosperity Texans have come to expect. Despite recent property tax relief efforts, runaway state and local spending stifles true fiscal reform. It’s time for Texas to double down on its free-market roots, slash government overreach, and set a course for sustained economic liberty and prosperity. Current Economic Landscape For the latest data in March 2024, Texas’ economy shows resilience, yet not without signs of stress. Labor market data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics points to a continued recovery, with nonfarm employment adding 270,700 jobs over the last year (most in the country). There were 19,100 jobs added to 14.1 million employed in March for a new record high and the 36th straight month of job creation and in 45 of the last 47 months. Household employment has been up 195,997 since last March, along with a similar increase in the labor force, with an unemployment rate of 3.9%. However, this annual job growth has slowed to 2.0%, ranking it 8th best in the country but below Florida’s 2.2% rate and Idaho’s top rate of 3.5%. Moreover, a major factor in this job growth has been the increase in costly government jobs by 3.5% since March 2023, the fastest rate next to the growth in other services of 5.2%. The sectors of mining and logging and information had job losses over the last year, and average weekly earnings were up in most sectors except mining and logging, information, and professional and business services. Texas has had the fourth most jobs created since February 2020 joining many other red states that have led the way since the lockdown recession. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports a 5.7% GDP growth for 2023—ranking second-best nationally. This economic snapshot highlights the many benefits of the Texas model but leaves room for improvement from more disciplined, growth-oriented policies. Historical Context and Policy Shifts Texas has always been a beacon of opportunity, partly thanks to its commitment to limited spending, lower taxes, and sensible regulation. Recent trends, however, signal a departure from this successful formula. As detailed in my analysis of educational freedom and fiscal responsibility, it’s evident that the state’s current trajectory could hinder long-term prosperity. Furthermore, the much-discussed property tax relief has fallen short of its promised impact, highlighting the need for genuine and transparent fiscal reforms. Policy Recommendations To reclaim its position as a leader in key economic and fiscal issues, Texas must implement free-market reforms:
Conclusion Free-market principles are not just theoretical ideals but practical necessities that can elevate and sustain Texas’ economic vitality, strengthen families, and boost opportunities to flourish. Texas is uniquely positioned to lead by example with a robust economic foundation and a reputation for fostering opportunity. Reducing government intervention and promoting individual freedom are not merely beneficial; they are imperative for the future prosperity of every Texan. Now is the time to act decisively, ensuring that Texas survives and thrives in the face of national challenges. Let’s champion these changes to secure a free and flourishing Texas for generations.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is getting sued by the Chamber of Commerce and several business groups over banning non-compete agreements. They usually prevent a person from working in the same industry or starting a competing business for some time after leaving a job. The FTC calls these agreements unfair, but some say the contracts protect trade secrets and encourage competitiveness. The rule is to take effect in August.
For insight, NTD’s David Lam spoke with Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting. Mr. Ginn also served as chief economist for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Originally aired on NTD News and posted here.  Originally published at Governing with co-author John Hendrickson at Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation.
The idea of a universal basic income (UBI), whereby a government provides everyone with a certain monthly amount to spend as they wish, is nothing new. Touted by its proponents as a way to reduce poverty and provide economic security, this endeavor is costly for taxpayers and a disincentive to work. It is a bad idea no matter which level of government does it. In Iowa, several counties in the Des Moines metro area have been using COVID-era federal funds, along with foundation and private-sector support, to launch UpLift, a UBI pilot program. In response, the Iowa legislature recently passed a bill to prevent local governments from creating UBI programs. In Minnesota, where some localities are testing UBI programs, the Legislature is doing the opposite: considering legislation that would create a statewide UBI program. These neighboring states are vastly different politically, and the debate over UBI is just one example. Iowa lawmakers seek to curb socialism, while Minnesota is attempting to advance this economic philosophy. Individuals from across the political divide have advocated for UBI-related policies. Whether it was the free-market economist Milton Friedman’s negative income tax for low-income Americans or, more recently, Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend, UBI-type proposals are generating more debate, especially at the state and local level. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that numerous communities nationwide are experimenting with UBI programs. Most of these are in Democrat-run localities. Some UBI advocates, as Friedman did, argue that this should replace existing welfare programs, while most progressives argue that it should be in addition to existing benefits, needed because too many Americans cannot break the cycle of poverty. The massive spending by the federal government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is driving the UBI programs launched by numerous local governments. The UpLift program provides “no-strings-attached basic income of $500 per month for 24 months.” Individuals selected in the Des Moines metro area “are free to use the monthly payments to meet their needs best.” In Minnesota, the Legislature is considering a proposal to appropriate $100 million to provide hundreds of dollars every month to as many as 10,000 people. Specifically, recipients of the proposed UBI program would receive $500 a month for at least 18 months in addition to any existing social welfare benefits. Minnesota would provide grants to local and tribal governments, which would then redistribute those funds to UBI recipients. A UBI would not just create a new entitlement program; it is a form of socialism as it would essentially take ownership of some people’s work so that government can redistribute it to others. Further, most UBI grants are currently from federal COVID-19 funds — one-time money. When these funds expire, it will be the responsibility of state and local governments to continue to fund the UBI programs. And it is doubtful that UBI would replace existing social welfare programs. This would be an additional costly entitlement, which would result in increasing state and local spending and higher taxes. The objective of UBI is to conquer poverty, but advocates do not realize that many people are struggling to make ends meet because of persistent inflation resulting from the Federal Reserve’s monetizing of reckless COVID-19 spending. This is why Iowans are struggling with real average weekly earnings down 3.9 percent since January 2021 as high grocery and gas prices continue to weigh on them. The cost of UBI would also place further pressure on already heavy tax burdens. A major concern for Iowans is the increasing burden of property taxes, driven by local government spending. A UBI program brings up some moral concerns as well. UBI, especially with no strings attached, becomes an incentive for not working. During COVID-19, many able-bodied individuals stayed out of the workforce due to generous stimulus payments. The objective of social welfare policy should be to provide for those who need help, but these policies should be short term and designed to encourage people to be in the workforce and move beyond poverty. The social safety net consists of numerous programs at all government and private-sector levels. Iowa policymakers did the right thing in prohibiting localities from creating UBI programs that would not only fail to resolve poverty but also create a fiscal nightmare for taxpayers. The best approach to reducing poverty is to create an environment that fosters economic growth and job creation, which leads to economic opportunities. On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints regarding possible reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). First on the show is Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former chief economist at the White House Office of Management and Budget. Later, we hear from Angela Rachidi, senior fellow and Rowe Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. You can find Vance on X, formerly Twitter, at @VanceGinn and Angela at @AngelaRachidi.
Originally published by America's Talking Network.  Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.
Kansas Policy Institute is pleased to announce its partnership with Dr. Vance Ginn, Ph.D. As a Senior Research Fellow at KPI, Dr. Ginn will provide economic and regulatory analysis for its Sandlian Center for Entrepreneurial Government. He builds on his many years of fiscal work with KPI’s Responsible Kansas Budget. “I’m thrilled to work with the fantastic team at the Kansas Policy Institute. KPI has long been at the cutting edge of policy reforms such as truth-in-taxation property tax reforms, the Responsible Kansas Budget, and paths to eliminating personal income taxes that provide abundant opportunities to let people prosper. I look forward to contributing to making Kansas the best state for families and entrepreneurs to thrive.” Dr. Ginn is an accomplished free-market economist who extensively evaluates policies to let people prosper while equipping lawmakers and influencers nationwide with frameworks for practical solutions to modern problems. Most recently, Dr. Ginn made an excellent case for the tax plan that currently sits on Governor Kelley’s desk by demonstrating the real and urgent need for tax reform. Dr. Ginn contextualizes this need by showing the comparative data with our neighboring states, proving that states without income taxes perform better economically when it comes to job growth and wage growth. James Franko, president of KPI says, “Despite his Texas roots, it’s great to have someone with Vance’s talent and experience join KPI. His Responsible Kansas Budgets have provided the framework by which legislators should limit spending and now we’ll rely on his expertise across a greater breadth of Kansas economic policy. If the states are laboratories of democracy, then Vance’s multi-state work will be invaluable in making Kansas a better place to live and work.” Dr. Ginn is the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and host of his Let People Prosper Show podcast. He is a senior fellow at Americans for Tax Reform, associate research fellow at American Institute for Economic Research, chief economist at Pelican Institute for Public Policy, and contributor at many other free-market think tanks across the country. In these roles, he provides high-quality research and trusted insights on how to improve human flourishing with policy considerations at federal, state, and local levels. He previously served Americans as the associate director for economic policy (“chief economist”) of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget from June 2019 to May 2020. He was the chief economist of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) and policy director for TPPF’s Alliance for Opportunity campaign, a multi-state poverty relief initiative. He also taught economic courses at Sam Houston State University and Texas Tech University. Dr. Ginn often appears on leading national and state news shows, including “Cavuto: Coast to Coast” on Fox Business, “NTD Evening News” on NTD News, Chad Hasty Show, and more. His commentaries have been published in The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, AIER, Econlib, and other popular publications. He graduated from home school while growing up in a lower-income single-mother household in South Houston, lived as a “rockstar” playing drums for a top rock band in Houston, rolled in a car accident, and life-flighted to a hospital but went home by the grace of God that night, earned his doctorate in economics at Texas Tech University as a first-generation college graduate, and now resides in Round Rock, Texas, with his wife and three kids. These experiences help support his God-given calling to let people prosper, and he strives to find ways to do this every day. Join my talk with guest Connor Boyak, founder of the Libertas Institute and author of the Tuttle Twins series. Connor discusses the benefits of limited government, emphasizing how minimal interference allows individuals and communities to thrive.
Key topics include: - Innovative methods to teach economics to youth. - The significant role of school choice in shaping our nation’s future. - Strategies that keep Utah’s poverty low and safety nets effective. Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode. Please leave a review and subscribe to our Substack at vanceginn.substack.com for bi-weekly episodes and insights. For more content, visit vanceginn.com.  Originally published at Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
As Michigan lawmakers Lansing grapple with the state government budget, let’s evaluate whether it’s sustainable for Michiganders and the state’s fiscal health. Lawmakers often focus on the short term as they face a deadline to pass the next fiscal year’s budget. The long-term health of the prosperity of Michiganders who pay for the state’s budget depends on putting government finances on a sustainable path. Right now, they’re not. While the current state budget looks healthy, bolstered by temporary federal pandemic relief funds and volatile revenue spikes, it’s vulnerable. It relies on fleeting funding sources to support ongoing expenses — a dangerous position that makes residents and even government workers vulnerable to funding shortfalls. Policymakers must reassess the state’s budgetary practices and put the budget on solid ground. Consider this excerpt from a recent news story: “Gov. Gretchen Whitmer delivered her budget proposal two months ago. Her plan for the 2024-25 fiscal year weighs in at $80.7 billion and includes universal pre-kindergarten, two-years of tuition-free community college and a state tax credit for home caregivers.” Many people may think these are good proposals. The governor’s plans, however, have many underlying issues. To start with, they build on a history of excessive government spending. A recent Mackinac Center report found that taxpayers could be paying $6.5 billion less in taxes this year had lawmakers enacted sustainable budgets since fiscal year 2019. A sustainable budget grows no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation. If Michigan had adopted sustainable budgets, the income tax could have been cut in half. By contrast, unsustainable spending costs the typical household an extra $1,600 annually. Public choice economics, which focuses on the tradeoffs and incentives politicians face when making decisions, offers valuable insights into the state’s budgetary challenges. In short, political incentives and lawmakers’ self-interest often lead to outcomes that do not align with citizens’ needs. Like Michigan governors before her, Gov. Whitmer has called for increasing the government’s budget to expand many programs and create others. Doing this can put the budget in a precarious position and undermine economic factors for long-term growth. Tax collections are slowing, limiting how much the budget can grow. Aligning officials’ political incentives with citizens’ long-term interests is important. This means embracing a more disciplined approach to budgeting that ensures spending is sustainable and delivers meaningful results. Zero-based budgeting, independent efficiency audits, and a strong spending limit would help. Michigan can create a more dynamic and resilient economy by removing barriers to work, including reducing regulations and taxes. Doing this would enhance economic freedom and increase the state’s attractiveness, driving more prosperity and higher tax revenue. News accounts report that policymakers are focused on budgets for infrastructure and education. These are important areas of spending, and lawmakers should examine them with a critical eye. But it is even more important for policymakers to enact the budgetary reforms mentioned above. As legislators consider the next budget, they should incorporate the lessons of public choice economics, steer clear of short-sighted policies, work toward a budget that recognizes government can’t expand to satisfy every desire, and cut tax rates. The journey toward a more prosperous Michigan requires a sustainable budget approach. If we apply the insights of public choice economics, we can navigate the complexities of fiscal policy with a clear vision, providing a better path to human flourishing. In the 12-minute “This Week’s Economy” episode, I discuss the following (and more!):
- Why is Congress spending more on foreign affairs when we’re in a spending crisis? - Are tariffs the best way to reduce trade deficits with other countries? How can Texas eliminate property taxes? - Why are industrial policy and handouts to individuals or businesses doomed to fail? Please like this video, subscribe, share it on social media, and rate and review it. I would appreciate it if you would become a subscriber to my Substack newsletter so you’ll receive my episodes, show notes, and other valuable insights in your inbox twice per week at vanceginn.substack.com. You can also find this information and more at vanceginn.com.  Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.
As states across America sharpen their competitive edges with tax cuts and simpler tax codes, Kansas has a unique opportunity to foster prosperity and economic resilience. The tax reform bill with about $635 million in personal income tax relief in the first year awaits Governor Laura Kelly’s signature. While this bill is not as good as the one with a flat 5.25% tax rate passed earlier this year but vetoed by Governor Kelly, the latest bill would help better align the state with successful tax reforms nationwide that have spurred growth and investment. Governor Kelly would be wise to sign it or risk losing the opportunity for people to flourish across the state. But her recent equivocations do not suggest she’s likely to side with Kansas families. The Urgency of Tax Reform Earlier this month, HB 2036 overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate. The bill seeks to overhaul the state’s current tax structure by simplifying the brackets and reducing financial burdens on Kansans. The essence of the reform is to streamline the number of tax brackets from three to two, simplifying the tax filing process and reducing administrative costs. This reform is not just a fiscal adjustment; it’s a strategic move toward making Kansas more competitive and prosperous. The proposed changes in tax brackets will make the tax system easier to navigate and less burdensome. But the legislation doesn’t stop at restructuring brackets; it also includes several key features designed to benefit Kansas residents directly:
This restructuring will leave more money in Kansans’ pockets, fostering increased consumer spending and investment that will help support sustained increases in economic growth and new hires. National Trends in Tax Reform Kansas is not alone in its move toward income tax simplification and reduction. In 2024, fourteen other states thus far, had income tax cuts, enhancing their economic landscapes and making them more attractive for business investments and skilled workers. Here’s a map highlighting the states that have implemented income tax cuts this year: This national movement underscores the importance of Kansas keeping pace with these trends. Failing to do so could deter potential investment and encourage businesses and talent to move to more tax-friendly states. This is especially true given how neighboring states are cutting taxes. The Vision of Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Freedom In an unpredictable economy, Kansas can improve the fiscal landscape through tax reform and sustainable budgeting. Adhering to a “Responsible Kansas Budget,” which changes the budget every year by no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation, and using resulting surpluses to reduce income tax rates annually would help flatten and eventually eliminate these taxes. This strategic approach promises a robust economic future, minimizing the need for burdensome taxation. Economic Context: Kansas vs. Other States The contrast in economic performance is stark when comparing Kansas with nearby states and those with and without income taxes. Here’s a snapshot of economic performance among these states. This data proves that those states without income taxes perform better economically regarding job growth and wage growth, two key ingredients for reducing poverty and encouraging prosperity. Moreover, those states without personal income taxes have substantially less government spending, which helps reduce the burden of government on residents. Kansas will substantially improve its current trajectory by following the path of those states that are flattening, lowering, and eliminating personal income taxes. Not Perfect, But Good Step Forward It’s time for sustainable tax reform after the issues during the last decade of overspending, which resulted in higher taxes later. The Legislature’s passed tax reform is crucial for Kansas to provide the following:
The proposed tax relief of more than $600 million is needed in Kansas today. A recent economic analysis by the Economic Research Center at the Buckeye Institute of a $500 million income tax relief package. Their findings show that Kansas could have a $430 million (2012 dollars) increase in GDP, $240 million more in business investment, $200 million more in consumption, and 1,000 more jobs in the first year and more growth after that. Gov. Kelly and the legislature should learn the key lesson from the Brownback years – you cannot cut taxes and increase spending. The plan on Gov. Kelly’s desk is eminently affordable if all parties involved learn from this lesson and have the discipline to act on it. Governor Kelly’s signature would mark a significant step forward, positioning Kansas among the leading states with proactive fiscal policies that spur growth and enhance quality of life. This tax reform and responsible spending will help ensure that Kansas does not fall behind its peers but moves forward as a leader in economic health and resident well-being. It would also set the stage for a flat income tax and eventually eliminate it by returning surplus dollars to taxpayers where it is most productive. Today, I am joined by Dr. Kevin Kosar, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and writer of the foreword to the latest edition of Edward Banfield’s book, Government Project.
Kevin explains why government projects don’t work and the following: - Why does the federal government tax and spend so much? - How are some government projects better than others? - What should the future be of work? Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and rate and review it. I would appreciate it if you would subscribe to my Substack newsletter so you’ll receive my episodes, show notes, and other valuable insights in your inbox twice weekly at vanceginn.substack.com.  Originally published at AIER.
April heralds two markers in Americans’ financial calendar. Neither brings joy. Their anguish reminds us of the dire need for fiscal reform before it’s too late. The first day is Tax Day on April 15, when you must file taxes to the IRS. The other day is Tax Freedom Day on April 16. The latter is the 104th day of the year, which represents when Americans, on average, can stop working to pay taxes and start working to improve their own lives and further their economic goals. We work 30 percent of our days to pay government alone. This stark division of the year into earning to pay for the government versus for oneself casts a revealing light on taxation’s burden. These dismal dates indicate an urgent need to overhaul the fiscal regime of excessive government spending that drives taxes higher. The pain and uncertainty from an ever-changing federal progressive marginal individual income tax system with forced withholding and payment or refund later are destructive. These costs distort our ability to prosper. Central to minimizing these burdens and distortions is for the federal government to spend less, thereby reducing the amount needed from taxes. And the tax system should be simplified by moving to a broad-based, flat-income tax. Eventually, we could eliminate income taxes and fund our significantly reduced spending with a broad-based, flat final sales tax, but politics too often takes precedence over prudence. States without personal income taxes, such as Texas and Florida, often showcase stronger economic performance, underscoring the potential benefits of a consumption-based tax model. The Tax Foundation’s analysis shows that these states enjoy higher growth rates and attract businesses and residents alike, advocating for the efficiency of a less burdensome tax system. Unlike taxes on income, a consumption tax better aligns with economic volatility and taxpayers’ decisions. It introduces a transparent, simpler tax system, starkly contrasting the current convoluted income tax code, thereby supporting more freedom to choose, increased savings, and faster economic growth. But the looming uncertainty inevitably generated by temporary tax measures and seemingly endless, excessive government spending demands attention. For instance, the individual income tax rate reductions, full-expensing, and other provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 expire over the next year, creating a cloud of uncertainty. Moreover, the multi-trillion-dollar deficits from overspending result in further economic destruction because of higher interest rates and less investment. The economic impact was notable, with the Congressional Budget Office reporting a surge in GDP growth following the TCJA’s implementation. But the uncertainty surrounding its future dampens long-term economic prospects and investments. Permanent tax reform, aimed at fostering stability and growth, requires a commitment to fiscal discipline and a reevaluation of government spending priorities. The erratic nature of such spending and tax policies erodes the stability crucial for economic prosperity. Uncertainty, particularly around taxes, inhibits investment and innovation. Predictability is key to strategic planning and growth. For entrepreneurs, uncertainty is a strong disincentive. The fluctuating tax landscape presents a significant barrier to economic expansion. Addressing this uncertainty requires permanent growth-oriented tax policies and controlling government spending. The direction of tax reform must be twofold: advocating for broad-based, flat taxes and championing sustainable government budgets. This dual approach promises to enhance economic liberty and lay a foundation for robust growth, which should also reduce the number of days to Tax Freedom Day so more money is in our pockets. Reflecting on Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day sparks a broader discussion on tax reform. We can envision a society that values freedom, peace, and prosperity by championing pro-growth policies of a simplified, flat tax system and sustainable spending. Dispelling tax uncertainties and controlling government spending pave the way for economic policies that foster rather than hinder human flourishing. The journey toward a more rational tax system is not merely fiscal; it’s a moral imperative. It demands bold, persuasive advocacy for policies that champion economic soundness while embracing the principles of liberty and opportunity. We can inspire a movement toward genuine economic reform on this Tax Day by addressing the challenges posed by the current tax code and advocating for a shift toward a better fiscal regime with more days working for ourselves instead of Uncle Sam.  Thirteen years ago today, I was a graduate student in the doctoral program at Texas Tech University and had just finished judging an undergraduate research poster competition. I was riding the bus back to my apartment when I received a horrible phone call from my mom. She said my dad has passed away in his sleep from SUDEP (Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy: http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/impact/mortality/sudep).
We will come back to that. But first let me tell you about this remarkable person and how he got to this point. One day in 1972, when my dad was 17 and had just left a place in Brookshire, Texas, my dad was in a terrible traffic accident. He was a passenger in a truck that was struck by what we believe was a drunk driver who had seemingly run a red light. The result was that he had a severe head injury. Little did he know it would change his life forever. After weeks in a coma and after the doctors telling his family he may not live, my dad woke up and worked every day to live a "normal" life. Without any memories before the wreck (amnesia) and short-term memory loss thereafter, he battled not knowing anyone in his classes, not knowing he was class president, not knowing he was president of his school's National Honor Society, not knowing he was a football player, and much more. To this day, I still don't know much about him before the wreck. He once shared a story with me of how he was sitting in class after he returned to school and the principal called someone over the loudspeaker. His friend tapped him on the shoulder and told him that he was just called—he periodically didn't know his own name. He was taken to a room for a National Honors Society meeting and told he should sit at the head of the table. He asked why. They said he was the president and would lead the meeting. Of course, he was unable, but the level of respect he had at Royal High School in Brookshire, TX is remarkable. This is one of many similar stories. Let me tell you more. Time passed and he went to school at Sam Houston State University for three years to study drafting before his memory declined so much he started making Bs, Cs, and eventually failing classes, all of which were the first time, I believe, that he earned less than an A. He had to drop out but took what he learned to be a productive draftsman. He would eventually sometimes work two jobs to pay the bills for the family. He later worked at a gas company, Entex, in Houston checking gas meters. He fell in love with my mom while they were living in Brookshire, TX, and they soon married. They were happy and lived life like any other newly married couple would. My dad acted a little strange from time to time, which is why his nickname was "Weird Harold," but not much else seemed wrong. Then in the mid-1980s, something started to change. He started having small petit mal seizures (he would stare into space without being able to speak and would smile big for no reason). No one paid attention the first few times. Eventually, he started having grand mal seizures (features a loss of consciousness and violent muscle contractions; it's the type of seizure most people picture when the person falls to the ground and convulses). He was in and out of hospitals after having grand mal seizures twice per month or even more frequently. After a couple years and wrecking three cars, one while working at Entex (now Reliant Energy), he reluctantly filed for disability in 1987 and never worked or drove again. This crushed him and the numerous drugs he was on and lack of ability to remember things put pressure on his psyche and my parent's marriage—they eventually got divorced, remarried, and divorced again when I was young. He lived off and on with us to help pay bills or with his mom, mainly with my granny during most of my childhood. When he was at home, we would play baseball in the backyard or at Wilson Park and basketball in the front yard for hours. I have so many great memories of those times. He would go over my schoolwork with me while I was in home school. He was a math guru and taught me tricks along the way. He listened to me beating on the drums when I had little clue how to play and later would go to my rock concerts when I was in the band Sindrome. I remember picking him up from his mom's and taking him to the neurologist, Dr. Neumark, at St. Luke's Hospital in Houston's Medical Center for years. I learned much about epilepsy, and how it can affect someone's life from reading books, watching my dad have hundreds of seizures over my lifetime, and talking with him about the struggle he had to deal with his situation. He took roughly 12 pills per day and had a vagal nerve stimulation surgically implanted near his chest that would send electronic impulses to his brain to help him have fewer seizures. It helped reduce the seizures over time from two per month to about one every 3 or 4 months. He would keep track of all his seizures and I remember how proud we were when they were less frequent. Each time he had one he would be exhausted for several days. He was always energetic and in a fairly good mood, so after he had a seizure, it was very unlike him to sit around most the day and not talk much. During my days at Tech, I visited home, South Houston, about twice per year (9-hour drive is too long to visit often). While I was home, I would take dad out as much as possible and play pool, watch Astros games, and have fun. Without the independence to drive and few friends to take him anywhere, he spent most of his time at home and I tried my best to get him out and enjoy the world. He never complained about his situation. He did voice frustration that he couldn't drive or do things others could do, but for the most part, he lived a normal life and could do anything he wanted. Years passed and he moved in with a friend and me in a townhouse in Lubbock on June 1, 2008. It was my second year of graduate school. We would go eat breakfast in the mornings when I didn't have class. We would go for long walks and talk about my research, politics, and the meaning of life. That was how he relaxed; he would go on long walks. There was nothing better for him than being with family or alone with nature. He could get away from the thought of being disabled or feeling trapped in a body that kept him from doing the things he wanted. After I moved in with Emily, dad got an apartment in the same complex about 30 yards away. It was the first time he ever lived on his own and had a sense of independence since that cloudy day in 1972 when his life changed forever. We would barbecue together and he would visit us often. I am so thankful he had the opportunity to know Emily and she will have memories to tell our two sons (oldest has dad's middle name) and daughter. Dad and I had many great memories together in Lubbock. He had some complications with his epilepsy and I stayed in the hospital with him for a week as they did a number of tests to see if they could surgically repair the place on his brain that caused the seizures. They determined it was too risky because it was near the part of your brain that controls your speech and he went on with his life. After two and a half years (in December 2010) living near me in Lubbock, dad moved to Houston to live with my sister, Tiffany, and her family. He was excited about living with them and being around his grandkids, but he was upset about leaving his life in Lubbock. Although I missed him every day, I knew he was happy and everything seemed fine. Then that day came in 2011 when I was on the bus that I received the phone call from my mom. My mom said Tiffany had checked on dad after he seemed to be sleeping unusually late. She found him lying there, not breathing. My first reaction was to my mom telling me he wasn’t breathing was: Why not? What are you doing about it? Is he at the hospital? My mom had few answers other than: "Vance, he passed away." It was the first time that I had someone close to me die. The person that I did not live with much growing up, didn’t know much about his childhood, but had got to know much more during the previous two-plus years had suddenly, without any warning, passed away! I was crushed. I screamed uncontrollably at the front of a packed bus and ran off the bus to my truck as soon as it stopped. I sobbed driving home and frantically paced back and forth around my apartment when I made it home. My dad, one of my best friends, and the person I learned so many lessons from was taken from me. How could I go on? So many things raced through my head and I hoped that I would soon wake up from this nightmare. A truly life-changing event challenged me in ways that I’ve never been challenged. To this day, that moment still gives me chills and makes me teary-eyed. Dad died from what is known as SUDEP (Sudden Unexplained Death in Epilepsy). My sister said that he went to sleep the night before without signs of anything wrong. The best explanation from doctors that we have is that he went to sleep, had a seizure, and his organs shut down. It was not painful and he probably did not know anything was going on. Doctors say that even if he was in the hospital there would be little chance they could have saved him. There is little known about SUDEP and what triggers it, which is why we allowed an autopsy and continue donating to the Epilepsy Foundation today. Somehow, someway, God has a mysterious way of working in our lives. Prayer, family, and friends helped me through the hurt. Days, weeks, months, and years later I find myself weeping over the loss of my dad. To this day, I feel deep sorrow. However, I think about the numerous lessons I learned from my dad during my 29 years around him and treasure the many memories. He loved music. He would sing to classic rock songs and loved Journey, Elton John, and many others. He would snap his fingers when dancing and would clap when listening to music. Music helped him release his worries, along with walking. He also loved playing pool. A man with what some could consider so little left to live for had so much courage to take on the world. No complaining and no handout. He would work every day if he could. Love others unconditionally and never give up is what I take from his life. There are too many who have less and live with many more problems than we do. If my dad can take on the world with his faith in God and his ability to see the sun shining with so many clouds around, it is easy to find hope and find beauty in this world. There is so much for us to be thankful. Thirteen years have passed. Years that I will not be able to tell him the wonderful things that have happened in my life and those in the family. However, I have faith that he knows. I believe he is still watching over us and that we will see him again someday. I believe he is with my kids, me, and the family always. His bright smile is the picture in my head that I see and it fills the hearts of all those who knew him. Years pass in a flash, but my dad's memory will live on. Harold Wayne Ginn was a wonderful father, pepaw, and hero. He will always be our family's hero. There is so much to say. His life is a testimony that I hope will bring joy and a stronger faith for others. I know it does for me. I know he was a Godly, kind, smart, generous, loving, sweet, caring, empathetic, and more man. Thank you, Dad! I love you. In “This Week’s Economy” episode 56, I discuss the following and more in 13 minutes:
- What did the latest jobs and inflation reports tell us about the Fed’s next steps? - How should states advance pro-growth policies? - Why did the Teamsters Union block autonomous vehicles in Kentucky? Please like this video, subscribe, share it on social media, and rate and review it. I would appreciate it if you would become a subscriber to my Substack newsletter so you’ll receive my episodes, show notes, and other valuable insights in your inbox twice per week at vanceginn.substack.com. You can also find this information and more at vanceginn.com. Interview on Fox 5 in DC.
The economy added 303,000 new jobs in March, a number that President Biden touts as a sign his policies are working. What does this mean for inflation, and interest rates? Jim breaks it down with economist and former White House associate OMB director Vance Ginn on The Final 5. Today, I am joined by David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group and author of his latest book, Full-Time Work and the Meaning of Life.
David provides valuable insights on these issues and more on the following: How does full-time work provide meaning in life? What does the Bible say about work and a free and virtuous society? How does the government create barriers to work, and how should we remove them? Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and rate and review it. I would appreciate it if you would subscribe to my Substack newsletter so you’ll receive my episodes, show notes, and other valuable insights in your inbox twice weekly at https://vanceginn.substack.com/. You can also find this information and more at https://vanceginn.com/ .  Originally published at Freedom Conservatism.
Vance Ginn is the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and host of the “Let People Prosper Show.” A FreeCon signatory and former associate director for economic policy at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Ginn currently serves as senior fellow at Americans for Tax Reform, associate research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, and chief economist at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy. In a recent AIER commentary, he critiqued President Biden’s proposed federal tax on unrealized capital gains and similar proposals from progressive-led state governments. Such a tax “should be rejected,” Ginn wrote, “as it is fundamentally unjust, likely unconstitutional, and would hinder prosperity and individual freedom.” “A tax on unrealized capital gains means that individuals are penalized for owning appreciating assets, regardless of whether they have realized any actual income from selling them.” He argued that a better way to help disadvantaged Americans would be to reduce their tax burdens and reform regulations to spur more economic innovation and job creation. In a separate piece in Law & Liberty, Ginn recommended the application of two rules to federal policymakers: a cap on annual spending growth and a disciplined approach to monetary policy. “Proper constraints will nudge even the worst politicians to make fiscally responsible choices and reduce net interest costs. Furthermore, America will be better positioned to respond to crises at home and abroad.”  Originally published at Daily Caller.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) recent regulatory proposals have concerned stakeholders across the U.S. insurance landscape. At the heart of the controversy are proposed changes that could fundamentally alter how life insurance companies invest in financial instruments, with far-reaching consequences for the broader economy and, more specifically, the retirement security of millions of Americans. The NAIC, as a non-governmental entity that wields considerable influence over the insurance industry’s regulatory framework, operates in a unique space where its decisions can have national implications. Its recent move to increase capital requirements from 30% to 45% on residual asset-backed securities (ABS) tranches is a poignant example of regulatory action with unintended consequences. The proposal reflects a perceived higher risk assessment by necessitating higher financial reserves against these investments. However, this risk reassessment and the consequent regulatory response have not gone unchallenged. Critics, armed with analyses such as the Oliver Wyman report, contend that the data does not substantiate these changes, highlighting a dissonance between the empirical evidence and regulatory action. The implications of the NAIC’s proposals extend beyond the immediate financial health of life insurance companies to impact broader retirement planning. By disincentivizing investments in ABS and similar financial instruments, these regulatory changes threaten to narrow the investment options available to life insurance companies. Given the critical role that life insurance companies play in providing annuity products and as major institutional investors, the potential for these regulatory changes to affect market dynamics and returns for retirees is a major concern. These decisions should be made from a bottom-up approach in the marketplace, not from a top-down approach by NAIC. Amidst these regulatory developments, the suggested influence of external political forces, including the Biden administration and labor unions, introduces an additional layer of complexity. The assertion that these proposals may be driven by broader political objectives, rather than by an unbiased assessment of market risks and consumer protection needs, underscores the potential for regulatory processes to be co-opted for ideological ends. This prospect is particularly troubling in retirement planning, where American workers’ and retirees’ economic well-being and choices should be paramount. The debate over the NAIC’s proposed regulatory changes highlights the broader challenges of ensuring that this regulatory body operates with a commitment to transparency, accountability and evidence-based policymaking. An institutional framework that supports free-market competition, consumer choice and the economic interests of Americans in this financial space is needed, given the oversized influence of NAIC and the government. As the insurance industry navigates these regulatory waters, the call for a balanced, data-driven approach to regulation — prioritizing American workers’ long-term financial security and the U.S. economy’s health — is urgent. Regulation should be the last resort instead of the first for potential problems, as the marketplace, through a well-functioning price system, is best at regulating things to those who want and provide them most. The NAIC’s regulatory proposals represent a critical juncture for the U.S. insurance industry and the financial system supporting American retirement planning. The potential for these proposals to disincentivize key investment strategies poses a considerable risk to the sustainability of defined-contribution plans. It highlights the need for vigilant oversight of the regulatory process to hold regulators in check. Stakeholders, including policymakers, industry leaders and the public, must engage in substantive dialogue to ensure that future regulatory actions are grounded in solid empirical evidence and aligned with the prosperity of Americans. As this debate unfolds, upholding principles of competition, consumer protection and the integrity of the retirement planning framework in the marketplace remains paramount. At best, the NAIC proposal should be delayed for a year to give more time to examine its effects. But given the evidence so far, the proposal should be trashed.  Originally published at Econlib.
Through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Biden administration has proposed a regulation to cap how much credit card companies can charge us when we’re late on a payment to just $8. This sounds great on the surface, right? Lower fees mean less stress when we’re struggling to make ends meet, as inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings have been down 4.2 percent. But, as with many things that seem too good to be true, there’s a catch. This well-meaning price control could make things the most challenging for those it’s supposed to help. First, why do credit card companies charge late fees? It’s not just about making an extra buck. These fees support more credit available for everyone and encourage us to pay on time, which helps the credit system run smoothly. Now, the CFPB is shaking things up by setting a price ceiling on these fees at $8. While it could save us some money if we slip up and pay late, credit card companies will find ways to compensate for this lost income. And how do they do that? Well, they might start charging more for other things, tightening who they give credit to, or increasing interest rates. That means, in the end, credit could be more expensive and harder to get for all of us. Not just individuals who could feel the squeeze, but small businesses, too. Many small businesses rely on credit to manage their cash flow and growth. If banks start being pickier about who they lend to or raise their fees, these small businesses will find it more costly to get credit. This isn’t just bad news for them; it’s bad news for everyone, as the result will be higher prices for consumers, lower wages, and fewer jobs for workers. Remember that small banks and credit unions are a big deal for the local economy. These institutions often depend on fees to keep things running. If they can charge less for late payments, they might not be able to lend as much. This could hit communities hard, making it tougher for people to get loans for starting a small business, buying a home, or building a project. Economists have long warned about the dangers of well-intentioned but poorly thought-out regulations. By setting a one-size-fits-all rule for late fees, the government would make credit more expensive and less accessible for everyone. The idea is to protect us from unfair fees, but the real-world result would be different if access to credit were limited for those who need it most. History proves that often the biggest challenge is to protect consumers from the consequences of government actions. In trying to shield us from high late fees, the government will set us up for a situation where credit is harder to come by and more expensive. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect consumers. Still, we need to think carefully about the consequences of our actions and let markets work, which is the best way to protect consumers as they have sovereignty over their purchases. While capping credit card late fees sounds like a simple fix, the ripple effects would be complex and wide-reaching. It’s crucial to keep credit accessible and affordable, support small businesses, and ensure the financial system remains robust. Let’s look at the implications of this price control regulation before rushing into it. Price controls never work as intended, as history has proven. Instead, we should ensure people in the marketplace determine what’s best for them rather than the Biden administration’s top-down, one-size-fits-none approach. In “This Week’s Economy” episode 55, I discuss the following and more in 11 minutes:
 Originally this article with my quotes ran by KTRH News in Houston.
Under the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson in 1913, the Federal Reserve was born. The goal of it was simple, to help avert depressions and inflation, while preventing wealthy Americans from controlling financial markets at lower class expense. For the majority of its lifespan, it has sat mostly unimpactful, until the 1980s. With inflation raging out of control, then-Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volker gave us tough love, and raised the rates along with restricting the money supply. This led to some hard time initially, especially within the first 6 months, but it eventually helped quell inflationary pressures on the economy, and we transitioned into the economic prosperity of the Ronald Reagan days. But in the last two decades, the Fed has gradually sought to destroy the American dollar, releasing endless money into the economy all while their balance sheet balloons to outrageous levels. It has culminated now in lower-to-middle class Americans struggling to make ends meet and buy basic necessities. Economist Vance Ginn says the many 'band aids' that the Fed has put on the economy, like monetizing debt, have hurt Americans more than ever. "Everyone's cost of living has dramatically increased...and the Fed has directly contributed to that by how much they have manipulated interest rates through their balance sheet, and by increasing the money supply," he says. For the longest time, the Fed kept interest rates has artificially kept he rates low to finance the dramatic government overspending. Then when the pandemic hit in 2020, the Fed created trillions to give away in stimulus checks, and to try and boost the economy, which has now essentially ruined it. As mentioned above, the old chairman Paul Volker's ways were about creating a brighter long-term future, instead of short-term fixes. That, according to Ginn, is what we desperately need again. "We need that style...he used to dramatically cut the money supply, which helped heal the pressures on the economy...so far, current Chairman Jerome Powell has not wanted to do that," he says. "Sometimes you need to have short term pains for long term gains." Current chairman Jerome Powell was a Donald Trump appointee, but the former President has since grown weary of Powell, criticizing him more and more. Trump has made a living on the campaign trail bashing the Biden economy, which he has vowed to fix if he wins office again. But to fix the situation might mean taking a hard look at Powell, and potentially replacing him. "We need someone who understand the economy, and the influence the Fed has on our lives," he says. "We need to make sure there is a sustainable path forward...that will be pivotal for the first part of a Trump Administration in 2025." As for who Trump would tab as a new Chairman is anyone's guess. But the parameters for what is needed are there. "In order to have the Fed come in and make those needed major changes...you have to give someone the leeway to do that, whether Trump like it or not," Ginn says. Trump would very much not like having to cause financial pain for Americans, considering how much he prides himself on winning at all costs. But he may not have a choice. "I think he will be able to sell it to the people though...he can just blame it on Biden," he says. But until then, as with just about every other aspect of our lives, the Biden Administration will continue keeping their thumb down on lower to middle class Americans.  Originally published at Pelican Institute. It’s Geaux Time in Louisiana. The potential changes in Baton Rouge to remove barriers to work and let people keep more of their hard-earned money provide a more optimistic path for the Pelican State. This is much needed given the declining population over time and declines in employment for eight straight months. Let’s consider the latest data to see what’s really going on. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released Louisiana’s labor market data for February. These data provide details to evaluate how people are doing across the state. Louisiana’s unemployment rate increased to 4.2% per the household survey.
Employment has declined by 16,034 since March 2023, with employment declining in eight of the last eleven months.
Louisiana workers’ purchasing power continues to decline across most industries.
Figure 1. Louisiana’s Labor Market by Industry  Economic growth has slowed, and GDP and personal income growth are below the U.S. average.
 Bottom Line: Louisiana’s economy is mostly weak with some green shoots for growth. These past results are based on the state’s complicated tax system, high regulations, and excessive government spending that have resulted in a poor business tax climate, net out-migration, and one of the highest poverty rates in the country. But with changes in Baton Rouge this year, there is an opportunity for bold, pro-growth reforms.
These bold reforms include:
|
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly