​Join me for Episode 63 of "This Week's Economy" as we dive into key economic issues affecting us all! Here are the highlights:

📈 Inflation Impact: The Federal Reserve's interest rate hikes influence borrowing costs and the broader economy.
🏡 Housing Crisis: Exploring solutions to skyrocketing housing prices and making homeownership accessible again.
🤠 Texas Reforms: Recent election results, the push for universal school choice, budget cuts, and property tax elimination in Texas.

Thank you for listening! Please like, share, and subscribe. For more info, subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com and check out vanceginn.com.

Stay informed, stay free, and let's keep working together to let people prosper!

Originally published at TFR. ​

Texas at the Forefront: Leading the Charge but Facing New Challenges

Texas continues to blaze trails in the labor market, with recent data from the Texas Workforce Commission showing a robust addition of over 42,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 4% in April. This included 41,000 jobs in the productive private sector and 1,100 in the government sector. Coupled with an impressive gain of 306,000 jobs (+2.2%)since last April, these figures underscore Texas’ economic vitality and its role as a leader in the national economy. 

However, as other states ramp up their economic policies, especially in red states, and the burdens of federal missteps weigh heavily on Americans, Texas must renew its commitment to pro-growth, limited government principles to maintain its leadership position.

In April, the Lone Star State’s labor force expanded and demonstrated resilience in several key sectors, contributing significantly to the state’s economic dynamism. Employment grew the most in percentage terms over the last year in other services (+6%) and professional and business services (+3.3%), but government (+3.3%) grew too much. This private sector growth is a testament to Texas’ business-friendly environment and its ability to attract and retain top-tier talent and enterprises. 

Despite these achievements, there is an emerging need for vigilance as other states begin to adopt reforms that could rival Texas’ appeal.

Nationally, the labor market shows varying degrees of recovery, with some states quickly catching up by implementing aggressive tax cuts and regulatory reforms to support economic growth. Red states like South Carolina (+3.4%), Florida (+2.5%), and Missouri (+2.5%) are thriving, with job growth rates that challenge Texas’ dominance.

Texas has long been a bastion of economic freedom, which has fostered an environment where businesses and individuals can thrive. However, the state now faces the dual challenge of maintaining its competitive edge while also addressing the economic pressures exerted by federal policies and economic management—or mismanagement—by the Biden administration, Congress, and the Federal Reserve. These challenges include inflationary pressures, federal spending levels, and monetary policies that have left many Texans feeling the pinch.

Policy adjustments are essential to address these challenges and keep Texas at the forefront of job creation. 

First, Texas must return to limited government. Reinforcing and expanding upon policies that have proven successful, such as reducing regulatory burdens and further limiting state and local government spending, should be a priority. 

As other states enhance their economic policies, Texas must not rest on its laurels but should strive for even bolder reforms to sustain its economic leadership. This includes strengthening the state’s constitutional and statutory spending limits consistent with the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government spending. 

The best path would be to limit the entire budget or at least all state funds, excluding federal funds, with a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation and a two-thirds vote to exceed it. This limitation should also cover local governments, which has helped keep Colorado’s state and local spending in check, even in a blue state, with its Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the state’s approach to taxation needs a radical rethink. The overwhelming support for eliminating property taxes reflects a broader dissatisfaction with traditional tax structures that penalize success and deter investment. 

A bold approach would be to transition from property taxes to a more equitable tax system by limiting state and local government spending and using surpluses to lower property taxes until they are eliminated in about a decade. The state would use its surpluses to buy down the school district M&O property tax rates, and local governments would use their surpluses to reduce their property tax rates. 

This approach would support substantial economic growth and a path for people to finally own their home instead of renting from the government forever by being forced to pay these taxes whether the mortgage is paid off. 

Moreover, as Texas navigates these fiscal reforms, there should be key reforms and reductions where necessary to wasteful government programs and agencies. Given the excessive spending by the state legislature during the last session, with more than a 20% increase in appropriations–the largest in Texas history- there is a need to cut government spending in the next session rather than just limit the growth. 

This should include providing universal school choice with education savings accounts that should replace the state’s school finance formulas. Doing so would help to empower parents to do what’s best for their kids’ education while reducing the burden on taxpayers because this could dramatically reduce spending. 

While Texas continues to lead in job growth and reach record highs, the path forward requires adherence to tried-and-tested economic principles and a willingness to innovate and adapt to changing economic landscapes. Texas can maintain and strengthen its position as an economic powerhouse by fostering a more favorable business climate, eliminating corporate welfare, reducing unnecessary governmental interference, and revamping its tax system. 

​As other states accelerate their economic reforms, Texas must lead by example, championing policies that ensure prosperity and freedom. The call to action is clear: Texas must stop passing progressive fiscal policies and ensure its policies promote growth and provide a bulwark against the economic challenges of our times.

Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.

Unlocking Prosperity: Steering America Back to Free-Market Fundamentals

​As the latest economic indicators from April 2024 unfold, it’s becoming alarmingly clear that America’s path to prosperity is at a critical juncture. A steadfast return to free-market capitalism with limited government is not just a choice but an urgent necessity. In the face of fluctuating, weakening economic conditions, a pivot towards policies that promote market-driven growth rather than big-government socialism is imperative. This shift is crucial to counteract the current trend of governmental overreach, which is stifling innovation, profitability, and efficiency.

April’s labor market update provided a mixed bag of results. 

While an increase of 175,000 in nonfarm payroll employment was reported, the government added 8,000 jobs, bringing the increase to 618,000 (+2.7%) over the last year. This underscores a continuing trend of government expansion faster than the productive private sector by 2.2 million or by just 1.6%. Furthermore, the household employment figures tell a concerning story of a stagnant labor force participation rate of 62.7%. This stagnation indicates that a large part of the potential workforce remains on the sidelines, artificially lowering the unemployment rate and obscuring deeper systemic issues.

The latest GDP data for Q1 2024 revealed a growth rate of just 1.6% on an annualized basis, indicating that the economic recovery is still on shaky ground. When government spending was excluded, real private sector growth was even more lackluster at 1.4%. There is a critical need for genuine market-driven growth rather than relying on fiscal or monetary ‘stimulus’ that fails to ignite real economic dynamism. It’s a clear call for a return to free-market capitalism.

Inflation continues to erode the economic landscape, with the Consumer Price Index rising by 3.5% year-over-year for April. This persistent inflation is coupled with a troubling decline in inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings, which have fallen by a large 4.4% since January 2021, when Biden took office. This decline in purchasing power strains American households, making the case for immediate inflation control measures more compelling than ever. 

The regulatory environment under the current administration has also become a significant burden. An estimated $1.6 trillion in new regulations have been added since President Biden took office, further hindering economic activity. This increase across various sectors, including banking and anti-trust enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has introduced considerable uncertainty and constrained economic vitality. 

The nation’s fiscal situation is also a growing concern, with the Monthly Treasury Statement for April 2024 showing significant budget deficits that continue to burden future generations. Coupled with the Federal Reserve’s latest meeting minutes, which reveal ongoing concerns about inflation and economic stability, and the size of the bloated Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, it’s clear that fiscal and monetary policies are distorting and destroying sustainable growth.

The U.S. must champion policies that reduce government intervention to navigate these turbulent waters. This involves cutting government spending, easing regulatory burdens, and reforming and simplifying taxes to foster economic growth and innovation. Adopting a fiscal rule such as Americans for Tax Reform’s Sustainable Budget Project and advocating for a monetary policy rule that curtails the Federal Reserve’s market interventions would help pave the way for a more stable and prosperous economic future.

The time is ripe for America to recommit to the principles that have historically underpinned its economic success: trust in market mechanisms, empowerment of individuals, and a significant reduction in government’s coercive roles. By advocating for a return to these fundamentals, we can ensure that the economy not only recovers but also thrives in a manner that benefits the broadest swath of society. As we look forward, let’s rally behind policies repeatedly proven to be the bedrock of prosperous, resilient economies.

Property taxes in Wyoming have increased dramatically, placing a substantial burden on taxpayers. This proposal outlines a bold, practical plan to eliminate property taxes through disciplined government spending and targeted surplus distribution to reduce school district property taxes.
​
Property Taxes are Growing Too Fast:

• Total property taxes increased by $1.7 billion from 2000 to 2023, a 316% increase. Property tax growth significantly outpaced both personal income growth (+206%) and the rate of population growth plus inflation (+91%) over the same period.
• The sharpest increases were recorded from 2021 to 2023, with a 71% rise in property taxes. In contrast, population growth plus inflation increased by +17%, and personal income grew by +9% during this period.
• The disproportionate increase has made property taxes unaffordable for many, influencing Wyoming's cost of living and business operations.

Process for Eliminating Property Taxes: The proposed process involves three critical steps aimed at systematically reducing and eventually eliminating property taxes while fully funding state government operations and school districts:

• Spend Less:
  • ​Implement a strong state spending limit, capping budget increases to a maximum rate of population growth plus inflation (PGI). This is the same discipline you use in your family’s budget; governments should follow the same rules, if not more conservatively, as your family because it is not their money.
  • Pass a new state law and propose a constitutional amendment to enforce this spending cap, with provisions for exceptions through a two-thirds legislative vote by each chamber.
• Tax Less:
  • Dedicate 90% of state budget surpluses from the spending cap to reduce school district property tax rates, representing the largest share (73%) of property taxes.
  • Retain 10% of surpluses to address revenue volatility and use reserve balances if necessary, with no rate reduction without surplus.
• Limit Government:
  • Encourage local governments to adopt similar fiscal constraints and require voter approval for property tax increases, promoting transparency and accountability while allowing them to reduce and eliminate their property taxes.

Expected Outcomes

• Direct Benefits: Property owners will see a gradual reduction in property taxes, moving towards complete elimination.
• Indirect Benefits: Renters and businesses will benefit from lower property-related costs, contributing to an improved standard of living and economic competitiveness.

Economic Gains

• From 2021 to 2023, inflation-adjusted personal income declined by 8%. Despite this loss in purchasing power, property taxes were up an average of 71%, proving that property taxes are a crushing, unsustainable burden.
• Implementing these reforms would position Wyoming as a national leader in fiscal responsibility and taxpayer fairness.
• Bold reforms are necessary to restrain government spending at the state and local levels and use the resulting surplus taxpayer money to reduce property taxes until they are zero. 
• These are similar reforms to what has been worked on in Texas, but Wyoming can be the national leader in helping people stop paying rent to the government forever through property taxes and instead begin to own their property

Conclusion
This proposal seeks to relieve Wyoming residents of the oppressive property tax burden. The discipline it imposes on state spending directly benefits all Wyoming taxpayers – surplus money flows back into their pockets, not into government accounts to be spent by politicians. Achieving this bold reform will allow Wyoming to flourish now and for future generations. 

Full research paper here. 

​Join my conversation with Ryan Bourne, chair of economics understanding at Cato Institute and editor of the book The War on Prices, on the latest Let People Prosper Show podcast.  Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com and vanceginn.com for more insightful content.

Organized by R Street Institute. 

​With house prices surging recently, the average American homeowner now has around $300,000 of equity in their home. With the cost of living also soaring, many homeowners are considering taking out a home equity loan, or HELOC, to pay off their mortgage. But how exactly do such lines of credit work, and are they a good idea?

NTD’s Evelyn Li spoke with Vance Ginn, the former chief economist at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the president of Ginn Economic Consulting, to find out more.

Interview on NTD News on May 22, 2024: https://www.ntd.com/pros-and-cons-of-using-a-home-equity-line-of-credit-to-pay-off-your-mortgage-economic-consultant_994520.html

​Join me for this episode as I discuss the COVID lockdowns in Australia, the fight for liberation, and Topher Field's incarceration. Don't miss this inspiring conversation on human rights and the power of resilience. 💪

Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.substack.com and vanceginn.com for more insightful content.

​Originally published at Marketplace.

Inflation numbers came in better than expected this week, and they’re the latest in several months of data showing that price growth has slowed down. Another way to look at inflation came out from the Congressional Budget Office this week, looking at the issue from the lens of purchasing power.

The CBO found that if you look at the same basket of goods from pre-pandemic to 2023, on average, Americans need less of their income to buy the same set of stuff. But if that just feels a bit off to you, I get it.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, purchasing power went up across all income groups because incomes grew faster than prices between 2019 and 2023.

“That kind of goes against the common perception of what’s going on is that people are losing purchasing power over the last few years,” said Vance Ginn who is president of Ginn Economic Consulting and was a White House chief economist during the Trump administration.

The CBO found, percentage-wise, folks in the highest income bracket spent less of their income on common expenses — down 6.3%, thank you stock market.

Folks in the lower income brackets weren’t so lucky. They saw only a two percent drop in how much they spent on basics, thanks to higher wages.

But for people in the middle, it was even less noticeable.

“And that’s why I think they’ve been, kind of, not being able to be as prosperous as some of the others during this period,” said Ginn.

Plus these numbers reflect averages, not people’s individual experiences. And that’s where narratives really come into play, especially in an election year.

“We did go through a period of about 18 months of very elevated inflation. But it’s also true that prices today are rising roughly in line with previous historical experience,” said Michael Linden, a Senior Policy Fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

And in campaign ads and in stump speeches we’ll probably end up hearing versions of both inflation stories, amplified in whichever direction benefits the candidate talking.

“And I think that the American people are going to have to decide when they hear about inflation, which of those two things is more important to them,” said Linden.

And whose narrative about the economy you choose to believe.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute. ​

The death of HB 2663 in Kansas, which aimed to create new Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) Bonds and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts for financing new sports stadiums, has reignited critical debate about the role of public funding in private projects. 

The bill also provided 100% financing for 30 years to attract the Kansas City Chiefs or Royals to new stadiums on the Kansas side of the KC Metro area. This follows after 58% of Jackson County voters wisely rejected a $2 billion subsidy for similar developments, highlighting a disconnection between rent seekers and the electorate’s preferences.

These initiatives exemplify a deeper issue with economic development strategies that lean heavily on corporate welfare, undermining the principles of free-market capitalism that has long-supporting abundant prosperity. While Kansas ranks just 26th in its state business tax climate according to the Tax Foundation and 27th in economic outlook according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, picking winners and losers is the wrong approach.

Stadium subsidies are intended to attract teams, showcasing the immediate allure of new facilities and jobs—the ‘seen’ effects. Yet, the ‘unseen’ consequences, including diverting substantial public funds from better uses and imposing long-term fiscal burdens on taxpayers, are far more concerning. 

Instead of acting as a neutral facilitator of economic activity, governments too often play favorites through these tax incentives, leading to market distortions and cronyism. The implications are significant: businesses spend more time lobbying for these financial boosts than focusing on consumer-driven growth and innovation.

Milton Friedman famously criticized such government spending, stating, “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.” In this context, the subsidies intended to be a short-term boost can lead to prolonged financial strain on public resources.

Historically, STAR Bonds have fallen short of their promise to boost the commercial, entertainment, and tourism sectors. Despite using them for over two decades, these bonds have not elevated consumption in Kansas’s tourist-related sectors above the national average. Over a decade, tourist-related spending has notably declined, falling 20 percentage points below what might be expected compared to other states. This stark underperformance underscores the inefficacy of STAR Bonds in stimulating genuine economic growth.

Moreover, the promise of job creation through such subsidies is often misleading. An analysis by the Kansas Policy Institute of Wichita’s Riverwalk and K-96/Greenwich STAR Bonds demonstrated that these projects did not spawn new employment but merely shifted jobs within the eastern side of Wichita, let alone the state. This job redistribution, rather than creation, suggests that such fiscal tools are not just ineffectual but harmful, as they concentrate development in ways that don’t align with the broader community interests.

As manifested in STAR Bonds, corporate welfare fundamentally distorts the free market. It prompts businesses to seek profitability through government aid rather than market-driven innovation and efficiency. This misallocates precious resources and dampens the entrepreneurial spirit, crucial for real economic progress.

Of course, many Kansans support the Royals or the Chiefs. These sports teams are part of the community and should be celebrated. And yet, they’re private businesses, and subsidizing their operations from the paychecks of someone in Edwardsville or Ellis County hardly seems appropriate. No matter how much you may cheer for Salvador Perez hitting a homer or Patrick Mahomes throwing another touchdown, these subsidies are no different than spending your paycheck to entire a battery factory in The Sunflower State. 

Milton Friedman argued that the government’s role should not be to determine economic winners and losers but to facilitate a stable environment that supports voluntary exchanges and organic growth. Therefore, policies should aim to reduce government expenditure, lower tax burdens, and ease regulations that impede business operations, fostering a climate where businesses can thrive on their merit.

Moreover, funding these projects involves increased taxes or reallocating municipal funds, burdening local economies. The long-term financial commitments can lead to higher taxes elsewhere or cuts in essential services. Studies, such as those by the Brookings Institution, consistently show that stadium subsidies do not significantly increase local tax revenues or long-term employment growth. Instead, they often serve as handouts to billionaires at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.

Despite its setbacks, the rejection of HB 2663 should be viewed as a protective measure against the continuation of flawed economic policies. It affirms commitment to market efficiencies over flashy, unproductive government expenditures. Policymakers must focus on long-term, sustainable strategies that benefit the wider population. 

With a special session looming, the idea of legislative-enacted, taxpayer-subsidized stadiums could still be alive in 2024.
It’s troubling that while HB 2663 never got traction, the legislature actively removed oversight from some state incentive programs. 

Kansas must continue challenging economically unsound proposals and advocate for policies that lower business costs through reduced government spending, lower taxes, and less regulation. By promoting a more free-market environment, the state will ensure long-term economic health and prosperity for all Kansans, not just a select few.

​Don’t miss the latest economic news in 9 minutes:

💸New CPI inflation report shows a 3.4% increase over the last year, while real average weekly earnings have dropped 4.4% since Biden took office. The Fed must act faster to cut its balance sheet, as I discussed on Fox Business with Cavuto. #Bidenomics #Inflation

📈Biden's tariff practices are a tax hike on those earning less than $400K, despite promises. Join me on the Sean Hannity Show, Lars Larson Show, and NTD News where I discussed the high costs and the failure of Bidenomics. #Tariffs

📚Government schools in Texas are fully funded, NOT UNDERFUNDED like some are saying! Despite declining enrollment and failing test scores, progressives still push for more funding. It's time for universal ESAs to empower parents and lower property taxes. #SchoolChoice

💬 Like, subscribe, and share my take on key economic issues every week. For more info, subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com and check out vanceginn.com.

Originally published at Daily Caller. 

​The Biden administration’s heavy regulation of America’s banking industry hinders economic growth and raises consumer costs. As FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg faces scrutiny over the agency’s toxic workplace culture, lawmakers have a prime opportunity to address the broader issue of overregulation. 

Instead of focusing solely on internal misconduct, Congress should seize this moment to reduce the oppressive regulatory framework burdening financial institutions and the economy.


The current banking regulatory environment is burdensome and counterproductive. Tens of thousands of pages of rules and guidance dictate banking operations and are treated as legally binding by U.S. regulators. Multiple agencies, including the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and CFPB often overlap and contradict each other, leading to confusion and inefficiency.

This excessive regulation is an administrative burden and a significant barrier to economic prosperity.

The Biden administration’s regulatory overreach is evident in the extensive presence of government examiners within banks. These examiners enforce ad hoc mandates that effectively dictate business decisions, and failure to comply can result in secret, unappealable ratings downgrades. This system creates a chilling effect, stifling innovation and growth.


The annual stress tests conducted by the Federal Reserve impose the highest bank capital requirements globally. However, these tests rely on opaque models and unrealistic scenarios and are never subjected to public scrutiny. This significantly impacts how banks operate and adds to the regulatory burden. The lack of transparency undermines the credibility of regulatory agencies and results in unnecessary costs for banks, which are often passed along to consumers.

Furthermore, the politicization of agencies such as the CFPB, FDIC, and OCC exacerbates the problem. These agencies increasingly pursue regulatory agendas through public relations stunts and policy announcements from the White House rather than through transparent processes. The predominantly progressive leanings of regulatory staff further bias outcomes against the banking industry, contributing to an environment in which financial institutions are unfairly targeted and overburdened with compliance costs.

The economic consequences of this regulatory overreach are profound. As compliance costs soar, assets are migrating away from traditional banks, despite banks having access to deposits and being able to provide low-cost credit. This mainly affects community, mid-sized, and regional banks, which struggle with the high compliance costs of holding a banking charter.


For all banks, high capital requirements and intense supervision increase the cost of lending, significantly impacting small businesses and low- to moderate-income individuals. This limits access to credit and slows economic growth. Reducing these excessive regulations would lead to significant gains in economic activity, highlighting the substantial benefits of reducing overregulation.

The Biden administration’s excessively complex regulations, oppressive oversight, and politicized agenda stifle innovation, raise consumer costs, and hinder economic growth.

Given these glaring issues, Congress should streamline regulations, increase transparency by requiring regulatory agencies to publish their models and scenarios for public comment, and ensure regulatory agencies operate independently of political influence. This would provide regulatory relief for community, mid-sized, and regional banks to enhance competition and access to credit.


By reining these excesses in, Congress can unshackle the economy and promote a more competitive, dynamic financial sector that benefits all Americans. The potential rewards — a more prosperous, innovative, and dynamic America — make this a fight worth undertaking.

​🎧 Join me on the Let People Prosper Show as I dive into a crucial discussion with Dr. Corey A. DeAngelis, a top voice in educational freedom and senior fellow at the American Federation for Children.

We unpack his latest book, "The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools." Don't miss out as Dr. DeAngelis sheds light on:
👉 The current landscape of school choice in the U.S.
👉 Why school choice is essential and the challenges it faces.
👉 What the future holds for school choice and education savings accounts.

🔗 Follow @DeAngelisCorey on X for more updates!

💬 Like, subscribe, and share to support vital conversations about educational freedom. For more deep dives and updates, subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com and check out vanceginn.com for more resources.
#EducationReform #SchoolChoice #ParentRevolution

Originally published at AIER. 

I​n The Parent Revolution, Corey A. DeAngelis offers a compelling narrative that champions the transformative power of universal school choice in reshaping the American educational landscape. His detailed exposition on how school choice, especially through education savings accounts (ESAs), can fundamentally alter the trajectory of education makes this book an essential read for anyone interested in educational improvement, economic freedom, and societal betterment.

Historical Context and Evolution
DeAngelis pays homage to Milton Friedman, the intellectual progenitor of the school choice movement, and masterfully traces the evolution from Friedman’s voucher system to today’s more sophisticated ESAs. These accounts are not merely funds but keys to unlocking individual potential. By enabling parents’ direct financial control over their children’s education, ESAs facilitate a customized educational experience that can adapt to each student’s unique needs and aspirations. This paradigm shift from institutional funding to individual empowerment is more than a policy adjustment; It is a reclamation of educational agency. 

While my ideal situation would be for politicians and bureaucrats not to be involved in schooling or education, this seems unlikely in the short term, given some form of taxpayer-funded K-12 schooling is in the constitution of every state. We can, however, limit government involvement in education as much as possible. ESAs provide that path so parents are empowered to avoid a monopolistic government school system in favor of a more competitive market for education to meet their kids’ needs, whether that be government schools, private schools, homeschool, co-ops, tutoring, or something else. 

In short, we should “fund students, not systems,” as DeAngelis loves to say, and empower parents, not politicians and bureaucrats.

Empirical Evidence and Societal Benefits
DeAngelis uses abundant evidence to support the effectiveness of ESAs, detailing how states that have implemented these policies witness improved educational outcomes and broad societal improvements. In Arizona and Florida, for instance, where ESAs have been widely adopted, there has been a notable increase in student achievement and parental satisfaction. Moreover, he points to research indicating that school choice initiatives can reduce crime rates and support faster economic growth, underscoring the far-reaching impacts of educational freedom. Real-world examples and testimonials from families benefiting from ESAs add a poignant layer to his argument. These narratives are powerful, illustrating the flexibility of ESAs and their capacity to meet diverse educational needs — from specialized programs for the disabled to accelerated learning for the gifted.

DeAngelis offers a scathing critique of the current public education system, which he rightly calls the “government school system,” focusing particularly on the disproportionate influence of teachers’ unions. He argues that they often prioritize adults’ interests over students’ educational needs, hindering reform and innovation. This critique highlights the entrenched resistance to school choice and positions ESAs as a solution for educational inefficiency and bureaucratic inertia. Moreover, he discusses the misallocation of resources in government schooling, where too much funding is absorbed by administrative overheads rather than being directed into classrooms. He advocates for a more efficient use of educational funds, where money follows the student rather than being tethered to potentially underperforming institutions.

This book is not just an academic treatise but a practical guide for navigating and influencing the complex landscape of educational reform. It is a manifesto for those who believe in the power of education to elevate society and a toolkit for those ready to take part in this crucial endeavor. “The Parent Revolution” serves as a call to arms, providing readers with actionable steps for advocating school choice. DeAngelis outlines strategies for grassroots organizing, legislative engagement, and public persuasion, empowering readers to translate passive agreement into active participation in the educational reform movement. His vision extends beyond immediate educational outcomes. He envisages a society where educational freedom catalyzes lifelong benefits, preparing students not just for tests, but for life. His advocacy for ESAs is framed within a broader narrative of individual liberty and market efficiency.

“The Parent Revolution” is a profoundly influential book that offers a clear, economically sound, and morally compelling case for universal school choice across America and the world. It is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in the intersection of education, economics, and policy. DeAngelis advocates for significant education reform and provides a detailed roadmap. His book reaffirms the critical role of choice and competition in improving education, making it a must-read for anyone interested in empowering parents and improving students’ educational outcomes. The key is, of course, to: “Fund students, not systems.”

Watch interview at NTD News. ​

Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former chief economist for the White House Office of Management and Budget, offers his analysis of the latest U.S.-China policy after the Biden administration recently announced a 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.

Listen to the interview with Sean Hannity here. 

Vance Ginn, former Chief Economist for the OMB, currently founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and host of the Let People Prosper Podcast and EJ Antoni, a Public Finance Economist at the Heritage Foundation, discuss Biden’s dismal economy. Just yesterday while speaking in Wisconsin, Biden did everything he could to convince the audience that things are actually going really well.

Originally published at The Center Square. 

​Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and the Republican-led Legislature have emphasized conservative budgeting as a central priority. Such prudence in budgeting is the cornerstone of fiscal conservatism, and the recent passage of the FY 2025 budget in Iowa highlights a commitment to fiscal restraint, albeit less stringent than in previous sessions. The newly approved $8.9 billion FY 2025 General Fund budget marks a 4.7 percent increase from the previous fiscal year's $8.5 billion, demonstrating moderate fiscal growth.

Historically, spending has been recommended to align with the combined rates of population growth and inflation. Based on this formula, the FY 2024 budget of $8.5 billion should ideally have capped the FY 2025 spending at $8.8 billion. Adhering to such metrics ensures that the budget reflects the average taxpayer's ability to fund it, a fundamental principle that should guide all budgetary decisions. This year, however, the legislature has ventured slightly beyond this benchmark, underscoring the careful balance between fiscal responsibility and the needs of a growing state.


To provide substantial relief to individual taxpayers, the legislature has implemented a significant income tax cut, which accelerates the implementation of a 3.8 percent flat tax in 2025. This measure is projected to save taxpayers over $1 billion. The tax relief directly benefits Iowans, putting more money back into their pockets and supporting more economic growth.

Despite concerns from critics who argue that such fiscal strategies could undermine public services, the FY 2025 budget demonstrates that the government is not retrenching but rather growing at a deliberate pace.

Education remains a top priority, accounting for 56 percent of the budget. When combined with the allocations to the Department of Human Health Services (DHHS), these two areas consume a significant 81 percent of the General Fund. While this concentration of funds reflects the importance placed on these sectors, it also highlights the challenges of allocating resources to other critical areas, such as public safety and the judicial system, which have only seen modest increases.

The practice of conservative budgeting is further evidenced by the state's adherence to its legal spending cap, which allows up to 99 percent of projected revenue to be used. In contrast, the FY 2025 budget only commits 92 percent of these projections, reinforcing Iowa's fiscal discipline. This cautious approach is proving effective, as evidenced by the substantial budget surpluses recorded in recent years, including a $1.8 billion surplus in FY 2023, with similar surpluses anticipated for FY 2024 and FY 2025.


Looking ahead, legislators must remain vigilant to ensure that conservative budgeting principles continue to guide fiscal policy. State Sen. Jason Schultz rightly points out the interdependence of tax policy and spending, “Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that tax policy is affected by spending. And when you start seeing spending creeping up for annual, year after year, new good ideas, you can’t have good tax policy.”

Strengthening Iowa's 99 percent spending limitation would provide a robust mechanism to curb future expenditure desires. This could be done by changing the law and enshrining it in the Constitution to bind spending increases to no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation.

Iowa’s fiscal approach starkly contrasts the situations unfolding in neighboring states like Minnesota and Illinois or others such as New York and California. Higher spending and taxes in these progressive states contribute to economic challenges and drive more people away.

The message is clear: unsustainable increases in spending can lead to severe consequences. Iowa's success in maintaining fiscal discipline through conservative budgeting and responsible tax policies is a testament to the effectiveness of this approach.

Iowa’s unwavering commitment to conservative budgeting and responsible tax policies is the cornerstone of its fiscal strategy, ensuring the state remains a model of stability and prosperity. By striking a balance between providing essential services and fostering economic growth, Iowa sets a commendable example of how sustainable fiscal policies can safeguard a state’s financial health and support the well-being of its citizens.

​Dive into this week's hot economic topics in just 12 minutes on "This Week's Economy"! 🕒

I tackle big questions:
🌍 Are humans driving climate change?
📊 What's the latest in the U.S. labor market?
🌟 How are Texas and Louisiana setting examples of prosperity?

Don’t just listen—engage! Share your thoughts, rate me, and leave a review. For in-depth insights and show notes, subscribe to my Substack at vanceginn.substack.com or visit vanceginn.com.

#economy #SocialSecurity #Medicare #ClimateChange

​Check out this bonus episode of the Let People Prosper Show. My good friend, John Hendrickson of Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation, who has been a previous guest on my show, interviews me for one of his graduate courses about my role as an entrepreneur. We had a great discussion about how I got to where I am today, my faith, and the failures that have led to my success as an entrepreneur.

I hope you’ll watch it as I share my testimony and insights as a rockstar to an economist. Don’t forget to subscribe and share it.

​Texas stands as one of the most vibrant and attractive states in the United States, celebrated not only for its robust job market but also as a top destination for new residents. Its economic success and allure are largely due to the free-market model, which has fueled growth and innovation. However, even in such a thriving environment, the electricity market presents significant challenges that must be addressed to ensure continued prosperity. To keep up with its growth, Texas must refine its energy strategies, emphasizing market-driven solutions rather than increased government intervention.

Texas is rich in natural resources, capable of meeting the energy demands of its growing population if managed wisely. Among these, natural gas stands out as a particularly reliable source. In contrast to the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, natural gas provides consistent and robust energy supply, rain or shine, making it a cornerstone of Texas’ energy infrastructure.

Despite these natural advantages, there has been a worrying shift towards greater government involvement in the energy sector, potentially undermining the very free-market principles that have driven Texas’ growth. This trend was exemplified by the recent legislative decision to pass SB 2627, establishing the Texas Energy Fund. While intended to support the state’s energy infrastructure, this initiative opens the door for problematic state interventions in the market.

Approved by voters last November, the fund is slated to allocate $10 billion, with a substantial portion earmarked for state-controlled power projects and infrastructure developments outside the purview of the Energy Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Such strategies risk taxpayer dollars and discourage the private sector investment crucial for spurring innovation and efficiency in the energy sector.

Further compounding the issue is the engagement of large investment firms like BlackRock, which has expressed interest in exploiting the Texas Energy Fund. Historically detached from Texas’ core energy industries, these firms stand to benefit from state-directed initiatives at taxpayer expense. This involvement will centralize power, stifle competition, and suppress the innovation that is vital for a healthy market economy.

Instead of continuing down this path, Texas needs a light-touch regulatory framework that promotes competition and fosters innovation through market forces. State policies should remove obstacles for private investment in energy production and distribution, ensuring a competitive market that drives down costs, improves service quality, and encourages technological advancements.

The limitations of unreliable energy sources have been made starkly apparent each time Texans receive a conservation notice from ERCOT, with more likely coming this summer. A free-market approach, which minimizes government intervention and allows energy prices to reflect supply and demand, offers the best solution for managing Texas' energy resources efficiently.

This strategy is about more than just maintaining an efficient energy grid; it’s about preserving the entrepreneurial spirit that defines Texas. By reducing government overreach and enhancing market dynamics, Texas can ensure that its energy sector remains as dynamic and resilient as its economy.

Looking forward, Texas policymakers face a clear choice. They can embrace the principles of free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention across all sectors, not just energy. This path will secure Texas' leadership in economic growth and innovation, ensuring a reliable and affordable energy supply for future generations, which ought to include nuclear energy.

By championing policies that reduce government involvement and promote market functionality, Texas can strengthen its infrastructure to support its growing population and sustain its status as a beacon of prosperity and freedom. Emphasizing market-driven solutions will enable Texas to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, ensuring that the state remains a fantastic place to live, work, and raise a family.

Texas has always been a leader, not a follower. By adhering to the principles that have shaped its past successes, Texas can ensure a bright and prosperous future, powered by innovation, competition, and the indomitable Texan spirit.

​Join me in this insightful episode of Let People Prosper as I dive into the economic implications of government regulations with Dr. James Broughel, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

​We explore:

- Which regulations pose the greatest economic burdens?
- How crucial are cost-benefit analyses in regulatory practices?
- Can some regulatory adjustments be "free lunches"?

Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode to help spread valuable information. For more insights and bi-weekly episodes, subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. Visit vanceginn.com for additional resources.

​Join me in this insightful episode of Let People Prosper as I dive into the economic implications of government regulations with Dr. James Broughel, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

We explore:

- Which regulations pose the greatest economic burdens?
- How crucial are cost-benefit analyses in regulatory practices?
- Can some regulatory adjustments be "free lunches"?

Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode to help spread valuable information. For more insights and bi-weekly episodes, subscribe to my newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. Visit vanceginn.com for additional resources.

Originally published at The Courier.

By John Hendrickson and Vance Ginn, Ph.D.

Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and the Republican-led Legislature have emphasized conservative budgeting as a central priority. Such prudence in budgeting is the cornerstone of fiscal conservatism, and the recent passage of the FY 2025 budget in Iowa showcases a commitment to fiscal restraint, albeit less stringent than in previous sessions. The newly approved $8.9 billion FY 2025 General Fund budget marks a 4.7 percent increase from the previous fiscal year's $8.5 billion, demonstrating moderate fiscal growth.

Historically, spending has been recommended to align with the combined rates of population growth and inflation. Based on this formula, the FY 2024 budget of $8.5 billion should ideally have capped the FY 2025 spending at $8.8 billion. Adhering to such metrics ensures that the budget reflects the average taxpayer's ability to fund it, a fundamental principle that should guide all budgetary decisions. This year, however, the legislature has ventured slightly beyond this benchmark, underscoring the careful balance between fiscal responsibility and the needs of a growing state.

To provide substantial relief to individual taxpayers, the legislature has implemented a significant income tax cut, reducing the flat tax rate to 3.8 percent. This measure is projected to save each taxpayer over $1 billion annually. The tax relief directly benefits Iowans, putting more money back into their pockets and supporting more economic growth.

Despite concerns from critics who argue that such fiscal strategies could undermine public services, the FY 2025 budget demonstrates that the government is not retrenching but rather growing at a deliberate pace.

Education remains a top priority, accounting for 56 percent of the budget. When combined with the allocations to the Department of Human Health Services (DHHS), these two areas consume a significant 81 percent of the General Fund. While this concentration of funds reflects the importance placed on these sectors, it also highlights the challenges of allocating resources to other critical areas, such as public safety and the judicial system, which have only seen modest increases.

The practice of conservative budgeting is further evidenced by the state's adherence to its legal spending cap, which allows up to 99 percent of projected revenue to be used. In contrast, the FY 2025 budget only commits 92 percent of these projections, reinforcing Iowa's fiscal discipline. This cautious approach is proving effective, as evidenced by the substantial budget surpluses recorded in recent years, including a $1.8 billion surplus in FY 2023, with similar surpluses anticipated for FY 2024 and FY 2025.

Looking ahead, legislators must remain vigilant to ensure that conservative budgeting principles continue to guide fiscal policy. State Senator Jason Schultz rightly points out the interdependence of tax policy and spending, “Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that tax policy is affected by spending. And when you start seeing spending creeping up for annual, year after year, new good ideas, you can’t have good tax policy.”

Strengthening Iowa's 99 percent spending limitation would provide a robust mechanism to curb future expenditure desires. This could be done by changing the law and enshrining it in the Constitution to bind spending increases to no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation.

Iowa’s fiscal approach starkly contrasts the situations unfolding in neighboring states like Minnesota and Illinois or others such as New York and California. Higher spending and taxes in these progressive states contribute to economic challenges and drive more people away.

The message is clear: unsustainable increases in spending can lead to severe consequences. Iowa's success in maintaining fiscal discipline through conservative budgeting and responsible tax policies is a testament to the effectiveness of this approach.

Iowa’s unwavering commitment to conservative budgeting and responsible tax policies is the cornerstone of its fiscal strategy, ensuring the state remains a model of stability and prosperity. By striking a balance between providing essential services and fostering economic growth, Iowa sets a commendable example of how sustainable fiscal policies can safeguard a state’s financial health and support the well-being of its citizens.

John Hendrickson serves as policy director of Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation, and Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is a contributing scholar at ITR Foundation and former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget, 2019-20.