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.”