2024 Recap: Election Insights, Policy Wins, and Sound Money Solutions | This Week's Economy Ep. 9212/30/2024 As 2024 ends, let’s reflect on a year filled with significant progress and challenges. From the election results to bold policy initiatives and much-needed conversations about sound money and inflation, this year has highlighted the ongoing need for fiscal conservatism and economic freedom. Here’s an overview of the year’s biggest stories, key wins, and essential reads to carry us into 2025. Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.
0 Comments
 Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research.
President-elect Donald Trump recently reignited the minimum wage debate, calling the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour “a very low number” and saying, “I would consider” raising it. He also acknowledged that a one-size-fits-all approach “wouldn’t work,” pointing to vast differences in living costs between states like Mississippi and California. These comments, made during a recent interview, highlight the ongoing tension surrounding wage mandates and their nationwide impact on workers and businesses. While some states are moving aggressively toward higher pay floors, the consequences of these policies remain deeply problematic. In 2025, 23 states and 65 cities and counties will raise their minimum wages. Three states — Illinois, Delaware, and Rhode Island — will reach $15 an hour for the first time, joining seven others already there or above. Local jurisdictions are pushing even further, with some, like Burien, Washington, setting minimum wages as high as $21.16 for large employers. These increases aim to help workers keep up with the cost of living, but they come with significant unintended consequences. Higher minimum wages often accelerate automation as businesses seek alternatives to paying higher labor costs. Fast-food chains, for instance, are replacing cashiers with self-service kiosks, which don’t require benefits, breaks, or overtime. This shift creates opportunities for higher-paying jobs in designing and maintaining these machines but eliminates entry-level positions that many low-skilled workers rely on. The same trend is in other industries, from warehousing to customer service, where robots and AI tools are increasingly replacing human labor. Policymakers unintentionally fast-track this transition by mandating higher wages, leaving many workers behind. At the same time, rising labor costs make outsourcing and offshoring more attractive to businesses. Manufacturing jobs face additional pressure as domestic wages climb artificially based on government mandate rather than profitability. Even customer service roles are increasingly outsourced to countries with lower wages, reducing opportunities for American workers. Instead of lifting people out of poverty, these policies often shift jobs to foreign markets, undermining their intended purpose. The consequences of wage mandates don’t stop there. Higher minimum wages act as a cost-of-living floor, driving up prices for goods, services, and housing. Businesses pass on the increased costs to consumers, and in states like California, where fast-food workers now earn $20 an hour in some cities, this dynamic is particularly stark. The result is a higher cost of living that erodes any gains from larger paychecks, leaving workers no better off than before. These pressures are especially acute for small businesses operating on thinner margins and struggling to absorb rising labor costs. One often-overlooked consequence of minimum wage hikes is their impact on illegal immigration. As businesses face higher labor costs, some turn to undocumented workers who accept wages below the legal minimum. This practice distorts the labor market and creates unfair competition for lawful employees. By incentivizing illegal hiring, wage mandates contribute to a cycle undermining the workers they are meant to protect. Unemployment is another harsh reality of wage mandates. When businesses can’t afford to pay workers at mandated rates, they cut jobs, reduce hours, or halt hiring. The minimum wage becomes irrelevant if low-income and entry-level workers can’t find employment. Many are pushed toward government assistance, perpetuating cycles of dependency. This outcome is a stark reminder that wage mandates often harm the people they intend to help. These consequences underscore the flaws in a federal minimum wage. Trump was right to note that economic conditions vary dramatically between states like Mississippi and California, making a uniform wage floor untenable. States with lower living costs often have smaller business margins, and higher wage mandates can force closures or relocations. Even in high-cost states, wage mandates face resistance. In 2024, voters in California and Massachusetts rejected proposals to raise the minimum wage for specific groups of workers, citing concerns about higher prices and job losses. Rather than imposing wage floors, policymakers should focus on pro-growth solutions that allow wages to rise naturally. Spending, taxing, and regulating less fosters competition so businesses thrive and workers benefit. When businesses grow and compete for employees, wages rise organically, reflecting productivity and market conditions. These increases are sustainable and equitable, avoiding the unintended consequences of mandates. When labor costs are artificially inflated, businesses must adapt, often in ways that harm workers. A better strategy is to create opportunities for skill development and innovation, ensuring workers can earn more through higher productivity rather than government intervention. Trump’s suggestion that federal wage mandates “wouldn’t work” reflects an important truth. Allowing states — or better yet, markets of people negotiating voluntarily — to determine wages ensures they reflect local realities. By removing wage mandates, businesses and workers could negotiate pay based on skills, experience, and regional costs, creating a more dynamic and inclusive labor market. The minimum wage hikes set to take effect in 2025 will undoubtedly impact millions of workers, but they also serve as a reminder of the economic trade-offs involved. From job losses and automation to higher costs and illegal hiring, these policies carry unintended consequences that undermine their intended benefits. A better path forward lies in market-driven solutions empowering workers and businesses. In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, Vance Ginn sits down with James Hohman, director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, to discuss Michigan’s fiscal policies, corporate welfare, the real impact of business subsidies, and the Sustainable Michigan Budget. We explore how corporate welfare programs often fail to deliver on job creation promises and analyze the political dynamics that prioritize select companies over taxpayers. Together, we advocate for transparency, accountability, and a better business climate for sustainable economic growth.
(0:00) - Introduction to the Let People Prosper ShowVance introduces James Hohman and outlines the episode’s focus on Michigan’s fiscal policies and corporate welfare. (4:57) - Motivations Behind Public Policy AdvocacyJames discusses his early interest in fiscal policy and the importance of understanding public sentiment to drive meaningful reform. (10:58) - The Reality of Job Creation PromisesAn in-depth look at the gap between promised and actual job creation in business subsidy programs highlights the inefficiency of corporate welfare. (18:58) - The Future of Corporate Welfare in MichiganExploring recent legislative changes in Michigan and the growing influence of interest groups on budget priorities. (26:51) - The Need for Transparency in Subsidy ProgramsJames and Vance stress the importance of transparency and accountability in business subsidy programs to ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely. (34:44) - Michigan's Budget and Political LandscapeAn analysis of Michigan’s shift toward corporate welfare and how these decisions impact economic growth and public trust. (41:12) - Fostering Economic Growth Without Corporate WelfareJames and Vance advocate for fair and free-market policies that enable businesses to thrive independently of government handouts.  Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research.
Friday’s rejection of the continuing resolution (CR) in the US House underscores Congress’s glaring dysfunction. This bill wasn’t just bad — it was emblematic of a systemic failure to restrain federal spending. The proposed measure continued unsustainable spending levels and piled on additional increases without the spending cuts necessary to offset its fiscal recklessness. The House vote failed 174-235, a stunning defeat for President-elect Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson. This chaotic episode highlighted deep divisions within Congress, with Democrats refusing to accommodate Trump’s sudden demands and many Republicans expressing frustration over internal disarray. Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) aptly called out his fellow lawmakers, stating, “I am absolutely sickened by a party that campaigns on fiscal responsibility and has the temerity to go forward to the American people and say you think this is fiscally responsible. It is absolutely ridiculous.” He’s right. For years, Congress has operated with bipartisan disregard for fiscal restraint, perpetuating a cycle of overspending that jeopardizes America’s economic future. Outrageous Spending Items in the CR The latest CR is packed with bloated spending measures that reveal Congress’s skewed priorities and increase spending by trillions of dollars over the next decade:
Families Live Within Their Means. Why Can’t Congress? American families know what it’s like to live within a budget. Most work hard to stay within their credit limits, ensuring they don’t jeopardize their financial futures. Politicians, however, seem to have no such discipline. They spend other people’s money recklessly, ignoring the long-term consequences. Adding insult to injury, the CR would have extended the debt ceiling for two years — until after the midterm elections — removing a check on runaway federal borrowing. This two-year extension, supported even by President-elect Donald Trump, was a slap in the face to those advocating for fiscal discipline. Rep. Roy and others in the House Freedom Caucus are right to demand structural reforms to spending before agreeing to any increase in the debt ceiling. Without such reforms, we’re simply enabling the same destructive cycle. A Nation on the Brink The United States is teetering on the edge of major fiscal, monetary, and economic crises. Federal debt exceeds $36 trillion, inflation remains a persistent threat, and rising interest rates are squeezing household budgets and business investments. More government spending — as proposed in this CR — will only exacerbate these problems. Americans care about their income, prosperity, and financial security — not the page count of a bill. Excessive government spending undermines all three. It fuels inflation, weakens the dollar, and leaves future generations saddled with debt. We need sustainable budgets that cut spending today and limit future growth to no more than the combined rate of population growth and inflation. This approach would help stabilize the economy while reducing the burden on taxpayers. Shutdowns Aren’t the Problem; Overspending Is Critics often use the threat of a government shutdown to push through irresponsible spending bills. But let’s be clear: politicians have already shut down schools, economies, and entire communities in recent years. A temporary federal government shutdown, by contrast, might be the best thing to happen right now. It would force a much-needed reckoning with the root of our problems: Congress’s addiction to deficit spending. A shutdown would allow the American people and their representatives to step back and address the elephant in the room: spending. It’s an opportunity to demand real solutions, not half-measures or hollow promises. For a resilient, pro-growth economy, prioritize structural reforms like spending caps and deregulation. Looking Ahead: A New Era of Fiscal Restraint? There are signs of hope. The incoming administration has signaled more fiscal restraint and deregulation, which is questionable given the CR efforts. With Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts, there’s potential for meaningful change. But actions speak louder than words, and this CR’s failure is a stark reminder that reform won’t be easy. The next year will bring multiple fiscal cliffs, including debates over the debt ceiling, expiring Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions, and new spending bills. Policymakers must seize these moments to enact lasting reforms. That means standing firm against the pressures of Washington’s spending culture and prioritizing the long-term prosperity of the American people over short-term political gains. Conclusion: A Call to Action Rep. Roy’s critique of the CR highlights a broader truth: the federal government is failing its citizens. It’s time for lawmakers to stop negotiating with themselves and start delivering on their promises of fiscal responsibility. This means rejecting bad bills, demanding meaningful spending cuts, and embracing sustainable budgeting practices. Balanced budgets are achievable—with faster economic growth and significant spending restraint. By implementing meaningful reforms today, we can create opportunities for prosperity tomorrow. The stakes couldn’t be higher. The time for excuses is over.  Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Texas shines as a top contender for economic freedom, ranking 5th in the United States in the latest 2024 Economic Freedom of North America (EFNA) report. Its lower-tax environment and flexible labor market have made the Lone Star State a top destination for businesses and families.  However, looming challenges--excessive government spending, skyrocketing property taxes, and burdensome occupational licensing—threaten its standing. These issues must be addressed to solidify Texas’s status as a leader in economic opportunity.
Excessive State and Local Government Spending Texas has long been known for its fiscal restraint, tying state budget growth to population increases and inflation. Yet, recent trends show a troubling deviation from this principle. The 2024-25 state budget, approved by the 88th Legislature, marked the largest spending increase in Texas history. Total appropriations (state and federal funds) soared by 21.3% to $321 billion, with state-funded spending increasing by 31.7% to $219 billion. This level of spending far exceeds sustainable growth benchmarks, threatening fiscal stability. It creates a ripple effect, with local governments also failing to curb their budgets. The result: rising property taxes, mounting local debt, and increased financial burdens on taxpayers. Unchecked spending risks undermining economic freedom by forcing future tax hikes or service cuts. Solutions like Texans for Fiscal Responsibility’s Frozen Texas Budget—which would freeze spending growth at current levels—offer a pathway to restoring fiscal discipline. These measures and priority-based budgeting are critical for curbing unsustainable spending. Skyrocketing Property Taxes While Texas benefits from its lack of a state income tax, property taxes—particularly school district maintenance and operations (M&O) taxes—are among the highest in the nation. These taxes act as a progressive levy on unrealized capital gains, forcing homeowners to pay higher taxes as property values rise, even if their income does not. For businesses, high property taxes deter investment in property, equipment, and facilities, slowing economic growth. Texans need bold solutions to alleviate this burden. With an expected $18 billion for the upcoming session, the state can leverage its record budget surpluses to put ISD M&O property taxes on a path to elimination, a critical step toward reducing the overall property tax load. Texas can encourage investment, boost economic mobility, and alleviate financial strain on families and businesses by taking aggressive action. Excessive Occupational Licensing Although not directly measured by the EFNA report, occupational licensing remains a major hurdle to economic freedom in Texas. Licenses are often required for professions ranging from barbers to electricians, creating unnecessary barriers to entry for workers and entrepreneurs. These licensing requirements increase costs, restrict competition, and limit workforce participation, particularly for low-income Texans and those trying to transition into new careers. Streamlining and eliminating occupational licenses is essential to improving Texas’s economic mobility. Policymakers should evaluate the necessity of existing licenses and eliminate those that serve no legitimate public safety purpose. Expanding reciprocity agreements for out-of-state licenses can also attract skilled workers to Texas while reducing bureaucratic barriers. Texas vs. Its Neighbors and National Leaders Despite its high ranking, Texas trails competitors like Florida (3rd) and Tennessee (4) in economic freedom. Florida and Tennessee benefits from lower property taxes and tighter state and local spending control. In contrast, Texas remains far ahead of states like California (49th) and New York (50th), which are plagued by excessive taxes, spending, and regulation. Louisiana (23rd) and Arkansas (24th), neighboring states, struggle with restrictive labor policies and excessive government spending, reinforcing Texas’s competitive advantage. However, Texas risks falling further behind national leaders without addressing its weaknesses. A Roadmap to Reforms To reclaim the top spot in economic freedom and secure long-term prosperity, Texas must focus on three key areas:
Conclusion Texas’s success as an economic powerhouse is no accident. Its low taxes, flexible labor market, and pro-growth policies have propelled it to national prominence. However, challenges in government spending, property taxes, and occupational licensing threaten to erode these advantages. By addressing these issues head-on, Texas can reaffirm its leadership in economic freedom, set an example for other states, and ensure prosperity for generations to come. Now is the time for bold action. Texans deserve nothing less.  Originally published by American Spectator with Dr. Deane Waldman.
The murder of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was a heinous crime allegedly done by Luigi Mangione out of rage against the machine. Presumably, his target was someone who profits from our broken healthcare “machine” or system. President Obama was overt in Washington’s theft of taxpayer dollars intended to pay for care. Public frustration with, anger, and even “hatred” toward healthcare may seem justified based on facts, but violence is never the answer. Healthcare seems to turn hard-earned taxpayer dollars into massive health industry profits and wasteful bureaucratic spending. And what does the public get? Questionable insurance policies with promises of care that never materialize, drugs that don’t work, and physicians who spend most of an appointment looking at a computer screen rather than talking with patients. Last year, the U.S. spent $4.8 trillion on its healthcare system, 17.5 percent of our GDP and more than the entire GDP of Japan. American families spent $31,065, on average, on healthcare costs in 2023, of which 83 percent went to insurance companies. (READ MORE: Federal Bureaucracy Is Biggest Healthcare Rent-Seeker) Insurance is one of the most profitable industries in the country, so Mr. Thompson may have seemed a symbol of the evils of capitalism against which Mr. Mangione railed in court. Insurance companies typically generate profits by not paying for medical care. They use a 3-D strategy — delay, defer, deny — which was dramatized in the 1997 movie, “Rainmaker,” where a greedy insurance executive denied a claim for payment for the treatment of a cancer patient, claiming the therapy was experimental and therefore not covered. The young man died despite having a potentially treatable condition. People holding a health insurance policy have been led to believe they will receive timely care. Yet the healthcare machine assigns them a provider. A pharmacy benefits manager chooses their medications. With insurance, the maximum average wait time to see a primary care physician in a mid-sized city is 132 days. Some patients with either Medicaid or Tricare insurance wait so long for care, they die while waiting. Thus, while nothing exonerates the murder of another person, public outrage seems justified. Federal Bureaucracy Impedes Care Moreover, private insurance is not the biggest culprit in taking our money and denying us care. That trophy goes to Washington. Just recently, Elon Musk, co-leader with Vivek Ramaswamy of the non-governmental DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), expressed shock at the “skyrocketing administrative costs” of the federal healthcare bureaucracy. He refers to healthcare spending that provides no care. The word bureaucracy is too insignificant to express all the costly activities between Washington passing a healthcare law and the impact on Americans. The process invariably generates BARRCOME -- bureaucracy, administration, rules, regulations, compliance, oversight, mandates, and enforcement. One look at the organizational chart of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) proves how convoluted, complex, confusing, and costly is Washington-controlled healthcare. Estimates of the cost of BARRCOME range from 31 percent to more than 50 percent of U.S. healthcare spending. Between 1970 and 2010, when the number of physicians doubled, healthcare bureaucrats increased by more than 3,000 percent! No wonder a businessman like Musk would be appalled at an industry where half the money expended produces no value for consumers. In 2023, Americans paid $4.8 trillion for “healthcare.” Washington took possibly $2.4 trillion of it and paid for BARRCOME workers, not care providers. President Obama was overt in Washington’s theft of taxpayer dollars intended to pay for care. To defray the cost of ACA BARRCOME, former President Obama and Congress redistributed nearly $800 billion from expected spending on Medicare even as revenue increased, thereby extending the date of insolvency for the program. There is good reason for Americans’ rage against the healthcare machine. But violence, including murder, cannot be justified. While insurance can be a target for change, the bigger, more appropriate offender is federal spending and the resulting bloated bureaucracy. (READ MORE: Harris’ Healthcare Destroys Health CARE) Hopefully, the DOGE will use deregulation, spending cuts, and government employment termination rather than life termination to improve patient care at a lower cost. Musk and Ramaswamy have set a goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. Reducing healthcare BARRCOME would accomplish that task while providing more dollar-efficient, more accessible, and affordable health care.  Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Texans know that economic freedom is the foundation of prosperity. Yet, despite Republican control of the Governor’s Office and Legislature since 2003, state and local government spending has grown far too much, burdening taxpayers and stifling even greater economic growth. If Texas is to remain a model of opportunity, we must rein in spending, reduce taxes, and ensure more money stays in the pockets of hardworking Texans. It’s time to adopt a stronger fiscal framework prioritizing taxpayers over government growth. Spending is Out of Control The numbers don’t lie. Figure 1 illustrates how Texas state and local spending as a share of GDP has skyrocketed from 12% in 1970 to 16.5% in 2024, for a 37.5% increase in an economic burden on the productive private sector.  Figure 2 shows how total appropriations (state plus federal funds) and state appropriations have far outpaced population growth and inflation since 1996.  Even with a Republican trifecta in place for two decades, spending has continued to climb, driven by state and local governments. Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) recently posted on X, “Under GOP control, government in Texas has grown…The gap has widened since GOP trifecta control in 2003.” State Representative Brian Harrison (R-Midlothian) doubled down on this on X, stating, “Texas government was smaller when DEMOCRATS were in charge. We’ve been coasting on our conservative reputation…Must make Texas the limited government, low tax, low regulation, bastion of LIBERTY everyone thinks we are!” This excessive spending isn’t just an abstract number—it comes directly from taxpayers’ wallets. Higher spending requires higher taxes, whether through explicit rate hikes or hidden costs like rising property tax bills. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar families could have used to invest, save, or grow their businesses. The Frozen Texas Budget: A Sensible First Step The Frozen Texas Budget is a simple, effective way to get spending under control. It calls for freezing state spending at current levels and using surplus dollars to buy down property taxes. This approach aligns with the values of fiscal conservatism and allows Texans to keep more of their hard-earned money. Figure 3 provides the 2026-27 budget limits that should be passed in the 2025 Legislative Session in Texas.  Under a frozen budget, every additional dollar collected from economic growth would go toward reducing the burden on taxpayers rather than growing the government. This creates a powerful incentive for legislators to prioritize efficiency, cut waste, and focus on core functions.
Sustainable Spending: A Maximum, Not a Goal While the Sustainable Budget Project, developed by me for Americans for Tax Reform, proposes a cap on spending growth tied to population growth plus inflation, we should view this as the maximum allowable limit—not the actual ideal. The truth is that Texas’s governments should aim to spend far less. As the charts show, appropriations have consistently outpaced sustainable growth, leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab. For example:
A Stronger Constitutional Spending Limit is Essential Texas needs a constitutional spending limit for state and local governments to ensure real reform. Here’s what that should look like:
Such a framework aligns government incentives with taxpayers’ needs, ensuring more money remains in private hands where it fuels innovation and economic growth. Why Spending Less Means Growing More When the government spends less, Texans keep more. Lower taxes allow families to save for the future, businesses to expand, and entrepreneurs to create jobs. This virtuous cycle of economic growth benefits everyone. By contrast, every dollar wasted on excessive government spending is a missed opportunity for economic growth. The charts above show that current spending trends are unsustainable and unnecessary. Free-market principles teach us that the private sector allocates resources far more efficiently than government ever can. By limiting spending, Texas can empower its citizens to create prosperity from the ground up. A Crossroads for Texa sFor two decades, Texans have entrusted Republican leadership to deliver on promises of limited government and low taxes. While progress has been made in some areas, the failure to control spending has undermined these efforts. The solution is clear: cut or freeze spending, cap future growth, and redirect surplus funds to tax rate reductions. These reforms will protect taxpayers, foster economic growth, and ensure Texas remains a beacon of opportunity for future generations. Call to Action Legislators and grassroots advocates, the time to act is now. Support the Frozen Texas Budget as a starting point and push for a constitutional spending limit to ensure fiscal discipline. Together, we can let Texans keep more of their money and unleash the full potential of the Lone Star State. Good as Gold: Reviving Economic Freedom with Dr. Judy Shelton | Let People Prosper Show Ep. 12712/19/2024 In this compelling episode of The Let People Prosper Show, Judy Shelton and I discuss her latest book, Good as Gold: How to Unleash the Power of Sound Money. We dive into the state of capitalism, the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy, and the vital role of fiscal and monetary policy in driving sustainable economic growth. From historical lessons like the peso crisis and Bretton Woods to the promise of gold and cryptocurrencies, the discussion provides a roadmap for reclaiming economic stability and fostering global prosperity.
Join us as we explore actionable steps to reduce government overspending, enhance monetary stability, and inspire a renewed commitment to free-market principles worldwide.  Originally posted on X.com.
Texas taxpayers fund more than $50,000 per student in government schools, and it’s essential to understand this amount. Taxpayers fund nearly $17,000 per student annually for maintenance, operations, and debt service. They also pay an additional $33,542 per student in outstanding debt over time. Local voters approved this debt, backed by the state’s Permanent School Fund, funded by taxpayers statewide. So, while some anti-school choice advocates attempt to twist the numbers, the reality is apparent: taxpayers are pouring over $50,000 per student into the monopoly government school system, yet educational outcomes are declining. This system is failing students, parents, and teachers while taxpayers bear the escalating burden. Over the past five years, school district debt has soared. Total ISD debt has increased from $133 billion in 2018 to $185 billion in 2023, an alarming rise of nearly 40%. This debt explosion reflects decades of unchecked spending on lavish facilities and nonessential projects while the core mission of educating students has been neglected. Texas students are falling behind. While per-student spending increased by 42% over the past two decades, 8th-grade math proficiency dropped by 40%. Less than half of classroom expenditures reach teachers, who are overworked and underpaid. In a classroom of 20 students, approximately $340,000 is allocated annually, but teachers see only a fraction of that in their paychecks. Administrative costs and bureaucracy are eating up the bulk of these funds. Parents are stuck in a system prioritizing the status quo over accountability, leaving them with no options when their children fail government schools. Teachers receive inadequate support, and students—especially those in underserved areas—are denied the opportunities they deserve. Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to fund a broken system that delivers less value for more money. The solution is universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Under this system, families could receive $12,000 per student for approved educational expenses. This amount would easily cover Texas's average private school tuition, which is $11,340 per year, and still leave room for transportation, tutoring, or extracurricular activities. ESAs would allow parents to tailor their child’s education to meet their unique needs, breaking free from the rigid government school model. A universal ESA program would benefit families and save taxpayers billions. Current government school spending of $16,792 per student far exceeds the cost of private alternatives. By shifting to a universal ESA model, Texas could save nearly $20 billion annually, as fewer families would rely on the bloated government system. These savings could be used to reduce school district maintenance and operations property taxes, providing a quicker path to eliminating these burdensome taxes. Critics of school choice claim ESAs will harm government schools, but evidence from over 30 states with school choice programs proves otherwise. Competition drives improvement. Government schools will be forced to cut administrative bloat, prioritize classrooms, and focus on student outcomes to retain students and funding. Milton Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, explained decades ago why school choice is necessary. He argued that introducing market forces into education would improve quality and reduce costs, as in every other sector. When schools must compete for students, they have no choice but to innovate and deliver results. The recent elections demonstrated that Texans overwhelmingly support school choice. Lawmakers, especially those vying for leadership roles, should take note. Candidates who opposed meaningful reform suffered significant political consequences, reflecting voters' demand for change and failing to implement universal ESAs. This risks alienating those taxpayers and families demanding better outcomes for their children and a better return on their investment. The $50,000 per student figure is not just a statistic—it’s a testament to how deeply flawed the current system is. Taxpayers are funding more while receiving less. Families are stuck with few choices, teachers are undervalued, and students are falling behind. It’s time to fund students, not systems. Universal ESAs will empower families, save taxpayers billions of dollars, and restore accountability to Texas education. Texas has the opportunity to lead the nation with a school choice program that sets a global standard for empowering families, improving outcomes, and promoting fiscal responsibility.utcomes, and promoting fiscal responsibility.  Originally posted on X.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently finalized its Section 1033 rule, requiring financial institutions to share consumer data with third-party entities, such as fintech companies, whenever authorized by consumers. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra has framed the rule as a tool to “boost competition” and increase consumer choice. Yet, this mandate raises significant concerns about privacy, costs, and its interference with market-driven innovation. Instead of empowering consumers, the rule threatens to undermine their financial security and limit their options. Market Solutions Already Address Consumer Needs The financial services industry has developed secure, voluntary solutions for sharing consumer data. Banks and fintech companies have created Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that allow consumers to share their financial data safely and on their terms. These innovations were driven by competition and consumer demand, not government mandates. However, the CFPB’s Section 1033 rule disrupts this progress by forcing banks and fintechs to comply with a one-size-fits-all approach. The Bureau’s regulatory intervention is unnecessary and risks diverting resources from innovation. As the Bank Policy Institute aptly noted, the rule appears to be a "solution in search of a problem," addressing an issue already resolved by the private market. Privacy Risks and the Burden on Consumers The CFPB’s rule mandates that financial institutions share sensitive consumer data—such as transaction histories and account balances—with third-party entities. Yet, it fails to impose strong and uniform security standards for data protection. Once a consumer authorizes the release of their information, the bank relinquishes its ability to safeguard that data. By shifting the burden of security onto consumers, the CFPB increases the likelihood of data breaches and misuse. In its push to expand data access, the Bureau has overlooked the importance of protecting consumers' privacy. As Forbes highlighted, the rule introduces privacy risks that could erode trust in the financial system—a trust built through years of market-driven improvements. Increased Costs and Reduced Competition The compliance costs associated with Section 1033 will disproportionately affect smaller financial institutions, which are less equipped to absorb these expenses. Larger banks and fintech may gain a competitive advantage, as they can more easily manage the regulatory burden. However, this unintended consequence could stifle competition, harming the consumers the rule purports to help. Consumers will also bear these costs through higher fees or reduced service quality. Instead of fostering innovation and lowering costs, the CFPB’s rule forces institutions to redirect resources from developing better products to meeting regulatory requirements. Legal and Legislative Pushback The Section 1033 rule has already sparked legal challenges. When the rule was finalized, several trade associations filed lawsuits questioning the CFPB’s authority to impose such sweeping mandates. These legal battles reflect widespread concerns about the Bureau’s overreach and the potential for regulatory overkill. The CFPB’s funding structure adds to the controversy. By drawing its budget directly from the Federal Reserve, the Bureau bypasses congressional oversight and acts with little accountability, raising broader concerns about its governance and the appropriateness of its regulatory agenda. A Free-Market Alternative Consumer empowerment does not require government mandates. The financial services sector has proven capable of addressing consumer demands for data portability through voluntary, competitive solutions. The best path forward is a dynamic market driven by consumer choice, not regulatory coercion. History shows that innovation flourishes in environments free from unnecessary government intervention. Allowing banks and fintechs to compete on security, efficiency, and user experience will better serve consumers than top-down mandates prioritizing regulation over real progress. Conclusion While the CFPB’s Section 1033 rule is marketed as a tool to increase competition and consumer choice, it risks leaving consumers with fewer protections, higher costs, and reduced privacy. Real consumer empowerment comes from the competitive forces of the free market; not government mandates that disrupt innovation and impose unnecessary burdens on the financial sector. Congress and the courts should resist this overreach, ensuring that consumers can benefit from a financial system guided by market principles rather than bureaucratic directives.  Originally posted at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Texas ranks 7th in the 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index, benefiting from its lack of an individual income tax and a competitive unemployment insurance tax system. However, high property taxes, a complex corporate tax system, and excessive government spending, all help to prevent Texas from reaching the top spot. With millions of people and businesses relocating to Texas, the state has a unique opportunity in the 89th Legislative Session to solidify its position as the economic leader by addressing these three key challenges.  What Is the State Tax Competitiveness Index? The State Tax Competitiveness Index, formerly known as the State Business Tax Climate Index, evaluates how effectively states design their tax systems. It ranks states based on five key categories:
States with transparent, low-rate, and neutral tax systems perform best in the index. Top Five Overall States
Texas excels in individual income taxes (ranked 1st due to having no tax) and unemployment insurance taxes (ranked 30th), but its rankings in other areas, particularly property taxes and corporate taxes, highlight significant room for improvement.  While Texas outperforms neighboring states in overall competitiveness, high property tax burdens and a low corporate tax ranking highlight significant barriers to achieving the top spot.
Addressing the Property Tax Challenge Texas ranks 40th in property tax competitiveness, primarily due to its heavy reliance on local property taxes to fund public services. Local governments impose some of the highest property tax rates in the nation, with school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes comprising nearly half of total property tax collections. Recent reforms provide some relief but fail to address systemic issues. To achieve meaningful property tax relief, Texas must use its state budget surplus to buy down school district M&O property tax rates, aiming to eliminate them in about a decade. This approach ensures sustainable relief without compromising funding for essential services. Reforming the Corporate Tax System Texas’s gross receipts tax, known as the business franchise or margin tax, ranks 46th in corporate tax competitiveness. This tax applies to gross revenues rather than net profits, making it especially burdensome for businesses with low-profit margins. Phasing out the margin tax would simplify the corporate tax system, attract investment, and improve Texas’s competitiveness. Spending Restraint: The Foundation for Sustainable Reform Unchecked government spending is the root cause of Texas’s tax challenges. As TFR’s Frozen Texas Budget outlines, excessive state and local spending drives high property taxes and undermines long-term prosperity. To address this, Texas must adopt constitutional spending limits with a maximum rate of population gr owth plus inflation at both the state and local levels, but there is a need for spending cuts in the near term to correct past excesses. This disciplined approach prevents budget bloat and ensures that fiscal deficits or future tax hikes do not follow tax reductions. Strategic Recommendations for Texas Policymakers
Texas is well-positioned to lead the nation in economic competitiveness, but achieving the top spot in the State Tax Competitiveness Index requires bold action. Texas can attract even more businesses and residents by prioritizing property tax relief, corporate tax reform, and spending restraint while fostering a thriving, dynamic economy. Despite cooling inflation, consumer sentiment is still low as its impact continues to weigh on households.
Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former chief economist of the Office of Management and Budget, spoke to NTD about the future of the American economy in the next four years. Here's the post by NTD News: https://www.ntd.com/congress-must-act-to-cut-government-spending-economist_1034926.html If More Money Isn’t The Answer, What Will Truly Fix The Education System: Lars Larson Show12/17/2024  Listen here to my interview on The Lars Larson Show.
 Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute. Kansas ranks 14th in the 2024 Economic Freedom of North America (EFNA) report, reflecting an above-average position among U.S. states. To improve, Kansas must address problems in its tax structure and government spending while leveraging its strengths to catch up with leading states like Florida (3rd), Tennessee (4th), and Texas (5). Neighboring States: How Kansas Stacks Up Kansas is surrounded by states with varying degrees of economic freedom, offering both inspiration and a competitive benchmark:
 Compared to these neighbors, Kansas’s ranking is respectable, but it highlights opportunities for improvement, particularly in areas like taxation and government spending.
Taxation: Challenges and Opportunities Kansas’s tax system remains a weak point, as highlighted by its 25th-place ranking in the Tax Foundation’s 2025 State Business Tax Climate Index.
Government Spending: Curbing Growth Excessive government spending continues to weigh on Kansas’s economic freedom. Over the years, state appropriations have outpaced population growth and inflation, creating fiscal strain and driving higher taxes. For example, if Kansas’s spending since 2005 had been limited to these benchmarks, its budget would be $6.7 billion lower today. To address this, Kansas should implement stricter spending caps and adopt priority-based budgeting to ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently. Redirecting savings toward tax reductions would create a more sustainable fiscal environment and reduce the burden on residents and businesses. Labor Market Regulations: A Mixed Bag Kansas ranks 23rd in labor market freedom, reflecting strengths in right-to-work policies and relatively low union influence. However, burdensome occupational licensing laws remain a barrier to workforce mobility and entrepreneurship. Simplifying licensing requirements and expanding reciprocity agreements with other states would attract skilled workers and help Kansas build a more dynamic workforce. This is especially important for low-income residents seeking upward mobility. How Kansas Can Improve Kansas has the potential to rise in economic freedom rankings with targeted reforms. Key priorities include:
Kansas has made progress in economic freedom, but challenges in taxation and government spending hinder its potential. By learning from its neighbors and addressing inefficiencies, Kansas can strengthen its position and attract more businesses, residents, and investment. The path forward is clear: lower taxes, control spending, and reduce barriers to work. By taking these steps, Kansas can lead the region in economic freedom and secure long-term prosperity for its people. Welcome to This Week’s Economy podcast! In this episode, we explore the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision, President-elect Trump’s ambitious early agenda, the potential fallout from a looming TikTok ban, and new state tax competitiveness rankings. Join me as I unpack these pivotal developments, their economic implications, and the actions needed to secure prosperity for all Americans. Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.
|
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly