​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:

• State appropriations indexed to 1996 levels have quadrupled by 2024.
• Combined state and federal appropriations have grown even faster, far outstripping population and inflation growth.

Unchecked spending has consequences: It discourages investment, reduces disposable income, and limits job creation. Texans would have far lower tax burdens today if spending had been tied to population and inflation.

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:

1. Cover All State and Local Spending: No level of government should be allowed to sidestep fiscal discipline.
2. Cap Spending Growth at Population + Inflation: This ensures spending grows in line with economic realities.
3. Require a Two-Thirds Vote for Exceptions: Higher thresholds discourage unnecessary spending increases.
4. Use Surplus Funds to Reduce Tax Rates: Prioritize property tax reductions to give Texans direct relief.

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.

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.